Covid vaccine uptake - poll

[feedthegoat27]

Get a vaccine if you want your freedoms back, Deputy Chief Medical Officer tells Britons | The Independent

 

[Blue Llama]

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

Very interesting but a claim in Europe where the punishment is based on a financial fine is one thing. There is no chance that in the USA where 'punative' damages can be awarded that such a get out of jail card would be offered.

 

[kaz7]

No because I had Covid in early November and therefore have immunity for at least 12 months. Will probably have it next Autumn by which time we should know more about possible side effects

You know more than the experts then, you are not immune for a year

 

[Deleted member 77198]

My concern is safety, obviously. This is my area of expertise, not virology per se but drug/vaccine development as a physician/clinician/researcher. There's a reason why we have these development standards, when you rush through them you have to go in knowing you are taking risks. It's precisely why I proposed that they should prioritize highest risk groups first while continuing to work.

Imagine if in 12 months we're no better positioned if not worse and everyone put all their eggs in this vaccine basket. Ordinarily I would say that is unlikely since in all probability parallel activities will continue to better understand COVID as well as treatment/vaccine possibilities. However, I have also seen governments around the globe failing to do the obvious thus far and opting for risk mitigation scenarios at the expense of lives

So I am cautious, not cynical - just we need to appreciate this isn't a miracle that some are certain of

Interesting post, ta mate.

 

[kaz7]

I stand corrected.

It's actually Patrick Vallance, Scientific Advisor to the Government, that has shares on GSK

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te...-has-600000-shareholding-firm-contracted/amp/

No conflict of interest there then...

Does that make any difference to the vaccine being ready to go, he is one man versus thousands who are working on a vaccine

I have shares as well, pharma is where the smart money is

 

[nellyonthewing]

There are too many people who just have a mindset that makes them spout conspiracy theories about everything from VAR to vaccines . They think they are an extra in the Hunger Games or The Matrix.

 

[FCBarca]

Sorry, but this is simply incorrect. You can read the peer reviewed phase I/II results here.

Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults - Nature

In a dose-escalation study of the COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in 45 healthy adults, RBD-binding IgG concentrations and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titres in sera increased with dose level and after a second vaccine dose.

www.nature.com

Phase I & II trials do not involve placebo, that's why they refer to it as combined I/II - it is a rushed attempted to look at safety & treatment effect/dose. It is not the standard approach to evaluating safety profile or dose response to treatment

Agree - yet you claimed, in direct contradiction, they demonstrated effectiveness at... ..the base strain... ...effectiveness changes depending on stage & strain. You're not being at all consistent here.

On other points - peer review publication is not part of any regulatory processes. Though I agree it should proceed as fast as possible here, and I'm sure it will.

Benefits here are evidently not mere hopes - efficacy has been shown to a level of benefit way above what would be the baseline requirement for approval, and way above any measure of statistical significance.

Your position would be valid if benefits were low - if this were a chickenpox vaccine perhaps. But the benefits are very, very high with over 0.1% of the UK population already dead despite unprecedented measures to suppress the virus.

Appears pretty consistent. Effectiveness with the base strain does not translate to effectiveness with any strain of COVID - just one version

You want to shift the narrative from gamble/hope to well the risks are too high since many are dying. As I said previously, I would propose it needs to be prioritized to the highest risk groups first before providing it to the general public. I believe it is irresponsible to do otherwise based on so many question marks on what the long-term scenarios might be.

We are at the infancy of this, it is not going away tomorrow so you cannot predict that another variant or the long-term sequela of infection is a minor concern/risk

 

[Scottyboi]

You know more than the experts then, you are not immune for a year

So you're telling me there isn't a magic clock in my body counting down the days till I'm not immune?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Phase I & II trials do not involve placebo, that's why they refer to it as combined I/II - it is a rushed attempted to look at safety & treatment effect/dose. It is not the standard approach to evaluating safety profile or dose response to treatment

Well, this one did involve placebo, and its published in Nature! You're in disagreement with one of the premier scientific journals. Reflect on that perhaps?

Let's break this down.

Firstly, you said there had not been a phase I or phase II trial. That was false.

Secondly, combined phase I/II trials are common, your latest claim otherwise is also false.

Thirdly, phase 2 trials often involve placebo. False again.

You keep on making statements which are factually incorrect. It's getting quite tedious.

Effectiveness with the base strain does not translate to effectiveness with any strain of COVID - just one version

They did not test against a single "strain". There is no "base strain". There are multiple mutations ( calling these strains is a bit of a misnomer) and no attempt to differentiate between them was made.

A review of mutations of the virus is here https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.24.311845v1

You want to shift the narrative

No. Risk/ benefit is the universal approach to approval in all juristictions. "Gamble/hope" is your attempt to shift the narrative, and that you're using such rhetoric rather than facts is telling as to how weak your argument is.

 

[trumpton]

Have any of the clinical trials for any of the vaccines actually exposed the participants to the virus? Or is this deemed unethical in the 21st century.