- Messages
- 18,807
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Insulin
Hi,
Got any links regarding the vaccinated contracting Covid 19?
To be fair, i'm just a little surprised, as they only just rolled this vaccine out..?
Vaccinated people still caught COVID so it's not exactly a magic bullet and no-one as yet knows whether it can stop onward transmission as the trial results still haven't been published or reviewed. And likely won't be until 2022/3..
I think what you are describing is efficacy. For the Pfizer vax, it means that of 100 people vaccinated, 5 or so stand to not be immunized from the getgo. The real worm in the apple is that indeed we do not know yet how long the immunity lasts, and yes, that will take years of in vivo trial which we started this morning.Vaccinated people still caught COVID so it's not exactly a magic bullet and no-one as yet knows whether it can stop onward transmission as the trial results still haven't been published or reviewed. And likely won't be until 2022/3..
This approach is held by many as being the get out if jail unharmed card for Covid-19, but it is a very wasteful process, and will totally swamp our health facilities very quickly.Please don't be disingenuous and even hint that I am writing anybody off. That appears to be a veiled way of shaming me and shutting down discussion.
Nobody is denying that the disease, covid-19, is new but coronoviruses are not. This virus will run it's course, as many, many run their course for millennia. Lockdowns and masks will not stop it's spread. That's not me saying that, have a look around the internet.
Caution, personal responsibility, shielding the vulnerable and elderly is and should have been the way to combat this virus. If we'd done that more people may well have lived longer. The proportion of healthy people under 65 dying is tiny.
A rushed-through, ill-tested vaccine is what people want but it may well not be the right approach. I'll repeat, to shut out the concerns of scientists and medics is morally wrong. Not just for them but for all of us.
'Following the science' says the establishment. But are they really?
There is just too much contra information out there to ignore. In fact, why not take a few minutes to read this. I've highlighted this article, which is one of hundreds, because it also contains The Great Barrington Declaration which is authored by three professors from Oxford, Harvard and Stanford and endorsed by 44,000 clinicians, scientists and public health experts.
This is not something dreamed up by 'Karen' on the internet. These are real people on the front line of medicine and research.
If there was just David Icke yelling from a rooftop then we'd be justified in ignoring him. But it's not.
Frankly, I want this to be all done and dusted as much as anyone else but I am becoming increasingly concerned about our appoach and the strategy of the powers that be.
Hi,
Got any links regarding the vaccinated contracting Covid 19?
To be fair, i'm just a little surprised, as they only just rolled this vaccine out..?
Will this do instead?It's kind of here
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-r...d-biontech-announce-vaccine-candidate-against
" The case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates a vaccine efficacy rate above 90%, at 7 days after the second dose. This means that protection is achieved 28 days after the initiation of the vaccination, which consists of a 2-dose schedule. As the study continues, the final vaccine efficacy percentage may vary. "
i.e. some people who were vaccinated still tested positive for COVID.. hence the 90% efficiency rather than 100%
I think I have read elsewhere that out of the 94 cases something like 8 or 9 were in the vaccinated group the rest in the placebo arm.
Edit to add. until the trial research is actually reported all we have to go on are the press releases.
Will this do instead?
https://www.pfizer.co.uk/pfizer-and...didate-meeting-all-primary-efficacy-endpoints
Or is it from a biased source?
Well Pfizer is hardly likely to be unbiased where their own vaccine is concerned but even they say
" of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group"
so not 100% effective.. just as I said it doesn't stop you getting COVID.
Exactly. 95% efficacy = 95 in 100 will be protected, but 5 may catch it.
the rest of the world will move on around you, - and they may not be wearing masks.
Someone with decent metabolic health and no
known co-morbidities has virtually nothing to fear.
This approach is held by many as being the get out if jail unharmed card for Covid-19, but it is a very wasteful process, and will totally swamp our health facilities very quickly.
This is what Professor Van Tam says and I warn you it is biassed toward the vaccine,
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/...lockdown-policies-and-for-focused-protection/
The use of the vaccine will eventually lead to the same place, but using fewer resources and causing less harm being suffered. That is important, It is unlikely that there will be any significant adverse vaccine reaction in the general population that would cause anything like the same or more harm than natural selection aka Herd Immunity or Focused Protection,
https://fullfact.org/health/Covid-recovery-vaccine/As I said it does not prevent catching it and as over 99% recover completely then I'd rather take the risk of COVID thanks.
Someone with decent metabolic health and no co-morbidities has virtually nothing to fear.
Excellent.. as we know masks do little to nothing anyway so...
Maybe at your age you are happy to take the risk with long term vaccine problems, for me with hopefully 20 or so years of extra life left I'd rather not thanks. Vaccines (like drugs) are not risk free why take an unnecessary risk?
Yes, I have corrected my post - it was Van Tang.I am not anti-vaccine. I would love to see the country get back to 'normal'. I've said it before but I believe the vaccine is probably not dangerous, at least in the short term, but I still think it's been rushed. As it stands now I will not be taking it. But last time we discussed it, my wife will!
I'll also reiterate my thought that when debate is squashed by the establishment we need to be REALLY careful.
Moving on....
Here is a piece from the BBC today.
Among other things it appears to answer Dr Julian Tang's (if that's who you're referring to) point about how to protect the vulnerable.
I've said before that we can all pick articles, items of research etc. etc. to support our views. My problem is I think the go-ahead for the vaccine is a massive political / economic exercise.
I heard an interview the other day. I can't remember who it was, but he said this:
"If 75% of people take the vaccine and the vaccine is 75% effective 1 in 2 people will be helped.
That means that one in two will get less severe symptoms than if they hadn’t had the vaccine. It is NOT the case that one in two will be prevented from getting Covid 19, but that they will have less severe symptoms.
The other person won’t be helped at all.
Is either person capable of transmitting the virus even though they have had a vaccine? Unknown.
The WHO have said we have to carry on as we have been because we don’t know who is protected, to what degree they are protected or whether they can pass it on."
Now perhaps the vaccine may be more than 75% effective, but conversely maybe less than 75% will have it, but the figures indicate that a vaccine is not the be all and end all.
The upshot is perhaps that we MAY protect some of the vulnerable (and their carers and their visitors and the NHS staff). In that respect it's a shot in our national arm, but a return to 'normal' by spring seems unlikely.
Also which vaccines are you citing as being harmful
Where do you get your 99.9% recovery rate figure from?
I see they have already made payouts in 2021, which is a bit disconcerting. How many of these vaccines were thrown out and discontinued? How many still continue in use? I know that the egg allergy problem was significant. There isn't enough detail in this report to be of use except to a lawyer or accountant.The vaccines that have harmed enough in the USA for there to have been payouts of $4.5 bio since 1988..
The vaccines are listed in the report
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/data-statistics-report.pdf
Sorry, you did say 99.7% I shall have to be more exact, It certainly is not the 99.9% I misquoted you on.Please don't misrepresent what I said.. 99% and 99.9% are different things.
So far in the under 60 no co-morbidity cohort there have been 367 deaths allegedly "from" COVID in the NHS England figures
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/
Getting data from cases from here
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation&areaName=England
We find that there have been a total of 1,177,885 cases in the under 60's in England so far
With 367 deaths that means that 99.97% have recovered. However I didn't claim that.
Edit to add even including those with co-morbidities we get 0.276% have died thus 99.7 have recovered.
Sorry, you did say 99.7% I shall have to be more exact, It certainly is not the 99.9% I misquoted you on.
The figures I was using were for the complete UK Covid saga, not s subset of it, Which today works out at 3.5547% I find the figure for the under 60's to be very low indeed which is probably why the step-down protection plan stops at 60. So you're missing already even if you want it, Apparently, you consider yourself as having no co-morbidities, Well done, but the majority of people reading this forum are probably diabetic
so are not in the same boat as you it would appear, I am trying to look at the overall picture.
Seems someone else has already looked at this
https://fullfact.org/health/its-not...ovid-19-if-youre-under-60-no-health-problems/
have you investigated who funds them?
https://fullfact.org/about/funding/You seem to quote them quite a lot.. have you investigated who funds them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?