3 ms·

Flu vaccines are many times not effective. It's not like they told them to skip a tetanus vaccine. I know it became a polarised topic but we don't need to prete

by vasco 3y ago

Flu vaccines are many times not effective. It's not like they told them to skip a tetanus vaccine. I know it became a polarised topic but we don't need to pretend like all vaccines are the same. It's possible and likely to take a yearly flu shot and still get sick: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm > CDC conducts studies each year to determine how well influenza (flu) vaccines protect against flu. While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to those used to make flu vaccines > How well flu vaccines work (or their ability to protect against a certain outcome) can vary from season to season. Protection can vary depending on who is being vaccinated. At least two factors play an important role in determining the likelihood that vaccination will protect a person from flu illness: 1) characteristics of the person being vaccinated (such as their age and health), and 2) how well the vaccines “match” the flu viruses spreading in the community. When flu vaccines are not well matched to some viruses spreading in the community, vaccination may provide little or no protection against illness caused by those viruses. Compare it with something like tetanus vaccines: > Today, diphtheria and tetanus are at historic low rates in the United States. No one has ever studied the efficacy of tetanus toxoid and diphtheria toxoid in a vaccine trial. However, experts infer efficacy from protective antitoxin levels. A complete vaccine series has a clinical efficacy of virtually 100% for tetanus and 97% for diphtheria. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/dtap-tdap-td/hcp/about-vaccine.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/dtap-tdap-td/hcp/about-vacc... It's not crazy to behave differently around something with 40-60% efficacy and something with 97-100% efficacy.

carbocation 3y ago
There is steelmanning an argument, and then there is completely changing it. There is a world of difference between having your healthcare provider tell you "the flu vaccine has to be made in advance and often targets the wrong strain, so can therefore be ineffective even the majority of the time" vs calling the vaccine putting "junk in [your] body".
- vasco 3y ago
  I'm not sure what was so wrong about the reply, the person I replied to said it should be a fireable offense to "not believe in the efficacy of vaccines" but the specific vaccines they were talking about have around 40-60% efficacy vs 97%+ for other types. Maybe I'd agree that they could be fired / reprimanded for addressing such topics without more rigor (and not call them junk), but the specific point I addressed I think wasn't "changing the point".
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Words matter. If you tell an unsophisticated healthcare consumer a vaccine is junk, you should be fired. If you provide efficacy around different types or classes of vaccines and allow the healthcare consumer to make an informed decision, that is reasonable. It is about the information delivered and its delivery in significant matters. Tangentially, there is no value in arguing with antivaxxers or conspiracy theorists. You might as well attempt to talk them out of their religion. Effort better spent elsewhere. Regardless, informed consent must be mandatory in a healthcare or medical setting, so the patient can make a choice with all available information. I am not arguing choice in this subthread. I’m also not willing to argue vaccine safety data or statistics.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> not crazy to behave differently around something with 40-60% efficacy and something with 97-100% efficacy Why is 50% less flu not a good thing? This is like the sterilising argument about the Covid vaccine. It’s somehow damning for the Covid jab but not for polio.
- throwaway97315 3y ago
  [flagged]
- Izkata 3y ago
  It's that much less across all age groups, so there's even less benefit for the demographics not at risk. Plus for the past decade or so the overall efficacy has dropped even further, floating around 30-40%. On top of that, vaccines need >50% efficacy to get approval. If the flu vaccine was invented today, it wouldn't pass.

by vasco 3y ago

carbocation 3y ago

There is steelmanning an argument, and then there is completely changing it. There is a world of difference between having your healthcare provider tell you "the flu vaccine has to be made in advance and often targets the wrong strain, so can therefore be ineffective even the majority of the time" vs calling the vaccine putting "junk in [your] body".

vasco 3y ago
I'm not sure what was so wrong about the reply, the person I replied to said it should be a fireable offense to "not believe in the efficacy of vaccines" but the specific vaccines they were talking about have around 40-60% efficacy vs 97%+ for other types. Maybe I'd agree that they could be fired / reprimanded for addressing such topics without more rigor (and not call them junk), but the specific point I addressed I think wasn't "changing the point".
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Words matter. If you tell an unsophisticated healthcare consumer a vaccine is junk, you should be fired. If you provide efficacy around different types or classes of vaccines and allow the healthcare consumer to make an informed decision, that is reasonable. It is about the information delivered and its delivery in significant matters. Tangentially, there is no value in arguing with antivaxxers or conspiracy theorists. You might as well attempt to talk them out of their religion. Effort better spent elsewhere. Regardless, informed consent must be mandatory in a healthcare or medical setting, so the patient can make a choice with all available information. I am not arguing choice in this subthread. I’m also not willing to argue vaccine safety data or statistics.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> not crazy to behave differently around something with 40-60% efficacy and something with 97-100% efficacy Why is 50% less flu not a good thing? This is like the sterilising argument about the Covid vaccine. It’s somehow damning for the Covid jab but not for polio.

throwaway97315 3y ago
[flagged]
Izkata 3y ago
It's that much less across all age groups, so there's even less benefit for the demographics not at risk. Plus for the past decade or so the overall efficacy has dropped even further, floating around 30-40%. On top of that, vaccines need >50% efficacy to get approval. If the flu vaccine was invented today, it wouldn't pass.