Originally Posted By: Zep
Originally Posted By: Bing
Well I really dont want to argue this into infinity, but I dont know that the fact that almost 40% of the people that get the flu have had the flu shot. It is 62 percent effective but does that mean that 28 percent of the folks who get the vaccination get the flu


Bing it would 38% not 28%...correct?

I would think if the flu vaccine is "62% effective",
that would mean it is 38% (almost 40%) ineffective and
for it to be "ineffective" people that took the shot would have
got the flu. What other definition of a flu shot not being effective
could there be?


So this data...could be very misleading.
I would bet that the 40% had a MUCH higher degree of comorbid medical conditions, immunocompromise, and oveall poor health.

I have given 300+ flu vaccines in my clinic. I am seeing 10+ people a day with the flu right now. ONLY ONE patient got the shot and still got the flu. he also has cancer, and is on meds that probably kept him from mounting the complete response needed to obtain immunity.






Originally Posted By: Bruce Condello
Every decision in life, either consciously or subconsciously is made with a personal risk analysis.

Advantages to getting flu shot:

1. Possible avoidance of inconvenience caused by getting the flu.
2. Possible avoidance of being a vector for passing the flu to others.
3. Possible avoidance of death.

Disadvantages of getting the flu shot.

1. Cost
2. Inconvenience



Bottom line this is the best info here. The only thing i would add is that Data are very tricky. It is all about how the epidemiologists present said data.

I could pull data that show you that penicillin kills people and is bad. I can also show you how many lives it has saved. The truth is usually in the middle.. the trouble is finding the correct middle.

There was a HUGE study a few years ago called the Women's Heath Initiative. Long story short it showed that estrogen was bad and we shouldn't treat women with this. The trouble was the data was spun in such a way that this was not entirely correct. It changed the way our country practiced medicine with what some feel was very bad data. It was/is a huge controversy.