NFT: Annual 'do you get the flu shot?' thread-

I hang around older people a lot as aI have a brother that is not elderly but has a disability. I go visit him often. A lot of them in his group residence, think they are protected by the shot.
They are not. Would they be more careful if they knew it didn't work for them a large part of the time…yes I think so.
that is antidotal but that is my experience and opinion.

In comment 11926119 UAGiant said:

Quote:

In comment 11926091 jcn56 said: Quote: was preempted by contracting the flu. This year, need to get to the doctor to get the damn thing sooner. I know they give them at pharmacies but for some reason (likely unwarranted) I don't trust them to administer it. Not that it should change your opinion and how you seek healthcare, but my wife is a pharmacist and has to go to immunization courses and get licensed by the state annually. They also require her to be CPR certified and carry a few other certificates to be allowed to give anyone a shot. Its still likely a bit more comfortable to get poked in the privacy of a doctor's office, but only certified pharmacist can administer the shot. I know a few pharmacist that I'm honestly shocked that they can tie their own shoes, but if you trust your pharmacist its not a crapshot as to whether or not they can do it correctly.

Yeah, I figured as much. As I mentioned, it's probably unwarranted, but I know a few pharmacists as well and they're dim enough to cloud my better judgement on this.

which the general comment quoted was sourced. The elderly 9% number is towards the bottom
the weekly MMWR rep or in the time period discussed…

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.

I can provide the supporting documentation as well but this could quickly get quite lengthy.
Have fun with it :>)

most years it is somewhat more effective.

You and everyone needs to know this thing just does not work often.

I am personally more careful knowing now it does not work always. I suspect most would be. It gives a artificial sense of security and then complacency thinking you get the shot and are then protected if it is the same strain.
That is simply not the case.

on the elderly and vaccine effectiveness….

"How effective is the flu vaccine in the elderly?

Older people with weaker immune systems often have a lower protective immune response after flu vaccination compared to younger, healthier people. This can result in lower vaccine effectiveness in these people."

They go on to confuse the issue with the different strain thing and a bunch of other stuff.
I agree with their suggestion to get it anyway as Les mentions it may help in other ways, but really they are massaging the information and leading people here to think a wrong thing. That wrong thing being you get the shot you are exposed to the flu strain for which you got the shot…. you are protected.

This is just not true.
The CDC sucks. They confuse the information with the intention of everyone getting the shot. I agree everyone should get the shot, but not with confusing the information. If only one person does not wash their hands once thinking they are protected and then spreads a flu they do not think they have, that is one person who may die from flu as result.

This is why people here think it always works on the strain it is designed for…because they confuse with intention of the CDC.
No overt lies but they confuse and misrepresent the issue.

may think it is just a cold because it is not that bad and he is immunized, as result shake hands.
Who wants to be rude it is just a cold.

The person whose hands they shake may not be immunized at all and get the flu. It only appears a cold as they have a partial protective effect, a incomplete immune response to the vaccine.

And then the person who is not immunized may thus contract the flu and die as result.
The CDC is stupid to misrepresent this fact of the vaccine and underreport it. IN their zeal for immunizing all for the flu they do this this way.
As result all think it works if it is the same strain. it does not a significant part of the time.

except when I was very young. But the past few years I've gotten them. Even once at a pharmacy. I have some other health issues, so I'd rather not complicate things by getting the flu. I know you are supposed to get it once a year, but I had one last Fall, but then again this summer when I was at my doctors and she said this new one covered more strains. No side effects beyond a sore arm.

never had a problem. Three is the max for strains right now. 2 or 3 are available. Usually the pharmacy will give you 2 unless you ask for 3.
Doc usually 3, as they care a bit more, as you are their patient.

I don't trust nasal. Btu that's just me.

has as four strain variety. So I correct myself :)

never had the flu, 32 years running

as did my family. My son did have a pretty severe reaction to it. His face swelled up and he was sick as a dog for about a week, poor guy. But he's gtg now.

haven't had the flu in over 20 years. I stay layered on the cold months, drink plenty of fluids and wash my hands several times a day. Since I'm a stock/shipping clerk I have to since they're always getting dirty

.

if your insurance covers it I see no reason not to get it.

will you take your son to get the shot next year?

Never will

The chances of getting the flu are about 4%/yr. Even when the flu shot is dialed in, it only reduces that to about 2%.

If the chances of getting the flu were greater than 50%/yr, I would consider.

In comment 11926195 Ben in Tampa said:

Quote:

will you take your son to get the shot next year?

I'll have that conversation with my doctor when the time comes.

And every time I get it within a couple of days I'm sick for days with the flu. They argue that the shot does not cause the flu but yet every time I get iti get sick and when I don't I don't get sick.

With kids in school or in school myself maybe I had it already and it brought it out who knows

In comment 11926203 BH28 said:

Quote:

The chances of getting the flu are about 4%/yr. Even when the flu shot is dialed in, it only reduces that to about 2%. If the chances of getting the flu were greater than 50%/yr, I would consider.

Its not just about you getting the flu

has ever gotten the flu from a flu shot.

If you think you did, you are wrong and need to make up another reason for your decision not to get a flu shot because that one is, well, just idiotic.

And I got the flu for the first time in 12 years last year and it wasn't much more then a glorified Cold. In and out of my system in 4 days.

Hands down worst poster on a site full of candidates. Never even tries to add anything other than calling people dumb.

In comment 11926942 Pork and Beans said:

Quote:

Hands down worst poster on a site full of candidates. Never even tries to add anything other than calling people dumb.

Always good to have a fan. My post was actually a relevant statement of fact, but not surprised that was lost on you.

My post was a fact too, sorry you missed it

I did have sore arm after the shot in the past but not this year. I know a bunch of people that opted out because they felt sick after getting the shot in the past. The nurse told me those people that felt sick, were exposed to the flu or something else before they got the shot.

The flu kills an average of 36,000 people in the US each year. That's more than car accidents which kill about 34,000.

The Spanish Flu of 1918 infected up to 500 million people and killed up to 100 million world wide. This was back when the population of the earth was about 1.8 billion.

The Spanish Flu and the Swine Flu both contained the H1N1 sub types of flu.

I wonder if the people that will not get a flu shot will also opt out of the Ebola vaccine when it is developed? My guess is that they would take the Ebola vaccine because they more are aware of how deadly the disease can be. Ebola has killed about 4,000 people world wide this year and has only killed 1 person in the US this year (so far).

don't have a clear understanding of what a vaccine does. It doesn't form some sort of protective shield and it does not fight off the virus. What it does is stimulate an immune response (which could possibly make you feel bad itself), and prepares your immune system to mount a quick defensive response to a future exposure to the virus. So it all depends on your immune system, how effectively it responds to the vaccine and then how effectively it responds to subsequent exposure .... hence the difference in individual immunity and lack of total immunity.

One other thing, this preparation of an immune response is not instantaneous, it takes several weeks to complete, so it's not surprising that some may contract the flu when exposed shortly after administration of the vaccine.

for those who have an autoimmune disorder, would getting the shot cause some kind of bad reaction (stimulating an already overactive immune system)? I belong to a group with other AI people and many of them will not get the shot for this reason.

In comment 11926985 buford said:

Quote:

for those who have an autoimmune disorder, would getting the shot cause some kind of bad reaction (stimulating an already overactive immune system)? I belong to a group with other AI people and many of them will not get the shot for this reason.

That's actually a very complex issue that I doubt anyone could give you a black or white answer to, and certainly not here. Rheumatologists would probably not all agree, but it is certainly a question for the individual's doctor. Bottom line is a risk/reward evaluation of the individual condition and individual immunization.

In comment 11926976 Pork and Beans said:

Quote:

My post was a fact too, sorry you missed it

Not that we needed more evidence, but it's abundantly clear you don't know what a fact is.

Is it likely that the eventual ebola vaccine will give me autism?

In comment 11926993 Big Al said:

Quote:

Is it likely that the eventual ebola vaccine will give me autism?

As with most questions in life, the answer is ... it depends.

In this particular case it depends on who you talk to :)

With a three year old and a three month old, and being a teacher, it's a no brainer for me.

In comment 11926990 River Mike said:

Quote:

In comment 11926985 buford said: Quote: for those who have an autoimmune disorder, would getting the shot cause some kind of bad reaction (stimulating an already overactive immune system)? I belong to a group with other AI people and many of them will not get the shot for this reason. That's actually a very complex issue that I doubt anyone could give you a black or white answer to, and certainly not here. Rheumatologists would probably not all agree, but it is certainly a question for the individual's doctor. Bottom line is a risk/reward evaluation of the individual condition and individual immunization.

It's complex because more often than not there's not really an autoimmune "disorder". There are a plethora of autoimmune diseases with some targets very localized and some more widely disseminated. There are likely also some people who aberrantly over-respond or respond inappropriately to challenges, giving the appearance of autoimmunity. But every individual or every specific autoimmune disease is going to be different so how a flu shot would affect their disease is going to vary between individuals. My gut suspicion is that for the vast majority, the flu shot would not have an harmful impact. If the disease was severe enough, I'd think the risk would be more that the shot would have little beneficial effect because those people might be taking a lot of immunosuppressive drugs. But it's an individual's question for his/her doctor.

That combined with laziness outweighs the benefits of getting the shot.

at the end of the day, when all is said and done, if you want it, get it.. if you don't, don't...

I used to get a cold or the flu every year when the seasons changed drastically, spring and fall. I got my first flu shot in 2000 when I was taking care of my brother who had lung cancer. Since that first flu shot, I've only experienced a minor cold that lasted a day and a half with a minor sore throat and a runny nose. The shots have helped me build up an immunity to the flu and prevented minor colds as well.

How in the world does laziness outweigh that?

....
Link - ( New Window )

I have had the shot the past few years. Mostly because I now have to go to the DR regularly for other reasons so while I'm there I usually get it. I haven't had any issues. My main triggers seem to be food.

getting a flu shot does not guarantee you will not get the flu. Even when it is the same strain to which you were immunized.

Young children do develop the proper antibodies for protection. Teen agers, do those up to middle age they all generally do.

Old peoples the very young do not. As I mentioned by CDC documentation the flu shot worked to provide proper immunization only 9% of the time in one strain of the flu in the 2013-13 season.That was unusually low but the elderly never respond as well as the young to the shot. Half would probably be about average.

So we must know that so we don't think we are protected when we are not. Flu is airborne but really it is much more spread by touching things or people and then touching ones eyes nose or mouth. So the best protection even more than getting a shot is washing ones hands often and not touching ones face when one has not.

REally that remains especially amongst the elderly the best protection. And if protected we will not spread it.
..
Ya know it occurred to me this thing about peoples thinking they got the flu from the shot…..most peoples do get the shot in a doctors office or in a pharmacy. Both places peoples with flu are bound to be or go. The virus can remain active on inert objects such as a door handle magazine or other thing given the proper conditions for quite a while. And peoples do sneeze and cough which directly spreads it to us.

My first trip to Walgreens this year, someone was there that obviously was quite sick. I said to myself, it is not flu but whatever he has I don't want to get. So I came back later.

Point is we may be getting flu or other virus in the places we get immunized. they are high risk and the flu vaccine takes about 2 weeks to be optimally working(again if it works at all).

I advocate for the shot but we must know it doesn't always work even for the strain we are exposed to and given the shot for.

documentation for the 2012-2013 season, earlier on in this thread because someone requested it. But really it is to complicated for most including myself to make head nor tails of it unless you spend time with it and look things up.

Take my word on it or google it yourself. There are anti vaccine websites and you want to stay away from those but this is a fact and not a product of anti vaccine peoples. The CDC produces the core information.

Or I can paste the CDC documentation again if requested ;)

The shot does often not work in the elderly. We need to know that. Maybe up to 20% of the time in younger peoples in some years it does not work.

So keep washing hands. You may have a mild form, a partial immunological response to the vaccine, and think it is only a cold when it is a flu. And you then are also spreading it though you think you are not. You think it is so mild it is only a cold. It may be flu.

vaccine is much less than 100%.

And the efficacy of the vaccine in younger adults is what helps the elderly. Less infected vectors that the elderly can contract the disease from. So, if you look solely at the efficacy in an age group, you are missing out on the bigger picture. The efficacy becomes multiplicative, not additive.

No one should ever think that one method of prevention (vaccine or washing hands or staying indoors) is the way to go. It's multiple avenues at once.

Plus, the flu is a virus. That should tell everyone what they need to know about the fact that the flu vaccine won't be 100% effective.

is people do mainly due to the CDC and their tendency to confuse things for agenda(as expressed with the ebola epidemic)do not know that. YOu do but I venture most do not.

They think they are protected. So why not shake hands and all the rest, it is only a cold. Can't be flu. And how many more will not go to the doc early on as they had the shot and think it can't be flu. Tamiflu and some other things are out there that only work early on. They are useless later on.

And if you don't develop the antibodies correctly from the shot you may have a partial protective but may as well have none at all.

I still advocate for it, but the CDC has sort of misrepresented on this.
So all think it works and the strain is the only issue. It is not…it flat plain and simple does not work sometimes. Sometimes with a large proportion of peoples in certain age groups.But sometimes even in other groups.

Washing hands is far more protective, bit still get the shot it is a bit protective.

Unless you place the ignorance of people on other people's shoulders (a dangerous proposition), it's not some theoretical and high-level proposition.

It's exactly how Jenny McCarthy thrives. Just because people are ignorant that vaccines will have some side effects doesn't mean that the companies are misleading us, and that they cause autism.

People's ignorance should be placed on their shoulders, for the most part.

all things here in America being about money…..the CDC represents it this way, ….reporting it but not emphasizing it at all ….is because they are a arm of the industry.

If most people know a most basic thing like a flu vaccine does not work a lot of the time…..they will pressure to improve it. Right now they do not have to(basically with minor modification it is the same thing since the 50's). And they sell a lot of meds related to it.

By my take they could also eliminate about 90% of cold viruses by immunization if they worked at it. But they have motive not to. Yes there are a 100 or so strains but they can develop now multi strain immunizations. Now they have four for the flu, years ago it was one or two. Why not 100 or so for cold viruses. No money in it to my take. More money on the other side, in treating it.
Eventually perhaps we will learn money and med treatments don't always work to our best advantage in things like community health. But maybe not.


No matter I guess When a real killer epidemic arises, which it will given time, then they will make better vaccines for it. As the public will make them. As essentially the public is forcing a better ebola response right now. Before it was to expensive to train people to contain it.
Now not so much. To save a buck on training in the past that one Dallas hospital is in serious financial trouble right now.

But that is a bit aside, I thought I may mention it.

but there isn't money in it yet.

It's false.

Yes, money is a factor, but to think that there is no first mover advantage by being the first to produce something (unless they are all colluding with one another, which is a separate leap of logic) is too far fetched.

And, you know, the whole more vaccines thing over a short time span has a rather easy answer, but one that doesn't fit into conspiracies. The rapid and massive improvements in medical technology...

I think most will not right about now be defending the CDC to any great extent.

Their performance on the ebola response was miserable. It is quite clear how they by their statements confuse and misrepresent things.
Multiple current examples related to this thing exist.

Ebola is not all that threatening. But this shows a bit problems within the CDC..
That is pretty clear to all but their most ardent supporters.

Flu they present the vaccine is not unrelated. They confuse and misrepresent. Most simply think it always work that is the impression they have left.

It flat plain and simple does not.

run this country, that Obama is from Kenya, and that vaccines cause autism.

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.

companies are into things to make money.

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.