Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,072 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
...was actually a huge success and likely saved thousands of lives."

This is the title of a blog post shared on "The Vaccine Page" facebook page that @ss834 recently shared with us on the VOS forum.

I've seen a lot of posters on this forum make comments about how "useless" the flu vaccine is this year, what a dud it is etc and thought I would share this.

What do you guys think of the analysis? Agree or disagree?

http://healthcare.davidstates.net/?p=103

"Despite common perceptions, influenza is not all that contagious. The reproductive ratio (R0) is about 1.75 for influenza. In other words, each case of influenza infects 1 or 2 or maybe three new people. Compare that to a highly contagious disease like measles where each case typically infects 19 more individuals. Influenza does have a short generation time; a new case becomes infectious only about 3.6 days after exposure. Fortunately, the flu season is relatively short, maybe 1 to 2 months, but in that time, influenza may go through 15 generations. One infected person infects on average 1.75 new people who in turn infect about 3 people who in turn infect about 5, and so on.

So what about at this year’s vaccine? R0 is defined on people who never got the vaccine. When we say the vaccine is 19% effective, we are saying if everyone got vaccinated it would reduce R0 by 19% [1] or to about 1.42. Unfortunately, only about 40% of Americans did get the vaccine, so on average R0 was maybe 1.62. Does not seem like a big deal, 1.75 vs 1.62, but look at what happens with exponential growth. With the “lousy” vaccine, one infected person infects about 1.62 new people who in turn infect about 2.6 who in turn infect about 4.2. It is like your financial advisor keeps saying, the miracle of compound growth. Every generation, the difference between unvaccinated populations and vaccinated populations gets bigger and bigger. And for flu, there are many generations. After fifteen generations in an unvaccinated population, a single case of influenza will spread to about 10 million people if R0 is 1.75. But if R0 is reduced just a bit to 1.62, it will spread to about 3.6 million people. In other words, even this year’s “lousy” vaccine taken by only about 40% of the population still ended up reducing the total number of flu cases by 60%.

A 60% reduction in influenza cases is a big deal. About 3,600 people die from influenza, even with vaccination. If we did not have the vaccine, as many as 10,000 deaths would be expected. So yes, when I say this year’s flu vaccine was a success, I mean YES, it was a big success that saved thousands of lives. Don’t believe all the nay saying in the press, and get vaccinated. It really does save lives."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,726 Posts
Fortunately, the flu season is relatively short, maybe 1 to 2 months, but in that time, influenza may go through 15 generations.
Why then, is the flu vaccine pushed beginning in August and still being pushed in April?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,047 Posts
Why then, is the flu vaccine pushed beginning in August and still being pushed in April?
Because those 1 to 2 months can fall anywhere in that range from August to April, but from what I understand cases typically peak in Jan/Feb.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,047 Posts
I like this estimate because it shows up front what 18% effectiveness can look like over the course of the season. I wouldn't put too much stock in the numbers themselves (and the author himself describes it as "back of the envelope"), but it is a nice demonstration.

:thumb
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,851 Posts
So 18% has been reworked to 60%? Little desperate.

Just own that it is a crappy efficacy rate and demand more from the vaccines you use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,047 Posts
So 18% has been reworked to 60%? Little desperate.

Just own that it is a crappy efficacy rate and demand more from the vaccines you use.
18% (or 19%) for an individual hasn't changed. You can try arguing against simple math to say there is no cumulative population effect. Not sure what the point would be though. Just to keep denying that some effect can be better than none?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
18% (or 19%) for an individual hasn't changed. You can try arguing against simple math to say there is no cumulative population effect. Not sure what the point would be though. Just to keep denying that some effect can be better than none?
You ( and the PRO agenda) can keep spinning it but the population isn't buying it- simple math or not.

It is a dud and more & more are refusing it. That simple to see.

The message is not spreading.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,851 Posts
18% (or 19%) for an individual hasn't changed. You can try arguing against simple math to say there is no cumulative population effect. Not sure what the point would be though. Just to keep denying that some effect can be better than none?
Well, if 18% individual efficacy translates to 60% community efficacy, then higher efficacy (as we see in some years) should translate to even higher community effect. Except it hasn't. The population flu rates does not not seem overly dependent on vaccine efficacy or usage.

I am not one who completely denies vaccine efficacy or even that they can play a part in community disease levels. Measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox...all these vaccines likely drove incident rates on a population level downwards. I have seen no such evidence with the flu vaccine. If you have, please bring it, because real world evidence trumps someones speculative math musings.

I will also add the obvious: some protection is better than none only works when the vaccine risks are zero. If vaccine risks are not zero, then we have to weigh benefits (efficacy) against risks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
You ( and the PRO agenda) can keep spinning it but the population isn't buying it- simple math or not.

It is a dud and more & more are refusing it. That simple to see.

The message is not spreading.
Last year was the first year all of my family got the flu shot and all of us have managed to evade the flu so we're happy. I don't remember a year when I didn't get the flu at least once. My university gave free flu shots to students and thousands showed up. To say such a general statement as "the population isn't buying it" is just untrue.
Flu vax coverage has been increasing, at least until 2013, they didn't have a graph with more recent years.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1213estimates.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: ss834

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
Last year was the first year all of my family got the flu shot and all of us have managed to evade the flu so we're happy. I don't remember a year when I didn't get the flu at least once. My university gave free flu shots to students and thousands showed up. To say such a general statement as "the population isn't buying it" is just untrue.
Flu vax coverage has been increasing, at least until 2013, they didn't have a graph with more recent years.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1213estimates.htm
I can't link where I am but will later if no one else does.

There is also a current thread on nurses declining. The numbers of declining are growing, especially among the medical community.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,201 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,851 Posts
Last year flu vax coverage among nurses was 90.5%, similar to the previous year and twice the rate of the general public.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6337a1.htm
There have been studies and surveys showing that many hcp get the flu vaccine because they feel they have to for work.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/healthcareworkers.htm
  • Flu vaccination coverage was higher among HCP whose employers required (88.8%) or recommended (70.1%) that they be vaccinated compared to those HCP who did not have an employer policy regarding flu vaccination (44.3%).

So, while mandatory flu vaccine policies may work in terms of getting employees to vaccinate, they are no proof that hcp find value in the vaccine. Left to their own devices, it looks like their rate of compliance is very similar to that of the general adult public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,233 Posts
All I've heard and read are providers saying this year's shot is a bad match. They either then go on to say it's worthless, don't get it, or, "Well, get it anyway...um...just because"

I know what has 100% efficiacy. NOT getting the flu shot means my family of twelve people 100% didn't get the flu again this year. As a result, we also didn't get any of the flu shot ingredients, including the HEK293 cell line of aborted baby tissue, or PER C6, nor WI-38 aborted cells, all being utilized in the production and development of the flu shot.

I'm also 100% confident that for our family, given we have no health concerns/complications, if we do get the flu at some point, we will 100% live through it.

I'm not 100% sure that the flu shot does not carry a risk to our health/neuro/immune/digestive health, and 100% sure the shot presents a true ethical and moral complication that I'm 100% opposed to partaking in.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
All I've heard and read are providers saying this year's shot is a bad match. They either then go on to say it's worthless, don't get it, or, "Well, get it anyway...um...just because"

I know what has 100% efficiacy. NOT getting the flu shot means my family of twelve people 100% didn't get the flu again this year. As a result, we also didn't get any of the flu shot ingredients, including the HEK293 cell line of aborted baby tissue, or PER C6, nor WI-38 aborted cells, all being utilized in the production and development of the flu shot.

I'm also 100% confident that for our family, given we have no health concerns/complications, if we do get the flu at some point, we will 100% live through it.

I'm not 100% sure that the flu shot does not carry a risk to our health/neuro/immune/digestive health, and 100% sure the shot presents a true ethical and moral complication that I'm 100% opposed to partaking in.
I'm 100% for vaccine choice.

I have a super healthy 32 year old cousin who was on a ventilator for weeks and almost died from flu complications. Never know what will happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
Last year flu vax coverage among nurses was 90.5%, similar to the previous year and twice the rate of the general public.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6337a1.htm
I don't see those number you see.

http://www.research.va.gov/news/features/flu_vaccination.cfm

In 2005, 45 percent of VHA's health care workers were vaccinated against seasonal influenza. The administration committed itself to increasing that percentage to 80 percent by 2011, and VHA has served as a model across the United States for vaccine acceptance. Vaccination rates, however, actually decreased among VHA employees, just as it did elsewhere in the United States, during the 2010-2011 influenza season from the season before—and a study published in the September 2012 issue of the journal Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology explored why. i

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxdistribution.htm This of course don't add much but yet another FYI on that pesky - thimerosal! oh, it's still in what many do get!

[B]Demand for influenza vaccine varies from year to year.[/B] Within each influenza vaccination season, demand varies by month, usually peaking in October or November and rapidly declining after that. Meanwhile, because timing of influenza vaccine production and distribution is unpredictable, availability of the vaccine supply does not always coincide with peak demand. Thus, manufacturers with vaccine coming off the production line in middle or late November or later may not be able to sell it all and providers receiving vaccine in this same time frame may not be able to convince patients to receive it, even though late season vaccination is encouraged and in most years will be beneficial.

Are manufacturers still working to remove thimerosal from influenza vaccines?

Yes, efforts are ongoing to increase the supply of thimerosal-free or preservative-free (trace thimerosal) influenza vaccine for the U.S. market. At the present time, all six manufacturers licensed in the United States produce at least one formulation that is thimerosal-free or preservative-free (trace thimerosal). See the Table: Influenza Vaccine Manufacturers for the 2014-15 Influenza Season.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904491704576575220611032058
2011 - About 41% of U.S. adults and nearly half of children ages six months to 17 years got flu shots last year.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/flu-604357-vaccine-year.html
2014 - This year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, early vaccination reports show that only 41 percent of children have received the vaccine so far.

http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-reports/top-10-selling-flu-vaccines-2012
2012 number - Further, vaccination rates last season fell far below the CDC's target rates of 80%, coming in at around 42%. About 39% of adults were vaccinated during the 2011-2012 influenza season, compared with 75% of children between the ages of 6 months and 23 months and just more than a third of adolescents.

http://www.vaccinerights.com/healthcareworkers.html
As many as 1/2 of healthcare workers say they don't want flu vaccines. - sources linked below in the web site

This has numerous links to news stories from this past winter 2014 - for the sources of the claims, many professionals are refusing - http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/nu...e-taking-a-stand-against-forced-flu-vaccines/
there are also numerous other sites devoted to the medical professionals that are refusing, even some unions are going to court for the nurses - all current and easy to find
https://www.facebook.com/refusingtheflushot
http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/victory-nurse-fired-for-refusing-flu-shot-wins-lawsuit-06082014



Nope, I don't see what you must see, I see few that want the flu vaccine, even among the PRO camp! Story after story says the same and more and more stories each year on medical professionals declining!

Here are some low numbers, the "flu" vaccine has been out for years and not winning over the hearts and minds.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/influenza-vaccines/


and just for fun, even the PRO camp is not keen either on the flu vaccine! SHOCKING!
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/flu-vaccine-myth-big-pharma-profits/
Of course, a fairly large group of people, including some who are pro-science (read, pro-vaccine), will fall into the arms of their favorite flu vaccine myth, and then refuse to get the flu vaccine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
I had seen her like.

Apparently you did not see the linkS
I posted & the conclusions I draw.
Oh, I took your post literally and thought you weren't able to find the statistics she had posted. Apparently you were intending to convey a different meaning.

I'm not quite following why you think I was unable to see the links you posted or the conclusions you drew, but I can assure you that saw I them very clearly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
@mamabear0314

It looks like it comes directly from the CDC. Scroll down to the section "How Many Health Care Workers Got Vaccinated Last Season?"


Influenza Vaccination Information for Health Care Workers
I going to take a "assume" here and think both of you read the link (posted by mambeear0314) correct?



To estimate influenza vaccination coverage among HCP during the 2013–14 season, CDC analyzed results of an opt-in Internet panel survey of 1,882 HCP conducted during April 1–16, 2014. Overall, 75.2% of participating HCP reported receiving an influenza vaccination during the 2013–14 season, similar to the 72.0% coverage among participating HCP reported in the 2012–13 season (5).


Estimate - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/estimate

I stand by the links I posted, if you two think an "estimate" is 100% accurate so be it.

IMO PRO vaccine math is very fuzzy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
Oh, I took your post literally and thought you weren't able to find the statistics she had posted. Apparently you were intending to convey a different meaning.

I'm not quite following why you think I was unable to see the links you posted or the conclusions you drew, but I can assure you that saw I them very clearly.
FYI- when someone quotes (and in this case the link was in the quote), it means that is what they are referring to

I thought I was quite clear as to what I was referring to - I certainly DID see it & read it!
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top