Covid 19 Vaccine - will you have it ?
Discussion
Maximus_Meridius101 said:
Rollin said:
Giving consent for medical treatment is normal. You made up the bit in bold.
Really?DanL said:
I’d be amazed if the person about to stick you with a needle said anything about it being experimental. They certainly didn’t say that to me, and it’s unnecessarily alarming.
It seems you deliberately didn’t include the direct copy and paste I posted, from the actual information leaflet you are ( or certainly should be ) given and encouraged to read when you go for your jab, so I’ll post it again.COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca solution for injection COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1 S [recombinant])
This medicinal product has been given authorisation for temporary supply by the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. It does not have a marketing authorisation, but this temporary authorisation grants permission for the medicine to be used for active immunisation of individuals aged 18 years and older for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
It also has the information about what it is, and how it was produced.
What COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca contains
One dose (0.5 ml) contains: COVID 19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1-S* recombinant) 5 × 10^10 viral particles
- Recombinant, replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus vector encoding the SARS CoV 2 Spike glycoprotein. Produced in genetically modified human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293 cells.
Whether you consider it alarmist or not, counts for nothing. They give the information to you freely, then you decide how you deal with it.
I read it, listened to the people at the centre, then decided to have the vaccine, others may choose not to, it’s their shout, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people don’t bother to listen properly, or read the leaflet first.
Edited by Maximus_Meridius101 on Thursday 22 April 10:47
Maximus_Meridius101 said:
This product contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
It’s a bit like being given a plate of s
t in a restaurant, but eating it anyway, because the waiter said it’s really nice, and it’s good for you.
Untrue, and the analogy of a restaurant is so terrible I can't continue it. It’s a bit like being given a plate of s
t in a restaurant, but eating it anyway, because the waiter said it’s really nice, and it’s good for you.The OAZ vaccine works and demonstrably meets the highest quality standards. Furthermore since it was rolled out, it's been demonstrated to be extremely safe and even more efficacious than we'd envisioned. The use of GMOs is essential in this type of vaccine, as it has been for many decades in other vaccines routinely administered.
Maximus_Meridius101 said:
It seems you deliberately didn’t include the direct copy and paste I posted, from the actual information leaflet you are ( or certainly should be ) given and encouraged to read when you go for your jab, so I’ll post it again.
COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca solution for injection COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1 S [recombinant])
This medicinal product has been given authorisation for temporary supply by the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. It does not have a marketing authorisation, but this temporary authorisation grants permission for the medicine to be used for active immunisation of individuals aged 18 years and older for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
It also has the information about what it is, and how it was produced.
What COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca contains
One dose (0.5 ml) contains: COVID 19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1-S* recombinant) 5 × 10^10 viral particles
Whether you consider it alarmist or not, counts for nothing. They give the information to you freely, then you decide how you deal with it.
I read it, listened to the people at the centre, then decided to have the vaccine, others may choose not to, it’s their shout, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people don’t bother to listen properly, or read the leaflet first.
It is not experimental. COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca solution for injection COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1 S [recombinant])
This medicinal product has been given authorisation for temporary supply by the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. It does not have a marketing authorisation, but this temporary authorisation grants permission for the medicine to be used for active immunisation of individuals aged 18 years and older for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
It also has the information about what it is, and how it was produced.
What COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca contains
One dose (0.5 ml) contains: COVID 19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1-S* recombinant) 5 × 10^10 viral particles
- Recombinant, replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus vector encoding the SARS CoV 2 Spike glycoprotein. Produced in genetically modified human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293 cells.
Whether you consider it alarmist or not, counts for nothing. They give the information to you freely, then you decide how you deal with it.
I read it, listened to the people at the centre, then decided to have the vaccine, others may choose not to, it’s their shout, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people don’t bother to listen properly, or read the leaflet first.
Edited by Maximus_Meridius101 on Thursday 22 April 10:47
It does not say that in leaflet or your post, no is it true. You have misunderstood what these words mean.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulat...
It does not have a marketing authorisation, true, but that simply means it cannot be sold out with the temporary licence circumstances. It means nothing in relation to it's testing or the quality standards or safety. This has all been carried out correctly and robustly followed up. It's a finalised product.
Look, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The bottom line is the vaccine is safe, and demonstrably works for the individual and wider society.
jameswills said:
If you do that quiz the answers are given with links to the source of the statistics used. It would be extremely helpful to everyone on both sides if instead of calling people anti vaxxers or conspiracy loons someone could maybe actually pick apart the supposed misleading information? This is a general question, not aimed at you in particular. Personally I don’t know either way but some of the evidence in that quiz is compelling to me, but I’d welcome dearly a proper rebuttal on any of it.
Surely that’s the point of us talking about it.
It's really not the point of talking about it. This isn't football. We're not gathering opinions on who is the best side then making our decision to support them based on that. This is science, which literally means "truth".Surely that’s the point of us talking about it.
At best this thread this thread can show people where the real information is to allay their concerns. There is however, no value whatsoever, in people ignorant of any relevant specialist training trying to undermine the vaccine. All that does is feed ignorance and fear.
I said as a joke earlier, but it is bafflingly arrogant that some think they are sufficiently up to speed on these matters from reading tripe the internet for a year, that they can attempt to undermine a global scientific consensus, with no facts presented whatsoever.
I mean, some bloody humility wouldn't go amiss would it?
Prof Prolapse said:
I said as a joke earlier, but it is bafflingly arrogant that some think they are sufficiently up to speed on this matters from reading tripe the internet for a year, that they can attempt to undermine a global scientific consensus, with no facts presented whatsoever.
This is the crux of it really. The internet age has given us a situation where many people seem to consider all opinions equally valid. So we live in a world now where a molecular biologist gets the same bandwidth as Dave from Facebook/Pistonheads/The Pub.jameswills said:
Wow. So unless you have certain qualifications you’re not able, ney, not even allowed to, research or debate an alternative viewpoint on the current vaccinations regarding Covid 19.
That's not what is being said. But I prefer, for example, to be flown by a professional pilot when on an aircraft, even though I realize the bloke next to is entitled his opinion about our approach to the airport. RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Telegraph reporting AZ is twice as dangerous as first reported.
Unless I am reading the wrong article, it is a reference solely to blood clots, the current risk being 7.9 in a million. Also, reverence is made to the possibility of 'observer bias', which may be muddying the figures.paulguitar said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Telegraph reporting AZ is twice as dangerous as first reported.
Unless I am reading the wrong article, it is a reference solely to blood clots, the current risk being 7.9 in a million. Also, reverence is made to the possibility of 'observer bias', which may be muddying the figures.t at maths and at work so rushing response (so caveats here), but to three decimal places that makes 0.001% chance of a blood clot after the vaccine. Lets be clear that is not because of the vaccine a causal relationship has not been established in all these incidences.For reference, chances of blood clot from contraceptive pill, 1 in 1000, 0.1%. Whilst prescription guidelines are fairly strict, that is a hundred times more likely, in what is an everyday drug regarded as "safe", and is even on occasion prescribed to children.
Chances of dying in car crash in a year, in 2018, 2.76/100,000 or 0.0028%, or 0.003%. You are three times as likely to die in a car crash over a year than get a blood clot (which may not be fatal) after taking the vaccine.
There really is a catastrophic failure in many people to understand probability here. Even if the risk is doubled, it remains effectively zero.
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Friday 23 April 11:15
It's not a failure to understand probability, rather an exercise in common sense. If I'm not at significant risk of the index disease, I don't need to take any vaccine. If that vaccine introduces a risk, I definitely don't need to take it. If the vaccine is new in mechanism with no long term testing having taken place, I am not going to take it unless the risk from the disease is significant.
Bear in mind when the AZ was released we were told no significant risk. Then within weeks it became 1:250k, now two weeks later it's 1:125k. Who knows where it'll be in 3 year's time.
If I mitigated to the maximum extent against every risk of death over 1:125,000, I would never go anywhere or do anything and would probably die of boredom, if not from one medicine or another, as my body would be a walking branch of Boots.
It's an utter fallacy that we should all be vaccinated.
Bear in mind when the AZ was released we were told no significant risk. Then within weeks it became 1:250k, now two weeks later it's 1:125k. Who knows where it'll be in 3 year's time.
If I mitigated to the maximum extent against every risk of death over 1:125,000, I would never go anywhere or do anything and would probably die of boredom, if not from one medicine or another, as my body would be a walking branch of Boots.
It's an utter fallacy that we should all be vaccinated.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
It's not a failure to understand probability, rather an exercise in common sense. If I'm not at significant risk of the index disease, I don't need to take any vaccine. If that vaccine introduces a risk, I definitely don't need to take it. If the vaccine is new in mechanism with no long term testing having taken place, I am not going to take it unless the risk from the disease is significant.
Bear in mind when the AZ was released we were told no significant risk. Then within weeks it became 1:250k, now two weeks later it's 1:125k. Who knows where it'll be in 3 year's time.
If I mitigated to the maximum extent against every risk of death over 1:125,000, I would never go anywhere or do anything and would probably die of boredom, if not from one medicine or another, as my body would be a walking branch of Boots.
It's an utter fallacy that we should all be vaccinated.
As a human being drawing breath, you are at risk of the disease for which you are vaccinated, and are therefore likely to have some positive benefit. Everyone is, and you have a degree of social responsibility to get vaccinated so we can achieve "herd immunity", where sufficient numbers are vaccinated the disease cannot spread or mutate.Bear in mind when the AZ was released we were told no significant risk. Then within weeks it became 1:250k, now two weeks later it's 1:125k. Who knows where it'll be in 3 year's time.
If I mitigated to the maximum extent against every risk of death over 1:125,000, I would never go anywhere or do anything and would probably die of boredom, if not from one medicine or another, as my body would be a walking branch of Boots.
It's an utter fallacy that we should all be vaccinated.
1 in 250,000 risk of what? Incoherent risk based made up vague number syndrome?
As (presumably given the strength of your opinion) an expert in the field of immunology, what about the "new mechanism" do you consider an increased risk compared to conventional vaccines? What about when compared live Vaccines? Or the Pfizer RNA method? Or do you simply know very little, and you're just making the assumption that it's new and it's something to be afraid of? Despite millions of people have demonstrated the contrary. Every single new medicine, is new, that's the whole point.
There's no such thing as "long term testing" prior to selling a vaccine or medicine. Again, this is made up non-sense, all the typically criteria are met as well as millions of people demonstrating it's proven safety.
It absolutely is an exercise in common sense. How do you think you're doing so far?
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Friday 23 April 13:27
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
It's not a failure to understand probability, rather an exercise in common sense. If I'm not at significant risk of the index disease, I don't need to take any vaccine. If that vaccine introduces a risk, I definitely don't need to take it. If the vaccine is new in mechanism with no long term testing having taken place, I am not going to take it unless the risk from the disease is significant.
Bear in mind when the AZ was released we were told no significant risk. Then within weeks it became 1:250k, now two weeks later it's 1:125k. Who knows where it'll be in 3 year's time.
If I mitigated to the maximum extent against every risk of death over 1:125,000, I would never go anywhere or do anything and would probably die of boredom, if not from one medicine or another, as my body would be a walking branch of Boots.
It's an utter fallacy that we should all be vaccinated.
That denominator just keeps getting lower. It started off at 1 in a million.Bear in mind when the AZ was released we were told no significant risk. Then within weeks it became 1:250k, now two weeks later it's 1:125k. Who knows where it'll be in 3 year's time.
If I mitigated to the maximum extent against every risk of death over 1:125,000, I would never go anywhere or do anything and would probably die of boredom, if not from one medicine or another, as my body would be a walking branch of Boots.
It's an utter fallacy that we should all be vaccinated.
This is where I am, my risk of dying from covid is 1:83.5k according to Oxfords Qcovid calculator.
It's getting a bit close.
I'm certainly going to wait out the summer and see if once they have jabbed a few more early adopters in my age group (under 40) that 1:125k gets reduced again.
Mum and Dad had the vaccine (aged 60 with history of pneumonia and 62 with controlled hypertension) and I'm glad they did, but for me, no medical conditions and very rarely I'll, I'm not seeing the benefit right now.
chris1roll said:
That denominator just keeps getting lower. It started off at 1 in a million.
This is where I am, my risk of dying from covid is 1:83.5k according to Oxfords Qcovid calculator.
It's getting a bit close.
I'm certainly going to wait out the summer and see if once they have jabbed a few more early adopters in my age group (under 40) that 1:125k gets reduced again.
Mum and Dad had the vaccine (aged 60 with history of pneumonia and 62 with controlled hypertension) and I'm glad they did, but for me, no medical conditions and very rarely I'll, I'm not seeing the benefit right now.
A couple of points. Firstly the death rate you’ve calculated for the AZ vaccine is the blood clot not fatality rate. 19% died so it’s 32 deaths from 21.2m doses not the full 168. That gives you a ~1:650,000 chance of death assuming everyone faces an equal chance regardless of their general health which I’m sure we can agree is extremely unlikely. Even still taking that number you’re still far better off taking the vaccine but I understand that we’re pissing around with odds so faint they’d make Camelot blush so it’s all a bit moot. This is where I am, my risk of dying from covid is 1:83.5k according to Oxfords Qcovid calculator.
It's getting a bit close.
I'm certainly going to wait out the summer and see if once they have jabbed a few more early adopters in my age group (under 40) that 1:125k gets reduced again.
Mum and Dad had the vaccine (aged 60 with history of pneumonia and 62 with controlled hypertension) and I'm glad they did, but for me, no medical conditions and very rarely I'll, I'm not seeing the benefit right now.
The other point would be that the benefit to you would be not having to suffer a bad bout of the lurgy, most people our age don’t really suffer but it can be a b
d if you get a good dose of it. Then there’s the benefit of reduced transmission which might not matter to you personally but might help protect more vulnerable folks like your parents and mine assuming it proves to be the case over the longer term.That’s why on the balance of things I’ll get it a) the odds of getting ill from taking the vaccine are basically zero b) covid can be a proper b
d even if it doesn’t manage to kill you c) trying to keep my old mum a bit safer, same reason I get the flu jab. Horses for courses though and I have to say I’m quite surprised the take up in over 50’s has been as high as it has, I thought more people would play the waiting game. Maybe they really want a pint actually inside a pub!?It has always been a problem that people are preoccupied by the death statistics.
I don’t think we have a very good idea of what the chance of long term health effects are if you get COVID (not just low or no symptoms SARS).
I had glandular fever last year and it is largely accepted that a percentage of people are left with chronic fatigue etc from that, and we do know that young people are reporting long term effects from COVID.
I find the blood clot thing to be a little peculiar. A friend of me sent me 3 messages the other day -
1. Have you seen all this blood clot news
2. I’m not getting the vaccine
3. Oh I’ve finally gone ahead and booked a long haul flight
Riiiiiiight
I also note the blood clot risk from COVID is not mentioned by people proclaiming they are trying to mitigate risk.
I don’t think we have a very good idea of what the chance of long term health effects are if you get COVID (not just low or no symptoms SARS).
I had glandular fever last year and it is largely accepted that a percentage of people are left with chronic fatigue etc from that, and we do know that young people are reporting long term effects from COVID.
I find the blood clot thing to be a little peculiar. A friend of me sent me 3 messages the other day -
1. Have you seen all this blood clot news
2. I’m not getting the vaccine
3. Oh I’ve finally gone ahead and booked a long haul flight
Riiiiiiight
I also note the blood clot risk from COVID is not mentioned by people proclaiming they are trying to mitigate risk.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
I live by a simple principle; I don't take any medicine unless I need it. I don't see Covid as a risk, so I don't need to swallow the spider to catch the fly. Other people will feel differently. It's called personal choice and should be respected (in all directions).
You are of course free to make your choice, but if you post the rationale behind that choice and it seems to be lacking don't be surprised if other people comment. I am surprised you are not used to that by now.Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff