Covid 19 Vaccine - will you have it ?
Discussion
Biglips said:
monkfish1 said:
Let me take your last point first. You say you want to eradicate this illness. Nice sentiment, but the reality is, it wont be eradicated for a very long time, or most likely, ever. It will lurk in dark corners of the globe, just to make a resurgence. Only its effects will steadily dimininise. Dare i say it, but thats heading towards the Boris, "we will defeat the virus" nonsensense.
The shortcuts are the long term testing. It has to be that way, i get that. But when we have a repeat of thalodomide, just as a well known example, then what. Most of the population will have had it and its loo lete to do anything about it. I put it to you that is a real risk. How big? Who knows.
How will you feel if that happens, having administered thousands of doses of a vaccine that had had a short cut testing regime. Im glad im not in your shoes.
However, i maintain the same position. Not me. Not prepared to take that risk. I might die from that decision, i know that. Its a choice i have to make. But the risk of death from Covid is, even at this stage resonably well understood and documented. The long term effects of a hastily developed vaccine are completely unknown.
Lastly, the virus has not decimated the economy. The actions of government(s) has done that. Thats for another, well, several threads.
The shortcuts are the long term testing. It has to be that way, i get that. But when we have a repeat of thalodomide, just as a well known example, then what. Most of the population will have had it and its loo lete to do anything about it. I put it to you that is a real risk. How big? Who knows.
How will you feel if that happens, having administered thousands of doses of a vaccine that had had a short cut testing regime. Im glad im not in your shoes.
However, i maintain the same position. Not me. Not prepared to take that risk. I might die from that decision, i know that. Its a choice i have to make. But the risk of death from Covid is, even at this stage resonably well understood and documented. The long term effects of a hastily developed vaccine are completely unknown.
Lastly, the virus has not decimated the economy. The actions of government(s) has done that. Thats for another, well, several threads.
Yes there are risks. Risk vs benefit is why clinical trials are undertaken, and then we can take a decision when we have some evidence. I am trying my best not to be evangelical, but I see the effects of this every day. I just want to inform the discussion on here.
But look at the risks. And by that, i mean balance one againt the other. Sure, if you fall into the vunerable category, thats different, but the risk of death for the bulk of the population is well under 1%, whatever the exact number turns out to be.
The suggestion really does come down to:
a) Take your chances on a sub 1% chance of death.
b) Take a vaccine that protects you in case you are in that sub 1%, but which hasnt been properly tested, which, like the swine flu example, the company manufacturing will probably want indemnity, and "may" have severe unintended outcomes. Upto and including death. But nobody actually has a clue either way because we are going to bypass the long term testing.
What you are proposing to my mind at least, simply isnt a rational trade off of risk. (im assuming here that like a flu vaccine, this is adminstered PRIOR to infection) Being blunt, id rather be dead, than have to live with some of the possible long term side effects. At least i wont know about it if i die.
If on the other hand, getting the disease, meant that you WOULD die, 100%, then thats a different situation. In which case, the risk go the other way. But thats NOT where we are. Its sub 1% IF i get it. OK, i probably will, but its still sub 1%.
monkfish1 said:
And that right there us EXACTLY what im talking about. For all the positive noises, thats what can and does happen. And its very recent too.
1 in 16,000 according to the article - the same odds applied to this situation would still mean the disease is worse than the cure, and you’d have better odds being vaccinated than you would catching coronavirus...DanL said:
1 in 16,000 according to the article - the same odds applied to this situation would still mean the disease is worse than the cure, and you’d have better odds being vaccinated than you would catching coronavirus...
It's not even a straight odds choice -You won't necessarily catch the virus.
You would definitely get the vaccine.
grumbledoak said:
DanL said:
1 in 16,000 according to the article - the same odds applied to this situation would still mean the disease is worse than the cure, and you’d have better odds being vaccinated than you would catching coronavirus...
It's not even a straight odds choice -You won't necessarily catch the virus.
You would definitely get the vaccine.
The point is, vaccine does not always reduce risk, the opposite can and does happen.
DanL said:
monkfish1 said:
And that right there us EXACTLY what im talking about. For all the positive noises, thats what can and does happen. And its very recent too.
1 in 16,000 according to the article - the same odds applied to this situation would still mean the disease is worse than the cure, and you’d have better odds being vaccinated than you would catching coronavirus...Yes, in this particular instance, it was 1 in 16000.
But with a new vaccine we have no idea of the odds. Could be 100% death rate, to no side effects whatsoever to the entire world population. The point is, i dont know, you dont know, and nor does anyone else.
At this point, i think we can safely assume, based on previous, that whoever manufactures it, will push responsibility for problems back to government. As a business producing said vaccine, you would be bonkers not to. You are going to make a vaccine, to distribute to every person on the planet, which you have knowingly shortcut approvals, and have done no long term testing. No business is going to sign up to those risks. If they wont, i sure wont either.
It will be interesting to see. Though i suspect that such a deal will not be revealed until long after its been distributed. As i said before, i trust no one to look after my interests.
If offered, yes.
Otherwise, how do we get out of the current situation? We know how contagious it can be and the severity. What we don't know is how many people are asymptomatic carriers. I for one don't want to endure "social distancing" for any longer than necessary.
Sure, there are potential issues, particularly with side-effects, but a lot of these vaccines are modifying existing vaccines, so it's not like they're starting completely from scratch, but the real problem is if the current virus mutates into a more virulent stain - the longer we allow it to circulate the higher the risk that this will happen. It needs to be eliminated as soon as possible.
Maybe as a scientist I have more faith in the people working on the vaccine.
Otherwise, how do we get out of the current situation? We know how contagious it can be and the severity. What we don't know is how many people are asymptomatic carriers. I for one don't want to endure "social distancing" for any longer than necessary.
Sure, there are potential issues, particularly with side-effects, but a lot of these vaccines are modifying existing vaccines, so it's not like they're starting completely from scratch, but the real problem is if the current virus mutates into a more virulent stain - the longer we allow it to circulate the higher the risk that this will happen. It needs to be eliminated as soon as possible.
Maybe as a scientist I have more faith in the people working on the vaccine.
Monty Python said:
If offered, yes.
Otherwise, how do we get out of the current situation? We know how contagious it can be and the severity. What we don't know is how many people are asymptomatic carriers. I for one don't want to endure "social distancing" for any longer than necessary.
Sure, there are potential issues, particularly with side-effects, but a lot of these vaccines are modifying existing vaccines, so it's not like they're starting completely from scratch, but the real problem is if the current virus mutates into a more virulent stain - the longer we allow it to circulate the higher the risk that this will happen. It needs to be eliminated as soon as possible.
Maybe as a scientist I have more faith in the people working on the vaccine.
Shame that, as a scientist, you have not understood that nothing is going to eliminate this virus.Otherwise, how do we get out of the current situation? We know how contagious it can be and the severity. What we don't know is how many people are asymptomatic carriers. I for one don't want to endure "social distancing" for any longer than necessary.
Sure, there are potential issues, particularly with side-effects, but a lot of these vaccines are modifying existing vaccines, so it's not like they're starting completely from scratch, but the real problem is if the current virus mutates into a more virulent stain - the longer we allow it to circulate the higher the risk that this will happen. It needs to be eliminated as soon as possible.
Maybe as a scientist I have more faith in the people working on the vaccine.
Or read much about the history of vaccines by the sound of it. No shortage of snake oil and harm there.
Survival rate 99.3% and rising.
grumbledoak said:
Shame that, as a scientist, you have not understood that nothing is going to eliminate this virus.
Or read much about the history of vaccines by the sound of it. No shortage of snake oil and harm there.
Survival rate 99.3% and rising.
How do you know it can't be eliminated (or at least reduced to a level where it's no longer a threat)? What evidence do you have to support that statement? Or read much about the history of vaccines by the sound of it. No shortage of snake oil and harm there.
Survival rate 99.3% and rising.
Smallpox and rinderpest have all but eliminated, and there are other non-viral disease like Guinea worm, mumps, rubella, polio, lymphatic filarisis and river blindness that are on the verge.
Monty Python said:
How do you know it can't be eliminated (or at least reduced to a level where it's no longer a threat)? What evidence do you have to support that statement?
Smallpox and rinderpest have all but eliminated, and there are other non-viral disease like Guinea worm, mumps, rubella, polio, lymphatic filarisis and river blindness that are on the verge.
You are changing your terms, and I don't do homework.Smallpox and rinderpest have all but eliminated, and there are other non-viral disease like Guinea worm, mumps, rubella, polio, lymphatic filarisis and river blindness that are on the verge.
It isn't going to go away completely because it is alive and it is all over the world. That genie is not going back in the bottle. And it is barely a threat now. It was never anything *like* the smallpox fatality rate, even among the old and infirm.
grumbledoak said:
You are changing your terms, and I don't do homework.
It isn't going to go away completely because it is alive and it is all over the world. That genie is not going back in the bottle. And it is barely a threat now. It was never anything *like* the smallpox fatality rate, even among the old and infirm.
It’s nice to be able to make sweeping statements, not have to back them up, and then have a pop at others for doing the same, isn’t it? It isn't going to go away completely because it is alive and it is all over the world. That genie is not going back in the bottle. And it is barely a threat now. It was never anything *like* the smallpox fatality rate, even among the old and infirm.
If you're wondering why people are concerned about Bill Gates' involvement..
He paralyzed hundreds of thousands in India, they made him leave
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC61215...
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/06/...
His vaccines actually CAUSED polio
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2...
Another of his vaccines cause the death of 7 kids, and injury of 1200 http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/culture/gates.htm...
Efforts he funded were found things were done without consent and massive ethic violations ... pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court
http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCo...
In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,949 children
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa110228...
Killed 151 infants https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa110228...
Without consent paralyzed 60 kids in Africa :
Link to even the original news article printed in Africa is in here: http://www.laleva.org/eng/2013/01/minimum_of_40_ch...
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccine-pr...
In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a “tetanus” vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade. Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12346214
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320641479...
Their DTP vax, is killing more children then the disease itself
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC53605...
And committed human rights violations
https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent...
He paralyzed hundreds of thousands in India, they made him leave
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC61215...
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/06/...
His vaccines actually CAUSED polio
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2...
Another of his vaccines cause the death of 7 kids, and injury of 1200 http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/culture/gates.htm...
Efforts he funded were found things were done without consent and massive ethic violations ... pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court
http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCo...
In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,949 children
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa110228...
Killed 151 infants https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa110228...
Without consent paralyzed 60 kids in Africa :
Link to even the original news article printed in Africa is in here: http://www.laleva.org/eng/2013/01/minimum_of_40_ch...
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccine-pr...
In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a “tetanus” vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade. Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12346214
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320641479...
Their DTP vax, is killing more children then the disease itself
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC53605...
And committed human rights violations
https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent...
Lincsls1 said:
Why are some people annoyed by the fact some folk don't want / won't take a vaccine once one becomes available?
I agree that the at risk/vulnerable people should have it, but the rest of us should be able to choose.
What's the problem here? The risk is super low to the mass majority of us and I dare say many £millions would be saved on unnecessary vaccines.
Its call having freedom of choice.
Herd immunity is dependent on a certain percentage being vaccinated or immune. That's why measles is making a comeback.I agree that the at risk/vulnerable people should have it, but the rest of us should be able to choose.
What's the problem here? The risk is super low to the mass majority of us and I dare say many £millions would be saved on unnecessary vaccines.
Its call having freedom of choice.
If it makes no difference to herd immunity then fine, if it means it continues to rattle around killing people then not so fine.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff