4 ms·
Disagree. People get flu vaccinations every year. Often the expectation is that efficacy will be unreliable year to year due to strain expectation versus realit
by nkozyra 6y ago
Disagree. People get flu vaccinations every year. Often the expectation is that efficacy will be unreliable year to year due to strain expectation versus reality. Anecdotally I've heard a lot of people resist it because of this: "sometimes they don't even work!"
Eliminating the ambiguity means you can (in theory) be guaranteed to avoid the flu for some immunity period. That's very, very compelling, covid or not.
- ggm 6y agoSo this is "because it has higher efficacy" -but its false logic since there was no harm to having a potentially less efficacious fluvax. I don't disagree that in itself, its net beneficial BTW I was riffing on words said inside the post: the post implied there was a burden to getting traction on the funding side to improve on fluvax. I found that interesting because I actually question it: I think there has been no lack of good evidence flu causes economic loss and so corporates want staff vaccinated against flu. Or, that old people in care homes have higher risk. But, the original post said something I wanted to riff on: I think post covid, ANY story for investment in vaccine will secure funding and interest: we're now primed to believe this is "worthy" I absolutely agree with your conclusion: its net beneficial in and of itself, if we could stop needing the 4 and 3 variant flu shot and go with a viral stem-based semi-constantly applicable vaccine, I'd be very pleased.