Coronavirus

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

mRNA vaccines have proven just how astonishingly good they are, both in terms of speed of development and efficacy. Advanced economies with the money to buy them and the infrastructure to store and distribute them can and should use them. However, viral vector vaccines are much, much cheaper to produce and distribute and the real-world efficacy of Oxford/AZ is so good it is going to have a role in the world programme for a very long time to come.

I’m glad to see you acknowledge this because there have been times over the last year when you have seemed distinctly peeved at its success and have questioned its use within the UK at all, despite the very obvious and immediate need.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

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?

I’m not sure the mass vaccination of millions of children should be pinned on the worries of a handful of parents.

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.

It may not have a binary answer but the global consensus is to do so, and we have partially and will eventually fully fall into line.

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?

I’d ask their owners, just as I’d give the choice to parents.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Chris

mRNA vaccines have proven just how astonishingly good they are, both in terms of speed of development and efficacy. Advanced economies with the money to buy them and the infrastructure to store and distribute them can and should use them. However, viral vector vaccines are much, much cheaper to produce and distribute and the real-world efficacy of Oxford/AZ is so good it is going to have a role in the world programme for a very long time to come.

I’m glad to see you acknowledge this because there have been times over the last year when you have seemed distinctly peeved at its success and have questioned its use within the UK at all, despite the very obvious and immediate need.

Is that because it's British and exceptional

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

mRNA vaccines have proven just how astonishingly good they are, both in terms of speed of development and efficacy. Advanced economies with the money to buy them and the infrastructure to store and distribute them can and should use them. However, viral vector vaccines are much, much cheaper to produce and distribute and the real-world efficacy of Oxford/AZ is so good it is going to have a role in the world programme for a very long time to come.

I’m glad to see you acknowledge this because there have been times over the last year when you have seemed distinctly peeved at its success and have questioned its use within the UK at all, despite the very obvious and immediate need.

I don’t think it was unreasonable to note that it had lower efficacy (and consequential impact on infections, hospitalisations or deaths) and a risk of not reaching the much sought after herd immunity threshold.

These concerns very much have proven to be realised. Indeed, the fact none of the vaccinations will get to the herd immunity threshold unless you can simultaneously vaccinate everyone at once with an mRNA vaccine has paradoxically created greater ongoing demand for all vaccines for years to come - including the lower efficacy ones. Which while good for big pharma (I note AstraZeneca are moving to a profit making model) isn’t necessarily the out everyone was hoping for in late 2020.

[Carth]

If an unvaccinated child attends school, when compared to a vaccinated child in the same school are they more at risk, less at risk, or at equal risk of catching covid?

If an unvaccinated child catches Covid, when compared to a vaccinated child are they more likely, less likely, or of equal likelihood to infect someone else?

According to the latest analysis/statistics/guesswork, is an unvaccinated child more at risk, less at risk, or at equal risk of developing serious Covid complications than a vaccinated child?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’d ask their owners, just as I’d give the choice to parents.

Your rhetoric over the last few pages would suggest you preference of mandated vaccination for children.

So at least you do accept it is a decision for parents and parents alone.

Originally Posted by Carth

If an unvaccinated child attends school, when compared to a vaccinated child in the same school are they more at risk, less at risk, or at equal risk of catching covid?

If an unvaccinated child catches Covid, when compared to a vaccinated child are they more likely, less likely, or of equal likelihood to infect someone else?

According to the latest analysis/statistics/guesswork, is an unvaccinated child more at risk, less at risk, or at equal risk of developing serious Covid complications than a vaccinated child?

Try researching it, and let us know your findings…

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Try researching it, and let us know your findings…

I thought asking the experts here would be quicker to be honest Hugh, although it looks like they're stumped at the moment

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Carth

I thought asking the experts here would be quicker to be honest Hugh, although it looks like they're stumped at the moment

I was under the impression fully vaccinated people ie everyone are less likely to catch the virus, spread the virus and get seriously ill from the virus

https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...e-unvaccinated

https://www.newscientist.com/article...re-vaccinated/

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...n/art-20484405

Most important point imo is to slow the spreading. The more unvaccinated there are the more chance of a vaccine resistant strain imo guess that bit falls as a guess though

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

I was under the impression fully vaccinated people ie everyone are less likely to catch the virus, spread the virus and get seriously ill from the virus

https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...e-unvaccinated

https://www.newscientist.com/article...re-vaccinated/

Most important point imo is to slow the spreading. The more unvaccinated there are the more chance of a vaccine resistant strain imo guess that bit falls as a guess though

aah, that sort of doesn't mesh with stuff on here and elsewhere about double vaccinated people taking up hospital beds due to having Covid . . I've no idea if that's a very small percentage of those who are double jabbed, but we do seem to get quite upset at very low percentage issues don't we . .

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Carth

aah, that sort of doesn't mesh with stuff on here and elsewhere about double vaccinated people taking up hospital beds due to having Covid . . I've no idea if that's a very small percentage of those who are double jabbed, but we do seem to get quite upset at very low percentage issues don't we . .

the hospitals I have seen talk about it say most in hospital are not fully vaccinated

https://fullfact.org/health/economis...nation-status/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...cine-rdcr65xhp

Originally Posted by Carth

I thought asking the experts here would be quicker to be honest Hugh, although it looks like they're stumped at the moment

Well, as some of us are dealing with a death in the close family and a son in hospital, perhaps you need to do your own research…

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

The more unvaccinated there are the more chance of a vaccine resistant strain imo

That's a tricky one. You are right that more infections increase the chances of mutation, but there wouldn't be an evolutionary advantage to the virus developing vaccine resistance if there weren't plenty of vaccinated people to infect.

Just curious - what do the evolution-deniers make of all this rapid evolution going on before our eyes?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

That's a tricky one. You are right that more infections increase the chances of mutation, but there wouldn't be an evolutionary advantage to the virus developing vaccine resistance if there weren't plenty of vaccinated people to infect.

Just curious - what do the evolution-deniers make of all this rapid evolution going on before our eyes?

Interesting article on this: Why England’s COVID ‘freedom day’ alarms researchers

“All the experience we have with viruses”, says virologist Richard Tedder at Imperial College London, “is that if you let them replicate in a partially immune population, you will select inevitably for [vaccine] escape variants.”

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

That's a tricky one. You are right that more infections increase the chances of mutation, but there wouldn't be an evolutionary advantage to the virus developing vaccine resistance if there weren't plenty of vaccinated people to infect.

Just curious - what do the evolution-deniers make of all this rapid evolution going on before our eyes?

maybe things have evolved since they were created