Coronavirus

Originally Posted by Blackshep

Yes the droplets can be bigger but the virus is able to travel short distances independent of the droplet (as I'm sure your aware) and at .14 micron those fabric masks are worthless if you want an effective mask lobby the government for full face cbrn rated masks then I'lltake it seriously. It isn't a vaccine by any measure that applied before covid 19 it doesn't prevent infection, it doesn't prevent death from the virus, it doesn't prevent you passing the virus on and it's effect is lessened by time and is worthless against emerging variants.

This "vaccine" is an unproved rushed experimental drug for which we have zero real data on it's medium to long term effects because so many stages in the usual research and development of medications were swept aside to get it out the door but it's ok they did some computer modelling. There is no real ground for anyone to be smug and self satisfied with their position everyone needs to do their own research and make a decision based on what they feel is best for them. As I said the coercive element in all of this should have more people questioning then there is.

Yeahhhhb …. I’m not sure what’s most distressing about this post. It could be its absolute blind faith in batty, pseudo-science internet conspiracy theories, or it could be that you’re forcing me to be seen agreeing with Jfman about something.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Blackshep

I only wear a mask to go to the doctor's and only because they won't let you in if you don't wear one complete rubbish. I'm not vaccinated nor do I intend too after looking at the information and seeing the steady appearance of new variants which aren't impacted by the vaccine. I dislike strongly the coercive element there is with vaccination and the idea of the vaccine passports is disgusting and is not something I'd have expected in a non communist country. But each to their own do whatever makes you feel safer or better just don't insist on it applying to everyone.

I hope for your family’s sake (if you have one) that you don’t contract Covid and suffer complications. I also hope that in the incubation period, nobody has the misfortune to be within your range.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I hope for your family’s sake (if you have one) that you don’t contract Covid and suffer complications. I also hope that in the incubation period, nobody has the misfortune to be within your range.

Is the incubation period different to those who are catching covid after numerous jabs.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Blackshep

Yes the droplets can be bigger but the virus is able to travel short distances independent of the droplet (as I'm sure your aware) and at .14 micron those fabric masks are worthless if you want an effective mask lobby the government for full face cbrn rated masks then I'lltake it seriously. It isn't a vaccine by any measure that applied before covid 19 it doesn't prevent infection, it doesn't prevent death from the virus, it doesn't prevent you passing the virus on and it's effect is lessened by time and is worthless against emerging variants.

Well then...

Not sure that naked virus particles can travel far to be honest. Drying a virus tends to be quite bad for it, especially an enveloped virus such as SARS-COV-2. This study - https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 shows that masks, even cotton ones do have some effect. The effect is more pronounced for 'live' virus (as tested through plaque assays) than 'live' and 'dead' virus (as tested through RT-PCR)

Is the protection 100% - no. Is the protection significant - yes.

Originally Posted by Blackshep

This "vaccine" is an unproved rushed experimental drug for which we have zero real data on it's medium to long term effects because so many stages in the usual research and development of medications were swept aside to get it out the door but it's ok they did some computer modelling. There is no real ground for anyone to be smug and self satisfied with their position everyone needs to do their own research and make a decision based on what they feel is best for them. As I said the coercive element in all of this should have more people questioning then there is.

Based on your own research of the vaccine, what statistical end points would convince you of the efficacy and safety of the vaccines? What would be a statistically significant cohort size? How many confounding factors will you take in to account? What p and CI values will be significant?

I have to admit, my statistical knowledge of vaccine trials is not up to deciding for myself so I have delegated this to the experts of the MHRA.

Originally Posted by Chris

Yeahhhhb …. I’m not sure what’s most distressing about this post. It could be its absolute blind faith in batty, pseudo-science internet conspiracy theories, or it could be that you’re forcing me to be seen agreeing with Jfman about something.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I have to admit, my statistical knowledge of vaccine trials is not up to deciding for myself so I have delegated this to the experts of the MHRA.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Blackshep

This "vaccine" is an unproved rushed experimental drug for which we have zero real data on it's medium to long term effects because so many stages in the usual research and development of medications were swept aside to get it out the door

You do know, that even if I accepted that argument for the mRNA Vaccines. That only accounts for the Pfizer & Moderna vaccines.

The AZ & Johnson & Johnson vaccines use the Adenovirus Vector method to carry the spike protein. A method used I understand since at least 2010. So I'm afraid you are wrong. It is not experimental, it is also not a drug!

[nffc]

I'd also strongly wade in with the point that unless any of us are somehow vaccine experts, the MHRA, JCVI, CMO and his deputies, and Jenny Harries know plenty about this and it would no doubt ruin their careers if they advised incorrectly which caused a massive issue.


These jabs - even AZ - have been used all over the world and not just in the UK, and have been administered to billions of people over the last 10 months or so. If there was an issue then it would have been picked up in clinical trials or at some point through the world (e.g. the issue which was identified with AZ and blood clotting) and they would do something about it.


It's one thing taking the word of union people or the like who have a vested interest in a certain thing happening and aren't objective. But medical ethics doesn't work that way, Whitty, JVT, Harries etc are all doctors at the top of their fields, as are the experts on the MHRA who decided on the vaccines' suitability and the JCVI on how best to implement them. They know what to look for and realistically should be trusted.


Neither the viral vector nor mRNA lipid envelope vaccines use novel technology.

[jfman]

Jenny Harries ffs

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

Jenny Harries ffs

Which university did she get her ffs from?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

Which university did she get her ffs from?

The university of incompetence.

[Blackshep]

There were no clinical trials that was a stage that was removed there is nothing but computer modelling which failed to show the unique proteins these vaccines create in every individual. Before covid 19 there were widespread concerns over mRNA covid hits and it's fine and people are now stuck in a never ending cycle of boosters. There are a lot of medical companies and individual's questioning various aspects unfortunately they are deemed to be misinformation and are being removed from the internet it was one such company that caused me to start looking further.

They were heavily involved in the last major Ebola outbreak sadly losing three of their doctors and have been client's of the company for many years comprising of immunologists, epidemiologists and virologists and now they are cancelled from the internet. This is happening a lot and why are companies that were reputable enough to be involved in various outbreaks around the world and had government contracts now disreputable. When did Facebook, Google, Amazon and Twitter become sufficiently qualified to decide what is or isn't relevant medical information.

Of the hundreds of people I know and other hundreds I work with 1 person has had confirmed covid they were unwell for two weeks and then returned to work albeit remotely people are not dropping dead in the streets and there is data now questioning the mortality rate of covid putting it below the 6% figure which would put it into flu territory. Yes people have died from it and that is heartbreaking as it is whenever people die but the loss of perspective here is palpable or are we now entering a time where we lock the country down every year for the flu?.

When only one version of information is allowed it will become accepted as the truth but the number of qualified individual's and companies being silenced and disregarded should be causing concern. After covid you'll have less civil rights, less access to information and less privacy but hey as long as we are safe.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

The university of incompetence.

Hmm, do explain more...

Originally Posted by Blackshep

There were no clinical trials that was a stage that was removed there is nothing but computer modelling which failed to show the unique proteins these vaccines create in every individual. Before covid 19 there were widespread concerns over mRNA covid hits and it's fine and people are now stuck in a never ending cycle of boosters. There are a lot of medical companies and individual's questioning various aspects unfortunately they are deemed to be misinformation and are being removed from the internet it was one such company that caused me to start looking further.

They were heavily involved in the last major Ebola outbreak sadly losing three of their doctors and have been client's of the company for many years comprising of immunologists, epidemiologists and virologists and now they are cancelled from the internet. This is happening a lot and why are companies that were reputable enough to be involved in various outbreaks around the world and had government contracts now disreputable. When did Facebook, Google, Amazon and Twitter become sufficiently qualified to decide what is or isn't relevant medical information.

Of the hundreds of people I know and other hundreds I work with 1 person has had confirmed covid they were unwell for two weeks and then returned to work albeit remotely people are not dropping dead in the streets and there is data now questioning the mortality rate of covid putting it below the 6% figure which would put it into flu territory. Yes people have died from it and that is heartbreaking as it is whenever people die but the loss of perspective here is palpable or are we now entering a time where we lock the country down every year for the flu?.

When only one version of information is allowed it will become accepted as the truth but the number of qualified individual's and companies being silenced and disregarded should be causing concern. After covid you'll have less civil rights, less access to information and less privacy but hey as long as we are safe.

AZ Oxford
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00836-z

The Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine’s rollercoaster ride of a week might be coming to a welcome end. A key phase III clinical trial found the vaccine to be 76% effective at preventing COVID-19, the company announced on 25 March, two days after it was accused of misrepresenting interim results, which reported a slightly higher efficacyof 79%.

Pfizer
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-re...vid-19-vaccine

NEW YORK & MAINZ, Germany--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) 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. Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% (p<0.0001) in participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (first primary objective) and also in participants with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (second primary objective), in each case measured from 7 days after the second dose. The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, 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%.

Moderna
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389

This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.
RESULTS
The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group).

And as I personally took part in the Novavax clinical trials (as a subject), I can confidently state your assertion has no connection with reality.

Hope this helps…

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

AZ Oxford
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00836-z

Pfizer
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-re...vid-19-vaccine

Moderna
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389

And as I personally took part in the Novavax clinical trials (as a subject), I can confidently state your assertion has no connection with reality.

Hope this helps…

thought you got the placebo.