Influenza vaccine and Mortality Rate

[Segnosaur]

In another forum I sometimes post in, there is an individual who has made the claim that the Mortality rate from Influenza has not decreased since the introduction of vaccine programs. (The person making the claim has not yet provided any evidence supporting their claims.)

Now, I don't want anyone to think I'm opposed to flu vaccines. I know there have been multiple double blind studies showing that they are both safe and effective. But, has anyone ever seen this particular claim before? (I've tried doing a google search to see if there's any simple graph showing changes in mortality over time, such as how Polio cases dropped off shortly after vaccination programs began.)

If there is any truth to the claim that the mortality rate hasn't decreased, I suspect it could be a combination of:
- a growing number of elderly people in society means that even if a smaller portion die thanks to vaccination, the total numbers dying may continue to increase
- The fact that different strains circulate every year means that even if vaccination might save a particular life in one year, they could still be susceptible in future years if the vaccine in that year doesn't match the strains in circulation. Thus, a death at age 70 instead of 65 still gets counted as a "flu death" even though vaccines gave extra years of life

So, anyone ever dealt with this claim before?

 

[LarianLeQuella]

I too have heard of it, but haven't seen any citations. I would be interested in seeing it.

 

[Emet]

"It is widely believed that influenza (flu) vaccination of the elderly reduces all-cause mortality, yet randomized trials for assessing vaccine effectiveness are not feasible and the observational research has been controversial. Efforts to differentiate vaccine effectiveness from selection bias have been problematic."

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/kwp173

Then there's this:

"Conclusion: Despite the paucity of randomized trials, many studies confirm that influenza vaccine reduces the risks for pneumonia, hospitalization, and death in elderly persons during an influenza epidemic if the vaccine strain is identical or similar to the epidemic strain. Influenza immunization is an indispensable part of the care of persons 65 years of age and older. Annual vaccine administration requires the attention of all physicians and public health organizations."

http://www.annals.org/content/123/7/518.full

 

[casebro]

So look up the annual deaths from flu, and graph them. Compare to another annual graph of vaccine doses given.

 

[casebro]

Medicine is a numbers game. Treat zillions of people, do a comparative risk analysis, and post the results as "Reduces risk by XX% ". But what is the risk to begin with? Seems about 1/100 die of flu. So, one persons risk is 1%. Vax cuts that in half (?) to one chance in two hundred of not dying of flu. That is called 'relative risk'. Any cost in $$ or side effects makes it not worth while for any given individual. But by god, it is now a "customary and reasonable" part of health care. And the value of Big Pharma stock goes up.

I believe the same logic is used for ALL preventative medicine, statins, coumadin, hypertension treatments, ALL vaxes, etc.

 

[Segnosaur]

So look up the annual deaths from flu, and graph them. Compare to another annual graph of vaccine doses given.

I'd love to, but I haven't found that information yet. (Most of my searches for the number of vaccinations usually end up discussing just the most recent year and/or H1N1. Haven't found much historical data.)

 

[Segnosaur]

Any cost in $$ or side effects makes it not worth while for any given individual.

Have to disagree.... Even if you forget about mortality (which is basically the "ultimate cost")...
- In any given year, the flu hits approximately 1 in 10 people will get the flu. Those people will feel miserable for several days, resulting in time off work, and feeling REALLY bad
- The 'side effects' of the flu are very mild (sore arm, slight fever).
Those 'side effects are probably less than 1/10th the severity of actually contracting a full blown case of the flu

But by god, it is now a "customary and reasonable" part of health care. And the value of Big Pharma stock goes up.

Actually, the Flu vaccine is not a big money maker for drug companies. Consider:
- The number of companies making flu vaccine is only around a dozen. There used to be twice as many. If flu vaccines are such big money makers, why aren't more companies involved in this particular gold rush?
- The size of the vaccine market is only around 2% of that of the drug market
- Because of the effort to develop vaccines (which are only good for 1 year before they have to be redesigned) manufacturers sometimes have to throw out unused product

See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/flushot.asp for more information