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: 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.