Difference between revisions of "Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group D"

Resolution: Resolution not yet found.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

⇤J1 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)

⇤D1 : Side effects are still there and will be treated poorly in these countries. --Carmen Gil 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST)

--D2 : The decision to use Pandemrix was probably led by panic and other choices should be considered at this point. --Carmen Gil 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST)

--# : This is a valid comment. However, comments do not affect the outcome of a discussion. You might want to develop this into an attack or a defence. --Jouni 07:45, 2 April 2011 (EEST)

←D3 : Finland used a vaccination with additives, against the recommendation of WHO --Carmen Gil 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST)

→D4 : Additives can cause flu-like symptoms, increasing the public's opinion against vaccination --Carmen Gil 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST)

--# : Good usage of branches! However, branches do not affect the outcome of a discussion. You could use this branch also to defend J2 and then it would have an impact on this discussion. --Jouni 07:45, 2 April 2011 (EEST)

←J2 : The reputation of Pandemrix is globally so poor that it is impossible to use it any more. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST)

←J3 : In Finland, THL decided to stop the use of Pandemrix. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST), [1]

⇤D5 : Pandemrix has a lower Hg content than other vaccines (2.5 vs 25 µg), which could cause other neurological problems in children --Carmen Gil 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST)