|
|
Post by ghannaba on Oct 31, 2016 14:11:50 GMT
Watching the film, I couldn't help but cringe at some of the way Hollywood presented medical processes. The most particular cringeworthy regards the vaccine and how people seem to just "POOF!" take a shot and they are now all of a sudden just fine, and things can go back to normal. Developing immunity to killed or attenuated viruses takes time, and as some experts would add that vaccines are not 100% effective. Even more so, if I remember from the movie, the people said they had to use live attenuated version of the virus. Well, a big chunk of the population can go ahead and fill out a last will and testament as people who have immunodeficient conditions (pregnancy, some children, people with HIV, or other diseases that involve or require chronic immunosuppression- Crohn's, MS, Lupus- just to name a few) could not take the live attenuated virus as they would likely become infected/affected and contract the disease. I understand this is the movies and popular culture, but if a movie wants to tackle something that may be a real world problem, I would expect them to adhere reasonably to how things are in the real world such as vaccine times to immunity or time to development of vaccine (which would take more than just a number of weeks on average). I think the movie highlights the lack of interconnectedness and lack of infrastructure the world would have in handling such a crisis highlighting the cultural mistrust which would not just be unilateral from China to the West (as shown in the movie) but could also be in the reverse direction as well. Whether some truth lies in this movie or it simply just romanticizes and hollywood-ifies the concepts of a pandemic, we must realize that the film begs the questions of how ready is humanity to fight a highly virulent and contagious novel disease such as portrayed in the movie. Also, is it just me or did anyone see the major map of the world covered in red, and Moscow was untouched by the disease (and yet parts of Ukraine/Kiev was covered in red). I just found that very interesting. Also, if the R-O was really that high and the disease was that contagious and virulent, I truly feel it would have spread much faster. www.vaccineseurope.eu/about-vaccines/key-facts-on-vaccines/how-are-vaccines-developed/"Before a vaccine is licensed and brought to the market, it undergoes a long and rigorous process of research, followed by many years of testing. On average, the period for vaccine development is 12 to 15 years and will involve the following phases..." www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-understand-color-office.pdfwww.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation |
|
|
|
Post by Megan Mikesell on Oct 31, 2016 16:38:47 GMT
I agree, the movie made it seem like everyone received the vaccine and was suddenly able to return to their normal day to day lives. I also don't think a lottery system would be followed. I recently listened to a podcast about triaging in situations such as the hospitals in New Orleans during the hurricane when resources are limited and they did not know when help would arrive. They specifically mentioned epidemics when discussing lack of time and resources and how the decision would be made as to who got help first. They did not come up with a clear cut system to be put into place, but did specifically say a lottery system was not the answer. Medical and government official would be given the vaccine first to continue care and treatment as well as policy keeping peace and the government continuing to run. After that, resources (vaccines/treatment) would be given to those most at risk (in cities where the disease was currently or possible exposure to sick person), and those that had the best chance of surviving. Even so, production time alone would be long and there would not be enough to keep up with the demand, which the movie did not show.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Dennis on Oct 31, 2016 17:55:49 GMT
I felt similarly about the rapid and seemingly "magical" vaccine. I felt like they left the door open to the fact that we don't *actually* know how effective it was, but in Hollywood fashion, they didn't really leave open that door in a way that was realistic. I guess they didn't buy into a sequel called: Contagion II: The Vaccine was 12% effective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Hurley on Oct 31, 2016 19:34:40 GMT
Thank you for bringing up the insta-vaccines! I can't think of a single movie or tv show which did not have someone injecting a vaccine for X and then either being instantly cured, or better yet watching the signs of the disease vanish before their eyes due to some lovely CG (*Fringe*). I understand that it's Hollywood and they have to make some choices in the interest of time or wrapping up a story, but that trope is just about as common as characters shooting a revolver 10 times, holding their breath underwater for 5 minutes, or not getting scorch burns from explosions (to name a few); so I guess we'll just have to take it with a grain (or syringe) of salt and hope for a deconstructionist film like Dr. Dennis's Contagion II or Pandemic:It's Gonna Take a Few Months to Make a Vaccine that Might Work.
Another student in this program recently had to go through her Malaria vaccinations prior to a public health trip to Africa and I was very surprised to learn that it took about 2 weeks for everything to take effect and in the meantime caused symptoms that actually led her to miss work and school for several days. I think that today everyone expects instant gratifications for actions and can forget that our bodies will take time to adjust to any new medications or processes whether helpful or harmful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Summre Blakely on Nov 6, 2016 22:32:39 GMT
Thank you! I'm not the only one yelling at the tv screen about how unrealistic a scientific scenario is! There is a fabulous/slightly Hollywood-y show on Netflix called Contagion about a horrible outbreak in Atlanta, which the CDC decides to handle via a cordon sanitaire. I found many parts of the show and this movie to be hilarious in their unrealistic portrayals of the science behind the outbreaks. However, as cheesy as they may be, at least one could say that they do educate the general public to avoid interpersonal contact and wear masks and protective gloves at all times. I think films like these are wonderful because they inspire people to start thinking about what they would do in situations such as these. I'll always remember my AP biology teacher explaining to me that every species in the past that has come to dominate the world has had to face a major biological "test," if you will, and the sad reality is that no such species has survived or passed their test. Due to antibiotic resistance, the amount of warfare and biological terrorism threats, poverty and poor sanitation, and overpopulation, I feel that humans will never not be facing a new lethal pathogen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leslee Castro on Dec 8, 2016 4:07:15 GMT
Hello Greg! I think that you raise some extremely interesting points about the movie that I had not considered prior to nor after watching it. While I completely agree that truly finding a vaccine that would be able to provide a form of immunity against an infectious disease would take a considerable amount of time, this is a film produced to provide some form of insight into the world of an outbreak. I would not expect it to be 100% accurate; however, I do like that it provides some valuable information to help the general public understand things from the perspective of finding a cure or line of defense. It is unrealistic, and I think it may go a little too far towards creating a sense of panic for people, but it does touch on some real-life situations that can occur. It is not so far-fetched that the spread of this illness occurred through cross-contamination. I like how they tied this up together at the end, I think it provides an important message to the public. Being aware of these types of things that can result in an outbreak is extremely important.
|
|
