UK approves Pfizer jab for use in 12-15-year-olds

[pquinn]

At least JCVI seem to have ethical concerns, unlike some on here.

Maybe they're 'anti vax' or maybe they just have a better grasp on the issues than some of the simple minded on here.

[tangerine_sedge]

Otispunkmeyer said:

tangerine_sedge said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/

What, this guy that Snopes seems to think is full of st?

link to snopes

or this one, calling him a grifter...

linky

Oh well, if snopes says so…

And “fact checking”. Give me strength.

Snopes and medium articles. Same league as citing Wikipedia in your PhD thesis. I’ll stick to reading actual papers thanks and make my own mind up in time.

Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 4th June 21:40

Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 4th June 21:42

Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 4th June 21:57

I didn't realise that I was writing a PHD, I thought I was casting an alternative light on a new poster-boy for the anti-vaxxers.

Another disparaging view on this guy : separating science from nonsense

article take-home message said:

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche is a veterinarian who recently released an open letter boldly claiming that the COVID-19 vaccines will be harmful to humanity by allowing the virus to mutate in dangerous ways.

If we are worried about dangerous variants emerging, it is much riskier to allow the virus to spread between unvaccinated people.

If coronavirus variants emerge for which the current vaccines offer little to no protection, the vaccines can be reformulated to be a better fit, much like the annual flu vaccine.

Dr. Bossche proposes the use of a new type of vaccine based on natural killer cells, which he claims he is working on but for which there is no published evidence.

Or this one that picks his arguments apart : with lots of references to published papers to support the takedown

or this one : another one picking his argument apart

But please continue to ignore the concensus against his argument and stick to your own research....

[Otispunkmeyer]

tangerine_sedge said:

Or this one that picks his arguments apart : with lots of references to published papers to support the takedown

or this one : another one picking his argument apart

But please continue to ignore the concensus against his argument and stick to your own research....

No no, thanks for those, much more substantial than previous retorts by the likes of snopes. The first one looks like a decent read so will give it a read this evening. Cheers.

[rxe]

grumbledoak said:

Of course it is a mass trial. It is the first time these delivery platforms have been used on whole populations. Including children if they get their way.

I think that worrying about big pharma taking over the world to test stuff is erring on paranoia.

Covid has killed a lot of people, a set of vaccines have been made that stop that from happening (mostly). Any government when considering the population level risks would go for “jab everyone”. Hundreds of thousands of deaths vs. a few hundred. That’s an easy decision at a population level, and a sensible one.

At an individual level, it is not so clear. Who wants to be first with a vaccine that has been rushed? There are a bunch of under 50s out there who swapped a negligible Covid risk for a blood clot. I was quite happy to be vaccinated after 20 million people had been vaccinated. I will be happy for my son to be vaccinated after a million of his peers have been done.

[andy ted]

pquinn said:

At least JCVI seem to have ethical concerns, unlike some on here.

Maybe they're 'anti vax' or maybe they just have a better grasp on the issues than some of the simple minded on here.

I can't speak for everyone but my feelings are exactly as you say, there are people with a much better grasp on the issue than you or I? It's these general decisions that lots of people seem to be arguing against with no real position of knowledge or understanding which I struggle with.

I don't believe anyone has said that the vaccine programme will continue to the under 16's yet - the MHRA have approved that it can be though. If the JCVI say it is on balance the wrong thing to do then I will trust their opinion, however, if they say it's the right thing to do will it suddenly become some big pharma conspiracy on mass testing etc. and the experts don't know what they are talking about?

[TV8]

rxe said:

I think that worrying about big pharma taking over the world to test stuff is erring on paranoia.

Covid has killed a lot of people, a set of vaccines have been made that stop that from happening (mostly). Any government when considering the population level risks would go for “jab everyone”. Hundreds of thousands of deaths vs. a few hundred. That’s an easy decision at a population level, and a sensible one.

At an individual level, it is not so clear. Who wants to be first with a vaccine that has been rushed? There are a bunch of under 50s out there who swapped a negligible Covid risk for a blood clot. I was quite happy to be vaccinated after 20 million people had been vaccinated. I will be happy for my son to be vaccinated after a million of his peers have been done.

There is NO long-term data on these treatments, but you are appears to be saying when lots of other people have been injected, that lack of data doesn't matter?

Thats a weird thought process.

[unident]

TV8 said:

rxe said:

I think that worrying about big pharma taking over the world to test stuff is erring on paranoia.

Covid has killed a lot of people, a set of vaccines have been made that stop that from happening (mostly). Any government when considering the population level risks would go for “jab everyone”. Hundreds of thousands of deaths vs. a few hundred. That’s an easy decision at a population level, and a sensible one.

At an individual level, it is not so clear. Who wants to be first with a vaccine that has been rushed? There are a bunch of under 50s out there who swapped a negligible Covid risk for a blood clot. I was quite happy to be vaccinated after 20 million people had been vaccinated. I will be happy for my son to be vaccinated after a million of his peers have been done.

There is NO long-term data on these treatments, but you are appears to be saying when lots of other people have been injected, that lack of data doesn't matter?

Thats a weird thought process.

He’s not saying that and there isn’t a lack of data. There is only a lack of long term data, that you reference earlier. However, nobody, who is opposed to the vaccine on here, will ever stand up and say what they consider to be an acceptable timeframe for long term to be satisfied. Are you still uncomfortable with the smallpox vaccine as its only been around for 225 years, although it has t been used for getting on for 50 years. What about MMR, or the TB jab are less than a century old. Not very long when you consider mankind has existed for about 6 million years.

[Boringvolvodriver]

unident said:

He’s not saying that and there isn’t a lack of data. There is only a lack of long term data, that you reference earlier. However, nobody, who is opposed to the vaccine on here, will ever stand up and say what they consider to be an acceptable timeframe for long term to be satisfied. Are you still uncomfortable with the smallpox vaccine as its only been around for 225 years, although it has t been used for getting on for 50 years. What about MMR, or the TB jab are less than a century old. Not very long when you consider mankind has existed for about 6 million years.

Although still longer than the covid vaccines using new methods that have not got to human trials until now.

For those at low risk of covid and that includes children surely not unreasonable to have at least 12 months of data? Especially when a normal drug trail usually takes between 1 to 4 years

[unident]

Boringvolvodriver said:

unident said:

He’s not saying that and there isn’t a lack of data. There is only a lack of long term data, that you reference earlier. However, nobody, who is opposed to the vaccine on here, will ever stand up and say what they consider to be an acceptable timeframe for long term to be satisfied. Are you still uncomfortable with the smallpox vaccine as its only been around for 225 years, although it has t been used for getting on for 50 years. What about MMR, or the TB jab are less than a century old. Not very long when you consider mankind has existed for about 6 million years.

Although still longer than the covid vaccines using new methods that have not got to human trials until now.

For those at low risk of covid and that includes children surely not unreasonable to have at least 12 months of data? Especially when a normal drug trail usually takes between 1 to 4 years

I’m not disputing those vaccines have been around for a while. I’m using them as examples. I just want an answer to a simple question

What is an acceptable timeframe to satisfy this vague long term demand?

[Boringvolvodriver]

unident said:

I’m not disputing those vaccines have been around for a while. I’m using them as examples. I just want an answer to a simple question

What is an acceptable timeframe to satisfy this vague long term demand?

Mine is at least 12 months and probably until the end of the trial period which is in 2023 IIRC. Not unreasonable to wait until the end of a trial period and for full marketing approval to be given.

[unident]

Boringvolvodriver said:

unident said:

I’m not disputing those vaccines have been around for a while. I’m using them as examples. I just want an answer to a simple question

What is an acceptable timeframe to satisfy this vague long term demand?

Mine is at least 12 months and probably until the end of the trial period which is in 2023 IIRC. Not unreasonable to wait until the end of a trial period and for full marketing approval to be given.

Thanks for answering, think you might be on your own though.

[TV8]

unident said:

TV8 said:

rxe said:

I think that worrying about big pharma taking over the world to test stuff is erring on paranoia.

Covid has killed a lot of people, a set of vaccines have been made that stop that from happening (mostly). Any government when considering the population level risks would go for “jab everyone”. Hundreds of thousands of deaths vs. a few hundred. That’s an easy decision at a population level, and a sensible one.

At an individual level, it is not so clear. Who wants to be first with a vaccine that has been rushed? There are a bunch of under 50s out there who swapped a negligible Covid risk for a blood clot. I was quite happy to be vaccinated after 20 million people had been vaccinated. I will be happy for my son to be vaccinated after a million of his peers have been done.

There is NO long-term data on these treatments, but you are appears to be saying when lots of other people have been injected, that lack of data doesn't matter?

Thats a weird thought process.

He’s not saying that and there isn’t a lack of data. There is only a lack of long term data, that you reference earlier. However, nobody, who is opposed to the vaccine on here, will ever stand up and say what they consider to be an acceptable timeframe for long term to be satisfied. Are you still uncomfortable with the smallpox vaccine as its only been around for 225 years, although it has t been used for getting on for 50 years. What about MMR, or the TB jab are less than a century old. Not very long when you consider mankind has existed for about 6 million years.

It’s about risk. If you are facing a high certainty of dying, then there is benefit from the risk. Healthy people under 70 ARE NOT at risk of dying but higher risk than under 50s. Children are at no risk. If you can not understand that please reconsider your posting of opinions.

[unident]

TV8 said:

It’s about risk. If you are facing a high certainty of dying, then there is benefit from the risk. Healthy people under 70 ARE NOT at risk of dying but higher risk than under 50s. Children are at no risk. If you can not understand that please reconsider your posting of opinions.

Time to stop all the MMR vaccinations too then.

Children can catch it, can spread it and a vaccine is not 100% effective so those it hasn’t worked on remain at risk, as do those who can’t take the vaccine for whatever reason. You seem to think this vaccine is either made of poison, or previously unheard of materials. It isn’t.

[Boringvolvodriver]

unident said:

Time to stop all the MMR vaccinations too then.

Children can catch it, can spread it and a vaccine is not 100% effective so those it hasn’t worked on remain at risk, as do those who can’t take the vaccine for whatever reason. You seem to think this vaccine is either made of poison, or previously unheard of materials. It isn’t.

I think you need to compare the R rate for those illnesses to see why it is important for children to have those vaccines compared to covid.

[scottyp123]

These people that are very vulnerable to covid and can't have the vaccine for one reason or another, I take it its not just covid they are vulnerable to?

If someone is so close to death that even a mild bit of covid could kill them then would I be right to assume that there are lots of different things that might kill them as well that would just be a mild inconvenience to most of us. Things like the flu or even a common cold, maybe a bit of dodgy food or even some dog st that has found its way onto their door handle, I'll bet a good dose of diesel fumes might see them off as well, in fact it would probably be easier to list the things that wouldn't kill them

So why is it that we are going all out to prevent them from catching covid but are more than happy to kill them with 1001 different methods, I would say straight off anyone who advocates saving the vulnerable via covid needs to stop driving a motor vehicle with immediate effect at the very least.

[voyds9]

unident said:

TV8 said:

It’s about risk. If you are facing a high certainty of dying, then there is benefit from the risk. Healthy people under 70 ARE NOT at risk of dying but higher risk than under 50s. Children are at no risk. If you can not understand that please reconsider your posting of opinions.

Time to stop all the MMR vaccinations too then.

Children can catch it, can spread it and a vaccine is not 100% effective so those it hasn’t worked on remain at risk, as do those who can’t take the vaccine for whatever reason. You seem to think this vaccine is either made of poison, or previously unheard of materials. It isn’t.

Then it's time to inoculate every newborn with the vaccines for malaria, yellow fever, Dengue fever, leprosy etc. Put them on steroids and biotics just in case

Afterall there are lots of diseases unlikely to kill the young.

[scottyp123]

33,000 vulnerable people die each year purely due to lack of social care.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/106515...

The government are directly to blame for this but they say inject the kids with experimental drugs to save the vulnerable, it makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

[unident]

scottyp123 said:

These people that are very vulnerable to covid and can't have the vaccine for one reason or another, I take it its not just covid they are vulnerable to?

If someone is so close to death that even a mild bit of covid could kill them then would I be right to assume that there are lots of different things that might kill them as well that would just be a mild inconvenience to most of us. Things like the flu or even a common cold, maybe a bit of dodgy food or even some dog st that has found its way onto their door handle, I'll bet a good dose of diesel fumes might see them off as well, in fact it would probably be easier to list the things that wouldn't kill them

So why is it that we are going all out to prevent them from catching covid but are more than happy to kill them with 1001 different methods, I would say straight off anyone who advocates saving the vulnerable via covid needs to stop driving a motor vehicle with immediate effect at the very least.

What we need is some sort of programme to eradicate those who are not perfectly healthy from society. Should we call it Aktion T4? I think it’s quite catchy.

[unident]

voyds9 said:

Then it's time to inoculate every newborn with the vaccines for malaria, yellow fever, Dengue fever, leprosy etc. Put them on steroids and biotics just in case

Afterall there are lots of diseases unlikely to kill the young.

Why? Explain how that flows logically from what I’ve written.

[scottyp123]

unident said:

scottyp123 said:

These people that are very vulnerable to covid and can't have the vaccine for one reason or another, I take it its not just covid they are vulnerable to?

If someone is so close to death that even a mild bit of covid could kill them then would I be right to assume that there are lots of different things that might kill them as well that would just be a mild inconvenience to most of us. Things like the flu or even a common cold, maybe a bit of dodgy food or even some dog st that has found its way onto their door handle, I'll bet a good dose of diesel fumes might see them off as well, in fact it would probably be easier to list the things that wouldn't kill them

So why is it that we are going all out to prevent them from catching covid but are more than happy to kill them with 1001 different methods, I would say straight off anyone who advocates saving the vulnerable via covid needs to stop driving a motor vehicle with immediate effect at the very least.

What we need is some sort of programme to eradicate those who are not perfectly healthy from society. Should we call it Aktion T4? I think it’s quite catchy.

Not even an attempt to answer a reasonable question. Take this one, kids got to grandmas for the day, go out in the field at the back and play with god knows what, come back inside and make granny a nice cup of tea. A week later and granny is dead. Probably happened a million times over the years, a nice neat solution of mandating gloves for kids whilst playing outside would have prevented it but its never been done, or even thought about, yet sticking something into then with no long term effects and they can't wait to do it quick enough.

Boris obviously hasn't got any mates in the glove making business.