Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

kleefarr

What's the bigger gamble?
Taking a vaccine when you are OK just incase, or not taking a vaccine and hoping you are part of the large numbers that survive it?

What a quandary. Its a no from me.

Sconsey

kleefarr wrote: »

What's the bigger gamble?
Taking a vaccine when you are OK just incase, or not taking a vaccine and hoping you are part of the large numbers that survive it?

What a quandary. Its a no from me.

You are a bookies wet dream.

An Ri rua

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I did laugh to myself walking behind two people the other day. One was trying to explain to the other that Covid isn't actually a real thing, it didn't exist.

Then in the next sentence, 5G was what actually causes Covid. With no explanation, Covid suddenly existed again, but could only be caused by 5G. Chap himself had his phone clutched in his hand the entire time, of course.

Felt bad for the fella stuck listening to it.

Probably only an old shtyle 4G yoke though. Different ballgame, uses valves.

schmoo2k

Deleted User wrote: »

I know the differences

But theres no value to be got by dismissing peoples concerns about the vaccine,when there is presently a case ongoing about the swine flu vaccine


The concerns are valid,not high enough to put me off

,but the feeling that its all a bit rushed isnt helped by the impression the EU moved approval forward on same week it become obvious germany hospiteals are on brink of collaspe


The vaccine is only way out of this mess,and id implore all to take it,and i feel anyone working indoors with others shouldnt be allowed next winter unless vaccinated....

Its time to put on big boy pants,and everyone take it,older generations literally had to fight world wars through comscription,we've had to stay at home,let science solve the issue,now its time to come out of shadows and take the risk to protect everyone else

I don't understand the need to mandate this?
1. Folks who are vaccinated - happy days
2. Folks with natural immunity - happy days
3. Folks opting out of the vaccine (personal choice and probably low risk anyway) - happy days
4. High risk folks or folks with high risk bubble - need to be careful until herd immunity is a thing (this is true no matter what rules are in place and what places they frequent)

Worst case is low risk non vaccinated people will catch Covid, which will just accelerate our path to herd immunity - and they will be happy because they see that as being the safer option (presumably).

schmoo2k

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Do you have access to some research that we don't? As far as I am aware there is no published research that allows any strong statements on whether they do stop you catching the virus or not. In particular there no strong evidence on the extent to which people are infectious.






If people do not wish to get it then they need not. But if they chose not to then they should not expect to allowed circulate in buses, aeroplanes, theatres and the like where they may endanger others. If you chose not to wear clothes then you will not be allowed in the Abbey Theatre, even for Hair.

The only people who are risk in those scenarios are themselves, so no need to restrict them? The majority of folks who will opt out will be low risk anyway so if they get Covid they won't be taxing the hospital system and will from that point on have natural immunity.

schmoo2k

Deleted User wrote: »

They were saying trials would normally take 12 to 18 months, coronavirus was first identified one year ago tomorrow in wuhan


Its been an unreal achievement by science,and a credit to all involved,but yous are being deceptive claiming it the same as previous vaccines in development


Ive no doubt the results are 100% accurate and likely the most scrutinised ever,


The fact this vaccine is literally safer than the flu jab and will likely same technology replace flu jabs going forward is enough for me

I disagree, once the Covid genome had been decoded and shared it only took a couple of days to come up with the mRNA vaccine candidates - the real achievement was one of administration and financial aid.

The actual trials took the same amount of time, but the process was expedited due to:
1 - Money
2 - Easy to find test subjects
3 - Easy to find test scenarios
4 - Money

schmoo2k

Sconsey wrote: »

You are a bookies wet dream.

On reflection it is a bit unfair to target someone who is simply answering the original thread question, especially when they aren't trying to push fake data or emotive language?

There are a lot of folks who are in the low risk groups who may decide to not take the vaccine and that is fine and their choice (or they may decide to not a mRNA vaccine but will take the traditional one - or vice versa - again all fine).

Realistically the only way we get to herd immunity is with a combination of vaccine and natural immunity, its fine for low risk folks to not vaccinate and potentially catch Covid.

moonage

Sconsey wrote: »

Have a read of how any of the vaccines work, they are all designed to attack the virus after it is in your system. None of them prevent you from actually catching the virus.

If none of these so-called vaccines provides immunity how can they even be called vaccines?

Sconsey

moonage wrote: »

If none of these so-called vaccines provides immunity how can they even be called vaccines?

There is a difference between the virus and the disease. The primary goal of the vaccines is to prevent the virus from causing the disease, and it also now looks like they will help prevent spread of the virus.

If the virus gets the chance to infect a sufficient number of cells we get sick (from the disease). The vaccines provide immunity from the disease by training our immune systems to attack the virus.

Sconsey

schmoo2k wrote: »

On reflection it is a bit unfair to target someone who is simply answering the original thread question, especially when they aren't trying to push fake data or emotive language?

There are a lot of folks who are in the low risk groups who may decide to not take the vaccine and that is fine and their choice (or they may decide to not a mRNA vaccine but will take the traditional one - or vice versa - again all fine).

Realistically the only way we get to herd immunity is with a combination of vaccine and natural immunity, its fine for low risk folks to not vaccinate and potentially catch Covid.

I disagree, the poster was comparing the odds of something bad happening to them from getting the vaccine with the odds of getting sick from covid. What do you think the odds are for each given that nobody that follows the proper advice has gotten sick from the vaccines? Versus the odds of getting sick from Covid? If he is gambling he is betting on the wrong horse. Doesn't mean he has to take the vaccine, that is his own decision. But from a gambling perspective, well the bookies love it when we put our money on the really long odds.

PhantomHat

Even if a vaccine has trained your immune cells to kick the butt of any SARS-CoV-2 viruses they spot, they might not be able to neutralize the ones resting in your nose, on the other side of your mucous barriers.
Those COVID-19 viruses may not hurt you, but they still might be able to replicate and shed — coughed back out of your nose and mouth and into the community.

schmoo2k

Sconsey wrote: »

I disagree, the poster was comparing the odds of something bad happening to them from getting the vaccine with the odds of getting sick from covid. What do you think the odds are for each given that nobody that follows the proper advice has gotten sick from the vaccines? Versus the odds of getting sick from Covid? If he is gambling he is betting on the wrong horse. Doesn't mean he has to take the vaccine, that is his own decision. But from a gambling perspective, well the bookies love it when we put our money on the really long odds.

While you are "probably" correct, there are what, 6 + 10 vaccines coming down the line and the entire world has been focusing on 1 or 2 of them (I am in one of the last groups and I don't know which vaccine I will even get offered) ...

But my point is to not make it adversarial or effectively calling someone dumb because of their choice - especially in a thread that is asking "Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?"

schmoo2k

PhantomHat wrote: »

Even if a vaccine has trained your immune cells to kick the butt of any SARS-CoV-2 viruses they spot, they might not be able to neutralize the ones resting in your nose, on the other side of your mucous barriers.
Those COVID-19 viruses may not hurt you, but they still might be able to replicate and shed — coughed back out of your nose and mouth and into the community.

Same is true for on your hands and on your pets etc. It is however greatly reduced.

hmmm

PhantomHat wrote: »

Even if a vaccine has trained your immune cells to kick the butt of any SARS-CoV-2 viruses they spot, they might not be able to neutralize the ones resting in your nose, on the other side of your mucous barriers.
Those COVID-19 viruses may not hurt you, but they still might be able to replicate and shed — coughed back out of your nose and mouth and into the community.

We know that. The vaccines are not targeted at completely stopping the virus (that would be a happy side-effect). The vaccines are designed to stop you getting seriously ill.

If this current pandemic is reduced to the status of a head-cold, most people will be happy with that.

hmmm

kleefarr wrote: »

What's the bigger gamble?
Taking a vaccine when you are OK just incase, or not taking a vaccine and hoping you are part of the large numbers that survive it?

What a quandary. Its a no from me.

If the choice is vaccine or taking your chances with the virus, the obvious answer is yes you are better off getting the vaccine.

The real question will be whether that is the choice we will face. Right now it probably is, but as the virus rate reduces and we approach herd immunity it will become a bigger ethical question as to whether low-risk groups should be asked to take the vaccine.

LenWoods

Personally I work in the pharmaceutical industry and play a vital part in hands on manufacturing two parts of the ingredients for the Pfizer vaccine and three parts of the Moderena; there's no harmful chemicals going in to those only high purity organics.
It's a pleasure to play a vital role however just like the medical staff; I'm doing the same job I've always been doing for many years and nobody really cared; but suddenly people think it's cool; because the media says so.

allaboutt

Deleted User wrote: »

Vaccines were under development since SARS. Could not be completed because there was no virus in circulation to test it on. Phase 3 went quickly not because it was rushed, but because there was so much virus in circulation the endpoints could be reached very quickly. Facts dont play well in the contrarian world though

Yeah it wasnt rushed ....hence why it is approved for Emergency use authorisation...

allaboutt

Deleted User wrote: »

You have not raised a valid point other than “I’m alright Jack”

there you go you proved my point thank you how easy was that ...

allaboutt

Deleted User wrote: »

They are molecules.

still synthetic and not naturally occuring

allaboutt

Deleted User wrote: »

The primary goal of the studies was to demonstrate the impact on disease. The next phase will be transmission. Initial data indicates its 67% plus

Exactly and thats my point.! so even if you take the Vaccine it hasnt being proven to stop transmission.

allaboutt

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s not rushed. They are 12 years plus in development and the outcomes have been accelerated through the unlimited funds available to conduct studies and the large amount of virus in circulation which results in trial endpoints being reached quickly.

if it has being 12 years in development then why is it only got emergency use approval.

hmmm

allaboutt wrote: »

if it has being 12 years in development then why is it only got emergency use approval.

Because the world is in a pandemic and is throwing billions into human trials.

The Oxford vaccine has been trialed in small-scale trials for the MERS coronovirus but no money was available for wide-scale trials. I don't know what a 30,000 phase 3 trial costs, but it must be in the hundreds of millions.

Same with Moderna. Small-scale trials previous to this, the actual vaccine took only two days to develop. The past 9 months have been spent on testing it.

schmoo2k

allaboutt wrote: »

if it has being 12 years in development then why is it only got emergency use approval.

Because they see the global pandemic as being an emergency and there are special provisions for that case.

You question if it was "rushed" - I would answer overall it was expedited (thats a yes).
Were the trials rushed - no, they took the usual amount of time.
Did the trials have larger pools of people to test with - yes (this is good).
Did they avail of the "emergency" provisions - yes (its a global pandemic).

We know you have had Covid, we know you won't be taking a vaccine - I would question your representation of the facts.

allaboutt

So remember when the Pfizer covid 19 Vaccine Data was released we talked about the number of deaths
FDA Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Report
"Serious Adverse Events Deaths
A total of six (2 vaccine, 4 placebo) of 43,448 enrolled participants (0.01%) died during the reporting period from April 29, 2020 (first participant, first visit) to November 14, 2020 (cutoff date). Both vaccine recipients were >55 years of age; one experienced a cardiac arrest 62 days after vaccination #2 and died 3 days later, and the other died from arteriosclerosis 3 days after vaccination #1. The placebo recipients died from myocardial infarction (n=1), hemorrhagic stroke (n=1) or unknown causes (n=2); three of the four deaths occurred in the older group (>55 years of age). All deaths represent events that occur in the general population of the age groups where they occurred, at a similar rate."

We were told
"All deaths represent events that occur in the general population of the age groups where they occurred, at a similar rate."
6/43,448 enrolled particpants.

From FDA Moderna Vaccine Trial Results.
Moderna Vaccine had over 30000 particapants and 13 deaths
"As of December 3, 2020, there were a total of 13 deaths reported in the study (6 vaccine, 7 placebo). These deaths represent events and rates that occur in the general population of individuals in these age groups. The frequency of non-fatal serious adverse events was low and without meaningful imbalances between study arms (1% in the mRNA-1273 group and 1% in the placebo group). The most common SAEs in the vaccine group which were numerically higher than the placebo group were myocardial infarction (0.03%), cholecystitis (0.02%), and nephrolithiasis (0.02%), although the small numbers of cases of these events do not suggest a causal relationship. The most common SAEs in the placebo arm which were numerically higher than the vaccine arm, aside from COVID-19 (0.1%), were pneumonia (0.05%) and pulmonary embolism (0.03%)"

"These deaths represent events and rates that occur in the general population of individuals in these age groups."

hmmm

allaboutt wrote: »

"These deaths represent events and rates that occur in the general population of individuals in these age groups."

Sounds like good news!

In the recent Moderna data which was released, one of the more serious potential side effects reported to regulators was a women who suffered from arrhythmia. Turned out this happened after she had been struck by lightning. It still has to be reported, and still investigated as to whether it (or acting as a lightning rod) could be a side-effect of the vaccine.

allaboutt

schmoo2k wrote: »

Because they see the global pandemic as being an emergency and there are special provisions for that case.

You question if it was "rushed" - I would answer overall it was expedited (thats a yes).
Were the trials rushed - no, they took the usual amount of time.
Did the trials have larger pools of people to test with - yes (this is good).
Did they avail of the "emergency" provisions - yes (its a global pandemic).

We know you have had Covid, we know you won't be taking a vaccine - I would question your representation of the facts.

ah yeah , dejavu we done the same with pandemrix (only phase 1)
we already have said that they cannot prove long term affects so logically the tests were left out. But as i have said most side affects show up with 2 months.
It is still my right as a citizen of this country to question somethign that is shot down at every oporunity as a conpiracy theorist or the new one questioning ones representation of the facts

allaboutt

hmmm wrote: »

Sounds like good news!

In the recent Moderna data which was released, one of the more serious potential side effects reported to regulators was a women who suffered from arrhythmia. Turned out this happened after she had been struck by lightning. It still has to be reported, and still investigated as to whether it (or acting as a lightning rod) could be a side-effect of the vaccine.

sounds like it needs to be analysed and confirmed by peer reviews further


"As of December 6, 2020, there were 3 SAEs reported in the vaccine group: a 65-year-old participant with community acquired pneumonia 25 days after vaccination, a 72-year-old participant with arrhythmia after being struck by lightning 28 days after vaccination, and an 87-year-old participant with worsening of chronic bradycardia 45 days after vaccination. On FDA review of the narratives, none of these SAEs are assessed as related. There were no cases of severe COVID-19 reported in the study."

Doc07

allaboutt wrote: »

Exactly and thats my point.! so even if you take the Vaccine it hasnt being proven to stop transmission.

The clinical trials were not designed to prove this. They were designed to measure if the vaccine would reduce symptomatic/Clinical Covid infection. The first 2 mRNA vaccine trials that have been published have demonstrated that they reduced very considerably the proportion of Covid infection between the vaccine and placebo groups. And it’s important to note that both groups as a whole had the same risks of getting Covid at the start

That in itself is very useful, it reduces something very meaningful ie the chances of getting sick from Covid. It might be even more useful as plenty peer reviewed studies show transmission or attack rate is higher from symptomatic people compared to asymptomatic.

expectationlost

are TDs going get the vaccine months ahead of other people in the same age cohort as them?

plodder

expectationlost wrote: »

are TDs going get the vaccine months ahead of other people in the same age cohort as them?

Maybe they qualify as "key workers" which is the sixth group in what I've seen. You can argue the rights and wrongs of that, but if they were to secretly get it ahead of that prioritisation, it would be some scandal in my opinion.