You enter a thread about a medicine and the british-irish are talking about beer...
The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll
- Thread starter Badunk
- Start date
beer is a medicine
And a health food and therapy. And a hobby.
That seems accurate.
First real world preliminary study has it much lower than anticipated, at 33%.
COVID-19: 'Real-world' analysis of vaccine in Israel raises questions about UK strategy
Scientists in Israel have been studying preliminary data from 200,000 vaccinated people.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19...l-raises-questions-about-uk-strategy-12192751
So UK is distributing vaccines injected into beer?
That is a genius idea.
Just give a free beer or wine with each shot and the uptake would be stunning.
Last edited:
Does anyone know what these vaccines do or have they just been approved out of desperation and then hope for the best . It all seems very hit and miss . Chopping and changing when to give the 2nd dose and what the actual protection will be. It is hard to know what to believe when people are desperate to get back to some level of normality socially and economically . I hope the scientists haven't got it wrong .
There is an extensive study with 40.000 subjects that tested each vaccine approved before rolling out. There are clear instructions on how it should be administrated. But the UK decided not to administrate as the manufacturer said it should be implemented. So is not hit and miss, is just the UK gambling
Last edited:
We know very well what they do. The vaccines are safe and effective or very effective. Like all non-sterilising vaccines (the vast majority in all cases) we won't know how much this will reduce the R value and/or the transmission but it is looking very optimistic.
The gap between doses isn't anything to do with scientists getting it right or wrong but rather a public health response to the pandemic. Ideally you stick to the gap that was tested during trials but in this unprecedented case they are hoping that giving as many people as possible the first shot will on average reduce transmission as compare to giving a reduced number of people 2 shots on schedule. As a former scientist (biologist not immunologist) my instinct would be to go as fast as possible with the approved gap between but I can see the advantage of maybe getting 60/70% effectiveness for nearly twice as many people vs 90+% for the lesser number. I guess the danger is we don't really know what leaving a bigger gap will do to the overall effectiveness (hopefully nothing).
This time last year I had four relatively healthy albeit aging grandparents. We lost my Grandpa to Covid in April. My remaining grandparents had the vaccine last week but one of my grandma's has now tested positive and is back in hospital. I fear the worst as she is 90 years old. feck this disease
What about the risk of the virus mutating adapting to the vaccine that is not as as strong as possible with 2 shots?
Vaccination in general risks viral mutation. Traditionally the main risk has been thought to be that the rapid eradication of a virus will leave an ecological niche to be be filled by other pathogens. I'm not sure if that has ever actually happened but it was (and maybe still is) considered the main risk. The other big risk is that you eradicate all of the virus expect a very few variants/strains that are adapted to be least effectively dealt with by the vaccine. So in this case the few left might explode, creating an new wave but one that one or more vaccines don't deal with as well (or in the worst case at all). However, less effective vaccines (or a roll out that cause the vaccines to be less effective) actually place less evolutionary pressure on the virus, but at the cost of there being more infections and therefore more opportunity for "normal" evolution of the virus. Six of one and half a dozen of another maybe? I'm not an expert so I'd be just guessing which is a bigger risk but my instinct is that the risk of the delay is less than the risk of almost half as many people getting partial immunity (at a level that would have seen a vaccine be approved if that was its maximum effectiveness).
The main hope though is that for a virus to mutate so much that a vaccine didn't work at all the whole spike would need to change (as vaccines don't work on just one bit) and the chances of that happening, and the virus still being highly infectious to humans is very small (but not impossible). My guess is that the faster we can immunise as close to 100% of people as possible, in as many countries as possible, in whatever way we can the better and if the virus mutates then so be it. I'm not sure what we can do about that. Any choice has a risk attached.
Last edited:
Sorry to hear that. I hope your Grandma pulls through. Lets hope the vaccine was given early enough that is at least lessens the severity of her symptoms.Thanks for the extensive explanation. Will see how it pans out and lets hope the rich countries share their extra vaccinations with the poorest on moral grounds and as well for global safety
Bear in mind I was a biologist/evolutionary ecologist in a previous life so was OK with biological evolution, but I don't know any more than I've read this year about viral evolution, which is significantly different (but with lots of commonalities). I could be off the mark quite easily.
It is our best interests to get everyone vaccinated. Once Australia gets itself vaccinated I'd hope we keep producing the Oxford vaccine to help our neighbors in the Pacific and further away. Sounds like a sensible investment if nothing else to me. Not holding my breath mind.
The heavily corrupted WHO, aka the major cause of this pandemic, talks about moral failure. What a joke.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-55709428
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-55709428
I don't think the WHO have been as bad as they have been portrayed.
And they aren't wrong on this point either.
Last edited:
Sorry to hear that fella. My grandmother is of a similar age with an impressive collection of underlying health conditions yet still managed to battle the fecker away. So hang in there for yours! Hopefully the vaccine gives her a boost to fight it too.
I have analyzed the wrongdoings of China and WHO in another thread (scroll above for more details). They are the major culprits for the pandemic and they have no right to complain.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/sar...oil-hat-silliness-please.452816/post-26536480
Well that’s quite a comprehensive analysis. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks. I understand many of you may be frustrated about how your government deals with the pandemic (and yes they could have done a lot better), but let's not forget the one who causes the damage always shoulders a larger responsibility than those who fail to limit the damage.
They have every right to say something about the equitable distribution of vaccines. Doubly so as they are right.
Oh, sorry I was being sarcastic. Maybe that didn’t come across well enough.
Why don't they say anything but their total failure in preventing this pandemic, leading to the inevitable consequence that poorer regions suffer more? Wealth, food, resources etc are all distributed unequally in the world and I don't see vaccine as an exception. It is not ideal but it is something you have to cope with, especially when you are the major culprit for the mess in the first place. Plus, WHO received a lump sum of donation from China (for covering up), they could have spent it on vaccines if they care so much.
My mum had the vaccine yesterday as an NHS employee and seemed alright. She did mention that a few of her colleagues have had some of the side effects but nothing for her as of yet.
The are an integral part of Covax which is trying to supply vaccines more equitably and spending huge sums on it. So again an unfair criticism.
Seems conerning?
COVID-19: UK to look 'very carefully' at vaccine dosing after concerns raised over level of protection
http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...erns-raised-over-level-of-protection-12193205
COVID-19: UK to look 'very carefully' at vaccine dosing after concerns raised over level of protection
http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...erns-raised-over-level-of-protection-12193205
He was actually saying that you hadn't analysed really - more just stated a dislike.
Think your tinfoil is showing. Human to human transmission was not going to be identified day one in Wuhan for obvious reasons.
By the time they identified it was spreading human to human the world could have shut down flights but it would already have been too late. No one was stopping this spreading globally.
I actually suspect if this had started in any western country it would have been much worse as we wouldn't have locked down like Wuhan. I doubt we'd even have any restrictions within the first two months.
Yes, and richer regions have also played their parts in donating to COVAX. After this point, it's WHO's responsibility to make good use of the fund and distribute vaccines as equal as possible. Pointing the fingers at richer regions is merely shirking their responsibility.
There was strong evidence of human-to-human transmission as early as mid January. WHO chose to ignore the threat and time has proven who is right.
https://time.com/5826025/taiwan-who-trump-coronavirus-covid19/
Nobody could have predicted this.
So from that article this 'strong' evidence is one family? Which the WHO actually mentioned in a news conference as limited human to human transmission?
This great corruption was to wait a further week for more evidence before making a conclusive statement. What a terrible attempt at a cover up that is.
I'm guessing your of the opinion if they'd have said human to human on the 14th rather than limited then miraculously this would never have got out of China?
Richer nations are buying up the vaccine supply as expected. What is wrong with the WHO raising concerns that other nations need vaccine as well? Surely not to do so would be grounds for criticism?
Last edited:
My opinion is that if WHO did not recommend against issuing a travelling ban to China and provide a false sense of security to the world, countries would have stepped up precautions like Taiwan and the spread would have been much more controllable.
Vaccines are an obvious exception. Especially when it comes to covid.
Even at a purely selfish level, it’s in the interest of every country on the planet to help with vaccine distribution to the countries that might struggle to vaccinate their citizens without that support.
Otherwise we face years of anxiety about vaccine resistant strains evolving in countries with partial/ineffective vaccination programs.
Ideally yes, but it's never gonna happen and everyone knows it. At a purely selfish level, richer countries would have all their citizens vaccinated before worrying about developing nations and resistant strains. This is what happening but Tedros calls this catastrophic moral failure. It's also worth to note that many richer countries have already played their part by donating a lump sum to COVAX, aiming to support those poorer countries.
Last edited: