Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“The Problem Child of Seasonal Flu”: Beware This Winter’s Virus

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 108 posts

Re: “The Problem Child of Seasonal Flu”: Beware This Winter’s Virus

#61

Post by dgacmu »

nonbel wrote: post #34
lutorm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I had to do was take time out of my day to go to the pharmacy, copay with my insurance was $0. Which just makes sense from a financial point of view for the insurance companies, too.

This gives an inaccurate assessment of the cost. Obviously you are paying for the shot by paying more for insurance (either directly or via taxes or via taxes spent on that rather than some other government service you could take advantage of). My point is that you can't say something "is worth it" without considering both costs AND benefits (I have recently seen friends get so ill they almost got fired because docto…

It's the opposite -- the insurance company saves money by having people get the flu shot:

1 flu shot reduces probability of flu to ~70% of what it was before.

0.7 * Cost to treat average flu case + Cost Flu shot Insurance companies have pretty good stats underlying that sort of decision. At CMU this year, they were paying you to get a flu shot (in the form of a $5 gift card, with the flu shot being free).

Re: “The Problem Child of Seasonal Flu”: Beware This Winter’s Virus

#62

Post by nonbel »

smileysteve wrote: post #52
nonbel wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gives an inaccurate assessment of the cost. Obviously you are paying for the shot by paying more for insurance (either directly or via taxes or via taxes spent on that rather than some other government service you could take advantage of). My point is that you can't say something "is worth it" without considering both costs AND benefits (I have recently seen friends get so ill they almost got fired because docto…

> Obviously you are paying for the shot by paying more for insurance Wrong calculation. The insurance company is trying to SAVE expenditures of doctors and hospitalizations; therefore, customers getting the flu shot cost the insurer less. Even further for herd immunity (the pt), 1 insured getting the flu shot might reduce 4-8 others from getting the flu.

>"The insurance company is trying to SAVE expenditures of doctors and hospitalization"

Interesting point (not sure how far down a rabbit hole this can go...), so you are claiming that the introduction of flu shots has reduced insurance costs? Is it even possible to assess this or are there just too many confounds?

Re: “The Problem Child of Seasonal Flu”: Beware This Winter’s Virus

#63

Post by lutorm »

Jach wrote: post #46
opportune wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vaccine is still >30% effective. And you may be confused regarding how vaccines for things like the flu work: they have varying efficacy against different strains but getting vaccinated for a certain strain does not at all mean you won't get sick with that strain - it reduces the likelihood. Imagine all the people in the world as a graph with weighted edges representing the probability of one person transmitting…

Sure, I'm not disputing that flu vaccines suck compared to vaccines for other things. I'm just disputing that "irresponsibility" is a poor argument against those who decide not to get one, given that the flu vaccines suck, and given the greatest magnitude intervention for an at-risk person ought to be getting the vaccine themselves no? (If you wanted to make a stronger argument for irresponsibility, I think you'd nee…

Think of it this way: If the vaccine is, say, 30% effective, then a single person vaccinating themselves will bring their risk down by 30%. But if there are N people between that person and patient zero, and all those people are vaccinated, the risk is brought down by 1-0.7^N.

For the virus to propagate through a chain of 3 vaccinated people that comes out to 66%, an effect more than twice as effective as that of just the person getting the vaccine themselves.

(It's more complicated than that, especially since getting the flu isn't binary, but it should give an indication of how the effects scale.)

Re: “The Problem Child of Seasonal Flu”: Beware This Winter’s Virus

#64

Post by mdesq »

framebit wrote: post #19

Personal anecdata about this flu season. I got the flu shot. My spouse did not. They ended up getting the full-blown flu with 103 degree fever and a positive flu test at the doctor. I, on the other hand, felt kind of crappy but I wasn't knocked on my feet and my temperature was normal the whole time. I asked our doctor if I essentially had a milder version of the flu because I got the shot and he said that was basica…

Similar anecdote here. Everyone living in our house got the shot, with the exception of the newborn infant who was too young to get it. The infant was the only one who got the full-blown flu (very scary, but they are fine now). Everyone else who had any symptoms just got a case of what seemed to be a bad two day cold.

I've heard differing opinions as to whether the shot really helps cases be less severe if you do get it, but I've heard a lot of similar stories recently.

Re: “The Problem Child of Seasonal Flu”: Beware This Winter’s Virus

#65

Post by ravenstine »

loorinm wrote: post #54
ravenstine wrote: post #37

I just wish that people who get infected would wear a freaking mask when going out in public. I've heard that masks don't do much for people who aren't infected, but I imagine a mask would catch a lot of the droplets that come out of someone's mouth when they cough. I've never been more glad to live alone.

The catch to this is there is substantial reason to believe that non-exposure can actually make you more subsceptible later on, so it’s better to just get the flu to stay on pace with antigens for future strains.

That may be true for many people, but what about young children and the elderly?

Re: “The Problem Child of Seasonal Flu”: Beware This Winter’s Virus

#66

Post by rubicon33 »

moultano wrote: post #38

http://www.virology.ws/2009/06/02/pathogenesis-of-influenza-... To keep your coworkers from getting the flu, go home as soon as you think you might be coming down with something. The amount of virus you are shedding into your environment is nicely exponential in how bad you are feeling, with one exception: The day before you start feeling really bad, you are shedding nearly as much virus as when you are feeling worst…

Also worth noting:

Please do NOT come back to work just because taking medication made you feel better. Too many people load up on daytime meds and show up to work exposing their co-workers needlessly to their illness. Don't be that guy, seriously.

Re: “The Problem Child of Seasonal Flu”: Beware This Winter’s Virus

#67

Post by smileysteve »

nonbel wrote: post #62
smileysteve wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously you are paying for the shot by paying more for insurance Wrong calculation. The insurance company is trying to SAVE expenditures of doctors and hospitalizations; therefore, customers getting the flu shot cost the insurer less. Even further for herd immunity (the pt), 1 insured getting the flu shot might reduce 4-8 others from getting the flu.

>"The insurance company is trying to SAVE expenditures of doctors and hospitalization" Interesting point (not sure how far down a rabbit hole this can go...), so you are claiming that the introduction of flu shots has reduced insurance costs? Is it even possible to assess this or are there just too many confounds?

Just did a quick google https://www.news-medical.net/news/20110614/Universal-influen...

Re: “The Problem Child of Seasonal Flu”: Beware This Winter’s Virus

#68

Post by nonbel »

dgacmu wrote: post #61
nonbel wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gives an inaccurate assessment of the cost. Obviously you are paying for the shot by paying more for insurance (either directly or via taxes or via taxes spent on that rather than some other government service you could take advantage of). My point is that you can't say something "is worth it" without considering both costs AND benefits (I have recently seen friends get so ill they almost got fired because docto…

It's the opposite -- the insurance company saves money by having people get the flu shot: 1 flu shot reduces probability of flu to ~70% of what it was before. 0.7 * Cost to treat average flu case + Cost Flu shot Insurance companies have pretty good stats underlying that sort of decision. At CMU this year, they were paying you to get a flu shot (in the form of a $5 gift card, with the flu shot being free).

One strange thing about this thread is all the people equating the net cost to the insurance company with the cost to themselves. I don't normally come across that attitude, usually the insurance company is perceived as an adversary you need to fight to get the deserved coverage.

Re: “The Problem Child of Seasonal Flu”: Beware This Winter’s Virus

#69

Post by acchow »

moultano wrote: post #38

http://www.virology.ws/2009/06/02/pathogenesis-of-influenza-... To keep your coworkers from getting the flu, go home as soon as you think you might be coming down with something. The amount of virus you are shedding into your environment is nicely exponential in how bad you are feeling, with one exception: The day before you start feeling really bad, you are shedding nearly as much virus as when you are feeling worst…

Can't begin to tell you how many people I've met that think they're longer contagious because they have symptoms now.

Re: “The Problem Child of Seasonal Flu”: Beware This Winter’s Virus

#70

Post by seanmcdirmid »

loorinm wrote: post #54
ravenstine wrote: post #37

I just wish that people who get infected would wear a freaking mask when going out in public. I've heard that masks don't do much for people who aren't infected, but I imagine a mask would catch a lot of the droplets that come out of someone's mouth when they cough. I've never been more glad to live alone.

The catch to this is there is substantial reason to believe that non-exposure can actually make you more subsceptible later on, so it’s better to just get the flu to stay on pace with antigens for future strains.

> The catch to this is there is substantial reason to believe that non-exposure can actually make you more subsceptible later on

Don't flu shots work by giving you a mini-flu?

Post reply on HN