Back to TheU.ca
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Banned Users List
Usergroups
RSS Feeds
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log inTheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Flu shots - Reply to topic
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
To be fair Pedal, contaminated injections are legitimately unsafe. This is different as there are no specific incidents linked with this vaccine. Not wanting to risk the 1800's vaccine after an incident like that is just natural. if they can fuck up that bad the first time who knows. I know I would probably take my chances with smallpox lol. |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine  Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place    votes: 6 View user's profile |
savage87 wrote: I know I would probably take my chances with smallpox lol. Luckily for us, people eventually stopped taking their chances with smallpox, got vaccinated, and now we don't have to worry about it anymore.
|
|
Lock wrote: savage87 wrote: I know I would probably take my chances with smallpox lol. Luckily for us, people eventually stopped taking their chances with smallpox, got vaccinated, and now we don't have to worry about it anymore.Of course. I was just saying that fears in the 1800 case were founded as opposed to this time around. |
|
Ok I've looked at the statistics, but here they can't tell you anything because so far dystonia has only happened once. That's too small of a sample size to infer the future probability. So basically there's no way to tell if it's a one in a million type thing or if it's way way way more likely. I'll wait until that data arrives thank you very much. |
|
The sample size, which is = population size in this case since you're not sampling, is the total number of people who have been vaccinated not the people with dystonia. In this case the statistic is 1 : # of people vaccinated worldwide develop dystonia. So far thats pretty good odds in favor of safe I would think. Edit: By this I meant to say, the sample is pretty big, or i think it is. How many people have been vaccinated so far?[/b] |
|
On a micro level, you can look at the clinical trials for the seasonal & H1N1 vaccines for rates of side effects. The results of many are published. The New England Journal of Medicine in particular has had a few short reports about the safety and efficacy of H1N1 vaccine in recent months. Looking at the overall population level at this point for H1N1 isn't a great strategy, since the method of delivery of the vaccine and formulation is not standard from country to country. There is no definitive proof that this one case of dystonia was caused by a vaccine reaction, so any speculation to the contrary is based solely on intuition. |
|
Nitz wrote: Quote: But not impossible. And thats the whole thing, if it's possible to get sick from a vaccine, why take it? Nobody seems to acknoweldge this point It's possible for a dick to shoot right through the wall beside me, but if it happens, im not going to blame my flu vaccine. LOL |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster  Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University  votes: 38 View user's profile |
aspie jew stereotype wrote: Ok I've looked at the statistics, but here they can't tell you anything because so far dystonia has only happened once. That's too small of a sample size to infer the future probability. So basically there's no way to tell if it's a one in a million type thing or if it's way way way more likely. I'll wait until that data arrives thank you very much. Isn't there? Hundreds of thousands of people have had our H1N1 vaccine and there is only one case. The sample size is the total number of vaccinations with that vaccine method. One in hundreds of thousands is a much smaller chance than the risk of death from H1N1, which has caused several dozen deaths in Canada (95 as of October 29, to be precise). http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/h1n1/surveillance-eng.php
"Q1. Serious adverse events following immunization are rare. In any immunization campaign, from regular childhood vaccines to seasonal flu shots, the average reported rate of serious adverse events is about one case for every 100,000 doses distributed." http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/h1n1/faq_rg_h1n1-eng.php#mvs . There have been 95 deaths from H1N1 in Canada. There have been no deaths to date traced to the vaccine. According to the BBC link below Canada had 10,449 confirmed cases of H1N1 by July 30, 2009. Of these, there were 58 deaths. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8083179.stm . That's a death rate of 555.077 per 100,000 infected people, or 0.555% of infected people or 0.00555 per infected person. Using that rate, if 5% of Canadians become infected then 17,762.464 people (I'm keeping the decimal part here) die. If 0.5% of people become of infected then 1,776.25 people die. If 0.1% of Canadians get H1N1 then 888.125 people die. To put it another way, at least 100,000 people must have been vaccinated and no one has died from the vaccine yet. Even if someone suddenly dies, a liberal estimate would put the fatality rate at 0.001%. Even if all 33 million people proceeded to get the vaccine that generous estimate results in 330 people dying. Let x equal the number of people necessary to become infected for H1N1 to claim 330 deaths. 0.00555x = 330 x = 59,459.459 59,459.459/33 million = 0.0018 = 0.18% In other words if you use the July 9 proportions then the infection of 0.18% of the Canadian population will cause the death rate for H1N1 to equal the risk of dying from the vaccine, even using the (highly generous) estimate of 1 death per 100,000 vaccinations. Does anyone actually think the infection rate will limit itself to less than a fifth of a percentage point for Canadians? _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Again, at this stage it makes no sense to look at population level yet. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
It makes sense to look at it, just realizing its accuracy isn't as good as it will be later. It's still 10,000+ cases which isn't small. It doesn't mean it's completely representative but looking at the numbers it would have to be off by a spectacular, unthinkable margin for it to be safer to avoid the vaccine than to get it. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Everyone stop talking about math unless you are in math or maybe a science related subject, god dammit. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: It makes sense to look at it, just realizing its accuracy isn't as good as it will be later. It's still 10,000+ cases which isn't small.
It doesn't mean it's completely representative but looking at the numbers it would have to be off by a spectacular, unthinkable margin for it to be safer to avoid the vaccine than to get it. You don't need your incredibly flawed calculations to draw that conclusion. It is enough to merely say there are no deaths as a result of adverse side effects and the Health Canada-approved vaccine formulation has been shown safe in an admittedly short clinical trial. This situation is in its absolute infancy and we are less than 2 weeks into the vaccination period. It is impossible to make any estimate of death rate or relative risks that would be in any way reliable. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
Not just flawed, but incredibly flawed, eh? You certainly get up in arms over nothing. I don't claim those calculations to be very accurate (I never did - I even noted all the assumptions) but all those assumptions favoured the not-getting-the-vaccine side. I just think the figures help with estimates by showing things that would have to be otherwise for it to be advisable not to take the vaccine. If you don't like it that's your business but you seem headed for a very irritated life. In addition the vaccine has been out for several days. It contains dead viruses and other ingredients but these other ones are not new to vaccines (at least if I believe the doctors giving them out, and I do). It is more than possible to make an estimate that is fairly reliable, particularly when the new ingredient is a dead virus and almost all vaccine reactions show up in a very short time period (I mentioned it in my previous post, backed up with the Health Canada link). Estimates for this vaccine should be quite accurate. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
Has anyone heard when they're giving the vaccine out to ordinary physicians to administer? A few days ago the word in Truro was that the vaccine would be given to doctors in a couple of weeks but that might have changed. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Yes, the doctors will be getting it soon. |
|
Hopefully never, the fucking dumbasses in BC and Ontario gave it out to Private Clinics who then gave it out to their paying clients.  winner's right there.
|
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
pedal2000 wrote: Hopefully never, the fucking dumbasses in BC and Ontario gave it out to Private Clinics who then gave it out to their paying clients. I'm pretty sure there were public clinics.
winner's right there._________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
. . . Did I say there wasn't? THe majority was, there were two cases of Private Clinics getting it. Two to many. |
TheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Flu shots - Reply to topic
