4 ms·

> [flu vaccines] still save lives for a very low risk. AFAIK that's not actually been proven. It's clear that someone who got the flu vaccine this year is les

> [flu vaccines] still save lives for a very low risk. AFAIK that's not actually been proven. It's clear that someone who got the flu vaccine this year is less likely to die than someone who didn't, all else being equal. But flu shots only confer partial immunity for 6 months or so, whereas getting the real flu confers partial immunity for decades. At least the last time I looked, I wasn't able to find any convincing evidence that someone getting the flu vaccine every year from birth would be in a better place at age 70 than someone who, say, just got the actual flu every year until they started getting the vaccine at age 70 or whatever. Some relevant research/articles: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870374/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870374/ http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/08/28/study_raises_red_flag_for_universal_flu_vaccine.html http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/08/28/study_raises_re... http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/11/study-adds-more-data-effects-consecutive-year-flu-shots http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/11/study-add...

protomyth 12y ago
> [flu vaccines] still save lives for a very low risk. "AFAIK that's not actually been proven. It's clear that someone who got the flu vaccine this year is less likely to die than someone who didn't, all else being equal." Ok, that first sentence says I'm wrong and the second sentence seems to say my statement is correct. I am confused. "But flu shots only confer partial immunity for 6 months or so, whereas getting the real flu confers partial immunity for decades. At least the last time I looked, I wasn't able to find any convincing evidence that someone getting the flu vaccine every year from birth would be in a better place at age 70 than someone who, say, just got the actual flu every year until they started getting the vaccine at age 70 or whatever. Some relevant research/articles:" and then three study links with the first one being a study with the line "Contrary to immunity elicited by influenza vaccination, naturally acquired immunity can provide long-lasting protection against subsequent infection by the same viral subtype [22, 23]. For example, when the A(H1N1) virus re-emerged in 1977 after 20 years, people who had been exposed to the virus before 1957 were much less susceptible to infection than those born after 1957 [24]. This long-term protection against influenza viruses of the same type or subtype may be partly due to selection of cross-reactive CTL targeting epitopes on a wide variety of internal proteins [25–27]." - so supporting your statement - sort of the second an article with no links to any studies from a paper I don't know the reputation. and the the third having the quote "Our results support the recommendation for annual vaccination, given current vaccine options, as those unvaccinated in the current year appear to be at greater risk when considering both VE and serologic evidence." So, I have no idea other than I'm just going to keep getting my shot because the years I don't, I get really sick and its not worth the long term gain. I suppose an anti-vaxxer would be screaming "See, See!!!!". I'm not sure I could state they are wrong, either. :(
- Alex3917 12y ago
  > I have no idea other than I'm just going to keep getting my shot because the years I don't, I get really sick and its not worth the long term gain. What makes you think it's not worth the longterm gain? It obviously depends on your utility function, but for most people presumably being sick for a week now is less bad than being so sick that you die 10 years from now. I'm not saying that's necessarily what it comes down to, because the evidence isn't at all clear to me. But I do think that the pro-vaxxers have completely 100% failed to make their case here, so I don't understand why we constantly have these articles with them browbeating others and calling them ignorant when they themselves apparently have no idea about the safety/efficacy of the vaccines that they're calling others stupid and irresponsible for not getting.

protomyth 12y ago

> [flu vaccines] still save lives for a very low risk. "AFAIK that's not actually been proven. It's clear that someone who got the flu vaccine this year is less likely to die than someone who didn't, all else being equal." Ok, that first sentence says I'm wrong and the second sentence seems to say my statement is correct. I am confused. "But flu shots only confer partial immunity for 6 months or so, whereas getting the real flu confers partial immunity for decades. At least the last time I looked, I wasn't able to find any convincing evidence that someone getting the flu vaccine every year from birth would be in a better place at age 70 than someone who, say, just got the actual flu every year until they started getting the vaccine at age 70 or whatever. Some relevant research/articles:" and then three study links with the first one being a study with the line "Contrary to immunity elicited by influenza vaccination, naturally acquired immunity can provide long-lasting protection against subsequent infection by the same viral subtype [22, 23]. For example, when the A(H1N1) virus re-emerged in 1977 after 20 years, people who had been exposed to the virus before 1957 were much less susceptible to infection than those born after 1957 [24]. This long-term protection against influenza viruses of the same type or subtype may be partly due to selection of cross-reactive CTL targeting epitopes on a wide variety of internal proteins [25–27]." - so supporting your statement - sort of the second an article with no links to any studies from a paper I don't know the reputation. and the the third having the quote "Our results support the recommendation for annual vaccination, given current vaccine options, as those unvaccinated in the current year appear to be at greater risk when considering both VE and serologic evidence." So, I have no idea other than I'm just going to keep getting my shot because the years I don't, I get really sick and its not worth the long term gain. I suppose an anti-vaxxer would be screaming "See, See!!!!". I'm not sure I could state they are wrong, either. :(

Alex3917 12y ago
> I have no idea other than I'm just going to keep getting my shot because the years I don't, I get really sick and its not worth the long term gain. What makes you think it's not worth the longterm gain? It obviously depends on your utility function, but for most people presumably being sick for a week now is less bad than being so sick that you die 10 years from now. I'm not saying that's necessarily what it comes down to, because the evidence isn't at all clear to me. But I do think that the pro-vaxxers have completely 100% failed to make their case here, so I don't understand why we constantly have these articles with them browbeating others and calling them ignorant when they themselves apparently have no idea about the safety/efficacy of the vaccines that they're calling others stupid and irresponsible for not getting.