Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cold-flu/flu-vaccine-60-percent-effective-so-far-cdc-says-n525271


So far, people who got the vaccine were 59 percent less likely to get sick with influenza than people who didn't, the CDC said.

"This means that getting a flu vaccine this season reduced the risk of having to go to the doctor because of flu by nearly 60 percent," said the CDC's Dr. Joseph Bresee. "It's good news and underscores the importance and the benefit of both annual and ongoing vaccination efforts this season."

CDC experts told the vaccine advisers that this year's formula provided 51 percent effectiveness against the H1N1 viruses responsible for most flu illness this season. They reduced illness from influenza B viruses by 76 percent. The vaccine also protects against H3N2 flu but there haven't been enough cases of H3N2 yet to determine how well it's worked.
Much improvement over last year, which is good. I'm glad we went ahead and got both our kids (and ourselves) vaccinated for the flu this year :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,420 Posts
Except for those whom the vaccine failed and they died, like was posted here lately.

How many Americans this year actually GOT the vaccine??? From the latest reports i've read, less than 40% of the total population.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,724 Posts
Except for those whom the vaccine failed and they died, like was posted here lately.
Do you understand what 60% effective means?

No vaccine is magic protective fairy dust which works 100% of the time for 100% of people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,420 Posts
Do you understand what 60% effective means?

No vaccine is magic protective fairy dust which works 100% of the time for 100% of people.
as usual, an MSM article with very little details, and the PRO side is all over it claiming 'how great' it works, when no real evidence is apparent -- just speculation at this point -- same with every other year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,851 Posts
Do you understand what 60% effective means?

No vaccine is magic protective fairy dust which works 100% of the time for 100% of people.
I am sure she does.

Still, there is extra sting to the flu (no matter the outcome) when you have been vaccinated and it did not work. I do not get the vaccine, I get the flu...oh, well, took my chances.

You get the vaccines, with any inconvenience, exposure to doctor offices and clinic that entails, needle pricks and risk of side effects that incurs, and get the flu anyways.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,487 Posts
The CDC is not a reliable source of information, but let's take a closer look. Digging a little deeper, here is how the CDC came to its conclusions.

The CDC estimated the flu vaccine's effectiveness (VE) from data gathered at five sites, in Wisconsin, Washington, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The test-negative method was used, wherein patients who visit a doctor for treatment of an acute respiratory illness (ARI) are tested for flu and their vaccination status is determined.
I see some gaping holes in this method but would love to hear impressions from others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,833 Posts
In the real world, 100 people get vaccinated and 100 evil anti-vaccine fanatics do not.

Something like 1.6 of the evil anti-vaccine fanatics might catch the flu. Something like 1 of the good, compliant, obedient, cooperative vaxed people will get the flu.

Or something like that. Statistics aren't my strong point.

Let's see. If we up it to 10,000 people do we get 1,600 cases of the flu in the bad group and 1,000 in the good group? Seems a bit high. I live in a community of about 6000 spread over 4 towns and I doubt very much that we get a few hundred cases of flu per year. But we aren't crowded together and that would reduce the spread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,420 Posts
This is really just another 'feel good' article for the masses on MSM, to help their belief along that the almighty flu vaccine is doing its job.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
880 Posts
The CDC is not a reliable source of information, but let's take a closer look. Digging a little deeper, here is how the CDC came to its conclusions.

I see some gaping holes in this method but would love to hear impressions from others.
Well, for starters, they don't test everyone.

It's likely my whole family got flu, in January. We were visiting my son in Florida. He was VERY sick, and I took him to the doctor, after a week of supportive care. They said he might have flu, but they were out of tests, and he was too late for tamiflu anyway, so they gave him antibiotics for a possible sinus infection, and some sort of prescription mucus thinner and sent him home, with a note to miss work.

Everyone else just laid around and I made soup. One was still sick in a couple of weeks, so he got a doctors note and went back to school two days late.

Now, I don't know how many people GOT flu tests in Florida at that practice, how many tested positive for flu from them, and what percentage of those were vaccinated. I also don't know how many presented with flu symptoms, were not tested, and what percentage were vaccinated. That practice sees, overwhelmingly, people who need a note to miss work, so you'd figure it saw most of the sick people they have as patients.

As a slice for data on flu vaccine effectiveness it would be pretty good. If they did what the people compiling these statistics imagine practices do. But, in reality, the CDC knows nothing about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,851 Posts
Many years MDC is awash in flu posts at this time of year.
This year...not so much.
My sense is not very many people are getting the flu this year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,833 Posts
Many years MDC is awash in flu posts at this time of year.
This year...not so much.
My sense is not very many people are getting the flu this year.
I've seen a few news article that try to imply that the effective flu vaccine has made the difference :nerd:

Anyone remember the "back of the envelope" analysis of the results of the ineffective vaccine last year? No actual evidence that the vaccine made any difference, but some cheerfully optimistic arithmetic. I'll see if I can find it.

Yes, here it is http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/1501466-years-lousy-flu-vaccine.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,420 Posts
Another possibility for less flu in my area is the extremely mild weather this winter has been experiencing -- record breaking, actually. A lot less people confined indoors, more exercise, fresh air, and germs moving along out of the vicinity, due to lack of a comfortable climate to reside in and multiply. I know for myself, this january, and february, i've been able to open windows, air the house, get out in the sun and fresh air more too. Many in the area have done the same.

Since some like CDC stats, only 39% were vaxxed
Only 39% of people in the United States reported having gotten a flu vaccine this season as of November 5, 2015, however, flu season is just starting, making now a good time to get vaccinated.
There was not full compliance with medical personnel, either.
The overall vaccination rate among health care providers (HCP) was 67%, which also is similar to estimates from last season. Among health care providers, high vaccination rates persist among physicians (88%), nurse practitioners/physician assistants (82%), nurses (77%), pharmacists (77%), and other clinical personnel (73%). Flu vaccination uptake remained lowest among assistants or aides (55%) and administrative/non-clinical support staff (63%). By workplace, coverage estimates were highest among HCP working in hospitals (84%) and lowest among HCP working in long-term care facilities (52%). The majority (74%) of surveyed assistants and aides work in long-term care facilities, which are less likely to require or offer vaccination to employees than any other health care setting. CDC recommends that all health care workers get vaccinated to protect themselves and their patients from flu.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/news/half-of-americans-received-flu-vaccine.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,420 Posts
The CDC is not a reliable source of information, but let's take a closer look.

Funny to note that last year, when the CDC said the vaccine was only 20 something effective, none of the non-vaxers tried to argue those numbers were wrong because the CDC was not a reliable source of information. Interesting how that works around here....

do you have a link to back your claim on here about last year? You made the claim, please back it with a link so we can see what you're talking about. Thanks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
So if the vaccine is shown to be less than 20% effective everyone will just take that number and run with it. If it is shown to be more effective than the numbers must be wrong. Interesting how that works. For me, this is the first year that my kids have gotten the flu shot and I am pleased with the numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,833 Posts
Just take it for granted.

The vaccine critics are, by definition crazy and unreasonable. Therefore anything we say about any vaccine at any time is crazy, inconsistent and unreasonable. No evidence needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,724 Posts
Just take it for granted.

The vaccine critics are, by definition crazy and unreasonable. Therefore anything we say about any vaccine at any time is crazy, inconsistent and unreasonable. No evidence needed.
It would be so easy to respond to this by pointing out the typical reaction to provax posts on here. But I'm not going to do that. That's not helpful to the discussion.

I can clearly see that in many places outside of MDC non vaxers are not treated with respect.

But tit for tat is never helpful. Especially when you're reacting to provax posters here as if they represent all the nasty people online rather than just their own views.

Actually I think it's even against the UA.... or at least the news "rules of engagement" for the vaccination boards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SchoolmarmDE

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,833 Posts
Okay. Let's take it from a more reasonable angle.

It is quite reasonable to assume that when the CDC offers up numbers that make the flu vaccine look pathetic they are being honest.

When they offer up numbers that make the flu vaccine look good they may or may not be honest.

I usually look specifically at the number of samples they test and the percentage that is real influenza. I'm not, myself, that interested in whether the flu vaccine is effective or not. What I find most important is that most of the people who think they have the flu and where doctors think they might have the flu (why else send in a sample?) it is NOT the flu.

This is the main problem with the vaccine, for me. When it comes to the immune compromised and the elderly, influenza like illness is pretty dangerous. At the peak of flu season 1/4 of the samples are flu--at most. This is the real problem with the vaccine, in my opinion.

I'd also like to point out that I didn't accuse anyone of anything. Nor did I attack the CDC methods of collecting information.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,851 Posts
The CDC is not a reliable source of information, but let's take a closer look.

Funny to note that last year, when the CDC said the vaccine was only 20 something effective, none of the non-vaxers tried to argue those numbers were wrong because the CDC was not a reliable source of information. Interesting how that works around here....
So if the vaccine is shown to be less than 20% effective everyone will just take that number and run with it. If it is shown to be more effective than the numbers must be wrong. Interesting how that works. For me, this is the first year that my kids have gotten the flu shot and I am pleased with the numbers.

OMG you two.....


Data related to flu rates and flu efficacy are quite problematic. They were problematic last year, and the year before last year, this year, and likely will be problematic next year as well.


I tend to think the numbers on cases are laugh-worthy (seriously! The range on flu figures is wild) while I suspect the stated efficacy rates might be a bit better. I see them more as ballpark figures than exact numbers, though.


Please note that Turquesa did not say the CDC got the numbers right last year, but got them wrong this year, that is some sort of conclusion you both are jumping to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deborah

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
The CDC is only honest when they say a vaccine is doing poorly or not as effective as once thought.... when they say a vaccine is doing well they're making it up. LOL. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.

For the lurkers, this is a form of cognitive bias known as "confirmation bias".

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I repeat, not one person said the CDC was an unreliable source of information when using and quoting the low efficacy numbers of last year.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top