SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the butt-heads-on-trade-agreements dept.
The Chinese government appears to be withholding samples of the bird flu virus H7N9, requested by U.S. researchers:
The samples are critical for studying the virus and developing life-saving treatments and vaccines in preparation for potential outbreaks or pandemics. Usually, countries share viral samples "in a timely manner" without any fanfare under an agreement established by the World Health Organization to address such potential flu threats. That usually means a matter of months.
But according to The New York Times, China has failed to share the samples for more than a year, despite persistent requests from government officials and researchers, including those at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moreover, scientists and experts worry that, as the US and China continue to butt heads on trade agreements, the issue of sharing biological samples and other medical-related materials could worsen.
We can make our own flu, and send them live samples.
Also at The New York Times.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday August 29 2018, @09:05PM (16 children)
You did, and now you're lying about it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 29 2018, @09:19PM (15 children)
Do you understand what a cochrane review is and why I would want to include it?
I had already earlier directly addressed your (wrong) application of old vaccine efficacy numbers with a different paper that provided more recent (correctly applied) vaccine effectiveness values. The cochrane review, however, is usually the most extensive meta-analysis available for any treatment. They conclude the evidence is somewhat shaky for even a small net benefit of flu vaccines at the societal level. You don't like that (which is fine, I dont claim the cochrane reviews are the word of god) but apparently cant offer any valid critique.
Anyway, this is the second time I've had an interaction with you like this.... I suspect you are one of those trumptards posting under a false flag to make the "other side" look drunk or stupid or ignorant or whatever.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday August 29 2018, @09:49PM (8 children)
Okay, I get it. You're angry because you're wrong.
The words "Cocherane review" do nothing to answer for conflating absolute and relative risk to misrepresent numbers. You're dumb, your antivax views are dumb, and this argument is way too dumb to be having.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 29 2018, @10:16PM
Which was done where? Just because I included the two types of values in the same post? I don't think that is too confusing for most readers on this site.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 29 2018, @10:19PM (6 children)
And in fact its you who conflated vaccine efficacy with vaccine effectiveness. Not that I dont think that set of terms isnt designed to confuse people...
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Wednesday August 29 2018, @10:37PM (5 children)
I get the vaccine about every other year.
I don't generally get the flu regardless (or it is so mild it doesn't matter), but I've notably never gotten it when i had the vaccine that year.
(In before someone with the exact opposite anecdote)
Now I -would- make a comment about insurance companies being businesses that don't pay for ineffective treatments, but then i would have to shred my own argument, so I'll just leave it there.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 29 2018, @11:14PM (4 children)
I think insurance companies just figured out vaccinated people are less likely to visit the doctor for minor flu like symptoms if they consider themselves "protected", so its cheaper to pay for these vaccines whether placebo or not.
I wouldnt go to the doctor if I did have the flu, ie these visits being avoided are mostly unnecessary anyway.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 30 2018, @02:33AM (3 children)
I'm with you, about 85%. I don't go to the doctor with every sniffle, headache, or bout of diarhea, or vomiting. But, you should be aware that flu can, and does kill people. Different strains, different people, different years - everything changes.
How about a statement more like, "I'm not running to the doctor at the first sign of illness, but if the flu gets severe, I may seek medical care." Fever and dehydration, if left uncontrolled for any length of time, will kill you. The other symptoms are less serious, and only make you miserable - not worth wasting a trip to the doctor.
Then again - to some extent, that fever and dehydration can be dealt with in most cases. Soak in bathtub of cool water to lower fever, and drink lots of electrolytes. Pedialyte, sports drinks, even just plain salt water helps.
There is some point at which you need a doctor's care, but most Americans think that point is "I don't feel well."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30 2018, @02:46AM (2 children)
It sounds like you already know what to do in that situation, what is the doctor adding? Do we need an uber-IV drip?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 30 2018, @02:54AM (1 child)
You may need an IV, if things get bad. Or, you may submit, and die. The only point here is, flu does kill. You may or may not be a statistic, if you're overly stubborn about going to the doctor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30 2018, @03:02AM
Right so the worst case scenario all they can do is give you an IV. You can just go to a rave and get that for free, so I doubt a doctor visit is really necessary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30 2018, @11:38AM (5 children)
Pointing at a single year's numbers and implying that they invalidate the historical trend is pretty misleading.
"They conclude the evidence is somewhat shaky for even a small net benefit of flu vaccines at the societal level."
Where did they say that?
It wasn't in the quoted section and I didn't find anythng about it when I scanned the review. Are you extrapolating from the low certainty of the four "time off work" studies?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30 2018, @12:38PM (4 children)
Its not a single years numbers... the cochrane review covers decades of studies.
You'll have to understand that I was paraphrasing rather than directly quoting. "Moderate certainty" == "somewhat shaky" and "2% to 1%" == "small net benefit":
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=27349 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30 2018, @02:42PM (3 children)
"Its not a single years numbers"
You cited the MMWR reported number for the most recent season (36% effectiveness) as evidence that influenza vaccines don't work.
It seems that saying "somewhat shaky" is overstating the uncertainty a bit.
""2% to 1%" == "small net benefit"
2.3% to 1% risk is reducing the risk by more than half (~57%) and is probably close/within the 95%CI (using the 1994 paper as a reference class).
Saying "they conclude ... [your interpretation]" is putting words in their mouth and raises suspicions of motivated reasoning. Also, going from (I'm paraphrasing): "[influenza vaccines don't work]" to "[they didn't work well last year]" then "[they don't work well and the evidence is bad]" and "[small net benefit to society]" looks like you're moving the goal posts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30 2018, @08:16PM (2 children)
No, I cited that number to demonstrate the difference between vaccine effectiveness and vaccine efficacy. This is already explained in the thread.
But whatever, I originally provided just the quotes and the sources. When I first didnt interpret for people some other poster said I was trying to conflate absolute and relative risk for some reason. No matter what there's just a bunch of pseudo-skeptic whining and nitpicking about some misinterpretation of what I wrote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30 2018, @09:40PM (1 child)
Your original post, with bolding for emphasis:
"pseudo-skeptic whining and nitpicking about some misinterpretation"
Your original post was full of strong claims and baseless speculation, so you don't really have the high ground. Misinterpreting a strong vague statement "flu vaccines dont work" is fair, but it seems you meant "[they don't work very well and don't have a strong benefit at the societal level]"
I didn't bother earlier with how you implied that China bioengineered the current H7N9, are covering it up, and that they were careless enough to leave obvious evidence, but I'll be a "pseudo-skeptic" and ask now for any evidence you have to support that claim or clear-up my misinterpretation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 01 2018, @11:01PM
Obviously that was speculation it got released on accident from some chinese lab before they could "clean" it.