[HN Gopher] Universal flu vaccine against all known subtypes tak...
___________________________________________________________________
Universal flu vaccine against all known subtypes takes promising
first steps
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 156 points
Date : 2023-01-07 15:47 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| carvking wrote:
| [flagged]
| karol wrote:
| Wouldn't do that. Just a gut (bacteria) feeling.
| alonmower wrote:
| Having just got over the hump of a pretty bad flu I picked up
| traveling over the holidays this can't come soon enough. I got a
| flu shot earlier this year so I either picked up a different
| variant or shudder to think that this experience could have been
| even worse than it was (three days of 102+ fever).
|
| It's pretty disheartening to see so many comments here
| questioning the flu vaccine. So much anecdotal fallacy happening
| here. I would expect numeracy of this audience to be relatively
| high...
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| Flu vaccines make sense when someone's immunity is not strong
| enough, it depends on every one so, but people's immune system
| is getting weaker and weaker for all the reason we know, and
| it's a bit of a vicious circle
| LarryMullins wrote:
| The flu hasn't bothered me since I was a small child, and I'm
| not interested in fixing that which ain't broke. Maybe when I'm
| old and feeble I'll start taking the flu shot, but for now I
| have no reason to subject myself to those injections.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| What is terrible about the injections?
|
| Do you also not believe you need car insurance because you
| haven't gotten in an accident and gotten sued over it yet?
| LarryMullins wrote:
| I have received many vaccines, including covid. I don't get
| vaccinated for shit I don't care about.
|
| The framing of people who don't get _every_ vaccine offered
| to them as "anti-vax" is ridiculous. Have you been
| vaccinated against rabies, on the off chance you run into a
| bat? No, I really doubt you have. The risk is small so you
| round it down to zero and stop worrying about it.
| incangold wrote:
| Vaccination can still be helpful to the immune-
| compromised people around you (like me) even if you're
| hale and hearty yourself.
|
| If I can catch flu or Covid a couple fewer times over a
| lifetime because the healthier people around me were
| vaccinated, or masked, or installed better ventilation,
| that would likely improve my life quite a bit.
|
| (I say this with no judgement, just to raise awareness of
| something I assume you haven't considered, and I hadn't
| much thought about myself before I was personally
| affected)
| Eisenstein wrote:
| I asked a question about why the injections were so
| objectionable to you, and then compared vaccination to
| insurance, which I think is a reasonable comparison. If
| you act this defensively every time someone poses a
| question about your stance, it is no wonder you feel
| persecuted.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| I didn't say anything about insurance, nor have I said
| that injections are "so objectionable" to me. What I've
| said is that I don't get flu shots because the risk of
| the flu is too low for me to care. You may not like that
| answer, but that is my answer and that's the only one
| you'll get.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| > I didn't say anything about insurance, nor have I said
| that injections are "so objectionable" to me.
|
| You said you don't want to 'subject' yourself to the
| injections, and I brought up the insurance comparison.
|
| I think you may have an issue with abstract thinking. It
| is something you might want to look into improving. It
| seems that when you don't understand something, instead
| of asking for clarification, you get defensive and become
| kind of unreasonably difficult. You will probably end up
| happier if you don't come across as a jerk when the
| reality is that you just need help parsing what other
| people are saying because you have trouble thinking
| conceptually.
|
| * http://www.projectlearnet.org/tutorials/concrete_vs_abs
| tract...
| PaulHoule wrote:
| The flu has always had the strange attribute of being familiar
| enough that people are not afraid of it, but every 100 years or
| so it might kill a few million people.
|
| On top of that there have been incidents where the risk was
| oversold (Swine Flu in the 1970#] and the vaccine is
| problematic.
|
| Thanks to a perverse reaction (you tell me to do this so I will
| not do it) we are going to see uptake of all kinds of vaccine
| drop.
|
| Myself I got the quadrivalent flu shot, my wife didn't, she got
| the flu for thanksgiving and was off her feet for three days. I
| slept next to her the whole time and did not get it. If I had,
| watching her suffering, I would have called my doc for
| antivirals at the first sign.
| lamontcg wrote:
| The problem is that most people call a mild cold or even an
| abortive infection "flu". Actual influenza doesn't happen
| that commonly to healthy adults and is really unpleasant.
| Cooking your vitals at 103F for 3 days is also probably not
| without risk of long-term damage, and there's always some
| risk of hospitalization even in healthy adults.
| subharmonicon wrote:
| Calling every sniffle "the flu" is a bit of a peev of mine.
| I hear it from people all the time.
|
| Based on the descriptions I have read of influenza, I'm
| relatively certain I have either never had it or have had
| it maybe once in my adult life.
|
| Most years I get a bad cold that lasts 5 days or so (plus
| some time for my sinuses to completely return to normal)
| and maybe a couple lesser colds. None of these are "the
| flu".
|
| I get the flu vaccine every year, but only started that
| around age 35 or so. I'm in my early 50's now.
| klocksib wrote:
| I think part of it is the guilt of taking time off of
| work so everything gets dubbed "the flu" to justify it.
|
| I've only had the flu once that I know of after an
| conference in Las Vegas about 12yrs ago, and it was the
| worst illness I've ever had. I went into work on day 1,
| immediately turned around went home, and nearly passed
| out going up the stairs. The next three days were a fugue
| of blinking and the shadows from the trees outside
| moving.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Yeah back when I first started WFH (2015-ish) I skipped
| the flu shot for 2-3 years due to simple laziness until I
| finally caught the real thing. It was 3 solid days of
| 103F fever which was sweating in bed, combined with all
| kind of mild hallucinatory effects and complete
| incapacity, and the week after the fever broke I had a
| hard time just moving my body for more than 30-60 minutes
| at a time before having to lie down. The hangover lasted
| about a month before my energy levels got back to normal
| ("post-viral fatigue" before that term became popular --
| also there's probably a risk of persistent ME/CFS or
| "long influenza" post-recovery).
|
| For anyone with unvaccinated proper influenza there
| should be no question of if you're going to work or not.
| You're not going to be capable of it. Trying to order
| groceries online should be highly mentally taxing.
|
| I'd strongly recommend once someone sees a fever above
| 100F that they get antivirals as well and not try to
| suffer through it like a dumbass.
|
| (Tangentially, compare to people who "got the worst
| sickness of their adult life" in late 2019 and swear they
| were patient zero of COVID in the US -- probably just
| influenza, 19/20 was a bad season before COVID hit).
| jghn wrote:
| My favorite is "I caught the 24 hour flu". No, sorry, you
| had some stomach bug.
| kryogen1c wrote:
| > The problem is that most people call a mild cold or even
| an abortive infection "flu".
|
| This is one of a class of problem I've identified as "stuff
| i learned in my childhood that is simply wrong".
|
| For some reason, I grew up with the impression that
| vomiting and/or GI issues could be the flu, or the 24 hour
| flu. I'm not entirely sure how respiratory viruses with
| fevers became confused in such a manner.
| jabthedang wrote:
| [dead]
| snshn wrote:
| Don't fuck with nature.
| ape4 wrote:
| They probably shouldn't over promise by calling it "universal".
| Inevitably there will be a new variant it cannot handle.
| Izkata wrote:
| > Inevitably there will be a new variant it cannot handle.
|
| Current flu vaccines target a whole strain (of which there are
| only a dozen or so and it's very rare for more to show up), not
| individual variants like the covid vaccines (just enough
| mutations to be called different).
| sdo72 wrote:
| I get flu vaccines yearly, and every time I still get sick. My
| kids got the vaccine this year, and all of them got sick because
| of the flu, 3 times. I really don't know if the flu vaccine does
| anything, but it definitely gives me lots of doubts.
|
| Then we had a family member who got very sick a month or two ago
| because of the flu, he was sent to ER, ICU, and eventually didn't
| make it. That sent a shock wave to our family. He planned to get
| the flu vaccine a bit later but got sick right before.
|
| Please get vaccinated, if it doesn't work well, it may give us
| the second chance to survive.
| grey413 wrote:
| Something that following the progress of COVID vaccines really
| taught me is that vaccines have an important role in reducing
| the _severity_ of a disease in addition to stopping them
| outright. I 'd much rather get a mild flu than a moderate flu,
| let alone a severe one.
|
| This seems to be particularly true for fast-acting viral
| respiratory diseases. Our immune systems seem to have soft
| biological limits on how well they can prevent them.
| thehappypm wrote:
| There's a population factor and an individual factor. Let's
| say it's half effective. By vaccinating the population, the
| virus spreads more slowly, since half of people are dead
| ends. So you wind up with less cases in aggregate -- and
| potentially exponentially less.
| grey413 wrote:
| Also very true! Blunting logarithmic growth is a huge net
| positive.
| actuallyalys wrote:
| Part of the issue with fast-acting viral respiratory diseases
| seems to be that vaccines don't induce mucosal immunity:
| "Currently approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccines induce robust
| systemic immunity but poor immunity at the respiratory
| mucosa, meaning that they are highly effective against
| symptomatic disease but do not prevent viral transmission."
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-022-01405-w
| wojciii wrote:
| I don't want the flu vaccine for neigher me nor my children. I
| want us to get sick and our immune systems to take care of the
| flu together with some garlic, hot tea and down time. At the
| same time the adults are vaccinated for COVID and our children
| are vaccinated for the usual stuff that will kill them.
|
| I think that my employer really wants to avoid any downtime of
| his workforce and suggests a flu vaccination every year. I
| think that some downtime is good for my wellbeing and that I
| don't wan't to be more effective.
| themitigating wrote:
| The unfortunate part is you've already passed your defective
| genes on
| RHSeeger wrote:
| I think you seriously underestimate just how bad the flu can
| be. Perhaps you've not experienced it really bad? In the
| 2010-2011 year, there were ~290,000 hospitalizations from the
| flu, and ~37,000 deaths. There were 10 million medical
| visits. And all of that is _with_ people being vaccinated. I
| expect it would be much worse without vaccinations.
|
| Sure, most of the time you get the flu it sucks but it's not
| a big deal... but it can be pretty bad. It's well worth
| getting the vaccination, especially if your company or
| insurance provides it for free, just to avoid the possibility
| of severe issues.
| undersuit wrote:
| Then take actual downtime. You can't relax when you have a
| fever.
| kcplate wrote:
| Being on the management side of things for a company that
| offered free flu shots in office for convenience to the
| employees (despite health insurance coverage at doctors
| offices and pharmacies), we _absolutely_ did it to minimize
| the sick time impact to the company.
|
| I do not see what is wrong with that motive. Companies have a
| duty to protect themselves do they not?
| wojciii wrote:
| Companies can do whatever they want. I just don't want to
| be a part of it. :)
| BurningFrog wrote:
| You probably shouldn't work for a company then...
| kcplate wrote:
| Well it certainly wasn't mandatory and no records were
| kept of who did and who didn't, and there was no stigma
| or recourse if someone opted out.
|
| However it was definitely effectively in decreasing the
| number of employees who took sick time during flu season
| though. Just the convenience of running down to the break
| room to get it vs going to a clinic increased the number
| of employees who would get the seasonal shot.
| dekerta wrote:
| Are you certain you're getting the _flu_ every year? Do you get
| tested for it?
|
| A lot of people assume they have the flu when it's really a bad
| cold
| russdill wrote:
| Small sample sizes can make it very difficult to determine
| effectiveness. Fortunately there is a ton of data out though if
| you are curious. The effectiveness does vary widely from year
| to year.
| jackmott wrote:
| [dead]
| Entinel wrote:
| Thanks for sharing this. It's not about not getting sick. It's
| about getting less sick than you would have if you didn't get
| vaccinated.
| poszlem wrote:
| No, it's also about not getting sick.
|
| The "vaccine is not about preventing the infection" meme got
| really annoying since COVID, since the COVID vaccine while
| very useful turned out to not be as useful for infection
| prevention as we'd thought.
|
| That does not change the fact that the role of a "vaccine" is
| mainly to prevent the infection, and the "getting less sick"
| fact is a second class effect.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _it 's also about not getting sick_
|
| You're correct [1]. The vaccine mainly aims to reduce the
| frequency _and_ intensity of illness.
|
| [1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm
| woodruffw wrote:
| You're describing sterilizing immunity, which is a property
| that only some vaccines provide.
|
| More generally, vaccines are just a mechanism for acquiring
| immunity. Immunity doesn't mean "you don't feel sick," it
| means "your immune systems responds better and faster to
| the real thing."
| poszlem wrote:
| I am not describing sterilizing immunity, I am saying
| that the original, and the most common understanding of
| what a vaccine is is "something that you take that makes
| you not get sick". That is exactly how most vaccines have
| been advertised for years, and how most people think of
| them.
|
| I do not need to need to be educated about how vaccines
| work, I know that there is a secondary effect of vaccines
| that primes your immune system and makes the disease
| easier to fight. But it's a secondary effect, otherwise
| we would call more things "vaccines", as we know that for
| example "exercise helps with immune response".
| dxhdr wrote:
| > I am not describing sterilizing immunity, I am saying
| that the original, and the most common understanding of
| what a vaccine is is "something that you take that makes
| you not get sick".
|
| The CDC changed the definition of vaccine on Sept 2, 2021
| and removed the reference to immunity.
|
| [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210901163633/https://ww
| w.cdc.g...
|
| [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20210902194040/https://ww
| w.cdc.g...
|
| And just to preempt your question, every news source
| reachable via Google says the change has nothing to do
| with COVID or the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine.
| yucky wrote:
| > every news source reachable via Google says the change
| has nothing to do with COVID or the effectiveness of the
| COVID vaccine.
|
| Does that sound logical to you? The definition went
| unchanged for years until the CDC came under direct
| attack for the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine
| compared to other vaccines. If it's unrelated, wouldn't
| that make it quite a coincidence?
| woodruffw wrote:
| You're talking about a simplified "pop" understanding of
| what a vaccine is and does. Even in elementary school I
| wasn't told that a vaccine _prevents_ disease; I was told
| that it _provokes an immune response that provides
| resistance_ to a disease.
|
| The fact that people confuse the two is a legitimate
| public education problem. But it doesn't change what they
| actually are, or how medical professionals use the word.
|
| > But it's a secondary effect, otherwise we would call
| more things "vaccines", as we know that for example
| "exercise helps with immune response".
|
| It is _the_ effect. I think everybody understands the
| difference between taking care of yourself and receiving
| a medical preparation that stimulates your immune system
| against a specific disease.
| grey413 wrote:
| You're being overly proscriptive about vaccines. Vaccines
| have multiple layers of effect because our immune systems
| have multiple layers of effect. You don't neglect the
| seatbelts just because the car is more likely to crash in
| the first place.
| poszlem wrote:
| In which place am I overly proscriptive? In the paragraph
| where I say that the vaccines are ALSO intended to
| prevent people from getting sick? If anything it's the OP
| who is overly reductive.
|
| At no point did I say that you should not get vaccinated,
| you are putting words in my mouth. I said that the
| original intention of vaccines was to prevent infection.
| It is still the main way that most people conceptualizes
| vaccines too.
| lamontcg wrote:
| > My kids got the vaccine this year, and all of them got sick
| because of the flu, 3 times.
|
| probably not.
| beebmam wrote:
| I had the flu 10 times one year in high school,
| coincidentally on days I didn't do my homework. Weird!
| scotty79 wrote:
| I think reduction of chance of getting infected that you can
| get from flu vaccine is very modest and in any single case can
| be easily drowned in the noise caused by all other factors. But
| it's visible in epidemiological data.
| cryptoegorophy wrote:
| Vaccine is against one type of flu. Maybe you didn't get sick
| with the other one but only this one. This is what the article
| is talking about. Covering all flu so that you don't get sick.
| reedjosh wrote:
| [flagged]
| thallium205 wrote:
| Why do you hate gramma?
| reedjosh wrote:
| Bro gramma sux. Lol
|
| I don't know, I'm just in a weird mood this morning and do
| far too much posting from my phone lately.
| uwagar wrote:
| they probably hate your granma in particular.
| colechristensen wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| bpfrh wrote:
| I had a flu and now have a chronic illness because of that.
|
| I think you always take your chances, but vaccine are tested
| better than a virus that mutates in the wild.
| AmVess wrote:
| Your skepticism is warranted and perhaps a healthy view to the
| modern approach to what they call science. Labeling people for
| being anti-vax because they are anti-mRNA vax is cancel
| culturalism at its peak.
|
| Keep in mind that an alarming number of people who are pro
| covid vax are the same people who were anti-vaxxers when they
| believed it was the cause of autism.
|
| What a strange world we live in.
| bilekas wrote:
| I'm not going to downvote because it's your opinion but I don't
| see why you would be concerned about a vaccine at all u less
| you've a proven history of adverse effects which is so
| extraordinarily rare it's barely worth mentioning!
|
| I think though that the kind of opinion you have and share
| really diminishes the incredible amount of hard work, research
| and effort that goes into them.
| grey413 wrote:
| "When it comes down to it am I more concerned about the disease
| or the vaccine?"
|
| The disease. You should really be concerned about the disease,
| not the mild immune system trainers.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| It doesn't matter whether it's political or not. All that
| matters is the science, and the real risk and benefits shown by
| science. The danger is that too many so-called "skeptics" are
| not actually looking at the science, and are instead sitting in
| fear and ignorance and calling that skepticism, when really
| it's the same thinking that they would claim to reject in
| others.
|
| If you're concerned about the disease, get the vaccine.
| Vaccines work, and you literally cannot predict with certainty
| how a disease will affect you. If you're concerned about the
| vaccine, look at the scientific evidence after large-scale
| trials. At the end of the day, you aren't personally doing the
| trials and developing the vaccine, so you will have to have
| some level of faith in the work of others. Same as you need to
| have faith that your vegetables aren't covered in e.coli, or
| that your shower isn't harboring brain-eating viruses, etc. We
| all take measured risks in life.
| lwhalen wrote:
| ...prepare yourself for massive downvotes. I'm in the same boat
| - how can I possibly be 'anti vax' if I've gotten pretty much
| all the PREVIOUS ones (based on the older tech), and I'm just
| skeptical of the utility/necessity of this new tech that
| appears to have non-trivial risks of debilitating or fatal side
| effects?
| grey-area wrote:
| There are no credible reports of mrna vaccines having
| undesirable side effects any more serious than other
| vaccines. All vaccines are a trade off between side effects
| and effects, that's why there are a huge number of hurdles
| before any vaccine is released and lots of studies of
| efficacy and side effects after.
| karl_gluck wrote:
| That's what I thought too, until a friend sent me the paper
| "Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4
| antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination"
| published a few weeks ago:
|
| https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798
|
| From what I can understand, it seems mRNA vaccines can
| cause a non-inflammatory response to actual infection that
| prolongs the disease. I'm supportive of vaccination, but
| that doesn't mean side effects can't happen especially with
| new technology.
| Izkata wrote:
| Oh, there's more. Remember all those refutations of
| claims that it changes your DNA? Pretty much all of them
| went something like "That's stupid, DNA is converted into
| RNA, not the other way around!" - meanwhile the people
| who were concerned about it knew about reverse
| transcriptase enzyme, and months later a study was
| published showing it can happen in human liver cells:
| https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73
| skiman10 wrote:
| Okay but not really though right?
|
| https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/a-swedish-study-did-not-
| say...
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| That's because the phrase _anti-vax_ is not meant to be an
| accurate descriptor; instead, it 's meant to be a label
| applied to you to cause others to attack you without
| thinking. You can see many examples of this here in this
| thread.
|
| Be comfortable in your control over your own body and don't
| engage with those who would destroy you because you don't
| submit to their collective will.
| grey-area wrote:
| Who 'would destroy you' because you don't take a flu
| vaccine?
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| At the time I wrote this comment, there are literally two
| occurrences of the term "anti-vax" in this thread and they
| belong to you and the grandparent.
| haswell wrote:
| > _it 's meant to be a label applied to you to cause others
| to attack you without thinking_
|
| I would like to think the average attitude here is closer
| to one of intellectual curiosity than blind labeling.
|
| The trouble is that "anti-vax" sentiment is impossible to
| distinguish from "vaccine hesitancy" when the only reasons
| put forward seem to be vague mistrust in the tech /
| government.
|
| Rarely do these conversations lead to real discussions
| about actual quantified risks, which makes it easy to
| dismiss hesitancy as garden variety anti-vax sentiment -
| the kind that is based on verifiable lies and has been
| around for decades.
|
| I'd argue that instead of predicting inevitable binary
| thinking and dismissals, it'd be more useful to focus on
| the actual substantial claims to back up the position.
| Anything less moves the conversation nowhere.
| [deleted]
| indymike wrote:
| > vaccination has become political.
|
| When the concept of vaccination was new, it was political.
| After a few rounds of stopping really bad disease (smallpox,
| polio, rabies, etc...), people mostly believed in vaccine
| because they literally eradicated disease. When COVID hit, I
| think it benefited from the reputations of successful vaccines
| of the past, and a lot of people put their faith in public
| health officials who in the past were the vanguard for
| eradicating some very dreadful, horrible viral diseases.
|
| After getting couple doses of COVID vax, actually having
| everyone in my family (who is vaxed) including me get COVID
| (and some of us get seriously ill), I have a very hard time
| believing that the COVID vaccination was very effective,
| especially if you compare it to the vaccinations that have
| successfully eradicated entire diseases. Millions have shared
| the same experience my family had.
|
| Yes, desperate times call for sometimes desperate measures, and
| I like to believe that the COVID vaccine helped blunt the
| pandemic... but the fact is people get this vaccination and
| still can get COVID and even die of die of it. This is the
| source of the cognitive dissonance we see in the body politic
| right now... and why trust in public health is down
| substantially.
| grey413 wrote:
| It seems like you got it in your head that the COVID vaccines
| would be a able to stop infection entirely, and were
| disappointed when it didn't for your family. It's not
| surprising that you did: a lot of the messaging at the time
| really counted their chickens before they hatched and painted
| it as a miracle prophylactic. In the real world, vaccines are
| a population-level tool with a range of outcomes. It's
| annoyingly hard to communicate that to the masses.
|
| In practice, it turns out that fighting fast-mutating viral
| respiratory infections is hard to do. Our immune just aren't
| that great at it, and vaccines can only stack the deck there
| so much in our favor. I believe that the (observational, hard
| to rely on) evidence suggests that the covid vaccine reduced
| the incidence of infection, but only by about 25-50%. And
| that's good! That doesn't even cover the much more
| substantial reduction in serious outcomes! A world with the
| vaccines is unarguably less hostile than that without. But
| it's not a miracle, and it's always aggravating when people
| engage in the nirvana fallacy about it.
| indymike wrote:
| > It's not surprising that you did: a lot of the messaging
| at the time really counted their chickens before they
| hatched and painted it as a miracle prophylactic.
|
| This is exactly the issue. There was so much just bad
| information out there.
|
| > Our immune just aren't that great at it, and vaccines can
| only stack the deck there so much in our favor. I believe
| that the (observational, hard to rely on) evidence suggests
| that the covid vaccine reduced the incidence of infection,
| but only by about 25-50%.
|
| I like to think this .
|
| > A world with the vaccines is unarguably less hostile than
| that without. But it's not a miracle, and it's always
| aggravating when people engage in the nirvana fallacy about
| it.
|
| It's really disappointing that attitudes towards COVID
| vaccines are spreading to other vaccines. It's sad when I
| hear parents talking about MMR and other proved vaccines
| using the anti-COVID talking pointes.
| gwd wrote:
| > I'm skeptical ...now that vaccination has become political.
|
| I'm exactly the opposite -- I'm skeptical of skepticism like
| yours, because its source often seems to be political / tribal
| rather than rational. Specifically, it seems to me that some
| people have started pushing the anti-vax narrative because they
| find that it gives them power.
|
| > ...am I more concerned about the disease or the vaccine?
|
| Is this an either-or question? We have government institutions
| like the FDA, whose job it is to make sure that proposed
| medical treatments are 1) not harmful 2) do what they claim to
| do. If you have a rational basis for thinking they're not doing
| a good job, then lobby for change; or at very least present
| evidence so that someone else might choose to do so.
|
| We also have government institutions like the CDC, whose job it
| is to come up with policies that will benefit the population as
| a whole; to weigh the overall benefits of (say) promoting flu
| vaccination against the costs and risks.
|
| Sure, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC experienced
| political pressure. But that was because lockdowns are
| inherently politically unpopular.
|
| I'm not aware of any such political pressure regarding flu
| vaccination; which makes your skepticism -- particularly
| without any evidence presented for it -- seem irrational.
| Izkata wrote:
| > If you have a rational basis for thinking they're not doing
| a good job, then lobby for change; or at very least present
| evidence so that someone else might choose to do so.
|
| For one: https://nypost.com/2021/09/01/two-senior-fda-
| officials-resig...
|
| > Two senior officials have resigned from their positions
| within the US Food and Drug Administration over frustrations
| with the Biden administration's plans to move forward with
| recommending COVID-19 booster shots without their prior
| approval, according to a report.
|
| I also remember more where the FDA went against their panel's
| advice about authorization for children, but am having
| trouble finding it now.
| gwd wrote:
| Right, COVID-19 has caused political pressure _related to
| COVID-19_ because lockdowns are politically unpopular. The
| fact that two senior officials resigned sort of implies
| that the FDA is still very robust, and takes its mandate
| very seriously; meaning in the _absence_ of political
| pressure -- for instance, when talking about the flu --
| their recommendations are probably pretty reliable.
| nicoburns wrote:
| FWIW, not all governments even promote the flu vaccine for
| everyone. For example, here in the UK the flu vaccine is only
| offered to the elderly and to those who have conditions such as
| asthma that makes it more dangerous (and indeed that also
| applies to ongoing boosters of the covid vaccine). For those
| whom flu is dangerous, a more effective vaccine seems like a
| very good thing.
| blipvert wrote:
| Oi! 50 isn't elderly!
|
| I need to book my appointment as they texted me. I can only
| remember getting flu once, in my 20s, and it felt like I was
| going to die. 25 years later I'm gonna avoid the flu like the
| plague!
| uwagar wrote:
| since recently, the flu vaccine is now advised starting 2
| year olds. source is here:
| https://twitter.com/UKHSA/status/1595053700489379847?s=20
| nicoburns wrote:
| From to 2 to 17 by the looks of things. And it's a separate
| nasal spray vaccine.
| cguess wrote:
| I mean, that's just not true. It's only offered completely
| free from the NHS for those criteria, but it's only PS10 at
| Boots for everyone else
| https://www.boots.com/online/pharmacy-services/winter-flu-
| ja...
|
| It's a good idea to get it no matter who you are, the flu
| sucks, you can spread it to people who are vulnerable and for
| whom the jab didn't take 100%.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Right. "advised" would probably have been better wording
| than "offered". Within those critiria they'll actively
| contact you and suggest that you get it. Outside of those
| criteria you have to ask for it yourself.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| > messaging now that vaccination has become political
|
| Vaccination has always been "political" as infectious diseases
| like viruses almost always entail publicly funded and promoted
| public health campaigns.
|
| The polio vaccination campaign in particular was a huge
| political effort to push it through and encourage people to
| take it.
| haswell wrote:
| The politicization of vaccination may be a real phenomena, but
| that does not change the value of vaccination or the decades of
| foundational work that occurred prior to the popularity of
| anti-vax sentiment.
|
| What leads you to believe that the political noise is worth
| listening to despite a history of successful vaccine
| development? Many anti-vaxxers are equally opposed to
| MMR/Polio/etc. vaccines despite the risk profile of those
| diseases. What separates "new" vaccine hesitation from the
| classical quackery?
|
| If we always change our viewpoints about health because someone
| chooses to politicize some of them, we're going to be in for a
| bad time...
|
| I'm genuinely curious to understand this sentiment. I grew up
| with anti-vax parents in the 80s, and was lucky enough to
| experience the measles first-hand as a result. If I could undo
| that period of my life and protect myself against getting sick,
| I would.
|
| When I see people express skepticism based on nothing other
| than the current political climate, it's hard not to see the
| blind mistrust my parents had in the government that ultimately
| caused me real harm.
| oifjsidjf wrote:
| Perhaps the only reason why flu is harmless is because we don't
| fight it?
|
| Need I remind you what is happening with the antibiotic
| resistance issues we are facing due to dishing out antibiotics
| left and right as if it were candy?
|
| Other than very old and frail people it's stupid to vaccinate
| against something that harms 0% non-old and non-weak population.
|
| Side effects could be disasterous.
| greenyoda wrote:
| Different flu strains have affected different age groups. For
| example, the 1918 flu pandemic killed 25-50 million people and
| disproportionately affected young adults:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
| tedivm wrote:
| It really amazes me how anti science this website has become.
| goldenchrome wrote:
| Anti orthodoxy isn't necessarily the same as anti science.
| Questioning the established science is pro science provided
| it's done in good faith and it looks like the parent is
| acting in good faith.
|
| What you're witnessing is a great reckoning for the
| scientific community. We'll see if the orthodoxy still has
| the faculties to deliver truth with time. I think the
| community has been corrupted.
| di456 wrote:
| > Questioning the established science is pro science
| provided it's done in good faith and it looks like the
| parent is acting in good faith.
|
| I see the opposite here, it's another take of outrage porn
| based on misinformation.
|
| Good science would be having a hypothesis and doing
| scientific research on it. Science is based on hypothesis.
| It rarely gets to 100% but does work off of statistical
| significance. Whereas conspiracy theory regurgitation is
| based on opinion and story telling and does little to
| nothing to move science forward.
| goldenchrome wrote:
| Asking questions is the start of the scientific process.
| If it turns out that vaccines cause undisclosed health
| problems then wouldn't you be outraged too?
|
| Let's see how it unfolds. Most of us can't do the science
| ourselves, but we can ask questions and observe.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Throwing out a statement like:
|
| > Perhaps the only reason why flu is harmless is because we
| don't fight it?
|
| Without providing any evidence that viruses tend to become
| more dangerous when we combat them is anti-science. It's
| like saying: What if the earth is flat?
|
| Consider successful viral eradication campaigns like
| smallpox or polio. There's no indication that smallpox
| became "super smallpox" as it was about to be eradicated.
| Nor is there a reason to think this would happen based on
| what we know about how viruses work. It's pure fear
| mongering on the basis of nothing at all.
|
| Edit: There's so much wrong with the original post here.
| Not only is the flu sometimes deadly, as others have
| pointed out, but we _already_ fight the flu with seasonal
| flu vaccines. Indeed, they seem to have a strong protective
| effect[1]. The flu doesn 't seem to be getting stronger as
| a result any of this.
|
| [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35132866/
| generalizations wrote:
| If you're concerned about being anti-science, at least do
| a google search. [1] Right now, your resistance to
| contradicting information sure makes you look
| unscientific.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_resistanc
| e#Virus...
| fzeroracer wrote:
| Please don't engage. Flag and move on. You can look at
| both of their post histories and see neither of them are
| here in good faith. There is an increasing number of
| people that just post absurd nonsense and then leave the
| argument because even if it's flagged and killed, it'll
| suck the air out of the thread and divert posts away from
| the topic.
| goldenchrome wrote:
| That's not very kind. I think maybe you just don't agree
| with me. It doesn't mean I'm not here in good faith. I've
| been a member here since 2012 and most of my comments are
| well received. Those that are not are still my truthful
| opinions stated plainly.
|
| I don't expect people to engage with me, but I hope they
| do, and with their heart. Telling people to flag and move
| on feels like you just want to silence perspectives you
| don't like.
| di456 wrote:
| So much misinformation here..
|
| > Perhaps the only reason why flu is harmless is because we
| don't fight it?
|
| The flu has been fought with vaccines for decades.
|
| Still, it mutates constantly and the vaccine producers guess
| which strains will be dominant. Like s coin flip, they guess
| right or wrong. The topic of the article means that they may
| not have to guess.
|
| > ...antibiotic resistance issues we are facing due to dishing
| out antibiotics...
|
| Vaccines and antibiotics are two completely different things.
| One is preventative, other is for acute care of a bacterial
| infection.
|
| > Other than very old and frail people it's stupid to vaccinate
| against something that harms 0% non-old and non-weak
| population.
|
| Vaccine of a healthy person slows transmission to elderly and
| immunocompromised. And reduces the chances of feeling really
| shitty and missing school or work for several days.
|
| It's sad to dismiss something because it doesn't benefit "me",
| without considering how it may benefit "us" as a community.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| > It's sad to dismiss something because it doesn't benefit
| "me", without considering how it may benefit "us" as a
| community.
|
| Really seems a problem with many areas of modern society.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I'd note this isn't a modern concept. Selfishness evolved
| when our mutated giant brain dna expressed itself and has
| been poisoning us all since.
| SamPatt wrote:
| Pursuing self interest isn't poison.
|
| There are many examples in history (and in our modern
| world) where doing the "selfless" thing is just
| manipulation for serving someone else's interests first.
|
| Religious leaders maintained power over society for ages
| by determining what was selfish behavior.
|
| We likely cannot agree on a rule which always properly
| distinguishes between pursuing self interest for
| survival's sake versus crossing the line into harming
| others. Since we are forced to inhabit the same world,
| it's best to not disparage others for pursuing their own
| self interest as long as they aren't hurting you
| directly.
| di456 wrote:
| "Poison" is hyperbole but I read it as ego. Coming from
| an exclusively ego-centric place generally doesn't lead
| to the best outcomes in life.
|
| Unchecked ego is part of narcissism spectrum. We all have
| some of it. Extreme narcissism is a cancer in modern
| culture. Maybe that's what OP meant by poison.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| The poison I meant is the difference between communal
| animals and human society. The root of why we are so
| noxious and odious a beast is the self, and a lack of
| realization the self doesn't exist as it's impermanent
| and ever changing. But I give away my doctrine here :-)
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| The motivating example here was the statement of "I'm not
| going to be hurt by disease X so I will do nothing to
| prevent harm to others who are impacted by the diseases
| spread." This isn't self interest. This is selfishness.
| They gain nothing by helping others than avoiding minor
| inconveniences.
|
| I would also note that major religions revolve on
| explaining the differences and providing a vantage for
| judging the boundaries between self interest and
| selfishness. The fact some selfish people exploit the
| ambiguities, or even the inefficiencies of selflessness
| does not obviate in any way the teaching of the religion.
| Just demonstrates that pursuing a selfless life doesn't
| imply lack of critical thought.
| lynx23 wrote:
| Thats what happens if you overpressure people. I can
| definitely say that since the pandemic, and especially the
| hardcore propaganda during the first few waves, I can feel a
| distinct revoltion when someone pulls the "it is for the good
| of others" card. I can only watch my own gut reactions. No,
| thanks, I am not going to take medicine with questionable
| test status for "us". Maybe I might have without that
| hardcore pressure, but I will never forget the media running
| wild. I know I should feel differently, but I dont. I am
| through with "us".
| jeromegv wrote:
| Okay. But what you say has nothing to do with the
| scientific value and benefits. It's just your gut feelings.
| You are free to feel that of course, to each their own
| di456 wrote:
| I totally get that. The COVID vaccines were marketed as our
| hope for the end of the pandemic. But people with vaccines
| kept getting sick afterwards. There was definitely an
| overpromise and the messaging throughout the pandemic
| seemed completely "make it up as you go."
|
| At the same time there was and still is hardcore political
| propaganda to divide us into "us" and "them" camps on
| topics like this. It makes everyone on both sides more
| easily controlled and manipulated. Being through with "us"
| puts you into the "them" camp and your decision is equally
| shaped by the other side of the same propaganda. Are you
| really looking out for "me" or serving someone else's
| agenda just the way they want you to?
|
| One can decide to skip vaccines and still watch out for
| their neighbors, they aren't mutually exclusive.
|
| Camus' book The Rebel is a fascinating read on the topic.
| This quote stuck with me over the years:
|
| "Every revolutionary ends by becoming either an oppressor
| or a heretic. In the purely historical universe that they
| have chosen, rebellion and revolution end in the same
| dilemma: either police rule or insanity."
| generalizations wrote:
| > One is preventative, other is for acute care
|
| Nit: this difference has nothing to do with antimicrobial
| resistance. If you're concerned about misinformation, at
| least get your facts right.
| Eldt wrote:
| When did they make such a claim? Seems you are
| misinterpreting (or misrepresenting)
| generalizations wrote:
| >>>> antibiotic resistance issues we are facing due to
| dishing out antibiotics left and right
|
| >>> Vaccines and antibiotics are two completely different
| things. One is preventative, other is for acute care of a
| bacterial infection.
|
| >> this difference [preventative vs acute care] has
| nothing to do with antimicrobial resistance
|
| > When did they make such a claim?
|
| Right there in the parent comment. Ctrl-F might help?
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| The statement appears to have been that use of vaccines
| will contribute to antibiotic resistance, and the
| counterpoint being that vaccines are not antibiotics and
| thus irrelevant. What is incorrect about this?
| generalizations wrote:
| The orignal statement was actually "antibiotic resistance
| issues we are facing due to dishing out antibiotics left
| and right", which is pretty clearly not "use of vaccines
| will contribute to antibiotic resistance".
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| But that is the point being made. These two are not
| similar.
|
| Antibiotics are a general purpose thing. Using them on
| trivial cases can increase antibiotic resistance which is
| bad for the cases where we really need antibiotics.
|
| Vaccines are specific. You can't accrue "vaccine
| resistance" as a catch all thing by applying vaccines to
| everyone. You may create pressure for a virus to work
| around specific vaccines, but the only risk is that we
| will need to adjust the vaccine. Unlike with antibiotics
| where we really just need to try and find a new
| alternative.
| generalizations wrote:
| I don't really understand the point you're making. You
| made an objectively false assessment of the original
| comment.
|
| > You can't accrue "vaccine resistance" as a catch all
| thing by applying vaccines to everyone.
|
| Actually, you can. It's just evolutionary pressure after
| all, and that's something both bacteria and viruses are
| subject to.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_resistance#Vi
| rus...
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Read more carefully. You can accrue resistance to a
| specific vaccine. You cannot accrue resistance to
| vaccines, generally. The rate of people taking the Flu
| vaccine has no bearing on the efficacy of the Covid
| vaccine (in terms of vaccine resistance).
|
| Also, you have linked to a section on antivirals. These
| are different from vaccines.
| Izkata wrote:
| > the Flu vaccine
|
| There are many, not just one, for the different strains
| of flu. The yearly shots include only a small subset, the
| ones predicted to be most prevalent in the coming flu
| season, because of manufacturing costs/limitations and
| compatibility.
| generalizations wrote:
| > You cannot accrue resistance to vaccines, generally.
|
| You're the only one who suggested this, and I assumed you
| knew enough to give your ambigious statement the benefit
| of the doubt. I'm guessing your were confused due to the
| misunderstanding about general-purpose antibiotics.
| Izkata wrote:
| They are in that the net effect is the same:
|
| Antibotics make a given person more resistant to the
| current version of the bacteria. Bacteria with a mutation
| that survives against that antibiotic will then become
| the dominant version because it massively out-competes
| the rest.
|
| Vaccines make a given person more resistant to the
| version of the virus the vaccine was for. Viruses with a
| "vaccine escape" mutation will become the dominant
| version because it massively out-competes the rest.
|
| Personally I think this is what happened with Delta. It
| was first identified in Oct 2020, but didn't become
| dominant until the vaccine rollouts, which it was better
| able to survive against.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| No this is not the same. Antibiotics kill bacteria,
| across the board, indiscriminately. Bacteria can evolve
| protection from antibiotics. It is not clear that this
| will help out compete the rest. Taking antibiotics for a
| minor cold can cause antibiotic resistance to appear in
| OTHER bacteria unrelated to the cold.
|
| Vaccines are specific to the thing they prevent.
| Izkata wrote:
| > Vaccines are specific to the thing they prevent.
|
| Exactly. Have you not heard all the stuff about "vaccine-
| escape" variants of sars-cov-2? This is what we're
| talking about.
| generalizations wrote:
| > Antibiotics kill bacteria, across the board,
| indiscriminately.
|
| That is not true. You're probably thinking of broad-
| spectrum antibiotics, which are not the only kind.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad-spectrum_antibiotic
| vikramkr wrote:
| The Antibiotic resistance issues were seeing are orders of
| magnitude less problematic than the deaths caused by bacteria
| pre antibiotics. And - the flu isn't 100% safe for non old and
| non "weak" - no clue where you got that impression from. The
| 1918 flu pandemic (the origin of the still circulating h1n1
| strain) was among the deadliest pandemics ever exactly because
| it was most likely to kill yound, healthy people
| generalizations wrote:
| The problem isn't the current state of resistance - the
| problem is the growing state of antibiotic resistance. What
| happens when the trend continues and we no longer have useful
| antibiotics? Then we're right back to square one.
| jccooper wrote:
| But what does that have to do with vaccines?
|
| An effective vaccine reduces antibiotic resistance
| pressures, since fewer people are taking antibiotics.
| generalizations wrote:
| They were drawing a comparison. Overuse of antibiotics
| can lead to antibiotic resistance; and similarly, in some
| cases we get similar results with antivirals.
| awb wrote:
| Do you agree with fighting deadly diseases through vaccination?
| furyofantares wrote:
| Viruses and vaccines are very different things than bacteria
| and antibiotics, I'm not understanding why you think this is
| applicable reasoning.
| jjcon wrote:
| If there is selective pressure preventing spread, mutation
| would seem inevitable. Covid has mutated many times already.
| The question is will the mutations this selects for make a
| flu that is worse or will does it wall off all possible
| mutations with 100% (or close to) certainty?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Mutations are inevitable no matter what. Many viruses
| mutate extremely quickly, probably because they are much
| simpler than a bacteria - that's why many vaccines stop
| working in a matter of months. While you're right about
| selective pressure giving preference to some strains, by
| limiting the spread of a virus you limit its potential to
| mutate since there are so many fewer viral particles
| around.
|
| For example if 100 people get sick vs 10, the number of
| viral particles and mutations you can expect increases
| tenfold and the risk of one of those mutations being
| dangerous increases as well.
| xcskier56 wrote:
| "Harms 0% non-old and non-weak population" -- completely 100%
| demonstrably false.
|
| One of my friends older sisters, in her late 20's came down
| with the flu at night, then in the morning didn't go to school
| (she was a teacher) b/c she was sick. She went to the hospital
| that evening and was dead before midnight from inflammation of
| the heart caused by the Flu.
| jjcon wrote:
| That is heartbreaking for sure. I think OP is trying to say
| or raise the possibility that the alternative could be much
| worse on a population level scale. I certainly have the same
| question but no background in this area to know myself.
| di456 wrote:
| OP is repeating misinformation and conspiracy theories.
|
| We already have flu vaccines. The article is about a
| different type of vaccine for the flu.
| jjcon wrote:
| I think there is a good faith discussion though to be had
| about whether or not this could select for more deadly
| traits, no? That is certainly my first uneducated but
| good faith question that comes to mind after the past few
| years we've all been through.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _there is a good faith discussion though to be had
| about whether or not this could select for more deadly
| traits, no_
|
| In the history of vaccination, has this ever happened?
|
| What _has_ happened is resistance to medicine. Vaccines
| reduce the opportunity for pathogens to be exposed to
| drugs by reducing the incidence and severity of illness.
|
| It's fine to take time to make informed medical
| decisions. But if your concern is resistance, vaccines
| are a friend.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Not with humans, but it has happened in chickens.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease#Prevent
| ion
|
| It seems to be related to "leaky" vaccines.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Interesting. Curious why we haven't seen a similar effect
| with SARS-CoV-2 or the poliovirus.
| Izkata wrote:
| IIRC it took about 20 years to be apparent with Marek's
| disease.
|
| The polio vaccines aren't "leaky", but we are seeing
| increasing problems with oral-vaccine-derived polio now:
| https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-
| news/item/2... - there are more cases of this than of
| "wild" polio nowadays.
| [deleted]
| onetokeoverthe wrote:
| [dead]
| actuallyalys wrote:
| The other challenge of a flu vaccine is getting people to take
| it. This past year, just over half the population received a flu
| vaccination [0]. But maybe a more effective vaccine would be more
| appealing, so this vaccine might also address that part of the
| problem. It's unclear whether from the part of this article not
| paywalled, but if it eliminates the need for annual shots, that
| would also help, too.
|
| [0]: https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/flu-vaccination-
| ra...
| devmor wrote:
| I kept putting mine off this year and just forgot about it. I
| think that happens to a lot of people too - rather than just
| outright refusal. It's one of those things you need to make
| time for and just don't prioritize unless you're extremely
| worried about it.
| actuallyalys wrote:
| Yes, I think this is part of it. I've certainly forgotten to
| get the flu vaccine in the past.
|
| Having vaccination programs in workplaces and other places
| people visit often can probably help with that. Pharmacies
| have begun to offer flu vaccines in the past 10 years or so,
| which is great. Making all vaccines free to the recipient
| would also make the choice simpler.
| tssva wrote:
| My employer has nurses on staff which used to give the flu
| vaccine. Now that more people are remote and every
| Walgreens, CVS, Walmart and grocery store with a pharmacy
| gives them with no charge to those with insurance they have
| stopped giving it at work. It was convenient to just take
| the elevator a couple of floors and get the vaccine during
| lunch.
|
| They self-insure so it not only reduced time taken because
| of illness but reduced their insurance costs.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I get paid (by my insurance) $100 to get flu shot, and $200
| to get an annual wellness exam, and $100 for an A1C test,
| and $100 for a cholesterol test every year.
|
| So I get at least $500 for spending 30min to go to a doctor
| every year, which is all the incentive I need to remember
| to schedule it (as simple as putting a yearly reminder in
| my calendar).
| jimbob45 wrote:
| It doesn't help that most people don't know that the common
| cold and the flu are two entirely separate illnesses. Even if
| they know they're separate, they usually think they're roughly
| equivalent, which they're certainly not.
| DominikPeters wrote:
| It would be helpful for me if there was clearer public
| communication about how recommendable the flu vaccine is in any
| given year. It varies a lot because some years they've
| correctly guessed the circulating strains and in other years
| they haven't. I'm happier to get vaccinated in years where we
| can expect (a) the circulating strains to be bad and (b) the
| vaccine being effective against it.
| sergers wrote:
| I haven't had a flu shot consistently since 1994 in early
| elementary school and then randomly decided to get 1 in 2006 as
| my work was offering it
|
| That's it.
|
| Never had a the flu that I am aware of.
|
| I would definately be interested if a shot that covered all
| types, but not interested in taking something annually
| personally for a what seems a highly remote risk of infection
| so far never catching the flu (when even being around others
| with it).
|
| Is there any stats of people who had a flu shot but still got
| the flu? I hear it's always the case of oh it's a different
| strain spreading this season than the shot... Or majority of
| people who say they have the flu it's really not
| BurningFrog wrote:
| The point of a universal vaccine is that you don't have to take
| it every year, since it protects against all variants.
| azinman2 wrote:
| I think we need to see how long the protection lasts. Many
| vaccines need boosters after some period of time.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Agreed!
| User23 wrote:
| The problem with the flu vaccine, just like the covid vaccine,
| is that it just doesn't work very well. I'm confident that a
| sterilizing flu vaccine that worked as well as MMR, Tdap,
| polio, chickenpox, and various others would have considerably
| higher uptake than the semi-effective mostly palliative shots
| on the market today.
| vidarh wrote:
| The biggest problem with the flu vaccine is that there is no
| "the" flu vaccine. Each year there are attempts at predicting
| the prevalent strains that year and producing a multivalent
| vaccine targeting the most likely strains. Some years the
| prediction is spot on, some it misses badly.
|
| That is exactly what this attempt at a very broad coverage is
| attempting to change.
|
| The second problem is that this process makes it hard to
| build up stockpiles to actually provide vaccines to everyone,
| and so there's little incentive for any broad pushes to
| increase update outside of specific groups of people.
|
| If this attempt succeeds at getting coverage for a vaccine
| that can stay the same for longer periods, then expect to see
| attempts to distribute it more broadly and maybe even
| attempts to eradicate some of the strains.
| whateveracct wrote:
| My in-laws refuse to get a flu shot. On top of refusing to get
| Covid boosted despite only having the J&J. They say they don't
| need it because they have good immune systems and never get
| sick. Combined with living in a red state and general internet
| nonsense causing them to not trust doctors anymore.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| Hey, I can't seem to get a straight answer to this question,
| I've been asking doctors for over a decade though
|
| If everyone takes the flu vaccine and wipes out that strain
| for the season, won't we just get a different strain of flu
| circulating for the year?
| LarryMullins wrote:
| They already have to formulate a new flu shot twice a year
| because of how fast the flu changes. And the efficacy of
| the new flu shot each time ranges between 10-50%, so even
| if everybody got the shot, it wouldn't stop the flu.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I am not a doctor, but my lay understanding is that this is
| ones of the reasons why we have multivalent vaccines. "Let
| the perfect not be the enemy of the good," etc.
| vidarh wrote:
| If we do, that'd be good news because it'd mean possibility
| for consistently getting a better match with still extant
| strains by the vaccines (each year there are efforts to
| pick which strains to protect against based on prevalence,
| any reduction in strains improves odds) and/or might make
| it viable to produce and distribute a larger number of
| simpler vaccines ("First, returning to vaccines with two
| IAV strains and a B/Victoria strain could increase the
| available doses for global distribution (from ~500 million
| QIV doses to ~700 million doses of a trivalent vaccine9)"
| [3]).
|
| Note that there's a possibility that a couple of flu
| strains _may_ have gone extinct due to reduced transmission
| during covid [1] [2] [3], so we have a chance at getting
| direct data on this over the next few years if those
| strains don 't make a reappearance.
|
| [1] https://www.livescience.com/flu-virus-types-extinct-
| covid-19...
|
| [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36177871/
|
| [3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00642-4
| gus_massa wrote:
| 50% of everyone older than 6 months is a lot. Here in Argentina
| the flu vaccine is only recommended for:
|
| * Children between 6 months and 2 years
|
| * People with more than 65 yea old
|
| * Pregnant women
|
| * Special cases, like other chronic illness
|
| It's free for these groups. Other people can get it too paying
| a small fee.
| eftychis wrote:
| Yeah the problem with vaccines is: either everyone takes them
| or they don't work how people think they do.
| mlyle wrote:
| There's a small amount of epidemiological study that implies
| that you save more of the very old and very young from the
| flu by vaccinating school age children (age 5 to 12)
| children. It makes sense-- they're a primary transmission
| vector, and they mount a more robust response to the flu
| vaccine than toddlers and elderly.
| eftychis wrote:
| There were similar guidelines approaches for COVID but
| political pressure dictated otherwise.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| All vaccines have small risks. I've had family members get
| lifelong painful complications from I think two different
| vaccines, neither related to the recent ones. So it makes me a
| little hesitant when I know that I'll survive the flu like I
| have many times before.
| namdnay wrote:
| That's the thing isn't it? Is the risk of the vaccine higher
| than the risk of a future flu? I strongly suspect it isn't
| watwut wrote:
| In my case, I had actual flue exactly once in my life. It
| was super unpleasant, but no big deal and ended in exactly
| one week.
|
| I got flu shot three times and got sick with (not flu
| ordinary sickness) right after three times and it took two
| weeks to feel good after. I guess the issue is that I am
| rarely entirely healthy during cold season and flu shot
| pushes me over the line. Not really work it.
|
| I would take it if I had reason to - like a relative with
| super weak immune system or had to go to hospital whatever.
| But other then that, it is not worth it.
| toast0 wrote:
| At least for me, the first several times I got the flu
| shot, I had a fairly strong immune response; this is
| probably good, but still two to three days of disruption.
| The last couple shots haven't been so bad (or I also had a
| covid shot at the same time, so who knows).
|
| But after the first two flu shots it was: known couple of
| days feeling sick plus very low chance of major
| complication vs unlikely several days of feeling sick plys
| low chance of major complication ... and there's a decent
| chance of getting the shot, feeling sick, and then getting
| the flu and feeling sick again.
|
| Now that I've gotten the shot enough times that I don't
| have a strong response, it's easier to just get it. The
| very low chance of major complications with no family
| history of such isn't enough _for me_ to worry about. But
| the US has different policies on this intervention than
| other countries, so reasonable people can differ, I guess.
| adastra22 wrote:
| You will survive the flu until you don't. In my early 30's I
| got deathly ill from the flu. Not an expression: I was
| delirious with a 104 fever for 4 days that would not go down
| even with medication, and probably should have been
| hospitalized. I'm lucky there was no long term effects.
|
| I always get my flu shot now.
| grugagag wrote:
| I got the flu shot after which, about a month later, I got
| a bad case of flu with symptoms similar to what you
| described above. Flu shots may help but they may also
| not...
| vidarh wrote:
| The problem with the flu shots is that each year there
| are attempts to predict which strains to vaccinate for
| that year based on data on spread. You're reasonably well
| protected against _those strains_ , but far less so
| against any other strains that may or may not end up
| being a significant part of that years wave, and so
| indeed there's always a risk they won't help you.
|
| That's exactly what this attempt at a universal vaccine
| is trying to change.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Flu shot efficacy is 50% _in a good year_. Many years,
| the flu shot is much less effective than 50%: https://en.
| wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine#Effectivenes...
|
| Good odds the flu shot did nothing at all for you.
| danaris wrote:
| ...and the point of this article is that it should be
| good _every_ year.
|
| It will be interesting to see whether it _also_ provides
| better than 50% efficacy.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _...and the point of this article is that it should be
| good every year._
|
| That's their aspiration. Time will tell.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Then imagine if you hadn't gotten it.
|
| There's also the chance that you got a variant of that
| wasn't protected, hence the value of this work.
| moonchrome wrote:
| > Then imagine if you hadn't gotten it.
|
| This is nonsense - like you said in the second part - flu
| shots work on select strains - he could have a different
| one at which point the shot was useless.
|
| This argument (and similar) really sound like religious
| beliefs ("believe science"). From what I've seen - if
| you're 18-50 it's not worth getting.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| If you still got the flu it doesn't necessarily mean you
| got a different strain. Vaccination AND infection prime
| your body to create long lived producers of virus
| specific antibodies to provide many built in processes of
| your immune system with immensely better targeting. This
| process can take days during which your bodies immune
| system will function but not at an optimum level.
|
| Vaccination isn't a guarantee that you wont get sick.
| Picture your body like Omaha beach on D-Day the more
| boats landing the better the chances that the invasion
| makes it past the beach no matter how well armed the
| defenders.
|
| If you are 18-50 the risk of the flu isn't very high but
| the risk of the shot is comparatively microscopic. It's
| still worth it on net and it decreases the chances of
| infecting someone less healthy or older who as mentioned
| before is imperfectly protected by vaccination alone. You
| not spreading or as much is fewer invaders on their
| beach.
|
| Anyway I highly recommend "In Defense of Self"
| https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Self-Immune-System-
| Really/dp/... its a little old but well written and
| comprehensible.
| consp wrote:
| > if you're 18-50 it's not worth getting.
|
| There are plenty of people for whom is VERY MUCH worth
| getting in those age categories. Don't generalize with
| health.
| moonchrome wrote:
| True, should have said healthy in that age group.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Still wrong.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| All flu have big risks. What makes you think you'll survive
| the next one?
| ithkuil wrote:
| Because he survived the past ones and because of a anecdote
| of close person showcasing a vaccine risk materializing.
|
| Humans are not well equiped with intuition about objrctive
| risk assesment
| ThunderSizzle wrote:
| What is objective in this case? The CDC records the
| statistics for adverse affects, vaccine effectiveness,
| etc., but they also have a financial and political
| incentive for these stats to look good. If you use their
| numbers for objectivity, it's already inherently
| subjective based on the way they record metrics, and the
| metrics they focused on. I saw this very plainly with
| Covid case metrics.
| ithkuil wrote:
| But that's not the argument that was used as a start of
| this thread. It was literally "I know somebody who got a
| vaccine side effects and I know somebody (myself) who
| survived many flu seasons without problems".
|
| Sure, you're pointing out one mechanism that nudges
| things the other way.
|
| But there is also a strong psychological mechanism that
| makes people fearful of vaccines no matter what.
|
| What if this mechanism may cause people to use exaggerate
| the effects of the various flaws/bad incentives you
| pointed out?
| azinman2 wrote:
| What makes you say they have financial and political
| incentives? They get funded whether you get the flu or
| not, so that seems very hard to believe. They also aren't
| tied to a standing in their ability to prevent the flu,
| so what would be the political risk? And that's even
| assuming the scientists behind it could be swayed by
| politics in reporting of stats.
|
| Big claims require big evidence.
| ithkuil wrote:
| I wonder why the anti-vaccine people can't crowd-fund
| serious systematic studies about the phenomenon.
|
| All what I see are citations of papers about this or that
| detail and then use it as "proof!".
|
| There are hundreds of millions if not even more people
| who are fearful of vaccines and/or don't trust the
| government/elites involvement in the research.
|
| All they have to do is to hire a very large number of
| scientists to do serious independent research.
| politician wrote:
| I'm not advocating for either position in this thread,
| but surely you watched the CDC switch from one policy
| position to another dramatically different position
| multiple times during 2021.
|
| They made decisions and rewrote those decisions within 24
| hours due to political blowback not just once, but
| multiple times. They might do good science, but they lost
| any trust I had in their ability to set and execute a
| coherent national policy.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| Yeah man, the CDC probably knew the right path from the
| beginning, but they lied to us and said not to use masks,
| then they said it was OK to keep congregating so long as
| we wash our hands.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _Yeah man, the CDC probably knew the right path from
| the beginning, but they lied to us and said not to use
| masks_
|
| Your tone suggests sarcasm, but this claim is literally
| true.
| pfdietz wrote:
| The whole "don't trust someone unless they dogmatically
| stick to one position" thing is quite a take.
| politician wrote:
| When you are responsible for setting policy for
| 333,000,000 people, changing it a few hours later is a
| disgrace.
|
| They couldn't spend the time to get the feedback before
| announcing the policy and then had to walk it back the
| next day.
|
| That's hubris. The fact that it happened multiple times
| (masks, schools, full lockdown then "essential" workers)
| is a national embarrassment.
| osigurdson wrote:
| I found the actual mortality risks here:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza#Epidemiology
| [deleted]
| osigurdson wrote:
| >> All flu have big risks
|
| Reference?
| ThunderSizzle wrote:
| And the flu shot is considered good if it's 30% effective.
| From my personal experience this year, it has to be less
| than 10% effective this year - I know many people who I
| know had the flu vaccine get a flu-like virus this year.
|
| Let's not pretend a flu shot stops the flu. It might. Or it
| might cause problems. Or, in most cases, it does nothing
| for better or worse.
| jeromegv wrote:
| Your argument would sound a lot better if you had any
| source or documentation to imply that it does nothing or
| make it worse. Personal anecdotes are not science.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| What makes you think a serial killer won't murder you
| today?
|
| It could happen, but you'd be a fool to worry about it.
| Rational people round small risks down to zero and go about
| their lives instead of aging themselves worrying about
| every possibility.
| nabakin wrote:
| A friend's sense of taste has been permanently
| changed/damaged after he was hit with the full force of covid
| and he's young. It's not worth it.
| grugagag wrote:
| Wow, is it really permanent? I thought most people get it
| back eventually. I lost and recovered mine after covid
| scotty79 wrote:
| Hard to tell if something is permanent. But the fact
| remains that some people didn't get their senses back yet
| despite getting first infected with covid years ago.
| grugagag wrote:
| I wasn't aware it's long lasting to permanent. That's an
| awful way to go through life without smell or taste
| nabakin wrote:
| As of a month ago, my friend's taste hasn't recovered yet
| or started to and he got covid in 2020
| jeromegv wrote:
| My cousin got Covid before the vaccine was available. She
| has lost sense of taste since then. Everything tastes
| like metal. She's now lost so much weight and missing
| lots of nutriments because it's just really hard for her
| to eat when everything tastes awful.
| nabakin wrote:
| Yeah that's exactly the situation with my friend too
| sfusato wrote:
| US went from 12 million flu shots in 1980 to almost 200 million
| in 2020 [0].
|
| Yet, the number of flu deaths from 1959 to 2016 have remained
| constant (Fig. 1) [1].
|
| [0] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-supply-
| historical.ht...
|
| [1]
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-019-00809-y...
| consp wrote:
| So the population stayed the same as well?
| belltaco wrote:
| Population above 65 went from 100 million to 180 million.
| susodapop wrote:
| That makes sense to me. The population has increased since 1980
| but flu deaths remain constant, which means a lower mortality
| rate. Presumably there is some correlation between increased
| flu vaccination rate and decreased mortality rate.
| sfusato wrote:
| The overall better care didn't improved as well though? Are
| flu cases treated the same way today as 40 years ago? The
| number of flu shots increased by a factor of x16 over a 40
| year period. With these numbers I would've expected a serious
| dent on the flu deaths graph regardless of population.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The number of flu shots increased by a factor of x16 over
| a 40 year period. With these numbers I would've expected a
| serious dent on the flu deaths graph regardless of
| population.
|
| It went from negligible to about 2/3 the population, but
| the population increased by about 50%. If the vaccine was
| 50% effective in preventing flu deaths, and there were no
| other changes (or if better care was exactly offset by
| increased vulnerability due to aging population) you would
| expect no change in total deaths.
|
| Your intuition just looking at the multiplier on vaccinated
| population just seems to be a bad intuition.
| archsurface wrote:
| I don't trust the pharmaceutical industry. I'll take the natural
| sickness. My perspective has enhanced since seeing my covid
| vaccinated colleagues regularly miserably sick, and the
| unvaccinated merely suspect they might have had covid, but barely
| noticed. I'm not convinced the industry are entirely clear on
| what they're doing, only approximately. I understand psychiatric
| drugs are similarly "seems to work, ish". I'm generally
| unimpressed with the medical industry's progress.
| Terretta wrote:
| > _I 'll take the natural sickness ... unimpressed with
| progress._
|
| If we're going back in time, which would you prefer first:
| measles, mumps, or rubella?
|
| Polio's all natural too.
| snshn wrote:
| Perfectly said. Medicine is too new of a science, and it's
| already corrupt beyond repair.
| osigurdson wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza#Epidemiology
| p1mrx wrote:
| It seems that mRNA vaccines are becoming like antivirus software
| updates: inject the whole "database" and your body scans for
| currently-known threats. Does the immune system have a capacity
| limit?
|
| I wonder if the technology will reach a point where we can print
| mRNA on demand. Could we build a database of bacteriophage
| viruses that target various strains of bacteria, and use custom-
| printed mRNA to produce the correct virus when someone has a
| bacterial infection?
| alphazard wrote:
| It was concerning to see the mRNA vaccines associated with
| myocarditis. It seems like that made the public unnecessarily
| skeptical of mRNA as a technology. But my understanding is that
| was a protein engineering issue that could have happened with
| any vaccine technology and was not specific to mRNA as a
| platform.
|
| Are there any experts here that can confirm that is a
| coincidence or explain why mRNA as a technology is more
| susceptible to issues like that?
| russdill wrote:
| Myocarditis is a common immune reaction and not specific to
| mRNA or even vaccines
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6786665/
| russdill wrote:
| Common is probably not the best word choice here.
| alphazard wrote:
| This is a case study of myocarditis after an influenza
| vaccine. This single data point, or even the fact that this
| is a possible immune reaction doesn't really speak to the
| issue I'm asking about.
|
| In the last few years a slew of COVID vaccines were widely
| deployed without myocarditis as a complication. The Pfizer
| and Moderna vaccines made headline news for their elevated
| risk of myocarditis, and resulted in changes in vaccine
| recommendations for certain demographics. Both were mRNA
| based. Do they have other things in common, dosage,
| proteins, preservatives, shelf lives? What else is similar
| between them and different from the other vaccines?
| warning26 wrote:
| IIRC, "printing mRNA vaccines on demand" was pretty much
| Moderna's original startup pitch. Their idea was to create
| custom cancer vaccines for each patient.
| keithwhor wrote:
| We print RNA on demand already. There's a company called
| Synthego that invented a lab-in-a-box to synthesize arbitrary
| oligonucleotides in a machine that fits inside a server rack.
| They use their technology to sell full genome engineering
| solutions.
|
| https://www.synthego.com/
| ITB wrote:
| This. I worry we will exhaust our genetic engines and
| deteriorate our bodies by overuse.
| grey413 wrote:
| Well, worry not! Research suggests that the human body can
| produce up to a quintillion unique antibodies _! A vaccine is
| a drop in a solar-system.
|
| _https://www.scripps.edu/news-and-events/press-
| room/2019/2019...
| lamontcg wrote:
| The immune system has already been dealing with the problem
| of finite resources for the past 500M years or so.
|
| The biggest issue is that circulating neutralizing antibodies
| take up a finite fraction of the blood. One of the reasons
| why neutralizing antibodies fade over time is to literally
| make more space for other antibodies. One of the reasons why
| you need a boost of a vaccine at least 6 months after the
| first dose is that somatic hypermutation takes time to
| develop high affinity neutralizing antibodies that are
| effective in much small fractions of the blood.
|
| Even after that though neutralizing antibodies still tend to
| fade and what is left is just the memory T-cells and B-cells
| in lymph tissue. So the immune system naturally activates and
| deactivates. But this is more like a book on a bookshelf. It
| isn't really consuming "energy" and there's a massive amount
| of them that are available.
|
| You also need to be much more worried about all the naturally
| occurring viruses and antigens that you're being exposed to--
| including the ones that don't actually get you sick at all.
| You're worrying about the sparring partners of a heavyweight
| prizefighter "sapping their energy" and ignoring the real
| opponents.
|
| If you've read something about COVID and lympocytopenia
| ("T-cell exhaustion") then that only happens in severe COVID
| and shows up in autopsies and is studied as an indicator of
| how mild (unhospitalized) COVID turns into severe life-
| threatening COVID. The people who talk about that on social
| media are literally ignorant idiots who don't know what
| they're talking about.
| russdill wrote:
| The number of things your immune system knows about is
| absolutely enormous and grows everyday. Vaccinations are a tiny
| drop in the bucket
| KRAKRISMOTT wrote:
| No to mention that without boosting, immune memory fades over
| time.
| pc86 wrote:
| This is a gross oversimplification.
|
| Many things do not need any sort of boosting and you retain
| lifetime immunity or near-immunity.
| KRAKRISMOTT wrote:
| Show me the literature, nothing has true lifetime
| immunity. You get _close_ to lifetime immunity but the
| curves will continue dropping.
| jokowueu wrote:
| This is a bit offtopic . Is it possible to wipe that memory?
| Sounds like it would resolve all Autoimmune disease
| poszlem wrote:
| Well, we kind of do it during blood cancer chemotherapy. It
| probably resolves some autoimmune diseases but also makes
| you liable to dying of common cold.
| pfdietz wrote:
| I believe one of the effects of measles infection is that
| sort of wiping of immune memory. It's one of the things
| that makes childhood measles so nasty.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03324-7
| alphazard wrote:
| Many autoimmune diseases don't appear to be caused by
| immune memory, at least alone. There is evidence for cyclic
| inflammation by the innate immune system and also latent
| inflammation from gut bacteria and their outputs.
|
| What you are describing (bone marrow radiation) has been
| used to treat Multiple Sclerosis. But diets (which
| radically change gut bacteria) have also been used to treat
| MS. So it's complicated, and it's possible for what is
| currently considered a single disease to be a common
| symptomatology for different root causes.
| p1mrx wrote:
| I think the HIV virus can do that, but there are a few side
| effects.
| influx wrote:
| My understanding it they do something like this for bone
| marrow transplants with radiation/chemotherapy. Hopefully
| helps with Google searches, or someone coming to correct me
| :)
| rolph wrote:
| yes they still do something like this, but its more like
| yanking the memory modules out, and replacing them rather
| than flush and zero.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Also notable that this is a beyond extreme treatment.
| Incredibly stressful on the body, a method of last
| resort. Through, it has had a few high profile success
| stories.
| yucky wrote:
| > It seems that mRNA vaccines are becoming like antivirus
| software updates
|
| Uh...is this supposed to make us feel better or worse?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-07 23:02 UTC)