To flu-shot or Not to flu-shot. . .

[gmattson]

Guess Sue and I will get the vaccine.

[Glenn]

Of the people who got "the flu" from an influenza vaccine, how many spent a night in the emergency room getting IV fluids due to dehydration? Not many. How many were fine in the morning, and were so dizzy and delirius hey had to be driven home 'casue they could drive by work's end? Not many, if any at all. How many had to take a week off of work and couldn't get out of bed, leaving their family or to take to them food and help them to the bathroom? None, I bet.

Twice in the last 10 years I did not get a flu shot due to short supply. Tice in the last 10 years I got the flu, spent time the in hospital, couldn't work and needed help for a week.

Influenza can run a spectrum of severity. My oldest daughter and myself tested positive for influenza this past winter (a real joy of a test by the way, reminded me of stories about how the ancient Egyptian's use to extract the brains of the dead before mummification) and while the disease was far from fun I did not have anywhere near the severity you describe, missing only three days work. My daughter's was even more mild. From the CDC:

People May Have Different Reactions to the Flu
The flu can cause mild to severe illness and at times can lead to death. Although most healthy people recover from the flu without complications, some people, such as older people, young children, and people with certain health conditions (such as asthma, diabetes, or heart disease), are at high risk for serious complications from the flu.

If you are in a high risk category or have had bad reactions to the flu in the past, getting the vaccine is a good idea.

[Glenn]

The H1N1 virus that partially contributed to the end of World War

Actually from everything I have seen it was the other way around. I have not seen any mention that the disease had any effect on the duration of the war (although I must admit it would seem to make sense that it would have had some effect). The disease largely went unnoticed throughout most of 1918, not only because the war was such an attention-getter and death was all around, but also because of war-time news restrictions (in fact it came to be called the "Spanish Flu" even though the disease did not start in Spain because Spain was not a participant in the war and thus had no media restrictions, resulting in most early news about the disease came from there).

There is evidence that particular pandemic first spread through army camps in the U.S. in the spring of 1918, and that as the soldiers from these infected camps were shipped to Europe for the war during 1918 they introduced the disease to the armies of the world who were gathered in Europe. In hind-sight there is documentation that the disease certainly had an effect on the combatants who became infected in Europe. Generally the summer is an off-season for the flu, but the conditions in which the soldiers in Europe existed allowed the disease to flourish there, and to begin to spread throughout war-torn Europe. The war was winding down by the fall of 1918, just in time for the start of the flu season in the northern hemisphere, and what do soldiers do when a war ends? They go home. So rather than the flu ending the war, the war actually helped spread the flu. In a short period of time the returning soldiers spread that strain globally, including reintroducing it back into the U.S via Boston. An estimated 20% (1/5) of the world's population was infected (possibly as high as 28% in the U.S) and somewhere between 20-40 million people globally died during the northern hemisphere fall/winter of 1918-1919 (and of course most of the countries participating in the war were located in the northern hemisphere, further exacerbating the pandemic there).

That particular pandemic was therefore a bit of a fluke, a particularly deadly strain of influenza appearing at a time when there was an unusually high (for that time) amount of global travel over a short time period resulting in a much higher exposure and diffusion rate. As such it is a provides a good lesson and model for what could happen in our current age of mass global transportation.

On a personal note, when investigating family history we discovered that my paternal grandfather had two young children (by his first wife) die of influenza that winter. They were half-siblings to my dad (he was born almost 20 years later, to my grandfather's third wife).

This Stanford sitehas a synopsis of the 1918/1919 pandemic, including:

The war brought the virus back into the US for the second wave of the epidemic. It first arrived in Boston in September of 1918 through the port busy with war shipments of machinery and supplies. The war also enabled the virus to spread and diffuse. Men across the nation were mobilizing to join the military and the cause. As they came together, they brought the virus with them and to those they contacted. The virus killed almost 200,00 in October of 1918 alone. In November 11 of 1918 the end of the war enabled a resurgence. As people celebrated Armistice Day with parades and large parties, a complete disaster from the public health standpoint, a rebirth of the epidemic occurred in some cities. The flu that winter was beyond imagination as millions were infected and thousands died. Just as the war had effected the course of influenza, influenza affected the war. Entire fleets were ill with the disease and men on the front were too sick to fight. The flu was devastating to both sides, killing more men than their own weapons could.

This map animationgives a pretty good idea of how rapidly this strain spread in the fall of 1918. Note the brief timeline used.

[Bill Glasheen]

The H1N1 virus that partially contributed to the end of World War

Actually from everything I have seen it was the other way around. I have not seen any mention that the disease had any effect on the duration of the war

Glenn, your own citation contradicts you, and supports my statement.

Just as the war had effected the course of influenza, influenza affected the war. Entire fleets were ill with the disease and men on the front were too sick to fight. The flu was devastating to both sides, killing more men than their own weapons could.

When you get a chance, read John Barry's The Great Influenza.

- Bill

[Glenn]

Glenn, your own citation contradicts you, and supports my statement.

It doesn't really contradict me, it only says that influenza hit the troops hard and affected their ability to fight the war, which I also elaborated on, but makes no mention of affecting the duration of the war. But as I also said, it would make sense that it affected duration. The general consensus of the German military at the time was that they had not lost WWI, but that the German politicians had given the war away when they agreed to surrender (a feeling that helped get the military and others behind the Nazi movement a decade later). But losses from influenza may have had an effect on the German decision to surrender.

My main point however was how the war affected the geography of the pandemic, which Barry's book covered at length.

[Topos]

George, there is another answer to a person who says they never get disease X when all others around them do not:

They are #&$*&)# carriers! [ grin ++++++ ]


Keep healthy, old friend.

[gmattson]

Sue and I both got the shots!!!

[Van Canna]

Have another George

[IJ]

My arm is sore right now from mine. Good work, us.

[Uechij]

Pneumococcal vaccination and risk of myocardial infarction



http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/179/8/773

[IJ]

That's an interesting finding, and one wishes they started with analysis of heart attack rates in randomized trials of the vaccines. As it is, the authors controlled for little in their study, which means vaccination may just be a marker of receiving more healthcare.

[Bill Glasheen]

That's an interesting finding, and one wishes they started with analysis of heart attack rates in randomized trials of the vaccines. As it is, the authors controlled for little in their study, which means vaccination may just be a marker of receiving more healthcare.

I agree, Ian. They've established association, but not causality. Furthermore without a proposed mechanism of action, I'm not feeling all that confident on there being direct causality.

That being said, there is a positive association between good dental care (lack of periodontal disease) and risk of MI. Basically we're talking about eliminating sources of inflammation, which is the causal link. Many diseases of "old age" are partially driven by chronic inflammation throughout the body.

For what it's worth... I just received my second pneumonia vaccination. I'm not strictly high risk. Then again... 9/11 was the day I was diagnosed with a case of pneumonia that stuck with me for 4 months. (I was too stupid and/or stubborn to take time off from work.) I'm not wild about repeating that experience.

- Bill

[Van Canna]

So why does the flue shot make your arm so sore for a day or so? And why does it seem to hurt so much when injected?

After my shot, which wasn't really painful, I went to the gym, where did cardio for 45 minutes, and weight training for an hour without discomfort.

But that night my arm was in pain.

[Bill Glasheen]

Van

Here's an interesting one for you.

I got the flu shot in my right deltoid (shoulder muscle) and pneumonia shot in my left. That night, my right shoulder was a little sore but fine. But I could barely lift my left arm. Two days later, you could visibly see red under my skin wandering down my arm away from the left deltoid injection site.

To start with, they stick the needle right into the middle of your deltoid muscle and inject the killed virus plus medium. The idea is for your body slowly to release that pocket of killed bad guys into your system so that your immune system can develop antibodies to it. That's going to do a little bit of damage to the muscle. As with weight lifting which also does a touch of damage, you're going to feel it that night or the next day. Then the body heals and you are good to go.

In some cases, people react severely either to the medium (egg albumin, thimerisol preservative, etc.) or the virus. An allergic reaction can be anything from redness in the region to going into shock. Most places actually have you sit for 5 minutes to make sure that the latter doesn't happen. If you aren't going into anaphyactic shock, you still may have a range of reactions. It could go from localized to something systemic like swollen lymph nodes under the armpit and very mild "illness" symptoms. (That is your body waging war.)

In some cases the sterile technique suks, and you may get an infection. This is extremely rare, but it happens.

If you are OK in a few days, then the side effect(s) would be within the "normal" range.

- Bill

[chef]

In some cases, people react severely either to the medium (egg albumin, thimerisol preservative, etc.) or the virus. An allergic reaction can be anything from redness in the region to going into shock. Most places actually have you sit for 5 minutes to make sure that the latter doesn't happen. If you aren't going into anaphyactic shock, you still may have a range of reactions. It could go from localized to something systemic like swollen lymph nodes under the armpit and very mild "illness" symptoms. (That is your body waging war.)

I have a very bad reaction to the preservative, thimerisol, that you mentioned when I used to wear contacts. Absolutely had to use a different solution to use them.

So, if I have this reaction in my eye, will my body also respond to this in such a shot?

Vicki

PS Sent you 2 text messages this am, with no response....wacha doing, boy? Am I still on the doodoo list?