The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll

How's your immunity looking? Had covid - vote twice - vax status and then again for infection status

  • Vaxxed but no booster

  • Boostered

  • Still waiting in queue for first vaccine dose

  • Won't get vaxxed (unless I have to for travel/work etc)

  • Past infection with covid + I've been vaccinated

  • Past infection with covid - I've not been vaccinated

Results are only viewable after voting.
jojojo said:
Yes, but also some, and maybe. There are a lot of vaccines that mimic just the spike (or part of it) directly. The antibodies they trigger may not help at all against a non-spike, different-spike variant. Some of the vaccines though are based on whole de-activated virus for example, so they may still work. In other words all the trial efficacy results will become invalid, but the vaccines may not all stop working.

In any case there's a question of when does a mutation develop new behaviours - become more/less infectious, quicker/slower incubation time, and how damaging will it be. The SARS2 S protein may be part of the perfect storm that has made SARS2 so dangerous.

For sure though, the whole development push this time round will be a massive boost to the next round of vaccine development whether that's a changed spike Sars2 or a completely new virus. The teams doing this around the world will have learned an immense amount about processes, techniques and some of the novel technologies.
Click to expand...

thanks. Got a feeling it may become an issue sooner rather than later
 
Pogue Mahone said:
You seem to be misunderstanding herd immunity. It’s dependent on the virus not being able to transmit via people who are immune. You can eventually hit a threshold where enough people are immune that the virus basically dies out due to a lack of susceptible hosts. That’s herd immunity.

If someone gets a vaccine which stops them getting sick but doesn’t stop them getting infected and potentially infecting other people (i.e. approx 50% of people injected with Pfizer vaccine) then they won’t contribute to herd immunity. The threshold for herd immunity for SARS-COV-2 is likely to be at least 60%. Probably a lot higher. So, as I said, even injecting every single person on the planet with this vaccine would still leave us a good bit below the HIT.
Click to expand...

Herd immunity is quite possible without a vaccine being sterilising - polio was an example of where we could achieve herd immunity with a non-sterilising vaccine and this is because it vastly reduces the transmission of disease often by things like reducing viral load/shedding and the period of when you are infectious, thus bringing the R below 1 i.e. effectiveness E is greater than (1 − 1/Ro) and of course E will be higher if a vaccine is truly sterilising but a highly effective vaccine can get close. I hope that the threshold HIT for SARS-CoV-2 is 60% although hard to know if this is achievable until the vaccines roll out and if we knew what the actual Ro was it would help. Even if we don't get there it should be what we are aiming for until we find it isn't possible and even then as close to 100% vaccination should still be the aim.

And do we know that the various vaccines aren't sterilising? Early on I think I read that the lack of longevity of immunity was the main challenge to a covid vaccine being sterilising and I think we are now thinking a vaccine, like most severe infections, will produce antibodies (and memory cells) for longer than we originally feared.

I also wonder of we know if B long-lived plasma memory cells are produced?If there are that could be very good news indeed. This article suggest natural infections do so hopefully vaccines will as well as they are thought to be responsible for how long lived the PPV vaccine lasts.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Pfizer - part two press release is out. 95% efficacy. Is working at 90%+ in over 65s as well as younger adults, and across ethnicities. Safety data now available indicates no major adverse events and that the side-effects (fatigue, headache) are generally short duration and well tolerated.
 
Tarrou said:
Big Pharma are not going to rush something out they're uncertain of

if they botch this one the lawsuits would put them out of business
Click to expand...

They won’t be on the hook for side effects that manifest after 2-3 years. I think the Uk government pays out £120k per person for vaccine damage.

I’m sure there’s almost universal Acceptance that long term side effects can’t be predicted.

This is probably the problem. I’m suggesting something sensible. But I know a quarter of a Fcuk about vaccines, their history, how long the (very few) problematic vaccines caused problems for (very few) people.
 
Leroy The Red said:
Has anyone noticed that their anti vaccine friends are the same ones who spent years smoking weed, snorting coke and eating that dodgy kebab meat from fast food shops called Kentucky Pizza?

It’s almost as if theres a link.....
Click to expand...

I see the opposite.
 
Leroy The Red said:
Has anyone noticed that their anti vaccine friends are the same ones who spent years smoking weed, snorting coke and eating that dodgy kebab meat from fast food shops called Kentucky Pizza?

It’s almost as if theres a link.....
Click to expand...
No. Weird link.
 
When do we think Oxford joins the party? That's the one we've ordered the most of if I recall.
 
Leroy The Red said:
Has anyone noticed that their anti vaccine friends are the same ones who spent years smoking weed, snorting coke and eating that dodgy kebab meat from fast food shops called Kentucky Pizza?

It’s almost as if theres a link.....
Click to expand...

I have one anti-vaxxer friend and funnily enough... yeh that's pretty much her.
 
I look forward to Libano's next paper on the topic, he seems to know more than all of the doctors and researchers on this forum combined.
 
Sorry, just read somewhere and can someone correct me if I'm wrong or explain to me like an idiot if it's true:

Is it true that it is that effective after 28 days or so and if you got COVID in between the two doses they don't count you in the results? If so, isn't that a bit.... sneaky?
 
LARulz said:
Sorry, just read somewhere and can someone correct me if I'm wrong or explain to me like an idiot if it's true:

Is it true that it is that effective after 28 days or so and if you got COVID in between the two doses they don't count you in the results? If so, isn't that a bit.... sneaky?
Click to expand...
Dunno but surely there is a lag before it becomes effective.

If it takes 8 days to become effective and you get covid day 4 that's not the vaccines fault
 
LARulz said:
Sorry, just read somewhere and can someone correct me if I'm wrong or explain to me like an idiot if it's true:

Is it true that it is that effective after 28 days or so and if you got COVID in between the two doses they don't count you in the results? If so, isn't that a bit.... sneaky?
Click to expand...

They have to choose a starting point at which the vaccine will work. It was never going to make you immune the same day you get the injection. It works by tricking your body into producing a load of proteins which, in turn, stimulate your immune system to create antibodies. All of which takes time. This vaccine needs two doses so the point they went for is seven days after the second injection (28 after the first).
 
Pogue Mahone said:
They have to choose a starting point at which the vaccine will work. It was never going to make you immune the same day you get the injection. It works by tricking your body into producing a load of proteins which, in turn, stimulate your immune system to create antibodies. All of which takes time. This vaccine needs two doses so the point they went for is seven days after the second injection (28 after the first).
Click to expand...
Well we all know there will be a few idiots who will take the vaccine and think that they are invincible immediately. They will then stop wearing a mask etc and become a super spreader.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I’m picturing the Hitler in the bunker meme with terrified dweebs in white coats plucking up the courage to tell the AstraZeneca CEO that they only got 60% efficacy.
Click to expand...

Isn't 60% quite good? Especially as it's meant to only cost $3?
 
Libano said:
From Moderna's own white paper:

"The key challenge associated with DNA vaccines is that they must penetrate the cell nucleus (crossing two membranes; the cytoplasm and the nucleus). The DNA must then be transcribed in the nucleus into mRNA before moving to the cytoplasm to stimulate antigen production. This core complex pathway often requires both larger doses and special, often painful delivery devices using electric shocks or gold microspheres into person’s skin to deliver the DNA vaccine. Once inside the nucleus, DNA vaccines have a risk of permanently changing a person’s DNA."


Something potentially impacting the entire human race, possibly irreversibly, needs to fulfill the highest safety standards ever applied to a vaccine.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense
 
LARulz said:
Sorry, just read somewhere and can someone correct me if I'm wrong or explain to me like an idiot if it's true:

Is it true that it is that effective after 28 days or so and if you got COVID in between the two doses they don't count you in the results? If so, isn't that a bit.... sneaky?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure but it sounds sensible. Including them would produce innacurate data I would have assumed.
 
Simbo said:
I have one anti-vaxxer friend and funnily enough... yeh that's pretty much her.
Click to expand...
I know many anti-vaxxers. They are largely quite sensible and intelligent people (like myself). But, most of them believe in alternative medicine, and are generally sceptical of modern medicine. Some of them do not vax their kids at all. Most of them have not fully vaccinated their kids. None of them will get the Covid-vax.
 
UweBein said:
I know many anti-vaxxers. They are largely quite sensible and intelligent people (like myself). But, most of them believe in alternative medicine, and are generally sceptical of modern medicine. Some of them do not vax their kids at all. Most of them have not fully vaccinated their kids. None of them will get the Covid-vax.
Click to expand...

They may be intelligent but choosing not to vaccinate their children is not sensible. In fact, it’s fairly reckless (and selfish)

There are definitely a few different types of anti-vaxxers. You do get the stoner wasters that @Leroy The Red mentions. Complete wastoids who believe any old conspiracy shit they watch on YouTube. But you also get a lot of “wellness” types. Into their yoga and dubious dietary claims. They think homeopathy actually works and won’t put “chemicals” in their body (then get pissed off when you remind them that H2O is a chemical).

One thing they almost all have in common nowadays is finding an echo chamber online to reinforce their dubious beliefs.
 
Last edited:
UweBein said:
I know many anti-vaxxers. They are largely quite sensible and intelligent people (like myself). But, most of them believe in alternative medicine, and are generally sceptical of modern medicine. Some of them do not vax their kids at all. Most of them have not fully vaccinated their kids. None of them will get the Covid-vax.
Click to expand...

They can't be sensible and intelligent and also believe in alternative medicine/be sceptical of modern medicine.

Not unless they choose to be dangerous morons and the sensible bit is ignored.
 
UweBein said:
I know many anti-vaxxers. They are largely quite sensible and intelligent people (like myself). But, most of them believe in alternative medicine, and are generally sceptical of modern medicine. Some of them do not vax their kids at all. Most of them have not fully vaccinated their kids. None of them will get the Covid-vax.
Click to expand...
Are you also all like minded in affluence ?
 
I have one antivax friend who's the stoner type described above, and one who's a yoga teacher. I find it a bit strange being friends with the yoga one (since I found out), but I'm not sure why. Maybe its harder to reconcile with her being generally quite smart and wotnot. The stoner guy used to believe the world is flat and every other conspiracy going, which weirdly doesn't bother me as much.
 
I read that out of 43000 people on the trial 170 caught Covid-19. 8 were from the vaccine arm 162 from the placebo arm. Thats where the 95% efficacy comes from. Hardly resounding numbers.

Edit: just seen the post above this one. I read it somewhere else. Still, not exactly the most confident number. Out of 21500 people only 162 caught covid on a placebo. Insignificant in scientific terms, surely?
 
Green_Red said:
I read that out of 43000 people on the trial 170 caught Covid-19. 8 were from the vaccine arm 162 from the placebo arm. Thats where the 95% efficacy comes from. Hardly resounding numbers.

Edit: just seen the post above this one. I read it somewhere else. Still, not exactly the most confident number. Out of 21500 people only 162 caught covid on a placebo. Insignificant in scientific terms, surely?
Click to expand...

I believe it is highly statistically significant but I think we may have to wait for the final phase 3 report arrives for the exact figures. I've seen some calculation on line that seem palusible but they were only working with the figures from the press reIease and aren't expert in medical stats plus I am far too rust at stats to run the numbers myself.

Edit: I see Tony has confirmed the p value was in the press release
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.