Originally Posted by lgflamini
I used to work in a prison. I was told that the state paying for inmates' flu shots was cheaper than paying for lawsuits that could incur if someone died as a result of not having the flu shots available. Inmates and their families tend to be very litigious.
I can sort of see the rationale for giving inmates and congressmen flu shots. Hear me out.
With inmates, community acquired flu is a huge, HUGE risk, and so is community acquired pneumonia. All it takes is one or 2 cases of flu, and the entire facility will be quarantined--including guards and medical and nursing staff--due to a flu epidemic. That flu epidemic can soon turn into a pneumonia epidemic--all it takes is a few droplets of pneumococcus-- since they are already compromised from the flu and haven't received pneumovax. There could be death on a large scale.
Now, maybe the congressmen aren't so concerned about GETTING flu from the people whose hands they shake and the babies they kiss then they are about GIVING it to those people, and thus SPREADING it. In a perfect world, there'd be enough flu vaccine for everybody. I never get a fluy vaccine, even when it's in plentiful supply---I know that people say this is impossible, but I always seem to get sick after I've had one, so I haven't had one for many, many years.
Now, one thing I do wonder--I don't think there is a shortage of pneumovax--although usually only elderly and immunocompromised patients get it. Would getting just the pneumovax possibly make people more resistant to getting the flu? I know, pneumonia--at least Streptococcus (Pneumococcus) is bacterial and flu is viral, but if one is resistant to pneumonia, maybe their all around general better health would make them resistant to flu and other viral illnesses, especially airborne ones, as well--