ugh.

Let's not forget the possibility that the reason the vaccine is the very reason that an unprotected strain is one of the most common strains out there this year. If enough people are vaccinated against strains A, B, and C, they'll have a lot harder time spreading. Strain D will have a much easier time "winning" the top position if the virus prevents the competition from getting a foothold. If they hadn't put strain C into the vaccine mix, it might have been the bad boy this year.

Tatooed Lady wrote:Funny...I'm not even sure what I have is the flu. And all this hubbub, bub. No I haven't ever got the vaccine. Guess there are some things I don't want to do, and one is get shots for something I've had almost every year since I was a kid. While it makes me miserable, I know my immune system is still in fighting shape, and I haven't died yet.

Good point. I used to think I got the flu most years despite the shots, but when I looked up the actual flu symptoms, I realized that it's probably a cold, not the flu.

archangle wrote:Good point. I used to think I got the flu most years despite the shots, but when I looked up the actual flu symptoms, I realized that it's probably a cold, not the flu.

When I was pregnant with my now-16-yr-old, the OB's office had a poster in the bathroom that said: "Is it a cold or the flu?" and listed the symptoms of both side-by-side. I read through the poster (when you are pregnant you spend a LOT of time in bathrooms!) and decided that I had not had the flu for a long time, if ever. I did get the flu the following year, and that clinched it -- this was way worse than anything I remembered ever having. Most years I get a flu shot!

I, too, have wondered about the push for widespread flu vaccination and whether we are getting enough people vaccinated that we are actually causing the virus to mutate faster and make the vaccine less effective. A downside to "herd immunity."

cathyf wrote:I, too, have wondered about the push for widespread flu vaccination and whether we are getting enough people vaccinated that we are actually causing the virus to mutate faster and make the vaccine less effective. A downside to "herd immunity."

So you would rather have a massive epidemic of the old flu virus instead of a bad epidemic of a new one?

What you describe is not a "downside". It's just a fact that vaccines are not 100% effective. What in life is?

The flu (or any virus) mutates as it spreads. So the more prevalent it becomes, the faster it will mutate. Herd immunity should not increase the mutation rate for flu viruses as a whole. I would think that it could however change which viruses spread if we were to have a well vaccinated population, but even that is questionable since a more prevalent strain could be included in next year's vaccine.

cathyf wrote:
I, too, have wondered about the push for widespread flu vaccination and whether we are getting enough people vaccinated that we are actually causing the virus to mutate faster and make the vaccine less effective. A downside to "herd immunity."

1918 - no flu vaccines available. Many dead.

Yes, but are you saying via a mutation or something else? If there were no vaccines (and there obviously weren't) there wouldn't have been a mutation, certainly not on the scale there is today, unless there were some that mutated naturally, not in response to vaccines.

Julie wrote:Yes, but are you saying via a mutation or something else? If there were no vaccines (and there obviously weren't) there wouldn't have been a mutation, certainly not on the scale there is today, unless there were some that mutated naturally, not in response to vaccines.

Are you saying viruses mutate because of vaccines or mutated viruses spread more widely because of vaccines?

Neither statement is correct. There is almost no downside and tremendous benefit to having a highly vaccinated population.

Julie wrote:Yes, but are you saying via a mutation or something else? If there were no vaccines (and there obviously weren't) there wouldn't have been a mutation, certainly not on the scale there is today, unless there were some that mutated naturally, not in response to vaccines.

Viruses mutate. It is often called evolution. It happens. It can have nothing to do with vaccines - it certainly didn't back in 1914- 1918 when it mutated to something that killed mostly healthy young people.

Julie wrote:Yes, but are you saying via a mutation or something else? If there were no vaccines (and there obviously weren't) there wouldn't have been a mutation, certainly not on the scale there is today, unless there were some that mutated naturally, not in response to vaccines.

I don't believe that viruses mutate due to vaccines... the vaccine preps your immune response to be able to fight the invaders faster, the mutations happen naturally, which is why there's so darn many different versions.

Right. And Cowfish, please don't ascribe things to me that I never said, let alone intended... I think the whole 'don't vaccinate' movement is outrageous!

the latest on the current flu epidemic, stay tuned.

Julie wrote:Cowfish, please don't ascribe things to me that I never said

hahaha Please don't ascribe things to Cowfish that Cowfish never said! I never ascribed anything to you. I only asked a question about what you were saying.

Julie wrote:I think the whole 'don't vaccinate' movement is outrageous!

Well we are in violent agreement!

Happy New Year!

palerider wrote:I think cowfish's comment was just due to a bit of confusion over what you were asking... not intending anything bad

Was that really necessary to insert your nose in here? hahaha

Happy New Year to you palerider.

BTW, My son just gave me this link and said it is the best description of the flu vaccine/flu epidemic that he has seen so far - http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/ ... tic-drift/

CowFish wrote:

palerider wrote:I think cowfish's comment was just due to a bit of confusion over what you were asking... not intending anything bad

Was that really necessary to insert your nose in here? hahaha

nope, my bad, y'all fight it out.