Replies

So, in your opinion, how much (if any) protection does the immunization that was given out this year protect against this strain? The two strains are somewhat related aren't they? What I can't seem to get a straight answer on is if the shot does indeed provide protection against this Fujian strain.

So, glad to know we have the CDC looking out for us?! Criminy.

The Fujian-like viruses are H3N2 as are the Panama-like (I just got a shot and I think it contained Moscow-like, but its still in the same ballpark - the current vaccine has an H3N2 strain that first appeared around 1999).

Animal data indicated that immunization with Panama gave titers of >40 (protective) in 75% of the animals. Thus, in the animal studies, there was clearly some cross-protection.

However, the virus has continued to mutate, and the virus from Australia had already changed somewhat from Fujian, and I suspect the latest version of Fujian has changed even more, so you could have good antibody levels to Panama and still get the flu.

Theoretically, the cross reacting antibodies would help, but as noted in some of the fatal cases in children, the vaccine didn't help enough.

One thing I didn't know was that for children under 9, a second shot is recommended a month later, so it seems that some of the fatalities were in children who had only received one of the two shots.

Here is the sequence of A/Kumamoto/102/02, which is pretty close to A/Wyoming/03/2003. Thus, the two viruses which are candidates for A/Fujian/411/2002 substitutes are close to each other. One was isolated in late 2002 and the other in early 2003. I think Kumamoto is in Japan, while Wyoming of course is in the US. Ideally, the new vaccine would have a virus that killed this season in Colorado, but there is a lag between the time a virus is isolated and it is deemed suitable for use in large scale vaccine production.