Amazing idea. You are so much better at this than all "the stupid powers that be" who are targeting this vaccine at the parts of the population most at risk (or their pregnant mothers).
Is this getting a bit out of hand? - RSV jabs
- Thread starter NickDReed
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Exactly. And that includes me.
n.b. to avoid over-sceptical confusion; I am not a pregnant mother.
I don't get why people are seeing this as anti vax. It seems just a fair discussion of a complex topic. Personally I see being vaccinated as a public duty as well as common sense but it is quite possible that any medicine could be over prescribed, it's also possible for safety issues to arise and possibly be overlooked an interesting topic which doesn't need to turn into a bun fight.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!
pip1954
Established Member
I to will not have flu *** ever time i have had I get sick can't happen you say it has to me so it's a no from me.
I give you a drug that caused huge problems flumilderhide I know I have spelt it wrong but you will know what I mean thousands of babies born with no arms deformities, you tell them why you should believe big drug companies.
I give you a drug that caused huge problems flumilderhide I know I have spelt it wrong but you will know what I mean thousands of babies born with no arms deformities, you tell them why you should believe big drug companies.
There will always be tension between drug developers and health service provision. Pharmaceutical companies normally have a mission to drive improved health outcomes, but they also have shareholders who want returns, so money will be a driver. The thing that balances this is regulation and separation of health service from drug company. How well this separation and regulation works is the question.
If you don’t trust this balance/system then you will question every new drug and treatment that comes into healthcare.
During COVID there was significantly accelerated vaccine and rollout as thousands of people were dying, either due to COVID or as a result of an overwhelmed healthcare system. As a result of rolling out a new vaccine to millions of people there were deaths resulting from the vaccine, but on balance it saved orders of magnitude more lives than it took. However the statistical upside is no comfort if you or a loved one died or were seriously injured by the vaccine.
News stories of the impact on individuals and families have cast doubt on people’s minds, a picture of a child’s coffin is much more memorable than a graph of declining COVID related deaths. I think this has led to people, yourself included, questioning the system, and challenging a system can be a good thing. When they proposed rolling out COVID vaccine to under 12 yr olds I had to pause and think what would I do as I suddenly had two children in this category. I spent a good deal of time researching the statistics and concluded the risk did not support the societal benefit, thankfully the NHS came to the same conclusion.
In the UK we have NICE which I think provides good separation and strong practices to ensure appropriate use of new drugs, treatments, and vaccines. Have I gone and tested this personally, no I have not, but equally I’m comfortable that I don’t need to.
In your last post you raise the point “running mass vaccination programme could be costing governments more than treating in another way”. If the NHS just bent over and took whatever the drug companies told them then yes I’d be thinking the same but NICE exists so that this is not the outcome.
I think you need to ask yourself what will it take for you to be comfortable with this system. If you cannot get comfortable then I think you will end up denying yourself drugs and treatment that could otherwise save your life.
Fitz
If you don’t trust this balance/system then you will question every new drug and treatment that comes into healthcare.
During COVID there was significantly accelerated vaccine and rollout as thousands of people were dying, either due to COVID or as a result of an overwhelmed healthcare system. As a result of rolling out a new vaccine to millions of people there were deaths resulting from the vaccine, but on balance it saved orders of magnitude more lives than it took. However the statistical upside is no comfort if you or a loved one died or were seriously injured by the vaccine.
News stories of the impact on individuals and families have cast doubt on people’s minds, a picture of a child’s coffin is much more memorable than a graph of declining COVID related deaths. I think this has led to people, yourself included, questioning the system, and challenging a system can be a good thing. When they proposed rolling out COVID vaccine to under 12 yr olds I had to pause and think what would I do as I suddenly had two children in this category. I spent a good deal of time researching the statistics and concluded the risk did not support the societal benefit, thankfully the NHS came to the same conclusion.
In the UK we have NICE which I think provides good separation and strong practices to ensure appropriate use of new drugs, treatments, and vaccines. Have I gone and tested this personally, no I have not, but equally I’m comfortable that I don’t need to.
In your last post you raise the point “running mass vaccination programme could be costing governments more than treating in another way”. If the NHS just bent over and took whatever the drug companies told them then yes I’d be thinking the same but NICE exists so that this is not the outcome.
I think you need to ask yourself what will it take for you to be comfortable with this system. If you cannot get comfortable then I think you will end up denying yourself drugs and treatment that could otherwise save your life.
Fitz
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Fair enough. All drugs have side effects. In fact everything in life probably does!
Thalidomide. Still prescribed but tightly controlled. Terrible unpredicted side effects but extremely unusual on the drug scene as a whole, as long as there is constant review and an effective regulatory system.
NickDReed
Established Member
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!
Again, not a climate change sceptic. I fully believe and accept climate changes.
As I believe I have previously said on here Jacob, you are not the man to change my opinion on anything main due to you style of discourse. In fact, I would be surprised if you have ever been able to change anyone's opinion, or are capable of associating for any length of time with people who do not mirror your world view. You appear to be partisan to all the opinions and beliefs you hold and are uninterested to hear or discuss with anyone who thinks differently. Far easier to dismiss and label. All of which is fine, and I wish you luck, but your style of communication doesn't bring about the sort of discussion of differing ideas I look for.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
I guess you are sceptical of the anthropogenic theory of climate change.
I know!!
NickDReed
Established Member
I think you're right. This is about trust in the system and whether people are able to accept a narrative without question.
Both taking and not taking a drug may present inherent risk and if that decision is made based on trust or lack there of, the risks on either side are intrinsically linked to your trust level.
Modern medicine is a marvel and is responsible for many great things. However, maybe as a society there is potential that our reliance on it has led to a subconscious apathy to maintaining a healthy lifestyle with the thought medicine will be able to cure whatever rears its head in the future. Would this not create a cycle of pharmaceutical companies ever growing need to innovate and societies increased reliance on medicines and subsequent apathy to healthy living.
Jacob, I have to wonder: Given that you accept your style of argument only puts people's backs up and never changes their minds on anything, why do you persist? Surely if you actually wanted to win the argument, a more reasoned and reasonable approach would do the job better? Or given your avatar, are you just jousting for the fun of the fight?
Richard_C
Established Member
The first post noted that rsv death rates are low in the population, but as I read it this isn't just about death rates, it's about NHS resources and general wellbeing. Severe rsv cases both young and old can occupy hospital beds for weeks and months, by vaccinating we can use those resources to treat other conditions and have better outcomes for everyone. Vaccines are not just about saving lives, and we will see more of this as the science of developing new vaccines gets better and faster. No one is forced to have it
The main reasons, as I can see, for providing this voluntary, free vaccine is to reduce the debilitating effects of this disease, especially in the very young & older suffers, & reduce the imact on the NHS. As this is voluntary I cannot see any objections.
You seem to question the use of the term 'could' when dealing with effectiveness & response. One is dealing with viruses & humans .....there is little scope for using...'it will'
I wish you all a happy & healthy winter......
Agent_zed
Established Member
Unless you are never going to allow the introduction of new vaccines and drugs, it is impossible to have historical data on a new drug, that is how time works. You can only know by testing and implementing and monitoring, which is exactly what happened to all of the old drugs/vaccines. The ones that have been around the longest just happen to be the ones that work with the least side effects. There are plenty of examples of ones that were around for a long period of time that did cause problems.
I am not anti-vax, but I do agree that it is wise to question why something is being implemented and what effects/benefits it may have. That is basic science, never stop asking questions. By questions, I mean reasonable questions about the testing and monitoring and associated benefits etc not 'did Bill Gates put microchips into the vaccine'.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I have to say that I don't see anyone changing their minds in any of these "discussions" on non-woody subjects.
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
Yep. Cost/benefit analysis. By one of those backroom teams the NHS cynics love to criticise.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Antivaxxers cause deaths amongst the gullible and simple minded.
Usually themselves but also can be innocent children, as with the anti MMR lunacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_of_anti-vaccine_advocates_from_COVID-19
https://www.theguardian.com/society...racies-spread-as-uk-cases-of-measles-increase
Last edited:
Many centuries ago I was a lab scientist working in recombinant drug development - which means we tried to introduce genes for therapeutic proteins into the genomes of cultured cells, or into the embryos of farm animals, as a route to producing the protein as a medicine. I mention this only because this is how the RSV vaccine is produced - by producing a (subtly altered) pair of virus protein fragments in transgenic cultured hamster cells. I don't know anything about RSV but I just did a cursory scan of the literature.
RSV is globally the leading cause of severe respiratory illness in infants, and an important disease in the elderly, and there have been attempts for over 50 years to develop a vaccine, so don't make the mistake of thinking it's some flash-in-the-pan attempt to profit from a perceived 'vaccine boom'
Early attempts to develop an RSV vaccine failed because the technology wasn't there. But actually a monoclonal antibody drug has been used to protect very-high-risk groups for decades and has proved safe and effective, but far too costly and inconvenient for widespread use.
It seems to me that the latest vaccine is well-founded and well-tested, but I'll try to read more and summarise here later.
Meanwhile, a good summary of the prior work can be found here https://academic.oup.com/jpids/article/13/Supplement_2/S103/7641088?login=false
There have been issues with approved drugs in the past (thalidomide has been mentioned), and there have been well-publicised scandals involving regulators who have been browbeaten or straight bribed (US opioid crisis springs to mind). It would be a catastrophic mistake to conflate these with the rollout of partially-effective Covid vaccines and decide that 'it's getting out of hand'.
RSV is globally the leading cause of severe respiratory illness in infants, and an important disease in the elderly, and there have been attempts for over 50 years to develop a vaccine, so don't make the mistake of thinking it's some flash-in-the-pan attempt to profit from a perceived 'vaccine boom'
Early attempts to develop an RSV vaccine failed because the technology wasn't there. But actually a monoclonal antibody drug has been used to protect very-high-risk groups for decades and has proved safe and effective, but far too costly and inconvenient for widespread use.
It seems to me that the latest vaccine is well-founded and well-tested, but I'll try to read more and summarise here later.
Meanwhile, a good summary of the prior work can be found here https://academic.oup.com/jpids/article/13/Supplement_2/S103/7641088?login=false
There have been issues with approved drugs in the past (thalidomide has been mentioned), and there have been well-publicised scandals involving regulators who have been browbeaten or straight bribed (US opioid crisis springs to mind). It would be a catastrophic mistake to conflate these with the rollout of partially-effective Covid vaccines and decide that 'it's getting out of hand'.
And how does that answer my question?
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
Good luck with that.
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
I feel comfortable accepting the advice of my doctor without question.
Your opening post only refers to mortality levels which may be reduced. Presumably people also recover from RSV so the strain on health services reduces if the vaccine avoids them getting it in the first place?
