I'm seeing alot of armchair medicine and statistics going on here, with the majority of faulty interpretations coming from the naysayers. Not that an internet forum should be limited to those who truly know what they're talking about, but who amongst you naysayers is even in healthcare, to speak with such authority?
As many poster have pointed out in this thread, the primary function of the vaccine is preventative medicine, not treatment. If you want to talk cost/benefit ratio's, this is the most efficacious, especially in the setting of a bona fied pandemic. All the attention given by health officials towards H1N1 is to encourage you to get a vaccination, and educate those who erroneously still think "this is just like the seasonal flu and I'm young and healthy so I don't need it". I too am confirming to you, that this is different than regular flu, particularily in terms of spread and virulence within the previously healthy, young adult demographic.
Inept dispersion of the vaccine because of administrative issues, does not invalidate the medical reasons for getting the vaccine. Health care providers advocating vaccination are not responsible for for this problem, alot of it actually stems from decisions made by the former Liberal government.
Complaining about mass crowds in ER/vaccination clinics as being the primary transmitter of disease, is a bit of a straw man argument employed by the naysayers, but regardless is a small price of raised awarness. Not to mention health authorities have been trying to get the message out that 1) People who are already sick shouldnt be trying to get the vaccine immediately as it's not effective until ~2 weeks after, and 2) people who are sick are being told by health authorities to stay home (ie. isolated) and get diagnosed/prescribed treatment over the phone. Heck, they even set a record time in creating a seperate billing code for us physicians to do this.
Lastly, the statisticians quoting deaths or hospitalizations divided by total population, to marginalize their perceived risks, are making a big mistake. If you want to keep it relevant, you should be calculating adverse events divided by total population exposed, not against the baseline population. As we go forward into the winter months, and people get exposed at an exponential rate, what do you think will happen to your percentages? What happens to your numbers when you consider that it seems ages 20-39 are the second highest age group affected with adverse events? What about the fact that just under 50% of those hospitalized/ventilated/dead had no prior health issues? At what number does a risk probability become significant to you?
|