Talk:Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine

Serious fever and arm pains

I was totally mystified because I'm healthy, I've had many vaccines. And now my experience indicates this vaccine has a real problem.

The article claims less than 1% suffer pain and fever. I did. I google-searched and see many reports of these problems from average people.

My opinion: it's possible the company is not properly advising people on what seems very likely to happen - a 3 day fever and 4 day soreness in the arm. I like biotech and I am not one to complain; but I am stating it as I see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Those who do not experience side effects usually have no motivation to write about it - who'd o earth spend time on telling he/she is fine? kashmiri 19:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This page needs clean up and citations

I'm removing the second paragraph under 'Indications' because it may lead to confusion. It states that PPV is not recommended in the UK for those over 65 and then goes onto list other risk groups (implying that the UK does not recommend the vaccine for any risk group). This is opposite the general recommendation, which is that people in risk groups should preferentially receive vaccines. Also, there is no citation for the paragraph.

However, I don't have time to do the research. Interested parties, please remedy this page. Neuroschizl (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Relevant? Vaccine injury claims are not covered by the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

I added under Adverse events: Vaccine injury claims are not covered by the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

I just noticed I was reverted with the Summary: Vaccine injury claims not needed here.

Same thing with the dengue vaccine : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_vaccine&diff=prev&oldid=1169111092

Is/isn't it relevant and necessary to the articles having a WP:NPOV? RudolfoMD (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

RudolfoMD, I think that content in each vaccine article can be viewed as off-topic in each vaccine article, as it is overly specific to the US, and applies to all vaccines in the US. The way to handle this might be to assure that there is an appropriate link somewhere in each vaccine article to vaccine adverse event, which has a section where that content can be covered-- that is, consider how to better apply summary style. Oddly, as your edit gets at, there is no link to vaccine adverse event at dengue vaccine or in this article, which is quite strange. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it needs to be mentioned. This is a program affecting 4% of the people in the whole world. Maybe it's worth mentioning at the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program article instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. You say " applies to all vaccines in the US " but not so - I quoted the CDC: "All vaccines included in the child and adolescent vaccine schedule are covered by VICP except for dengue, PPSV23 and COVID-19 vaccines."

Anyway, I have a bunch of alerts I have to look at.

WhatamIdoing, are you saying there there shouldn't be a link somewhere in the three vaccine articles to vaccine adverse event, and /or shoudn't have a section where that content can be covered? I agree with SandyGeorgia's suggestions. RudolfoMD (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I was not aware this info was specific to only three vaccines; perhaps that needs to be better worked out then in those articles. Why are there three exemptions? WhatamIdoing does that change your opinion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The NVICP was organized primarily because of childhood vaccines, so I guess that it's not really surprising to me that vaccines that are not required for public school attendance aren't covered. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Rudolfo, I'm in favor of having a information about vaccine adverse events. I just don't know that the fact that the VAEs (which could happen to 100% of the world's population) aren't compensated through a particular judicial process for to 4% of the world's population is WP:DUE. Why should 100% of readers be told that 4% of humans would use the regular court system instead of a special court in case of a dispute over product liability? If we thought that those 4% of humans were somehow special enough to call out, it would make more sense to me to call out the existence of the special system in the articles about the other vaccines, rather than to call out the use of the normal system in this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Kinda sorta. The NVICP was organized primarily because of capricious jury awards in vexatious vaccine injury claims, leading to a very real threat of vaccine manufacturers withdrawing from the US market. Since then it's become Schrödinger's program: simultaneously validating every single vaccine injury claim ever made by ANTIVA, and proving that the vaccine industry is protected by Them from all suit or criticism.

ANTIVA are not rational actors, we know this. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Needs update for PCV15 and PCV20

This article mentions PCV13, the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, but this has been supplanted in common use by PCV15 (Vaxneuvance in the US) or PCV20 (Prevnar 20 in the US). If PCV20 is used, vaccination with PPSV23 is typically no longer recommended in addition, so this is a relevant point. 198.140.195.252 (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Please, provide a reference. Ruslik_Zero 20:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)