FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > What if something goes wrong?
What if something goes wrong?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what are the inevitabilities? I'm not 100% sure about the vaccine but I don't think that its inevitable that something goes wrong" Ok... 'If something goes wrong'? As I suggested the time lapse is normally there which allows for situations like that to show themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know what ones' legal rights are in the case with a vaccine that goes wrong. I imagine the government has already tied this one up in knots and the fact they say it's a choice to accept it or not. They have already covered themselves for one group by stating anyone pregnant should not have it. Unlike most modern medication and vaccines there is not the necessary considerable time lapse for these inevitabilities to show themselves. What do others think about this?" Be cold tomorrow | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not over keen to be honest I'm of the understanding through a friend who is a microbiologist & other things, that most vaccines are tested over a much longer time period! Is all for placebo effect? All this letting up a little over Christmas & vaccine talk? Wouldn't be surprised if there's a large country wide spike in the new year followed by another lock down! But that's just an opinion, not looking to argue over it so don't start please! "I'd put my house on it that there will be a spike in the new year and future lockdowns. Anyone who thinks other wise has hurried their head or can predict the future.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there any information whats actually in any of the vaccines ?" Yes and the possibile side effects. These are also explained to you. Most people don't really listen to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there any information whats actually in any of the vaccines ?" From the government technical document on the approval: COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is highly purified single-stranded, 5’-capped messenger RNA (mRNA) produced by cell-free in vitro transcription from the corresponding DNA templates, encoding the viral spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2. The gold standard in medicine approvals is by the US FDA. In Europe it is the EMA. Now that the UK is Brexiting, you can we expect more maverick decisions in the future where drugs are approved in the UK before the US or EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there any information whats actually in any of the vaccines ? From the government technical document on the approval: COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is highly purified single-stranded, 5’-capped messenger RNA (mRNA) produced by cell-free in vitro transcription from the corresponding DNA templates, encoding the viral spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2. The gold standard in medicine approvals is by the US FDA. In Europe it is the EMA. Now that the UK is Brexiting, you can we expect more maverick decisions in the future where drugs are approved in the UK before the US or EU." I'll disagree with your last assumption. It sounds too much like sour grapes over Brexit too lol. We have been the ones often setting the standards for the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater." To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not?" So what are you saying, delay the vaccines for 10 years while they are tested more? To continue lockdown after lockdown, social distancing, quarantining, face masks, the inability to meet closely with family and friends for the next 10 years, so the vaccines can be assessed more fully? I for one don't want to live like that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know what ones' legal rights are in the case with a vaccine that goes wrong. I imagine the government has already tied this one up in knots and the fact they say it's a choice to accept it or not. They have already covered themselves for one group by stating anyone pregnant should not have it. Unlike most modern medication and vaccines there is not the necessary considerable time lapse for these inevitabilities to show themselves. What do others think about this?" Let me ask you a question. Do you drink bottled water ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not?" And yet the vaccines we take for flu haven't been tested for ten years... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not? And yet the vaccines we take for flu haven't been tested for ten years..." My limited understanding is that it's been over 70 years and it's the same process, the only significant change is using the live pathogen of the current flu in a weakened form. This would be why it's quick to produce a 'new' fly vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not? And yet the vaccines we take for flu haven't been tested for ten years... My limited understanding is that it's been over 70 years and it's the same process, the only significant change is using the live pathogen of the current flu in a weakened form. This would be why it's quick to produce a 'new' fly vaccine. " 'flu'* not fly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not? And yet the vaccines we take for flu haven't been tested for ten years... My limited understanding is that it's been over 70 years and it's the same process, the only significant change is using the live pathogen of the current flu in a weakened form. This would be why it's quick to produce a 'new' fly vaccine. " The process for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (mRNA) was first developed in 1990. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not?" I take it when you refer to the vaccine developed in 1 year then you are referring to the mRNA based vaccine? If that is the case then you clearly have no understanding of the science behind the development. This type of vaccine has been in development for decades not just a single year. Any possible side effects are well understood as trials have been carried out on 10’s of thousands of people over the years. The difference is that with COVID-19 vast sums of money and people have been thrown at it to isolate the right part of the virus to create a targeted mRNA response. Rather than a small group of researchers continually scrabbling for funding. You need to understand and fully acquaint yourself with the science first before making ill informed comments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not? So what are you saying, delay the vaccines for 10 years while they are tested more? To continue lockdown after lockdown, social distancing, quarantining, face masks, the inability to meet closely with family and friends for the next 10 years, so the vaccines can be assessed more fully? I for one don't want to live like that." I don't think there's a right or wrong responds, but I definitely think people should have the choice, based on the fact there is so much we don't know and the statistics that we do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not? So what are you saying, delay the vaccines for 10 years while they are tested more? To continue lockdown after lockdown, social distancing, quarantining, face masks, the inability to meet closely with family and friends for the next 10 years, so the vaccines can be assessed more fully? I for one don't want to live like that. I don't think there's a right or wrong responds, but I definitely think people should have the choice, based on the fact there is so much we don't know and the statistics that we do." The more people choose not to, the more the vulnerable who can't be vaccinated have to make a choice between indefinite home imprisonment and risking death. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not over keen to be honest I'm of the understanding through a friend who is a microbiologist & other things, that most vaccines are tested over a much longer time period! Is all for placebo effect? All this letting up a little over Christmas & vaccine talk? Wouldn't be surprised if there's a large country wide spike in the new year followed by another lock down! But that's just an opinion, not looking to argue over it so don't start please!
I'd put my house on it that there will be a spike in the new year and future lockdowns.
Anyone who thinks other wise has hurried their head or can predict the future. "So you are not predicting the future then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not?" No. The virus is a simple entity that exists and continues via its RNA material being reproduced in the cells of animals that it has invaded. The complexity exists in the illness that the host gets and the damage that it causes. The vaccine doesn't produce the illness with the complex symptoms that the virus causes. Think of the organs that come under its affects and attack - lungs, heart, kidneys, the brain etc. These are all involved in the substance of life itself for us - acquisition of Oxygen and its transport through our body to every cell; our cognitive abilities and consciousness and the plethota of systems that maintain us being alive. The vaccine delivers a highly targeted 'invasive' package to our immune systems. This stimulates a short and longer term immune defence that is primed to recognise the true virus should it ever enter our body and to counter it. Whilst our immune systems are incredible marvels, this vaccines single operation cannot be compared to the essential physiological complexity of a person's life under attack from this virus, that we're still learning of the immediate and enduring damage that it causes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not? I take it when you refer to the vaccine developed in 1 year then you are referring to the mRNA based vaccine? If that is the case then you clearly have no understanding of the science behind the development. This type of vaccine has been in development for decades not just a single year. Any possible side effects are well understood as trials have been carried out on 10’s of thousands of people over the years. The difference is that with COVID-19 vast sums of money and people have been thrown at it to isolate the right part of the virus to create a targeted mRNA response. Rather than a small group of researchers continually scrabbling for funding. You need to understand and fully acquaint yourself with the science first before making ill informed comments." Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't ever do a search for side effects of the flu vaccine, shocking some of them, given the scale of its disruption and shear numbers of people taking it, that's a lot of people with some serious life changing effects. Yes there are side effects for what's considered mundane over the counter drugs, but they have been tested and very small risks. I'm no anti vaxer at all, I've had all mine. I just think it should be a choice, the way I see it is I have a choice catching the virus or a rushed through vaccine with no long term testing. At my current age and health I'll go with the risk of not having the vaccine. I'll have it when it been fully tested over a longer period and larger numbers. By then it should have been modified and all be 200% safe "I'm actually pretty sure vaccines have a lower threshold for adverse effects than most other medicines, and some like aspirin and perhaps paracetamol would not pass today because they're too dangerous, but they've been grandfathered in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't ever do a search for side effects of the flu vaccine, shocking some of them, given the scale of its disruption and shear numbers of people taking it, that's a lot of people with some serious life changing effects. Yes there are side effects for what's considered mundane over the counter drugs, but they have been tested and very small risks. I'm no anti vaxer at all, I've had all mine. I just think it should be a choice, the way I see it is I have a choice catching the virus or a rushed through vaccine with no long term testing. At my current age and health I'll go with the risk of not having the vaccine. I'll have it when it been fully tested over a longer period and larger numbers. By then it should have been modified and all be 200% safe "Every drug as it's own side effects. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't ever do a search for side effects of the flu vaccine, shocking some of them, given the scale of its disruption and shear numbers of people taking it, that's a lot of people with some serious life changing effects. Yes there are side effects for what's considered mundane over the counter drugs, but they have been tested and very small risks. I'm no anti vaxer at all, I've had all mine. I just think it should be a choice, the way I see it is I have a choice catching the virus or a rushed through vaccine with no long term testing. At my current age and health I'll go with the risk of not having the vaccine. I'll have it when it been fully tested over a longer period and larger numbers. By then it should have been modified and all be 200% safe "Research, testing and trials of mRNA vaccines has going on for decades.... With all the side effects well known and understood. Just exactly how long do you want a vaccine tested for.... ???? Now for a maths lesson around percentages.... Efficacy can be measured as 0 to 100% Magnitude can go over 100% Is in 4 is 200% greater than 2.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They have no come backs at all. The pharmaceutical companies have covered their arse by saying they are not responsible for any reactions people get. " This. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not over keen to be honest I'm of the understanding through a friend who is a microbiologist & other things, that most vaccines are tested over a much longer time period! Is all for placebo effect? All this letting up a little over Christmas & vaccine talk? Wouldn't be surprised if there's a large country wide spike in the new year followed by another lock down! But that's just an opinion, not looking to argue over it so don't start please!
I'd put my house on it that there will be a spike in the new year and future lockdowns.
Anyone who thinks other wise has hurried their head or can predict the future.
So you are not predicting the future then. "Nope but a forecast, and it's quite different. A forecast refers to a calculation or an estimation which uses data from previous events, combined with recent trends to come up a future event outcome. Forecast implies time series and future, while prediction does not. A prediction is a statement which tries to explain a “possible outcome or future event". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They have no come backs at all. The pharmaceutical companies have covered their arse by saying they are not responsible for any reactions people get. " This is important. People do need to respect the informed choices that others make, even if they don't understand why not if it doesn't agree with their own choice. More respect is needed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They have no come backs at all. The pharmaceutical companies have covered their arse by saying they are not responsible for any reactions people get. This is important. People do need to respect the informed choices that others make, even if they don't understand why not if it doesn't agree with their own choice. More respect is needed." Exactly this, why can't people just accept that their opinion is not the only opinion and respect other people's choice and opinions. People are just so ready to bite each other's heads off off and turn against each other just for having a different opinion or questioning things. That is what really upsets me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater." It's highly likely that the vaccine will have been approved by the FDA and EMA before the vast majority of us get it though. The UK only has enough for 400000 people at present. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They have no come backs at all. The pharmaceutical companies have covered their arse by saying they are not responsible for any reactions people get. " The vaccine is covered under the same scheme as all other vaccines. All the end stage vaccines are safer than the virus over a similar time frame. You all have a right to your opinions and bodily autonomy, but this isn't a football match, your side and my side. There's science and evidence. I just want people to be safe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They have no come backs at all. The pharmaceutical companies have covered their arse by saying they are not responsible for any reactions people get. The vaccine is covered under the same scheme as all other vaccines. All the end stage vaccines are safer than the virus over a similar time frame. You all have a right to your opinions and bodily autonomy, but this isn't a football match, your side and my side. There's science and evidence. I just want people to be safe." One needs to be careful how one uses the term science as automatic proof of something. It's something I hear constantly as an argument, science says this, science says that, so therefore it must be right. NOPE, not always. Technically science doesn't change, but it's the understanding of science and interpretation of data that changes with new understanding and knowledge. The ' assumed knowlege' of some science has proven to be wrong of occasions. The fact that many are cautious demonstrates it's not as clear cut as many would have us believe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They have no come backs at all. The pharmaceutical companies have covered their arse by saying they are not responsible for any reactions people get. The vaccine is covered under the same scheme as all other vaccines. All the end stage vaccines are safer than the virus over a similar time frame. You all have a right to your opinions and bodily autonomy, but this isn't a football match, your side and my side. There's science and evidence. I just want people to be safe. One needs to be careful how one uses the term science as automatic proof of something. It's something I hear constantly as an argument, science says this, science says that, so therefore it must be right. NOPE, not always. Technically science doesn't change, but it's the understanding of science and interpretation of data that changes with new understanding and knowledge. The ' assumed knowlege' of some science has proven to be wrong of occasions. The fact that many are cautious demonstrates it's not as clear cut as many would have us believe." Science is a process for gathering and assessing data and evidence to draw conclusions. The science at this stage is what I support, and if it changes I'll go with that. I'm not sure why the opinions of Joe Public have any bearing on the evidence. People think what they think for whatever reason based on what they hear or think they know. Myself included! I lean heavily on virologists and immunologists. Others lean on the BBC. Others Russian propaganda or Karen on Facebook. All have different relationships to reality and different takes on the evidence (if they bother with evidence at all). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They have no come backs at all. The pharmaceutical companies have covered their arse by saying they are not responsible for any reactions people get. The vaccine is covered under the same scheme as all other vaccines. All the end stage vaccines are safer than the virus over a similar time frame. You all have a right to your opinions and bodily autonomy, but this isn't a football match, your side and my side. There's science and evidence. I just want people to be safe. One needs to be careful how one uses the term science as automatic proof of something. It's something I hear constantly as an argument, science says this, science says that, so therefore it must be right. NOPE, not always. Technically science doesn't change, but it's the understanding of science and interpretation of data that changes with new understanding and knowledge. The ' assumed knowlege' of some science has proven to be wrong of occasions. The fact that many are cautious demonstrates it's not as clear cut as many would have us believe. Science is a process for gathering and assessing data and evidence to draw conclusions. The science at this stage is what I support, and if it changes I'll go with that. I'm not sure why the opinions of Joe Public have any bearing on the evidence. People think what they think for whatever reason based on what they hear or think they know. Myself included! I lean heavily on virologists and immunologists. Others lean on the BBC. Others Russian propaganda or Karen on Facebook. All have different relationships to reality and different takes on the evidence (if they bother with evidence at all)." Exactly unfortunately some don't have the ability to disseminate and evaluate the information and are misled and scared by lies like the one below your post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If something goes wrong it will be hushed up and glossed over" No it won’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Drug companies are exempt from liability." So? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You sue the Government as it is their fault if something goes wrong and you develop serious health issues. The reason why they are responsible it because they have promoted it as the be all and end all to the current problem. The answer to all the prayers of the Government. We naturally fall in line with everything they say as it is a criminal offence not to. Is that not so?" What have you been reading? From what I can see on the BBC website today the Government are emphasising that the vaccine isn't a be all and end all. We will still need some of the measures have in place for a long time to come. What they are pointing out is that if take up of the vaccine isn't high enough then the virus will remain at a higher level and we will need more restrictions for longer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They have no come backs at all. The pharmaceutical companies have covered their arse by saying they are not responsible for any reactions people get. This is important. People do need to respect the informed choices that others make, even if they don't understand why not if it doesn't agree with their own choice. More respect is needed." 
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know what ones' legal rights are in the case with a vaccine that goes wrong. I imagine the government has already tied this one up in knots and the fact they say it's a choice to accept it or not. They have already covered themselves for one group by stating anyone pregnant should not have it. Unlike most modern medication and vaccines there is not the necessary considerable time lapse for these inevitabilities to show themselves. What do others think about this?" Although the company themselves are exempt from being sued there's the vaccine injury compensation act that pays out upto £120,000 for injury or serious health issues caused by any vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not over keen to be honest I'm of the understanding through a friend who is a microbiologist & other things, that most vaccines are tested over a much longer time period! Is all for placebo effect? All this letting up a little over Christmas & vaccine talk? Wouldn't be surprised if there's a large country wide spike in the new year followed by another lock down! But that's just an opinion, not looking to argue over it so don't start please!
I'd put my house on it that there will be a spike in the new year and future lockdowns.
Anyone who thinks other wise has hurried their head or can predict the future. "Ah and that wasn't predicting the future? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not?" Probably not, the vaccine is not the virus, it is a small piece of the viral code which triggers the body to produce antibodies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there any information whats actually in any of the vaccines ? From the government technical document on the approval: COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is highly purified single-stranded, 5’-capped messenger RNA (mRNA) produced by cell-free in vitro transcription from the corresponding DNA templates, encoding the viral spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2. The gold standard in medicine approvals is by the US FDA. In Europe it is the EMA. Now that the UK is Brexiting, you can we expect more maverick decisions in the future where drugs are approved in the UK before the US or EU." That doesn't say what's in it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not?" This is a real concern for those who produce the vaccines and for those who understand how vaccines work, seeing that, in this instance so much is still unknown about the virus as well as the long term effects of the vaccine on the large population. What is presented to the public is a bravado with speed for economy reasons. I'm not against vaccinations but I'll pass this one at this stage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing will go wrong The vaccine is safe Please read the data if you are unsure Ignore the skeptics. The safety data is conclusive " Extremely brave statement. Even the Government and the manufacturers won't say that. Is this an opinion or a fact? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So they’ve given emergency use to a new vaccine using new technology and you don’t have any concerns about it at all? And I’m the one being called stupid here? " No, I feel a degree of caution is appropriate. I’m not pushing to be the front of the queue! I certainly don’t feel we should be boasting about being the first to approve it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not? So what are you saying, delay the vaccines for 10 years while they are tested more? To continue lockdown after lockdown, social distancing, quarantining, face masks, the inability to meet closely with family and friends for the next 10 years, so the vaccines can be assessed more fully? I for one don't want to live like that." No vaccine is tested for 10 years. They are normally tested for around 1 to 3 years the reason it takes so long for a roll out is because there are 4 stages but this time they've open condensed and done at the same time. The number of people tested is about the same as with any trial it's just been done in a much smaller time frame. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not? So what are you saying, delay the vaccines for 10 years while they are tested more? To continue lockdown after lockdown, social distancing, quarantining, face masks, the inability to meet closely with family and friends for the next 10 years, so the vaccines can be assessed more fully? I for one don't want to live like that. No vaccine is tested for 10 years. They are normally tested for around 1 to 3 years the reason it takes so long for a roll out is because there are 4 stages but this time they've open condensed and done at the same time. The number of people tested is about the same as with any trial it's just been done in a much smaller time frame." I understand that, my response was in connection to the argument that side effects can appear years down the line. I was trying to point out that in that case, we'd have to delay roll out of the vaccine for years while it was tested to make sure years down the line there was no long term effects. Years delay we can't afford. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was explained the other day on tv Its been developed so fast because The amount of money allocated The number of scientists working on the problem World wide assistance no one keeping secrect about the virus dna etc New devolpement and types of vaccine. And finally thanks to all the volunteers all over the world who took part in the trails " Well, that's settles it then. Off on my way to push to the front of the queue... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“There could still be severe adverse effects down the road, especially as mRNA vaccines are a new technology and have never been rolled out on a massive scale before.” This is the concerning part for me" EU urged not to follow UK's 'hasty' vaccine approval lead as minister claims Brexit victory Dr June Raine from the UK's medicines regulator confirms the jab's approval was made using provisions under European law. Mr Hancock claimed European countries are "moving a little bit more slowly" and stressed the vaccine had gone through all the proper checks, but Germany has said it deliberately did not move too quickly to boost confidence it will work. And Germany's health minister, Jens Spahn, said the UK had used an emergency process to authorise its vaccine use, while politicians there had decided against that strategy to boost confidence in the jab's safety. Peter Liese, a German MEP and member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's governing CDU party, also said the EMA was avoiding approving the vaccine because a "careful review...will give people additional security". He added: "The information in the last few weeks was based mainly on press releases and much of the data has only been available to the authorities for a few hours. "With such a large-scale vaccination campaign, you have to look carefully and carefully check the information provided by the companies. "I have confidence in BioNTech, but they rightly say 'trust is good, control is better'. "Emergency approval is a tool normally intended for patients suffering from a serious and incurable disease for whom there is no other means of saving life or physical integrity. This is not the case with Corona." "A few weeks of thorough examination by the EMA is better than a hasty emergency marketing authorisation of a vaccine." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So virologists are now shedding doubt on the popularist idea that having the vaccine with help prevent the spread as the virus may continue to remain in the nasal passage though not effect the host. This has been a concern that quite a number of us have been suggesting for quite some time. This means those who have the vaccine will still have to social distance as much as those who don't take it." And your own silver bullet is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not? I take it when you refer to the vaccine developed in 1 year then you are referring to the mRNA based vaccine? If that is the case then you clearly have no understanding of the science behind the development. This type of vaccine has been in development for decades not just a single year. Any possible side effects are well understood as trials have been carried out on 10’s of thousands of people over the years. The difference is that with COVID-19 vast sums of money and people have been thrown at it to isolate the right part of the virus to create a targeted mRNA response. Rather than a small group of researchers continually scrabbling for funding. You need to understand and fully acquaint yourself with the science first before making ill informed comments." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not? And yet the vaccines we take for flu haven't been tested for ten years... My limited understanding is that it's been over 70 years and it's the same process, the only significant change is using the live pathogen of the current flu in a weakened form. This would be why it's quick to produce a 'new' fly vaccine. The process for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (mRNA) was first developed in 1990." and Pfizer have a, history of lawsuits against them. They've had to pay billions back | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not? And yet the vaccines we take for flu haven't been tested for ten years... My limited understanding is that it's been over 70 years and it's the same process, the only significant change is using the live pathogen of the current flu in a weakened form. This would be why it's quick to produce a 'new' fly vaccine. The process for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (mRNA) was first developed in 1990.and Pfizer have a, history of lawsuits against them. They've had to pay billions back " All American pharmaceutical companies have a huge list lawsuits filled against them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So virologists are now shedding doubt on the popularist idea that having the vaccine with help prevent the spread as the virus may continue to remain in the nasal passage though not effect the host. This has been a concern that quite a number of us have been suggesting for quite some time. This means those who have the vaccine will still have to social distance as much as those who don't take it. And your own silver bullet is?" Will it really disappear with this vaccine as many keep saying or is it here to stay and possibly mutate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So virologists are now shedding doubt on the popularist idea that having the vaccine with help prevent the spread as the virus may continue to remain in the nasal passage though not effect the host. This has been a concern that quite a number of us have been suggesting for quite some time. This means those who have the vaccine will still have to social distance as much as those who don't take it." Yes but thousands won't be dieing of it or being hospitalized so we won't have shut everything thing down and can relax some social distancing measures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So virologists are now shedding doubt on the popularist idea that having the vaccine with help prevent the spread as the virus may continue to remain in the nasal passage though not effect the host. This has been a concern that quite a number of us have been suggesting for quite some time. This means those who have the vaccine will still have to social distance as much as those who don't take it. And your own silver bullet is? Will it really disappear with this vaccine as many keep saying or is it here to stay and possibly mutate?" There's a site called Next Strain looking at the changes seen in Covid-19. We need new flu vaccines because influenza has high antigenic drift. It changes a lot. SARS-COV-2 changes very little. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So virologists are now shedding doubt on the popularist idea that having the vaccine with help prevent the spread as the virus may continue to remain in the nasal passage though not effect the host. This has been a concern that quite a number of us have been suggesting for quite some time. This means those who have the vaccine will still have to social distance as much as those who don't take it. And your own silver bullet is? Will it really disappear with this vaccine as many keep saying or is it here to stay and possibly mutate?" Maybe it will maybe it won't and if itmutates they change the vaccine like for flu no big deal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html Your government gave them liability immunity." You have to wonder why that has happened. Did Pfizer request it, or is it a standard thing for all vaccines? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html Your government gave them liability immunity. You have to wonder why that has happened. Did Pfizer request it, or is it a standard thing for all vaccines? " It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements." Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling" I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines." I wouldn’t trust anything from Pfizer As everyone seems to have missed this, children killed, permission faked https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/pfizer-to-pay-16350m-after-deaths-of-nigerian-children-in-drug-trial-experiment-1663402.html | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines. I wouldn’t trust anything from Pfizer As everyone seems to have missed this, children killed, permission faked https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/pfizer-to-pay-16350m-after-deaths-of-nigerian-children-in-drug-trial-experiment-1663402.html" I trust our government regulatory agencies to protect me. In building codes, drinking water, car safety standards, medicines, food, and vaccines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If something goes wrong you're on your own, the government have removed all liabilities so you can't take them to court. I wonder why? " This isn't true, you can use the established method for seeking compensation for vaccine injury through the government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If something goes wrong you're on your own, the government have removed all liabilities so you can't take them to court. I wonder why? This isn't true, you can use the established method for seeking compensation for vaccine injury through the government." https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment All information there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines. I wouldn’t trust anything from Pfizer As everyone seems to have missed this, children killed, permission faked https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/pfizer-to-pay-16350m-after-deaths-of-nigerian-children-in-drug-trial-experiment-1663402.html I trust our government regulatory agencies to protect me. In building codes, drinking water, car safety standards, medicines, food, and vaccines." Did you read the article?? Didn’t think so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines." Did they... well I would listen to the nurses and doctors coming out with a differing opinion, rather than listen to people with SHAREs in the vaccine companies like Sir Richard Valance | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines. I wouldn’t trust anything from Pfizer As everyone seems to have missed this, children killed, permission faked https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/pfizer-to-pay-16350m-after-deaths-of-nigerian-children-in-drug-trial-experiment-1663402.html I trust our government regulatory agencies to protect me. In building codes, drinking water, car safety standards, medicines, food, and vaccines. Did you read the article?? Didn’t think so" Yes I did, thank you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines. Did they... well I would listen to the nurses and doctors coming out with a differing opinion, rather than listen to people with SHAREs in the vaccine companies like Sir Richard Valance " Correction Patrick https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8766531/Chief-Scientific-Officer-Sir-Patrick-Vallance-600-000-shares-vaccine-maker-GSK.html Conflict of interest 600k | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines. Did they... well I would listen to the nurses and doctors coming out with a differing opinion, rather than listen to people with SHAREs in the vaccine companies like Sir Richard Valance " Valance was not and has never been on that panel... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines." The scientists you choose to listen to that is. Echo chambers tend to have that affect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines. The scientists you choose to listen to that is. Echo chambers tend to have that affect " I'm sure me sitting watching them on YouTube interferes with both their opinions and credentials  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines. The scientists you choose to listen to that is. Echo chambers tend to have that affect I'm sure me sitting watching them on YouTube interferes with both their opinions and credentials "Perfectly illustrated. Thank you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If something goes wrong you're on your own, the government have removed all liabilities so you can't take them to court. I wonder why? This isn't true, you can use the established method for seeking compensation for vaccine injury through the government." So the tax payer spends billions buying the vaccine, and if it goes wrong the tax payer picks up the bill. That sounds fair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know what ones' legal rights are in the case with a vaccine that goes wrong. I imagine the government has already tied this one up in knots and the fact they say it's a choice to accept it or not. They have already covered themselves for one group by stating anyone pregnant should not have it. Unlike most modern medication and vaccines there is not the necessary considerable time lapse for these inevitabilities to show themselves. What do others think about this? Let me ask you a question. Do you drink bottled water ? " I bet he drinks Evian and he's never looked at the label through the back of the bottle.
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically, if you are very unlucky and it all goes wrong for you there's a maximum payout of £120k (less legal fees ?) and I guess you would then get to live on benefits (unless they are means tested based on the £120k?). But that's all. No right to sue anyone for compensation. " Yep, for a virus with a 99.6% survival rate I shall take my chances | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines. The scientists you choose to listen to that is. Echo chambers tend to have that affect I'm sure me sitting watching them on YouTube interferes with both their opinions and credentials
Perfectly illustrated. Thank you "What did I illustrate? I'm not Matilda using my brain to perform magic tricks. I didn't decide that the mathematician was boring so I was going to make her an archaeologist. I tuned in to watch a panel of experts. Oh no, they're discredited because of my magical powers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines. The scientists you choose to listen to that is. Echo chambers tend to have that affect I'm sure me sitting watching them on YouTube interferes with both their opinions and credentials
Perfectly illustrated. Thank you
What did I illustrate?
I'm not Matilda using my brain to perform magic tricks. I didn't decide that the mathematician was boring so I was going to make her an archaeologist. I tuned in to watch a panel of experts. Oh no, they're discredited because of my magical powers."You tuned in to watch something that fits your narrative and because they reinforced what you already believed in gives you the right to be all sanctimonious. Thereby illustrating my point perfectly... so thanks again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines. The scientists you choose to listen to that is. Echo chambers tend to have that affect I'm sure me sitting watching them on YouTube interferes with both their opinions and credentials
Perfectly illustrated. Thank you
What did I illustrate?
I'm not Matilda using my brain to perform magic tricks. I didn't decide that the mathematician was boring so I was going to make her an archaeologist. I tuned in to watch a panel of experts. Oh no, they're discredited because of my magical powers.
You tuned in to watch something that fits your narrative and because they reinforced what you already believed in gives you the right to be all sanctimonious. Thereby illustrating my point perfectly... so thanks again "So you think that watching experts in the field talk about a subject is in some way the wrong thing to do when looking for information?!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I shall take my chances " Sounds like a good plan | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the data behind the claim (as most do not actually know) From Pfizer website today announced that, after conducting the final efficacy analysis in their ongoing Phase 3 study, their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, met all of the study’s primary efficacy endpoints. The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19 of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics. The observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%. So never mind they have only 170 confirmed cases Btw 9 classed as severe out of 162 in placebo group And 1 severe out of 8 in the vaccine group!!! This is the data that brought you the original 90% headline!!! What you are NOT told is where do they live, is it a country with good sanitation, area with high or low infection rate Just putting up facts, just think, is 170 people enough to throw caution to the wind? Never mind the lengthy blurb under saying this could all change when peer reviewed or if unfavourable data comes as as the trial progresses " You clearly don't understand the results of the trial. I hope this helps: "The phase 3 trials of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine involved 42,000 people, about half of whom got the experimental vaccine and the rest a placebo. In total, 170 people fell ill with covid-19. Only eight of them were in the vaccine group; 162 had received the placebo. So around 5 per cent of cases were in the vaccine group, which is where the 95 per cent figure comes from." Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2261805-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine/#ixzz6fhd47fAH | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines. The scientists you choose to listen to that is. Echo chambers tend to have that affect I'm sure me sitting watching them on YouTube interferes with both their opinions and credentials
Perfectly illustrated. Thank you
What did I illustrate?
I'm not Matilda using my brain to perform magic tricks. I didn't decide that the mathematician was boring so I was going to make her an archaeologist. I tuned in to watch a panel of experts. Oh no, they're discredited because of my magical powers.
You tuned in to watch something that fits your narrative and because they reinforced what you already believed in gives you the right to be all sanctimonious. Thereby illustrating my point perfectly... so thanks again
So you think that watching experts in the field talk about a subject is in some way the wrong thing to do when looking for information?! "Someone else who doesn’t know what an echo chamber is. Critical thinking involves looking at all sides of the debate, not assuming you’re right and shouting it from the rooftops. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines. The scientists you choose to listen to that is. Echo chambers tend to have that affect I'm sure me sitting watching them on YouTube interferes with both their opinions and credentials
Perfectly illustrated. Thank you
What did I illustrate?
I'm not Matilda using my brain to perform magic tricks. I didn't decide that the mathematician was boring so I was going to make her an archaeologist. I tuned in to watch a panel of experts. Oh no, they're discredited because of my magical powers.
You tuned in to watch something that fits your narrative and because they reinforced what you already believed in gives you the right to be all sanctimonious. Thereby illustrating my point perfectly... so thanks again
So you think that watching experts in the field talk about a subject is in some way the wrong thing to do when looking for information?!
Someone else who doesn’t know what an echo chamber is. Critical thinking involves looking at all sides of the debate, not assuming you’re right and shouting it from the rooftops. "Can't help but look at all sides of the debate... cranks are consistently spouting shite all over the place. Guess what though... their sources are bollocks. What has that got to do with getting info from credible sources? Sounds like you're the one who doesn't know what an echo chamber is... so you're using the term as a defence for your flimsy reasoning. Pretty transparent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines. The scientists you choose to listen to that is. Echo chambers tend to have that affect I'm sure me sitting watching them on YouTube interferes with both their opinions and credentials
Perfectly illustrated. Thank you
What did I illustrate?
I'm not Matilda using my brain to perform magic tricks. I didn't decide that the mathematician was boring so I was going to make her an archaeologist. I tuned in to watch a panel of experts. Oh no, they're discredited because of my magical powers.
You tuned in to watch something that fits your narrative and because they reinforced what you already believed in gives you the right to be all sanctimonious. Thereby illustrating my point perfectly... so thanks again
So you think that watching experts in the field talk about a subject is in some way the wrong thing to do when looking for information?!
Someone else who doesn’t know what an echo chamber is. Critical thinking involves looking at all sides of the debate, not assuming you’re right and shouting it from the rooftops. "I'm well aware what critical thinking is. Do you know what I did when I realised this would be serious? I sought out the scientists. Not "the people who suit my agenda". I believe it started with a Google search, "top public health university UK" or something like that. It's crude, but I went on from there. I have tools of critical thinking I use to evaluate what I'm looking at, although ultimately I defer to what the scientific consensus seems to be, as I'm not a scientist. You seem to think that if I watch it, it's wrong. That seems remarkably closed minded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know what ones' legal rights are in the case with a vaccine that goes wrong. I imagine the government has already tied this one up in knots and the fact they say it's a choice to accept it or not. They have already covered themselves for one group by stating anyone pregnant should not have it. Unlike most modern medication and vaccines there is not the necessary considerable time lapse for these inevitabilities to show themselves. What do others think about this?" I'd say that unless they force you to have the vaccine and you're a consenting adult you have no legal rights Although I expect a few ambulance chasing companies to set up call centres in a few years if it all goes wrong, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the data behind the claim (as most do not actually know) From Pfizer website today announced that, after conducting the final efficacy analysis in their ongoing Phase 3 study, their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, met all of the study’s primary efficacy endpoints. The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19 of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics. The observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%. So never mind they have only 170 confirmed cases Btw 9 classed as severe out of 162 in placebo group And 1 severe out of 8 in the vaccine group!!! This is the data that brought you the original 90% headline!!! What you are NOT told is where do they live, is it a country with good sanitation, area with high or low infection rate Just putting up facts, just think, is 170 people enough to throw caution to the wind? Never mind the lengthy blurb under saying this could all change when peer reviewed or if unfavourable data comes as as the trial progresses You clearly don't understand the results of the trial. I hope this helps: "The phase 3 trials of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine involved 42,000 people, about half of whom got the experimental vaccine and the rest a placebo. In total, 170 people fell ill with covid-19. Only eight of them were in the vaccine group; 162 had received the placebo. So around 5 per cent of cases were in the vaccine group, which is where the 95 per cent figure comes from." Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2261805-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine/#ixzz6fhd47fAH" I fully understand it thank you It is illegal to purposefully infect a human with covid So they have to wait until people catch it naturally Only 170 have caught 8 one severe in vax 162/9 severe in unvax Do you not realise that is the basis of the claim? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the data behind the claim (as most do not actually know) From Pfizer website today announced that, after conducting the final efficacy analysis in their ongoing Phase 3 study, their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, met all of the study’s primary efficacy endpoints. The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19 of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics. The observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%. So never mind they have only 170 confirmed cases Btw 9 classed as severe out of 162 in placebo group And 1 severe out of 8 in the vaccine group!!! This is the data that brought you the original 90% headline!!! What you are NOT told is where do they live, is it a country with good sanitation, area with high or low infection rate Just putting up facts, just think, is 170 people enough to throw caution to the wind? Never mind the lengthy blurb under saying this could all change when peer reviewed or if unfavourable data comes as as the trial progresses You clearly don't understand the results of the trial. I hope this helps: "The phase 3 trials of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine involved 42,000 people, about half of whom got the experimental vaccine and the rest a placebo. In total, 170 people fell ill with covid-19. Only eight of them were in the vaccine group; 162 had received the placebo. So around 5 per cent of cases were in the vaccine group, which is where the 95 per cent figure comes from." Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2261805-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine/#ixzz6fhd47fAH I fully understand it thank you It is illegal to purposefully infect a human with covid So they have to wait until people catch it naturally Only 170 have caught 8 one severe in vax 162/9 severe in unvax Do you not realise that is the basis of the claim?" You suggested that 170 was the reason to throw caution to the wind, which is wrong and stupid. 42,000 were in the trial... over 20,000 received the vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So over 20x as many people developed Covid in the placebo group vs the vaccine group. How is that not successful? 8 people in the vaccine group developed Covid during the trial, 162 developed it in the placebo group. So today, the UK reported about 16,000 new Covid positive tests. If the vaccine reduced the incidence by 20x, we'd have had fewer than than 800 cases today. That's hugely significant." I’m sorry but I feel you have completely missed my point and like most have called the winner before the race began They have to wait for people to naturally catch it So far only 162 have (and I still don’t know a single soul that has caught it) In 5 months time as more catch it the numbers will change.. do you not get this Thats like saying we call the vote for labour as we have only 5% of the count complete... but hey they win anyway!!! The trail group are not all over 80 with knackered immune systems, they are healthy people If you feel 170 healthy subjects are enough data to unleash the vaccine on the world and the elderly and sick then I question you understanding of effective trial data | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the data behind the claim (as most do not actually know) From Pfizer website today announced that, after conducting the final efficacy analysis in their ongoing Phase 3 study, their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, met all of the study’s primary efficacy endpoints. The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19 of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics. The observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%. So never mind they have only 170 confirmed cases Btw 9 classed as severe out of 162 in placebo group And 1 severe out of 8 in the vaccine group!!! This is the data that brought you the original 90% headline!!! What you are NOT told is where do they live, is it a country with good sanitation, area with high or low infection rate Just putting up facts, just think, is 170 people enough to throw caution to the wind? Never mind the lengthy blurb under saying this could all change when peer reviewed or if unfavourable data comes as as the trial progresses You clearly don't understand the results of the trial. I hope this helps: "The phase 3 trials of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine involved 42,000 people, about half of whom got the experimental vaccine and the rest a placebo. In total, 170 people fell ill with covid-19. Only eight of them were in the vaccine group; 162 had received the placebo. So around 5 per cent of cases were in the vaccine group, which is where the 95 per cent figure comes from." Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2261805-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine/#ixzz6fhd47fAH I fully understand it thank you It is illegal to purposefully infect a human with covid So they have to wait until people catch it naturally Only 170 have caught 8 one severe in vax 162/9 severe in unvax Do you not realise that is the basis of the claim? You suggested that 170 was the reason to throw caution to the wind, which is wrong and stupid. 42,000 were in the trial... over 20,000 received the vaccine. " It is!!!! The gold standard is studying confirmed infection!!! Only 170 have caught it In another month more will have caught it!! It has not stopped anyone catching it And it is illegal to infect all and get the results faster | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the data behind the claim (as most do not actually know) From Pfizer website today announced that, after conducting the final efficacy analysis in their ongoing Phase 3 study, their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, met all of the study’s primary efficacy endpoints. The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19 of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics. The observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%. So never mind they have only 170 confirmed cases Btw 9 classed as severe out of 162 in placebo group And 1 severe out of 8 in the vaccine group!!! This is the data that brought you the original 90% headline!!! What you are NOT told is where do they live, is it a country with good sanitation, area with high or low infection rate Just putting up facts, just think, is 170 people enough to throw caution to the wind? Never mind the lengthy blurb under saying this could all change when peer reviewed or if unfavourable data comes as as the trial progresses You clearly don't understand the results of the trial. I hope this helps: "The phase 3 trials of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine involved 42,000 people, about half of whom got the experimental vaccine and the rest a placebo. In total, 170 people fell ill with covid-19. Only eight of them were in the vaccine group; 162 had received the placebo. So around 5 per cent of cases were in the vaccine group, which is where the 95 per cent figure comes from." Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2261805-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine/#ixzz6fhd47fAH I fully understand it thank you It is illegal to purposefully infect a human with covid So they have to wait until people catch it naturally Only 170 have caught 8 one severe in vax 162/9 severe in unvax Do you not realise that is the basis of the claim? You suggested that 170 was the reason to throw caution to the wind, which is wrong and stupid. 42,000 were in the trial... over 20,000 received the vaccine. It is!!!! The gold standard is studying confirmed infection!!! Only 170 have caught it In another month more will have caught it!! It has not stopped anyone catching it And it is illegal to infect all and get the results faster " So what would you suggest is statistically significant? 20,000 plus people were vaccinated with few ill effects... that's safety covered. The vaccinated group had a fraction of the incidence of covid cases... that's efficacy. You may not believe that's enough to justify the 95% headline, and indeed that may well come down... But what part of any of that suggests approving and taking this vaccine is "throwing caution to the wind"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are the first country in the west to temporarily approve the vaccine even before the countries that have been invoved in making them. I feel just a little worried that it could be a bit rushed. My dad being elderly and vulnerable said that he feels he is going to be used as a test subject, as he will be one of the first offered the vaccination, and he suggested that maybe Britain is the guinea pig surging ahead with the vaccinations before other countries have approved it for use in their countries. Obviously everybody wants to be safe and on on the other side of this pandemic, but I do feel people's worries are worth discussing. I'm worried for my dad and his generation whichever way, and about his anxiety and stress levels throughout all of this. Many people feel looking at the forums here that none of these kind of worries are justified and we should all just take the vaccine and and feel secure about it, but if someone is worried and doesn't feel safe it's very difficult." I can see where you're coming from. I do. I think these are safe, safer than the alternative. But we are the first (maybe not by much, a news alert popped up on my phone saying that Colorado had ordered 46000 Pfizer vaccines). The data about safety and effectiveness have been recorded, the guinea pigs (trial participants) had their vaccines some time ago. It's not the same as the real world, unfortunately, but it's our best efforts in difficult circumstances. I feel a vaccine is less risky than catching Covid. The evidence seems to support that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are the first country in the west to temporarily approve the vaccine even before the countries that have been invoved in making them. I feel just a little worried that it could be a bit rushed. My dad being elderly and vulnerable said that he feels he is going to be used as a test subject, as he will be one of the first offered the vaccination, and he suggested that maybe Britain is the guinea pig surging ahead with the vaccinations before other countries have approved it for use in their countries. Obviously everybody wants to be safe and on on the other side of this pandemic, but I do feel people's worries are worth discussing. I'm worried for my dad and his generation whichever way, and about his anxiety and stress levels throughout all of this. Many people feel looking at the forums here that none of these kind of worries are justified and we should all just take the vaccine and and feel secure about it, but if someone is worried and doesn't feel safe it's very difficult. I can see where you're coming from. I do. I think these are safe, safer than the alternative. But we are the first (maybe not by much, a news alert popped up on my phone saying that Colorado had ordered 46000 Pfizer vaccines). The data about safety and effectiveness have been recorded, the guinea pigs (trial participants) had their vaccines some time ago. It's not the same as the real world, unfortunately, but it's our best efforts in difficult circumstances. I feel a vaccine is less risky than catching Covid. The evidence seems to support that." Thank you for understanding how I feel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Leading physician Fauci came out and lambasted the UK’s quickness of approval. Says it all really." And backtracked a day later, saying it was taken out of context | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Leading physician Fauci came out and lambasted the UK’s quickness of approval. Says it all really. And backtracked a day later, saying it was taken out of context "Probably pressurised by multi-billion dollar medical corporation Pfizer who are selling the vaccine. But also maybe not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Leading physician Fauci came out and lambasted the UK’s quickness of approval. Says it all really. And backtracked a day later, saying it was taken out of context
Probably pressurised by multi-billion dollar medical corporation Pfizer who are selling the vaccine. But also maybe not? "I doubt it. He's been working for the government since forever and found ways around Trump gagging him even though Trump could have fired him. His own explanation seems plausible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Leading physician Fauci came out and lambasted the UK’s quickness of approval. Says it all really. And backtracked a day later, saying it was taken out of context
Probably pressurised by multi-billion dollar medical corporation Pfizer who are selling the vaccine. But also maybe not?
I doubt it. He's been working for the government since forever and found ways around Trump gagging him even though Trump could have fired him.
His own explanation seems plausible."Fair point. I’m not of age or vulnerable so I have the privilege of waiting for a number of years to see what happens to those that do take it. Good luck and Godspeed oldies/vulnerables, we’re there for you in spirit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Leading physician Fauci came out and lambasted the UK’s quickness of approval. Says it all really. And backtracked a day later, saying it was taken out of context
Probably pressurised by multi-billion dollar medical corporation Pfizer who are selling the vaccine. But also maybe not?
I doubt it. He's been working for the government since forever and found ways around Trump gagging him even though Trump could have fired him.
His own explanation seems plausible.
Fair point. I’m not of age or vulnerable so I have the privilege of waiting for a number of years to see what happens to those that do take it. Good luck and Godspeed oldies/vulnerables, we’re there for you in spirit. "I'm not either, but I'm stepping up and doing my bit to protect those who are (when it's my turn). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Leading physician Fauci came out and lambasted the UK’s quickness of approval. Says it all really. And backtracked a day later, saying it was taken out of context
Probably pressurised by multi-billion dollar medical corporation Pfizer who are selling the vaccine. But also maybe not?
I doubt it. He's been working for the government since forever and found ways around Trump gagging him even though Trump could have fired him.
His own explanation seems plausible.
Fair point. I’m not of age or vulnerable so I have the privilege of waiting for a number of years to see what happens to those that do take it. Good luck and Godspeed oldies/vulnerables, we’re there for you in spirit.
I'm not either, but I'm stepping up and doing my bit to protect those who are (when it's my turn). "Kudos to you for being a good citizen! Please keep us updated with any side effects you encounter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the data behind the claim (as most do not actually know) From Pfizer website today announced that, after conducting the final efficacy analysis in their ongoing Phase 3 study, their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, met all of the study’s primary efficacy endpoints. The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19 of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics. The observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%. So never mind they have only 170 confirmed cases Btw 9 classed as severe out of 162 in placebo group And 1 severe out of 8 in the vaccine group!!! This is the data that brought you the original 90% headline!!! What you are NOT told is where do they live, is it a country with good sanitation, area with high or low infection rate Just putting up facts, just think, is 170 people enough to throw caution to the wind? Never mind the lengthy blurb under saying this could all change when peer reviewed or if unfavourable data comes as as the trial progresses You clearly don't understand the results of the trial. I hope this helps: "The phase 3 trials of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine involved 42,000 people, about half of whom got the experimental vaccine and the rest a placebo. In total, 170 people fell ill with covid-19. Only eight of them were in the vaccine group; 162 had received the placebo. So around 5 per cent of cases were in the vaccine group, which is where the 95 per cent figure comes from." Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2261805-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine/#ixzz6fhd47fAH I fully understand it thank you It is illegal to purposefully infect a human with covid So they have to wait until people catch it naturally Only 170 have caught 8 one severe in vax 162/9 severe in unvax Do you not realise that is the basis of the claim? You suggested that 170 was the reason to throw caution to the wind, which is wrong and stupid. 42,000 were in the trial... over 20,000 received the vaccine. It is!!!! The gold standard is studying confirmed infection!!! Only 170 have caught it In another month more will have caught it!! It has not stopped anyone catching it And it is illegal to infect all and get the results faster So what would you suggest is statistically significant? 20,000 plus people were vaccinated with few ill effects... that's safety covered. The vaccinated group had a fraction of the incidence of covid cases... that's efficacy. You may not believe that's enough to justify the 95% headline, and indeed that may well come down... But what part of any of that suggests approving and taking this vaccine is "throwing caution to the wind"? " As Kate mentioned previously, have the trial participants in fact been given enough time to be exposed to the virus and catch it as such, where were they living and how were they living their lives, in other words, minimised social contacts, physically distancing, hand washing, face cover wearing etc, or were they working, what kind of environment in, what was the infection rate in the area they were living in. Had the participants been tested previously for antibodies and non-specific immunity, what kinds of pcr tests were used in establishing Covid 19 infection in those "diagnosed", the quality and sensitivity of these tests can vary significantly. Without consistent use of one particular kit, there's already a compromise in the results taken. Did those not with severe Covid display symptoms, what kind of symptoms, were they merely pcr test positive? All of these questions need to be taken into consideration to be able to actually evaluate the outcome. And how many more will go on to catch the virus and how will the course of the disease go as time goes on? In my opinion, too little information for me to warrant wanting to take the vaccine at this point in time...in others, enough. You say 20,000 vaccinated - that's safety covered - over a period of what time testing for mid and long term ill side effects?! I wonder how many women of child bearing age participated in this study? I wonder were these women told that no animal testing had been done to establish if fertility might be affected as the vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. Who or has anyone ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, which may cause infertility of indefinite duration in vaccinated women (concerns as per Dr Mike Yeadon, former Chief Scientific Officer of Pfizer and expert in infectious respiratory diseases and Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, lung specialist and former head of public health department, Germany). Definitely not enough time to have passed to establish if fertility might be an issue in the future! It has also already been implied by an article in the British Medical Journal (study by Timothy Cardozo) that "informed consent" was acquired by failing to disclose a “specific and significant” Covid-19 risk of ADE, or antibody dependant enhancement. The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing or binding antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination died after catching the wild virus. The latter concerns raised by Yeadon and Wodarg. A condition well studied and documented over years. Yet test subjects/trial candidates were not specifically informed of this possibility. Certain studies or information available on ncbi, plenty of buzz words in there to "google" and gain your info for anyone who actually cares to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The speed is because of the scale of the target - the virus, it's aggressive nature and it's potential for fatality. This doesn't mean it's any more dangerous or any less vetted, we're not talking about a dozen or so people in a room discussing it. This has been a global exercise. Have you ever stopped to read the possible side effect on the leaflet that accompanies paracetamol or ibuprofen, or any of the meds in common use? They all carry possible dangers, but the potential this virus carries is by far greater. To equate paracetamol and Ibuprofen as your example in comparison to a vaccine developed inside 1 year is to completely ignore that serious and long term side effects can take years to appear. Given the fact that there is still so much that scientists and virologists dont fully know about the virus, it would be right to assume the same for the antidote, would it not? So what are you saying, delay the vaccines for 10 years while they are tested more? To continue lockdown after lockdown, social distancing, quarantining, face masks, the inability to meet closely with family and friends for the next 10 years, so the vaccines can be assessed more fully? I for one don't want to live like that. I don't think there's a right or wrong responds, but I definitely think people should have the choice, based on the fact there is so much we don't know and the statistics that we do. The more people choose not to, the more the vulnerable who can't be vaccinated have to make a choice between indefinite home imprisonment and risking death." Couldn't agree more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically, if you are very unlucky and it all goes wrong for you there's a maximum payout of £120k (less legal fees ?) and I guess you would then get to live on benefits (unless they are means tested based on the £120k?). But that's all. No right to sue anyone for compensation. Yep, for a virus with a 99.6% survival rate I shall take my chances " The .4% that don't survive is thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 Anyone refusing to take the vaccine is continuing to help the virus spread. As long as they're ok with that number going up, carry on. Thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 I'll let that number sink in. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically, if you are very unlucky and it all goes wrong for you there's a maximum payout of £120k (less legal fees ?) and I guess you would then get to live on benefits (unless they are means tested based on the £120k?). But that's all. No right to sue anyone for compensation. Yep, for a virus with a 99.6% survival rate I shall take my chances The .4% that don't survive is thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 Anyone refusing to take the vaccine is continuing to help the virus spread. As long as they're ok with that number going up, carry on. Thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 I'll let that number sink in. E " Please expand further on your data. What will the average age of death be? How many of the 31 million will have underlying health conditions? How will these deaths affect the global death rate of over 50 million people each year? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically, if you are very unlucky and it all goes wrong for you there's a maximum payout of £120k (less legal fees ?) and I guess you would then get to live on benefits (unless they are means tested based on the £120k?). But that's all. No right to sue anyone for compensation. Yep, for a virus with a 99.6% survival rate I shall take my chances The .4% that don't survive is thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 Anyone refusing to take the vaccine is continuing to help the virus spread. As long as they're ok with that number going up, carry on. Thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 I'll let that number sink in. E " I'd really like to know where you're coming up with this 0.4% or 99.6% survival because I can't seem to work it out from the worldometer data 66,297,762 cases 1,525,733 deaths Please elaborate .......... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the data behind the claim (as most do not actually know) From Pfizer website today announced that, after conducting the final efficacy analysis in their ongoing Phase 3 study, their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, met all of the study’s primary efficacy endpoints. The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19 of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics. The observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%. So never mind they have only 170 confirmed cases Btw 9 classed as severe out of 162 in placebo group And 1 severe out of 8 in the vaccine group!!! This is the data that brought you the original 90% headline!!! What you are NOT told is where do they live, is it a country with good sanitation, area with high or low infection rate Just putting up facts, just think, is 170 people enough to throw caution to the wind? Never mind the lengthy blurb under saying this could all change when peer reviewed or if unfavourable data comes as as the trial progresses You clearly don't understand the results of the trial. I hope this helps: "The phase 3 trials of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine involved 42,000 people, about half of whom got the experimental vaccine and the rest a placebo. In total, 170 people fell ill with covid-19. Only eight of them were in the vaccine group; 162 had received the placebo. So around 5 per cent of cases were in the vaccine group, which is where the 95 per cent figure comes from." Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2261805-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine/#ixzz6fhd47fAH I fully understand it thank you It is illegal to purposefully infect a human with covid So they have to wait until people catch it naturally Only 170 have caught 8 one severe in vax 162/9 severe in unvax Do you not realise that is the basis of the claim? You suggested that 170 was the reason to throw caution to the wind, which is wrong and stupid. 42,000 were in the trial... over 20,000 received the vaccine. It is!!!! The gold standard is studying confirmed infection!!! Only 170 have caught it In another month more will have caught it!! It has not stopped anyone catching it And it is illegal to infect all and get the results faster So what would you suggest is statistically significant? 20,000 plus people were vaccinated with few ill effects... that's safety covered. The vaccinated group had a fraction of the incidence of covid cases... that's efficacy. You may not believe that's enough to justify the 95% headline, and indeed that may well come down... But what part of any of that suggests approving and taking this vaccine is "throwing caution to the wind"? As Kate mentioned previously, have the trial participants in fact been given enough time to be exposed to the virus and catch it as such, where were they living and how were they living their lives, in other words, minimised social contacts, physically distancing, hand washing, face cover wearing etc, or were they working, what kind of environment in, what was the infection rate in the area they were living in. Had the participants been tested previously for antibodies and non-specific immunity, what kinds of pcr tests were used in establishing Covid 19 infection in those "diagnosed", the quality and sensitivity of these tests can vary significantly. Without consistent use of one particular kit, there's already a compromise in the results taken. Did those not with severe Covid display symptoms, what kind of symptoms, were they merely pcr test positive? All of these questions need to be taken into consideration to be able to actually evaluate the outcome. And how many more will go on to catch the virus and how will the course of the disease go as time goes on? In my opinion, too little information for me to warrant wanting to take the vaccine at this point in time...in others, enough. You say 20,000 vaccinated - that's safety covered - over a period of what time testing for mid and long term ill side effects?! I wonder how many women of child bearing age participated in this study? I wonder were these women told that no animal testing had been done to establish if fertility might be affected as the vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. Who or has anyone ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, which may cause infertility of indefinite duration in vaccinated women (concerns as per Dr Mike Yeadon, former Chief Scientific Officer of Pfizer and expert in infectious respiratory diseases and Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, lung specialist and former head of public health department, Germany). Definitely not enough time to have passed to establish if fertility might be an issue in the future! It has also already been implied by an article in the British Medical Journal (study by Timothy Cardozo) that "informed consent" was acquired by failing to disclose a “specific and significant” Covid-19 risk of ADE, or antibody dependant enhancement. The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing or binding antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination died after catching the wild virus. The latter concerns raised by Yeadon and Wodarg. A condition well studied and documented over years. Yet test subjects/trial candidates were not specifically informed of this possibility. Certain studies or information available on ncbi, plenty of buzz words in there to "google" and gain your info for anyone who actually cares to." You have a lot of questions about the makeup of the trial etc. These will be answered when the data is published in full, which will happen in due course. As of now the regulators have seen it all, evaluated it, and approved the vaccine. Isn't that enough? Do you personally evaluate the data for every medicine or drug you take? No, because that's what we have the regulatory system for. You reference Yeadon and Wodarg, two scientists who have made demonstrably false claims about covid19 during the pandemic. From snopes: "Yeadon falsely claimed in an October 2020 blog post that the “pandemic is effectively over.” Wodarg falsely claimed in a March 2020 YouTube video that the virus was no more harmful than the seasonal flu." Hmm... thanks, but I'll take the views of the countless scientists who don't post outright bullshit about the pandemic. The Cardozo stuff is largely irrelevant now, and is a critique of the study methodology more than anything else. Perhaps there should have been disclosure of this remote and what looks like an unrelated risk, but the trials took place anyway and ADE did not occur. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do the right thing for you and those around you. Helping to get herd immunity is a great thing, for those medically unable to get the vaccines. As time goes on, you'll potentially have a choice of which 1 you have. But a potential death in a few weeks means the best is the 1 you could have today. When I have medical care, I'm not thinking about compensation. I study the evidence in appropriate credible sources - they won't include info on compensation either, so it's a certainty that this trope is coming from a dubious source, aiming to create the downfall of us. " Last time I had surgery, the consent form was basically "we will do (medical jargon I didn't understand and no one explained) with the best staff available or under their supervision, to the best of our ability". I signed it, I had the surgery. Because I trust the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically, if you are very unlucky and it all goes wrong for you there's a maximum payout of £120k (less legal fees ?) and I guess you would then get to live on benefits (unless they are means tested based on the £120k?). But that's all. No right to sue anyone for compensation. Yep, for a virus with a 99.6% survival rate I shall take my chances The .4% that don't survive is thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 Anyone refusing to take the vaccine is continuing to help the virus spread. As long as they're ok with that number going up, carry on. Thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 I'll let that number sink in. E I'd really like to know where you're coming up with this 0.4% or 99.6% survival because I can't seem to work it out from the worldometer data 66,297,762 cases 1,525,733 deaths Please elaborate .......... " I didn't come up with it, the poster I replied to did. I don't agree with the .4%, I merely based the 31,200,000 on .4% of the world's population, according to the Oracle that is Google. My number was for effect, to suggest that while .4% is a small percentage, it's a bloody big number of people. Apologies for any confusion. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically, if you are very unlucky and it all goes wrong for you there's a maximum payout of £120k (less legal fees ?) and I guess you would then get to live on benefits (unless they are means tested based on the £120k?). But that's all. No right to sue anyone for compensation. Yep, for a virus with a 99.6% survival rate I shall take my chances The .4% that don't survive is thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 Anyone refusing to take the vaccine is continuing to help the virus spread. As long as they're ok with that number going up, carry on. Thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 I'll let that number sink in. E Please expand further on your data. What will the average age of death be? How many of the 31 million will have underlying health conditions? How will these deaths affect the global death rate of over 50 million people each year? " To me, those factors/age groups are irrelevant. Dead is dead. Dead is bad. Affected for life is affected for life. Affected for life is bad. Vaccines saving lives is good. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically, if you are very unlucky and it all goes wrong for you there's a maximum payout of £120k (less legal fees ?) and I guess you would then get to live on benefits (unless they are means tested based on the £120k?). But that's all. No right to sue anyone for compensation. Yep, for a virus with a 99.6% survival rate I shall take my chances The .4% that don't survive is thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 Anyone refusing to take the vaccine is continuing to help the virus spread. As long as they're ok with that number going up, carry on. Thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 I'll let that number sink in. E Please expand further on your data. What will the average age of death be? How many of the 31 million will have underlying health conditions? How will these deaths affect the global death rate of over 50 million people each year? To me, those factors/age groups are irrelevant. Dead is dead. Dead is bad. Affected for life is affected for life. Affected for life is bad. Vaccines saving lives is good. E"
I don't think it's ok because they're old and vulnerable. At all.
Values not facts, but I think we should take care of each other | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So virologists are now shedding doubt on the popularist idea that having the vaccine with help prevent the spread as the virus may continue to remain in the nasal passage though not effect the host. This has been a concern that quite a number of us have been suggesting for quite some time. This means those who have the vaccine will still have to social distance as much as those who don't take it. And your own silver bullet is?" And theirs is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So virologists are now shedding doubt on the popularist idea that having the vaccine with help prevent the spread as the virus may continue to remain in the nasal passage though not effect the host. This has been a concern that quite a number of us have been suggesting for quite some time. This means those who have the vaccine will still have to social distance as much as those who don't take it. Yes but thousands won't be dieing of it or being hospitalized so we won't have shut everything thing down and can relax some social distancing measures. " And where is that guaranteed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So virologists are now shedding doubt on the popularist idea that having the vaccine with help prevent the spread as the virus may continue to remain in the nasal passage though not effect the host. This has been a concern that quite a number of us have been suggesting for quite some time. This means those who have the vaccine will still have to social distance as much as those who don't take it. And your own silver bullet is? And theirs is? " The vaccines.... Now yours? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"out of 35 million people around the world who will get vaccinated 700 thousand will get side affects some so severe that they will be wanting to ring 999 or 911 because they will be burning up like crazy of course they don't mention the side affects and if you take up the vaccine offer its probably on a voluntarily basis so i doubt you would get any compensation should you take ill" Care to mention the credible scientific journals that you have sourced this data from? With something so extremely severe for the health and wellbeing of the people of the world, not to mention the economies that support us, it's essential that we follow the trusted reputable scientific research evidence, in order to take the right decisions and actions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's standard for all vaccines, and many countries have analogous arrangements. Curious that they had to change the law in addition then. The article says Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications. Anyway, let's see which government politicians don't take it, that will be telling I'd personally rather listen to the scientists, not politicians. The scientists on Indy Sage today all said that they would not hesitate to take any of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Oxford vaccines." Fair enough.. Let's put them at the first and see what happens. If these indy SAGE (not the official SAGE) are so keen, let's see them be injected first | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fair enough.. Let's put them at the first and see what happens. If these indy SAGE (not the official SAGE) are so keen, let's see them be injected first " But would you proudly wear a 'I won't have the vaccine' T-Shirt? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically, if you are very unlucky and it all goes wrong for you there's a maximum payout of £120k (less legal fees ?) and I guess you would then get to live on benefits (unless they are means tested based on the £120k?). But that's all. No right to sue anyone for compensation. Yep, for a virus with a 99.6% survival rate I shall take my chances The .4% that don't survive is thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 Anyone refusing to take the vaccine is continuing to help the virus spread. As long as they're ok with that number going up, carry on. Thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 I'll let that number sink in. E I'd really like to know where you're coming up with this 0.4% or 99.6% survival because I can't seem to work it out from the worldometer data 66,297,762 cases 1,525,733 deaths Please elaborate .......... I didn't come up with it, the poster I replied to did. I don't agree with the .4%, I merely based the 31,200,000 on .4% of the world's population, according to the Oracle that is Google. My number was for effect, to suggest that while .4% is a small percentage, it's a bloody big number of people. Apologies for any confusion. E" I’ve not seen anyone claim all the world’s population will be infected so I think your numbers are a little bit out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"out of 35 million people around the world who will get vaccinated 700 thousand will get side affects some so severe that they will be wanting to ring 999 or 911 because they will be burning up like crazy of course they don't mention the side affects and if you take up the vaccine offer its probably on a voluntarily basis so i doubt you would get any compensation should you take ill" From The NHS UK website; A coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine developed by Pfizer/BioNTech has been approved for use in the UK. The vaccine will be made available from next week. The vaccine has met strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness set out by the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Other vaccines are being developed. They will only be available on the NHS once they have been thoroughly tested to make sure they are safe and effective. Vaccine safety. Any coronavirus vaccine that is approved must go through all the clinical trials and safety checks all other licensed medicines go through. The UK has some of the highest safety standards in the world. Vaccines will only be used if they are approved by the MHRA. The MHRA has been monitoring every stage of coronavirus vaccine development. So far, thousands of people have been given a coronavirus vaccine and no serious side effects or complications have been reported. Your post is reckless scaremongering. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically, if you are very unlucky and it all goes wrong for you there's a maximum payout of £120k (less legal fees ?) and I guess you would then get to live on benefits (unless they are means tested based on the £120k?). But that's all. No right to sue anyone for compensation. Yep, for a virus with a 99.6% survival rate I shall take my chances The .4% that don't survive is thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 Anyone refusing to take the vaccine is continuing to help the virus spread. As long as they're ok with that number going up, carry on. Thirty one million, two hundred thousand people. 31,200,000 I'll let that number sink in. E I'd really like to know where you're coming up with this 0.4% or 99.6% survival because I can't seem to work it out from the worldometer data 66,297,762 cases 1,525,733 deaths Please elaborate .......... I didn't come up with it, the poster I replied to did. I don't agree with the .4%, I merely based the 31,200,000 on .4% of the world's population, according to the Oracle that is Google. My number was for effect, to suggest that while .4% is a small percentage, it's a bloody big number of people. Apologies for any confusion. E I’ve not seen anyone claim all the world’s population will be infected so I think your numbers are a little bit out." If only there were a facepalm emoji...... E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know what ones' legal rights are in the case with a vaccine that goes wrong. I imagine the government has already tied this one up in knots and the fact they say it's a choice to accept it or not. They have already covered themselves for one group by stating anyone pregnant should not have it. Unlike most modern medication and vaccines there is not the necessary considerable time lapse for these inevitabilities to show themselves. What do others think about this?" Wtf? Pregnant women not being vaccinated is pretty much standard practice  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know what ones' legal rights are in the case with a vaccine that goes wrong. I imagine the government has already tied this one up in knots and the fact they say it's a choice to accept it or not. They have already covered themselves for one group by stating anyone pregnant should not have it. Unlike most modern medication and vaccines there is not the necessary considerable time lapse for these inevitabilities to show themselves. What do others think about this? Wtf? Pregnant women not being vaccinated is pretty much standard practice "It's amazing the holes some people find to justify their thoughts. Pregnant women aren't getting the Covid vaccine!!!!! Cue outrage. Er, pregnant women are rarely vaccinated full stop. It's nothing new or unique to the Covid vaccine. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fair enough.. Let's put them at the first and see what happens. If these indy SAGE (not the official SAGE) are so keen, let's see them be injected first But would you proudly wear a 'I won't have the vaccine' T-Shirt?" Have I actually said anywhere that I won't have the vaccine? This is the problem, you're assuming because Indy SAGE claim they'd have it and I said let's see them have it publically that I won't have it. Try and have a longer memory span | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"out of 35 million people around the world who will get vaccinated 700 thousand will get side affects some so severe that they will be wanting to ring 999 or 911 because they will be burning up like crazy of course they don't mention the side affects and if you take up the vaccine offer its probably on a voluntarily basis so i doubt you would get any compensation should you take ill" Why 35 million people around the world ? You do know the side effects have been published ? No you won't get compensated if you get a fever and you won't get compensated if you end up in ICU on a ventilator with Covid either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"out of 35 million people around the world who will get vaccinated 700 thousand will get side affects some so severe that they will be wanting to ring 999 or 911 because they will be burning up like crazy of course they don't mention the side affects and if you take up the vaccine offer its probably on a voluntarily basis so i doubt you would get any compensation should you take ill From The NHS UK website; A coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine developed by Pfizer/BioNTech has been approved for use in the UK. The vaccine will be made available from next week. The vaccine has met strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness set out by the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Other vaccines are being developed. They will only be available on the NHS once they have been thoroughly tested to make sure they are safe and effective. Vaccine safety. Any coronavirus vaccine that is approved must go through all the clinical trials and safety checks all other licensed medicines go through. The UK has some of the highest safety standards in the world. Vaccines will only be used if they are approved by the MHRA. The MHRA has been monitoring every stage of coronavirus vaccine development. So far, thousands of people have been given a coronavirus vaccine and no serious side effects or complications have been reported. Your post is reckless scaremongering. E" 42,000 and the population of the UK is in excess of 67,000,000 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know what ones' legal rights are in the case with a vaccine that goes wrong. I imagine the government has already tied this one up in knots and the fact they say it's a choice to accept it or not. They have already covered themselves for one group by stating anyone pregnant should not have it. Unlike most modern medication and vaccines there is not the necessary considerable time lapse for these inevitabilities to show themselves. What do others think about this? Wtf? Pregnant women not being vaccinated is pretty much standard practice
It's amazing the holes some people find to justify their thoughts.
Pregnant women aren't getting the Covid vaccine!!!!! Cue outrage.
Er, pregnant women are rarely vaccinated full stop.
It's nothing new or unique to the Covid vaccine.
E"However, according to the science, neither are mothers of new born that could breast feed as they're UNSURE whether they're milk could be affected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"out of 35 million people around the world who will get vaccinated 700 thousand will get side affects some so severe that they will be wanting to ring 999 or 911 because they will be burning up like crazy of course they don't mention the side affects and if you take up the vaccine offer its probably on a voluntarily basis so i doubt you would get any compensation should you take ill From The NHS UK website; A coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine developed by Pfizer/BioNTech has been approved for use in the UK. The vaccine will be made available from next week. The vaccine has met strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness set out by the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Other vaccines are being developed. They will only be available on the NHS once they have been thoroughly tested to make sure they are safe and effective. Vaccine safety. Any coronavirus vaccine that is approved must go through all the clinical trials and safety checks all other licensed medicines go through. The UK has some of the highest safety standards in the world. Vaccines will only be used if they are approved by the MHRA. The MHRA has been monitoring every stage of coronavirus vaccine development. So far, thousands of people have been given a coronavirus vaccine and no serious side effects or complications have been reported. Your post is reckless scaremongering. E 42,000 and the population of the UK is in excess of 67,000,000 " What's your point? E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"out of 35 million people around the world who will get vaccinated 700 thousand will get side affects some so severe that they will be wanting to ring 999 or 911 because they will be burning up like crazy of course they don't mention the side affects and if you take up the vaccine offer its probably on a voluntarily basis so i doubt you would get any compensation should you take ill From The NHS UK website; A coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine developed by Pfizer/BioNTech has been approved for use in the UK. The vaccine will be made available from next week. The vaccine has met strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness set out by the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Other vaccines are being developed. They will only be available on the NHS once they have been thoroughly tested to make sure they are safe and effective. Vaccine safety. Any coronavirus vaccine that is approved must go through all the clinical trials and safety checks all other licensed medicines go through. The UK has some of the highest safety standards in the world. Vaccines will only be used if they are approved by the MHRA. The MHRA has been monitoring every stage of coronavirus vaccine development. So far, thousands of people have been given a coronavirus vaccine and no serious side effects or complications have been reported. Your post is reckless scaremongering. E ----- 42,000 and the population of the UK is in excess of 67,000,000 " That 42,000 is similar to the testing of other drugs. How many people would you like them to test, all 67 million? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"out of 35 million people around the world who will get vaccinated 700 thousand will get side affects some so severe that they will be wanting to ring 999 or 911 because they will be burning up like crazy of course they don't mention the side affects and if you take up the vaccine offer its probably on a voluntarily basis so i doubt you would get any compensation should you take ill From The NHS UK website; A coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine developed by Pfizer/BioNTech has been approved for use in the UK. The vaccine will be made available from next week. The vaccine has met strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness set out by the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Other vaccines are being developed. They will only be available on the NHS once they have been thoroughly tested to make sure they are safe and effective. Vaccine safety. Any coronavirus vaccine that is approved must go through all the clinical trials and safety checks all other licensed medicines go through. The UK has some of the highest safety standards in the world. Vaccines will only be used if they are approved by the MHRA. The MHRA has been monitoring every stage of coronavirus vaccine development. So far, thousands of people have been given a coronavirus vaccine and no serious side effects or complications have been reported. Your post is reckless scaremongering. E ----- 42,000 and the population of the UK is in excess of 67,000,000 That 42,000 is similar to the testing of other drugs. How many people would you like them to test, all 67 million? "
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know what ones' legal rights are in the case with a vaccine that goes wrong. I imagine the government has already tied this one up in knots and the fact they say it's a choice to accept it or not. They have already covered themselves for one group by stating anyone pregnant should not have it. Unlike most modern medication and vaccines there is not the necessary considerable time lapse for these inevitabilities to show themselves. What do others think about this? Wtf? Pregnant women not being vaccinated is pretty much standard practice
It's amazing the holes some people find to justify their thoughts.
Pregnant women aren't getting the Covid vaccine!!!!! Cue outrage.
Er, pregnant women are rarely vaccinated full stop.
It's nothing new or unique to the Covid vaccine.
E"I'd love you to search anywhere on any forum post where I've said I won't be having it, so don't be such a numpty and assume that when someone asks a question, raises a concern or a possible issue that they are against it. It's people that respond with such silliness towards others that give further concern over things. Debate is good being a numpty at it isn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know what ones' legal rights are in the case with a vaccine that goes wrong. I imagine the government has already tied this one up in knots and the fact they say it's a choice to accept it or not. They have already covered themselves for one group by stating anyone pregnant should not have it. Unlike most modern medication and vaccines there is not the necessary considerable time lapse for these inevitabilities to show themselves. What do others think about this? Wtf? Pregnant women not being vaccinated is pretty much standard practice
It's amazing the holes some people find to justify their thoughts.
Pregnant women aren't getting the Covid vaccine!!!!! Cue outrage.
Er, pregnant women are rarely vaccinated full stop.
It's nothing new or unique to the Covid vaccine.
E
However, according to the science, neither are mothers of new born that could breast feed as they're UNSURE whether they're milk could be affected. "The overwhelming majority of drugs (including vaccines) are not licensed for use in pregnant or breastfeeding women because such women are rarely included in studies. This is the same reason U18s won't get the Covid vaccine - they've not been tested. Women end up being told to quit breastfeeding to take medication, because there's insufficient published research into drugs and breastfeeding. It's a particular area of interest for me, because I was told to stop breastfeeding to take pregabalin and was told by medics that I'd basically kill my daughter if I continued to BF and take it. So I reluctantly stopped. But I'm a scientist, and once I'd got my head in gear, did my own research, spoke to specialist pharmacists (who work in the NHS but seem not to be known about), consulted a lactation specialist and I relactated. I breastfed my daughter whilst taking pregabalin from her being 2 months to 3 years old, including pumping at work. Each time I told doctors I was breastfeeding, they'd refuse to prescribe things or tell me I had to stop. It's not specific to the Covid vaccine, it's endemic that the medical profession don't spend long enough studying breastfeeding women as a demographic group. They just think it's easier to tell them to stop breastfeeding. Don't look for conspiracies where there aren't any. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"out of 35 million people around the world who will get vaccinated 700 thousand will get side affects some so severe that they will be wanting to ring 999 or 911 because they will be burning up like crazy of course they don't mention the side affects and if you take up the vaccine offer its probably on a voluntarily basis so i doubt you would get any compensation should you take ill Care to mention the credible scientific journals that you have sourced this data from? With something so extremely severe for the health and wellbeing of the people of the world, not to mention the economies that support us, it's essential that we follow the trusted reputable scientific research evidence, in order to take the right decisions and actions. " Fancy that . No response to my points  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know what ones' legal rights are in the case with a vaccine that goes wrong. I imagine the government has already tied this one up in knots and the fact they say it's a choice to accept it or not. They have already covered themselves for one group by stating anyone pregnant should not have it. Unlike most modern medication and vaccines there is not the necessary considerable time lapse for these inevitabilities to show themselves. What do others think about this? Wtf? Pregnant women not being vaccinated is pretty much standard practice
It's amazing the holes some people find to justify their thoughts.
Pregnant women aren't getting the Covid vaccine!!!!! Cue outrage.
Er, pregnant women are rarely vaccinated full stop.
It's nothing new or unique to the Covid vaccine.
E
I'd love you to search anywhere on any forum post where I've said I won't be having it, so don't be such a numpty and assume that when someone asks a question, raises a concern or a possible issue that they are against it.
It's people that respond with such silliness towards others that give further concern over things.
Debate is good being a numpty at it isn't."I'm pretty sure I haven't claimed that you said you weren't taking it. I'm pretty sure I don't give a chuff if you take it or not. I'm pretty sure calling me a numpty is against forum rules. Silliness you say? I quoted the actual statement from the NHSUK website regarding the vaccine, procedures and safety, nothing more, nothing less. But that's silly is it?
I'd go give your head a wobble if I were you.
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"out of 35 million people around the world who will get vaccinated 700 thousand will get side affects some so severe that they will be wanting to ring 999 or 911 because they will be burning up like crazy of course they don't mention the side affects and if you take up the vaccine offer its probably on a voluntarily basis so i doubt you would get any compensation should you take ill Care to mention the credible scientific journals that you have sourced this data from? With something so extremely severe for the health and wellbeing of the people of the world, not to mention the economies that support us, it's essential that we follow the trusted reputable scientific research evidence, in order to take the right decisions and actions. Fancy that . No response to my points "Don't hold your breath.
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"out of 35 million people around the world who will get vaccinated 700 thousand will get side affects some so severe that they will be wanting to ring 999 or 911 because they will be burning up like crazy of course they don't mention the side affects and if you take up the vaccine offer its probably on a voluntarily basis so i doubt you would get any compensation should you take ill From The NHS UK website; A coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine developed by Pfizer/BioNTech has been approved for use in the UK. The vaccine will be made available from next week. The vaccine has met strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness set out by the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Other vaccines are being developed. They will only be available on the NHS once they have been thoroughly tested to make sure they are safe and effective. Vaccine safety. Any coronavirus vaccine that is approved must go through all the clinical trials and safety checks all other licensed medicines go through. The UK has some of the highest safety standards in the world. Vaccines will only be used if they are approved by the MHRA. The MHRA has been monitoring every stage of coronavirus vaccine development. So far, thousands of people have been given a coronavirus vaccine and no serious side effects or complications have been reported. Your post is reckless scaremongering. E ----- 42,000 and the population of the UK is in excess of 67,000,000 That 42,000 is similar to the testing of other drugs. How many people would you like them to test, all 67 million? " Over 6 countries? Miniscule amount and apparently, so everyone is shouting, this isn't like any other drugs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know what ones' legal rights are in the case with a vaccine that goes wrong. I imagine the government has already tied this one up in knots and the fact they say it's a choice to accept it or not. They have already covered themselves for one group by stating anyone pregnant should not have it. Unlike most modern medication and vaccines there is not the necessary considerable time lapse for these inevitabilities to show themselves. What do others think about this? Wtf? Pregnant women not being vaccinated is pretty much standard practice
It's amazing the holes some people find to justify their thoughts.
Pregnant women aren't getting the Covid vaccine!!!!! Cue outrage.
Er, pregnant women are rarely vaccinated full stop.
It's nothing new or unique to the Covid vaccine.
E
However, according to the science, neither are mothers of new born that could breast feed as they're UNSURE whether they're milk could be affected.
The overwhelming majority of drugs (including vaccines) are not licensed for use in pregnant or breastfeeding women because such women are rarely included in studies. This is the same reason U18s won't get the Covid vaccine - they've not been tested.
Women end up being told to quit breastfeeding to take medication, because there's insufficient published research into drugs and breastfeeding. It's a particular area of interest for me, because I was told to stop breastfeeding to take pregabalin and was told by medics that I'd basically kill my daughter if I continued to BF and take it. So I reluctantly stopped. But I'm a scientist, and once I'd got my head in gear, did my own research, spoke to specialist pharmacists (who work in the NHS but seem not to be known about), consulted a lactation specialist and I relactated. I breastfed my daughter whilst taking pregabalin from her being 2 months to 3 years old, including pumping at work. Each time I told doctors I was breastfeeding, they'd refuse to prescribe things or tell me I had to stop.
It's not specific to the Covid vaccine, it's endemic that the medical profession don't spend long enough studying breastfeeding women as a demographic group. They just think it's easier to tell them to stop breastfeeding.
Don't look for conspiracies where there aren't any."I'm not.. It was pointed out very forcibly by the scientist this morning not that don't know what effects any drugs have but this particular vaccine. If it's standard practice, why make such a big deal about it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know what ones' legal rights are in the case with a vaccine that goes wrong. I imagine the government has already tied this one up in knots and the fact they say it's a choice to accept it or not. They have already covered themselves for one group by stating anyone pregnant should not have it. Unlike most modern medication and vaccines there is not the necessary considerable time lapse for these inevitabilities to show themselves. What do others think about this? Wtf? Pregnant women not being vaccinated is pretty much standard practice
It's amazing the holes some people find to justify their thoughts.
Pregnant women aren't getting the Covid vaccine!!!!! Cue outrage.
Er, pregnant women are rarely vaccinated full stop.
It's nothing new or unique to the Covid vaccine.
E
However, according to the science, neither are mothers of new born that could breast feed as they're UNSURE whether they're milk could be affected.
The overwhelming majority of drugs (including vaccines) are not licensed for use in pregnant or breastfeeding women because such women are rarely included in studies. This is the same reason U18s won't get the Covid vaccine - they've not been tested.
Women end up being told to quit breastfeeding to take medication, because there's insufficient published research into drugs and breastfeeding. It's a particular area of interest for me, because I was told to stop breastfeeding to take pregabalin and was told by medics that I'd basically kill my daughter if I continued to BF and take it. So I reluctantly stopped. But I'm a scientist, and once I'd got my head in gear, did my own research, spoke to specialist pharmacists (who work in the NHS but seem not to be known about), consulted a lactation specialist and I relactated. I breastfed my daughter whilst taking pregabalin from her being 2 months to 3 years old, including pumping at work. Each time I told doctors I was breastfeeding, they'd refuse to prescribe things or tell me I had to stop.
It's not specific to the Covid vaccine, it's endemic that the medical profession don't spend long enough studying breastfeeding women as a demographic group. They just think it's easier to tell them to stop breastfeeding.
Don't look for conspiracies where there aren't any.
I'm not.. It was pointed out very forcibly by the scientist this morning not that don't know what effects any drugs have but this particular vaccine. If it's standard practice, why make such a big deal about it? "They don't know, because it's not been tested in pregnant and breastfeeding women. Lots of drugs/vaccines are in the same category. I don't know what interview you're referring to, but presumably if the scientist was asked "why is it not being given to pregnant women?" and the response was "because we don't know if it's safe for them" then that's the answer. Pregnant womens' immune systems are suppressed (to prevent them rejecting the foetus) so it's perfectly plausible that a vaccine that IS safe for non pregnant people is actually not safe for pregnant women. Again, this is the case for many drugs/vaccines/treatments. Many essential oils used in massage are very unsafe in pregnant women, but we don't go around losing our heads about essential oil massages (a very common therapy in spas). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... As Kate mentioned previously, have the trial participants in fact been given enough time to be exposed to the virus and catch it as such, where were they living and how were they living their lives, in other words, minimised social contacts, physically distancing, hand washing, face cover wearing etc, or were they working, what kind of environment in, what was the infection rate in the area they were living in. Had the participants been tested previously for antibodies and non-specific immunity, what kinds of pcr tests were used in establishing Covid 19 infection in those "diagnosed", the quality and sensitivity of these tests can vary significantly. Without consistent use of one particular kit, there's already a compromise in the results taken. Did those not with severe Covid display symptoms, what kind of symptoms, were they merely pcr test positive? All of these questions need to be taken into consideration to be able to actually evaluate the outcome. And how many more will go on to catch the virus and how will the course of the disease go as time goes on? In my opinion, too little information for me to warrant wanting to take the vaccine at this point in time...in others, enough. You say 20,000 vaccinated - that's safety covered - over a period of what time testing for mid and long term ill side effects?! I wonder how many women of child bearing age participated in this study? I wonder were these women told that no animal testing had been done to establish if fertility might be affected as the vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. Who or has anyone ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, which may cause infertility of indefinite duration in vaccinated women (concerns as per Dr Mike Yeadon, former Chief Scientific Officer of Pfizer and expert in infectious respiratory diseases and Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, lung specialist and former head of public health department, Germany). Definitely not enough time to have passed to establish if fertility might be an issue in the future! It has also already been implied by an article in the British Medical Journal (study by Timothy Cardozo) that "informed consent" was acquired by failing to disclose a “specific and significant” Covid-19 risk of ADE, or antibody dependant enhancement. The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing or binding antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination died after catching the wild virus. The latter concerns raised by Yeadon and Wodarg. A condition well studied and documented over years. Yet test subjects/trial candidates were not specifically informed of this possibility. Certain studies or information available on ncbi, plenty of buzz words in there to "google" and gain your info for anyone who actually cares to. You have a lot of questions about the makeup of the trial etc. These will be answered when the data is published in full, which will happen in due course. As of now the regulators have seen it all, evaluated it, and approved the vaccine. Isn't that enough? Do you personally evaluate the data for every medicine or drug you take? No, because that's what we have the regulatory system for. You reference Yeadon and Wodarg, two scientists who have made demonstrably false claims about covid19 during the pandemic. From snopes: "Yeadon falsely claimed in an October 2020 blog post that the “pandemic is effectively over.” Wodarg falsely claimed in a March 2020 YouTube video that the virus was no more harmful than the seasonal flu." Hmm... thanks, but I'll take the views of the countless scientists who don't post outright bullshit about the pandemic. The Cardozo stuff is largely irrelevant now, and is a critique of the study methodology more than anything else. Perhaps there should have been disclosure of this remote and what looks like an unrelated risk, but the trials took place anyway and ADE did not occur." I do have a lot of questions...and a lot more than those mentioned above too ...and more so because it is obviously a new drug to the market, rather than something tried and tested and used for years, for a still relatively new and very complicated virus which seems to bring so many different complications with it as we are learning over time.
It is your opinion that these scientists made false claims - there are plenty out there supporting those opinions too...in other words, two sides to the argument, particularly depending on the use of the PCR tests and the short comings it has as a diagnostic tool.
As for the way informed consent was obtained - it goes to show that it wasn't an entirely ethical situation that was created. This doesn't instill trust in the rest of the process.
As for ADE not occurring in the trials - how do you know that the one case with severe symptoms, would have not been severe without the vaccine, implying ADE might have occurred here. This might have contributed - yet on the other side of the argument I'll definitely give you that it also might have meant that the vaccine was in fact a life saving tool in that instance. I am open to both arguments - and in fact, wish and hope and pray more so than anything that this vaccine and others are going to be the light at the end of the tunnel. I would much prefer to have my doubts put to rest by this working, than not!!! Just like I would say, most people out there.
I am not anti vaccine. I am hesitant though, and will wait for the trials to be made public and peer reviewed, listening to both sides of the argument, evaluating the risks pro and con, making as informed a decision as possible. I just prefer to see a larger number of results in a study that size over a longer term.
And I noted that you never commented on the issues surrounding the lack of testing in animals firstly to establish if fertility might be affected through an auto immune response. As I have had my children, I wouldn't worry about myself - but I do worry for those who may be confronted with that down the line, those who may be taking a risk, without possibly having been informed that these studies have in fact not been carried out to show any kinds of results. Those who may not even think of asking, given that the information is out there with how closely these proteins are linked.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone know what ones' legal rights are in the case with a vaccine that goes wrong. I imagine the government has already tied this one up in knots and the fact they say it's a choice to accept it or not. They have already covered themselves for one group by stating anyone pregnant should not have it. Unlike most modern medication and vaccines there is not the necessary considerable time lapse for these inevitabilities to show themselves. What do others think about this?" There aren't any. The government have clarified and legally signed an exemption with Pfizer on the grounds that should anything happen to anyone who accepts the covid vaccination they are legally declared 0% responsible for side effects, long term health complications or death. Very simply. "you agreed to it. Don't come complaining if something goes wrong" - | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if all the people who are so worried about side effects, lack of testing, medical safety standards etc will now pay as much care and attention/put as much research into any medications or treatments they are prescribed in the future... " I'd like them to not take paracetamol until they can explain specifically how it works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... As Kate mentioned previously, have the trial participants in fact been given enough time to be exposed to the virus and catch it as such, where were they living and how were they living their lives, in other words, minimised social contacts, physically distancing, hand washing, face cover wearing etc, or were they working, what kind of environment in, what was the infection rate in the area they were living in. Had the participants been tested previously for antibodies and non-specific immunity, what kinds of pcr tests were used in establishing Covid 19 infection in those "diagnosed", the quality and sensitivity of these tests can vary significantly. Without consistent use of one particular kit, there's already a compromise in the results taken. Did those not with severe Covid display symptoms, what kind of symptoms, were they merely pcr test positive? All of these questions need to be taken into consideration to be able to actually evaluate the outcome. And how many more will go on to catch the virus and how will the course of the disease go as time goes on? In my opinion, too little information for me to warrant wanting to take the vaccine at this point in time...in others, enough. You say 20,000 vaccinated - that's safety covered - over a period of what time testing for mid and long term ill side effects?! I wonder how many women of child bearing age participated in this study? I wonder were these women told that no animal testing had been done to establish if fertility might be affected as the vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. Who or has anyone ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, which may cause infertility of indefinite duration in vaccinated women (concerns as per Dr Mike Yeadon, former Chief Scientific Officer of Pfizer and expert in infectious respiratory diseases and Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, lung specialist and former head of public health department, Germany). Definitely not enough time to have passed to establish if fertility might be an issue in the future! It has also already been implied by an article in the British Medical Journal (study by Timothy Cardozo) that "informed consent" was acquired by failing to disclose a “specific and significant” Covid-19 risk of ADE, or antibody dependant enhancement. The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing or binding antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination died after catching the wild virus. The latter concerns raised by Yeadon and Wodarg. A condition well studied and documented over years. Yet test subjects/trial candidates were not specifically informed of this possibility. Certain studies or information available on ncbi, plenty of buzz words in there to "google" and gain your info for anyone who actually cares to. You have a lot of questions about the makeup of the trial etc. These will be answered when the data is published in full, which will happen in due course. As of now the regulators have seen it all, evaluated it, and approved the vaccine. Isn't that enough? Do you personally evaluate the data for every medicine or drug you take? No, because that's what we have the regulatory system for. You reference Yeadon and Wodarg, two scientists who have made demonstrably false claims about covid19 during the pandemic. From snopes: "Yeadon falsely claimed in an October 2020 blog post that the “pandemic is effectively over.” Wodarg falsely claimed in a March 2020 YouTube video that the virus was no more harmful than the seasonal flu." Hmm... thanks, but I'll take the views of the countless scientists who don't post outright bullshit about the pandemic. The Cardozo stuff is largely irrelevant now, and is a critique of the study methodology more than anything else. Perhaps there should have been disclosure of this remote and what looks like an unrelated risk, but the trials took place anyway and ADE did not occur. I do have a lot of questions...and a lot more than those mentioned above too ...and more so because it is obviously a new drug to the market, rather than something tried and tested and used for years, for a still relatively new and very complicated virus which seems to bring so many different complications with it as we are learning over time.
It is your opinion that these scientists made false claims - there are plenty out there supporting those opinions too...in other words, two sides to the argument, particularly depending on the use of the PCR tests and the short comings it has as a diagnostic tool.
As for the way informed consent was obtained - it goes to show that it wasn't an entirely ethical situation that was created. This doesn't instill trust in the rest of the process.
As for ADE not occurring in the trials - how do you know that the one case with severe symptoms, would have not been severe without the vaccine, implying ADE might have occurred here. This might have contributed - yet on the other side of the argument I'll definitely give you that it also might have meant that the vaccine was in fact a life saving tool in that instance. I am open to both arguments - and in fact, wish and hope and pray more so than anything that this vaccine and others are going to be the light at the end of the tunnel. I would much prefer to have my doubts put to rest by this working, than not!!! Just like I would say, most people out there.
I am not anti vaccine. I am hesitant though, and will wait for the trials to be made public and peer reviewed, listening to both sides of the argument, evaluating the risks pro and con, making as informed a decision as possible. I just prefer to see a larger number of results in a study that size over a longer term.
And I noted that you never commented on the issues surrounding the lack of testing in animals firstly to establish if fertility might be affected through an auto immune response. As I have had my children, I wouldn't worry about myself - but I do worry for those who may be confronted with that down the line, those who may be taking a risk, without possibly having been informed that these studies have in fact not been carried out to show any kinds of results. Those who may not even think of asking, given that the information is out there with how closely these proteins are linked.
"Personally i am far more worried about delayed effects from catching covid than i am about taking a tested vaccine. For instance, nobody knows if all the children apparently showing no symptoms now, might not all be found sterile when they go through puberty. After all, we are finding that covid is not really a lung disease (as originally thought) but in fact is spread everywhere throughout the body by the blood, and infiltrates all organs. Or we might find that like the HPV virus, there is a long term effect of causing cancers. Or like chicken pox, twenty or thirty years on cause debilitating attacks of nerve damage. The thing is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is specifically designed by nature to invade cells, subvert their mechanism, be multiplied, destroy the cells, percolate around the body, and repeat until either the body gives up or manages to fight it back. Because of it being a different kind of virus than anything the human body has seen before, it manages to multiply more and get more deeply embedded into the body before the immune system starts to kick in, than most other diseases. Conversely the vaccine has been designed by human beings with the express purpose of not being harmful. It has constituents that can give the immune system the "flavour" of the virus so that it will be able to quickly recognise the real thing; but crucially it does this without having the reproducing/multiplying ability of the virus. So the amount of vaccine injected is the precise measured dose, that's all there is, it cannot double and redouble inside your body, entering within your very cells and getting lodged into bone, brain, ovaries, liver, muscle. From where the virus might spring out again in a year, five years, ten years, twenty years... So for me taking a vaccine that has already been tested on many thousands of people, and by the time it gets to my place in the queue will be millions of people, is far less scary to me than catching the virus that is designed by nature to attack and liquify my body cells from the inside... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if all the people who are so worried about side effects, lack of testing, medical safety standards etc will now pay as much care and attention/put as much research into any medications or treatments they are prescribed in the future... I'd like them to not take paracetamol until they can explain specifically how it works. " It's as if they have never read a medication leaflet that clearly outlines possible side effects and then still chosen to take said medication anyway. Baffling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone think that.... hey let's use the over 85 first, if they survive it's safe for the rest, if they die we can claim old age... is one scenario the Government have played out?" No. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
