A faux shot
An erroneous prediction by the World Health Organization caused some of this year's most common flu strands not to be included in its prescribed flu shot cocktail; as a result, the administered shots only worked half of the time; top infection physician determines 'no difference between injecting shot and injecting water.'
Somewhat comforting news for anyone who took the time to get a flu shot and still found themselves weak, feverish and with the sniffles—at least you're not hallucinating. Yedioth Ahronoth found that this years' flu vaccination shot did not include the more common strands, and as a result, many responsible people who did prepare in advance still had to call in sick.
The kerfuffle apparently stemmed from the World Health Organization (WHO)—which updates the Israeli Health Ministry each year as to what flu strands are expected to be prevalent in the coming winter—and recommends that the ministry stock up on a cocktail that targets them.
This year, however, the WHO bet on the wrong viruses, and as a result the shots were not as effective.
Emergency rooms around the country reported 180% capacity, while internal wards reported 120% capacity—unseasonably high numbers when compared to previous years. Hospitals estimated that around three quarters of those who arrived at the emergency rooms with the flu had indeed been given a preemptive shot.
In Israel, the general public (from six months of age and up) is normally inoculated against three flu strands. A flu shot cocktail that manages to cover 70–100% of the sickness cases is considered highly effective. This year's medicine only managed to cover 40 – 60%.
Medical experts did not mince words in light of the WHO recommendations' apparent inaccuracies. "There really wouldn't have been much of a difference between injecting the flu shot and injecting water. The effect would have been the same. We recognized this in the beginning of winter and notified the Health Ministry," said one medical expert.
While sources within the Health Ministry admitted that the strands that were found to be most prevalent were not the ones covered by the shot, they noted that there are other ways to determine its effectivity. "We're reviewing the scope of illness and its severity, which can only (fully processed—ed) at the end of winter. At present, the Health Ministry cannot unequivocally determine that the shot was ineffective," said the ministry's Head of Public Health Prof. Itamar Grotto.
Some data, however, are already available. According to the Health Ministry, the sickness rate this winter has been substantially lower than that of last year. Nevertheless, some physicians remain unconvinced. "You could say we were very lucky. Another winter and it could have ended a lot worse."
