A friend got a shingles vaccine on the recommendation of his physician. My friend is healthy and 50 years old and now asks if the vaccine was a good decision? What do you think he needs to know to answer his question?
Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite reason seemed to be on the
net the simplest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while people consider worries that they just do not
know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the
top and defined out the whole thing without having side-effects , people could take a signal.
Will likely be back to get more. Thanks http://www.vintagehouserestaurant.com/
A listener asked to clarify what I meant by stating that a vaccine would have to be “exceedingly good” to prove its value to reduce the chance of shingles. I thank them for pointing this out. The idea is this; when there is a small chance of a clinical outcome of a disease, it is scientifically difficult to show that one option for care is better. Remember, all clinical science is comparison. In this situation, the comparison is vaccine versus no vaccine. If you and I had a chance of getting singles of 100%, it would not take much science work or many people being compared to see if one option, vaccine, is better than another. However, in the true situation, the chance of shingles is less than 2% over 3-5 years. This is a small outcome event probability. To prove the vaccine is better in the true situation requires lots of patients in the study. In fact, in this study, over 15,000 were studied. When you see such large numbers of patients in a study just know that the researchers are looking for small differences. Hence, you must decide if the small benefit gains you more than the added complications or costs. Only you can decide this, physicians can’t.
Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite reason seemed to be on the
net the simplest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while people consider worries that they just do not
know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the
top and defined out the whole thing without having side-effects , people could take a signal.
Will likely be back to get more. Thanks http://www.vintagehouserestaurant.com/
What a great post!
Thank you for your kind comments.
A listener asked to clarify what I meant by stating that a vaccine would have to be “exceedingly good” to prove its value to reduce the chance of shingles. I thank them for pointing this out. The idea is this; when there is a small chance of a clinical outcome of a disease, it is scientifically difficult to show that one option for care is better. Remember, all clinical science is comparison. In this situation, the comparison is vaccine versus no vaccine. If you and I had a chance of getting singles of 100%, it would not take much science work or many people being compared to see if one option, vaccine, is better than another. However, in the true situation, the chance of shingles is less than 2% over 3-5 years. This is a small outcome event probability. To prove the vaccine is better in the true situation requires lots of patients in the study. In fact, in this study, over 15,000 were studied. When you see such large numbers of patients in a study just know that the researchers are looking for small differences. Hence, you must decide if the small benefit gains you more than the added complications or costs. Only you can decide this, physicians can’t.