which study are you citing ? I do know there a lot % numbers being thrown out in articles ,I have never seen a solid US study or any US study for that matter. Heard immunity can not be studied due to ethics codes okay but comparisons on flu deaths ,vax vs not vax , could be charted. From my understanding the companies who hold the contracts do have a clause preventing this from ever happening which is not the case for all of our vaccines. I would love to see the studies or comparisons. Canada did do a study with elderly vs influenza which is where i think your stat came from but that's about all I have seen.
That’s not where my stats came from. I linked to the study earlier. Efficacy rates come from multiple studies of multiple studies. Like the one I linked to above. Do you believe none of the people in the efficacy studies died from the flu? Do you believe the researchers carefully omitted anyone from the studies who died from the flu? And why would a study in Denmark let’s say have zero application here using the same type of vaccine? That doesn’t make sense.
Also, why would 90% of the world’s doctors who believe in vaccines believe in them based on studies that somehow omit patients who died from the flu?
And of course it’s ethical to study this. Because so many people do not get the vaccine it’s quite easy to compare without putting people in harms’ way with random clinical trials. There’s plenty of data without doing that because people are so confused and so willing to disbelieve the medical establishment.
Additionally, I believe herd immunity can be studied without random clinical trials because data about rates of vaccination versus hospitalization rates of people for the flu in an area are easily accessed.
From the study I cited before:
“We screened 5707 articles and identified 31 eligible studies (17 randomised controlled trials and 14 observational studies). Efficacy of TIV was shown in eight (67%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 59% [95% CI 51–67] in adults aged 18–65 years). No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 2–17 years or adults aged 65 years or older. Efficacy of LAIV was shown in nine (75%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 83% [69–91]) in children aged 6 months to 7 years. No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 8–17 years. Vaccine effectiveness was variable for seasonal influenza: six (35%) of 17 analyses in nine studies showed significant protection against medically attended influenza in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Median monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in five observational studies was 69% (range 60–93).”
So 12 seasons of flu shots were examined. 31 studies in that one.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70295-X/fulltext
Here’s more:
RESULTS: There were more than 25,000 seniors in each of the three study cohorts. Influenza vaccination rates ranged from 45 to 58%, and vaccinated subjects at baseline appeared to be 'sicker' than nonvaccinated subjects. Influenza vaccination was associated with significant reductions in all outcomes evaluated including outpatient visits (17% reduction in pneumonia and influenza visits, 6.4% reduction in all respiratory condition visits), hospitalizations (51.2% reduction in pneumonia and influenza hospitalizations, 32.5% reduction in all respiratory condition hospitalizations, 28.6% reduction in congestive heart failure hospitalizations), hospitalization costs (30.7% reduction in hospitalization costs for all respiratory conditions and congestive heart failure combined), and deaths from all causes (45% reduction in death from all causes).
Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in the elderly. - PubMed - NCBI
This one is a key US study:
METHODS: We conducted a case–cohort analysis comparing vaccination uptake among laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated pediatric deaths with estimated vaccination coverage among pediatric cohorts in the United States. Case vaccination and high-risk status were determined by case investigation. Influenza vaccination coverage estimates were obtained from national survey data or a national insurance claims database. We estimated odds ratios from logistic regression comparing odds of vaccination among cases with odds of vaccination in comparison cohorts. We used Bayesian methods to compute 95% credible intervals (CIs) for vaccine effectiveness (VE), calculated as (1 − odds ratio) × 100.
RESULTS: From July 2010 through June 2014, 358 laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated pediatric deaths were reported among children aged 6 months through 17 years. Vaccination status was determined for 291 deaths; 75 (26%) received vaccine before illness onset. Average vaccination coverage in survey cohorts was 48%. Overall VE against death was 65% (95% CI, 54% to 74%). Among 153 deaths in children with underlying high-risk medical conditions, 47 (31%) were vaccinated. VE among children with high-risk conditions was 51% (95% CI, 31% to 67%), compared with 65% (95% CI, 47% to 78%) among children without high-risk conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccination was associated with reduced risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated pediatric death. Increasing influenza vaccination could prevent influenza-associated deaths among children and adolescents.
Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Against Pediatric Deaths: 2010–2014
Pooled analysis of confounder-adjusted hazard ratio showed that influenza vaccination was associated with reduced risk for mortality during influenza season (risk ratio [95% CI] = 0.52 [0.39-0.69]) and during non-influenza season (0.79 [0.69-0.90]). Influenza vaccination was associated with lower risk for cardiovascular hospitalization (risk ratio [95% CI] = 0.78 [0.68-0.89]) but not for all-cause hospitalization (1.00 [0.90-1.11]) during influenza season.
THE EFFECT OF INFLUENZA VACCINATION ON MORTALITY AND HOSPITALIZATION IN PATIENTS WITH HEART FAILURE: A META-ANALYSIS
You know I’ve researched this topic extensively because some of the anti-vaxxer arguments were compelling to me. The anecdotal evidence sure was. And I don’t tend to make bold claims without being able to back them up.
To each his own. But I’m wearing my seatbelt.