COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures Megathread [Mod Warning - Post #1]

ShineOn7

Sir John's update

Bonus: he looks like he's raving in the 90s in the thumbnail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8KYWQICMMU

Sky King

ShineOn7 wrote: »

He looks like he's raving in the 90s in the thumbnail

Bigfish Lilfish Cardboard box!

JDD

I do understand lawrencesummers feelings on this.

Put aside the fact that we need herd immunity to protect individuals who cannot take the vaccine for whatever health reason.

Say we get to June, and there has been an 80% uptake from over 70's, HCW and under-70's with serious underlying conditions.

The letter comes to you in the post offering you an appointment time to get your vaccine. You are in your twenties, or thirties, healthy, no underlying conditions. Your parents and those close to you in the vulnerable categories have already been immunized.

You know that the vaccine being offered to you is safe in the short term, because lots and lots of people worldwide took the vaccine in January or February. You do not know how safe the vaccine is in the medium term or the long term. You understand that for the vast majority of vaccines if issues come up they tend to come up immediately, but it is still at the back of your mind that the vaccine is only 12 months old, at best. So there is a sense of the unknown.

In addition, you don't know whether you will need to get a top up vaccination every year. What are the health implications of having to get a top up every year? Nobody knows, at least not yet.

Whereas you do have some certainty is over what effects Covid would have on you should you become infected. If you are young, healthy, and do not work in a health care or factory environment, the chances of being hospitalised are miniscule. You may consider the possibility that you will be effected by long covid, as a result of a mild infection. However, again, it appears that long covid is rare, and even rarer in those not hospitalised as a result of their infection. Still, you consider the possibility.

And then you weigh it against the unknown medium or long term effects of the vaccine, or indeed the unknown short, medium or long term effects of having to take the vaccine on an annual basis.

If you are at the middle point, perhaps taking the vaccine because it is the "right thing to do for society" might tip you into the "alright then, I'll take it" category. But if you are some percentage points away from the middle point, the "good for society" aspect isn't going to get you there.

Just to say, I will take the vaccine when it is offered to me. I am young and healthy. But I would be more concerned about catching a bad dose of covid or indeed suffering from lingering symptoms, then I would be about the miniscule chance that these frontrunner vaccines have some unknown long term side effects. The way I see it, I took a few illegal substances in my time without genuinely thinking what the long term effects might be. And they were just to have a good time at a party. This will actually prevent me from getting sick.

But I can see why someone might tip the other way.

JDD

JDD wrote: »

I do understand lawrencesummers feelings on this.

Put aside the fact that we need herd immunity to protect individuals who cannot take the vaccine for whatever health reason.

Say we get to June, and there has been an 80% uptake from over 70's, HCW and under-70's with serious underlying conditions.

The letter comes to you in the post offering you an appointment time to get your vaccine. You are in your twenties, or thirties, healthy, no underlying conditions. Your parents and those close to you in the vulnerable categories have already been immunized.

You know that the vaccine being offered to you is safe in the short term, because lots and lots of people worldwide took the vaccine in January or February. You do not know how safe the vaccine is in the medium term or the long term. You understand that for the vast majority of vaccines if issues come up they tend to come up immediately, but it is still at the back of your mind that the vaccine is only 12 months old, at best. So there is a sense of the unknown.

In addition, you don't know whether you will need to get a top up vaccination every year. What are the health implications of having to get a top up every year? Nobody knows, at least not yet.

Whereas you do have some certainty is over what effects Covid would have on you should you become infected. If you are young, healthy, and do not work in a health care or factory environment, the chances of being hospitalised are miniscule. You may consider the possibility that you will be effected by long covid, as a result of a mild infection. However, again, it appears that long covid is rare, and even rarer in those not hospitalised as a result of their infection. Still, you consider the possibility.

And then you weigh it against the unknown medium or long term effects of the vaccine, or indeed the unknown short, medium or long term effects of having to take the vaccine on an annual basis.

If you are at the middle point, perhaps taking the vaccine because it is the "right thing to do for society" might tip you into the "alright then, I'll take it" category. But if you are some percentage points away from the middle point, the "good for society" aspect isn't going to get you there.

Just to say, I will take the vaccine when it is offered to me. I am young and healthy. But I would be more concerned about catching a bad dose of covid or indeed suffering from lingering symptoms, then I would be about the miniscule chance that these frontrunner vaccines have some unknown long term side effects. The way I see it, I took a few illegal substances in my time without genuinely thinking what the long term effects might be. And they were just to have a good time at a party. This will actually prevent me from getting sick.

But I can see why someone might tip the other way.

The long term impacts of vaccines are apparent in the short term. It either triggers an auto-immune condition or it doesn't. How debilitating that may be for each individual may not be apparent in the short term but the fact of the effect will be

hmmm

JDD wrote: »

Whereas you do have some certainty is over what effects Covid would have on you should you become infected.

In my opinion, anyone who thinks they know for certain how Covid will affect them are being very naive, and are making a very poor risk assessment in comparison to a vaccine. We have no idea what the long-term effects of even mild Covid will be, and I can't quite wrap my head around how some people can be worried about long-term effects from a vaccine, yet only seem to be interested in short-term effects from a coronavirus.

Can you imagine what would be said if scientists released a vaccine which they thought has a small chance of killing young people, affects the lining of blood vessels with unknown future impact, may cause long-lasting neurological damage for a reason we yet don't know, and has been linked to strokes and blood clots after infection? Yet apparently this is all fine for people who say "Covid shouldn't affect me and there isn't enough data about a vaccine".

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201109/evidence-shows-that-covid-19-attacks-blood-vessels
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/11/health/covid-survivors.html
https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/lab-report/new-cause-of-covid-19-blood-clots-identified
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S1474-4422(20)30272-6/fulltext

stephenjmcd

tonycascarino wrote: »

Personally, I am not taking any of these rushed vaccines until I see the effects it has on other people first.

Explain your definition of rushed please ? Where do you feel safety corners have been cut ? What part of the process are you uneasy with?

I've a sense that we'll go around in circles with information that's already widely available regarding the trials and production of vaccines but I'm curious to see how you feel its rushed when you don't offer context.

Father Hernandez

tonycascarino wrote: »

Personally, I am not taking any of these rushed vaccines until I see the effects it has on other people first.

How long will you wait? A year, 5 years, 20 years?

Deeper Blue

lawrencesummers wrote: »

By moaning do you mean to say - people are questioning a hastily researched medical treatment that will be put into widespread use?

Is it really unreasonable for people to question the substances that are going to be injected into them?

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Is everybody who holds a different opinion to you a loon? Or just the ones that don’t think the same as you with regards medicine?

lolokeogh wrote: »

Ah so loons all because they dont swallow what you say?

All I'm saying is that people need to actually pay attention to science and not facebook.

Also every anti vaxxer out there is a complete moron. I don't discriminate in that sense.

Sconsey

tonycascarino wrote: »

Personally, I am not taking any of these rushed vaccines until I see the effects it has on other people first.

That is a role normally carried out by the experts like the FDA or the EMA. They can probably do a better job than you in deciding if there is a risk here or not. They are in fact doing that job right now.

is_that_so

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Explain your definition of rushed please ? Where do you feel safety corners have been cut ? What part of the process are you uneasy with?

I've a sense that we'll go around in circles with information that's already widely available regarding the trials and production of vaccines but I'm curious to see how you feel its rushed when you don't offer context.

The perception of them being rushed is down to how quickly these vaccines are getting through the phases. The more typical timescale is often down to money and approval to move to subsequent phases and having live cases to play with. It is one of the positives of COVID, if we could use that word; there are plenty of cases and mountains of money around.

lawrencesummers

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How do you determine your level of risk? We may be able to quantify a death rate but the risk of long covid or specific heart inflammation, etc is significantly greater than the death rate. Research is ongoing into that too but it would seem unwise to assume that there is no impact to any age or health cohort.

Im not saying there is no impact. I’m saying the line is somewhere between the level of risk due to your age and health versus the risk of the unknown around the vaccine.

At some point people need to decide themselves where they stand on that scale. I know where I stand.

lawrencesummers

El Sueño wrote: »

All I'm saying is that people need to actually pay attention to science and not facebook.

Also every anti vaxxer out there is a complete moron. I don't discriminate in that sense.

Are you unable to distinguish between the anti-vax “it causes autism” movement and the “I’m not sure about this because it’s kinda rushed and I would like to see longer term studies”

Or are you just happy to completely generalise?

lawrencesummers

Russman wrote: »

The whole point of a vaccination programme is that eventually you try to get to herd immunity. So in that sense its in everyone's interest that as many people as possible get the vaccine. I protect you by my getting it and vice versa. If everyone, or even just the theoretically "non vulnerable" took the view that they don't need it as individuals, we'd never get to that point.

But if you have the vaccine you don’t need to worry about the people that don’t.

Mitch Connor

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Im not saying there is no impact. I’m saying the line is somewhere between the level of risk due to your age and health versus the risk of the unknown around the vaccine.

At some point people need to decide themselves where they stand on that scale. I know where I stand.

whatever about risk to myself,I'mnot particularly bothered in that respect, but I would have concern for my parents or other relatives.my friends and their kids etc.

Vaccine won't be 100% effective so even if they get the jab, it is still possible for me to transmit c19 to them (possibly but far less likely if we both have had the vaccine).

I just don't see why I would actively chose to put others at risk. I'll get the vaccine as soon as I am able to.

Mitch Connor

lawrencesummers wrote: »

But if you have the vaccine you don’t need to worry about the people that don’t.

that isn't tue.

As with any vaccine you can still get whatever it was against. the chances are far more remote, but still possible.

If I knew someone in the vunerable category I wouldn't knowingly let someone like yourself anywhere near them given the choice.

is_that_so

The first section of this explains normal vaccine development and why it takes so long.

A group of scientists who have a bright idea for a way to make a vaccine against a virus would spend months or years doing the early work involving laboratory tests.

https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2020/sep/21/covid-19-vaccine-race-develop

lbj666

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Im not saying there is no impact. I’m saying the line is somewhere between the level of risk due to your age and health versus the risk of the unknown around the vaccine.

At some point people need to decide themselves where they stand on that scale. I know where I stand.

I am curious to know in your estimation what your odds of getting long covid are?

lawrencesummers

Deleted User wrote: »

The long term impacts of vaccines are apparent in the short term. It either triggers an auto-immune condition or it doesn't. How debilitating that may be for each individual may not be apparent in the short term but the fact of the effect will be

Your missing the point.
The possible adverse effects are in question.

Have a look at the people who suffered from taking Pandemrix where “ families were informed a vaccine was perfectly safe for use when health chiefs knew that it had not been fully tested”

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/health/swine-flu-vaccine-side-effects-so-bad-that-children-were-like-schizophrenics-37275895.html


It’s not unreasonable to be cautious.

stephenjmcd

is_that_so wrote: »

The perception of them being rushed is down to how quickly these vaccines are getting through the phases. The more typical timescale is often down to money and approval to move to subsequent phases and having live cases to play with. It is one of the positives of COVID, if we could use that word; there are plenty of cases and mountains of money around.

Yup I know and that no corners are being cut. The process is being streamlined effectively. Just wanted to see why the poster felt they were rushed

Deeper Blue

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Are you unable to distinguish between the anti-vax “it causes autism” movement and the “I’m not sure about this because it’s kinda rushed and I would like to see longer term studies”

Or are you just happy to completely generalise?

Ok granted there's a bit of a difference between the conspiracy theory lunatics and people that are hesitant.

Anyone that doesn't take the vaccine is going to prolong this covid crap though so both are part of the problem.

hmmm

is_that_so wrote: »

The perception of them being rushed is down to how quickly these vaccines are getting through the phases.

Maybe people don't realise it's not actually a whiskey which will mature over time in a fine oak barrel?

The science is the science, and the trials are the trials, and we got a bit of a move on with them because there's a pandemic.

lawrencesummers

hmmm wrote: »

Maybe people don't realise it's not actually a whiskey which will mature over time in a fine oak barrel?

The science is the science, and the trials are the trials, and we got a bit of a move on with them because there's a pandemic.

And science allows medicines to improve over time, or to be removed from use because they follow scientific research and make improvements.

Russman

lawrencesummers wrote: »

But if you have the vaccine you don’t need to worry about the people that don’t.

Of course I do.
OK, some of these are reporting 95% efficacy which would be amazing, but what if one of them shows 70%, and that's the one a significant group of people are given because of their age ?
Granted the chances are low of catching something, but they'd be an awful lot lower if most of the population are also vaccinated.

JacksonHeightsOwn

tonycascarino wrote: »

Personally, I am not taking any of these rushed vaccines until I see the effects it has on other people first.

Do you mind me asking, have you had any other vaccines in your life, and if so, genuinely, how much of a background check did you do on them, ie, checking their efficiency, checking how many people where in the trials, numbers of people with side effects etc..... And please be honest.

hmmm

lawrencesummers wrote: »

And science allows medicines to improve over time, or to be removed from use because they follow scientific research and make improvements.

Most of us don't want to wait in perpetual lockdown for years until every crackpot on youtube has declared the vaccine safe. This is about balance of risk, and for most of us the risk from Covid and of giving Covid to family members outweighs whatever small risk exists in a vaccine. There's loads of bull**** about how long it takes a vaccine to be developed (the first vaccine took thousands of years, science gets faster - Moderna had a Covid vaccine in 2 days).

Hmmzis

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Your missing the point.
The possible adverse effects are in question.

Have a look at the people who suffered from taking Pandemrix where “ families were informed a vaccine was perfectly safe for use when health chiefs knew that it had not been fully tested”

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/health/swine-flu-vaccine-side-effects-so-bad-that-children-were-like-schizophrenics-37275895.html


It’s not unreasonable to be cautious.

It's missing the point that narcolepsy can and is being caused by H1N1 influenza. Since the Pandermix vaccine was an inactivated whole virus type, it contained the same antigens that caused the auto-immune reaction in a wild type infection. The questions of why only Pandermix had an increased incidence of the reaction is a bit fuzzy, but the deactivation process might be to blame as no other H1N1 vaccine had this issue.

The effect itself manifested shortly after the individuals would have been vaccinated, 2-6 weeks. That's the period when your body makes all those antibodies and trains T cells, that's the time where those auto-immune reactions can happen. There simply have been no known side effects discovered that happen after that process.
If the effect is apparent 2-6 weeks after vaccination, why was it discovered only much later? Because it was a very rare thing to happen and it was happening to people who were genetically predisposed to this condition, making it even harder to pick out a signal.

Micky 32

hmmm wrote: »

You seem to be absolutely sure that you are not at risk from Covid, a disease we know very little about or what its long-term impacts are going to be, and yet you think a vaccine which uses a tiny part of the virus and is being tested and monitored is highly dangerous and to be avoided.

You know i have been hearing the same BS from people all day today since the UK announcement. “ oh i won’t be taking it” bolloxogy. I fear f*****g never ending lockdowns and restrictions for years to come because of these selfish morons.:mad:

c.p.w.g.w

How have England approved the vaccine so fast?

I thought it would take a few months to trawl through the data of the studies?

What Username Guidelines

UK have had their first issue in that the vaccine comes in cases of 975 doses. There is an issue sending a single case to care homes which would result in wasted unused doses, so are attempting to see if MHRA will allow splitting the cases before delivery

lawrencesummers

Russman wrote: »

Of course I do.
OK, some of these are reporting 95% efficacy which would be amazing, but what if one of them shows 70%, and that's the one a significant group of people are given because of their age ?
Granted the chances are low of catching something, but they'd be an awful lot lower if most of the population are also vaccinated.

Do you want people to be forced to take the vaccine because of this?

lbj666

Hmmzis wrote: »

It's missing the point that narcolepsy can and is being caused by H1N1 influenza. Since the Pandermix vaccine was an inactivated whole virus type, it contained the same antigens that caused the auto-immune reaction in a wild type infection. The questions of why only Pandermix had an increased incidence of the reaction is a bit fuzzy, but the deactivation process might be to blame as no other H1N1 vaccine had this issue.

The effect itself manifested shortly after the individuals would have been vaccinated, 2-6 weeks. That's the period when your body makes all those antibodies and trains T cells, that's the time where those auto-immune reactions can happen. There simply have been no known side effects discovered that happen after that process.
If the effect is apparent 2-6 weeks after vaccination, why was it discovered only much later? Because it was a very rare thing to happen and it was happening to people who were genetically predisposed to this condition, making it even harder to pick out a signal.

- Correct me if i am wrong, but wasnt this actually what you call a "rushed vacine" also and it only when through Phase 1 trials and approved because of "exceptional circumstance"
- Something like 1:40,000 reported serious side effects globally mostly europe
- Its the one vacine plucked out as an example out of how many developed in recent history that have had no such issues?

speckle

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

UK have had their first issue in that the vaccine comes in cases of 975 doses. There is an issue sending a single case to care homes which would result in wasted unused doses, so are attempting to see if MHRA will allow splitting the cases before delivery

But surely the question is how big are those boxes are they for example suitcase sized or larger.

lawrencesummers

Hmmzis wrote: »

It's missing the point that narcolepsy can and is being caused by H1N1 influenza. Since the Pandermix vaccine was an inactivated whole virus type, it contained the same antigens that caused the auto-immune reaction in a wild type infection. The questions of why only Pandermix had an increased incidence of the reaction is a bit fuzzy, but the deactivation process might be to blame as no other H1N1 vaccine had this issue.

The effect itself manifested shortly after the individuals would have been vaccinated, 2-6 weeks. That's the period when your body makes all those antibodies and trains T cells, that's the time where those auto-immune reactions can happen. There simply have been no known side effects discovered that happen after that process.
If the effect is apparent 2-6 weeks after vaccination, why was it discovered only much later? Because it was a very rare thing to happen and it was happening to people who were genetically predisposed to this condition, making it even harder to pick out a signal.

If Pandemrix hasn’t caused the problem the cases wouldn’t have been settled out of court.

tobefrank321

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

How have England approved the vaccine so fast?

I thought it would take a few months to trawl through the data of the studies?

They worked with the vaccine makers and trial organisers to make sure they were receiving information regularly and concurrently with the trial.

So instead of being left with for example 5000 pages of information to read after the trial ended, they continually read the data coming in.

The UK are recognised as world leaders in vaccine authorizations which is why the the EU agency was located there. After Brexit it moved out of the UK - you'd worry there was a loss of competence in the current EU agency because of that.

Brexit has helped the UK approve this quickly but may delay the EU in approving it.

Sky King

lawrencesummers wrote: »

If Pandemrix hasn’t caused the problem the cases wouldn’t have been settled out of court.

I don't believe that. Settlement is more often than not purely a commercial decision - its cheaper to settle than to try prove they weren't in the wrong. At least that's the way it is for loads of insurance cases.

stephenjmcd

Jonathan Van Tam the deputy CMO in the UK says phase 1 rollout of the vaccine will eradicate 99% of Covid deaths.

JVT issues a passionate and compelling appeal to get the Covid jab and end social distancing Says: "If you want that dream to come true…you have to take the vaccine when it is offered to you"

Stark

Sky King wrote: »

I don't believe that. Settlement is more often than not purely a commercial decision - its cheaper to settle than to try prove they weren't in the wrong. At least that's the way it is for loads of insurance cases.

Especially in Ireland where for instance a simple personal injuries case could cost 40k+ to defend so usually more cost efficient to just pay out.

Russman

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Do you want people to be forced to take the vaccine because of this?

Absolutely not, I don’t think anyone should be forced to take a vaccine.

is_that_so

Stark wrote: »

Especially in Ireland where for instance a simple personal injuries case could cost 40k+ to defend so usually more cost efficient to just pay out.

The HSE regularly do it, and often like others, with no admission of guilt.

lbj666

tobefrank321 wrote: »

They worked with the vaccine makers and trial organisers to make sure they were receiving information regularly and concurrently with the trial.

So instead of being left with for example 5000 pages of information to read after the trial ended, they continually read the data coming in.

The UK are recognised as world leaders in vaccine authorizations which is why the the EU agency was located there. After Brexit it moved out of the UK - you'd worry there was a loss of competence in the current EU agency because of that.

Brexit has helped the UK approve this quickly but may delay the EU in approving it.

Not exactly

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/coronavirus-vaccine-brexit-pfizer-hancock_uk_5fc7936cc5b62d34ec88720a

lawrencesummers

Sky King wrote: »

I don't believe that. Settlement is more often than not purely a commercial decision - its cheaper to settle than to try prove they weren't in the wrong. At least that's the way it is for loads of insurance cases.

Sure.

Because costs can’t be awarded against the person who loses and global pharmaceutical companies work at the behest of local insurance companies.

I guess the Vaccine Damage Payment scheme doesn’t exist either in the UK.

A major study found 1 in 55,000 jabs given to 4-18 year olds lead to narcolepsy.

Now those numbers are low, and it’s a different vaccine, very low but my issue is that nobody is playing devils advocate to this vaccine and saying that there are reasons to be cautious.

It’s full steam ahead get the jab and party on.

lawrencesummers

Stark wrote: »

Especially in Ireland where for instance a simple personal injuries case could cost 40k+ to defend so usually more cost efficient to just pay out.

Pharma companies have in house legal teams, so it wouldn’t cost them anything extra, or very very little.

lawrencesummers

tobefrank321 wrote: »

They worked with the vaccine makers and trial organisers to make sure they were receiving information regularly and concurrently with the trial.

So instead of being left with for example 5000 pages of information to read after the trial ended, they continually read the data coming in.

The UK are recognised as world leaders in vaccine authorizations which is why the the EU agency was located there. After Brexit it moved out of the UK - you'd worry there was a loss of competence in the current EU agency because of that.

Brexit has helped the UK approve this quickly but may delay the EU in approving it.

Something that is happening in a month has caused the UK medical authorities to approve this now while something that is happening in a month is making the European authorities authorise it shortly.

Sure.

Sky King

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Now those numbers are low, and it’s a different vaccine, very low but my issue is that nobody is playing devils advocate to this vaccine and saying that there are reasons to be cautious.

.

Loads of people have said that, consistently, since the vaccines were first proposed.

lawrencesummers

Sky King wrote: »

Loads of people have said that, consistently, since the vaccines were first proposed.

Nobody sane or nobody in the mainstream has been saying it recently, it’s all drive on and roll out.

Sky King

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Nobody sane or nobody in the mainstream has been saying it recently, it’s all drive on and roll out.

That's because the question has been answered. When the vaccines are first proposed, a lot of sane qualified scientists ask if they're safe. Then when they're submitted for approval another load of sane qualified independent scientists validate the result. Then they're approved. The question has been answered. Drive on, and roll out.

lawrencesummers

Sky King wrote: »

That's because the question has been answered. When the vaccines are first proposed, a lot of sane qualified scientists ask if they're safe. Then when they're submitted for approval another load of sane qualified independent scientists validate the result. Then they're approved. The question has been answered. Drive on, and roll out.

The same sane qualified scientists that approved every other medicine I suppose...

ShineOn7

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Nobody sane or nobody in the mainstream has been saying it recently, it’s all drive on and roll out.

Every single argument you've put up has been calmly and intelligently counterpointed and explained to you with facts. Real, actual facts

I'm not quite sure what else can be said to you tbh

Sheep2020

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Every single argument you've put up has been calmly and intelligently counterpointed and explained to you with facts. Real, actual facts

I'm not quite sure what else can be said to you tbh

Real facts by whom?

Board's scientific advisors like yourself, hhmm, hmmsss, el seuno?

Who all qualified as boards.ie approved virologists in March :pac:

Everyone here is reading articles off reddit Covid19 thread and plagiarising articles, acting like they understand it

No one here has any facts

Bored in work talking ****e, they'd be shamed in seconds if they had to talk to real experts in the field, acting like big time charlie's here

ShineOn7

All aboard!

Health Minister says Covid-19 vaccine should be free as nine freezer trucks arrive in Ireland

https://www.thejournal.ie/freezers-covid-19-vaccine-5286334-Dec2020/

Excuse the Journal link and, as ever, avert your eyes from the comments section

There lies crazy people