6 ms·

> It seems almost impossible that the vaccines pose a greater risk than the risk of not using them. How about to a baby, or an unborn baby? The relative risk i

by krona 6y ago

> It seems almost impossible that the vaccines pose a greater risk than the risk of not using them. How about to a baby, or an unborn baby? The relative risk is almost certainly higher to a baby, but how high? We don't know, since there haven't been any longitudinal studies (for starters.) Which is why it would be unethical outside a clinical trial to administer it to younger people en masse. Eventually the relative risk will be quantifiable, but it will take years. It took ~4 years for the increased risk of narcolepsy in children due to the H1N1 vaccine (Pandemrix) to be reported, for example.

learc83 6y ago
It was less than a year before people started reporting it, and it took less than 2 years before a study was released by the Swedish health agency warning of increased narcolepsy risk in Children--not 4. Also the increased rate of narcolepsy was 0.005%. That's why it took several months before anyone noticed it. Additionally the flu itself can cause the same kind of narcolepsy, which means that this vaccine was worse than other vaccines, but still potentially better than no vaccine at all.
- krona 6y ago
  > but still potentially better than no vaccine at all. There's no 'potentially' to consider, the Swedish Medical Products Agency reported the relative risk in 2011: ... The relative risk of narcolepsy was four times higher in vaccinated children and adolescents (born from 1990) compared to unvaccinated individuals. So, incorrect, when considering the relative risk, which is all people should be interested in. Catching bird flu/covid isn't inevitable for most people, far from it in fact.
  - learc83 6y ago
    The study didn't control for the differences in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Children with chronic medical conditions are more likely to be vaccinated, and some preliminary reports show a correlation between medical conditions that indicate flu vaccination and narcolepsy [1]. And from what I can tell, the control group didn't exclude kids vaccinated with other H1N1 vaccines. Because of that, that study can't say that the 4x higher number is the relative risk of taking Pandermrix. There are also issues with potential over diagnosis and recall bias because of public awareness of the issue through the media [1]. The real problem is that this effect is so small, not that the effect takes years to develop. We're talking 4 cases of narcolepsy per 100k kids. Even a 10 year long study of 30k Phase 3 vaccine participants is unlikely to discover something like that. Nearly all new drugs that are released could have similar side effects. It's just not feasible to conduct studies large enough to discover them until you start rolling it out to millions of people. 1.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962758/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962758/
J-dawg 6y ago
The UK government has already stated that pregnant women won't be getting the vaccine. (https://inews.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-pregnant-women-wait-give-birth-vaccination-uk-775264 https://inews.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-pregnant-women...) This seems at odds with the gung-ho "it's 100% safe" rhetoric of our politicians. I am by no means an anti-vaxxer, but I'm already finding it creepy the way any concerns are simply being dismissed. It's also just bad policy: it means that any unexpected side-effects that do emerge (even if very rare / not serious) will look much worse and immediately stink of a cover-up. What's wrong with saying: "We are confident, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that the risk of taking this vaccine is lower than the risk of contracting Covid"? Not "This vaccine is definitely safe". I am sick of politicians treating the electorate as if they are morons who can't understand the slightest bit of nuance. As you mention, vaccines can cause harm and have done in the past. Some degree of caution might be warranted.
- natex 6y ago
  The concerns are not being "simply dismissed". You just didn't take the time to read any of the material. "JCVI recognises that the MHRA’s advice is based on the absence of evidence in pregnancy, and not on the presence of evidence to implicate toxicity in pregnancy." It's all laid out for anyone with true concerns. Here you go: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941450/Greenbook_chapter_14a_v2.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
  - J-dawg 6y ago
    Thanks for that. And you're right, I hadn't seen that document before. But concerns absolutely are being dismissed. I've personally listened to Matt Hancock and other ministers doing it. The idea that someone might want to wait just a little longer to see if any side effects emerge is not necessarily irrational. Would you not concede that, if and when any unexpected side-effects do emerge (however rare or insignificant), this gung-ho attitude will backfire?
    - natex 6y ago

by krona 6y ago

learc83 6y ago

It was less than a year before people started reporting it, and it took less than 2 years before a study was released by the Swedish health agency warning of increased narcolepsy risk in Children--not 4. Also the increased rate of narcolepsy was 0.005%. That's why it took several months before anyone noticed it. Additionally the flu itself can cause the same kind of narcolepsy, which means that this vaccine was worse than other vaccines, but still potentially better than no vaccine at all.

krona 6y ago
> but still potentially better than no vaccine at all. There's no 'potentially' to consider, the Swedish Medical Products Agency reported the relative risk in 2011: ... The relative risk of narcolepsy was four times higher in vaccinated children and adolescents (born from 1990) compared to unvaccinated individuals. So, incorrect, when considering the relative risk, which is all people should be interested in. Catching bird flu/covid isn't inevitable for most people, far from it in fact.
- learc83 6y ago
  The study didn't control for the differences in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Children with chronic medical conditions are more likely to be vaccinated, and some preliminary reports show a correlation between medical conditions that indicate flu vaccination and narcolepsy [1]. And from what I can tell, the control group didn't exclude kids vaccinated with other H1N1 vaccines. Because of that, that study can't say that the 4x higher number is the relative risk of taking Pandermrix. There are also issues with potential over diagnosis and recall bias because of public awareness of the issue through the media [1]. The real problem is that this effect is so small, not that the effect takes years to develop. We're talking 4 cases of narcolepsy per 100k kids. Even a 10 year long study of 30k Phase 3 vaccine participants is unlikely to discover something like that. Nearly all new drugs that are released could have similar side effects. It's just not feasible to conduct studies large enough to discover them until you start rolling it out to millions of people. 1.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962758/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962758/

J-dawg 6y ago

The UK government has already stated that pregnant women won't be getting the vaccine. (https://inews.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-pregnant-women-wait-give-birth-vaccination-uk-775264 https://inews.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-pregnant-women...) This seems at odds with the gung-ho "it's 100% safe" rhetoric of our politicians. I am by no means an anti-vaxxer, but I'm already finding it creepy the way any concerns are simply being dismissed. It's also just bad policy: it means that any unexpected side-effects that do emerge (even if very rare / not serious) will look much worse and immediately stink of a cover-up. What's wrong with saying: "We are confident, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that the risk of taking this vaccine is lower than the risk of contracting Covid"? Not "This vaccine is definitely safe". I am sick of politicians treating the electorate as if they are morons who can't understand the slightest bit of nuance. As you mention, vaccines can cause harm and have done in the past. Some degree of caution might be warranted.

natex 6y ago
The concerns are not being "simply dismissed". You just didn't take the time to read any of the material. "JCVI recognises that the MHRA’s advice is based on the absence of evidence in pregnancy, and not on the presence of evidence to implicate toxicity in pregnancy." It's all laid out for anyone with true concerns. Here you go: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941450/Greenbook_chapter_14a_v2.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- J-dawg 6y ago
  Thanks for that. And you're right, I hadn't seen that document before. But concerns absolutely are being dismissed. I've personally listened to Matt Hancock and other ministers doing it. The idea that someone might want to wait just a little longer to see if any side effects emerge is not necessarily irrational. Would you not concede that, if and when any unexpected side-effects do emerge (however rare or insignificant), this gung-ho attitude will backfire?
  - natex 6y ago