- 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 1/7/14 at 10:56 pm to VOR
Posted on 1/7/14 at 10:56 pm to VOR
quote:
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%.
I am pretty sure that is exactly what it means on average.
Posted on 1/8/14 at 12:37 am to eelsuee
quote:
I am pretty sure that is exactly what it means on average.
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?
I'm going to try to explain this simply. The arrived at that 17% figure by estimating the number of cases of the flu that occurred, and also estimating the number of cases there would have been in an unvaccinated population. According to your link, 31.8million cases occurred, and 6.6million cases were prevented, which means that 31.8+6.6=38.4million cases would be expected in an unvaccinated population. 6.6/38.4 = 17% reduction.
Here is where it gets tricky... only about 40% get vaccinated, and it is only about 60-70% effective, so just for simplicity's sake we can multiply .40 X .65 = .26, and say that the 40% who do get vaccinated is really more like 26% being vaccinated with a 100% effective vaccine. So we can't really expect more than a 26% reduction in flu cases.
Furthermore, the reason we will never see even that big a reduction is because things don't spread that way. We can't just auto-cure people who actually get the flu, all we can do is reduce the number of people who might get the flu. It's as if we have reduced the population of the country by 26%, and you wouldn't expect to see a linear reduction in the number of flu cases because of a variety of reasons. Reasons such as highly populated areas still being highly populated even after a 26% population reduction. Or those 26% who won't get sick can still carry the illness around and spread it to those who can.
Get it?
Posted on 1/8/14 at 6:40 am to eelsuee
quote:
I am pretty sure that is exactly what it means on average.
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/IconLOL.gif)
No, your 17% number does not apply to the effectiveness of the vaccine for an individual who receives the vaccine.
And, I've skipped the vaccine this year just out of absent for no good reason. Just didn't get around to it. But I'm getting it this week because the worst part of the season is still ahead (it takes about two weeks for the antibodies to develop after you receive the injection).
This post was edited on 1/8/14 at 6:48 am
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)