Flu shots may help prevent heart attacks

I've had a cough that comes and goes, cramps all around my stomach area, mild headaches, a mild ear ache two days ago, and feeling a little woozy when walking around the grocery store. I'm wondering whether it's the flu or I'm just dying. I'm doin' oj and vit C like Gifford Jones says. No vomiting or passing out or anything just not feeling right.

Quote:

Ontario has reported 1,075 positive tests for the seasonal flu so far, compared with fewer than 400 at this point during a normal flu season.

By comparison, Ontario had reported 7,651 positive tests at this point last year, but that was during the H1N1 pandemic.

Quote:

Firm figures aren't in yet, but it appears only 24 per cent of people have received a flu shot, compared with 35 per cent in normal years and 45 per cent during last year's pandemic.

People may be "pandemic-ed out a bit," said Williams, but a lot of people say they just don't have time in their busy lives to get a flu shot.

So last year 45% of the province received the flu shot, yet there was still 7 times the number of flu cases?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2011/01/05/ont-flu.html

Cueball wrote:

Conclusion: Smokers have an increased risk of heart attack. Who knew?

And by the same logic, the obese and the hypertensive have a reduced risk of heart attack! 

I meant to come back to that post and forgot.  I didn't really have a point, I was wondering why the flu numbers were so high when it appeared that so many more people were vaccinated than in previous years.

So did more people catch the flu last year, or was the flu itself more severe?  Or both?  (Note the question mark...not making a point, asking a question).

And I wonder how much are these numbers affected by physicians testing now for flu (when they didn't previously), or by people actually going to the doctor to have their flu diagnosed, (when they didn't previously).   I know it was hit or miss in Alberta during the "great pandemic"...a lot of doctors were telling people to just stay home if they thought they may have the flu, others were diagnosing the flu without running any tests, and others were running tests to confirm H1N1 (or the absence of).  Everyone was taking time off of work at the first sign of a sniffle, and people who didn't get the flu were taking time off anyway because they knew that the boss wouldn't be pissed at them for not showing up.

polly bee wrote:

I was wondering why the flu numbers were so high when it appeared that so many more people were vaccinated than in previous years.

So did more people catch the flu last year, or was the flu itself more severe?  Or both?

Both actually. Last year's H1N1 was in many cases severe and easily transmitted. The prospect of a major pandemic turned out to be an exaggeration, in part thanks to the media and the self-serving politicians, but there was definitely reason for concern. With 7 times the usual number of cases, the 45% who were vaccinated were wise to do so; if it had been only the "normal" 35% vaccination rate, it would have meant an extra 10% of the population were vulnerable to H1N1 and there would likely have been a lot more confirmed cases.

But with over 7 million unvaccinated, it's no surprise that over 7,600 positive tests were reported, compared with the normal 400. Also, because of the pandemic fear there was probably more lab testing going on last year than usual; only a small fraction of the 6 milion Canadians who get the flu each year actually have it identified and confirmed by way of a lab test.

This year, vaccination rates are down, so 11% more of the population is vulnerable. The result in Toronto is 8.5 times more confirmed flu cases than normal, and ten deaths so far.

M. Spector wrote:

Both actually. Last year's H1N1 was in many cases severe and easily transmitted. The prospect of a major pandemic turned out to be an exaggeration, in part thanks to the media and the self-serving politicians, but there was definitely reason for concern. With 7 times the usual number of cases, the 45% who were vaccinated were wise to do so; if it had been only the "normal" 35% vaccination rate, it would have meant an extra 10% of the population were vulnerable to H1N1 and there would likely have been a lot more confirmed cases.

The only reason we even knew there was an "H1N1" outbreak last year is because we specifically looked for it because of more rigourous testing post-SARS. Prior to that, it would have just been a bad flu. Others have made a valid points about whether or not sick people were specifically tested or told to stay home.

And it really was not a big deal. Yes it's not fun to have the flu, but sometimes we do get sick despite our best efforts and we have to shake it off. And it was also unfortunate that some people died from it, and we pay special attention when it kills otherwise (apparently) healthy people. But even outside of flu pandemics, seemingly healthy people die suddenly all the time. Take a look through the obituary section of your local people, it's not uncommon to see pictures of people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s.

We had the overflowing emergency rooms here too.  But it wasn't because the flu was so severe, or because people were so much sicker this time around.  The ER was full of panicky people who believed all the media hype and were flooding into the hospital at the first sign of illness.  Most of them were sent home and told to rest in bed and get plenty of liquids, which is what they would have done in the first place if they hadn't been fed the pandemic line 24/7.

polly bee wrote:

We had the overflowing emergency rooms here too.  But it wasn't because the flu was so severe, or because people were so much sicker this time around.  The ER was full of panicky people who believed all the media hype and were flooding into the hospital at the first sign of illness.  Most of them were sent home and told to rest in bed and get plenty of liquids, which is what they would have done in the first place if they hadn't been fed the pandemic line 24/7.

Not only that, but the flu would not have so easily spread to those with compromised immune systems if many with the flu had just stayed home in the first place. Additionally, emergency room resources are so badly allocated that emergency rooms can easily be over capacity when there is or isn't a flu outbreak.

That's why I love services like [url=http://www.rha-central.mb.ca/healthlinks.php]Healthlinks[/url]

M. Spector wrote:

It becomes a big deal when hospital emergency rooms are overflowing and the virus spreads to vulnerable old people in long-term care facilities.

I guess we should shrug our shoulders and accept that massive public ignorance about the importance of vaccination threatens to overwhelm the health-care sustem (sic).

Now we are getting somewhere. I am increasingly becoming convinced that the urge to vaccinate is directly related to reducing health care cost in primary and secondary care. Indeed most deaths related to flu have little to do with the flu per se, but are related to complications that arise. At the end of the day, it seems to me that the neo-liberal cost/benefit analysis comes down on the side of immunizing the population, in order to reduce government social service costs relating to mild ailments, in favour of a big pay-off to the pharmaceuticals industry.

I am surprised that an old Marxist like you is lining up with those who advocate slash and burn economics that have led to the erosion of health care services to the point where the the net result seems to be that people are being killed because off because their are inadequate facilities to deal with minor aliments that occasionally become more serious.

Quote:

Statistics Canada says the number of deaths from pneumonia and influenza has increased from approximately 4200 in 1979 to 8030 in 1997. Of the latter, 6618 cases involved people older than 75, compared with 2965 in 1979. Despite the increase in the absolute number of deaths, says Tam, mortality rates have actually gone down in every age group. "Canada now ranks number 1 in the world for influenza [vaccine] doses per capita," says Tam. "It's almost 1 in 3."

Estimates of flu-related deaths rise with new statistical models

Flu related deaths doubled between 1979 and 1997, yet Canada is no. 1 in influenza vaccinations. Far be it from anyone to put forward the thesis that the increase in flu related deaths is not the result of more virulent and widespread diseases, or lack of a proper vaccination program, or an irrational population that is anti-vaccination, but the result of government cut backs in health care and social services to the poor.

Could it be that they are suffering from malnutrition and are more suceptible to the disease and less able to fight it off, while they struggle alone in their ghetto rooming houses, alone and unattended, until it is already to late for emergency room treatment to save the day?

However, and too your point, on page 6 of the summary of the report in the OP, we find this statement about the methodolgy of the report:

Quote:

To reduce confounding from "healthy user," "indication" or "treatment" biases, we adjusted for many known confounders, including vaccination target groups and cardiovascular risk groups, treatments and general practitioner consultation rate, of which the latter is thought to be related to functional and economic status.

Which means I guess they had to adjust their statistical analysis method to eliminate (i.e. ignore) statistical bias related to the fact that disabled people, mentally challenged people and poor people are less likely to have regular access to primary care providers.

 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2012404820110120

Quote:

An FDA spokeswoman said 36 of the cases reported to its vaccine adverse event reporting system were in babies and toddlers aged 6 months to 2 years, with 10 serious cases. She said 38 of the febrile seizures occurred within a day of getting Fluzone.

Experts stress that just because something happens soon after receiving a vaccine, it does not necessarily mean the vaccine was the cause.