About the session
England received a vaccine for the rotavirus 15 years earlier than the Netherlands. 15 years! Nina van den Dungen discusses what causes this difference with health economist Maarten Postma (RUG) and epidemiologist Eric van Gorp (Erasmus MC).
Is the Netherlands careful or stupid? “Very grim,” says Postma. “But also careful, of course both are a good summary”.
The Netherlands wants to know if a vaccine is safe and effective. We are benefiting from other countries that are introducing vaccines much faster. Because this way we not only have knowledge from the clinical situation, but also real data. In other words, we will only introduce it if other countries have already proven what a vaccine does to the population.
And does that benefit us? “Very little,” Postma repeats. He calculates that every euro that a country spends on vaccination produces nine euros.
Old people
Final argument: many vaccines are intended for the elderly, people over 65. They often no longer work. How much does a vaccine cost? And when it comes to really old people, people over 80, you could also say: you have to die of something, right?
‘Naturally’. Van Gorp is real. “It’s about how you die?” Vaccination reduces the chance that you will live for a long time after disease with a reduced quality of life.
On Thursday, November 21, the House of Representatives Committee on Public Health, Welfare and Sports will discuss vaccinations and wider medical prevention. Would she also do a clear cost-benefit analysis?
2024-11-18 14:02:00
#Netherlands #strong #vaccines
How does the cautious approach to vaccine development in the Netherlands compare to more expedited processes in England, and what are the potential consequences for public health in both regions?
Interview with Nina van den Dungen and Health Economist Maarten Postma: Exploring the Disparity in Vaccine Development Timelines Between England and the Netherlands
Nina van den Dungen: Welcome to World Today News! We have with us today, Health Economist Maarten Postma and Epidemiologist Eric van Gorp to discuss the recent article about the difference in vaccine development timelines between England and the Netherlands. Maarten, you have referred to the Netherlands as “very careful” and “stupid” in the article. Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?
Maarten Postma: Sure, Nina. What I meant was that the Netherlands is being quite cautious when it comes to approving and introducing new vaccines. While this is definitely a good thing because we want to ensure the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, we are also missing out on the opportunities to benefit from real-world data gathered from other countries that have introduced the vaccine sooner. We tend to wait for other countries to test and conduct trials first, which can be quite detrimental in the long run. So, I think being cautious is okay, but being overly cautious can be damaging. That’s why I called it “stupid.”
Nina van den Dungen: Understood. There’s also a mention in the article about the Netherlands not investing enough in vaccine development. How do you think this could impact public health in the future?
Eric van Gorp: That’s correct, Nina. Investing in vaccine development is crucial for improving public health. If we don’t invest enough, we might miss out on potential breakthroughs or fall behind in protecting our population against emerging diseases. Additionally, vaccines are cost-effective as Maarten mentioned earlier. For every euro spent on vaccination, nine euros are generated in return. So, it’s a smart investment for any government looking to improve the overall health of its citizens and reduce healthcare expenditure in the long run.
Nina van den Dungen: Let’s talk about the elderly population. Many vaccines are aimed at reducing the risk of diseases among older individuals. However, there’s
