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

[NickDReed]

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.

 

[Cobbs]

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.

Kind of with you on that, though I'm not anti vaccines as a rule. It would be interesting to see how the relevant people came to the conclusion it was worth the money - a cost/benefit analysis would be interesting - it may work out cheaper than treating the "mild cases"...

 

[Sideways]

The other one that has been in the news recently is a treatment that can slow the impact of Alzheimers. Very expensive and rather demanding to administer and requires constantl monitoring for serious side effects, the benefit vs risk assessment even ignoring cost is only going to be positive for a small number of patients.
UK won't offer it on the NHS as NICE aren't persuaded.
In the USA, the FDA did approve it but it turns out this was based on thoroughly unproven estimates of how it would perform. Very embarrassing for that regulator to be caught out in such (incompetence ?).

 

[Jacob]

I'm down for it (79 years old). I trust the NHS though no doubt mistakes can be made.
What is "getting out of hand" anyway?
Surely extending the lives of old people and saving babies is a good idea. And why"incendiary"? Seems quite uncontroversial to me.

"A recent study in the Lancet suggested the vaccination programme could prevent 5,000 hospitalisations and 15,000 A&E attendances for infants, and 2,500 hospital admissions for older people this winter, which NHS England said could also reduce pressures for front-line staff".

 

[Spectric]

All these vacines and drugs require a person to make a simple risk assessment to see if the benefits of taking them outweigh the side effects or complications. Some will be obvious such as the MMR vacine but others will be borderline, there is no point in taking something that might reduce the risk of something you might get by a slight margin if it puts you into a higher risk of a stroke. On the other hand if a drug is known to help reduce the risk of having another heart attack but the side effect is a squirty bottom then you take the drug.

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

But do any of these people have any underlying issues, we are talking about a generation where smoking was not only socially accepted but promoted and maybe the vacine is more help to someone in this category than just an old person with good lungs for their age.

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.

Some like the Covid vacine were needed desperately and the risk taken are probably justifiable but for something like this RSV then it should go through the full process over time and any guinea pigs must be fully monitored rather than just dish it out to save a few lives today but then discover some years later they have some other condition that ruins their lives.

If Mr Biden has been putting pressure on you to remove certain content from your platform

I do not think there is any vacine or treatment once you get into that state and he probably has forgotten that there is a country called the UK so nothing to worry about.

 

[Sideways]

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 disdiscourse

The forum may be American owned these days but it's the "UK Workshop" forum and I assure you I'd resign directly if the owners attempted to impose a US worldview on the content.

Fending off the influence of US youtubers on the unwary is enough of a challenge for us all.

 

[NickDReed]

The other one that has been in the news recently is a treatment that can slow the impact of Alzheimers. Very expensive and rather demanding to administer and requires constantl monitoring for serious side effects, the benefit vs risk assessment even ignoring cost is only going to be positive for a small number of patients.
UK won't offer it on the NHS as NICE aren't persuaded.
In the USA, the FDA did approve it but it turns out this was based on thoroughly unproven estimates of how it would perform. Very embarrassing for that regulator to be caught out in such (incompetence ?).

I am sure incompetence can be the only explanation, it would be terrible if the regulator was in bed with the pharmaceutical companies that are reliant on it to sell their wares.............................wouldn't it

 

[NickDReed]

I'm down for it (79 years old). I trust the NHS though no doubt mistakes can be made.
What is "getting out of hand" anyway?
Surely extending the lives of old people and saving babies is a good idea. And why"incendiary"? Seems quite uncontroversial to me.

"A recent study in the Lancet suggested the vaccination programme could prevent 5,000 hospitalisations and 15,000 A&E attendances for infants, and 2,500 hospital admissions for older people this winter, which NHS England said could also reduce pressures for front-line staff".

I have not suggested saving lives is a bad idea. I have questioned whether large vaccination programmes which appear to be in vogue following Covid are the most effective option and offer least risk to the majority of the population, if your vaccine will only provide a positive impact on a very small fraction of the ill or infected population, never mind those who are not infected.

The quote you have provided offers little assurance of efficacy. 'the vaccination programme could prevent 5000 hospital admissions' ' could reduce pressures on front line staff'

If could is the standard we are working to why is it necessary to vaccinate large numbers of people with newly created drugs that have unknown long term consequences? Many well established off patent drugs could be just as effective and have a long track record to know their side effects. I had assumed that you as the loudest voice of anticapitalism on here would be all for reducing big pharmaceutical corporations profits in favour of offering potentially as effective treatment at far lower prices.

I'm all for personal choice and think people should be able to put whatever they like in their own bodies.

My post however, was about whether large scale vaccination programmes are the best way of treating all conditions, as seems to be the current zeitgeist of the pharmaceutical establishment, or are they just the most profitable.

 

[Jacob]

....

My post however, was about whether large scale vaccination programmes are the best way of treating all conditions, as seems to be the current zeitgeist of the pharmaceutical establishment, or are they just the most profitable.

They are not used for all conditions but where they have been found useful they have been astonishingly effective. That's all it's about. Simple really.

"Why vaccines are important​

Vaccination is the most important thing you can do to protect yourself and your children against ill health. They prevent up to three million deaths worldwide every year.

Since vaccines were introduced in the UK, diseases like smallpox, polio and tetanus that used to kill or disable millions of people are either gone or seen very rarely.

Other diseases like measles and diphtheria have been reduced by up to 99.9 per cent since their vaccines were introduced.

If people stop having vaccines, it's possible for infectious diseases to quickly spread again."
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/vaccines

 

[NickDReed]

All these vacines and drugs require a person to make a simple risk assessment to see if the benefits of taking them outweigh the side effects or complications. Some will be obvious such as the MMR vacine but others will be borderline, there is no point in taking something that might reduce the risk of something you might get by a slight margin if it puts you into a higher risk of a stroke. On the other hand if a drug is known to help reduce the risk of having another heart attack but the side effect is a squirty bottom then you take the drug.


But do any of these people have any underlying issues, we are talking about a generation where smoking was not only socially accepted but promoted and maybe the vacine is more help to someone in this category than just an old person with good lungs for their age.


Some like the Covid vacine were needed desperately and the risk taken are probably justifiable but for something like this RSV then it should go through the full process over time and any guinea pigs must be fully monitored rather than just dish it out to save a few lives today but then discover some years later they have some other condition that ruins their lives.


I do not think there is any vacine or treatment once you get into that state and he probably has forgotten that there is a country called the UK so nothing to worry about.

I think a lot of what you're saying is mirroring my thought process, but might have the wrong end of the stick.

If treatments offer greater efficacy to those with comorbidities they give those treatments to that group of patients. If there are lifestyle changes that can be made that will reduce a viruses threat, then make the lifestyle change rather than buying drugs with questionable success rates.

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.

 

[Jacob]

.....

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......

Have there been any drugs which had side effects 20 or 30 years after they were taken?

 

[NickDReed]

They are not used for all conditions but where they have been found useful they have been astonishingly effective. That's all it's about. Simple really.

"Why vaccines are important​

Vaccination is the most important thing you can do to protect yourself and your children against ill health. They prevent up to three million deaths worldwide every year.

Since vaccines were introduced in the UK, diseases like smallpox, polio and tetanus that used to kill or disable millions of people are either gone or seen very rarely.

Other diseases like measles and diphtheria have been reduced by up to 99.9 per cent since their vaccines were introduced.

If people stop having vaccines, it's possible for infectious diseases to quickly spread again."
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/vaccines

Smallpox - 1796
Polio - 1961
Tetanus - 1924
Measles - 1963
Diphtheria -1923

All these have a long period where effects and side effects can be evidenced.

Like I have said, I do not consider myself 'antivax'. But I do consider myself a cynical man who's trust has been eroded, clearly you are not and that's great.

Have there been any drugs which had side effects 20 or 30 years after they were taken?

Possibly not 20 or 30 but my understanding is that modern drug synthesis is not as it was 60 years ago, but there is previous:

Fluoroquinolone Antibiotics
Diethylstilbestrol
Accutane
Fenfluramine/Phentermine

Also drug companies have previous for sell drugs to the public, that were not in the publics best interests, but make good profits.

 

[Jacob]

Smallpox - 1796
Polio - 1961
Tetanus - 1924
Measles - 1963
Diphtheria -1923

All these have a long period where effects and side effects can be evidenced.

Have they been evidenced?

Like I have said, I do not consider myself 'antivax'.

I consider you anti vax. You are arguing against a particular vaccination with no evidence.

.......

Also drug companies have previous for sell drugs to the public, that were not in the publics best interests, but make good profits.

Regulated by non profit making NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)
Their main responsibilities are to: assess new drugs and treatments as they become available. provide guidelines on the treatment of particular conditions. provide guidelines on how public health and social care services can support people.

 

[NickDReed]

I consider you anti vax. You are arguing against a particular vaccination with no evidence.

I'm shocked you've jumped to that conclusion, you're usually much more accommodating of people who have views that differ to yours.

I queried a position, and asked for alternative opinions (something alien to yourself) I did not denounce vaccination.

Regulated by non profit making NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)
Their main responsibilities are to: assess new drugs and treatments as they become available. provide guidelines on the treatment of particular conditions. provide guidelines on how public health and social care services can support people.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...oups-that-lobby-for-nhs-approval-of-medicines

Your rag I believe.

Seems Nice would be totally impartial and not be influenced be the company making the drug in any way.

 

[Lons]

I had my *** an hour ago and perfectly happy to accept the reasons and small risk of side affects. Covid / flu *** scheduled for October.

 

[Jacob]

..... I did not denounce vaccination.

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?

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

 

[BravoNovember]

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

 

[woodieallen]

I have not suggested saving lives is a bad idea. I have questioned whether large vaccination programmes which appear to be in vogue following Covid are the most effective option and offer least risk to the majority of the population, if your vaccine will only provide a positive impact on a very small fraction of the ill or infected population, never mind those who are not infected.

The quote you have provided offers little assurance of efficacy. 'the vaccination programme could prevent 5000 hospital admissions' ' could reduce pressures on front line staff'

If could is the standard we are working to why is it necessary to vaccinate large numbers of people with newly created drugs that have unknown long term consequences? Many well established off patent drugs could be just as effective and have a long track record to know their side effects. I had assumed that you as the loudest voice of anticapitalism on here would be all for reducing big pharmaceutical corporations profits in favour of offering potentially as effective treatment at far lower prices.

I'm all for personal choice and think people should be able to put whatever they like in their own bodies.

My post however, was about whether large scale vaccination programmes are the best way of treating all conditions, as seems to be the current zeitgeist of the pharmaceutical establishment, or are they just the most profitable.

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

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I do not have the knowledge, or possibly the intellect, to understand the science that goes into vaccine research, the statistical analysis associated with identification of target groups, or the probabilities and costs associated with treatment of the unvaccinated.

It is therefore a matter of trust whether those charged with such analysis and recommendations are both competent and honest, and that their conclusions are formed unimpacted by external and unrelated implications.

Personally I will take the advice proffered for both vaccination and drugs intended to prevent illness, rather than suffer the (even very low) probability of illness. Generally prevention is a better strategy than cure.

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"!

 

[mcostello]

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