How many have been vaccinated so far?
Discussion
MX5Biologist said:
purplepenguin said:
Northernboy said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
You're quite right.
You also have to work with broad facts to find the principles; the vaccines have integrated 'new' technology for treatments of this type. They have been tested on relatively small numbers of people over relatively short periods of time. They have been developed under intense political pressure.
It’s not new technology, and the rest of your post was doing exactly what I was writing about, ignoring the research and replacing it with anecdote and bias.You also have to work with broad facts to find the principles; the vaccines have integrated 'new' technology for treatments of this type. They have been tested on relatively small numbers of people over relatively short periods of time. They have been developed under intense political pressure.
That’s not how it works, your “common sense”, that you seem to think outranks research, doesn’t.
Medicine often includes "firsts". Someone had to take the first antibiotic, and probably wondered why they were being given an sulfonamide.
The poster is quite correct. mRNA vaccine technology is not a new technology, with proof of principle being demonstrated some 25 years ago. If COVID-19 had never occurred, then its likely the first use of this technology would have been in a cancer therapy. The good news is that the widespread safe use of the technology will likely drive down the cost of cancer treatment.
Northernboy said:
purplepenguin said:
Remind us how many mRNA vaccines were in approved use before covid vaccines
AstraZeneca isn’t an mRNA vaccine. The conspiracist to whom I was responding implied that they were all new technology, but since you ask, they have been tested in vivo since 1990.I know that mRNA cancer therapies are being investigated
purplepenguin said:
Northernboy said:
purplepenguin said:
Remind us how many mRNA vaccines were in approved use before covid vaccines
AstraZeneca isn’t an mRNA vaccine. The conspiracist to whom I was responding implied that they were all new technology, but since you ask, they have been tested in vivo since 1990.I know that mRNA cancer therapies are being investigated
ruggedscotty said:
purplepenguin said:
Northernboy said:
purplepenguin said:
Remind us how many mRNA vaccines were in approved use before covid vaccines
AstraZeneca isn’t an mRNA vaccine. The conspiracist to whom I was responding implied that they were all new technology, but since you ask, they have been tested in vivo since 1990.I know that mRNA cancer therapies are being investigated
Northernboy said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
If the vaccines were sufficiently tested and established to be considered safe to the same degree as vaccines developed and tested in the 'normal' way, there would be no reason for the manufacturers to seek immunity from civil action and no justification for governments to grant it.
I may have missed it, but did you say that you have a scientific background, so this is an informed view, or is it exactly as it appears, just your uninformed thoughts?Edited by RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat on Sunday 9th May 17:09
It seems like the latter, as you post things such as the above, which you surely would know to be untrue if you understood the subject, as many vaccines are covered by immunity from prosecution.
Come on, what are your degrees in, and where are you getting this stuff from? It’s awful, so must be a pretty dodgy source.
I'm pro-vax, but to say it's all nonsense goes against many specialist medical professionals in this area, it's not just fruitloops on the internet. He sees to be saying for some low risk people the risk is/may be worse than the benefit - which is supported by medical evidence.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
It's the relative number and speed, not one factor in isolation.
Do you even réalisé that you’re changing your argument each time that someone corrects you with facts. It shows that you aren’t basing your beliefs on the facts, you’re fitting the facts to your beliefs.What’s the actual reason that you’re against taking these vaccines?
NRS said:
Some scientists in this area clearly agree with Ronald, given current (and recommended permanent) ban of AZ in some countries, not to mention the multiple changes in age that is is recommended for in different countries throughout the last months (first no old people due to lack of data, then no young people due to the clotting issue).
I'm pro-vax, but to say it's all nonsense goes against many specialist medical professionals in this area, it's not just fruitloops on the internet. He sees to be saying for some low risk people the risk is/may be worse than the benefit - which is supported by medical evidence.
On the other thread with most people at the time convinced it was an EU conspiracy against the Great British vaccine, you were quite critical iirc of Norway putting in the block on the AZN vaccine at the time albeit not for the same reasons as most of the others. In view now of the (significantly) higher risk of ViTT evidenced now do you still think the same? I'm pro-vax, but to say it's all nonsense goes against many specialist medical professionals in this area, it's not just fruitloops on the internet. He sees to be saying for some low risk people the risk is/may be worse than the benefit - which is supported by medical evidence.
Northernboy said:
Do you even réalisé that you’re changing your argument each time that someone corrects you with facts. It shows that you aren’t basing your beliefs on the facts, you’re fitting the facts to your beliefs.
What’s the actual reason that you’re against taking these vaccines?
Personally? That the risk to me from Covid is too small to consider any medication is justified, especially one that has been rushed to market.What’s the actual reason that you’re against taking these vaccines?
On a wider level, I don't think people at little or no risk from Covid should be used as a test programme for vaccines unless they're explicitly told that's what they are and have opportunity to consent on that basis. That is not what is being sold to the public.
As it stands right now in the UK, if the vaccine causes you harm, however serious or long lasting, the maximum you can get is £120k from the government. To get anything you have to prove the vaccine has caused you to become 60% disabled. You cannot sue the manufacturer of the vaccine. Meanwhile, the vaccine manufacturers are being paid by governments to test new therapies on entire populations with low risk of being sued or public censure if things go wrong. As has been pointed out on this thread, this rollout and the data it's generating is naturally accelerating advancements in other medicines. For a pharmaceutical company, this is manor from heaven. For example, in normal times, how could they test new methodologies on billions of people, across all age groups and ethnicities, in such a short period of time? Ordinarily, it would be prohibitively expensive and unpopular with the public, who by and large don't want to be test dummies for medicines.
I'm not anti medicine or vaccines, but I am anti risk for little personal reward and I don't like the thought of vulnerable people (as in those who blindly trust their government and media) being encouraged to take medicines they likely don't need at a risk they can't reasonably calculate.
purplepenguin said:
Northernboy said:
purplepenguin said:
Remind us how many mRNA vaccines were in approved use before covid vaccines
AstraZeneca isn’t an mRNA vaccine. The conspiracist to whom I was responding implied that they were all new technology, but since you ask, they have been tested in vivo since 1990.I know that mRNA cancer therapies are being investigated
I had my first shot of AZ in mid-April, came as a bit of a surprise as I was not due until mid-summer,
according to german priority rules.
Then, our vaccine center had lots of people not turning up or cancelling their AZ dates,
so the local council opened up "The Bargain Ramp Sale", I signed up on Friday morning,
got a confirmation at noon, a date was set in the evening for 4 days later, and I was through in 90 Minutes.
Shot at noon, shopping in afternoon, laid down with fever & shakes at night, felt feverish at 39° next day,
was feeling better 2 days later, went to work 3 days later.
Second shot is due mid-july, but now our slightly bonkers govt. has allowed the second shot as early as 4 weeks after 1st,
I will wait the full 12 weeks+ because AZ is supposed to work best with that interval.
Early 2nd shot is just for people eager to have vacation overseas, and we have elections in Sept. Morons.
according to german priority rules.
Then, our vaccine center had lots of people not turning up or cancelling their AZ dates,
so the local council opened up "The Bargain Ramp Sale", I signed up on Friday morning,
got a confirmation at noon, a date was set in the evening for 4 days later, and I was through in 90 Minutes.
Shot at noon, shopping in afternoon, laid down with fever & shakes at night, felt feverish at 39° next day,
was feeling better 2 days later, went to work 3 days later.
Second shot is due mid-july, but now our slightly bonkers govt. has allowed the second shot as early as 4 weeks after 1st,
I will wait the full 12 weeks+ because AZ is supposed to work best with that interval.
Early 2nd shot is just for people eager to have vacation overseas, and we have elections in Sept. Morons.
survivalist said:
Seems based on healthy scepticism to me. Nothing he’s said would stop me from taking a vaccine if I was a risk.
It’s only those who seem to be feverishly defend the vaccine that seem to have an agenda.
Healthy scepticism that doesn’t waver in the face of facts is unhealthy.It’s only those who seem to be feverishly defend the vaccine that seem to have an agenda.
You’d have to explain and evidence further what you mean by “feverishly defend the vaccine” and what the “agenda” is, but this isn’t the thread.
rscott said:
mRNA vaccine for Malaria was being trialled back in 2019 - https://www.newscientist.com/article/2275573-malar... - and is the most effective Malaria vaccine so far tested.
Well that malaria vaccine you refer to in the article is not mRNA but protein base with adjuvants......J210 said:
What ever happened to the novavax vaccine ?
It's in phase IIIhttps://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/analysis/10-ne...
isaldiri said:
NRS said:
Some scientists in this area clearly agree with Ronald, given current (and recommended permanent) ban of AZ in some countries, not to mention the multiple changes in age that is is recommended for in different countries throughout the last months (first no old people due to lack of data, then no young people due to the clotting issue).
I'm pro-vax, but to say it's all nonsense goes against many specialist medical professionals in this area, it's not just fruitloops on the internet. He sees to be saying for some low risk people the risk is/may be worse than the benefit - which is supported by medical evidence.
On the other thread with most people at the time convinced it was an EU conspiracy against the Great British vaccine, you were quite critical iirc of Norway putting in the block on the AZN vaccine at the time albeit not for the same reasons as most of the others. In view now of the (significantly) higher risk of ViTT evidenced now do you still think the same? I'm pro-vax, but to say it's all nonsense goes against many specialist medical professionals in this area, it's not just fruitloops on the internet. He sees to be saying for some low risk people the risk is/may be worse than the benefit - which is supported by medical evidence.
It does seem that for young people the risk of death from the (AZ) vaccine is higher than from Covid - but both very low. I think it's this sort of thing Ronald is worried about - it's only very recently this has come out, and it's clearly medical scientists based (perhaps with some money/politics influence). There might be more issues that will emerge, either due to the newness of the vaccines, or longer term impacts.
I still do think we should be offered it here in Norway though, as a personal choice. For example I'd be willing to face a slightly higher (but still low) chance of death as a 33yo by taking the AZ vaccine, to be ready for when travel is allowed as I'm separated from my gf in Australia and family in the UK. However, I can understand a random Norwegian perhaps not wanting to take the higher risk, who doesn't have travel plans etc.
Not comparing the severity to the flu, but we don't vaccinate everyone for the flu, so if the main risk group for corona are vaccinated and protected then I don't see why absolutely everyone needs it, when the much less at risk from corona group seem to be statistically more at risk from (some) of the vaccines. Of course there is the mutation question, but we will be updating the vaccines - again as we do with flu. The benefit of the mRNA vaccines is we can do this much more quickly than before too.
youngsyr said:
J210 said:
What ever happened to the novavax vaccine ?
All gone very quiet on that one, hasn't it?Maybe this has been mentioned somewhere but I can’t find any info, but do you get a stamped card or anything when you’ve had your vaccine? Any paperwork that says you’ve had it? Or is it something you’d need to get your GP to certify?
I’m 38 and have just been offered mine. I’m not really interested, but the thing that would sway me would be some paperwork to make parts of my job easier!
I’m 38 and have just been offered mine. I’m not really interested, but the thing that would sway me would be some paperwork to make parts of my job easier!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff