Does anyone know an Anti Covid vaxxer?
Discussion
Prof Prolapse said:
I'm not sure what you're looking at?
Israel has administered 1.03 doses per 100 people, remember the vaccine is two part, so they still have a way to go, but despite that the the infection rates in Israel have pretty much halved in just over six weeks;
(https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/)
Also in Israel, Pfizer BioNtech vaccine had results published a few weeks ago which claims to show 94% effectiveness in a real world setting. That's subject to various interpretations, but still staggeringly effective. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/25/pfizer-covid-vaccine-94-effective-study-of-12m-people-finds)
I believe their critical care admissions etc. have also fallen significantly, it's anecdotal, but my Israeli team at work also seem to be quite positive at the moment!
Israel has in fact administered doses to 98.8 our of every 100 people as of yesterday, hence my comment.Israel has administered 1.03 doses per 100 people, remember the vaccine is two part, so they still have a way to go, but despite that the the infection rates in Israel have pretty much halved in just over six weeks;
(https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/)
Also in Israel, Pfizer BioNtech vaccine had results published a few weeks ago which claims to show 94% effectiveness in a real world setting. That's subject to various interpretations, but still staggeringly effective. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/25/pfizer-covid-vaccine-94-effective-study-of-12m-people-finds)
I believe their critical care admissions etc. have also fallen significantly, it's anecdotal, but my Israeli team at work also seem to be quite positive at the moment!
V6 Pushfit said:
Prof Prolapse said:
I'm not sure what you're looking at?
Israel has administered 1.03 doses per 100 people, remember the vaccine is two part, so they still have a way to go, but despite that the the infection rates in Israel have pretty much halved in just over six weeks;
(https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/)
Also in Israel, Pfizer BioNtech vaccine had results published a few weeks ago which claims to show 94% effectiveness in a real world setting. That's subject to various interpretations, but still staggeringly effective. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/25/pfizer-covid-vaccine-94-effective-study-of-12m-people-finds)
I believe their critical care admissions etc. have also fallen significantly, it's anecdotal, but my Israeli team at work also seem to be quite positive at the moment!
Israel has in fact administered doses to 98.8 our of every 100 people as of yesterday, hence my comment.Israel has administered 1.03 doses per 100 people, remember the vaccine is two part, so they still have a way to go, but despite that the the infection rates in Israel have pretty much halved in just over six weeks;
(https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/)
Also in Israel, Pfizer BioNtech vaccine had results published a few weeks ago which claims to show 94% effectiveness in a real world setting. That's subject to various interpretations, but still staggeringly effective. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/25/pfizer-covid-vaccine-94-effective-study-of-12m-people-finds)
I believe their critical care admissions etc. have also fallen significantly, it's anecdotal, but my Israeli team at work also seem to be quite positive at the moment!
That does not mean 98.5% of people have had at least one jab.
It would mean that if everyone had only had one jab but a lot have had two so the %age of the population that have had something could be as low as half that number (if everyone had been given two) . Its probably somewhere around 60-70% at a guess.
Wombat3 said:
Think you might be misinterpreting the stats
That does not mean 98.5% of people have had at least one jab.
It would mean that if everyone had only had one jab but a lot have had two so the %age of the population that have had something could be as low as half that number (if everyone had been given two) . Its probably somewhere around 60-70% at a guess.
Good point but the scale doesn’t go over 100 and we have done 21m doses which is about 32 in 100. Either way at this stage it’s somewhat more than Prof Prolapses 1.03%. Not sure where he got that from - maybe the November 2020 Prolapse Monthly.That does not mean 98.5% of people have had at least one jab.
It would mean that if everyone had only had one jab but a lot have had two so the %age of the population that have had something could be as low as half that number (if everyone had been given two) . Its probably somewhere around 60-70% at a guess.
V6 Pushfit said:
Wombat3 said:
Think you might be misinterpreting the stats
That does not mean 98.5% of people have had at least one jab.
It would mean that if everyone had only had one jab but a lot have had two so the %age of the population that have had something could be as low as half that number (if everyone had been given two) . Its probably somewhere around 60-70% at a guess.
Good point but the scale doesn’t go over 100 and we have done 21m doses which is about 32 in 100. Either way at this stage it’s somewhat more than Prof Prolapses 1.03%. Not sure where he got that from - maybe the November 2020 Prolapse Monthly.That does not mean 98.5% of people have had at least one jab.
It would mean that if everyone had only had one jab but a lot have had two so the %age of the population that have had something could be as low as half that number (if everyone had been given two) . Its probably somewhere around 60-70% at a guess.
Why they can't just say X % have had one dose and y% have had 2 is a mystery!). The US has also been doing a lot of second dosing so although they have done something like 70+M doses, they have only covered around 45-50M people with at least one dose & around 25M of those have then had 2.
Edited by Wombat3 on Friday 5th March 16:53
scoopdydoo said:
monkfish1 said:
The best person to look after my best interests is me.
And here we have the ultimate final point of whether people will take the vaccine or not. Millions of healthy individuals in non-risk categories have already had the vaccine for totally selfless reasons.I can absolutely understand why people might be sceptical because it takes a small degree of knowledge and understanding of how the vaccine works, which not everyone will have, but thankfully most people will trust those that do. Meaning the scientists, not Boris.
They are in fact fallible humans, like all others. In this particular scenario, great pressures have been applied. Thats when people make mistakes, take shortcuts etc. This isnt new news. Its always been that way. There are enough examples in history of what happens when you put people under intense pressure to do or achieve something.
V6 Pushfit said:
Good point but the scale doesn’t go over 100 and we have done 21m doses which is about 32 in 100. Either way at this stage it’s somewhat more than Prof Prolapses 1.03%. Not sure where he got that from - maybe the November 2020 Prolapse Monthly.
1.03 per 100 is the rolling seven day average dosed per day in Israel. It was the wrong data point as I wasn't paying attention, but given you failed to understand the key figure and only understood on the third attempt to explain it to you by Wombat, we can call it even. Maybe...Prof Prolapse said:
1.03 per 100 is the rolling seven day average dosed per day in Israel. It was the wrong data point as I wasn't paying attention, but given you failed to understand the key figure and only understood on the third attempt to explain it to you by Wombat, we can call it even. Maybe...
Not exactly as I was correct first time if the data chart is interpreted one way, as Wombst has acknowledged and it’s still way above your stated ‘1.03’ per 100 which personally I would have queried as I was typing as it leads to a totally skewed conclusion. Anyway moving on, wether it’s 95% or circa 60% it’s still way above us and we’re told the vaccine is having an impact - so why not so much in Israel?
monkfish1 said:
I guess thats where we differ. I certainly dont trust Boris, but i dont necessarily trust the scientists either. We seem to grant them special staus, that they somewhow can never be wrong.
They are in fact fallible humans, like all others. In this particular scenario, great pressures have been applied. Thats when people make mistakes, take shortcuts etc. This isnt new news. Its always been that way. There are enough examples in history of what happens when you put people under intense pressure to do or achieve something.
I wouldn't say a scientist is granted special status, but the very nature of their work is entirely quantifiable by its outcomes. And then those outcomes and their methods are peer reviewed to make sure everything is correct. If the data is wrong or not good enough, they say it isn't.They are in fact fallible humans, like all others. In this particular scenario, great pressures have been applied. Thats when people make mistakes, take shortcuts etc. This isnt new news. Its always been that way. There are enough examples in history of what happens when you put people under intense pressure to do or achieve something.
In its simplest form it's mathematics.
Easy to understand numbers.
It is why when it comes particularly to health science and biotechnology, people are given raw figures for data driven outcomes rather than describing the pharmacodynamic mechanism of how a drug works. A normal person just wouldn't understand.
There aren't shortcuts when it comes to producing a vaccine for MHRA authorisation.
scoopdydoo said:
monkfish1 said:
I guess thats where we differ. I certainly dont trust Boris, but i dont necessarily trust the scientists either. We seem to grant them special staus, that they somewhow can never be wrong.
They are in fact fallible humans, like all others. In this particular scenario, great pressures have been applied. Thats when people make mistakes, take shortcuts etc. This isnt new news. Its always been that way. There are enough examples in history of what happens when you put people under intense pressure to do or achieve something.
I wouldn't say a scientist is granted special status, but the very nature of their work is entirely quantifiable by its outcomes. And then those outcomes and their methods are peer reviewed to make sure everything is correct. If the data is wrong or not good enough, they say it isn't.They are in fact fallible humans, like all others. In this particular scenario, great pressures have been applied. Thats when people make mistakes, take shortcuts etc. This isnt new news. Its always been that way. There are enough examples in history of what happens when you put people under intense pressure to do or achieve something.
In its simplest form it's mathematics.
Easy to understand numbers.
It is why when it comes particularly to health science and biotechnology, people are given raw figures for data driven outcomes rather than describing the pharmacodynamic mechanism of how a drug works. A normal person just wouldn't understand.
There aren't shortcuts when it comes to producing a vaccine for MHRA authorisation.
I wasnt suggesting the MHRA authorisation was shortcut. I was referring to the work leading up to that point.
Ive worked in an industry that is heavily regulated has rules and standards for everything. And still, stuff goes wrong. Why? Humans. Any number of factors, but humans. And invariably, when under pressure or stress. Scientists are not immune.
Regardless of all that, there is no long term data. The current vaccination program is part of the trial that will give us long term data. The recipients, the guinea pigs. I really do hope it pans out well. The alternative doesnt bear thinking about.
monkfish1 said:
I feel your faith in science is misplaced. There isnt ever only one answer. How many examples of "science" have subsequently turned out to be wrong?
I wasnt suggesting the MHRA authorisation was shortcut. I was referring to the work leading up to that point.
Ive worked in an industry that is heavily regulated has rules and standards for everything. And still, stuff goes wrong. Why? Humans. Any number of factors, but humans. And invariably, when under pressure or stress. Scientists are not immune.
Regardless of all that, there is no long term data. The current vaccination program is part of the trial that will give us long term data. The recipients, the guinea pigs. I really do hope it pans out well. The alternative doesnt bear thinking about.
I’ll try not ramble on too much because it seems a little pointless at this stage. I wasnt suggesting the MHRA authorisation was shortcut. I was referring to the work leading up to that point.
Ive worked in an industry that is heavily regulated has rules and standards for everything. And still, stuff goes wrong. Why? Humans. Any number of factors, but humans. And invariably, when under pressure or stress. Scientists are not immune.
Regardless of all that, there is no long term data. The current vaccination program is part of the trial that will give us long term data. The recipients, the guinea pigs. I really do hope it pans out well. The alternative doesnt bear thinking about.
The MHRA is there to make sure there are no shortcuts. I’ve been involved in their premises inspections, probably the least involved of all their regulatory activities and believe me they don’t miss.
Most vaccines will undergo phase 4 clinical trials while on the market and licensed. That’s normal. It’s just there has been the funding and volunteers needed for phases 1-3 that has meant we’ve got to this point much quicker than a vaccine for something else. So to call it a shortcut is a misnomer.
You keep coming back to human error but in my experience and understanding of the process, any human error would have been discovered by now. I don’t see what you think could happen for something to go through so much testing and evaluation, from the company itself, it’s rivals(!), regulatory bodies, that somewhere in the thousands of people looking at it not one of them had flagged up anything.
Any scientific experiment or research is one of the few things in this world where every stage is logged and recorded and calculated in advance. If you don’t get the result you’re looking for you go back and do over until you do. And then you demonstrate what you’ve done is correct and repeatable. And then lots of other people look at what you did and try prove or disprove what you did was in fact correct.
A few people I studied with have subsequently gone into drug research. They were incredibly smart, smartest people I’ve ever known but constantly self doubting because that’s the nature of the work. And even them in all their brilliance, probably don’t compare to the top scientists at a company like Pfizer or Astra Zeneca.
And I agree, we don’t know the long term risks, but we can evaluate the past year and say that sucked, millions of people have had the vaccine? Anyone exploded? Cool, stick it in me.
paulguitar said:
Could you give a breakdown of what you think are the long-term possible issues, specifically?
Infertility, dementia, Parkinson’s, neurological disorders to mention a few. However they have been discounted and for the purposes of those diseases they might as well be injecting water. As I’ve said already without any vaccinations there’s a very good chance of catching Covid if it’s not arrested and then:10% chance of hospitalisation then
30% chance of death
Not to mention long Covid
monkfish1 said:
The best person to look after my best interests is me.
No it's not, that's just twee b
ks that massages your own fragile ego. I bet there are loads of areas of your life where other people are best suited to look after your interests, so you let them. Your car mechanic, your dentist, your doctor, your financial advisor etc. The best people to look after the overall health of the nation, me included, during a pandemic, are scientists, immunologists, and other experts in the field. Not me, I don't know enough about it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No it's not, that's just twee bks that massages your own fragile ego. I bet there are loads of areas of your life where other people are best suited to look after your interests, so you let them. Your car mechanic, your dentist, your doctor, your financial advisor etc.
The best people to look after the overall health of the nation, me included, during a pandemic, are scientists, immunologists, and other experts in the field. Not me, I don't know enough about it.
Second time I’ve ever agreed with you ks that massages your own fragile ego. I bet there are loads of areas of your life where other people are best suited to look after your interests, so you let them. Your car mechanic, your dentist, your doctor, your financial advisor etc. The best people to look after the overall health of the nation, me included, during a pandemic, are scientists, immunologists, and other experts in the field. Not me, I don't know enough about it.
V6 Pushfit said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No it's not, that's just twee bks that massages your own fragile ego. I bet there are loads of areas of your life where other people are best suited to look after your interests, so you let them. Your car mechanic, your dentist, your doctor, your financial advisor etc.
The best people to look after the overall health of the nation, me included, during a pandemic, are scientists, immunologists, and other experts in the field. Not me, I don't know enough about it.
Second time I’ve ever agreed with you ks that massages your own fragile ego. I bet there are loads of areas of your life where other people are best suited to look after your interests, so you let them. Your car mechanic, your dentist, your doctor, your financial advisor etc. The best people to look after the overall health of the nation, me included, during a pandemic, are scientists, immunologists, and other experts in the field. Not me, I don't know enough about it.
monkfish1 said:
I feel your faith in science is misplaced. There isnt ever only one answer. How many examples of "science" have subsequently turned out to be wrong?
I wasnt suggesting the MHRA authorisation was shortcut. I was referring to the work leading up to that point.
Ive worked in an industry that is heavily regulated has rules and standards for everything. And still, stuff goes wrong. Why? Humans. Any number of factors, but humans. And invariably, when under pressure or stress. Scientists are not immune.
Regardless of all that, there is no long term data. The current vaccination program is part of the trial that will give us long term data. The recipients, the guinea pigs. I really do hope it pans out well. The alternative doesnt bear thinking about.
People are fallible. You shouldn’t trust a person just because they work in science. I wasnt suggesting the MHRA authorisation was shortcut. I was referring to the work leading up to that point.
Ive worked in an industry that is heavily regulated has rules and standards for everything. And still, stuff goes wrong. Why? Humans. Any number of factors, but humans. And invariably, when under pressure or stress. Scientists are not immune.
Regardless of all that, there is no long term data. The current vaccination program is part of the trial that will give us long term data. The recipients, the guinea pigs. I really do hope it pans out well. The alternative doesnt bear thinking about.
Science itself is just a systematic process for acquiring data and turning it into knowledge and is based upon mathematically quantifying how confident we are in the conclusions we draw. I don’t see how you can “not believe” in it - that’s like not believing in algebra or not believing in the reality of observation. I don’t get the impression that people who say that generally have a deep philosophical argument against those things, nor a more practically useful process to follow.
It’s perfectly reasonable to look at the science underlying a piece of information - to say “I think this experiment is flawed because...” or “I think this data is unreliable because...” or “I think the statistics used to analyse this data are flawed because...” but I’m not generally seeing that.
There is an argument that we don’t have some data - we don’t have long term studies, we haven’t tested some cases. It’s valid to ask on what basis we are proceeding without that data. We have to deal with those questions on the basis of what we do know. We know the mechanism by which the new vaccines work. We know in which ways they differ from other vaccines for which we do have that data and in which ways they are the same. I don’t see anyone explaining how they disagree with that analysis or proposing plausible mechanisms by which they see a long term risk which differs. I don’t see informed criticism, just fear of what people don’t understand.
V6 Pushfit said:
Not exactly as I was correct first time if the data chart is interpreted one way, as Wombst has acknowledged and it’s still way above your stated ‘1.03’ per 100 which personally I would have queried as I was typing as it leads to a totally skewed conclusion.
Anyway moving on, wether it’s 95% or circa 60% it’s still way above us and we’re told the vaccine is having an impact - so why not so much in Israel?
It is having an impact.Anyway moving on, wether it’s 95% or circa 60% it’s still way above us and we’re told the vaccine is having an impact - so why not so much in Israel?
Read my post again.
monkfish1 said:
I feel your faith in science is misplaced. There isnt ever only one answer. How many examples of "science" have subsequently turned out to be wrong?
I wasnt suggesting the MHRA authorisation was shortcut. I was referring to the work leading up to that point.
Ive worked in an industry that is heavily regulated has rules and standards for everything. And still, stuff goes wrong. Why? Humans. Any number of factors, but humans. And invariably, when under pressure or stress. Scientists are not immune.
Regardless of all that, there is no long term data. The current vaccination program is part of the trial that will give us long term data. The recipients, the guinea pigs. I really do hope it pans out well. The alternative doesnt bear thinking about.
I’ll say it again - there is more evidence for long term effects from COVID than there are from the vaccines.I wasnt suggesting the MHRA authorisation was shortcut. I was referring to the work leading up to that point.
Ive worked in an industry that is heavily regulated has rules and standards for everything. And still, stuff goes wrong. Why? Humans. Any number of factors, but humans. And invariably, when under pressure or stress. Scientists are not immune.
Regardless of all that, there is no long term data. The current vaccination program is part of the trial that will give us long term data. The recipients, the guinea pigs. I really do hope it pans out well. The alternative doesnt bear thinking about.
gregs656 said:
I’ll say it again - there is more evidence for long term effects from COVID than there are from the vaccines.
Very valid.You won’t change anybody’s mind though. Someone will always want to go down the slippery cliff steps rather than use the safe road and try to justify it.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff