4 ms·

I wonder if this will overcome the problem of traditional flu vaccines that they make people 4x more likely to catch non-influenza viruses: https://academic.oup

• classichasclass 3y ago
  The study itself warns it was a small sample set and thus a small number of infections, and at that level it's possible a number of cases of illness sufficient to change the risk ratio were missed in either arm of the study, since they were essentially self-reported. Furthermore, because it was a strictly pediatric study, it would be very iffy to generalize this to adults. But let's go ahead and stipulate the conclusion is true. The takeaway message is not to _not_ protect against influenza, it's to find better ways of protecting us from the other seasonal respiratory viruses. Relying on viral interference as a way to avoid infection is like starting a fire in your house to avoid the wildfire outside.
• lamontcg 3y ago
  That is one study in children. And it looks like the most plausible explanation would be that catching actual influenza confers resistance to non-influenza infections, which is inhibited by preventing influenza. And if that is due to stimulation of innate and intrinsic immune defenses then that would explain why children show a high signal for that. There's a whole lot which isn't clear about that, it isn't clear that it affects adults the same way. It isn't clear that it is conceptually possible to have an influenza vaccine which doesn't do that. And it isn't clear that is a net negative since influenza tends to be much worse than other respiratory viruses (up until a few years ago anyway).