Is there anyone else who doesn't get a flu shot?

Smiley-raising-waving-hand.gif
 
Is anyone else been offered two choices of ways of getting the shot. I was offered the "typical" shot, or the one that just goes under the skin, sort of like the TB test does. Well, I took the second option, since I figured it wouldn't hurt as much. Maybe it didn't at the moment, but like others here, I think I had a reaction-I got a HUGE red spot, almost the size of a baseball, red, hard, and hot. So this year, I'll take a regular shot.
 
I agree that it is a personal choice. No right answer, no wrong. However, I get the vaccine every year, and vaccinate my children as well. There is a very small chance of a problem, but as I have seen people die almost every year from the flu ( granted all have been elderly), I am comfortable with my decision.
 


I think getting or not getting a shot is a personal decision and I personally do not get one and haven't gotten one in years. I have chronic lyme and genetic mutations and my doctors have recommended against getting a shot. My husband usually gets one.
 
I am 47 and have never been really ill in my life. If I ever had the flu it was a very mild, undiagnosed case. Because of this I just don't feel very motivated to get a shot. Maybe that will change as I get older. DH has had the flu a few times over the years and he is still not motivated to get a shot.
 
never had one. I'm not anti or pro flu shot. as I get older and move into the age bracket where respiratory illness can kill, I'll start getting them.
 


This year's vaccine is estimated to be 60% effective. As miserable as the flu is (especial among the older people, and those with other issues) I'll take the 60%. Last year the shot was only about 20% effective.
Except you're comparing an estimate (60%) to a fact (20%). Before the flu season last year, how effective did they estimate THAT vaccine was going to be? I'm guessing they didn't say it was going to be 20%.

My family does not get one. We are generally healthy. We've never had the flu. There was one day when DD and I were both really sick about ten years ago, but we were fine by the evening, so I'm guessing that wasn't the flu. Our family pediatrician even told us we don't need the flu shot.
 
I don't get them. DH used to have to for work and he got sick from it every time. I just never saw the need if I get anything flu like it tends to be pretty quick. Most of the time when I feel awful for longer its just a bad cold.

If we were going to be around anyone high risk all the time (young kids, elderly or immune compromised) and wouldn't have the option of just not going if sick (we skipped my fathers birthday last year because I had a bad cold and there would be 2 kids under two I didn't want to get sick) but since we aren't most of the time we don't get it.
 
My kiddos just got theirs, my DH and I still need to get ours. I never got them until I was pregnant but now get them every year. My DS has an egg allergy (an ingredient in the vaccine) and his allergist still insists he gets the shot because when he gets sick it tends to go to his lungs.
 
I don't get it. The only time I have ever got it is when I was active duty and forced to get it. My husband always got it since he retired from active duty this year I am thinking he still will. I usually don't get the kids shots either.
 
These two posts say it all.

I firmly believe that misunderstanding is what fuels all these conspiracy theories about the flu shot. Many people just don't understand what the true flu is.

They get a shot and and then come down with a cold virus or a stomach virus, all common in the winter months, and point to the flu shot and say "see, I got the shot and now I am sick. It doesn't work."

I think you're right. I'm betting that people who don't get the shot haven't really experienced influenza (themselves or someone they know) and don't realize how horrible it is.

I think a lot of people who think they had the flu really had a bad cold. VERY different things.
 
This seems interesting.

According to http://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1213estimates.htm, from 2009 through 2013, the amount of adults getting the vaccine is about the same (~40%). The amount of children has increased (~55%). But looking at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/pdf/12-13 Season Summary.pdf and http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/, the amount of people diagnosed with the flu has gone up.

Maybe I'm reading the charts wrong.
I think you're missing a couple of things: 1) As you've pointed out, in some years the strains selected are not a great match to what then circulates and you'll see that reflected in the number of cases when the match it's good, 2) if you're talking about the graph at the bottom of your link, note that these are cases of "Influenza-Like Illnesses", of which actual "Flu" is but one component... you may be seeing a spike in ILI's that aren't actually the flu. On your comments regarding "60%" predicted VE versus the actual "20%" for last season, the rolling 10-year VE for the seasonal flu vaccine is 40%.

Earlier, someone brought up the often popular Cochrane Review publications of reviews of flu vaccine effectiveness... these are the "go to" articles when someone wants to dismiss the seasonal flu vaccine as being worthwhile. However, here's an interesting re-analysis of the data that Cochrane used for their "elderly" analysis. This work was the result of the encouragement of the Cochrane authors to have others try and produce "an alternative interpretation" of the results. This analysis appeared in the peer-reviewed Journal Vaccine in 2013. This analysis found that Cochrane's results are more likely a function of the methodology that they used versus actual ineffectiveness of the vaccine. The published article, with supporting materials is here: Cochrane re-arranged: Support for policies to vaccinate elderly people against influenza. Here's the abstract:
The 2010 Cochrane review on efficacy, effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccination in the elderly by Jefferson et al. covering dozens of clinical studies over a period of four decades, confirmed vaccine safety, but found no convincing evidence for vaccine effectiveness (VE) against disease thus challenging the ongoing efforts to vaccinate the elderly.

However, the Cochrane review analyzed and presented the data in a way that may itself have hampered the desired separation of real vaccine benefits from inevitable ‘background noise’. The data are arranged in more than one hundred stand-alone meta-analyses, according to various vaccine types, study designs, populations, and outcome case definitions, and then further subdivided according to virus circulation and
antigenic match. In this way, general vaccine effects could not be separated from an abundance of environmental and operational, non vaccine-related variation. Furthermore, expected impacts of changing virus circulation and antigenic drift on VE could not be demonstrated.

We re-arranged the very same data according to a biological and conceptual framework based on the basic sequence of events throughout the ‘patient journey’ (exposure, infection, clinical outcome, observation) and using broad outcome definitions and simple frequency distributions of VE values. This approach produced meaningful predictions for VE against influenza-related fatal and non-fatal complications (average ∼30% with large dispersion),typical influenza-like illness (∼40%), disease with confirmed virus infection(∼50%), and biological vaccine efficacy against infection(∼60%),under conditions of virus circulation. We could also demonstrate a VE average around zero in the absence of virus circulation, and
decreasing VE values with decreasing virus circulation and increasing antigenic drift. We regard these findings as substantial evidence for the ability of influenza vaccine to reduce the risk of influenza infection and influenza-related disease and death in the elderly.
The authors make the case that Cochrane "over stratified" the data and broke it down into over 100 different classifications and in doing so they often ended up with such small sets of data within each classification that the results were statistically meaningless... which then allowed them to claim that there was no evidence that the vaccine provided benefit. People also then, falsely, assert that the absence of finding any benefit means that no such benefit actually exists. The authors then took the exact same study data sets that Cochrane found to be of acceptable quality, and when they used a smaller, more meaningful (in their view), set of stratifications... they were able to find evidence of benefit.

A user on Science Blogs, also made some good observations about the shortcomings of Cochrane's treatment of flu vaccine evidence, in a criticism of an article in The Atlantic that highlighted the work of Dr. Thomas Jefferson, the lead of the flu vaccine work at Cochrane:
Brownlee and Lenzer rely upon (and romanticize as a martyr and truth-teller) Dr. Thomas Jefferson, someone who is fast establishing himself as an “Evidence Based Medicine” (EBM) crank who who courts notoriety by being a contrarian. The kind of EBM practiced by the likes of Jefferson and some other randomized trials zealots is far from the judicious weighing of the evidence envisaged by its early proponents. For example, David Sackett, defined EBM as:

“the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.” (BMJ, 13 Jan 96, Sackett, David L.).

There is nothing judicious about Jefferson, whose problem was described by one of my colleagues as “methodolatry,” the profane worship of the randomized clinical trial as the only valid method of investigation. In this case his evidence base isn’t even relevant, because we aren’t dealing with seasonal flu but pandemic flu. For the record, what he is saying about the uncertainties about flu vaccine efficacy in the over 65 age group isn’t new. In fact we’ve discussed it here, several times (here, here), going back a couple of years. But it is also clear that the vaccine offers protection in the age groups that matter for this pandemic, the people under age 50.

Nor is Jefferson, as claimed in the article, someone who “knows the flu-vaccine literature better than anyone else on the planet.” That’s an absurd claim. The literature is vast and he knows only a tiny part of it. But insofar as there is an acknowledged expert on vaccine efficacy, it would be biostatistician Elizabeth Halloran, who reviewed the clinical trial and experimental challenge literature recently in the American Journal of Epidemiology. We wrote a longish post on the subject here. There is general agreement, even among so-called skeptics, that the vaccine works in the under 60 age group, precisely the group at issue with the swine flu vaccine.

Jefferson’s points about vaccines in the elderly are not new, as I’ve said. But even though he is extreme in his views, looking at Jefferson’s own recent papers in the literature show conclusions much weaker than the picture painted in this article:

In long-term care facilities, where vaccination is most effective against complications, the aims of the vaccination campaign are fulfilled, at least in part. However, according to reliable evidence the usefulness of vaccines in the community is modest. The apparent high effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing death from all causes may reflect a baseline imbalance in health status and other systematic differences in the two groups of participants. (Rivetti D, Jefferson T, Thomas R, Rudin M, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C, Demicheli V, Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly, Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;3:CD004876)

Influenza vaccines are effective in reducing cases of influenza, especially when the content predicts accurately circulating types and circulation is high. However, they are less effective in reducing cases of influenza-like illness and have a modest impact on working days lost. There is insufficient evidence to assess their impact on complications. Whole-virion monovalent vaccines may perform best in a pandemic. (Jefferson TO, Rivetti D, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Demicheli V., Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults, Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3):CD001269.)

We concluded that there is no credible evidence that vaccination of healthy people under the age of 60, who are HCWs [health care workers] caring for the elderly, affects influenza complications in those cared for. However, as vaccinating the elderly in institutions reduces the complications of influenza and vaccinating healthy persons under 60 reduces cases of influenza, those with the responsibility of caring for the elderly in institutions may want to increase vaccine coverage and assess its effects in well-designed studies. (Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Demicheli V, Rivetti D, Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly, Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;3:CD005187)

When there is evidence for efficacy in a trial but insufficient numbers for meeting Jefferson’s arbitrary standard of precision of the estimate, Jefferson typically interprets the results as showing insufficient evidence. For any particular study that may be fair enough, but EBM means weighing the evidence, not just tabulating. When he talks to reporters he abandons rigor and says stupid things. Celebrity does that to some people, especially scientists unused to being feted as truth-telling mavericks. And like many randomized trial zealots, Jefferson frequently implies lack of statistical significance is affirmation of the null hypothesis, a serious interpretive error that slides by most journalists. And I know from personal experience journalists are always trying to get you to say something in the least nuanced way. Too many scientists succumb.

The maddening thing about this article is that there are valid points to be made here and we have tried to make them until we were blue in the face (random examples here, here, here, here,here, here). We have always felt the way to prepare for and battle a pandemic is to rely on a strengthened and robust public health and social services infrastructure, not to plan for the best (that there will be an effective and timely vaccine available to everyone) while hoping the worst won’t happen. Vaccines and antivirals are a poor second best as a strategy. But that’s what we have now, and while not the optimum, they do work. On the other hand, the nostrums also touted in this article as a substitute for vaccines and antivirals, like washing your hands, have almost no scientific support in the literature for influenza. They are still good things to do, although if Dr. Jefferson decides to review the literature, I wouldn’t count on him finding any support for them. So what?
Without a doubt, the seasonal flu vaccine we have today will never be accused of being a "rock star" in the world of vaccines, particularly if the antigens picked for any given year appear to be a mis-match (as they sometimes are), but the overall evidence finds that they are far from useless.
 
Last edited:
My kids haven't had the flu shot in a few years because of horrible reactions the last time. My son got the flu mist, which was recommended by the doctor and he had horrible nose bleeds for months. He still has them now, but I don't know if it is linked. My daughter has horrible reactions to shots. Huge lumps form on the shot site, she always runs high fevers. We dread immunizations with her!

I always waiver on whether we should get them or not, but in the end we don't.
 
I had Influenza B (swabbed, verified and treated with Tamiflu) several years ago. I have never been so sick in my life, and I thought I was going to die. There were times while I had it that I wished I would just go ahead and die. I was sick - like can barely get out of bed sick for 5 days. I went to work for two days and had to take another three days off. I coughed for months afterwards. I never want to be that sick again.

That was the year I skipped my flu shot. Never again.
 
I have never gotten one until last year. My son was working his first full time job, and they gave them at work, so he got one. DD was in first year in college, living in a dorm, so I had her get one, and because I took her to get it, I got one as well.
 
We always get one. Can't really think of a good reason not to. We also wash our hands before eating a meal and cover our noses and mouths when we sneeze. Basically, we do things to try and prevent getting sick and spreading illnesses. Might we still end up getting the flu even if we get a flu shot? Sure. But our chances do go down if we get the shot and it doesn't increase our chances of catching anything so we can't really come up with a good reason not to get the flu shot.
 
All three of my kids came down with the flu (yes, they were tested and it was positive) right before Christmas one year - I think in 2009. They were 9, 5, and 3. I was up for about 5 days and nights straight nursing sick kids. The 3 year old was asthmatic and struggled with bronchitis and RSV as it was, so it was a little terrifying.

We have all gotten the shot since so as to help protect him. The flu is everywhere, but we didn't have to have it in our house, too!

Before the "triple-flu Christmas epidemic", I was a big believer of flu shots being a pop culture moneymaker. Now I just think that they are an extra layer of protection. Does it solve miracles or prevent every virus that comes along? No, but it doesn't hurt the majority of people, either, to get it.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top