Any others cynical about a vaccine?

[FrenchieBoy]

Oh no, tinfoil hat time again......
If you don’t want to get the vaccine then don’t.
I do so I will.
Did you hear that there’s going to be a Coronavirus passport for people who take the vaccine?
It’ll allow you to go to the pub and stand at the bar with your mates, use the jakes on an airplane , go to the shops without a mask and cough freely in public.
Can’t wait......

I hadn't heard about the Coronavirus passport for those who take the vaccine. Is this fact of just some of the media guessing game, I am asking because I don't know so is there a link available to back this up please? If so I would be interested in reading about it.

 

[zambezi]

is 1 million deaths WORLDWIDE over a twelve month period from some kind of flu type bug, that serious?

The elephant in the room right there.

 

[gixer1]

Which is why I said "At the end of the day we will each make our own choice".

I had the BCG jab at school, even though it was only "thought to protect up to 80% of people against the most severe forms of TB for at least 15 years, perhaps even up to 60 years." But my father had TB, so it was worth the risk. Whilst there were just over 5,000 cases of TB in the UK in 2017, we no longer do mass vaccinations. The risks are not seen as severe enough any more.

So it is all a question of balancing risks.

The risk of contracting a severe case of Covid is very small, particularly if you are not in a vulnerable group. Even if you are, the mortality rates are very low.

So if you feel the risk is worth it, take the vaccine. Others might feel different.

I don’t think any vaccine is mandatory....so yes, you decide for yourself and possibly kids.

Although, I hope they restrict access for anti-vacc’ers to certain places as they can choose for themselves, but I’d rather they didn’t choose for others by putting them at risk.

regards,
Gixer

 

[EMcC]

Perhaps most of you are not old enough to remember the the wonder drug Thaliminide that was introduced to the world as the answer to the worlds Polio problem, well I am and know how that turned out.
My mother was a 'one of' and of the opinion that 'God' would sort us all out and as a result, while others at school or growing up between the late 40's up to the late 50's had inoculations, I or any of my brothers and sisters were not allowed any of them.
I remember empty desks at school after the holidays, we were too young to know why they were not with us any more but I do remember the prayers we said at Assembly for them.
I didn't think a lot about it then but as I grew older (and supposedly wiser) I began to think and relate their absence with the jabs they had.
The media wasn't as wide spread as it is today and the fact children weren't allowed to read the newspapers, that were available, because of the horrible things that were reported on, perhaps a suitable period before the widespread use of the new drug may be sensible.

 

[Dalua]

...the the wonder drug Thaliminide that was introduced to the world as the answer to the worlds Polio problem

Is there some confusion here between the thalidomide scandal, and that related to problems with badly-made inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine?

 

[Apthorpe]

You can believe what the media reports on or you can read between the lines, and look at the facts.

Or you could just make up sh!t and believe that.

The facts are as follows:
This vaccine is one of 9 (out of several hundred companies and scientific bodies' attempts) that reach stage 3 trials a few months ago. ALL medicines pass through the same sort of approval process. If you're happy to take any type of medicine at all, it will have either been through the same or a weaker approval process. If, on the other hand, you firmly reject every aspect of modern medicine and see your witch-doctor for ailments..........
The process they all go through is lengthy, extensive, very expensive and designed by the world's leading experts (not internet morons) to be safe and effective. Firstly, they are tested (Stage 0) in vitro or on animals to make sure they're safe and have positive effects. Then they go through three stages of tests on humans, each stage of which requires prior approval from a regulatory body. They are concisely described here:

United Kingdom | GSK

GSK United Kingdom

uk.gsk.com

Trial stages

If a drug passes all those hurdles, the full safety data and the results of the trials are then re-examined by expert medical boards by each country's medical regulators. Companies and regulators are very aware that any part of this process may end up being examined in a court of law in any jurisdiction where the drug is supplied.

This process means that vaccines are as safe as medical authorities claim beyond any rational level of doubt. Vaccines are highly effective at suppressing or eliminating disease when a high enough percentage of the population takes the vaccines, such that there is no "reservoir" of unvaccinated people for the vaccine to reside in.
And that is why anybody spreading misinformation or doubt on this topic is not only a cretin, but actually harming others and risking lives.

 

[Fair Hill]

I love the way fella's come on here and come out with statements about the vaccine and how dangerous it is and they haven't got a clue in the wild earthly world what it or any other vaccine ever is made up of.

Most lads only became aware of this vaccine in the last 24 hours, they have no interest or even curiosity as to the qualifications of the experts who have worked around the clock to make this option available. The doom and gloom brigade at it's finest.

 

[Buchan]

So you are in the possession of industry knowledge and have faith in the system which I understand but for many people blind faith is quite rightly not enough.

However I would just like to raise one question as you and Boris have raised this and I can't understand if this is possible or not. This vaccine will not stop the spread ie on hands ie if someone sneezes and had had the vaccine will they still be carrying the virus or will the virus just cease to exist being carried in a vaccinated host? Genuine question not looking a picking a fight as I just don't know. Maybe you know?

The Pfizer vaccine won't produce live virus. It works by getting human cells to produce the viral "spike protein" which then triggers an immune response.

 

[Apthorpe]

If you’re one of the 1.5% of cases where Covid proves fatal, death 3 weeks later may be the case.

But if you’re not in one or more of the high risk groups, the mortality rate is far, far, lower.

So in reality one has to weigh the risk of being a Covid mortality against the risk of taking a rapidly developed and largely untested vaccine.

At the end of the day we will each make our own choice, but questioning the science is not in and of itself “spreading idiotic and harmful conspiracy theories”.

I refer you to the answer I gave just above, demonstrating exactly why "questioning the science" IS in and of itself idiotic and harmful.

Questioning the science is one thing, denying the facts about how vaccines are tested, as the OP did, is another.

 

[jer]

I

Sorry you find it depressing that people are raising legitimate concerns about the vaccine and its processes such as QA given its been produced in a short period of time?

I find it depressing that you would allow someone to inject you with a substance without a thought for its effectiveness or side effects. Let's be Frank here the moment you walk through that door to get an injection you are placing absolute faith in the vial being what it says it is because there's no way for us to know what it contains. As a result I don't think it's too much to ask for some solid data and results given its a "new" type of vaccine before you sign on the dotted line.

I think everyone would have some concern whenever they inject themselves with anything and since the birth of modern medicine we have placed some degree of faith in the medical practitioners and lets be honest we are not dealing with witch doctors peddling snake oil these days. As I understand it any new vaccine has to undergo trials and be passed for public use by regulators who review the results of those trials which I think would count as solid data. Admittedly this vaccine will have come to market quicker than anything before but nothing has ever had every major research laboratory worldwide working 24/7 to get a result. To have the vaccine will be a personal choice and not forced on anyone and maybe your choice will depend on how much faith you have in the regulators and if you in the at risk category.

 

[stubear]

You may jest - but there are absolutely people that would relish this idea....having spent time living in the southern USA and watched people asking for the Hornady Zombie ammo and hearing it was sold out, and also observed a person burying ammo, I know for a fact they exist....so to assume there are a couple of them on this very forum would be fair.

it’s like the FAC holder that asks the question “if you saw a bank robbery in progress and someone taken hostage and you had your rifle in the car, would you have a pop”.....you can tell they are hoping for that situation to come to fruition!

regards,
Gixer

I am absolutely joking here - do I think this vaccine is going to cause a zombie apocalypse? Clearly not, and I think trying to attribute an ulterior motive to what was clearly a joke is stretching the boundaries of credulity to breaking point.

Am I going to be the first to rush out and get the vaccine - probably not either as the quick time to market is a bit of a concern, but equally if its proven to work and the adverse effects are in line with other vaccines (IE minimal to zero) then yes I would. Watch this space I guess.

What I'm not going to be doing is stocking up on ammo and putting on my tin foil hat.

 

[BryanDC]

Perhaps most of you are not old enough to remember the the wonder drug Thaliminide that was introduced to the world as the answer to the worlds Polio problem, well I am and know how that turned out.
My mother was a 'one of' and of the opinion that 'God' would sort us all out and as a result, while others at school or growing up between the late 40's up to the late 50's had inoculations, I or any of my brothers and sisters were not allowed any of them.
I remember empty desks at school after the holidays, we were too young to know why they were not with us any more but I do remember the prayers we said at Assembly for them.
I didn't think a lot about it then but as I grew older (and supposedly wiser) I began to think and relate their absence with the jabs they had.
The media wasn't as wide spread as it is today and the fact children weren't allowed to read the newspapers, that were available, because of the horrible things that were reported on, perhaps a suitable period before the widespread use of the new drug may be sensible.

Thalidomide for polio. Seriously now get the F***ing facts straight.

 

[willie_gunn]

I refer you to the answer I gave just above, demonstrating exactly why "questioning the science" IS in and of itself idiotic and harmful.

Questioning the science is one thing, denying the facts about how vaccines are tested, as the OP did, is another.

Perhaps you should write to Nature magazine and complain?

What Pfizer’s landmark COVID vaccine results mean for the pandemic

Scientists welcome the first compelling evidence that a vaccine can prevent COVID-19. But questions remain about how much protection it offers, to whom and for how long.

www.nature.com

I'd also refer you to the earlier link I posted:

NPR Choice page

"It took a median of 4.2 years after the drugs were approved for these safety concerns to come to light, the study found, and issues were more common among psychiatric drugs, biologic drugs, drugs that were granted "accelerated approval" and drugs that were approved near the regulatory deadline for approval."

 

[Apthorpe]

Perhaps most of you are not old enough to remember the the wonder drug Thaliminide that was introduced to the world as the answer to the worlds Polio problem, well I am and know how that turned out.
My mother was a 'one of' and of the opinion that 'God' would sort us all out and as a result, while others at school or growing up between the late 40's up to the late 50's had inoculations, I or any of my brothers and sisters were not allowed any of them.
I remember empty desks at school after the holidays, we were too young to know why they were not with us any more but I do remember the prayers we said at Assembly for them.
I didn't think a lot about it then but as I grew older (and supposedly wiser) I began to think and relate their absence with the jabs they had.
The media wasn't as wide spread as it is today and the fact children weren't allowed to read the newspapers, that were available, because of the horrible things that were reported on, perhaps a suitable period before the widespread use of the new drug may be sensible.

Interesting example.
Thalidomide was not a treatment for polio. It was a treatment (initially) for anxiety, insomnia and morning sickness in the 1950's. You may care to reflect on whether it is rational to compare the safety of processes 65 years ago to those today. Many of us believe (with good, firm, factual, evidence) that we have a much superior understanding of safety nowadays. Do you still refuse to fly because of the metal fatigue problems in Comets?

It is an interesting case because the US authorities refused to license it, on the grounds that it hadn't been sufficiently tested for safety. The requirements now are far more stringent, not least because of that very event, which was the basis of the FDA starting to take drug approvals seriously.

The problem with thalidomide was one of manufacture, not of the safety of the drug itself. It's a little complex, but simply put, the same formula of a large or organic molecules can exist in two mirror-image forms. Such molecules are said to be chiral, they have two enantiomers. Your hands have the same property - both the same, but one left and one right. One form of thalidomide was the effective and safe medicine, and the other caused the birth defects. This was not realised at the time because testing for teratogenicity was not part of the testing process back then.

However, the correct form of thalidomide was effective, and is still in use having been found effective as a cancer and leprosy treatment, and is on the WHO's list of essential medicines - the list of the safest and most effective medicines. There are more modern analogues, but thalidomide is safe and effective IF you're not pregnant.

 

[Buchan]

By all means question the methods and the mechanisms of this and other vaccines. That's how scientist work - sorting out the correct from the incorrect.
If you've heard something, check the source. If it's from anything other than a laboratory/university/government agency, it's suspect (some exceptions)
Most opinions that have a mistrust of vaccines are not from reliable sources. With a few exceptions, vaccines are safe.
How do I know this? Because I drink tea, I read, and know I stuff. I understand quite a bit about how the body works, and how vaccines work and I also know how to read scientific papers. Not perfect, but better than gossip.
The current vaccine is interesting because it's using a small targetted part of the virus, neat technology that has been used for creating monoclonal antibodies for cancer cells. The studies will be rigorous, 40k test subjects is a pretty big trial.
A couple of things I've picked up form the discussion:
mRNA will not alter one's DNA. mRNA (messenger RNA) is a copy of one half of DNA, used to take coding data from the nucleus to the ribosoems where a protein will be made. (The tech to alter DNA does exist - CRISPR Cas-9 for instance and theoretically, altering the DNA in lung cells to produce antibody to corona might work)
Not sure what the "the wonder drug Thaliminide that was introduced to the world as the answer to the worlds Polio problem," refers to. If it's thalidomide, sure, it was a disaster and, as a result, we now have legislation on medicines trials and use. (It wan't used for polio)

I wasn't going to enter this discussion, but I do so for the many who will be unsure and would like to hear some logic. I'm not being disrespectful to other's opinions, I'm countering the arguments

 

[Apthorpe]

Why? The issues Nature raise are sensible and valid and in no way comparable to the sort of stupid denialism seen in this thread.

Perhaps you should write to Nature magazine and complain?

What Pfizer’s landmark COVID vaccine results mean for the pandemic

Scientists welcome the first compelling evidence that a vaccine can prevent COVID-19. But questions remain about how much protection it offers, to whom and for how long.

www.nature.com

I'd also refer you to the earlier link I posted:

NPR Choice page

"It took a median of 4.2 years after the drugs were approved for these safety concerns to come to light, the study found, and issues were more common among psychiatric drugs, biologic drugs, drugs that were granted "accelerated approval" and drugs that were approved near the regulatory deadline for approval."

That same article points out that the approval process is more stringent in Europe, so any vaccine will have been tested to a higher standard. That article shows that slightly over 1% of the drugs approved had a sufficiently negative side-effect to warrant withdrawing them from the market, and that is because they were for IBS and psoriasis, which are hardly dangerous diseases. You need to look at the significance and magnitude of the things you're comparing. Again, let's avoid misinformation and wilful stupidity. It's dangerous to others.

 

[Ade8mm]

I don’t think any vaccine is mandatory....so yes, you decide for yourself and possibly kids.

Although, I hope they restrict access for anti-vacc’ers to certain places as they can choose for themselves, but I’d rather they didn’t choose for others by putting them at risk.

regards,
Gixer

But if you have the vaccine why would you worry about being exposed to people who haven't had it? Makes no sense. Unless of course it doesn't work

 

[eddoakley]

Have the vaccine if you want, don't if you don't.
I wont be as at the very least my concerns would be the extremely limited trials (in terms of time).
Ask me again in 10 years maybe. See if there are any side effects.
But I'd also question why people think everyone should have it?
Surely if it's effective and you've had it then what would it matter if I hadn't? You are protected against covid so I couldn't give it to you?

This added to the fact that I don't personally know anyone who knows anyone that's been ill or died, the fact that nobody seems to have died of anything other than covid in the past few months, the crazy rules that are supposed to stop it spreading but are different everywhere, the way the figures are all reported, the ONS stats showing that the average age of those that have died ''with'' Covid (note that nobody says ''from''Covid) is 84.2 while the life expectancy in the uk is 81 and dozens of other things all make me question the whole thing and not just the vaccine (to a virus that's already reportedly mutated into 20+ forms and will continue to do so)

Each to their own but I know where I'll be when the queue starts.

Edd

 

[Buchan]

Surely if it's effective and you've had it then what would it matter if I hadn't? You are protected against covid so I couldn't give it to you?

The herd immuity issue. Yes, you'd be protected from that one person, but not others and then you'd be a potential source.

The virus does indeed have a low mortality esepcially if you are <80 and hav eno pre-exsiting conditions. But it is very infectious, and the variable morbidity means lots of hospital admissions and a clogged health service. Vaccinting those at risk (health and care workers first, politicians last) makes a lot of sense. INdividuals like me are way down the list.

 

[FrenchieBoy]

The Pfizer vaccine won't produce live virus. It works by getting human cells to produce the viral "spike protein" which then triggers an immune response.

That's the way that I understand it after watching a few videos about it!