Vaccination question

Paracetamol has side effects as well.

 

And don’t even look into the contraceptive pill.

 

I know you will have mate, that's not what I meant. I just don't want you to go all blaze that you can't catch it because you're immune as you've been tested 40 times. Like I said I know you're only joking but don't take risks, that's all I'm saying

 

Water has side effects - too much damages the kidneys, too little and you die of dehydration.

With (potential) side-effects, you have to weigh up the risks of side-effects with the vaccination - and most current medical interventions have side-effects of varying commonality and seriousness - against the risk of side-effects with the original virus. You might worry about a vaccine giving you cancer or making your **** shrink (looking at you DB3K), but in reality the chances are probably lower than the risk of developing cancer as a result of catching Covid. The same with stroke, permanent lung damage, etc.

I do have a bit of a problem with the suggestions for the vulnerable first - the most vulnerable people are in care homes and other places where they are exposed to care workers and medical staff. In order to achieve the level of cover required for herd immunity, I'd start with those people in roles that have maximum exposure to the public - teachers, shop workers, bus drivers and NHS/care staff. Once we have removed the transmission vectors with highest frequency of interactions it would serve to reduce community transmission and we could then work around the rest of the population leaving those that are vulnerable to the vaccination while last when hopefully we are at the levels above those required for vaccine-acquired herd immunity.

 

That's the point of the clinical trials. Safety data will be submitted to regulators, as well as efficacy data. As somebody has already posted, the vaccines that took longer to develop didn't start trials on day 1, and have years and years of data before being approved. Most of the time was spent waiting for funding and volunteers, while the process of moving from phase 1 through to 2 and then three was improved by submitting data as they went.

 

Just to temper that - have you read this?

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037

 

I haven’t! I will do though. Just in a meeting at the minute...

 

Not sure if you got chance to have a look, but now AZ have just announced they’ll have to run another trial. The 70% effectiveness only included trialists under 55.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...run-fresh-global-covid-vaccine-trial-ceo-says

In summary - it’s fcking months away from being proven effectively ready (even though the actual approval timescales won’t be impacted). :-(

 

I assume 'approval timescales' means the time it will take to do an assessment of the data presented and rule accordingly.

It's not a given that it would be approved, which is kind of the point. If it's approved, i'd be happy to take the vaccine, similarly, if it's ruled a further trial is needed, then that's what's needed. WHO had said that around 60% efficacy was the figure they would be looking for in a vaccine, which is what the AZ reached with two full doses. That's why there was so much excitement at the Pfizer results. It's also why it is important that as many people as possible take it.

 

To be honest mate I totally forgot. I’ll read it this evening.

 

Mmm, I took it to mean that the approval would be on the basis of *safety* and none of this is raising any undue concerns around that - but the issue being that proving significant *effectiveness* is what’s in question here given the population used in prior trials etc. So there’s nothing to stop them approving it as safe to take but the issue is how well does it actually work? That’s my reading anyway. Welcome other views....

 

Had my flu jab yesterday. (Delayed as I thought I had COVID, which in the end I didn't).

I will have it, but it should not be compulsory. The main aim is to vaccinate those at risk. If anyone in those groups refuses, that is down to them. There seems to be a fair few vaccines available, so anyone who has had an adverse reaction to one type needs to let their GP know when it is rolled out.

 

Possibly. The only thing I can say about the effectiveness is that the low end of the efficacy range (62%?), was around what was expected to be needed for approval, just that other studies raised expectations.

But the MHRA might look at the data and refuse to approve it until further trials are done. Just need to wait.

 

Agreed, and I think there’s definitely been less bullish noises coming out of the Government about any roll out to certain populations this side of Christmas which three weeks ago they were hinting at.

 

It’s pretty stupid for the government to comment really (shock ******* horror). Tell us what you’re doing with regards to essentially pre-ordering the various vaccines, but don’t give any timescales or over-promise. Just makes people think it’s rushed...

 

Honestly mate, I do wonder if they are starting to worry about larger scale disobedience against their measures (because despite what a lot of people have said on here, most measures have been incredibly well observed, even among those of us who think they’re ********) , and they’re almost desperate to over promise on the vaccination as panacea to give people an end in sight. The trouble is, if it turns out not to be that then they’re just kicking the can down the road.

I personally think they’ve gambled the farm on the vaccine being effective. We all better hope it is!

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...efuses-outright-Oxfords-Covid-19-vaccine.html

We should be concerned that one of the experts isn't too positive about it.

 

Just read the paper and article. Interesting stuff for sure and I am a little surprised at the testing methods. To me as long as it’s the same testing and approval that every other vaccine goes through, I will have no problem taking it. I can’t see any corners being cut so far and I don’t think any western leaders would force this through without testing, with the exception of Donald Trump, so I’ll be watching what’s happening in other countries, also.

Talking of Trump and vaccines, I watched a bloke on Fox News the other day saying that they should name the vaccines after Trump for all the hard work he’s done to ‘remove red tape’ and make a vaccine happen. Literally one of the most insane things I’ve ever seen in my life. Think Trump retweeted it as well. What an utterly bonkers ******* world we live in.

 

I wasn't lying. Here it is. ******* insanity.