30 somethings - are you going to vax?
Discussion
djc206 said:
That there was vaccine hesitancy in the family would, as someone with no emotional attachment to the scenario, I believe lead all of you down the path of blaming the vaccine rather than the virus that was significantly more likely to cause such symptoms on that timescale and with that tragic outcome but no one will ever know.
At that time, there were many people dying here within 1-3 weeks of the shot, so 'hesitancy' at the time was simply awareness of what was happening here in the moment. Most people here aren't/weren't against the vaccine - we saw a huge surge in people saying no once people in their immediate circles started dying and having severe complications relatively quickly after getting their shots.
I was merely stating it's sad that he died while his wife was away but read it into it whatever will to satisfy your bias.
andy ted said:
Have you got a source for the 1000 dead directly from the vaccine in the UK?
it was on yellow card report a while ago, can't find it..but fact check has covered it too, https://fullfact.org/online/the-light-vaccines/
it doesn't say "directly" from vaccine tho.
digger_R said:
At that time, there were many people dying here within 1-3 weeks of the shot, so 'hesitancy' at the time was simply awareness of what was happening here in the moment.
Most people here aren't/weren't against the vaccine - we saw a huge surge in people saying no once people in their immediate circles started dying and having severe complications relatively quickly after getting their shots.
I was merely stating it's sad that he died while his wife was away but read it into it whatever will to satisfy your bias.
It is sad. We both have a bias. Mine is based on what I’ve read about the side effects in the U.K. vaccine rollout vs what I have read about the illness and symptoms that a covid infection causes. I’ve also just had a look at the AEFI data which disagrees strongly with your statement about death from 1-3 weeks. Yours is based on your tragic experience. I lost one of my best friends suddenly a few years ago, it sucks, so I’m going to leave it there because it’s not right to be arguing over your friends death.Most people here aren't/weren't against the vaccine - we saw a huge surge in people saying no once people in their immediate circles started dying and having severe complications relatively quickly after getting their shots.
I was merely stating it's sad that he died while his wife was away but read it into it whatever will to satisfy your bias.
grudas said:
andy ted said:
Have you got a source for the 1000 dead directly from the vaccine in the UK?
it was on yellow card report a while ago, can't find it..but fact check has covered it too, https://fullfact.org/online/the-light-vaccines/
it doesn't say "directly" from vaccine tho.
blueg33 said:
they need to make clear that the vaccine is not new. It was orginally developed for SARS I believe, and has been modified to respond to Covid RNA.
Name me a mRNA or even a viral vector vaccine approved for human use before 2020. Hint - there were none. I don't see how it is not reasonable to point out the vaccines are 'new' irrespective of whether or not there are some justified or otherwise (and I agree they are overblown) doubts re the unknowns about the delivery platform. Arguing that they aren't new is pretty daft.Prof Prolapse said:
Again, you might not like my opinion, you don't have to, but to ignore sound medical advice is (and I'll try to be more polite as I respect your opinion elsewhere on the forum), "not wise".
Well it's a question of compulsion. People are allowed personal choice to ignore sound medical advice in all manner of ways like smoking, drinking alcohol, eating unhealthy food or engaging in high risk sports without being branded as thick or evil. While transmission risk post vax is lower, over a longer period of time it doesn't matter because everyone is likely to be infected then reinfected again (see Andrew Pollard, head of the Oxford vaccine group comments to parliament 2 days ago). The marginal reduction in risk by the constant coercion of younger age groups is not going to be significantly different whatever vax level is achieved.
It is entirely sensible for most adults and certainly those older than 30 to consider taking the vaccines as you do so to protect yourself. The move towards 'vaccine passports' and penalisation of people who don't however for me absolutely is not one that is justified given the likely infection profile of the virus in the population over time.
djc206 said:
It is sad. We both have a bias. Mine is based on what I’ve read about the side effects in the U.K. vaccine rollout vs what I have read about the illness and symptoms that a covid infection causes. I’ve also just had a look at the AEFI data which disagrees strongly with your statement about death from 1-3 weeks. Yours is based on your tragic experience. I lost one of my best friends suddenly a few years ago, it sucks, so I’m going to leave it there because it’s not right to be arguing over your friends death.
I appreciate that - through circumstance I've been in India throughout this whole thing. I've listened to so many stories of people losing loved ones suddenly - both from covid and in close proximity to receiving the shot.
What I've heard in each instance was that in every case where the shot was involved, there was no connection with the jab.
In India - we also got to watch in real time here as comedy incidents like this played out.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/indian-actor-tur...
https://www.herald.ng/video-bollywood-actor-mansoo...
In short, employ celeb to push vaccination, live broadcast his injection on tv/media, he has a heart attack within 24hrs and dies, immediately tell everyone there is no possible connection, start legal cases against anyone who dares suggest it.
isaldiri said:
blueg33 said:
they need to make clear that the vaccine is not new. It was orginally developed for SARS I believe, and has been modified to respond to Covid RNA.
RNA vaccines have been tested on humans since at least 2017 although I was wrong about it being for SARS, I mis remembered.
medpages said:
Never Been Done Before?
That's not completely true. While an mRNA vaccine has never been on the market anywhere in the world, mRNA vaccines have been tested in humans before, for at least four infectious diseases: rabies, influenza, cytomegalovirus, and Zika.
In 2017, German biotech CureVac published results in The Lancet for a phase I trial of its mRNA rabies vaccine, and in January of this year the company issued results via press release from a phase I trial of its low-dose rabies mRNA vaccine.
Last year, Moderna and German researchers published the phase I results of two mRNA vaccines against influenza. In January, Moderna announced results of its phase I study of an mRNA vaccine against cytomegalovirus, and just this past April as the pandemic raged, the company reported interim data from its mRNA vaccine against Zika.
The flu version (closest to Covid) was observed as being reasonably safe.That's not completely true. While an mRNA vaccine has never been on the market anywhere in the world, mRNA vaccines have been tested in humans before, for at least four infectious diseases: rabies, influenza, cytomegalovirus, and Zika.
In 2017, German biotech CureVac published results in The Lancet for a phase I trial of its mRNA rabies vaccine, and in January of this year the company issued results via press release from a phase I trial of its low-dose rabies mRNA vaccine.
Last year, Moderna and German researchers published the phase I results of two mRNA vaccines against influenza. In January, Moderna announced results of its phase I study of an mRNA vaccine against cytomegalovirus, and just this past April as the pandemic raged, the company reported interim data from its mRNA vaccine against Zika.
Moderna have focused on developing and improving mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases for a decade. They have completed two phase 1 studies for influenza strains that were found to be both safe and effective (6). Another phase 1 trial for a Zika virus vaccine is underway, as is a phase 2 dose-finding trial for a cytomegalovirus vaccine. Undoubtedly, this contributed to their ability to respond so quickly during this pandemic and allowed them to produce one of the first vaccines to receive emergency authorization. So, while it is true that we do not have long term data on these specific vaccines, we do have data on vaccines with similar platforms and delivery methods that show longer-term safety.
Covid Vaccines have been through Phase 1, 2 and 3 trials.
Approval processes were not changed for these vaccines. All new vaccinations and medications go through rigorous testing, and the final steps include 3 phases of human trials. The final phase requires testing thousands of people. Moderna’s phase 3 trial included 30,420 participants, of which half received the vaccine (8), and Pfizer-BioNTech’s phase 3 trial included 43,548 participants, with just under half receiving the vaccine (9). The other half in both groups received a placebo in order to accurately compare results between the participants who received a vaccine or a placebo. Both vaccines met the requirements of safety and efficacy, with an astonishing 94.1% and 95% rate of being effective in preventing COVID-19 illness (8, 9)
What Covid did was enable the development of mass production methods of RNA vaccines. RNA vaccines are not definitely new and not definitively untested.
There are plenty of peer reviewed papers on the subject, that are much more reliable forms of information than stuff in the media, social media and anecdotes.
blueg33 said:
Approval processes were not changed for these vaccines. All new vaccinations and medications go through rigorous testing, and the final steps include 3 phases of human trials. The final phase requires testing thousands of people. Moderna’s phase 3 trial included 30,420 participants, of which half received the vaccine (8), and Pfizer-BioNTech’s phase 3 trial included 43,548 participants, with just under half receiving the vaccine (9). The other half in both groups received a placebo in order to accurately compare results between the participants who received a vaccine or a placebo. Both vaccines met the requirements of safety and efficacy, with an astonishing 94.1% and 95% rate of being effective in preventing COVID-19 illness (8, 9)
Why are they now, after 8 months in the real world now reporting this to be 60%? What did they miss to not see this?If we are already down to 60%, do you think this could go below the 50% threshold in preventing COVID-19 illness in the next 6 months?
Ashfordian said:
blueg33 said:
Approval processes were not changed for these vaccines. All new vaccinations and medications go through rigorous testing, and the final steps include 3 phases of human trials. The final phase requires testing thousands of people. Moderna’s phase 3 trial included 30,420 participants, of which half received the vaccine (8), and Pfizer-BioNTech’s phase 3 trial included 43,548 participants, with just under half receiving the vaccine (9). The other half in both groups received a placebo in order to accurately compare results between the participants who received a vaccine or a placebo. Both vaccines met the requirements of safety and efficacy, with an astonishing 94.1% and 95% rate of being effective in preventing COVID-19 illness (8, 9)
Why are they now, after 8 months in the real world now reporting this to be 60%? What did they miss to not see this?If we are already down to 60%, do you think this could go below the 50% threshold in preventing COVID-19 illness in the next 6 months?
blueg33 said:
isaldiri said:
blueg33 said:
they need to make clear that the vaccine is not new. It was orginally developed for SARS I believe, and has been modified to respond to Covid RNA.
RNA vaccines have been tested on humans since at least 2017 although I was wrong about it being for SARS, I mis remembered.
andy ted said:
It is a key distinction - there are risks of course from the vaccine but it's important that they don't get overstated (or indeed understated)
Absolutely! Even if it was a 1000 directly from vaccination it is a much lower number than covid which currently sits at 130k out of 6m+ cases. isaldiri said:
blueg33 said:
isaldiri said:
blueg33 said:
they need to make clear that the vaccine is not new. It was orginally developed for SARS I believe, and has been modified to respond to Covid RNA.
RNA vaccines have been tested on humans since at least 2017 although I was wrong about it being for SARS, I mis remembered.
As I understand it, mass production was tricky and needed significant investment, Covid provided the impetus to make the investment
mRNA has also been used in cancer trials for quite a while. I'd need to find some dates, but I'd be confident before 2017. There's hundreds of trials on clinicaltrials.gov, most will have low numbers of patients, but almost certainly thousands dosed by 2019. Some of these will be in very vulnerable populations as well.
If the inference is they're somehow unsafe, I'm not sure how many have received the Pfizer and AZ vaccines which use similar mRNA technology, but 2.2 billion have received vaccines globally, with no adverse safety signal. Far more research done on these vaccines than in most of the clinical trials I work on, and more than any I have helped bring to market.
In drug development vernacular, mRNA is not considered "new technology", a lay person may say this, but it doesn't make it so.
If the inference is they're somehow unsafe, I'm not sure how many have received the Pfizer and AZ vaccines which use similar mRNA technology, but 2.2 billion have received vaccines globally, with no adverse safety signal. Far more research done on these vaccines than in most of the clinical trials I work on, and more than any I have helped bring to market.
In drug development vernacular, mRNA is not considered "new technology", a lay person may say this, but it doesn't make it so.
isaldiri said:
And my point is that given the lack of usage and approval until 2020, it's not unreasonable to describe something only used in tests previously as 'new'. I made (and agreed) the point it was not a reflection on safety either way.
I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but it really depends.The concept of injecting mRNA to illicit a response, is not a new idea by any standard, you can find papers going back decades. It's not unusual in patient populations either even before 2020, as I say, thousands dosed by that point in trials, mostly oncology.
There are lots of medications which use extremely similar modes of action, they do however tend to use DNA instead of mRNA, as I understand it this is largely a packaging issue, DNA is more stable.
Once inside the cell however, DNA strands are split by enzymes, the DNA becomes mRNA for protein translation. So the only difference here between approved medications used on hundreds of thousands of people, is that single step, the additional the process of DNA-> mRNA (transcription). To reiterate, there are many drugs with this mode of action which are approved.
Whilst an approval from a regulator is a benchmark of quality and efficacy however, it doesn't necessary reflect the state of the evidence base, which is what we would refer to when we consider if something is "new technology" or not. The reality is there's loads of testing, not many approvals, but not many rejections either, which is more suggestive of a lack of commercial viability rather than a safety issue.
So it really depends on what your point is. By inference it's about safety, which is not a concern here, and should have been well put to bed by the billions who have been dosed with no issues.
isaldiri said:
And my point is that given the lack of usage and approval until 2020, it's not unreasonable to describe something only used in tests previously as 'new'. I made (and agreed) the point it was not a reflection on safety either way.
describing it as "NEW" is fine, covid19 was/is "new" but the way the vaccine works and what it does is not new and has been tested.there simply has been no world wide pandemic that required for it to be approved and rolled out with billions of pounds and every rich country pushing it.
money speaks, covid kicked the whole world. Millions have had it and if it was "bad" you'd see people dying. We're talking THOUSANDS with "symptoms" be it minor or not, that is not dying or having life changing damage from covid.
Prof Prolapse said:
Well firstly, vaccine safety is, by definition, a quantitative measurement. That is to say all the symptoms, adverse events, side effects etc. are measured recorded, counted, compared and signals analysed. Hundreds of thousands of data points, many are not freely available in the public domain.
Secondly, the real risk here, is the predisposition and long term effects of COVID-19 which are complex and multifactorial. We are only really beginning to analyse them, and so it requires expert interpretation. It is however, also quantitative, in so much as the data is counted. It should also be observed that many of the factors and predispositions you could not possibly be aware of for instance how would you know if you have a genetic predisposition to lung injury?
The idea that Joe Bloggs is best placed to make the assessment, with no training, no experience, no data, and no way of calculating their own risk is just ridiculous. We have doctors for a reason, and they've been very clear on what the guidance is here.
Again, you might not like my opinion, you don't have to, but to ignore sound medical advice is (and I'll try to be more polite as I respect your opinion elsewhere on the forum), "not wise".
It’s not about my opinion. Personally, I think the vaccine is the lower risk option even for me (although it’s a close thing). It’s more about being willing to respect people who take a different view for entirely sensible reasons.Secondly, the real risk here, is the predisposition and long term effects of COVID-19 which are complex and multifactorial. We are only really beginning to analyse them, and so it requires expert interpretation. It is however, also quantitative, in so much as the data is counted. It should also be observed that many of the factors and predispositions you could not possibly be aware of for instance how would you know if you have a genetic predisposition to lung injury?
The idea that Joe Bloggs is best placed to make the assessment, with no training, no experience, no data, and no way of calculating their own risk is just ridiculous. We have doctors for a reason, and they've been very clear on what the guidance is here.
Again, you might not like my opinion, you don't have to, but to ignore sound medical advice is (and I'll try to be more polite as I respect your opinion elsewhere on the forum), "not wise".
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Thursday 12th August 10:04
The unknowable risks of the vaccine are sufficiently large that the manufacturers will accept absolutely no liability for them.
ORD said:
It’s not about my opinion. Personally, I think the vaccine is the lower risk option even for me (although it’s a close thing). It’s more about being willing to respect people who take a different view for entirely sensible reasons.
The unknowable risks of the vaccine are sufficiently large that the manufacturers will accept absolutely no liability for them.
If it's sensible then no problem, yes, absolutely respect that, but misrepresenting the data and claiming you know better is not that. It can be accepted but it's absolutely not to be respected. The unknowable risks of the vaccine are sufficiently large that the manufacturers will accept absolutely no liability for them.
That's a standard condition of the licence for "emergency use" as I understand it. If a vaccine is rolled out for a pandemic, it's production and the immunisation programme, cannot be halted whilst investigations into potential signals take place, for that reason a pharmaceutical company could not be reasonably expected to shoulder responsibility for the burden of claims in that time. They are however still liable for all of the information they have provided being accurate. If they've lied or misrepresented, individuals are still accountable however.
Whilst I understand it has the unwanted effect of stoking the fires of the, "they haven't done enough safety work", no business, ever, would volunteer itself for that level of additional liability.
Prof Prolapse said:
Typo I'm afraid. I still think it's moronic.
I think it's morally and most certainly legally wrong not to make efforts to protect individuals under a duty of care.
The transmission risk is reduced. I know you don't understand that, but that doesn't matter to it being true.
Ah, that's a shame, I thought for a moment that your pseudo-intellectual posting style had changed; it appears not.I think it's morally and most certainly legally wrong not to make efforts to protect individuals under a duty of care.
The transmission risk is reduced. I know you don't understand that, but that doesn't matter to it being true.
Not least because your fourth sentence reinforces your disdain for any poster with whom you disagree.
Of course I understand that vaccination reduces the risk of transmission, although opinion is mixed about how much. For me, the ethics of discriminating against those who decline the vaccine outweigh the marginal health benefits that such a practice might bring.
I now regret engaging with you; you are unable to conduct a civilised exchange of views. I shan't make the same mistake again.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff