Last month,, in a step tantamount to heresy in the public health world, scientists at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota released a report saying that influenza vaccinations provide only modest protection for healthy young and middle-age adults, and little if any protection for those 65 and older, who are most likely to succumb to the illness or its complications. Moreover, the report’s authors concluded, federal vaccination recommendations, which have expanded in recent years, are based on inadequate evidence and poorly executed studies.

Originally posted by sconner755

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
There is a logic behind the demand to vaccinate all medical personal. The job often involves dealing with ill people and in general with people with weakened immune system so side effects of the vaccines are less problematic then half a hospital staff being ill at home while other half is working double shifts with all the issues it can create and infects weakened patients during flu incubation times.
Demanding that general population will be vaccinated is something different, i am sure that nobody is going to do it since not only it is extremely expensive, it is also exposing general population to vaccine side effects for no obvious reasons. From personal experience living in a country with government medical insurance - people are certainly not forced to get a vaccine. Certain risk groups recieve a mail invitation to get a vaccine at the start of the flu season,and they can disregard it freely.
Edit:
Oh,forgot to add - flu vaccines are usually effective at preventing epidemics. Certainly some season WHO can get it wrong but usually it is not the case. Also, there are different types of vaccines - dead virus or weakened virus ,with different costs and target audience.

edit on 3-1-2013 by ZeroKnowledge because: (no reason given)

Yes, there may be logic if there was any evidence the vaccines worked. There's not.

Instead, the vaccines are admittedly concocted, hit and miss fashion, based on what the vaccine makers guess the next strain of flu will be.

There is no such thing as "The Flu."

Here's an interesting article from The New York Times.

From the article:

Last month,, in a step tantamount to heresy in the public health world, scientists at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota released a report saying that influenza vaccinations provide only modest protection for healthy young and middle-age adults, and little if any protection for those 65 and older, who are most likely to succumb to the illness or its complications. Moreover, the report’s authors concluded, federal vaccination recommendations, which have expanded in recent years, are based on inadequate evidence and poorly executed studies.

On the basis of our review, we conclude that the currently licensed influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Furthermore, even though TIV provided some protection for healthy adults 18 to 65 years of age, there is a paucity of evidence for protection in adults 65 years of age and older. Evidence is also limited to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of TIV in children age 2 to 17 years. LAIVs have consistently shown highest efficacy in young children (from 6 months to 7 years old), while evidence of protection is not available for individuals from 8 to 59 years of age.

Even though influenza vaccine efficacy and effectiveness have been overestimated, available data support that in some populations influenza vaccination offers a moderate level of protection. Therefore, we believe that influenza vaccination is an important health promotion activity that should be widely encouraged and supported. We can and should maintain this infrastructure and use the best technology currently available (ie, existing influenza vaccines) to protect the public’s health to the degree possible. However, we cannot allow this approach to stifle public policy makers from moving the influenza vaccine enterprise forward toward game-changing vaccines.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge

Originally posted by sconner755

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
There is a logic behind the demand to vaccinate all medical personal. The job often involves dealing with ill people and in general with people with weakened immune system so side effects of the vaccines are less problematic then half a hospital staff being ill at home while other half is working double shifts with all the issues it can create and infects weakened patients during flu incubation times.
Demanding that general population will be vaccinated is something different, i am sure that nobody is going to do it since not only it is extremely expensive, it is also exposing general population to vaccine side effects for no obvious reasons. From personal experience living in a country with government medical insurance - people are certainly not forced to get a vaccine. Certain risk groups recieve a mail invitation to get a vaccine at the start of the flu season,and they can disregard it freely.
Edit:
Oh,forgot to add - flu vaccines are usually effective at preventing epidemics. Certainly some season WHO can get it wrong but usually it is not the case. Also, there are different types of vaccines - dead virus or weakened virus ,with different costs and target audience.

edit on 3-1-2013 by ZeroKnowledge because: (no reason given)

Yes, there may be logic if there was any evidence the vaccines worked. There's not.

Instead, the vaccines are admittedly concocted, hit and miss fashion, based on what the vaccine makers guess the next strain of flu will be.

There is no such thing as "The Flu."

Here's an interesting article from The New York Times.

From the article:

Last month,, in a step tantamount to heresy in the public health world, scientists at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota released a report saying that influenza vaccinations provide only modest protection for healthy young and middle-age adults, and little if any protection for those 65 and older, who are most likely to succumb to the illness or its complications. Moreover, the report’s authors concluded, federal vaccination recommendations, which have expanded in recent years, are based on inadequate evidence and poorly executed studies.

I suggest you to read the report the article you quoted links to,otherwise it is hit and miss in what it actually says. It specifically states that vaccination clearly provides certain protection, though lower then assumed prior to analysis.

On the basis of our review, we conclude that the currently licensed influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Furthermore, even though TIV provided some protection for healthy adults 18 to 65 years of age, there is a paucity of evidence for protection in adults 65 years of age and older. Evidence is also limited to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of TIV in children age 2 to 17 years. LAIVs have consistently shown highest efficacy in young children (from 6 months to 7 years old), while evidence of protection is not available for individuals from 8 to 59 years of age.

www.cidrap.umn.edu...
TIV is "deactivated virus" vaccine and LAIV is "weakened virus" vaccine.
Professionals who wrote this paper claim that new better vaccines are needed,however for now they still recommend to use existing vaccines because it is still better then nothing.

Even though influenza vaccine efficacy and effectiveness have been overestimated, available data support that in some populations influenza vaccination offers a moderate level of protection. Therefore, we believe that influenza vaccination is an important health promotion activity that should be widely encouraged and supported. We can and should maintain this infrastructure and use the best technology currently available (ie, existing influenza vaccines) to protect the public’s health to the degree possible. However, we cannot allow this approach to stifle public policy makers from moving the influenza vaccine enterprise forward toward game-changing vaccines.

edit on 3-1-2013 by ZeroKnowledge because: (no reason given)