CV19 - The Anti Vaxxers Are Back

[WinstonWolf]

PorkInsider said:

xjay1337 said:

My individual risk to Covid is statistically speaking, 0.

I'll hazard a guess that statistics might be your strongest suit.

You've got to shove the decimal point quite a few places that way > until he's wrong

The last number I saw you have a 1 in 67,000 chance of dying from Covid if you're under 45.

[s2art]

WinstonWolf said:

PorkInsider said:

xjay1337 said:

My individual risk to Covid is statistically speaking, 0.

I'll hazard a guess that statistics might be your strongest suit.

You've got to shove the decimal point quite a few places that way > until he's wrong

The last number I saw you have a 1 in 67,000 chance of dying from Covid if you're under 45.

Maybe, but what happens in 30 years time to you, particularly if you develop a vulnerable condition? If there is no herd immunity you are at risk.

[eldar]

WinstonWolf said:

Do you not believe in taking responsibility for your own welfare then?

The Typhoid Mary approach. Nice.

[WinstonWolf]

s2art said:

WinstonWolf said:

I lived through the Thalidomide years, there were people with birth defects at my school. I have a different outlook to you for obvious reasons.

Stop confusing drugs with vaccines.

I'm simply letting everyone else be guinea pigs. I'll have it once you've all tested it Thalidomide was only a problem in a very specific set of circumstances.

[durbster]

monkfish1 said:

durbster said:

monkfish1 said:

Long term testing will be skipped. It has to be. This has gone wrong enough times before. And a lot more recently than thalidomide.

On that basis count me out.

Given that, statistically, im more likely to die in a road traffic accident, why would i expose myself to a vaccine that has had no long term testing to protect me from something thats extremely unlikely to cause me harm? If i was 80 with a lung disease id probably take a different view.

Logic failure here.You're significantly more likely to be harmed by COVID-19 than a potential vaccine, statistically speaking.

A vaccine with a tiny risk = count me out.
A disease with a higher risk = bring it on.

No, YOU have the logic failure.

You have NO idea of the long term risk from a vaccine not yet developed. Or the liklihood of of any such risk. It "may" be lower than the disease. It may not be.

Your assertion has no evidence to back it up. Statistical as you suggest or otherwise. It cannot have. Nor will it until a few years down the road.

The actual position is a very small risk (covid) V an unknown risk (a new vaccine).

You make your choices, i'll make mine. But there is no logic failure here.

I'm basing my assertion on the fact that many previous vaccines have been through the same process and have been proven both effective and safe. The evidence says the approval process is effective.

What are you basing your assertion that the risk of long-term harm is greater than the known risks associated with COVID-19?

[WinstonWolf]

s2art said:

WinstonWolf said:

PorkInsider said:

xjay1337 said:

My individual risk to Covid is statistically speaking, 0.

I'll hazard a guess that statistics might be your strongest suit.

You've got to shove the decimal point quite a few places that way > until he's wrong

The last number I saw you have a 1 in 67,000 chance of dying from Covid if you're under 45.

Maybe, but what happens in 30 years time to you, particularly if you develop a vulnerable condition? If there is no herd immunity you are at risk.

Then guess what, and you're never going to believe this, I'll take extra steps to protect myself.

I know, unbelievable...

[Castrol for a knave]

Matt_N said:

I won’t be having it.

But then I’m in an age group that barely needs to worry about it.

I’m young’ish fit and healthy.

[monkfish1]

durbster said:

monkfish1 said:

durbster said:

monkfish1 said:

Long term testing will be skipped. It has to be. This has gone wrong enough times before. And a lot more recently than thalidomide.

On that basis count me out.

Given that, statistically, im more likely to die in a road traffic accident, why would i expose myself to a vaccine that has had no long term testing to protect me from something thats extremely unlikely to cause me harm? If i was 80 with a lung disease id probably take a different view.

Logic failure here.You're significantly more likely to be harmed by COVID-19 than a potential vaccine, statistically speaking.

A vaccine with a tiny risk = count me out.
A disease with a higher risk = bring it on.

No, YOU have the logic failure.

You have NO idea of the long term risk from a vaccine not yet developed. Or the liklihood of of any such risk. It "may" be lower than the disease. It may not be.

Your assertion has no evidence to back it up. Statistical as you suggest or otherwise. It cannot have. Nor will it until a few years down the road.

The actual position is a very small risk (covid) V an unknown risk (a new vaccine).

You make your choices, i'll make mine. But there is no logic failure here.

I'm basing my assertion on the fact that many previous vaccines have been through the same process and have been proven both effective and safe. The evidence says the approval process is effective.

What are you basing your assertion that the risk of long-term harm is greater than the known risks associated with COVID-19?

Did you read what i said? I never said that the vaccine would have a long term risk greater than Covid. I said we dont know. Again: Known risk V unknown risk.

Emphasis on the vaccine being an unknown risk.

Normally the process of approval is very effective. Except that we will shortcut the long term testing bit. So the normal standards will NOT be applied. This is when things go wrong.

[grumbledoak]

Castrol for a knave said:

Is the advertising budget down on last year?

[monkfish1]

DeWar said:

monkfish1 said:

That not remotely relevant. A) the manufacturer will have done testing, B) even if the engine explodes im very unlikely to die.

A) The vaccine will have been tested.

B) Come on! You know what I mean. Ok, substitute “engine exploding” for “wheels falling off at 70mph” or any other vanishingly unlikely, lethal mechanical failure.

But the vaccine will NOT go through the normal long term testing. It cant. We cant wait that long.

And thats before you consider the commercial interests that will push to shortcut the process as much as possible. The big boys wont be doing this becuase they think its the right thing to do. First approved vaccine out of the blocks will make whichever company that achieves untold billions.

[Castrol for a knave]

And thats before you consider the commercial interests that will push to shortcut the process as much as possible. The big boys wont be doing this becuase they think its the right thing to do. First approved vaccine out of the blocks will make whichever company that achieves untold billions.

[/quote]

Not necessarily, a lot of testing and modelling is done in academia, in partnership with private companies. Often, there is a decision to release a product on an open licence. I would expect here, especially if a vaccine is created outside of the US, that government will legislate that it has to be issued at cost. It is also likely that there will be cross border co-operation which means it will not be a wholly commercial or commodified product.

but, I'm one of those hippies who thinks altruism is evolutionary and most people and a great many animals have it hardwired.

[s2art]

monkfish1 said:

Normally the process of approval is very effective. Except that we will shortcut the long term testing bit. So the normal standards will NOT be applied. This is when things go wrong.

What shortcuts do you think the Oxford vaccine testing have made? In fact since it is based on an earlier well tested delivery mechanism (adenovirus I think) all it is doing is teaching your immune system to recognise a particular feature of CV19 (the corona spike). This is not a drug, its a safe but as yet unproven vaccine. (unproven that it would confer significant resistance)

[Funny username]

DeWar said:

A) The vaccine will have been tested.

How will you know the effect on women who get pregnant post vacinne and the effect on their unborn child? You can’t rush that test.....

I’m not an anti vaxxer. My daughter and I are up to date on everything. If there was an Ebola outbreak I’d be first one queuing for my shot.

[s2art]

monkfish1 said:

But the vaccine will NOT go through the normal long term testing. It cant. We cant wait that long.

Evidence for that statement? The Oxford vaccine has already passed its phase 1&2 trials. Further trials are underway in places like Brazil. What do you think is missing?

[Funny username]

Give vaccines to people at risk, and people who want it....

[s2art]

Funny username said:

Give vaccines to people at risk, and people who want it....

Not good enough for herd immunity.

[WinstonWolf]

s2art said:

Funny username said:

Give vaccines to people at risk, and people who want it....

Not good enough for herd immunity.

30% of Swedes already have T cell immunity.

It makes sense to target the vaccine at those who currently need the flu vaccine.

[s2art]

WinstonWolf said:

s2art said:

Funny username said:

Give vaccines to people at risk, and people who want it....

Not good enough for herd immunity.

30% of Swedes already have T cell immunity.

It makes sense to target the vaccine at those who currently need the flu vaccine.

Agreed, but it may not (probably wont) confer strong resistance to older people with weak immune systems, or those who have compromised immune systems (for instance those undergoing cancer treatments). Which is why the best way to go is Herd immunity.

[WinstonWolf]

s2art said:

WinstonWolf said:

s2art said:

Funny username said:

Give vaccines to people at risk, and people who want it....

Not good enough for herd immunity.

30% of Swedes already have T cell immunity.

It makes sense to target the vaccine at those who currently need the flu vaccine.

Agreed, but it may not (probably wont) confer strong resistance to older people with weak immune systems, or those who have compromised immune systems (for instance those undergoing cancer treatments). Which is why the best way to go is Herd immunity.

We will probably have that before a vaccine finishes testing...

[DeWar]

Funny username said:

How will you know the effect on women who get pregnant post vacinne and the effect on their unborn child? You can’t rush that test.....

I’m not an anti vaxxer. My daughter and I are up to date on everything. If there was an Ebola outbreak I’d be first one queuing for my shot.

Rather than quote myself, see my previous posts. My car analogy was deliberately chosen. It will be a new vaccine like the G20 3-series is a new car - it’s based on established tech and what has worked and proved to be safe. All that’s different is the antigen - the bit of the virus that will be presented to the hosts’ immune system. This is the reason it’s even possible to conceive a new vaccine in such a short time frame. I am certain it will be as safe as any other mass produced vaccine (i.e. exceedingly though I don’t expect you to take my word for it, I am an Internet randomer after all). How effective will it be? That’s something that only time will tell.