CV19 - The Anti Vaxxers Are Back

[Hoofy]

otolith said:

Depends, are we talking Research, or "Research"?

[Sway]

Anti vaxxers make me feel good about the future.

The more there are of them, the lower the likelihood that Idiocracy is an accurate prediction.

[Woody John]

Very interesting vlog about treatment of the sick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKiK1xzl5rw

[Taylor James]

Not being tested on anyone other than healthy people. Not being tested on pregnant women.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-04-23-oxford-covid-...

They must be really confident it's harmless.

So when it has been tested on the healthy and non-pregnant, when they do move to the unhealthy and with child?

Or do they stay unprotected?

[BevR]

Taylor James said:

Not being tested on anyone other than healthy people. Not being tested on pregnant women.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-04-23-oxford-covid-...

They must be really confident it's harmless.

So when it has been tested on the healthy and non-pregnant, when they do move to the unhealthy and with child?

Or do they stay unprotected?

Pray tell, how you would have designed a phase 1 first in man clinical trial?

[mx5nut]

DeWar said:

mx5nut said:

Social media misinformation campaigns have really done a number on people like this guy.

Imagine getting so angry, in public, at an elderly lady, because you were asked to put a little piece of fabric over your face for a few minutes to avoid spreading a deadly illness.

Pathetic.

https://twitter.com/BillyCorben/status/12803329296...

It happened in Florida, where you can carry a concealed gun and where, as that Zimmerman dude proved, you can shoot someone if you FEEL THREATENED!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/costco-dan-fired-insu...

Now fired from his job.

How much of the unemployment rate in the US is people fired after throwing tantrums in public because of posts they read on social media that made them angry?

[Taylor James]

BevR said:

Taylor James said:

Not being tested on anyone other than healthy people. Not being tested on pregnant women.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-04-23-oxford-covid-...

They must be really confident it's harmless.

So when it has been tested on the healthy and non-pregnant, when they do move to the unhealthy and with child?

Or do they stay unprotected?

Pray tell, how you would have designed a phase 1 first in man clinical trial?

I'm not the person designing the trial. I'm potentially someone who might be asked to take the vaccine.

So when do they start giving it to unhealthy people and pregnant women?

[Gadgetmac]

Taylor James said:

BevR said:

Taylor James said:

Not being tested on anyone other than healthy people. Not being tested on pregnant women.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-04-23-oxford-covid-...

They must be really confident it's harmless.

So when it has been tested on the healthy and non-pregnant, when they do move to the unhealthy and with child?

Or do they stay unprotected?

Pray tell, how you would have designed a phase 1 first in man clinical trial?

I'm not the person designing the trial. I'm potentially someone who might be asked to take the vaccine.

So when do they start giving it to unhealthy people and pregnant women?

They don't trial drugs on pregnant women.

[mx5nut]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Less risk of death is not the same as no risk of anything else.

[Gadgetmac]

If a vaccine becomes available why wouldn't you take it. Do you want lockdown again? Indeed we couldn't afford lockdown again. And yet lockdown was initiated to stop bodies piling up in the streets as the NHS used its resources to fight the disease. So knowing they'll be no further lockdowns are you happy to possibly be a spreader of a second wave?

We all play the odds every day by taking simple drugs like ibuprofen...have a look at the possible side effects of that. And that's a drug taken time and time again not a one off vaccine jab.

The difference between Covid and Flu is if Covid takes hold of you you can end up needing a ventilator and 24 hour nursing care...ask Boris..but with a flu you'll usually get over it yourself if you don't have other underlying health conditions and with no intervention required.

[mcdjl]

Taylor James said:

BevR said:

Taylor James said:

Not being tested on anyone other than healthy people. Not being tested on pregnant women.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-04-23-oxford-covid-...

They must be really confident it's harmless.

So when it has been tested on the healthy and non-pregnant, when they do move to the unhealthy and with child?

Or do they stay unprotected?

Pray tell, how you would have designed a phase 1 first in man clinical trial?

I'm not the person designing the trial. I'm potentially someone who might be asked to take the vaccine.

So when do they start giving it to unhealthy people and pregnant women?

As I said a few pages back no vaccine (or drug) is tested on pregnant women. There are technically none approved for their use. This is because the effects on the feotus can't be seen at all for some time.
Any ethics review says that any drugs/ vaccine trial starts with healthy people. This means that if the drug does something unexpected, or the body reacts more/ less strongly to the vaccine than expected the healthy person is more likely to cope with it. This allows testing of the simulated dose responses. Once the simulations have been proved/ disproved they move on to the next phase of trials with ill people to check that the vaccine/ drug does something. In this case the vaccine won't do anything for ill people so the test will mainly be too see that it doesn't make them iller or cause relapse.
A vaccine simulates your body having (weak version of) a disease allowing it to find out how to fight the real thing. A drug temporarily changes the bodies chemistry in some way. The dangers of the two are very different.

[grumbledoak]

Gadgetmac said:

If a vaccine becomes available why wouldn't you take it. Do you want lockdown again? Indeed we couldn't afford lockdown again. And yet lockdown was initiated to stop bodies piling up in the streets as the NHS used its resources to fight the disease. So knowing they'll be no further lockdowns are you happy to possibly be a spreader of a second wave?

We all play the odds every day by taking simple drugs like ibuprofen...have a look at the possible side effects of that. And that's a drug taken time and time again not a one off vaccine jab.

The difference between Covid and Flu is if Covid takes hold of you you can end up needing a ventilator and 24 hour nursing care...ask Boris..but with a flu you'll usually get over it yourself if you don't have other underlying health conditions and with no intervention required.

Your comparisons are either ignorant or intentionally misleading.

"simple drugs" like ibuprofen have a long history of widespread use. The side effects are known and uncommon. A new vaccine has little history, a shiny new mRNA vaccine has no history at all. The risks are unknown and potentially large. The two are very different yet you imply they are the same.

When you get the flu "you'll usually get over it yourself", yes. But we know that "when you get the COVID-19" you'll probably not even notice. It is milder than the flu for healthy people, even more so the young. So, COVID-19 is similar or better yet you imply the opposite.

[mx5nut]

Gadgetmac said:

If a vaccine becomes available why wouldn't you take it.

Because somebody on social media said that it would have loads of scary sounding ingredients in it and Bill Gates wanted to put a chip in me with it.

Gadgetmac said:

The difference between Covid and Flu is if Covid takes hold of you you can end up needing a ventilator and 24 hour nursing care...ask Boris..but with a flu you'll usually get over it yourself if you don't have other underlying health conditions and with no intervention required.

But you don't end up in the death stats, so that's the same as it having no impact at all on you.

[mcdjl]

grumbledoak said:

Your comparisons are either ignorant or intentionally misleading.

"simple drugs" like ibuprofen have a long history of widespread use. The side effects are known and uncommon. A new vaccine has little history, a shiny new mRNA vaccine has no history at all. The risks are unknown and potentially large. The two are very different yet you imply they are the same.

When you get the flu "you'll usually get over it yourself", yes. But we know that "when you get the COVID-19" you'll probably not even notice. It is milder than the flu for healthy people, even more so the young. So, COVID-19 is similar or better yet you imply the opposite.

My brother's in his mid thirties, only health condition is lack of sleep due to small children. I haven't asked him but based on his experience I think he'd rather have had several bouts of flu rather than one of covid, based on it taking him several weeks (after being able to get out bed) to be able to go upstairs without getting out of breath.
I think you're right to be more way of a new type of mRNA vaccine that's based on new technology, however the ones that are based on modifying existing vaccines to charge the virus they target are a different matter.

[Gadgetmac]

grumbledoak said:

Gadgetmac said:

If a vaccine becomes available why wouldn't you take it. Do you want lockdown again? Indeed we couldn't afford lockdown again. And yet lockdown was initiated to stop bodies piling up in the streets as the NHS used its resources to fight the disease. So knowing they'll be no further lockdowns are you happy to possibly be a spreader of a second wave?

We all play the odds every day by taking simple drugs like ibuprofen...have a look at the possible side effects of that. And that's a drug taken time and time again not a one off vaccine jab.

The difference between Covid and Flu is if Covid takes hold of you you can end up needing a ventilator and 24 hour nursing care...ask Boris..but with a flu you'll usually get over it yourself if you don't have other underlying health conditions and with no intervention required.

Your comparisons are either ignorant or intentionally misleading.

"simple drugs" like ibuprofen have a long history of widespread use. The side effects are known and uncommon. A new vaccine has little history, a shiny new mRNA vaccine has no history at all. The risks are unknown and potentially large. The two are very different yet you imply they are the same.

When you get the flu "you'll usually get over it yourself", yes. But we know that "when you get the COVID-19" you'll probably not even notice. It is milder than the flu for healthy people, even more so the young. So, COVID-19 is similar or better yet you imply the opposite.

Yes, that's why the hospitals in Europe were overwhelmed by Coronavirus cases this year yet this never happens with the flu.

Milder than the flu? Its certainly more deadly than the flu and it's people like you spreading this rubbish online that give social media a bad name.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/a...

And any vaccine will have been tested adequately just as any vaccine is before release to the public. You imply we could all be fallng down in the street stricken with complications from an untested one jab vaccine which is again anti vaxxer ignorance.

And whilst the risks of ibuprofen are slight they exist.

[Taylor James]

mcdjl said:

Taylor James said:

BevR said:

Taylor James said:

Not being tested on anyone other than healthy people. Not being tested on pregnant women.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-04-23-oxford-covid-...

They must be really confident it's harmless.

So when it has been tested on the healthy and non-pregnant, when they do move to the unhealthy and with child?

Or do they stay unprotected?

Pray tell, how you would have designed a phase 1 first in man clinical trial?

I'm not the person designing the trial. I'm potentially someone who might be asked to take the vaccine.

So when do they start giving it to unhealthy people and pregnant women?

As I said a few pages back no vaccine (or drug) is tested on pregnant women. There are technically none approved for their use. This is because the effects on the feotus can't be seen at all for some time.
Any ethics review says that any drugs/ vaccine trial starts with healthy people. This means that if the drug does something unexpected, or the body reacts more/ less strongly to the vaccine than expected the healthy person is more likely to cope with it. This allows testing of the simulated dose responses. Once the simulations have been proved/ disproved they move on to the next phase of trials with ill people to check that the vaccine/ drug does something. In this case the vaccine won't do anything for ill people so the test will mainly be too see that it doesn't make them iller or cause relapse.
A vaccine simulates your body having (weak version of) a disease allowing it to find out how to fight the real thing. A drug temporarily changes the bodies chemistry in some way. The dangers of the two are very different.

OK, so if I have understood you correctly, at some point pregnant women will have to take the drug without it having ever been tested on their group? They will have to risk assess on the scientists' opinion that it will be safe, which in turn is based on tests on non-pregnant women.

Then the vaccine is tested on only the most healthy people, who are also the most likely and able to resist any negative effects. Provided that group get through it, it moves on to less healthy people? However, you then go on to say the vaccine won't do a thing for sick people. Is it going to be tested on ill people or not?

Is the plan that the vaccine is only going to be administered to the healthy, omitting all ill people and pregnant women? In that case how are the vulnerable protected from infection going forward - by lower levels of infection in the community, physical isolation or something else?

Lots of questions but I'm trying to understand the plan and the thinking behind it.

[breamster]

grumbledoak said:

Gadgetmac said:

If a vaccine becomes available why wouldn't you take it. Do you want lockdown again? Indeed we couldn't afford lockdown again. And yet lockdown was initiated to stop bodies piling up in the streets as the NHS used its resources to fight the disease. So knowing they'll be no further lockdowns are you happy to possibly be a spreader of a second wave?

We all play the odds every day by taking simple drugs like ibuprofen...have a look at the possible side effects of that. And that's a drug taken time and time again not a one off vaccine jab.

The difference between Covid and Flu is if Covid takes hold of you you can end up needing a ventilator and 24 hour nursing care...ask Boris..but with a flu you'll usually get over it yourself if you don't have other underlying health conditions and with no intervention required.

Your comparisons are either ignorant or intentionally misleading.

"simple drugs" like ibuprofen have a long history of widespread use. The side effects are known and uncommon. A new vaccine has little history, a shiny new mRNA vaccine has no history at all. The risks are unknown and potentially large. The two are very different yet you imply they are the same.

When you get the flu "you'll usually get over it yourself", yes. But we know that "when you get the COVID-19" you'll probably not even notice. It is milder than the flu for healthy people, even more so the young. So, COVID-19 is similar or better yet you imply the opposite.

It is not always milder for younger people. That is very complacent. My wife, early 40s with no underlying health issues, not overweight and very fit contracted covid. She had weeks in bed and was the most ill I have ever seen her. Prior to covid she regularly ran and swam many Kms. She now has no fitness and is out of breath going up the stairs. She has had secondary pneumonia caused by covid. The damage to her lungs is suspected to be long term possibly permanent.

If there is a vaccine being made available I will gladly accept it.

[Hoofy]

breamster said:

It is not always milder for younger people. That is very complacent. My wife, early 40s with no underlying health issues, not overweight and very fit contracted covid. She had weeks in bed and was the most ill I have ever seen her. Prior to covid she regularly ran and swam many Kms. She now has no fitness and is out of breath going up the stairs. She has had secondary pneumonia caused by covid. The damage to her lungs is suspected to be long term possibly permanent.

If there is a vaccine being made available I will gladly accept it.

I know a couple of people who seem to be suffering long term with it.

Someone posted this on here earlier this week: https://news.sky.com/story/long-term-covid-warning...
"Dr Jake Suett, 31, first developed symptoms on 20 March and, despite having no underlying health conditions, is still unwell."

[grumbledoak]

Gadgetmac said:

Yes, that's why the hospitals in Europe were overwhelmed by Coronavirus cases this year yet this never happens with the flu.

Milder than the flu? Its certainly more deadly than the flu and it's people like you spreading this rubbish online that give social media a bad name.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/a...

And any vaccine will have been tested adequately just as any vaccine is before release to the public. You imply we could all be fallng down in the street stricken with complications from an untested one jab vaccine which is again anti vaxxer ignorance.

And whilst the risks of ibuprofen are slight they exist.

Nope. Quadruple down!

Hospitals are routinely overwhelmed by the flu. It seldom makes the headlines but you'll find the news reports if you look.

COVID-19 is less lethal for the young and healthy than the flu. The statistics are quite clear. Check them yourself.

Long term vaccine risks cannot be discovered by short term trials. Even short term risks cannot be ascertained by small trials. A COVID-19 vaccine given to everyone with the same Narcolepsy risk as Pandemrix in 2009 would create over 45,000 brain damaged people.

The slight risks of Ibuprofen do exist. That is not the same as them being high probability, or unknown. We know this from long term, widespread use. Stop me if I am going too fast for you.

[otolith]

You don't know the long term risks of covid-19 either, but you seem very sure that they can't be worse than the vaccine.

Don't like the vaccine. Don't like non-pharmaceutical interventions. Are you in fact an advocate for the well-being of the virus?