ChezGiven

Me too, 12ish sounds good.

Because he's a religious nutter. But ironically less so than Blair (but Blair was much better at hiding it). Brain wasnt addled by drink and drugs.

I'll be around pre-match like if you fancy a couple of jars. Without doubt.

Is he doing the cooking? No cheeky numbers before kick-off

Nice one mate, i take it thats not the platinum club though I think it is, aye. That was the price on the website iirc. Ahh, so you must pay for whatever you eat then. Sounds great anyway, who's the 4th? Me.

Nice one mate, i take it thats not the platinum club though I think it is, aye. That was the price on the website iirc. Ahh, so you must pay for whatever you eat then. Sounds great anyway, who's the 4th?

Nice one mate, i take it thats not the platinum club though

Way to ignore every single point in the thread. I'd rather get cancer in Germany than in the UK, thats for sure. Bit hypocritical of you not to be able to see past the deliberately provocative thread title too

There's loads of stuff out there, assuming that reports conclusions are in anyway genuinely accurate (although I'm not paying for a journal link that you wouldn't be able to read without paying for too ), although one of the problems with QALY's is that they only take direct cost into account, not social welfare costs and such. Which double fucks up issues like dementia. Although the irony there is of course that drug companies want access to that market, although in fairness maybe it is outweighed by profit brought in by keeping them doped up instead. "fop unwittingly found himself on the same platform as 'evil pharma" Telll me the reference, i have access to every medical journal online for free.

1. Yup, which makes this whole argument based on sand. 2. Relating to point 1 again makes it anything anyone wants to be in real terms. 3. You've got to have a rough cost otherwise what you are saying makes no sense, personally I think it would be astronomical (which goes back to the whole UK benefits system issue), but that would be the case private or NHS based. No, i think you'll find that the principles of evidence based medicine drove this decision and therefore Karl Popper's philosophy of science is embedded within it. That goes for points 1 and 2. As for the 3rd point, the NHS is a fixed budget system, so basically what would happen is that you start with the lowest priced interventions and exhaust all possibilities until the budget runs out. A practical and admiminstrative nightmare. Anyway, the point being that the total cost of this would be the budget itself (around 80bn)!. The question, coming full circle, is which system would be more cost-effective, private or public?

Point 1 - agreed, thats why i firmly belive that the Popperian principles of Evidence based medicine will best serve society. Point 2 - because someone deems it more than 30k, basically saying its not 22.5k. If you post up the doc that shows this, i'll happily have a look at it. Point 3 - would require a statisitcal model beyond my capabilities. Many people argue that implementing all possible interventions with less than a 30k price would bankrupt the NHS. They use this to argue for a lower threshold. Not good.

Again when you look at the number of deaths per year and the total vaccination cost, the cost effectiveness just isn't there. Like I said it was an astroturfing master class, selling something as very sexy that clinically isn't very cost effective at all. It is pretty interesting that NICE isn't involved however, especially when contrasted with dementia drugs and the £30,000 per QALY suggested in that report (or even other cancer drugs with that or lesser "value"). Fig 1 in the BMJ article gives you the data you are missing. 100% probability of being less than 30k. The total cost is small, otherwise it wouldnt be happening. NICE isnt involved as vaccination programmes are tendered directly with the DH. They use the same spending limits that NICE use though, hence why this is approved. If it was really expensive, the NHS wouldnt be able to afford it This is an objective a decision-making process as you can get, so the idea that its due to PR influence is absurd. How personal was this experience of dementia? £22,500 per QALY then , it still doesn't stand up well to dementia treatment that has been refused or quite a lot of cancer drugs. Or to put it another way why is NICE refusing to pay for stuff that comes in at less than £22,000 per QALY if that figure is "cost-effective"? You're probably reading a commercially funded analysis But that's not an answer is it. Like I said good suit, but can't answer the awkward ones. So is £22,500 per QALY "cost-effective" or not then? It was a joke. Nevermind. Yes, 22.5k is acceptable. If NICE came to this conclusion, it would be approved. Therefore, as hinted in my joke, i wonder if you have seen this figure in a publication rather than in a document NICE produced. You obviously get wildly different estimates depending on who you ask. If it is in a NICE doc, then post the link up.

Again when you look at the number of deaths per year and the total vaccination cost, the cost effectiveness just isn't there. Like I said it was an astroturfing master class, selling something as very sexy that clinically isn't very cost effective at all. It is pretty interesting that NICE isn't involved however, especially when contrasted with dementia drugs and the £30,000 per QALY suggested in that report (or even other cancer drugs with that or lesser "value"). Fig 1 in the BMJ article gives you the data you are missing. 100% probability of being less than 30k. The total cost is small, otherwise it wouldnt be happening. NICE isnt involved as vaccination programmes are tendered directly with the DH. They use the same spending limits that NICE use though, hence why this is approved. If it was really expensive, the NHS wouldnt be able to afford it This is an objective a decision-making process as you can get, so the idea that its due to PR influence is absurd. How personal was this experience of dementia? £22,500 per QALY then , it still doesn't stand up well to dementia treatment that has been refused or quite a lot of cancer drugs. Or to put it another way why is NICE refusing to pay for stuff that comes in at less than £22,000 per QALY if that figure is "cost-effective"? You're probably reading a commercially funded analysis

Again when you look at the number of deaths per year and the total vaccination cost, the cost effectiveness just isn't there. Like I said it was an astroturfing master class, selling something as very sexy that clinically isn't very cost effective at all. It is pretty interesting that NICE isn't involved however, especially when contrasted with dementia drugs and the £30,000 per QALY suggested in that report (or even other cancer drugs with that or lesser "value"). Fig 1 in the BMJ article gives you the data you are missing. 100% probability of being less than 30k. The total cost is small, otherwise it wouldnt be happening. NICE isnt involved as vaccination programmes are tendered directly with the DH. They use the same spending limits that NICE use though, hence why this is approved. If it was really expensive, the NHS wouldnt be able to afford it This is an objective a decision-making process as you can get, so the idea that its due to PR influence is absurd. How personal was this experience of dementia?

So 2 non-sequiturs and a factually incorrect response about how effective it is and how much it costs? You're not even trying.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/ju...3e94c0830ba845c The decision was made in the UK on the basis of this analysis. If you want to call that PR, i'll have to call you insane. The Health Protection Agency believes that programme will generate 80,000 QALYs (thats life years adjusted for quality). They came to that conclusion independently. If its a good deal in the UK, its a good deal anywhere. the fact of the matter is prevention is the highest value intervention you can make in any are. The price is fuck all too. Who are you talking about in the US btw? You know you dont need to do subtle marketing in the US, you just advertise the drug on the telly.

If its Pie and Chips then the veggie option will be Chips. Sounds canny, someone just needs to give them a quick call and find out what the options are re: food, prices and whats on offer. Ahem. Matt.

NICE didnt make the decision. NICE dont do vaccines, such a know-all and didnt even know that? Do you know what Health Technology Assessment is? Evidence Based Medicine? Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis? Thats how they made the decision. The incidence of the cancer is about 1000 per year, so when the current cohort reach maximal risk, the numbers of lives saved will be greater than 700, which is what they use to compare to the cost. Does astroturfing have a different definition to the one in that wikipedia link btw?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing ???? The decision on the vaccine was basically a choice between Gardasil (French / US) and Cervarix (UK manufactured). Gardasil protects around 80% against the cancer and Cervarix a bit more. Gardasil however also protects against genital warts and costs more. So the choice was go for the more expensive Gardasil and protect againt the warts too (cost of managing warts to NHS = 22m p.a) or go for Cervarix and forego the benefits of protecting against genital warts. As the cancer vaccine investment was designed to reduce the rate of cancer and not genital warts, the decision to implement Cervarix was taken. This was less costly but more effective against cancer itself. As Rob just said, hard to tell people they arent going to get treatment but in this case its easier as the people who are going to get genital warts dont know it yet, so they arent personally affected by the decision. They are, at the moment, only statistical probabilities rather than being actual patients denied a genital wart vaccine. The decision making was undertaken by an independent academic group of bio-statsitical modellers who made a closed recommendation to the DH, who will now implement the programme in September. What PR/astroturfing has to do with that is anyone guess.

I'll probably be interested. I'll speak to my Dad today because the 9th's his birthday and I'll let you know tomorrow. What about lunch at the platinum club? If not then block tickets would be great Matt. Am booked up and there on the 8th for a week btw. Lunch at the Platinum club is usually a pie and chips, is it not? I'd be up for that, last time I went in for a friendly it was only £20. 20 quid isnt bad and it means you can enjoy a few drinks in a relaxed fashion. Alex suggested it a few months back but if its his dad's birthday, his plans may have changed. Happy to do that if people are up for it.

I'll probably be interested. I'll speak to my Dad today because the 9th's his birthday and I'll let you know tomorrow. What about lunch at the platinum club? If not then block tickets would be great Matt. Am booked up and there on the 8th for a week btw.

Its funny reading comments on Barton from January. Moral hypocrisy really does know no bounds. Two dust ups and a wayward cigar and the very moral fibre of the city was in peril. He's a good player, so i say we keep him.

We signed Beye and Faye at the end of August, so thats nearly 5 weeks to go.

I think so too and at 1.5 mil could be the steal of the decade. Very young, quick, strong and technically good ... exciting times ahead. Le Guen often played him on the right of a front 3 with Pauletta in the middle. Looked very good there, I remember he had a blinder in one of the cup games and won the match for PSG. Stop -ing scousers. Wanker.

I think so too and at 1.5 mil could be the steal of the decade. Very young, quick, strong and technically good ... exciting times ahead. Le Guen often played him on the right of a front 3 with Pauletta in the middle. Looked very good there, I remember he had a blinder in one of the cup games and won the match for PSG.