Pretty simple, will you get the flu shot this season? Do you get it daily or do you opt for just washing your hands daily and being cautious with germs?
I have gotten it some years and haven't others. I know people who don't get it and don't get the flu, I know people who get it and then still get very sick.
I know it can be polarizing on here, just curious what your plans are this season?
To me, the fact that Americans don't know that the flu vaccine isn't 100% effective isn't on the CDC at all. It points that people are fucking morons. Plenty more evidence for that than any nefarious policies from the CDC.
If they have a bunch of drugs(the industry as a whole) which are highly profitable (like tamiflu) still under patent in which they make bunches of money, hand over fist why should they at the same times work on technology which prevents that same drugs dispersant(a flu shot which prevents the flu)….
it runs counter to their interests.
So they produce a piece of garbage flu shot. You say perhaps well any company could produce a better flu shot….why should they….there is not great profit in flu shots. Much more is found in treating flu. Much much more, for individual companies and the industry as a whole.
So get the shot but …..really wash your hands often and throughly. till we get a better shot that remains the best protection.
Information is information. If they are spreading disinformation, often quite unintentionally on one thing, they are probably doing it on others.
Incompetence design, really I only conjecture design, but what ever it is they suck at communicating things to the public.
That to most all now is a proven.,
And proclaim that a significantly improbable one IS the answer. I'm pretty familiar with that industry. You can't proclaim that money is a factor, but then dismiss the notion that there isn't a first mover advantage to making a vaccine that, on a per-unit basis, isn't a home run (but on aggregate will be).
That makes no sense.
That the ignorance of people on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine says nothing about their handling of Ebola.
This is the problem with conspiracy theorists, and why they should have no credence attached to their positions. Everything is related.
They change their published policies on ebola virtually every day. I read them, every day. Ebola has been around for 40 or so years. A incident and now they change their policies every day…..of course there is hysteria.
How can we trust them to tell us anything their policies are changing every day.
I can paste their protocols or you can check google yourself …check the dates on them. They change like the wind..it is almost comical.
And largely they are our flu guys. They suck.
Reading things with a pre-determined conclusion leads to biased interpretations, by the way...
the CDC is plainly shown now right now to suck at communicating things.
.
That is a proven. Few will say that is not true.
Flu is not separate from that. The same people telling us about flu shots(and omitting mostly the fact they do not work quite often )
are the same peoples telling us how to fight ebola.
They suck at communicating. Sure peoples are not to bright at times. But you communicate truthfully to your audience at the level they may understand.
You don't mislead peoples because they are stupid to a thing and you know what is best for them.
You explain the truth of things in a form they can understand.
They by standard procedure(as we see with ebola)…..do the first. They misrepresent and mislead thinking they know what is best for us.
They do know what is best for us but the best tact in media and communication is always to communicate truthfully.
They are wonderful scientist docs epidemiologists, they suck at communicating.
I'd say about half. Some have quite challenged me on my statements thinking I am a idiot in this thing.
Now who is essentially responsible to see to it that people in America are largely knowledgeable of the flu shot how it works who it works on and who it does not….to some extent it is local state and some other federal agencies…but if we were to put a one group responsible ticker to it…it is the CDC.
Half do not know it may not work for them…. we can hold the CDC responsible for failing in their communications on the issue.
Seeing how the annual flu is the province of PCP's, with the CDC as a centralized collection center for aggregated statistics, it is not comparable to Ebola.
But people manage to correlate weirder things and proclaim them as causation.
You need not bother respond. I just hope that people who benefit from here immunity don't suffer because of the idiocy of people not getting the vaccine because it "causes flu" and "is not effective", even though those are wrong and say nothing about the effects of vaccination on others around them.
My time is much more valuable than to get lumped into a group of "the CDC does no wrong". I just hope the people who take these actions don't inevitably get burned, and badly, because people would rather be scare mongers and play to the irrationality and love of the exotic in each of us.
It is human nature.
And politically since we are in a democracy we need to know how things are, so we may pressure politicians and such to see to it that the flu shots themselves are improved, Most right now think the flu shot is quite fine…it is just a question of strain.
They do not know it doesn't work some years quite often.
I can take peoples calling me a idiot. That is why I am expressing on this thread…people need to know to get it, the shot but also need to know it may not work for them.
REally most don't know the second part.
That is functionally how they serve the media in the present as regards flu shots.
They do not just publish scientific reports only docs or such can interpret. They give media reports to any and all some targeted to the general public and sue targeted to medical professionals.
The MMWR is not by far all they do in the realm of communication.
Problem is they suck at communicating.
Defend them we may but ebola has clearly shown their communication shortcomings. Flu is not abstract from that.
So when they go to get the shot they get exposed to a cold virus or flu. They then get sick within three days, and then think they got it from the shot.
It common sense but it is not a product of a study that.
Where is he blowing his nose…into his t shirt.
Geeze Louise, I wonder what is America coming to, what have we become :)
Is there any such thing as common sense anymore?
Flu is present now in all but 8 states, but only sporadically. I got that from the CDC site which I just checked. They have pages and pages devoted to it, which is why virtually all media use it as source. I am surprised as it seems a bit early.
Immunity does wane as we age, this true. But even the elderly who don't have some underlying immune-related disease (a deficiency, immunosuppression, etc) can get some protection. Likewise, some parts of immune the system are not fully developed in children. Pediatrician will know which ages would not benefit by vaccination. But, by and large you're talking about children under 2. Some of those will get some protection if the mother is vaccinated and breast-feeding.
For nearly every other healthy person in between and most elderly, the vaccine will be effective if there is a hundred percent match between the infecting virus and the vaccinating virus. That's 100% effective.
The reason why you see lower efficacy rates, and which underlies th cdc information, is that there is seldom a hundred percent match. The virus as it moves through the population is constantly changing to slight degrees (antigenic drift) because it's mutating in the portions of the virus that the antibodies induced by the vaccine see. It cause less recognition and a lowered, usually not absent, response.
Further, strains can undergo major, major changes as well where whole pieces of the virus are changed (antigenic shift). This causes an almost absent recognition by the antibodies induced by the vaccine for the actual infecting virus. This occurs even when you have the right strain in the vaccine virus. Finally, they could miss the strain entirely when they put the virus formulation together for the vaccine. Those choices are based on epidemiology and other predictions.
This year, as best as I can understand, they got the H3 strain right but there was a significant antigenic shift which will cause a decrease in efficacy if you're infected with the an H3 flu virus. But, I also understand that the other strains are correct, so there is protecting there. That's not accounting for antigenic drift as the virus moves through the populatin.
The point being, the vaccines work in the sense that the vaccinated are making antibodies. There may be subtle or large differences in how well the target is recognized though. Further, none of that cdc information, at least what was posted, defines efficacy. Even if here is drift or, in the case of the elderly, suboptimal immune activation, there is likely to be some protection leading to a less severe disease. Further, is efficacy defined by Ab response, Ab response to the specific virus infecting people, or getting sick? There might be a poor antibody fit but a good cellular response which can afford protection.
However, IMO, if you don't get a flu shot it's both dumb and irresponsible.
Only one large randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine has been conducted among an elderly population. During the 1991-1992 influenza season, a group of Dutch people 60 years of age and older not living in long-term care facilities (e.g., nursing homes) was studied (Govaert et al., 1994). In this study, vaccine efficacy was 58% in preventing clinically-defined influenza with serologic confirmation of infection. "
geeze louise one study in how many years? And of course the study was not done in the US, why should we do such a study? Though it is probably one of the most known causes of elderly deaths, this thing of flu. Why should we study and then work at making this thing more efficient for our elderly?
And though we know they have stats as the MMWR report includes stats on this for each year(effectiveness by strain and age group_…..go to their site a try to find the stats on effectiveness of the vaccine each year by population group.
I could probably find some if I had a couple of hours but readily available as are about a thousand other things about flu shots…about any question but that one could have is answered. No not that. You won't find that. Feel free to try if you have a couple of hours to spend that is.
I continue to endorse the flu shot. But like when I go to a internet site to buy a car I will buy the car but all the nonsense about how great it is, it is a good service to the community we do when we get it or them…..can it.
Sales pitches, there are so many nowadays I guess I am immune to sales pitches.
Get the shot certainly I did and will continue to do so.
But the CDC the base of most of our information is just being a add agency on this thing, they suck. I don't need the CDC big government to sell me a thing I can make up my own mind on it. Tell me all the facts that is all they need to do.
Don't put the facts I need to know on page 32 subpart 4 addendum number 6, as you think you know more than me on this thing and I…I really have no need to know such things. It may by some remote possibility discourage me from taking the shot.
I need to know it doesn't work significantly at times so we the community can pressure the government to make it work better. So we are better protected. Sure some may not take it knowing it doesn't work much of the time but why should the industry make it better if we don't know that and think it is working just fine?
That's it in a nutshell.
But still that aside….. get the shot. I do. First and more importantly wash hands often and thoroughly.
I have produced stats earlier on but can again if you want. The stats are there it is just a bit hard to find them. Mostly they can be found in the MMWR which can be a bit hard to read. So it is easier to get a digestion from a media reporter.
But raw or media I can provide them, if you want or you can read earlier on in this thread.
Here is a report from one year by the University of Michigan.. CDIP
"Vaccine effectiveness
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.
A total of 2,319 children and adults were enrolled in the study from Dec 2, 2013, to Jan 23, 2014, according to a separate MMWR article today. Of those, 784 tested positive for flu by polymerase chain reaction. Twenty-nine percent of those who tested positive had been vaccinated, versus 50% of those who tested negative. That translates into a VE of 61% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52%-68%).
"We found that influenza vaccine reduced the risk of having to go to the doctor for confirmed influenza by 61% across all ages. "
It helps but and reduces severity as even if there is a incomplete immune response there is often some protection but it does not stop the flu 100% of the time even in healthy populations for the strain immunized customarily.
Read down that quote is about midway…
Flu Vaccine Effectiveness: Questions and Answers for Health Professionals
Google that and likely you will be directed to the CDC site where it can be found...
Here are the questions answered in the article….
How do we measure how well influenza vaccines work?
What is vaccine effectiveness?
How do vaccine effectiveness studies differ from vaccine efficacy studies?
When can vaccine effectiveness studies be conducted?
What factors can affect the results of influenza vaccine effectiveness studies?
What outcomes are measured in influenza vaccine effectiveness studies?
Which outcomes provide the best estimates of vaccine effectiveness?
How can vaccine effectiveness against non-laboratory-confirmed outcomes be interpreted?
Why do estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness vary widely?
How well do inactivated influenza vaccines work in randomized control trials?
How well do influenza vaccines work during seasons in which the vaccine strains are not wellmatched to circulating influenza viruses?
How well do influenza vaccines work in people with chronic high-risk medical conditions?
How effective is the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV)?
How do live attenuated vaccine and inactivated vaccines compare in vaccine efficacy and effectiveness studies?
What information is necessary to make assessments of vaccine effectiveness?
References
How do we measure how well influenza vaccines work?
Again, a simple answer.
I'm going to watch the Giants game.
That is not a anti vaccine site :)
Check it. Quary the title and read it yourself if you want.
You have education in the issues here so can probably interpret it. Other like me can only do with some difficulty.
But read it you will see what I say is true. Even younger age groups immunized did not receive full immunization by the stats….
So I repeat it here I did earlier…
Interim Adjusted Estimates of Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness — United States, February 2013
Weekly
February 22, 2013 / 62(07);119-123
Early influenza activity during the 2012–13 season (1) enabled estimation of the unadjusted effectiveness of the seasonal influenza vaccine (2). This report presents updated adjusted estimates based on 2,697 children and adults enrolled in the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness (Flu VE) Network during December 3, 2012–January 19, 2013. During this period, overall vaccine effectiveness (VE) (adjusted for age, site, race/ethnicity, self-rated health, and days from illness onset to enrollment) against influenza A and B virus infections associated with medically attended acute respiratory illness was 56%, similar to the earlier interim estimate (62%) (2). VE was estimated as 47% against influenza A (H3N2) virus infections and 67% against B virus infections. When stratified by age group, the point estimates for VE against influenza A (H3N2) and B infections were largely consistent across age groups, with the exception that lower VE against influenza A (H3N2) was observed among adults aged ≥65 years. These adjusted VE estimates indicate that vaccination with the 2012–13 influenza season vaccine reduced the risk for outpatient medical visits resulting from influenza by approximately one half to two thirds for most persons, although VE was lower and not statistically significant among older adults. Antiviral medications should be used as recommended for treatment of suspected influenza in certain patients, including those aged ≥65 years, regardless of their influenza vaccination status.
Details of the VE network design, sites, and enrollment procedures have been described previously (2,3). In this report, patients aged ≥6 months seeking outpatient medical care for an acute respiratory illness with cough, within 7 days of illness onset, were enrolled at five study sites.* Consenting participants completed an enrollment interview. Nasal and oropharyngeal swabs were combined and tested using CDC's real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) protocol. Participants were considered vaccinated if they had received ≥1 dose of any seasonal influenza vaccine ≥14 days before illness onset, according to medical records and registries (at Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin sites) or self-report (at Michigan and Pennsylvania sites).
Of the 2,697 children and adults enrolled during December 3, 2012–January 19, 2013, a total of 1,115 (41%) tested positive for influenza virus by rRT-PCR (Figure). The proportion of patients with influenza differed by study site, sex, age group, race/ethnicity, self-rated health status, and interval from illness onset to enrollment (Table 1). The proportion vaccinated ranged from 36% to 54% across sites and also differed by sex, age group, race/ethnicity, and self-rated health status (Table 1).
Among the patients with influenza, 32% had been administered the 2012–13 seasonal influenza vaccine, compared with 50% of the influenza-negative controls (Table 2). For all persons with medically attended acute respiratory illness, the overall VE (adjusted for age group, study site, race/ethnicity, self-rated health status, and days from illness onset to enrollment) against influenza A and B virus infections was 56% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 47%–63%) (Table 2). Significant VE against influenza A and B viruses was observed among persons in all age groups, except for adults aged ≥65 years.
Among the 751 infections with influenza A viruses, 560 (75%) had been subtyped; 546 (98%) of the infections were caused by influenza A (H3N2) viruses (Table 1). The adjusted VE for all ages against influenza A (H3N2) virus infection was 47% (CI = 35%–58%) (Table 2). The adjusted, age-stratified VE point estimates were 58% for persons aged 6 months–17 years, 46% for persons aged 18–49 years, 50% for persons aged 50–64 years, and 9% for persons aged ≥65 years (Table 2).
A total of 366 (33%) of the 1,115 cases had infections caused by influenza B viruses (Table 1). The adjusted VE estimate for all ages against influenza B was 67% (51%–78%) (Table 2). The adjusted VE point estimates against influenza B ranged from 64% to 75% across age groups.
Because that year in that group the VE was so ineffective. Earlier age groups were better off but still no where near 100%.
That year taking Tamiflu would probably be a good idea at the onset of flu like symptoms regardless of age group. The vaccines sort of really sucked that year.I would.
If you want to still think the flu shot protects you 100% at any age you may be in….go for it.
It does not but its still up to you.
In any event wash your hands and get the shot regardless. If elderly and you still get pretty sick at some time request temiflu is my advice.
This game is starting to look very very good :)
Large trial finds 55% efficacy for 4-strain flu vaccine in kids
Filed Under: Influenza Vaccines
Robert Roos | News Editor | CIDRAP News | Dec 13, 2013
Share Tweet LinkedIn Email Print & PDF
flulavalquad.jpg
A FluLaval Quadrivalent vaccine box and vial
Courtesy of GlaxoSmithKline
Quadrivalent flu vaccines are intended to provide better protection against influenza B infections.
A study billed as the first large, randomized clinical trial of a quadrivalent (four-strain) influenza vaccine showed that GlaxoSmithKline's FluLaval Quadrivalent was about 55% efficacious in protecting children ages 3 to 8, similar to some previous findings for trivalent vaccines, according to a report published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine.
You just can't give Romo that much time. He will kill you.
For the reasons bill states, regardless, it does not still not work.
This last study done on young kids on one brand.
About half of peoples at least don't know the thing often doesn't work.
And sometimes that is close to half of the time it doesn't work even with a general population sample as in 2012-13. 60% of the time
We should know that we need to know that but rarely are told that.
The end result more than half don't know that.
And then they also feeling they have a mild cold or some such, do not stay home and follow other precautions so…..they spread it.
Community wise everyone needs to know this thing doesn't always work for public health concern, not just big brother or those in the field.
It is to community benefit certainly, for all to get the shot. It is potentially to even greater community benefit for all to know that it may not protect completely and sometimes not at all.
Many possibly a majority, don't know that.
Thank you Ron.
I think Ron does a nice job as well and appreciate his work. I don't agree with everything he posted. That's not his fault; his sources don't define things very well (like "efficacy" or talk about specific parameters measured. However, for a large part we're not talking about primary literature here but, rather, gov't synopses for the public. So, it could be my own confusion.
What he was claiming though hasn't been backed up anywhere - that the risks outweigh the benefits of getting the shot. Even if it's only 58% effective on seniors as quoted above, isn't limiting the impact of the flu to only 40% of that population a win?
And then we get into the silliness over how people would engage in riskier behavior if they knew they were inoculated, like not washing their hands.
Ron did a great job delineating the limits of the shots effectiveness without trashing the system. Like any medical procedure, you should be informed about what can do, what it can't do and what the risks are. Those who harp on the latter two usually conclude its a waste of time. Ron did not do that.
This is the first flu I've had in quite a few years. I credit the shots and more persistent hand washing. I will get it next year.
I still advocate to get it every year. I do.
What I also advocate for is that they have to make us, people in general, aware of the fact it doesn't always work even if you are exposed to the strain that you were immunized for. For elderly people that may be a bunch of the time that it doesn't work. As I said it may factor into personally you going to see a doc and getting tamiflu as tamiflu doesn't work after three days.
Bill's comments make perfect sense, The flu mutates a bit within the strains so the vaccination doesn't work as well.
End result it does't work. Maybe it works partially but there is also the chance it doesn't work much at all. So you end up in a hospital.
Is it better for us to know that often if elderly it may not work and sometimes even when young it doesn't…I think so.
No studies are done on that, but let others make a informed decision on the shot with all the information not just part.
Most don't know this part of it.
I conjecture they don't publish that part of it as it would discourage others from getting the shot.
That is conjecture but we need to have all the facts and not just some. The medical community, in this case the CDC treats us the general public like children.
Give me/us all the facts I can make up my own mind on things is what I am saying.
Specific to me I don't normally throw personal things into discussions on the internet as we may as well be writing these things on subway walls but I will….
I am not elderly but got the flu shot in the 2012-2013 season and still got the flu and still ended up in the hospital. So I researched this stuff. 25% of those admitted for the flu….. by some statistics don't make it out. They die.
It became very important for me to find out why I almost died.
Would I have taken tamiflu if I thought early on it was flu? Bet I would have. I have a close relative who could write a prescription at the drop of a hat.
Did I ….no. I thought I was immunized and only went in when it was so bad I had to be admitted. I think my PO2 was something like 87.
No studies yes you are completely correct. But everyone needs to know it doesn't work sometimes even if you are not technically elderly.
I do some other things now, I got rid of my daughters cat for one(gave it back) as I am allergic and it hurts. Changed my method of heating to one producing less dust, and take some things to help the immune system.
But really bottom line….I didn't know immunized I could still get it. I was stupid I admit it.
But some others, (not all quite a few are quite informed on this)…need to know that.
It cost me even though I am insured, a couple of thousand in bills. If for no other reason that that. And when I got sickest I was visiting relatives in Fort Defiance ARizona and had to go to the hospital out there. Take my word on it health care in Gallup New Mexico…it sucks.
My arm for just one mention was screwed up for a infiltrated IV for weeks after I was released.
So I have a dog in the fight and the is why in large part I am mentioning it.
I still think all need to know even parents with young kids. You may take the kids to school if they are just a bit sick thinking they are immunized,(think it is a cold as it is mild), but what they have is a partial response to the vaccine, and then they are still spreading it around, the flu.
Other kids then may not be immunized at all, get real sick or worse, catching it from your kids.
No studies are available, but in that case it may actually be worse for the community that your kids were immunized. Better for you, your kids only got a mild form, but worse for others who caught it full strength from your mild form. Mild to you because you were immunized.
So all need to know.
Hand washing is first, Flu shot second to my opinion. You will usually get some protective effect, even if not fully.
To add a bit more personal history (writing on the subway wall) since I am already doing that….. years and years ago I was the infectious control officer for a major municipal fire department for the better part of two years. And I was not fired or moved out for incompetence..I promoted out to a larger position.
Honestly I just did not deal with flu a lot, other than in telling others to get the shot. I dealt mainly with Hep B C and Hiv exposures by needlestick or bodily fluids. I gave training on that in the main and tuberculosis.
That was largely what we were exposed to in the field. Flu was not a priority so I never prior to getting sick studied it much at all. Now I did.
So they know but really don't hardly mention publicly that the flu shots don't work. Really who reads the MMWR reports? Few. But if you did as I mentioned that year 9% of the elderly received full protection from the strains going around that year when immunized.
This ebola thing the confusion is the same sort of thing. It is hard to get and there is a bunch of hysteria out there on it. Bloomberg all weekend had a headline on mutation….remote possibility that as we have what..three cases.
So they say things like it is never spread by airborne contamination means.
They want to stop the hysteria which is a good thing. But the saying of that is misleading and may cause harm.
I guarantee you this….if you are talking to someone who has ebola and they spit when they talk and you get some in your eye or mouth as result….you will probably get it. If you are in the same situation and they cough into your face and a bit of flem comes out when they cough(which happens with some when they cough) and it gets in your eye or mouth you will get it.
So technically it is not airborne in that it cannot stay active in the air. We cannot breathe it in and get it like the flu, from particles remaining active while in the air. But it can certainly be spread through the air. The public takes airborne to mean spread through the air,
So without specific training someone even a nurse may think this thing is not airborne I don't have to worry about this or that. Perhaps I leave my neck exposed it is not airborne I will not get it.
So they want to stop the spread of hysteria(and this ebola thing is mainly hysteria) say a we'll intentioned thing to allay that,,,,this is not airborne….which is technically correct but may lead others to be more at risk and consequently spread it more and inadvertently they increase the hysteria.
With flu as I discuss with tamiflu and with perhaps sending young kids to school they may by not emphasizing that you are still at risk actually put the larger community at more risk.
It is mentioned it does not work, but really only in the industry reports which are the MMWR reports. Occasionally a antivirus media group will glom onto that and report, but the mainstream media they really don't spend any time with the MMWR reports. Since it is only the anti vaccine groups glomming onto that and reporting it it is largely discounted. Most of the stuff the antivaccine groups report is rubbish.
You are right, nothing is 100% and that is shocking when you get the flu and wind up in the hospital even if you've had the shot. It's a reminder that we aren't infallible, medicine doesn't know everything and you must still protect yourself. If you've ever had a chronic illness and dealt with several providers, you will find that most don't go outside of a safety zone or just want to ply you will drugs or surgeries rather than look at root causes. It can be frustrating. You have to be your own advocate.
How many knew amongst the elderly that year, the effectiveness of the vaccine was 9%. I am not elderly but my group was probably around 60% effective.
If we know that type of thing we approach it differently treatment and how we act. No studies are present on that but it makes common sense.
If I knew it was 60% effective for my age group in 2012. Got it in 2014, I would probably opt to get tamiflu right away. Maybe others would not, but I need to know so I can decide. Not the CDC or even my doc. It is me who is sick or not.
Kids. Wrong or right when I had little kids I would not keep them home when they were just a little sick. I or my wife had to take off to do that. So if really sick like a flu we would keep them home or if sick for a couple of days, send them to relatives. So the kids were always immunized for flu, I always thought a little sick during flu season was a cold, i sent them in to school.
Maybe, now that I know this…they had a partial immune response to the vaccine and what they had was flu.
A study I just read showed a 58% rate of effectiveness, with one vaccine, that done by a manufacturer, with kids aged 3-8..And they mention in the report that is the customary amount found with the regular vaccine.
So as a parent I should have known that. Am I just singularly stupid and did not think of that. I may be but most I think don't know that.
The CDC by my take in their zeal to see us all getting flu shots(which is a good thing) is not mentioning that they often do not work as that would discourage us. It can be found but really it is found in technical type stuff few read. Or if mentioned in general stuff it is sort of toned down.
The result is many do not know that.
Many would perhaps say why bother it is only about half effective.That I think is the thinking.
Which would be really dim as the kids would still get it but probably a mild form. So a vaccination is still the thing to do. The 42 percent that get it as per that study may get it but it may be a real mild form.
But mild or not it can still be spread.
So the best thing is for all to know all the facts and no one to do the thinking and deciding for us. This is us and our kids our fathers mothers our elderly whatever.
The general consensus was it killed too thoroughly and quickly to spread very largely in the general public. A flu, even a killer flu you are contagious perhaps before overt symptoms and for potentially quite a long time till you clear it from your system. And most don't die and certainly most live quite a while perhaps spreading it while they go about things. Ebola is so debilitating you cannot go around spreading it. You are on your back not able to even move pretty quickly. Before symptoms arise you are not contagious. A flu who knows how long before you first become contagious till you get so bad you are in a hospital? Or even if you spread it before you even become symptomatic?
What the general opinion however was not inclusive of was that it remains active in a dead body for quite some time. Anyone handling it, like a relative perhaps washing a body for burial, or kissing a deceased one goodby, they can get it. So when that is addressed, even in places like Africa I see it being relatively easily contained. It is contagious but not as much as flu and a horde of other things. Bodies in places like Africa are handled like as not by the family not a embalmer or funeral home, as we do here.
This is way way overblown here. A real hysteria for a little but not much reason.
A ebola vaccine, when they make one….I would never take one. The chances of me or most of us getting it are so remote.
There it is the family. Knowing it is contagious my guess is they don't touch it and there is no agency or governmental group really able to step in. It is after all third world. The more they the people know the bodies are contagious the more the bodies they will be around, often unburied. That will pose another health threat but it will not be ebola. Their governments will have to step in and start burning the bodies which likely they are starting to do.
Till they do it makes for sensationalistic reporting. All in all even there it is not a gigantic epidemic in the scale of things in the past. AS the bodies are not buried it displays larger than it is.