Posts by ron
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
"Ron, your answer speaks volumes".
As do your fictitioius claims, which you have failed to correct. Intellectual dishonesty of the worst sort.
-
James,
It's a pity you didn't pull of out of the debate earlier, thus saving us from having to read your fictitious claims, including that meningococcal disease looks like it is being wiped out. I'm sure that will come as a great surprise to those continuing to die from the disease.
The fact that MeNZB has been a gross misuse of taxpayers' money is such a simple proposition, and so easily proved, that it is difficult to understand why otherwise intelligent people find it so difficult to comprehend.
-
Jon,
You refer to costs, or non-market savings, that are incurred when dealing with loss or morbidity. But surely these costs apply with almost any disease? The families of women with breast cancer presumably face the same costs. The families of those killed in road accidents face similar costs. James obviously knows that, so it is disingenuous of him to focus only on such costs in the conext of the MeNZB vaccine.
James made no reference to these costs in the context of the Herceptin debate, yet he confidently predicted that the cost of each life saved was $1 million. Using his methodology, I calculated that the costs of each life saved by MeNZB is at least $20 million (but probably much higher). Remarkably, James believes that Herceptin should not be funded by the government, but says it is too early to tell if the government has made the right decision re MeNZB. That is intellectually dishonest.
-
"Thanks for your charming and patronising reply".
You're welcome, James. Ignore the facts at your peril.
"There were 113 strain cases in 2005, and 259 in 2003, so it's not a great stretch to see how over several years there could be a savings of hundreds.
Yes, there could be a large saving if the vaccine actually worked. But there's no evidence that it works. Indeed we still have an epidemic. So we're still paying for ongoing hospitalisation of victims, on top of the tens of millions of $$$ on the biggest health initiative ever. Then there are the ACC payouts to those suffering serious side-effects from the vax. The true "cost" of MeNZB is unlikely to ever be known.
"The vaccine doesn't aim to prevent hospitalisation, but aims to prevent infection".
I half expected you to say that the vaccine doesn’t aim to prevent death. Most people who become infected unsurprisingly end up going to hospital. The fact remains that an unvaxed child has about the same risk of contracting the disease as that of a vaxed child.
“So if you reduce the number of cases, then the chances of the old people catching it and dying are lower”.
But any reduction in cases due to the vaccine is likely to be very small and hard to measure. BTW, you are referring to herd immunity. MeNZB researchers say that the vaccine doesn’t confer herd immunity. Furthermore, the Ministry of Health says that 80% of cases of meningococcal disease occur in those aged under 20. It is rare for an older person to die from the epidemic strain of the disease.
“You calculate only a cost per life saved (and then only young lives)”.
The ministry’s propaganda campaign made a big deal of the number of deaths caused by the epidemic strain. BTW, didn’t you estimate the cost per life saved in relation to Herceptin?
“However, there are other savings relating to non-hospitalisations and all sorts of other things”.
What other savings and what other things are there? Did you factor other savings and other things into your estimated cost of one million dollars per life saved by Herceptin? Apparently not.
The decision to spend more than $200 million on an untested and unnecessary vaccine was based on misleading information and falsified data. To paraphrase Russell Brown: there were better things to do with that much money.
-
In response to the assertion that between 2001 and roll-out, there was a massive fall in deaths and case numbers, James asked "I assume you're talking about only the specific strain, and that you conviently chose 2001 because it makes the figures look better?"
Well, the MOH admits that 2001 was when the epidemic peaked, but I can confirm that the figures relate to the epidemic strain. I would've thought that such a massive fall in disease numbers was something to crow about.
James also claimed that there "are hundreds not hospitalised". I'm not sure what figures he's referring to but there were only 161 cases of meningococcal disease last year. Of these, less than 100 will have been caused by the epidemic strain. The reference to hundreds is therefore puzzling. Moreover, there is evidence that the rate of hospitalisation among vaxed kids is about the same as that among non-vaxed kids. So the cost of treating the two is roughly the same.
Finally, James says that the "numbers for MeNZB are a bit harder to calculate". Whether he tried to work out the figures is not clear.
Only one or two under 20 year olds die of the epidemic strain each year (since 2001). Let's be generous and say that the average number of lives saved by the vaccine is 2 each year. Let's also be generous and say the effects of MeNZB last for 5 years. This seems unlikely given that babies are given a fourth shot to try to boost their immune systems. Why three shots don't confer sufficient protection has never been explained. There have also been children who have caught the disease within 12 months of being fully vaxed. So 5 (years) times 2 (deaths) equals 10 lives saved. At a cost of more than $200 million, that's more than $20 million per life. But the real cost is likely to be greater, given that my assumptions are generous.
James's response is that "we'll never really know for sure if it was the right call". Actually, I think we do know. But some people prefer to ignore the evidence. It's called intellectual dishonesty. "I think I could do with putting some time into some other things". I know what you mean.