Study shows flu shot significantly reduces risk of hospitalizations

[wagrxm2000]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171117141759.htm

Just another reason to promote the flu shot.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[owlegrad]

Perhaps there's less hospitalization because they die at home?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

 

[steveysmith54]

Are there any studies about consequences of administrating them in highly understaffed pharmacies? Like effect on pharmacists’ health

 

[wagrxm2000]

Perhaps there's less hospitalization because they die at home?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

Pretty sure parents who don't believe in immunizations would just give sage and thyme then pray their child lives.

 

[Rouelle]

There is now scientific evidence supporting the obvious.

 

[sosoo]

48% effectiveness and 52% failure is also significant. it's also an F if you're grading it.

 

[wagrxm2000]

48% effectiveness and 52% failure is also significant. it's also an F if you're grading it.

So what your saying is 0% is better?

 

[lord999]

I just wish there was a better way to get the formula right. We have to predict so far in advance that we've been dead wrong on our 3 chances multiple times.

 

[PolarPop]

I just wish there was a better way to get the formula right. We have to predict so far in advance that we've been dead wrong on our 3 chances multiple times.

A phase 2 trial for a universal flu vaccine is recruiting now. May be only a few years away.

 

[wagrxm2000]

A phase 2 trial for a universal flu vaccine is recruiting now. May be only a few years away.

Oxford team to test universal flu vaccine in world first

I assume you are talking about this

 

[sosoo]

So what your saying is 0% is better?

i'm saying they should stop misleading the public. they should put a notice that the vaccine is not at a D level. it's still an F. so that people don't keep coming to the pharmacy saying "oh i got a flu shot and i still got the flu."

 

[Robin-jay]

I want anti-flu methods in the form of gummy bars. They did it with vitamins after all.

 

[joseph252]

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[wagrxm2000]

i'm saying they should stop misleading the public. they should put a notice that the vaccine is not at a D level. it's still an F. so that people don't keep coming to the pharmacy saying "oh i got a flu shot and i still got the flu."

So you'd rather say this is only somewhat effective so no one comes in and even more people have to go to the hospital.... Right good idea.

 

[sosoo]

So you'd rather say this is only somewhat effective so no one comes in and even more people have to go to the hospital.... Right good idea.

Im saying honesty is a better policy.

 

[RxPreceptor]

i'm saying they should stop misleading the public. they should put a notice that the vaccine is not at a D level. it's still an F. so that people don't keep coming to the pharmacy saying "oh i got a flu shot and i still got the flu."

Evidence level A recommendation

Anecdotal evidence from self diagnosed cases of the flu don't have much merit

 

[DrVader]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171117141759.htm

Just another reason to promote the flu shot.

No ****

 

[wagrxm2000]

Im saying honesty is a better policy.

Which is fine but you shouldn't say don't get this it's only 50% effective.

You say while it isn't 100% effective, its important to get it to help prevent you get from getting the flu and hopefully not get hospitalized if you do get the flu.

 

[owlegrad]

@sosoo do all medications get graded on the academic scale of needing to be 70% effective in order to get a C?

Just curious.

Many DM medications only lower A1C by about 1%, so I assume they also get an F from you?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

 

[RxPreceptor]

I think sosoo & unchained need to go sit in a corner

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

i'm saying they should stop misleading the public. they should put a notice that the vaccine is not at a D level. it's still an F. so that people don't keep coming to the pharmacy saying "oh i got a flu shot and i still got the flu."

How many medications have a success rate of over 70%???

 

[sosoo]

@sosoo do all medications get graded on the academic scale of needing to be 70% effective in order to get a C?

Just curious.

Many DM medications only lower A1C by about 1%, so I assume they also get an F from you?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

DM meds may lower by 1%, but its enough to bring to normal range, hence effectiveness in my view is 100%. if it lowers by 100%, then effectiveness is zero, because you can no longer live... same concept with other meds.

 

[Digsbe]

Perhaps there's less hospitalization because they die at home?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

The fatal autism takes the poor souls in their sleep

 

[zelman]

DM meds may lower by 1%, but its enough to bring to normal range, hence effectiveness in my view is 100%. if it lowers by 100%, then effectiveness is zero, because you can no longer live... same concept with other meds.

"Normal Range" is a lot of people getting the flu, so are you judging harshly because cases are being prevented?

 

[CynicalIntern]

DM meds may lower by 1%, but its enough to bring to normal range, hence effectiveness in my view is 100%. if it lowers by 100%, then effectiveness is zero, because you can no longer live... same concept with other meds.

You can't possibly believe that "lowers A1C by 1 percent" is synonymous with "gets patients into normal range."

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Hahaha, oh my goodness dude.

Every time I think Sosoo can't out-do herself, she goes and says something just mind-numbingly stupid.

I love it

 

[CynicalIntern]

Hahaha, oh my goodness dude.

Every time I think Sosoo can't out-do herself, she goes and says something just mind-numbingly stupid.

I love it

I would be willing to bet that < 40% of sosoo's diabetics are within normal range.

Granted, that may have something to do with the expired drugs they've been getting.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I would be willing to bet that < 40% of sosoo's diabetics are within normal range.

Granted, that may have something to do with the expired drugs they've been getting.

I'd be willing to bet that less than 1% of ALL type 2 diabetics have an A1C under goal.

 

[owlegrad]

DM meds may lower by 1%, but its enough to bring to normal range, hence effectiveness in my view is 100%. if it lowers by 100%, then effectiveness is zero, because you can no longer live... same concept with other meds.

Actually most diabetes medications will not bring the range back to normal as monotherapy therefore they are totally ineffective.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

 

[a student]

There is now scientific evidence supporting the obvious.

New study: drinking water reduces risk of degydration

 

[sosoo]

Every time I think Sosoo can't out-do herself, she goes and says something just mind-numbingly stupid.

don't you mean you're the stupid one? when exactly did i say i'm female? this is what i been telling you in the past. you make assumptions and then went on and on like a broken record. how many times have you referenced in your comments that i'm female? OMG.

 

[sosoo]

You can't possibly believe that "lowers A1C by 1 percent" is synonymous with "gets patients into normal range."

and why exactly not? if they don't sweetened themselves too much and their A1c is 6.6, why would lowering by 1 percent not get them back to normal range?

 

[SClENCE]

The flu shot is 100% effective at preventing the flu 48% of the time

 

[SClENCE]

and why exactly not? if they don't sweetened themselves too much and their A1c is 6.6, why would lowering by 1 percent not get them back to normal range?

Doesn't the ADA say under 7 is the goal?

 

[CynicalIntern]

and why exactly not? if they don't sweetened themselves too much and their A1c is 6.6, why would lowering by 1 percent not get them back to normal range?

What do you think the average diabetic "sweetens" themselves to? Hint: It isn't 6.6

 

[RxPreceptor]

Well another successful argument quietly started by one of owlegrad's passive comments questioning standards

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

don't you mean you're the stupid one? when exactly did i say i'm female? this is what i been telling you in the past. you make assumptions and then went on and on like a broken record. how many times have you referenced in your comments that i'm female? OMG.

"The average diabetic has an A1C of 6.6"

-So "expiration dates ain't ****" soo

and why exactly not? if they don't sweetened themselves too much and their A1c is 6.6, why would lowering by 1 percent not get them back to normal range?

I'm not even going to address the "sweetened" part

It's also hilarious that even in the example *you** created, you can't even do the elementary math to realize that 1% of 6.6 is 0.066.

6.6 - 0.066 = 6.534.
That's still not back into the normal range you're applying.
LMAO

Seriously, how did you graduate from pharmacy school?

 

[sosoo]

It's also hilarious that even in the example *you** created, you can't even do the elementary math to realize that 1% of 6.6 is 0.066.

6.6 - 0.066 = 6.534.
That's still not back into the normal range you're applying.
LMAO

again, u can laugh at your own self. A1c is percentile. u don't idiotically do 1% x 6.6%. when i mention a drop in 1%, it means subtracting from 6.6%. the other commenter seems to get it. why don't u?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

again, u can laugh at your own self. A1c is percentile. u don't idiotically do 1% x 6.6%. when i mention a drop in 1%, it means subtracting from 6.6%. the other commenter seems to get it. why don't u?

Wait, if they're not improving by 70% of 6.5, what's the point?

There's an F grade

How much percentage point I subtract from sweetening

 

[zelman]

again, u can laugh at your own self. A1c is percentile. u don't idiotically do 1% x 6.6%. when i mention a drop in 1%, it means subtracting from 6.6%. the other commenter seems to get it. why don't u?

A1c is a percentile? That means I can make my patients improve by feeding sugar to other peoples' patients!

 

[SClENCE]

Sweetened? Wtf? A1C is not a percentile nor it it "1% of 6.6". I think everyone is trolling here

 

[CynicalIntern]

Lets not get into the semantics of how A1C is measured and give sosoo a way to avoid responding to his original claim

DM meds may lower by 1%, but its enough to bring to normal range, hence effectiveness in my view is 100%. if it lowers by 100%, then effectiveness is zero, because you can no longer live... same concept with other meds.

That a one (percentage) point drop in A1C is 100% guaranteed to bring diabetic into normal range

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

A1c is a percentile? That means I can make my patients improve by feeding sugar to other peoples' patients!

But how much percentage u have to sweetened the global population to drop average diabetes by 0.06%

 

[RxPreceptor]

This whole thread could use some god damn amphetamines for the lack of focus & tangents.
While we are still on the matter of amphetamines, do you guys consider using questionaire scales asking subjective questions about symptoms ("objectively" ranked, i.e. Likert 1-5) for diseases with no established objective measures as a valid method to determine effectiveness? (hint: I am just trolling)

 

[owlegrad]

Trolling is against the terms of service and is subject to discipline up to and including Banning. It's srs business!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

 

[sosoo]

What do you think the average diabetic "sweetens" themselves to? Hint: It isn't 6.6

this would be interesting to know if this topic wasn't off tangent. then again, its not even significant.. the past 5 years, only 1 customer ever asked me about A1c monitor, and did Not even buy it.. so what's the point in getting an average when the stuff isn't even selling?

 

[CynicalIntern]

this would be interesting to know if this topic wasn't off tangent. then again, its not even significant.. the past 5 years, only 1 customer ever asked me about A1c monitor, and did Not even buy it.. so what's the point in getting an average when the stuff isn't even selling?

That's not an answer. Also, testing A1C, while possible, is impractical in a pharmacy or home setting, patients are getting it tested at the doctors office. Shockingly enough, not all healthcare is happening at your pharmacy

Now again, I ask. You stated that

DM meds may lower by 1%, but its enough to bring to normal range, hence effectiveness in my view is 100%. if it lowers by 100%, then effectiveness is zero, because you can no longer live... same concept with other meds.

Stating that you believe a medication that reduces A1C by one point is 100% effective at brining a patient to normal range.

Do you understand why this is wrong? This is not an attempt to mock you. This is an attempt to correct what is an utter failure of your school system and any continuing education you have taken since to educate you on public health.

 

[Zynx]

Considering the general lack of grammar, it is most likely meant to have been written "DM meds may lower by 1%, but IF its enough to bring to normal range" then it is essentially effective. The questionable terminology is not uncommon (ex. the next sentence after the above example, or the "percentile" business). You get the general idea of what they are trying to get across.

I do appreciate the sweetening euphemism, now my favorite sosoo post. I didn't realize the implications when I was getting sweet on my honey.

 

[CynicalIntern]

Considering the general lack of grammar, it is most likely meant to have been written "DM meds may lower by 1%, but IF its enough to bring to normal range" then it is essentially effective. The questionable terminology is not uncommon (ex. the next sentence after the above example, or the "percentile" business). You get the general idea of what they are trying to get across.

I do appreciate the sweetening euphemism, now my favorite sosoo post. I didn't realize the implications when I was getting sweet on my honey.

I appreciate that you're attempting to back sosoo up here, but this isn't the case. If it was, he would have responded to the first time we called him out on it with correcting a typo, not doubling down on it (and further stating that it is 100% [not essentially] effective at getting patients to normal range. Remember, this originated by "flu shots either work or they dont, and 40-whatever percentage of patients is an 'F'" - which led to "what percentage of patients do you think antidiabetics are 'successful' in. In the binary world of 'it achieved the ideal clinical outcome' versus 'it didn't,' I would wager that 90% of what we dispense gets a failure, which is what the point is. If we graded on the standard A-F scale, the only therapies that I can think of that achieve an A are birth control and antiretrovirals.

This is further strengthened by "who cares what their A1C actually is, nobody bothers to buy the kit to test it anyways" which makes it clear that sosoo should not be making any sort of medical statements without going through some severe remedial training.

 

[lord999]

On the decision theory problem of picking the right strains for the vaccine:
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...omposition/links/00b7d52f1484bccc5c000000.pdf

On a year that we got the strains stupidly wrong:
Low 2012–13 Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Associated with Mutation in the Egg-Adapted H3N2 Vaccine Strain Not Antigenic Drift in Circulating Viruses

There's at least 5-6 different strains out there during a given season and we hope to cover the most prevalent if not vaccinated cases to shut down spread. However:

1. If we get all three strains wrong, it's 0% to very marginally effective. That's happened before, the 2012-2013 year being the most recent year that we messed up that bad.
2. We get one of the three right, but the other 2 more than make up for the one avoided. That was the 2007 year.
3. We get 2 of the three right, but we don't get the deadly one picked (is it better to pick the strategy where less people get sick or the one where the dangerous strain doesn't get people killed when infected?). That was the year before the H1N1 push, where H1N1 did show up in a big, bad way enough to get us worried.

As for myself, I have always gotten the vaccine even though it does make me ill for two days or so. So, getting the vaccine is somewhat of a Pascal's Wager. There is at least an inconvenience (the shot itself and for people like me, the two days of post-vaccination illness) guaranteed associated with getting vaccinated versus the probability of getting the flu. For me, that's always in favor of suffering the two days even if it doesn't end up working out because I see sick people everywhere and I spend lots of time in the airport (which is a filthy cesspool). I also have comorbidities that make flu a special pain in the ass (severe asthmatic), so it's pretty simple. As for forcing it on people, I'm for the idea that people have free will, but don't look at me if this would have been preventable. I'm generally for immunizing the geriatric as I can manage their adverse reactions better than I can treat flu (flu does actually outright kill the elderly).

Oh, and we're going to need some post-egg technology to get this right if we want to be more responsive.