
Flu vaccine paradox adds to public health debate - colinprince
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/flu-vaccine-paradox-adds-to-public-health-debate-1.2912790
======
unclebucknasty
> _" We have kind of hyped this vaccine so much for so long we are starting to
> believe our own hype. Really, what we should be doing is looking for better
> vaccines,"_

The PR on the flu-vaccine/campaigns and the efficacy of the vaccine itself
have long been misaligned. Good to hear scientists and public health-officials
start to acknowledge this. We'll see how long it takes to trickle down to the
general public.

~~~
Someone1234
In particular as it was only 23% effective this year:
[http://www.ajc.com/ap/ap/top-news/flu-vaccine-not-working-
we...](http://www.ajc.com/ap/ap/top-news/flu-vaccine-not-working-well-
only-23-percent-effec/njp3t/)

~~~
skj
Is that bad? The ease of getting a vaccine needs to be enough such that it's
not a burden to do so. Once that's achieved, 23% effective is actually quite a
good benefit, given that those 23% also fail to infect others and improve our
overall herd immunity.

~~~
dragonwriter
Its bad compared to how effective the vaccine normally is, its good compared
to no vaccine at all.

The idea that its one vaccine in the first place that is being "hyped" is
wrong, _each year_ a new vaccine is created, and its done based on the strains
of the flu that seem likely to be prominent. One of the reasons this year was
worse than normal is that the strains that were prominent weren't what was
predicted.

I don't think anyone would be against developing a _better_ vaccine, though I
do think lots of people would be opposed against trading off efforts to assure
that each years vaccine made under the current process gets well promoted to
the public and distributed to achieve that. Those aren't the only possible
uses of resources in our society, and there is no reason that efforts to
develop are better flu vaccination system need to be traded off against
efforts to assure the reach of the current system.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _there is no reason that efforts to develop are better flu vaccination
> system need to be traded off against efforts to assure the reach of the
> current system_

I'm not sure that this is true. From a purely market-driven perspective,
pharma is able to successfully move this product each year, without risk of
liability, and without additional R&D. As long as there is a PR machine around
this current product that continues to "reach" and drive customers, then
what's the incentive to engage in expensive R&D needed to develop the next
round?

~~~
dragonwriter
Since its a public health problem, I would expect that, were it adopted as a
priority, that the incentive would be in the public funds allocated to grants
for vaccine R&D, and (for existing Big Pharma firms) to avoid being left
without a chair when the current gravy train ends (apologies for the mixed
metaphors) when better vaccines are deployed.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _were it adopted as a priority,_

Agreed. _Once it becomes a priority_ with the subsequent funding/grants, I
think that's when we'd see movement. Ironically, however, I wonder if the hype
around the current program even slows adoption of new priorities.

Though, perhaps acknowledgments such as the type referenced by public health
officials in this article portend the start of some movement.

> _left without a chair when the current gravy train ends when better vaccines
> are deployed_

I wonder if their thinking is that this problem is easily fixed through
acquisition if/when the time comes, especially in an industry as M & A-driven
as pharma. Meanwhile, gravy-train.

------
PhantomGremlin
Straining for an analogy? Am I the only one who hated this quote from the
article?:

    
    
       "The idea basically is that your immune system
       is occupied elsewhere. It would be like getting
       the swirling ball of death on your Mac where your
       operating system is doing something else rather
       than opening the file."

------
rsync
I am reminded of the conservative financial wisdom regarding insurance, which
is "don't ever insure against things you can pay out of pocket".

Should we, perhaps, be questioning whether it makes sense to vaccinate against
things we can overcome in a few days without harm ?

Of course I am speaking of otherwise healthy adults, and YMMV.

~~~
MBCook
While it depends year to year, the flu averages out to about 10k deaths each
year in the US and that's _with_ vaccination.

We're all pretty used to it so it doesn't seem like a big deal but it's
actually very dangerous.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _the flu averages out to about 10k deaths each year_

There's actually a lot of controversy around these numbers, with the CDC
itself acknowledging that it's challenging to truly know for a number of
reasons [1].

Here's a pretty remarkable quote from that page:

> _" most people who die from seasonal flu-related complications are not
> tested for flu, or they seek medical care later in their illness when
> seasonal influenza can no longer be detected from respiratory samples"_

So, it's really tough to know. As a result, some allege that the estimates are
inflated as part of the campaign to ensure vaccination.

[1] [http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-
related_deaths.h...](http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-
related_deaths.htm)

