COVID vaccination

[Jo_the_boat]

Just the other side of the coin. Guess it just depends on who people choose to believe.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/...lockdown-policies-and-for-focused-protection/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...r-signed-fake-experts-dr-johnny-bananas-covid

https://www.sootoday.com/around-ont...ral-herd-immunity-dangerous-and-naive-2853367

Yes Max, it does.
I am not trying to frighten, bludgeon or mislead anybody.
I'm not a militant, nor a monster raving loony. I'm just trying to make my own mind up.
I wonder if the three links above are quite as 'pro-establishment' when they see, for example, these things that I came across this morning without really looking hard. For sure there is enough accurate (and inaccurate!) stuff on both sides to both confuse and question.

1. Pfizer 3 days ago: "Our vaccine is 90% effective." Moderna yesterday: "Our vaccine is 94.5% effective." Pfizer this morning: "Just kidding... we meant 95% effective."

2. From Zoe Harcombe (trusted by me and many others. Althought that doesn't mean she should be believed ad hoc. "Just looked at the 90% Pfizer announcement another way... 43,538 people, 94 cases. Assuming participants split 50/50 vaccine/placebo, then 99.61% of the placebo group didn't get Covid-19 and 99.96% of the vaccine group didn't get Covid-19."

3. A response here in the BMJ. I've seen similar figures elsewhere.

4. The Danish study proving masks are all but useless. Confirming others' beliefs.

5. Headline in the Daily Mail this morning. Yes, you say, The Fail. This is not unlike many of their senationalised, doom-laden offerings, however, this one is anti 'main-stream'. One bit that stands out to me is the critical care bed situation. I have friends / family who are unwell and I just hope they, like many others, are not being sidelined on a false premis.

I say again. There is enough 'white noise' for us to legitimately ask questions.

 

[Max68]

Yes Max, it does.
I am not trying to frighten, bludgeon or mislead anybody.
I'm not a militant, nor a monster raving loony. I'm just trying to make my own mind up.
I wonder if the three links above are quite as 'pro-establishment' when they see, for example, these things that I came across this morning without really looking hard. For sure there is enough accurate (and inaccurate!) stuff on both sides to both confuse and question.

1. Pfizer 3 days ago: "Our vaccine is 90% effective." Moderna yesterday: "Our vaccine is 94.5% effective." Pfizer this morning: "Just kidding... we meant 95% effective."

2. From Zoe Harcombe (trusted by me and many others. Althought that doesn't mean she should be believed ad hoc. "Just looked at the 90% Pfizer announcement another way... 43,538 people, 94 cases. Assuming participants split 50/50 vaccine/placebo, then 99.61% of the placebo group didn't get Covid-19 and 99.96% of the vaccine group didn't get Covid-19."

3. A response here in the BMJ. I've seen similar figures elsewhere.

4. The Danish study proving masks are all but useless. Confirming others' beliefs.

5. Headline in the Daily Mail this morning. Yes, you say, The Fail. This is not unlike many of their senationalised, doom-laden offerings, however, this one is anti 'main-stream'. One bit that stands out to me is the critical care bed situation. I have friends / family who are unwell and I just hope they, like many others, are not being sidelined on a false premis.

I say again. There is enough 'white noise' for us to legitimately ask questions.

Oh for sure I can understand that. Funnily enough on another site the Danish mask Study was mentioned but the author of the post didn't post the whole article which suggested that the study was far from conclusive. I won't bore you with it here but I posted it on my Covid General Chat thread in post #1710 and it just shows how a few lines added/deleted/forgotten in any article can change the whole dynamic for the reader.

It's like the Sweden situation where a quick Google search will show up articles where Anders Tegnell is one minute saying Sweden succeeded then in the next breath saying Sweden failed. It is indeed very difficult to find 100% answers so one can forge his/her own opinion.

 

[JohnEGreen]

One problem with the vaccines if your immune system doesn't work then it's pretty certain the vaccines won't either.

 

[Oldvatr]

Yes Max, it does.
I am not trying to frighten, bludgeon or mislead anybody.
I'm not a militant, nor a monster raving loony. I'm just trying to make my own mind up.
I wonder if the three links above are quite as 'pro-establishment' when they see, for example, these things that I came across this morning without really looking hard. For sure there is enough accurate (and inaccurate!) stuff on both sides to both confuse and question.

1. Pfizer 3 days ago: "Our vaccine is 90% effective." Moderna yesterday: "Our vaccine is 94.5% effective." Pfizer this morning: "Just kidding... we meant 95% effective."

2. From Zoe Harcombe (trusted by me and many others. Althought that doesn't mean she should be believed ad hoc. "Just looked at the 90% Pfizer announcement another way... 43,538 people, 94 cases. Assuming participants split 50/50 vaccine/placebo, then 99.61% of the placebo group didn't get Covid-19 and 99.96% of the vaccine group didn't get Covid-19."

3. A response here in the BMJ. I've seen similar figures elsewhere.

4. The Danish study proving masks are all but useless. Confirming others' beliefs.

5. Headline in the Daily Mail this morning. Yes, you say, The Fail. This is not unlike many of their senationalised, doom-laden offerings, however, this one is anti 'main-stream'. One bit that stands out to me is the critical care bed situation. I have friends / family who are unwell and I just hope they, like many others, are not being sidelined on a false premis.

I say again. There is enough 'white noise' for us to legitimately ask questions.

It seems that both you and Zoe are using "The Idiots Guide to Statistics". To calculate the effectiveness of a vaccine it is necessary to look at the sample group and make some assertions as to what percentage of that number of people outside this sample will be active carriers of the disease. Then calculate the chances of someone in the sample group coming into a situation where they are exposed to an active carrier. Then you have to assess the chance of that encounter actually resulting in the transfer of sufficient active particles and it being taken up by someone in the sample group. Now you cn compare apples with vaccinated apples. I agree that this route is more prone to error since it relies on many factors that are not measured or scientifically defined but can be estimated from the overall population statistics.

One thing we are not being given is what was the selection criteria of the sample groups. Can we assume that it contains only people who are working full time, or are in situations where they are at definite risk of making contact with the virus (i.e. are not isolated, or furloughed, or in an institution? Not athletes in a sports bubble? To that end, one of the series of the trial was moved to Brazil specifically because of the higher infection rates in the general population.

One last thing. The calculation is being made only 1 month after the second shot was given, and it takes a week to become effective. So the efficacy value is intended to represent what will happen over a year of 'normal' activity so the results so far will be extrapolated for the year. We do not know how long the antibodies last so this is another unknown factor. It is going to be like a weather forecast and we all know how off they can be. But this is not the first time this type of calculation has been performed so there is a track record in place including the recent SARS-1 and Ebola outbreaks.

I fail to see the logic of dissing the vaccine. At present we have a viral disease for which we have very minimal medical tools to deal with. It kills, it maims, it produces long-term damage, and attacks all our body's essential organs at once. A vaccine, even at 50% efficacy will improve mankind's ability to shake it off and reduce the risk of harm. So why not take it - to prevent getting a small long term effect from the vaccine? Of the 80k+ volunteers so far in the combined samples, there is so far very little evidence of harm being caused, and although we do not know the long-term prognosis, it is fair to say it will probably be low too. At least the vaccine improves my chances of getting that long term problem, which would probably be coming my way anyway naturally. With Covid, my chances of any undamaged longevity are severely curtailed.

The same argument applies to mask-wearing. It reduces my risk and protects others from my exhalations in the event that I become a silent killer. Short of wearing a divers helmet or a spacesuit, I see it as an easy and cheap solution. However, as an aside, I find that as a spectacle wearer it does make driving my mobility scooter somewhat hazardous. Nt to mention the ability to read the carb content on the packets. Or even seeing the packets at all.

 

[JohnEGreen]

Reading this article from 2015 I cannot understand why we were so ill prepared for this pandemic.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3371787/

 

[Oldvatr]

Reading this article from 2015 I cannot understand why we were so ill prepared for this pandemic.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3371787/

The closing statemenr is
"Thus, recombinant RBD or vectors encoding RBD may be used as safe and efficacious vaccines for preventing infection by SARS-CoV with distinct genotypes."
This is what the two leading vaccines are based on, I believe.

 

[bulkbiker]

It kills, it maims, it produces long-term damage, and attacks all our body's essential organs at once.

In a tiny proportion of people who catch it.

So why not take it

Because we currently have no idea if it is safe to do so?

there is so far very little evidence of harm being caused,

So far indeed.. who is to know what will happen once mass vaccinations start to occur?

it is fair to say it will probably be low too

A completely evidence free statement.

I become a silent killer

Recent study out implies that asymptomatic infection is non existent.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

 

[JohnEGreen]

This also caught my eye.

"These events indicate that a SARS epidemic may recur at any time in the future, either by the virus escaping from laboratory samples or by SARS-CoV isolates evolving from SARS-CoV–like virus in animal hosts."

So we had plenty of warning and also a suggested strategy for dealing with it 15 years ago.

Mind you as I take immunosuppressants it's a pretty mute point for me as to how effective or safe they are.

 

[Jo_the_boat]

It seems that both you and Zoe are using "The Idiots Guide to Statistics". To calculate the effectiveness of a vaccine it is necessary to look at the sample group and make some assertions as to what percentage of that number of people outside this sample will be active carriers of the disease. Then calculate the chances of someone in the sample group coming into a situation where they are exposed to an active carrier. Then you have to assess the chance of that encounter actually resulting in the transfer of sufficient active particles and it being taken up by someone in the sample group. Now you cn compare apples with vaccinated apples. I agree that this route is more prone to error since it relies on many factors that are not measured or scientifically defined but can be estimated from the overall population statistics.

One thing we are not being given is what was the selection criteria of the sample groups. Can we assume that it contains only people who are working full time, or are in situations where they are at definite risk of making contact with the virus (i.e. are not isolated, or furloughed, or in an institution? Not athletes in a sports bubble? To that end, one of the series of the trial was moved to Brazil specifically because of the higher infection rates in the general population.

One last thing. The calculation is being mode one only 1 month after the second shot was given, and it takes a week to become effective. So the efficacy value is intended to represent what will happen over a year of 'normal' activity so the results so far will be extrapolated for the year. We do not know how long the antibodies last so this is another unknown factor. It is going to be like a weather forecast and we all know how off they can be. But this is not the first time this type of calculation has been performed so there is a track record in place including the recent SARS-1 and Ebola outbreaks.

I fail to see the logic of dissing the vaccine. At present we have a viral disease for which we have very minimal medical tools to deal with. It kills, it maims, it produces long-term damage, and attacks all our body's essential organs at once. A vaccine, even at 50% efficacy will improve mankind's ability to shake it off and reduce the risk of harm. So why not take it - to prevent getting a small long term effect from the vaccine? Of the 80k+ volunteers so far in the combined samples, there is so far very little evidence of harm being caused, and although we do not know the long-term prognosis, it is fair to say it will probably be low too. At least the vaccine improves my chances of getting that long term problem, which would probably be coming my way anyway naturally. With Covid, my chances of any undamaged longevity are severely curtailed.

The same argument applies to mask-wearing. It reduces my risk and protects others from my exhalations in the event that I become a silent killer. Short of wearing a divers helmet or a spacesuit, I see it as an easy and cheap solution. However, as an aside, I find that as a spectacle wearer it does make driving my mobility scooter somewhat hazardous. Nt to mention the ability to read the carb content on the packets. Or even seeing the packets at all.

The beauty of a free speech in a democracy is that I can disagree with you.
Worryingly, it appears that many people cannot talk freely about other things.
We have opposing views on masks. I believe they are useless.
However I wear a mask for two reasons. Firstly for your benefit, and out of respect for shopkeepers and the many people who help look after us. Not because it does you any good but because you believe it does. Secondly because its law. A law that I believe wrong, but a law by which I abide because the alternative is what, anarchy?
Masks is one thing, wearing one won't do me any good, but it won't do me any harm.
Vaccines is another thing altogether.
I'm not going to repeat what I've said already, merely that I will not be having one. Nor, if I have a say, will my grandchildren, not because their chances of getting ill are infinitesimally small, but because they'll be taking something that is being rushed on us for political and economic reasons, not necessarily medical.

 

[Jo_the_boat]

I'm not trying to 'win' here. What I'm trying to do is make people aware that there are other schools of thought.
If they are even allowed to put these points of view, we should at least listen, then to go on from there and check things for ourselves.
Here is another highly qualified guy, from Ontario, Canada, I think.
Listen or not
This recording was banned from Facebook, YouTube and twitter I believe.

 

[Oldvatr]

The beauty of a free speech in a democracy is that I can disagree with you.
Worryingly, it appears that many people cannot talk freely about other things.
We have opposing views on masks. I believe they are useless.
However, I wear a mask for two reasons. Firstly for your benefit, and out of respect for shopkeepers and the many people who help look after us. Not because it does you any good but because you believe it does. Secondly because its law. A law that I believe wrong, but a law by which I abide because the alternative is what, anarchy?
Masks is one thing, wearing one won't do me any good, but it won't do me any harm.
Vaccines is another thing altogether.
I'm not going to repeat what I've said already, merely that I will not be having one. Nor, if I have a say, will my grandchildren, not because their chances of getting ill are infinitesimally small, but because they'll be taking something that is being rushed on us for political and economic reasons, not necessarily medical.

That paper of 2015 shows that China was well aware of Covid-SARS being widespread in animals in Guandong Province and was actively studying it. When it jumped into humans, and before it went human-human, they had isolated the genome and DNA profile for it and were working on vaccines, Obama administration was well aware of the possibility of something like this happening, and was doing drills and working on strategies to reduce its effects using the CDC protocols, Trump, in his spite for Obama, ripped up these planning moves and emaculated the CDC. But the Chinese did not, and they locked down Wuhan very effectively. China returned to 'normal' life remarkably quickly. So we have had the same opportunities but squandered them away. Yes, the vaccine is being rushed through. The death rate and infection rate around the world would seem to give this some urgency. Waiting 10 years is a luxury we do not have. Time is not on our side, especially since we are also ignoring the advice on social meetings of all sorts. Maybe you do not have personal experience of what this disease can do, and I hope you avoid it, but the longer the world continues to turn its back on Covid, the sooner we will be facing mass extinction (it is not just direct deaths from Covid, but the inability of sick people to maintain the complex supply chains that we all rely on nowadays Starvation is another cause of suffering and slow death in itself)

You have the right to decide for yourself what to do. Please do not sow the seeds of doubt in those here who need to make their own decisions.

 

[Member496333]

Waiting 10 years is a luxury we do not have.

Senator MgGovern shared that sentiment when drawing up dietary guidelines and that didn't go too well. Sometimes, doing something rather than nothing is a very bad idea. As evidenced by the amount of members on these boards still struggling with metabolic meltdown some fifty years later. Many won't agree but that's because humans don't learn from history.

You know the drill, but fast forward to :30" for a poignant reminder;

 

[bulkbiker]

Please do not sow the seeds of doubt in those here who need to make their own decisions.

Surely you shouldn't make a decision until you are aware of different perspectives.
Anyone watching main stream media will likely only get a one sided view which could be rather dangerous.

 

[Oldvatr]

Many of us here on the boards take prescription medication. If you read the patient information sheet, you will find a list of contraindications, a list of side effects, and a list of potentially harmful events that can occur as a result of taking the medication. If you go online, then you will find others who report even more adverse reactions to the medication. If you look at the FDA website or Medscape, or Healthline they will give other effects and warnings. Some of the meds I take are quite frightening even the anti-biotics for UTI. These are risks we take along with the med. Some meds have long term studies that show that taking some meds will shorten your life or increase your risk of mortality. I was on a PPI which it turns out is a big no-no in the longer term. and my heart treatment will become liable to kill me if I take NSAIDs such as codeine or Ibuprofen. Statins and grapefruit is another dodgy combination that is not listed in the patient leaflet.

We live with things that can reduce our life expectancy on a daily basis, Not just food, but even some household cleaning products, and dishwasher tabs. There is nothing that is 100% safe. What I eat destroys me (Latin proverb)

In my life, I have had Tuberculosis, Chickenpox, measles, German Measles, mumps, shingles, numerous bouts of flu. and coronavirus (common cold) I survived them all, but most can cause death on their own. None of them was pleasant, and all of them have a vaccine available. There is less outbreak of these diseases now in the UK because of the vaccines. The same applies to numerous other diseases that we used to et. I remember hospitals having wards full of iron lungs to treat polio. Special wards to treat tropical diseases such as cholera and typhus. I avoided these in North Africa probably because I got the vaccines before I went there. Even tetanus has a vaccine.

So how are we supposed to prove the vaccine is safe - answer: we test in thousands and thousands of people, which I believe is the stage we are entering shortly There is no shortcut to that, I choose to be a guinea pig. It has already had Stage I and Stage II and Stage III testing so is shown to be basically safe.

 

[Max68]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w[/URL]View attachment 45574

If that's correct then does that mean infections are driven by people who therefore just don't give a ****?! After all if you know you have symptoms then you should be self isolating. If asymptomatic infection is non existent then it "should be" a very easy virus to contain if people did the right thing.

 

[bulkbiker]

If that's correct then does that mean infections are driven by people who therefore just don't give a ****?! After all if you know you have symptoms then you should be self isolating. If asymptomatic infection is non existent then it "should be" a very easy virus to contain if people did the right thing.

No, it's people being infected by being locked up in their homes with sick people or catching it in hospital when they have been admitted for something else.
Masks and non masks make little to no difference as we saw in Jun and July before they were mandated in supermarkets and cases went down.. this was before the scam of PCR tests using way too high thresholds.

 

[lucylocket61]

I dislike and am uncomfortable about the way, even on this forum, that those who want to stop and think and research information about the vaccines are vilified and often called names like stupid or selfish.

For several reasons I distrust the government. Good and reasonable reasons. Thus I am taking my time to learn more. I am pro-vaccine in general. My age group and health bracket have several months before the opportunity will present itself.

I firmly believe in open debate and polite discussion on this is important.

 

[Max68]

No, it's people being infected by being locked up in their homes with sick people or catching it in hospital when they have been admitted for something else.
Masks and non masks make lite to no difference as we saw in Jun and July before they were mandated in supermarkets and cases went down.. this was before the scam of PCR tests using way too high thresholds.

Got to catch it somewhere to take it home. Anyway we will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[bulkbiker]

Got to catch it somewhere to take it home. Anyway we will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Maybe at the golf club...

 

[Member496333]

I dislike and am uncomfortable about the way, even on this forum, that those who want to stop and think and research information about the vaccines are vilified and often called names like stupid or selfish.

For several reasons I distrust the government. Good and reasonable reasons. Thus I am taking my time to learn more. I am pro-vaccine in general. My age group and health bracket have several months before the opportunity will present itself.

I firmly believe in open debate and polite discussion on this is important.

Bravo. It's a good job we didn't all blindly listen to government advice on how to treat diabetes eh? You'd think in a community like this, more than any other, we'd be naturally sceptical of any government guidelines. They are not beyond reproach.