Vaccines often suck. Yesterday, ABC-7 New York ran a story below the deadpan headline, “Flu vaccines didn’t work that well in the US, officials find.” Ruh-roh. The most common vaccine in the country failed. Again.
image 4.png
‘* results may vary.’
Well, we appreciate the candor, at least. Sort of. “Didn’t work that well” is doing some heroic lifting in that headline. That’s like describing the Hindenburg as a flight that ‘didn’t land that well,’ calling the Titanic a cruise that ‘ended a bit early,’ or describing Pompeii as a town that ‘had some rough weather.’
The truth is much worse than not working that well.
ABC reported that, among adults, the vaccine was only 22% to 34% effective at preventing doctor or hospital visits. For comparison, the CDC considers a good year to be at least 40-60% effectiveness. So this year crashed below the floor of what officials themselves define as adequate. It was one of the worst effectiveness rates in more than a decade— which is saying something, since effectiveness already dips below 50% in most years.
As ever, it was designed for the wrong variant. The culprit, according to the CDC, was a new H3N2 variant ominously labeled “subclade K.” Subclade K was found in 83% of the flu samples the CDC tested, and it was “antigenically distinct” from the strain the vaccine was built to fight. It’s like studying for a history exam and getting a pop quiz on calculus. Every year, for twenty years, and then being told this time, the teacher promises it will be on the test.
Good luck with your number two pencil.
The flu vaccine is reformulated every single year. That’s the sales pitch. Unlike childhood vaccinations, which used to be one-and-done, the flu shot is supposed to be annually upgraded to match whatever strains the World Health Organization predicts will circulate. It’s the one vaccine where they openly admit they’re just guessing.
And … they guessed wrong. Again. The ugly truth is, it’s never worked particularly well. No one can point to a single season where the flu vaccine was, say, 85%+ effective. Not one. The best claimed years max out at just over 50/50. In 2018, a gold-standard Cochrane Review published a study finding only a “modest” 1% decrease in the likelihood of catching the flu among patients who took the vaccine.
New York State declared this the most intense flu season in at least twenty years, recording over 71,000 positive cases in a single week in late December— the most ever recorded since flu became reportable in 2004. NYC alone topped 146,000 cases by February. Four children died of flu in New York City this season. (None died from measles, though. But sure, let’s get hysterical about measles.)
It’s almost like New York is suffering from some kind of immune suppression or something. Weird. But I digress.
Now, a reasonable person might wonder: if the vaccine is custom-built every year, and the effectiveness still bounces between 19% and 60% depending on whether the WHO’s crystal ball was having a good day, maybe the model is the problem. We don’t tolerate 22% effectiveness in seatbelts, body armor, sunscreen, or restaurant hygiene inspections. (‘Come for the street tacos, stay for the Montezuma’s revenge!’)
We’d laugh a contractor out of the room if he told us the roof he just installed had a 34% chance of keeping the rain out. But for flu vaccines, we’re supposed to line up every October and hope this is one of the good years?
The pattern is always the same. In the fall: “Get your flu shot!” In the spring: “Well, it didn’t work that well, but you should still get it next year.” Rinse, repeat, and never question the model. Charlie Brown, meet Lucy. She promises she’ll hold the virus right this time.
Meanwhile, the agency that spent a decade insisting we were cuckoo for questioning vaccine effectiveness just published a study confirming that questioning vaccine effectiveness was entirely justified. Think they’ll update the misinformation guidelines to reflect that? Any minute now. Any minute.
Vaccines often suck. Yesterday, ABC-7 New York ran a story below the deadpan headline, “Flu vaccines didn’t work that well in the US, officials find.” Ruh-roh. The most common vaccine in the country failed. Again.
image 4.png
‘* results may vary.’
Well, we appreciate the candor, at least. Sort of. “Didn’t work that well” is doing some heroic lifting in that headline. That’s like describing the Hindenburg as a flight that ‘didn’t land that well,’ calling the Titanic a cruise that ‘ended a bit early,’ or describing Pompeii as a town that ‘had some rough weather.’
The truth is much worse than not working that well.
ABC reported that, among adults, the vaccine was only 22% to 34% effective at preventing doctor or hospital visits. For comparison, the CDC considers a good year to be at least 40-60% effectiveness. So this year crashed below the floor of what officials themselves define as adequate. It was one of the worst effectiveness rates in more than a decade— which is saying something, since effectiveness already dips below 50% in most years.
As ever, it was designed for the wrong variant. The culprit, according to the CDC, was a new H3N2 variant ominously labeled “subclade K.” Subclade K was found in 83% of the flu samples the CDC tested, and it was “antigenically distinct” from the strain the vaccine was built to fight. It’s like studying for a history exam and getting a pop quiz on calculus. Every year, for twenty years, and then being told this time, the teacher promises it will be on the test.
Good luck with your number two pencil.
The flu vaccine is reformulated every single year. That’s the sales pitch. Unlike childhood vaccinations, which used to be one-and-done, the flu shot is supposed to be annually upgraded to match whatever strains the World Health Organization predicts will circulate. It’s the one vaccine where they openly admit they’re just guessing.
And … they guessed wrong. Again. The ugly truth is, it’s never worked particularly well. No one can point to a single season where the flu vaccine was, say, 85%+ effective. Not one. The best claimed years max out at just over 50/50. In 2018, a gold-standard Cochrane Review published a study finding only a “modest” 1% decrease in the likelihood of catching the flu among patients who took the vaccine.
New York State declared this the most intense flu season in at least twenty years, recording over 71,000 positive cases in a single week in late December— the most ever recorded since flu became reportable in 2004. NYC alone topped 146,000 cases by February. Four children died of flu in New York City this season. (None died from measles, though. But sure, let’s get hysterical about measles.)
It’s almost like New York is suffering from some kind of immune suppression or something. Weird. But I digress.
Now, a reasonable person might wonder: if the vaccine is custom-built every year, and the effectiveness still bounces between 19% and 60% depending on whether the WHO’s crystal ball was having a good day, maybe the model is the problem. We don’t tolerate 22% effectiveness in seatbelts, body armor, sunscreen, or restaurant hygiene inspections. (‘Come for the street tacos, stay for the Montezuma’s revenge!’)
We’d laugh a contractor out of the room if he told us the roof he just installed had a 34% chance of keeping the rain out. But for flu vaccines, we’re supposed to line up every October and hope this is one of the good years?
The pattern is always the same. In the fall: “Get your flu shot!” In the spring: “Well, it didn’t work that well, but you should still get it next year.” Rinse, repeat, and never question the model. Charlie Brown, meet Lucy. She promises she’ll hold the virus right this time.
Meanwhile, the agency that spent a decade insisting we were cuckoo for questioning vaccine effectiveness just published a study confirming that questioning vaccine effectiveness was entirely justified. Think they’ll update the misinformation guidelines to reflect that? Any minute now. Any minute.