Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_82
The reason I mentioned it and quoted the article was just for this point:
If a hypothetical "flu shot" was available for this strain pre-1957, those that received it would have lost the degree of protection to its close cousin, the current swine flu H1N1. But those that wouldn't have gotten the shot have that "certain degree of protection".
Hypothetical situation aside, I just thought it was an interesting point. Not trying to fling mud in this pro-vax anti-vax debate.
|
Yeah I read it too but I think you have to paste the whole quote to give it the context
Quote:
There are two types of vaccine available against both seasonal and H1N1 flu. About 80% is in the form of shots made from killed virus. FluMist nasal spray, which makes up about 20% of the H1N1 vaccine supply, uses live, weakened virus to provoke an immune response.
The live but weakened ("attenuated") virus creates all three immune responses, Lee says. "You can almost treat the FluMist as a natural infection," Lee says. The shots only provoke an antibody response.
One thing that is different is how long the immune response lasts. Flu vaccines confer immunity for one to two years. Actually getting sick with the flu can result in immunity from that particular strain that lasts 20 years or more, CDC tests show. That's why older adults may have a certain degree of protection against H1N1 — because many of them were exposed to a close cousin of this strain that circulated before 1957.
|
It makes sense because getting a seasonal vaccine only triggers 1 stage of the immune system while getting actually sick with influenza engages all parts of the immune system and creates a greater memory imprint. However, H1N1 vaccine is tailored specifically to that strain and with the addition of an adjuvant to cause a immune response, will confer a good immune memory to H1N1-like strains in the future.