Damn that flu bug!

originally posted by Yule Kim:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Yule Kim:
I think what VLM is saying is that the 68% effectiveness statistic does not correspond to the likelihood of an INDIVIDUAL getting infected after being vaccinated.

The 68% number means that out of the entire population of people that gets vaccinated, 68% will not get infected with flu. That does not mean that an individual will have only a 68% chance of getting the flu during the flu season. It means that 68% of people who get vaccinated will not get infected, either because the vaccine worked or they luckily evaded exposure to the virus, or both.

The 32% of people in the population who got vaccinated, yet still contracted flu, were not effectively inoculated, presumably because their individual immune systems didn't develop an immunity to the flu despite the vaccination. However, if you give them the vaccination again, it wouldn't give them another 68% chance of being inoculated. Their immune system would still have resisted inoculation. Thus, for that individual, they had a 0% chance of being immunized from flu.
Click to expand...

This is what I take it the 68% figure means. VLM claims, however, that for any given individual, the likelihood is either 100% or 0%, which I am claiming is strictly true, but immaterial. Your explanation still leaves that claim true but immaterial. SF Joe's response is also true but immaterial. I am not questioning whether it's good to get the shot. I'm questioning whether his claim, x number of email messages ago about any given individual's chances makes it any less meaningful to say that if you get the flu shot, your chance of avoiding the flu, even if exposed, is 68%.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you can. That's like saying you have a 99% chance to pass the bar if you take BarBri just because 99% of BarBri takers pass the bar. If you don't study or if you aren't minimally intelligent, you won't pass regardless of BarBri. Similarly, if your physiology isn't compatible with the vaccine, you won't be inoculated.
Click to expand...

If one said that if you take BarBri and then engage in the other usual activities involved in studying for the bar, your chances of passing would be 99% as opposed to x% for those who had engaged in the same activity but didn't take Barbri, that would be useful information for someone deciding whether to take BarBri or not. And this despite the fact that one couldn't specify all possible varying elements. The point of Barbri is to aid in the passing of the bar and one wants to know whether it is effective or not. Telling that person his or her chances were either 0 or 100% would be useless obfuscation. That is always what one's chances are.
 
originally posted by Cliff:
Anyone else catch this?Not momentous, but very a propos:

Loading…

www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
If you don't get the flu shot then what are your responsibilities not to sicken others? How do you prevent spreading the flu, trip to the doctor at the first sniffle, etc.? Lots of people will show up sick to work. Seems like a lot of effort if you forgo the vaccine.
 
originally posted by Yule Kim:
It means that 68% of people who get vaccinated will not get infected, either because the vaccine worked or they luckily evaded exposure to the virus, or both.
Click to expand...

This is the bit that still baffles me; if you evaded the flu then it does not matter whether you got the vaccine or not. I.e, rigorous handwashing, wearing a protective mask etc. etc. would be a possible substitute for those who are afraid of needles and their contents.

I want to know the probability, conditional on getting the shot and getting exposed to the virus, of getting the flu. I understand that we are all special cases but is this 68% on average or something else?
 
Last night I came down with a low-grade fever, aches and pains and general malaise. The fever broke at 3 am and today I am a bit weak and still a tad sore but otherwise asymptomatic. I presume that this is the result of a flu infection and the lack of serious consequences are the benefit of having received vaccine last November. I doubt that I have been contagious at any stage. If this is what that 32% probability looks like, I'm all for it.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
originally posted by Yule Kim:
It means that 68% of people who get vaccinated will not get infected, either because the vaccine worked or they luckily evaded exposure to the virus, or both.
Click to expand...

This is the bit that still baffles me; if you evaded the flu then it does not matter whether you got the vaccine or not. I.e, rigorous handwashing, wearing a protective mask etc. etc. would be a possible substitute for those who are afraid of needles and their contents.

I want to know the probability, conditional on getting the shot and getting exposed to the virus, of getting the flu. I understand that we are all special cases but is this 68% on average or something else?
Click to expand...

Population average. That is, if we were to repeatedly and randomly sample from the population of interest, influenza vaccinated humans, we would find that immunity was conferred 68% of the time.

If we sampled one person, they would either have immunity or not.

If people could be trusted to wash their hands and socially isolate themselves then the vaccine is irrelevant, true. But they can't, so we need vaccines.

If a grown person is afraid of needles, they have bigger problems.
 
originally posted by Cliff:
Anyone else catch this?Not momentous, but very a propos:

Loading…

www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...

The phrase "alternative medicine" just gets my hackles up. Medicine is bad enough, "alternative-medicine" is just willful stupidity.
 
originally posted by VLM:
That is, if we were to repeatedly and randomly sample from the population of interest, influenza vaccinated humans, we would find that immunity was conferred 68% of the time.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this.
 
originally posted by VLM:
The phrase "alternative medicine" just gets my hackles up. Medicine is bad enough, "alternative-medicine" is just willful stupidity.
Click to expand...

Yes. I wish someone would explain to my sister why trying to treat her son's eczema with acupuncture is ill-founded.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by VLM:
The phrase "alternative medicine" just gets my hackles up. Medicine is bad enough, "alternative-medicine" is just willful stupidity.
Click to expand...

Yes. I wish someone would explain to my sister why trying to treat her son's eczema with acupuncture is ill-founded.
Click to expand...

You should punch your sister in the face.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
I think a lot of people get desperate.
Click to expand...

It's a bit more complicated than that. Doctors have, to a certain extent, fostered a lack of trust in traditional medicine, by removing the doctor-patient relationship in favor of a mechanic-machine relationship. That, and an arrogation of unimpeachable authority have alienated much of the population. I've run afoul of several doctors when I questioned why they were prescribing a particular medicine for me.

Alternative medicine preys on people's suspicions of the medical establishment. You don't have to take those nasty cancer chemotherapeutics and radiation therapy with their known side-effects; just try this herb from the rainforests of Brazil in conjunction with Shiatsu massage: my brother's friend's father-in-law was put into full remission using these. Often times, there's just enough truth in some of those claims (that Brazilian herb might contain vinblastine, a known antitumor antibiotic) that they may work in some cases. And some "alternative medicine" is just marginalized folk medicine such as therapeutic massage.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
I think a lot of people get desperate.
Click to expand...

It's a bit more complicated than that. Doctors have, to a certain extent, fostered a lack of trust in traditional medicine, by removing the doctor-patient relationship in favor of a mechanic-machine relationship.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

Insurance companies have a lot to do with that too.
 
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
originally posted by VLM:
That is, if we were to repeatedly and randomly sample from the population of interest, influenza vaccinated humans, we would find that immunity was conferred 68% of the time.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this.
Click to expand...

That 68% number depends heavily on the measurement--do the investigators look in your blood for antibodies, do they ask how you felt recently, do they see if you sought medical care for an upper respiratory illness with fever, do they insist on positive cultures for influenza? Each of these is relevant (if I take the vaccine, am I protected against getting sick? Not 100%? Well, then, how much?), but they will yield different numbers. So don't hang too much on the actual number.

I'm traveling and haven't had time to go back and read the original article.
 
originally posted by VLM:
That is, if we were to repeatedly and randomly sample from the population of interest, influenza vaccinated humans, we would find that immunity was conferred 68% of the time.
Click to expand...
What is the % contracted among non-vaccinated humans, as a population?
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
What Mark said. Also, certain kinds of problems respond well to placebo treatment.
Click to expand...

especially if the (unknowing) patient knows that the treatment (er, placebo) is expensive. it's because we're worth it.
 
And certain alternative treatments work for some things. Chiropracty in particular has been incredibly beneficial for some of my neck and back problems. Not all of them, the more recent bout responded to physical therapy.

However the doctor prescribed medical treatments in both cases either did no good or had horrific side effects.
 
originally posted by Carl Steefel:
Just to show how far out of it I am, I was still thinking back to the year when they did not have enough vaccine, and they suggested priority be given to oldsters and youngsters. I never really moved beyond that stage. That is, until I was hammered in November, in fact in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner where I was drinking some 2009 LaPierre Morgon and various red Burgundies--had to bail and go to bed with the shakes.
Click to expand...

This was actually true for many years, production was totally limiting. Still is, in truth.

So my question now is: Is there any point in my getting a flu vaccine if I had the flu in November?
Click to expand...

Maybe. There are 3 strains in the vaccine, you've only been sick with one. OTOH, one strain has been much more common all season than the others. If you had one of the others, then you could benefit from the vaccine more than if you had the dominant one.

It is also possible that this year's vaccine could provide some (or plenty of) protection next year, or cross-immunity to other strains.

I would see it as a mild benefit, minor cost situation.
 
Really, there's no cost. The shots are provided free all over the place. That's why the cost/benefit analysis is fairly easy. I didn't get the shots for years because I never get the flu (at least I haven't for these last thirty years or so). But at a certain point, you have to figure what's the point of risking it.

As I've said, I find VLM's puritanical rhetoric off-putting and entirely unlikely to persuade anybody. But it does come down to the only reasons not to do it being, laziness, fear of needles or vaccine paranoia. The second really isn't worth answering. The third doesn't seem to stand up much to any reasonable analysis of the evidence. The first is alas incalculable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top