|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2021 19:27:25 GMT
|
|
daveb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 245
Likes: 201
|
Post by daveb on Nov 24, 2021 19:38:05 GMT
"In the 1950s, scientists did not know that the effects of a drug could be passed through the placental barrier and harm a foetus in the womb, so the use of medications during pregnancy was not strictly controlled. And in the case of thalidomide, no tests were done involving pregnant women. As the drug was traded under so many different names in 49 countries, it took five years for the connection between thalidomide taken by pregnant women and the impact on their children to be made. A UK Government warning was not issued until May 1962. One reason why researchers and doctors were slow to make this connection was due to the wide range of changes to foetal development. Limbs, internal organs including the brain, eyesight and hearing could all be affected. Later, they found that the impact on development was linked to when during pregnancy the drug was taken, and effects only occurred between 20 and 37 days after conception. After that, thalidomide had no effect on the foetus. Another reason why it took so long to establish the link to thalidomide was that some of the damage caused by the drug was very similar to certain genetic conditions that affect the upper or lower limbs. The thalidomide scandal The first time the link between thalidomide and its impact on development was made public was in a letter published in The Lancet from an Australian doctor William McBride, in 1961. The drug was formally withdrawn by Chemie Grünenthal on 26 November 1961 and a few days later, on 2 December 1961, the UK distributors followed suit. However, it remained in many medicine cabinets under many different names. In the few short years that thalidomide was available, it's estimated that over 10,000 babies were affected by the drug worldwide. Around half died within months of being born. The thalidomide babies who survived and their families live with the effects of the drug."
Quite interesting context if you weren't aware of it-some of us may have been. Vaccines sometimes harm people, but I'm not aware of any situations in which on average across a population the harm is greater than that of catching the wild infection, certainly not when the wild infection is present in about 2% of the population at any one time which has been the case recently.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,649
Likes: 5,039
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 24, 2021 22:06:05 GMT
I agree with your points in spades but I'd got further (which you may not agree with) and link some of your thoughts to the attitude I'm seeing from many medical scientists. I've said before I think, this is a big moment and for some of them they have become extremely powerful as a result. Further, I don't believe all of them are being 100% transparent all the time about what they know is true and what is conjecture. As for "anti-vax", I'm remain pro-vax and will be getting my booster in a couple of weeks but I shouldn't have to say that in order not to be labelled "anti-vax" or vaccine denier or some such. I do believe people should have a choice and it should never be mandatory such has happened in Austria. I don't have a problem with "gentle" persuasion such as restricting access to non-essential venues to the un-vaxed but no more than that. After all, when we look back I think we were sold something at the start of the year that has turned out to be nowhere near as good and like most medicine comes with its own side effects. As for Thalimiade, what does it matter if that was just a "drug" and these are vaccines? They are both drugs. Medicine, science and rigour has moved on but will no-doubt be considered primitive by those looking back in 50 or 100 years time. Thus it is entirely understandable that conspiracy theories and refuseniks sprout up. There are a lot of unknowns and the risks of any drug should always be considered in a sensible manner without being labelled "balls of infection" or "anti-vax". Lets hope those that advocate mandatory vaccine injections, don't become one of the 1 in a 100,000 (at the least) who suffer heart disease or death due to known side affects. The current attitude to vaccines is a great big roll-up of a whole bunch of things, from Andrew Wakefield/MMR through the politicisation of "alternative facts" - Climate Change, Brexit, Trump. Quite simply, a lot of people think their uninformed gut-feel and preference is more important than actual knowledge and scientific fact. People are so statistically innumerate that they are happy to state with a straight face that they'd rather take a very big risk than an almost infinitesimally small one, and not even realise that they're doing so. Purely anecdotally, I know NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON who has suffered anything more than temporarily feeling a bit wonky from the vacc (I had a 24hr hangover from my first AZ - and that's simply the immune system working on it), but I know a lot of people suffering long 'vid to various extents, while I count myself lucky to not have lost anybody directly... and that's despite knowing a LOT more vaccinated people than people who have contracted the infection. I have no idea how the Austrians will enforce "mandatory" vaccines. Somehow, I doubt they will be dragging people in off the streets and strapping them down while they're jabbed. I suspect it will just be fines - probably substantial for the terminally intransigent, and that brings in the whole saga of what happens where people refuse to pay. But in a country where 100% of the adult population have had plenty of opportunity, for a third of them to have steadfastly refused? No, the carrot is clearly not working, and the stick is clearly required. Vaccination is NOT just about the individual. It's about the population. Refusing for vacuous non-reasons is simple selfishness. As for thalidomide, anybody trying to draw parallels again shows their scientific illiteracy. Thalidomide was originally tested and licensed as a sedative for general use, two-thirds of a century ago - just three years after DNA had been "discovered" by Watson, Crick, and Franklin; a decade and a half after the first patient was treated with penicillin; while the oral contraceptive pill was still four years into the future... It was not only a very different time in terms of medical science, but it almost single-handedly brought in our current massively onerous pharmaceutical approvals regime... (It's still available and prescribed today - now against cancer.)
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,649
Likes: 5,039
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 24, 2021 22:21:39 GMT
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,535
Likes: 6,331
|
Post by registerme on Nov 24, 2021 22:52:16 GMT
The current attitude to vaccines is a great big roll-up of a whole bunch of things, from Andrew Wakefield/MMR through the politicisation of "alternative facts" - Climate Change, Brexit, Trump. Quite simply, a lot of people think their uninformed gut-feel and preference is more important than actual knowledge and scientific fact. People are so statistically innumerate that they are happy to state with a straight face that they'd rather take a very big risk than an almost infinitesimally small one, and not even realise that they're doing so. . . . . . I have no idea how the Austrians will enforce "mandatory" vaccines. I have a friend who's an Austrian policeman. He works in an office with three colleagues, two of whom are unvaccinated. The two "anti-vaxers" have requested that they be moved to another office because they are concerned about what they might catch from the two who are vaccinated.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,649
Likes: 5,039
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 24, 2021 22:55:50 GMT
I have a friend who's an Austrian policeman. He works in an office with three colleagues, two of whom are unvaccinated. The two "anti-vaxers" have requested that they be moved to another office because they are concerned about what they might catch from the two who are vaccinated. <boggle>
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,535
Likes: 6,331
|
Post by registerme on Nov 24, 2021 23:01:52 GMT
Politer than my response when he told me!
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Nov 25, 2021 3:05:34 GMT
I agree with your points in spades but I'd got further (which you may not agree with) and link some of your thoughts to the attitude I'm seeing from many medical scientists. I've said before I think, this is a big moment and for some of them they have become extremely powerful as a result. Further, I don't believe all of them are being 100% transparent all the time about what they know is true and what is conjecture. As for "anti-vax", I'm remain pro-vax and will be getting my booster in a couple of weeks but I shouldn't have to say that in order not to be labelled "anti-vax" or vaccine denier or some such. I do believe people should have a choice and it should never be mandatory such has happened in Austria. I don't have a problem with "gentle" persuasion such as restricting access to non-essential venues to the un-vaxed but no more than that. After all, when we look back I think we were sold something at the start of the year that has turned out to be nowhere near as good and like most medicine comes with its own side effects. As for Thalimiade, what does it matter if that was just a "drug" and these are vaccines? They are both drugs. Medicine, science and rigour has moved on but will no-doubt be considered primitive by those looking back in 50 or 100 years time. Thus it is entirely understandable that conspiracy theories and refuseniks sprout up. There are a lot of unknowns and the risks of any drug should always be considered in a sensible manner without being labelled "balls of infection" or "anti-vax". Lets hope those that advocate mandatory vaccine injections, don't become one of the 1 in a 100,000 (at the least) who suffer heart disease or death due to known side affects. People are so statistically innumerate that they are happy to state with a straight face that they'd rather take a very big risk than an almost infinitesimally small one, and not even realise that they're doing so. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? Six months ago - approximately when my daughter was offered the vaccine - nobody could say categorically that the risk to the foetus was an "almost infinitesimally small one". In fact, immediately prior to that, the advice to pregnant women was NOT to have the vaccine. Your take on statistical innumeracy is largely valid in general (except in our case, my daughter and I are highly qualified in that area). What you are missing is proper risk analysis. A very tiny probability of a very serious outcome (such as, for the sake of argument, a foetus permanently handicapped) is a very significant matter. That's the risk my daughter took a calculated gamble against. Every pregnant woman was (perhaps still is) faced with the same dilemma. The advice is acknowledged by experts to have been inconsistent, and the vaccine was untested in pregnant women. Is it any surprise some took the decision they did? I can't express it any better than Oxford's Prof Knight, in your Guardian article: “We may face the paradoxical situation of recommending vaccination for a risk group in which the vaccine is untested,” [Prof] Knight wrote. “What I predicted has come to pass,” Knight says now. “What I didn’t predict, really sadly, is that I would also be counting women dying from a vaccine-preventable disease due to the high levels of uncertainty among pregnant women, and inconsistent advice.” This thalidomide focus on "it's a medication not a vaccine", and the historical "things have moved on" dimension, misses the point, which was purely one of trust in medical assurances. The experts tell us so convincingly that all is safe, even if the grounds for that assertion are somewhat shaky. You cannot deny that the vaccine trial on pregnant women - the longer-term effect on the foetus/infant - is still ongoing. Just as the professor says above in fact, it's a "risk group in which the vaccine is untested". The best anyone can assert is it's probably safe, and no more. Once more for emphasis, even today's better equipped and more knowledgeable experts with their "massively onerous pharmaceutical approvals regime" didn't anticipate the fatal blood clotting caused by one vaccine, having only just pronounced it safe and passed all trials. It's for each of us to decide for ourselves what level of trust we place on the advice from these experts. In the main, I do trust them personally, but I can understand why not everybody feels the same. It's not right to dismiss that entire group as statistically innumerate or scientifically illiterate, because you can be very wide of the mark... my daughter would run rings round you in both contexts.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,649
Likes: 5,039
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 25, 2021 7:42:11 GMT
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,419
Likes: 1,701
|
Post by benaj on Nov 25, 2021 7:46:35 GMT
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,649
Likes: 5,039
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 25, 2021 8:08:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 25, 2021 10:18:02 GMT
But this is backed up by absolutely no numbers. so how many/what percentage ? The online booking system I assume doesn't turn away those that are pregnant. I would be staggered if the major vaccine centres turned away those that are pregnant. Its never even been part of the standard NHS provided 'entry questions' in the many months I've been involved (unlike DOB, time of first/second jab, clear of covid for 28 days etc etc). I suspect the percentage being turned away are very small.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,419
Likes: 1,701
|
Post by benaj on Nov 25, 2021 11:09:40 GMT
coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations?areaType=nation&areaName=EnglandI wish the vaccine rollout for the under 18s could have been faster than the current rate. At the moment, less than 40% of the eligible school children in England aged between 12-15 had their first dose, and most children under 12 are not vaccinated. I guess we can’t complain to parents who can’t be bothered to take their children to get their vaccination during half term, and schools don’t have much to say to speed up nor promote vaccination campaign. Some schools even provide “broken links” for vaccination consents or even provide time limited link to have vaccination done at schools. 🤫
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,434
Likes: 2,552
|
Post by keitha on Nov 25, 2021 13:20:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 25, 2021 13:47:15 GMT
coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations?areaType=nation&areaName=EnglandI wish the vaccine rollout for the under 18s could have been faster than the current rate. At the moment, less than 40% of the eligible school children in England aged between 12-15 had their first dose, and most children under 12 are not vaccinated.
I guess we can’t complain to parents who can’t be bothered to take their children to get their vaccination during half term, and schools don’t have much to say to speed up nor promote vaccination campaign. Some schools even provide “broken links” for vaccination consents or even provide time limited link to have vaccination done at schools. 🤫 there is a reason for that.......
|
|