https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2017-2018.ht...
My point isn't that we should take Coronavirus any less seriously this year. Healthcare workers have no vaccine for it. It's on top of the flu. Etc.
My point is that we should take the flu more seriously every year. Everyone gets their flu shot, right?
It's not even close to what we saw just this week from coronavirus. Stop making a comparison where there isn't one to be made, this is much worse than the flu.
I'm not minimizing Coronavirus. I'm trying to leverage the attention people are paying to it to emphasize the importance of vaccination.
The CDC estimates that up to 710,000 Americans have been hospitalised by the flu in the past six months out of 54 million infected.
Up to 59,000 of them died. IN SIX MONTHS. In the USA alone.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-e...
Stop trivialising influenza.
Three months, and yes, that's how exponential growth works. It's pretty small at the beginning. You'd think a community of (largely) computer scientists would appreciate the power of exponential growth.
Edit: ah, looks like you're editing your post.
Even according to the figures you've given from the CDC, the flu has a 0.1% death rate, which is nowhere near the 1.4% death rate COVID-19 currently has in the US.
No one is trivializing the flu, but it's silly to say we should relax w.r.t. COVID-19 because we're used to the flu. At a minimum it kills TEN TIMES as many infected people as the regular flu, even without considering vaccines.
Influenza is chump change compared to COVID-19.
We don't know that. At all. In the past these kinds of on-the-fly estimates during the spread of an infection have turned out to be overestimates. Sometimes by an order of magnitude.
Also, initial R0 transmission statistics for COVID19 look to be in the 2.5 range, where the R0 for seasonal flu is around 1.3.
So COVID19 is 2x as transmissible, and 10x as deadly. I don't think the conversation is around dismissing the seriousness of the flu, and more around emphasizing the risk of COVID19.
Let's keep it real, the flu infection rate given by the CDC is hindsight knowledge. The real time "global statistics" for COVID19 are with vastly restricted testing. There's not really a valid comparison to be made at this point.
The other thing to remember is the lag in the calculations, the people dying now are the ones who were admitted to hospital a week ago.
I'm not so sure about that. Covid may grease the skids, but the vast majority of people dying have health complications already. Kids aren't dying. Teens aren't dying. 20s and 30s aren't dying in numbers. If Covid were directly killing, we'd see kids dying.
Regarding children, this is actually one of the many questions that is not fully understood, why do children not get so severe symptoms (initial thoughts were they might not even get infected, but this has been disproven by recent studies).
There are only two known populations in which everyone was forced to be tested and their movement was limited, which thus makes up a controlled study: the Diamond Princess and the town of Vo in Italy. In both cases the fatality rate is much less than 1%. In fact in Vo it was zero.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/20/eradic...
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...
In prior pandemics like this one the final fatality rate ended up being much lower than the initial reports: like an order of magnitude lower. So we would expect to see the same this time.
0.1% or less is well within the bounds of possibility, as the essay by Ioannadis explains.
What are these everything else’s? By far the best predictor of patient mortality has been age. What else is it about the Diamond Princess population that would come even close, even in sum, to the predictive power of their age?
Isn't it a bit disingenuous to use a city with 89 cases as being statistically significant?
The population size isn't that big indeed, but it's still multiple times larger than the cruise ship.
Which cruise ship? Diamond Princess had ~3600 occupants (passengers and crew).
How can you consider the fatality rate over an uninfected population? A year ago 8 billion peoples were not infected and 0 died! I have no idea why we worry. /s
What's matter for the fatality rate is the 89 persons infected, which isn't statistically significant.
The flu shot can't give you the flu. (The nasal spray can! Your doc will recommend against it if you're in certain categories, like being immune suppressed.)
The efficacy varies from year to year, because they have to make an educated guess at which strains will be most prominent each year.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates...
50/50 is fine, for the same reason even imperfect handwashing and social distancing are better than nothing.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-doesnt-everyone-get-the...
Just to throw my anecdote in there, I'll always get the flu shot if its convenient, but won't usually go out of my way to get it. This year I didn't get it, but my pregnant wife and daughter did as part of their regular visits. I ended up getting the flu and was violently sick, and my wife and daughter who almost certainly came in contact with the virus from me had no symptoms at all.
That's what it took for me. Now I always get the flu shot, even if inconvenient. The last time I had the flu, it hurt so bad that I swore I'd never miss the flu shot again. Haven't got the flu since, which is part luck and part shot, but still, I'll take whatever protection I can get.
There are so many axis (axes) on which we can improve.
Rethink doors with pull handles and common surfaces in trafficked areas (Union Station in Toronto has these all over the place. Hundreds of thousands of people and you're pulling common surfaces constantly).
People wearing masks when they aren't feeling well or even if just that they're a bit worried, without it being a social wrong. Despite the social pressure on masks, I have noticed a huge uptick in people wearing masks here in Ontario.
People staying home when they're sick. People having appropriate behavior when they are (even with a "cold").
And most contentious, we as a people just don't need to travel nearly as much. Aside from the environmental cost, many Western countries are particularly susceptible to these outbreaks because everyone is travelling everywhere constantly. For that meeting that could as easily have been an email. Etc.
With Covid19 we can all see the cost, upfront and at the same time.
I'm wondering if we could actually kill the flu by sitting still for a bit. Say we stopped the world, which apparently is a possibility now. Would that get rid of it? And if it would, would it be worth it?
More importantly, though, the flu (just like SARS-CoV-2) is zoonotic, meaning that it can jump from animals to humans. Even if every human was flu-free, influenza type A still lives on in birds for example, and there's an everpresent risk of it jumping to human beings.
― Blaise Pascal, Pensées
Never really gave it much thought before. Now I strongly disagree with the policy
(EDIT: I didn't downvote you, and I don't think an honest question deserves downvotes.)
I don't think that's the right comparison. Herd immunity refers to stopping a disease by spreading by making enough of the population immune so it can't spread. It doesn't have anything to do with evolutionary pressures or superbugs, like what you're alluding to with your second sentence.
Widespread vaccination is important exactly because it produces herd immunity.
In fact, if you read the experts, you'll see the the flu shot is generally a cocktail against the most prevalent strains. Since strains are left out, it's absolutely known that the flu shot will not protect you against all influenza strains.
See this page for information on how strains are selected: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-selection.htm
The flu shot is not a magical guarantee that you personally won't get the flu. What it does do is lower the rate of transmission for the flu significantly, by improving the herd immunity.
People need to understand that getting the flu shot is less about helping yourself, and more about helping your community. Think of it like giving blood. It's an altruistic action that you can take to help others around you.
Vaccinations are very effective protective measures. Just not at protecting against stuff that isn't in their narrow scope.
² I believe the actual numbers are something like 80 % for the flu: people vaccinated against flu strain X only contract it at 20 % the rate of unvaccinated people, or numbers to that effect
Without some serious testing you're not likely to know what you got.
But even if we assume you did catch the flu, there have been long term effects that show that regular flu shots over a few years lessens the severity, occurrences of serious problems with the flu. So the benefits seem to go beyond a given vaccine.
With flu vaccines there seems to be both a specific benefit, but also more general benefit longer term.
My understanding is that the 'flu shot' changes every year, in anticipation of the strains predicted to be the most prevalent that year.
In other words, flu shot producers say "we think flu strains A, B, and C will spread this year" and strains B, C, and D may be what actually spread.
It's still worth getting because even if you catch strain D, your immune system still easily defeated B and C when exposed and you didn't even notice.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1819estimates.ht...
COVID-19 is 1-2 orders of magnitude more fatal, has a longer convalescence, is more severe in severe cases, multiple orders more infectious, and has no vaccine.
Yeah, get your flu shot, be better prepared, but frankly I think since this is just very early in the crisis people are trying to compare this to previous experience when it is not comparable. Hundreds of thousands of people that might otherwise survive are about to be left to die for lack of capacity to save them. Possibly millions. At this point, it's too late to prevent it. Further, the US administration knew about it in time to take protective measures and did not. Nothing like this has ever happened in any of our lifetimes in the US.
Some things I've actually heard:
"I get sick every time!" No, you don't.
"It's a LIVE VIRUS! Everybody knows this!" No, it's not. You're just an idiot hanging around with idiots.
This is possible theoretically . yes?
There is no guarantee that you get lucky from flu shot at-least once.
However, "get sick" is a very vague term. In my case, to be specific, about 3 through 9 hours after the shot with a new strain in it, the shot site is tender and I run a small, but noticeable, fever kind of thing, barely worthy of the term but definitely a bit of an elevated temperature. Then it subsides. It is basically a minor inconvenience. By contrast, while I don't get the flu every year, it can hang with me for two weeks and knock me out cold for a good three or four days in the middle. And the shot generally covers more than one flu.
So yeah, both things may be "get sick" in some sense, but just because they both fit into the phrase "get sick" does not mean they are particularly comparable.
(Incidentally, over the past 10 years I've managed to do a lot of improvement to my immune system for various reasons. When I got the shot with a less-strong immune system, I generally didn't notice any symptoms from a flu shot at all. Everyone's different, but I'd suggest you generally should notice some symptoms from an effectual shot.)
The flu shot you get every year in USA and Europe is the vaccine for the most common flu that was seen in Asia and Australia the 6 months previous. And vice versa.
It’s a guess. If there are two common flus that went around, they pick one to vaccine for. Sometimes they get it wrong and the shot you get has nothing to do with the flu that ends up being common in your area.
It’s very possible to get the shot every year and still get sick.
There is a little bit of art in this science, a lot of people don’t get that.
haha so I wasn't the only one who interpreted it wrong. comment means "I get sick everytime from flu shot"
I'll be more vigilant in getting it in the future.
Based on that I think I've never had the flu.
That sounds about right. I did not really appreciate the distinction between a bad cold and the flu until I finally got the flu. I gained a real appreciation for why it kills weaker people.
It does matter. The claim here is basically "for certain people (me), the flu shot has been worse than the flu". If that person never experienced an actual Influenza infection, then that claim was made in error.
In that case, it would be like saying "my reaction to the vaccine was worse than any infection I never had".
That is equivalent to "my reaction to the vaccine was worse than my reaction to nothing", or more simply "I had a negative reaction to the vaccine". Fair enough, there's no questioning that.
Now, if you had ever had an actual Influenza infection, my guess would be that you would prefer the vaccine. If you react that strongly to just the vaccine, why should you react less strongly to the actual virus? To be on the safer side, why not just assume that the actual virus would completely overwhelm you?
> I am very reluctant to intentionally make myself sick for a few days every year.
That's the tradeoff. Feel miserable for a few days per year versus taking the risk of contracting a severe infection and potentially being dead for the remaining years of your life.
To complicate the matter, flu vaccines are only about 50% effective, though I'm told they help even with actual infections.
I'm not telling you what to do, except to re-evaluate your thinking on the matter.
I felt worse than I'd ever felt in my life. Everything hurt when I moved or when I didn't. My head was killing me. I never stopped coughing. It woke me up at all hours of the night and took me hours to get back to sleep. I was drinking cough syrup like it was candy just to get some barely passable naps during the night. It eventually devolved into pneumonia.
By the time I recovered and came back to work, I'd coughed so much I no longer had any voice.
I'd thought I'd had the flu before, but like many other people are saying it was pretty quickly apparent that it had always just been colds. I got the flu the first time when I was almost 30. I too would be extremely surprised if your reaction to the flu shot was anywhere near as bad as a flu.
Are you sure you ever had an actual Influenza infection? It's not like a common cold.
Even then, let's say you do get Influenza, there's a solid chance you'll get pneumonia, even as an otherwise healthy person.
Most diseases to vaccinate against have are mild in the majority of cases. You're vaccinating because of the fraction of cases that are severe.
It just strikes me as unlikely. It's more likely that people don't understand the difference between a flu and a cold.
That's why I'm asking for clarification.
Then why bother?
Also the immune response can suck, but I would think the risk for complications is still actually lower than genuine infection. I would see the flu shot as taking one for the team.
Please tell me more about how I've deceived myself.
Just as the MMR vaccine is less about you contracting measles and more about your spreading measles to more vulnerable populations that are unable to get the vaccine, the flu shot is identical in that regard. Sure, it helps you not get sick and/or to lessen the effects, but there is the fact that some portion of the population is unable to get the shot for various health reasons.
Edit: Instead of downvoting please tell me how my experiences are wrong. I'm very much aware of evidence and studies stating that its "impossible" to get the actual flu from the flu shot, yet I am walking proof of contrary evidence. I'm also aware of how batshit emotional people can get with regards to vaccines, and I want to be clear I am absolutely NOT advocating that anyone forgo getting a flu shot every year. When everyone else gets the shot, I'm safer. When I get the shot, my body reacts violently and I will contract the virus.
> Please tell me more about how I've deceived myself.
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
It's not bias. It's a fact. My GP is the one that has specifically told me to avoid the shot because I have a history of complications with it.
If you're capable, I'd love for you to diagnose me with some other mental disorder or logical fallacy, but please look at my medical history before you start dismissing my experiences as idiotic.
> I'm very much aware of evidence and studies stating that its "impossible" to get the actual flu from the flu shot, yet I am walking proof of contrary evidence.
This is the famous "anti-tiger rock" argument from the Simpsons. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Apu_About_Nothing)
You have evidence you got the flu.
You do NOT have evidence you got it from the shot.
> My GP is the one that has specifically told me to avoid the shot.
Anti-vaccine cranks exist even amongst medical professionals. Hell, the whole movement was started by one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
> the flu shot is not 100% effective or 100% side effect free
This is a strawman. Vaccine proponents agree with these specific statements. It's well known that the effectiveness varies from year to year, and that side effects are possible.
Can you point me to a study stating that the flu vaccine is 100% safe and effective? Not mostly effective, or mostly safe, but 100% honest-to-god safe for 100% of the population to get?
edit: really? calling my GP an anti vaccine crank? fuck you.
No, because that's a totally different claim.
The flu shot can't give you the flu.
The flu shot can have side effects, and no one with any knowledge claims it's 100% effective.
> edit: really? calling my GP an anti vaccine crank? fuck you.
I'm saying "my GP says so" isn't sufficient to contest the wealth of scientific evidence we have on the safety and efficacy of the flu shot.
edit: You've since edited it to say he recommended due to complications, which is fine, but doesn't sound like the same claim you made originally. There are absolutely people who can't take the shot for various reasons (egg allergies, for example!) and depend on herd immunity as a result. I simply contested the claim that you can get flu from the shot, as every bit of scientific data we have disputes that particular claim.
And yes, the flu shot isn't 100% effective. And yes some have bad reactions to certain vaccines. However, I find it extremely unlikely that you got it from the vaccine and instead that you were just very very unlucky at getting influenza. It's a bit of a sharpshooter fallacy to me.
And for those who are vulnerable, then their only protection is herd immunity where everyone else around them is immunized by vaccines.
No, this is false. The MMR vaccine is very much about stopping individual people who get the vaccine from getting measles. Herd immunity follows, and is important, but the primary aim of the vaccination is to prevent measles in the people who are vaccinated.
"A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine
I have nothing against vaccines, but my understanding is that you CAN get sick from it.
A dead-virus vaccine like the flu shot cannot give you the flu. It can cause "sick" side-effects (for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillain%E2%80%93Barr%C3%A9_sy..., or the fairly common aches and pains from the immune response), but not the flu.
A live-virus vaccine like the flu nasal spray can give you the flu, especially if you're immune suppressed or something along those lines.
Are you saying that a lot of vaccines are NOT weakened versions of the actual virus which can give you the sickness if your immune system is weak?
Or are you saying that the commonly used flu vaccine in the US does not utilize a live form of the virus?
If you are talking about the specifics of the latter, you could be right, I am not an expert.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/misconceptions.htm
> No, flu vaccines cannot cause flu illness. Flu vaccines given with a needle (i.e., flu shots) are currently made in two ways: the vaccine is made either with a) flu viruses that have been ‘inactivated’ (killed) and that therefore are not infectious, or b) using only a single gene from a flu virus (as opposed to the full virus) in order to produce an immune response without causing infection. This is the case for recombinant influenza vaccines.
No, and that's ok. There is a lot of stuff written - even in science papers - that indicate differing things about those vaccines effectiveness.
There is no universal "right" answer to your question. I'm assuming you thought it was rhetorical.