Text 28706, 187 rader
Skriven 2009-03-07 12:53:44 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Kommentar till en text av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Lucky dogs
==================
Hello Robert,
On Saturday March 07 2009 00:12, you wrote to me:
MV>> Bringing your grandfather's misfortune into the equation is
MV>> illogical as that has no effect on your chances.
RB> So you figure there will never be another influenza pandemic? One in
RB> which, as is usual, the older die first?
I can't say that of course. But the chances of that happening are not
influenced by the fact that your grandfather was not among the survivers in
1918. Had not he but his neighbour died, there would be just as much chance of
a new pandemic happening in the future.
RB>>> It's not a question of inheritance, but of common sense. I'm in a
RB>>> risk group (age, lung problems) and don't need any further
RB>>> problems.
MV>> Ah, THAT is something else. THAT is a factor that you should take
MV>> into account. But it has nothing to do with your grandfather.
RB> Only insofar as I realize what happened in 1918 can still happen
RB> today. Please, give me one reason why such is impossible. I'd be
RB> grateful to hear it.
I never said it was impossible.
MV>> I am not laughing. But I do wish to point out that predicting the
MV>> future is extremely difficult and my guess is that these experts
MV>> are no better in predicting the future than the experts that did
MV>> not predict the financial crisis we are in now.
RB> Maybe. Do YOU want to take the chance that they're wrong, at the risk
RB> of YOUR life?
Bob, whatever I do, I take a risk. There is no way to avoid that. The best I
can do is weigh the risks and make my decision.
MV>> I also wish to point out that he problem with flu virusses is that
MV>> hey mutate so quickly, and you can not make the vaccin until you
MV>> have a sample of the virus itself. So the inoculation programme is
MV>> always a step behind. It will not protect you against the next
MV>> mutation and the next mutation will be probably be the one that
MV>> emerges in the next flu wave.
RB> Although that is partly true, a vaccination WILL reduce the severity
RB> of the the infection even if it doesn't prevent it. If that's enough
RB> to save your life, isn't that worth it?
Again, I have to weigh that against the risk of adverse effects of the
inocculation itself.
MV>> There we go again. it was almost a century ago that your grand-
MV>> father died. Today we are far better equipped to deal with these kind
MV>> of situations. Your reaction is emotional, not rational.
RB> Unfortunately rational. Did you see what happened when anthrax spores
RB> were released after 9/11 in the States. Total chaos, total panic,
RB> never a real resolution. Now tell me _that_ was "emotional".
Of course, it was emotional. It was a complete overreaction. But tell me how
many people died? Five? Ten? I don't know, but I do know it was not millions.
Completely different kettle of fish.
[smallpox virus]
MV>> It may be a good idea to keep it for while. How can one really be
MV>> sure that a disease has totally been eradicated?
RB> That is the usual reason given for keeping the virus
Sound good to me.
RB> - that, and thepossibility of using it as a biological weapon in
RB> future. That, in fact, was the reason for isolating and storing the
RB> virus in the first place.
Hmmm... Biological weapons have as yet not been used in any large scale real
conflict. Maybe there is a reason for that. Maybe they are not as effective as
the scare stories will have us believe.
Maybe some idiot already tried it and it did not have the expected effect.
Maybe it had so little effect that it was not recognised by the receiver as an
attack with a biological weapon at all. Naturally the instigator would not call
a press conference to announce the failure...
MV>> Almost a century ago. Things were different then....
RB> Human metabolism was different then? Very surprising for me. Read the
RB> explanation of why mainly _young_ people with strong immune systems
RB> died. Older people didn't, or at least not as often. It's worth
RB> considering.
Human metabolism has not changed. Not much anyway. But the rest of the world
certainly has changed. We now have global near instantaneous communication. We
have health organisations that can respond within hours. In 1918 they did not
even recognise that flu for what it was at first. Our knowledge about these
things has grown exponentially since then. We are MUCH better equipped then in
1918 to deal with it.
MV>>>> Well, everyone has to make his own choice....
RB>>> Indeed. The only problem is that you only know whether you were
RB>>> right afterwards, and then there's no turning back. My personal
RB>>> attitude is that this "vaccination risk" business is more panic
RB>>> spreading than fact,
Perhaps. But what if you are wrong and the risk is real and substantial? Do you
want to take THAT risk?
MV>> What about that expert prediction than another pandemic is due?
MV>> How do you know that is not a hype spread by he pharmaceutical
MV>> industry?
Consider that much more money is to be gained by spreading a panic about a new
pandemic than a panic about vaccination risk.
RB> Afterwards all of us are smarter. Do you want to risk YOUR life that
RB> the "experts" are wrong this time?
Which ones? The ones who predict a new pandemic or the ones that say there is a
risk attached to the vaccination itself. They can both be wrong and either way
you take a risk.
MV>> "My attitude"? You may have missed it, but I *took* the flu
MV>> injection last year. But contrary to you I do not think that "if
MV>> it does not help, it does not harm either." I know that I am
MV>> weighing one risk against another. And I know that I am basically
MV>> gambling because I do not really know how big the risks are in my
MV>> specific case.
RB> Your attitude appeared to be do nothing and take the risk. If I
RB> misinterpreted you, I'm sorry.
What is there to misinterpret? This is what I wrote when I first responded to
this thread:
MV> Last year I took the yearly vaccination for the first time. But I do
MV> not see it as "playing safe", because although the risk is small, it
MV> is not 100% safe.
It looks like you do not always read my messages very well.
MV>> Regarding whooping cough, the protection is not 100% and not
MV>> forever. I was inoculated when i was young, but five years ago I
MV>> caught it nevertheless. Took me the best part of a year to
MV>> recover...
RB> Lousy luck, although you're lucky that it only took a year to recover.
RB> My son was still coughing 3 years after he went through the acute
RB> phase.
Very unfortunate. But don't be too hard on yourself over that. You took the
decision that you thought best at the time with the knowledge available to you
at the time. There is no going back with knowledge gained in hindsight.
RB> Incidently, _I_ was vaccinated against whooping cough and many
RB> other things in an era when people were not as hysterical as they are
RB> today, and luckily only caught the usual childhood diseases.
I do not consider it hysterical to discus the risks of vaccination. In the past
doctors were considered to be almost gods. But now people are better educated
and more aware of the fact that doctors are not infallible and that the cure
they prescribe can be worse than the disease. It HAS happened you know...
MV>> And right now i am recovering form a severe cold. yes i know it is
MV>> not flu and I am am not going to die of it. But I felt very bad
MV>> yesterday, could hardly think and I needed a bucket under my nose.
MV>> It will be over in a few days, so I will just ride it out.
RB> Then all I can do is wish you fast improvement.
I already feel a lot better. I is not over yet, but I can manage without the
bucket and the tons of cleenex. ;-)
RB> I know myself how miserable you feel in that situation. Forget fido
RB> and read a good book, if you can even concentrate on reading.
Actually I wacthed a couple of Startrek Voyager issues that were still in the
box...
Cheers, Michiel
--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
|