Covid vaccine uptake - poll

[blueparrot]

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

We don’t know either way. You might be.You might not.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

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.

Not necessarily unethical, but not deliberately exposed in to date, though some being exposed through their normal lives is a necessary part of the trials now being approved.

"Challenge trials" - where people are deliberately exposed - are proposed early next year.

 

[trumpton]

Not necessarily unethical, but not deliberately exposed in to date, though some being exposed through their normal lives is a necessary part of the trials now being approved.

"Challenge trials" - where people are deliberately exposed - are proposed early next year.

Cheers pal.

 

[FCBarca]

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?

Nature is one of the premier scientific journals? You're living in a dream world Neo, in terms of impact factor there are at least 50 journals more significant

It was not a Phase I or Phase II, that's the point - it was a hybrid designed study to expedite, conducted in less than 50 people over three weeks. Moreover, it was randomized and included placebo neither of which are part of Phase I studies. There are many aspects of why it was neither one or the other but you're free to argue with yourself about which one it really is

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.

Sure.

Firstly, I maintain that - it was neither I or II, it was some hybrid version which does not exist in clinical development

Secondly, combined trials are not common. Moreover Phase I trials typically last months to years, similar for Phase II. None of this applies here

Thirdly, most placebo trials are Phase III not I or II. Try again. There's a reason why the avoid placebo in I or II but again, you're arguing with yourself here

Factually backed up by guidelines that are established, not figments of any imagination

Tedious is attempting to poke holes at my call for caution about the holy grail of vaccine claims rather than jump in head first. Feel free to guinea pig yourself

 

[Ban-jani]

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

Could be, latest study I saw said it could be years but they’re not sure if you can carry it.

It’s massively still up in the air after 11 months so the vaccine is the only way out.

Those that think there’s another way to end this shite are totally delusional.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

some hybrid version which does not exist in clinical development

Sorry, you're wrong. Not only do they exist, they're sufficiently routine to be included in the NCI definition of terms here

NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms

NCI's Dictionary of Cancer Terms provides easy-to-understand definitions for words and phrases related to cancer and medicine.

www.cancer.gov

Thirdly, most placebo trials are Phase III not I or II.

Your claim was, word for word "Phase I & II trials do not involve placebo". Phase II placebo controlled trials are normal. I don't know the relative numbers but I'd guess given attrition, phase II placebo controlled trials are actually more numerous than phase III.

Definition of Phase II from wiki

Trial design​

Some Phase II trials are designed as case series, demonstrating a drug's safety and activity in a selected group of participants. Other Phase II trials are designed as randomized controlled trials, where some patients receive the drug/device and others receive placebo/standard treatment. Randomized Phase II trials have far fewer patients than randomized Phase III trials

I don't know why you keep on very confidently writing things which are obviously false to anyone with basic knowledge of development. You consistently do this without ever providing a source, which is frankly misleading to an audience without the background to see through them.

As for guinea pigs, I'd very happily have volunteered for the trial, and given my limited knowledge of it together with its approval by MHRA, take the vaccine and see my family take it too. And the only person invoking magic and grails is you.

 

[Bill Walker]

So you're telling me there isn't a magic cock in my body ?

 

[dublinblue12]

If it means being able to go out for a pint of Guinness in a pub whenever I want they can inject it into my eyeballs tomorrow if they want

 

[dublinblue12]

I'll likely get it, but not right away, let the people who really need it get sorted first. If people don't want to get it or want to wait to see what the effects are that's fair enough. Once front line, older people and those with underline health conditions get the vaccine we're have way there. Never had the flu or the flu jab, pretty sure but not 100%, that they have to bring a new one out each year due to the different strains that come about.

 

[Summerbuzz]

Nature is one of the premier scientific journals? You're living in a dream world Neo, in terms of impact factor there are at least 50 journals more significant.

Oh brother. That's like taking an issue in a conversation about football with someone saying Barca were nowhere near one of the most valuable teams in the world, because i read an article in which they were placed 8th... but the article contains NFL, Baseball, Basketball, and F1 teams, and so on.

Anyway, I thought I'd still check and - as expected - Nature still comes in as far and away the top multidisciplinary journal under most rankings and citation metrics.

If we concentrate solely on Impact Factor - and disregard the subject matter - it was 14th in the published 2019 IF 'league table'.

However, the paper in question would have hardly been suitable for publishing by physics or oncology journals, so we can immediately discount 7 out of the 13 journals ranked higher.

And 2 of the other possible destinations, are specialist off-shoots of the Nature stable.

The paper was of huge general interest, so it's easy to see why Nature felt it was of interest to the general readership.

And also perhaps why the authors chose to publish to Nature's much larger readership, over JAMA or The Lancet.