JimO
New member
Re: AFHSC 2010-11 Season: Weeks 43-9
Re: AFHSC 2010-11 Season: Weeks 43-9
74.3% were vaccinated. I really don't know how to interpret this. If nearly 75% of flu cases were vaccinated and the vaccination rate was 100%, then the vaccine failure rate would be 75%, right? If the vaccination rate was 50%, but 75% of cases were vaccinated, just for the sake of argument, wouldn't that suggest that the vaccinated population was more likely to get influenza?
On the other hand, if the vaccination rate was 75% and the percent of flu patients that were vaccinated was also 75%, wouldn't that mean that there was a near 100% failure rate? I realize that there would need to be a statistically significant population to do the analysis, but in layman's terms, it appears that for the AFHSC, the vaccine did little to prevent flu.
I suppose the flaw with my point is that we are dealing with three strains. So, the vaccine could have a much higher failure rate for one strain, but be very effective for the other two.
Re: AFHSC 2010-11 Season: Weeks 43-9
74.3% were vaccinated. I really don't know how to interpret this. If nearly 75% of flu cases were vaccinated and the vaccination rate was 100%, then the vaccine failure rate would be 75%, right? If the vaccination rate was 50%, but 75% of cases were vaccinated, just for the sake of argument, wouldn't that suggest that the vaccinated population was more likely to get influenza?
On the other hand, if the vaccination rate was 75% and the percent of flu patients that were vaccinated was also 75%, wouldn't that mean that there was a near 100% failure rate? I realize that there would need to be a statistically significant population to do the analysis, but in layman's terms, it appears that for the AFHSC, the vaccine did little to prevent flu.
I suppose the flaw with my point is that we are dealing with three strains. So, the vaccine could have a much higher failure rate for one strain, but be very effective for the other two.