"Ron, your answer speaks volumes".
As do your fictitioius claims, which you have failed to correct. Intellectual dishonesty of the worst sort.
"The numbers for MeNZB are a bit harder to calculate, but it would appear that if account for both deaths and hospitalisations, MeNZB is probably cheaper than Herceptin".
Fictitious claim #1.
The fact is that the rate of hospitalization is the same for vaxed and non-vaxed kids. So the rate of hospitalization is irrelevant. However, the rate of hospitalization for meningococcal disease is significantly lower than for breast cancer.
"As to the cost [of MeNZB] being relatively low. It's presumably relatively low (cost of vaccine divided by cost of prevented cases)"
Fictitious claim #2.
No, it's relatively high. There is no evidence that the vaccine prevents disease. Treating cases with antibitoics is successful in the vast majority of cases and is low-cost.
Is it possible to incorporate a compulsory NZ English (or AU/UK?) spell checker here?
I thought ross f went away?
Meanwhile, am I the only one that immediately balks at claims like '$20m per life saved is too expensive'?
Maybe I'm just being a big wuss lefty.
Putting a $ value on a life then basing health purchasing decisions based on that is always going to be fraught with difficulty, however it is the simplist way of comparing multiple different situations and deciding priority. The other alternatives I guess would be age or some sort of quality of life index - which are also going to be fraught. Basically glad its not me making these choices (outside of buying private health insurance as added security)
You're so obsessed with this that you're not even reading/thinking straight. If the vaccine works (and that is obviously open to debate), and it saves a life, that is presumably because there are fewer cases (The vaccine is supposed to prevent cases, not deaths). So if it does work, and there are fewer cases, then there are fewer hospitalisations, and thereby fewer deaths. Thus, if you're looking at cost savings, then there is saved cost not only from prevented deaths, but prevented hospitalisations. This has nothing to do with hospitalisation rates between vaxed and non-vaxed kids, which you'd expect to be the same anyway. After all, the vaccine (if it works) prevents infections. Once infected, the chance of being hospitalised should be the same.
"There is also the fact that because it's a now issue, delaying it would miss the point of it".
Fictitious claim #3
Between 2001 and roll-out, the numbers of deaths and cases fell by 70% and 50% respectively. There was no need to commit more than $200 million of taxpayers' money when the "epidemic" was waning naturally. The Lancet medical journal has described the efficacy of the parent vaccine, which was trialled but never released, as "insufficient to justify a public immunisation programme". There is no evidence that MeNZB is more effective than the parent vaccine.
Who's thinking straight?
James wrote: "Thus, if you're looking at cost savings, then there is saved cost not only from prevented deaths, but prevented hospitalisations".
No argument there. But the cost of hospitalisation is low. Why spend a fortune on a disease that doesn't cost a lot to treat, and when there is no evidence that the vaccine is necessary, safe or effective? As I've said, cost savings apply to all diseases and morbidity. You seem to think that menignococcal disease is unique.
"After all, the vaccine (if it works) prevents infections".
Again, no argument. If it did work, I would expect very few kids would need to be hospitalised. Infection rates should be relatively higher (say, 4-6%) for the unvaxed population compared with the vaxed population (0-1%). Rates of infection are almost identical for both populations. The vaccine isn't working.
The fact is that the rate of hospitalization is the same for vaxed and non-vaxed kids.
ron - if someone contracts the disease despite being vaccinated they have exactly the same chance of ending up in hospital as someone who contracted the disease and was not vaccinated. That is not a surprise to anyone.
This is just one instance among many where you have been called to task on this thread, assuming you are also the artist formally known as ross f.
Your attempts to perform magic tricks with numbers are unconvincing to say the least.
The damage this sort of junk analysis can have on public health is profound, please do some serious thinking before spouting off such rubbish.
Perhaps I've gone bonkers.
I couldn't see where Don got this quote from:
"The fact is that the rate of hospitalization is the same for vaxed and non-vaxed kids".
"Rates of infection are almost identical for both populations. The vaccine isn't working".
I'd expect that if people are vaccinated against a particular disease, infection rates should decline (or perhaps in the case of an epidemic/snowball situation the rate of increase in infection slows or stabilises) . If there isn't a decline in the rate of infection (or rate of increase in infection) then I've got to wonder what 's going on regardless of the amount of dollars spent.
I don't have an axe to grind around this, but kinda wonder what all the fuss is about.
Don got it here from page 9
jon_knox - well, yes anyone following this thread might go bonkers. That is the point. ron/ross has been throwing around so much misinformation it is hard to see the wood for the trees. I think that is deliberate.
I'd expect that if people are vaccinated against a particular disease, infection rates should decline
Exactly. And there is a valid debate to be had around this and it is probably to early too have that debate although it would seem some indicators are positive and some are debatable. Go figure, life is complicated.
I noticed this quote though from Tapu Misa's article on Sue Bradford's bill:
Unicef report which placed New Zealand at the bottom [third] of the OECD ... for immunisation rates
That's pathetic and probably partly a result of the idiotic obfuscation by the likes of ron/ross and his mates. Given the Green's stance on protecting our children (smacking) I find their opposition to immunisation incredibly hypocritical. I wonder if it leads to more deaths and disability than child abuse.
I had a chat with my better half about this last night, as she is a scientist working in medical research. She indicated that it's likely that given the vaccination program is only a few years old that it may be too early to really be able to meaningfully determine the success of the program.
This was in stark contrast of my desire for results to be apparent immediately. (this always-connected/Internet-age thingo is doing nothing to improve my patience!).
Given the amount of dollars that are rumoured to have been spent on the vaccination program, I'd think the parties responsible for the money would have rounded up a bunch of the relevant experts (across Public Health & Stats), who devised a cunning bunch of early indicators and planned a checkpoint at a suitably early point in the program. If the early checkpoint metrics were indicating at the that the program was not hitting the projected targets, then they roll into the plan about seeking to identify the causes and what should be done to rectify.
Perhaps this is already in place or was on the "nice to have" list, but not actually implemented...I dunno? (and now resume my impression of ostrich with head in sand).
Jon wrote: "She indicated that it's likely that given the vaccination program is only a few years old that it may be too early to really be able to meaningfully determine the success of the program".
I'm not sure by that comment Jon. Your wife should know that the proramme ended in June 2006 (although under 5s can still access the vaccine). The effect of the vaccine - even if it worked - doesn't last forever. Babies are now given a booster shot because the Health Ministry realised that three shots weren't enough. This begs the question: why didn't the MoH test the vaccine to determine if three shots were enough? If three shots aren't enough for babies, what "protection" does the same number of shots offer older kids? At least 34 fully vaccinated kids have contracted the epidemic strain. Other fully vaccinated kids have contracted other strains of the disease.
The fact remains that the epidemic strain of the disease was waning naturally before rollout. The vaccine is and was unnecessary.
You sure have a bee in your bonnett.
"ron/ross has been throwing around so much misinformation".
So much misinformation that you can't actually say what it is. You do not get to pass Go and collect $200.
"ron - if someone contracts the disease despite being vaccinated they have exactly the same chance of ending up in hospital as someone who contracted the disease and was not vaccinated".
You've clearly missed the point. The point of the vaccine is to PREVENT kids from catching the disease. Therefore, vaccinated kids should not be ending up in hospital. However, they are ending up in hospital.
"Given the Green's stance on protecting our children (smacking) I find their opposition to immunisation incredibly hypocritical. I wonder if it leads to more deaths and disability than child abuse".
For the record, I'm opposed to Bradford's bill outlawing smacking. But that is another debate. And I think you'll find that the Greens - like me - are not opposed to immunisation. But they have raised valid questions about this particular vaccine.
Out of interest, have you ever been on a hospital waiting list? If so, would you rather have not been on one?
interesting to observe that not once has rossoron even acknowledged, let alone refuted, the suggestion that he is ross.
The fact remains that the epidemic strain of the disease was waning naturally before rollout.
That would be a pretty good argument. Except that the epidemic strain also naturally waned to a similar level in 1998. But then it waxed again (see graph). So what great exists to differentiate that waning from this waning, Wayne?