Forced Flu Shots

Actually this thread reminds me that I should get a flu shot this week. I like the fact that most insurance providers pay for it. Otherwise it is $30.00. Though I would still get it if had to.

Inkachu said:

Heh, one of the staff who was going to get her flu shot today called out sick...

...with the flu.

I had to chuckle

Click to expand...

This is why people need to get their flu vaccinations as early as possible.

It takes about two weeks to build the proper immunity after getting the shot. I think they start offering the shot in September (might be wrong, but it's around that time), which is a while before the flu really gets roaring, so that the immune systems of the vaccinated are prepped and ready to go in advance.

You shouldn't really laugh at someone who has come down with an illness like this... the flu is awful.

I have a question. Do you suppose that the flu bug is becoming resistant as a result of the immunization? It just seems like each year the bug becomes stronger and the shot less effective.

It's not becoming resistant. The influenza virus mutates constantly, and we are in an ongoing arms race to keep up with those mutations.

It's not resistance. The flu shot does not attack the influenza virus whatsoever (like antibiotics attack bacteria), so there is no resistance being built from it. The flu shot stimulates an immune response against a specific type of influenza, but since the virus mutates so easily (and since there are many different strains), it doesn't protect you from getting a strain/mutation you weren't protected against.

Its like the Staphyloccus virus....there are so many strands now that are resistant to antibiotics...however I was reading the other day that they may have found an antibiotic that isnt resistant to MRSA. Anyway back on the topic, KitKatMatt is right. The vaccine builds up your immune response to the virus but not to EVERY virus strand...you might be vaccinated against influenza A and get sick from influenza b...

Jennae said:

I have a question. Do you suppose that the flu bug is becoming resistant as a result of the immunization? It just seems like each year the bug becomes stronger and the shot less effective.

Click to expand...

Jennae,

As others have mentioned vaccines don't do anything directly. Instead they provide samples of the possible invader and the body's own immune system then creates antibodies to combat that specific invader.

Think of it a if you had a pack of dogs to some sheep. If wolves attacked the sheep the dogs will counter attack, but sheep will be lost before the dogs realize the threat. If instead you get a wolf carcass and give the dogs the scent they will defend the sheep before the attack. But over time the dogs will forget if there are no wolves. And if there are 2 or 3 very different kinds of wolf perhaps the smell is different enough that it will not be enough to trigger the responce.

Now think of the farm as the human body and the actual people as part of the defense (immune) system. If takes resources to keep dogs. You may need to slaughter a few sheep to feed the dogs. You don't want to have tons of dogs when not needed. So you decide to not have too many. Fine unless a large pack of wolves kills half the flock. If that happens yo may go bankrupt, the ranch (the person) dies.

Imperfect analogy as dogs are good for all preditors, with disease it is a specific antibody for each. There are some general responses, but the specific ones are needed.

So each vaccine is administered doe each disease where it is needed. The history of vaccine was the most deadly first. Smallpox, then Polio, then many others.

But one part is pretty accurate, the body slowly decides something is no longer a danger, haven't seen something for decades and very few new antibodies get made.

As was pointed out Flu has many different strains, the problem is to figure out which ones are starting to spread and select those to protect against.

In one way the bugs may seem to be getting stronger, there is a much larger pool pf people to infect. That means more ways to spread, more places for a small pocket to survive and more people to infect.

Keith

Thanks for the explanation.

Does anyone here have thoughts about the likelihood of an effective "universal" flu shot becoming available in the near future? We discussed this a bit in my pharmacology class last year:

Researchers take step toward developing 'universal' flu vaccine | News Center | Stanford Medicine

I know Francis Collins had been "guardedly optimistic" back in 2011 about development of a long-term shot to replace the one you'd have to renew every year by 2018. I haven't followed up on any news regarding it since that class ended.

Artemis97 said:

Does anyone here have thoughts about the likelihood of an effective "universal" flu shot becoming available in the near future? We discussed this a bit in my pharmacology class last year: Researchers take step toward developing 'universal' flu vaccine | News Center | Stanford Medicine I know Francis Collins had been "guardedly optimistic" back in 2011 about development of a long-term shot to replace the one you'd have to renew every year by 2018. I haven't followed up on any news regarding it since that class ended.

Click to expand...

If it can be developed, will be a huge breakthrough. Could potentially save many lives.

Artemis97 said:

Does anyone here have thoughts about the likelihood of an effective "universal" flu shot becoming available in the near future? We discussed this a bit in my pharmacology class last year:

Researchers take step toward developing 'universal' flu vaccine | News Center | Stanford Medicine

I know Francis Collins had been "guardedly optimistic" back in 2011 about development of a long-term shot to replace the one you'd have to renew every year by 2018. I haven't followed up on any news regarding it since that class ended.

Click to expand...

Medically speaking I'm also guardedly optimistic.

Socially speaking I have some major concerns and am overall pessimistic.

The link provided a clear explanation of the biology. On the surface of the virus are protrusions shaped somewhat like mushrooms. Previous vaccines attack the caps, which differ from strain to strain. The stems however are fairly constant and the idea is to attack them. If it works it would be effective across strains.

Good idea. But one wonders why it was not thought of before and why the body has not stumbled on to it. They may be related. Researchers generally have used how the body attacked diseases as a blueprint. Might it be that in someone the body did stumble onto attacking the stem and it turned out to be not as effective and thus was not an evolutionary advantage, that strain specific attacks were more effective? Looking at it from a purely geometric perspective the cap is far more exposed to attack.

Based on these 2 lines of reasoning I strongly suspect that for a specific variation the variation specific vaccines will continue to be more effective, likely much more effective. I think there is an excellent chance that instead of providing the kind of protection we have come to expect it might well 'prevent infection' less than half the time, but give the body a better chance to react and might well reduce severity and length of the time someone is infectious in 90% plus of cases. So it might NOT provide significant protection to those in the traditional at risk groups. It would provide significant benefits for those with good immune systems and more important hugely improve herd immunity.

Now in a society composed of smart and responsible people such would still be a major advance. Using it WITH a variety specific vaccine would give 2 levels of protection. If some unanticipated strain starts to spread what would have been a massive epidemic may fizzle out.

IF this will work as one element of multistrain injection the social problem is very solvable. However the worst case for medical success and social failure is that becasue this is different from what the body already does if administered at the same time the strain specific vaccine it might never get 'tooled up'. If it required administration at a separate time I see social problems.

I don't see an additional shot going over well, it will end up an either or for far to many people and the choices made may prove worse than no choice save the strain specific vaccine overall.

Finally I do not see this happening quickly. From what little bio-chemistry I know I strongly suspect the ends of the stem will be both the most likely to be detected as an invader and vulnerable to attack. The problem is that these will not be exposed when the virus is intact. That means the researchers may well have the significant problem of figuring out how to cap both ends of the stem before they even get to the point of having a stem they can work with.

If I prove a prophet I might as well start being a voice crying out in the wilderness right now.

If it goes this way get both, especially if you have relatives who are in at risk groups. A huge part of the advantage of herd immunity is resistance in the parts of the herd closest to you. For those in at risk groups it is their family and friends. Heck a second shot (and second visit) is worth it even if all it does is cut yuor time when you have symptoms by a couple of days.

EDIT: On the wildly optimistic side I'll mention that in addition to probably being harder to attack the stem is likely harder to detect, that the parts of the immune system going out looking have to get past the cap to get to the stem. It is possible that the body has not used this because by the time the stem gets detected the battle is already decided. There is a chance that we could get lucky and the late detection was the more significant part of the body not already doing this.