Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

John_Rambo

nutjobb wrote: »

Personally I won't take it for reasons stated above, long term effects cannot be determined as we have no data.

I'm sure many of the scientists are the best in the world at what they do but ultimately the corporation's were in a race to be first to market. With such a small time frame, everything cannot be done by the book. I have worked in both pharma and med device industries and have seen the pressure applied to get approvals signed off, I can only imagine what it was like in this case.

Each to their own I respect anyone's decision to take it or not to take it.

There is a good documentary on Netflix called the bleeding edge. It is for medical devices not pharma but shows how the FDA can be bypassed and sub standard products get to market and the effects they cause on people.

Netflix?

About medical devices.

But not about pharma?

Is this a joke?

Denny61

How do we know but any medical issues that arise in people in Years to come may be as a result of this vaccine. More types of cancer heart disease. Skin diseases ..all of these will ultimately need medicines. Thereby adding more billions to the pharma coffers.so we can not say that these are side effects. So the companies cannot be sued ..but who is to say that they were caused by the vaccines when cancer and other forementioed are already in existence .no thanks. Im not taking the poison

never_mind

Denny61 wrote: »

How do we know but any medical issues that arise in people in Years to come may be as a result of this vaccine. More types of cancer heart disease. Skin diseases ..all of these will ultimately need medicines. Thereby adding more billions to the pharma coffers.so we can not say that these are side effects. So the companies cannot be sued ..but who is to say that they were caused by the vaccines when cancer and other forementioed are already in existence .no thanks. Im not taking the poison

This is a pedestrian and illogical way to look at science. We are no in the 70s.

72sheep

I'm sensing further independent poll results confirming that the "less educated" cohort are most likely to be vaccine hesitant. These poor people are not intelligent enough to understand "the great science" behind hastily approved drugs. We can't blame them for not realising the risk they pose but equally we should not worry about impeding on their civil rights in the name of public safety. Cue RTE's Brendan O'Connor to report out obligingly.

Denny61

And your an expert so

is_that_so

Denny61 wrote: »

How do we know but any medical issues that arise in people in Years to come may be as a result of this vaccine. More types of cancer heart disease. Skin diseases ..all of these will ultimately need medicines. Thereby adding more billions to the pharma coffers.so we can not say that these are side effects. So the companies cannot be sued ..but who is to say that they were caused by the vaccines when cancer and other forementioed are already in existence .no thanks. Im not taking the poison

You seem dead against "the poison" but would quite probably take some of their other drugs anyway. That's an inconsistent position especially considering your issues with the billions they reap.

schmoo2k

allaboutt wrote: »

i like your counter arguement There is a Big Differene in mRNA Based Medicinies and mRNA Vaccines..and it is easy to use the both as if they are the same. but they are very different.

Again I will go to the findings from the FDA Report and what they say about mRNA Vaccines Vs mRNA Medicines. Dont believe me but read the report. Does it talk about mRNA Medicine in the Report> Where does it say mRNA medicine in the published FDA Report. The report is all about mRNA Vaccines. Dont confuse the two.



"Vaccine-enhanced disease Available data do not indicate a risk of vaccine-enhanced disease, and conversely suggest effectiveness against severe disease within the available follow-up period. However, risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown and needs to be evaluated further in ongoing clinical trials and in observational studies that could be conducted following authorization and/or licensure"

Yes this is the first approved mRNA vaccine and yes there are unknowns about it. But there are also a lot of "knowns" about it thanks to the large sizes of the test populations and the "normal" set of clinical trials that go into the release of any new medicines (the same steps were taken, but with huge financial aid and knowledge sharing to speed up the process).

While mRNA has been used as an approved cancer treatment, it has also been used as a "Cancer Vaccine" - but you are correct they are at the preapproval stages.

For folks who are interested in reading "why" the mRNA technique was the preferred one for most of the new vaccines, here is a fairly accessible paper from 2017: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243

Here is a quote from the section referring to epidemics:

mRNA vaccines against infectious diseases
Development of prophylactic or therapeutic vaccines against infectious pathogens is the most efficient means to contain and prevent epidemics. However, conventional vaccine approaches have largely failed to produce effective vaccines against challenging viruses that cause chronic or repeated infections, such as HIV-1, herpes simplex virus and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Additionally, the slow pace of commercial vaccine development and approval is inadequate to respond to the rapid emergence of acute viral diseases, as illustrated by the 2014–2016 outbreaks of the Ebola and Zika viruses. Therefore, the development of more potent and versatile vaccine platforms is crucial.

Preclinical studies have created hope that mRNA vaccines will fulfil many aspects of an ideal clinical vaccine: they have shown a favourable safety profile in animals, are versatile and rapid to design for emerging infectious diseases, and are amenable to scalable good manufacturing practice (GMP) production (already under way by several companies). Unlike protein immunization, several formats of mRNA vaccines induce strong CD8+ T cell responses, likely owing to the efficient presentation of endogenously produced antigens on MHC class I molecules, in addition to potent CD4+ T cell responses56,87,88. Additionally, unlike DNA immunization, mRNA vaccines have shown the ability to generate potent neutralizing antibody responses in animals with only one or two low-dose immunizations20,22,85. As a result, mRNA vaccines have elicited protective immunity against a variety of infectious agents in animal models19,20,22,56,89,90 and have therefore generated substantial optimism. However, recently published results from two clinical trials of mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases were somewhat modest, leading to more cautious expectations about the translation of preclinical success to the clinic22,91 (discussed further below).

nutjobb

John_Rambo wrote: »

Netflix?

About medical devices.

But not about pharma?

Is this a joke?

It is to highlight that even with the same regulatory bodies at play (FDA) mistakes can be made and sub standard products get to market.

allaboutt

hmmm wrote: »

Leaving aside the punch and judy show between yourself and AUA, unless you're someone who is qualified in this area (and note, just because someone is a "scientist" does not make them qualified) the best thing for people to do is to rely on the decisions of the regulators who are scrutinising the data. Not be told to go off and read the source data for themselves.

Because none of us are experts on this. And we don't know what we're reading most of the time. And we rely on people to interpret the data - and would you agree that many of the people reading the data are deliberately trying to misinterpret that data to spread fear and uncertainty?

None of us are experts but basic common sense goes a long way.. I'm old enough to know and have witness that mistakes happen at different levels in society... I think the mRNA vaccine has benefits but we don't know the long term affects of this mRNA vaccine. Vast majority of peoole don't even read the various reports. Reading the various reports and asking the simple questions would lead you to this simple conclusion. There is no conspiracy about that.. ðŸ˜

hmmm

allaboutt wrote: »

None of us are experts but basic common sense goes a long way.. I'm old enough to know and have witness that mistakes happen at different levels in society... I think the mRNA vaccine has benefits but we don't know the long term affects of this mRNA vaccine. Vast majority of peoole don't even read the various reports. Reading the various reports and asking the simple questions would lead you to this simple conclusion. There is no conspiracy about that.. ðŸ˜

Basic common sense would tell you that all these scientists and doctors telling you that taking a vaccine is the right thing to do are not lying and not trying to do something which will harm you. I know what you're trying to do.

Basic common sense would also tell you that getting a vaccine which involves being injected with one small part of the virus is a lot safer than getting infected with the entire virus.

Sconsey

Denny61 wrote: »

And your an expert so

I am not an expert in medicine but I can spot a stupid comment when I see one. And your moronic comments culminating in claiming the vaccine is a poison....well we don't need to be experts to spot that kind of stupidity.

Russman

With all this speculation about long term effects etc etc, does anyone know the approximate ratio between successful vaccines (for anything) and ones that have long term detrimental effects ? Is it 1 out of 5, 1 out of 100, 1 out of 1,000 ? I’ve no idea, just curious as to how common long term bad effects of any vaccine are, or if they’re so rare as to be almost irrelevant.

is_that_so

Russman wrote: »

With all this speculation about long term effects etc etc, does anyone know the approximate ratio between successful vaccines (for anything) and ones that have long term detrimental effects ? Is it 1 out of 5, 1 out of 100, 1 out of 1,000 ? I’ve no idea, just curious as to how common long term bad effects of any vaccine are, or if they’re so rare as to be almost irrelevant.

No numbers but a WHO page on vaccinations.

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/vaccines-and-immunization-what-is-vaccination

schmoo2k

Russman wrote: »

With all this speculation about long term effects etc etc, does anyone know the approximate ratio between successful vaccines (for anything) and ones that have long term detrimental effects ? Is it 1 out of 5, 1 out of 100, 1 out of 1,000 ? I’ve no idea, just curious as to how common long term bad effects of any vaccine are, or if they’re so rare as to be almost irrelevant.

The only possible one I can think of was the H1N1 flu and narcolepsy: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html?

is_that_so

schmoo2k wrote: »

The only possible one I can think of was the swine flu and narcolepsy: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html?

Here's a more complete list of vaccine events and concerns.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html

Russman

is_that_so wrote: »

Here's a more complete list of vaccine events and concerns.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html

Thanks for that. So a total of 10, going back 60 years and God knows how many vaccines.

I should add, to answer the Op on the thread, I’ll take an approved vaccine without a moments hesitation.

is_that_so

BBC article on the question of pharma profits from COVID vaccines.

Now, after only 10 months, the injections have begun and the firms behind the front-runners are household names.

As a result, investment analysts are forecasting that at least two of them, American biotech company Moderna and Germany's BioNTech with its partner, US giant Pfizer, would be likely to make billions of dollars next year.

But it's not clear how much vaccine makers really are set to cash in beyond that.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55170756

allaboutt

hmmm wrote: »

More misinformation, there is no evidence that this has to be taken "multiple times a year over a number of years". We don't know how long immunity will last, but we know people who were on the earliest stages of the vaccine trial still have immunity, and this immunity could last for very many years.

1. Pfizer Vaccine was taken by canditates in 2 Doses.1 dose and 1 dose 3 weeks later ( that is multiple to me) It is not just 1 dose Again in the FDA Report and many news articles. So that is multiple times a year.

2. Exactly we actually dont know how long immmunity is and whether we have to take it every year. Exactly we dont know if we haev to take it every year. We know immunity last a minimum of 5-7 months.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-long-does-immunity-last-after-covid-19-what-we-know
So my point is valid we dont know if we have to take the Vaccine every year. We do know at the moment we haev to take multiple doses

Russman

Russman wrote: »

Thanks for that. So a total of 10, going back 60 years and God knows how many vaccines.

I should add, to answer the Op on the thread, I’ll take an approved vaccine without a moments hesitation.

Worth noting when you look into most of those incidents you'll find the concerns were later shown to be unfounded. Vaccines have an excellent safety record and while there's always a miniscule chance of something going wrong, the fact is the reward vastly outweighs the risk.

allaboutt

plodder wrote: »

Okay, but it looked like your concern was specifically with mRNA. To the lay person, it possibly does look like mRNA is some weird untested innovation. So, to find out (and it was news to me too) it has actually been used in other medicines for several years, I thought that would allay some people's concerns. Which is why I'm asking what is it about vaccines that means this experience is not relevant?

As regards the information published by the FDA, it sounds a bit like the safety leaflet in most medications. They publish everything, as much to cover themselves in case something does go wrong. The side-effects, no matter how unlikely are all listed. And it's true the biggest issue with these vaccines is the short time line since they were developed. There is nothing we can do about that. If you want to wait five or six years, fair enough that is your right, but I'd be fairly sure the pandemic will be ancient history by then and there probably won't be any great need to take a vaccine then as opposed to now, when it is needed.

Good Question and one that

1. un-rushed trials answers
2. time answers

allaboutt

John_Rambo wrote: »

You can't answer it and any insults from the likes of you will be water off a ducks back!



Exactly, you'll sit back to see what happens to the brave, the ones that lead by example, the people that will get the economy back on it's feet, the doctors, nurses, the front line people, the vulnerable. There's no argument here, your intentions are clear.

What have you added to the excellent debate here between everyone.
Multiple Baiting to promote a emotional response from me and Insults like your last 2 posts to me .
you clearly dont like me asking the simple questions and concerns that us public have and i am fine with that honestly.. bye

allaboutt

hmmm wrote: »

Everything was done by the book, and in public.

Full animal, phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 trials with 30,000 participants in each. The FDA hearing this week on the Pfizer vaccine was held in public.

Independent safety boards for each vaccine, blind trials, the producers did not know the results of the trials until they were told the outcomes.

So it's very easy to say things weren't done by the book, when clearly they were. What was done much faster than usual was that there were no delays between phases, and getting the manufacturing facilities in place was done in parallel. Usually these both cause delays of several years.

I agree It is very extremly easy to say things were not done by the book.
In relation to particapants the latest information i have on the phase 1 phase 2 and phase 3 trials is this.

Coronavirus COVID-19 Vaccine Update: Latest Developments | Pfizer
which has 44392 particapants listed.
Did they in the hearing say we now are at 90000 particapants?



So

schmoo2k

Hardyn wrote: »

Worth noting when you look into most of those incidents you'll find the concerns were later shown to be unfounded. Vaccines have an excellent safety record and while there's always a miniscule chance of something going wrong, the fact is the reward vastly outweighs the risk.

And some of them were only single batch recalls...

schmoo2k

allaboutt wrote: »

1. Pfizer Vaccine was taken by canditates in 2 Doses.1 dose and 1 dose 3 weeks later ( that is multiple to me) It is not just 1 dose Again in the FDA Report and many news articles. So that is multiple times a year.

2. Exactly we actually dont know how long immmunity is and whether we have to take it every year. Exactly we dont know if we haev to take it every year. We know immunity last a minimum of 5-7 months.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-long-does-immunity-last-after-covid-19-what-we-know
So my point is valid we dont know if we have to take the Vaccine every year. We do know at the moment we haev to take multiple doses

Even at a minimum of 5-7 months that will make a huge difference, especially with prioritized lists like the one we have.

allaboutt

schmoo2k wrote: »

Yes this is the first approved mRNA vaccine and yes there are unknowns about it. But there are also a lot of "knowns" about it thanks to the large sizes of the test populations and the "normal" set of clinical trials that go into the release of any new medicines (the same steps were taken, but with huge financial aid and knowledge sharing to speed up the process).

While mRNA has been used as an approved cancer treatment, it has also been used as a "Cancer Vaccine" - but you are correct they are at the preapproval stages.

For folks who are interested in reading "why" the mRNA technique was the preferred one for most of the new vaccines, here is a fairly accessible paper from 2017: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243

Here is a quote from the section referring to epidemics:

thank you I will read..

allaboutt

hmmm wrote: »

Basic common sense would tell you that all these scientists and doctors telling you that taking a vaccine is the right thing to do are not lying and not trying to do something which will harm you. I know what you're trying to do.

Basic common sense would also tell you that getting a vaccine which involves being injected with one small part of the virus is a lot safer than getting infected with the entire virus.

I would defn agree when we get all the peer reviews and all the doctors scientists views on it and they answer peoples concerns in relation to long term affects...

I dont understand the comment " I know what you are trying to do"


I agree basic common sense would tell you that getting a vaccine with a small part of the vius is a lot safer than getting infected with the entire virus and I will add once the long term data confirms that.


The Scientists and the doctors will need to answer the simple questions?
What are the long term affects of taking this Pfizer mRNA Vaccine.?
They need to explain why it is safe to be taken and why have they come to this conclusion.
I suspect they will in the coming months but we dont have that information at the moment. How can we expect anyone to be confident about taking something that has being rushed, only recently authorised and the long term affects of mRNA Vaccine data is not there.
These are genuine questions that the vast majority of this population have and will have. There is no ulterior motive there.

Sconsey

allaboutt wrote: »

I would defn agree when we get all the peer reviews and all the doctors scientists views on it and they answer peoples concerns in relation to long term affects...

I dont understand the comment " I know what you are trying to do"


I agree basic common sense would tell you that getting a vaccine with a small part of the vius is a lot safer than getting infected with the entire virus and I will add once the long term data confirms that.


The Scientists and the doctors will need to answer the simple questions?
What are the long term affects of taking this Pfizer mRNA Vaccine.?
They need to explain why it is safe to be taken and why have they come to this conclusion.
I suspect they will in the coming months but we dont have that information at the moment. How can we expect anyone to be confident about taking something that has being rushed, only recently authorised and the long term affects of mRNA Vaccine data is not there.
These are genuine questions that the vast majority of this population have and will have. There is no ulterior motive there.

What are the long term affects of taking this Pfizer mRNA Vaccine.? Apart from being protected from Covid19 we don't know if there are any, . How do you think any new treatments ever come on stream, if even though they are proven safe, data peer reviewed and are effective....everyone says "nah not just yet". There never will be any long term data. How do you even define long term anyway?

They need to explain why it is safe to be taken and why have they come to this conclusion....they do, read the EMA review when it comes out, read the recently completed FDA review.

How can we expect anyone to be confident about taking something that has being rushed, only recently authorised and the long term affects of mRNA Vaccine data is not there.
Nonsense on the rushed, no safety standards have been broken, fast does not imply bad. Recently authorized? the authorization does not get better if we all sit on our hands and do nothing for a few years. There is never any long term data for new treatments, there can only be long term data after a long time, you make it sound like this is some big flaw.

You are of course entitled to make your own decision about taking it or not. But I think your ulterior motive here, whether you realize it or not, is that you are not willing to take it so you are trying to convince yourself and others that this is the right choice. Misery loves company.

plodder

The anti-vax garbage ^ is becoming a bit more sophisticated. Acknowledging that mobile phones and vaccines in themselves are not bad, but it's the combination of this vaccine and 5G mobile communications is "a trojan horse for nanotechnological mind control". Do we have to put up with this BS?

hmmm

plodder wrote: »

The anti-vax garbage ^ is becoming a bit more sophisticated. Acknowledging that mobile phones and vaccines in themselves are not bad, but it's the combination of this vaccine and 5G mobile communications is "a trojan horse for nanotechnological mind control". Do we have to put up with this BS?

At least it's obvious.

The more difficult ones to counter are the more subtle. They get mixed up with the genuine arguments why people may be reluctant to vaccinate.

John_Rambo

allaboutt wrote: »

What have you added to the excellent debate here between everyone.

I've stated the obvious. There's people that will step up, take the vaccine and there's people like you people that will stand back from the parapet, see how it works out before they take it. That's what you're going to do. You've said so.

allaboutt wrote: »

Multiple Baiting to promote a emotional response from me and Insults like your last 2 posts to me .

I haven't insulted you once. Report me if I'm insulting you.

allaboutt wrote: »

you clearly dont like me asking the simple questions and concerns that us public have and i am fine with that honestly.. bye

Ask all the questions you want but if you don't like the answers I'm providing you with don't go crying off and get offended, insulted and emotional.