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 ?

1…910121415…42

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    billglitch wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    After reading this entire thread, and re-reading several portions of it, I'm pretty certain a large percentage of the population simply is awful at risk analysis.

    I just checked and from what i could find between 5 and 20% of americans will get the flu. That means that 80 - 95 % will not get it. Is not getting the flu shot a big risk? depends on how you look at it. Another source says 30,000,000 americans will get the flu. Thats roughly 10%...so 1 out of 10 will get it or 9 out of 10 wont

    While a relatively small percentage of people actually contract the flu, the risks that come with the flu are higher than the risk of getting the shot. The flu can be deadly, even in young, healthy individuals. The shot is not, unless one were allergic. In that case, the risk of the shot would be vastly greater than the risk of getting the flu.

    For the rest of the population, the risks that come with flu for those who contract it are much less than the risks of getting vaccinated.

    People who don't understand this are bad at risk analysis, which I believe is what @tomteboda was getting at.

    I think you mean that for the rest of the population (if you mean those who aren't allergic), the risks that come with the flu are higher than the risks of getting vaccinated.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    billglitch wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    After reading this entire thread, and re-reading several portions of it, I'm pretty certain a large percentage of the population simply is awful at risk analysis.

    I just checked and from what i could find between 5 and 20% of americans will get the flu. That means that 80 - 95 % will not get it. Is not getting the flu shot a big risk? depends on how you look at it. Another source says 30,000,000 americans will get the flu. Thats roughly 10%...so 1 out of 10 will get it or 9 out of 10 wont

    While a relatively small percentage of people actually contract the flu, the risks that come with the flu are higher than the risk of getting the shot. The flu can be deadly, even in young, healthy individuals. The shot is not, unless one were allergic. In that case, the risk of the shot would be vastly greater than the risk of getting the flu.

    For the rest of the population, the risks that come with flu for those who contract it are much less than the risks of getting vaccinated.

    People who don't understand this are bad at risk analysis, which I believe is what @tomteboda was getting at.

    I think you mean that for the rest of the population (if you mean those who aren't allergic), the risks that come with the flu are higher than the risks of getting vaccinated.

    Thanks! I fixed it.

    And yes, that's exactly what I meant :smile:
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Michaelxo444 wrote: »
    Not for me I don't want the toxic heavy metals injected into my body

    If you're referring to thimerosal (which is used as a preservative), you can always request a single-use vial (or pre-filled syringe). They typically don't need preservatives. Or are you referring to something else?
  • gladirader
    gladirader Posts: 2 Member
    Never had the flu.. or the shot.
  • billglitch
    billglitch Posts: 538 Member
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    billglitch wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    After reading this entire thread, and re-reading several portions of it, I'm pretty certain a large percentage of the population simply is awful at risk analysis.

    I just checked and from what i could find between 5 and 20% of americans will get the flu. That means that 80 - 95 % will not get it. Is not getting the flu shot a big risk? depends on how you look at it. Another source says 30,000,000 americans will get the flu. Thats roughly 10%...so 1 out of 10 will get it or 9 out of 10 wont

    While a relatively small percentage of people actually contract the flu, the risks that come with the flu are higher than the risk of getting the shot. The flu can be deadly, even in young, healthy individuals. The shot is not, unless one were allergic. In that case, the risk of the shot would be vastly greater than the risk of getting the flu.

    For the rest of the population, the risks that come with flu for those who contract it are much less higher than the risks of getting vaccinated.

    People who don't understand this are bad at risk analysis, which I believe is what @tomteboda was getting at.

    *Edit: I can't words today.

    thats fine, my point was that the risk of getting the flu is fairly low. obviously everyone has to decide for themselves
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    edited December 2016
    Haven't read all the comments but from the CDC itself effectiveness is about 19%...

    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/news/updated-vaccine-effectiveness-2014-15.htm

    Not saying I'm for or against just bringing up some data to discuss.

    ETA - CDC also not recommending the "live" nasal drops for 2017...

    http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0622-laiv-flu.html
  • girlwithcurls2
    girlwithcurls2 Posts: 2,281 Member
    I'm in. I work in early childhood and there's always some kind of crud being passed around. I figure I have nothing to lose. Get the poke, swim for an hour, and boom--all fixed up :)
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    paperpudding wrote: »
    From your link : The updated VE estimate against influenza A H3N2 viruses was 18% (95% confidence interval (CI): 6%-29%).This result is similar to the VE point estimate of 23%, which was reported in a January 16 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) and confirms reduced protection against H3N2 viruses this season.

    That was the 2014 season and is how effective it was against that strain - not against all strains the vaccine covered.

    It also says 'reduced protection this season' - so that was a low season effective-wise against that strain only, compared to other seasons.

    This does NOT mean the effectiveness of the vaccine against all strains all seasons is 19% - you have taken the least effective strain in its least effective year and presented that as the total or average of the vaccines effectiveness against all strains all seasons.

    Which it obviously is not and is not what your own link says.

    Not what I'm saying...just something I was googling due to this thread and ran across that. I don't even pretend to understand everything so thanks for the correction:).

    It does still appear that the CDC has its own conflicts in some of what they are reporting though in some other reports from the CDC.

    Just providing some links that I thought would be best debated for the good of all.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,282 Member
    Sure - and I am just debating them.

    But before doing so, is best to clarify what they are actually saying - hence I did that.
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    paperpudding wrote: »
    Sure - and I am just debating them.

    But before doing so, is best to clarify what they are actually saying - hence I did that.

    I just got hung up on your use of the words "your link" "not saying what you" I was just clarifying that its a link subject to debate and not what I personally was saying.

    I did however make a comment and a link so I can also see why you would use the words you and your:).
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,282 Member
    Umm, ok.

    Yes, your link as in the one provided in your post.
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    Got it.

    Your comment made it sound (to me at least) as if I was saying/agreeing with the link. And I'm saying I am not:).
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    So am I really reading this wrong?

    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

    for the year I noted in my first link 2014-15 this chart shows effectiveness as 19%. Of course the year before was 52% and year after estimated at 47%.

    Seems at least that I interpreted my first link correctly...

    BUT not invalidating the overall effectiveness as previous and subsequent years show.

    I'm not trying to be contrary here, I'm truly trying to learn how to interpret data I'm reading.
  • thelovelyLIZ
    thelovelyLIZ Posts: 1,227 Member
    Nope. I have a pretty solid immune system, I rarely get the flu. If I was a health care worker or something it'd probably be get them, but there's not really a point right now. Last time I had the flu was probably 7 or 8 years ago, and the time before that was middle school. I credit my immune system to year of working with kiddos.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,282 Member
    yes that seems correct interpretation of data in the link to me - the effectiveness of the vaccine against that strain was 19% that year.

    It was much more effective against that strain in other years and its effectiveness against other strains covered by the vaccine was well over 19% in all years.

    But in your your first post you said " Haven't read all the comments but from the CDC itself effectiveness is about 19%."

    whereas the link didnt say effectiveness as a whole was about 19% at all so that sentence was ( unintentionally) misleading
    That percentage was specific to one strain one year -and 19% was the worst outcome for any strain any year.
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    So this second link showing 19% effectiveness was for whatever strain folks were inoculated for. CDC guessed wrong if you will. That year The vaccine was only 19% effective correct?

    BUT because I provided a link and didn't specify 2014-2015 I made it sound as if overall effectiveness was 19%?

    Yes that wAs sorta unintentional and I say sorta because 2016 is so far just an estimate if I'm reading this chart correctly, so I didn't use that number.

    Thanks for your help. It frustrates me that I don't fully understand some data. I'm working on it though:).
  • Mandygring
    Mandygring Posts: 704 Member
    I am for flu shots. Alls I know is what I've personally experienced. I get the flu every year when I don't get the shot. One year I had it really bad and took Theraflu...that gave me aweful side effects that lasted quite a while. As far as the flu shot. I just get a sore arm. If I get the flu (already had it this year) it was very mild and lasted 1 day.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,282 Member
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    So this second link showing 19% effectiveness was for whatever strain folks were inoculated for. CDC guessed wrong if you will. That year The vaccine was only 19% effective correct?

    BUT because I provided a link and didn't specify 2014-2015 I made it sound as if overall effectiveness was 19%?

    Yes that wAs sorta unintentional and I say sorta because 2016 is so far just an estimate if I'm reading this chart correctly, so I didn't use that number.

    Thanks for your help. It frustrates me that I don't fully understand some data. I'm working on it though:).

    Well, yes, your first statement made it sound like 19% that was the overall rating of the vaccine - rather than just the rating against that strain that year.

    I dont think it means CDC guessed wrong - their estimate was 23% and it turned out to be 19% - so not that far off the mark.

    But remember flu vaccine covers for 4 strains of flu - as we discussed upthread - and 19% was the rating for that strain.
    Reading through linked article further, the other strains had much better effectiveness.

  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    Again because I'm trying to understand these charts...

    Quote from this link... http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

    "The overall, adjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates for influenza seasons from 2005-2016 are noted in the chart below".

    Above link doesn't appear that this is for a particular strain (one of the 4) as you mention but the overall effectiveness of the vaccine for each year.

    Can you point me in the direction of this chart where it mentions a particular strain vs overall effectiveness?

    Again so you don't think I'm being contrary I'm just trying to learn how to read these charts.

    Thanks in advance.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,282 Member
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    Again because I'm trying to understand these charts...

    Quote from this link... http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

    "The overall, adjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates for influenza seasons from 2005-2016 are noted in the chart below".

    Above link doesn't appear that this is for a particular strain (one of the 4) as you mention but the overall effectiveness of the vaccine for each year.

    Can you point me in the direction of this chart where it mentions a particular strain vs overall effectiveness?

    Again so you don't think I'm being contrary I'm just trying to learn how to read these charts.

    Thanks in advance.

    I do not think you are being contrary at all.

    However this is a different link to your first one and I don't understand what the chart is saying either

    Your first link however did say "The VE estimate against influenza B viruses this season was 45% (95% CI: 14% – 65%)."
    So that is obviously higher than the 19% it was for the first strain.


  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    Again because I'm trying to understand these charts...

    Quote from this link... http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

    "The overall, adjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates for influenza seasons from 2005-2016 are noted in the chart below".

    Above link doesn't appear that this is for a particular strain (one of the 4) as you mention but the overall effectiveness of the vaccine for each year.

    Can you point me in the direction of this chart where it mentions a particular strain vs overall effectiveness?

    Again so you don't think I'm being contrary I'm just trying to learn how to read these charts.

    Thanks in advance.
    paperpudding wrote: »
    I do not think you are being contrary at all.

    However this is a different link to your first one and I don't understand what the chart is saying either

    Your first link however did say "The VE estimate against influenza B viruses this season was 45% (95% CI: 14% – 65%)."
    So that is obviously higher than the 19% it was for the first strain.

    The chart is saying that the mean effectiveness for the vaccine against all strains for the sites listed in the table was 19% for 2014-15, with a confidence interval of 10%-27% (observed effectiveness was in this range across the sites). This is not in the table, but the most prevalent strain by far that year was the one against which the vaccine was least effective.

    Unfortunately, it looks as though the data for the individual strains was never updated for that flu season. If you read to the bottom of that first link you posted, they mention that some of the data is not statistically significant (too early in the season and not enough data) and that the page will be updated when the season is over. But at the top of the page, it says that the page hasn't been updated since Feb of that flu season and to follow the link to the table of the overall vaccine effectiveness you're looking at now.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories