40 ms·

> Some experts fervently hope to avoid reintroduction of the trivalent vaccine. “It would be an enormous blow to the polio program and to international public h

> Some experts fervently hope to avoid reintroduction of the trivalent vaccine. “It would be an enormous blow to the polio program and to international public health,” says Nicholas Grassly, a modeler and epidemiologist at Imperial College London It's sorta disgusting to see someone on the other side of the world considering it to be a PR disaster instead of just doing damage control if you must but do effing go back to the trivalent vaccine known to be effective.

marcinzm 7y ago
As the article says, the trivalent vaccine is a live, albeit weakened, virus and occasionally reverts to the original virus which means it occasionally causes an outbreak. The whole point of phasing it out is to get rid of polio which you cannot do if the vaccine itself is causing outbreaks.
DanBC 7y ago
That's not really what he's saying. Here's an article that better explains his position: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/187932/polio-going-away-without-fight-vital/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/187932/polio-going-away-with... > The oral polio vaccine contained three types, or strains, of the virus (types one, two and three). The vaccine, given to young children, is dropped onto the tongue, where it then travels through the stomach and digestive system. The live viruses in the vaccine have been weakened, so that it can’t cause disease. However, in very rare cases, and only in populations where immunisation rates are low, the vaccine virus can mutate in the intestines and regain the ability to cause paralysis, resulting in VDPV. The most common of the three vaccine strains causing VDPV has been the type 2 strain. > Although the person who received the vaccine does not develop polio, the reactivated polio vaccine leaves their body in faeces and can potentially infect others. > This is not a risk with the injectable polio vaccine, such as the one given in the UK, as the virus has been inactivated and doesn’t enter the gut. However, this vaccine cannot be used alone in places at risk of polio and where immunity is low. Although it protects an individual from paralysis, it does not prevent the virus being transferred from person to person – an important benefit of the oral vaccine
tempestn 7y ago
The problem is the effect of the 'bad PR'. The end of the article goes into the struggles involved in distributing the vaccine and making sure it's used. If the program loses credibility, those struggles could increase to the point where it's no longer effective. Honestly what's surprising to me is that they're able to overcome that resistance at all. Imagine trying to distribute a vaccine in the US that is known to trigger outbreaks of the virus it's supposed to protect against. Regardless of the fact that things would be far worse without it, all the evidence in the world wouldn't be enough to convince many people.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
  People used it in the past. If your child has a real risk of contracting polio you would do anything to get them that vaccine. The anti vaccination movement has only survived because most of these diseases are so rare. If we see a return of diseases like polio the anti vaccination movement would disappear fast.
  - creato 7y ago
    I don't know. We didn't have facebook the last time around.
  - derekp7 7y ago
    So it's basically like seatbelt use. There are certain types of crashes where a seatbelt could cause more harm than good (such as crashing into a lake, the seatbelt gets stuck, and the victim can't get out). However these are rare enough, that the benefits of seatbelts far outweigh the risk, that most people decide to wear them (including the benefit of not getting a seatbelt violation ticket).
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >Honestly what's surprising to me is that they're able to overcome that resistance at all. Imagine trying to distribute a vaccine in the US that is known to trigger outbreaks of the virus it's supposed to protect against. Regardless of the fact that things would be far worse without it, all the evidence in the world wouldn't be enough to convince many people. Western risk assessment is warped by the fact that a great many people never have to weigh risky decisions because for the most part society is wealthy enough that we can just defer risk of physical harm at the expense of either time or money. Of course people will freak out when they're given a decision where there's a risk of physical harm in both options.
cortesoft 7y ago
You are misunderstanding. They aren't worried about PR because it will hurt their reputation or bottom line, but because it will hurt their ability to get communities to go along with vaccination efforts that are vital. For example, think of seat belts... they save a ton of lives, but it is possible for a seat belt to kill someone; let's say the ratio is 1 death caused for every 1000 saved. Even though a seatbelt can kill you, it is still clearly worth it to use one, and will save a ton of lives if everyone uses them. Now imagine a celebrity is killed by a seatbelt; rationally, everyone should understand that it is a rare event, and that it is still worth it to wear your seatbelt. However, since the case is such high profile, many people will see it and mistake the anecdote for data and think seatbelts are dangerous. This "bad PR" could kill thousands of people.

marcinzm 7y ago

As the article says, the trivalent vaccine is a live, albeit weakened, virus and occasionally reverts to the original virus which means it occasionally causes an outbreak. The whole point of phasing it out is to get rid of polio which you cannot do if the vaccine itself is causing outbreaks.

DanBC 7y ago

That's not really what he's saying. Here's an article that better explains his position: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/187932/polio-going-away-without-fight-vital/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/187932/polio-going-away-with... > The oral polio vaccine contained three types, or strains, of the virus (types one, two and three). The vaccine, given to young children, is dropped onto the tongue, where it then travels through the stomach and digestive system. The live viruses in the vaccine have been weakened, so that it can’t cause disease. However, in very rare cases, and only in populations where immunisation rates are low, the vaccine virus can mutate in the intestines and regain the ability to cause paralysis, resulting in VDPV. The most common of the three vaccine strains causing VDPV has been the type 2 strain. > Although the person who received the vaccine does not develop polio, the reactivated polio vaccine leaves their body in faeces and can potentially infect others. > This is not a risk with the injectable polio vaccine, such as the one given in the UK, as the virus has been inactivated and doesn’t enter the gut. However, this vaccine cannot be used alone in places at risk of polio and where immunity is low. Although it protects an individual from paralysis, it does not prevent the virus being transferred from person to person – an important benefit of the oral vaccine

tempestn 7y ago

The problem is the effect of the 'bad PR'. The end of the article goes into the struggles involved in distributing the vaccine and making sure it's used. If the program loses credibility, those struggles could increase to the point where it's no longer effective. Honestly what's surprising to me is that they're able to overcome that resistance at all. Imagine trying to distribute a vaccine in the US that is known to trigger outbreaks of the virus it's supposed to protect against. Regardless of the fact that things would be far worse without it, all the evidence in the world wouldn't be enough to convince many people.

gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
People used it in the past. If your child has a real risk of contracting polio you would do anything to get them that vaccine. The anti vaccination movement has only survived because most of these diseases are so rare. If we see a return of diseases like polio the anti vaccination movement would disappear fast.
- creato 7y ago
  I don't know. We didn't have facebook the last time around.
- derekp7 7y ago
  So it's basically like seatbelt use. There are certain types of crashes where a seatbelt could cause more harm than good (such as crashing into a lake, the seatbelt gets stuck, and the victim can't get out). However these are rare enough, that the benefits of seatbelts far outweigh the risk, that most people decide to wear them (including the benefit of not getting a seatbelt violation ticket).
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Honestly what's surprising to me is that they're able to overcome that resistance at all. Imagine trying to distribute a vaccine in the US that is known to trigger outbreaks of the virus it's supposed to protect against. Regardless of the fact that things would be far worse without it, all the evidence in the world wouldn't be enough to convince many people. Western risk assessment is warped by the fact that a great many people never have to weigh risky decisions because for the most part society is wealthy enough that we can just defer risk of physical harm at the expense of either time or money. Of course people will freak out when they're given a decision where there's a risk of physical harm in both options.

cortesoft 7y ago

You are misunderstanding. They aren't worried about PR because it will hurt their reputation or bottom line, but because it will hurt their ability to get communities to go along with vaccination efforts that are vital. For example, think of seat belts... they save a ton of lives, but it is possible for a seat belt to kill someone; let's say the ratio is 1 death caused for every 1000 saved. Even though a seatbelt can kill you, it is still clearly worth it to use one, and will save a ton of lives if everyone uses them. Now imagine a celebrity is killed by a seatbelt; rationally, everyone should understand that it is a rare event, and that it is still worth it to wear your seatbelt. However, since the case is such high profile, many people will see it and mistake the anecdote for data and think seatbelts are dangerous. This "bad PR" could kill thousands of people.