Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

Johnboy1951

I don't care who takes 'the vaccine', be it president, politician or scientis, I definitely will not take a mRNA vaccine ......... at least not for some years.

This type of vaccine has never before, I believe, been used on humans, and this one is rushed, so it is potentially doubly dangerous, IMO.

I will almost certainly take one of the alternative vaccines which use tried and tested technology, should they be made available in time to be meaningful.

Rubberchikken

No.
And no one will convince me otherwise.

Seweryn

Do we even know how this Vac. was approved in the UK?

The MHRA in the UK is the first regulator in the world to approve the vaccine. It’s fair to say that other countries are possibly a bit puzzled.  I don’t think anyone envies Britain for having the fastest regulator in the world.  In the US, Dr Fauci, originally said the UK regulators had rushed their approval.  But, predictably, he later apologised for saying that.  What a surprise that was to us all .

But in 2017 the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation entered into what can be called a financial arrangement with the MHRA – the bit of the UK government which regulates medicines and makes sure that they are safe.  (MHRA stands for the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency).

Bill and Melinda’s Foundation handed over £980,000 to the MHRA...

So, first, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation makes a big investment in Pfizer. Second, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hands over their hard earned £980,000 and the MHRA smiles and says thank you very much. Third, the MHRA is the first agency in the world to approve the new Pfizer vaccine.  It is, I guess, the fastest ever approval of a vaccine.

Even if this tripartite relationship is entirely innocent it should never have happened. What is yet another Government agency doing accepting money from Gates? It was Gates who said that if they were very good at vaccinating people they could reduce the population considerably (conspiracy, I know, and I am sorry for mentioning this).

And Pifzer? Well, Pfizer’s record isn’t anything you would want to boast about.  If you worked there you’d keep quiet about it I think and say you worked for the tax people or robbed banks for living.

So, for example, in the UK, Pfizer was fined £84.2 million for overcharging the NHS by 2,600 % and in the US Pfizer was hit with a $2.3 billion fine for mis-promoting medicines and paying kickbacks to doctors.  At the time I think the $2.3 billion fine was one of the biggest fines for fraud in American history.  It might still be for all I know.

I don't think we have ever come across anything quite so disgraceful, so blatant as the MHRA, Bill Gates and Pfizer link. And no one cares.  Or maybe not many know?  Have you heard about this on the RTE or BBC (these media are controlled by the same people that are involved in this hoax, so I guess no is the answer)?  Have MPs been shouting about it?  Have the papers run this story on their front pages?

Should the MHRA be closed down immediately? For our own health benefits (or the people of Britain) yes.

ceegee

Seweryn wrote: »

Do we even know how this Vac. was approved in the UK?

The MHRA in the UK is the first regulator in the world to approve the vaccine. It’s fair to say that other countries are possibly a bit puzzled.  I don’t think anyone envies Britain for having the fastest regulator in the world.  In the US, Dr Fauci, originally said the UK regulators had rushed their approval.  But, predictably, he later apologised for saying that.  What a surprise that was to us all .

But in 2017 the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation entered into what can be called a financial arrangement with the MHRA – the bit of the UK government which regulates medicines and makes sure that they are safe.  (MHRA stands for the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency).

Bill and Melinda’s Foundation handed over £980,000 to the MHRA...

So, first, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation makes a big investment in Pfizer. Second, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hands over their hard earned £980,000 and the MHRA smiles and says thank you very much. Third, the MHRA is the first agency in the world to approve the new Pfizer vaccine.  It is, I guess, the fastest ever approval of a vaccine.

Even if this tripartite relationship is entirely innocent it should never have happened. What is yet another Government agency doing accepting money from Gates? It was Gates who said that if they were very good at vaccinating people they could reduce the population considerably (conspiracy, I know, and I am sorry for mentioning this).

And Pifzer? Well, Pfizer’s record isn’t anything you would want to boast about.  If you worked there you’d keep quiet about it I think and say you worked for the tax people or robbed banks for living.

So, for example, in the UK, Pfizer was fined £84.2 million for overcharging the NHS by 2,600 % and in the US Pfizer was hit with a $2.3 billion fine for mis-promoting medicines and paying kickbacks to doctors.  At the time I think the $2.3 billion fine was one of the biggest fines for fraud in American history.  It might still be for all I know.

I don't think we have ever come across anything quite so disgraceful, so blatant as the MHRA, Bill Gates and Pfizer link. And no one cares.  Or maybe not many know?  Have you heard about this on the RTE or BBC (these media are controlled by the same people that are involved in this hoax, so I guess no is the answer)?  Have MPs been shouting about it?  Have the papers run this story on their front pages?

Should the MHRA be closed down immediately? For our own health benefits (or the people of Britain) yes.

Oh FFS.

Seweryn

ceegee wrote: »

Oh FFS.

I know, that's facts... But you can decide how you read it and what you do about it .

ceegee

Seweryn wrote: »

I know, that's facts... But you can decide how you read it and what you do about it .

Source for Gates saying if "they were very good at vaccinating people they could reduce the population considerably"?

eagle eye

ceegee wrote:

Source for Gates saying if "they were very good at vaccinating people they could reduce the population considerably"?

Are you saying the rest is true?

ceegee

eagle eye wrote: »

Are you saying the rest is true?

The Gates Foundation provided funding to the MHRA to provide training and expertise as part of a campaign to improve regulatory oversight of medicines in developing countries. The previous poster decided to leave out any context when mentioning this payment, in order to cast doubt on why this payment was made. Instead they frame it as the most disgraceful thing ever.
There is zero evidence that the MHRA acted in any way incorrectly in approving this vaccine.

schmoo2k

Seweryn wrote: »

I know, that's facts... But you can decide how you read it and what you do about it .

So basically "Due to the Gates foundation the UK were in a position to approve a Covid vaccine before other countries"?

Shame they didn't donate to the HSE...

johnire

So as a matter of interest can you explain how you envisage living your life once the vaccine is rolled out and we eventually (because that's the whole point of the vaccine) return to normal and all the current rules- face masks, social distancing and lockdowns disappear?

Rubberchikken wrote: »

No.
And no one will convince me otherwise.

stargazer 68

johnire wrote: »

So as a matter of interest can you explain how you envisage living your life once the vaccine is rolled out and we eventually (because that's the whole point of the vaccine) return to normal and all the current rules- face masks, social distancing and lockdowns disappear?

The same way we did before the current rules! The blind faith some people have in this new vaccine is staggering imo. Someone today saying they would hug their parents for the first time since march as soon as they are vaccinated! Not going to work like that.

is_that_so

stargazer 68 wrote: »

The same way we did before the current rules! The blind faith some people have in this new vaccine is staggering imo. Someone today saying they would hug their parents for the first time since march as soon as they are vaccinated! Not going to work like that.

In time it should as it loses the ability to spread and cases eventually dwindle. Unless it is wiped out it'll probably be yet another annual public health issue, like the flu'.

johnire

Yes..... but the reason that cases will dwindle etc is because of those who have taken the vaccine. So really it's the same old story.... people who sit on the sidelines and benefit from those who do decide to do something. If we all took the attitude of simply not taking the vaccine then we would be stuck in this never ending cycle of the nightmare of the last 9 months.

is_that_so wrote: »

In time it should as it loses the ability to spread and cases eventually dwindle. Unless it is wiped out it'll probably be yet another annual public health issue, like the flu'.

plodder

eagle eye wrote: »

Are you saying the rest is true?

That bit jumped out at me as well. It's a specific claim that could be easily proved/disproved. If Gates said that, there would be a reference you could point to. The rest of the post was standard, generic, vague, conspiracy nuttery.

Happydays2020

Where is all the negativity about the vaccine coming from? This is the game changer we needed yet people are talking about restrictions for the next 9-10 months in Ireland yet other countries are seeing normality return by March/April. Are we right and they are wrong?

Happydays2020

TheRestOfUs wrote: »

A troll farm targeting those of limited intelligence probably.

Indeed RTÉ and McConkey leading the way

https://extra.ie/2020/12/01/news/irish-news/rte-negative-covid-19-claire-byrne-sam-mcconkey

Johnboy1951

Happydays2020 wrote: »

Indeed RTÉ and McConkey leading the way

https://extra.ie/2020/12/01/news/irish-news/rte-negative-covid-19-claire-byrne-sam-mcconkey

I think Mc Conky is an idiot, but ......

people have been complaining loudly about RTÉ pushing the 'official NPHET line only' and when they have the likes of Mc Conky on the air they (RTÉ) are again at fault.
Strange times we live in.


Yet it is incumbent on our national broadcaster to air not just one view of current events.

Happydays2020

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I think Mc Conky is an idiot, but ......

people have been complaining loudly about RTÉ pushing the 'official NPHET line only' and when they have the likes of Mc Conky on the air they (RTÉ) are again at fault.
Strange times we live in.


Yet it is incumbent on our national broadcaster to air not just one view of current events.

RTÉ are addicted to bad news and restrictions.

brisan

PhantomHat wrote: »

I don't know if you haven't read all of it or you're deliberately omitting an important part.

I shall quote the text

Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.

It’s also unknown weather it can increase your ability to leap tall buildings
It’s standard stuff in any new vaccine
Have you ever heard the disclaimers on an American TV advert for any over the counter medication
If so you would never take an aspirin
It all standard covering their ass stuff that should not play heavily in your decision to take or not take the vaccine

Pataman

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I don't care who takes 'the vaccine', be it president, politician or scientis, I definitely will not take a mRNA vaccine ......... at least not for some years.

This type of vaccine has never before, I believe, been used on humans, and this one is rushed, so it is potentially doubly dangerous, IMO.

I will almost certainly take one of the alternative vaccines which use tried and tested technology, should they be made available in time to be meaningful.

The ebola vaccine is a mRNA vaccine and has been very effective.

Mitch Connor

I will take the vaccine, and I would assume there will continue to be elements of restrictions for months to come - but to a lesser degree than we have now.

1. Vaccine won't go to everyone immediately.
2. Two doses, over time, and a period of time to effectiveness on an individual level - 5 to 6 weeks in total I believe.

So from the first vaccine, it will take 6 weeks (or 8 depending on how it plays out - 6 weeks to take hold and 2 weeks to see impact?) before anything will be different at all.

It will take months to get the nation vaccinated - and until we hit 70%+ vaccination I wouldn't think we would see a large impact from the program.

We will then continue to, imo, see cases for a long time to come - with the new view being what do the cases represent and how does that impact decisions. If we see similar cases but a much smaller proportion of cases that cause any kind of serious issues then we start to treat it like the flu and get on with life.

So, I will take the vaccine but I can't see how March would be realistic for a return to the old normal, anywhere but specifically Ireland. I just can't see rollout happening that quickly to provide the improvements needed by march for forgetting about restrictions. Though I guess it depends on the impact of the initial rollout of vaccination. If the vaccination of the vunerable is done quickly, and that on its own impacts the hospitalisation numbers enough maybe we do see normality back before properly wide-spread vaccination has been completed.

PhantomHat

The vaccine is being tested on the public. The trials were too short, so the only way they can test the longterm affects is by using the public as guinea pigs.

Mitch Connor

PhantomHat wrote: »

The vaccine is being tested on the public. The trials were too short, so the only way they can test the longterm affects is by using the public as guinea pigs.

Too short in that you believe the trials should view one or two years of results, or you simply think they did not follow standard timelines for trial review?

AFAIK the timelines are as they should be per trial - the reason we are seeing results sooner is they reached required numbers of trials much quicker than they normally would thanks to the money put into these and the emergency nature of the event

seamus

Pataman wrote: »

The ebola vaccine is a mRNA vaccine and has been very effective.

By all accounts, mRNA vaccines are considerably safer because they do not involve the use of any viral material. This means that the preparation of the active material is considerably safer (there is less that can go wrong) and the serum in which the material is delivered is simpler and safer.

To say that "It's never been tried on humans" is completely wrong, not only from the hundreds of thousands of people who've been involved in clinical trials, but also from previous treatments it's been used in.

To imply that it's "rushed" and dangerous is to suggest that we don't really know how it works. Just because a person doesn't know how it works, doesn't mean nobody does. It's been fairly meticulously designed, and mRNA as a delivery mechanism has been developed and studied over the last two decades.

This isn't some wild idea that was stumbled upon or concoted in February. It is a well understood and well tested process that was selected primarily because it allows for quite rapid development and movement to clinical trials.

One thing that's worth noting here is that nothing was actually rushed. The timelines appear insanely short because all barriers were removed.

99% of the time required to get a vaccines from research to approval is waiting for funding, and waiting for bureacracy. Funding and bureaucracy were not barriers this time around, and the trials were as long as any other.

This is a flavour of what medical research could achieve if we poured as much into it (globally) as we do into weapons and pointless law enforcement.

VonLuck

It's strange to see the poll results so high for 'Yes'. Most people in my circle of friends and work colleagues have said they're not sure and will wait to see. They're from a wide range of backgrounds and different ages and would have thought it was a good representation of the general public's view, but maybe not.

Then again, these forums may only be a certain demographic as well, so not sure how accurately it reflects the whole of Ireland.

Detritus70

johnire wrote: »

So as a matter of interest can you explain how you envisage living your life once the vaccine is rolled out and we eventually (because that's the whole point of the vaccine) return to normal and all the current rules- face masks, social distancing and lockdowns disappear?

The rules won't disappear if Covid doesn't disappear. Especially if not enough people are protected by a vaccine.
No one's forcing anyone to take the vaccine, but if enough people won't take it, there will be restrictions like the ones we have now and travel and job restrictions for people who don't get immunised.
No amount of jumping up and down and protesting will change that.
Let's hope that there are enough people with an IQ above 50 who don't believe in the Lizard/Alien/Bill Gates conspiracy sh*te.

As for myself, myself and my wife are 50, she is not the healthiest and also cares for my mother who is 84. Yes, I'll take the vaccine, not just for myself, but for the people near and dear to me, because if I am unable to provide for them or they catch Covid and get seriously ill, them I'm nothing but a selfish asshole.

gctest50

PhantomHat wrote: »

The vaccine is being tested on the public. The trials were too short, so the only way they can test the longterm affects is by using the public as guinea pigs.

No, no - they're testing on those in nursing homes first

Close enough to science to do, plenty note taking going on and all in their little rooms by 10 n all

PhantomHat

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Too short in that you believe the trials should view one or two years of results, or you simply think they did not follow standard timelines for trial review?

AFAIK the timelines are as they should be per trial - the reason we are seeing results sooner is they reached required numbers of trials much quicker than they normally would thanks to the money put into these and the emergency nature of the event

I understand what you are saying however you cannot substitute that period of time that may or may not reveal potential side effects.

B.A._Baracus

Honestly I'd rather wait and see how it works out before taking it myself.

hmmm

PhantomHat wrote: »

I understand what you are saying however you cannot substitute that period of time that may or may not reveal potential side effects.

People are not good at risk assessments.

Dr. Birx in the US (on the White House coronavirus team) said yesterday that she thinks there will be 200,000 deaths in the US at a minimum during the current wave of the virus. It likely will be much higher because that figures assumes social distancing, mask wearing etc. This is happening along with inevitable economic chaos as lockdowns are imposed.

Many/most of those 200,000 deaths would have been avoided by a vaccine, and who knows how many people will survive with long-term side-effects. How long would you have the world wait for a vaccine?