Flu Shot

[tony609]

Ooops wrong reported thread sorry...

 

[4luv2cdisney]

Maybe I don't understand it, but if you get chickenpox; for example, naturally you are immune for life. (In the majority of cases) With the vaccine you need boosters. Now I know varicella doesn't mutate.

So does the flu vaccine protection last about 4 months b/c it wears off or b/c of mutation?

I would still rather get the virus. The body is designed to respond and it makes sense to me that you may get some lifelong protection from that response.

For me, the risk is small and worth it to catch the flu. I can't be responsible for others when I feel there is risk to me, even though small as well, for the vaccine. That is not worth it to me at this time.

I don't think I've ever had the flu. Maybe it is genes.

Not everyone's immune system responds the same way. Not everyone develops antibodies when immunized. No vaccine is 100%effective. (Though I've read that kids that get chickenpox after vaccination almost alway present with a very mild case.)

It is also my understanding that getting the chicken pox does not guaranty immunity either, depending on how your body develops antibodies to it. I had a coworker with a daughter that had chickenpox at a very young age and then again when school aged.

FWIW, I have a friend that has had the MMR vaccine MANY times (from childhood through her thirties) and still is not immune. There is nothing "wrong" with the shot. Her immune system is simply not producing antibodies for some reason. "Herd immunity" is what she has to count on. As with any vaccine, the closer you are to having 100% of people being immunized, the better the chances for everyone to not get the disease.

You can always have titers taken to see what you are immune to. (Something to keep in mind when having blood drawn for other reasons)

 

[Tinker'n'Fun]

Sorry, I didn't pick up on your joke!

No problem at all and no apology required. Have a nice flu-free day!

 

[aprilgail2]

I am forced to get the flu shot by my employer (hospital) but several of my coworkers have come down with the flu this season, so apparently the vaccination didn't match what's going around. I would skip it but be diligent about hand washing and not touching your face. And of course don't get any closer to sick people than you have to .

That's exactly what my dr told me today when my flu test came up positive and I said "but I can't have the flu, I had my flu shot". They said the strain out is not the one covered by the flu shot.

 

[mickeyboat]

I didn't get my flu shot this year and have been knocked on my butt for the past week with the flu (swabbed and tested positive). I have been taking tamiflu and still feel awful.

 

[Tiger926]

That's exactly what my dr told me today when my flu test came up positive and I said "but I can't have the flu, I had my flu shot". They said the strain out is not the one covered by the flu shot.

Incorrect.

This year's vaccine is a great match as 3 out of the 4 strains circulating are in the vaccine. In the US over 80% and in Canada 98% of the flu viruses circulating at this time are Type A H3N2 and it is definitely contained in this year's vaccine.

Type B aka Victoria, is not covered in this year's vaccine and it is accounting for approx. 7% of reported cases. So, what you said above will only pertain if you have this strain, and thus far, according to reported flu cases, this is a very small percentage of reported flu cases. Of course, there are the unreported cases, which actually means there are many more flu cases in the population, but in this regard, these people wouldn't know what type of flu they had anyway, as they aren't getting swabbed.

Tiger

 

[twinboysmom]

100% incorrect. It was on NBC nightly news on Wed. that it WAS/IS included in this years shot. Clearly, it is a bad decision to not get one.
My wife and I get shots..our children..get the mist.
I view the flu shot like getting the polio vaccine....Very very risky to not get it. And again, in our school system...if your child or the parent refuses.....the kid cant goto school. Its mandatory. Same with my and wifes work place. Im a firefighter/Medic she is an RN

I am an RN as well. We have seen lots of folks who are positive with TYPE A who got the flu shot so I would disagree with it being a perfect match. I am one of those people who had the shot and type a flu. My children do not receive flu shots and they did not get the flu. Your views on risk may differ from others. We always have at least one patient but usually more in our hospitals critical care units with Gullian barre from the flu shot.

Btw, Ohio has allowed exemptions for vaccines in the school system such as religious exemption. Your children go to school with unvaccinated children.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

I am an RN as well. We have seen lots of folks who are positive with TYPE A who got the flu shot so I would disagree with it being a perfect match. I am one of those people who had the shot and type a flu. My children do not receive flu shots and they did not get the flu. Your views on risk may differ from others. We always have at least one patient but usually more in our hospitals critical care units with Gullian barre from the flu shot. Btw, Ohio has allowed exemptions for vaccines in the school system such as religious exemption. Your children go to school with unvaccinated children.

Really? Guillain-Barre known to be specifically from the flu shot? And "always" as in year round? So, people are getting flu shots year round? Isn't GBS typically preceded by actually having a virus (such as the flu, norovirus, upper respiratory illness, etc.) or from Campylobacter infection?

And that many? GBS affects about 1-2 people per 100,000. A few thousand people in the US annually. How huge is your hospital to have that many GBS patients at any given moment? Are you a "specialty" hospital of some sort?

 

[Tiger926]

I am an RN as well. We have seen lots of folks who are positive with TYPE A who got the flu shot so I would disagree with it being a perfect match. I am one of those people who had the shot and type a flu. My children do not receive flu shots and they did not get the flu. Your views on risk may differ from others. We always have at least one patient but usually more in our hospitals critical care units with Gullian barre from the flu shot.

Btw, Ohio has allowed exemptions for vaccines in the school system such as religious exemption. Your children go to school with unvaccinated children.

When they say a perfect or great match, they mean that they have included that year's particular strain/s in the vaccine. This year's vaccine has 3 out of the 4 circulating strains, so it is a great match.

Since you are a nurse, you know that you are speaking about vaccine effectiveness. The flu vaccine is at about 50-59% effectiveness according to the CDC.

Because of this, it doesn't mean that if you get a flu shot, that you won't get the flu. If you had another illness, mild flu symptoms or another medical issue, then you may in fact catch the flu, even after having the shot. You can still contract the flu, since the vaccine isn't 100% effective, and you may also catch it if you get a strain that is not included in that year's vaccine. If you get the flu, despite having a strain that was covered in the shot, your symptoms will usually be much less than if you had not got the shot at all. This is the case for most people, but as with everything, there are some exceptions to this.

Regarding Gullian Barre syndrome, it is also a very small percentage of people who actually come down from that after having a flu shot.

Tiger

 

[mombrontrent]

do you take a lot of vitamins?

No, none other than B12. However I am vegan and eat ALOT of fruits and veggies so I am sure I get plenty of natural vitamins this way, especially Vit. C.

 

[twinboysmom]

Really? Guillain-Barre known to be specifically from the flu shot? And "always" as in year round? So, people are getting flu shots year round? Isn't GBS typically preceded by actually having a virus (such as the flu, norovirus, upper respiratory illness, etc.) or from Campylobacter infection?

And that many? GBS affects about 1-2 people per 100,000. A few thousand people in the US annually. How huge is your hospital to have that many GBS patients at any given moment? Are you a "specialty" hospital of some sort?

Maybe I should rephrase. During flu shot time, yes, we have patients with gbs. Usually not your normal healthy 30 year old. I don't need a lesson in what precedes gbs thank you. I have been doing this for a while. And since you asked, yes I work for a specialty institution that takes in patients from the entire state.

 

[Tiger926]

www.clickondetroit.com/lifestyle/he...flu/-/2300442/18101898/-/oy00yvz/-/index.html

Just read that a 4 strain vaccine should be available next year.

Tiger


Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[Pigeon]

Here's a very thought provoking article. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/reassessing-flu-shots-as-the-season-draws-near/

I don't get the shot and think the way the media and the CDC hype it is disingenuous at best.

 

[Laura66]

I have an egg allergy and some other autoimmune issues and although I'm nervousness about getting the flu - there is no way I'm taking a chance (again) of developing complications with my immune system! And my immunologist agrees.
I know someone who developed GBS from the flue shot - and she's been thru hell and back and will never be the same.

 

[Robbi]

Here's a very thought provoking article. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/reassessing-flu-shots-as-the-season-draws-near/

I don't get the shot and think the way the media and the CDC hype it is disingenuous at best.

Exactly, it's hyped liked the miracle cure and it isn't. We've never had either the shot or the flu.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

Maybe I should rephrase. During flu shot time, yes, we have patients with gbs. Usually not your normal healthy 30 year old. I don't need a lesson in what precedes gbs thank you. I have been doing this for a while. And since you asked, yes I work for a specialty institution that takes in patients from the entire state.

I wasn't suggesting you needed a lesson. I was confused as to how your statement - as written - was possible.

I also think that many people pay particularly close attention to info posted by a medical professional. I wanted to throw some more facts out there for those who do not have much knowledge on the subject.

 

[aprilgail2]

Incorrect.

This year's vaccine is a great match as 3 out of the 4 strains circulating are in the vaccine. In the US over 80% and in Canada 98% of the flu viruses circulating at this time are Type A H3N2 and it is definitely contained in this year's vaccine.

Tiger

From the health Dept-
"Though this year’s flu vaccine has shown to be 62 percent effective, some people may still get the flu; however, their symptoms will be milder than if they had not received the vaccine."


I don't think 62 percent is a "great match" at all

 

[Tiger926]

From the health Dept-
"Though this year’s flu vaccine has shown to be 62 percent effective, some people may still get the flu; however, their symptoms will be milder than if they had not received the vaccine."

I don't think 62 percent is a "great match" at all

Again, matching and effectiveness are different things.

3 out of 4 strains covered is a good match.

The effectiveness of the vaccine, which is the 62% (that number just came out yesterday as it was 50-59 last week) is a different factor.

When scientists create the vaccines, they are hoping for good matches, meaning most of the circulating strains are covered, as well as a high effectiveness percentage. Just because you get a vaccine, it does not mean you won't get the flu, as there are lots of other factors that work with the effectiveness of the vaccine.

It is rare just based on how the virus mutates, as well as many other factors, to get near perfect effectiveness rates.

Thus far, this year's effectiveness rates have gone up each of the last several weeks.

We are experiencing flu issues here in Canada, as well, and our reports are showing higher effectiveness rates, with the same vaccines as US, and there are different reasons for this.

Remember, the influenza like illnesses are circulating now, and they do not respond to the vaccine. Effectiveness can only be measured from actual swabbed samples.

All of this info is readily available from reputable websites, of which most US news outlets are not.

Tiger

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[Geoff_M]

Exactly, it's hyped liked the miracle cure and it isn't. We've never had either the shot or the flu.

I'm not sure who exactly these sentiments are aimed at? I don't recall hearing anyone claim that the seasonal flu vaccine is "perfect", nor that it is anything tantamount to a "miracle cure". But as imperfect as it is, it's an important tool that's available to blunt the transmission of influenza infection. And like it or not, "hand washing" while another means to stop the spread, is no less imperfect due to things like aerosol transmission.

As for this season's vaccine, the fact is that the analysis so far available from the CDC regarding the serotyping of circulating virus samples collected shows that the match is pretty darn good... but not "perfect". But that's dismissed by some because of personal anecdotes. But it's safe to say that if this year's analysis were like a few years ago when the match was way off, the flu vaccine naysayers would have been quick to embrace that analysis with no reservations.

As for the link to the NYT blogger article. I'll offer some general criticism of the one Cochrane Review flu vaccine criticism author (Dr. Tom Jefferson) done over the years from Dr. David Gorski who is also a medical blogger:

...what really bugs me about Dr. Jefferson, namely the disconnect between what he says in public to journalists and what he writes in various Cochrane Reviews about influenza for which he is a coauthor. First, a couple of samples straight from Brownlee and Lenzer’s article. Here’s sample 1:

Tom Jefferson has taken a lot of heat just for saying, ‘Here’s the evidence: it’s not very good,’” says Majumdar. “The reaction has been so dogmatic and even hysterical that you’d think he was advocating stealing babies.” Yet while other flu researchers may not like what Jefferson has to say, they cannot ignore the fact that he knows the flu-vaccine literature better than anyone else on the planet. He leads an international team of researchers who have combed through hundreds of flu-vaccine studies. The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. “Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it’s the term that applies.” Only four studies were properly designed to pin down the effectiveness of flu vaccine, he says, and two of those showed that it might be effective in certain groups of patients, such as school-age children with no underlying health issues like asthma. The other two showed equivocal results or no benefit.

Ah, yes, the Brave Maverick Doctor encounters pushback by the “dogmatic” and close-minded medical community that obviously cannot see his brilliance. And here’s sample 2:

In a phone interview, Fauci at first voiced the opinion that a placebo trial in the elderly might be acceptable, but he called back later to retract his comment, saying that such a trial “would be unethical.” Jefferson finds this view almost exactly backward: “What do you do when you have uncertainty? You test,” he says. “We have built huge, population-based policies on the flimsiest of scientific evidence. The most unethical thing to do is to carry on business as usual.”

Wow. “Rubbish” and “the flimsiest of evidence.” Strong stuff. I wonder. Does Dr. Jefferson say the same things in his Cochrane Reviews? Well, no, as revere pointed out. Take a look at the Cochrane Reviews page for flu vaccines. Then take a look at the conclusions he makes in Cochrane Reviews about the flu vaccine. As revere says, they are–shall we say?–considerably weaker than what Dr. Jefferson says in public to journalists, including the extra bonus example I included after stealing revere’s examples:

(Geoff_M: I'ved edited the examples to only include one topic referred to by the NYT blogger)

We concluded that there is no credible evidence that vaccination of healthy people under the age of 60, who are HCWs [health care workers] caring for the elderly, affects influenza complications in those cared for. However, as vaccinating the elderly in institutions reduces the complications of influenza and vaccinating healthy persons under 60 reduces cases of influenza, those with the responsibility of caring for the elderly in institutions may want to increase vaccine coverage and assess its effects in well-designed studies. (Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Demicheli V, Rivetti D, Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly, Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;3:CD005187)

Pretty wishy-washy, full of the usual cautious wording that scientists expect and use, wouldn’t you say? I would. I also note that that last quote indicates to me that the flu vaccine is actually pretty darned good, with 80% efficacy when the vaccine matches the circulating strain. The H1N1 vaccine matches the strain quite well; so we should expect that it will be quite efficacious.

In any case, so why does Jefferson go all full mental jacket negative when he’s speaking with journalists? Why does he do what irritates the crap out of me and many other advocates of science-based medicine when it’s done by researchers, be they legitimate scientists or mavens of “alternative medicine” whose statements in press releases and in public are far stronger (and often more inflammatory) than anything one can find in their scientific papers? The answer is obvious. It’s because he can! Dr. Jefferson can’t say stuff like “rubbish” and “the flimsiest of evidence” in scientific papers because peer reviewers will quite properly shoot it down, but he sure can say what he really thinks to reporters. Moreover, Jefferson wouldn’t be the first scientist to fall for the blandishments of fame and a public reputation as bucking the establishment, something the media loves. Being an “iconoclast” or a “maverick” is very seductive. It brings attention and fame. In recent years, Dr. Jefferson has become the go-to vaccine scientist for the “skeptical view” on the flu vaccine whenever a journalist is doing a story, and he appears only too happy to oblige these days with juicy quotes.

He’s also become so attractive as a quote source because journalists tend not to like nuance. With only a limited space to say what they have to say and ubiquitous deadline pressures, explaining nuance is hard. That’s why they tend not like statements like the ones in the Cochrane Reviews co-authored by Dr. Jefferson cited above. They like concrete statements, especially if they are pith, juicy, or controversial, statements like calling the evidence base for flu vaccines “rubbish” and the basis for flu vaccination the “flimsiest of scientific evidence.” There are many reasons to be cautious when discussing the efficacy of flu vaccines and many shortcomings to how scientists make and use flu vaccines. In short, there are many legitimate issues to debate about flu vaccines and our policies for combating the H1N1 pandemic. Inflammatory statements, such as the ones Jefferson is fond of making, however, shed far more heat than light on the legitimate issues and problems surrounding vaccination against influenza and the murky evidence regarding its efficacy.

But at least even in the NYT blogger story, fellow Cochrane author Roger Thomas offers this candid limitation on what their analysis doesn't say: "Not having evidence doesn’t prove it doesn’t work; we just don’t know."

 

[gemini2727]

From the health Dept-
"Though this year’s flu vaccine has shown to be 62 percent effective, some people may still get the flu; however, their symptoms will be milder than if they had not received the vaccine."


I don't think 62 percent is a "great match" at all

Would I get the vaccine to have a 62% less chance of getting the flu and giving it to my family? You bet I would (and I did.) No side effects for any of us, and we've been getting the shot annually for years now. It doesn't have to work perfectly to still be considered useful.