Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

ACitizenErased

Marine Layer wrote: »

My issue isn't with the Astra vaccine
Its effacacy is in the 90's too
I've no issue being told to take it
My problem is with jansen with much lower effacacy being given to older people up to 69
It Does Not work as well as the others,thats a fact
The only reason its being given to older people is they're afraid of law suits with the tiniest of percentiles
Thats not science
Its money

Janssen is 100% effective against severe disease, what else do you want

iamwhoiam

Goldengirl wrote: »

Not yet , I don't think, but where does anyone say that the fact that it hasn't yet is nothing to worry about or , perish the thought , bring up on a vaccine discussion forum ?

What’s the point of worrying about something that may never happen ? Focus on good news and the fact we have 4 vaccines in the space of a year . A huge accomplishment .

PhilOssophy

Marine Layer wrote: »

This Angers me
So they are going to give the vaccines with the highest effacacy to the youngest,less risk healthy population and leave most 50 to 69yr olds with a less efficacatious vaccine
Marvelous thinking... :mad:

You are not getting a less efficacious vaccine. You are comparing apples with oranges like everyone else in this cohort and need to stop thinking like that.
J/J is far more efficacious than Pfizer vs the SA variant. The clinical trials happened largely before many of the current variants emerged, and the attitude from all the regulators is "all vaccines are 100 % effective against death and hospitalisation".

Deeper Blue

Goldengirl wrote: »

Not yet , I don't think, but where does anyone say that the fact that it hasn't yet is nothing to worry about or , perish the thought , bring up on a vaccine discussion forum ?

Bring it up all you like, but expect to be called on it by those of us that deal with facts rather than what ifs.

PhilOssophy

Marine Layer wrote: »

My issue isn't with the Astra vaccine
Its effacacy is in the 90's too
I've no issue being told to take it
My problem is with jansen with much lower effacacy being given to older people up to 69
It Does Not work as well as the others,thats a fact
The only reason its being given to older people is they're afraid of law suits with the tiniest of percentiles
Thats not science
Its money

Martin - can you please explain your understanding of a clinical trial, and how they work?

corkie

One Vaccine to Rule Them All
What if a single vaccine could protect us against SARS, MERS, COVID-19, and every other coronavirus-related disease, forever and ever?

.....

Tracing and reacting to individual variants is such an enormous challenge that some experts believe we need a more comprehensive approach, and soon. “Rather than playing whack-a-mole with each new problematic variant,” Anthony Fauci told me last week, “it just makes sense to me to use all of our capabilities to really go for a universal SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.” That is, one that can protect us no matter which direction this virus goes, setting up at least partial immunity to any variant that may arise. “If we don’t, we’re going to be constantly chasing things, as opposed to getting it off the table.”

Dozens of research teams have already taken up the challenge, and meeting it is within their reach. But doing so would be just the beginning. “A universal SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is step one,” Fauci said. Step two would be a universal coronavirus vaccine, capable of protecting us not only from SARS-CoV-2 in all its forms, but also from the inevitable emergence of new and different coronaviruses that might cause future pandemics. The race to create such a vaccine may prove one of the great feats of a generation.

...

A universal vaccine in theory sounds good but as far as I'm aware we don't even have this for the common flu with new and different vaccines been issued each year.



First time posting in this thread, so hope this link is landing in the right thread?

Goldengirl

ACitizenErased wrote: »

If we dealt in what ifs we would never ever exit the pandemic, we deal in facts thankfully

Variants of concern and the possibilit of their evading vaccinations are more than" ifs" , they are" whens", which is a fact.

Deeper Blue

Goldengirl wrote: »

Variants of concern and the possibilit of their evading vaccinations are more than" ifs" , they are" whens", which is a fact.

That is absolutely not a fact

Happydays2020

PhilOssophy wrote: »

You are not getting a less efficacious vaccine. You are comparing apples with oranges like everyone else in this cohort and need to stop thinking like that.
J/J is far more efficacious than Pfizer vs the SA variant. The clinical trials happened largely before many of the current variants emerged, and the attitude from all the regulators is "all vaccines are 100 % effective against death and hospitalisation".

Perhaps the public health people should be communicating as clearly as this. Unfortunately Tony remains to have significant concerns.

iamwhoiam

Happydays2020 wrote: »

Perhaps the public health people should be communicating as clearly as this. Unfortunately Tony remains to have significant concerns.

Significant concerns added to an abundance of caution leaves us all as confused as each other .

Goldengirl

iamwhoiam wrote: »

What’s the point of worrying about something that may never happen ? Focus on good news and the fact we have 4 vaccines in the space of a year . A huge accomplishment .

Ok. Let's not talk about anything other than good news and censor everything that might not be 100% sunny ?
The vaccines are all wonderful , happy to have them , hope everyone gets one asap and let's not discuss anything that may impact on their efficacy going forward!

Goldengirl

Deeper Blue wrote: »

Bring it up all you like, but expect to be called on it by those of us that deal with facts rather than what ifs.

Those of us ? :pac:

Deeper Blue

Goldengirl wrote: »

Ok. Let's not talk about anything other than good news and censor everything that might not be 100% sunny ?
The vaccines are all wonderful , happy to have them , hope everyone gets one asap and let's not discuss anything that may impact on their efficacy going forward!

Maybe you should back up a few of the claims you made above?

PhilOssophy

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Martin - can you please explain your understanding of a clinical trial, and how they work?

I can only go on the published results so far
72% effacacy vs 92%
For the life of me,I cannot understand why a less effective vaccine like j and j is being given exclusively to more at risk people than the other 3 more effective ones
The only reason seems to be the tiny percentile that might be unlucky in the younger healthier groups that might sue
Ie Money is trumping health and science here

iamwhoiam

Goldengirl wrote: »

Ok. Let's not talk about anything other than good news and censor everything that might not be 100% sunny ?
The vaccines are all wonderful , happy to have them , hope everyone gets one asap and let's not discuss anything that may impact on their efficacy going forward!

Whats got into you today GG ? !

St.Spodo

There's too much talk of vaccines in individualistic terms ie "what one will give *me *the most protection?" The greatest benefit of vaccines will be their total effect at a population level, preventing the virus from finding enough hosts to cause future waves. We'll all be safe then.

Goldengirl

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Whats got into you today GG ? !

:pac:feeling a bit persecuted here!
No offence iamwhoiam .

iamwhoiam

Goldengirl wrote: »

:pac:feeling a bit persecuted here!
No offence iamwhoiam .

People get stressed and are not keen on “ what ifs” I guess . Its bad enough trying to stay above water without “ it might happen “
That’s probably why you feel a bit persecuted GG .

Wolf359f

Marine Layer wrote: »

I can only go on the published results so far
72% effacacy vs 92%
For the life of me,I cannot understand why a less effective vaccine like j and j is being given exclusively to more at risk people than the other 3 more effective ones
The only reason seems to be the tiny percentile that might be unlucky in the younger healthier groups that might sue
Ie Money is trumping health and science here

Again, comparing the 2 is like apples to oranges.
But if you insist, at least compare both based on trials in the same place.
US trials, J&J 72% vs AZ 76%

PhilOssophy

Marine Layer wrote: »

I can only go on the published results so far
72% effacacy vs 92%
For the life of me,I cannot understand why a less effective vaccine like j and j is being given exclusively to more at risk people than the other 3 more effective ones
The only reason seems to be the tiny percentile that might be unlucky in the younger healthier groups that might sue
Ie Money is trumping health and science here

No more questions your honour.....

hmmm

Marine Layer wrote: »

My problem is with jansen with much lower effacacy being given to older people up to 69
It Does Not work as well as the others,thats a fact

It stopped 100% of hospitalisations and deaths. If you get a head cold it's not the end of the world.

I realise that in the real world the results will be slightly different, but the debate about "efficacy" is hugely overblown. All the vaccines we have (so far) will keep you alive, but you may get mild symptoms with some.

funnydoggy

Gf feels fine after Moderna first dose earlier. Just freezing and a metallic taste in the mouth.

Jane1012

Everyone who is telling people to just take what they are offered, put yourselves in their shoes.
3 weeks ago I was offered AZ, I decided to decline as I'm in my early 30s and 6 months pregnant and I didn’t feel it was right me taking that when there were less risky vaccines available. I’ve since had the Pfizer vaccine. I was offered the AZ vaccine on a Friday, on the Monday NIAC said that under 60s should not get AZ, today they have said pregnant women should only get MRNA vaccines. My gut was right not to get it at the time, and the experts soon backed that up with the advice given. It’s fine saying that people should just take what they’re given but it sits uneasy with me giving the ‘vulnerable population’ a riskier vaccine just because we have a supply of it especially when the guidance is changing so often on it. I think it’s only fair for people to feel hesitant or unsure about it, I do think if they want to use up the AZ and j&j supply then let people sign up for it rather than force it on a certain age group.

hmmm

Goldengirl wrote: »

Variants of concern and the possibilit of their evading vaccinations are more than" ifs" , they are" whens", which is a fact.

There's some proper experts who would disagree with this.
https://www.thestreet.com/latest-news/there-are-no-covid-super-strains-yet-says-virologist-vincent-racaniello

They all say we have to keep up surveillance, but none of them are sounding like RTE correspondents tearfully telling us that Minks and Malaysians are going to come into the country and infect us all with super-Covid.

Goldengirl

Deeper Blue wrote: »

That is absolutely not a fact

That is a fact

However this to and fro is just derailing the thread so I won't be responding to this ....anymore .

Goldengirl

hmmm wrote: »

There's some proper experts who would disagree with this.
https://www.thestreet.com/latest-news/there-are-no-covid-super-strains-yet-says-virologist-vincent-racaniello

They all say we have to keep up surveillance, but none of them are sounding like RTE correspondents tearfully telling us that Minks and Malaysians are going to come into the country and infect us all with super-Covid.

Seriously hmmm. You are scraping the barrel there , surprised at you .

hmmm

Goldengirl wrote: »

Seriously hmmm. You are scraping the barrel there , surprised at you .

Racaniello is a proper virologist and says the worries about variants are overblown.

There's plenty of others who would agree that while the virus is mutating, the rate of mutation is relatively small.

They don't have to be right, but there's certainly no consensus that a variant which evades vaccines is inevitable.

ACitizenErased

Even Cillian de Gascun said he thinks it'll be 4-5 years before we even need to consider re-vaccinating. That's how unlikely it is.

PhilOssophy

Jane1012 wrote: »

Everyone who is telling people to just take what they are offered, put yourselves in their shoes.
3 weeks ago I was offered AZ, I decided to decline as I'm in my early 30s and 6 months pregnant and I didn’t feel it was right me taking that when there were less risky vaccines available. I’ve since had the Pfizer vaccine. I was offered the AZ vaccine on a Friday, on the Monday NIAC said that under 60s should not get AZ, today they have said pregnant women should only get MRNA vaccines. My gut was right not to get it at the time, and the experts soon backed that up with the advice given. It’s fine saying that people should just take what they’re given but it sits uneasy with me giving the ‘vulnerable population’ a riskier vaccine just because we have a supply of it especially when the guidance is changing so often on it. I think it’s only fair for people to feel hesitant or unsure about it, I do think if they want to use up the AZ and j&j supply then let people sign up for it rather than force it on a certain age group.

This is exactly the problem though. While I think people will understand when somebody is pregnant, there are still thousands of women in the UK who have got the AZ vaccine and had absolutely no problem with it. So why is it such an issue here, when a real-life result is showing next to no issues with it?

In Ireland, we have let the media whip up a frenzy re "risky vaccines" - no vaccine is more risky than getting in a car, or of getting covid itself. And in addition, as I have already said, the variants which have happened since the original clinical trial for Pfizer etc mean the goal posts have moved and indeed some variants (e.g. South African) the Pfizer vaccine has significantly less efficacy than J&J.

I really wish somebody in the know would come out and explain just how excellent all these vaccines are, how low the risks connected with all of them are and debunk the utter bs that has doctors and their staff playing Joe Duffy to the "I want a Pfizer" brigade.

We need those who can explain this to be shouting this message instead of having NIAC spending days coming up with a different decision to the FDA and the EMA. Arbitrary restrictions are just creating needless panic.

giveitholly

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Even Cillian de Gascun said he thinks it'll be 4-5 years before we even need to consider re-vaccinating. That's how unlikely it is.

Does that mean no boosters in the Autumn? Especially for the elderly?