Ethical Arguments Against Mandatory Vaccination

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

ldhrn73 said:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2019) and the World Health Organization (WHO, n.d.) declare the imperative need to vaccinate all people to improve public health.  Traditional wisdom taught to healthcare professionals backs up this concept by stating that if we activate the immune system to proteins from a virus or bacteria, then the patient's immune system develops the first-line response when it sees the real antigen.  Vaccines have been in use since 1798, when Edward Jenner exposed people to material from pox blisters to see if it would give them resistance to smallpox (Plotkin, 2014).  The medical community has been thus indoctrinated that vaccines are a must to prevent disease and that they are safe and effective.  This philosophy is so prevalent that many places have, for some time, been contemplating the ethics of public policy to mandate vaccines per the CDC's ever-growing recommended vaccine schedule (Hendricks, Zimet, Meslin, 2016).  This paper discusses this prevalent philosophy, some challenges to mandated vaccination, and the lesser-known science surrounding the topic. ...

Agree with Hannahbanana, BSN, MSN and wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA article criticisms, stated better than I can.  Adding my own 2cents.

As a child of the 50's-60's who lost classmates from communicable diseases and witnessed the family distress from the loss of a child (almost lost my 6yo brother from whooping cough), the language used in this article distorted several medical scientific concepts.

One of greatest PUBLIC HEALTH achievements in the past 100 years is vaccination.

e

https://www.CDC.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4850bx.htm

National efforts to promote vaccine use among all children began with the appropriation of federal funds for polio vaccination after introduction of the Polio vaccine in 1955 --year I was born. 

In 1962, the Vaccination Assistance Act (Section 317 of the Public Health Service Act) was passed and signed by President John F. Kennedy to "achieve as quickly as possible the protection of the population, especially of all preschool children...through intensive immunization activity over a limited period of time".  Section 317 has been reauthorized repeatedly since 1962. It remains one of the most important means of supporting health department immunization activities with federal funds to date.  My  PA county of  500,000+ persons finally reestablished a Health Department in 2022 and using this act to fund programs.

Numerous scientific studies are done in the  5-10 year development of a new vaccine prior to FDA approval with monitoring occurring afterwards.  During the mid 70's-early 80's, there was increased focus on personal health and vaccine safety. Several lawsuits were filed against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers by people who believed they had been injured by the diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus (DPT) vaccine.  Damages were awarded despite the lack of scientific evidence to support vaccine injury claims in many cases.  liability and prices soared, resulting in several vaccine manufacturers halting production. A vaccine shortage resulted and public health officials became concerned about the return of epidemic disease.

Manufacturers' concerns about their liability exposure to lawsuits led them to transfer responsibility to the U.S. government for informing recipients of vaccine risks, as well as benefits, for vaccines administered in the public sector.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) was signed by President Ronald Regan in 1986.  It requires healthcare providers who administer vaccines to provide a vaccine information statement (VIS) to the person getting the vaccine or his or her guardian. A VIS must be given with every vaccination, including each dose in a multi-dose series. Each VIS contains a brief description of the disease as well as the risks and benefits of the vaccine. CDC develops VIS's and distributes them to state and local health departments as well as individual providers. My  son received his first immunizations  that year and our Pediatrician provided us vaccine info sheet each dose. 

The NCVIA also requires healthcare providers to report certain adverse events (health effects occurring after immunization that may or may not be related to the vaccine) following vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Under this act, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created to compensate those injured by vaccines on a "no fault" basis.  

Thusly, parents, guardians, and adults getting immunizations should be aware of risks, side effects to observe and report to their healthcare provider = informed consent.  Those persons with concerns are free to not have their child immunized or delay  vaccination schedule.   In talking with my children's former pediatrician on this issue, they are getting parents/guardians to sign a form documenting declining/ delaying vaccination schedule as documentation of discussion and risks. There are VALID reasons for children not to be immunized as we learned in our nursing programs due to individuals health condition/medical treatment. 

Vaccine ethical issues have been well discussed in medicine and nursing.  Life is not 100% guaranteed, but I'll take a 90+ percent reduction in  U.S. childhood morbidity as an improvement in health.

50 years of vaccine progress: vaccines timeline from the 1950s to the 2000s

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences  2014: History of vaccination

Quote

One of the brightest chapters in the history of science is the impact of vaccines on human longevity and health....

In current articles that describe novel technologies, it is often said that they will enable "rational" development of vaccines. The opposite of rational is irrational, but presumably the writers mean to contrast rational with "empiric.”  However, in fact, vaccine development has been based on rational choices ever since the mid-20th century, when immunology advanced to the point of distinguishing protection mediated by antibody and that mediated by lymphocytes, and when passage in cell culture permitted the selection of attenuated mutants. After that point, successful vaccines have been "rationally" developed by protection studies in animals; by inference from immune responses shown to protect against repeated natural infection (the so-called mechanistic correlates of protection) (6); and from the use of passive administration of antibodies against specific antigens to show that those antigens should be included in vaccines.

Editorial: Simply put: Vaccination saves lives

Quote

Few measures in public health can compare with the impact of vaccines. Vaccinations have reduced disease, disability, and death from a variety of infectious diseases. For example, in the United States, children are recommended to be vaccinated against 16 diseases (1). Table 1 highlights the impact in the United States of immunization against nine vaccine-preventable diseases, including smallpox and a complication of one of those diseases, congenital rubella syndrome, showing representative annual numbers of cases in the 20th century compared with 2016 reported cases (2, 3).  All of the diseases have been reduced by more than 90% and many have either been eliminated or reductions of 99% or more have been achieved.

A recent analysis of vaccines to protect against 13 diseases estimated that for a single birth cohort nearly 20 million cases of diseases were prevented, including over 40,000 deaths (4). In addition to saving the lives of our children, vaccination has resulted in net economic benefits to society amounting to almost $69 billion in the United States alone. A recent economic analysis of 10 vaccines for 94 low- and middle-income countries estimated that an investment of $34 billion for the immunization programs resulted in savings of $586 billion in reducing costs of illness and $1.53 trillion when broader economic benefits were included (5). The only human disease ever eradicated, smallpox, was eradicated using a vaccine, and a second, polio, is near eradication, also using vaccines (6, 7).

Table 1.

 

WHYY 2014 60th anniversary of polio vaccine, first administered in Pa.

  I received my Sabin  sugar cube vaccine in 1962

Quote

At first, the vaccine developed by Salk and Dr. Albert Sabin at the University of Pittsburgh was injected. Later, it was given by Sabin vaccine-that sugar cube dosed with serum and taken orally.

Healthline 2010:  Measles in America: What Life Was Like Before and After the Vaccine

Quote

...Schaffner added that in the past, measles could commonly lead to middle ear infection, and even more seriously, pneumonia as well as encephalitis, inflammation of the brain. He said one in a 1,000 children would get encephalitis from the measles prior to the development of the vaccine.

A sneaky condition, symptoms might not appear until about 10 to 14 days after a person is exposed. This incubation period can lead the virus to spread.

UNICEF 2021:  Global Under-five mortality

Quote

The under-five mortality rate refers to the probability a newborn would die before reaching exactly 5 years of age, expressed per 1,000 live births. In 2021, 5.0 million children under 5 years of age died.  Globally, infectious diseases, including pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria, remain a leading cause of under-five deaths, along with preterm birth and intrapartum-related complications.

The global under-five mortality rate declined by 59 per cent, from 93 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 38 in 2021. Despite this considerable progress, improving child survival remains a matter of urgent concern. In 2021 alone, roughly 13,800 under-five deaths occurred every day, an intolerably high number of largely preventable child deaths.

CDC 2011: Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, Immunizations, and MMWR --- 1961--2011

Healthline 2010:  Measles in America: What Life Was Like Before and After the Vaccine

Reuters 2008: Research shows why 1960s RSV shot sickened children

CDC 2022: Vaccine Safety

John Hopkins 2021: The Long History of mRNA Vaccines

Quote

Messenger RNA, or mRNA, was discovered in the early 1960s; research into how mRNA could be delivered into cells was developed in the 1970s...

[2BS Nurse, BSN]

"There is epidemiological trend in a dramatic rise of autoimmune disorders. My personal belief is that the overuse of antibiotics and too many vaccines might be behind this".

I am reading the words "personal belief" and "might". A belief is not science. As nurses, we are trained to follow the evidence. Many people had "personal beliefs" that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine would prevent them from getting (and curing) Covid too.

[2BS Nurse, BSN]

Thank you NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN for your post. I am currently reading Pox: An American History, by Michael Willrich. We humans are a vain race. If Covid-19 had scarred our faces horribly (like smallpox did), we'd be hearing a whole different point-of-view from the anti-vaccine side.

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

The scientific basis of public health efforts described in this excellent article from

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMR) December 24, 1999 / 48(50);1141-7

Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Changes in the Public Health System
 

Quote

 

In the early 1900s in the United States, many major health threats were infectious diseases associated with poor hygiene and poor sanitation (e.g., typhoid), diseases associated with poor nutrition (e.g., pellagra and goiter), poor maternal and infant health, and diseases or injuries associated with unsafe workplaces or hazardous occupations (4,5,7,8). The success of the early public health system to incorporate biomedical advances (e.g., vaccinations and antibiotics) and to develop interventions such as health education programs resulted in decreases in the impact in these diseases. However, as the incidence of these diseases decreased, chronic diseases (e.g., cardiovascular disease and cancer) increased (6,10). In the last half of the century, public health identified the risk factors for many chronic diseases and intervened to reduce mortality. Public efforts also led to reduced deaths attributed to a new technology, the motor vehicle (3). These successes demonstrated the value of community action to address public health issues and have fostered public support for the growth of institutions that are components of the public health infrastructure*. The focus of public health research and programs shifted to respond to the effects of chronic diseases on the public's health (12-17). While continuing to develop and refine interventions, enhanced morbidity and mortality surveillance helped to maintain these earlier successes. The shift in focus led to improved capacity of epidemiology and to changes in public health training and programs.

 

Key points re science methods and Public Health:

• Quantitative Analytic Techniques

• Quote

  • Methods of data collection evolved from simple measures of disease prevalence (e.g., field surveys) to complex studies of precise analyses (e.g., cohort studies, case-control studies, and randomized clinical trials)

• Periodic Standardized Health Surveys
• Morbidity and Mortality Surveillance ocurring
• Nongovernment and Government Organizations: state, County and local health departments developed

[vintagegal, BSN, RN]

Ahhh... and here it is. Funny how societal viewpoints change over time. Intriguing...

[Hannahbanana, BSN, MSN]

Nice overview of the historical data, NRSKaren, and thanks to wtbcrna and Max Attack for their rational contributions. 
A modest suggestion:  AN should pin this thread's factual information and auto-post it the next (inevitable) time the vaccine conspiracists drop by, with their "beliefs" and "mights.” You could save us all a lot of time and trouble...and go a ways to restoring/improving AN's reputation as a source of factual support to the nursing profession. 

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

Wuzzie said:

Well, since we don't have thousands of people being harmed or worse, killed, by polio, measles, smallpox or rubella I think the effectiveness and safety of these vaccines is kind of obvious to most with the exception of the Wakefield fan base. I think allowing personal autonomy to reintroduce these particular pathogens into the community would be irresponsible and tragic. I do not feel the same about some of the other vaccines that are currently available. 
Despite your protestations I feel an undercurrent of anti-vax sentiment in your article. Again, I agree that the option to get certain vaccines should remain a personal choice but the Polio and MMR should remain required to protect our vulnerable neighbors who don't have that option.  We really don't want to go back to this. 

I concur.  I noticed that the OP's orignal post concluded that the science of the vaccines are unknown.  UHHHH.  OP, have you any inkling of how vaccines have made the world a safer place in which to live?  I also challenge the OP to produce a single late term consequence of any vaccine.  There are NO ethical arguments against mandatory vaccines.  If one doesn't want to take a vaccine and is working in a sensitive healthcare situation, just leave your job.  There is something lacking in your medical ethics if you think that is OK and your employer is better off without you.  We don't have enough Covid positive patients in any hospital to provide enough patients for unvaccinated staff to keep their jobs. Keep you unscientific "beliefs" and go work in an unscientific field.  I think you might be a shill for American Frontline Nurses.

[Hannahbanana, BSN, MSN]

Alice Blackmore said:

I think people have lost their faith in the medical system from lack of transparency. Why did Pfizer have sealed documents on clinical trial data which they have been forced by courts to open? Who stands to benefit financially from vaccines? Why don't we hear much about vaccine injury from vaccines such as Dengvaxia given in the Philippines? Why is it "wrong" to discuss both sides? Most would agree that vaccines have saved us from the horrors of Polio and Smallpox. So what has changed?

So, a little more research was in order here. First, the Pfizer slur.  Credit to: https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2023/03/fact-check-pfizer-documents-do-not-prove-covid-vaccines-contain-graphene-oxide.html

Do Pfizer documents show that the company's COVID-19 vaccines contain graphene oxide? No, that's not true: The section of the document in question describes a procedure for analyzing a protein sample from the virus under a sophisticated microscope that includes the use of graphene oxide to help with imaging. Graphene oxide is not among the ingredients for the COVID shots.

The claim appeared in an article (archived at the link above) published in the Exposing the Darkness blog on Substack on March 20, 2023, titled "Conspiracy No More: Pfizer Documents Reveal That Pfizer 'Vaccines' Contain GRAPHENE OXIDE." The blog's subheading reads:

One of the reasons why Pfizer wanted to HIDE their documents for 75 Years

Please feel free to follow the link to the full article-- it's not long, and it's not scary technical. 

Next up, the Dengvaxia vaccine in the Philippines: You don't hear much about vaccine "injury" because... well, there isn't much to report. TL;Dr: There are four different serotypes of dengue, and being enfected with one gives you antibodies that (paradoxically) make your second infection (with a different serotype) more serious than the first. This is a well-known phenomenon in immunology. The vaccines were designed to protect from all four serotypes, and seemed to weakly mimic this phenomenon. But there's a catch when comparing vaccines to wild-type infections (this is where you can skip ahead to the bolded section below iin the paragraph beginning "Experiments led by Sandra Henein, ..." in case the bolding doesn't come through).

https://news.unchealthcare.org/2021/06/scientists-discover-how-dengue-vaccine-fails-to-protect-against-disease/

CHAPEL HILL, NC – Developing a viable vaccine against dengue virus has proved difficult because the pathogen is actually four different virus types, or serotypes. Unless a vaccine protects against all four, a vaccine can wind up doing more harm than good.

To help vaccine developers overcome this hurdle, the UNC School of Medicine lab of Aravinda de Silva, PhD, professor in the UNC Department of Microbiology and Immunology, investigated samples from children enrolled in a dengue vaccine trial to identify the specific kinds of antibody responses that correlate with protection against dengue virus disease. In doing so, the researchers discovered that a small subpopulation of antibodies binding to unique sites on each serotype are linked to protection. The research, published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, provides important information for vaccine developers to consider when creating a dengue vaccine, which has long eluded scientists.

The four dengue virus serotypes are mosquito-borne flaviviruses that infect hundreds of millions of individuals each year in Southeast Asia, western Pacific Islands, Africa, and Latin America. Nearly 100 million individuals report flu-like symptoms. Though rarely deadly, the virus can cause severe illness, especially when a person who was previously infected with one serotype (and recovers) is then infected by a second serotype. This happens because antibodies from the first infection help the virus replicate during the second infection through a process called antibody dependent enhancement. A dengue vaccine induced antibody response weighted towards a single dengue virus serotype can mimic this phenomenon.

Several vaccines have been in clinical development for years, and most show that they induce neutralizing antibodies against all four serotypes. Yet, research has also shown that the creation of neutralizing antibodies alone does not correlate to protection against clinical disease. The de Silva lab conducted experiments to compare the properties of antibodies against wild-type Dengue viruses and the properties of antibodies produced by a leading vaccine candidate – Dengvaxia – which the pharmaceutical company Sanofi Pasteur created using all four dengue virus serotypes in one formulation.

Experiments led by Sandra Henein, research associate in the UNC Department of Microbiology and Immunology, and Cameron Adams, a medical and graduate student in the UNC Medical Scientist Training Program (MD/PhD), showed that wild type infections induced neutralizing and protective antibodies that recognized a part of the virus – an epitope – unique to each serotype. The vaccine, though, mainly stimulated neutralizing antibodies that recognized epitopes common among all serotypes. In vaccine trials, these antibodies did not protect children from dengue.   In the past, researchers have considered all dengue neutralizing antibodies to be protective in people. This appears to not be the case, according to this UNC-led research.

"Our results suggest that a safe and effective dengue virus vaccine needs to stimulate neutralizing antibodies targeting unique sites on each of the four dengue serotypes ,” Adams said. "Not merely the neutralizing antibodies against cross-reactive epitopes common to all four dengue types.”

Once again, it took me just moments to locate this and other fact-based articles on Dengvaxia, with links to the actual research methods and findings. I realize that certain factions in the cable news media (who are not subject to FTC fairness doctrine constraints, so they can say any damfool thing they want) go for the sound bites, realizing that most of their audience wouldn't recognize a controlled study or valid statistical measures if one bit 'em on their behinds. But nurses should know better and use the old "do your own research" (also an erstwhile perfectly good phrase forced into prostitution by gullibles) to actually look for and read, well, real research.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

When I think about "vaccine injury" I think of a couple of things.  One is that literally billions of vaccines around the world have been given and sadly vaccine injury is a thing but I wonder what is the percentage out of those billions?  

I also think about things like "Vancomycin injury" and have seen a case of renal injury, but have given literally thousands of doses to many patients over 30 years.  Would we not give someone with MRSA osteomyelitis Vancomycin at risk of losing a limb treatment because of "vancomycin injury"?  Also "chemotherapy injury" in cancer patients. On and on there is injury with just about every medicine or food someone puts into their body, somewhere around the world.  In some cases risks outweigh benefits and sometimes there is no way to predict who will be injured.

On the other hand after getting the flu this year (a mild case I might add) I've almost decided that vaccine isn't worth it to me, although I've safely taken it for about a decade now.  

But I guess the question is of mandatory vaccination and does that somehow violate our freedom of self-determination even if it's detrimental to ourselves, our children and society in general.  There doesn't seem to be an easy answer to that one.

 

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

Tweety said:

When I think about "vaccine injury" I think of a couple of things.  One is that literally billions of vaccines around the world have been given and sadly vaccine injury is a thing but I wonder what is the percentage out of those billions?  

I also think about things like "Vancomycin injury" and have seen a case of renal injury, but have given literally thousands of doses to many patients over 30 years.  Would we not give someone with MRSA osteomyelitis Vancomycin at risk of losing a limb treatment because of "vancomycin injury"?  Also "chemotherapy injury" in cancer patients. On and on there is injury with just about every medicine or food someone puts into their body, somewhere around the world.  In some cases risks outweigh benefits and sometimes there is no way to predict who will be injured.

On the other hand after getting the flu this year (a mild case I might add) I've almost decided that vaccine isn't worth it to me, although I've safely taken it for about a decade now.  

But I guess the question is of mandatory vaccination and does that somehow violate our freedom of self-determination even if it's detrimental to ourselves, our children and society in general.  There doesn't seem to be an easy answer to that one.

 

When people knowingly take on a career to take care of others and then they willingly endanger those same people in their care  "self-determination" of not being vaccinated for non-medical reasons is a non-sequitur. 
 

Choosing not to get the flu vaccines, because you get the flu is the equivalent of choosing to not to wear a seatbelt because you got bruised from a seatbelt during a crash. 

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

wtbcrna said:

Choosing not to get the flu vaccines, because you get the flu is the equivalent of choosing to not to wear a seatbelt because you got bruised from a seatbelt during a crash. 

Fair enough.  

I understand that you can get a serious injury in a car crash while wearing a seat belt.  I've worked trauma.  That's no reason not to wear a seatbelt.  That falls into my example of "vancomycin injury" risk vs. benefit.

But it's not really a good analogy when this year's flu vaccine according to the CDC was only 54% effective in my age bracket.  Some years it's been lower than that as low as 10% in one article I've read.  But the article stated 10 to 60% is better than zero.   Since I don't get that horribly sick it would something to consider.   Of course I'd rather not get sick at all so 54% odds I suppose are good for the 54% that didn't get the flu.  Were I a sickly person with comorbidities then I would think differently.    Compare that to 92% effectiveness of the Covid vaccine.  

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

Tweety said:

Fair enough.  

I understand that you can get a serious injury in a car crash while wearing a seat belt.  I've worked trauma.  That's no reason not to wear a seatbelt.  That falls into my example of "vancomycin injury" risk vs. benefit.

But it's not really a good analogy when this year's flu vaccine according to the CDC was only 54% effective in my age bracket.  Some years it's been lower than that.   Since I don't get that horribly sick it would something to consider.   Of course I'd rather not get sick at all so 54% odds I suppose are good for the 54% that didn't get the flu.  Were I a sickly person with comorbidities then I would think differently.    Compare that to 92% effectiveness of the Covid vaccine.  

You are comparing effectiveness of not getting the flu and  ignoring the lower  morbidity and mortality rates even if you do get the flu after being vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated. The majority of deaths from flu occur in unvaccinated irregardless of comorbidities. That doesn't even get into the argument of endangering patients by not being vaccinated.

"What are the benefits of flu vaccination?

Below is a summary of the benefits of flu vaccination and selected scientific studies that support these benefits.

Flu vaccination can keep you from getting sick with flu.

Flu vaccine prevents millions of illnesses and flu-related doctor's visits each year. For example, during 2019-2020, the last flu season prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, flu vaccination prevented an estimated 7.5 million influenza illnesses, 3.7 million influenza-associated medical visits, 105,000 influenza-associated hospitalizations, and 6,300 influenza-associated deaths.

During seasons when flu vaccine viruses are similar to circulating flu viruses, flu vaccine has been shown to reduce the risk of having to go to the doctor with flu by 40% to 60%.

Flu vaccination has been shown in several studies to reduce severity of illness in people who get vaccinated but still get sick.

A 2021 study showed that among adults hospitalized with flu, vaccinated patients had a 26% lower risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and a 31% lower risk of death from flu compared with those who were unvaccinated.

A 2018 study showed that among adults hospitalized with flu, vaccinated patients were 59% less likely to be admitted to the ICU than those who had not been vaccinated. Among adults in the ICU with flu, vaccinated patients on average spent four fewer days in the hospital than those who were not vaccinated.

Flu vaccination can reduce the risk of flu-associated hospitalization.

Flu vaccine prevents tens of thousands of hospitalizations each year. For example, during 2019-2020 flu vaccination prevented an estimated 105,000 flu-related hospitalizations.

A 2018 study showed that from 2012 to 2015, flu vaccination among adults reduced the risk of being admitted to an ICU with flu by 82%.

A 2017 study found that during 2009-2016, flu vaccines reduced the risk of flu-associated hospitalization among older adults by about 40% on average.

A 2014 study showed that flu vaccination reduced children's risk of flu-related pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission by 74% during flu seasons from 2010-2012.

Flu vaccination is an important preventive tool for people with certain chronic health conditions.

Flu vaccination has been associated with lower rates of some cardiac events among people with heart disease, especially among those who have had a cardiac event in the past year.

Flu vaccination can reduce the risk of a flu-related worsening of chronic lung disease (for example, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requiring hospitalization).

Among people with diabetes and chronic lung disease,flu vaccination has been shown in separate studies to be associated with reduced hospitalizations from a worsening of their chronic condition.

Flu vaccination during pregnancy helps protect pregnant people from flu during and after pregnancy and helps protect their infants from flu in their first few months of life.

A 2013 study showed that during the 2010–2011 and 2011–2012 flu seasons vaccination reduced the risk of flu-associated acute respiratory infection in pregnant people by about one-half.

A 2018 study showed that getting a flu shot reduced a pregnant person's risk of being hospitalized with flu by an average of 40% from 2010-2016.

A number of studies have shown that in addition to helping to protect pregnant people from flu, a flu vaccine given during pregnancy helps protect the baby from flu for several months after birth, when babies are too young to be vaccinated.

Flu vaccine can be lifesaving in children.

A 2022 study showed that flu vaccination reduced children's risk of severe life-threatening influenza by 75%.

A 2020 study found that during the 2018-2019 flu season, flu vaccination reduced flu-related hospitalization by 41% and flu-related emergency department visits by half among children (aged 6 months to 17 years old).

A 2017 study was the first of its kind to show that flu vaccination can significantly reduce children's risk of dying from flu.

Getting vaccinated yourself may also protect people around you, including those who are more vulnerable to serious flu illness, like babies and young children, older people, and people with certain chronic health conditions.”

 

https://www.CDC.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm