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.
hungrywing said:
https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source-code-of-the-biontech-pfizer-vaccine/
Click to expand...

These then dutifully start producing SARS-CoV-2 Spike proteins in large enough quantities that our immune system springs into action. Confronted with Spike proteins, and tell-tale signs that cells have been taken over, our immune system develops a powerful response against multiple aspects of the Spike protein AND the production process.
Click to expand...

The bolded bit suggests that while the mRNA vaccines aren't sterilising they do produce a response not only to the spike protein but also one that attacks the process that produces more virus in the cells. This must surely reduce the transmissibility of the virus?
 
Nurses in our care home are among the most skeptical about taking the vaccine, although they're not alone. There's a lot of misinformation going around. A colleague today (not a nurse) said she would be reluctant to take the vaccine because a nurse in America died after getting it. I hadn't heard of it so I googled it. Turns out a nurse fainted after getting it but was perfectly fine. My colleague was shocked and said that 3 or 4 different people had told her that the nurse had died. She still said she isn't keen on taking the vaccine even after seeing multiple news outlets confirming that the nurse is alive and well.
 
A lot of big talk from government in hope of giving the vaccine to millions within a month and essentially going back to some sort of normal in Feb.

Why do they do this everytime
 
LARulz said:
A lot of big talk from government in hope of giving the vaccine to millions within a month and essentially going back to some sort of normal in Feb.

Why do they do this everytime
Click to expand...

One thing they never run out of is bullshit.

The production and roll out of covid vaccines is a stunning achievement. So why not sell that for what it is rather than polite it with political idiocy?
 
Wibble said:
One thing they never run out of is bullshit.

The production and roll out of covid vaccines is a stunning achievement. So why not sell that for what it is rather than polite it with political idiocy?
Click to expand...

It's honestly so stupid. They have shown so many times this year they rarely deliver and end up with egg on their face and anger from people. Why not just shut it and let results speak.

Also, they keep saying they aren't pressuring and as much as I want it, they really are pressuring the Oxford approval
 
Wibble said:
I know. So do you think the article got it wrong? Or am I misinterpreting the quote? Both quiet possible.
Click to expand...

The bit of the article you quoted seems to be talking about the “production process” of the spike protein that the mRNA vaccine kicks into gear. I don’t think they’re referring to any effect on viral replication.
 
Wibble said:
I know. So do you think the article got it wrong? Or am I misinterpreting the quote? Both quiet possible.
Click to expand...
Isn't it a reference to the body destroying both the spikes and the cells that have been pressganged by the vaccine into making spikes?
 


Hope the data arrives soon to back up this claim from the CEO of AZ. Maybe a sign of good news to come on the Oxford vaccine.
 
My mother had her vaccine on Tuesday. She had a sore arm on the day, and the day after, but has been fine since then. No side effects whatsoever.
 
Tony Babangida said:


Hope the data arrives soon to back up this claim from the CEO of AZ. Maybe a sign of good news to come on the Oxford vaccine.
Click to expand...


Hope this is true & the efficacy % applies for all age groups. Would be huge with the benefits of the cost & effort required to store the vaccine.
 
ha_rooney said:
Hope this is true & the efficacy % applies for all age groups. Would be huge with the benefits of the cost & effort required to store the vaccine.
Click to expand...
It’s going to be approved on the 29th apparently with jabbing the first week of January. In Wales we’ve finally agreed a monetary package to entice GPs to actually chip in during the biggest national crisis since the Second World War and administer a bit of it. Why it’s all been left to the NHS to undertake the vaccination of millions using the existing registered staff pool that’s already not enough to deal with hospitals being overwhelmed, field hospitals which we can’t staff now opening and thousands off sick/isolating is a fecking shambles. “Unlimited” workforce the government are saying we have. Absolute arses.
 
Interesting analysis of what happened in the early Oxford/AZ trials, and that "half dose" thing.
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN28Y0XU?__twitter_impression=true

Basically says that before AZ stepped in as partners, the Oxford team didn't really have the experience to ramp up from lab scale production to full clinical trial production. As a result they used the wrong test methodology to analyse the first batch of manufactured product (coming from an Italian sub-contractor).
AKA - the manufacturer knew how to test what it was manufacturing, the research team didn't.

Looks like AZ are trying to pick up the PR pieces, as well as running/rerunning the trials now. It would be great news if they have managed to get enough data from their global (AZ standardised) trials to produce some convincing trials results.
 
jojojo said:
Interesting analysis of what happened in the early Oxford/AZ trials, and that "half dose" thing.
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN28Y0XU?__twitter_impression=true

Basically says that before AZ stepped in as partners, the Oxford team didn't really have the experience to ramp up from lab scale production to full clinical trial production. As a result they used the wrong test methodology to analyse the first batch of manufactured product (coming from an Italian sub-contractor).
AKA - the manufacturer knew how to test what it was manufacturing, the research team didn't.

Looks like AZ are trying to pick up the PR pieces, as well as running/rerunning the trials now. It would be great news if they have managed to get enough data from their global (AZ standardised) trials to produce some convincing trials results.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this - interesting reading
 
Glad to see 70% of the caf are screwed on. It’s just outrageous the shite people are coming out with when the fact is a lot of people are dying from a highly contagious virus that there is now an approved vaccine for from multiple sources. There’s no debating that with theories. Notice how no doctors are conspiracy nut jobs?

This just wouldn’t have been a thing pre-internet. It’s gammons/bored cnuts reading shit on Facebook and sharing it with the sort of people who click on spam mail
 
Tony Babangida said:


Hope the data arrives soon to back up this claim from the CEO of AZ. Maybe a sign of good news to come on the Oxford vaccine.
Click to expand...

Says they retested the half dose full dose regimen. How come we’ve not seen news of this elsewhere at all..
 
jojojo said:
Interesting analysis of what happened in the early Oxford/AZ trials, and that "half dose" thing.
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN28Y0XU?__twitter_impression=true

Basically says that before AZ stepped in as partners, the Oxford team didn't really have the experience to ramp up from lab scale production to full clinical trial production. As a result they used the wrong test methodology to analyse the first batch of manufactured product (coming from an Italian sub-contractor).
AKA - the manufacturer knew how to test what it was manufacturing, the research team didn't.

Looks like AZ are trying to pick up the PR pieces, as well as running/rerunning the trials now. It would be great news if they have managed to get enough data from their global (AZ standardised) trials to produce some convincing trials results.
Click to expand...

That’s a good read. This sums it up nicely.

"Personally, I can say that I think their vaccine is much better than their communication," said Guido Rasi, who until last month was executive director of the European Medicines Agency, the European Union's regulator. He said the agency eventually will evaluate the trial data.
Click to expand...
 
So, part 3 of a Guinea Pig's eye view of a Phase 3 vaccine trial. Day 3 session conducted 2/3 weeks after the second injection of whatever it was (either the Novavax trial vaccine or a placebo).

With no jabs to administer the on-site team is smaller this time. They only need half the sports hall. No pharmacists, no post-jab recovery area etc. Other aspects of the setup continue though, like the socially distanced numbered stations.

Hand sanitizer, temperature check and change of facemask on the door. Pick up your personal notes folder and then straight to the waiting area.

Doctor calls you to their table and a quick run through on medical history. Any changes in medication, food supplements etc, any new medical appointments etc. Any side-effects/symptoms experienced since the jab. In my case the answer was an achey upper arm for a couple of nights after the jab. A bit of a blocked/runny nose was logged as well.

Doctor does a quick medical based on what you've just told them and their check list. In my case, basically just a check on lymph nodes - neck, head, underarms. The usual consent check and it's off to see the nurse.

This time all they need is blood. So it's a quick process. The blood will get tested for antibodies - they're looking for different kinds of antibodies, so they can see if you've had covid disease created antibodies, or if you've just seen the vaccine spikes and created antibodies to them, or you've just boring old no covid antibody blood.

They also check that you've still got your covid test kits, that the app on your phone is ok, and that you've got your trial registration card.

The registration card also gives you contact data for the trial doctors by phone or email - in case you develop covid symptoms or any worrying side-effects. It's also the contact point, so that if I get offered a real vaccine (maybe around March in my case) I can ask if I received a vaccine or a placebo in the trial.

Then it's off to the exit, next appointment is set to take place three months after the second jab.

Incredibly slick operation, with no waiting, but also no sense that you're being rushed through. Also an incredibly labour intensive operation - and as I've commented before, very much a reminder of why "normal" vaccine trials take much longer and why the cost/complexity of them means a lot of products never make it to market.
 
I hope this article isn't true. If this is really all the AZ boss has to go on when he told The Times about finding the sweet spot, then I truly hate their PR department:
https://www.livemint.com/science/he...11609181643451.html?__twitter_impression=true

That's basically suggesting that another cut of the trial group into another thin slice (those who got the second dose between two and three months of the first) gives them their new results. I don't like the methodology, nor do I like the implication - 3 months? That's a hell of a long time unless there is significant protection after the first.

I honestly prefer the straightforward, "60% is better than nothing," approach. Particularly as AZ haven't told us what efficacy they get after a single dose.

I'm hoping that we see something cleaner in the actual data that gets released (this week?). Any other claims should be the basis for ongoing trials, not for some kind of sales pitch. If having a safe, ready to rollout product at 60%, is going to save lives then that's the story that needs telling.
 
jojojo said:
I hope this article isn't true. If this is really all the AZ boss has to go on when he told The Times about finding the sweet spot, then I truly hate their PR department:
https://www.livemint.com/science/he...11609181643451.html?__twitter_impression=true

That's basically suggesting that another cut of the trial group into another thin slice (those who got the second dose between two and three months of the first) gives them their new results. I don't like the methodology, nor do I like the implication - 3 months? That's a hell of a long time unless there is significant protection after the first.

I honestly prefer the straightforward, "60% is better than nothing," approach. Particularly as AZ haven't told us what efficacy they get after a single dose.

I'm hoping that we see something cleaner in the actual data that gets released (this week?). Any other claims should be the basis for ongoing trials, not for some kind of sales pitch. If having a safe, ready to rollout product at 60%, is going to save lives then that's the story that needs telling.
Click to expand...
Seriously, if this was a Russian or Chinese vaccine, we wouldn't be touching it with a barge pole.

I'm all for doing sub-sets of groups where we test it at different doses and intervals to see if there is some optimisation, but they need to be separate studies and not "serendipity".

The vaccine is 60% effective at the strength they have tested properly.
 
rcoobc said:
Seriously, if this was a Russian or Chinese vaccine, we wouldn't be touching it with a barge pole.

I'm all for doing sub-sets of groups where we test it at different doses and intervals to see if there is some optimisation, but they need to be separate studies and not "serendipity".

The vaccine is 60% effective at the strength they have tested properly.
Click to expand...
I have no issue with the 60%, which is also great.
 
jojojo said:
I hope this article isn't true. If this is really all the AZ boss has to go on when he told The Times about finding the sweet spot, then I truly hate their PR department:
https://www.livemint.com/science/he...11609181643451.html?__twitter_impression=true

That's basically suggesting that another cut of the trial group into another thin slice (those who got the second dose between two and three months of the first) gives them their new results. I don't like the methodology, nor do I like the implication - 3 months? That's a hell of a long time unless there is significant protection after the first.

I honestly prefer the straightforward, "60% is better than nothing," approach. Particularly as AZ haven't told us what efficacy they get after a single dose.

I'm hoping that we see something cleaner in the actual data that gets released (this week?). Any other claims should be the basis for ongoing trials, not for some kind of sales pitch. If having a safe, ready to rollout product at 60%, is going to save lives then that's the story that needs telling.
Click to expand...

Question - I recall that the second dose was split by varying intervals between 4 to 8 weeks. I am assuming 60% they quoted is the average efficacy. If what they’re saying about >2 months is true, does that not mean that a) the efficacy after 4 weeks is sub 60% b) the efficacy after the first dose even poorer?

Which would be worrying to have large swathes of the population unprotected for 3 months after dose 1.
 
zing said:
Which would be worrying to have large swathes of the population unprotected for 3 months after dose 1.
Click to expand...

Immunity will start to build from the moment you get the first dose. We don't know the details but I think we can be confident that it is far from being unprotected.
 
rcoobc said:
Seriously, if this was a Russian or Chinese vaccine, we wouldn't be touching it with a barge pole.

I'm all for doing sub-sets of groups where we test it at different doses and intervals to see if there is some optimisation, but they need to be separate studies and not "serendipity".

The vaccine is 60% effective at the strength they have tested properly.
Click to expand...

We aren't trusting of the Russian and Chinese vaccines because they weren't tested properly. If/when they are I'd happily take them.

And if they Oxford vaccine passes the usual regulatory hurdles I'll happily take them as it will be safe and effective - all that is left is clarifying the best dosing regime. A 60% effective vaccine is worth using and it sounds like they will exceed that.
 
Yet another abortion from the Trump administration laid at the feet of the citizenry. Can’t believe anyone actually believed the fairytale vaccination estimates the administration was touting would be completed by the end of December.

Right now we are at 10% of the estimate...

 
Suv666 said:
Astrazeneca approved!
Good news right?
Click to expand...

Definitely. But might have come too late to prevent a lot of deaths due to recent uptick in cases. Also the rollout logistically for Pfizer vaccine has been shambolic.
With the storage situation now not an issue its a case of seeing how quickly they can upscale the vaccination programme. I'm skeptical but in theory it should be an exponentially faster and wide ranging vaccination programme should primary care get adequate support from government and if we see army and volunteer sector support

Something like what Israel is managing to do (vaccinate en masse at stunning pace)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-...vid-inoculation-drive-israel-vaccinates-five/
 
Wibble said:
Immunity will start to build from the moment you get the first dose. We don't know the details but I think we can be confident that it is far from being unprotected.
Click to expand...

Apparently not one person in the trial had severe symptoms after the first dose, no matter what that first dose was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.