Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Flu shots? For them or against ?
Options
Replies
-
No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.7 -
furthermore, I feel even if it does not stop the flu, if it can cushion the dreadful effects somewhat it is def worth it. so a "little jab a do ya" mentality for me.4
-
for, if you can protect yourself and kids, then why not.1
-
AlienMoon32 wrote: »No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.
I agree with the bolded statement. I'm not against the flu shot, and I'm sure it's a great comfort to many people (as this thread proves) ... but let's not pretend that it is some kind of civic duty on par with other vaccines that are actually trying to eradicate certain diseases.6 -
AlienMoon32 wrote: »No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.
You understand that the difference is in the virus itself - influenza is caused by a hypermutagenic organism (ssRNA) with countless strains and genetic variation. People may be carrying multiple strains of viruses at any given time. The vaccine is very effective against the strains they are developed for. The risk/reward makes this decision easy if you address facts. The simple efficacy that we reduced the viral load by 20% is enough for me.
As for the increase in flu cases? Look no further than increased international travel as your primary root cause.9 -
JamestheLiar wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.
I agree with the bolded statement. I'm not against the flu shot, and I'm sure it's a great comfort to many people (as this thread proves) ... but let's not pretend that it is some kind of civic duty on par with other vaccines that are actually trying to eradicate certain diseases.
Well, in 2014 flu and pneumonia (commonly a complication of flu) were the 8th leading cause of death in the US (55,227), and the 1st leading cause of death by any infectious disease. I'd say that working to keep those numbers in check is a pretty significant civic duty. Otherwise, we could see them outstrip diabetes (7th leading cause) and Alzheimer's (6th leading cause). The death toll wouldn't even have to double, something that is completely reasonable to believe would happen if people stopped getting the vaccine 'because no guarantee'. Especially since the highest compliance is in populations that either are high risk or work with high risk individuals.
FYI: It's estimated that 47.1% of people older than 6mos of age in the US got the vaccine in 2014.
As far as the previous claims by @AlienMoon32 that gaining immunity from a flu shot is like 'flipping a coin', firstly, no it's not - the likelihood changes every year depending on accuracy of prognostication, efficacy of the vaccine, your age and health status*. Some years, you have a 80+% chance of success assuming you're healthy and not a senior. Other years, it's lower. Lowest the consortium saw in their tests from 2008-2014 was ~40%. If you're a senior, the seroconversion rate has always been on the low side, but the health risks associated with getting the flu are much higher.
Secondly, let's say the actual seroconversion rate is 50% consistently. You wouldn't take a 50% chance that you'd be not only protected from those flu strains yourself, but that you will be unable to be a carrier (yes, you can be infected without ever showing symptoms and pass it along)? Even though the potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur?
At what % success is a vaccine is worthwhile, given potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur? There's not a one vaccine in existence that has a 100% success rate and they all have at least the side effects that are possible with the flu vaccine.10 -
JamestheLiar wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.
I agree with the bolded statement. I'm not against the flu shot, and I'm sure it's a great comfort to many people (as this thread proves) ... but let's not pretend that it is some kind of civic duty on par with other vaccines that are actually trying to eradicate certain diseases.
Well, in 2014 flu and pneumonia (commonly a complication of flu) were the 8th leading cause of death in the US (55,227), and the 1st leading cause of death by any infectious disease. I'd say that working to keep those numbers in check is a pretty significant civic duty. Otherwise, we could see them outstrip diabetes (7th leading cause) and Alzheimer's (6th leading cause). The death toll wouldn't even have to double, something that is completely reasonable to believe would happen if people stopped getting the vaccine 'because no guarantee'. Especially since the highest compliance is in populations that either are high risk or work with high risk individuals.
FYI: It's estimated that 47.1% of people older than 6mos of age in the US got the vaccine in 2014.
As far as the previous claims by @AlienMoon32 that gaining immunity from a flu shot is like 'flipping a coin', firstly, no it's not - the likelihood changes every year depending on accuracy of prognostication, efficacy of the vaccine, your age and health status*. Some years, you have a 80+% chance of success assuming you're healthy and not a senior. Other years, it's lower. Lowest the consortium saw in their tests from 2008-2014 was ~40%. If you're a senior, the seroconversion rate has always been on the low side, but the health risks associated with getting the flu are much higher.
Secondly, let's say the actual seroconversion rate is 50% consistently. You wouldn't take a 50% chance that you'd be not only protected from those flu strains yourself, but that you will be unable to be a carrier (yes, you can be infected without ever showing symptoms and pass it along)? Even though the potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur?
At what % success is a vaccine is worthwhile, given potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur? There's not a one vaccine in existence that has a 100% success rate and they all have at least the side effects that are possible with the flu vaccine.
Friend, I don't have the energy to sort through your vocabulary. From the little that I've been able to interpret, you seem to be agreeing that flu vaccines are ultimately ineffective except for fifty/fifty chance you have against the few strains that are included in the vaccine itself (versus the zero percent chance against the "countless strains" that are NOT included).
Strangest argument ever.6 -
JamestheLiar wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.
I agree with the bolded statement. I'm not against the flu shot, and I'm sure it's a great comfort to many people (as this thread proves) ... but let's not pretend that it is some kind of civic duty on par with other vaccines that are actually trying to eradicate certain diseases.
Well, in 2014 flu and pneumonia (commonly a complication of flu) were the 8th leading cause of death in the US (55,227), and the 1st leading cause of death by any infectious disease. I'd say that working to keep those numbers in check is a pretty significant civic duty. Otherwise, we could see them outstrip diabetes (7th leading cause) and Alzheimer's (6th leading cause). The death toll wouldn't even have to double, something that is completely reasonable to believe would happen if people stopped getting the vaccine 'because no guarantee'. Especially since the highest compliance is in populations that either are high risk or work with high risk individuals.
FYI: It's estimated that 47.1% of people older than 6mos of age in the US got the vaccine in 2014.
As far as the previous claims by @AlienMoon32 that gaining immunity from a flu shot is like 'flipping a coin', firstly, no it's not - the likelihood changes every year depending on accuracy of prognostication, efficacy of the vaccine, your age and health status*. Some years, you have a 80+% chance of success assuming you're healthy and not a senior. Other years, it's lower. Lowest the consortium saw in their tests from 2008-2014 was ~40%. If you're a senior, the seroconversion rate has always been on the low side, but the health risks associated with getting the flu are much higher.
Secondly, let's say the actual seroconversion rate is 50% consistently. You wouldn't take a 50% chance that you'd be not only protected from those flu strains yourself, but that you will be unable to be a carrier (yes, you can be infected without ever showing symptoms and pass it along)? Even though the potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur?
At what % success is a vaccine is worthwhile, given potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur? There's not a one vaccine in existence that has a 100% success rate and they all have at least the side effects that are possible with the flu vaccine.
Friend, I don't have the energy to sort through your vocabulary. From the little that I've been able to interpret, you seem to be agreeing that flu vaccines are ultimately ineffective except for fifty/fifty chance you have against the few strains that are included in the vaccine itself (versus the zero percent chance against the "countless strains" that are NOT included).
Strangest argument ever.
Yeah -- the vaccine is only good for that which it is intended to prevent, the strains included in that year's vaccination. The expectation that it should cover other strains that aren't included in the vaccine isn't realistic or reasonable. This isn't a sign that something is wrong with the vaccination, it's just a reflection of what medical science is currently able to do.
Since you aren't able to interpret very much of the argument, I understand that it can sound strange. But if you are able to follow it, I promise it isn't that strange at all.12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.
I agree with the bolded statement. I'm not against the flu shot, and I'm sure it's a great comfort to many people (as this thread proves) ... but let's not pretend that it is some kind of civic duty on par with other vaccines that are actually trying to eradicate certain diseases.
Well, in 2014 flu and pneumonia (commonly a complication of flu) were the 8th leading cause of death in the US (55,227), and the 1st leading cause of death by any infectious disease. I'd say that working to keep those numbers in check is a pretty significant civic duty. Otherwise, we could see them outstrip diabetes (7th leading cause) and Alzheimer's (6th leading cause). The death toll wouldn't even have to double, something that is completely reasonable to believe would happen if people stopped getting the vaccine 'because no guarantee'. Especially since the highest compliance is in populations that either are high risk or work with high risk individuals.
FYI: It's estimated that 47.1% of people older than 6mos of age in the US got the vaccine in 2014.
As far as the previous claims by @AlienMoon32 that gaining immunity from a flu shot is like 'flipping a coin', firstly, no it's not - the likelihood changes every year depending on accuracy of prognostication, efficacy of the vaccine, your age and health status*. Some years, you have a 80+% chance of success assuming you're healthy and not a senior. Other years, it's lower. Lowest the consortium saw in their tests from 2008-2014 was ~40%. If you're a senior, the seroconversion rate has always been on the low side, but the health risks associated with getting the flu are much higher.
Secondly, let's say the actual seroconversion rate is 50% consistently. You wouldn't take a 50% chance that you'd be not only protected from those flu strains yourself, but that you will be unable to be a carrier (yes, you can be infected without ever showing symptoms and pass it along)? Even though the potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur?
At what % success is a vaccine is worthwhile, given potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur? There's not a one vaccine in existence that has a 100% success rate and they all have at least the side effects that are possible with the flu vaccine.
Friend, I don't have the energy to sort through your vocabulary. From the little that I've been able to interpret, you seem to be agreeing that flu vaccines are ultimately ineffective except for fifty/fifty chance you have against the few strains that are included in the vaccine itself (versus the zero percent chance against the "countless strains" that are NOT included).
Strangest argument ever.
Yeah -- the vaccine is only good for that which it is intended to prevent, the strains included in that year's vaccination. The expectation that it should cover other strains that aren't included in the vaccine isn't realistic or reasonable. This isn't a sign that something is wrong with the vaccination, it's just a reflection of what medical science is currently able to do.
Since you aren't able to interpret very much of the argument, I understand that it can sound strange. But if you are able to follow it, I promise it isn't that strange at all.
Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate the kind tone of your responses in this conversation.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with the vaccination. In fact, I agree with the numbers you presented earlier ... namely that the vaccination is 16-76% effective against the strains that are included in the vaccine. Going a step further, I can see that the flu vaccine is a great comfort to thousands of people every year. It would absolutely be unreasonable to expect the vaccine to do anything other than it's stated purpose ... to "reduce the chances that you will get seasonal flu."
My point is that a vaccine which is intended to reduce the chance of getting the flu ... a vaccine that is 16-76% effective against a tiny fraction of the countless, ever-evolving strains of flu virus ... can hardly be considered a civic duty on par with other vaccines that seek to eradicate specific diseases.
Now, please forgive me for continuing to not following the argument, but what exactly are we disagreeing about?1 -
JamestheLiar wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.
I agree with the bolded statement. I'm not against the flu shot, and I'm sure it's a great comfort to many people (as this thread proves) ... but let's not pretend that it is some kind of civic duty on par with other vaccines that are actually trying to eradicate certain diseases.
Well, in 2014 flu and pneumonia (commonly a complication of flu) were the 8th leading cause of death in the US (55,227), and the 1st leading cause of death by any infectious disease. I'd say that working to keep those numbers in check is a pretty significant civic duty. Otherwise, we could see them outstrip diabetes (7th leading cause) and Alzheimer's (6th leading cause). The death toll wouldn't even have to double, something that is completely reasonable to believe would happen if people stopped getting the vaccine 'because no guarantee'. Especially since the highest compliance is in populations that either are high risk or work with high risk individuals.
FYI: It's estimated that 47.1% of people older than 6mos of age in the US got the vaccine in 2014.
As far as the previous claims by @AlienMoon32 that gaining immunity from a flu shot is like 'flipping a coin', firstly, no it's not - the likelihood changes every year depending on accuracy of prognostication, efficacy of the vaccine, your age and health status*. Some years, you have a 80+% chance of success assuming you're healthy and not a senior. Other years, it's lower. Lowest the consortium saw in their tests from 2008-2014 was ~40%. If you're a senior, the seroconversion rate has always been on the low side, but the health risks associated with getting the flu are much higher.
Secondly, let's say the actual seroconversion rate is 50% consistently. You wouldn't take a 50% chance that you'd be not only protected from those flu strains yourself, but that you will be unable to be a carrier (yes, you can be infected without ever showing symptoms and pass it along)? Even though the potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur?
At what % success is a vaccine is worthwhile, given potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur? There's not a one vaccine in existence that has a 100% success rate and they all have at least the side effects that are possible with the flu vaccine.
Friend, I don't have the energy to sort through your vocabulary. From the little that I've been able to interpret, you seem to be agreeing that flu vaccines are ultimately ineffective except for fifty/fifty chance you have against the few strains that are included in the vaccine itself (versus the zero percent chance against the "countless strains" that are NOT included).
Strangest argument ever.
Yeah -- the vaccine is only good for that which it is intended to prevent, the strains included in that year's vaccination. The expectation that it should cover other strains that aren't included in the vaccine isn't realistic or reasonable. This isn't a sign that something is wrong with the vaccination, it's just a reflection of what medical science is currently able to do.
Since you aren't able to interpret very much of the argument, I understand that it can sound strange. But if you are able to follow it, I promise it isn't that strange at all.
Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate the kind tone of your responses in this conversation.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with the vaccination. In fact, I agree with the numbers you presented earlier ... namely that the vaccination is 16-76% effective against the strains that are included in the vaccine. Going a step further, I can see that the flu vaccine is a great comfort to thousands of people every year. It would absolutely be unreasonable to expect the vaccine to do anything other than it's stated purpose ... to "reduce the chances that you will get seasonal flu."
My point is that a vaccine which is intended to reduce the chance of getting the flu ... a vaccine that is 16-76% effective against a tiny fraction of the countless, ever-evolving strains of flu virus ... can hardly be considered a civic duty on par with other vaccines that seek to eradicate specific diseases.
Now, please forgive me for continuing to not following the argument, but what exactly are we disagreeing about?
I think I would disagree that the flu vaccine always represents a "tiny fraction" of the flu strains we could be exposed to in a given year. The people developing the vaccine do the best they can to predict the strains most likely to cause issues and put those in the vaccine. Some years they are going to do better than others -- I wouldn't say that every year the vaccine covers just a tiny fraction.
I do generally consider it a civic duty to reduce the risk we pose to others, although I do understand your argument. I think my position on this is influenced by the fact that I have family members who would be quite vulnerable to the flu and they can't all receive the vaccination. Do I think that refusing a flu vaccine is on the same level as, say, getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk? Absolutely not. But if there is something that I can easily do that may help someone else, I like to think I am the type of person who will do it. If it winds up providing a benefit to me as well, that's a bonus.
I don't know if we will ever eradicate the flu, but even reducing it would be a good thing for many people.8 -
JamestheLiar wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.
I agree with the bolded statement. I'm not against the flu shot, and I'm sure it's a great comfort to many people (as this thread proves) ... but let's not pretend that it is some kind of civic duty on par with other vaccines that are actually trying to eradicate certain diseases.
Well, in 2014 flu and pneumonia (commonly a complication of flu) were the 8th leading cause of death in the US (55,227), and the 1st leading cause of death by any infectious disease. I'd say that working to keep those numbers in check is a pretty significant civic duty. Otherwise, we could see them outstrip diabetes (7th leading cause) and Alzheimer's (6th leading cause). The death toll wouldn't even have to double, something that is completely reasonable to believe would happen if people stopped getting the vaccine 'because no guarantee'. Especially since the highest compliance is in populations that either are high risk or work with high risk individuals.
FYI: It's estimated that 47.1% of people older than 6mos of age in the US got the vaccine in 2014.
As far as the previous claims by @AlienMoon32 that gaining immunity from a flu shot is like 'flipping a coin', firstly, no it's not - the likelihood changes every year depending on accuracy of prognostication, efficacy of the vaccine, your age and health status*. Some years, you have a 80+% chance of success assuming you're healthy and not a senior. Other years, it's lower. Lowest the consortium saw in their tests from 2008-2014 was ~40%. If you're a senior, the seroconversion rate has always been on the low side, but the health risks associated with getting the flu are much higher.
Secondly, let's say the actual seroconversion rate is 50% consistently. You wouldn't take a 50% chance that you'd be not only protected from those flu strains yourself, but that you will be unable to be a carrier (yes, you can be infected without ever showing symptoms and pass it along)? Even though the potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur?
At what % success is a vaccine is worthwhile, given potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur? There's not a one vaccine in existence that has a 100% success rate and they all have at least the side effects that are possible with the flu vaccine.
Friend, I don't have the energy to sort through your vocabulary. From the little that I've been able to interpret, you seem to be agreeing that flu vaccines are ultimately ineffective except for fifty/fifty chance you have against the few strains that are included in the vaccine itself (versus the zero percent chance against the "countless strains" that are NOT included).
Strangest argument ever.
Yeah, I'm done with it. I'm just going to stick with washing my hands and trying to exercise/eat healthy. I totes appreciate the scientific knowledge that was just dropped on all of us, but it just seems to be a long-winded way of saying exactly what I've been saying. Which is that it is not consistent enough. For me at least.
6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.
I agree with the bolded statement. I'm not against the flu shot, and I'm sure it's a great comfort to many people (as this thread proves) ... but let's not pretend that it is some kind of civic duty on par with other vaccines that are actually trying to eradicate certain diseases.
Well, in 2014 flu and pneumonia (commonly a complication of flu) were the 8th leading cause of death in the US (55,227), and the 1st leading cause of death by any infectious disease. I'd say that working to keep those numbers in check is a pretty significant civic duty. Otherwise, we could see them outstrip diabetes (7th leading cause) and Alzheimer's (6th leading cause). The death toll wouldn't even have to double, something that is completely reasonable to believe would happen if people stopped getting the vaccine 'because no guarantee'. Especially since the highest compliance is in populations that either are high risk or work with high risk individuals.
FYI: It's estimated that 47.1% of people older than 6mos of age in the US got the vaccine in 2014.
As far as the previous claims by @AlienMoon32 that gaining immunity from a flu shot is like 'flipping a coin', firstly, no it's not - the likelihood changes every year depending on accuracy of prognostication, efficacy of the vaccine, your age and health status*. Some years, you have a 80+% chance of success assuming you're healthy and not a senior. Other years, it's lower. Lowest the consortium saw in their tests from 2008-2014 was ~40%. If you're a senior, the seroconversion rate has always been on the low side, but the health risks associated with getting the flu are much higher.
Secondly, let's say the actual seroconversion rate is 50% consistently. You wouldn't take a 50% chance that you'd be not only protected from those flu strains yourself, but that you will be unable to be a carrier (yes, you can be infected without ever showing symptoms and pass it along)? Even though the potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur?
At what % success is a vaccine is worthwhile, given potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur? There's not a one vaccine in existence that has a 100% success rate and they all have at least the side effects that are possible with the flu vaccine.
Friend, I don't have the energy to sort through your vocabulary. From the little that I've been able to interpret, you seem to be agreeing that flu vaccines are ultimately ineffective except for fifty/fifty chance you have against the few strains that are included in the vaccine itself (versus the zero percent chance against the "countless strains" that are NOT included).
Strangest argument ever.
Yeah -- the vaccine is only good for that which it is intended to prevent, the strains included in that year's vaccination. The expectation that it should cover other strains that aren't included in the vaccine isn't realistic or reasonable. This isn't a sign that something is wrong with the vaccination, it's just a reflection of what medical science is currently able to do.
Since you aren't able to interpret very much of the argument, I understand that it can sound strange. But if you are able to follow it, I promise it isn't that strange at all.
Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate the kind tone of your responses in this conversation.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with the vaccination. In fact, I agree with the numbers you presented earlier ... namely that the vaccination is 16-76% effective against the strains that are included in the vaccine. Going a step further, I can see that the flu vaccine is a great comfort to thousands of people every year. It would absolutely be unreasonable to expect the vaccine to do anything other than it's stated purpose ... to "reduce the chances that you will get seasonal flu."
My point is that a vaccine which is intended to reduce the chance of getting the flu ... a vaccine that is 16-76% effective against a tiny fraction of the countless, ever-evolving strains of flu virus ... can hardly be considered a civic duty on par with other vaccines that seek to eradicate specific diseases.
Now, please forgive me for continuing to not following the argument, but what exactly are we disagreeing about?
I think I would disagree that the flu vaccine always represents a "tiny fraction" of the flu strains we could be exposed to in a given year. The people developing the vaccine do the best they can to predict the strains most likely to cause issues and put those in the vaccine. Some years they are going to do better than others -- I wouldn't say that every year the vaccine covers just a tiny fraction.
I do generally consider it a civic duty to reduce the risk we pose to others, although I do understand your argument. I think my position on this is influenced by the fact that I have family members who would be quite vulnerable to the flu and they can't all receive the vaccination. Do I think that refusing a flu vaccine is on the same level as, say, getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk? Absolutely not. But if there is something that I can easily do that may help someone else, I like to think I am the type of person who will do it. If it winds up providing a benefit to me as well, that's a bonus.
I don't know if we will ever eradicate the flu, but even reducing it would be a good thing for many people.
Well done. Are flu jabs a civic duty? Probably not, but I can't continue against the idea of people doing their best, and you protecting your family members. Those are good things, as you've said. I'll simply shake your hand at this point (in a manner of speaking), and call it a day.1 -
I get it. My nursing school won't let us participate in simulation labs, field experiences, and clinicals if we are not up-to-date with certain mandatories, and one of them is getting a yearly flu shot.1
-
JamestheLiar wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.
I agree with the bolded statement. I'm not against the flu shot, and I'm sure it's a great comfort to many people (as this thread proves) ... but let's not pretend that it is some kind of civic duty on par with other vaccines that are actually trying to eradicate certain diseases.
Well, in 2014 flu and pneumonia (commonly a complication of flu) were the 8th leading cause of death in the US (55,227), and the 1st leading cause of death by any infectious disease. I'd say that working to keep those numbers in check is a pretty significant civic duty. Otherwise, we could see them outstrip diabetes (7th leading cause) and Alzheimer's (6th leading cause). The death toll wouldn't even have to double, something that is completely reasonable to believe would happen if people stopped getting the vaccine 'because no guarantee'. Especially since the highest compliance is in populations that either are high risk or work with high risk individuals.
FYI: It's estimated that 47.1% of people older than 6mos of age in the US got the vaccine in 2014.
As far as the previous claims by @AlienMoon32 that gaining immunity from a flu shot is like 'flipping a coin', firstly, no it's not - the likelihood changes every year depending on accuracy of prognostication, efficacy of the vaccine, your age and health status*. Some years, you have a 80+% chance of success assuming you're healthy and not a senior. Other years, it's lower. Lowest the consortium saw in their tests from 2008-2014 was ~40%. If you're a senior, the seroconversion rate has always been on the low side, but the health risks associated with getting the flu are much higher.
Secondly, let's say the actual seroconversion rate is 50% consistently. You wouldn't take a 50% chance that you'd be not only protected from those flu strains yourself, but that you will be unable to be a carrier (yes, you can be infected without ever showing symptoms and pass it along)? Even though the potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur?
At what % success is a vaccine is worthwhile, given potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur? There's not a one vaccine in existence that has a 100% success rate and they all have at least the side effects that are possible with the flu vaccine.
Friend, I don't have the energy to sort through your vocabulary. From the little that I've been able to interpret, you seem to be agreeing that flu vaccines are ultimately ineffective except for fifty/fifty chance you have against the few strains that are included in the vaccine itself (versus the zero percent chance against the "countless strains" that are NOT included).
Strangest argument ever.
That's fine. And if you don't want to respond, that's fine too. This is just a summary I'm putting here for anyone else that doesn't want to wade through my previous post.
My argument, put more briefly:
- Vaccines are not effective against strains that are not included.
- Saying there's a 50/50 chance against those that are included is not at all correct, on average it is much higher. Having some years where it is low is not a good argument for not getting one ever.
- Is it a civic duty to get a vaccine to prevent spreading the flu to others, particularly those at risk for severe complications from the flu? Considering they're a significant portion of society, and I interact with them regularly (as does pretty much everyone) I'd say so. Others obviously think differently.
- Finally, I asked a question: how effective does a vaccine have to be for you to consider it sufficiently successful to get one? Consider that the risks associated with the vaccine are low compared to the chance of getting the disease. And, the disease can be fatal even to the young and healthy.
Additionally, after seeing the later posts I'd include that immunity against the strains vaccinated against lasts for years. Studies have shown immunity after more than a decade. Strains do come back around. Meaning that if you are vaccinated consistently and the vaccination is successful, you are protected against more strains than are in the current year's vaccine.11 -
I used to take it every year, unfortunately the flu shot I took on Oct 31, 2014 made me terribly sick. That same day evening I started experiencing nausea, next day morning my neck and arm started to hurt so bad. Thought I slept wrong and got a neck pain. But it got worse, slowly all my joints started to ache badly. Couldn't even climb the stairs, it was getting difficult to wash my face or comb my hair. My body swelled up, went to the emergency. There the doctor gave me Prednisone and asked me to go to my family doctor. While on prednisone I felt like a normal person, but he asked me not to take it for more than 5 days. This doctor didn't think it was a reaction to the flu shot.
Went to a walk-in clinic, that doctor said it was a reaction to the flu shot since there was a new stain added to it that year. She said that I have symptoms like Rheumatoid arthritis and prescribed Naproxen. She told me that I will get better but it will take time.
After a couple of days later I went to see my family doctor, he send me to get all blood work done and for some x'rays, everything came back normal. He too said that the vaccination has to completely go away from my body for me to feel normal again. He suggested I see a physiotherapist and that might help. I went for physio for 6 months, with no improvement whatsoever.
When I visited my mom (she was sick and was in hospital) in Los Angeles I went to see her Rheumatologist, because I was still having severe pain. That doctor send me for x'rays, and blood work and she said that it was Serum sickness that I am having from the flu shot. Said I will feel better with time.
It took more than a year for me to feel a bit better, and one and a half years to feel completely normal again.
My family members and all my friends have vouched never to take flu vaccination again.
2 -
JamestheLiar wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.
I agree with the bolded statement. I'm not against the flu shot, and I'm sure it's a great comfort to many people (as this thread proves) ... but let's not pretend that it is some kind of civic duty on par with other vaccines that are actually trying to eradicate certain diseases.
Well, in 2014 flu and pneumonia (commonly a complication of flu) were the 8th leading cause of death in the US (55,227), and the 1st leading cause of death by any infectious disease. I'd say that working to keep those numbers in check is a pretty significant civic duty. Otherwise, we could see them outstrip diabetes (7th leading cause) and Alzheimer's (6th leading cause). The death toll wouldn't even have to double, something that is completely reasonable to believe would happen if people stopped getting the vaccine 'because no guarantee'. Especially since the highest compliance is in populations that either are high risk or work with high risk individuals.
FYI: It's estimated that 47.1% of people older than 6mos of age in the US got the vaccine in 2014.
As far as the previous claims by @AlienMoon32 that gaining immunity from a flu shot is like 'flipping a coin', firstly, no it's not - the likelihood changes every year depending on accuracy of prognostication, efficacy of the vaccine, your age and health status*. Some years, you have a 80+% chance of success assuming you're healthy and not a senior. Other years, it's lower. Lowest the consortium saw in their tests from 2008-2014 was ~40%. If you're a senior, the seroconversion rate has always been on the low side, but the health risks associated with getting the flu are much higher.
Secondly, let's say the actual seroconversion rate is 50% consistently. You wouldn't take a 50% chance that you'd be not only protected from those flu strains yourself, but that you will be unable to be a carrier (yes, you can be infected without ever showing symptoms and pass it along)? Even though the potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur?
At what % success is a vaccine is worthwhile, given potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur? There's not a one vaccine in existence that has a 100% success rate and they all have at least the side effects that are possible with the flu vaccine.
Friend, I don't have the energy to sort through your vocabulary. From the little that I've been able to interpret, you seem to be agreeing that flu vaccines are ultimately ineffective except for fifty/fifty chance you have against the few strains that are included in the vaccine itself (versus the zero percent chance against the "countless strains" that are NOT included).
Strangest argument ever.
That's fine. And if you don't want to respond, that's fine too. This is just a summary I'm putting here for anyone else that doesn't want to wade through my previous post.
My argument, put more briefly:
- Vaccines are not effective against strains that are not included.
- Saying there's a 50/50 chance against those that are included is not at all correct, on average it is much higher. Having some years where it is low is not a good argument for not getting one ever.
- Is it a civic duty to get a vaccine to prevent spreading the flu to others, particularly those at risk for severe complications from the flu? Considering they're a significant portion of society, and I interact with them regularly (as does pretty much everyone) I'd say so. Others obviously think differently.
- Finally, I asked a question: how effective does a vaccine have to be for you to consider it sufficiently successful to get one? Consider that the risks associated with the vaccine are low compared to the chance of getting the disease. And, the disease can be fatal even to the young and healthy.
Additionally, after seeing the later posts I'd include that immunity against the strains vaccinated against lasts for years. Studies have shown immunity after more than a decade. Strains do come back around. Meaning that if you are vaccinated consistently and the vaccination is successful, you are protected against more strains than are in the current year's vaccine.
You seem very knowledgeable on this topic, and I'd like to thank you. I've learned much about the flu virus that I've never known before. In fact, I'd hate for you to think that I'm claiming greater knowlege of the science here. Not so.
To answer your question (although I suspect your question was for @AlienMoon32), I'd say that if someone is interested in reducing their chances of catching seasonal flu, then the vaccine will be successful even at 19% effectiveness. People who received the flu vaccine in 2014/2015 season were 19% less likely to contract the viruses included in the vaccine. Their loved ones were 19% safer. The world was a 19% better place. 19% reduced chances is, by definition, reduced chances.
My issue was never specifically with the effectiveness of the vaccine. My issue was just with the sales pitch ... the overstated notion that the flu jab is our civic duty on par with other vaccines that seek to eradicate certain diseases. The flu vaccine is not even intended to eradicate flu, unless I'm mistaken about the meaning of the word reduce.1 -
JamestheLiar wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.
I agree with the bolded statement. I'm not against the flu shot, and I'm sure it's a great comfort to many people (as this thread proves) ... but let's not pretend that it is some kind of civic duty on par with other vaccines that are actually trying to eradicate certain diseases.
Well, in 2014 flu and pneumonia (commonly a complication of flu) were the 8th leading cause of death in the US (55,227), and the 1st leading cause of death by any infectious disease. I'd say that working to keep those numbers in check is a pretty significant civic duty. Otherwise, we could see them outstrip diabetes (7th leading cause) and Alzheimer's (6th leading cause). The death toll wouldn't even have to double, something that is completely reasonable to believe would happen if people stopped getting the vaccine 'because no guarantee'. Especially since the highest compliance is in populations that either are high risk or work with high risk individuals.
FYI: It's estimated that 47.1% of people older than 6mos of age in the US got the vaccine in 2014.
As far as the previous claims by @AlienMoon32 that gaining immunity from a flu shot is like 'flipping a coin', firstly, no it's not - the likelihood changes every year depending on accuracy of prognostication, efficacy of the vaccine, your age and health status*. Some years, you have a 80+% chance of success assuming you're healthy and not a senior. Other years, it's lower. Lowest the consortium saw in their tests from 2008-2014 was ~40%. If you're a senior, the seroconversion rate has always been on the low side, but the health risks associated with getting the flu are much higher.
Secondly, let's say the actual seroconversion rate is 50% consistently. You wouldn't take a 50% chance that you'd be not only protected from those flu strains yourself, but that you will be unable to be a carrier (yes, you can be infected without ever showing symptoms and pass it along)? Even though the potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur?
At what % success is a vaccine is worthwhile, given potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur? There's not a one vaccine in existence that has a 100% success rate and they all have at least the side effects that are possible with the flu vaccine.
Friend, I don't have the energy to sort through your vocabulary. From the little that I've been able to interpret, you seem to be agreeing that flu vaccines are ultimately ineffective except for fifty/fifty chance you have against the few strains that are included in the vaccine itself (versus the zero percent chance against the "countless strains" that are NOT included).
Strangest argument ever.
That's fine. And if you don't want to respond, that's fine too. This is just a summary I'm putting here for anyone else that doesn't want to wade through my previous post.
My argument, put more briefly:
- Vaccines are not effective against strains that are not included.
- Saying there's a 50/50 chance against those that are included is not at all correct, on average it is much higher. Having some years where it is low is not a good argument for not getting one ever.
- Is it a civic duty to get a vaccine to prevent spreading the flu to others, particularly those at risk for severe complications from the flu? Considering they're a significant portion of society, and I interact with them regularly (as does pretty much everyone) I'd say so. Others obviously think differently.
- Finally, I asked a question: how effective does a vaccine have to be for you to consider it sufficiently successful to get one? Consider that the risks associated with the vaccine are low compared to the chance of getting the disease. And, the disease can be fatal even to the young and healthy.
Additionally, after seeing the later posts I'd include that immunity against the strains vaccinated against lasts for years. Studies have shown immunity after more than a decade. Strains do come back around. Meaning that if you are vaccinated consistently and the vaccination is successful, you are protected against more strains than are in the current year's vaccine.
You seem very knowledgeable on this topic, and I'd like to thank you. I've learned much about the flu virus that I've never known before. In fact, I'd hate for you to think that I'm claiming greater knowlege of the science here. Not so.
To answer your question (although I suspect your question was for @AlienMoon32), I'd say that if someone is interested in reducing their chances of catching seasonal flu, then the vaccine will be successful even at 19% effectiveness. People who received the flu vaccine in 2014/2015 season were 19% less likely to contract the viruses included in the vaccine. Their loved ones were 19% safer. The world was a 19% better place. 19% reduced chances is, by definition, reduced chances.
My issue was never specifically with the effectiveness of the vaccine. My issue was just with the sales pitch ... the overstated notion that the flu jab is our civic duty on par with other vaccines that seek to eradicate certain diseases. The flu vaccine is not even intended to eradicate flu, unless I'm mistaken about the meaning of the word reduce.
There are numerous factors playing into effectivity calculations. The reason you see variation from 19-67% is based upon population demographics. The strongest effectivity results lie with the children under 6 and adults over 60 and others who would be immonocompromised.
The civic duty aspect comes from collectivism - with government and insurance companies now mixed in with pharmaceutical operations this has become a cost reduction measure. In a population of ~340MM, introduction of the flu vaccine lessens the burden by ~68MM people and all the medical costs involved.1 -
JamestheLiar wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.
I agree with the bolded statement. I'm not against the flu shot, and I'm sure it's a great comfort to many people (as this thread proves) ... but let's not pretend that it is some kind of civic duty on par with other vaccines that are actually trying to eradicate certain diseases.
Well, in 2014 flu and pneumonia (commonly a complication of flu) were the 8th leading cause of death in the US (55,227), and the 1st leading cause of death by any infectious disease. I'd say that working to keep those numbers in check is a pretty significant civic duty. Otherwise, we could see them outstrip diabetes (7th leading cause) and Alzheimer's (6th leading cause). The death toll wouldn't even have to double, something that is completely reasonable to believe would happen if people stopped getting the vaccine 'because no guarantee'. Especially since the highest compliance is in populations that either are high risk or work with high risk individuals.
FYI: It's estimated that 47.1% of people older than 6mos of age in the US got the vaccine in 2014.
As far as the previous claims by @AlienMoon32 that gaining immunity from a flu shot is like 'flipping a coin', firstly, no it's not - the likelihood changes every year depending on accuracy of prognostication, efficacy of the vaccine, your age and health status*. Some years, you have a 80+% chance of success assuming you're healthy and not a senior. Other years, it's lower. Lowest the consortium saw in their tests from 2008-2014 was ~40%. If you're a senior, the seroconversion rate has always been on the low side, but the health risks associated with getting the flu are much higher.
Secondly, let's say the actual seroconversion rate is 50% consistently. You wouldn't take a 50% chance that you'd be not only protected from those flu strains yourself, but that you will be unable to be a carrier (yes, you can be infected without ever showing symptoms and pass it along)? Even though the potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur?
At what % success is a vaccine is worthwhile, given potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur? There's not a one vaccine in existence that has a 100% success rate and they all have at least the side effects that are possible with the flu vaccine.
Friend, I don't have the energy to sort through your vocabulary. From the little that I've been able to interpret, you seem to be agreeing that flu vaccines are ultimately ineffective except for fifty/fifty chance you have against the few strains that are included in the vaccine itself (versus the zero percent chance against the "countless strains" that are NOT included).
Strangest argument ever.
Yeah -- the vaccine is only good for that which it is intended to prevent, the strains included in that year's vaccination. The expectation that it should cover other strains that aren't included in the vaccine isn't realistic or reasonable. This isn't a sign that something is wrong with the vaccination, it's just a reflection of what medical science is currently able to do.
Since you aren't able to interpret very much of the argument, I understand that it can sound strange. But if you are able to follow it, I promise it isn't that strange at all.
Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate the kind tone of your responses in this conversation.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with the vaccination. In fact, I agree with the numbers you presented earlier ... namely that the vaccination is 16-76% effective against the strains that are included in the vaccine. Going a step further, I can see that the flu vaccine is a great comfort to thousands of people every year. It would absolutely be unreasonable to expect the vaccine to do anything other than it's stated purpose ... to "reduce the chances that you will get seasonal flu."
My point is that a vaccine which is intended to reduce the chance of getting the flu ... a vaccine that is 16-76% effective against a tiny fraction of the countless, ever-evolving strains of flu virus ... can hardly be considered a civic duty on par with other vaccines that seek to eradicate specific diseases.
Now, please forgive me for continuing to not following the argument, but what exactly are we disagreeing about?
I think I would disagree that the flu vaccine always represents a "tiny fraction" of the flu strains we could be exposed to in a given year. The people developing the vaccine do the best they can to predict the strains most likely to cause issues and put those in the vaccine. Some years they are going to do better than others -- I wouldn't say that every year the vaccine covers just a tiny fraction.
I do generally consider it a civic duty to reduce the risk we pose to others, although I do understand your argument. I think my position on this is influenced by the fact that I have family members who would be quite vulnerable to the flu and they can't all receive the vaccination. Do I think that refusing a flu vaccine is on the same level as, say, getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk? Absolutely not. But if there is something that I can easily do that may help someone else, I like to think I am the type of person who will do it. If it winds up providing a benefit to me as well, that's a bonus.
I don't know if we will ever eradicate the flu, but even reducing it would be a good thing for many people.
Well done. Are flu jabs a civic duty? Probably not, but I can't continue against the idea of people doing their best, and you protecting your family members. Those are good things, as you've said. I'll simply shake your hand at this point (in a manner of speaking), and call it a day.
Thanks for the interesting conversation.0 -
JamestheLiar wrote: »JamestheLiar wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.
I agree with the bolded statement. I'm not against the flu shot, and I'm sure it's a great comfort to many people (as this thread proves) ... but let's not pretend that it is some kind of civic duty on par with other vaccines that are actually trying to eradicate certain diseases.
Well, in 2014 flu and pneumonia (commonly a complication of flu) were the 8th leading cause of death in the US (55,227), and the 1st leading cause of death by any infectious disease. I'd say that working to keep those numbers in check is a pretty significant civic duty. Otherwise, we could see them outstrip diabetes (7th leading cause) and Alzheimer's (6th leading cause). The death toll wouldn't even have to double, something that is completely reasonable to believe would happen if people stopped getting the vaccine 'because no guarantee'. Especially since the highest compliance is in populations that either are high risk or work with high risk individuals.
FYI: It's estimated that 47.1% of people older than 6mos of age in the US got the vaccine in 2014.
As far as the previous claims by @AlienMoon32 that gaining immunity from a flu shot is like 'flipping a coin', firstly, no it's not - the likelihood changes every year depending on accuracy of prognostication, efficacy of the vaccine, your age and health status*. Some years, you have a 80+% chance of success assuming you're healthy and not a senior. Other years, it's lower. Lowest the consortium saw in their tests from 2008-2014 was ~40%. If you're a senior, the seroconversion rate has always been on the low side, but the health risks associated with getting the flu are much higher.
Secondly, let's say the actual seroconversion rate is 50% consistently. You wouldn't take a 50% chance that you'd be not only protected from those flu strains yourself, but that you will be unable to be a carrier (yes, you can be infected without ever showing symptoms and pass it along)? Even though the potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur?
At what % success is a vaccine is worthwhile, given potential side effects are either mild or extremely unlikely to occur? There's not a one vaccine in existence that has a 100% success rate and they all have at least the side effects that are possible with the flu vaccine.
Friend, I don't have the energy to sort through your vocabulary. From the little that I've been able to interpret, you seem to be agreeing that flu vaccines are ultimately ineffective except for fifty/fifty chance you have against the few strains that are included in the vaccine itself (versus the zero percent chance against the "countless strains" that are NOT included).
Strangest argument ever.
That's fine. And if you don't want to respond, that's fine too. This is just a summary I'm putting here for anyone else that doesn't want to wade through my previous post.
My argument, put more briefly:
- Vaccines are not effective against strains that are not included.
- Saying there's a 50/50 chance against those that are included is not at all correct, on average it is much higher. Having some years where it is low is not a good argument for not getting one ever.
- Is it a civic duty to get a vaccine to prevent spreading the flu to others, particularly those at risk for severe complications from the flu? Considering they're a significant portion of society, and I interact with them regularly (as does pretty much everyone) I'd say so. Others obviously think differently.
- Finally, I asked a question: how effective does a vaccine have to be for you to consider it sufficiently successful to get one? Consider that the risks associated with the vaccine are low compared to the chance of getting the disease. And, the disease can be fatal even to the young and healthy.
Additionally, after seeing the later posts I'd include that immunity against the strains vaccinated against lasts for years. Studies have shown immunity after more than a decade. Strains do come back around. Meaning that if you are vaccinated consistently and the vaccination is successful, you are protected against more strains than are in the current year's vaccine.
Thanks for sharing all this -- I have learned a lot from reading your posts here. I never really thought about immunity carrying over from one year to the next (although it makes sense). The cumulative effect is another good argument in favor of consistently getting the vaccination.3 -
I'm indifferent. I won't get a shot unless necessary, and I haven't gotten the flu since I was a kid. Knock on wood...1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions