Hard News: Sunday newspaper prints informative and well-researched story
194 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Ah celebrity mugshots - an artform for our time
actually it looks like he's inadvertantly gotten into some deep-crouton treatment.
-
Wotcher Riddley, no trubba.
-
Trubba not hamishm, ross arga warga
-
ross arga warga
One will get this at a Poasyum of the Puter Leat like this.
-
There aint that many sir prizes in life if you take noatis of every thing
-
So that we avoid "when Littl Salting Fents got largent in by Dog Et Form"
Nice to make contact with a sharer of the knowlege. Are you a Krakenista?
-
i were the loan of my name.
mckrackenista? -
You guys are fremasons?
-
he he. yeah post-apocolyptic pagan ones
-
ron,
"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.
-
Readers of Riddley Walker
-
the above post makes me think i may have stepped in a crack in the time-space continuum
-
Mckrakenista is right. Normally curved?
-
only a person on drugs could concieve of this being successful
-
Our woal life is a idear we dint think of nor we don't know what it is. The worl is full of things waiting to happen hamishm.
-
Be that blip or jus a way of saying or what?
-
Now weare coming to the curse roads of it Erny now weare getting down to terpitation.
-
Interesting thread when people aren't engaging in personal attacks (or speaking in tongues).
Playing the ball (i.e. addressing the argument) and not the man (i.e. avoiding ad hominem abuse/insults) should be encouraged.
Respect to those who make their point plainly without the need to patronize, insult or retaliate to provocation (real, imagined or otherwise)!
James seemed to put forward a reasoned and logical position, but Ron seems to counter these (when not having a swipe at James) in a way that shares those attributes....Hmmm perhaps Ruth Laugesen could continue her good work and clarify?
Ron wrote:
What other savings and what other things are there?
Non-market savings. Soft costs that are often difficult to calculate (& thus I'd assume are ommitted for the sake of pragmatism). The cost of having a family go through the strain of dealing with the disease, perhaps the loss of having a breadwinner out of action, the opportunity cost in having those hospital resources deal with this patient rather than another patient(s). I’m guessing here though as I really have no idea what is included or excluded when the analysts determine what they think the costs/savings are.
-
ron,
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.
-
yep saul in the terpitation now
-
But surely these costs apply with almost any disease?
Yep and as you infer, they're everywhere.
(vacuous look returns to my face which strangely enough looking in the direction of Dunedin).
-
Ron,
Your failure to grasp the rather obvious difference between the cost calculation of MeNZB and Herceptin makes me wonder about the logic (or intellectual honesty) or your other arguments.
I calculated the cost per life saved for Herceptin because it would only be given to women who already have breast cancer. Thus, in terms of other costs, they're already in and out of hospitals, their families, lives etc. are already battered. Thus, dividing the cost by 19 is actually reasonably accurate.
In contrast, the fatality rate for MengeB is 4-6%. Because almost everybody that gets it is hospitalised, that means for every death there are at least 15 hospitalisations. Herceptin does not have such associated hospitalisations. It either prevents remissions (life saved), or it doesn't :(
Unlike the families of Her2+ breast cancer patients, the families of people that contract MengeB are not already in shock etc. etc. Therefore, dividing the number of MengeB deaths by the cost does not produce an accurate cost/benefit ratio. That's the reason I use different methodologies for each instance. It's because they're different(!)I think the real problem here is that you care a little too much about your point of view, and it's blinding you to gaping holes in your logic. I don't particularly give a toss about either of these cases, I just get annoyed by the misuse of statistics. Thus, I think I'll respectfully pull out of this debate, because I don't ever think you'll see the elephant in your living room.
-
ron,
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.
-
Ron, your answer speaks volumes.
-
yeah... rossron
Post your response…
This topic is closed.