Any others cynical about a vaccine?

PSE Composites Limited - The next level Rifle Stocks
Status
Not open for further replies.
Buchan said:
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.
Click to expand...

My concern is that the mRNA strategy is designed to be highly targetted, very specific: Provoke ribosomal production of spike protein that is hallmark of SARs protein coat .

If it does not succeed in doing that in 10% of people, has it provoked an alternate protein?

The Pfizer study is at some pains to identify the areas not scrutinised in this trial. To the lay person, that looks like they are not looking to comprehend whether the failure modes have caused other outcomes. What say you?

1605026941597.webp
 
zambezi said:
My concern is that the mRNA strategy is designed to be highly targetted, very specific: Provoke ribosomal production of spike protein that is hallmark of SARs protein coat .

If it does not succeed in doing that in 10% of people, has it provoked an alternate protein?

The Pfizer study is at some pains to identify the areas not scrutinised in this trial. To the lay person, that looks like they are not looking to comprehend whether the failure modes have caused other outcomes. What say you?

View attachment 180875
Click to expand...
Zambezi, remind us again about your expertise in the area of vaccine development and testing?
Informed opinion such as that from "Buchan" which is well argued and explained with clear limits on his expertise is always welcome.
Uninformed opinion adds nothing to the discussion.


Cheers

Bruce
 
mealiejimmy said:
Zambezi, remind us again about your expertise in the area of vaccine development and testing?
Informed opinion such as that from "Buchan" which is well argued and explained with clear limits on his expertise is always welcome.
Uninformed opinion adds nothing to the discussion.


Cheers

Bruce
Click to expand...
Remind us of yours please?
 
mealiejimmy said:
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
Click to expand...
You can receive a vaccine and still catch a virus - it depends how effective the vaccine is on that person. Therefore a non-vaccinated person could pass a virus onto a vaccinated person that the vaccine wasn’t effective on. Vaccines are all about reducing the risk of infection.

regards,
Gixer
 
Freeforester said:
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?
Click to expand...

I mean if you make a conscience decision not to vaccinate yourself you should not be allowed in certain areas.

Everyone is welcome to take the risks they deem as acceptable but they should not be allowed to put others at risk.

regards,
Gixer
 
Hell Toupee said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am not an anti-vaxxer and certainly do not harbour any pre-conceived notions. Neither do I think that every invention of man is a raging success.

The level of personal risk is the barometer by which I apply caution to any new thing, medicine or otherwise.


Hell Toupee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is that not the same % response [ish] we have seen in the global population in the last 18 months after exposure to the actual virus? The vast majority of people are not even aware they were exposed. It took an RT-PCR test to inform them.


Hell Toupee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Day 0 for SARS-CoV-2 was June 2019. It is said to be highly infectious. R0 estimated to be 3+. It had a free run around the globe for 9 months before any lockdowns. If its impact with a free rein is limited to 1m CFR globally, what circumstances could possibly cause it to "run riot" now?

I just cannot see that as a probability.

With all that in mind, your imperfect camp of three types of people should probably be modified. There must be a place for those who side with the eminent scientists who have signed the Great Barringnton Declaration. In short: SARS-CoV-2 is an endemic virus with low CFR. We need to accept it as one of life's [minor] risks and return to normal. [Not a new normal] No vaccine required.




Thanks for the detailed and considered response.
 
mealiejimmy said:
Zambezi, remind us again about your expertise in the area of vaccine development and testing?
Informed opinion such as that from "Buchan" which is well argued and explained with clear limits on his expertise is always welcome.
Uninformed opinion adds nothing to the discussion.


Cheers

Bruce
Click to expand...

We all of us have the ability to ask questions, to analyse for ourselves the data presented. In forums like this we get to air different opinions. To ask the tough questions.

I appreciate informed responses from whoever delivers them.

From a personal perspective, the notion of injecting my body with a drug my brain has established I do not need is anathema. Unless there is a seismic shift in CFR, or some other parameter changes, I cannot see how my position changes.
 
zambezi said:
I am not an anti-vaxxer and certainly do not harbour any pre-conceived notions. Neither do I think that every invention of man is a raging success.
The level of personal risk is the barometer by which I apply caution to any new thing, medicine or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Good - to both. As I said, its all down to personal opinion, its just important that opinion is as informed as possible.
zambezi said:
Is that not the same % response [ish] we have seen in the global population in the last 18 months after exposure to the actual virus? The vast majority of people are not even aware they were exposed. It took an RT-PCR test to inform them.
Click to expand...
Pretty much - which is an absolute triumph if the vaccine figures are correct. What you have just agreed is that a pharmaceutical company, in a short time frame, has developed a vaccine that provides a similar response in a similar number of people that the actual virus itself delivers. Thats phenomenal. Usually vaccines are less effective, and this one is seemingly not. That would also suggest that the 10% failure rate is more likely to be a failure of the persons immune system than a failure of the mechanism of the vaccine as you recently asked Buchan.
zambezi said:
Day 0 for SARS-CoV-2 was June 2019. It is said to be highly infectious. R0 estimated to be 3+. It had a free run around the globe for 9 months before any lockdowns. If its impact with a free rein is limited to 1m CFR globally, what circumstances could possibly cause it to "run riot" now?

I just cannot see that as a probability.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I see it as on day 0 there were very few people infected and none in this country, now we know there are many thousands infected in this country and that could escalate much more quickly. Thats how exponential spread works. If all measures ceased, lets say R became 2, then it wouldn't be long before the hospitals were full, despite the low incidence of severe disease. Then when I crash my car, or you cut yourself, or mum falls down the stairs there are fewer remaining resources to treat us. Thats all. Is it worth the current restrictions? You evidently think not. Currently, I can work, socialise in a sober fashion outside in small groups, and go stalking... I'm actually not too unhappy with the situation, so for me, yes it is. But this obviously depends on personal circumstance, and as before, that's not my area of interest or expertise. I'll just stick to the science.
zambezi said:
With all that in mind, your imperfect camp of three types of people should probably be modified. There must be a place for those who side with the eminent scientists who have signed the Great Barringnton Declaration. In short: SARS-CoV-2 is an endemic virus with low CFR. We need to accept it as one of life's [minor] risks and return to normal. [Not a new normal] No vaccine required.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that fit into group 2? Believe it exists, but disproportionate measures?

zambezi said:
Thanks for the detailed and considered response.
Click to expand...
As always, a pleasure. I'll leave it here for now...

Best,
HT
 
zambezi said:
Is that not the same % response [ish] we have seen in the global population in the last 18 months after exposure to the actual virus? The vast majority of people are not even aware they were exposed. It took an RT-PCR test to inform them.
Click to expand...
Ah crap, I'm back again.

I think I may have misinterpreted your post. Sorry.

I'm a little confused - are you saying that 90% of people didn't know they had the disease, and because 90% of vaccine recipients didn't get the disease, you are equating the two? If so, that's incorrect, as there is very little chance that Pfizer will have looked them over, said 'can you smell this? taste this? no cough? Great, off you go'. They will have been tested.

Or are you saying that 90% of people who had the virus developed an immune response, which would be the same as the vaccine, but I honestly don't know if it is true or not. If you do have that information, I'd love to see it.

Sorry - I'm meant to be working and this is what happens when I reply too quickly...

HT
 
zambezi said:
My concern is that the mRNA strategy is designed to be highly targetted, very specific: Provoke ribosomal production of spike protein that is hallmark of SARs protein coat .

If it does not succeed in doing that in 10% of people, has it provoked an alternate protein?

The Pfizer study is at some pains to identify the areas not scrutinised in this trial. To the lay person, that looks like they are not looking to comprehend whether the failure modes have caused other outcomes. What say you?

View attachment 180875
Click to expand...
OK, so I haven't absolute answers, I've been writing a paper on fluke all day and I'm now having a beer not reading more papers! But:
Pharmacokinetics - how the body processes a drug, Pharmacodynamics - how it interacts with the body
with mRNA having such a short half life and being an analogue of a naturally occuring substance, I wouldn't expect anything on Pk or Pd. Similalry biomarkers - odd though, as I'd count the antibody as a biomarker of sorts. The genetics is something that I imagine will be evaluated with time.
 
My family has a member who is a virologist/genetecist - at Oxford - not wishing to delve into the details discussed here, since I would be parroting others knowledge, or criticising from limited knowledge.
If my family member says its safe - I'll have the jab and at 70, be thankful I can go for a pint on Fridays again.

The work to develop a vaccine has involved scientists in every developed country sharing knowledge and findings as they write them up - it is an unprecedented sharing of scientific work and I, for one hope this will continue - the world constantly gets smaller.
I do not trust totalitarian regimes for very sound reasons but their science (China/Russia) is excellent. Tarbo Umbeki potificated wrongly about AIDS. Trump uses Covid in any way he feels helps himself.
My approach will be to place greater trust in the scientists and have the jab when Oxford (Jenner) says its safe.
90% effective is 30% more effective than flu jabs, however you choose to dress it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Cheeky chap wanted to buy my Pike!
2 3
Replies
49
Views
3K
nic531
nic531
Natural Environment Bill (Scotland)
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Malxwal
Malxwal
Sold: Pulsar XQ50 Helion
Replies
1
Views
281
SJC
S
Sad times
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
The Tartan Torpedo
The Tartan Torpedo
Poor grouping on a pre-owned rifle.
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Lee260
L
Premium Gun Accessories - Ammo Fusion
Back
Top