A Shot of Fear - Flu Death Risk Often Exaggerated; So Is Benefit of Vaccine

[mzmolly]

This article is a bit old, but given recent discussion/recommendations, I thought it pertinent.

By Steven Woloshin, Lisa M. Schwartz and H. Gilbert Welch
Special to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/22/AR2005102200042.html">The Washington Post

Medical research often becomes news. But sometimes the news is made to appear more definitive and dramatic than the research warrants. This series dissects health news to highlight some common study interpretation problems we see as physician-researchers and show how the research community, medical journals and the media can do better.



For years, the public health community has used fear as one strategy to promote the flu vaccine. A vaccination poster distributed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for example, emphasizes that "36,000 Americans die of flu-related illnesses each year," implying that the vaccine could prevent many of these deaths.

When it became aware of the vaccine shortage last October, the federal government changed course and tried to reassure Americans that going without a shot was no big deal. "We all need to take a deep breath. This is not an emergency," CDC director Julie Gerberding advised the public.

Instead of urging vaccination for everyone age 50 and older, as they had been doing, government officials recommended shots only for people 65 and older, and those in selected high risk groups. The public's response was predictable: People were upset and confused. Our local television news played a story in which a pharmacist was called "a murderer" when his vaccine supply ran out. Ironically, the crisis mentality led some to engage in behaviors that probably increased their risk. Frail elderly people, some with oxygen tanks, stood in long lines in the cold, waiting for the vaccine. Others crowded clinics and doctors' offices, increasing their chance of exposure to flu and other infectious agents.

...

To promote vaccine use, many in the public health community have overstated the risk of flu-related death and the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing it. While the flu vaccine may have some important benefit (less flu-related illness), we really do not know whether it reduces the risk of death. For younger individuals -- for whom the chance of flu-related death is extremely small -- any death-protection benefit can only be very modest (and it is unlikely we will ever reliably know whether it even exists). However, we do know that the vaccine reduces the risk of being sick and time lost from work. But because the effect is small, individuals will have to judge for themselves whether it's worth the bother.

We are not suggesting that Americans forgo flu vaccines. We simply want to help people make informed decisions.

For many people, getting the vaccine is a reasonable choice. And many may reasonably choose not to get it. (Consequently, the use of flu vaccination rates by Medicare and others to measure health care quality probably does not make sense.)

Regardless, public health officials should not exaggerate risks or benefits to promote vaccination. Exaggeration carries a price: Not only do some people get scared and engage in behaviors that increase their risk (like waiting in a crowded clinic for a flu shot). They may also grow cynical and end up ignoring health messages that really matter.

The last statement is perhaps the most important? I find it especially relevant to on going disucssions about vaccination.

[jody]

1. I don't get a flu shot because I'm not convinced by stats that it's worth the risk. n/t

[CountAllVotes]

2. remember the "Swine Flu" alleged epidemic

never happened but a huge amount of persons for forcibly vaccinated with horrific side effects (even death).

No thanks! :scared:


:dem:

[jody]

3. That's my position also. n/t

[mzmolly]

4. And if those were babies, that sh*t would have been deemed "coincidence".

:(

[cosmik debris]

5. A classic bait and switch con

If you had read the graphic you posted you would have seen that the graph includes pneumonia as well as influenza deaths.

This may come as a shock to you, but influenza vaccine does not protect a patient from pneumonia.

Once again you constructively overlook facts that don't fit into your anti-vax, anti-science, luddite superstition.

Like any anti-scientist, you look for facts to support your theory rather that a theory to support the facts.

Nice going.

[mzmolly]

6. What may come as a shock to you is that most deaths attributed to influenza

are said to be due to pneumonia which is why the CDC combines the rates. Not to mention, it helps sell a few vaccines.

Lab-confirmed flu cases and flu-related deaths, except for those in children, are not reported to the CDC, so estimates of cases are based on a variety of measures, including deaths from pneumonia or circulatory diseases during flu season compared with deaths from those causes when there is no flu around. If the pneumonia deaths jump in January and February, health experts assume some are caused by flu.

...

If you go by death certificates alone, says Martin Meltzer, a CDC expert in health economics, almost nobody dies of flu. ~ http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-12-11-flu-deaths_x.htm">USA Today

As for your "dumb ass" comment, I'll let your ignorance and abuse stand rather than alert on your obvious disregard for the moderators and the user rules.

[cosmik debris]

10. So now you admit that it was only an estimate.

When you present it as if it were factual, you should have facts, not estimates.

Still shady and unreliable.

[mzmolly]

12. LOL, it's the CDC's "estimate" - one used to promote the vaccine.

I agree, their stats are "shady and unreliable".

[Celebration]

9. always a confusion

Very, very few people die of the flu. So the government adds all the pneumonia deaths to that, because often pneumonia is the result of flu. It is considered a "flu related complication."

http://wrongdiagnosis.com/f/flu/deaths.htm

The CDC is always adding in pneumonia to the statistics to make sure people want to get the flu shot.

[mzmolly]

11. Exactly.

:hi:

[sanjiadem]

7. My concerns about the flu vaccines

This year they forgot to add a strain of flu to the vaccine and next year they are adding it and two more because of mutation of the flu virus. With superbugs a concern, why wouldn't you want your own immune system (which, IMO, works far better for most, than vaccines (or, antibiotics) for that matter), to be provide more strength to fighting these through natural processes.

I, personally, believe that the reason our species has survived and thrived, successfully, to date, is due to the 95% of natural processes and human biology that the scientists don't fully understand. Nature builds in mechanisms of survival and evolution, if we are not careful we could suppress or damage with our 'tinkering' at both the immunological and genetic level.

[mzmolly]

8. Welcome.

I know of many who share your concerns.

:hi: