Flu shots are “updated” every year for new variants.
I might be wrong, but I think covid boosters so far are all just extra doses of the same old material. I don’t think anyone would get flu shots if we were expected to get 4 doses of the same thing with demonstrated lower efficacy.
I’m perfectly fine with getting boosters if they’re adjusted to be more effective against new strains. Getting a third, fourth, or fifth dose of the same old strain that’s basically been evolutionarily eliminated seems off to me.
Which is why all of these companies are currently working on "v2" of the vaccine which specifically targets omicron. But since the current version of the vaccine was found the be effective anyway, that's why it's being used. I imagine by the time next year it won't be in use anymore, purely because of its lack of effectivness for whatever variant is around then.
I think that is exactly the way we are heading as pandemic becomes endemic.
A yearly shot for vulnerable people possibly rolled in with your flu shot (or at least scheduled the same way).
I go get my flu shot every year since I'm classed as vulnerable for health reasons - the exact same reasons I went and got both covid shots and the booster the second I could.
You’re thinking about the booster wrong. Having a vaccine for the ancestral strain is actually pretty great, because it confers (or has to this point) some level of protection against all child strains due to there being at least enough similarity still.
If you make some highly specific omicron booster, it might not do anything against whatever variant comes next.
As long as the original shot keeps working, it’s the best one to ride with for now.
With how much more contagious omicron is, I wonder what the odds are that future strains will come from it or an earlier strain? In particular, I assume there is some zero-sum competition going on between strains—if someone gets infected with Omicron it becomes very unlikely that they would later contract Delta—thus at a certain point Omicron is everywhere and less contagious strains largely die out? This has happened in the past with syphilis, for example.
It’s sort of interesting to think about. One epidemiologist I follow mused that we could end up with delta and omicron co-existing, with omicron hitting the vaccinated (but not boosted) while delta continues to wreak havoc among the unvaccinated. It’s hard to tell if omicron is actually more contagious than delta, or if it just appears to be because of its immunity evasion.
Why do people keep saying this? I have literally never received a flu shot, they have always been reserved for the sick and elderly
Why not, instead of shots, do these pharmaceutical companies not prioritise developing an effective at home treatment for the symptoms of Covid-19? It's very hard to see light at the end of this tunnel, which appears to be becoming a booster merry-go-round.
Because the population on HN is not homogeneus and different regions in the world approach the flu vaccine differently? In some countries it's completely free and it's normal to get it every year, and even in some countries where it isn't, there's only a nominal cost and usually the employer covers it - so most people get the flu shot too. Not a big deal at all.
>> they have always been reserved for the sick and elderly
See above. Maybe that's true where you live.
>> instead of shots, do these pharmaceutical companies not prioritise developing an effective at home treatment for the symptoms of Covid-19
Why not both? Treatment for symptoms is under development, as well as vaccine which you take with an inhaler at home. Or would you rather that they stopped the development of vaccines completely and focused just on the treatment of symptoms?
>>Or would you rather that they stopped the development of vaccines completely and focused just on the treatment of symptoms?
No, but surely it would be easier to produce an antiviral for home use that would alleviate the symptoms of Covid-19, rather than relying on the development of a vaccine, and then demanding almost universal uptake for it to work?
Then we could have had vaccines for the sick, elderly, immunocompromised and whoever else wanted them after a while, and treatment of symptoms for everyone else.
We knew, pretty much from the beginning, that Covid was here to stay. I would like to know what the path out of this pandemic is now, now that we still aren't discussing treatment and are talking about additional boosters.
That's the equivalent of 'a mere matter of engineering'. Developing anti-viral drugs is hard, for plenty of viruses we have vaccines but no anti-virals, for RNA based viruses (which mutate rapidely) anti-virals are even harder.
Thank you. I'm not aware of the complications of developing an anti-viral for this disease (and I'm not going to go into the debate around existing anti-virals). I did not intend to be dismissive of the effort involved. I'm coming at it from a place of real frustration.
I can't see how this pandemic ends without an effective treatment.
We missed the 'golden window' early on in the epidemic when (for instance like SARS-CoV) it could have been contained. But now we have a real problem. The big difference between SARS-CoV and COVID-19 is that the former first gives you symptoms and then makes you contagious and with COVID-19 it is the other way around. That simple fact alone possible made it impossible to contain this. But we never really tried (except for a very few countries).
> surely it would be easier to produce an antiviral for home use that would alleviate the symptoms of Covid-19, rather than relying on the development of a vaccine
Vaccines are specific and usually take years to produce (this time being the exception), it was more of a question than a statement of fact because I genuinely don't know (hence the use of 'surely', it seems intuitive to me but I really can't say.)
>CDC recommends use of any licensed, age-appropriate influenza vaccine during the 2021-2022 influenza season.
>Everyone 6 months of age and older should get an influenza (flu) vaccine every season with rare exception. CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has made this recommendation since the 2010-2011 flu season.
>There are many flu vaccine options to choose from, but the most important thing is for all people 6 months and older to get a flu vaccine every year.
Do you not? I certainly do, at least in the last few years, every single time. And if we're sharing anecdotes, I was absolutely fine after all 3 of my covid shots, just a painful arm the next day and that's about it.
Lol you get the booster. I’ve never had a flu shot and don’t intend to get one unless I’m forced to. I’ve never been accused of killing anyone or putting anyones life at risk like the case with the current virus.
I honestly don't know what this adds to the discussion though. Like....good for you? And of course you didn't get accused of such things, because it would have made zero sense in context.
You don’t lose your job for not getting the flu vaccine. Again, it’s an unprecedented situation and I’ll accept the mandate for the three shots, but this has to have an end at some point.
Maybe at your place of employment you won't get fired for not keeping your vaccinations up to spec, but there are many employees that have had vaccine mandates for decades...nearly every hospital, most research laboratories (especially ones that handle human biological specimens), nearly every school...
I only “accepted” the mandate from my employer because I won’t risk my family’s well being for a piece of paper. I’m 100% pro vaccination (got a Moderna booster two day ago even) but am 110% against mandates.
The government using private industry as a proxy to enforce policy they know will not pass the legal process is wrong.
I have never heard of a population wide mandate for a flu vaccine however.
And since 2004 the average effectiveness for the flu vaccine is about 40% so I guess if you are in a high risk group it might increase your survival a bit, but not enough effectiveness for a national mandate. The death rate of the flu is about 0.01% for all populations.
I mean, would you get a surgery that had a 40% success rate if your chance of dying without the surgery was 0.01%?
You are basing your argument on population based statistics. Healthcare workers are an important, large, and uniquely at risk sub-population.
Should you rx chemo therapy this afternoon? Probably not… unless you have a known tumor. Radiating random people off the street is not a good idea—I fully agree!
Of course it ends, when the hospitals aren't a mess? Until then, we have to keep getting vaccines. It's clear that the wave after wave it's getting easier in the hospitals.
Remember, that hospital systems in pretty much all countries has collapsed. They have to move surgeries and some patients are even afraid to go to hospitals at this point.
Why is it three? Why can’t they make it effective with one vaccine? Hmm maybe because three vaccines is 3x the revenue they get vs. from one vaccine. They’re just not incentivized for our long term health and well being. It is a pure capitalism.
Except of course that it isn't. If you look closely at the available data you'll see that since the start of the vaccination campaigns the ratio of people dying/being hospitalized versus the number of people infected has steadily improved. Without the vaccines it would be a completely different ballgame.
There is plenty wrong with big pharma, but right now they are doing a reasonably good job at helping us all.
