4 ms·

>A 2021 study showed that among adults hospitalized with flu, vaccinated patients had a 26% lower risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and a 31% lower ri

>A 2021 study showed that among adults hospitalized with flu, vaccinated patients had a 26% lower risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and a 31% lower risk of death from flu compared with those who were unvaccinated. Yet you should still be getting the flu vaccine

somenameforme 3y ago
Numbers like that are highly misleading, because it's a conditional. If your chances of dying from something are 1 in 10 million, and a treatment changes that to 1 in a billion, then that treatment would mean you're 99% less likely to die of whatever. But the risk of death is so extremely low to begin with, that that 99% figure is largely just noise. I mean noise in both the colloquial sense, as well as the statistical one. It's difficult to measure the effectiveness of treatments when what you're treating is so relatively harmless. An experimental study, outside of an absurd size, would show 0 deaths. So you only have observational studies left, which tend to be deeply flawed and highly susceptible to number juking. In any case, if somebody dies from the flu they were likely quite elderly, or had severe preexisting conditions. And so it's this group of people that taking things like a flus hot can make the most sense. But if you take e.g. a younger to mid aged person of good health, his chance of dying from the flu are practically zero. If they want to get it, more power to them. But saying all people should get a flu shot, does not seem to make much sense.
- brokensegue 3y ago
  The flu vaccine reduces severity and likelihood of catching it as well (which can serve to protect vulnerable populations). Your own personal chance of death is not all that matters. Getting it yearly may also reduce the risk of other related conditions e.g. https://www.uth.edu/news/story/uthealth-houston-study-flu-vaccination-linked-to-40-reduced-risk-of-alzheimers-disease https://www.uth.edu/news/story/uthealth-houston-study-flu-va... It's nearly risk free and it's definitely worth it even if all it did was decrease the severity of flu if you catch it (and it does more than that).
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    The flu shot does not prevent one from getting the flu and spreading it to others. Like the past 3 years have shown, you're just not going to get herd immunity with these short term low efficacy shots, even when paired alongside monumental, wide scale, and completely unsustainable efforts. Also, the risk of something needs to be put in context of the risk of what you're protecting against. If something only has a severe negative side effect 1 in a million times, then it absolutely should be considered extremely low risk. But you're risk of whatever it's protecting against only has a severe outcome 1 in 2 million times? Well not only should it also then be considered extremely low risk, but getting the treatment would be quite illogical. These risks also needs to be multiplied repeatedly for low efficacy treatments which entail annual use.
    - haldujai 3y ago
      Both of your comments have described concepts that are very important to understand when discussing medical interventions, especially at the population level. Your reasoning is correct, I just wanted to add the terminology we use: Absolute risk reduction (ARR), relative risk reduction (RRR), number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH). Reading about these is a good starting point for anyone wanting to understand more about the decision making process.
    - brokensegue 3y ago
      > The flu shot does not prevent one from getting the flu and spreading it to others It does both of those things. Maybe read: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm > Also, the risk of something needs to be put in context of the risk of what you're protecting against True. And one thing we're protecting against is getting the flu. That has a probability much much higher than 1 in 2 million.
  - MrYellowP 3y ago
    > The flu vaccine reduces severity and likelihood of catching it as well (which can serve to protect vulnerable populations). Your own personal chance of death is not all that matters. This is an insane perspective, eventually leading to totalitarianism. Thinking this to the end, everyone should get forced to be vaccinated for everything, because it might save someone who might die from it. "Protect the weak and innocent" is a great excuse for reducing the freedoms of people. Absolutely insane.

somenameforme 3y ago

Numbers like that are highly misleading, because it's a conditional. If your chances of dying from something are 1 in 10 million, and a treatment changes that to 1 in a billion, then that treatment would mean you're 99% less likely to die of whatever. But the risk of death is so extremely low to begin with, that that 99% figure is largely just noise. I mean noise in both the colloquial sense, as well as the statistical one. It's difficult to measure the effectiveness of treatments when what you're treating is so relatively harmless. An experimental study, outside of an absurd size, would show 0 deaths. So you only have observational studies left, which tend to be deeply flawed and highly susceptible to number juking. In any case, if somebody dies from the flu they were likely quite elderly, or had severe preexisting conditions. And so it's this group of people that taking things like a flus hot can make the most sense. But if you take e.g. a younger to mid aged person of good health, his chance of dying from the flu are practically zero. If they want to get it, more power to them. But saying all people should get a flu shot, does not seem to make much sense.

brokensegue 3y ago
The flu vaccine reduces severity and likelihood of catching it as well (which can serve to protect vulnerable populations). Your own personal chance of death is not all that matters. Getting it yearly may also reduce the risk of other related conditions e.g. https://www.uth.edu/news/story/uthealth-houston-study-flu-vaccination-linked-to-40-reduced-risk-of-alzheimers-disease https://www.uth.edu/news/story/uthealth-houston-study-flu-va... It's nearly risk free and it's definitely worth it even if all it did was decrease the severity of flu if you catch it (and it does more than that).
- somenameforme 3y ago
  The flu shot does not prevent one from getting the flu and spreading it to others. Like the past 3 years have shown, you're just not going to get herd immunity with these short term low efficacy shots, even when paired alongside monumental, wide scale, and completely unsustainable efforts. Also, the risk of something needs to be put in context of the risk of what you're protecting against. If something only has a severe negative side effect 1 in a million times, then it absolutely should be considered extremely low risk. But you're risk of whatever it's protecting against only has a severe outcome 1 in 2 million times? Well not only should it also then be considered extremely low risk, but getting the treatment would be quite illogical. These risks also needs to be multiplied repeatedly for low efficacy treatments which entail annual use.
  - haldujai 3y ago
    Both of your comments have described concepts that are very important to understand when discussing medical interventions, especially at the population level. Your reasoning is correct, I just wanted to add the terminology we use: Absolute risk reduction (ARR), relative risk reduction (RRR), number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH). Reading about these is a good starting point for anyone wanting to understand more about the decision making process.
  - brokensegue 3y ago
    > The flu shot does not prevent one from getting the flu and spreading it to others It does both of those things. Maybe read: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm > Also, the risk of something needs to be put in context of the risk of what you're protecting against True. And one thing we're protecting against is getting the flu. That has a probability much much higher than 1 in 2 million.
- MrYellowP 3y ago
  > The flu vaccine reduces severity and likelihood of catching it as well (which can serve to protect vulnerable populations). Your own personal chance of death is not all that matters. This is an insane perspective, eventually leading to totalitarianism. Thinking this to the end, everyone should get forced to be vaccinated for everything, because it might save someone who might die from it. "Protect the weak and innocent" is a great excuse for reducing the freedoms of people. Absolutely insane.