H1N1 study on 2009 effectiveness couldn't be more wrong

[luvmy3]

The swine flu far from irradicated-the UK recently had a horrible time with it. I've been reading of the deaths that have occurred this year from swine flu, many of those people had received the vaccine.

The US's flu season typically peaks in February. Swine flu is just recently making it's way to the states. Let's hope we don't get what the UK had.

Is it a different strain that has popped up in the UK? If its not and it hits here it shouldn't be too bad since this year's Flu Vac contained H1N1.

Oh n/m I see that you say they had the vaccine. Did you mean the one last year, or one this year?

 

[LuvOrlando]

There's a big difference between "need to improve things" or "lessons to learn" and "epic failure".

The only difference I see is the fact this particular illness wasn't as virulent as it could have been. H1N1 shined some light on how human intervention really didn't help all that much. We were just lucky most of the people who got sick didn't get too sick. Considering all the billions and billions we spend on preparedness I have to say this was, by my personal standards, an epic failure.

The study i cited was distressing because it sounds like an atta'boy and that's really scary to me. I'm tolerant of mistakes, I actually prefer it when people pull back the curtain and look to address ways to improve things, what I'm not OK with is looking at a hot mess and declaring it Michelangelo's David. To me this is exactly what this study is looking to do and I am not on board. We better be more prepared next time, whether it's my lifetime, my kids or my great grand-kids.

 

[mickeyboat]

100% effective in my household. A good portion of the girls' school got it, my kids had perfect attendance.

 

[Tinijocaro]

Is it a different strain that has popped up in the UK? If its not and it hits here it shouldn't be too bad since this year's Flu Vac contained H1N1.

Oh n/m I see that you say they had the vaccine. Did you mean the one last year, or one this year?

Not sure about the strain. I'll see if I can dig up some articles. The vaccine people had received was this year's.

 

[Schmeck]

The only difference I see is the fact this particular illness wasn't as virulent as it could have been. H1N1 shined some light on how human intervention really didn't help all that much. We were just lucky most of the people who got sick didn't get too sick.

The government stopped counting (and doctors stopped reporting) cases of H1N1 for the very reason you stated - most of the people who got it here in the US didn't get all that sick from it. My daughter came down with it at college, did spend a night in the hospital (dehydration) but they never tested/reported because by then it wasn't a big deal, and would have cost even more money to do so.

So please let us know which way you want it, spend the money for all the testing/reporting, or not?

 

[LuvOrlando]

You can't tell from my posts which way I think it should go? Let me be clear then, by all means spend the money. Out of all the ridiculous things our tax dollars are spent on I think this is a noble effort and not just for the US, for the world. In case you misunderstood, I don't think the billions toward disaster preparedness is misplaced, I do think that when cracks in the foundation are discovered in spite of billions spent it's time to re-evaluate, modify and perfect, not turn around and say "look at the great job we did.". There is a big difference between theory and practical application and in this case I think theory paled in the face of nature. We would do well to be humbled by nature.... humanity is no-where near ready to take it on just yet.

The vaccine program didn't save us, the fact the virus didn't effect everyone the same did and that's pretty humbling to me and it should humble the medical community as well. I'm both stymied & alarmed it didn't, as evidenced by this article.... unless this article represents a rogue point of view... I hope it does.

 

[Holly]

 

[Tinijocaro]

Is it a different strain that has popped up in the UK? If its not and it hits here it shouldn't be too bad since this year's Flu Vac contained H1N1.

Oh n/m I see that you say they had the vaccine. Did you mean the one last year, or one this year?

Here is some info, you have to read through the thread to find it.
http://swineflu.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=32700


This one is the WHO saying that although the Pandemic has been declared over, it still may be a threat:
http://swineflu.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=32675

 

[Geoff_M]

There is a big difference between theory and practical application and in this case I think theory paled in the face of nature. We would do well to be humbled by nature.... humanity is no-where near ready to take it on just yet.

The vaccine program didn't save us, the fact the virus didn't effect everyone the same did and that's pretty humbling to me and it should humble the medical community as well. I'm both stymied & alarmed it didn't, as evidenced by this article.... unless this article represents a rogue point of view... I hope it does.

I guess I'm still at a loss to understand what your evidential basis, other than your families personal experience, is for declaring the H1N1 vaccination program last year a failure. No vaccine is 100% effective, nor is anywhere near such effectiveness required for a vaccination program to be beneficial to a population. To be able to control a forest fire, you don't have to remove all of the potential fuel from the flames but enough to make its spread sufficiently difficult. The same is true with pandemics. Look at smallpox... its vaccine was about 95% effective (some argue it was lower), but we wiped it out off the planet in the wild. And no, the study you cited is not the only one that showed that the H1N1 vaccine was pretty darn effective. Another study in Australia showed that by 21 days after vaccination 95% of subjects had developed very impressive levels of antibody titers against the virus. Here's another summary of study results from around the world. Another recent EU study put their effectiveness rate at 72% (but keep in mind they used a different formulation than the US's).

 

[LuvOrlando]

I think the study is flawed because the numbers are wrong and the numbers are wrong because no-one was taking an accurate count by any stretch of the imagination. I know this because I lived it, I saw it and i remember it. How on earth can you stop counting, not even have a reliable method of counting, and then claim to have accurate data? It doesn't really matter what the thing being counted may be, whether its H1N1 victims, jellybeans in a jar or bunny rabbits in a yard, you can't have flawed data and accurate results... you just can't.

 

[luvmy3]

I think the study is flawed because the numbers are wrong and the numbers are wrong because no-one was taking an accurate count by any stretch of the imagination. I know this because I lived it, I saw it and i remember it. How on earth can you stop counting, not even have a reliable method of counting, and then claim to have accurate data? It doesn't really matter what the thing being counted may be, whether its H1N1 victims, jellybeans in a jar or bunny rabbits in a yard, you can't have flawed data and accurate results... you just can't.

But the study was done with people who were counted, and their findings were based on the statistics of those people Thats how studies are done, using a portion of the population.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

I think the study is flawed because the numbers are wrong and the numbers are wrong because no-one was taking an accurate count by any stretch of the imagination. I know this because I lived it, I saw it and i remember it. How on earth can you stop counting, not even have a reliable method of counting, and then claim to have accurate data? It doesn't really matter what the thing being counted may be, whether its H1N1 victims, jellybeans in a jar or bunny rabbits in a yard, you can't have flawed data and accurate results... you just can't.

That's why things like "statistical relevance" exist. Statistics is all about trending, because it is impossible to have a 100% sample on anything, heck, look how many people shirk the census!

I can say that the vaccination/response worked 100% in our household, and that included getting DW (who was pregnant at the time and high risk) her vaccine within 2 days of them being released to our State Health Department. As a Type I diabetic, I was also promptly given the vaccine, and DD (who was 2 at the time) received her 2 doses from her pediatrician. They actually called us as soon as it came in.

To me the response by the news, the WHO, and the CDC, while much too "doom and gloom" for me, was swift, and I think it had far more reaching effects than just getting people vaccinated. I've seen people at my place of work who wouldn't even use a napkin for lunch, now making sure to wash their hands frequently, and taking care not to spread germs and such.

As to the "new strains" being found across the globe, more research is necessary. They are finding out that the deaths from the 2009 pandemic may have been linked to a mutation of the virus that only occurred in a very minute % of those infected. If that's the case, the current group of deaths (which aren't nearly what they were in 2009), could be linked to that same, singular, mutation, and not to a general mutation.

Regardless, the CDC has released reports that the "possible" mutations they've studied in Arizona are covered by the current vaccination. In addition anyone who suffered through H1N1 are now showing a very broad scope of antibodies in their system. These antibodies, supposedly, produce a resistance to many of the most virulent flu strains in history. So, the fact that the OP had the virus may, in the long run, be a good thing.

 

[Jennasis]

This thread is hilarious! It's like someone complaining that brth control pills aren't effective and the studies to back them up are flawed/full of lies, because they got pregnant while on the pill.

 

[LuvOrlando]

http://flutracker.rhizalabs.com/

Look at the numbers, how can anyone look at this and say what we had was a success? If the illness were more lethal these numbers would not be infection rates, they would be much worse. We need to do better.

My biggest issue with the study is that it is asking the wrong question which allows a positive answer even though I still believe the counts are flawed. But I'll put that aside for a moment and ask this: How can one say the vaccine was effective if it's intent was to control the spread of disease when the map looks like this ? Look at the map, take in the numbers and remember we stopped counting.

Yes, I'm sure the vaccine did help some although it didn't help us which makes me think they need to look a little harder. Even so, I am still an advocate of vaccines and get them for whatever is recommended as often as recommended, and I did still get us all our Flu shots this year because I believe in the science behind vaccinations. But, as I look at the flu-tracker map and imagine it as something more lethal I think any article saying what we had was "H1N1 Flu Vaccine Very Effective" seems to be missing the boat.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

http://flutracker.rhizalabs.com/

Look at the numbers, how can anyone look at this and say what we had was a success? If the illness were more lethal these numbers would not be infection rates, they would be much worse. We need to do better.

My biggest issue with the study is that it is asking the wrong question which allows a positive answer even though I still believe the counts are flawed. But I'll put that aside for a moment and ask this: How can one say the vaccine was effective if it's intent was to control the spread of disease when the map looks like this ? Look at the map, take in the numbers and remember we stopped counting.

Yes, I'm sure the vaccine did help some although it didn't help us which makes me think they need to look a little harder. Even so, I am still an advocate of vaccines and get them for whatever is recommended as often as recommended, and I did still get us all our Flu shots this year because I believe in the science behind vaccinations. But, as I look at the flu-tracker map and imagine it as something more lethal I think any article saying what we had was "H1N1 Flu Vaccine Very Effective" seems to be missing the boat.

All of those cumulative numbers seem overwhelming. But world health organizations worked together from square one to identify a new flu strain, put the genetic pieces together, create a 2nd flu vaccine to disperse worldwide. In doing so what occurred in 2009 was not repeated in 2010. And, yes, there are still cases around the world in 2011, but it's not on the scale it was and it is a fact that once a new flu strain is around it will be around forever...so seeing new cases year-to-year does not prove any sort of failure.

I will give an "atta boy" to those who worked their tails off to wrangle this disease the way they did. We are in an era of human civilization in which this disease literally spanned the globe in a matter of days, and people were able to corral it, to the point that the actual death rates were lower than that of the standard flu strain.

Yes it affected a different part of the populace (younger and healthier people), and there is no way to offer solace to those who lost family to this virus, but as to the production of the vaccine and the attempts to keep things under control, I think the WHO & the CDC did a great job.

 

[sunnyday123]

This thread is hilarious! It's like someone complaining that brth control pills aren't effective and the studies to back them up are flawed/full of lies, because they got pregnant while on the pill.

I agree. I especially enjoy the rantings of Dis Dr's who can do so much better, and know all the answers!

Somewhere on the Dis, the cure for the common cold is lurking.....

 

[tiggersbombed2]

Flu shots are only formulated with what the CDC feels will be the most prevalent/dangerous strains of flu. They don't encompass EVERY flu variant that may or may not show up in your area. So it is quite possible to get a flu shot and still get the flu, simply because the vaccine you got did not include that particular strain.

 

[LuvOrlando]

It has to be better next time because the speed at which this traveled throughout the globe should be a wake up call. If people can't see that in black & white on that Flu Tracker we're just not on the same page.

There is new research into faster more efficient methods of vaccine production and it would be a poor decision to sidetrack investments into that area because someone somewhere decides what we had was good enough. It wasn't good enough, not considering the way our world moves. Maybe there is nothing that can be done, maybe human beings travel too fast for the medical community to ever stand a chance against a virulent communicable microbe. I hope not but it may well be true. People can say what they want but in the end we were just lucky and that's all there is to it.

That Flu tracker model is a real world example at how quickly any similar microbe can travel, a person doesn't need to be a Dr to see what it could mean and that it isn't good.

 

[Geoff_M]

http://flutracker.rhizalabs.com/

Look at the numbers, how can anyone look at this and say what we had was a success? If the illness were more lethal these numbers would not be infection rates, they would be much worse. We need to do better.

As pointed out, those number are cumulative and include cases before and after the introduction of the vaccine. Look at this graph for a better handle on seeing the vaccine's likely effect: Pneumonia and Influenza Mortality in 122 U.S. Cities, Week Ending 1/29/2011 Note the big spike in deaths above the seasonal baseline starting around Week 35, 2009 and then suddenly peaked around Week 45 and then fell back into the seasonal norms. The FDA approved the H1N1 monovalent vaccine around Week 34 the production lots of the new vaccine started being distributed around Week 40. So, is it coincidence that the rates of flu and flu-related deaths fell back into line in conjunction with the availability of the vaccine? Other proof of the vaccine's effect may be the stark difference in the typing of this year's flu cases. Compare Week 3, 2010 to Week 3, 2011.

 

[bluesaturn]

It has to be better next time because the speed at which this traveled throughout the globe should be a wake up call. If people can't see that in black & white on that Flu Tracker we're just not on the same page.

There is new research into faster more efficient methods of vaccine production and it would be a poor decision to sidetrack investments into that area because someone somewhere decides what we had was good enough. It wasn't good enough, not considering the way our world moves. Maybe there is nothing that can be done, maybe human beings travel too fast for the medical community to ever stand a chance against a virulent communicable microbe. I hope not but it may well be true. People can say what they want but in the end we were just lucky and that's all there is to it.

That Flu tracker model is a real world example at how quickly any similar microbe can travel, a person doesn't need to be a Dr to see what it could mean and that it isn't good.

Rarely is research done so we can say yep, that's good enough, moving on. Research is part of the development process, so we have evidence about what was more successful and less successful. It points out areas of weaknesses and strengths. The researchers who completed this study are not going to say, okay that worked - I'm going to research a new disease now. They are specialists in this are and they will keep researching it until the end of their careers. However, with every study their area of concern and interest will evolve based on the results of the previous studies.

I think you will find in very situations scientists can write that's the cure and it's 100% effective. However the mainstream media wants to interpret the results in a way the general public will understand, and the general public wants a yes or no answer. The actual journal article for this study discussed the implications of their results and the limitations of their study.

The reason why statistics exist is because it is rarely ever possible to study 100% of a population. That's why scientists take a sample, which is hopefully representative, and study the construct in that sample. Then they use statistics to predict how well the results in this sample will generalize to the entire population. Research might not be pure truth, but it usually has more evidence supporting it than random anecdotes from throughout the population.