|
|
|
|
|
by reissbaker
1869 days ago
|
|
Not rendered ineffective per se, but it's part of why you need a flu shot every year. There are a lot of strains and they mutate a lot, so we do a best guess of which current strains will be the most infectious in a given year and develop vaccines targeting those strains. Generally the vaccines are moderately effective, but it's because we update them every year. If we didn't, they wouldn't be. That being said there are efforts underway to make vaccines that would be more broadly effective against the flu and will be less susceptible to variants escaping ("universal flu vaccines"), and so this may not always be true in the future. In the meantime, mRNA vaccines will likely be a huge aid for fighting the flu, because they can be manufactured rapidly for specific strains. Currently there's a six-month or longer lead time for inactivated- or attenuated-virus vaccines — which is what flu shots generally are — and sometimes new variants pop up or are discovered to be more infectious in between the manufacturing start date and that year's flu season. Moderna apparently plans to make COVID booster shots that are also flu shots, although they may not be ready this year. |
|
OK, this is the part I wasn't aware of. I assumed (dangerous, I know) that each year's 'new' flu vaccine was really just a new 'blend' of existing proven vaccines, for the most prevalent strains that year.
Edited to remove badly conceived question. New Question: How often do we have to develop novel vaccines for new Flu variants?