http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/inject-children-or-lose-money/story-e6frea8c-1226205819461

But even if it were – the immune system is exposed to many novel invaders daily. It is getting a regular work out, have no fears. The addition of a few strains of flu are negligible in terms of immune system exposure.

The only time this becomes a concern – immune system atrophy due to lack of exposure – is not through vaccines but rather when someone lives in an obsessively clean and antiseptic environment, avoiding as much exposure as possible. Even then the concept is controversial, but is the subject of research.

Ironically the antivaxer claim that vaccines give the immune system to much of a workout – overloading it.

Neither claim is correct. Vaccines have a negligible impact on the total number of antigens that the immune system gets exposed to. They simply target a few specific virulent illnesses.

So highly likely as Diane suggests that a lot of people who “never get flu” just never get it especially badly, or get it but don’t recognize it for what it is.

The other side of the flu vaccine is that it isn’t especially effective at stopping cold like symptoms, probably because it only causes ~10% of cold like illnesses. Which rather depressingly means the vaccine stops a lot of problems in aggregate, but may not make much noticeable difference to the individuals who receive it.

Then again the retail price of the influenza vaccine is about $10 in the UK currently, so you don’t need to avoid much illness to justify the expense (and a lot of people can get it free of charge in the UK).

I looked at one of the less common common cold virus groups, adenoviruses, and there was a wonderful story of how the US DoD use to vaccinate against some forms to save on training expenses, but eventually struggled to find a manufacturer. Seems adenovirus vaccine manufacturing restarted this year, so perhaps there is a story here for the skeptics guide. Anyway I found the background to this really interesting, but maybe that is just me.

To make an impact on “cold like symptoms” we really want a Rhinovirus vaccine, progress is being made but it is slow. An RSV vaccine would save a surprisingly large number of babies and prevent a huge number of babies being hospitalized.

I suspect the “hug me I’m vaccinated” message gets the “don’t be a dick” message across, plus you might get the odd hug, which seems less likely with the “don’t be a dick” message. I’m thinking “too few – too late” might be worth a shot for getting money from the evidence based thinkers for vaccine research.

Oh and in the bickering above I think someone failed to account that the 60-70% effectiveness of the vaccine is an average, and that the vaccine may be much more effective in particular individuals (no doubt the reason why some people swear by the flu vaccine and some swear at it), and that breakthrough disease is often more mild. Hence the Cochrane review finding 75% reduction in hospitalisation for a vaccine which is less that 70% effective (according to CDC research). The effect on deaths appears to be even more marked than for hospitalisations.

Regarding having the vaccine I haven’t had it because of assuming I am fairly unlikely to catch it, I am healthy enough to survive the flu and the cost and difficulty in getting a flu jab in the UK, if you are not in the defined risk groups.

Okay, I re-read your original post a couple of times and, in the light of your subseqent posts, I think I did mis-read it. Your story contained a little more circumspectness than I realised. Sorry.

regards,
BillyJoe.

You are again misrepresenting what I wrote and ignoring my subsequent attempts to explain it to you. You are battling a strawman. And that does not help.

It is difficult to appreciate a misrepresentation. And yes, you have misread me as I’ve tried to explain several times. And that’s a non-apology — a backhanded attempt to make it look as if I owe you one.

Th flu vaccine is certainly not effective enough to stop your three times a year for six years in a row attacks of supposed flu infection stone dead. Not by a long shot.

And I didn’t go all crazy, I was just trying to help.
But, instead of getting appreciated for my efforts, I get dumped with a load of anger.

But, hey, if I’ve somehow misread you, I apologise and I’ll be on my way.

regards,
BillyJoe

Your interpretation of my comment read a lot into it that simply WAS NOT there. I merely wondered if there was a connection and you went all crazy like I’d said I was absolutely certain it was a flu virus causing all my problems and absolutely certain getting the flu vaccine ended them. I noted that my new doctor was cooperative in helping me combat the first signs of bronchitis. I should have put more emphasis on that, but you should have noted that meant I was still getting some kind of infection even after starting to get the yearly flu shot.

I’m also having trouble understanding why you are stating and re-stating that the flu vaccine is not very effective as if that refutes the advisability of wondering about its effectiveness.

Is this based on the recent study finding that it’s only 59% effective? Is that ineffective enough to post that it’s “not very” effective? Is there any vaccine that is 100% effective? Is there a chart somewhere defining effectiveness of vaccines into say… not at all (0-20), a little bit (20-40), effective (40-60), very effective (60-80), and super-duper effective (80-100)?

On that made up scale, 59% would be darn close to being considered very effective. Of course, I could change the words to make it not so. Perhaps you’d like to be a little more precise with your statement as I should have been with mine?

A highly atypical presentation three times a year for six years of is not impossible, but it’s pretty close to impossible. Add to that the fact that the flu vaccine that supposedly terminated these attacks completely, is not actually very effective….

But anyway.