Flu Shot Doing Poor Job of Protecting Older People This Year 205
New submitter Gunilla sends this news from an AP report:
"It turns out this year's flu shot is doing a startlingly dismal job of protecting older people, the most vulnerable age group. The vaccine is proving only 9 percent effective in those 65 and older against the harsh strain of the flu that is predominant this season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday. Health officials are baffled as to why this is so. But the findings help explain why so many older people have been hospitalized with the flu this year. Despite the findings, the CDC stood by its recommendation that everyone over 6 months get flu shots, the elderly included, because some protection is better than none, and because those who are vaccinated and still get sick may suffer less severe symptoms."
An anonymous reader adds information about a new drug that treats influenza by hijacking its own infection mechanism. The compound "binds to an enzyme on the surface of the flu virus called neuraminidase. This enzyme is responsible for severing the connection between the flu virus and human cell so it can move on and infect other cells. The new class of drugs — DFSAs — permanently bind to the enzyme, blocking its action and stopping it from spreading further, the journal Science reported (abstract). Currently available antivirals also work by attaching to this enzyme. But DFSAs do so in such a way that the flu virus cannot evolve to be resistant to the drug without rendering itself useless."
Quit promoting it when it doesn't work (Score:5, Insightful)
The CDC just keeps shooting themselves in the foot. Admit the problem and QUIT telling everyone to get the flu shot every year. It doesn't work as advertised and should not be relied on a the main defense against the flu.
- Cochrane Review - Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults-
- Dr Lisa Jackson's out of season influenza vaccine research
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/337.short
Using the proper tools for the job is very important and vaccines work best against stable targets like smallpox. Against the influenza virus it is a total joke. They go to manufacturing in June/July and the flu has 3-6 months to mutate and they wonder why it fails? Give it up. It does not work.
The more the CDC promotes something that clearly does not work the more people are going to throw out the baby with the bathwater and think that they are lying about all vaccines. Good to hear there are some advances in stopping the flu because the current approach has been a total failure.
Re:Quit promoting it when it doesn't work (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a virus, your two main options are to either have people avoid human contact or give them a vaccination. Sure, things like washing hands might help a bit, but ultimately, there aren't a lot of options for something like the flu.
What's more, you're ignoring the fact that this year it worked for 9% of the people over 65 who got it. That's really not a good number, but it's better than zero and ignores the other people who received the vaccination as well.
The fallacy of "Any is better" (Score:5, Insightful)
What's more, you're ignoring the fact that this year it worked for 9% of the people over 65 who got it.
And YOU are ignoring the increased risk of exposure to flu people have by going to wherever the flu shot is administered.
That 9% number does not stand in a vacuum. There are many other factors and with that protection number being so low, to me it makes little sense to go somewhere and risk greater exposure to other people from which you would get the flu to begin with.
Re:The fallacy of "Any is better" (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I'm not ignoring that. If they knew what the efficacy rate was like without administering the injections, that would be a completely different thing. But, you can't sit there with the numbers from the real world and judge the doctors for not having access to them before they even existed.
I said, that 9% isn't a good number, but pretending like they were giving these shots out knowing that whom they would and would not work for is just plain wrong. You're also assuming that these people are shut ins. If they were shut ins, then there would be no point in vaccinating them as they wouldn't be exposed to the flu in the first place. For the folks that actually go outside, they're already going to be exposed, suggesting that this is represents a greater exposure is just the typical anti-vaccs bullshit.
Unfortunately, they DID know and LIED. (Score:2)
I said, that 9% isn't a good number, but pretending like they were giving these shots out knowing that whom they would and would not work for is just plain wrong.
That may have been the situation several months back.
But about the start of January they HAD stats. At that time they did a big publicity blitz, claiming that:
- This year's flu had a particularly high mortality among seniors,
- But this year's vaccine was quite effective against it.
- In particular: It both substantially (th
Re: (Score:3)
And your point is? All the high risk people were vaccinated probably 3 or 4 months ago, anybody that still hasn't been vaccinated probably doesn't really need to be vaccinated anyways.
Changing the advice now that pretty much everybody who's going to be vaccinated has been vaccinated just encourages anti-vax efforts with little or no medical gain. What's more, it takes time for changes to the recommendations to filter out.
Re: (Score:2)
YOU said that had they known, it would be a completely different thing.
Now, they do know, they are not changing their recommendation at all, so according to you it is a completely different thing.
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And YOU are ignoring the increased risk of exposure to flu people have by going to wherever the flu shot is administered.
And YOU are ignoring the increased risk of exposure to flu people have by going to anywhere where there are people.
Makes no difference. (Score:2)
And YOU are ignoring the increased risk of exposure to flu people have by going to wherever the flu shot is administered.
The most common vaccinations are now readilly available everywhere people gather.
Schools, colleges, churches and community centers of every description.
The supermarket and general merchandise big box retailer like Walmart and Target.
Rite Aid, Walgreens. and countless other neighborhood drug stores.
Physician's offices, outpatient clinics, and hospitals.
Group homes. Nursing homes.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Doctor's offices/surgeries (and the nearby pharmacies) often have a proportion of sick people higher than, say, supermarkets, or cafes. I'd have thought walking into a doctor's waiting room constituted a higher-than-average risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Insisting that people stay home when they get the flu (and insisting that employers allow it) would actually reduce the incidence of flu quite a bit.
Meanwhile, note that 9% effective doesn't mean 9% of the people who jot their jabs avoided the flu. It means that the people who got the jab were 9% less likely to get the flu. So, if 1000 people got the shot and they stood a 10% chance (unvaccinated) of getting the flu, 9 people total avoided getting sick.
Put another way, By getting the shot, there was a nine
Re:Quit promoting it when it doesn't work (Score:4, Insightful)
Way to ignore the important part of this. For the rest of people it was 50% reduction meaning lots of those oldsters avoided it because others got immunized.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a 50% reduction of about 10% so, 5%.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why vaccination is so important for people who regularly work with small children and the elderly.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people have no clue whether they have a mild flu or a bad cold, hell most MD's have no clue either; when was the last time your GP took a blood sample and sent it to the lab to identify whether it really was the flu? Since I started getting my flu shot regularly I just don't seem to get the viral URIs as often or as bad when I do, but by the time I realize that I have some viral thingy going on rather than an allergy flair-up, I've been shedding viruses for several days anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a time between becoming contagious and feeling sick, and there's not much to be done about that, but there are still several days when you know you are sick and contagious. Those would be the days to absolutely stay away from people.
Personally, I do know because when I have the flu, it starts with joint pain even before significant tiredness. From there it will either be mild and I'll feel better within 24 hours, or it can be severe and I'll feel miserable for a few days. The right thing to do is s
Re: (Score:2)
I have not had the shot (I don't normally get the shot) and so far, I have not gotton sick this year.
I'm working a contract job, right now, and so I only get paid for the hours I'm there. if I get sick (flu or not) and I stay home, I don't get paid. welcome to the new corporate 'no benes' style of hiring workers ;(
I'd love it if we had a balance of workers rights or 'fair treatment' but we don't. if I need to earn income, I have to report in.
fulltime employees are different, but more and more, companies
Re: (Score:2)
If you order someone to come in sick (including constructively), you are deliberately exposing everyone in the office to a harmful substance. It's not actually different than ordering workers to stay in the midst of a toxic spill.
Treat it as such under the law. Penalties go up exponentially if the employee comes face to face with a customer.
In the absence of that, just make sure to cough on the boss, his desk, his lunch, coffee cup, etc. If he ends up puking his guts out 5 or 6 weeks a year, he should devel
Re: (Score:2)
It worked for me, I'm 60 and didn't get the flu.
And I didn't even get a flu shot!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, I do most of my work in jails across several states where the primary concern is Tuberculosis.
The major problem I find with the flu shot is it gives vaccines a bad n
Re: (Score:2)
This is a virus, your two main options are to either have people avoid human contact or give them a vaccination. Sure, things like washing hands might help a bit, but ultimately, there aren't a lot of options for something like the flu.
Sure there are, besides the handwashing (which is vital) there's also those nice little ear-loop masks (Just got a 20pk at Daiso for $1.50, nice for house cleaning, I am allergic to dust) and of course immune system maintenance. We do too little preventative care in this country, not least because most of us have inadequate health care.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a virus, your two main options are to either have people avoid human contact or give them a vaccination. Sure, things like washing hands might help a bit, but ultimately, there aren't a lot of options for something like the flu.
What's more, you're ignoring the fact that this year it worked for 9% of the people over 65 who got it. That's really not a good number, but it's better than zero and ignores the other people who received the vaccination as well.
Government mandated vaccinations are not for curing, but for culling.
Re: (Score:2)
Those, however, are INDEPENDENT methods. If you do both you get a strongly cumulative effect.
Also, it was already known that it would be less effective on the elderly. This is always true. Only 9% is exceptionally poor, but it was known in advance that it would be less effective on the elderly than on younger people generally. And it was still good advice.
Additionally, this flu isn't a binary event. You can have cases that are more or less severe. Even though the vaccine is less effective than expecte
Re: (Score:2)
Got any reliable numbers on those? Percentages of the population, or of reasonable estimates of the population?
Otherwise I don't think your evaluation is significant. It's true my personal evidence is limited, but I'm never in my life experienced anyone having any of those effects, so the percentage of the population has to be very low.
Re: (Score:2)
the amount of mercury in this year's flu shot is about the amount in 1/1000th of a tuna sandwich, 12.5 micrograms (source: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#thi [fda.gov]) (25ug thimerosal, which is 50% ethylmercury, which has none of the dangerous properties of mercury).
There is no formaldehyde in vaccines.
There certainly isn't MSG in vaccines; you may be thinking about chinese food.
I don't know what's wrong with the brains of the anti-vaccine crowd, but science has
Re:Quit promoting it when it doesn't work (Score:5, Informative)
Got a better idea, bozo? No? Thought not.
The influenza vaccines are the best tool that we have. It's a lousy tool, but oh well, play the hand that you're dealt.
And before somebody goes off on and thinks this is Scary New News, influenza vaccine has ALWAYS sucked on infants and older people. Precisely the people that the virus wreaks the most havoc on and likely for the same reason (poorly developed or worn out immune system). This year's vaccine seems to do particularly poorly on the strain of B that we've been seeing. But you never really know how good or bad the vaccine does in any given year until you can tally up all the statistics and look at previous years (and fudge a few numbers).
The bigger news is that Tamiflu is really worse than it was made out to be [bmj.com] (which wasn't so hot to begin with). The usual suspects - money and political influence (but I repeat myself).
Re:Quit promoting it when it doesn't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Millions of years of evolution are more effective than a buch of vaccines made from questionable materials, under questionable manufacturing circumstances, and being monitored by a government agency that was probably bought and sold to the pharmaceutical industry decades ago.
Our, you know, continue to throw money at big pharma and have another double cheeseburger and a Coke. I'm sure they and their lobbyists have your best interest in mind.
Is that how you avoided polio? Better living through exercise and eating broccoli?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Too bad there is no evidence to support any of that crap. Millions of years of evolutions ensures that the viruses get past our immune systems naturally, and it requires an unnatural act to defeat it. Nothing is wrong with healthy living, but suggesting that it will eradicate the flu like it did for smallpox is both illogical and not supported by any significant evidence. Unfortunately, it looks like you are a victim of marketing, and don't even know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody uses pesticides for shits and giggles ya know, without them the price of food would go WAY up because of crop losses and frankly the poor are already barely hanging on by a thread.
I don't use pesticides and the pests really don't eat my food in spite of being in an agricultural area. We have trap crops, and the pests eat them. All of this "Green Revolution" nonsense is not about feeding people, but about concentrating profit. You can raise more food per acre with organic farming and without any tilth whatsoever, but you need many more humans to do much more labor and that doesn't scale in a way that permits some people to get filthy rich. Medieval serfs worked less hours than people
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That worked quite well in 1918 didn't it.
Re:Quit promoting it when it doesn't work (Score:4, Insightful)
-Removing chemicals from our water supply
But... but... then how am I supposed to get my precious H2O if all "chemicals" are removed from our water supply?! In fact, what would even come out without H2O... air? I don't think we'd live very long with "chemicals" coming out of our faucets or at least money to buy bottled chemicals in the store! Never mind those other chemicals naturally available in trace amounts in most water that give us nutrients, like calcium and magnesium... if we don't get those from water, then we'll have to get them from something else instead!
But really, watch out with the word "chemicals"... it doesn't mean what most people think it does when they try to use the word on its own with a negative connotation. *You* are made up of chemicals. Everything around you is, including the air you drink and the coffee, tea or Coke sitting on your table. This chemical scare is about as stupid as the virus and bacteria scare. How about instead leading up to it with the word "synthetic" or "man-made"? And to be fair, even that would be far from accurate, because nature itself cooks up some pretty nasty chemicals... they just tend to be found in very small quantities and in confined and expected locations.
I don't know when the word "chemicals" started being used in a negative connotation like the word "drugs," but it's annoying and it needs to stop. Just as not all drugs are bad, and in fact most are not bad when used properly, not all chemicals are bad... when used properly. You need them to live, and so do the plants and animals you have sitting mutilated and seasoned on plates on your dinner table. Fair enough--all drugs are a specific class of chemicals on their own--but you get the point. Like I said, practically everything either is, or is made of, at least one chemical.
I do agree that we need to rely less on little-tested unnatural crap completely made in labs, but at the same time I will not spin that to make it seem as if "all" chemicals are somehow bad and to be untrusted by misusing the word. I trust natural chemicals, for the most part, over shit that's synthetic and only produced in labs.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, how very funny. You see, I never had a flu in my whole life. No homeopathic remedies obviously (because I don't believe in that crap), no other precautions. No flu ever, just the common cold a few times every year.
I got my first ever flu shot three months ago. Still nothing. Not even a cold.
Re:Quit promoting it when it doesn't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I ask this question earnestly, as I'm not a biologist/virologist and don't claim to fully understand the mechanisms of infection and transmission.
That said, under what pressure is the flu virus mutating as to avoid this vaccine? That is, why would a flu virus six months from now produce markedly different antibodies than one today? Certainly, some random chance must factor in, but assuming there's no selection pressure until the time at which the vaccine is deployed, shouldn't the vaccine work as well as it
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without taking any side in the pro-anti flue vaccine debate, my anecdotal evidence is that every 3 years on average I get the flu in September. There follows a week of pain and misery and then nothing for another few years. During the winter months when all coworkers go down like flies I have some sniffles and bit of cold sweating and that is all even if they cough up in my face.
So it seems to me that the body is very capable of upgrading its immune system and it lasts for more than a year. Of course the pr
What they still are not saying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too much mutation... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And your point is? They need several months to produce the necessary doses and sometimes they get it wrong or it mutates in a significant way.
Also, this is a sample set of 2 doses and one person. The one time I got a flu shot, I wound up with basically every side effect except an allergic reaction, and would have been better off without it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't good in terms of herd immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothermia isn't a typical Influenza symptom.
If you didn't get a nasal swab for Influenza then you probably didn't have influenza - clinical diagnoses just aren't very accurate (about 50% even in the face of an epidemic).
But you can get infected by more than one strain of influenza. Would be rather unusual, but it's possible.
Sucks to be you, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am recovering from what may be the flu right now. Or it may be just the common cold, I don't know. But it's really no big deal. Feel lousy for a day or 2, bookended by a few more days of annoying congestion and sneezing, and that's it. On the worst day, my gums were tender, my nose was flowing, and I felt tired and had sore muscles all over as if I'd done too much exercise. Used to get a flu strain every year as a child. Those always seemed to be stomach bugs that made you vomit, which is worse than
Re: (Score:2)
That ain't flu you wuss.
Flu will kick your ass for a few days, and when it finally passes, you'll be wrung out and without energy for at least that same amount of days again. Flu means thoughts like "kill me" seem reasonable, and getting up to go to the bathroom seems like a 10 mile hike up K2.
That's the flu, what you had was just a cold.
Re: (Score:2)
Used to get a flu strain every year as a child. Those always seemed to be stomach bugs that made you vomit
That wasn't the flu, it was a stomach bug of some kind; norovirus, salmonella, etc. Influenza is a respiratory disease. The only time flu makes you puke is when you cough so hard and uncontrollably that the coughing triggers the vomiting. If you don't have a deep, wet cough with a fever and chills, you don't have the flu.
Re: (Score:2)
Influenze comes in many forms. Many of them are respiratory, but I remember years when there was the "G.I. flu". Some of them were quite impressive. And it wasn't salmonella. I can't say as certainly that it wasn't norovirus, as I don't know what that is, but I do know that both the newspapers and the doctors called it the flu.
OTOH, nobody did a genetic sequencing of it, so maybe everyone was wrong. Or maybe the terminology has changed. Or maybe....
But my guess is that it really was the flu, and you'r
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the strain. There are strains of the flu that are very mild, and would match your description. That's not the one that everyone's worrying about this year.
Actually, I remember one year when everyone caught the "24 hour flu", which was moderately impressive, but quickly over. And I remember one year I caught a strain of the flu that ... it was a GI flu, but it also depressed conscious functioning. So I nearly *don't* remember having it, just not quite making it to the john. But it lasted at l
This is why homeopathy is better than science (Score:5, Funny)
With homeopathy, there is no need to test the results of taking a substance, putting it in water, then constantly diluting the amount of that substance in the water until there is only one molecule of that substance left in the water. Because water has such great memory, it "remembers" the powerful healing abilities of the substance while completely forgetting all the urine, feces, saliva and other bodily fluids the water has come in contact with.
Because of this miraculous memory, that one molecule has more healing and restorative powers than the most powerful, science-based vaccines, vaccines which do nothing except make people sick and keep big pharma rolling in the money like they do for afflictions such as smallpox, rinderpest and polio.
Unlike traditional science-based vaccines, homeopathic medicines can be done in the safety of your own home. No need to get doctors involved with their 8-10 years of medical training and untold hours of visiting patients, doing research and consulting with other so-called "medical experts". One can dispense with such safety protocols because no matter what, homeopathic medicines have been rigorously tested under the most stringent conditions including having a crystal suspended above them while the dilution occurs.
Not once has any side effect ever occurred from taking a homeopathic medicine. That one molecule in the water won't let it happen because of the exponential power it has from being the sole piece left of the original substance.
So do yourself a favor and pass on traditional vaccines and medicines. Homeopathic cures are the wave of the future, able to solve the world's medical ills in a single glass of water. It's only because the medical community doesn't want you to take matters into your own hands bypass the time-tested methods of science-based medical trials that homeopathy has such a bad rap.
Ignore the naysayers, the ones whose ills have been cured by Western medicine, they're just anomalies. Homeopathy is where it's at.
Re:This is why homeopathy is better than science (Score:5, Informative)
Either I touched a nerve with the homeopathic community or the mods don't understand the subtlety of sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
No subtle sarcasm allowed here. Sorry. Requires too much thought, common sense and reading comprehension.
You might try it on /b/, I heard they're quite a notch up on typical Slashdotters.
Re:This is why homeopathy is better than science (Score:4, Informative)
Well, you clearly understand nothing about homeopathy. You think it's about diluting until there is "only one molecule of that substance left in the water." But, at proper homeopathic dilutions of 10^100:1 (100 10x dilutions), you wouldn't have one molecule left among all the other matter in the universe. No wonder homeopathy gets a bad reputation, when quacks are handing out dangerously under-diluted mixtures with an entire molecule remaining --- that'll screw up all the imprinted energy resonances!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know what homeopathy is really about. I decided to do the one molecule part to show how absurd it is rather than trying to come up with a good example of how many millions of gallons one would have to go through to find that one molecule after the dilution.
I'm still waiting for the homeopath folks to tell me how wrong I am about the description, that they don't use crystals.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally think that the only notion more absurd than "one molecule to cure your ills" is "zero molecules to cure your ills." Any weakly plausible babble about bodily reactions to extremely low concentrations of biologically active materials is rendered in its full absurdist glory when the claims persist at concentrations of 0.
Of course, this is all a conspiracy to obscure knowledge of the true homeopathic elixer of immortality: humble tap water. Thanks to Gaia's hydrological cycles, here you can find th
Re: (Score:2)
Well, your sarcasm wasn't all the subtle, or well written. It pretty much deserves to be moderated into oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
They're homeopathic mods, and they actually genuinely liked your comment. It's just that they think they need to dilute its score to increase its rating. This kind of confusion is common in their community. (Withdrawing all but a penny from their bank account so it'll earn interest faster. Licking a steak and then throwing it out so they won't have to eat for the rest of the week. Doing one r
Re: (Score:2)
That one molecule in the water won't let it happen because of the exponential power it has from being the sole piece left of the original substance.
So what you're saying is that molecules are ninja, and thus must obey the Conservation of Ninjutsu [tvtropes.org] law.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any mod points today, else I would have mod'ed you up!
It's Fun To Play With Mother Nature (Score:2)
Should we could keep this up until population-leveling killer flu strains evolve? That would be fun!
Or should we just stop now and deal with our little flu bouts like grown-ups? Nah, that's no fun. We'd miss all the media coverage on TPC - The Pandemic Channel!
Re: (Score:2)
Or should we just stop now and deal with our little flu bouts like grown-ups?
Considering it kills 24,000 people a year in the US, I'm not sure I'd characterize it as a "little bout" that you can just "deal with like a grown-up".
Re: (Score:2)
Not to belittle the lives lost, but traffic accidents cause about twice as many deaths annually. Mandatory telecommuting would put a huge dent in that figure but it isn't happening for some reason.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree; automobile accidents are one place where relatively cheap changes could save a lot of lives. It's not an either-or situation, though.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it does reveal a bit about priorities.
It's also notable that more telecommuting would put a dent in the flu as well. A couple years ago when the fear mongering was at a high froth, not once did any authority suggest avoiding crowded malls.
It seems that inconveniencing employers = no way. Denting holiday shopping = no way. Having the peons spend some bux for a barely effective vaccination = GOTTA DO IT!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "barely effective". The stated 9% is only for one strain in one population group that historically doesn't see as much benefit from the flu vaccine. The effectiveness in the general population this year -- which is a bit worse than average -- is over 50%.
Re: (Score:2)
It is barely effective in that sub-population and it is only moderately effective in the general population.
Compare to the vaccines that are 90% effective over a period of decades. Those are a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
To the virulent detractors of my parent post:
a) everything mutates, ergo this argument is moot
b) n the case where vaccines are voluntary, and not administered to the population as a whole, they do promote resistant strains. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=vaccine-resistant+strain&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=57YnUeTYNITc8wTl9IDQCg&ved=0CDEQgQMwAA [google.com]
c) "retarded" is a relative assessment. Compared to what?
Waste of money (Score:2)
Just how much money is being spent on flu shots each year? At 9% effectiveness, is the value for dollar really there?
At some point the CDC has to fess up to reality - their preferred method of telling everyone to get a shot that doesn't work isn't a good idea. The longer they try to pretend it is, the more money will be wasted and the more people will be convinced that the CDC is full of shit.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's 9% effectiveness against one of the strains in one age group. It's 56% effective in general. This year's effectiveness is particularly low relative to other years, so isn't representative of "value for dollar", which should use effectiveness averaged across multiple years.
Very rough back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that the cost of saving lives through flu vaccines is on the order of a few tens of thousands of dollars per life. By insurance calculation standards, that makes it worthwhile.
Financially responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually considered this once. I don't pay anything directly because it's a "covered" item in my health plan, but I would pay $25 out of pocket if I got one. So here goes:
When I was younger - in my 20s& 30s I got a flu - or flu-like symptoms requiring I miss work for 3 or more days - four times. I started getting the flu vaccine about 8 years ago, and I haven't had the flu for about 11 or 12 years.
Let's say my typical chance is once every 5 years. (4x in 20 years). If I were only to get the flu once every 10 years (56% effective in my target age group), that means that, on average I will miss 3 days less of work in 10 years. I'm a consultant, so I bill $150/hr, and I get nothing if I don't work. Whether I show up at the office or not, I pay for rent, electricity, licensing, insurance, etc. So...3 days at 6 billable hours in a typical day is $2700 is lost income (note I'm not counting the 3-4 hours of admin time a day, which is all rolled into those billable hours). $2700 a year over ten years is $270 a year, or an 11:1 payback on my "investment" of $25. As a bonus, I don't end up paying for a doctors visit, or for medications, or for the general crappiness I feel, or take the chance that my wife and daughter are then more likely to get it as well. Break even, without medication costs and such, would be around $13.60/hr.
If it were the worst case of 9% if I were over 65 and still working, then we're really talking statistical, but that would mean a theoretical reduction of 18 hrs/5yrs*9% = $49 a year return on a $25 flu shot, plus the above associated effects and medical costs, and the chance of dying from the flu because I'm just old and more likely to get a secondary infection.
Whiners are us (Score:2)
"I got the Flu shot and I had a Flu for 72 hours!" or "it only works 9% of the time? Big Pharm SUCKS!" Sorry to hear that your 80 year-old grandma had a fever after getting a flu shot. but people take too much stuff for granted.
It was not that long ago that the Spanish Flu [wikipedia.org] wiped out millions of people. If want something more recent visit Africa. They only had 550,000+ deaths for malaria [nydailynews.com].
If you something worth while, post it. Otherwise people don't care you got a flu shot and got sick anyways; stuff happ
Not news (Score:2)
Yes, administering flu vaccines to seniors is of little use. We know this. Their immune systems aren't able to mount an effective response to the vaccine and develop proper immunity.
What you need to do is vaccinate everyone around them (Families, caregivers, etc.) and protect them via herd immunity.
They probably got last years flu vaccine (Score:2)
One of the reasons I don't get flu vaccine is because I expect the corporations to give you last years stock (which is no good for the current year) because it's cheaper then making new stuff.
The other reason I don't get flu vaccines is I don't catch the flu. Probably because I have NEVER gotten a vaccine to begin with.
What I interpret this data to mean is (Score:2)
Re:Makes Sense. (Score:4, Interesting)
Vitamin C and vitamins in general are not some magic bullet against common illness.
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/vitamins_common_misconceptions?open [vic.gov.au]
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/dietarysupplements/dietary-supplements-misconceptions [cancer.org]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jul/18/medicineandhealth.sciencenews [guardian.co.uk]
Best research we got suggests if you take something like 1000mg a day at the start of a cold you can ease the effects, but you'll also develop nausea, headaches, and kidney stones.
So what's worse? runny nose of a kidney stone?
With respect to megadose C and cancer: (Score:2)
Also: Some of the early results hinting that megadoses of vitamin C were good for cancer patients general health turned out to be the result of the vitamin C causing the subjects to vomit up (and greatly reduce the absorbed amount of) the chemotherapy drugs they were also taking. This reduced the side-effects of the chemotherapy drugs, giving the appearance of a benefit.
Re:Makes Sense. (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, anecdote. The cure for the common data infestation.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just an anecdote, but some pseudo-conspiracy theory.
> Big pharma is trying to keep us sick and anyone who says different is a paid shill.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you would do some research by reading OP's comment you could clearly see he was suggesting that vitamin C was a good alternative to a healthy immune system.
The whole "Vitamin C = cold cure" was started by a Noble Laureate (Linus Pauling) who did not even have a degree in the field of immunology, though was a chemist. One his awards were for the Peace Price, and not related directly to his scientific research; and the other was for his work in Chemistry, but related to the nature and structure of atom
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you came down with the flu within 72 hours, you got the shot too late each and every time. You do not have much protection yet within 1 or 2 days of receiving the shot, and that's all the time your body had to get to know the flu shot since you usually don't show signs of infection until a day or two after getting most diseases.
As such, you're just blaming the wrong things. I would suggest you get the flu shot as early as you can, since you seem to be in a rather infected environment, so you can maximi
Re: (Score:2)
And yet when he stopped getting the shot, he stopped getting the flu at all. It could be a million to one coincidence or it could be that he was having a reaction to the vaccine that is nearly indistinguishable form the flu. My bet is on the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually if you'll bother to look it up, it is quite a common reaction, though it is usually short lived and milder than the disease.
There is every reason to believe that some people would have a more severe reaction than others based on quirks of their immune system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The flu shot is hokum anyway. (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife, my son, and I have received the flu shot at least 10 times each and none of us have ever come down with the flu so using your logic, I can confirm that the flu shot is 100% effective...
Or perhaps your logic is wrong and your data points probably fabricated.
Re: (Score:2)
My friend don't know what a flu shot is. He get's sick (flu) for 2 days once in 3 years, i too.
If your immune system is compromised no vaccine will help you, same as.. if you're immune system is not compromised - you DON'T need a vaccine.
Don't have a quotation, just a personal experience. But if it'll make you feel easier, just mod me down.. and stuff that chemical experiment you call food in your and your children throats. Maybe my tin foil hat is protecting me.. who knows.
Re:The flu shot is hokum anyway. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet more displays of terrible logic on your part. My data points disagree with yours, therefore I must be a big-pharma shill...
Laying it out in plain english: You used 3 data points to conclude the flu shot was bullshit. I countered with 10 equally useless data points that conflicted with yours. You throw a hissy fit.
Re:The flu shot is hokum anyway. (Score:5, Funny)
Until last year, I had never gotten a flu shot, or the flu (at least, like you, not since I was a kid). Last year, my girlfriend made me get a flu shot, and I also haven't gotten a flu. Therefore, I can state that getting a flu shot is 100% effective, not getting a flu shot is also 100% effective, and the best way to prevent getting a flu is "don't be a kid".
Re: (Score:3)
Mmm, big Parma.. great cheese and cured ham there.
Re: (Score:2)
Tamiflu is not a vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, note that heavy exercise depresses the immune system, which makes you more likely to get the flu once exposed. (Exercise is still worth it for all the other benefits it gives you.)
You might do well by not exercising for the week after getting the flu shot -- it takes a week or two before the immunization takes hold. But it doesn't sound as if this would have helped in your case.
Re: (Score:2)
If a family member had an adverse reaction, I would question getting it myself, but for the average person, go ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Goatse right? You stepped into that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Real case scenario to back this up unfortunately.
Which is why it's so nice of you to provide one of those "real case scenarios," or perhaps a study.
Re: (Score:3)