> All of you ladies and gents who blow off your annual flu vaccine because "you just don't seem to ever catch it" - you're just lucky. It's only a matter of time with modern travel and climate change until another virulent strain hits.

Even if you do get the vaccine, there's no guarantee that it will actually include your new virulent strain. The flu vaccine is more involved (and uncertain) than others because influenza has a high mutation rate. It's a bit of a guessing game each year as to which strains should be included, and new ones crop up all the time.

Even if you do get the vaccine, there's no guarantee that it will actually include your new virulent strain.

True, for reference look at this table from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiven...

  2011-12: 47% vaccine effectiveness 
  2012-13: 49% vaccine effectiveness 
  2013-14: 52% vaccine effectiveness 
  2014-15: 19% vaccine effectiveness 
  2015-16: 48% vaccine effectiveness 
  2016-17: 42% vaccine effectiveness

But I still get my flu shot every year, better to be 40-50% protected than 0%.

Are you sure the R0 of the original article isn't determined accounting for the fact of vaccine ineffectiveness?

The R0 of the original article is determined on the assumption that nobody is immunized at all.

Vaccine ineffectiveness is the odds that when you are potentially infected by a wild flu, the virus that you encounter was one that you were vaccinated against.

Vaccines are more effective when they correctly predict what varieties of flu will be circulating. But the more effective the immunization program, the more the ones that they predicted become and the less effective the vaccine becomes. However we all benefit because less flu is in the environment.

I don't know, corrections are welcome!

>All of you ladies and gents who blow off your annual flu vaccine because "you just don't seem to ever catch it" - you're just lucky

That's not true. There is a significant portion of the population who are resistant to the flu.

I'm 34 and I've never had the flu. None of my 3 siblings, nor my mom (who's 55) have either. This is despite never getting a flu shot, and spending several years riding public transit.

It's well documented that many people just don't become symptomatic or even contagious. A study in 2011 infected 17 people with live active flu virus, and only half developed any symptoms at all. Furthermore, it's likely that people with this immune response never develop the viral load necessary to easily spread the virus.

From about ages 12-21 or 22 I caught nothing. I consistently had a ~36hr period of very slight sniffles about once a year, and nothing else at all. Never bothered with flu shot, took no precautions, ate absolute garbage.

Then I started having 2-3 serious illnesses—very bad colds, the flu, sinus infections (I'd never had either of those last two)—every single year, and my nose is a little bit stuffy 100% of the time. 360 days a year, before, I couldn't blow my nose at all even if I wanted to—nothing would come out—but now I can a couple times a day, every day, when not actually sick.

Aging sucks and/or HGH is a hell of a drug.

Sounds like you have allergy problems, or maybe a deviated septum, or something else causing sinus infections.

That's definitely not just a result of being over the ripe old age of 22.

I anecdotally concur. I never had allergies until my early to mid 20's, despite living in a very high allergen area. Now every other year or so I end up with bad allergies for a few weeks, and a persistent post-nasal drip that makes me cough and sound sick for extended periods of time.

You should try eating a spoonful of raw honey everyday— something which I'd just learned about myself! I'm usually not much one for holistic remedies, but I was surprised at how effective this was at alleviating my own allergies. Although I suppose this cure is a far cry from crystal healing; it's basically just sugary syrup and pollen, and you can imagine how this method works.

I've heard of that (but also with the suggestion to get local honey), but haven't remembered to try it when experiencing allergies, and it's just more sugar the rest of the time...

I wouldn't blame aging. I got sick normally (e.g. once per year) until my 25's or so when I started getting tonsillitis and related symptoms every 1-2 months.

After a year of that I had my tonsils out and suddenly I just didn't get sick anymore. I think in the 15 year period since I've maybe been sick twice (and not nearly as heavily).

> A study in 2011 infected 17 people with live active flu virus, and only half developed any symptoms at all.

That's fascinating. Do you have a link to the study?

I can't find a link to it with a quick google search, but I remember it was done at the University of Michigan if you want to search further.

All in support of parent comment, though. I don't get the flu shot because I've had it once in about 10 years, and I hate getting shots.

Sure, call me selfish, but it's just not worth it for me.

Now, if I have to go get it, or pay a $200 fine or something - yeah, I'll suck it up and go do it.

> Now, if I have to go get it, or pay a $200 fine or something - yeah, I'll suck it up and go do it.

In an ideal world, all those who opt out should have to pay the medical expenses of those who get sick. Not vaccinating is the same sort of negative externality as environmental pollution.

Rather than making it a fine, a high opt-out fee could cover it without the stigma of "breaking the law".

I don't get the shot and never will.

Under your logic all those who eat fast food for lunch everyday and don't exercise should have to pay extra for medical insurance for not taking care of themselves.

If we had universal healthcare I'd believe that would be an appropriate response. Much like you can turn your home into a garbage dump and live in that if you have acres of empty land around you, but you can't in a dense city you are allowed to destroy your body but not at everyone else's expense

> Under your logic all those who eat fast food for lunch everyday and don't exercise should have to pay extra for medical insurance for not taking care of themselves.

Err, that's exactly what happens. Your premiums would definitely be higher if you live a riskier and less healthy lifestyle because you would require more costly health care at a younger age.

And as another poster pointed out, we're now also coming around to the idea of disincentivizing poor food choices for the same reasons, like taxes on sugary drinks.

So this is not "my logic", but in fact the prevailing logic of most people.

What is the analogy between being too young or immunocompromised to receive the vaccine, and having poor diet and exercise habits?

Some locations do charge a "health tax"[1] on certain food types and/or quantities of food. There are many ways to incentive/disincentivize behavior.

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax

I think they should pay more. However, it is harder to track than a yearly checkbox for if they had a flu shot.

"Flu shots" are an unique American silliness and seem to do more damage than good for the vaccinations we actually want people to have.

That's a strange notion. I live in Southeast Asia and flu shots are routine here, even offered by schools to students.

I've also had employers in different EU countries offer flu shots.