Vaccine Megathread No 2 - Read OP before posting

techdiver

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117837332#Comment_117837332

Where did you read that? I'm on the side of this argument btw but I'd like that evidence for my vaccine hesitant friends/acquaintances.

seamus

So I saw it on reddit, but that's not a source, so I went searching and found lots of statements from experts about it;

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/vaccines-are-highly-unlikely-to-cause-side-effects-long-after-getting-the-shot-

“Side-effects nearly always occur within a couple of weeks of a person being vaccinated,” says John Grabenstein, director of scientific communication for the Immunization Action Coalition. He adds that the longest time before a side effect appeared for any type of shot has been six weeks.

https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-side-effects-covid-19-vaccine

These experiences demonstrate two important findings. First, when these events occurred, the onset was within eight weeks of receipt of the vaccine.

When people talk about "long term effects", they're referring to things like narcolepsy, which have a long-term impact. But nevertheless the issue occurs within 8 weeks of vaccination. Thus, if there were any unknown long-term side effects that didn't occur in the clinical trials, they would absolutely have become apparent months ago.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117838221#Comment_117838221

For the most part, side effects beyond a few weeks are not even looked for. Its much harder to prove causality on a longer timeframe - argument would be that in that time any other number of things could have caused the "side-effect".

Thats why the main focus is on the short term (usually 14days), because less chance of a coincidence and easier to prove cause if its just after vaccination.

Lumen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117838263#Comment_117838263

What you have stated is simply not true.

A couple of relevant documents from the EMA attached.

guideline-good-pharmacovigilance-practices-gvp-module-vii-periodic-safety-update-report_en.pdf

pharmacovigilance-plan-eu-regulatory-network-covid-19-vaccines_en.pdf

godzilla1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117838221#Comment_117838221

Not true Seamus

ADE was seen in many vaccines in the 60's well after 6 weeks

• " Measles — An early version of measles vaccine was made by inactivating measles virus using formaldehyde. Children who were vaccinated and later became infected with measles in the community developed high fevers, unusual rash, and an atypical form of pneumonia. Upon seeing these results, the vaccine was withdrawn from use, and those who received this version of the vaccine were recommended to be vaccinated again using the live, weakened measles vaccine, which does not cause ADE and is still in use today."

A more recent example of ADE following vaccination comes from dengue virus

• Dengue virus — In 2016, a dengue virus vaccine was designed to protect against all four serotypes of the virus. The hope was that by inducing immune responses to all four serotypes at once, the vaccine could circumvent the issues related to ADE following disease with dengue virus. The vaccine was given to 800,000 children in the Philippines. Fourteen vaccinated children died after encountering dengue virus in the community. It is hypothesized that the children developed antibody responses that were not capable of neutralizing the natural virus circulating in the community. As such, the vaccine was recommended only for children greater than 9 years of age who had already been exposed to the virus.

seamus

ADE is a long-term impact, not a late-presenting side-effect.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117838581#Comment_117838581

Did you read those documents? They dont disprove my statement at all.

All investigations of side-effects are to be brought by the MAH (Marketing Auth. Holder/Producer) to the regulatory body as part of regular safety updates - which go on for a prolonged period of time. However the burden of proof for long-term vaccine (or other medicines) side-effects is typically too large to ever fully determine whether any long-term impact is as a result of the vaccine or some other factor.

Several different immunisations in the past have shown to increase long-term risk factors for a variety of conditions - including diabetes, various acute allergies. But these mightnt be classified as an adverse reaction and therefore not listed as side-effect - despite clear correlations having been found. Here is one such study about diabetes risk and immunisation. https://journals.lww.com/infectdis/citation/1997/06070/the_timing_of_pediatric_immunization_and_the_risk.7.aspx

The point is - long term risk factors have been found from vaccines. Like any side-effect, its more likely to happen straight away. Same is true for almost any medicine, most side effects happen soon, but that doesnt mean the long term doesnt exist.

Also Seamus, crucial part you omitted from one of your articles:

The rare exception to adverse events occurring within the six-week timetable is the dengue fever vaccine, Dengavaxia, which the Philippine government approved for use in their children in 2016. When people are infected with the dengue virus, their first bout of this disease is fairly mild. But when they get infected a second time, with a different strain, the reaction can be much more severe and, in some cases, fatal.

Not to get into it here, but there has been some risk of this happening with future mutations of covid also - lab made mutations (Delta4+) have been shown to become aided by a vaccination and become more infectious compared to a naive immune system. But hopefully such a mutation never occurs in nature - or vaccines may need tweaked specific to that mutation and re-administered.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117838736#Comment_117838736

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11731639/

A lot of dodgy correlations based on nothing re. vaccines in the mid 90’s.

is_that_so

A piece on DNA vaccines and how they might play a role - it's still early days on them but ease of use could be a plus.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02385-x

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117839808#Comment_117839808

Good use of data and facts - you really proved them wrong.

is_that_so

In Denmark, the country’s health minister Magnus Heunicke has announced residents in nursing homes will get a third shot of the Covid vaccine, starting next week.

Champagne Sally

Reckon there will be big numbers vaccinated today. Brought my daughter for 2nd vaccination in punchestown, big queues. Assuming the same throughout the country we should be hitting 70% plus of population fully vaxxed.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117842359#Comment_117842359

The point that has been made repeatedly is that long term effects become apparent soon after vaccination. They don’t turn up out of the blue years later. And all the long term impacts that people are listing, be it ade, myocarditis, thrombosis or whatever are related to immune response and occur in much higher numbers following viral infection than vaccination

astrofool

Vaccination effect on younger groups:

Lumen

@growleaves wrote:

There comes a point where a lot of pushy creeps getting up in people's business produces diminishing returns. Are the people who find your pressurising and insults annoying likely to do an about-turn after more of the same? No.

Ah, the snowflake defence again. 😁

https://twitter.com/astrocatcity/status/1423471214236942339/photo/1

interesting

Chris_5339762

This supports my thinking that Delta isn't actually evading the immune system, just overwhelming it. Because it is so virulent once it gets into you, so many virus particles are produced, causing symptoms while the body catches up.

Thats why a third dose is working, because you have more circulating antibodies waiting at a moments notice to hit incoming virus particles, unlike when Memory Cells have to produce antibodies to combat a threat six months later. It happens, but takes a little while.

ACitizenErased

Just passed Cork City Hall. Huge queue, one of the biggest I’ve seen tbh. Wrapped all the way around to the port side.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117848805#Comment_117848805

Absoloutely

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/chile-approves-use-of-covid-19-vaccine-in-children-as-young-as-six-years-old-40824038.html

i think we will need to go down to this age group to end pandemic.

seamus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117856453#Comment_117856453

This pandemic will only end when the WHO declares the virus as endemic. It's not going away, it'll become another member of the club of ever-circulating pathogens that we will just deal with.

Adding to the vaccination schedule for children will only happen when it can be proven to provide longer-lasting protection. Until then we're onto regular booster programmes.

Its virulence means we may still close down workplaces or schools that experience outbreaks; as we do for other highly infectious diseases like measles. The vaccination programme will ensure though that one outbreak doesn't become ten.

Turtwig

This thread has been the most sensible on boards.

Where on earth is the idea that I'm coming across more and more of if we can't get herd immunity we're all going to get covid emanating from?

Lumen

@Turtwig wrote

This thread has been the most sensible on boards.

(deleted)

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117857385#Comment_117857385

We're seeing an R0 of 0.9 to 1.1 with a relatively high vaccinated population (this would probably be 8+ without vaccinations), we'll see as the younger groups get more vaccinated (they're the main spreaders) but unless it drops below 1 and stays there for a couple of months, then it just becomes a virus we will all get exposed to eventually, it's why the question is do you want the benefit of existing antibodies/B-Cell/T-Cells that know how to tackle SARS-COV2 or do you want to be exposed without it.

The UK has just passed 7M cases, or about 10.5% of their total population over 18 months (real number is probably higher than that).

Turtwig

I don't follow.

Exposure is the not the same as infection. Masks, and now vaccines, prevent infection. Vaccines should also reduce our risks of exposure.

I don't agree that we're all going to be exposed to the virus at some point. I certainly don't agree with the notion that we're all going to get infected.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117857846#Comment_117857846

I hadn't thought about it too much, but I'm taking the R to be people infected (symptomatic or asymptomatic) vs. exposed to SARS-COV2, so the numbers being exposed are probably higher than that again (but either the exposure isn't enough to become infected or vaccines/immune system do the work before infection occurs).

I agree we won't all become infected, but I'd say a high amount will end up being exposed if the R remains as it is, what do you see bringing the R down below 1 to stop this occurring? (and I mean, this would be great, if the R was 0.1, a few weeks and we'd be at zero COVID barring imports).

Lumen

@astrofool wrote

We're seeing an R0 of 0.9 to 1.1 with a relatively high vaccinated population (this would probably be 8+ without vaccinations)

I think you mean R.

R0 is the rate of reproduction with zero vaccinations and zero behaviour change. Hence the 0.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117858138#Comment_117858138

Yes I meant R, so used to writing R0 :)

Russman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117857889#Comment_117857889

Just on that point about the vaccines doing the work before infection occurs - if that happens, does that boost your immunity naturally or does it require an infection to be fought off for a "boost" to occur ?

is_that_so

Donnelly on vaccinations plus a graphic of the age groups

https://twitter.com/DonnellyStephen/status/1435205175292145664