- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Effectiveness of the Flu Vaccine
Posted on 1/8/14 at 8:23 am to Korkstand
Posted on 1/8/14 at 8:23 am to Korkstand
quote:While there is some truth to that, VOR made a general statement and contributed nothing of value. I also don't see where you post did anything to refute my point in question.
I am pretty sure that you asked in the OP if you were reading it right. When someone points out that you are not, in fact, reading it correctly, you dispute it?
Again "These estimates represent a 17% reduction in the number of flu illnesses and hospitalizations that would have occurred last season in an unvaccinated population." All you did was apply numbers to show how the statistics were calculated. The statistics typically represent the average probability to an individual.
My assumption was if unvaccinated people getting vaccines would have resulted in 17% fewer of them getting the flu, then every person who gets the vaccine has a 17% lower risk of getting the flu.
This post was edited on 1/8/14 at 8:28 am
2
Posted on 1/8/14 at 8:35 am to eelsuee
You are reducing epidemics and creating herd immunity by getting immunized.
Problem with looking at effectiveness you need to look at age groups. Adult immunity is much more difficult to create because adults have more robust "memory to past infections" or IgG. Children on the other hand are more responsive to vaccination because of having a naive immune system.
Problem with looking at effectiveness you need to look at age groups. Adult immunity is much more difficult to create because adults have more robust "memory to past infections" or IgG. Children on the other hand are more responsive to vaccination because of having a naive immune system.
Posted on 1/8/14 at 9:27 am to eelsuee
quote:I applied numbers that explained why a vaccine which is 70% effective for an individual will only result in a 17% reduction in flu cases in a population. Apparently you didn't grasp that.
All you did was apply numbers to show how the statistics were calculated.
quote:Not even close.
The statistics typically represent the average probability to an individual.
quote:Your assumption is flat out wrong, and I have already explained why in very simple terms. Let me go even simpler.
My assumption was if unvaccinated people getting vaccines would have resulted in 17% fewer of them getting the flu, then every person who gets the vaccine has a 17% lower risk of getting the flu.
Let's look at a population of 100 people, and a nasty flu that infects all of them. 100% of people will get the flu if nobody gets vaccinated. Let's give 1 person a flu shot that is 100% effective. That one person reduced his chance of getting the flu by 100%... he will not get the flu. But the reduction in flu cases in the population is only 1%.
Let me repeat that: 100% effective flu shot, 100% lower risk for the individual, 1% fewer flu cases in the population.
Posted on 1/8/14 at 9:35 am to VOR
quote:It does and it doesn't.
No, you're not. An overall reduction of 17% in the general population doesn't mean a given individual's chances of contracting the flu is reduced by only 17%.
Considering an individual in isolation, you're exactly correct.
Considering an individual as a coequal risk population component, he has a 17% chance of infection.
This post was edited on 1/8/14 at 10:40 am
Posted on 1/8/14 at 9:39 am to Alt26
Thats very strange 
For the last 6 years my family has got the shot and as of yet no flu in that time. Certainly lucky we have not gotten a strain not included in that years shot. (knocks on wood)
For the last 6 years my family has got the shot and as of yet no flu in that time. Certainly lucky we have not gotten a strain not included in that years shot. (knocks on wood)
Posted on 1/8/14 at 9:44 am to Korkstand
quote:You don't have to resort to being a condescending arse.
Korkstand
Posted on 1/8/14 at 9:49 am to NC_Tigah
I now see the source of my confusion.
I read that as cases that could have been prevented had unvaccinated people gotten vaccines. It was meant as cases that were prevented as compared to nobody getting vaccinated.
quote:
These estimates represent a 17% reduction in the number of flu illnesses and hospitalizations that would have occurred last season in an unvaccinated population.
I read that as cases that could have been prevented had unvaccinated people gotten vaccines. It was meant as cases that were prevented as compared to nobody getting vaccinated.
This post was edited on 1/8/14 at 9:50 am
Posted on 1/8/14 at 9:59 am to eelsuee
quote:
You don't have to resort to being a condescending arse.
I tried my hardest not to be. You rejected two answers to your question before I did that.
Posted on 1/8/14 at 10:21 am to pngtiger
quote:
The strain going around was not one of the stains included in the shot this year.
Actually, the strain being reported this year in serious cases, pH1N1, report. Is one of the strains included in the trivalent vaccine this year( (H1N1)pdm09-like virus. The other strains are H3N2 and Influenza B. The problem with the flu virus is that people wait too long before getting the vaccine. They wait until someone at home or work gets ill (or at least frequent reports). It takes a minimum of 2 weeks for immunity to develop, but is even better 3-4 weeks post. We receive our flu shots beginning in October and early November in anticipation of full blown flu season from Dec-Feb. So much of the data is flawed from people claiming they got sick after the vaccine (2 weeks after).
Posted on 1/8/14 at 10:24 am to eelsuee
I've taken it do ten years and never got the flu
Posted on 1/8/14 at 10:58 am to MississippiLSUfan
I am currently rotating through an MICU. We have 12-15 patients who are diagnosed with flu or flu is contributing to their current state of affairs. Only one of those individuals, that we know of, got vaccinated.
Posted on 1/8/14 at 11:01 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Considering an individual in isolation, you're exactly correct.
Considering an individual as a coequal risk population component, he has a 17% chance of infection.
Agree. But we're talking about individuals who are making the decision. Plus, we don't know each person's risk factors.
Posted on 1/8/14 at 11:02 am to Alt26
quote:
Well in my house, 100% of the people who got the flu shot (my wife and daughter) got the flu. Conversely, 100% of the people who did not get the flu shot (me) did not get the flu
Quite often people call infections "the flu" that aren't, in fact, actually the flu. Don't know in your case.
Posted on 1/8/14 at 12:13 pm to Korkstand
quote:I am sorry if you felt like I was calling you out when I said "I also don't see where you post did anything to refute my point in question."
I tried my hardest not to be.
VOR had nothing to contribute.
Posted on 1/8/14 at 12:22 pm to Crimson
quote:While I get what you are saying, it kind of reminds me of the statistic that 80% of wrecks are caused by sober drivers, so beware of all the sober people on the road.
I am currently rotating through an MICU. We have 12-15 patients who are diagnosed with flu or flu is contributing to their current state of affairs. Only one of those individuals, that we know of, got vaccinated.
Since most people don't get the flu shot, you would have more non-vaccinated people come in with the flu even if the flu shot was 0% effective. 12 to 1 is convincing, but it goes back to my original questions.
What percentage of vaccinated people get the flu?
What percentage of non-vaccinated people get the flu?
Posted on 1/8/14 at 12:28 pm to eelsuee
quote:Thanks for the apology, but I really don't mind being called out. Obviously, I just fire right back.
I am sorry if you felt like I was calling you out when I said "I also don't see where you post did anything to refute my point in question."
It seemed like you weren't receptive to the idea that you had actually misunderstood the information, and that's what set me off. So, I apologize for going a-hole mode so quickly.
Posted on 1/8/14 at 12:28 pm to Alt26
quote:
Well in my house, 100% of the people who got the flu shot (my wife and daughter) got the flu. Conversely, 100% of the people who did not get the flu shot (me) did not get the flu
I don't get flu shots and haven't had the flu in 15 years due to a change in my personal habits. When I am in public during flu season I never touch my nose or my eyes until I can get home and wash my hands.
Lucy must take a flu shot every year since she works at the Hospital. She has had the flu several times despite the shot. When she comes down with it I simply sleep upstairs and avoid touching my eyes and nose.
Posted on 1/8/14 at 12:49 pm to eelsuee
quote:I finally found it,
What percentage of vaccinated people get the flu?
What percentage of non-vaccinated people get the flu?
LINK
Numbers pulled from link
311,794,110 People
31,816,763 estimated cases
6,630,473 averted cases
51.0 Vaccine effectiveness (%)
44.7 Cumulative vaccine coverage (%)
Numbers calculated
139,371,967 People vaccinated (311,794,110 million * 44.7%)
6,370,454 Vaccinated people who got flu (6,630,473/.51 - 6,630,473)
4.57% Chance of getting flu with vaccine
172,422,142 Non vaccinated people (311mill - 139mill)
25,446,308 non-vaccinated people with flu (31,816,763 - 6,370,454)
14.8% Chance of getting flu without vaccine
Vaccine improves your chances to avoid flu by 10.2% (14.8 - 4.57). That is 2013 numbers, which is considered to be a very successful vaccine when compared to other years.
This post was edited on 1/8/14 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 1/8/14 at 12:57 pm to eelsuee
quote:
I finally found it,
LINK
Numbers pulled from link
311,794,110 People
31,816,763 estimated cases
6,630,473 averted cases
51.0 Vaccine effectiveness (%)
44.7 Cumulative vaccine coverage (%)
Numbers calculated
139,371,967 People vaccinated (311,794,110 million * 44.7%)
6,370,454 Vaccinated people who got flu (6,630,473/.51 - 6,630,473)
4.57% Chance of getting flu with vaccine
172,422,142 Non vaccinated people (311mill - 139mill)
25,446,308 non-vaccinated people with flu (31,816,763 - 6,370,454)
14.8% Chance of getting flu without vaccine
I was about to do all that same math for you, so I'm glad you found it first.
quote:
Vaccine improves your chances to avoid flu by 10.2% (14.8 - 4.57). That is 2013 numbers, which is considered to be a very successful vaccine when compared to other years.
This might be nitpicking, depending on how you want to look at it, but saying that the vaccine only improves your chances by 10.2% is a misrepresentation of reality. You need to then divide that 10.2 by 14.8 to arrive at 68.9%, which more accurately describes how much your chances are improved.
Posted on 1/8/14 at 2:25 pm to Korkstand
quote:No, I said it is your chance of AVOIDING the flu. Saying you are 3 time more likely to catch the flue without the vaccine will also mislead people.
but saying that the vaccine only improves your chances by 10.2% is a misrepresentation of reality.
I think a fair way to represent it is that you will (on average) catch the flu once every 20 years instead of 3 times every 20 years. Which means it will prevent the flu twice in twenty years or about once every 10 years. We also must consider that the 15% (no shot) is probably typical while the 5% (w/shot) is unusually low, although I have no idea how much better this year is than average years.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News