But flu is totally different. Flu vaccines are of dodgy effectiveness at best. I am not talking about safety here, merely the question of "will it work?"
But there are reasons to doubt the safety of post-modern profit-driven vaccines--it is not at all like the old days.
So yes, there is reason for concern here. The Fates are kind.
No one doubts the smallpox vaccines worked.
Actually... [Scopie Alert]
But flu is totally different. Flu vaccines are of dodgy effectiveness at best.
[Citation needed]
And I think we should be thankful that it's not. Back in the good old days of Victorian medicine, vaccinations had double-digit complication rates.
Which is still better than actually getting infected with polio or smallpox. By a couple of orders of magnitude. But hardly a goal to aspire to.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
In studies of the seasonal flu shot, when the "match" between vaccine viruses and circulating viruses is close, the vaccine has been shown to prevent influenza in about 70%-90% of healthy persons younger than age 65 years. Among elderly persons living outside chronic-care facilities (such as nursing homes) and those persons with long-term (chronic) medical conditions (such as asthma, diabetes, or heart disease), the flu shot has been shown to be between 30% and 70% effective in preventing hospitalization for pneumonia and influenza.
'Between 30% and 70%'? Scientific precision is a wondeful thing.
See also:
Evidence of bias in estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in seniors -- Jackson et al. 35 (2): 337 -- International Journal of Epidemiology
Methods We evaluated a cohort of 72 527 persons 65 years of age and older followed during an 8 year period and assessed the risk of death from any cause, or hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza, in relation to influenza vaccination, in periods before, during, and after influenza seasons. Secondary models adjusted for covariates defined primarily by diagnosis codes assigned to medical encounters. Results The relative risk of death for vaccinated persons compared with unvaccinated persons was 0.39 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.33-0.47] before influenza season, 0.56 (0.52-0.61) during influenza season, and 0.74 (0.67-0.80) after influenza season. The relative risk of pneumonia hospitalization was 0.72 (0.59-0.89) before, 0.82 (0.75-0.89) during, and 0.95 (0.85-1.07) after influenza season. Adjustment for diagnosis code variables resulted in estimates that were further from the null, in all time periods. Conclusions The reductions in risk before influenza season indicate preferential receipt of vaccine by relatively healthy seniors. Adjustment for diagnosis code variables did not control for this bias. In this study, the magnitude of the bias demonstrated by the associations before the influenza season was sufficient to account entirely for the associations observed during influenza season.
Methods We evaluated a cohort of 72 527 persons 65 years of age and older followed during an 8 year period and assessed the risk of death from any cause, or hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza, in relation to influenza vaccination, in periods before, during, and after influenza seasons. Secondary models adjusted for covariates defined primarily by diagnosis codes assigned to medical encounters.
Results The relative risk of death for vaccinated persons compared with unvaccinated persons was 0.39 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.33-0.47] before influenza season, 0.56 (0.52-0.61) during influenza season, and 0.74 (0.67-0.80) after influenza season. The relative risk of pneumonia hospitalization was 0.72 (0.59-0.89) before, 0.82 (0.75-0.89) during, and 0.95 (0.85-1.07) after influenza season. Adjustment for diagnosis code variables resulted in estimates that were further from the null, in all time periods.
Conclusions The reductions in risk before influenza season indicate preferential receipt of vaccine by relatively healthy seniors. Adjustment for diagnosis code variables did not control for this bias. In this study, the magnitude of the bias demonstrated by the associations before the influenza season was sufficient to account entirely for the associations observed during influenza season.
The issue with H1N1 is whether or not it mutates into a killer strain, away from the relatively mild first round strain, which was unpleasant but not particularly fatal.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how a vaccine designed for a mild strain is supposed to guarantee protection against a much more dangerous strain that may well be significantly different.
Infectiousness and severity are two different things. The effectiveness of the vaccine is in preventing infection, not in making the symptoms less severe. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
The effectiveness of the vaccine is in preventing infection, not in making the symptoms less severe.
I do not quite agree with you. In my opinion, preventing infection would be avoiding contact with the virus, this is not what the vaccine does. For the anti-bodies from the vaccine to become active, the virus has to be contacted and then is being fought by the anti-bodies. The advantage of the vaccine would be that the anti-bodies are already available and do not have to be build by the immune system after contacting the virus. At least that is how I remember it from immunology.
Thus to have the proper antibodies you have to know exactly what virus you are fighting and that is not always very clear with the flu-vaccines.
Not exactly. Antibodies are 'dumb' agents, they don't scan the virus for DNA, but identify some of the protein molecules on its surface. The name "H1N1" for a flu strain refers to versions of two of these surface molecules, hemagglutinin (the H) and neuraminidase (the N). So vaccination doesn't have to concentrate on the entire virus genome to trigger the production of the right antibodies. In the case of flu, with its several parallel strains that have different activity in different seasons, that means a bit of routine.
From what I read, a significant part (if not the majority) of ineffective vaccinations is infection with strains of flu that make up the minority of infections in a season and weren't considered in that season's mix. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
But that doesn't explain how a vaccine for one strain is supposed to prime the immune response for what may be a different virus strain - which doesn't even exist yet.
They might - in which case we're screwed - but they also might not.
The issue with H1N1 is whether or not it mutates into a killer strain, away from the relatively mild first round strain, which was unpleasant but not particularly fatal. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how a vaccine designed for a mild strain is supposed to guarantee protection against a much more dangerous strain that may well be significantly different.
From what I have understood the risk of more dangerous strains is proportional to the number of infections (each copy giving a chance for mutation). Mass vaccination that stops the spread by achieving herd immunity (I think 80-90% vaccinated is needed for that) removes the environment where the mutations can takes place. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
achieving herd immunity (I think 80-90% vaccinated is needed for that)
