Flu Shot?

SARS and the avian flu were feared to be the “pandemic” that we’re overdue for to.  Media blows everything out of proportion making every little thing so uch scarier than it actually is.

Except the Daily News, they do not blow anything up with the news well maybe when some shirt in town makes some kind of useless noise.

FYI the flu and the H1N1 are two seperate strains both due sometime this fall.  Granted it may not be a Pandemic … but on the flip sidew what if it is?

It is already a pandemic.  But really, many influenza strains are technically pandemics too.  A pandemic is an epidemic that is over a wide area.  

The media has definitely not helped.  This should be treated the same way regular flu is treated.  Wash your hands, get a flu shot.  The regular flu kills more people yearly than H1N1 has killed so far.  

The media definitely has a problem with basic science literacy, but that’s probably due to most reporters not really having a science background.  So they tend to do weird things like treat a flu outbreak as a political story.  Reporters also tend to do the “balance” thing when reporting science news, since that’s how they’ve been trained to write news stories. 

But maybe the media just mirrors how the general population thinks.  The fact that most people think “pandemic” means something other than what it really means is a good example of that.

On the corporation connection… Is it even the big Pharm companies that are putting the money and manpower behind the H1N1 shot? I was under the impression that it was individual governments and organizations like the WHO that pump the flu shot out eah year.

Fantastic analogy btw. That’s the best defense of the flu shit I’ve seen without having to get into medical mumbo-jumbo.

That may be true, but if all this hype and excitement saves just one Canadian that would have died otherwise, isn’t it worth the annoyance?

As the H1N1 flu pandemic of 2009 continues we are slowly learning more and more about it. The challenge is that health organizations and governments are trying to optimize their response to this flu strain in the midst of the pandemic unfolding. It’s like preparing for a hurricane as it’s happening, without knowing where it will make land fall, how strong it will be, how much water it will drop, and if the levies will hold. The best option is to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best.

There are two key features of flu strains that we track – infectiousness (how easily it spreads) and virulence (how severe an infection it causes, and specifically what is the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths). What we can say at this time about the current H1N1 strain is that it is about as infectious and virulent as the regular flu-season flu. This may make it seem like not such a big deal, but of course the regular flu season kills 36,000 people in the US alone, and about 400,000 world wide.

But as the pandemic unfolds we are learning some more details. Most flu deaths in regular flu seasons are among the elderly or in susceptible populations due to a chronic illness. The current H1N1 flu, however, disproportionately kills pregnant women and young children. Another pattern is also emerging – while in most people this strain causes a mild flu, in about 1% it results in a very severe flu with a 50% mortality rate. The severe cases develop a form of ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) that destroys the alveoli (air sacs) in the lungs.

We cannot yet predict who will get the deadly form of the virus. It may be linked to genetic differences in the immune system, it may be anatomical, or it may just be bad luck – if the virus sets up an infection in the alveoli. If we could predict, that would enable us to give those who are susceptible and their families high priority in getting the vaccine.

The emergence of this severe response in 1% of the population is a cause for concern, not only because half of these people die, but because they are all severely sick and require hospitalization and even intensive care. If this pattern holds up, hospitals could be overwhelmed this flu season by young people needing ventilation.

All of this highlights the need for optimal use of the flu vaccine, and further highlights the danger of the absurd fearmongering that has been going on. The anti-vaccine and conspiracy crowds have been working overtime spreading misinformation about the H1N1 vaccine. Harriet Hall does an excellent job of taking down many of the false claims point by point. I have already written about the misinformation about GBS and the flu vaccine. And Joseph Albietz has written an excellent Influenza primer.

Unfortunately, it is easier to cause fear than to reassure with facts.

The bottom line is this: the H1N1 flu vaccine is likely to be reasonably safe and effective. While it is being fast tracked, it is using tried and true flu vaccine technology, and it is being actively studied in thousands of people. Further, the role out of the vaccine will be tracked to pick up any adverse effects as quickly as possible. Concerns about GBS are overblown, and we are likely to see the usual excess cases due to the vaccine of 1 in a million vaccinated.

The risks of the vaccine are small. Meanwhile the risks of the flu are significant – even if it remains just as virulent as it currently is. And, of course, the strain may become more virulent as it evolves throughout the flu season. The benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks by orders of magnitude, but human psychology is not built to think rationally about such fears.

Anti-vaccine misinformation will have a real body count this flu season. That is a number we should track as well, so at least, maybe, we will learn something.

Read more…

Good post Soggy Thanks!

FYI, the article was written by Steven Novella.

Novella is awesome.  Met him this summer :smile:  He’s a smart guy, but that doesn’t automatically make him right about these kinds of things. 

He’s right about stuff because he uses rational and logical reasoning. 

Meanwhile, there’s some good news about the vaccine: it may work better than scientists had predicted: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090911/ap_ … _swine_flu

     Not so good news today… anyone who got a flu vaccine last year, has a higher percent than those who did not, to contract the swine flu this year…
what the hell… why can we not trust in the health care system, and believe in preventative measures that they offer.   :?

Correlation isn’t causation, though.  If you’re talking about the same study that I’m reading, it doesn’t say that getting the flu shot puts you in a higher risk category for being infected with H1N1.  You’re getting the seasonal shot because you’re in a high risk category.

To apply the seatbelt analogy here, they’re saying that people who wear seatbelts are more likely to die in a car accident than those who don’t wear seatbelts.  But they’re including people who don’t drive or ride in cars in the “don’t wear seatbelts” category.

If you have a low risk of catching the seasonal flu (and therefore don’t get the seasonal shot), then it makes sense that you’re also at a lower risk of getting H1N1.  If you regularly get a flu shot (because you’re in a high risk category), then it also makes sense that you’re more likely to catch H1N1.

Anyway, that’s just one study, there are a couple more happening that might show a direct causation.  If so, one will have to consider if an added risk will outweigh the benefit of a vaccine.  You’ll note that the study also says that those who did get a seasonal flu shot last year and then were infected with H1N1 this year had milder symptoms than those who didn’t get a seasonal flu shot last year and were infected with H1N1.

As for “do they not test the vaccines prior” – do you suggest that they go back in a time machine and test last year’s flu shot’s influence on this year’s H1N1?

 

  If so, one will have to consider if an added risk will outweigh the benefit of a vaccine.

Thanks Mig, yes this is exactly what I am questioning.

Here’s the study summary in question (the study itself hasn’t been published yet):

torontosun.com/news/canada/2 … 97061.html

Personally, I think they just didn’t account for subjects’ risk factors for infection in the study.  ie: you can’t compare someone who works at a school and gets a seasonal flu shot and someone who works at home and doesn’t get a seasonal flu shot.  Obviously the person who works at the school is more likely to get H1N1, but that higher risk isn’t caused by the seasonal flu shot. 

It would be like comparing the effectiveness of seatbelt use between those who drive and those who walk, and concluding that seatbelts cause more accidents.

Anyway, more details will be available when the study is published. 

Just to add to this discussion:  
hthttp://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,637119,00.html

A quote about seasonal flu shots:

[quote]SPIEGEL: For a number of years, as part of the Cochrane Collaboration, you have been systematically evaluating all the studies on immunization against seasonal influenza. How good does it work?

Jefferson: Not particularly good. An influenza vaccine is not working for the majority of influenza-like illnesses because it is only designed to combat influenza viruses. For that reason, the vaccine changes nothing when it comes to the heightened mortality rate during the winter months. And, even in the best of cases, the vaccine only works against influenza viruses to a limited degree. Among other things, there is always the danger that the flu virus in circulation will have changed by the time that the vaccine product is finished with the result that, in the worst case, the vaccine will be totally ineffectual. In the best of cases, the few decent studies that exist show that the vaccine mainly works with healthy young adults. With children and the elderly, it only helps a little, if at all.[/quote]

That’s not really anything new, it’s saying that if you get a flu shot that’s for a different strain than the flu strain you catch, it won’t help much.  

Also, to say that a flu vaccine doesn’t do anything against flu-like illnesses is pretty obvious too.  I don’t think anybody claims that it will.  It’s a bit dishonest to say that being vaccinated for one illness doesn’t help against other illnesses, so it’s a waste of time.

scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2 … accina.php

I’ll try, if you allow me a quote modification.

Hey, it kinda works.  I’m almost convinced to let a cute nurse stab me on a non-tanned portion of my body! :wink:

Edit:  MiG, do you know any cute nurses?

Heh, the seatbelt analogy comes back to kick me in the ass.

How about saying wearing a seatbelt doesn’t help you if go off the road and end up in a body of water.  It might even contribute to your drowning.  So obviously wearing a seatbelt isn’t always effective, so why bother wearing it?

That first line you quoted should be more like “That’s not really anything new, it’s saying that if you wear a seatbelt that’s for a different kind of accident than the seatbelt was designed for, it won’t help much.”  Hence we have frontal impact airbags, side-curtain bags, crumple zones, etc.  :-)

[quote=“BigThumb”]Edit:  MiG, do you know any cute nurses?
[/quote]

I know one who prefers handcuffs instead of seatbelts.  

I know cute nurses in training. tee hee