4 ms·

I suppose if it's only 0.001% effective it would not be worth it, but that's really a pedantic nitpick because we know it's not that ineffective. The vaccine t

I suppose if it's only 0.001% effective it would not be worth it, but that's really a pedantic nitpick because we know it's not that ineffective. The vaccine this year is about 32% effective against H3N2 in the US and 39% effective overall [0]. That's not amazing but it's definitely "worth it" for a few dollars and 5 minutes at a CVS. [0]https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2017-2018.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2017-2018.ht...

nonbel 9y ago
Basically your argument is that the costs of getting the vaccine are so negligible they can be ignored? What about side effects? https://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/general.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/general.htm
- opportune 9y ago
  Yes, they exist and aren't that common/severe. I mean at the end of the day it's a personal decision and if you're already unhealthy I understand why you wouldn't want to get the side effects. The problem is one of ignorance: people don't even know what herd immunity is and why it's important. In my opinion the side effects pale in comparison to the effects of getting the flu and are not a big "sacrifice" to make whatsoever - but you need to understand the importance of herd immunity to make a truly informed decision I'm not going to continue replying to this conversation because I can sense that it's going to become unproductive
  - nonbel 9y ago
    Ok, but besides my main point (regarding doing a cost benefit analysis), from your comments I doubt you understand herd immunity, and probably should not be attempting to teach others about it... If the virus is too infectious you need very high rates of immunization for it to work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number Most of the time those R0 values assume "well mixed populations" (any one person is just as likely to contact any other person) amongst other things, so don't take them too seriously. However, the basic idea that you don't automatically get herd immunity is simple enough. Eg, just what I found quickly on the topic: >"Whether vaccination of healthcare personnel can lead to a herd effect reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza among patients is still inconclusive. Pooled data from a Cochrane review of 3 cluster randomized controlled trials showed no reduction of laboratory-confirmed influenza (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.44–1.68; p = 0.66), lower respiratory tract infections, admission to hospital (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75–1.06), and deaths from pneumonia (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.45–1.49) in patients when healthcare personnel were vaccinated [35]. However, given that mathematical models suggest a herd effect [36], more rigorous studies need to be conducted." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171704/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171704/
- bigtex 9y ago
  Yep, all you have to do is review the government statistics on vaccine injuries to see the list of all the people who got GBS from the flu shot https://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/childhoodvaccines/Meetings/20171208/doj-presentation.pdf https://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/childhoodvaccines/Me...
  - nonbel 9y ago
    I wasn't really thinking about GBS, but that is one of the more severe possible (but rare) side effects. Most people (everyone?) feels under the weather for a few days after a flu shot.
lutorm 9y ago
All I had to do was take time out of my day to go to the pharmacy, copay with my insurance was $0. Which just makes sense from a financial point of view for the insurance companies, too.
- nonbel 9y ago
  This gives an inaccurate assessment of the cost. Obviously you are paying for the shot by paying more for insurance (either directly or via taxes or via taxes spent on that rather than some other government service you could take advantage of). My point is that you can't say something "is worth it" without considering both costs AND benefits (I have recently seen friends get so ill they almost got fired because doctors ignored the side effects of prescriptions). Also, costs aren't zero just because they were prepaid or deferred.
  - smileysteve 9y ago
    > Obviously you are paying for the shot by paying more for insurance Wrong calculation. The insurance company is trying to SAVE expenditures of doctors and hospitalizations; therefore, customers getting the flu shot cost the insurer less. Even further for herd immunity (the pt), 1 insured getting the flu shot might reduce 4-8 others from getting the flu.
    - smileysteve 9y ago
      And in the case of workplace or family, are likely covered by the same insurer. There's probably some patient n with diminishing returns for the modern tech workplace, where, if they live alone, commute alone, visit no family, and have no onsites.
    - nonbel 9y ago
      >"The insurance company is trying to SAVE expenditures of doctors and hospitalization" Interesting point (not sure how far down a rabbit hole this can go...), so you are claiming that the introduction of flu shots has reduced insurance costs? Is it even possible to assess this or are there just too many confounds?

nonbel 9y ago

Basically your argument is that the costs of getting the vaccine are so negligible they can be ignored? What about side effects? https://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/general.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/general.htm

opportune 9y ago
Yes, they exist and aren't that common/severe. I mean at the end of the day it's a personal decision and if you're already unhealthy I understand why you wouldn't want to get the side effects. The problem is one of ignorance: people don't even know what herd immunity is and why it's important. In my opinion the side effects pale in comparison to the effects of getting the flu and are not a big "sacrifice" to make whatsoever - but you need to understand the importance of herd immunity to make a truly informed decision I'm not going to continue replying to this conversation because I can sense that it's going to become unproductive
- nonbel 9y ago
  Ok, but besides my main point (regarding doing a cost benefit analysis), from your comments I doubt you understand herd immunity, and probably should not be attempting to teach others about it... If the virus is too infectious you need very high rates of immunization for it to work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number Most of the time those R0 values assume "well mixed populations" (any one person is just as likely to contact any other person) amongst other things, so don't take them too seriously. However, the basic idea that you don't automatically get herd immunity is simple enough. Eg, just what I found quickly on the topic: >"Whether vaccination of healthcare personnel can lead to a herd effect reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza among patients is still inconclusive. Pooled data from a Cochrane review of 3 cluster randomized controlled trials showed no reduction of laboratory-confirmed influenza (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.44–1.68; p = 0.66), lower respiratory tract infections, admission to hospital (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75–1.06), and deaths from pneumonia (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.45–1.49) in patients when healthcare personnel were vaccinated [35]. However, given that mathematical models suggest a herd effect [36], more rigorous studies need to be conducted." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171704/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171704/
bigtex 9y ago
Yep, all you have to do is review the government statistics on vaccine injuries to see the list of all the people who got GBS from the flu shot https://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/childhoodvaccines/Meetings/20171208/doj-presentation.pdf https://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/childhoodvaccines/Me...
- nonbel 9y ago
  I wasn't really thinking about GBS, but that is one of the more severe possible (but rare) side effects. Most people (everyone?) feels under the weather for a few days after a flu shot.

lutorm 9y ago

All I had to do was take time out of my day to go to the pharmacy, copay with my insurance was $0. Which just makes sense from a financial point of view for the insurance companies, too.

nonbel 9y ago
This gives an inaccurate assessment of the cost. Obviously you are paying for the shot by paying more for insurance (either directly or via taxes or via taxes spent on that rather than some other government service you could take advantage of). My point is that you can't say something "is worth it" without considering both costs AND benefits (I have recently seen friends get so ill they almost got fired because doctors ignored the side effects of prescriptions). Also, costs aren't zero just because they were prepaid or deferred.
- smileysteve 9y ago
  > Obviously you are paying for the shot by paying more for insurance Wrong calculation. The insurance company is trying to SAVE expenditures of doctors and hospitalizations; therefore, customers getting the flu shot cost the insurer less. Even further for herd immunity (the pt), 1 insured getting the flu shot might reduce 4-8 others from getting the flu.
  - smileysteve 9y ago
    And in the case of workplace or family, are likely covered by the same insurer. There's probably some patient n with diminishing returns for the modern tech workplace, where, if they live alone, commute alone, visit no family, and have no onsites.
  - nonbel 9y ago
    >"The insurance company is trying to SAVE expenditures of doctors and hospitalization" Interesting point (not sure how far down a rabbit hole this can go...), so you are claiming that the introduction of flu shots has reduced insurance costs? Is it even possible to assess this or are there just too many confounds?