"Do the research!"

[zippy2006]

Where exactly does the sentiment come from?

Anti-vaccine theories are generally non-partisan in this way. It could have been different if Biden hadn't come out skeptically against the vaccine multiple times, for in the U.S. the left has exaggerated the virus while the right has downplayed it. As it is, that balance remains.

Vaccines introduce a danger to combat a greater danger. Lots of people don't like that, especially those who care for the vulnerable, such as mothers. Add to that the pace of development and the novel mRNA approach, and you will find that even the medical community is wary.

 

[sesquiterpene]

Name a single mRNA vaccine that has previously been used in humans. There aren't any, because the COVID vaccine is the first of that type, and as such, the medium to long term effects are a complete unknown.

Sure. Here's a list of completed clinical trials that have used mRNA vaccines. The first one started in 2002 and completed in 2006. Just because you don't know anything about a subject doesn't mean noone does.
Search of: mRNA vaccine | Completed Studies - List Results - ClinicalTrials.gov

 

[sesquiterpene]

It's not even as if long term data for other mRNA vaccines is available, because this is the first vaccine that is of the mRNA type, so there is absolutely nothing to go on.

Nonsense. This is the type of antivaccine propaganda from somebody who isn't familiar with the actual research that has been done.

And if I recall correctly, recipients are being asked to keep a log of side effects, which hardly inspires confidence.

What sort of criticism is this? You're complaining that the trial actually tries to measure side effects?

 

[sesquiterpene]

Isn't it rather ironic that the thread title is 'Do the research', and yet some people here seem to know so little about what is being foisted on people, like they are expendable lab rats.

Ironic indeed.

 

[DaisyDay]

And it's probably inaccurate to call it a 'pandemic'. The average age of a COVID fatality in the UK is 82.4 years, which is slightly greater than average life expectancy. Fatalities in young people who do not have underlying health issues are extremely rare. And deaths from seasonal flu, which normally kills tens of thousands of elderly people every winter are mysteriously absent.

Perhaps you should research the meaning of the word "pandemic" - it has to do with the prevalence of a disease, not its severity or number of fatalities. The regular flu season is just getting started here in the northern hemisphere, but the preventive methods of mask-wearing and social distancing will also prevent regular flu from spreading. Just in case, my husband and I got our flu shots last month.

In that case, the logical course of action is to only give the vaccine to those at high risk, due to old age or underlying health conditions. It would be madness to vaccinate every single person, but I suspect that is what is coming, along with vaccination passports to allow travel, shopping, and everything else.

That isn't only logical if you understand how disease spreads, develops and mutates. The more people who are vaccinated, the better the population as a whole will be.

 

[keith99]

Calling vaccination science a debate is like saying sexual reproduction vs the stork is a debate.

They are both wrong. Everyone know babies are found in the cabbage patch!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Anti-vaccine theories are generally non-partisan in this way. It could have been different if Biden hadn't come out skeptically against the vaccine multiple times, for in the U.S. the left has exaggerated the virus while the right has downplayed it. As it is, that balance remains.

With previous (well-established) vaccines, even in those instances, you find the same anomaly where there's no partisan line to be found.

When you encounter an anti-vaxxer, there's a 50/50 shot you're either talking to a far-right anti-authority type who thinks that that "the government is trying to poison people for population control", or you could be talking to a far-left person who's into "everything has to be natural from mother earth, here, try these healing crystals and essential oils"

Sort of the same dynamic that exists with the topic of GMOs.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Sure. Here's a list of completed clinical trials that have used mRNA vaccines. The first one started in 2002 and completed in 2006. Just because you don't know anything about a subject doesn't mean noone does.
Search of: mRNA vaccine | Completed Studies - List Results - ClinicalTrials.gov

I'm just reporting what I've read in the press. You seem to be the expert, so maybe you can enlighten us.
1. Which one of those trials do you think is most applicable, and why? The trial on melanoma? The trial on prostate cancer?
2. If a trial started in 2002 and ended in 2006, doesn't that suggest that there should usually be 4 years of trials?
3. Why have they skipped all the animal testing?

I also note that since the flurry of reporting on the first vaccinations, we now appear to be on radio silence, which suggests that the government are gagging the press. No reports of how many vaccinations have taken place, which is odd, given the enormous amount of reporting on cases and deaths. And apart from an initial report of two people who suffered anaphylactic shock, no more information on allergic reactions. When such silence occurs, it's most likely due to reporting restrictions, as I'm sure the tabloids would love to tell us all what it feels like to have the jab. So why is there no reporting? Is the government gagging the press in case the vaccine turns out to be more dangerous than the virus?

Nonsense. This is the type of antivaccine propaganda from somebody who isn't familiar with the actual research that has been done.

You can read the information provided by the vaccine manufacturer. They've said themselves that there is no data or limited data in some areas. The biggest potential issue is that they know nothing about the impact on fertility.

From the various leaflets:

Children and adolescents
COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended for children under 16 years.

Pregnancy and breast-feeding
There is currently limited data available on the use of this vaccine in pregnant women. If you are pregnant or breast-feeding, think you may be pregnant or are planning to have a baby, ask your doctor or pharmacist for advice before you receive this vaccine. As a precaution, you should avoid becoming pregnant until at least 2 months after the vaccine.

4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNAVaccine BNT162b2.Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2is not recommended during pregnancy.For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose

Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.


Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.

What sort of criticism is this? You're complaining that the trial actually tries to measure side effects?

The trials have been completed, that's why it's been rubber stamped for widespread use. And yet they are asking recipients of the vaccine to submit information on side effects that they experience. Asking for information on side effects after approval is a strong indicator that the trial and approval process was a rush job.

From the leaflet:

Reporting of side effects
If you get any side effects, talk to your doctor, pharmacist or nurse. This includes any possible side effects not listed in this leaflet. You can also report side effects directly via the Coronavirus Yellow Card reporting sitehttps://coronavirus-yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/or search for MHRA Yellow Card in the Google Play or Apple App Store and include the vaccine brand and batch/Lot number if available. By reporting side effects, you can help provide more information on the safety of this vaccine.

Ironic indeed.

LOL! You don't seem to know much about the vaccine yourself.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Anti-vaxxer is a smear term, used to try and silence debate. There are plenty of people who have nothing against fully tested vaccines

There are some who fit that mold...however, if you look at the context of the type of person I'm referring to in the OP, the average person who says "I'll wait a month or two to see how things play out" aren't the types of people I'm directly referring to. Although, if in 6 months from now, they're still saying that after millions have had it, and side effect rate is minimal, then the term will apply directly to them as well.

The people who say "Do the research!" or imply that anyone who vaccinates their children are "sheeple", and then post a link they found on the Mercola website or some "natural medicine" blog on page 15 of the search results in google for "vaccines bad", are often times the people who are against well-established vaccines as well. And are the ones who were most vocal about "manning their battle stations" for this new one.

They pride themselves on "diving deep into it and educating myself", but then often times buy into things like homeopathy or chiropractic (something that's easily debunkable in 5 minutes)... It doesn't take much of a skeptic mind or a deep dive into it to see that both of those things are pseudoscience (and were founded by quacks with wild stories about how they supposedly work), yet, those who are most adamantly against vaccines, often times seem to love those two things and see no issue with them.

They're also a lot of the same folks with theories about fluoridated water, GMOs, etc...

 

[JustSomeBloke]

There are some who fit that mold...however, if you look at the context of the type of person I'm referring to in the OP, the average person who says "I'll wait a month or two to see how things play out" aren't the types of people I'm directly referring to. Although, if in 6 months from now, they're still saying that after millions have had it, and side effect rate is minimal, then the term will apply directly to them as well.

Why would someone who has an extremely low risk of dying want to be injected with an unknown? This isn't a virus that is killing indiscriminately. The risk factors are now fairly well known (old age, obesity, and some health complaints). We don't vaccinate the entire population for flu every year, only the elderly and at risk receive it. Everyone else has a good enough immune system to deal with it naturally. Why would you want to usher in a new era of medical-industrial, chinese-style tyranny, whereby only those with a certificate can go to the movies, shopping etc.?

They pride themselves on "diving deep into it and educating myself", but then often times buy into things like homeopathy or chiropractic (something that's easily debunkable in 5 minutes)... It doesn't take much of a skeptic mind or a deep dive into it to see that both of those things are pseudoscience (and were founded by quacks with wild stories about how they supposedly work), yet, those who are most adamantly against vaccines, often times seem to love those two things and see no issue with them.

The number of people into homeopathy is most likely tiny compared to the number who see no need for an entire population to be jabbed with an experimental vaccine.

They're also a lot of the same folks with theories about fluoridated water, GMOs, etc...

There's no need for fluoridated water. Everyone is free to choose fluoridated tooth paste, and I use it myself.

 

[sesquiterpene]

I'm just reporting what I've read in the press.

Yes, I know. Hence the irony when you start scolding people for not "doing the research". You don't seem familiar with the actual scientific literature.

You seem to be the expert, so maybe you can enlighten us.

I am not claiming to be an expert - as a matter of fact, I haven't read most of the scientific literature on this subject. But I've looked at enough to know that mRNA vaccines are the product of many years of development, both in lab animals and in the clinic, and thus that your claim that we know nothing is rubbish.

1. Which one of those trials do you think is most applicable, and why? The trial on melanoma? The trial on prostate cancer?

Moving the goalposts, are we. All the trials that used mRNA vaccines (the search function isn't perfect) are relevant to contradict your point that mRNA vaccines have never been used before. And it took me less than a minute to come up with some examples. How good are your research skills?

The trials have been completed, that's why it's been rubber stamped for widespread use. And yet they are asking recipients of the vaccine to submit information on side effects that they experience. Asking for information on side effects after approval is a strong indicator that the trial and approval process was a rush job.

The trials have not been completed, they are scheduled to last two years continually monitoring both safety and efficacy. The FDA meeting last week had a lot of discussion of whether to end the trials early given the efficacy of the treatment, but it hasn't happened yet. The recipients of any drug are asked to report side effects no matter how long it's been on the market, so it's no indication of a rush job. In fact the US has several systems in place which continuously monitor the safety of all vaccines, not just this one.

3. Why have they skipped all the animal testing?

They haven't skipped the animal testing. You really need to find better sources. Why don't you give us a lesson in your research prowess, and give a few examples?

 

[tall73]

With previous (well-established) vaccines, even in those instances, you find the same anomaly where there's no partisan line to be found.

When you encounter an anti-vaxxer, there's a 50/50 shot you're either talking to a far-right anti-authority type who thinks that that "the government is trying to poison people for population control", or you could be talking to a far-left person who's into "everything has to be natural from mother earth, here, try these healing crystals and essential oils"

Sort of the same dynamic that exists with the topic of GMOs.

The reason people can come from different sides of the political aisle on this is that it is a question that all must face regarding real risks to their child or themselves, and it cuts across all groups. Most parents considering whether to vaccinate their child are not looking to be revolutionaries or reveal secret plots. They just want to do what is best for their child, but may not be sure what option is best.

The way to convince them is not to insist they are backwards or superstitious, or to categorize them as this type of thinker, or that, or compare them to those who hold a notion you clearly have disdain for, but to show them the data on prevalence of harm from the disease, vs prevalence of harm from the vaccine so they understand the risk they are taking, and why.

However, when trying to convince those who are hesitant I have seen people take an approach that is more about scaring people, or pressuring, or belittling those with concerns as wrong-thinkers, rather than presenting data. If it is a slam dunk on the science, then publish the risks on both sides. If it is safe and effective the data shows that.

In my experience public health campaigns and physicians often only want to discuss the risk posed by the disease. Any questions about the risk from vaccination are downplayed or dismissed.

It only takes the person knowing a few examples where a vaccine caused serious harm for them to question whether to go forward with a vaccine. The solution is to be upfront about risks on both sides, but demonstrating that the risk from the vaccine is small compared to the risk from the disease.

If you only show the risks on one side, but the person is aware of risks on the other side they feel you are not being straightforward. If doctors won't engage in discussing the manufacturer label side effects and how common they are, a skeptical person might wonder why that is the case. If we are asking people to make data driven decisions, we have to provide data. It should be ready to be presented to those who have a concern.

And when data is not provided upfront then the person feels the need to go digging to find it, and often winds up obtaining it from internet based advocacy groups. Depending on the site or group that may mean they get a skewed picture, or an exaggerated version of the harms from vaccines.

If the internet site tells you examples of harms, but your doctor refuses to discuss it, which appears to be giving it to you straight? Both may be giving a skewed picture, but one is willing to talk about harms and the other is not. If it is data driven then we can't be afraid of spelling out the data, and the relative risk on each side.

The data is out there from various sources about how deadly diseases are, how prevalent harms are from vaccines, etc. And to me I found that the case for vaccines for myself or my children are usually strong. But I didn't appreciate that I had to go find the data because they wanted me to accept it on the basis of slogans, or authority, or pressure, rather than just spelling out the risk vs. reward to start with.

A parent doesn't necessarily need to know all the science of how vaccines work to read x number of people experienced life-altering outcomes from this disease, vs. y number of people experienced life-altering outcomes from this vaccine. If they know that there is a real but very small risk from the vaccine, vs. a real and larger risk from the disease, then the decision becomes clearer. Characterizing the data on either side by glossing over it doesn't convince people.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The way to convince them is not to insist they are backwards or superstitious, or to categorize them as this type of thinker, or that, or compare them to those who hold a notion you clearly have disdain for, but to show them the data on prevalence of harm from the disease, vs prevalence of harm from the vaccine so they understand the risk they are taking, and why.

I think the more "harsh approach" being taken is because the more moderated approach has been done a hundred times and eventually it's time to "kick it up a notch" and call it out for what it is.

Not sure if you've ever debated someone who in the "MMR vaccines cause autism" camp, but there's a pattern of escalation that usually occurs that ends up revealing that they are, indeed, conspiracy theorists.

It usually goes something like this...

1- Here's the scientific information showing they're safe and effective
"Medical science is bought and paid for by the elite"

2- Here are large studies involving hundreds of thousands of people, showing that the Autism rates are the same among vaccinated and unvaccinated
"Those studies are rigged"

3- There's no evidence indicating a linear or correlative trend between between Autism and the MMR vaccine
"You just need to research more <inserts link from alternative medicine website>, look at this post by a Mom who talks about how her child developed it because of the vaccine!"

4- A parent isn't a medical expert, and it's not uncommon for a parent to associate a negative event involving a child with a random preceding event that occurred
"Oh, so I suppose you know more about their kid than they do!"

5- The doctor who pushed that theory had his license revoked and the co-authors withdrew the support of the paper
"That's because big pharma paid off the government to shut them up!"

6- Oh, so you're basically a conspiracy theorist then?
"How dare you call me a conspiracy theorist just because I take the time to educate myself and be informed!"


At a certain point, after seeing the pattern repeat itself a couple hundred times in debates, it becomes more prudent to just save oneself the time, cut to the chase, and skip #1-5 and just go right to #6 since you know that's where it's going to end up anyway.

It only takes the person knowing a few examples where a vaccine caused serious harm for them to question whether to go forward with a vaccine. The solution is to be upfront about risks on both sides, but demonstrating that the risk from the vaccine is small compared to the risk from the disease.

Like I made reference to for the #4 phase above, parents will often times associate any negative outcome with their child, with whatever happened before it, even if what happened before has absolutely nothing to do with it.

When something bad happens, parents are understandably frustrated and upset and looking for some sort of closure or something to blame, because "there's an answer for why this happened, and I can direct my anger at that" is an easier pill to swallow than "bad things like this randomly happen sometimes, and there's no clear answer for why it happens and there no one person or thing that can be blamed for it"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why would someone who has an extremely low risk of dying want to be injected with an unknown? This isn't a virus that is killing indiscriminately. The risk factors are now fairly well known (old age, obesity, and some health complaints). We don't vaccinate the entire population for flu every year, only the elderly and at risk receive it. Everyone else has a good enough immune system to deal with it naturally.

...because it's nearly impossible to avoid everyone else in one's life that may have one of those comorbidities.

If the entire planet was just nothing but fit, thin, 12-45 year olds, then you'd have a point.

And since no vaccine is 100% effective...90%+ is pretty darn good, but not perfect...the concept of herd immunity does come into play.

If a person with one of those comorbidities has a 10% chance of getting it from an infected person, it's better to lessen the chances of them coming into contact with an infected person.

With the flu vaccine, not sure if the UK is different that us in that regard, but a lot of people receive it who aren't elderly or "at-risk".

How many Americans get flu shots? - USAFacts

For instance, I'm a healthy 37 year old, and I've gotten the flu shot every year for the past 5 years.

Even though my immune system could fight it off, I'd rather get a quick shot in the arm, and reduce my chance of getting the flu... fever/chills/aches/fatigue aren't exactly fun.

The number of people into homeopathy is most likely tiny compared to the number who see no need for an entire population to be jabbed with an experimental vaccine.

...but again, among vaccine conspiracy theorists (which is who my OP was referring to), that number is not small.

There's a very high degree of overlap between chiropractic & homeopathic, and the anti-vaxx movement as a whole.

Exclusive: US homeopaths claim 'therapies' prevent measles and 'cure' autism

In fact, in many cases, one of those two types of "doctors" are the ones who are advising customers against it.

Are Chiropractors Backing The Anti-Vaccine Movement?

 

[sesquiterpene]

However, when trying to convince those who are hesitant I have seen people take an approach that is more about scaring people, or pressuring, or belittling those with concerns as wrong-thinkers, rather than presenting data. If it is a slam dunk on the science, then publish the risks on both sides. If it is safe and effective the data shows that.

At least in online discussions, I just think you can't just reason past the antivaxxers. As with a lot of things, they're just too invested in their narratives to budge.

As for risk assessment, the discussion might be skewed because for most of our childhood diseases, they have been so drastically reduced by vaccines that it is hard to discern the actual risk. A discussion of herd immunity might do the trick, but as we've seen lately, altruism seems to in pretty short supply these days.

On top of all that, who really has time to discuss risk assessment at length with hesitant parents? No pediatrician is going to spend an hour working on this, and probably few nurses or public health officials do also. And to bring it back to the OP, you can't rely on peoples research abilities, as we've seen by example on this thread.

 

[tall73]

At a certain point, after seeing the pattern repeat itself a couple hundred times in debates, it becomes more prudent to just save oneself the time, cut to the chase, and skip #1-5 and just go right to #6 since you know that's where it's going to end up anyway.

That is the part I object to. You are assuming what a person you have not debated with will conclude, without the discussion, based on how other people decided. You have the right to do that to save yourself time. And you don't have to discuss with people at all on the subject. But if your goal is to convince people then you ought to be willing to give the information each time when dealing with a new person. You presented it 100's of times to someone else, not to that person.

That is why my suggestion is that doctors, or any entity that distributes vaccines should have a resource they can give to anyone who inquires that lists known levels of health harms from the disease and the vaccine. Then no one has to go to the internet to find out. I can still decide it is logical to take a vaccine, despite knowing there are settled cases in the vaccine injury court, because I can look at the rate and realize the risk is acceptable for the reward.

My suggestion is make the data available for anyone about to take a vaccine. That was not always done when vaccines were suggested to me. Sometimes they would not give you the insert that lists possible or known side-effects.

That is not a good faith effort to help me make a rational risk vs. reward decision. It is just a cynical method to try to get as many as possible. But it may backfire with some.

Like I made reference to for the #4 phase above, parents will often times associate any negative outcome with their child, with whatever happened before it, even if what happened before has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Yes, but it can also be spelled out there are various levels of vaccine harm reporting. There is the initial database which lists all complaints, whenever reported, without requiring a lot of investigation. Then there are filed cases for vaccine injury. Some of those may be immediately settled because the cost is not worth it to litigate, or because it is a known harm that they think likely occurred. And then there are adjudicated cases that look at all the evidence.

The risk is somewhere between the total reported incidents and the settled and adjudicated cases.

When you compare that with the risk of the disease you can make a calculation of "safe and effective." If it is a slam dunk scientific win, then there is no harm in having the numbers on hand from reliable sources without having people go look them up on page 15 of Google as you mention.

When something bad happens, parents are understandably frustrated and upset and looking for some sort of closure or something to blame, because "there's an answer for why this happened, and I can direct my anger at that" is an easier pill to swallow than "bad things like this randomly happen sometimes, and there's no clear answer for why it happens and there no one person or thing that can be blamed for it"

And sometimes there is a clear enough answer they are compensated because this rare reaction is known to impact some.

Knowing the rate, and any risk factors if that applies helps make your decision.

 

[tall73]

At least in online discussions, I just think you can't just reason past the antivaxxers. As with a lot of things, they're just too invested in their narratives to budge.

For the anti-vaxxer and the people lurking it is important to make a good faith effort to discuss evidence. Whether that is evidence you present, or they present, it may or may not convince the anti-vaxxer, but half of their contention is that people will not even let the details out. So addressing all the details helps dispell that. And for the lurkers it gives them a chance to weigh the evidence without having to debate.

As for risk assessment, the discussion might be skewed because for most of our childhood diseases, they have been so drastically reduced by vaccines that it is hard to discern the actual risk. A discussion of herd immunity might do the trick, but as we've seen lately, altruism seems to in pretty short supply these days.

If you base it just on the person's subjective notion of how dangerous they are that is true. But I am not suggesting that. If you have facts regarding the rate of severe health impacts before widespread vaccination (which they do have, because they were the basis of justifying the development of the vaccine in the first place), that can be reviewed.

That was the case even when some vaccines were not in wide use. Most kids my age got chickenpox, including me. If I just went by my experience, and those I knew I would still not have an accurate understanding of the risk. Data on the incidence of harms would give me an idea of the scope, which I would otherwise under estimate because of my limited experience.

On top of all that, who really has time to discuss risk assessment at length with hesitant parents? No pediatrician is going to spend an hour working on this, and probably few nurses or public health officials do also. And to bring it back to the OP, you can't rely on peoples research abilities, as we've seen by example on this thread.

We went to the pediatrician on a suggested schedule. They know when the vaccinations will occur. They can offer, to those interested, a detailed brochure that spells out the data in the appointment prior to the vaccination. It would take three minutes to mention it, give them the brochure and then they can read it on their own. If they have difficulty reading then it might take some time to explain. But informed consent is an important principle, and it takes the information at least being offered.

If the concern is that people might not have health care access regularly, then you could schedule to send them out based on birth date for review.

 

[tall73]

Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine

Here is an example of the sort of informational brochure or emailed/med portal article they could include. I think it could spell out the actual rates of incidence of some of the more severe reactions, just like they do with the projected saved deaths, hospitalizations, etc. But it does give information on how it all works.

 

[sesquiterpene]

If you base it just on the person's subjective notion of how dangerous they are that is true. But I am not suggesting that. If you have facts regarding the rate of severe health impacts before widespread vaccination (which they do have, because they were the basis of justifying the development of the vaccine in the first place), that can be reviewed.

It's not just a subjective notion. Someone can look at current rates of infection for their children in their region, and come to a possibly correct (but rather amoral) conclusion that they can enjoy the benefits of vaccination without taking any of the risks - i.e., hiding in the herd. How do you deal with that?

They can offer, to those interested, a detailed brochure that spells out the data in the appointment prior to the vaccination.

There are a multitude of brochures available in every pediatricians office, and on the CDC's website, and all of the equivalent agencies in pretty much every country. Perhaps you can give some examples of exactly what they are doing wrong? I can't pretend to have a detailed knowledge of this.

 

[tall73]

With the flu vaccine, not sure if the UK is different that us in that regard, but a lot of people receive it who aren't elderly or "at-risk".

How many Americans get flu shots? - USAFacts

Yes, the number of doses corresponds to the goal of 70 percent of the population. Some require more than one dose.

Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine

How much influenza vaccine is projected to be available for the 2020-2021 influenza season?

Flu vaccine is produced by private manufacturers, so supply depends on manufacturers. Vaccine manufacturers have projected that they will supply as many as 194 to 198 million doses of influenza vaccine for the 2020-2021 season. These projections may change as the season progresses. Most of this will be quadrivalent vaccine (99%) and thimerosal-free or reduced vaccine (87%). About 20% of flu vaccines will be egg-free.