You would be shocked at the number that exist. The MD’s on here could probably speak more on it.
The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll
- Thread starter Badunk
- Start date
You would be shocked at the number that exist. The MD’s on here could probably speak more on it.
I was surprised to learn that nurses and care staff, here in UK, have taken a stance against being vaccinated.
One particular residential home has employs a woman I know well. She has refused to be vaccinated and the home have suggested that those who refuse will have their contracts terminated. The case has been taken up at union level.
Not sure what the outcome will be but very surprised that those on the "front line" seeing the effects of the virus are saying no to vaccines. In my opinion this is what has lead to some of your "people on the street" not getting vaccinated moreso than simply being antivaxxers.
The average person on the street is scared from what I have seen. Scared of the virus but also scared of the vaccine. Of course there is the social media element and antivaxxer propaganda but for me someone seeing say a nurse saying no to vaccine is more likely to impact on their decision. I genuinely think some folk are simply scared and to me that is understandable. Wrong but understandable.
Any medical proffesional and related worker should be required to be fully vaccinated to everything and not just covid. It should be a requirement of employment for the safety of the patients.
Interesting data from Bahrain where they've used 4 different vaccines - they've offered a side-by-side comparison of infection rates: unvaxxed v Sinopharm v Sputnik v Pfizer v AZ (Covishield)
I saw this and didn't understand the numbers. How is Covishield more efficacious than Pfizer? I thought it's been established that Pfizer is vastly superior.
The differences are so small/numbers so tiny it’s impossible to tell them apart based on these data. All we can say for certain is how much more effective both of them are than sinopharm (i.e. a LOT more)
OK - slight rewording - I thought Covishield was a lot worse than Pfizer. My surprise is more at that not being the case, vs Covishield being better than Pfizer.
The difference between the two is so small that it could be due to the sample size, but you're right that it shows equivalence on a decent dataset. Pfizer, was 1690,000 and AZ was approx. 74,000 so if there is an error it is likely because of the smaller sample of the AZ vaccine.
The mortality rate on those datasets will be useless though as vaccinated people are protected far beyond those sorts of numbers.
Just did the get a vaccine, give a vaccine thing via Unicef. It's only a fiver. Seemed the right thing to do.
Right - I was thinking that if you plotted the difference between Pfizer and AstraZeneca as a distribution, the difference in that plot would be extremely unlikely. I haven't read the paper, so I don't know if there's a time element to it. All countries that gave Pfizer gave it much earlier than AstraZeneca due to the order of the approvals, so by the time Delta hit, Pfizer's efficacy may have been on the wane.
Brilliant scheme, well done you. I wish this country had implemented this as optional from the start.
That should be 169,000, but yes, the error bars on these real world comparisons will make a difference. I wouldn't use the data for a AZ v Pfizer comparison - just as a guide indicating that both of them are showing good protection against Delta.
The Sinopharm result is more concerning - or at least might indicate that a third dose (of the same vaccine or another one) is needed to really make an impact on hospitalisations.
You didn't need to add the age split portion. Some talks at ECCMID discussed efficacy on par with Pfizer and others more on par with Sinopharm. I trust zero percent of any Sputnik claims at this point, good or bad.
Australia started with AZ and is only now ramping up Pfizer. Supply rather than approval date has been the important factor for many countries so I'm sure the data to assess properly is out there.
Sounds like Biden is looking at making boosters available at the 5 month mark after the 2nd shot, which would be terrific.
Sorry, but I can't see how that's terrific. There's no science I've seen that backs that up as most vaccines are going way beyond 5 months in terms of hospitilisation and mortality rates. Giving boosters to people at 5 months is just taking vaccines away from the large parts of the world which are severely lacking in even first doses.
I’m not sure about this for the general population. For at risk populations sure. Elevated antibody levels are not a long term solution. Our future immunity is based on formation, and persistence, of memory cells and the data is muddled if boosters will have a positive/neutral/negative effect on that. The more important task in my opinion is supporting a global push for global vaccination.
the data is from Bahrain.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the last bit, but imo most people don’t view this issue through the lens of what’s best for the world - they view it as what’s best for their own survival and well being, and that of those around them. Therefore if the booster is available (and assuming they’re not anti-vaxxers), they are likely to get it.
We know this because over 1 million Americans have already crossed state lines to receive unauthorized boosters.
Doesn’t matter. The Sputnik results are all over the place, so it is hard to tell what is real. Not saying the vaccine is bad, just that between Russian propaganda and poor data organization it is hard to make a conclusion.
They've held back 1.6m doses of Moderna in Japan on contamination fears after two healthy males in their 30s died a couple of days after their second jabs. Unclear if they died due to the vaccine though, so they're erring on the side of caution it seems.
Japan probes deaths of two people jabbed with suspended Moderna doses
https://www.ft.com/content/cb5cb256-d103-48f8-92eb-90b61bccdde2
Japan probes deaths of two people jabbed with suspended Moderna doses
https://www.ft.com/content/cb5cb256-d103-48f8-92eb-90b61bccdde2
Fascinating thread. This is for those anti Vax who scream freedom/founding fathers etc.
The Italian PM doesn't rule out making vaccination mandatory for everyone, which would be a big step:
https://www.thelocal.it/20210903/th...xpand-its-covid-vaccination-campaign/?order=0
I wish all countries would do this excluding the medically unable
They seem quite determined out here. It'll be interesting to see if this actually happens, because it's a major change to go from encouragement to compulsion.
Can't see it happening. If 100% vaccinated guarenteed in countries everything would be o.k and go back to Dec 2019 way of life then perhaps you'd have a chance but people would be sceptical as you can bet with the way the pandemic has generally gone a new variant beating vaccine would pop up the day after. 
My personal take is most major countries are now on course for 90% by end of the year so considering it was a bit fat zero for everyone up to November 2020 it's not a bad position to be in so just got to work stuff out from that percentage and accept yes sadly people will continue to die from the virus although of course not too many.
My personal take is most major countries are now on course for 90% by end of the year so considering it was a bit fat zero for everyone up to November 2020 it's not a bad position to be in so just got to work stuff out from that percentage and accept yes sadly people will continue to die from the virus although of course not too many.
So one parent took J&J today and the other had their first Pfizer dose last week. One other immediate family member left for next week now with either Pfizer or Astra.
I'll be getting my second Astra jab at the end of this month or start of next month.
I'll be getting my second Astra jab at the end of this month or start of next month.
60%! We did it! Who got us over the line?
Scientists not backing Covid jabs for 12 to 15-year-olds - BBC News
The JVCI has refused to back vaccines for 12 to 15 year-olds apart from those with existing medical conditions in the UK. There are suggestions in the article that there has been government pressure for them to press ahead with vaccinations for that age group, but they have voted no and left it to the Chief Medical Officers to have the final say.
Backing the scientists is obviously the way to go on this, but it's a difficult one considering other countries have gone ahead with these age groups and the data must be looking OK?
The JVCI has refused to back vaccines for 12 to 15 year-olds apart from those with existing medical conditions in the UK. There are suggestions in the article that there has been government pressure for them to press ahead with vaccinations for that age group, but they have voted no and left it to the Chief Medical Officers to have the final say.
Backing the scientists is obviously the way to go on this, but it's a difficult one considering other countries have gone ahead with these age groups and the data must be looking OK?
Last edited:
Is the caf ahead or behind the global average does anyone know?
Globally, 60% is way ahead of the average. It's around 36% worldwide, but a lot higher in developed countries (75%+)
I got my second yesterday and I had a really weird side effect. It's not really an issue, it doesn't hurt and it isn't even really uncomfortable, but my eyes have blown up to the extent that if it worsens just a little bit I can't see. It looks like an allergic reaction, but I've gotten reactions like this before several times (15-20 years ago all of them) and they were always itchy, I don't feel this at all. In my very unprofessional opinion it just looks like fluid buildup of some sort. I'm not worried or anything, but considering what people sung about Diego Costo I'll stay inside for a couple of days.
(Seeing as it looks like an allergic reaction I've had several times before it's not at all certain that it has anything to do with the vaccine. It would be a weird coincidence, both because it hasn't happened for a very long time and because it didn't itch, but coincidences do happen. And if it was because of the vaccince then it's not really a problem, it's just weird and I already have improved from Diego Costa to someone who just got his face punched in.)
edit: I've talked to a doctor just in case, they said to chug anti-histamines just because, stay upright because fluilds, and get in contact again if it either gets worse or stays the same for a long time. They didn't seem too worried, so I'm sure it's fine. I look proper weird, though.
(Seeing as it looks like an allergic reaction I've had several times before it's not at all certain that it has anything to do with the vaccine. It would be a weird coincidence, both because it hasn't happened for a very long time and because it didn't itch, but coincidences do happen. And if it was because of the vaccince then it's not really a problem, it's just weird and I already have improved from Diego Costa to someone who just got his face punched in.)
edit: I've talked to a doctor just in case, they said to chug anti-histamines just because, stay upright because fluilds, and get in contact again if it either gets worse or stays the same for a long time. They didn't seem too worried, so I'm sure it's fine. I look proper weird, though.
I thought it might be but didn't know the global average was that low. I was lulled into a false sense of security by national compliancy and availability of vaccines here. Still a lot of work to do so.
I donated a few vaccines last week. Get on Unicef's website folks. It's a 5er to donate a vaccine.
The science (and the scientists) can't give a clear cut answer on this one. JCVI work on a "clinical need" basis - meaning that they attempt to calculate how much medical benefit the individual gets from the jab.
For adults the answer is straightforward: the vaccine reduces our chances of death and hospitalisation massively - and the odds of experiencing serious adverse reactions are minimal in comparison.
For the 12-15s, the chances of them becoming seriously ill are very low. The vaccine is safer than no vaccine even in these age groups but it's close, and JCVI don't see it as an obvious individual medical benefit.
If you open up the debate wider - does it help reduce covid rates and limit spread, then yes, that starts to tip the balance - but that's not how JCVI decide on priorities. The JCVI themselves say that for kids in households with someone clinically vulnerable, the mental health benefits of "not bringing the virus home" is decisive.
What they won't include are things like, "less time off school," "fewer restrictions on normal social and sporting activity" etc. They say those are for other kinds of specialists to discuss. They only talk about individual medical need.
Other medical and scientific groups analyse it differently - and say that it adds up to a big net benefit to the 12-15s, even if the number of lives saved or hospital visits avoided are low.
Last edited:
We're giving 12-17 year olds the Pfizer shots here based on the US approval/use of it for them. Started a couple weeks ago. Nothing adverse yet.
It's not surprising that the global average is so low. Most countries are nowhere near 50%.
Africa isn't even averaging 10% for the continent I think.
It's interesting that they're seemingly one of two steps in the process from a pandemic perspective then. They do what they do well which is individual clinical need and make a decision based on that passing it to the CMO's. I'm guessing the CMO's will take the wider social factors into account, but makes the first step of two a role with only part of the story.
I'm guessing the answer is pandemics are rare so it usually works as a purely clinical need for that specific age-group.
That doesn't sound nice at all. Hopefully, if it is an allergy flare-up, it'll settle down again soon. Let us know how you get on.
Get my second one on Tuesday. Felt awful immediately after the first one and fainted so going to let them know. Hopefully I’ll be able to go sit somewhere I can be looked over if needs be after it.