The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll
- Thread starter Badunk
- Start date
Great to see more than one potential vaccine. Bodes well for us finding something that will prove to be properly effective in the long term, and something that will be viable in all countries, especially poorer ones.
Easier to store than the Pfizer one which is good news from a logistics point of view.
Must admit I do worry about this vaccine. It doesn't sit well with me knowing that whoever comes up with it first will stand to make hundreds of millions if not more, because that's a hell of an incentive to cut corners or find ways to lie about effectiveness etc. Thats not to mention that surely its simply not possible to know long term side effects.
How does everyone else feel about this kind of thing? I'm not an anti-vaxer by any stretch btw. I dont trust humans that stand to make fortunes though.
How does everyone else feel about this kind of thing? I'm not an anti-vaxer by any stretch btw. I dont trust humans that stand to make fortunes though.
This thread needs an S on the end of the title.
I also feel quite wary, but I know next to nothing about vaccine development and all that. I just know that 'big pharma' does not have good connotations.
Though admittedly, I do get a bit excited when I read about these new vaccines coming out and their high effectiveness.
People are making money out of every vaccine or drug you take, and out of every medical treatment you've ever had. Maybe not as obviously as a 'race to be first', but they still are nonetheless.
That’s the most common theme of this thread. I think it is a feeling that a lot of people have. There’s some good posts answering these questions if you look back through. The short answer is that vaccines that pass phase III have excellent safety track records, no corners have been cut regarding the safety trials, and getting a vaccine is less risky than catching the virus.
Of course they are. Greed is a funny thing though right, and they all know that whoever gets this covid one first stands to make fortunes.
When it's available I'll have it myself, but my 5yr old has actually had Covid so I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a serious consideration to hold her back from it at least for the time being. I'll try and educate myself before making that kind of decision, obviously, but it's certainly a consideration.
I don’t think they have done any testing on children yet, so you’ll probably have a long time before you need to make that decision.
What is out there to reassure us that corners aren't cut? This kind of thing could just as easily be state backed, given how much of a boost to that country's economy it would bring.
I dunno. I do feel like its some paranoia setting in and perhaps isn't rational, but we all have seen just how desperate Trump was that it was America that discovered it. Not because of the world wide good it would do, but more that this is a dick swinging contest for him.
On the flipside with such a high profile vaccine corporations would be wary of cutting corners and delivering a sub par product because any shortcomings especially side affects would be amplied tenfold and will destroy their reputation and ruin the company forever.
I’m not sure if you are American or not. But if you are in America then the FDA is still trustworthy, despite attempts at political pressure from Trump. This article discusses the FDA passing new guidelines as to what is required for a vaccine emergency use authorisation, much to the annoyance of Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/health/covid-vaccines-fda-trump.html
I've never cared for conspiracy theories and such, but honestly I cannot bring myself to trust whatever vaccines corporations come out with.
There's so much that just seems so wrong about it all.
There's so much that just seems so wrong about it all.
The verification of the vaccine test results are handled by independent auditors, from what I understand, so the companies don't actually know how successful they are until all is said and done.
Like what?
Think of it like this: you are injected with the blueprint of the virus but with some of the pages missing. Meaning that the virus begins to take shape inside you but can't fully form. Your antibodies come across this amputated form of the virus, which is harmless, kills it and will therefore know what the virus looks like if the fully formed one enters your body in the future.
I think the biggest concern for many, myself included, is that vaccines typically take many years (around 10 years?) to develop from start to being rolled out. Given the pandemic, it's understandable that it will be quicker as more time and money is going being invested in the outset, but 1-2 years seems too good to be true.
My mum is a health care professional and a concern she has is that given the quick timescales of it all, it's impossible to know of any long term side effects as trials literally don't have that time for this.
I'm sure I'll take it eventually, but I'll probably hold off as long as I can.
All medicines are produced by corporations. Would you let you/your family be treated with any other medicines? Or is your issue with just these vaccines?
I'm at work, so I don't have time to make a list, but for one, the timing.
How do we know there aren't longer term effects to this? I will basically be tasked with putting something into my body I don't understand. I've been fairly rigid on medication my entire life, and have only opted to it if absolutely necessary.
In my case, I've remained Covid free and will probably continue to be because of where I live and my lifestyle. To me, a vaccine would likely be more of a risk than the actual virus.
Pretty much every drug/medicine you and your loved ones have taken have been made by a corporation, likely the same ones involved in researching these vaccines. And these vaccines themselves are researched by an army of highly trained scientists boasting years of experience, building on decades of research that's preceded them, and still have to go through the same gauntlet of rigorous in vitro and clinical studies you'd expect from any prospective drug, irrespective of the timeline. What exactly concerns you?
No chance. The infrastructure isn’t there. If vaccine development had been left entirely up to the state it would add several years to the timescale. And any potential boost to the economy (a few years down the road) would be offset by the enormous costs they’d incur immediately. Not to mention the risk that they’d never get any money back, if they invest in developing a vaccine that fails.
The only concern with these vaccines is long term effects - we don't even have great data on ones that have been around for years but the alternative is usually what makes it worth any long term risk.
The fact that more than one vaccine has been successfull should also erase some fears, something is working and no one has a monopoly.
Finally, the people that NEED the vaccine i.e. the elderly will likely accept short term safety over potential long term effects that they likely won't live to experience(if any).
Had it been the spanish flu with lots of young people needing it, there would be reason for concern.
Oh but it does have a chip in it, Bill told me.
The fact that more than one vaccine has been successfull should also erase some fears, something is working and no one has a monopoly.
Finally, the people that NEED the vaccine i.e. the elderly will likely accept short term safety over potential long term effects that they likely won't live to experience(if any).
Had it been the spanish flu with lots of young people needing it, there would be reason for concern.
Oh but it does have a chip in it, Bill told me.
Vaccines take a long time to develop normally because, yes, they do extensive long term studies on their efficacy and side effects. But these vaccines are normally developed by small teams or companies or smaller projects within larger companies. This Covid situation has caused all these virologists, who'd normally be working on umpteen different vaccines, to focus on just one. Not only that, but governments and companies are throwing gazillions at it, so resources are not an issue.
Why are people so against vacinne?
It's not like they're going to poison you or anything. A vacinne of this proportion would have been tested and scrutizined by all nations you're not likely to get anything malicious inside.
It's not like they're going to poison you or anything. A vacinne of this proportion would have been tested and scrutizined by all nations you're not likely to get anything malicious inside.
That's certainly your prerogative, and I can sympathise with your apprehension considering your circumstances, but again I don't think someone like you would be in contention for the first round of doses anyway (assuming you aren't categorised as vulnerable).
As for the uncertainty regarding long-term effects - bear in mind the first doses in clinical trials were carried out as early as April, and all subjects who volunteered for the trial are closely monitored even after the conclusion of the trials. If there is found to be a link between a vaccine and any adverse implications then the product will be pulled and no longer administered to the public. By the time you'd realistically be entitled to be administered the vaccine, there'd likely be at least a years worth of data to fall back on. Hopefully that reassures you somewhat.
I think years of anti-vaccine propaganda has put doubt in peoples minds about vaccine safety. Add that to the speed at which the vaccines were developed, and the fact that seemingly a lot of people aren’t bothered about catching covid.
Seems mad to me that someone would rather catch the virus than get a vaccine that’s passed it’s safety trials.
I'll be one of the first to get the vaccine, so I'll let everyone know how it goes.
From the BBC article:
Any experts that could verify and explain to me if thats the common procedure? I`m not being skeptical, I remember from my statistic classes in university that if you have a good sample size you don`t need big numbers hence pollsters often just ask a couple of thousand people for elections with million of votes. Still, the number to make the cut at 95 people already seems quite low, does that already indicate enough statistical significance? Could that not be heavily skewed for other reasons?
Any experts that could verify and explain to me if thats the common procedure? I`m not being skeptical, I remember from my statistic classes in university that if you have a good sample size you don`t need big numbers hence pollsters often just ask a couple of thousand people for elections with million of votes. Still, the number to make the cut at 95 people already seems quite low, does that already indicate enough statistical significance? Could that not be heavily skewed for other reasons?
Big Pharma cannot be trusted unfortunatley. When there's this much money to be made I think it's right to be sceptical considering the many and great transgressions of these companies.
I'm quite happy not to be in line for an early vaccination here. Perhaps if I was vulnerable I might feel different.
Last edited:
couple of decades of misinformation
I guess it all started with the Andrew Wakefield study about autism? Which was as dodgy as they come and since been retracted, but the damage is done
You're not having the trust the moral ambiguities of big pharma, but rather the expertise and research of the scientists they sponsor.
It's enough to know it's past random coincidence. In a way it more or less doesn't matter how many people are in the trial, provided the initial placebo/vaccine randomisation is correct and isn't biassed in some way by location, timing or participant type. The only thing that really matters is that there are sufficient cases. I'd expect a review panel to pick up any potentially significant anomalies (like 90% of cases coming from a single location) that might mean the randomisation is flawed.
As has been said though, it's only reporting symptomatic cases (as not everyone in the trial gets tested every week) so we don't know if the vaccinated didn't get the virus or they didn't get sick enough to get tested. There are a lot of other "yes, but" bits in there as well particularly around thing like ethnicity, age, comorbidities. If it just moves healthy people from mild symptoms to no symptoms (but still infectious) it won't really help that much.
I take confidence from the fact that the real final trials data once published will be dissected and analysed by a huge number of scientists/researchers/mathematicians, including ones outside the sometimes closed loop of sponsor/sponsored. In fact I suspect they'll actually get a more thorough review and attract fiercer and more open critique than the majority of vaccines get, including the ones that spend a decade or more in trials.
It's gonna be free and not obligatory to get vaccinated in Belgium. They're aiming to vaccinate at least ~70% of the people but I doubt they'll get half of the population as long as it's optional, unfortunately.
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
if they botch this one the lawsuits would put them out of business
I wouldn't put it past them to get immunity (pardon the pun) from govmnts in order to push these trials faster than normal. Just be careful and read the fine print.
I don't think that's a thing that is real.