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

awec

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Is it possible that the trials were only conducted with healthy people and nobody with allergies was included?

Is it possible?

Of course people who experience severe allergic reactions to vaccines do not take part in vaccine trials. Do you think people who are allergic to nuts help KP out in taste testing their latest flavours?

lawrencesummers wrote: »

That’s simply wrong.

This vaccine didn’t for instance, but it does now! Fair play to the UK for providing the first set of test subjects to this mass population
trial.
People with nut allergies get vaccinated, coeliacs, lactose allergies etc etc (because it’s been tested and proven safe).

We are not talking about people with your common allergies here. We are talking about people who experience severe reactions to vaccines specifically. This is exceptionally rare. It's like 1 in a million people or something.

stephenjmcd

lawrencesummers wrote: »

That’s simply wrong.

This vaccine didn’t for instance, but it does now! Fair play to the UK for providing the first set of test subjects to this mass population
trial.
People with nut allergies get vaccinated, coeliacs, lactose allergies etc etc (because it’s been tested and proven safe).

Every vaccine in the Republic of Ireland requires you to provide allergy history before vaccination.

So not fair play to the UK, they just proved why you need to ask these questions which we already do.

These aren't exactly your bog standard allergies, they were carrying EPI pens, that should have been the first thing flagged before getting the vaccine. That NHS fcuk up wouldn't have even had the chance to get off the ground here once someone provided their history

Micky 32

Maybe it’s me but it seems there’s a certain misery cohort that would love to see this vaccine fail to prevent life going back to normal for whatever their agenda is.

seamus

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Or three the NHS were not informed that they needed to not give this vaccines to those people.

If that's the case then it's a result of the MHRA's decision to not review all of the data, skip the normal review process and rush through the approval of the vaccine.

One way or another, it's a cock-up of the UK's making. And people now panicking over this allergic reaction is exactly why the EMA crticised the MHRA for rushing their approval process.

Micky 32 wrote: »

Maybe it’s me but it seems there’s a certain misery cohort that would love to see this vaccine fail to prevent life going back to normal for whatever their agenda is.

There sure are. And they'll spend the next six months posting opinion pieces that say the vaccine won't work long-term and we're going to have to start from scratch.

Hmmzis

This one kind of kept going on in background and now came out equally quietly (now fully licensed in the UAE):

https://www.wam.ae/en/details/1395302893589

This is the Chinese Sinopharm inactivated whole virus vaccine (there is another from Sinovac that's still to report). The 86% efficacy is excellent, especially given the somewhat meager antibody responses in phase 1 and 2. The press release also states that it prevents all moderate and severe disease cases which is very welcome news.

speaking on the news last night there was a doctor speaking of incidences with patients developing bells palsy too,

https://www.wionews.com/world/four-trial-volunteers-who-got-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-developed-bells-palsy-348547

lawrencesummers

awec wrote: »

Is it possible?

Of course people who experience severe allergic reactions to vaccines do not take part in vaccine trials. Do you think people who are allergic to nuts help KP out in taste testing their latest flavours?



We are not talking about people with your common allergies here. We are talking about people who experience severe reactions to vaccines specifically. This is exceptionally rare. It's like 1 in a million people or something.

The people who reacted are not “1 in a million” they are people who carry epi pens because they can die from some certain common things that exist.

Epi pens are widely held in Ireland by people. I know a few. Until today there was no mention that they shouldn’t get this vaccine, that’s now changing but the question becomes what specific allergies exclude people, and that’s not known yet.


It’s inevitable that more people will be excluded from this vaccine as information becomes available, such as people currently taking medication for certain diseases etc.

Hmmzis

rusty cole wrote: »

speaking on the news last night there was a doctor speaking of incidences with patients developing bells palsy too,

https://www.wionews.com/world/four-trial-volunteers-who-got-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-developed-bells-palsy-348547

... at the same rate it occurs in the general population (1.5-3.0 per 10000).

The odd bit is that nobody in the placebo group got it, which is unusual from a numbers point of view.

lawrencesummers

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Every vaccine in the Republic of Ireland requires you to provide allergy history before vaccination.

So not fair play to the UK, they just proved why you need to ask these questions which we already do.

These aren't exactly your bog standard allergies, they were carrying EPI pens, that should have been the first thing flagged before getting the vaccine. That NHS fcuk up wouldn't have even had the chance to get off the ground here once someone provided their history

Your applying hindsight to foresight.

As of yesterday what people were excluded in Ireland from taking this vaccine?

I will wager than nobody was on that list, but in time it will grow. That the nature of emergency approval. Simply put they don’t know because it’s not been fully tested

seamus

rusty cole wrote: »

speaking on the news last night there was a doctor speaking of incidences with patients developing bells palsy too,

https://www.wionews.com/world/four-trial-volunteers-who-got-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-developed-bells-palsy-348547

If you take 50,000 random people, you'd expect about ten of them to develop Bell's Palsy spontaneously in any given year.

In drug and vaccine trials, all adverse events have to be recorded and reported.

The existence of adverse events doesn't mean they were caused by the vaccine.

We're going to see a lot of this nonsense appear in the coming months.

lawrencesummers

seamus wrote: »

If you take 50,000 random people, you'd expect about ten of them to develop Bell's Palsy spontaneously in any given year.

In drug and vaccine trials, all adverse events have to be recorded and reported.

The existence of adverse events doesn't mean they were caused by the vaccine.

We're going to see a lot of this nonsense appear in the coming months.

Nonsense? People reporting adverse reaction to a medicine is nonsense?

seamus

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Nonsense? People reporting adverse reaction to a medicine is nonsense?

No, media reporting benign data in such a way as to imply danger and to sow doubt about vaccines.

stephenjmcd

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Your applying hindsight to foresight.

As of yesterday what people were excluded in Ireland from taking this vaccine?

I will wager than nobody was on that list, but in time it will grow. That the nature of emergency approval. Simply put they don’t know because it’s not been fully tested

As of yesterday nobody because we don't have an approved vaccine.

This is why the UK approval process was criticised by the EMA, they rushed into approving it. The EMA process is much more in depth.

You suggest it hasn't been fully tested. Can you point to what part of a normal trial hasn't been completed please ? Where have safety standards differed from other vaccines ?

I'm not bothered going round and round as to how the trials were able to progess quicker, its well documented but if your going to say its not tested then please address the above compared to a trial for any other vaccine.

lawrencesummers

stephenjmcd wrote: »

As of yesterday nobody because we don't have an approved vaccine.

This is why the UK approval process was criticised by the EMA, they rushed into approving it. The EMA process is much more in depth.

You suggest it hasn't been fully tested. Can you point to what part of a normal trial hasn't been completed please ? Where have safety standards differed from other vaccines ?

I'm not bothered going round and round as to how the trials were able to progess quicker, its well documented.

Yep....


Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
5

Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.

Incompatibilities
In the absence of compatibility studies, this medicinal product must not be mixed with other medicinal products.

Paddygreen

Micky 32 wrote: »

Maybe it’s me but it seems there’s a certain misery cohort that would love to see this vaccine fail to prevent life going back to normal for whatever their agenda is.

Our bi-annual vaccine won’t fail but we will need to still do whatever Mr Tony says and keep all the restrictions going forward, wash your hands, better safe than sorry. Masks will have to be forever, that’s what our experts will command, the consensus is nearly carved in stone.

lawrencesummers

seamus wrote: »

No, media reporting benign data in such a way as to imply danger and to sow doubt about vaccines.

So somebody needing adrenaline after taking medication shouldn’t be reported in case it implys a danger?



People need to realise that this vaccine while needed and welcome has not been fully tested. It’s as simple as this, mass testing is going hand in hand with mass inoculation.

seamus

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Yep....


Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
5

Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.

Incompatibilities
In the absence of compatibility studies, this medicinal product must not be mixed with other medicinal products.

Pregnant and breastfeeding women are generally excluded from normal trials. There are considerable ethical issues that manufacturers would rather avoid if at all possible.

Virtually every medicine in existence, even over-the-counter stuff, advises that pregnant/breastfeeding women should either consult their doctor first, or just not take it at all.

Paracetemol is about the only thing allowed, and that's because we inadvertently proved it was safe by letting pregnant women take it. It wasn't formally tested on them.

lawrencesummers wrote: »

So somebody needing adrenaline after taking medication shouldn’t be reported in case it implys a danger?

Someone with known severe allergies, having an allergic reaction, is not news. It's as useful as reporting that grass is green. The purpose of reporting something is to imply that it's new or unknown. If it's reported by media, people assume that it's unexpected and a danger. It was not at all unexpected, it was an error by the NHS (and the people who received it, presumably).

People need to realise that this vaccine while needed and welcome has not been fully tested.

In what way has it not been fully tested? What has been skipped?

stephenjmcd

seamus wrote: »

Pregnant and breastfeeding women are generally excluded from normal trials.

Virtually every medicine in existence, even over-the-counter stuff, advises that pregnant/breastfeeding women should either consult their doctor first, or just not take it at all.

Paracetemol is about the only thing allowed, and that's because we inadvertently proved it was safe by letting pregnant women take it. It wasn't formally tested on them.

Fair play to you for replying Seamus because I wasn't bothered. It would be like talking to a brick wall.

The question I asked was "Can you point to what part of a normal trial hasn't been completed please ? Where have safety standards differed from other vaccines "

So I'd love to know what part has been skipped but I suspect I won't get an answer.

And I got back pregnant women etc which as you say in every vaccine or medicine always contains a warning for, rarely if ever tested on that cohort.

dominatinMC

Interesting to observe the volume and ferocity of posts from certain posters on here once a bit of (perceived) bad news on the vaccine is announced. Those same posters are conspicuous by the absence the remainder of the time.

Jim_Hodge

Don't know if this piece from this morning's news has been posted.

UK regulators have issued a warning that people who have a history of "significant" allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine after two people who had the jab yesterday had allergic reactions.

stephenjmcd

mass testing is going hand in hand with mass inoculation.

You understand thats phase 4 with every vaccine yes ? The monitoring and data gathering process doesn't stop at phase 3.

Phase 2 and 3 have seen the highest amount of people enrolled in trials before.

Van.Bosch

How many people are the UK vaccinating per day? They had 800,000 doses so are doing 400,000 people - do we know when the 400,000 will all have had their first dose?

Gael23

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Why would there be a requirement? Its likely its not allowed to force staff to get vaccinated

They can’t force it but can’t they not say if you don’t take it then you cannot enter the office and must continue working form home

lawrencesummers

seamus wrote: »

Pregnant and breastfeeding women are generally excluded from normal trials. There are considerable ethical issues that manufacturers would rather avoid if at all possible.

Virtually every medicine in existence, even over-the-counter stuff, advises that pregnant/breastfeeding women should either consult their doctor first, or just not take it at all.

Paracetemol is about the only thing allowed, and that's because we inadvertently proved it was safe by letting pregnant women take it. It wasn't formally tested on them.

Someone with known severe allergies, having an allergic reaction, is not news. It's as useful as reporting that grass is green. The purpose of reporting something is to imply that it's new or unknown. If it's reported by media, people assume that it's unexpected and a danger. It was not at all unexpected, it was an error by the NHS (and the people who received it, presumably).

In what way has it not been fully tested? What has been skipped?

Yet the approval document says nothing about not giving it to people with a history of severe allergic reactions.

I’m of the opinion that this vaccine is largely untested and like many other vaccines before it can lead to problems. Problems that will only be discovered as it’s being given to the general population. Problems that can be a lot worse than actual covid.

That opinion right or wrong goes in hand with the fact that I’m not in any of the risk categories for COVID-19 and way down the list to be eligible for the vaccines so I’m goibg to stay away from it until more questions are answered.

brisan

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Nonsense? People reporting adverse reaction to a medicine is nonsense?

They have no way of proving it is linked to the vaccine, as the numbers are the same as in the general population

seamus

Gael23 wrote: »

They can’t force it but can’t they not say if you don’t take it then you cannot enter the office and must continue working form home

There is a weird civil rights conflict appearing on the horizon. This probably isn't the thread for it. But I do have extended family working in healthcare where it's been unsubtly implied that staff who don't get the vaccine can forget about their job.

Most likely the standard process will be that anyone who won't get vaccinated and can't be facilitated to work remotely on a permanent basis will be made redundant.

stephenjmcd

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

Don't know if this piece from this morning's news has been posted.

Yup being discussed a bit.

For me this is added reason to wait for EMA approval and FDA. UK went too quickly in my opinion. FDA & EMA are more in depth.

Secondly why on earth they didn't think of asking about allergies is beyond me. Its standard practise in Ireland for any vaccine you get to supply your history with regards to allergies. They weren't bog standard allergies these were people with severe underlying allergies bad enough to carry EPI pens.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

If you take 50,000 random people, you'd expect about ten of them to develop Bell's Palsy spontaneously in any given year.

In drug and vaccine trials, all adverse events have to be recorded and reported.

The existence of adverse events doesn't mean they were caused by the vaccine.

We're going to see a lot of this nonsense appear in the coming months.

I understand that but then wouldn't you print every other ailment that was experienced and would otherwise be in the population? why was the Bells palsy mentionable then? or note worthy.

seamus

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Yet the approval document says nothing about not giving it to people with a history of severe allergic reactions.

Oh, I disagree;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#contraindications

In fact, the ingredients are stated a number of times throughout the documentation as well as the warning that anyone sensitive to them should not receive the vaccine.

I’m of the opinion that this vaccine is largely untested

An opinion based on nothing.

You're free to hold it, but don't try to claim that it's based on anything but your gut instinct or argue that it's a fact.

The fact is that the vaccine is as fully tested as any other. To claim otherwise is objectively wrong.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

There is a weird civil rights conflict appearing on the horizon. This probably isn't the thread for it. But I do have extended family working in healthcare where it's been unsubtly implied that staff who don't get the vaccine can forget about their job.

Most likely the standard process will be that anyone who won't get vaccinated and can't be facilitated to work remotely on a permanent basis will be made redundant.

Yes I can see this being the case and it's very very worrying. why should I or you be treated like this whilst kids and teenager below 16 don't have to take anything. I can see the legal system being very very busy off the back of this.

Is there any negative effects to a vaccine that must be handled this way if for example it's delayed in delivery? a freezer truck was actually at minus 50 etc, or there was more than 5 days above the threshold etc. these are all open to human error..an apology from GOVT for a vaccine that is tacitly forced is no good when your life is ruined because of logistical failings in following the protocol..we have a history of this stuff.

seamus

rusty cole wrote: »

I understand that but then wouldn't you print every other ailment that was experienced and would otherwise be in the population? why was the Bells palsy mentionable then? or note worthy.

That's kind of the point. It's not noteworthy. That particular website decided to mention it, just because it might sound like a fun thing to worry people with.

Mitch Connor

seamus wrote: »

Oh, I disagree;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#contraindications

In fact, the ingredients are stated a number of times throughout the documentation as well as the warning that anyone sensitive to them should not receive the vaccine.
An opinion based on nothing.

You're free to hold it, but don't try to claim that it's based on anything but your gut instinct or argue that it's a fact.

The fact is that the vaccine is as fully tested as any other. To claim otherwise is objectively wrong.

Are people really *entitled* to opinions that are utter rubbish though?am i *entitled* to the opinion that planes are magical and only fly due to magical beans the pilot takes 3 hours before takeoff? Who cares if flight can be proven... my opinion is that it is magic beans?

seamus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Are people really *entitled* to opinions that are utter rubbish though?

It's off-topic, but everyone is entitled to hold any opinion. That doesn't mean it has to be respected or protected.

ceegee

Irish Stones wrote: »

Is it right to say that during the trials with the volunteers, no allergic reactions were observed?
If so, why are they showing up now when the vaccine is going to be approved?
And, will these reactions put the EU approval on hold?

The FDA noted a "slight numerical imbalance of adverse events potentially
representing allergic reactions, with more participants reporting hypersensitivity-related adverse
events in the vaccine group (137 [0.63%]) compared with the placebo group (111 [0.51%])"
Hypersensitivity-related is a fairly broad description so could be just a rash/itch or something more severe

seamus

seamus wrote: »

That's kind of the point. It's not noteworthy. That particular website decided to mention it, just because it might sound like a fun thing to worry people with.

I see, that makes sense why the doctor mentioned it on RTE, the worry medium de jour!

I would have thought it was out of context then he would not bother mentioning it in the broadcast, he said this and other things are interesting and would need to be watched further. that's all, I take your point, watch this space for now I guess.

Pasteur.

Micky 32 wrote: »

Maybe it’s me but it seems there’s a certain misery cohort that would love to see this vaccine fail to prevent life going back to normal for whatever their agenda is.

There's a Puritanical element to society who don't enjoy sex(or can't get it) and socializing

They want to bring everyone down to their level

cgc5483

seamus wrote: »

That's kind of the point. It's not noteworthy. That particular website decided to mention it, just because it might sound like a fun thing to worry people with.

That text is based on the FDA published document of their review of the data and as usual it has been taken out of context for those with certain agendas

Irish Stones

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Is it possible that the trials were only conducted with healthy people and nobody with allergies was included?

So the testers chose a wrong panel of persons?
Or generally people with known allergies are rejected for the panel in the first place?

KrustyUCC

seamus wrote: »

There is a weird civil rights conflict appearing on the horizon. This probably isn't the thread for it. But I do have extended family working in healthcare where it's been unsubtly implied that staff who don't get the vaccine can forget about their job.

Most likely the standard process will be that anyone who won't get vaccinated and can't be facilitated to work remotely on a permanent basis will be made redundant.

I think a lot of jobs will go down that route as well as airlines

No vaccine no flight

JacksonHeightsOwn

Pasteur. wrote: »

There's a Puritanical element to society who don't enjoy sex

Yes, they're called wives...........

bush

KrustyUCC wrote: »

I think a lot of jobs will go down that route as well as airlines

No vaccine no flight

How can they do this if they dont even know yet if the vaccine stops you transmitting the virus?

lawrencesummers

seamus wrote: »

Oh, I disagree;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#contraindications

In fact, the ingredients are stated a number of times throughout the documentation as well as the warning that anyone sensitive to them should not receive the vaccine.
An opinion based on nothing.

You're free to hold it, but don't try to claim that it's based on anything but your gut instinct or argue that it's a fact.

The fact is that the vaccine is as fully tested as any other. To claim otherwise is objectively wrong.

You can disagree all you want, but that document doesn’t say what you purport it does.

KrustyUCC

bush wrote: »

How can they do this if they dont even know yet if the vaccine stops you transmitting the virus?

Just speculation at this stage but I think many will follow Quantas

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55048438

Irish Stones

seamus wrote: »

There is a weird civil rights conflict appearing on the horizon. This probably isn't the thread for it. But I do have extended family working in healthcare where it's been unsubtly implied that staff who don't get the vaccine can forget about their job.

Most likely the standard process will be that anyone who won't get vaccinated and can't be facilitated to work remotely on a permanent basis will be made redundant.

Because one (or more) country said that those who got the coronavirus before will be the last ones to receive the vaccine, say, in about 15-18 months, what should these workers do in the meantime?

tom1ie

Not an anti Vaxer, I take the flu vaccine every year, and I took vaccines when I headed to Egypt and Thailand in the past.

Questions about this vaccine:
Question 1: do we know what the long term effects of injecting ourselves with the rna of the vaccine is?

Question 2: If we take the vaccine, does this mean we can still pass the virus onto others if we were to catch the virus in the “wild” after getting the vaccine, ie if I get the vaccine and I go to gigs, pubs as before COVID restrictions, but I catch COVID, and then give COVID to my pregnant wife who isn’t allowed the vaccine. Is this scenario possible or does the vaccine stop people being carriers of COVID?

Question 3: Last question, if a member of the family has a low white blood cell count, I presume this has a say on wether the person can take the vaccine or not?
If they can’t take the vaccine, is the family then back to question 2 above?

Again I am not an anti vaxer but have genuine questions.

Irish Stones

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Its standard practise in Ireland for any vaccine you get to supply your history with regards to allergies.

OK, but what if one has no known history because simply they have never taken a vaccine before?
One could be allergic and still not know that.

stephenjmcd

Irish Stones wrote: »

OK, but what if one has no known history because simply they have never taken a vaccine before?
One could be allergic and still not know that.

If someone had the underlying issues the 2 in the NHS did they'd know about it.

You don't carry around an EPI pen for the craic

Really nobody has ever taken a vaccination before and all of a sudden will put themselves up for a covid vaccine? Wishful thinking. If they've never taken a vaccine they're probably anti vax and wouldn't be taking this anyway.

lawrencesummers

Irish Stones wrote: »

So the testers chose a wrong panel of persons?
Or generally people with known allergies are rejected for the panel in the first place?

I didnt say that.
The testing was carried out on a group of people. They all had to satisfy certain criteria.

Those that didn’t satisfy that criteria were not part of the testing. Many of those people are now part of the rollout.

Take pregnant people for instance, they are specifically listed as part of the rollout, (albeit last) while the uk document states that it should not be given to pregnant people because of lack of safety information.

ceegee

tom1ie wrote: »

Not an anti Vaxer, I take the flu vaccine every year, and I took vaccines when I headed to Egypt and Thailand in the past.

Questions about this vaccine:
Question 1: do we know what the long term effects of injecting ourselves with the rna of the vaccine is?

Question 2: If we take the vaccine, does this mean we can still pass the virus onto others if we were to catch the virus in the “wild” after getting the vaccine, ie if I get the vaccine and I go to gigs, pubs as before COVID restrictions, but I catch COVID, and then give COVID to my pregnant wife who isn’t allowed the vaccine. Is this scenario possible or does the vaccine stop people being carriers of COVID?

Question 3: Last question, if a member of the family has a low white blood cell count, I presume this has a say on wether the person can take the vaccine or not?
If they can’t take the vaccine, is the family then back to question 2 above?

Again I am not an anti vaxer but have genuine questions.

1 The RNA is broken down within a few days. Longterm effects will be no different than other vaccine methods.

2+3 We do not know for certain if we can still pass it on after vaccination, however general consensus seems to be that its likely we will have at least reduced transmission.

Irish Stones

ceegee wrote: »

with more participants reporting hypersensitivity-related adverse
events in the vaccine group (137 [0.63%]) compared with the placebo group (111 [0.51%])"

From what I understand and know, the panel who takes the placebo is receiving a shot of saline solution or another harmless fluid rather the real vaccine? Right?
I wonder how a saline solution injection can give people an adverse reaction. Is it a reaction given by a mental state, I mean "oh, I got an untested vaccine, I might develop a rash" and the rash appears?