Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36066918)

I think papa is, in his own inimitable fashion, making a reasonable point here. It's not really about whether the people here can be convinced the vaccine is safe despite reservations.

Chris rightly lists an exhaustive set of steps that each manufacturer has gone through to get to this point. However Chris also said the following:



These statements don't contradict one another but the second points to the challenge faced. The Toby Young's and Julia Hartley-Brewer's of this world have been out there for 13 months whipping everyone up into a frenzy. This isn't about public health it's about stealing your freedoms. The idiots out there who buy into this nonsense are easy pickings for the anti-vax brigade.

If the aim is 'herd immunity' why can't I stay in the 20% that don't need to get it? That way I don't take the risk but get the collective benefit from everyone else doing so.

I'm playing devil's advocate here for the purposes of discussion - if I were offered it tomorrow I'd take it but there is going to be a challenge in convincing everyone/enough people to take it. I'm not on the priority list so it will be some months before it comes my way

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36066962)

A Tory MP wrote an article about TY/JHB and their ilk, about how they keep changing the story to stoke outrage.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-have-no-shame

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36066954)

Personally I tend not to stray to far from my house because the public toilets are closed.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066964)

A person with a Masters in Hindsight.

Commentators on all sides of any argument provide important discussion points of view, and commentators on all sides of the argument will have got things wrong and got things right as they react to the ever changing situation and information as it becomes available.

JHB’s crime is that she has dared question some of the actions of the government, advice of the scientific advisers. That is her job.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36066965)

Take a shovel and a newspaper with you.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066964)

A person with a Masters in Hindsight.

Commentators on all sides of any argument provide important discussion points of view, and commentators on all sides of the argument will have got things wrong and got things right as they react to the ever changing situation and information as it becomes available.

JHB’s crime is that she has dared question some of the actions of the government, advice of the scientific advisers. That is her job.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36066938)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36066968)

There is a huge difference between skepticism and contrariness...

JHB yesterday

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1610885724

JHB about two weeks ago

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1610885724

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066970)

Well you can’t defend the indefensible, so I won’t.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36066971)

When JHB went to Antigua, anyone else from the UK could also. It wasn't an exception using different rules.

Tennis players entering Australia was an exception to the rules.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36066975)

I understand that, and Piers Morgan and many more jetted off. But it smells a bit eggy doesn’t it.

Plus I read, perhaps mistakenly, that she was putting forward the view that the pandemic hurts The poorest most, which it undoubtedly does, but you can’t claim solidarity with poor and then escape to the Caribbean.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36066978)

Anyone could jet off at the same time, what has eggs got to do with it?

Do we have a new rule where if you have the view the pandemic hurts the poorest most you can't go on holiday?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36066990)

I wonder if Julia will be as vocal when the Champions League has football teams flying all round Europe next month.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36066996)

What has that got to do with Australia?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36067005)

Nothing, what’s your point?

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36067008)

There is no comparison between Australia bending the rules which are preventing Austrailians returning home for over 1000 tennis players & their entourage and football in Europe.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36067009)

Why not?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36067009)

Why not?

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36067010)

See link I added to previous post.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36067017)

How do footballers affect Europeans in comparison?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36067019)

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the 2 tournaments, there are differences.
The Tennis involves lots of individuals coming from all around the world for a two week event. The Football mainly involves 2 teams who are meant to be already taking appropriate measures, for something lasting a few hours.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36067020)

However the point of moving the tennis players now, for a tournament taking place from 8th February, is to ensure they are taking appropriate measures.

I'm not saying we shouldn't play football or other elite sport if it's possible to do so safely - I'm just pointing out that JHB can't really point to Australia being a bad example when we opened travel corridors for "high value business travellers" among other things.

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36067025)

Just catching up on this thread and have seem some vaccine hesitancy here, much like in the larger population. I have seem comments here questioning the safety of the vaccines due to the speed of the roll out, questioning the sample (cohort) size and lack of long term safety information.

The questions I would ask are these;

[*]What is a satisfactory cohort size to convince the doubters that a drug is safe?[*]What is the basis on which this number is reached?

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36067025)

Just catching up on this thread and have seem some vaccine hesitancy here, much like in the larger population. I have seem comments here questioning the safety of the vaccines due to the speed of the roll out, questioning the sample (cohort) size and lack of long term safety information.

The questions I would ask are these;

• What is a satisfactory cohort size to convince the doubters that a drug is safe?
• What is the basis on which this number is reached?
• How long is long enough to judge that there are no long term effects and again, what is this based on?
• Do doubters look at trial data for other drugs on the market to judge sufficient trial robustness?
• If not, why not? What is special about this vaccine?
• Is there still confidence in drug safety evaluation performed by regulatory agencies in light if the speed of approval for COVID vaccines?

This article gives data in table 1 on the cohort sizes for a number of vaccines approved by the FDA from 2000-2011. Some of the cohorts are pretty small! - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3551877/

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36067025)

Just catching up on this thread and have seem some vaccine hesitancy here, much like in the larger population. I have seem comments here questioning the safety of the vaccines due to the speed of the roll out, questioning the sample (cohort) size and lack of long term safety information.

The questions I would ask are these;

• What is a satisfactory cohort size to convince the doubters that a drug is safe?
• What is the basis on which this number is reached?
• How long is long enough to judge that there are no long term effects and again, what is this based on?
• Do doubters look at trial data for other drugs on the market to judge sufficient trial robustness?
• If not, why not? What is special about this vaccine?
• Is there still confidence in drug safety evaluation performed by regulatory agencies in light if the speed of approval for COVID vaccines?

This article gives data in table 1 on the cohort sizes for a number of vaccines approved by the FDA from 2000-2011. Some of the cohorts are pretty small! - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3551877/

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36067044)

I think the major concern is with the RNA vaccines, like Phizer. I am satisfied that the immediate short term effects are minimal, and in most non-existent, but the issue relates to the longer term impacts, particularly given that this is a completely different kind of vaccine which involves injection of the virus’ DNA.

The testing of the vaccination over less than a year will not reveal longer term side-effects, whereas over the normal period of 10 years or so, testing is more likely to pick this up.

The vaccination could be completely safe - safer in fact than older style vaccines - but the point is, we don’t know that. Even with the rigour that has been deployed before, vaccines have had to be withdrawn urgently due to longer term effects that were not known when the vaccine was released. The SARS vaccine, which induced narcolepsy in a significant number of recipients, is a case in point.

It is for these reasons that I would only be prepared to take the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine at the present time, which I believe to be the safer, more conventional inoculation. We have ample supplies of that coming on stream, fortunately.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36067044)

I think the major concern is with the RNA vaccines, like Phizer.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36067044)

I think the major concern is with the RNA vaccines, like Phizer. I am satisfied that the immediate short term effects are minimal, and in most non-existent, but the issue relates to the longer term impacts, particularly given that this is a completely different kind of vaccine which involves injection of the virus’ DNA.

The testing of the vaccination over less than a year will not reveal longer term side-effects, whereas over the normal period of 10 years or so, testing is more likely to pick this up.

The vaccination could be completely safe - safer in fact than older style vaccines - but the point is, we don’t know that. Even with the rigour that has been deployed before, vaccines have had to be withdrawn urgently due to longer term effects that were not known when the vaccine was released. The SARS vaccine, which induced narcolepsy in a significant number of recipients, is a case in point.

It is for these reasons that I would only be prepared to take the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine at the present time, which I believe to be the safer, more conventional inoculation. We have ample supplies of that coming on stream, fortunately.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36067044)

I think the major concern is with the RNA vaccines, like Phizer. I am satisfied that the immediate short term effects are minimal, and in most non-existent, but the issue relates to the longer term impacts, particularly given that this is a completely different kind of vaccine which involves injection of the virus’ DNA.

The testing of the vaccination over less than a year will not reveal longer term side-effects, whereas over the normal period of 10 years or so, testing is more likely to pick this up.

The vaccination could be completely safe - safer in fact than older style vaccines - but the point is, we don’t know that. Even with the rigour that has been deployed before, vaccines have had to be withdrawn urgently due to longer term effects that were not known when the vaccine was released. The SARS vaccine, which induced narcolepsy in a significant number of recipients, is a case in point.

It is for these reasons that I would only be prepared to take the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine at the present time, which I believe to be the safer, more conventional inoculation. We have ample supplies of that coming on stream, fortunately.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36067076)

If someone tried to inject me with something labelled Phizer or AstraZenica, I would run a mile! :D:D:D

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36067076)

If someone tried to inject me with something labelled Phizer or AstraZenica, I would run a mile! :D:D:D

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36067076)

If someone tried to inject me with something labelled Phizer or AstraZenica, I would run a mile! :D:D:D

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36067076)

If someone tried to inject me with something labelled Phizer or AstraZenica, I would run a mile! :D:D:D

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36067093)

I’ve got a bottle of Tizer in the fridge. I drink one glass per day and I’ve never had covid. Job’s a good’un.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36067093)

I’ve got a bottle of Tizer in the fridge. I drink one glass per day and I’ve never had covid. Job’s a good’un.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36067093)

I’ve got a bottle of Tizer in the fridge. I drink one glass per day and I’ve never had covid. Job’s a good’un.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36067122)

I was just thinking that all that WKD and wine I drink really is working, no sign of the virus here. :D

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36067060)

I normally resist the urge to be a grammar nazi but I make exceptions for people who presume to lecture others on the basis of their supposedly superior research. We are several months into this now, and these basic details are very accessible in the public domain.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36067048)

That was a swine flu vaccine, not the SARS vaccine...

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015...sed-narcolepsy

Also, the mRNA vaccines don’t utilise the COVID DNA, they use mRNA, which is a non-infectious, non-integrating platform, so there is no potential risk of infection or insertional mutagenesis.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ines/mrna.html

Also, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine uses modified DNA.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36067105)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36067196)

https://www.ft.com/content/5f7b58fb-...9-b71d328c6700

Quote:
UK excess deaths since start of pandemic surpass 100,000, data suggest

FT model builds on official statistics to reveal jump in mortality rates since mid-March

The number of deaths in the UK accelerated at the beginning of January as the effects of December’s wave of coronavirus cases raised mortality to levels not seen since last spring, according to official figures released on Tuesday. The Office for National Statistics said that 17,751 deaths were registered across England and Wales in the week ending January 8, the highest total since the final week of April last year.

The jump in mortality rates suggests that since the pandemic began, the UK’s total excess deaths — the number above the previous five-year average — has risen to well over 100,000, according to a Financial Times model that brings official figures, which have a two-week lag, up to date. The government reported on Tuesday that another 1,610 people had died within 28 days of testing positive for Covid-19 — the highest daily figure since the pandemic began.

However, the figure is unlikely to be a genuine daily record because many people died at the peak of the first wave without being tested. Excess deaths, which measures the total number of fatalities compared with normal levels, is not dependent on the levels of testing and indicated more than 2,000 daily deaths in the UK last April. jump in mortality rates suggests that since the pandemic began, the UK’s total excess deaths — the number above the previous five-year average — has risen to well over 100,000, according to a Financial Times model that brings official figures, which have a two-week lag, up to date. The government reported on Tuesday that another 1,610 people had died within 28 days of testing positive for Covid-19 — the highest daily figure since the pandemic began.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36067200)

It’s not that appropriate to measure excess deaths and attribute all of them to Covid infections, much as some people would love to do that. A proportion of those deaths - heaven knows how many - can be attributed to lack of medical attention for other conditions that were ignored as all the stops were pulled out to tackle people with Covid.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36031472)

Yes, it is. The difference being that currently there is no way we can treat it, because it is new. That was the government's concern, and that of governments around the world. The sudden heavy demand for hospital services, concentrated over a few short weeks, was the problem.

There is no doubt that the emergency measures have reduced numbers. I didn't claim that this was not the case. What I am saying is that so far at least, the number of recorded deaths is nowhere near those recorded for seasonal flu. Of course, they are still going up, but we appear to be reaching the peak now. It's a stretch to believe the final figure will be five times what we have now. Double, sure, maybe three times. But five times? Yeah, right!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36030931)

The infection rate has stabalised in the last few days, so now is not the time to be overly pessimistic, Mr K. This suggests that deathbrates will stabalise as well in about three weeks or so.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36067202)

According to some of your previous statements, surely "they were going to die anyway"?

While we’re on your previous statements..

13/4/20


8/4/20

Originally Posted by jfman

Old Boy the UK stats don't include everyone who dies of Covid - as you well know - it only includes those with a positive test within 28 days.

Also your opinion that other countries will catch up - and surpass - our death toll. That is pure conjecture on your part.

It also ignores their potential to do what you've claimed we should do all along which is just shield those at risk.

If it's that easy - and I'm offering you some latitude here - surely other countries could do it while rolling out their shiny 95% effective vaccines?

Or do you finally concede that 'just shield those at risk' never has been, and never will be, a credible Covid-19 response for anyone, anywhere in the world?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36067204)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-than-we-hoped

The Guardian posting the same story in a slightly different way.

I wonder if this could provoke a rethink of the policy to rush out single vaccines for those countries who have and what (if any) consequence this could have for a vaccine resistant mutation emerging given what we think about the existing “new” variants.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36067204)

That prompted me to ask the following, which he ignored.

Now I appreciate that was in the Starmer thread, but I thought I’d ask in the rightful place that is the Coronavirus thread.

Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36067265)

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36067282)

Just saw the original paper (linky) The results look good, really good. I am however waiting for the antivax and conspiracy theorists to have a pile on as the authors work for Pfizer and BioNTech

Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36067283)

:shrug: As the authors are the only ones in the position to do the required tests I would have been suspicious if the findings were being reported by a 3rd party.

As to your last point..... There have always been people that see their glass not only half full but also chipped and falling on to a dirty floor.

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36067292)

Oh, I agree completely, if anyone knows how to test serum from vaccinated people, it will be those guys :tu: I'm just getting ready for the inevitable 'well they would say that wouldn't they' comments

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36067294)

Well, they would. Money to be made here.

Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36067301)

... and I award you a Prize for being the first to doubt that the Pfizer/ 1BioNTech, vaccine will not work on the B.1.1.7 variant. Maybe you could give us a link to also discredit the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg, University who also helped to produce the paper that jonbxx linked to.

Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36067306)

.......and I fail to see how you would consider that they are only saying that it will probably work on the new UK varient just because it will generate more money. Seems as though you just wanted to cast doubt on the validity of the findings to cause doubt at it being true.

Anyhow I will continue to hope that they are correct and not assume that they are only publishing what may well be good news just because of the financial implications.

Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36067306)

.......and I fail to see how you would consider that they are only saying that it will probably work on the new UK varient just because it will generate more money. Seems as though you just wanted to cast doubt on the validity of the findings to cause doubt at it being true.

Anyhow I will continue to hope that they are correct and not assume that they are only publishing what may well be good news just because of the financial implications.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36067347)

Saga Cruises will require proof of full vaccination before letting any holidaymakers on board when they re-start in May. They’ll be the first of many such organisations to do this I think. By the end of this year, I believe the anti-vaxxers and other fellow travelling, tinfoil-hat wearing nutters are going to start finding there are fewer and fewer places they’re welcome.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55738918

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36067351)

How would it generate more money, when new variant needing new vaccine = another vaccine = more money?

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36067352)

Yup, if you don't have the jab you don't get on the jet....:D

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36067364)

I think Saga have lost the plot.
You dont get a certificate or a badge when vaccinated.

On top of that, they want you to take a test & full medical screening as well.
I would start looking elsewhere for a cruise, there is being careful, and there is OTT madness, they are taking option 2.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36067364)

I think Saga have lost the plot.
You dont get a certificate or a badge when vaccinated.

On top of that, they want you to take a test & full medical screening as well.
I would start looking elsewhere for a cruise, there is being careful, and there is OTT madness, they are taking option 2.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36067554)

Here comes the vaccine passport.

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2...m-organisation

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36067560)

Something else for the fakers to peddle along with IELTS, Passports, driving licences etc. etc.

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 36067585)

One thing forgotten in all this clamour for vaccination certificates is, the vaccines do not guarantee to prevent you catching Covid-19, but are designed to reduce the impact should you do so. Another reason for making sure you get the booster/fixing dose in a timely manner.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36067351)

How would saying the current vaccine still works generate more money, when new variant needing new vaccine = another vaccine = more money?

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36067606)

A booster dose doesn't make you immune either or doesn't mean you can't get it and pass it on. People thinking the vaccine is the end of the story are mistaken. Normal isn't going to happen, a new normal will evolve.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36067610)

The BBC 6pm news is reporting that there's new evidence that the UK's new variant of the virus could be more more deadly than the original virus.

---------- Post added at 18:50 ---------- Previous post was at 18:48 ----------



Indeed. The way that i've heard people talking, you'd think that everything will be going back to how it was once the vaccine has been rolled out.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36067612)

Backed up by a lot of maybe/we don't know /it's possible............

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36067554)

Here comes the vaccine passport.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36067612)

Backed up by a lot of maybe/we don't know /it's possible............

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36067616)

I already have a passport, how hard can it be to add a stamp to that, like Visas, no need for a whole new system.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36067618)

At a guess it'll go beyond the aviation industry, potentially to allow access to concerts/sports venues or other close contact large gatherings.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36067617)

And by what mechanism could they ever conclusively prove it? Are you going to volunteer to be in a confined space with others and then deliberately infected, in order to prove it, one way or the other?

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36067619)

Do we do that for any other virus ?
I think the whole thing is bordering on ridiculous.

Once people are vaccinated, I see no reason to treat it any different to the flu, or other virus infections we immunise ourselfs against.
There is nothing special about covid, other than we had zero immunity to it at the start, that will no longer be the case.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36067620)

Maybe, it's possible, there is a probability, scientifically speaking.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36067621)

We don't do it for any other virus but the alternative will be to maintain restrictions for longer ..

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36067621)

There will also be concerns around the emergence of a potentially vaccine resistant variation which would place us back at square one with the huge inconvenience, and economic cost, of lockdowns.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36067624)

Why ? Once its under control, what is the need for this ?


This is possible with any virus (with the flu again being an obvious example).

If we stopped doing things because of potential 'concerns', we would never actually do anything.

It seems the media really have done a great paranoia job on everyone.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36067619)

Do we do that for any other virus ?
I think the whole thing is bordering on ridiculous.

Once people are vaccinated, I see no reason to treat it any different to the flu, or other virus infections we immunise ourselfs against.
There is nothing special about covid, other than we had zero immunity to it at the start, that will no longer be the case.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36067625)

Totally agree with that, project fear at it's worst.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36067626)

I think it's because it can kill people of all ages (even without any underlying conditions);there are some people in their 30's & 40's in our local hospital right now.

I know flu can kill too, but it's not usually fatal for those under pension age.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36067627)

Yes we need a TB passport, MMR passport, do I also have to prove in the future when I go to any events that I don’t have Ebola?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36067630)

Yellow Fever.
WHO

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36067624)

Why ? Once its under control, what is the need for this ?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36067627)

Yes we need a TB passport, MMR passport, do I also have to prove in the future when I go to any events that I don’t have Ebola?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36067631)

But that is to prove that you have been vaccinated against a disease that is prevalent in a country you are going to.

Do people that live sub-Saharan Africa, South America, Central America and Trinidad in the Caribbean have to prove they’ve been vaccinated against yellow fever to go to the football or cricket, or to leave the country, or go on a cruise?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36067633)

None of them have came close to overwhelming the NHS or caused as many death or hospitalisations.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36067636)

The flu never came close to overwhelming the NHS?

Not in 2015?

https://www.uhs.nhs.uk/aboutthetrust...dmissions.aspx

Not in 2018?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...s-Britain.html

Or 2019

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ople-week.html

The NHS is always under constant threat of being Overwhelmed by the flu, every year............except this year, because the flu has decided not to bother this year as it’s big brother Covid is here. 2020/2021 the flu is awol.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36067638)

Looks like a few people are disputing the seriousness.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html