Covid vaccine uptake - poll

[roubaixtuesday]

1. Effectiveness - protection directly to prevent disease & indirectly to reduce transmission. This cannot be assessed this quickly with any certainty, this is a roll of the dice in the short term as there has not been sufficient time/surveillance to assess this aspect which is the most crucial

Well, this is clearly false. The direct effectiveness has been measured, with clear statistical significance using symptomatic disease as an endpoint. Transmission reduction, as I understand it, can't be measured in such a trial and only assessed through the rollout. So you'd never assess this without approval. Very happy to be corrected if wrong on this.

2. I don't understand the point you're making, sorry.

3. Side Effects - There is inadequate pharmacovigilance to ensure safety

Pharmacovigilance normally refers to monitoring through routine use, though formally includes clinical trial data. Of course this cannot be assessed long term - it's a new product. The reason conditional rather than formal approval is given is so trials can be mandated to continue. But approval of all treatments is on a risk/benefit basis. Most vaccine AEs are rapid at the point of administration. The risk - even for young, healthy people - of COVID infection is high.

These don't remotely add up to a "roll of the dice on many fronts". They are low probability, low impact scenarios. The worst case scenario is pretty trivial compared to the current pandemic, and is very unlikely.

Worst case scenarios being either low impact on transmission (vaccinated people are still protected), long term protection drops off (boosters required) or unknown high consequence low frequency long term adverse events.

 

[purplenose]

I would hope everyone would hope for effective development of drugs or vaccines that adhered to the standards established over decades now. I am not speaking about anti-vaxxers either, just simple science

Ethically speaking, how practical will it be to inoculate everyone in the world when appropriate safety surveillance has not been done? We are in a very particularly emergency situation, it likely should be considered in certain high risk subgroups first IMHO rather than blanket applied to everyone

I am sure they do, however if everyone decided to wait a year or two can you imagine what a mess the world would most likely be in? Potentially millions dead, economies far more fucked worldwide than they already are, mass poverty and disease, most likely resulting in more conflicts and maybe even a big one of the likes we have been dreading for decades.

 

[trueblue28]

Of course it’s not been fucking tested and who cares!!!?!! If it needs to an annual vaccination for those at risk then it’s still 100x better than no vaccine and a doubling of expected daily deaths every winter.

I care! Do we want to be giving kids an untested vaccine for a virus which the figures show has close to zero chance of causing them issues?

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Clearly there are risks involved in everything we do and a balance needs to be struck as to what is the least risk. So yes vaccinate those most at risk, but for the rest who's risk is so small then why take the chance with an unknown vaccine?

Look at the figures below taken from a Sky news article :

The sample of 651 youngsters admitted to 138 hospitals across England and Wales between 17 January and 3 July shows that just 18% needed critical care.

Those children were most likely to be black, under a month old, or between the ages of 10 and 14, the study claims.


Only six of the 651 children monitored - 1% - died of coronavirus, but all of them had underlying conditions.


Calum Semple, professor of child health and outbreak medicine at the University of Liverpool, said "severe disease is rare and death is vanishingly rare" in children infected with COVID-19.

Based on this, why would you give a healthy child a vaccine? 6 died and all had underlying conditions.

children are back of the queue and separate trials are underway to test the efficacy on them, so that's a different proposition.

 

[SWP's back]

I care! Do we want to be giving kids an untested vaccine for a virus which the figures show has close to zero chance of causing them issues?

You’re not getting this.

The vaccine has been tested for immediate efficacy and is circa 95% effective and 100% effective at stopping serious cases and all the while without any significant side effects. That is what has been tested with nearly 150,000 people in a number of trials.

What they haven’t been able to test is how long the immunity lasts for as the length of time to test that hasn’t passed and nothing at all could help that process.

If you would rather you and your kids take the risk and throw the dice then that’s your choice but if I was running the any country, I wouldn’t be letting you travel to my destination or attend concerts, football or receive free medical treatment should you fall ill from covid.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Clearly there are risks involved in everything we do and a balance needs to be struck as to what is the least risk. So yes vaccinate those most at risk, but for the rest who's risk is so small then why take the chance with an unknown vaccine?

Look at the figures below taken from a Sky news article :

The sample of 651 youngsters admitted to 138 hospitals across England and Wales between 17 January and 3 July shows that just 18% needed critical care.

Those children were most likely to be black, under a month old, or between the ages of 10 and 14, the study claims.


Only six of the 651 children monitored - 1% - died of coronavirus, but all of them had underlying conditions.


Calum Semple, professor of child health and outbreak medicine at the University of Liverpool, said "severe disease is rare and death is vanishingly rare" in children infected with COVID-19.

Based on this, why would you give a healthy child a vaccine? 6 died and all had underlying conditions.

I don't think the Pfizer vaccine has been approved for use in children, and I don't think there are any current plans to vaccinate children. Normally paediatric trials are not run until adult trials are complete. But I'm not sure in this case.

 

[trueblue28]

You’re not getting this.

The vaccine has been tested for immediate efficacy and is circa 95% effective and 100% effective at stopping serious cases and all the while without any significant side effects. That is what has been tested with nearly 150,000 people in a number of trials.

What they haven’t been able to test is how long the immunity lasts for as the length of time to test that hasn’t passed and nothing at all could help that process.

If you would rather you and your kids take the risk and throw the dice then that’s your choice but if I was running the any country, I wouldn’t be letting you travel to my destination or attend concerts, football or receive free medical treatment should you fall ill from covid.

oh I completely get this. I am well aware of the results that have been published about the vaccine and as I have said in other posts for the right people (those most at risk) the vaccine is the way to go.

There is however no getting away from the fact that this vaccine has been rushed out. there is no way of knowing if there are any side effects to taking it.

As for not letting people travel and taking away free health care, that is a very scary path to go down. your views would not look out of place in North Korea

 

[Blue Llama]

oh I completely get this. I am well aware of the results that have been published about the vaccine and as I have said in other posts for the right people (those most at risk) the vaccine is the way to go.

There is however no getting away from the fact that this vaccine has been rushed out. there is no way of knowing if there are any side effects to taking it.

As for not letting people travel and taking away free health care, that is a very scary path to go down. your views would not look out of place in North Korea

You really believe that in these post Thalidomide times that a pharma company would unleash on the world any treatment that they were not 100% confident of? Its no defence in a law court to say we thought that we were doing every one a favour by getting it out early. Executives and regulators know that as well as destroying the company they would be criminaly culpable.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

There is however no getting away from the fact that this vaccine has been rushed out.

Vaccinating off the phase I results would be "rushed". That's what China and Russia claim to have done. These vaccines have been expedited at speed through the usual testing processes.

there is no way of knowing if there are any side effects to taking it.

Complete nonsense.

Phase I trials were done to test side effects before the phase 3 trials. Tens of thousands were required in phase three trials precisely in order to find rare side effects.

There remains a risk of rare side effects, as with any medicine. The benefits of ending the pandemic vastly outweigh that - COVID having well documented common severe side effects even in the young and healthy.

 

[trueblue28]

You really believe that in these post Thalidomide times that a pharma company would unleash on the world any treatment that they were not 100% confident of? Its no defence in a law court to say we thought that we were doing every one a favour by getting it out early. Executives and regulators know that as well as destroying the company they would be criminaly culpable.

I am no expert, and I certainly don't claim to be. I'm also pretty sure that the majority on here are only getting info from media / internet, which is what I have done. Who knows if what we read is fake news or not. People can make up their own mind about what is right for them, if you want to get the vaccine and feel it is right for you then great I hope it works out well for you. But for people to come on here and say someone's opinion is wrong when they don't have the expertise to back it up what they are saying and then just revert to swearing at people is very narrow minded in my opinion.

With regards to liability take a look at this

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-h...ield-against-side-effect-claims-idUKKCN26D0UG