If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I can do better than that.
Real life example: me
Every time I get a flu shot - I don't get the flu!
100% success rate.
That proves flu shots are safe.
And - I'm not paid by a vaccine manufacturer.
In your case...which is fine and 100%, your choice injected away ... but in others its much different outcome and for them, I don't believe they should be made to feel like they are stupid if the last time they just injected they got a worse flu in there life
In your case...which is fine and 100%, your choice injected away ... but in others its much different outcome and for them, I don't believe they should be made to feel like they are stupid if the last time they just injected they got a worse flu in there life
What is stupid is the claim that the flu shot gave them the flu.
Many people make this claim.
I guess it shows how many stupid people there are walking around.
The flu shot is made from dead viruses and cannot "give" you the flu.
However, the vaccine can trigger an immune response from your body, so you may have a few mild symptoms, like achy muscles or a low-grade fever.
The viruses in the flu shot are killed, so people cannot get the flu from a flu vaccine.
However, because it takes about two weeks for people to build up immunity after they get the flu vaccine, some people may catch the flu shortly after they're vaccinated, if they are exposed to the flu during this time period.
Influenza is different from a cold virus. A cold virus only affects the nose, throat and the upper chest and lasts for a few days, whereas influenza can be a serious illness that affects the whole body and can last up to a week or more
The unknown for some is the cocktail of different vaccines given at a time.
This list is then added to by ever more zealous medical professionals who are really more interested in targetting poor parents and poor parenting than actually dealing with the issue.
by ever more zealous medical professionals who are really more interested in targetting poor parents and poor parenting than actually dealing with the issue.
why limit it to medical professionals?
virtually all gov. services are supposedly refocusing to help that group
"The left's delusion is working in categories and universals,
and it means that people,
particularly at the bottom,
just get shit service."
...
He's confident that the ability of social investment to tackle this side of the welfare problem - dependency and deprivation - the side that has eluded governments of all colours for decades, will eventually lead Labour away from proportionate universalism to some of the targeted measures of National's plan.
"Putting more money in will have some impact, but it won't fix dysfunction.
You need the social investment tool kit which you have alongside it. They've ditched that," he said.
"But they'll be forced to readopt it, because it's not just income, and even if you believe it is, income doesn't fix rheumatic fever, the quality of the house, or dad committing crime." https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/02/0...-his-big-idea#
Oddly they didn't take that to the election - I would have voted for them if they had.
Best approach ever and it died - the party's heart wasn't really in it.
Oddly they didn't take that to the election - I would have voted for them if they had.
Best approach ever and it died - the party's heart wasn't really in it.
Speaking at the Institute of Public Administration as Finance Minister on February 19, 2015, Mr English explained this approach as “At its heart, Social Investment is about understanding what makes the most difference to people’s lives, and using evidence to make do more of what works.”
of course they took it to the election
pity you missed it
national have always stood pretty solidly behind bill + his ideas, he's good with spending wisely
after the election coalition puts it under review......then kills it off
The big-data, intricate-detail approach to lifting vulnerable families out of poverty is up for review, with the new Labour Government confirming it would be "repackaged". That would likely include reducing the level of data collected, so vulnerable people could not be identified at an individual level
Comment