~ hasn't been sick in months, many months …
~ has a few panic attacks from time to time …
~ has moderate and traceable issues with insomnia …
~ has uncontrollable "can't leave house" days that are sometimes consecutive …
Does this mean she's found a personal "health?"
Personal equilibrium? That it's necessary to guard ridiculously against what the 18th centuryites classed as "exposure?"
Consider that she's not living up to certain expectations before answering.
And hear again that there is a distinct absence of non-chronic* physical illness.
So, should she get an H1N1 vaccine, now that they are available to the non-chronics?
*We reserve the wisdom to acknowledge that the body may be brewing all sorts of death-causing syndromes, tumors, blockages, and/or breakdowns.
5 comments:
Only if the protection lasts more than one season.
Yes.
Consider...
We've just been through Round 1. Round 2 will start Feb/Mar and, undoubtedly, will be worse.
no.
the reason most older folks (those not compromised and includes those older than 40) don't really need one is because they have been exposed to such things (similar) before and continuously....what? body builds immunity over time? what? i'm not one to jump over hype and no, i don't consider it the same as wearing a seat belt, as one analyist compared it to.
seems that only people alive in 1957 have a shot at acquired immunity on this one:
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20090630/Research-examines-history-of-H1N1-and-provides-cautionary-tale-about-the-use-of-extinct-viruses.aspx
(also, i love how the research itself causes re-outbreaks by "accidental release." what the heck.)
and this version is likely to come back next fall anyway … predicted to be "slowly mutating," so that the current vaccine has a shot, ha ha, of building antibodies against it …
hmm. i thought h1n1 surfaced in '76... remember reading something to that effect (recently, not in 76)
Post a Comment