The inactivated Flu shot only prevents the flu in just 1.5% of the population - Page 2
Register Today!-
Jan 14 by pre-pre-nurseshanQuote from hiddencatRNMaybe I'm misunderstanding you here, hiddencatrn: are you saying that persons who don't get the shot are definitely going to get the flu? I've never had either in 37 years (that I'm aware of) and I worked in healthcare for 10 yrs prior to going back to school.That's one way to look at it. But if you consider that you're definitely going to be in the "gets the flu group" without a shot, by those numbers you have nearly 50% less chance of getting the flu. It's also variable by the year: some years are better matches than others. -
Jan 14 by GarethausQuote from hiddencatRNThis study is pooled over four decades of flu vaccines.I don't think the vaccine was a great match this year. -
Jan 14 by hiddencatRNQuote from GarethausI'm aware. I read your link and understood it. I was replying to the poster who got the flu despite getting the vaccine this year. We've been seeing a lot of people with confirmed flu who were vaccinated this year, and I've read other reports that it's not a great match this year. I think you should check in to success rates for other medical treatments and other vaccinations if you think the flu vaccine is worthless. You might find, based on the way you look at statistics, that you're in the wrong field. Many, many treatments out there have similar stats when you include the population of people who DON'T get sick regardless, but when you look at the treated vs untreated ill you see a large reduction in morbidity.This study is pooled over four decades of flu vaccines.SoldierNurse22 and macawake like this. - Jan 14 by hiddencatRNQuote from pre-pre-nurseshanYou are definitely misunderstanding me.Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, hiddencatrn: are you saying that persons who don't get the shot are definitely going to get the flu? I've never had either in 37 years (that I'm aware of) and I worked in healthcare for 10 yrs prior to going back to school.SoldierNurse22 and KelRN215 like this.
- Jan 14 by macawakeReducing the risk of catching the flu by slightly over 55% is a big deal.
It means that more than twice as many people get infected in the group who do not get the flu shot.
If both the groups had been 18.797 that would translate to 221 sick people in the group that got the shot and 512 people sick in the group that didn't.
A 55% reduction of people who can pass their infection on to the very young, the very old and the immunosupressed matters. - Jan 14 by SummitRNSeason flu kills an estimated 3000-49000 people in the US per year depending on the year. 55% reduction in infection rates... totally useless vaccine?
CDC - Seasonal Influenza (Flu) - Questions and Answers Regarding Estimating Deaths from Influenza in the United States -
Jan 14 by tewdlesI have had influenza as a young nurse...I get my flu shot now because I definitely do not want that again.
My grade school grand daughter is recovering from influenza right now...she has a congenital heart defect and everyone was concerned.
A teen recently died from influenza.
I care for very vulnerable patients that I would prefer not to expose to influenza, as do my co-workers, so we get immunized.
I don't view getting the influenza vaccine any differently than I view getting other vaccines. They protect me, my family, and my patients.psu_213 and SoldierNurse22 like this. -
Jan 14 by netglowQuote from GarethausPlease explain your reasoning for posting your "pathetic" stats as the basis of your argument. I think you've lost all of us.If we're going to get pathetic with the stats, then sure, what you say is basically correct.
And ignoring the main issue.
If we consider what mainstream media are saying all the time, that the flu vaccine prevents 60% of the population, then the stats do not say that.
The reality is that the vaccine only prevents 1.5% of the population getting the flu.
Hardly worth it. -
Jan 14 by Enthused_Nurse2BQuote from GarethausGoing along with your 1.5% math .... 1.5% of 300 million people is 4.5 million sick people. I think that's a pretty significant number.If we're going to get pathetic with the stats, then sure, what you say is basically correct.
And ignoring the main issue.
If we consider what mainstream media are saying all the time, that the flu vaccine prevents 60% of the population, then the stats do not say that.
The reality is that the vaccine only prevents 1.5% of the population getting the flu.
Hardly worth it.
In any case, I agree with the approximate 55% increase in protection mentioned by previous posters. I feel that is very significant.hiddencatRN and SoldierNurse22 like this. -
Jan 14 by SoldierNurse22Guys, look at the source. "Natural News"? And read the comments below the article. That should tell you all you need to know as to why the numbers were skewed to reflect "author" Mike Adams' scientifically baseless opinion.
