[flagged]
Please don't do this: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading" [1].
> flu vaccines are extremely ineffective
They're not. They're not particularly effective for preventing flu in an individual. But at the group level, they have a clear and useful effect.
This is my understanding. It basically would have marginally reduced the cost of the flu coming through, right? But thats not the impression that I would get from any of the discussion here. Am I wrong?
On your own impression? Probably not.
I’m not militant about getting the flu shot every year. I think I would be if I were in a company where my getting sick could get a friend killed.
This the opposite of your understanding. The benefit to the individuals in a group from the whole group taking the vaccine is actually much larger than the benefit to an individual in the group of taking the vaccine solo.
You can read more about it here (and ask more questions!). https://claude.ai/share/8e8ffef7-ba33-44aa-a2a6-ca3b9be6d516
> Combined with the brutal arithmetic at higher R0R_0 R0 , this is a large part of why flu vaccination programs are generally justified on individual protection against illness and severe outcomes rather than on a realistic expectation of achieving herd immunity and stopping circulation.
On the one hand, in a military setting you can feasibly achieve 100% compliance. But if you don't stop transmission (which it sounds like we don't have good data saying it would), you don't get herd immunity.
So I think you're back to just the benefits of reduction in disease, which is not nothing, but it is marginal like I said originally.
(For me, "marginal" would mean that the costs were roughly equal to the benefits. I think you'd have a hard time convincing me that saving the lives of even just 1% of the people who would normally die from the flu -- between 10k and 50k people a year -- is roughly equivalent to the cost of giving out flu shots. I suppose you could argue that the benefit is marginal to individuals who have a low probability of dying from the flu, and marginal to a society which has relatively low vaccination rates overall.)
The other thing is that, according to the Claude data here, the vaccine is actually relatively effective at preventing the transmission of some flu variants, 50% effective against influenza B! If so, there would be a clear group benefit to that, you only need (1 - 1/1.3) / 0.5 = 46% of people to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity to that strain.
"The best recent direct measurement is the FLUTES study (JAMA Network Open, 2024), which tracked secondary infections after flu entered US households across 2017–2020. The result: the estimated effectiveness of influenza vaccines for preventing secondary infections among household contacts was 21.0% (95% CI, 1.4% to 36.7%). Note how wide that confidence interval is — the lower bound is nearly zero."
And
"This is consistent with older household work. A 2013 study found no evidence that vaccination prevented household transmission once influenza was introduced; adults were at particular risk despite vaccination — strikingly, 9 of 11 adults with household-acquired influenza were vaccinated in that sample."
So most people on base who were going to get infected and transmit are still going to do so. Some portion of them have a better time with the illness if it does come around, which won't happen all the time. Contrast that with the costs of the program (side effects, time, whatever cons you can think of), and it seems like you might not be in slam dunk territory.
"Flu vaccines didn't work that well in the US, officials find (2026)"
https://abc7chicago.com/post/flu-vaccines-didnt-work-us-offi...
https://apnews.com/article/flu-season-cdc-subclade-k-vaccina...
"Flu Vaccine Was Not Very Effective This Season, the C.D.C. Says (2022)"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/15706/
"Flu shot fail: Why doesn't the vaccine always work? (2014)"
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/flu-shot-fail-why...
This is especially true in the case of the flu because it has a relatively low R0 of approximately 1.3, meaning that without intervention/vaccines, each infected individual infects on average 1.3 other people. The vaccine just needs to be effective enough to drive the reproduction rate below 1 for the virus to die out.
We do not have good data on how effective flu vaccines are at neutralizing transmission. But for the sake of argument, let's take these relatively "bad" years for the flu where they prevented 40% of doctor's visits. Suppose that corresponds to merely preventing 40% of transmissions. The other 60% of transmissions still occur.
In that case is it even possible to drive R_eff (the effective reproduction rate of the virus) below 1? It turns out, yes! With an R0 of 1.3 and an effectiveness of only 40%, you stop the spread of the virus after vaccinating only 60% of people.
Details on the math: https://claude.ai/share/8e8ffef7-ba33-44aa-a2a6-ca3b9be6d516. You can also extend the conversation and ask more questions!
Taking that as a given how bad was it?
This season's vaccines were around 25% to 30% effective in preventing adults from getting sick enough from the flu that they had to go to a doctor's office, clinic or hospital, according to a CDC report this week.
Children who were vaccinated were about 40% less likely to get treatment at a doctor's office or hospital.
The questions really should be .. did people die that could have been saved, was it cost effective to vaccinate a hundred million people to reduce the percentage of those who contacted flu and then got sick (and did the vaccination reduce the numbers of people in contact).
As it stands, by your examples, the flu vaccine didn't perform well that year, in comparison to others, but it hardly looks as though it had no effect whatsoever.
1) Most people who claim to have "the flu" don't actually have influenza. Thus, if they take a flu vaccine, and get "the flu", they blame the flu
2) The vaccine does not create a perfect boundary. It's a population scale benefit. It makes it less likely one gets infected, it makes it less likely that someone who gets infected has serious disease, and it makes it less likely that someone infected passes it along
3) The "flu vaccine" is a prediction, trying to guess the strains that will be prevalent in the upcoming season Sometimes they guess wrong, and it's less effective. If we supported mRNA technology this could be improved.
Sorry, this is absolutely bullshit. They’re wildly effective in the easiest population to look at - MA Seniors, who are highly incentivized to get them because of their efficacy.
Sometimes, it’s best to stop talking when you know you don’t have any clue what you’re talking about.