Fewer than half in USA get flu shots, CDC says ~ USA Today
Last edited Mon Feb 16, 2015, 02:37 PM - Edit history (1)
The disparity is striking given that influenza vaccines are available more widely than ever including at supermarkets, drugstores and many workplaces and there are options to accommodate just about everyone's preferences, from needle-free shots to high-dose versions, said William Schaffner, a professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a flu shot for everyone older than 6 months.
The flu season could be tougher than usual this year if it follows the pattern seen in Australia, which has reported the highest number of influenza cases in five years, Schaffner said. He noted that flu is hard to predict. In many years, however, flu outbreaks in the southern hemisphere can predict flu activity in the USA.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has advice on flu shots and other vaccinations aimed at keeping children, pregnant women and senior citizens healthy.
More at LINK:
Of note: Percent of adults 18-49 years who received an influenza vaccination during the past 12 months: 29.6%
Percent of adults 50-64 years who received an influenza vaccination during the past 12 months: 46.5%
Where is the outrage at unvaccinated adults who are "spreading disease to the vulnerable?" And, where is the discussion about mandating vaccines for adults, who are clearly capable if spreading disease?
is not the same as one that is 90+% effective.
Not only that, but the flu vaccine only works for the specific strain of flu for which it is formulated.
The CDC says you should have a flu shot to protect others.
So that is nonsense.
This year's vaccine was so poor that it was less than 30% effective even against the strain it targeted.
recommend the vaccine for adults and children, this year? Or, that in some cases it's fine to go against formal public health recommendations?
I make my own decisions.
The flu vaccine was a miserable failure this year.
You're making decisions based upon opinion, vs. official CDC recommendations. Why should you, as an adult be allowed to make a decision, vs. having the CDC make it for you?
o One study showed that flu vaccination was associated with a 71% reduction in flu-related hospitalizations among adults of all ages and a 77% reduction among adults 50 years of age and older during the 2011-2012 flu season (Talbot, 2013).
they guessed wrong.Those years the strain was a better guess.
And no I personally don't get a flu shot. Haven't had the flu since the 1968 Hong Kong flu .My wife used to get a shot every year and every years she still got the flu. Guess who nursed her through it every year without a sniffle.
Lots of half-wits predicate their healthcare on post-hoc-ergo-prompter-hoc.
I don't want the government making ANY decisions for me.
I'm an older adult who has NEVER had the flu. The one shot I got, which was the swine flu shot way back in the 70's, sickened me and others.
My mom is almost 90 and has never had the flu. Neither did my father, who lived into his eighties.
So I make decisions based on my life experience.
I'm up to date on tetanus, so no worries.
Why should you, as an adult be allowed to make a decision, vs. having the CDC make it for you?
Operative word there is "adult." Adults make their own decisions.
It's normally somewhere around 65-70%, the last time I checked, yet even then flu vax rates are usually below 50%. And flu kills tens of thousands a year. This year at 23% is an anomaly.
Getting a flu vax, whether by mist, subcutaneously, or IM injection helps contain spread of the disease. Furthermore, if one contracts the flu anyway, the symptoms are usually milder than if there was no protection.
Get it or don't get it, it's your choice. But criticizing non-vaxers while leaving oneself unvaxed is hypocrisy, IMO. Flu kills.
Edit: big old pronoun error!
If you are unhealthy and want to get a shot, go for it. I have never had one and I have never had the flu.
Most do not get the flu. Those who do get over it unless they have other health problems. The people in that category should get the shot if they choose.
get the flu annually. Compare that to measles, in today's climate and tell me why we should focus almost solely on children, when it comes to vaccine policy.
and since they do so does everyone else. Problem is they never source it. So I don't know where it comes from. I certainly don't have 20% of the people I know getting the flu in any year. Can't even think of any really. It is a disease which kills people who probably would have died about that time anyway from their underlying health issues.
seasonal or situational flare-ups of issues like asthma. Bad flu respiratory infections on top of asthma, even in very healthy individuals, is difficult, exhausting, and scary, gets more frightening with age, especially when recovery takes longer.
Like I said, get it or don't get it because it is your choice. But I think it's hypocritical for people on DU to criticize others for not vaxing when they don't keep their own vaccinations up to prevent spread of disease.
BTW, I'm happy for you that you've never had the flu. It's misery.
Adults are by far the biggest 'offenders' when it comes to opting out of vaccine recommendations.
I don't have children, but if I did - I would ensure they were vaccinated.
I understand your points.
I simply do not choose to get a flu shot.
It's not recommended for those of us allergic to eggs anyway.
Read what's in the shot....formaldehyde. we're already preserved.....
But people don't like it when we don't follow the flocks
if they are exposed, no? What is the shot for if not to protect them from the 'flu? If it doesn't do that, then what is the point of the shot?
Even some people vaccinated might catch the flu, but their symptoms will usually be milder, making recovery faster, easier, and less expensive, such as with the need for hospitalization. For me, I cannot afford to be sick. Others rely on me for a lot. It can't be helped.
I think immunization tends to become more important to people who are getting older and find that recovering from any illness is more exhausting, takes longer, and frankly, is scarier. We wish other people weren't helping to pass it around. I'm surprised more people don't do more to avoid passing it around.
In fact some strains of flu are peculiar in that the more healthy you are, the more deadly they are - they set your immune system against you and therefore the stronger the immune system, the worse it gets. H1N1 is one. Remember the flu outbreak just after WWI? It killed primarily healthy young people for a reason.
that around fifty years earlier, a similar strain of flu had gone around. The older people had mostly been exposed and were now immune.
I had flu any number of times growing up. I made it through the Asian flu epidemic in 1957. and the Hong Kong flu in 1968. I seem to be immune to flu these days. I don't get it. Haven't gotten it in some forty years. Periodically people here will accuse me of therefore being an asymptomatic carrier and I'm probably infecting everyone around me every flu season. I don't think so.
Likewise I last got a cold five years ago. I've been exposed to enough different cold viruses in my lifetime that I'm not very likely to meet up with a cold virus I haven't already had. Yes, it could certainly happen, and if it does I'll have a cold.
And while measles and the other "childhood" diseases can have serious consequences, the up side of getting the disease is that you now have a permanent immunity. A few years ago when I got a new job, they wanted to when I'd been immunized against various diseases. I laughed and pointed out that I was born in 1948 and I had all those diseases.
according to one local paper. So if there's a 1 in 8 chance of getting the flu and a 1 in 8 chance of it being effective, there's a 1 in 64 chance that it will help me. I couldn't justify $60 for the shot. I would have had to have a return of $3,840 in order for it to make financial sense. Given I've never been able to talk a day off when sick, my actual loss has always been $0.
I do know that having an a.i. disease that my Dr and I made the decision to not vacinnate this year. Last year I took it early - with in two weeks my third MRSA infection, walking pneumonia, strep - and this lead to my third miscarriage (why it was important to take the vaccine). . . . While also buying a house and moving.
I would hope that those who don't face health issues and have overall strong immune systems would think twice before not taking the vaccine. To each their own - but if you CAN take something to keep you healthy without a lot of impacts - I'd hope one would be out for themself and take it.
I guess I'm part of the majority of 18-49 who don't.
Remember, this is a free country.
in years past,supplies the amount of vaccine available has run short of demand. Pleas were issued to only get the shot if you were elderly, young or immune compromised.
I think that mindset sunk in for a lot of healthy folks and persists to this day.
Just my 2 cents.
You're average healthy person recovers from the flu just fine.
Seems to be the outreach should be more robust for at risk populations.
Your average healthy person recovers from chicken pox, too. But the argument is that we are to vaccinate to protect others, unless we're 18 > apparently.
until they admit the truth and get the shots.
(Though I really shouldn't need this.)
I think I read on CDC website of somewhere around 150-160 million doses being available in the US.
FluMist is the one that usually is in short supply, but my kids got it as late as early December.
You should ask your doctor if they run short or if they normally have plenty. They can advise you as to whether there tend to be shortages in your area and if you are spreading misinformation.
to see if they are prioritizing due to low supplies. I assure you, it's not every year.
Personally, I can't remember the last time my dr told me "No, we need to save it for someone more vulnerable."
remind me that it is time to take it. Many of the healthy members of my family don't think about getting the shots until it is too late. I don't think that many of the people who are not getting it are anti-vaxers. They just don't think about it.
in with those who don't vaccinate their children.
Apples and oranges.
about health issues involving herd immunity.
A lot of vulnerable people get the vaccine and still get a milder version of flu that makes them very ill (maybe they have emphysema or asthma) because more than half of people won't get vaccinated and they spread the disease around.
It's a different strain each year, which is why you can't compare a one time vaccine to an annual one.
most likely be coming around. Typically the flu shot protects against 60-80% of the strains, this yr it protected against 23% but better partial protection than none.
Which adult immunizations do you need?
Tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (whooping cough) for all adults who have not previously received a Tdap vaccine
Shingles for adults 60 years and older
Pneumococcal for adults 65 years and older and adults with risk conditions
Hepatitis B for adults who have diabetes or are at risk
Other vaccinations you may need include those that protect against HPV (human papillomavirus, which can cause certain cancers), hepatitis A, meningococcal disease, chickenpox (varicella), and measles, mumps, and rubella.
- See more at: http://www.adultvaccination.org/what-vaccines#sthash.CTAlfFOe.dpuf
Take the quiz: http://www2.cdc.gov/nip/adultimmsched/
I would be in favour of more promotion of the vaccine to everyone - but it's not in the same category as some of the other vaccines. Not because it's adults vs children, but because the flu vaccine, as presently constituted, is far less effective.
If you are vaccinated against measles at the beginning of your second year, there is very little chance that you will ever catch or spread measles. You might need ONE booster at some point.
If you are vaccinated against the flu, then, if the people who prepared the vaccine were wise/lucky in their guesses about the likely flu viruses, the vaccine may be about 50% effective. If they were not so wise or lucky, then the vaccine may be much less effective. The latest one is only about 3% effective, at least with regard to the prevailing viruses in the UK. And when the swine flu hit in 2009, the previous year's vaccine offered no protection from it.
Moreover, even if you got it in one of the more effective vaccine years, you still need to get it again the following year. And the following year. And the following year. Etc. The prevailing flu vaccines keep changing.
Flu vaccinations and gambling still have more in common than they should. There is far less of a gamble in the measles, or rubella, or polio vaccination.
None of this is a recommendation, or even excuse, for not getting the flu vaccine when it's available; but you cannot equate a not very effective vaccine that must be repeated every year, with a highly effective vaccine that normally needs to be given only once or at most twice.
recommends that adults and children be vaccinated for the flu. Why are we allowed to weigh the risks/benefits of one vaccine for one individual but not another?
Or are you talking about specific federal or state rules in America? Probably different here: the flu vaccine is only very actively promoted to certain groups in the UK.
You are talking to someone who became very ill as a small child, because a probably unvaccinated doctor brought the 1968 pandemic flu to me when I was already in hospital for something else; so it's not that I don't take it seriously. But the benefits of the flu vaccine are simply not (at present) as strong as those of many other vaccines. Hopefully, more work and research will lead to better flu vaccines.
In any case, even if many people are wrong, hypocritical or irresponsible about not taking the flu vaccine, that may indeed be a reason for putting them under more pressure to take it, but it's not an excuse for not giving children vaccinations against easily preventable childhood diseases. Still less is it an excuse for the MONSTERS OF PURE EVIL like Andrew Wakefield and the Daily Mail who have spread the lies about vaccines causing autism. At least, so far as I know, no one has done that about the flu vaccine. (And no, before I'm accused of the latter, saying that something doesn't cause autism is NOT the same as saying that it can never have any risks or side-effects.)
Yes, people should get the recommended vaccines.
But there's a difference (even speaking as someone who was personally endangered as a kid by an flu-unprotected health worker; see previous post).
It is as follows:
If everyone gets the recommended measles vaccines, voila, no more measles!
Even if everyone gets the recommended flu vaccines, it's still not a case of voila, no more flu!
So the first is more crucial to our well-being as a population.
is not 100% effective, and the virus is highly contagious, so I don't share the assertion that measles would be eradicated etc. However the ultimate question is what is our collective goal with vaccination? To reduce death and morbidity, correct?
I think some get caught up in the notion that every vaccine can eliminate every disease. I don't believe that is so. With the Ebola outbreak quarantine worked quite nicely. Why not quarantine in cases of various disease?
quarantine has worked reasonably well in preventing Ebola from making inroads into countries where it was not endemic; e.g. quarantining returning health workers has prevented spread in the USA and UK.
It has had only rather limited effectiveness in countries such as Sierra Leone or Liberia where the virus is endemic. Without the quarantine efforts the spread of Ebola would be even worse; nevertheless, over 9000 people have died of Ebola in the affected African countries since December 2013; and, despite a temporary drop in numbers, there has been a rise during the last week or so. I am sure that the people of these countries would be delighted to have a suitable vaccine!
Quarantine on its own would be still less effective for airborne diseases (Ebola is transmissible mainly through direct contact).
There were always quarantine requirements for serious infectious diseases - such requirements reduced spread, but did not stop it. Despite quarantine for polio, for example, millions of people were disabled or killed by the disease until a vaccine was invented.
Apart from other considerations, most diseases are already infectious before symptoms start, so that quarantining ill people may be somewhat in the category of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. To be even somewhat effective, the family and even sometimes others in the neighbourhood must often be quarantined as well.
Moreover: quarantine, often of an entire family or even neighbourhood for several weeks, is far more restrictive; involves far more state control and far more interference with daily life activities; far more 'disabling' than most vaccines. (The necessary quarantines in the Ebola-affected African countries have already seriously damaged the economies of places that were poor to begin with.) If there is no effective vaccine available, then quarantine is the only solution; for very serious diseases, it may be necessary to use both; but why would anyone reject vaccination in favour of quarantine?
promoting vaccination. Hopefully that involves A) Adults and B) the flu jab.
As to rejecting vaccination in favor of quarantine, I'd prefer quarantine - if say, I had a family history and/or a condition that suggested I should not be vaccinated. Why not allow choice? Either you demonstrate that you're vaccinated or you're quarantined if you contract a highly contagious 'vaccine preventable' disease.
Further, I think it's interesting that those who are vaccinated are not urged to stay away from public places when ill. Shouldn't we all? Especially, given vaccines are not 100% effective?
I agree that people should be encouraged to stay away from public places when they're ill. Apart from effectiveness issues with vaccines, not all illnesses are vaccine-preventable.
This cannot be fully achieved as long as it is difficult for people to get sick leave, and governments and employers are so preoccupied with discouraging malingering that they make it difficult for the genuinely ill to stay at home.
'Why not allow choice? Either you demonstrate that you're vaccinated or you're quarantined if you contract a highly contagious 'vaccine preventable' disease.'
The problem here is that you would in most cases already be contagious for some time BEFORE you contracted the disease. Measles, for example, has an incubation period of 7 to 12 days. People who do contract highly contagious diseases (vaccine-preventable or not) should stay away from others; but it doesn't solve the problem, due to the long incubation period for many diseases. To work at all, quarantine would have to be imposed, not only on the patient, but on all who have been in close contact with them; and even then, it is not fully effective. John gets a disease; he is placed in quarantine; his parents and sister are placed in quarantine; but should all the children who played with his sister at nursery school, and all his parents' work colleagues, and all their families also be placed in quarantine? If so, then it is a drastic imposition; if not, then quarantine will not solve the problem.
The issue is not so much with a very few people not being vaccinated, but with recent anti-vaccine propaganda that encourages significant numbers to avoid vaccination. Free provision of vaccines (yes, to adults as well), and an end to the propaganda, would probably solve the problem without need for a mandate in most cases.
do so, because they have symptoms involving cough, etc.
"The issue is not so much with a very few people not being vaccinated, but with recent anti-vaccine propaganda that encourages significant numbers to avoid vaccination."
Frankly, American society is far more compliant with vaccine recommendations for children, then it's ever been in years gone by. The issue is that we have propaganda suggesting that only children need to be vaccinated, and when an adult contracts measles, no one is discussing the need to vaccinate adults as well.
She is 76 years old and almost died. I would rather get the shot and live myself.
So glad I did. Almost everyone in my family got the flu except me and the wife. We were the only two that got vaccinated. I did get a cold though...
died from flu progressing to pneumonia. His infectious disease dr. recommended I get one too + the pneumonia shot, although it's not as effective this year for flu. As he said, why would one want to run the risk.
It's nice that it protects me. More importantly it helps prevent me from transferring it to my immune compromised wife. So yes every year I get it, as does the wife and most people I know. But then again I am a "Keep your kids off my lawn" (aka Older) generation guy.
Just came up to NY. My daughter and SIL both have that with the vomiting and diarrhea. Infant grandson is the only one in the household who doesn't. She is still nursing him which is probably why.
Flu or stomach flu (norovirus)? I wold take the flu over that stomach flu anyday. There is no vaccine for for the norovirus. You can dehydrate very easlily with the latter. My daughter is trying to drink Gatoraide to keep hydrated and also so she can continue to nurse.
family feels betters soon.
Gatorade is a great idea when sick. Even having increased temps can lend itself to dehydration. But as you said, with the norovirus type illnesses, even more so.
living with their elderly grandfather. They're out and about and exposed to more people. The effectiveness of the vaccine falls off with age. The best way to protect him was to ensure that they were vaccinated.
My grandmother who lived through the 1918 flu epidemic as a young girl got her shot every year - even though she had a bad reaction every year. As far as she was concerned, flu is a serious business.
ARE outraged when people, including adults, don't get vaccines that could save lives and lots of unnecessary sickness and pain. I would have no problem with mandating vaccines for adults.
your consistent approach.
It makes little sense to demand parents 'vaccinate to protect' others in a climate where the parents are not vaccinated.
Plus it's made from GMO bugs which is kind of sketchy.
See "Pregnancy Registries"
TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO BELOW:
Senior CDC Scientist and Whistleblower Dr. William W. Thompson:
"You know in the United States the only vaccine it's still in is for pregnant women.
I can say confidently I do think Thimerosal causes tics so I don't know why they still give it to pregnant women, like that's the last person I would give mercury to.
Thimerosal from vaccines causes tics. You start a campaign and you just make that your mantra.
Do you think a pregnant mother would want to take a vaccine that they knew caused tics? Absolutely not! I would never give my wife a vaccine that I thought caused tics.
I can say tics are four times more prevalent in kids with autism.
There is biologic plausibility right now to say that Thimerosal causes autism-like features."
Warning: Gratuitous image (fake 'fire' on pregnant abdomen) near end of 1:02 minute video. To avoid, listen to audio only.
CDC Whistleblower Dr. Thompson on Thimerosal and Pregnant Women
Published on Aug 27, 2014
- The rhetorical answer is: ''To the same place where the rationality and hypocrisy and cognitive-abilities went.''
FDA lets drugs approved on fraudulent research stay on market