Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel
I believe this is referring to cidrap.
Yes, it is! :)
And isn't it wonderful to see a whole article on this in the NY Times, and even quoting the director in "in a step tantamount to heresy in the public health world?!"
Bravo, Dr. Osterholm? And brava to Roni Caryn Rabin, for daring to report this!
I found Dr. Osterholm's summary of the data in the comment section of the NY Times page:
For the injectable trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (shot):
• Protects healthy adults 18 to 64 years of age on average 59% (bolding mine)
(did they not look at protecting unhealthy adults? I'd like to know how much more likely unhealthy adults are to have serious adverse reactions to the shot.)
• Lacks consistent evidence of protection in children 2 to 17 years of age (one of the main target groups)
• Inconsistent evidence of protection in adults 65 years of age and older (also one of the main target groups)
For live attenuated influenza vaccine (nasal spray):
• Protects young children 6 months to 7 years of age on average 83% (but it's not recommended for children under the age of 3--is this because they are more likely to have severe reactions?)
• Lacks consistent evidence of protection in adults > 59 years of age
• Lacks evidence of protection in individuals 8 to 59 years of age (so, no consistent evidenc of protection for those over the age of 8. Great. And the nasal mist vaccine is both more likely to cause a case of flu (though likely to milder) AND make the recipient a walking flu vector for up to 3 weeks. Why bother?)
Dr. Osterholm also had this to say, in a later post on the NY Times page:
"We and other groups in the United States and Australia have NOT been able to demonstrate a significant impact on the level protection of any one year’s vaccine and the “match” between those influenza viruses that are included in the vaccine and those that are circulating in the community." (bolding mine)