Vaccines, Smoking and The Great Hypocrisy

SafeSurfer

Minister for Health Simon Harris is to meet social media companies such as Facebook and Google to formulate a strategy on how “vaccine hesitancy” can be overcome. This follows Google and YouTube tweaks to their search results which ensure pro vaccine results from reputable sources appear first.

The major impetus is the promotion of the “anti cancer” HPV vaccine and for the first time, its extension to boys.

Is there something hypocritical about a government spending millions on the purchase and promotion of a drug that will prevent some cancers while earning billions each year from the sale of cancer causing products tobacco products?

One could argue that smoking is a personal choice but could it also be argued that receiving or not receiving the HPV vaccine is also a personal choice?

I acknowledge the life saving potential of vaccines but would baulk at the state making an ever increasing list of vaccines compulsory.

130 people die in Ireland each year from the type of cancers the HPV vaccine can prevent. Smoking is the cause of over 100 deaths and 1000 hospital admissions each week yet the government spends more on the HPV vaccine and its promotion than on anti smoking campaigns.

Would using more funds targeting the prevention of smoking related deaths be more effective and efficient means of preventing deaths than introducing a new vaccine and going to unprecedented lengths, even discussing making it compulsory, to enforce it?

Salary Negotiator

Prevention is better than cure.

The horse has bolted in relation to smoking but that’s no reason not to eradicate other cancers.

Does the tax revenue raised from cigarettes cover the increased cost of healthcare to smokers? I’d be surprised if not did.

One eyed Jack

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Would using more funds targeting the prevention of smoking related deaths be more effective and efficient means of preventing deaths than introducing a new vaccine and going to unprecedented lengths, even discussing making it compulsory, to enforce it?

No hypocrisy when they’re two fundamentally different things, but I think I get what you mean - the approach by politicians to cancer prevention in the population?

Throwing money at anything never addresses the underlying fundamental issues, so I don’t imagine throwing more money at anything will go any closer to preventing people from developing cancer. It’s simply dumb luck as to whether a person develops cancer or not.

SafeSurfer

SafeSurfer wrote: »

One could argue that smoking is a personal choice but could it also be argued that receiving or not receiving the HPV vaccine is also a personal choice?

Only to a point.

For the most part smoking is a personal choice that only affects the smoker. Sure secondary smoke is an issue which complicates that - but we have in fact taken steps on that score - such as the smoking ban in Public Facilities and attempts to ban parents smoking in cars with their children and so on.

One issue with many vaccines is that if enough people refuse them - it undermines the effectiveness for those that take them. There is a certain threshold that must be crossed for there to be any point vaccinating at all. I think this varies depending on the vaccine. For example my memory is that for measles it is 95% but for polio it is around 80%.

So in both cases the line between personal choice - and choice affecting others - is a little blurrier than we might like. Your choice to smoke out the back yard is a personal choice that mostly affects only you. Your choice to maybe have 5 kids and not vaccinate any of them - affects more than you and your own children.

kneemos

A pack of ciggies would be two or three euros I imagine if they didn't pile the tax on them. No doubt the complaint would be why aren't ciggeretes taxed.

Smokers are down to twenty percent or something. Most folk seem to have taken to the vaping.

Deebles McBeebles

kneemos wrote: »

A pack of ciggies would be two or three euros I imagine if they didn't pile the tax on them. No doubt the complaint would be why aren't ciggeretes taxed.

Smokers are down to twenty percent or something. Most folk seem to have taken to the vaping.

5 quid in most countries on the continent. We love a bit of extra tax here, its what keeps our politicians in silk ties.

Anyone who thought vaping was the healthy way to go better think again
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/07/us-tells-smokers-stop-vaping-pending-investigation-five-deaths/

Rhyme

Watching people puff away outside The Rotunda and other hospitals give me the impression that some people will never stop, no matter how much damage they do to themselves and others. The best we can do is preserve those who care enough.

kneemos

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

5 quid in most countries on the continent. We love a bit of extra tax here, its what keeps our politicians in silk ties.

Anyone who thought vaping was the healthy way to go better think again
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/07/us-tells-smokers-stop-vaping-pending-investigation-five-deaths/

A common denominator seems to be vaping the ganga weed.

sydthebeat

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Anyone who thought vaping was the healthy way to go better think again
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/07/us-tells-smokers-stop-vaping-pending-investigation-five-deaths/

Vaping wasn't the problem in those cases.

It was the unregulated THC stuff they were vaping, and the DIY tinkering with the vapes.

Del2005

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Minister for Health Simon Harris is to meet social media companies such as Facebook and Google to formulate a strategy on how “vaccine hesitancy” can be overcome. This follows Google and YouTube tweaks to their search results which ensure pro vaccine results from reputable sources appear first.

The major impetus is the promotion of the “anti cancer” HPV vaccine and for the first time, its extension to boys.

Is there something hypocritical about a government spending millions on the purchase and promotion of a drug that will prevent some cancers while earning billions each year from the sale of cancer causing products tobacco products?

One could argue that smoking is a personal choice but could it also be argued that receiving or not receiving the HPV vaccine is also a personal choice?

I acknowledge the life saving potential of vaccines but would baulk at the state making an ever increasing list of vaccines compulsory.

130 people die in Ireland each year from the type of cancers the HPV vaccine can prevent. Smoking is the cause of over 100 deaths and 1000 hospital admissions each week yet the government spends more on the HPV vaccine and its promotion than on anti smoking campaigns.

Would using more funds targeting the prevention of smoking related deaths be more effective and efficient means of preventing deaths than introducing a new vaccine and going to unprecedented lengths, even discussing making it compulsory, to enforce it?

The government already charges huge taxes on cigarettes. They come in plain packs with graphic images of the results of smoking. You can't smoke indoors and a good few public places. Apart from trying to completely ban smoking, see how well it works for other drugs!, then they can't do much more to disswade people from smoking.

Deebles McBeebles

So vaping is safe? Is that the concensus?

Blaming something like THC seems a bit reefer madness to me.

kneemos

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

So vaping is safe? Is that the concensus?

Blaming something like THC seems a bit reefer madness to me.

It's a new product. Give it twenty years a trend or not might appear.

sydthebeat

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

So vaping is safe? Is that the concensus?

Blaming something like THC seems a bit reefer madness to me.

Who said vaping was safe?

That article clearly states that in a lot of the more serious cases marajuana vaping played a part.

There was a very good article in Sundays new York Times which was a lot more detailed than that telegraph article on the subject.