Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

BryanMartin21

Quazzie wrote: »

So because you holidayed in Germany you feel you know it all about the country now and how they are currently handling the crisis in comparison to Ireland :rolleyes:

I said I won't comment on Germany despite being there.

Try harder.

Quazzie

BryanMartin21 wrote: »

I said I won't comment on Germany despite being there.

Try harder.

But your reply was to a post stating that we are going to have a much less restricted Christmas period in Ireland than the majority of Western Europe.

allaboutt

cgc5483 wrote: »

Exactly. The FDA document includes all the safety data collected during the clinical trial which is a far better source than someone talking on a CNBC youtube channel making wild claims without a reference to back up the same.

I was wondering how long that would take. :)There is no claim about it.. It is well known that this is the case adn people haev doubts about the testing.

You obviously have not read one of my previous posts and the quotes i have used from FDA report and how i explained short term is looks fine the Vaccine they have proved that

allaboutt

GreeBo wrote: »

I think you are confusing other drugs/vaccines having 2+ years of data because they were somehow more diligent with the fact that they were stuck behind two+ years of bureaucracy and lack of funding.

2 years of data can't come out in the next few months... So not sure what you are looking for here?

No Confusion. Its quite simple:)

You take a dose of the VAccine / drug

2 years later you ask the person, r u alive , any side affects, any changes.. Ie you have feedback ..

Unfortunately Time has to be pass in order to say a Vaccine / Drug is safe.
We agree on that . the question as Doc said is whether we should hold up approval etc due to us not having it.

BryanMartin21

Quazzie wrote: »

But your reply was to a post stating that we are going to have a much less restricted Christmas period in Ireland than the majority of Western Europe.

That reply was to me saying that our restrictions have been OTT and that the reaction to covid is causing the restrictions, not covid itself (hence the need for governments to force restrictions on people).

allaboutt

brisan wrote: »

You do know the after effects of getting Covid ?
One of them is death ,and that has occurred within days in some patients

I do and im still suffering (shortness of breath when i do anyting Aerobic at any level, evan a brisk walk) nearly 3 months later but they are waning now and nearly fully recovered..

allaboutt

brisan wrote: »

BryanMartin21 wrote: »

Context for those trusted with deciding to implement restrictions is what is needed to get us back to normal, to remove the OTT restrictions to this non-harmful virus to the vast majority of people.

If you think that people are so terrified of the virus then why would we even need restrictions? It is the hysterical bubble which is stopping us getting back to normal.[/QUOTE]

Its the fear of thousands of our elderly and vulnerable citizens dying from covid that is stopping us getting back to normal

Thank God in our immediate family we have still 4 parents. 2 got it..

They had no long term side affects but were in bed for the 2 weeks.
But I was in bed for just over 2-3 days but had side affects that are a bit there nearly 3 months later...
Respecfully I thought us as population had moved on from the fear mongering stage..

allaboutt

John O.Groats wrote: »

Whatl a load of bull****e. Open your eyes pal and look at what is happening elsewhere in Europe with several countries implementing strict measures including during the peak Christmas /New Year period. By comparison Ireland has actually one of the least restrictive level of measures in place at present.

Agree we have least restrictive measures and over 2100 in deaths espicailly in the 2nd lockdown. plenty of people moving around and plenty of cars on the road. Makes you wonder what are they doing in europe..

schmoo2k

allaboutt wrote: »

I do and im still suffering (shortness of breath when i do anyting Aerobic at any level, evan a brisk walk) nearly 3 months later but they are waning now and nearly fully recovered..

Given your experience with Covid, will you be recommending that others should get a vaccine, based on your current knowledge?

runawaybishop

BryanMartin21 wrote: »

That reply was to me saying that our restrictions have been OTT and that the reaction to covid is causing the restrictions, not covid itself (hence the need for governments to force restrictions on people).

We have one of the lowest incidence rates in Europe. Our restrictions are working fine, despite the anti science clowns.

cgc5483

allaboutt wrote: »

No Confusion. Its quite simple:)

You take a dose of the VAccine / drug

2 years later you ask the person, r u alive , any side affects, any changes.. Ie you have feedback ..

Unfortunately Time has to be pass in order to say a Vaccine / Drug is safe.
We agree on that . the question as Doc said is whether we should hold up approval etc due to us not having it.

Yes I agree time has to pass. Since you have read the FDA document you will be aware that they agreed that 2 months after the 2nd dose was administered was an appropriate period of time. Where or not you agree with that is another matter but these are experts in assessing risks and do it all the time for many medicines.

And whilst you think that asking someone 2 years down the line if they have side effects is simple, it is far from straight-forward and interpretation of any relationship is not simple. Unless the participants are living in bubbles then you have to start taking into account their lifestyle, medication taken, other health issues developed and a whole range of other factors that confound the data. As time passes those variables only increase and in addition the relationship to time between the side effect and when the vaccine was given.

Doc07

allaboutt wrote: »

I have gone through a lot of it and from what i found it is in the vast majority of cases safe for the vast majority and for the length of time of the studies. Not really debating that...Short term I think it is very safe for the vst majority of people.
My concern lies in longer time frames and whether it causes other longer term issues with the immune system and diseases. This part I cannot confirm with data if this is the case..I expect this will come out after christmas when the debate gets serious.

You make perfect sense in fairness about holding approval and asking the simple quesiton there.

Just to be clear, I am absolutely not advocating holding up approval to wait for longer follow up. I don’t believe it is ethical and would glean very little additional information.
The answer to Qs on long term, very rare or unexpected events require close follow up but that happens only when vaccines programmes are actually implemented and millions take it.

brisan

BryanMartin21 wrote: »

Oh Christ, this is the hyseria I am talking about. Pull yourself together FFS, maybe read the data and not the news articles?

And the data tells me that if the elderly and the vulnerable get Covid the chances of them dying are fairly high
I agree it has little impact on the young and healthy but until we can find a way to effectively protect the elderly and vulnerable what should we do
I want restrictions lifted as much as the next person but I can see why they are there
Not them all but some of them

greenerie

Can I ask if anyone has come across any data on the vaccines relating to pregnant women? From what I've read, pregnant women fall into the final category of those to be vaccinated, owing to the fact that they were not part of trials. My partner and I intend to try have a child in the next 18 months or so and I'm concerned re side effects on unborn children etc. I'm not at all against vaccinations, and I'd be happy to take it once there was data available.

is_that_so

greenerie wrote: »

Can I ask if anyone has come across any data on the vaccines relating to pregnant women? From what I've read, pregnant women fall into the final category of those to be vaccinated, owing to the fact that they were not part of trials. My partner and I intend to try have a child in the next 18 months or so and I'm concerned re side effects on unborn children etc. I'm not at all against vaccinations, and I'd be happy to take it once there was data available.

They didn't test that group and by the sounds of your post you'll be in Group 14, so likely to be summer for you for a shot, by which time they'll have mountains more data.

The Belly

[QUOTE=brisan;115635337

]And the data tells me that if the elderly and the vulnerable get Covid the chances of them dying are fairly high

Precautions and let those at risk decide.

I agree it has little impact on the young and healthy but until we can find a way to effectively protect the elderly and vulnerable what should we do

see above

I want restrictions lifted as much as the next person but I can see why they are there
Not them all but some of them

If you look at the data the wrong people are being locked down.

allaboutt

Deleted User wrote: »

Tobin doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about either. The indemnity does not absolve companies of the requirement to ensure all protocols are followed completely. It does not identify the company of the take short cuts or deliberately make false claims, which if they did would be a criminal as well as civil matter. What it does do is ensure a vaccine manufactured to the appropriate standards is available at a reasonable price in a reasonable timeframe. Without the idemnity we would have very expensive or very slowly developed vaccine, or even both. We pay for it either way, either up front cost or in the indemnity. The indemnity would likely work out at a fraction of the cost

Current Status across the ocean
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar
"You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages either"


a bit of time will tell us if this is the case

allaboutt

cgc5483 wrote: »

Yes I agree time has to pass. Since you have read the FDA document you will be aware that they agreed that 2 months after the 2nd dose was administered was an appropriate period of time. Where or not you agree with that is another matter but these are experts in assessing risks and do it all the time for many medicines.

And whilst you think that asking someone 2 years down the line if they have side effects is simple, it is far from straight-forward and interpretation of any relationship is not simple. Unless the participants are living in bubbles then you have to start taking into account their lifestyle, medication taken, other health issues developed and a whole range of other factors that confound the data. As time passes those variables only increase and in addition the relationship to time between the side effect and when the vaccine was given.

Agree its far from a simple process that is why it takes so long times to send approved Vaccines to the mkt.

allaboutt

schmoo2k wrote: »

Given your experience with Covid, will you be recommending that others should get a vaccine, based on your current knowledge?

Its really up to them to make their own mind up. There will be no one recommending to anyone what they should do.
open conversations yeah.

allaboutt

allaboutt wrote: »

Current Status across the ocean
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar
"You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages either"


a bit of time will tell us if this is the case

It’s right there in the article. The indemnity is if something “unintentionally” goes wrong. If they deliberately increased the risk through not completing the correct safety protocols or otherwise knowingly not adhering to proper procedures they will be liable

allaboutt

brisan wrote: »

And the data tells me that if the elderly and the vulnerable get Covid the chances of them dying are fairly high
I agree it has little impact on the young and healthy but until we can find a way to effectively protect the elderly and vulnerable what should we do
I want restrictions lifted as much as the next person but I can see why they are there
Not them all but some of them[/QUOTE

If all of those that are at risk take it and they get the efficiency that the manufacturers say ie the 95% pfizer and Moderna then the vast majority of those who are vulnerable are protected from Covid 19 .. so probably 95 out of 100 are protected from serious side affect of Covid.
So why should those who are not vulnerable take it.
The studies said they have 95% effeciency in protecting those who take it from Covid..
We know what the data tells us worldwide who is affected from Covid.
For the Vast Majority it doesnt affect...
Interesting when you break it down..:)

allaboutt

allaboutt wrote: »

brisan wrote: »

And the data tells me that if the elderly and the vulnerable get Covid the chances of them dying are fairly high
I agree it has little impact on the young and healthy but until we can find a way to effectively protect the elderly and vulnerable what should we do
I want restrictions lifted as much as the next person but I can see why they are there
Not them all but some of them

If all of those that are at risk take it and they get the efficiency that the manufacturers say ie the 95% pfizer and Moderna then the vast majority of those who are vulnerable are protected from Covid 19 .. so probably 95 out of 100 are protected from serious side affect of Covid.
So why should those who are not vulnerable take it.
The studies said they have 95% effeciency in protecting those who take it from Covid..
We know what the data tells us worldwide who is affected from Covid.
For the Vast Majority it doesnt affect...
Interesting when you break it down..:)

You fail to understand why we vaccinate

brisan

The Belly wrote: »

[QUOTE=brisan;115635337

Precautions and let those at risk decide.



see above



If you look at the data the wrong people are being locked down.

Precautions have not worked in nursing homes and hospitals
How do you lock down only certain sections of society
Tell the pubs to only let those under 40 in ?

Minier81

greenerie wrote: »

Can I ask if anyone has come across any data on the vaccines relating to pregnant women? From what I've read, pregnant women fall into the final category of those to be vaccinated, owing to the fact that they were not part of trials. My partner and I intend to try have a child in the next 18 months or so and I'm concerned re side effects on unborn children etc. I'm not at all against vaccinations, and I'd be happy to take it once there was data available.

Pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded from the trials. This is normal, they test it on others first to make sure it's safe before exposing pregnant and breastfeeding women.

I'm in the same boat as you. Hoping to get pregnant very soon and I have the added complication of being a healthcare workers will be offered vaccine sooner. I am not worried about getting pregnant after having but I am at the stage when 2 weeks out of every 4 I am hoping to be pregnant. I would also not plan to stop breastfeeding early to get this.

Hopefully more data will be available soon. Research should protect pregnant and breastfeeding women and not exclude them.

brisan

Minier81 wrote: »

Pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded from the trials. This is normal, they test it on others first to make sure it's safe before exposing pregnant and breastfeeding women.

I'm in the same boat as you. Hoping to get pregnant very soon and I have the added complication of being a healthcare workers will be offered vaccine sooner. I am not worried about getting pregnant after having but I am at the stage when 2 weeks out of every 4 I am hoping to be pregnant. I would also not plan to stop breastfeeding early to get this.

Hopefully more data will be available soon. Research should protect pregnant and breastfeeding women and not exclude them.

I think it is on ethical grounds that pregnant women are excluded from the vast majority of clinical trials
Imagine if the vaccine had serious effects on an unborn child
When more data is known and any side effects are known then they decide weather to trial with pregnant women
Pregnant women are excluded to protect them not the other way around

I still remember Thalidomide

John_Rambo

All medication is to be avoided when pregnant, even every day cough & cold over the counter pharmaceutical products.

So reading in to gestational avoidance of vaccines with suspicion for normal non-pregnant humans is silly, unnecessary scare mongering.

Approved User Assesment

Aside from the unknown factor of risks to those in early pregnancy or not knowingly (early stage) preggers, a completely separate unknown is those aiming to breed in the year(s) after any multi-dose or multi-vendor vaccine.

Any significant data for that (there is currently none) won't show for sometime, as the currently young healthy and fertile are not a priority for early vaccines.

This will need looked at again in perhaps a couple of years, also factor in the current lockdown/lock-in/downtime could well boost natural birth rates above normal averages.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When can we expect to achieve 1 million vaccinated here??

Feb 2022

antiskeptic

El Sueño wrote: »

You're correct in saying nobody will force you but if you want to go to certain countries I don't think "I'm entitled to a holiday" is going to cut it with border control

It's the economy stupid. Banning say 25% of the population from your country for not vaccinating means 25% (or lets say an entrenched 15%) less business for your airlines and hotels.

We'll see how long that lasts, once the Covid dust settles.

jelem

greenerie wrote: »

Can I ask if anyone has come across any data on the vaccines relating to pregnant women? From what I've read, pregnant women fall into the final category of those to be vaccinated, owing to the fact that they were not part of trials. My partner and I intend to try have a child in the next 18 months or so and I'm concerned re side effects on unborn children etc. I'm not at all against vaccinations, and I'd be happy to take it once there was data available.

read (and not from main stream media) what is the R in mRNA.