If they'd had this website there'd have only been 6 dwarves
October 5, 2006 3:01 PM   Subscribe

Both Find a Flu Shot and Flu Clinic Locator will let you punch in a date & zip code and find a bunch of locations near you in the U.S. selling the vaccine. For the first time in three years there's plenty to go around. The CDC estimates that everyone who might want one will be able to get one. And you probably want one. According to wikipedia "36,000 people per year in the United States die from influenza, and 114,000 per year are admitted to a hospital as a result of influenza. According to estimates by the World Health Organization, between 250,000 and 500,000 die from influenza infection each year worldwide." That's 5 to 10 times as many civilian casualties as the Iraq conflict in 1/3 the time. [more inside]
posted by phearlez (46 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
Why not just tough it out? Because the CDC claims that the flu shot will reduce the chance of contracting it by 70 to 90%. I'll bet the average flu sufferer would happily pony up $100 for a 50-50 shot at making the illness go away if you caught them at the height of their suffering. Compared to that, $20 for better odds is a bargain. It is true, however, that if you're allergic to eggs you might worry about an reaction - that's what they grow the vaccine in. Or maybe you like to play the lotto and think a lot about that 1 in a million shot - then you might concern yourself with Guillain-Barr which seems to result from the shot about 1 time in 1,000,000 shots.

Even if you don't mind being sick and aren't one of the immune-supressed, the very young, or the very old who might be killed or put in the hospital there's one absolutely perfect reason every person reading this should get one: If you don't get it then you're one less vector for the virus to get to that very young, very old or very sick person.

But most of all you're also one less person who can potentially give it to me. I'm still going to have a 10 to 30% chance of contracting it, after all...
posted by phearlez at 3:03 PM on October 5, 2006


Cliff Notes:
Here are some websites that show you where you can get a flu shot. You don't want to die do you?
posted by Big_B at 3:13 PM on October 5, 2006


If you don't get it then you're one less vector for the virus to get to that very young, very old or very sick person.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 3:16 PM on October 5, 2006


It's obvious that the US needs to declare a war on influenza, give out billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to anyone helping fight this "long war", and make it legal to indefinitely detain anyone who has influenza as supporting the "germs that hate our freedom".
posted by Nquire at 3:18 PM on October 5, 2006


NPR had an article on this morning about how bix box places offering flu shots, like Wal-Mart, have plenty to go around. But small family practice docotors are having trouble gtting their orders for vaccine filled. Some have only 10% of their order and some have none.
posted by Dillenger69 at 3:23 PM on October 5, 2006


Pepsi Blue anyone? Someone's gotta pay for all these shots before they expire in a few months.

Get your Vaccine 3.0 right here!
posted by pwb503 at 3:26 PM on October 5, 2006


FDR had Gullain-Barre, not Polio?

Fascinating. Completely left out of the Smithsonian's exhibit on Polio.
posted by effugas at 3:32 PM on October 5, 2006


Yes. Please everybody go and get a 'flu shot so the current strain becomes resistant. Otherwise you will die.
posted by alby at 3:42 PM on October 5, 2006


So the CDC says "have this flu shot". They have guessed about the details for this year's flu sweepstakes and if they guessed wrong it doesn't help. Also, IIRC if you get this inoculation and it injures you, well, Nakamura, you're out of luck. You can't sue the CDC, and you can't sue the company that made the inoculant. Even if they are negligent.

I'm more confident that I can survive the next flu than I am in the safety and efficacy of any particular year's inoculant. If I get old, maybe that will change.
posted by jet_silver at 3:46 PM on October 5, 2006


Never had a flu shot, never had the flu, and I don't trust anyone trying to mass-market an injection. It may be safe, effective, and by some measure arguably beneficial - but I don't have any such information from a trusted source.

In particular, I'm not convinced that the recommendation, or the studies it is based on, are free from being skewed by the profit interests of the drug companies. For example, the CDC was in cahoots with them on the mercury issue, and there is still mercury in flu shots.

I'm still not sure what Pepsi Blue is, but yes, they want to sell those doses.
posted by jam_pony at 3:47 PM on October 5, 2006


Virus vaccines do not prevent you from being a vector - they prevent you from contracting the disease by preparing your immune system for dealing with it. You can still carry the virus.

IANAMD, so please correct me if this is wrong or misleading.
posted by spazzm at 3:49 PM on October 5, 2006


Oh, great. My immune system chews up viruses like their f’king chicklets. I haven’t been sick in I don’t know how long and I get this one less vector for the very young, very old or very sick person” guilt trip and this “current strain becomes resistant” schtick.
*guzzles more OJ*
posted by Smedleyman at 3:50 PM on October 5, 2006


I'll bet the average flu sufferer would happily pony up $100 for a 50-50 shot at making the illness go away if you caught them at the height of their suffering.

i wouldn't ... but my flu miseries tend to be way below average
posted by pyramid termite at 3:53 PM on October 5, 2006


Sounds like viral marketing to me.
posted by zsazsa at 4:06 PM on October 5, 2006 [1 favorite]


Please everybody go and get a 'flu shot so the current strain becomes resistant.

I think that's a really good point, but I'm not certain. Does resistance evolve against innoculation the same way it does against anti-biotics? It's a pretty different process biologically. And after all, isn't it changing and evolving each year anyway?
posted by freebird at 4:09 PM on October 5, 2006


What is the mortality rate for normal, healthy people?

Cause lots of things kill the old and sick, and the young and weak.
posted by smackfu at 4:09 PM on October 5, 2006


Flu Shot for 9 year old daughter: $50 doctor visit

Contracting Guillain-Barré and going blind and unable to move legs while hospital scratches its head at spinal tap, MRI, etc tests: $45,000 (and counting)

Finding out its the Miller-Fisher variant and eyesight returns in five months: absolutely priceless

Will load up on OJ and tissues this year, thank you very much
posted by hal9k at 4:19 PM on October 5, 2006 [1 favorite]


Many years ago, I thought: if we are told to get the shot if we are very young or over 55, I told myself that why wait for 55 if I could prevent the flu. I got the shot then and every year since and have never had the flu though other members in my family have had it.
They now get the shot.
posted by Postroad at 4:25 PM on October 5, 2006


Please everybody go and get a 'flu shot so the current strain becomes resistant.

I think that's a really good point, but I'm not certain.


No no no! Bacteria build resistance to antibiotics. The flu is a virus, not a bacteria, and vaccine is not an antibiotic. Vaccine does not affect the virus, it affects you, making you able to resist the virus. This is a natural immune response by your body and taking vaccines reduces the viability of viruses ability to thrive in the population.
posted by Osmanthus at 4:33 PM on October 5, 2006


Right, that's what I was wondering. But couldn't you still be boosting the selection pressure applied to the viral population?
posted by freebird at 4:40 PM on October 5, 2006


But couldn't you still be boosting the selection pressure applied to the viral population?
No. Viruses can be exterminated by vaccine, as shown by smallpox.
posted by Osmanthus at 4:49 PM on October 5, 2006


How does the fact that vaccines can exterminate a virus mean that they don't imply a selection pressure? If they don't completely exterminate it, I'd think that just means there's a very strong selection pressure!
posted by freebird at 4:59 PM on October 5, 2006


I'm sorry, but I have to choose between getting an injection and getting the flu, I will pick the flu every time. I don't get time off work for an injection, first off. And needles are ouchy.
posted by Hildegarde at 5:07 PM on October 5, 2006


Not every english statement is a demonstration of socratic logic. There is no implication in what I said: just statements of fact. No, vaccines do not lead to resistant viruses. If you want to understand why, I suggest you crack a book.
posted by Osmanthus at 5:08 PM on October 5, 2006


No, vaccines do not lead to resistant viruses. If you want to understand why, I suggest you crack a book.

I suggest you do the same before you get so snarky in response to an honest question. Here's a link about concerns about malaria's ability to evolve resistance to vaccines; here's a mathematical article about (among other things) modelling "vaccine-induced immunity"; and yes, this is the result of no more than a brief google search.

So if you can point me at a good book or article explaining why the selection pressure induced by a vaccine can never push in the direction of increased ability to overcome immuno-defenses, that would be much more useful than "statements of fact" which appear to be over-simplifications.

Yes that was snarky too, sorry. I hate what seem like dismissive answers to honest and valid questions, and I'm sure you didn't mean to come off that way.
posted by freebird at 5:29 PM on October 5, 2006


"Here's a link about concerns about malaria's ability to evolve resistance to vaccines."

Malaria is caused by a plasmodium, a much more complex organism than a bacteria or virus.
posted by docgonzo at 5:35 PM on October 5, 2006


Fair enough, docgonzo, but I still don't understand why a virus can't experience selection pressure from a vaccine. I'm not trying to argue the point and recognize that may well be the case - I'm genuinely curious about the biology.

The only real answer I can think of so far is just an "energy barrier" argument: The immune system is far more varied and powerful in its effects than an antibiotic, so the "threshold" needed for a mutation to be succesfully resistant is so high as to make nearly any incremental evolutionary advantage meaningless. But this still would seem to mean that vaccines are very unlikely to cause evolution, not that they can't.

Is that close?
posted by freebird at 5:43 PM on October 5, 2006


Dude, are you trying to get your education on the germ theory of disease by asking random people on internet blogs? You cant just google "vaccine resistant" and expect to get useful information. [I for one can't even read that first article because I dont have a subscription to the british medical bulletin..do you? ] It appears you didnt even read the abstract as the reference to 'vaccine-induced immunity' is refering to human immunity to disease.
I'd like to ask you to shut the hell up and actually study the topic you are spouting about mmk?
posted by Osmanthus at 5:54 PM on October 5, 2006 [1 favorite]


No, I'm trying to improve my understanding of biology by asking random people on an internet blog where I've been impressed in the past with people's understanding of scientific issues and their willingness and ability to share that understanding. I don't know anything about your possession of the former, but you certainly seem lacking in the latter.

Nonetheless, this is probably better suited to AskMe and I apologize for whatever about my question has you so upset.

"mmk" indeed.
posted by freebird at 6:01 PM on October 5, 2006 [1 favorite]


Asked as "why not" rather than "can", you'll be pleased to note.
posted by freebird at 6:12 PM on October 5, 2006


I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
posted by oats at 7:20 PM on October 5, 2006


Please everybody go and get a 'flu shot so the current strain becomes resistant.

I still don't understand why a virus can't experience selection pressure from a vaccine.

The problem here is we have two seperate phenomenon being lumped together. New strains of viri can develop in responses to changes in the environment, but it's not like the old strain became resistant.

Antibiotic resistance is a bacteria phenomenon and it allows them to deal with small molecule antibiotics (1000 Daltons or less, usually). Bacteria are their own organisms and make their own proteins, cell walls and so forth. Most antibiotics interfere with DNA synthesis, cell wall assembly or protein synthesis.

Viri are not effected by antibiotics becasue they don't make cell walls (or have cells), nor do they make DNA or even proteins. You do it for them! This is why taking antibiotics when you have a viral infection doesn't work. It's like hiring a bunch of security guards to watch your warehouse, when all your loss comes from fraudulent credit card orders.

Also, antibodies don't work the way antibiotics do. Instead, when thev bind to their target (the coat protein of the virus or whatever) it's constant region acts like a little flag telling portions of your immune system to break whatever it is that it's grabbed onto. A new strain of virus with a slightly different epitope (the place where the antibody binds) might develop, but most vaccines present 100's of epitopes to your immune system.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 7:39 PM on October 5, 2006


Sorry, but no. I had my first flu shot ever one year ago. I spent the next three months coping with various symptoms, including headaches, the worst sore throat I've ever had, and hives. No. Not again. Not ever.
posted by SPrintF at 8:38 PM on October 5, 2006


We're having flu shots at my place of business and boy oh boy those old people just can't wait for them. Last year we had lines snaking around the store. This year they're all mad because my store won't have the shots til Dec. 1.
posted by somethingotherthan at 11:25 PM on October 5, 2006


I just pick stuff up at random and put it in my mouth. Gives the ol' white blood cells something to do, and--like Smedleyman--I am unbreakable. Haven't been sick in years.

*pass the OJ*
posted by quite unimportant at 11:35 PM on October 5, 2006


So, I searched on both sites, and they came up with different locations. Even stranger, neither one included the lower-cost county health district sites. Public Service? Marketing? You be the judge...
posted by Robert Angelo at 6:52 AM on October 6, 2006


Screw 'em. I had 'bought into' the arguments about flu-shots years ago. Then the shortages and the lack of response with Mercurcy.

So why should I bother, if they won't?
posted by rough ashlar at 6:54 AM on October 6, 2006


phearlez, your math needs some tweaking. Being immunized doesn't mean you'll have a 10%-30% chance of contracting the flu; your chances of contracting the flu are reduced by 70%-90%. To say you have a 10%-30% chance of contracting the flu even if you're immunized presumes you have 100% chance of catching the flu if you're not immunized. I believe the math goes like this:

According to this site, 1 in 5 Americans get the flu each year. That's a 20% chance. By getting immunized, you're reducing your 20% chance by 70%-90%, which reduces your chance of catching the flu to .06% - .02%. (Correct me if I'm wrong, everyone...as if I have to request that.)

Me personally, I'd rather take my chances than inject myself with the mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and ethylene glycol (antifreeze) that's in the flu vaccine.
posted by eatyourlunch at 7:18 AM on October 6, 2006


spazzm: Virus vaccines do not prevent you from being a vector - they prevent you from contracting the disease by preparing your immune system for dealing with it. You can still carry the virus.

I don't think that's true. It may be possible to carry the virus superficially, but to be an infectious carrier your body has to manufacture and shed virus. People recovering from the flu, as well as people who have relatively a asymptomatic infection, may "invisibly" shed virus for a while. However, if you are immune to the virus by vaccination, your immune system will recognize the virus and prevent it from using you as a factory, so you won't have virus particles to shed.

IANAD, nor an epidemiologist, but it seems to me that there are specific people who should be encouraged to seriously consider vaccination: those who work with vulnerable populations (as in clinics, schools, hospices) and people who have contact with live poultry and swine. And maybe others who have regular contact with large numbers of people. But I don't see why everyone should get the shot.

The best prevention is the common sense kind: wash your hands well before touching your face or your food, and cover your mouth when you cough. And for heaven's sake, child, don't rub your eyes.
posted by zennie at 8:51 AM on October 6, 2006


I didn't worry much about the math because it was just a snark at the end of the post. And phooey on anyone who'd call me a viral marketer - take 2 seconds to look at my profile and participation before you're going to drop that nonsense label on me. I just thought they were (a) useful websites and (b) there was some interesting information about influenza out there that many people didn't seem to know.

I've since done some digging about the mercury issue, maybe I'll make it a post in the future. My personal conclusion is that if you're not under 2 it's a worthwhile trade off. The quantity of thiomersal in a dose seems to contain a quantity of mercury that is equal or less than what you'll likely get in a can of tuna. While the vaccine is ethyl mercury rather than methyl mercury and dissipates differently - quicker but potentially with some more unpleasant metabolites - my back-of-the-envelope conclusion is that it's no worse a risk than many other things I do for similar quality gains.

What I found particularly interesting in my research is that the thiomersal isn't used in all vaccines, it's for ones that are packaged in larger than single dose forms. Does this mean flu vaccine can't be packaged in small doses for any other reasons than economic? Is it possible, therefor, to create packaging for this in a thiomersal-free format for the under 5 set so as to remove the (debated) risk factor for autism?
posted by phearlez at 9:01 AM on October 6, 2006


phooey on anyone who'd call me a viral marketer

I thought it was a joke - I laughed, at any rate, and never thought this was anything but an interesting post. And I got an interesting AskMe out of it besides, so thanks!

Now, where is my live google map of the spread of Nile-Zombie Bird Ebola Flu this winter? When the worlds end it better be clickable and smell of Ajax, or what's it all been worth?
posted by freebird at 9:41 AM on October 6, 2006


And phooey on anyone who'd call me a viral marketer

If "anyone" meant me, it wasn't my meaning. I was annoyed that the sites showed so few locations near me.
posted by Robert Angelo at 9:49 AM on October 6, 2006


My apologies - there's such a cadre of MeFi Junior Detective Squad out to expose any connection to anything that I assumed the criticism was meant seriously.

Too bad about the limited locations. I assumed these were operations connected in some way with a particular distributor and would show preference/exclusion towards places using their stuff, but I tested a few zipcodes off the top of my head in various areas and they always found stuff under 5 mi away. Guess my not-so-random sampling wasn't a great validation...
posted by phearlez at 10:00 AM on October 6, 2006


Allow me to say I earnestly appreciate this thread and post before I point out that, well, I’m even more confused that before.

(*Walter Winchell* Meanwhile: Dateline October 2006 ... the depths of the internets. Matt Haughey and his MeFi Junior Detective Squad are hot on the trail of a flu shot racket. “Rico, Youngblood - tell It's Raining Florence Henderson to come in with the tubes, the internet is not a truck, as soon as *CRASH* ...Great Scott!”
Next week! A poster escapes banning and uses a syndicate escape route to travel across the net in the company of a woman pretending to be his account. The blogger undergoes plastic surgery and dental alterations so that neither the MeFi Junior Detective Squad nor his metafilter rivals can recognize his sockpuppet.
*smokes a Chesterfield*
posted by Smedleyman at 11:15 AM on October 6, 2006


phooey on anyone who'd call me a viral marketer

It was a joke. Get it? Viral marketing? Ha ha! It was putting both the original post and the pepsi bluers in a funny light. It was an informative post, no reason to get defensive about it.
posted by zsazsa at 11:43 AM on October 6, 2006


I said I was sorry and I misunderstood! I'm not defensive, YOU'RE defensive! *sob*
posted by phearlez at 12:25 PM on October 6, 2006


« Older Wait till you see them in the bathroom   |   The Big Hum Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments