Difference between revisions of "Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination"
(→Pandemrix should not be used because of narcolepsy risk) |
(→Pandemrix should not be used because of narcolepsy risk: technical corrections) |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
{{defend|2 |The reputation of Pandemrix is globally so poor that it is impossible to use it any more.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST)}} | {{defend|2 |The reputation of Pandemrix is globally so poor that it is impossible to use it any more.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST)}} | ||
:{{defend|3 |In Finland, THL decided to stop the use of Pandemrix.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST), [http://www.thl.fi/fi_FI/web/fi/uutinen?id{{eq}}22930]}} | :{{defend|3 |In Finland, THL decided to stop the use of Pandemrix.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST), [http://www.thl.fi/fi_FI/web/fi/uutinen?id{{eq}}22930]}} | ||
− | ::{{attack| | + | ::{{attack|E6 |The vaccination used last year will most likely protect also against the possible swine flu epidemic of this year, although the virus has changed a bit.|--[[User:Sallamari Tynkkynen|Sallamari Tynkkynen]] 10:57, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [http://www.thl.fi/fi_FI/web/fi/uutinen?id{{eq}}23692]}} |
− | :::{{defend| | + | :::{{defend|E7 |Vaccination is a very good method of preventing swine flu infections.|--[[User:Sallamari Tynkkynen|Sallamari Tynkkynen]] 10:59, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [http://www.thl.fi/fi_FI/web/fi/uutinen?id{{eq}}23692]}} |
+ | :::{{defend|E8 |WHO recommended that H1N1 virus strain be included in the seasonal flu vaccines for the 2009/2010 season, because H1N1 is still in circulation, but behaving like a seasonal flu virus. |--[[User:Anna Kokkonen|Anna Kokkonen]] 11:10, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl{{eq}}pages/special_topics/general/general_content_000461.jsp&murl{{eq}}menus/special_topics/special_topics.jsp&mid{{eq}}WC0b01ac05801d7bfe&jsenabled{{eq}}true]}} | ||
+ | :::{{defend|E9 |The information supplied on the safety and effectiveness of three of the pandemic-influenza vaccines was considered complete enough for the Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use to recommend their use outside a pandemic situation. |--[[User:Anna Kokkonen|Anna Kokkonen]] 11:10, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl{{eq}}pages/special_topics/general/general_content_000461.jsp&murl{{eq}}menus/special_topics/special_topics.jsp&mid{{eq}}WC0b01ac05801d7bfe&jsenabled{{eq}}true]}} | ||
− | {{attack| | + | {{attack|E4 |The side effects of Pandemrix have been accentuated, although the benefits are much more significant.|--[[User:Sallamari Tynkkynen|Sallamari Tynkkynen]] 10:50, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/MTV3+Arkkiatri+moittii+sikainfluenssarokotteen+vastustajia/1135250236010]}} |
− | {{attack| | + | {{attack|E5 |Nursing staff in hospitals should be vaccinated; it is their responsibility as medical professionals.|--[[User:Sallamari Tynkkynen|Sallamari Tynkkynen]] 10:54, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/MTV3+Arkkiatri+moittii+sikainfluenssarokotteen+vastustajia/1135250236010]}} |
}} | }} |
Revision as of 08:14, 1 April 2011
Darm exercise 4
Tasks:
- Make pairs and select one group A-E (D and E have Finnish material).
- Look at page Discussion for theoretical and practical advice. Also page op_fi:Keskustelun jälkijäsentäminen may be useful.
- Look at the two or three links on your group's page.
- Read the texts and try to identify arguments about the use of Pandemrix. Note that arguments can be (and most are) indirect arguments.
- Rewrite the arguments in such a way that they can be understood outside the original context.
- Place the arguments into a hierarchical tree of attacking and defending arguments pointing toward the main statement about Pandemrix use.
- You can also make up your own arguments, or if you have extra time, read additional material (see end of the page).
- When each group has done their own part, there will be a general discussion about all argumentations by the groups. All argumentations will be merged onto this page based on the discussion.
- Think: How many readers do you need to make this extra effort of collecting, organising and synthesising information and opinions a worthwhile activity of social learning?
Pandemrix should not be used because of narcolepsy risk
Statements: Pandemrix should not be used any more anywhere because its narcolepsy risk is too high.
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
Argumentation:
⇤1 : Despite risks, Pandemrix is an effective vaccine and has clearly net positive effects in countries where emergency treatment is poorly available for severe swine flu cases. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST) ←2 : The reputation of Pandemrix is globally so poor that it is impossible to use it any more. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST)
⇤E4 : The side effects of Pandemrix have been accentuated, although the benefits are much more significant. --Sallamari Tynkkynen 10:50, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [6] ⇤E5 : Nursing staff in hospitals should be vaccinated; it is their responsibility as medical professionals. --Sallamari Tynkkynen 10:54, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [7] |
Discussion groups:
- Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group A
- Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group B
- Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group C
- Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group D (Finnish material)
- Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group E (Finnish material)
Additional material: