Flu vaccine paradox adds to public health debate

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/flu-vaccine-paradox-adds-to-public-health-debate-1.2912790

by colinprince • 12 years ago

41 46 12 years ago

"We have kind of hyped this vaccine so much for so long we are starting to believe our own hype. Really, what we should be doing is looking for better vaccines,"

The PR on the flu-vaccine/campaigns and the efficacy of the vaccine itself have long been misaligned. Good to hear scientists and public health-officials start to acknowledge this. We'll see how long it takes to trickle down to the general public.

Someone12343• 12 years ago

In particular as it was only 23% effective this year: http://www.ajc.com/ap/ap/top-news/flu-vaccine-not-working-we...

skj• 12 years ago

Is that bad? The ease of getting a vaccine needs to be enough such that it's not a burden to do so. Once that's achieved, 23% effective is actually quite a good benefit, given that those 23% also fail to infect others and improve our overall herd immunity.

MBCook2• 12 years ago

After some quick Googling for comparison, there was a study in 2011 that seems to say that on average it's about 66% effective.

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/federalsta...

zippergz• 12 years ago

Yeah, as a pure anecdote, I got the vaccine and am just now getting over a brutal case of the flu. My doctor said he's been seeing tons of people in the same boat this year. Bummer.

pella• 12 years ago

"In Canada, the flu vaccine could be working even more poorly, with "little or no protection."" ... "About 98 per cent of the viruses are mismatched that have been characterized in Canada, whereas in the U.S. its closer to about 68 per cent, or about two-thirds are mismatched. So it's not a good omen," said Dr. Danuta Skowronski of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control. "

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/flu-vaccine-only-23-effective-...

benihana• 12 years ago

Money quote right here:

"We have kind of hyped this vaccine so much for so long we are starting to believe our own hype."

Scientists and doctors are just as susceptible to bias as the rest of us. We'd all do well to remember that.

mikeash5• 12 years ago

It's fine to be skeptical, but far too many people turn it into blind contrarianism. Far too many people talk about the flu vaccine in terms of conspiracy theory, which is not productive for anyone.

rsync• 12 years ago

I am reminded of the conservative financial wisdom regarding insurance, which is "don't ever insure against things you can pay out of pocket".

Should we, perhaps, be questioning whether it makes sense to vaccinate against things we can overcome in a few days without harm ?

Of course I am speaking of otherwise healthy adults, and YMMV.

MBCook2• 12 years ago

While it depends year to year, the flu averages out to about 10k deaths each year in the US and that's with vaccination.

We're all pretty used to it so it doesn't seem like a big deal but it's actually very dangerous.

unclebucknasty6• 12 years ago

the flu averages out to about 10k deaths each year

There's actually a lot of controversy around these numbers, with the CDC itself acknowledging that it's challenging to truly know for a number of reasons [1].

Here's a pretty remarkable quote from that page:

"most people who die from seasonal flu-related complications are not tested for flu, or they seek medical care later in their illness when seasonal influenza can no longer be detected from respiratory samples"

So, it's really tough to know. As a result, some allege that the estimates are inflated as part of the campaign to ensure vaccination.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.h...

tedunangst• 12 years ago

How many of those were terminally ill or otherwise unlikely to survive the year without the flu? Fungal infections (something you practically never hear about) kill more people than influenza, but mostly the immune compromised.

potch• 12 years ago

Otherwise healthy adults die of the flu every year.

geekam• 12 years ago

Vaccines build herd-immunity which is very important.

nothrabannosir• 12 years ago

This is absolutely the argument for the flu vaccine. I like the thought of "beating" flu with oranges and sleep, but herd immunity saves lives.

http://www.vaccines.gov/basics/protection/

InclinedPlane• 12 years ago

The impact of getting the flu is NOT having a few days of feeling crummy.

The impact is spreading the flu to potentially a huge number of people. Some of those people may ultimately die from the flu that you gave them, and that's a big deal.

js2• 12 years ago

Yes, because even though you may not be at risk of dying, you may still contribute to spreading the virus. So you get the vaccine to be a good citizen to those at greater risk than yourself.

Pertussis is similar. Adults are highly unlikely to die from whooping cough, but it kills millions of kids every year. So as an adult, you should get the tdap booster at least every ten years.

For almost everyone these are painless shots with no side-effects, typically covered by insurance, and at least in the US, often available at the pharmacy, no appointment neeeded.

mikeash5• 12 years ago

That depends on what costs more: the sickness, or the vaccine (adjusted for effectiveness).

At $25/shot it seems unlikely that the vaccine costs more. The fact that my HMO gives it away for free suggests that they think it's a net financial gain to vaccinate, and they don't even see the costs from lost productivity.

You assume nobody asked the question. Perhaps it has been asked and answered "yes."

PhantomGremlin• 12 years ago

Straining for an analogy? Am I the only one who hated this quote from the article?:

   "The idea basically is that your immune system
   is occupied elsewhere. It would be like getting
   the swirling ball of death on your Mac where your
   operating system is doing something else rather
   than opening the file."

Flu vaccine paradox adds to public health debate

Related Stories