Carpe Diem Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Has the vax program reduced flu deaths over the years? I keep hearing the same numbers, around 35,000 deaths annually. How do we then say that the flu vax program is effective if the numbers aren't reducing? My Mother works at a nursing home. She says every year there are many deaths at the nursing home related to flu but yet most of the residents are receiving the flu vax. Just wondering... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 A couple of things to keep in mind: Do you have a good source for your numbers? We often "hear" things that aren't reflected in statistics. The success of a flu vax program can only go as far as the percentage of a population willing to get it. If that wording makes sense. If the numbers are steady it may be a reflection of peoples choices in terms of vaxing but may tell us nothing about the effectiveness of the vaccine itself. I guess I'd ask, what do you mean by effectiveness of the flu vax program? I think all your mother can offer you is anecdotes. There may still be deaths but do we know whether or not there might not be many more if we didn't vaccinate? I'm pretty sure we do actually. The CDC would probably have statistics related to that. It's also important to keep in mind that nursing homes have populations of people who are frail and susceptible. While vaccines may lower their chances of catching the flu significantly it doesn't reduce it to 0 and of of any population, this likely would be one where people would still expect deaths despite vaccination although they'd also expect a significant reduction compared to a similar population that had not been vaccinated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovetobehome Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Yep, pretty interesting isn't it? My understanding is that the number of flu deaths has remained stagnant for about 5 years, while 'compliance' in taking the vax has increased. Hmmm.... This doesn't speak to that directly, but is relevant: From Mercola.com: One Thousand Deaths from Swine Flu?! Oh really? Well I am from Chicago and I want to see the evidence. If you read Obama's declaration, you will find a complete absence of documentation to support his assertion that 1000 have died from H1N1 in the US. Nada, nothing no links, no references anywhere in the document to back up his assertion. In fact, if you go to the definitive collector and holder of the US data, you will find that there is NO evidence to back this claim. The CDC's own web site readily admits that since August 30, 2009 they are no longer testing for H1N1. They don't even recommend it any more. They are substituting a clinical definition for blood testing that will positively confirm that the "suspected" cases of H1N1 influenza are actually H1N1 influenza. They've even coined what appears to be a whole new term: "ILI," which stands for "influenza-like illness." The CDC H1N1 flu site reads: "... tracking of 2009 H1N1 hospitalizations and deaths will not be the same after August 30, 2009. In an effort to add additional structure to the national 2009 H1N1 reporting, new case definitions for influenza-associated hospitalizations and deaths were implemented on August 30, 2009. The new definitions allow states to report to CDC hospitalizations and deaths (either confirmed OR probable) resulting from all types of influenza, not just those from 2009 H1N1 flu. Influenza and pneumonia syndrome hospitalizations and deaths may be an overestimate of actual number of flu-related hospitalizations and deaths , but CDC believes influenza and pneumonia syndromic reports are likely to be a more sensitive measure of flu-associated hospitalizations and deaths than laboratory confirmed reports during this pandemic. However, the syndromic reports of all hospitalizations and deaths recorded as either influenza or pneumonia will mean that the case counts are less specific than before and will include cases that are not related to influenza infection." Folks, make no mistake about it. Health officials and media WILL trumpet these numbers as being H1N1 "swine flu deaths" even though, as you can CLEARLY read on the CDC's site, they admit that they will now include hospitalizations and deaths that are not even RELATED to the common influenza infection, let alone H1N1. Well, no wonder the flu appears to be spreading when they are now including mere "symptoms of flu," which the CBS investigation found were NOT EVEN INFLUENZA RELATED in the overwhelming majority of cases! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Yep, pretty interesting isn't it? My understanding is that the number of flu deaths has remained stagnant for about 5 years, while 'compliance' in taking the vax has increased. Hmmm.... This doesn't speak to that directly, but is relevant: From Mercola.com: One Thousand Deaths from Swine Flu?! Oh really? Well I am from Chicago and I want to see the evidence. If you read Obama's declaration, you will find a complete absence of documentation to support his assertion that 1000 have died from H1N1 in the US. Nada, nothing no links, no references anywhere in the document to back up his assertion. In fact, if you go to the definitive collector and holder of the US data, you will find that there is NO evidence to back this claim. The CDC's own web site readily admits that since August 30, 2009 they are no longer testing for H1N1. They don't even recommend it any more. They are substituting a clinical definition for blood testing that will positively confirm that the "suspected" cases of H1N1 influenza are actually H1N1 influenza. They've even coined what appears to be a whole new term: "ILI," which stands for "influenza-like illness." The CDC H1N1 flu site reads: "... tracking of 2009 H1N1 hospitalizations and deaths will not be the same after August 30, 2009. In an effort to add additional structure to the national 2009 H1N1 reporting, new case definitions for influenza-associated hospitalizations and deaths were implemented on August 30, 2009. The new definitions allow states to report to CDC hospitalizations and deaths (either confirmed OR probable) resulting from all types of influenza, not just those from 2009 H1N1 flu. Influenza and pneumonia syndrome hospitalizations and deaths may be an overestimate of actual number of flu-related hospitalizations and deaths , but CDC believes influenza and pneumonia syndromic reports are likely to be a more sensitive measure of flu-associated hospitalizations and deaths than laboratory confirmed reports during this pandemic. However, the syndromic reports of all hospitalizations and deaths recorded as either influenza or pneumonia will mean that the case counts are less specific than before and will include cases that are not related to influenza infection." Folks, make no mistake about it. Health officials and media WILL trumpet these numbers as being H1N1 "swine flu deaths" even though, as you can CLEARLY read on the CDC's site, they admit that they will now include hospitalizations and deaths that are not even RELATED to the common influenza infection, let alone H1N1. Well, no wonder the flu appears to be spreading when they are now including mere "symptoms of flu," which the CBS investigation found were NOT EVEN INFLUENZA RELATED in the overwhelming majority of cases! :confused::confused::confused: That sounds absurd to me. I do not understand this at all, and if I don't having read and actually sought to understand it, how many people in the US, most of whom are busy going about their lives and don't have time to read things like this really understand it? This is all very strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 This doesn't speak to that directly, but is relevant: From Mercola.com: They've even coined what appears to be a whole new term: "ILI," which stands for "influenza-like illness." It's just not that easy to count cases, but this has been discussed AD NAUSEUM and I'm not going to do it again. Maybe hornblower has more patience and will chime in. I don't know when the term ILI was first used, but it's been around for many, many years. If Mercola hasn't heard of ILI before, he is truly ignorant about influenza. Funny, he uses the term "influenza like illness" in this article written in 2004. Case definitions may change over time, but that shouldn't be a surprise. I did a pubmed search and looked at the last page. Notice the dates. Letter: Acute transient myositis with influenza-like illness. Mason W, Keller E. J Pediatr. 1975 May;86(5):813-4. No abstract available. PMID: 1133667 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related Articles 662: Surveillance of Iowa swine herds for influenza-like illness: combined serologic and virus isolation method. Pirtle EC. Am J Vet Res. 1975 Jan;36(1):121-2. PMID: 1115416 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related Articles 663: A controlled trial of bromhexine ('Bisolvon') in out-patients with chronic bronchitis. Lal S, Bhalla KK. Curr Med Res Opin. 1975;3(2):63-7. PMID: 1095307 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related Articles 664: Incidence of antibody to swine influenza virus in Iowa breeder and butcher pigs correlated with signs of influenza-like illness. Pirtle EC. Am J Vet Res. 1973 Jan;34(1):83-5. No abstract available. PMID: 4683978 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related Articles 665: Clinical, virological, and pathological findings in a fatal case of Q fever endocarditis. FERGUSON IC, CRAIK JE, GRIST NR. J Clin Pathol. 1962 May;15:235-41. PMID: 13892334 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related Articles Free article in PMC | at journal site 666: Influenza-like illness in naval personnel Spring 1959. FRASER PK, HATCH LA, LE CLERCQ LG, FORSTER JM. Am J Med Sci. 1960 Mar;239:320-3. No abstract available. PMID: 13824640 [PubMed - OLDMEDLINE] Related Articles 667: An influenza-like illness. WIRKKUNEN RA. Can Med Assoc J. 1959 Dec 15;81:1022-3. No abstract available. PMID: 13845365 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related Articles Free article in PMC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 It's a controversial and complicated isssue. The data is conflicting on whether it decreases mortality in the elderly, which typically account for 75-80% of deaths d/t influenza. Although current policy emphasizes vaccination of elderly people, the evidence that this strategy effectively reduces influenza-related morality in that age-gropu is weak. Placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (RCT) data indicate that vaccination effectively prevents influenza illness in younger health elderly people, but no RCT data conclusively show a similar benefit in those aged 70 years or ore, the age-group that accounts for nearly all influenza-related deaths. (Simonsen et al., The Lancet Infectious Diseases [subscription required]) However, observational studies (as opposed to RCT) have shown a clear benefit in older people. RCT are more rigorous scientifically, and are generally preferable when you are looking for evidence. It's well known that flu vaccine isn't very effective in the elderly. Older people don't get a good immune response from infections or vaccines in general. The most effective way to decrease influenza in the elderly is actually to vaccinate everyone else, so transmission is interrupted. The vaccine has clearly been shown to be effective at preventing illness in younger people and kids. Since there are few deaths in those age groups to begin with, and vax rates are low in those age groups, it's hard to say whether it prevents death, but it is assumed to since it prevents illness. The vax is most likely to prevent death during pandemic years, since deaths occur disproportionately in younger people. Here are some great articles discussing this issue from Effect Measure. Journalists sink in The Atlantic article on vaccines The Atlantic article: sur rebuttal Flu vaccine, the elderly and the CDC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanestMomInMidwest Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Yep, pretty interesting isn't it? My understanding is that the number of flu deaths has remained stagnant for about 5 years, while 'compliance' in taking the vax has increased. Hmmm.... This doesn't speak to that directly, but is relevant: From Mercola.com: One Thousand Deaths from Swine Flu?! Oh really? Well I am from Chicago and I want to see the evidence. If you read Obama's declaration, you will find a complete absence of documentation to support his assertion that 1000 have died from H1N1 in the US. Nada, nothing no links, no references anywhere in the document to back up his assertion. In fact, if you go to the definitive collector and holder of the US data, you will find that there is NO evidence to back this claim. The CDC's own web site readily admits that since August 30, 2009 they are no longer testing for H1N1. They don't even recommend it any more. They are substituting a clinical definition for blood testing that will positively confirm that the "suspected" cases of H1N1 influenza are actually H1N1 influenza. They've even coined what appears to be a whole new term: "ILI," which stands for "influenza-like illness." The CDC H1N1 flu site reads: "... tracking of 2009 H1N1 hospitalizations and deaths will not be the same after August 30, 2009. In an effort to add additional structure to the national 2009 H1N1 reporting, new case definitions for influenza-associated hospitalizations and deaths were implemented on August 30, 2009. The new definitions allow states to report to CDC hospitalizations and deaths (either confirmed OR probable) resulting from all types of influenza, not just those from 2009 H1N1 flu. Influenza and pneumonia syndrome hospitalizations and deaths may be an overestimate of actual number of flu-related hospitalizations and deaths , but CDC believes influenza and pneumonia syndromic reports are likely to be a more sensitive measure of flu-associated hospitalizations and deaths than laboratory confirmed reports during this pandemic. However, the syndromic reports of all hospitalizations and deaths recorded as either influenza or pneumonia will mean that the case counts are less specific than before and will include cases that are not related to influenza infection." Folks, make no mistake about it. Health officials and media WILL trumpet these numbers as being H1N1 "swine flu deaths" even though, as you can CLEARLY read on the CDC's site, they admit that they will now include hospitalizations and deaths that are not even RELATED to the common influenza infection, let alone H1N1. Well, no wonder the flu appears to be spreading when they are now including mere "symptoms of flu," which the CBS investigation found were NOT EVEN INFLUENZA RELATED in the overwhelming majority of cases! this site exists to sell Mercola products. This site does not exist to inform or give facts. Any and all information from this site should be verified through an independent source, or at least a website that is not set up solely to sell products. Having ads on a website is one thing. This website is *designed* for the purpose of selling the products, and all information/psudoinformation is designed to channel the viewer to their products page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 It's just not that easy to count cases, but this has been discussed AD NAUSEUM and I'm not going to do it again. Maybe hornblower has more patience and will chime in. LOL! Nope, I'm pretty short on the patience by now. And Mercola has just lost any credibility he may have had. It's the kind of statement that scans grammatically and might make sense and some will believe it, but if you know anything about the subject at all, you know it's nonsense. This is kind of like a Secretary of Education saying "homeschoolers do not have access to standardized testing so it's impossible to evaluate how well they're doing." I'm really not 'here' at all - I'm doing a 3 week project which does not leave me any time at all for being here. :) I think anyone who wants to learn about the flu should do the following: -search and read all of Perry's posts on this board since the spring. Just click on her name, select "find all posts" -read the fluwiki.info page on the science of Influenza. If you read all the links in the first yellow box on this page http://www.fluwiki.info/pmwiki.php?n=Science.Science you'll know more about this subject than pretty much anyone you know, and definitely more than most news reporters (this site was started to address pandemic bird flu so not all of it is applicable to the current H1N1 outbreak. But if you read it all, you'll be ahead of the game when the bird flu does strike....) -read the effect measure blog http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/; search through past topics there. Lots has been asked and answered there by epidemiologists. -do a unit on the virology of influenza. The Influenza 101 'course' is excellent http://www.virology.ws/influenza-101/ and there is tons more on that website about viruses in general Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) Yep, pretty interesting isn't it? My understanding is that the number of flu deaths has remained stagnant for about 5 years, while 'compliance' in taking the vax has increased. Hmmm.... Assuming that's true it's not really a headscratcher. The increasing compliance might be in populations where there's not a huge risk of death anyway. I get it to protect a relative undergoing chemo and to keep healthy in a season when I have a lot of family and volunteer commitments. The risk of death from flu for me is probably not even worth considering. So the compliance rate could go up radically and the compliance (edit...I meant death) rate stay stagnant and yet it would say nothing about the effectiveness of the vaccine. Edited October 28, 2009 by WishboneDawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carpe Diem Posted October 28, 2009 Author Share Posted October 28, 2009 Thanks for the links Perry and Hornblower. I will read them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirth Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 -do a unit on the virology of influenza. The Influenza 101 'course' is excellent http://www.virology.ws/influenza-101/ Great idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.