Coronavirus

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The vaccines are safe as far as vaccines go, yes, but all vaccines produce side effects in some people.

The hesitancy around vaccinating children is that the risk of becoming ill with Covid is extremely small, and therefore one has to weigh the balance of whether to take the small risk of not vaccinating against a virus that is unlikely to affect them or vaccinate and take the small risk that they may get side effects.

The net benefit of vaccinating children is extremely small, so much so that the scientists were hesitant about recommending that children should be vaccinated. Although on balance they decided it would be, it was close, and in all probability based on keeping transmission rates down.

More tosh Old Boy. The JCVI bottled it and were overruled by the CMOs because their advice was narrow in focus, based on flawed data and simply preposterous to follow unless you wanted to keep kids in lockdown forever to maintain their “two in a million” risk of death from Covid.

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Are you sure about that?

interesting you don't read posts properly. I said when offered, I'll take it. I haven't been offered one.

I did, I can't recall exactly (i'm sure king of the search function - Hugh will find the relevant post ) in what context I said it. I think was along the lines of instead of vaccinating under 30's, vaccinate the at risk groups globally. I still stand by that.

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:42 ----------



We'll probably go to Spain

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-ad...y-requirements

So basically as long as you’re alright and can get vaccinated as much as you want/need the Africa point is moot?

Exactly the type of principled decision making I’ve come to expect from you Pierre please do keep them coming.

The scientific evidence on the safety of the vaccine is absolutely clear. We will have needles in the arms of kids in no time at all. Long before the “experimental vaccine” has satisfied the internet crackpots.

You can compete with the most desperate last stand on the forum with OB’s defence of Owen Paterson.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

So basically as long as you’re alright and can get vaccinated as much as you want/need the Africa point is moot?

The point is moot full stop as I have no power to do anything about it. If someone said to me hey Pierre instead of giving you this vaccine booster, we'll give it to an unvaccinated 60yr old in the DRC, I'd say OK.

I wasn't given that choice at the clinic.

The scientific evidence on the safety of the vaccine is absolutely clear. We will have needles in the arms of kids in no time at all. Long before the “experimental vaccine” has satisfied the internet crackpots.

So vaccines for the U12's is inevitable says Dr JFman. Did you see Hughs jovial post above. That also applies to you in this context.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The point is moot full stop as I have no power to do anything about it. If someone said to me hey Pierre instead of giving you this vaccine booster, we'll give it to an unvaccinated 60yr old in the DRC, I'd say OK.

I wasn't given that choice at the clinic.

You could of course not book your booster - somewhere down the supply chain that ends up somewhere else.

So vaccines for the U12's is inevitable says Dr JFman. Did you see Hughs jovial post above. That also applies to you in this context.

I don’t see how backing the world leading scientists at the CDC and the European CDC is linked to Hugh’s post at all. You can follow the quacks at the JCVI all you wish, but I’ve predicted they’d be wrong before and been proven right - gaps between doses, 12-15, and I’d back the rest of the worlds scientists every time.

Also no need to address me as Dr as I have no relevant qualifications for the title. Which probably means I could get on the JCVI.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

You could of course not book your booster - somewhere down the supply chain that ends up somewhere else.

I'll think about. Like I said I haven't been offered one yet.

I’d back the rest of the worlds scientists every time.

Or just back whoever and whatever fits your argument.

Originally Posted by jfman

You could of course not book your booster - somewhere down the supply chain that ends up somewhere else.



I don’t see how backing the world leading scientists at the CDC and the European CDC is linked to Hugh’s post at all. You can follow the quacks at the JCVI all you wish, but I’ve predicted they’d be wrong before and been proven right - gaps between doses, 12-15, and I’d back the rest of the worlds scientists every time.

Also no need to address me as Dr as I have no relevant qualifications for the title. Which probably means I could get on the JCVI.

You’re frequently proven right when judged against your own straw men and hindsight.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

You’re frequently proven right when judged against your own straw men and hindsight.

I’m not sure how scepticism - in advance - about the JCVI and their decision making can be described as hindsight. Similarly where they overrule themselves (12 weeks between doses was reduced) or get overruled by CMOs (12-15s).

I know you’ve anchored much of your input into the thread on British exceptionalism but I think one could reasonably objectively see that the JCVI are no longer fit for purpose. Incompetent at best and providing political cover to Government narratives at worst.

It’s also interesting to note that the current cut off (in age range) for boosters aligns with the cut off when the stopped dishing out the AstraZeneca vaccine. I’m sure we will eventually get to boosters for all.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not sure how scepticism - in advance - about the JCVI and their decision making can be described as hindsight. Similarly where they overrule themselves (12 weeks between doses was reduced) or get overruled by CMOs (12-15s).

I know you’ve anchored much of your input into the thread on British exceptionalism but I think one could reasonably objectively see that the JCVI are no longer fit for purpose. Incompetent at best and providing political cover to Government narratives at worst.

It’s also interesting to note that the current cut off (in age range) for boosters aligns with the cut off when the stopped dishing out the AstraZeneca vaccine. I’m sure we will eventually get to boosters for all.

It seems likely that under 40s will eventually be offered a booster, which in their case will probably be a third shot of Pfizer or Moderna instead of 2 AZ then 1 Pfizer.



If they have to wait 6 months between 2nd and 3rd doses then it seems pointless saying that anyone younger can book yet. I'm double jabbed, was as soon as I could have been virtually, and still this was July, so it'd be January before I can get a third.



As for JCVI, well let's not forget the JCVI, MHRA, CMOs and ultimately the politicians have different priorities. I think the MHRA basically approve the vaccine for use - which basically says yes it is safe to give a 12 year old the vaccine, but make no indication of how it's to be used, this is down to the JCVI to say (e.g. 1 dose, 2 doses N weeks apart) and then ultimately the CMO and CSA will advise the PM and Health secretary based on other factors for example is it worth doing for the benefits, based on the side effects etc. It might appear they're overruling and contradicting each other but they aren't, they just have different angles to consider

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

It seems likely that under 40s will eventually be offered a booster, which in their case will probably be a third shot of Pfizer or Moderna instead of 2 AZ then 1 Pfizer.

If they have to wait 6 months between 2nd and 3rd doses then it seems pointless saying that anyone younger can book yet. I'm double jabbed, was as soon as I could have been virtually, and still this was July, so it'd be January before I can get a third.

The advice has reduced the waiting period to five months while the most vulnerable (and proportionately more Pfizer) had to wait six.

As for JCVI, well let's not forget the JCVI, MHRA, CMOs and ultimately the politicians have different priorities. I think the MHRA basically approve the vaccine for use - which basically says yes it is safe to give a 12 year old the vaccine, but make no indication of how it's to be used, this is down to the JCVI to say (e.g. 1 dose, 2 doses N weeks apart) and then ultimately the CMO and CSA will advise the PM and Health secretary based on other factors for example is it worth doing for the benefits, based on the side effects etc. It might appear they're overruling and contradicting each other but they aren't, they just have different angles to consider

I’m aware they all have differing functions.

The real question is why the JCVI exist at all considering they aren’t approving the vaccine for safety (the MHRA), they broadly aren’t experts in a relevant field (mostly behavioural scientists or sociologists) and their decision making is neither timely nor binding (12-15 y/o vaccination).

Originally Posted by jfman

British exceptionalism

The problem with this is, from the point of view of someone who loathes the British state, everyone even slightly more moderate than you seems to be pushing exceptionalism.

Meanwhile, see nffc’s excellent post for a description of pragmatism and co-operation between the agencies charting a path through this novel infection for us. I would only add to it the steadily increasing body of scientific research which is always likely to result in changes in advice as time goes by. In particular, today’s recommendation of a second dose for teenagers seems to be grounded in a population wide study that provides reassurance that heart muscle swelling as a side effect in that age group is exceptionally rare.

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:27 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

the AstraZeneca vaccine.

See my earlier comments about your loathing of the British state. It has demonstrably eaten you from the inside out every day since the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was proven effective and began to be used. Your desperate willing for this particular vaccine to fail, just to your world view doesn’t have to suffer any challenges, is pretty sad.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

The problem with this is, from the point of view of someone who loathes the British state, everyone even slightly more moderate than you seems to be pushing exceptionalism.

Meanwhile, see nffc’s excellent post for a description of pragmatism and co-operation between the agencies charting a path through this novel infection for us. I would only add to it the steadily increasing body of scientific research which is always likely to result in changes in advice as time goes by. In particular, today’s recommendation of a second dose for teenagers seems to be grounded in a population wide study that provides reassurance that heart muscle swelling as a side effect in that age group is exceptionally rare.

The irony that a population wide study done here (as opposed to the evidence used in the USA, EU and elsewhere) justifying their decision - and indeed providing reassurance - is being held up as good science in a post denying British Exceptionalism.

Worthy of a comedy sketch.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

The advice has reduced the waiting period to five months while the most vulnerable (and proportionately more Pfizer) had to wait six.



I’m aware they all have differing functions.

The real question is why the JCVI exist at all considering they aren’t approving the vaccine for safety (the MHRA), they broadly aren’t experts in a relevant field (mostly behavioural scientists or sociologists) and their decision making is neither timely nor binding (12-15 y/o vaccination).

Don't you think we need behavioural scientists?



I know they're indySAGE and that I'm hardly Michie and Reicher's greatest fans either in terms of their politics or their views but on a committee where you are looking to think tank your way through a crisis you absolutely do need a variety of different backgrounds and opinions - even a Sinophile Communist Party member has her place in this.



If nothing else, they need to be in the discussions regarding how people will behave once vaccinated, and how to best encourage people - one would imagine the "i'm vaccinated so f**k restrictions" attitude would've come up and how they best counteract this mentality... which is a behavioural scientist's question, and wholly related to vaccination.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

See my earlier comments about your loathing of the British state. It has demonstrably eaten you from the inside out every day since the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was proven effective and began to be used. Your desperate willing for this particular vaccine to fail, just to your world view doesn’t have to suffer any challenges, is pretty sad.

Far from - at a global level as you have correctly noted for the vast majority in the pandemic it’s the only vaccine they will ever see before 2023.

However that added value doesn’t necessarily equate to it providing the maximum level of protection here - I suspect something reflected in the fact that while some countries are using it for a booster dose we are not. The order book for 2022 puts us firmly on a Pfizer footing.

[nffc]

I will add that Laura Dodsworth mentions plenty on how the Gov and BehSci have behaved towards making the population comply in her book on the covid crisis. I'd recommend a read with an open mind...

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

Don't you think we need behavioural scientists?

Not leading the decision making for who gets vaccinated when if their only role is to stall the process between the MHRA approving a safe and effective vaccine and being overruled by CMOs. Either the evidence base was incomplete or the analysis inadequate. Which is irrelevant.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

Not leading the decision making for who gets vaccinated when if their only role is to stall the process between the MHRA approving a safe and effective vaccine and being overruled by CMOs. Either the evidence base was incomplete or the analysis inadequate. Which is irrelevant.

But there are views which their speciality is best considered.


Like, specifically in the argument about vaxxing teens and younger, where you may have to overcome views from parents such as "well my kid is healthy and isn't likely to get ill from covid/has already had it and I don't want to risk him getting a heart condition from a vaccine which isn't going to help him" and how you would manage to overcome that objection?


We know the vaccine is safe as it's been shoved into plenty of adults around the world. We know a child's body isn't massively different from an adult's, especially a teen's. But a child is at much less risk of being hospitalised or dying from covid which is what the vaccine primarily prevents.


It's not a question either which has a binary answer. Just because the vaccine is safe and effective to give to kids doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Should we vaccinate dogs to stop them spreading it to humans too?