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?
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.
whole lot of words when all you needed to say is "IT DOESNT WORK"
Something tells me you've never done anything that's required a shred of difficulty your entire life. Thanks for proving my point.
But was he wrong?
The CDC doesn't actually do anything useful.
The flu "vaccine" doesn't even work. Prevents like 20% of flu cases while causing flu-like symptoms in a far higher number of people. They claim it "helps lessen symptoms" but have no data to prove it. I eat healthy and exercise. Feelings great.
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.
"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.
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.
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/
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
there is no better option
Your solution is to get rid of the only option.
The CDC doesn't actually do anything useful.
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.
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.
Something tells me you've never done anything that's required a shred of difficulty your entire life. Thanks for proving my point.
CDC says it's between 40-60% effective. That is a lot better than 10%.
CDC says it's between 40-60% effective. That is a lot better than 10%.
"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."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/12/29/flu-season-early/990271001/
A failure any way you look at it.
I got my numbers off the CDC website
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."