QuoteFrance sells flu shots; Germany plans returns
January 4, 2010 — 9:57am ET | By Tracy Staton
Germany [1] and France are trying to cut back on their H1N1 vaccine supplies. Germany wants to accept only half of its vaccine order from GlaxoSmithKline because the so-called swine flu turned out to be less virulent than expected [2], officials told Bloomberg. Meanwhile, France is offloading vaccine doses to other countries, citing research showing that the shots offered protection with just one dose rather than two as initially prescribed.
First, Germany. Its 50-million-dose order also was based on the two-shots-necessary belief, Deputy Health Minister Hartmut Schubert told the news service. And that's excessive, he said, because the disease turned out to be less severe than initially thought. So 25 million doses are enough to protect Germany's population of more than 80 million, the Health Ministry said. Officials plan to negotiate with Glaxo on reducing deliveries of the vaccine.
Meanwhile, France has sold 300,000 of its doses to Qatar, and it's in the process of selling another 2 million to Egypt. Government officials are in talks with Ukraine and Mexico for further sales. The country allocated its entire 28-million-dose order to Sanofi Pasteur, Sanofi-Aventis' vaccine subsidiary. And it had an option on 28 million further doses. The company says it's open to the idea of slowing down deliveries.
As you know, the H1N1 pandemic offered vaccine makers an enormous opportunity to quickly develop shots and ramp up production to fill big orders from governments all over the world. But for a variety of reasons--the H1N1 flu's relative mildness, the pandemic's quick progression, and, ironically, the vaccines' effectiveness--that opportunity has shrunk markedly, affecting drugmakers' revenue projections and more.
Poland didn't buy swine flu vaccines. Apparently, the rate of deaths and illnesses in Poland is about the same as in Germany and France, and way below the normal annual flu.
So to all those who were going into hysterics about the swine flu vaccine on Languish: :nelson:
Polska!
When the next wave of the Spanish Flu comes around, let's hope that Poland retains its primitive medical practices. :yes:
3 million Swedes were vaccinated, yet I've seen numbers claiming relatively speaking more people got sick aswell as died in Sweden than in germany which in comparison to Sweden only managed to vaccinate about 8% of its population as compared to Sweden's roughly 30%.
The claims that several of the deaths were actually caused by the vaccine are a bit :tinfoil: but in this day and age who knows?
It just never really took off did it? It was the Rhode Island of flu viruses.
I asked my doctor several months ago why there was such a fuss over this particular virus. He said it was becuase it was "new" and "came from Mexico" :)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 06:33:00 AM
It just never really took off did it? It was the Rhode Island of flu viruses.
I asked my doctor several months ago why there was such a fuss over this particular virus. He said it was becuase it was "new" and "came from Mexico" :)
Damn foreigner viruses, taking all the jobs from hardworking American viruses! :mad:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 06:33:00 AM
He said it was becuase it was "new" and "came from Mexico" :)
So it was the Jaron of flu vaccines? P
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 06:37:52 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 06:33:00 AM
He said it was becuase it was "new" and "came from Mexico" :)
So it was the Jaron of flu vaccines? P
Not big enough to be the Jaron of anything :P
Quote from: Fate on January 05, 2010, 05:43:28 AM
When the next wave of the Spanish Flu comes around, let's hope that Poland retains its primitive medical practices. :yes:
Naturally Martinus defends homopathic methods.
Where is Drakken anyway?
it's so eastern european to be a careless bum and then be proud of it :rolleyes:
:D
We also didn't pump a single euro into the economy as a "bailout" measure and yet have the highest GDP growth in the EU because a lot of the money pumped into their economy by the Germans trickled to Poland. :nelson:
Yep, it'll be 3 potatoes each next Christmas dinner for the Poles :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 04:17:56 AM
Poland didn't buy swine flu vaccines. Apparently, the rate of deaths and illnesses in Poland is about the same as in Germany and France, and way below the normal annual flu.
So to all those who were going into hysterics about the swine flu vaccine on Languish: :nelson:
That's a bit like playing one round of Russian roulette, getting an empty chamber, and then boasting about how all those sissies were wrong to criticize you for playing.
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2010, 07:28:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 04:17:56 AM
Poland didn't buy swine flu vaccines. Apparently, the rate of deaths and illnesses in Poland is about the same as in Germany and France, and way below the normal annual flu.
So to all those who were going into hysterics about the swine flu vaccine on Languish: :nelson:
That's a bit like playing one round of Russian roulette, getting an empty chamber, and then boasting about how all those sissies were wrong to criticize you for playing.
welcome to the reals of the east euro mind :)
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2010, 07:28:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 04:17:56 AM
Poland didn't buy swine flu vaccines. Apparently, the rate of deaths and illnesses in Poland is about the same as in Germany and France, and way below the normal annual flu.
So to all those who were going into hysterics about the swine flu vaccine on Languish: :nelson:
That's a bit like playing one round of Russian roulette, getting an empty chamber, and then boasting about how all those sissies were wrong to criticize you for playing.
Not really. There were numerous voices saying that the swine flu scare is being hyped up by pharmaceutical corporations and the like (and I remember many people here on Languish saying they have no intention of being vaccinated - although more in Europe than in the US). These voices prove to be correct and there has been little surprise there.
So it's more like refusing to buy a very expensive tinfoil hat and then boasting about how you don't get mindcontrolled by aliens, just like all the idiots who bought it.
:rolleyes:
sure it was overhyped but where do you draw that line? Of course it was not so lethal, how could it be after the media was full of it right from the beginning and companies etc. jumped on the bandwagon to prevent it?
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 07:34:01 AM
Not really. There were numerous voices saying that the swine flu scare is being hyped up by pharmaceutical corporations and the like (and I remember many people here on Languish saying they have no intention of being vaccinated - although more in Europe than in the US). These voices prove to be correct and there has been little surprise there.
QuoteHomer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
Quote from: Tamas on January 05, 2010, 07:39:57 AM
:rolleyes:
sure it was overhyped but where do you draw that line? Of course it was not so lethal, how could it be after the media was full of it right from the beginning and companies etc. jumped on the bandwagon to prevent it?
You bought the foil hat. :lol:
The point of my Russian roulette analogy is that in life, it's possible to make a bad decision and get lucky. Life is not deterministic, life is very much stochastic, with chance playing a big role.
There aren't just two possible states that could encompass the swine flu threat: "full on pandemic" or "overhyped threat". The more likely model is that a threat much like the swine flu has a 5% chance of becoming a devastating pandemic like the Spanish flu, and a 95% chance of being just the plain old flu. Just because you invent some stupid reason to convince yourself to take your chances doesn't mean that your reason was correct. It's much more likely that you just wound up in the lucky 95% of the outcomes.
Results-oriented thinking is human, but it's very fallacious when you're dealing with stochastic events. I like this kind of thinking in other people, it makes it easier for me to win at poker.
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2010, 07:48:46 AM
Results-oriented thinking is human, but it's very fallacious when you're dealing with stochastic events. I like this kind of thinking in other people, it makes it easier for me to win at poker.
:yes:
Quote from: Slargos on January 05, 2010, 07:42:12 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 05, 2010, 07:39:57 AM
:rolleyes:
sure it was overhyped but where do you draw that line? Of course it was not so lethal, how could it be after the media was full of it right from the beginning and companies etc. jumped on the bandwagon to prevent it?
You bought the foil hat. :lol:
I did buy the anti-swine flu shot, but as the above example, it is like poker: if I don't get the shot, I am wagering the cost of it that I will not get infected. Now, if you take the odds of that (like me working together with a thousand other people from various parts of the country) and compare it to what I will lose if I do get infected (couple of weeks of flu, some chance of them being severe), I would have been stupid to not take it.
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2010, 07:48:46 AM
The point of my Russian roulette analogy is that in life, it's possible to make a bad decision and get lucky. Life is not deterministic, life is very much stochastic, with chance playing a big role.
There aren't just two possible states that could encompass the swine flu threat: "full on pandemic" or "overhyped threat". The more likely model is that a threat much like the swine flu has a 5% chance of becoming a devastating pandemic like the Spanish flu, and a 95% chance of being just the plain old flu. Just because you invent some stupid reason to convince yourself to take your chances doesn't mean that your reason was correct. It's much more likely that you just wound up in the lucky 95% of the outcomes.
Results-oriented thinking is human, but it's very fallacious when you're dealing with stochastic events. I like this kind of thinking in other people, it makes it easier for me to win at poker.
One fallacy I can immediately spot in your reasoning (and one that is probably one of the reasons why this threat was overhyped) is the misuse of the word "pandemic". yes, the swine flu is in a pandemic state, which means it is everywhere. It doesn't mean however that
everybody will get it, and even less how dangerous it will be to people who get it.
So yes, we have a "full on pandemic" but most people (yourself included) seem to conflate it with the risk it presents - which is wrong.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 08:07:18 AM
One fallacy I can immediately spot in your reasoning (and one that is probably one of the reasons why this threat was overhyped) is the misuse of the word "pandemic". yes, the swine flu is in a pandemic state, which means it is everywhere. It doesn't mean however that everybody will get it, and even less how dangerous it will be to people who get it.
So yes, we have a "full on pandemic" but most people (yourself included) seem to conflate it with the risk it presents - which is wrong.
OK, you got me on semantics. What I meant by "pandemic" is a virulent flu that kills millions of healthy people. Yes, I realize that it's not the correct usage, but you know what I meant. And, no, I didn't conflate anything with my wrong use of language, I knew what other people meant as well when they were talking about the dangers.
How much revenue did big pharma get from the hysteria?
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2010, 08:16:21 AM
How much revenue did big pharma get from the hysteria?
Seeing how they didn't distribute it directly but rather required governments to buy whole batches up front (like the French, who bought 100 million doses, believing you need to vaccinate everybody twice; and only 5 millions were used so far since people don't want to get vaccinated), I think they made a pretty big buck.
Anyway, the problem with the stance taken by Poland (assuming it was a "wrong" stance) is not that it is unnecessary risk taking, but rather free riding.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 05, 2010, 07:09:56 AM
Yep, it'll be 3 potatoes each next Christmas dinner for the Poles :cool:
The Russians stole two of them and the last one is rotten. So sad, too bad.
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2010, 07:28:02 AM
That's a bit like playing one round of Russian roulette, getting an empty chamber, and then boasting about how all those sissies were wrong to criticize you for playing.
Sure, if the gun had a million chambers and one bullet.
The sad thing is that despite numerous studies that the Swine Flu wasn't the epidemic everyone thought it would be, so many still think it was akin to the Spanish Flu. It wasn't. It was a flu bug that dropped people to their knees for a week or two, but nothing more.
QuoteRecalculating the Tally in Swine Flu Deaths (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/health/11flu.html)
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
Published: November 10, 2009
About 4,000 Americans — rather than about 1,200 — have died of swine flu since the disease emerged in April, according to new figures being calculated by epidemiologists for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: Swine Flu (H1N1 Virus)
The larger number of deaths does not mean the virus is more dangerous. Rather, it is a new estimate made by combining deaths from laboratory-confirmed cases of the flu and deaths that appear to be brought on by flu, even though the patient may have ultimately died of bacterial pneumonia, other infections or organ failure.
The new estimate of deaths — actually a range both larger and smaller than 4,000 — will not be released until sometime next week because the centers' consultants are still looking over the figures, said Glen Nowak, a C.D.C. spokesman.
The new estimate will be a more accurate comparison to the 36,000 deaths from seasonal flu each year, he said. That estimate is also based on confirmed cases as well as hospital reports of people who appear to have died after a bout of flu. Over 90 percent of seasonal flu victims are over 65, and many are bedridden or in nursing homes or have serious medical problems like cancer or heart disease that the flu worsens.
I don't think many thought it was akin to a Spanish flu, but rather they feared it could mutate into another Spanish flu. Just because such fears turn out to be not be realized doesn't mean that they were unjustified.
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2010, 07:48:46 AM
The point of my Russian roulette analogy is that in life, it's possible to make a bad decision and get lucky. Life is not deterministic, life is very much stochastic, with chance playing a big role.
There aren't just two possible states that could encompass the swine flu threat: "full on pandemic" or "overhyped threat". The more likely model is that a threat much like the swine flu has a 5% chance of becoming a devastating pandemic like the Spanish flu, and a 95% chance of being just the plain old flu. Just because you invent some stupid reason to convince yourself to take your chances doesn't mean that your reason was correct. It's much more likely that you just wound up in the lucky 95% of the outcomes.
Results-oriented thinking is human, but it's very fallacious when you're dealing with stochastic events. I like this kind of thinking in other people, it makes it easier for me to win at poker.
This makes sense, but I think the difference in how I view it is that I saw the chance of it being a deadly pandemic around 2-3% (based on independent studies done on the April outbreak), but the media and pharmaceutical companies hyped it to 30-40% chance. (Made up numbers, just trying to explain how it felt watching the media.)
Given that the normal flu has a 0.001% chance of killing you, that I wasn't in any danger group, and that I had been thoroughly exposed to the disease at work, it made little sense for me to worry about this particular bout of the disease.
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2010, 09:23:59 AM
I don't think many thought it was akin to a Spanish flu, but rather they feared it could mutate into another Spanish flu. Just because such fears turn out to be not be realized doesn't mean that they were unjustified.
The thing is, every year there is a risk of normal flu doing just that, not to mention there being countless other diseases in the case of which the risk of a lethal mutation is similar - and no such measures are taken, because simply it would be too costly compared to the risk.
Elimination of a very remote, small risk at an enormous cost is just not something that is a rational response - it is purely emotional.
I don't know all the specifics about the swine flu, and whether it was an extraordinary threat. My main beef is with the fallacious reasoning employed after the fact.
The fact that millions of people didn't die doesn't validate or invalidating anything by itself. My Russian roulette analogy was an extreme example of how evaluating the action by its results can be so stupid. The same beef applies whenever some stupid people go "What global warming?" whenever there is a cold spell, or many other similar situations.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 04:17:56 AM
Poland didn't buy swine flu vaccines. Apparently, the rate of deaths and illnesses in Poland is about the same as in Germany and France, and way below the normal annual flu.
Just goes to show that even deadly viruses have some standards about where they go.
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2010, 10:03:13 AM
I don't know all the specifics about the swine flu, and whether it was an extraordinary threat. My main beef is with the fallacious reasoning employed after the fact.
The fact that millions of people didn't die doesn't validate or invalidating anything by itself. My Russian roulette analogy was an extreme example of how evaluating the action by its results can be so stupid. The same beef applies whenever some stupid people go "What global warming?" whenever there is a cold spell, or many other similar situations.
I have a red hat you need to wear.
It wards off tiger attacks.
For a similar reason they say Mongolia has one of the world's lowest rates of automotive deaths.
Not really something to be proud of though.
DGuller is right on this one.
The fact is that the H1N1 did not mutate so as to be particularly deadly.
However, a truly deadly pandemic will very likely occur eventually. We have been very lucky with emerging diseases over the last few decades. HIV is bad but relatively difficult to get; same with SARS. H1N1 wasn't really deadly. Ebola, while horrible, is limited to remote parts of Africa.
The worrying aspect is that our public health systems are not particularly well prepared to deal with it. If anything, hopefully the latest scare will have helped in that respect - a dry run.
The opposite reaction - complacency - is a bad idea. Many a hurricane missed New Orleans before Katrena; that does not mean neglecting the floodwater defences proved a good idea and a justified savings of money!
Isn't this sort of like celebrating that you didn't buy a fire alarm because your house hasn't burned down yet?
I agree with what you're saying, Malthus, and am not advocating complacency. My complaint has been that the pharmacuetical industry and media have now created a "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" situation. Even in Mexico City, where the Swine Flu hit first, it was never as great a danger as they said it would be. There was potential, however minute the chance, but that's not what the media (and the CDC, to be perfectly honest) trumpeted. The way it was presented was, "If you get Swine Flu, you've got a good chance at dying. If your children get it, they are more likely to die than you are, even if they're perfectly healthy people. Get the vaccine or risk losing everything important to you."
Now, they're finding that the deaths of Swine Flu were not much different than the regular flu. Yes, lots of people got sick, but they nearly all got better, just like the regular flu. The reports coming out are showing that, well, they were off by 85,000 deaths.
How are people going to take that? Who's going to believe the next big media circus around a disease? What happens when that one actually is real? The nation may be ready to handle the problems, but are people going to listen? Even on this one - with all the hype and drama and fear-mongering - how many people still didn't bother, or outright refused, to get the shot?
I chose not to because I read a bunch of articles coming out of Mexico City this summer that showed that the death rate was no different than any other flu. It showed that people were sicker for longer, but with basic flu symptoms. Various studies over the years have shown that getting a disease is always better than getting a vaccine, because there are no side-affects to the vaccination, no danger of getting it when the vaccine wears off, and the body has a built in ability to adjust to mutations if they've had the disease before. When the disease is such that it can cause serious and dangerous problems, I get the vaccine. When the disease is simply an inconvenience, I don't.
Is it a gamble on whether this flu or that one is serious and dangerous versus an inconvenience? Sure, but it's a calculated risk with a good bit of research behind it. Unfortunately, not everyone does that, and instead listen to the news for direction. When the media blows it out of proportion too often, they don't even bother with that anymore. This is the greater concern, from my perspective.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 07:07:59 AMWe also didn't pump a single euro into the economy as a "bailout" measure and yet have the highest GDP growth in the EU because a lot of the money pumped into their economy by the Germans trickled to Poland. :nelson:
You are welcome. We are charitable like that to our poor neighbours. :hug:
Quote from: merithyn on January 05, 2010, 11:02:54 AM
It showed that people were sicker for longer, but with basic flu symptoms.
Actually, the swine flu is characterized by the basic flu symptoms (high fever etc.) lasting for 4 days, instead of 5 days as per normal flu. I am not saying this makes it less lethal or less dangerous - just a factoid. ;)
Quote from: merithyn on January 05, 2010, 11:02:54 AM
I agree with what you're saying, Malthus, and am not advocating complacency. My complaint has been that the pharmacuetical industry and media have now created a "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" situation. Even in Mexico City, where the Swine Flu hit first, it was never as great a danger as they said it would be. There was potential, however minute the chance, but that's not what the media (and the CDC, to be perfectly honest) trumpeted. The way it was presented was, "If you get Swine Flu, you've got a good chance at dying. If your children get it, they are more likely to die than you are, even if they're perfectly healthy people. Get the vaccine or risk losing everything important to you."
Now, they're finding that the deaths of Swine Flu were not much different than the regular flu. Yes, lots of people got sick, but they nearly all got better, just like the regular flu. The reports coming out are showing that, well, they were off by 85,000 deaths.
How are people going to take that? Who's going to believe the next big media circus around a disease? What happens when that one actually is real? The nation may be ready to handle the problems, but are people going to listen? Even on this one - with all the hype and drama and fear-mongering - how many people still didn't bother, or outright refused, to get the shot?
I chose not to because I read a bunch of articles coming out of Mexico City this summer that showed that the death rate was no different than any other flu. It showed that people were sicker for longer, but with basic flu symptoms. Various studies over the years have shown that getting a disease is always better than getting a vaccine, because there are no side-affects to the vaccination, no danger of getting it when the vaccine wears off, and the body has a built in ability to adjust to mutations if they've had the disease before. When the disease is such that it can cause serious and dangerous problems, I get the vaccine. When the disease is simply an inconvenience, I don't.
Is it a gamble on whether this flu or that one is serious and dangerous versus an inconvenience? Sure, but it's a calculated risk with a good bit of research behind it. Unfortunately, not everyone does that, and instead listen to the news for direction. When the media blows it out of proportion too often, they don't even bother with that anymore. This is the greater concern, from my perspective.
The notion that the scare was a conspiracy by the pharma industry and media is cracked. The fact that it did not
turn out to be a big disaster is pure
ex post facto thinking.
Fact is that the World Health Organization listed this as a "level 6" situation - a full pandemic.
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/phase/en/index.html
Unless the WHO is controlled by the "big pharma and the media", of course.
This was not a "minute" thread blown up by the media; it was a real and pressing threat. The virus did not mutate so as to be deadly, but there was zero way to predict that in advance.
People may well be stupid and not realize that not every biological threat can be predicted exactly. Same with the threats posed by extreme weather, volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis. They are only partly predictable by science. That does not justify *not taking precautions* when the evidence suggests a threat is, in fact, likely; the costs of being wrong and having a "false positive" are outweighed by the extreme costs of a "false negative".
Dude, a PANDEMIC doesn't mean it is dangerous. jesus christ. That's the thing. Media and everybody else heard the word "pandemic" and went into a panic mode.
Common cold is a "pandemic". Herpes is a "pandemic". But noone shits their pants over it because the fact that something is a pandemic does not say anything about the threat.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 05, 2010, 10:51:18 AM
Isn't this sort of like celebrating that you didn't buy a fire alarm because your house hasn't burned down yet?
:yes:
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 11:21:30 AM
Dude, a PANDEMIC doesn't mean it is dangerous. jesus christ. That's the thing. Media and everybody else heard the word "pandemic" and went into a panic mode.
Common cold is a "pandemic". Herpes is a "pandemic". But noone shits their pants over it because the fact that something is a pandemic does not say anything about the threat.
Dude, the WHO stages are
specifically designed as an 'alert'. The UN doesn't "alert" you to the seasonal common cold now, does it?
Read the link. "Phase 6" is intented to trigger, and I quote, the "Current phase of alert in the WHO global influenza preparedness plan". Unless you are of the opinion that the WHO needs a "Global preparedness plan" for the common cold ... ?
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 11:21:30 AM
Dude, a PANDEMIC doesn't mean it is dangerous. jesus christ. That's the thing. Media and everybody else heard the word "pandemic" and went into a panic mode.
Common cold is a "pandemic". Herpes is a "pandemic". But noone shits their pants over it because the fact that something is a pandemic does not say anything about the threat.
Sounds like someone learned what "pandemic" is, and suddenly is considering himself an expert. It's a shame that he didn't even learn the proper definition of a "pandemic". Here is a primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic . The first couple of paragraphs already disqualify both the common cold and the herpes, as well as a regular seasonal flu.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mysurfbaby.com%2Fclassics%2FAnt-%26amp%3B-the-Grasshopper.jpg&hash=e843933e5b1404b6c0eec010ef28d5aba92a80a1)
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 05, 2010, 11:40:38 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mysurfbaby.com%2Fclassics%2FAnt-%26amp%3B-the-Grasshopper.jpg&hash=e843933e5b1404b6c0eec010ef28d5aba92a80a1)
:lmfao:
I guess the battle is between this and "Chicken Little" or "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". :D
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 05, 2010, 07:01:07 AM
Where is Drakken anyway?
Malthus and DGuller are my paid bitches, so I can spent my time "giving the jab" to the sexy chicks big pharma have supplied me for my loyal services. :showoff:
Regular flu can't mutate into danger (non-rhetorical)?
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2010, 11:50:13 AM
Regular flu can't mutate into danger (non-rhetorical)?
Sure it can. But "regular" flu is colloquial name for "endemic" flu, going around the world in cycles and mutating or dying off for years, even decades on end.
That is why we can catch the same label of strain of flu more than once in our lives, like H3N2, because it mutates enough so that the immune system doesn't recognize it at first, but still remains similar enough that an healthy immune system can kill it off without too much damage.
The A H1N1 swine flu, however, was the product of a genetic recombination of DNA information from several strains put together in a single vessel. The problem is that the average dumbass layman confuses "mutation" with "recombination". Flu strains mutate all the time, but they remain in basis similar. The real problem are the recombination, which lead to new strains of influenza.
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2010, 11:50:13 AM
Regular flu can't mutate into danger (non-rhetorical)?
Sure it can. But "regular" flu is colloquial name for "endemic" flu, going around the world in cycles and mutating or dying off for years, even decades on end.
That is why we can catch the same label of strain of flu more than once in our lives, like H3N2, because it mutates enough so that the immune system doesn't recognize it at first.
The A H1N1 swine flu, however, was the product of a genetic recombination of DNA information from several strains put together in a single vessel.
How much greater was the risk of H1N1 mutating compared to regular flu? 10 times? 100 times?
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2010, 11:57:51 AM
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2010, 11:50:13 AM
Regular flu can't mutate into danger (non-rhetorical)?
Sure it can. But "regular" flu is colloquial name for "endemic" flu, going around the world in cycles and mutating or dying off for years, even decades on end.
That is why we can catch the same label of strain of flu more than once in our lives, like H3N2, because it mutates enough so that the immune system doesn't recognize it at first.
The A H1N1 swine flu, however, was the product of a genetic recombination of DNA information from several strains put together in a single vessel.
How much greater was the risk of H1N1 mutating compared to regular flu? 10 times? 100 times?
Same, in theory. It remains influenza.
However, it seems this particular strain was more "stable" than other flu strains. It doesn't mean it doesn't mutate, it does like we have seen in Norway and France, and there are literally dozens and dozens of subtypes of A H1N1 swine flu strains in circulation. However, its basic pathogenic features remain similar from one to another, if only that it attacks deeper in the lungs and, in a small minority, leads to lethal damage to the lung tissue and pneumonia-like reactions.
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 12:00:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2010, 11:57:51 AM
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2010, 11:50:13 AM
Regular flu can't mutate into danger (non-rhetorical)?
Sure it can. But "regular" flu is colloquial name for "endemic" flu, going around the world in cycles and mutating or dying off for years, even decades on end.
That is why we can catch the same label of strain of flu more than once in our lives, like H3N2, because it mutates enough so that the immune system doesn't recognize it at first.
The A H1N1 swine flu, however, was the product of a genetic recombination of DNA information from several strains put together in a single vessel.
How much greater was the risk of H1N1 mutating compared to regular flu? 10 times? 100 times?
Same, in theory. It remains influenza.
However, it seems this particular strain was more "stable" than other flu strains. It doesn't mean it doesn't mutate, it does like we have seen in Norway and France. However, its basic pathogenic features remain similar, if only that it attacks deeper in the lungs and, in a small minority, leads to lethal damage to the lung tissue and pneumonia-like reactions.
So, in layman's terms, why did we make all the fuss about swine flu? What was the key reason?
When it has died off for years and then returns bigger and badder, where was it all that time?
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2010, 12:04:49 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 12:00:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2010, 11:57:51 AM
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2010, 11:50:13 AM
Regular flu can't mutate into danger (non-rhetorical)?
Sure it can. But "regular" flu is colloquial name for "endemic" flu, going around the world in cycles and mutating or dying off for years, even decades on end.
That is why we can catch the same label of strain of flu more than once in our lives, like H3N2, because it mutates enough so that the immune system doesn't recognize it at first.
The A H1N1 swine flu, however, was the product of a genetic recombination of DNA information from several strains put together in a single vessel.
How much greater was the risk of H1N1 mutating compared to regular flu? 10 times? 100 times?
Same, in theory. It remains influenza.
However, it seems this particular strain was more "stable" than other flu strains. It doesn't mean it doesn't mutate, it does like we have seen in Norway and France. However, its basic pathogenic features remain similar, if only that it attacks deeper in the lungs and, in a small minority, leads to lethal damage to the lung tissue and pneumonia-like reactions.
So, in layman's terms, why did we make all the fuss about swine flu? What was the key reason?
Three things:
A) It killed off a larger number of healthy people, even with usually mild chronic issues like light asthma, diabetes, and even obesity, compared to usual percentages in endemic flu. You could not predict with a high level of confidence who would be fine and who would caught with tubes in the nose in ICU for the next two weeks fighting for his or her life. At least with endemic flu, you have some recognizeable patterns (the very young, the old, and the immunodepressed) other than rare cases that can be counted on one hand. With the swine flu you had teens, healthy people and pregnant women as well.
B) Linked to the above, there was no middle ground in pathology. Either you were sick with mild symptons for a week and fine afterwards, which was 95% of people, or sent to be intubed in ICU at the hospital.
C) Since it was a novel strain, none under the age of 50 had any immunity against it, and about a third of people over 50 had some level of immunity. So it had the potential to spread quickly, which it did, and kill a larger bassin of population that wouldn't die of flu otherwise (the ones listed above).
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2010, 12:04:49 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 12:00:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2010, 11:57:51 AM
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2010, 11:50:13 AM
Regular flu can't mutate into danger (non-rhetorical)?
Sure it can. But "regular" flu is colloquial name for "endemic" flu, going around the world in cycles and mutating or dying off for years, even decades on end.
That is why we can catch the same label of strain of flu more than once in our lives, like H3N2, because it mutates enough so that the immune system doesn't recognize it at first.
The A H1N1 swine flu, however, was the product of a genetic recombination of DNA information from several strains put together in a single vessel.
How much greater was the risk of H1N1 mutating compared to regular flu? 10 times? 100 times?
Same, in theory. It remains influenza.
However, it seems this particular strain was more "stable" than other flu strains. It doesn't mean it doesn't mutate, it does like we have seen in Norway and France. However, its basic pathogenic features remain similar, if only that it attacks deeper in the lungs and, in a small minority, leads to lethal damage to the lung tissue and pneumonia-like reactions.
So, in layman's terms, why did we make all the fuss about swine flu? What was the key reason?
Three things:
A) It killed off a larger number of healthy people, even with usually mild chronic issues like light asthma, diabetes, and even obesity, compared to usual percentages in endemic flu. You could not predict with a high level of confidence who would be fine and who would caught with tubes in the nose in ICU for the next two weeks fighting for his or her life. At least with endemic flu, you have some recognizeable patterns (the very young, the old, and the immunodepressed) other than rare cases that can be counted on one hand. With the swine flu you had teens, healthy people and pregnant women as well.
B) Linked to the above, there was no middle ground in pathology. Either you were sick for a week and fine afterwards, which was 95% of people, or dying in ICU.
C) Since it was a novel strain, none under the age of 50 had any immunity against it, and about a third of people over 50 had some level of immunity. So it had the potential to spread quickly, which it did, and kill a larger bassin of population that wouldn't die of flu otherwise (the one listed above).
OK, one final question: how much did you get? You can tell me.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 09:32:55 AM
Elimination of a very remote, small risk at an enormous cost is just not something that is a rational response - it is purely emotional.
The risk from H1N1 was small, but I wouldn't call it "very remote". The cost of the vaccine (when compared to the overall health budget) can in no way be called "enormous". In fact when you consider the costs to the health care system (at least in a socialized medicine country like Canada) of people clogging up emergency rooms with 'normal' flu probably still justifies the cost, which is why they do flu shots every single year.
Quote from: Pat on January 05, 2010, 12:10:20 PM
When it has died off for years and then returns bigger and badder, where was it all that time?
Like I said, this H1N1 strain, while having the same hemagglutinin and neuraminidase as all other flu of the same strain, was the result of a recombination of several DNA from both human, avian, and swine flu strains, and thus was novel to anyone who was never exposed to a ressembling H1N1 before. Immunologists have found early that the 2009 AH1N1 swine flu strain was remotely similar to the 1957 pandemic H1N1 flu strain. Hence the conclusion that those who have been infected by that earlier strain before would have some level of immunity against this new strain.
Of course, other H1N1 strains from past pandemics are still in cyclical circulation (except the H1N1 Spanish Flu, which either disappeared or mutated enough to become much less virulent), and chances are this strain will become endemic as well, just like other "seasonal flu".
So Drakken, was this thing engineered? :P
I never have flu shots so I didn't have this one despite some misgivings during the height of the hysteria last fall.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on January 05, 2010, 12:52:52 PM
So Drakken, was this thing engineered? :P
I never have flu shots so I didn't have this one despite some misgivings during the height of the hysteria last fall.
G.
The only thing that has been engineered was the anti-vaccination craze at the beginning of the second wave, led here in Quebec by this upper-class twit Jean-Jacques Crèvecoeur, who btw is a sycophant of "doctor" Ryke Geerd Hamer and a tenant of the Total Biology pseudo-medicine movement.
It was bought hook and sinker by the media until it became evident that the H1N1 flu strain wasn't killing only the old and the ill, and that people started to flock to the vaccination clinics.
Sadly, we skeptics made a very, very, very bad job of fighting this woo-woo movement. This stupid stubborness at refusing to debate the kooks in public areas and in the media has potentially threatened the lives of thousands of people in Quebec alone. The media doesn't need us to put the spotlight on insignificant pseudointellectuals and give them an audience, they'll do it without us.
Quote from: merithyn on January 05, 2010, 11:02:54 AM
How are people going to take that? Who's going to believe the next big media circus around a disease? What happens when that one actually is real? The nation may be ready to handle the problems, but are people going to listen?
It is always a challenge in designing public policy to take into proper consideration the stupidity of the population.
I would hope that the general public doesn't listen. A second round of the Spanish Flu will provide an excellent opportunity to rid the globe of anti-vaccine fanatics like Martinus and Meri.
I do think that having Marti and Meri is useful. What if the real Spanish Flu 2.0 comes, and everyone is vaccinated? We wouldn't realize what disaster we averted, everyone would stay healthy, and it would be regarded as just another false alarm. However, if we have Marti and Meri refuse vaccinations and subsequently drop dead, it would be very helpful for public awareness.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2010, 02:14:40 PM
Quote from: merithyn on January 05, 2010, 11:02:54 AM
How are people going to take that? Who's going to believe the next big media circus around a disease? What happens when that one actually is real? The nation may be ready to handle the problems, but are people going to listen?
It is always a challenge in designing public policy to take into proper consideration the stupidity of the population.
Just like writing software then.
On the original subject, I finally got the shot a week ago, since I'm immunodepressed to keep my Crohn's inactive. A couple hours after that I started experiencing sore throat, mild headache and, only that first night, fever. Evening headaches are pretty much gone, but I'm still coughing.
One of my workmates has had a nasty cough for the last month, though, so it might not be related at all.
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2010, 04:57:55 PM
I do think that having Marti and Meri is useful. What if the real Spanish Flu 2.0 comes, and everyone is vaccinated? We wouldn't realize what disaster we averted, everyone would stay healthy, and it would be regarded as just another false alarm. However, if we have Marti and Meri refuse vaccinations and subsequently drop dead, it would be very helpful for public awareness.
We may still have a free rider problem if there are a sufficient number of sane people to provide Meri and Marti the benefits of herd immunity. :cry:
Quote from: Fate on January 05, 2010, 06:02:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2010, 04:57:55 PM
I do think that having Marti and Meri is useful. What if the real Spanish Flu 2.0 comes, and everyone is vaccinated? We wouldn't realize what disaster we averted, everyone would stay healthy, and it would be regarded as just another false alarm. However, if we have Marti and Meri refuse vaccinations and subsequently drop dead, it would be very helpful for public awareness.
We may still have a free rider problem if there are a sufficient number of sane people to provide Meri and Marti the benefits of herd immunity. :cry:
There is a whole Polish nation just begging to be wiped out.
Quote from: Drakken on January 05, 2010, 12:11:21 PMA) It killed off a larger number of healthy people, even with usually mild chronic issues like light asthma, diabetes, and even obesity, compared to usual percentages in endemic flu. You could not predict with a high level of confidence who would be fine and who would caught with tubes in the nose in ICU for the next two weeks fighting for his or her life. At least with endemic flu, you have some recognizeable patterns (the very young, the old, and the immunodepressed) other than rare cases that can be counted on one hand. With the swine flu you had teens, healthy people and pregnant women as well.
So it is about breeders vs. homos, right? Fuck you, you homophobe! :mad:
Quote from: Fate on January 05, 2010, 04:45:15 PM
I would hope that the general public doesn't listen. A second round of the Spanish Flu will provide an excellent opportunity to rid the globe of anti-vaccine fanatics like Martinus and Meri.
I'm not an anti-vaccine fanatic. I get regular flu shots each year. I would have probably got the swine flu shot if it was available in Poland.
However, I resent the do-or-die blackmail big pharma employed to get the insanely sweet deal from governments, by exploiting the gullibility and the mass hysteria surrounding the swine flu. I am glad my government didn't choose to pay the "stupid premium" for the vaccine and waste my tax money that way.
:tinfoil:
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 05, 2010, 06:51:50 PM
:tinfoil:
Which post of mine does this reference? :P
PS. The homophobe post was a self-referential joke. :secret:
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 06:53:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 05, 2010, 06:51:50 PM
:tinfoil:
Which post of mine does this reference? :P
Mostly the BIG PHARMA! BIG PHARMA! tinge throughout the thread. :P
Quote from: Malthus on January 05, 2010, 11:17:55 AM
The notion that the scare was a conspiracy by the pharma industry and media is cracked. The fact that it did not turn out to be a big disaster is pure ex post facto thinking.
:huh:
Who said anything about a conspiracy? I think the media jumped on it because it's a big scare, and the pharma-cos jumped on it because it was a money maker. I don't think they concocted the scare, rather that they took it and ran with it.
QuoteFact is that the World Health Organization listed this as a "level 6" situation - a full pandemic.
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/phase/en/index.html
Unless the WHO is controlled by the "big pharma and the media", of course.
This was not a "minute" thread blown up by the media; it was a real and pressing threat. The virus did not mutate so as to be deadly, but there was zero way to predict that in advance.
People may well be stupid and not realize that not every biological threat can be predicted exactly. Same with the threats posed by extreme weather, volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis. They are only partly predictable by science. That does not justify *not taking precautions* when the evidence suggests a threat is, in fact, likely; the costs of being wrong and having a "false positive" are outweighed by the extreme costs of a "false negative".
This (http://www.stimson.org/globalhealth/?SN=GH200905112047) website does a fantastic job of answering questions about the differences between the seasonal flu and H1N1, how it was handled by the CDC and WHO, and why the media and government handled it the way they did. It explains much more clearly what I'm trying to say, and obviously not doing a good job of.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 05, 2010, 07:01:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 06:53:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 05, 2010, 06:51:50 PM
:tinfoil:
Which post of mine does this reference? :P
Mostly the BIG PHARMA! BIG PHARMA! tinge throughout the thread. :P
Man, I am not advancing any conspiracy theory here.
The deal they got is pretty public and it is unlike anything they got before. Normally pharma companies distribute their vaccines to users (hospitals, clinics, pharmacies) and as such take normal responsibility for the faulty product, as well as take a commercial risk any supplier takes - that if the demand is not high enough, they will lose money.
In this case, they distributed the swine flu vaccine in any given country only via the national governments, and only if (i) the government in question gave them full indemnity against any harm caused by the product, and (ii) it purchased the entire batch up front. That is why France bought 100 millions doses (twice its population) and now is looking for a buyer of the 95 millions that were not used.
Now, pharma companies are rather infamous for greasing the wheels here and there (there is no year that passes without a scandal involving them offering full expense trips to doctors prescribing their products, for example), so I would not be surprised if they did so here as well - whether with journalists, or politicians. But even without that, you got to admit that what is
above the table is pretty unusual (and sweet for them).
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2010, 07:42:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 07:34:01 AM
Not really. There were numerous voices saying that the swine flu scare is being hyped up by pharmaceutical corporations and the like (and I remember many people here on Languish saying they have no intention of being vaccinated - although more in Europe than in the US). These voices prove to be correct and there has been little surprise there.
QuoteHomer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
Actually, this dialogue works pretty well with the vaccine, doesn't it?
The countries that bought the anti-tiger rock (i.e. the swine flu vaccine) didn't get attacked by tigers (i.e. didn't get massive deaths due to swine flu).
The countries that did not buy the anti-tiger rock didn't get attacked by tigers, either though.
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 03:13:17 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2010, 07:42:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2010, 07:34:01 AM
Not really. There were numerous voices saying that the swine flu scare is being hyped up by pharmaceutical corporations and the like (and I remember many people here on Languish saying they have no intention of being vaccinated - although more in Europe than in the US). These voices prove to be correct and there has been little surprise there.
QuoteHomer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
Actually, this dialogue works pretty well with the vaccine, doesn't it?
The countries that bought the anti-tiger rock (i.e. the swine flu vaccine) didn't get attacked by tigers (i.e. didn't get massive deaths due to swine flu).
The countries that did not buy the anti-tiger rock didn't get attacked by tigers, either though.
thinking that the vaccine was the anti-tiger rock just shows your ignorance on the subject.
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 03:13:17 AM
Actually, this dialogue works pretty well with the vaccine, doesn't it?
The countries that bought the anti-tiger rock (i.e. the swine flu vaccine) didn't get attacked by tigers (i.e. didn't get massive deaths due to swine flu).
The countries that did not buy the anti-tiger rock didn't get attacked by tigers, either though.
Except that no one claims that it was the vaccine that held the swine flu at bay.
Not now, but before, the media at least claimed that if the vaccine is not available WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 07:17:30 AM
Not now, but before, the media at least claimed that if the vaccine is not available WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.
They claim that for everything.
The media's job is to overhype EVERYTHING, thereby keeping you glued to their TV/radio stations and websites and watching the advertising they also show.
The question isn't whether the vaccine was beneficial or whether the swine flu constituted a risk. So please stop arguing about this, guys, since it is a strawman that me or Merri hold the opposite position.
The question is: was the overall cost incurred by national governments in order to get the vaccine reasonable, taking into account the risks posed by swine flu.
As one English judge once said, we could eliminate virtually all rail-related accidents if we made trains run at 10 mph, but we do not do that since the social and business costs of this would be insurmountably higher than the benefits from the elimination of a relatively low (or non-costly) risk.
The question is how does paying through the nose for the vaccine fit this equation.
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 08:02:00 AM
The question is how does paying through the nose for the vaccine fit this equation.
No, because every government project is bound to be too expensive and overly careless in spending. Thats the nature of things, when you have lots of people spending money which is no one's
Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2010, 08:13:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 08:02:00 AM
The question is how does paying through the nose for the vaccine fit this equation.
No, because every government project is bound to be too expensive and overly careless in spending. Thats the nature of things, when you have lots of people spending money which is no one's
So your argument is effectively that since all government projects waste money and are corrupt, there is no way to judge individual government projects on whether they are reasonable or not? :D
And you accuse me of Eastern European thinking? :lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 08:02:00 AMThe question is: was the overall cost incurred by national governments in order to get the vaccine reasonable, taking into account the risks posed by swine flu.
As it is rather hard to quantify both the potential damage or the risk that this damage would actually occur, you can't really say whether or not the cost of the vaccine were reasonable. As both of the unknown numbers can only be estimations, it is rather easy to make a case both pro and contra the vaccine depending on what you aim for. Pretty pointless exercise.
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 08:27:33 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2010, 08:13:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 08:02:00 AM
The question is how does paying through the nose for the vaccine fit this equation.
No, because every government project is bound to be too expensive and overly careless in spending. Thats the nature of things, when you have lots of people spending money which is no one's
So your argument is effectively that since all government projects waste money and are corrupt, there is no way to judge individual government projects on whether they are reasonable or not? :D
And you accuse me of Eastern European thinking? :lmfao:
Yes. My idea of as little as possible state involvment in everything goes straight against just about every east euro political positions, which differ only in the preferred size of the nanny state.
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 07:17:30 AM
Not now, but before, the media at least claimed that if the vaccine is not available WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.
Cite please?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2010, 09:56:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 07:17:30 AM
Not now, but before, the media at least claimed that if the vaccine is not available WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.
Cite please?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3664%2F3489466152_7295b5ef69.jpg&hash=554ea26e2ba02b796b91fa6c7a5c9737510edc86)
At least it was printed with ink that won't come off on your hands as you die of the flu.
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 08:02:00 AM
The question is: was the overall cost incurred by national governments in order to get the vaccine reasonable, taking into account the risks posed by swine flu.
Ok. Where is your analysis?
Here's mine:
Let's say we assume that the chance of this h1n1 variant having a similar impact as the Spanish Flu pandemic was (a priori) very low - let's say 1 in 20 or 5 percent.
The Spanish flu conservatively killed about 3 percent of world population in 1918-19. Since medical facilities are much improved since them, the death rate would presumably be lower now; on the other hand, ubiquitous and very rapid transport would make the spread much faster. Still, let's be conservative and assume a much lower fatality rate of only 1 percent or 1 in 100.
That means the expected death rate would be 5% x 1% =.05% or 1 in 2000.
So the question is whether you think it is reasonable to spend $10 or so to eliminate a 1 in2000 chance of dying.
I don't think there is much question about it. Even if I have overstated the risks very substantially.
Sav: Martinus didn't say that a few London tabloids made such claims; he said "the media". If you have to reach for the "London Lite" my point is made.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2010, 10:19:24 AM
Sav: Martinus didn't say that a few London tabloids made such claims; he said "the media". If you have to reach for the "London Lite" my point is made.
It was the only entertainig thing that showed up on google image search: "Swine Flu WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE," besides:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flistentoleon.net%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F04%2Fswine-flu-kid-kissing-pig.png&hash=078e0ed5cc25b7260fda4eb504fc847cac93a59d)
lolz
Quote from: merithyn on January 05, 2010, 08:09:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 05, 2010, 11:17:55 AM
The notion that the scare was a conspiracy by the pharma industry and media is cracked. The fact that it did not turn out to be a big disaster is pure ex post facto thinking.
:huh:
Who said anything about a conspiracy? I think the media jumped on it because it's a big scare, and the pharma-cos jumped on it because it was a money maker. I don't think they concocted the scare, rather that they took it and ran with it.
QuoteFact is that the World Health Organization listed this as a "level 6" situation - a full pandemic.
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/phase/en/index.html
Unless the WHO is controlled by the "big pharma and the media", of course.
This was not a "minute" thread blown up by the media; it was a real and pressing threat. The virus did not mutate so as to be deadly, but there was zero way to predict that in advance.
People may well be stupid and not realize that not every biological threat can be predicted exactly. Same with the threats posed by extreme weather, volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis. They are only partly predictable by science. That does not justify *not taking precautions* when the evidence suggests a threat is, in fact, likely; the costs of being wrong and having a "false positive" are outweighed by the extreme costs of a "false negative".
This (http://www.stimson.org/globalhealth/?SN=GH200905112047) website does a fantastic job of answering questions about the differences between the seasonal flu and H1N1, how it was handled by the CDC and WHO, and why the media and government handled it the way they did. It explains much more clearly what I'm trying to say, and obviously not doing a good job of.
Oddly, the cite you give completely contradicts your position, and basically says what I did. :huh:
QuoteIn the best case scenario, the 2009 H1N1/swine flu epidemic will peak without causing widespread severe disease, offering an expensive but relatively benign test of systems adopted after the SARS outbreak. This outbreak illustrated for many U.S. citizens how much responsibility local authorities hold for evaluating risk and initiating "social distancing" policies, such as closing schools and other public venues, during a widespread disease outbreak. This should spur more dialogue at the local, state, and Federal levels about reasonable precautions and necessary resources. However, novel influenza strains are notoriously unpredictable and unstable, and historical evidence warns that complacency is not warranted. Even if H1N1/swine flu is not "the big one," rapid and commonplace international travel, the growing number of megacities with inadequate public health infrastructures, and new animal-human interactions mean that the pandemic threat has not been overblown. There is real danger that people might take the need to prepare for and respond to potential pandemics less seriously if they dismiss the H1N1/swine flu warnings as overblown hype.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2010, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 08:02:00 AM
The question is: was the overall cost incurred by national governments in order to get the vaccine reasonable, taking into account the risks posed by swine flu.
Ok. Where is your analysis?
Here's mine:
Let's say we assume that the chance of this h1n1 variant having a similar impact as the Spanish Flu pandemic was (a priori) very low - let's say 1 in 20 or 5 percent.
The Spanish flu conservatively killed about 3 percent of world population in 1918-19. Since medical facilities are much improved since them, the death rate would presumably be lower now; on the other hand, ubiquitous and very rapid transport would make the spread much faster. Still, let's be conservative and assume a much lower fatality rate of only 1 percent or 1 in 100.
That means the expected death rate would be 5% x 1% =.05% or 1 in 2000.
So the question is whether you think it is reasonable to spend $10 or so to eliminate a 1 in2000 chance of dying.
I don't think there is much question about it. Even if I have overstated the risks very substantially.
What Martinus (and Meri) are overlooking is that while the chances may be small in any one occurance, a pamdemic at some point in the not too distant future is (based on historical data) virtually inevitable and the downside should it occur is huge.
Theor position is similar to advocating not buying life insurance because you did not happen to die this year.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 06, 2010, 10:01:31 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3664%2F3489466152_7295b5ef69.jpg&hash=554ea26e2ba02b796b91fa6c7a5c9737510edc86)
Thanks. I always wondered what the "media" was that everyone keeps talking about.
Why would anyone (even Marti) pay the slightest bit of attention to the media? It has absurd headlines like this every day.
The truth is out there :tinfoil:
QuoteDoubts cast on H1N1 scare
The severity of the H1N1 outbreak was deliberately exaggerated by pharmaceutical companies that stood to make billions of dollars from a worldwide scare, a leading European health expert has claimed.
Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, has accused the makers of vaccines for the virus of influencing the World Health Organisation's (WHO) decision to declare a pandemic.
The council, a Strasbourg-based body responsible for the European Court of Human Rights, has decided to investigate Wodarg's claims in an emergency debate on the issue to be held later this month.
Wodarg said the crisis led to governments around the world ordering and stockpiling millions of doses of anti-flu drugs which were not needed.
'Inefficient work'
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Wodarg said: "There is a very inefficient work of our agencies. They made a big panic with the bird flu and they made big panic with the swine flu.
"The national governments spent billions of euros to buy their vaccines [for H1N1] so we have to investigate what was behind it, we cannot afford such agencies that spent the money for useless health measures."
In a statement to Al Jazeera, Aphaluck Bhatiasevi, a media officer for WHO, said: "Providing independent advice to member states is a very important function of WHO, we take this work very seriously and guard against the influence of any vested interests.
"We welcome any legitimate review process that can improve our work."
In response to Wodarg's comments, GlaxoSmithKline, one of the makers of H1N1 vaccines, said: "Allegations of undue influence are misguided and unfounded. The WHO declared that H1N1 swine flu met the criteria for a pandemic.
"Responding to it has required unprecedented collaboration. As WHO have stated, legal regulations and numerous safeguards are in place to manage possible conflicts of interest."
Quote"Allegations of undue influence are misguided and unfounded. The WHO declared that H1N1 swine flu met the criteria for a pandemic."
.
Could anyone explain to me how the second sentence follows from the first, as a response to the allegations?
I mean, isn't it like:
Critics: Glaxo influenced WHO to say "X".
Glaxo: That's totally untrue. WHO said "X".
:huh:
Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2010, 11:16:29 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on January 06, 2010, 10:01:31 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3664%2F3489466152_7295b5ef69.jpg&hash=554ea26e2ba02b796b91fa6c7a5c9737510edc86)
Thanks. I always wondered what the "media" was that everyone keeps talking about.
Why would anyone (even Marti) pay the slightest bit of attention to the media? It has absurd headlines like this every day.
Perhaps it is different in the US, but in Europe tabloids are extremely influential. It is said that "Bild" makes and breaks German governments, for example.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2010, 04:15:36 PM
Quote"Allegations of undue influence are misguided and unfounded. The WHO declared that H1N1 swine flu met the criteria for a pandemic."
.
Could anyone explain to me how the second sentence follows from the first, as a response to the allegations?
Easy. The first sentence talks about what the decision wasn't based on (undue pressure). The second sentence expands on the point, and talks about what the decision was based on (the set criteria).
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 03:10:25 AM
Now, pharma companies are rather infamous for greasing the wheels here and there (there is no year that passes without a scandal involving them offering full expense trips to doctors prescribing their products, for example)
Oh you'll give me a free trip? I'll gladly prescribe your shitty product then! I'm a great doctor.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2010, 11:52:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 03:10:25 AM
Now, pharma companies are rather infamous for greasing the wheels here and there (there is no year that passes without a scandal involving them offering full expense trips to doctors prescribing their products, for example)
Oh you'll give me a free trip? I'll gladly prescribe your shitty product then! I'm a great doctor.
Free trips, possibly sex with the hot sales rep, bet a lot of people can live with it
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2010, 04:18:47 PM
Perhaps it is different in the US, but in Europe tabloids are extremely influential. It is said that "Bild" makes and breaks German governments, for example.
OMG Americans are teh stupid!
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2010, 11:52:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 06, 2010, 03:10:25 AM
Now, pharma companies are rather infamous for greasing the wheels here and there (there is no year that passes without a scandal involving them offering full expense trips to doctors prescribing their products, for example)
Oh you'll give me a free trip? I'll gladly prescribe your shitty product then! I'm a great doctor.
Who said the product is shitty? But it may be not the most cost-effective for example (e.g. prescribing a more expensive drug when a cheaper generic would be enough) or it may be one of the several products available and while not shitty, not necessarily the best there is on the market. It is psychologically proven that free handouts to people make them feel beholden to the donor - and feel like they need to reciprocate somehow. That's why giving free crap to existing and potential customers is such an effective and frequently used marketing tactics.
And that's why in many countries the practice of pharma companies giving gifts to doctors is banned.
Seriously, your comment is unwarranted and totally idiotic. I would expect it from someone who has never had any contact with either marketing or pharma companies, but you have had contact with both.
Quote from: Tamas on January 13, 2010, 02:21:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2010, 04:18:47 PM
Perhaps it is different in the US, but in Europe tabloids are extremely influential. It is said that "Bild" makes and breaks German governments, for example.
OMG Americans are teh stupid!
:huh:
Quote from: Martinus on January 13, 2010, 02:55:20 AM
Seriously, your comment is unwarranted and totally idiotic.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about yours. Your posts simply recount the same ridiculous hysteria that is constantly repeated about pharmaceutical companies and their influence on physicians. As you posit it, physicians aren't intelligent individuals but rather slaves to those master marketers. Reminds me of like a nyt article I read bemoaning the fact that key opinion leaders got paid by pharma companies to give talks about their products. I wonder, is it likely that such lauded individuals would risk their reputations shilling for products they don't believe in all for a few measly grand? Or is it more likely that marketers find the key docs that are already big supporters of their brand?