"Overall, the vaccine's effectiveness is a moderate 56 percent, which means those who got a shot have a 56 percent lower chance of winding up at the doctor with the flu. That is nearly as good as other flu seasons, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday."
Anecdotally, this year my spouse got the flu shot and I did not. I was horribly ill for about two weeks and fully recovered within four weeks. He was quite sick for about two days and completely recovered within five.
Next year, I'm getting a flu shot too.
And about the ad, I always felt bad for the Dottie's dog.
Not really fear mongering, although the style's entertainingly cheesy and of that advertizing era. It's just a matter of time before another flu pandemic hits.
I would call it fear mongering. These ADs sent people out in droves to get the vaccine. However, more people died of the vaccine then the actual flu.
I hate having to use wiki, but I dont have access to my data at work. ( I am a Librarian)
"The strain itself killed one person and hospitalized 13.However, side-effects from the vaccine caused five hundred cases of Guillain–Barré syndrome and 25 deaths.[3]"
3. ^ Roan, Shari (April 27, 2009). "Swine flu debacle of 1976 is recalled". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 27 April 2009.
"However, more people died of the vaccine then the actual flu." That is true, and unfortunate, and the episode is generally considered a fiasco, but it doesn't change the reality of a flu pandemic: it will be spread via the method described in the advertisement, and vaccination suggested by the advertisement is our only protection. If the ad truly wanted to use fear as a tactic, it could have referenced the 1918 flu pandemic where 50 to 100 million died.
The science of outbreaks is complicated and the flu is an especially slippery virus, mutating each season, and making vaccine accuracy difficult. What if the same ad were for a more stable virus such as smallpox or polio?
Finally, the positive result of the 1976 immunization may not be clear. Consider the following: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/11/1487
I got Swine Flu in 2009. It's the sickest I've ever been in my life. I've gotten flu shots every year since, but I don't really know whether they're protecting me or not.
Anecdotally, my husband and I both got swine flu in 2009, but the only difference I could tell with our strain is that we both had a stronger fever than other colds we've had. We've never had flu shots, and we don't intend on getting any.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-22 04:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-22 05:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-22 12:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-22 11:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-22 06:04 am (UTC)ETA: OK, I gathered the strength to google. It was not effective for people over 65 and less effective than hoped for the general population.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-22 12:58 pm (UTC)http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50900628/#.USdqmqXh2jQ
Yet, the CDC still telling people to get the shot! What?
no subject
Date: 2013-02-22 03:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-22 08:11 pm (UTC)Next year, I'm getting a flu shot too.
And about the ad, I always felt bad for the Dottie's dog.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-22 05:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-22 06:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-22 01:13 pm (UTC)I hate having to use wiki, but I dont have access to my data at work. ( I am a Librarian)
"The strain itself killed one person and hospitalized 13.However, side-effects from the vaccine caused five hundred cases of Guillain–Barré syndrome and 25 deaths.[3]"
3. ^ Roan, Shari (April 27, 2009). "Swine flu debacle of 1976 is recalled". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 27 April 2009.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-22 03:01 pm (UTC)The science of outbreaks is complicated and the flu is an especially slippery virus, mutating each season, and making vaccine accuracy difficult. What if the same ad were for a more stable virus such as smallpox or polio?
Finally, the positive result of the 1976 immunization may not be clear. Consider the following:
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/11/1487
no subject
Date: 2013-02-22 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-22 08:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-23 12:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-23 03:21 pm (UTC)