Swine flu vaccine: Poland smarter than everybody else :P

[Savonarola]

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:

[Ed Anger]

lolz

[Malthus]

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.

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.

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".

This 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. 

In 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.

[Malthus]

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.

[grumbler]

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.

[Savonarola]

The truth is out there

Doubts 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."

[Martinus]

"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".

[Martinus]

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.

[DGuller]

"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).

[garbon]

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.

[DisturbedPervert]

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

[Tamas]

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!

[Martinus]

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.

[Martinus]

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!

[garbon]

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?