Is this getting a bit out of hand? - RSV jabs

[Ozi]

I get the OPs point on this one but don't have the data to know the answer. NICE will have done a cost benefit analysis as they have to for all treatments on the basis how many hip replacements = a hart, lung transplant with continuing medication costs. Very glad I don't have to make that call! If I'm the person who benefits I tend to thank my lucky stars and take what I'm offered.

I hadn't thought about the reduction in peak winter demand at hospitals previously but glad to hear it's being considered as part of the equation.

So my answer to the question would be probably not, I don't know enough to say but if offered I would trust and except knowing that with vaccination I might not be the one who benefited.

 

[Dave Moore]

Appreciate this may be an incendiary topic, but I am sincerely interested to know the opinions of others.

On my Google feed this morning was this article www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2ed29v415o regarding a new vaccine which has been developed and is now available on the NHS with the intention of it being offered to pregnant women and those ages 75-79 to protect against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

Some basic internet searching reveals RSV is attributed to circa 83 deaths per year in children and 8000 deaths per year among the 'elderly' (no definition of what elderly is specifically) in the UK. Some context - that is roughly 0.012% of the national population.

The *** on offer has been developed by Pfizer and is said to "reduces the risk of severe RSV lung infection by around 70 per cent in the first six months of life" and "around 80 per cent protection for older adults against more severe forms of RSV over two years." (no detail on what is categorised as severe) it is also "expected to prevent many cases of the virus each year, and even prevent some deaths".

RSV's common symptoms are:

• a runny or blocked nose
• a cough
• sneezing
• tiredness
• a high temperature – signs include your back or chest feeling hotter than usual, sweatiness and shivering (chills)

Mortality rates for the 'elderly' are between 38% for those who are hospitalised and 3% for those who remain in the community.

So my initial thoughts which I would encourage others opinion on are as follows

1) This seems to be a relatively low yield 'win' from a medical standpoint. Not to say that any death isn't inherently sad particularly to those close to the deceased.
2) We (humans) appear to be creating a new 'vaccine' that is offered out to various sections of the population in a time period that I cannot logically believe is sufficient to know the long term implications of them.
3) Given 2) If an illness presents as mild symptoms in the majority of cases and has a relatively low rate of severity in even the venerable populations, is mass vaccination the most effective and ethical treatment or should the medical community and society in general be looking at others?
4) The cynic in me worries this is opportunistic pharmaceutical companies riding the PR campaign of Covid and bringing drugs to market with the primary focus of profit rather than public health, I assume this is a new drug under patent but prior to its approval RSV was being treated by some other (cheaper?) means.

I would point out that I have never considered myself 'antivax'. Indeed my children all received their recommended vaccinations and I have always received mine. However, I do feel the term vaccination has changed particularly during and since the pandemic when after having one dose yielded limited results the goal posts started to move and terms like 'fully vaccinated' started appearing in the lexicon. And I do have to concede this perceived change in the terminology and seeming desire to depend on vaccines as a solution to all illnesses has increased my distrust of the medical establishment.

I appreciate by posting this I am likely to be derided as an antivax sporter of a tinfoil hat, but I'm posting as I am interested in the opinion of others as I do not hold mine so dear that I am not willing to entertain differing ones.

PS. To the moderators - If Mr Biden has been putting pressure on you to remove certain content from your platform as it doesn't support the agreed narrative supported by the powers that be, I apologise and will not hold it against you if you delete my post encouraging discourse.

It’s probably another scam like the Covid scamdemic to move wealth and gain control of the people. People like Bill Gates have done all the rock and roll gigs like drugs and sex and are bored so the next kick is ruling the world.

 

[NickDReed]

Yes you did - with a leading question in the heading.

Is this getting a bit out of hand? - RSV jabs​

That is not a neutral request for opinion, it's an invitation to discuss whether or not RSV jabs are out of hand.
Do you still think they are?

Actually if you read my initial post I think it's clear that the question 'is this all getting a bit out of hand?' was referring to the seeming general desire to treat any number of things now with what is referred to as a 'vaccine'. Specifically whether creating more and more of them to treat illnesses that have a reasonable low lethality is the best way forward.

RSV is simply the latest one that has been approved and I did a little looking into.

Whether you think it is a leading question or not is irrelevant, and I clearly set out in my initial post my position and queried what others thought to gauge the climate. I'm not sure it should shock (or seemingly anger) you that people hold opinions, specifically when they have been quite clear about theirs in their initial post. It is possible for someone to hold an opinion and ask others about theirs even if they do not correlate.

What was your evidence for side effects 20 to 30 years after vaccines applied? You still haven't answered.

What was your evidence for side effects 20 to 30 years after vaccines applied? You still haven't answered.

I don't have and never suggested there was any evidence for this, I stated my opinion that we cannot know the unintended consequences of something years from now if that time has not passed. Please re read it below.

I cannot reasonable believe that regulators can be sure a drug that started its development 4 years ago will have no effect on a person 20 or 30 years after they were exposed to the drug as a foetus. I may be wrong, but its seems like a hell of a risk to me for what are seemingly low yield wins against a virus that has extraordinarily low lethality.

 

[NickDReed]

Trust me, you watch a toddler struggling to breathe because of RSV induced pneumonia, you would feel very differently.

I'm not unaware of the distress illnesses cause, and I'm not against people taking whatever they like if they feel it can improve their health.

My post was about whether large scale vaccination programmes for large swathes of people who will be unaffected by a disease are the solution to every illness irrespective of how low the mortality rate of the illness is.

 

[NickDReed]

So you won’t be bothering with a flu vaccine then this year?

No I won't

 

[NickDReed]

That some may chose to avoid vaccines with low probability risks is entirely up to them. This is distinct from those who form opinion based on social media or evidently proven material risks, who I would classify as "nutters"!

And this is the crux of things for me.

Does the low risk of severe consequences from these illnesses warrant large scale vaccinations. Subsequently what is the risk of unintended consequences down the road from exposer to the prevention therapy for these very low risk illnesses?

 

[NickDReed]

People think it is a "USA world view", depends if someone asks the news people or Some one not picked for Their opinion.

I'm not sure I understand this.

 

[NickDReed]

It’s probably another scam like the Covid scamdemic to move wealth and gain control of the people. People like Bill Gates have done all the rock and roll gigs like drugs and sex and are bored so the next kick is ruling the world.

I don't quite understand all the things in your post, but I do wonder whether creating new drugs and selling them as panaceas to governments for low risk illnesses is driven by money rather than public benefit. The drug in question here seems to have quite a low efficacy over a fairly short period of time to treat a fairly low risk illness.

 

[johnb80]

Appreciate this may be an incendiary topic, but I am sincerely interested to know the opinions of others.

On my Google feed this morning was this article www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2ed29v415o regarding a new vaccine which has been developed and is now available on the NHS with the intention of it being offered to pregnant women and those ages 75-79 to protect against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

Some basic internet searching reveals RSV is attributed to circa 83 deaths per year in children and 8000 deaths per year among the 'elderly' (no definition of what elderly is specifically) in the UK. Some context - that is roughly 0.012% of the national population.

The *** on offer has been developed by Pfizer and is said to "reduces the risk of severe RSV lung infection by around 70 per cent in the first six months of life" and "around 80 per cent protection for older adults against more severe forms of RSV over two years." (no detail on what is categorised as severe) it is also "expected to prevent many cases of the virus each year, and even prevent some deaths".

RSV's common symptoms are:

• a runny or blocked nose
• a cough
• sneezing
• tiredness
• a high temperature – signs include your back or chest feeling hotter than usual, sweatiness and shivering (chills)

Mortality rates for the 'elderly' are between 38% for those who are hospitalised and 3% for those who remain in the community.

So my initial thoughts which I would encourage others opinion on are as follows

1) This seems to be a relatively low yield 'win' from a medical standpoint. Not to say that any death isn't inherently sad particularly to those close to the deceased.
2) We (humans) appear to be creating a new 'vaccine' that is offered out to various sections of the population in a time period that I cannot logically believe is sufficient to know the long term implications of them.
3) Given 2) If an illness presents as mild symptoms in the majority of cases and has a relatively low rate of severity in even the venerable populations, is mass vaccination the most effective and ethical treatment or should the medical community and society in general be looking at others?
4) The cynic in me worries this is opportunistic pharmaceutical companies riding the PR campaign of Covid and bringing drugs to market with the primary focus of profit rather than public health, I assume this is a new drug under patent but prior to its approval RSV was being treated by some other (cheaper?) means.

I would point out that I have never considered myself 'antivax'. Indeed my children all received their recommended vaccinations and I have always received mine. However, I do feel the term vaccination has changed particularly during and since the pandemic when after having one dose yielded limited results the goal posts started to move and terms like 'fully vaccinated' started appearing in the lexicon. And I do have to concede this perceived change in the terminology and seeming desire to depend on vaccines as a solution to all illnesses has increased my distrust of the medical establishment.

I appreciate by posting this I am likely to be derided as an antivax sporter of a tinfoil hat, but I'm posting as I am interested in the opinion of others as I do not hold mine so dear that I am not willing to entertain differing ones.

PS. To the moderators - If Mr Biden has been putting pressure on you to remove certain content from your platform as it doesn't support the agreed narrative supported by the powers that be, I apologise and will not hold it against you if you delete my post encouraging discourse.

It's not mandatory for you to have it, why take away the choice for people that believe the experts? I for sure, will accept the invitation as/when I receive it.

 

[MichaelAD]

I will be taking my annual flu *** this year...as long as it is not an mRNA one.

 

[Jacob]

I will be taking my annual flu *** this year...as long as it is not an mRNA one.

Why not mRNA vaccines? I just searched for the sceptical view but couldn't find much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine
There's just the usual backdrop of anti vax non science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine_misinformation_and_hesitancy

 

[NickDReed]

It's not mandatory for you to have it, why take away the choice for people that believe the experts? I for sure, will accept the invitation as/when I receive it.

I'm not suggesting a choice should be taken away from people.

My query is whether large scale vaccination programme for low risk illnesses are proportionate and whether these programmes primary benefit are to the drug manufacturers or public health.

 

[Jacob]

I don't quite understand all the things in your post, but I do wonder whether creating new drugs and selling them as panaceas to governments for low risk illnesses is driven by money rather than public benefit. The drug in question here seems to have quite a low efficacy over a fairly short period of time to treat a fairly low risk illness.

There seems to be plenty of evidence for its efficacy. Have you tried googling on the topic?
What is your opinion on Climate change science?

 

[johnb80]

I'm not suggesting a choice should be taken away from people.

I suspect you actually are doing just that.

My query is whether large scale vaccination programme for low risk illnesses are proportionate and whether these programmes primary benefit are to the drug manufacturers or public health.

And the outcome of any such query would be either keep on offering it or taking it away? I rest my case m'lud.

 

[Cobbs]

It’s probably another scam like the Covid scamdemic to move wealth and gain control of the people. People like Bill Gates have done all the rock and roll gigs like drugs and sex and are bored so the next kick is ruling the world.

Glad it's you living in your head and not me!

 

[John Brown]

Glad it's you living in your head and not me!

I can't imagine it was intended seriously.
Bill Gates is not somebody who springs to mind if you mention drugs and sex.
When he was on Desert Island Discs, he sounded uncannily like Kermit the frog, not that Kermit might not have licked a toad or two in his lifetime.

 

[Lons]

I can't imagine it was intended seriously.........................

The way I read it he was serious and people who lost family and friends directly to Covid 19 especially in the early days might find his comments irritating. I certainly do.
I think he's probably throwing a curved ball, the result of a twisted mind or too much time on certain internet channels.

 

[NickDReed]

There seems to be plenty of evidence for its efficacy. Have you tried googling on the topic?

Yes I have as you can see if you read my original post.

What is your opinion on Climate change science?

That climate has been changeable for millennia and has never been stable and that the first principle of the scientific method is to question what is held as fact........but this thread is not about climate science.

 

[NickDReed]

I suspect you actually are doing just that.

Ok......

And the outcome of any such query would be either keep on offering it or taking it away? I rest my case m'lud.

Maybe to target a specific population that is the most high risk, potentially those with comorbidities that make them highly likely to present with severe illness?

Running mass vaccination programmes means that governments are spending huge sums of money treating people who may never have required the medication in the first place. Many of the lower risk individuals might benefit just as much from pre-existing medical protocols that offer less risk, cost and provide similar benefits.

It is not my suggestion that all vaccinations, or even any vaccinations or drugs are inherently bad. I have simply come to an opinion based on my exposer to numerous news articles about the creation of new vaccines to give to large groups of people to treat all sorts of conditions that effect a small number of people. And as I have previously said, that opinion is not one I refuse to break with if other information contradicts it sufficiently to alter my perspective.

 

[Jacob]

I suppose it's vaguely comical having someone claiming not to be antivax but then trotting out all the usual antivax arguments and rejecting flu *** himself!
And a climate change sceptic, as I guessed. It's a syndrome!