Sickness this year

[JSJJ388]

JS wasn't directly saying that autism is caused by vaccines but more of modern society as a whole. Not going to argue his point.

Precisely. Vaccines in general are safe. Some are not. Society as a whole has caused a whole slew of issues that could be avoided. We need to go back to a simpler, more local lifestyle, IMHO.

To answer the OPs question, yes, there seems to be a lot more people getting, and staying, sick. I had something awful (not the flu, some kind of virus according to my RN mother) that set me on my ass for a few days. First time in 12 years that Ive had anything worse than "the crud". Took a hearty dose of home made cough medicine to knock it out.

 

[Futbalfantic]

Futball: I said the Cochrane link (first one, I thing) didn't really back up what you said. I posted quotes from it that show it wasn't really a conclusion at all. Not saying the organization itself isn't credible. But that article isn't from the standpoint that you were saying it shows you shouldn't get vaccinated.

"Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost."

That was the line I was looking at.

What I do know is this: Between 80-90% of children that die from the flu did not have the shot. That number is pretty consistent.

Do you have a source?

@Ron If it's not too much trouble can you reach out to your sister for some literature to back her opinion up?

 

[Pacfanweb]

"Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost."

That was the line I was looking at.


Do you have a source?

@Ron If it's not too much trouble can you reach out to your sister for some literature to back her opinion up?

Yes, I'll provide that momentarily.
From your Cochrane link:

We found 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 adults. We were unable to determine the impact of bias on about 70% of the included studies due to insufficient reporting of details. Around 15% of the included studies were well designed and conducted.

So 70% of the studies had insufficient details, and they focused on 15% of them. Not really a good data sample there.

Authors' conclusions:
Healthy adults who receive inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine rather than no vaccine probably experience less influenza, from just over 2% to just under 1% (moderate-certainty evidence).

Pretty wishy-washy conclusion there.

Key messages

Inactivated vaccines can reduce the proportion of healthy adults (including pregnant women) who have influenza and ILI, but their impact is modest. We are uncertain about the effects of inactivated vaccines on working days lost or serious complications of influenza during influenza season.

So even that link confirms that the vaccine helps. How much is still debatable, but that it helps and isn't a health risk isn't, as seen here:

We did not find any evidence of an association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events in the comparative studies considered in this review.

Okay, now the source for the child death rate from the flu vs if they had the vaccine or not:

First link

Just about one in five of the 53 children who have died from the flu this year had received the flu vaccine, according to CDC influenza division director Dr. Dan Jernigan.

1 in 5 is 80%, and the article states "just about 1 in 5", so it's over. How much, don't know.

Second link

Some 80 to 85 percent of children who died from the flu in past years were not vaccinated, said CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund.

Third link

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Of the 30 U.S. children who have died from the flu so far this season, some 85 percent had not been vaccinated, said Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, who urged Americans to get flu shots amid one of the most severe flu seasons in years.

"My message is, if you haven't gotten a vaccine, please get a vaccine. Also, please get your children vaccinated," said Fitzgerald, who is urging citizens "to take every advantage that you can to protect yourself."

Although the vaccine is only estimated to be about 30 percent effective against the H3N2 strain, it has been shown in studies to reduce severity and duration if people do become infected, said Dr. Dan Jernigan, director of the influenza division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

[Ron]

What I do know is this: Between 80-90% of children that die from the flu did not have the shot. That number is pretty consistent. It's good enough for me. Numbers and outcomes matter the most, IMO.

Yeah but see now you are manipulating data.
Let me try as well.

The effects of seasonal influenza epidemics in developing countries are not fully known, but research estimates that 99% of deaths in children under 5 years of age with influenza related lower respiratory tract infections are found in developing countries (2).

We also know that fewer than 1% of children in developing countries receive the flu vaccine.
Source: Influenza (Seasonal) (World health organization)

So if 10% that die had the vaccine and only 1% of all received the vaccine Oh My Gawd the vaccine kills at 10x the rate of those kids not exposed to this horrible vaccine.

Now of course thats ridiculous. But it points out statistical bias. Here are some assumed truths. Impoverished kids in bad backgrounds dont have great parenting frequently. These same kids are much less likely to get the flu shot. These kids tend to be more communal, live in more population dense areas and generally have more direct human-to-human impact. These kids because of poor parental attention, also get sub standard healthcare. As a result these children are in poorer overall health AND have a higher mortality rate outside of illness than their peers.

All this adds up to poor kids die more. Poor kids get less flu shots. Poor kids die from he flu more. They also die more from pedestrian versus auto accidents. And heart attack. And SIDS. And random gun violence. And suicide. And and and

 

[Pacfanweb]

Yeah but see now you are manipulating data.
Let me try as well.


We also know that fewer than 1% of children in developing countries receive the flu vaccine.
Source: Influenza (Seasonal) (World health organization)

So if 10% that die had the vaccine and only 1% of all received the vaccine Oh My Gawd the vaccine kills at 10x the rate of those kids not exposed to this horrible vaccine.

Now of course thats ridiculous. But it points out statistical bias. Here are some assumed truths. Impoverished kids in bad backgrounds dont have great parenting frequently. These same kids are much less likely to get the flu shot. These kids tend to be more communal, live in more population dense areas and generally have more direct human-to-human impact. These kids because of poor parental attention, also get sub standard healthcare. As a result these children are in poorer overall health AND have a higher mortality rate outside of illness than their peers.

All this adds up to poor kids die more. Poor kids get less flu shots. Poor kids die from he flu more. They also die more from pedestrian versus auto accidents. And heart attack. And SIDS. And random gun violence. And suicide. And and and

I didn't manipulate anything. I searched for "flu death no vaccine", found legitimate articles that quoted right from the CDC. And I have 3 links to those numbers right above your post, too.

And I think you got mixed up on the info in that link. (or maybe did I?)

What I see in it is this:

The effects of seasonal influenza epidemics in developing countries are not fully known, but research estimates that 99% of deaths in children under 5 years of age with influenza related lower respiratory tract infections are found in developing countries (2)

That says nothing about vaccines or who got them or in what percentage they got them that I see.

In fact, the link states this:

The most effective way to prevent the disease is vaccination. Safe and effective vaccines are available and have been used for more than 60 years. Immunity from vaccination wanes over time so annual vaccination is recommended to protect against influenza. Injected inactivated influenza vaccines are most commonly used throughout the world.

Among healthy adults, influenza vaccine provides protection, even when circulating viruses do not exactly match the vaccine viruses. However, among the elderly, influenza vaccination may be less effective in preventing illness but reduces severity of disease and incidence of complications and deaths. Vaccination is especially important for people at high risk of influenza complications, and for people who live with or care for the people at high risk.

WHO recommends annual vaccination for:

• pregnant women at any stage of pregnancy
• children aged between 6 months to 5 years
• elderly individuals (aged more than 65 years)
• individuals with chronic medical conditions
• health-care workers.

There's really just no getting around the fact that the numbers show that getting vaccinated is better than not. There can certainly be a debate on HOW much better, but not that it IS better. Not with current data, anyway.

As to the lower income kids possibly dying more....maybe, maybe not. Lower income people also tend to have not as good health period, not just more susceptibility to illnesses. So there's that. But really, that argument still makes the case for getting the flu shot. Poor kids can get free flu shots...and they should. Low income folks are (or should be) mostly on Medicaid or some form of gov't run healthcare. Even if they get sick and die disproportionately, that is still a great case for why they should be getting vaccinated. It's all relative.

 

[obullfish]

@Pacfanweb is the CDC a government agency?

 

[Pacfanweb]

@Pacfanweb is the CDC a government agency?

Yes. Why?

 

[obullfish]

Yes. Why?

I put all my trust in their data then.

 

[Pacfanweb]

I put all my trust in their data then.

As well you should. They haven't steered us wrong on these things since the flu shot was invented, as well as all the rest of the vaccines. It's kind of their job to make sure people are healthy.

 

[JSJJ388]

As well you should. They haven't steered us wrong on these things since the flu shot was invented, as well as all the rest of the vaccines. It's kind of their job to make sure people are healthy.

Dont take this the wrong way, but you are drunk on the koolaide man. The gooberment has never steered us wrong huh? Do you honestly think they would never lie to cover up their massive screw up?

 

[obullfish]

Can’t fix STUUUUUPID!

 

[Pacfanweb]

Dont take this the wrong way, but you are drunk on the koolaide man. The gooberment has never steered us wrong huh? Do you honestly think they would never lie to cover up their massive screw up?

One of us here is drinking the Kool-Aid, but it's not me. The good news for you lesser informed skeptical types is, there's not a credible medical organization that doesn't agree with him. So it's pretty unanimous.
It's not just some evil government organization that is saying this.

 

[Pacfanweb]

And by the way, the moon landing was not faked, 911 was not an inside job, Chemtrails are BS, FDR did not know about Pearl Harbor prior to the attack, there is no Illuminati controlling everything, and my first experience with women was a threesome with the original Charlie's Angels when I was about 14

 

[JSJJ388]

One of us here is drinking the Kool-Aid, but it's not me. The good news for you lesser informed skeptical types is, there's not a credible medical organization that doesn't agree with him. So it's pretty unanimous.
It's not just some evil government organization that is saying this.

Never did like koolaide. Not sure where you get that Im lesser informed because I dont blindly trust government bought statistics when the real world tells a different story.

And by the way, the moon landing was not faked, 911 was not an inside job, Chemtrails are BS, FDR did not know about Pearl Harbor prior to the attack, there is no Illuminati controlling everything, and my first experience with women was a threesome with the original Charlie's Angels when I was about 14

Now youre just talking nonsense. I dont buy into conspiracy theories, but I do like to try and get the whole picture... Keep drinking though, are they serving grape today or is it orange?

 

[Pacfanweb]

The number say what the number say. The real world, is the numbers.
All the statistics, and every credible medical organization back up what I am saying... What just what they are saying. The CDC and their record is pretty damn good. There is no blind trust in the government, but when a particular branch has a good record, there's no reason not to trust what they say. Especially when it's backed up by most everyone else

 

[Ron]

That says nothing about vaccines or who got them or in what percentage they got them that I see.

In fact, the link states this:



There's really just no getting around the fact that the numbers show that getting vaccinated is better than not. There can certainly be a debate on HOW much better, but not that it IS better. Not with current data, anyway.

As to the lower income kids possibly dying more....maybe, maybe not. Lower income people also tend to have not as good health period, not just more susceptibility to illnesses. So there's that. But really, that argument still makes the case for getting the flu shot. Poor kids can get free flu shots...and they should. Low income folks are (or should be) mostly on Medicaid or some form of gov't run healthcare. Even if they get sick and die disproportionately, that is still a great case for why they should be getting vaccinated. It's all relative.

You missed my point and et somehow made it for me.
Statistics show poor people are less likely to get the flu shot than more affluent ones.
Statistics show people without the flu shot die more than those with.
Statistics show poor people die younger than more affluent ones from every discernable cause (interestingly enough, except certain cancers and self piloted airplane crashes)

So if you could break down the data I am suggesting that their socio-economic status more closely anolgates with their death rate than their vaccination status.

Its not about whether or not they SHOULD get vaccinated its about whether or not they DO get vaccinated.

I'll draw it out in make believe stats.
In NCtopia there are 100,000 people.
50,00 are below poverty level. Lets call these poors.
50,00 are above poverty level. Lets call these haves.
65% of haves get flu vaccine.
10% of poors get flu vaccine.
1,000 haves get influenza type A
1,250 poors get influenza type A
1 Have dies of influenza
9 poors die of influenza.

Now 10% of all flu deaths got the vaccine and 90% of flue deaths didnt get the vaccine.
Plus look at all those poors, they have a much higher infection rate than the haves.
Except, the infection rate doesnt correlate to the vaccination rate, with added risk factors we actually think more poors should get the flu all things being equal than haves. Yet although the poors have more numeric incident cases, they also have a much higher exposure rate and a much lower vaccination rate. This part doesnt sell grants and gets left out of the data.

Again read up on Superbugs. Its not a direct correlation but similar theory.

 

[jeepinmatt]

Breaking news: We have just had the first ever debate about vaccines! Stay tuned for people changing their minds based on compelling internet argument!

 

[WARRIORWELDING]

Glad were not trying to pass a bill or anything..although the majority seems obvious. We'd have to let Shawn shut the board down briefly, or conj-our up a serious discussions on the practical application of triangles and trampolines for ladder bar tech on a turdy-five. Albeit a good distraction but would provide the same initial fruitless, comical, social banter of NC4x4.

NC4x4 topic, statistics, inner web, and a pc=mind blown........I really wonder what kind of time I spend on here anyway?

Oh yeah! We were talking about sick people.

ANYBODY know ANYBODY who has died from this mess?

 

[jeepinmatt]

Glad were not trying to pass a bill or anything..although the majority seems obvious. We'd have to let Shawn shut the board down briefly, or conj-our up a serious discussions on the practical application of triangles and trampolines for ladder bar tech on a turdy-five. Albeit a good distraction but would provide the same initial fruitless, comical, social banter of NC4x4.

NC4x4 topic, statistics, inner web, and a pc=mind blown........I really wonder what kind of time I spend on here anyway?

Oh yeah! We were talking about sick people.

ANYBODY know ANYBODY who has died from this mess?

I saw a reshare on facebook where a friends friend knows someone whose whole family of 8 died from the flu while getting the vaccine. Which side gets credit for that?

 

[Pacfanweb]

I saw a reshare on facebook where a friends friend knows someone whose whole family of 8 died from the flu while getting the vaccine. Which side gets credit for that?

Clearly that is Trump's fault

 

[WARRIORWELDING]

I saw a reshare on facebook where a friends friend knows someone whose whole family of 8 died from the flu while getting the vaccine. Which side gets credit for that?

Not cool, regardless.

 

[RatLabGuy]

Ye It’s like a tetanus shot have you ever seen anyone with lockjaw?

yes. Its damn aweful.

 

[obullfish]

yes. Its damn aweful.

Really from tetanus? I broke a dudes jaw in a bar that probably ended up with lockjaw when they wired it shut.

 

[RatLabGuy]

Also in that link:

"We were unable to determine the impact of bias on about 70% of the included studies due to insufficient reporting of details."

So it's really not much of a relevant report, since 70% of their data was admittedly incomplete.

Woah hold on. That's not what that statement is about.
In literature reviews of medical trials, it is common to add a statistical repressor, or at least note the potential need for exclusion, for potential bias on behalf of the researcher for each study due to financial interests etc. All they are saying here is that in 70% of the articles reviewed there was not enough information available for the authors to draw a conclusion regarding bias. It does NOT by any means mean the data are incomplete or cannot be used, just that potential bias can't be interoperated.

Notably they still drew their conclusions on 25 studies. While its not ideal that's not too shabby.

IMPO the jury is still out on whether flu vaccines are a good or bad idea in the long term, at the "herd" level. The argument Ron's sister poses is a valid one. It would be a different story if it were a singular virus that could be eliminated wit ha single shot. But the fact that it morphs and returns is the giant fly in the ointment.
That said, it is definitely a reasonable gamble to do it on personal, local term. Your chances of death simply decrease, based on undeniable math and statistics.

 

[RatLabGuy]

You missed my point and et somehow made it for me.
Statistics show poor people are less likely to get the flu shot than more affluent ones.
Statistics show people without the flu shot die more than those with.
Statistics show poor people die younger than more affluent ones from every discernable cause (interestingly enough, except certain cancers and self piloted airplane crashes)

So if you could break down the data I am suggesting that their socio-economic status more closely anolgates with their death rate than their vaccination status.

Its not about whether or not they SHOULD get vaccinated its about whether or not they DO get vaccinated.

I'll draw it out in make believe stats.
In NCtopia there are 100,000 people.
50,00 are below poverty level. Lets call these poors.
50,00 are above poverty level. Lets call these haves.
65% of haves get flu vaccine.
10% of poors get flu vaccine.
1,000 haves get influenza type A
1,250 poors get influenza type A
1 Have dies of influenza
9 poors die of influenza.

Now 10% of all flu deaths got the vaccine and 90% of flue deaths didnt get the vaccine.
Plus look at all those poors, they have a much higher infection rate than the haves.
Except, the infection rate doesnt correlate to the vaccination rate, with added risk factors we actually think more poors should get the flu all things being equal than haves. Yet although the poors have more numeric incident cases, they also have a much higher exposure rate and a much lower vaccination rate. This part doesnt sell grants and gets left out of the data.

Again read up on Superbugs. Its not a direct correlation but similar theory.

Ron I generally agree with your sentiment, however I must point out that it is common practice, and in fact pretty much required to get published in any peer reviewed journal, for comparative population statistics to include regressors or covariates for socioeconomic status, race, locality, etc etc.
So in reality, when they report % numbers, the things you're concerned about are in fact already accounted for.

Or let me put it this way - if I were the reviewer of an article on this, I would not recommend publication without this being included.
(this is common not just in epidemiology but just about any human science work at the population level)