This Year's Flu Is Nasty And Getting Worse. And Now Democrats Shut Down The CDC.

I've gotten the shot the last 2 years through work, cause it was free. Never did before that. I can't recall the last time I had the flu. Its been many years.
 
Neopolitan said:
The same CDC that fuc*ed up their projections for the which strain of flu would be the dominant one this season? The same one whose vaccine was only 10% effective?

Shoot, what will we do without them?
Click to expand...

That isn't what happened at all. The strains included in this years vaccine were two variations of H1N1 and H3N2. The predominant strain (~90% of cases) have been H3N2. The difficulty in preventing the H3N2 comes from antigenic drift of the virus, which is completely random and not predictable in any way.

The virus is incubated in egg yolk and subsequently destroyed and placed in a vaccine. The actual live virus we've seen in the population has undergone significant mutation to the point that the vaccine is much less effective. The vaccine still has the benefit in shortening symptoms and keeping people from getting much more sick that they otherwise would.

Every influenza season where H3N2 predominates sees more cases of influenza than other years with the exception of when the H1N1 strain emerged. It has nothing to do with the CDC "ing up their projections".

It's always funny how people who don't understand vaccines are the first to criticize. The CDC has been incredibly transparent about this and it is all on the front page of their website. So don't take my word for it.
 
Gh0st said:
That isn't what happened at all. The strains included in this years vaccine were two variations of H1N1 and H3N2. The predominant strain (~90% of cases) have been H3N2. The difficulty in preventing the H3N2 comes from antigenic drift of the virus, which is completely random and not predictable in any way.

The virus is incubated in egg yolk and subsequently destroyed and placed in a vaccine. The actual live virus we've seen in the population has undergone significant mutation to the point that the vaccine is much less effective. The vaccine still has the benefit in shortening symptoms and keeping people from getting much more sick that they otherwise would.

Every influenza season where H3N2 predominates sees more cases of influenza than other years with the exception of when the H1N1 strain emerged. It has nothing to do with the CDC "ing up their projections".

It's always funny how people who don't understand vaccines are the first to criticize. The CDC has been incredibly transparent about this and it is all on the front page of their website. So don't take my word for it.
Click to expand...

whole lot of words when all you needed to say is "IT DOESNT WORK"
 
TylerDurden said:
But was he wrong?
Click to expand...

Simply saying "it doesn't work" is dramatically oversimplifying the problem. The vaccine still reduces severity of symptoms, especially in cases of H3N2.

https://www.asm.org/index.php/microbelibrary/367-news-room/iceid-releases/93626-influenza-vaccine-while-not-100-effective-may-reduce-the-severity-of-flu-symptoms

So yes, he is wrong. Preventing the disease is not the only function of the vaccine, which goes back to my point that people who do not understand vaccines are always the first to throw stones.
 
I always enjoy it when someone on the Debate Forum argues a subject against someone who is an expert on that subject matter, like when people argue the law with one of the attorneys who post on here.

Currently Neo, OBF06 and others are arguing about the flu vaccine with Gh0st, who if my memory serves me correctly, should be addresses as Dr. Gh0st, M.D.
 
Gh0st said:
That isn't what happened at all.
Click to expand...

So the vaccine isn't only 10% effective? Dance around it all you want, that's an embarrassment. The fact a medical professional finds it to be "no big deal" says a lot about why we continue to have this issue year after year,

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/this-years-flu-vaccine-may-only-be-10-effective-experts-warn/

The strains included in this years vaccine were two variations of H1N1 and H3N2. The predominant strain (~90% of cases) have been H3N2. The difficulty in preventing the H3N2 comes from antigenic drift of the virus, which is completely random and not predictable in any way.
Click to expand...

Cool, so without random chance working in their favor, they're basically SOL? Gee, how will we do without them during this shutdown?

Tough to think of another profession where shrugging your shoulders and saying "what are ya gonna do?" year after year is acceptable. In the business world or private sector, that would land you in the unemployment line.

At least one person at the CDC seems to get it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/century-pandemic-science-takes-best-shot-flu-52400174

"We have to do better and by better, we mean a universal flu vaccine. A vaccine that is going to protect you against essentially all, or most, strains of flu," said Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health.
Click to expand...
 
dado6 said:
I always enjoy it when someone on the Debate Forum argues a subject against someone who is an expert on that subject matter, like when people argue the law with one of the attorneys who post on here.

Currently Neo, OBF06 and others are arguing about the flu vaccine with Gh0st, who if my memory serves me correctly, should be addresses as Dr. Gh0st, M.D.
Click to expand...

It's not the Dr. Phil show and not all doctors agree or are without personal and economic motivations, even limited experience. Hence that "second opinion" thing. We've all seen that. Not prescribing those onto Ghost but it's debate.
 
So the vaccine isn't only 10% effective? Dance around it all you want, that's an embarrassment. The fact a medical professional finds it to be "no big deal" says a lot about why we continue to have this issue year after year,

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/this-ye...-experts-warn/
Click to expand...

Nice, so now you're changing your argument. You said it was because the CDC f--ked up and didn't predict the correct strain. You were wrong. I explained the reason the vaccine wasn't effective this year and that it has nothing to do with the CDC "f--king up". Never did I say it was "no big deal", I simply said there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why it was less effective this year and that the CDC has no control over the factors that made it so.

Cool, so without random chance working in their favor, they're basically SOL? Gee, how will we do without them during this shutdown?
Click to expand...

Until you invent a vaccine that is immune to the effects of genetics, yeah it's what we have. Make sure it's cost effective while you're at it.

The vaccine is not 10% effective year after year. Since 2005 it's been about 45-60%. That's not even counting total hospital admission hours, ICU admissions and total deaths prevented. So this year is clearly an outlier.

Tough to think of another profession where shrugging your shoulders and saying "what are ya gonna do?" year after year is acceptable. In the business world or private sector, that would land you in the unemployment line.
Click to expand...

Is that what the medical community did? Are you sure we didn't start drastically increasing the amount of patients that are getting treated for influenza by changing treatment guidelines to respond the increase in prevalence?

As you say, I guess we just shrugged our shoulders.

"We have to do better and by better, we mean a universal flu vaccine. A vaccine that is going to protect you against essentially all, or most, strains of flu," said Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health.
Click to expand...

You mean we should continue to improve on our medical care? Gee whiz, you're an expert. Quote me where I said we shouldn't continue to develop newer and more effective therapies. Until then, yes, we have to deal with what we have. Or we could take your approach and whine about technology that doesn't yet exist.
 
eastisbest said:
It's not the Dr. Phil show and not all doctors agree or are without personal and economic motivations, even limited experience. Hence that "second opinion" thing. We've all seen that. Not prescribing those onto Ghost but it's debate.
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm simply trying to clear the air because there is ALOT of misconceptions about vaccines. If my patients don't want their flu shot then they are more than welcome to make that decision. I simply make a recommendation based on my understanding of the scientific data available. I wouldn't recommend something that I thought was a waste.
 
dado6 said:
I always enjoy it when someone on the Debate Forum argues a subject against someone who is an expert on that subject matter, like when people argue the law with one of the attorneys who post on here.

Currently Neo, OBF06 and others are arguing about the flu vaccine with Gh0st, who if my memory serves me correctly, should be addresses as Dr. Gh0st, M.D.
Click to expand...

Gone are the days where it was a respected profession. I've heard every reason that there is for why I must not know what I'm talking about and that TV commercial, or blog, or Wikipedia page must know better. I'm not trying to convince any of the posters you mentioned, because they've made up their mind and nothing I say will change it. Maybe I can get some decent information to others who might be reading though.
 
Ghost having a really difficult time with the fact the CDC has done a pis* poor job preventing the flu or improving the vaccine in any meaningful way. Lots of excuses about it being random chance(then why even have the CDC?) rather than taking accountability and acknowledging the CDC has to be better if they want to justify their worth. Emblematic of why it's unlikely anything will change.

In government, failure is acceptable because there is no accountability. The longer the CDC remains shut down, the better. Maybe some of these bureaucrats will begin to reexamine whether status quo is good enough if they actually have to consider jobs in the private sector.
 
Neopolitan said:
Ghost having a really difficult time with the fact the CDC has done a pis* poor job preventing the flu or improving the vaccine in any meaningful way. Lots of excuses about it being random chance(then why even have the CDC?) rather than taking accountability and acknowledging the CDC has to be better if they want to justify their worth. Emblematic of why it's unlikely anything will change.
Click to expand...

Here is why you have the CDC:

Detecting and responding to new and emerging health threats

Tackling the biggest health problems causing death and disability for Americans

Putting science and advanced technology into action to prevent disease
Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment

Developing leaders and training the public health workforce, including disease detectives

Taking the health pulse of our nation
 
Neopolitan said:
Ghost having a really difficult time with the fact the CDC has done a pis* poor job preventing the flu or improving the vaccine in any meaningful way. Lots of excuses about it being random chance(then why even have the CDC?) rather than taking accountability and acknowledging the CDC has to be better if they want to justify their worth. Emblematic of why it's unlikely anything will change.

In government, failure is acceptable because there is no accountability. The longer the CDC remains shut down, the better. Maybe some of these bureaucrats will begin to reexamine whether status quo is good enough if they actually have to consider jobs in the private sector.
Click to expand...

I don't work the government or the CDC so I have no idea what you are talking about. I am in the private sector and there is no better option. I'll just take this angry rant without any substance as your concession. I posted facts and stats and you just flew off the handle. No point in arguing with someone who gets so worked up over it.

You are taking this year's results and extrapolating. Unfortunately for you data is posted every year on how well the CDC prevents influenza. There is also data published on how much money is saved by preventing hospital and ICU admissions because of the vaccine. Your solution is to get rid of the only option.
 
Buck_98 said:
Here is why you have the CDC:

Detecting and responding to new and emerging health threats

Tackling the biggest health problems causing death and disability for Americans

Putting science and advanced technology into action to prevent disease
Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment

Developing leaders and training the public health workforce, including disease detectives

Taking the health pulse of our nation
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time.
 
Gh0st said:
there is no better option
Click to expand...

And whose fault is that?

Your solution is to get rid of the only option.
Click to expand...

Please show me where I suggested getting rid of the vaccine?

I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I'm anti-government bureaucracies who have no accountability. The flu vaccine's rate of success(10%) should be an embarrassment for the CDC and is not acceptable performance from an organization that takes $7 billion in tax payer money every year.

The CDC its self has admitted "we have to do better." But what happens if they don't(as they haven't for years) who is held accountable?
 
Neopolitan said:
The flu vaccine's rate of success(10%) should be an embarrassment for the CDC and is not acceptable performance from an organization that takes $7 billion in tax payer money every year.
Click to expand...

CDC says it's between 40-60% effective. That is a lot better than 10%.
 
Gh0st said:
Simply saying "it doesn't work" is dramatically oversimplifying the problem. The vaccine still reduces severity of symptoms, especially in cases of H3N2.

https://www.asm.org/index.php/microbelibrary/367-news-room/iceid-releases/93626-influenza-vaccine-while-not-100-effective-may-reduce-the-severity-of-flu-symptoms

So yes, he is wrong. Preventing the disease is not the only function of the vaccine, which goes back to my point that people who do not understand vaccines are always the first to throw stones.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth Ghost you are making by far the best argument on this topic here. And your point about the importance of at least reducing flu symptoms is spot on.
 
dado6 said:
I always enjoy it when someone on the Debate Forum argues a subject against someone who is an expert on that subject matter, like when people argue the law with one of the attorneys who post on here.

Currently Neo, OBF06 and others are arguing about the flu vaccine with Gh0st, who if my memory serves me correctly, should be addresses as Dr. Gh0st, M.D.
Click to expand...

Throw as many titles on Dr. Gh0st, M.D. and his doctor buddies as you want... Hanging your hat on 10% success rates doesn't make you a "subject matter expert" where I come from no matter how many years you went to school.


Gh0st said:
Something tells me you've never done anything that's required a shred of difficulty your entire life. Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...
Gh0st said:
Oh, they don't Jenny McCarthy?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28525597
Click to expand...

If anything I've done qualifies as "difficult" it would most likely be my work with data. Call it "big data" if you like buzzwords.

You're suggesting we accept the conclusions drawn at the link you posted at face value. For that study to have any credibility with me, I need to respect the data modeling capabilities of the authors of the study. That conversation is hard to start when the underlying data isn't even released.

As much as the CDC may or may not have a medical problem they've absolutely got a data problem. There isn't much transparency in their models and you've even had whisteblowers coming at saying they are covering up underlying data. There is no hope to reconcile public perception until that gets cleaned up.
 
Buck_98 said:
CDC says it's between 40-60% effective. That is a lot better than 10%.
Click to expand...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/12/29/flu-season-early/990271001/

"It's just one of those years where the CDC is seeing that this strain of flu is only somewhat covered by the vaccine that was given this year," said Jennifer Radtke, manager for infection prevention at the University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville. "They're seeing that it's anywhere from 10% to 33% effective, so any time there’s a mismatch between the vaccine and the circulating strain of the flu, you’re going to see more cases."
Click to expand...

A failure any way you look at it.
 
Buck_98 said:
I got my numbers off the CDC website
Click to expand...

The average for the last 14 years is 38%

This year it's looking like it could be 10%

Both numbers are unacceptable. This year's is an embarrassment that should make everyone question if there is sufficient accountability for performance at the CDC.

Simple question: The CDC says its self it "has to do better." What happens if they don't? Who gets held accountable? The answer to those questions is "nothing" and "no one."
 
Neopolitan said:
The average for the last 14 years is 38%

This year it's looking like it could be 10%

Both numbers are unacceptable. This year's is an embarrassment that should make everyone question if there is sufficient accountability for performance at the CDC.

Simple question: The CDC says its self it "has to do better." What happens if they don't? Who gets held accountable? The answer to those questions is "nothing" and "no one."
Click to expand...

It could also be 33%. That came from the article you linked.

The answer is Eric Hargan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top