Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

~Rebel~

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

If I see the infection rate of those who are vaccinated reduce to 5-10% of those unvaccinated I will take it. Otherwise I'm not going to take any risks from an emergency issued vaccine unless I see it works.

Those are the trial rates over tens of thousands of people, so it's likely it'll bare out. And most importantly, it cuts way down on the numbers of severe infections. Stopping severe cases is really what matters.

It's also worth reiterating when saying things like 'emergency issued' that all normal safety protocols were carried out, for just as long as they usually are. The difference is in this case the funding and allowance was there for their trials to be conducted concurrently. So where normally they would do one, pass, and then do the next, and so on, in these cases they had their trial groups run separately, but at the same time. It cost significantly more to develop as a result, and it meant that if any of those tests had failed it would have been back to square one at great cost, but thankfully all available vaccines have passed those tests.

schmoo2k

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

If I see the infection rate of those who are vaccinated reduce to 5-10% of those unvaccinated I will take it. Otherwise I'm not going to take any risks from an emergency issued vaccine unless I see it works.

If your referring to the approved vaccines then you mean "Expedited"? I think the only "emergency" difference was on how the trials could recruit human test subjects?

The trials themselves were pretty normal, except the speed at which the funds were raised and the volunteers found?

schmoo2k

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

If I see the infection rate of those who are vaccinated reduce to 5-10% of those unvaccinated I will take it. Otherwise I'm not going to take any risks from an emergency issued vaccine unless I see it works.

Seeing is believing eh:

patnor1011

PhoneMain wrote: »

Thats fairly well known. Even with 2nd dose it's 95% effective so still a chance you could get it.

Got my first dose at the weekend, really impressed with how the system worked.

I am afraid you got it wrong. That 95% effectivity do not mean immunity or that 95 out of 100 people do not catch virus. That 95% effectivity means that 95 out of 100 have a chance to have it mild, short or even without symptoms. Even with second dose current vaccines do not offer immunity from catching covid.

Only second or third generation of vaccines may offer protection against catching virus current vaccines are tuned to ease symptoms and improve outcomes when infected.

patnor1011

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Those are the trial rates over tens of thousands of people, so it's likely it'll bare out. And most importantly, it cuts way down on the numbers of severe infections. Stopping severe cases is really what matters.

It's also worth reiterating when saying things like 'emergency issued' that all normal safety protocols were carried out, for just as long as they usually are. The difference is in this case the funding and allowance was there for their trials to be conducted concurrently. So where normally they would do one, pass, and then do the next, and so on, in these cases they had their trial groups run separately, but at the same time. It cost significantly more to develop as a result, and it meant that if any of those tests had failed it would have been back to square one at great cost, but thankfully all available vaccines have passed those tests.

Some tests they however did not pass yet. They are fairly important too. Like long term effect or possible delayed response. These take months and years to take so we still do not know everything.

runawaybishop

patnor1011 wrote: »

Some tests they however did not pass yet. They are fairly important too. Like long term effect or possible delayed response. These take months and years to take so we still do not know everything.

The majority of issues will arise short term. Also high level of confidence given the vaccine type of safety.

WomanSkirtFan8

Yes. absolutely i will.

astrofool

patnor1011 wrote: »

I am afraid you got it wrong. That 95% effectivity do not mean immunity or that 95 out of 100 people do not catch virus. That 95% effectivity means that 95 out of 100 have a chance to have it mild, short or even without symptoms. Even with second dose current vaccines do not offer immunity from catching covid.

Only second or third generation of vaccines may offer protection against catching virus current vaccines are tuned to ease symptoms and improve outcomes when infected.

I don't believe this is correct, but willing to be corrected.

In the results, there was a high confidence level that those who presented with symptoms of COVID-19 or who tested positive for the virus, was reduced by 95%, of the 5% who did test positive for the virus, the severity was reduced to mild symptoms.

They believe that transmission rates are also significantly reduced by those who have had the vaccine (data from Israel is supporting this as well so far), but the phase 3 trials were not testing for this particular result (apart from Oxford, who do seem to be testing for transmission).

Roger_007

astrofool wrote: »

I don't believe this is correct, but willing to be corrected.

In the results, there was a high confidence level that those who presented with symptoms of COVID-19 or who tested positive for the virus, was reduced by 95%, of the 5% who did test positive for the virus, the severity was reduced to mild symptoms.

They believe that transmission rates are also significantly reduced by those who have had the vaccine (data from Israel is supporting this as well so far), but the phase 3 trials were not testing for this particular result (apart from Oxford, who do seem to be testing for transmission).

How could it possibly be determined that symptoms were reduced by 95% when there is such a huge variation in symptoms, (ranging from none to very severe), in those who contract Covid. How could the severity of symptoms be translated into a precise percentage of severity.
I just don’t understand these calculations. I have heard many experts trying to explain what 90% or 95% efficacy actually means but they all seem to have a different take on it. I thought at first that 95% efficacy meant that 95 vaccinated people out of 100 were fully protected from the virus and that the other 5 were not protected at all. Now, it seems that nobody is fully protected by the vaccines, it’s more a case of being less likely to develop severe disease..........or maybe I’ve still got it wrong?

astrofool

Roger_007 wrote: »

How could it possibly be determined that symptoms were reduced by 95% when there is such a huge variation in symptoms, (ranging from none to very severe), in those who contract Covid. How could the severity of symptoms be translated into a precise percentage of severity.
I just don’t understand these calculations. I have heard many experts trying to explain what 90% or 95% efficacy actually means but they all seem to have a different take on it. I thought at first that 95% efficacy meant that 95 vaccinated people out of 100 were fully protected from the virus and that the other 5 were not protected at all. Now, it seems that nobody is fully protected by the vaccines, it’s more a case of being less likely to develop severe disease..........or maybe I’ve still got it wrong?

I think you're confusing the virus with the disease. Sars-Cov2 is the virus that passes from people to people, it can be passed by touch, droplets, and then go on and live in people in various places.

COVID-19 is the disease caused by Sars-Cov2, and is evidenced by symptoms (difficulty breathing, lack of smell etc.).

The vaccines can't physically stop the spread of the virus, it can live on surfaces or in a persons mucous membranes, not interacting with our immune system, and be passed on. What the vaccines will do is enable a persons immune system to effectively attack and stop the multiplication of the virus within the body and this can have 2 effects. 1, stopping the person developing the disease (COVID-19), at which it is 95% effective, and for those in the other 5%, the symptoms were severely reduced and did not become life threatening (which is the biggest negative of the disease) and 2, potentially reduce the spread because the virus can't multiply as effectively and pass to another person or surface. (for the oxford vaccine the numbers vary from 63-90%, but importantly also stops the severe cases in the remaining 10-37%).

1 has been proven, and to get out of constant lockdowns, is potentially all that is needed (depending on how long the effect of the vaccines last, but data here seems good so far). 2 has not been proven yet, but is also looking good.

Roger_007

astrofool wrote: »

I think you're confusing the virus with the disease. Sars-Cov2 is the virus that passes from people to people, it can be passed by touch, droplets, and then go on and live in people in various places.

COVID-19 is the disease caused by Sars-Cov2, and is evidenced by symptoms (difficulty breathing, lack of smell etc.).

The vaccines can't physically stop the spread of the virus, it can live on surfaces or in a persons mucous membranes, not interacting with our immune system, and be passed on. What the vaccines will do is enable a persons immune system to effectively attack and stop the multiplication of the virus within the body and this can have 2 effects. 1, stopping the person developing the disease (COVID-19), at which it is 95% effective, and for those in the other 5%, the symptoms were severely reduced and did not become life threatening (which is the biggest negative of the disease) and 2, potentially reduce the spread because the virus can't multiply as effectively and pass to another person or surface. (for the oxford vaccine the numbers vary from 63-90%, but importantly also stops the severe cases in the remaining 10-37%).

1 has been proven, and to get out of constant lockdowns, is potentially all that is needed (depending on how long the effect of the vaccines last, but data here seems good so far). 2 has not been proven yet, but is also looking good.

This makes no sense to me. If the virus cannot multiply, then it surely cannot continue to be passed on. If the vaccine stops multiplication then it follows that it effectively stops transmission. Otherwise you could only pass on a tiny portion of the amount of virus you picked up. I understood up to now that the only way a virus can continue to spread is by multiplication within the cells of its host.

plodder

Roger_007 wrote: »

How could it possibly be determined that symptoms were reduced by 95% when there is such a huge variation in symptoms, (ranging from none to very severe), in those who contract Covid. How could the severity of symptoms be translated into a precise percentage of severity.
I just don’t understand these calculations. I have heard many experts trying to explain what 90% or 95% efficacy actually means but they all seem to have a different take on it. I thought at first that 95% efficacy meant that 95 vaccinated people out of 100 were fully protected from the virus and that the other 5 were not protected at all. Now, it seems that nobody is fully protected by the vaccines, it’s more a case of being less likely to develop severe disease..........or maybe I’ve still got it wrong?

I thought it was 95% had no symptoms at all. That's an easy enough thing to measure. There could be variation in the remaining 5% then. Or to put it another way, of the people who were found to have Covid after the second dose, 95% of them had not been vaccinated.

astrofool

Roger_007 wrote: »

This makes no sense to me. If the virus cannot multiply, then it surely cannot continue to be passed on. If the vaccine stops multiplication then it follows that it effectively stops transmission. Otherwise you could only pass on a tiny portion of the amount of virus you picked up. I understood up to now that the only way a virus can continue to spread is by multiplication within the cells of its host.

At the microscopic level, the virus needs to invade the host cells, then the bodies immune system kicks in and will attack those cells (if vaccinated, the right attackers are already available), however in that time frame, and depending on how quickly the immune system can respond, the virus can replicate and spread, if it is actively being stopped by the immune system, the numbers of available virus to spread is much lower (and again depending on where on the body the virus is spreading, e.g. it could be infecting cells in the nose, but the immune system only kicks in when the virus gets to the lungs), thus the virus can keep spreading, but likely at a much lower level than before.

Now, it could also be that the virus is replicating quite quickly (but not as quickly as it would have with no vaccine), but the immune system is able to react and prevent any symptomatic effects of the virus (asymptomatic carrier), more data is needed in this area before any determinations can be made.

Beasty

So Astra Zeneca are cutting back on their allocations to Europe. I've my suspicions there may be some UK Government pressure being applied. They didn't even give the EU the required information to start the approval process until after the UK had already approved it. The UK now out of the EU means it's a lot easier for them to prioritise UK residents

Doc07

Beasty wrote: »

So Astra Zeneca are w back on their allocations to Europe. I've my suspicions there may be some UK Government pressure being applied. They didn't even give the EU the required information to start the approval process until after the UK had already approved it. The UK now out of the EU means it's a lot easier for them to prioritise UK residents

I’m happy to believe AZ response to EU that this is a production issue. What have UK against Norway, they are outside EU and also will only get 20% initially of what originally expected. When all second doses have been given is the time for any comparisons.

Beasty

Doc07 wrote: »

I’m happy to believe AZ response to EU that this is a production issue. What have UK against Norway, they are outside EU and also will only get 20% initially of what originally expected. When all second doses have been given is the time for any comparisons.

It will be interesting to see if they apply similar cutbacks to the UK

runawaybishop

Beasty wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if they apply similar cutbacks to the UK

Sky news reported already that there will be no reduction to the UK.

Beasty

runawaybishop wrote: »

Sky news reported already that there will be no reduction to the UK.

Quelle surprise....

It allows Boris to claim some kind of "victory" by putting the UK ahead of the EU.

He'll no doubt put a spin on it while ignoring the fact the UK is just about the worst-hit country of all now

Quazzie

More vaccines delivered in Northern Ireland than in the Republic. I think the real question is will we ever get a chance to receive the vaccine.

Quazzie

Quazzie wrote: »

More vaccines delivered in Northern Ireland than in the Republic. I think the real question is will we ever get a chance to receive the vaccine.

The USA have now vaccinated more people than have tested positive for entire pandemic

ExMachina1000

Beasty wrote: »

Quelle surprise....

It allows Boris to claim some kind of "victory" by putting the UK ahead of the EU.

He'll no doubt put a spin on it while ignoring the fact the UK is just about the worst-hit country of all now

Going by cases per million of population the uk isnt even in the top 20

No 5 in deaths per 1 million

Shane Driscoll

Nope. Don't want the vaccine and don't need it. Not at risk.

TheChizler

Shane Driscoll wrote: »

Nope. Don't want the vaccine and don't need it. Not at risk.

I know someone perfectly healthy in the prime of their life, no underlying conditions, nearly died on a ventilator the week before last.

polesheep

TheChizler wrote: »

I know someone perfectly healthy in the prime of their life, no underlying conditions, nearly died on a ventilator the week before last.

That happens but it's extremely rare. The reality is the vast majority of people in that cohort have a very mild illness or none at all.

I have blown hot and cold about the vaccines. What I've come around to is, if the vaccine guarantees that I cannot pass the virus on to a vulnerable person then I will take it. If, however, that is not the case then I will not take the vaccine as I don't feel at risk from the virus.

robinph

Shane Driscoll wrote: »

Nope. Don't want the vaccine and don't need it. Not at risk.

The only humans who were ever in a position to claim that were the residents of the ISS in December 2019. They are still probably the safest, but mildly less so since some crew changes since then.

I'd expect the next crew to have been vaccinated long before they arrive though.

robinph

polesheep wrote: »

That happens but it's extremely rare. The reality is the vast majority of people in that cohort have a very mild illness or none at all.

I have blown hot and cold about the vaccines. What I've come around to is, if the vaccine guarantees that I cannot pass the virus on to a vulnerable person then I will take it. If, however, that is not the case then I will not take the vaccine as I don't feel at risk from the virus.

Which is the bigger risk to you?

Some kind of reaction to the vaccine, or that you catch covid and for unknown reasons get badly ill, or that you catch it and don't get ill but then pass it onto your relatives without you knowing?

What are the chance of a reaction to the vaccine?
What are the chances of a healthy young person getting badly ill?
What are the chances of you catching it from someone else and being asymptomatic?
What are the chances of you meeting up with some friends or family?

Shane Driscoll

Shane Driscoll wrote: »

Nope. Don't want the vaccine and don't need it. Not at risk.

You'd want to hope that statement doesn't come back to haunt you.

polesheep

polesheep wrote: »

That happens but it's extremely rare. The reality is the vast majority of people in that cohort have a very mild illness or none at all.

I have blown hot and cold about the vaccines. What I've come around to is, if the vaccine guarantees that I cannot pass the virus on to a vulnerable person then I will take it. If, however, that is not the case then I will not take the vaccine as I don't feel at risk from the virus.

There are no guarantees in life. If everybody had the same concerns as you, we would be wearing masks for years.

polesheep

robinph wrote: »

Which is the bigger risk to you?

Some kind of reaction to the vaccine, or that you catch covid and for unknown reasons get badly ill, or that you catch it and don't get ill but then pass it onto your relatives without you knowing?

What are the chance of a reaction to the vaccine?
What are the chances of a healthy young person getting badly ill?
What are the chances of you catching it from someone else and being asymptomatic?
What are the chances of you meeting up with some friends or family?

As I said, if the vaccine prevents me from passing the virus on to vulnerable people I will take it.

NaFirinne

robinph wrote: »

Which is the bigger risk to you?

Some kind of reaction to the vaccine, or that you catch covid and for unknown reasons get badly ill, or that you catch it and don't get ill but then pass it onto your relatives without you knowing?

What are the chance of a reaction to the vaccine?
What are the chances of a healthy young person getting badly ill?
What are the chances of you catching it from someone else and being asymptomatic?
What are the chances of you meeting up with some friends or family?

I wouldn't be too worried about the short term effects of the vaccine...Although there have been some reports of bad reactions.


I'd be more concerned with the long term unknown effects of using gene therapy style vaccines.