dartmoordog
Well-Known Member
In the words of the great Paul Whitehouse............”Anyone fancy a pint?”
Any others cynical about a vaccine?
- Thread starter deerstalker.308
- Start date
- Status
Please confirm if the "triggers an immune response" refers to injected mRNA acting on ribosomes in every cell of the body?
Does the injected mRNA ever evacuate the body?
In the 10% of case where the vaccine did not produce a viable outcome, what was the failure mode? I.e. failure to produce spike protein? Production of spike protein ignored by immune system? Production of imperfect protein?
Really! I know of several people who have died who had no health issues and several who were severely ill my daughter a healthy woman in her forties hospitalised and very ill for many weeks
The idea that its only the old or vulnerable that are at risk is a myth.
Can't confirm, but it will be a finite amount of mRNA so only taken up by a realtively small number of cells and it's rapidly broken down - half life within half an hour I've seen for normal mRNA
No idea on the last one! But you list a variety of failures all of which will be normal reasons for vaccine (and normal infection) failure.
glasshalffull
Well-Known Member
The stock markets seem to like it anyway.
Rasputin
Well-Known Member
The stats show very clearly its only the old and vulnerable at risk. The remainder are anomalies nothing more.
As for being hospitalised well that's what happens with millions of people with flu globally and rhe World didn't lose its mind.
Rusty Gate
Well-Known Member
Its a no from me
Quite - which is why we vaccinate the old and vulnerable (and healthcare workers) against 'flu.
N1mr0d
Well-Known Member
I have worked for 2 of the largest phamaceutical companies in the world. It usually and quite rightly takes 10 years + to bring a drug to market having established that the adverse reactions (which every drug has) are within acceptable parameters over time.
I am concerned that there will be political pressure to produce a wonder vaccine that has not been properly tested a bit like a version update from Microsoft where we all know that they use their users for testing. Being in a vulnerable group I do not much fancy being an unwitting guinea pig.
I am truly amazed that other folk on here that have also worked for pharmaceutical companies do not preach some caution. They will know better than most how many drugs fail after 2 or 3 years of trials, some even just before they go to market after 10 years. It is also 100% the case that the pharmaceuticals produce their own statistics on adverse reactions. We are about 1 year in and we are being asked to accept that a company has produced a vaccine first time. Fortunately the vaccine is still undergoing trials and the short term results look promising. But you cannot do long term trials in a shortened timescale and so far zero adverse reactions have been published which cannot be true. If you are young and fit then please have the vaccine as this will help with research. If you have underlying health problems please be cautious.
I am concerned that there will be political pressure to produce a wonder vaccine that has not been properly tested a bit like a version update from Microsoft where we all know that they use their users for testing. Being in a vulnerable group I do not much fancy being an unwitting guinea pig.
I am truly amazed that other folk on here that have also worked for pharmaceutical companies do not preach some caution. They will know better than most how many drugs fail after 2 or 3 years of trials, some even just before they go to market after 10 years. It is also 100% the case that the pharmaceuticals produce their own statistics on adverse reactions. We are about 1 year in and we are being asked to accept that a company has produced a vaccine first time. Fortunately the vaccine is still undergoing trials and the short term results look promising. But you cannot do long term trials in a shortened timescale and so far zero adverse reactions have been published which cannot be true. If you are young and fit then please have the vaccine as this will help with research. If you have underlying health problems please be cautious.
But your kids wouldn't get it and thererfore would not pass it on to any unvaccinated members of you family.
That's what herd immunity is all about - reducing the number of people who can be infected by someone who is infected
If your kids are in a class of 30 pupils and 25 of them are vaccinated and the vaccination is 90% effective then 22 people will NOT get infected That one infected person simply can't pass the virus on to more than 8 people, whereas, if no-one in the class was vaccinated that one infected person COULD potentially infect everyone else in the class.
Simples !!!
Cheers
Bruce
I will agree to disagree! While the majority of deaths may well be among the elderly and the vulnarable they ars
far from the only ones to die from this virus.
Are the lives of the eldere and vulnarable not as important as anyone elses?
Rasputin
Well-Known Member
I don't know how you can begin to disagree on the first part I just had a quick look and even ONS states 91% of covid deaths had an underlying issue.
On the face of it they are not as important. Average death age is 83/84. That's a decent enough innings. Imagine trying to explain to someone in their early 20s with 60+ years to live why you hamstrung them for generations. We have become fixated with savings the minority rather than ensuring the well being of the majority.
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
No need to vaccinate yourself against something you are now immune to, either
deerstalker.308
Well-Known Member
Ur...... so does corona..... look at the mink farms.... look at where it supposedly came from. Failure of understanding???? Nope.
Rusty Gate
Well-Known Member
Exactly that
Whichever of the Vaccines gets government approval first in this country I will be happy take as will my Mum who is 88 and in the vulnerable group. If we have thousands of “conspiracy theorists “ in the country who don’t want to take it, thats their choice, the upside is it moves me nearer the front of the queue to get it (but still behind my mum)
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
Just to clarify, do you mean you feel it may be possible that someone in the future who has not been vaccinated but infectious may be able to somehow infect others who are already vaccinated? Or do you mean the 'anti' vacc'ers should not be permitted to socialise with those who are pro vaccine but have not as yet been given it?
If Yeadon and others are correct, there may well be little enough need for a vaccination, effective or not, desired or not, come the spring.
Is anyone looking at the numbers now, I wonder, or is it now bad form to consider the apparent anomalies between positive 'cases' tested (giving us historical evidence in the vast majority of said 'cases') and mortality rates ensuing?
reiver
Well-Known Member
I have a friend in a care home in Colchester .who is suffering from the safe jabs? he got in the first gulf war !! And before anyone says any thing yes I have had COVID along with some of my family who did not survive. I would not want to take the vaccine but it’s still a free country I think ?
Hell Toupee
Well-Known Member
It's actually not too bad if you can wade through the jargon. The important point about that document is that it has no results in. At all. Its simply explaining their experimental plan, and should go some way to relieving fears that this is a vaccine that has been cooked up in someones shed...
I do know that, and happy to help in what limited way I can - but I am not an immunologist!!
If you look in that link on page 102-3 (I think), they explain what they are looking for. Basically, this vaccine is still designed to elicit an antibody response, so that's what they are looking for. Also, being very simple about it, if you give Covid to some people that have and haven't had the vaccine, looking to see who actually gets the disease and who doesn't, this is the most fundamental marker of success. According to them 90% who have had the vaccine don't get the disease.
How they tell that, I'm not totally sure, but I would guess at measuring both antigen (virus) and antibody levels. Those who have been vaccinated, will have the antibodies, but I would assume, not the antigen, as their immune response (engendered by the vaccine) will have allowed them to clear the virus. Those who have not had the vaccine would, I assume (but don't know) have a higher level of antigen because they will need to produce an immune response to the virus itself, and this will take longer than having it set up and ready to go, because of the vaccine. This will obviously be time dependent, because, say 3 weeks after Covid infection, you'll either have cleared it or be quite unwell/dead.
Even though T cells are by all accounts key for longer term immunity, they still require antibodies as part of their immune response - its genuinely worth a quick read of the T cell wikipedia page. Ignore all the jargon and just have a scan about the different types of T cell, what they do and how they do it.
I believe that Pfizer will be publishing their results soon, but this (AFAIK) has yet to happen, and will still require peer review.
This is a very good question, and I just don't know. Some vaccines use a different immune stimulus to the pathogen they are vaccinating against, but the immune response created has sufficient cross reactivity to work for the intended target. In these cases there can be a way to test e.g the antibodies to see if they are a match for the vaccine or for the antigen. But, some vaccines use the exact same immune challenge as the pathogen, and consequently you cannot tell the respective immune responses apart. (For example, that's why we aren't allowed to vaccinate cattle against bTB, because then the skin test would be (even more) worthless - but that is not a discussion for here). In that case I don't know if there would be a way to distinguish the two - especially a few weeks/months after any 'infection' or vaccine.
I am absolutely not telling anyone that they should or shouldn't get the vaccine, what I am saying is that it is selfish, irresponsible and downright ignorant to reject the vaccine based on nothing more than pre-conceived anti-vaccine ideology that has time and time again been (largely) disproven. They are drugs, and like any drugs will carry the risk of side effects. This has been produced quickly, which does set some alarm bells ringing, but, a lot of new drugs are produced in 3-10 years, which by definition means that no-one knows the possible adverse effects outwith that time scale. Many people still choose to take them.
I think people can (largely, but imperfectly) be divided into 3 groups with Covid. Those that believe it simply doesn't exist, those that believe it does exist, but it is not worthy of the global response that it has achieved, and those that believe it is as fearsome as it is made out.
I would imagine that those in the 3rd group will pretty much unanimously (health issues aside) take up the offer of vaccination, and that those in the 1st group will absolutely reject it. The second group will be interesting - will they get the vaccine as an altruistic attempt to bring the number of cases down? Will they get it to end the restrictions? Will they refuse because 'its not that bad' - and if so will they change their mind if they become part of a vulnerable group/get old/have friends and family that do one of those things?
Again, I don't know, but I fall on the cusp of the 2nd and 3rd groups - I think if the virus ran riot it could be a genuine catastrophe (in terms of indirect effects rather than direct effects mostly), but I am in a low risk group and age. But I have immediate family who are in a very high risk group, and consequently I haven't seen them for about 9 months. Will I get the vaccine? Well it will be a while until I am eligible for it, but assuming no new evidence about efficacy/safety comes to light, then yes.
Hell Toupee
Well-Known Member
I'm staying well out of the rest of your post...
This is interesting though. As far as I know, these are the facts (and correct me if I am wrong):
- Many/most cases, especially in young people are asymptomatic/mild
- There is significantly more testing occurring now than in 'wave 1'
- At the moment, the infection rates are rising in most age groups, but more so in the young than the old.
- There is a time lag from rising infection rates to rising deaths.
- Medical treatment of severe Covid cases has massively improved since 'wave 1'.
If you agree with those, then surely the following would also be true?
- We are detecting many more cases than before, and most of these are being detected in the young. Because we are detecting more cases, we will by definition be detecting more mild cases that may have gone unnoticed before. Obviously, when only the more severely affected patients were being tested, more of those (as a proportion) would go on to need ICU treatment, and more (proportionally) would die.
-By increasing the number of positive results, but by decreasing the number of fatalities due to improved medical care, we are massively reducing the proportion of those that test positive that end up dead.
Now, I don't think anyone is saying that 'wave 2' is as bad as 'wave 1' was, but if you look at the graphs below you can see that there is an increase in daily deaths at the moment, it is about 3 weeks behind the rise in positive test results, and that proportionally there are less deaths per positive test for the reasons I have outlined above.
On this occasion, I just think you are interpreting the data incorrectly.
Best,
HT
- Status
Similar threads
