UN says new polio outbreak in Sudan caused by oral vaccine(apnews.com)
apnews.com
UN says new polio outbreak in Sudan caused by oral vaccine
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-health-middle-east-africa-united-nations-619efb65b9eeec5650f011b960a152e9
6 comments
The article needs some more context: namely that the outbreaks are caused by an old vaccine from which many countries have moved away. But it is very interesting that the live attentuated vaccine can mutate.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00812-z
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00812-z
>The article needs some more context
Why? It seems like a pretty straightforward factual article. Are you trying to add context in a well-meaning attempt to short-circuit the potential for this article to give credence to anti-vaxxers? Or that the pro-vaccine perspectives tend to heavily imply (or explicitly state) vaccines are without risks and this is a bit of an embarrassment? To qualify that further: not arguing the efficacy of vaccines as all public health officials agree the risk-reward ratio tilts heavily towards vaccines and vaccine historical success is unprecedented ... just the arguments that are made in support of them by well-meaning 'debunkers', 'skeptics' and 'science-communicators'.
Is that really what news is supposed to be? A way to drive narratives (well-meaning that those narratives may be), lest the readers take the 'wrong' idea if you just present the facts?
In other words, is this article supposed to:
1) Provide a factual account of events in Sudan around the Polio outbreak, OR
2) Further the goal of large-scale vaccination efforts in Sudan, Africa and the world.
#2 is certainly a worthy goal, but is that what the point of news is? Push worthy goals like #2, instead of doing #1?
>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00812-z
Not a huge fan of "Argument by citing a random published study to supports my conclusion" either. Typically in these cases, there are thousands of studies on the topic, some with very subtle conclusions - but specific studies are cherry-picked to support a pre-defined conclusions, which tends to say more about what the arguer believes versus what's actually true.
Here's my cynical conspiracy theory: This article would be flagged or banned on social media (Twitter/YouTube/Facebook) as misinformation, especially if shared by any non-mainstream outlet.
Why? It seems like a pretty straightforward factual article. Are you trying to add context in a well-meaning attempt to short-circuit the potential for this article to give credence to anti-vaxxers? Or that the pro-vaccine perspectives tend to heavily imply (or explicitly state) vaccines are without risks and this is a bit of an embarrassment? To qualify that further: not arguing the efficacy of vaccines as all public health officials agree the risk-reward ratio tilts heavily towards vaccines and vaccine historical success is unprecedented ... just the arguments that are made in support of them by well-meaning 'debunkers', 'skeptics' and 'science-communicators'.
Is that really what news is supposed to be? A way to drive narratives (well-meaning that those narratives may be), lest the readers take the 'wrong' idea if you just present the facts?
In other words, is this article supposed to:
1) Provide a factual account of events in Sudan around the Polio outbreak, OR
2) Further the goal of large-scale vaccination efforts in Sudan, Africa and the world.
#2 is certainly a worthy goal, but is that what the point of news is? Push worthy goals like #2, instead of doing #1?
>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00812-z
Not a huge fan of "Argument by citing a random published study to supports my conclusion" either. Typically in these cases, there are thousands of studies on the topic, some with very subtle conclusions - but specific studies are cherry-picked to support a pre-defined conclusions, which tends to say more about what the arguer believes versus what's actually true.
Here's my cynical conspiracy theory: This article would be flagged or banned on social media (Twitter/YouTube/Facebook) as misinformation, especially if shared by any non-mainstream outlet.
The article fails to mention that there are different polio vaccines and leaves the impression that there is a risk of polio infection from all vaccines.
>leaves the impression that there is a risk of polio infection from all vaccines.
To who? Did you think that? How did you manage to not get that impression? Don't trust the rest of the readers to figure things out?
What if the reason why there is so much mistrust of the news media is precisely because they take the same approach - that the reader needs to be forced fed a very specific interpretation and any contravening facts suppressed, lest they get the wrong impression from using their own head.
To who? Did you think that? How did you manage to not get that impression? Don't trust the rest of the readers to figure things out?
What if the reason why there is so much mistrust of the news media is precisely because they take the same approach - that the reader needs to be forced fed a very specific interpretation and any contravening facts suppressed, lest they get the wrong impression from using their own head.
Well, let's add some actual context that the article lacks.
1. The live vaccine has significant practical benefits, which should not be overlooked as has happened here.
Yes it's cheaper, which is often the thing highlighted in text written by industrialised countries where the price for the killed vaccine is not an obstacle to using it. It's cheaper to make and it's cheaper to deploy in the field.
But it's also actually more effective at inducing immunity. There are at least two reasons for that, let's start with the most obvious - this is literally the virus (albeit attenuated) so it's the best possible template for what your immune system needs to fight. It's not just fragments, or a similar shape mimicked by something else. Next, it's ingested, your immune system will first run into it in your gut, which is exactly where a "real" viral exposure would begin - whereas the killed vaccine has to be injected into a muscle.
Having an oral vaccine also avoids objections to needles and similar interventions which may be a problem in some cultures - everybody eats and drinks.
2. This is currently considered important news in the industrialised north only because of coronavirus vaccine development, normally approximately nobody cares about polio cases in Sudan. But today I see several articles purporting that this is somehow relevant or has important lessons for us preparing for distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine.
But that's nonsense, Oral Polio Vaccine is a live vaccine, it always did this, it's been known it does this and that you need to figure out a plan for how to get from "No wild virus" to "No polio" possibly via internationally subsidised deployment of the killed vaccine for many decades.
In contrast there are no existing or planned COVID-19 live vaccines. This isn't a zombie movie, fragments of non-working coronavirus can't magically re-assemble into a working transmissible virus and infect people. A protein designed to be like the "spike" used by a coronavirus is not a whole working virus, any more than pebble shaped like a shark tooth is a whole working shark.
1. The live vaccine has significant practical benefits, which should not be overlooked as has happened here.
Yes it's cheaper, which is often the thing highlighted in text written by industrialised countries where the price for the killed vaccine is not an obstacle to using it. It's cheaper to make and it's cheaper to deploy in the field.
But it's also actually more effective at inducing immunity. There are at least two reasons for that, let's start with the most obvious - this is literally the virus (albeit attenuated) so it's the best possible template for what your immune system needs to fight. It's not just fragments, or a similar shape mimicked by something else. Next, it's ingested, your immune system will first run into it in your gut, which is exactly where a "real" viral exposure would begin - whereas the killed vaccine has to be injected into a muscle.
Having an oral vaccine also avoids objections to needles and similar interventions which may be a problem in some cultures - everybody eats and drinks.
2. This is currently considered important news in the industrialised north only because of coronavirus vaccine development, normally approximately nobody cares about polio cases in Sudan. But today I see several articles purporting that this is somehow relevant or has important lessons for us preparing for distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine.
But that's nonsense, Oral Polio Vaccine is a live vaccine, it always did this, it's been known it does this and that you need to figure out a plan for how to get from "No wild virus" to "No polio" possibly via internationally subsidised deployment of the killed vaccine for many decades.
In contrast there are no existing or planned COVID-19 live vaccines. This isn't a zombie movie, fragments of non-working coronavirus can't magically re-assemble into a working transmissible virus and infect people. A protein designed to be like the "spike" used by a coronavirus is not a whole working virus, any more than pebble shaped like a shark tooth is a whole working shark.
You're having a strawman argument with yourself. This has nothing to do with COVID-19, and COVID-19 virus or vaccines are not mentioned at all (AT ALL) ... and yet you're arguing some hypothetical.
>Well, let's add some actual context that the article lacks.
Why does it need more context? Or rather, why does it need the specific context that you're arguing for?
The fact that one cannot even put together a factual article about something that really happened, without getting criticism that some larger narrative isn't constructed (either that vaccines are good, or that COVID-19 vaccines will be safe - unless administrated by the Trump administration) should provide a clue why news outlets are so distrusted by the large swaths of the public.
To make it more personal: I don't need help to make up my own mind what this polio outbreak in Sudan means for my life, my choices, and my politics. Tell me what happened, give me good-faith context to understand the background of the events, and let me do the rest. If you don't, I just won't believe you because now you're not a journalist but an actor pushing politics or ideology that I may not agree with.
>Well, let's add some actual context that the article lacks.
Why does it need more context? Or rather, why does it need the specific context that you're arguing for?
The fact that one cannot even put together a factual article about something that really happened, without getting criticism that some larger narrative isn't constructed (either that vaccines are good, or that COVID-19 vaccines will be safe - unless administrated by the Trump administration) should provide a clue why news outlets are so distrusted by the large swaths of the public.
To make it more personal: I don't need help to make up my own mind what this polio outbreak in Sudan means for my life, my choices, and my politics. Tell me what happened, give me good-faith context to understand the background of the events, and let me do the rest. If you don't, I just won't believe you because now you're not a journalist but an actor pushing politics or ideology that I may not agree with.
> give me good-faith context to understand the background of the events
By replying repeatedly to people providing context not in the article, you're indicating that reasonable people can't disagree with you regarding what's "good-faith context." Do you think the author of the AP article would react to feedback about it this way?
Personally, I think more context comparing this polio vaccine to other polio vaccines is relevant and valuable, in part because of the general rise in unfounded fears of all vaccines. While we are in the midst of a pandemic for which we hope to have an effective vaccine soon, I don't think every story about any vaccine has to be related to COVID-19.
By replying repeatedly to people providing context not in the article, you're indicating that reasonable people can't disagree with you regarding what's "good-faith context." Do you think the author of the AP article would react to feedback about it this way?
Personally, I think more context comparing this polio vaccine to other polio vaccines is relevant and valuable, in part because of the general rise in unfounded fears of all vaccines. While we are in the midst of a pandemic for which we hope to have an effective vaccine soon, I don't think every story about any vaccine has to be related to COVID-19.
>Do you think the author of the AP article would react to feedback about it this way?
I have no doubt, regardless of the validity of the 'feedback', you can certainly bully the author or the news agency into pushing any narrative you want. All you have to do is frame this story as 'dangerous' and pushing 'misinformation' or 'undermining faith in vaccines'.
>By replying repeatedly to people providing context not in the article, you're indicating that reasonable people can't disagree with you regarding what's "good-faith context."
The question I posed is why one cannot have a regular fact-driven news article without pushing some other larger narrative (that has tenuous connection, AT BEST, to the actual story) and the 'good-faith' context that OP provided is ... pushing a larger narrative that has NOTHING to do with the actual story. I mean, he's trying to link it to a COVID-19 vaccine, which has NOTHIG to do with this polio vaccination effort. In other words, why is it critical for a story about Sudan to argue against American anti-vaxxers or opinionate on American COVID-19 policy, or other political goals you're trying to push in America.
So what I meant by 'good-faith context' is context that is directly linked to understanding the facts detailed in the story, not context for larger narrative that pushes other policy and political goals. This article is actually quite good - it communicated an issue with polio vaccine and provided a larger and historical context of vaccine efforts in the region, and how it is viewed by public health authorities and the WHO. I got the gist of the story.
>I think more context comparing this polio vaccine to other polio vaccines is relevant and valuable, in part because of the general rise in unfounded fears of all vaccines.
What if the general distrust of authoritative sources and news media stems from precisely this kind of reasoning ... that you need tell people what to believe, play down or omit any countervailing facts and preferably tie it to national politics and policy as much as you can (for completeness).
Let me turn it around on you: how is it that you are able to read this story and frame it in your mind within the larger context of vaccines, but others aren't? Why do you need to the writer to editorialize and push a point of view? You clearly understood that this polio outbreak does not mean all types of vaccines are dangerous.
I have no doubt, regardless of the validity of the 'feedback', you can certainly bully the author or the news agency into pushing any narrative you want. All you have to do is frame this story as 'dangerous' and pushing 'misinformation' or 'undermining faith in vaccines'.
>By replying repeatedly to people providing context not in the article, you're indicating that reasonable people can't disagree with you regarding what's "good-faith context."
The question I posed is why one cannot have a regular fact-driven news article without pushing some other larger narrative (that has tenuous connection, AT BEST, to the actual story) and the 'good-faith' context that OP provided is ... pushing a larger narrative that has NOTHING to do with the actual story. I mean, he's trying to link it to a COVID-19 vaccine, which has NOTHIG to do with this polio vaccination effort. In other words, why is it critical for a story about Sudan to argue against American anti-vaxxers or opinionate on American COVID-19 policy, or other political goals you're trying to push in America.
So what I meant by 'good-faith context' is context that is directly linked to understanding the facts detailed in the story, not context for larger narrative that pushes other policy and political goals. This article is actually quite good - it communicated an issue with polio vaccine and provided a larger and historical context of vaccine efforts in the region, and how it is viewed by public health authorities and the WHO. I got the gist of the story.
>I think more context comparing this polio vaccine to other polio vaccines is relevant and valuable, in part because of the general rise in unfounded fears of all vaccines.
What if the general distrust of authoritative sources and news media stems from precisely this kind of reasoning ... that you need tell people what to believe, play down or omit any countervailing facts and preferably tie it to national politics and policy as much as you can (for completeness).
Let me turn it around on you: how is it that you are able to read this story and frame it in your mind within the larger context of vaccines, but others aren't? Why do you need to the writer to editorialize and push a point of view? You clearly understood that this polio outbreak does not mean all types of vaccines are dangerous.
> how is it that you are able to read this story and frame it in your mind within the larger context of vaccines, but others aren't?
A) I didn't know the information from the link in the first comment you replied to, about older and newer polio vaccines.
B) I'm able to because I'm already better informed about vaccines and vaccine safety than most people. I am by no means an expert. And, not to dance around it, I'm also smarter and better educated than most people; I'm above average in those areas and I assume you are too.
> editorialize and push a point of view
Editorializing is offering an opinion. Including salient facts about different polio vaccines or vaccine safety is not editorializing.
Everyone has a point of view, that's not contrary to doing good journalism.
> You clearly understood that this polio outbreak does not mean all types of vaccines are dangerous.
And yet there are instances of this story being used as "proof" that vaccines are dangerous. It's confirmation bias on their part and it would be more difficult to make that mistake if this story had more facts about vaccines for context.
Growing distrust in all vaccines and science in general is a huge problem so while I wouldn't choose to include information in this story about how this isn't bad news for possible COVID-19 vaccines, I would understand the choice.
I do think stories that try to stick to just the narrowest facts do a disservice to their audience. For instance, good-faith context for extreme weather stories should routinely include information about how human-caused climate change is a reason for increased frequency and severity.
A) I didn't know the information from the link in the first comment you replied to, about older and newer polio vaccines.
B) I'm able to because I'm already better informed about vaccines and vaccine safety than most people. I am by no means an expert. And, not to dance around it, I'm also smarter and better educated than most people; I'm above average in those areas and I assume you are too.
> editorialize and push a point of view
Editorializing is offering an opinion. Including salient facts about different polio vaccines or vaccine safety is not editorializing.
Everyone has a point of view, that's not contrary to doing good journalism.
> You clearly understood that this polio outbreak does not mean all types of vaccines are dangerous.
And yet there are instances of this story being used as "proof" that vaccines are dangerous. It's confirmation bias on their part and it would be more difficult to make that mistake if this story had more facts about vaccines for context.
Growing distrust in all vaccines and science in general is a huge problem so while I wouldn't choose to include information in this story about how this isn't bad news for possible COVID-19 vaccines, I would understand the choice.
I do think stories that try to stick to just the narrowest facts do a disservice to their audience. For instance, good-faith context for extreme weather stories should routinely include information about how human-caused climate change is a reason for increased frequency and severity.
We'll have to agree to disagree that news articles should be fighting American political and culture wars.
I would guess that vaccination is one of the most well protected and guarded subjects in all of media and usually any criticism or citing of critical information is immediately shot down. "Anti-vaxxer" is right up there with calling someone a racist.
This is not big news. Wild polio is only endemic in Pakistan and Afghanistan anymore, and it's known that the vaccine itself can cause a form of polio in a very small number of cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_eradication
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_eradication
That's the exact problem. It's not a small number of cases anymore.
I read the documentation they put out about their plan to deal with this. The plan failed.
Currently these mutated cases are the biggest risk to this entire process, bigger even than wild type.
The only way to stop them is to immunize people against the subtype but they no longer are immunizing people because the immunization itself causes more mutated cases.
So this new mutated vaccine derived polio is spreading unchecked because young children are not immunized to it.
I suspect they may need to switch to using IPV to immunize, people but it will be ferociously expensive.
I read the documentation they put out about their plan to deal with this. The plan failed.
Currently these mutated cases are the biggest risk to this entire process, bigger even than wild type.
The only way to stop them is to immunize people against the subtype but they no longer are immunizing people because the immunization itself causes more mutated cases.
So this new mutated vaccine derived polio is spreading unchecked because young children are not immunized to it.
I suspect they may need to switch to using IPV to immunize, people but it will be ferociously expensive.
The plan was a gamble, just like using a live polio virus in the vaccine.
For people in communities where the vaccine-derived strains are spreading, is there another choice except IPV?
For people in communities where the vaccine-derived strains are spreading, is there another choice except IPV?
Can CureVac's and BioNTech's mRNA-based vaccines be a solution?
There already are vaccines that would solve this. It's just there is no infrastructure (cold storage, sterile needles, medical documentation/identity) in place to administer it.
The new vaccines you mention are even more delicate than the existing one, so would not be helpful.
The current vaccine (the bad one) needs nothing more than a backpack and a marker (to mark those who were vaccinated). There is research to develop a new, temperature stable, vaccine that can not mutate. But so far no success.
The new vaccines you mention are even more delicate than the existing one, so would not be helpful.
The current vaccine (the bad one) needs nothing more than a backpack and a marker (to mark those who were vaccinated). There is research to develop a new, temperature stable, vaccine that can not mutate. But so far no success.
Poor countries have always been a testing ground for vaccine, since their lives are considered to be less worth than ours and their countries hardly have any regulations in place, let alone institutions to enforce those regulations. If there are negative side effects or even death, nobody has the means to go after BigPharma. Sad to see reservation towards experimental vaccine being labelled as "anti-vaxx" much like we've seen various points of view being discredited by pushing "racist" and "fake news" narrative.
> Poor countries have always been a testing ground for vaccine...experimental vaccine
These vaccines were first deployed in the United States in the 1950s (Salk) and 1980s (IPV) [1]. The oral vaccine, which is cheaper to administer than injected vaccines and has been around since 1988, is used when governments won’t pay for injections. It causes side effects once every 2.4 million doses [2].
The two countries with wild polio are Pakistan and Afghanistan. The people rejecting the vaccine are poor, illiterate, uneducated and distrustful towards their society’s failed institutions.
The rich world administered itself these vaccines long ago. It is the poor and uneducated hurting themselves with rejection.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_eradication#Vaccinatio...
These vaccines were first deployed in the United States in the 1950s (Salk) and 1980s (IPV) [1]. The oral vaccine, which is cheaper to administer than injected vaccines and has been around since 1988, is used when governments won’t pay for injections. It causes side effects once every 2.4 million doses [2].
The two countries with wild polio are Pakistan and Afghanistan. The people rejecting the vaccine are poor, illiterate, uneducated and distrustful towards their society’s failed institutions.
The rich world administered itself these vaccines long ago. It is the poor and uneducated hurting themselves with rejection.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_eradication#Vaccinatio...
>Poor countries have always been a testing ground for vaccine, since their lives are considered to be less worth than ours and their countries hardly have any regulations in place, let alone institutions to enforce those regulations.
Is this what's actually true (and you have evidence of). Or is this just your cynicism informing your personal belief?
Is this what's actually true (and you have evidence of). Or is this just your cynicism informing your personal belief?
jsrjenkins(2)
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7188410/