The best vaccine news we could hope for

Just got Jeremy Vine on

The brilliant GP, Dr Sarah Jarvis is explaining why the very elderly needs to be vaccinated first

17 - 24 year olds are actually least likely to accept the vaccine.

Something that doesn't seem to have been mentioned here.

38% of that age group have said they won't even have the vaccine.

It makes perfect sense, to me, to vaccinate the very elderly first

Along with the NHS staff and care workers.

I don't think that those of us who are more circumspect and not running about whoop whooping (like some of the press) are necessarily being miserable. I think most people who are not "celebrating" just don't expect a vaccine to be a speedy panacea. It doesn't mean we can't recognize progress when we see it.

Daisymae

But will thus vaccine be effective against the mutations? Can't help but wonder about the timing with the mink transmission becoming widely known. I think that it's too early to put the flags out.

Well we don’t know do we but in the meantime.... We are in a better place than we were a few months ago.

NotSpaghetti

I don't think that those of us who are more circumspect and not running about whoop whooping (like some of the press) are necessarily being miserable. I think most people who are not "celebrating" just don't expect a vaccine to be a speedy panacea. It doesn't mean we can't recognize progress when we see it.

The trouble is that there are several posters coming up with the most ludicrous objections and ideas of the problems to be overcome. The position at the moment is that there are several promising results for several vaccines that work in different ways.Pfizer is ahead of the game atm and its safety data and peer reviewed publication is eagerly awaited. The various regulatory bodies - FDA, EMA, MHRA are to be trusted and will not authorise the roll out unless satisfied. There is much to be feeling optimistic about whilst waiting calmly for further details.

Spot on NotSpaghetti! We are being realistic. People so often want a simple solution to a complicated problem.

Hetty58

Spot on NotSpaghetti! We are being realistic. People so often want a simple solution to a complicated problem.

I don’t think being optimistic means we are not realistic - I can fo both at once as, I’m sure csn many of the more upbeat posters on the vaccine threads.What I object to are some of the more far fetched scaremongering objections being raised

Alegrias2

I put this on the other vaccine thread but it seems right to copy it here again

There will be better COVID vaccines than this one in the future. Maybe this one will give me a headache for a couple of days. Maybe Group A should get it before Group B. Pfizer will make a lot of money, Astrazeneca will make a lot of money. Maybe its 90% effective, maybe its not. I've just seen a post saying we might not get enough because of Brexit.

Its all just detail. Because you know what, I'm just really b****y happy that there is a vaccine for this virus. It proves that you can vaccinate against it, that science will find a way out of the pandemic. They've created a vaccine for a virus we didn't even know about 12 months ago, and its going through all the same safety protocols, because people have pulled together to solve the greatest problem of our generation. If you want to nit-pick and find problems, on you go. I'm going to celebrate.

Great! You obviously understand what it's about, as does my microbiologist friend. This is indeed progress and is grounds for optimism.

Nevertheless, it worries me that there's been so much shoddy reporting, unrealistic expectations and (as ever) scare-mongering about vaccines. It doesn't help when people squabble about who should get the vaccine because it creates divisiveness.

It really does worry me that some people seem to think that if they wait patiently enough, they get a couple of jabs and life will be back to normal - maybe by Christmas - when it really won't be like that.

The scientists haven't established whether this particular vaccination stops transmission. It activates T cells once somebody is infected. What the researchers don't know is whether the infected person transmits viral load before the vaccination starts working, which it appears to do in 90% of cases. (Incidentally, that's what the scientists mean by efficacy.)

The result is that vulnerable people can hopefully be protected/made safer, but it doesn't mean that community transmission will necessarily be stopped, so people will need to continue being careful with mask wearing and social distancing, etc.

Thank goodness people like Jonathan Van Tam have their feet firmly on the ground.

Hetty58

Spot on NotSpaghetti! We are being realistic. People so often want a simple solution to a complicated problem.

I agree with you Hetty.

can't wait!!

Oopsminty

Just got Jeremy Vine on

The brilliant GP, Dr Sarah Jarvis is explaining why the very elderly needs to be vaccinated first

17 - 24 year olds are actually least likely to accept the vaccine.

Something that doesn't seem to have been mentioned here.

38% of that age group have said they won't even have the vaccine.

It makes perfect sense, to me, to vaccinate the very elderly first

Along with the NHS staff and care workers.

It's irrelevant at the moment whether 17-24 year olds would accept the vaccine because they're unlikely to be offered it.

Incidentally, why would they be unlikely to accept it? Most of them have accepted the HPV vaccine, which will undoubtedly save lives.

suziewoozie

NotSpaghetti

I don't think that those of us who are more circumspect and not running about whoop whooping (like some of the press) are necessarily being miserable. I think most people who are not "celebrating" just don't expect a vaccine to be a speedy panacea. It doesn't mean we can't recognize progress when we see it.

The trouble is that there are several posters coming up with the most ludicrous objections and ideas of the problems to be overcome. The position at the moment is that there are several promising results for several vaccines that work in different ways.Pfizer is ahead of the game atm and its safety data and peer reviewed publication is eagerly awaited. The various regulatory bodies - FDA, EMA, MHRA are to be trusted and will not authorise the roll out unless satisfied. There is much to be feeling optimistic about whilst waiting calmly for further details.

But it shouldn't be an either/or situation. I agree that some people's reactions to vaccines are unfounded, but that's up to them. It doesn't mean that this announcement is grounds for total optimism and unrealistic expectations.

I prefer to follow what actual scientists are saying rather than reading the headlines.

I don’t know about 17-24 year olds refusing the vaccine but, it cannot be compared to the HPV vaccine as that is given to 9-12 year olds so, it is the parents who make that decision.

Alegrias I heard on the news that Brexit is not going to make any difference to our ability to get sufficient supplies of the vaccine

Here is the link to the program from the World Service this morning.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cszccs

Prof Poland didn’t exactly say what you quoted NotSpaghetti

It wasn’t fully healthy younger adults; it was adults who where not excessively old and had not previously had Covid. He did say this is in a situation where we are wearing masks and that the %age success could change as time goes on.

The difference in volunteers’ behaviour could change because if this is a really good vaccine, they are going to want to have it as soon as possible so there might not be enough volunteers for other vaccine trials. Nothing to do with later stages of this trial.

The release of the stats right now is unusual, but they were anlysed by the independent Data Monitoring Committee and they have proved the principle. James Gallagher explained why that was so good for future vaccine developments.

Still celebrating

It's irrelevant at the moment whether 17-24 year olds would accept the vaccine because they're unlikely to be offered it.

Incidentally, why would they be unlikely to accept it? Most of them have accepted the HPV vaccine, which will undoubtedly save lives.

There is a lot of talk about giving the vaccine to younger people first which was what was being discussed on the JV show. It's also being mentioned on here and other forums.

I know that they will vaccinate NHS/care home workers, very elderly first which I totally agree with.

As for the young adults refusing this vaccine, that too was mentioned by Dr Sarah Jarvis. Research has said that the 17-24 year old age group are far less likely to comply

I think the HPV vaccine is administered to school children. Most parents are responsible and agreed to the jab.

I might be wrong but I don't think children will be given the Covid vaccine

Great! You obviously understand what it's about, as does my microbiologist friend. This is indeed progress and is grounds for optimism.

Thanks growstuff. I'm a scientist, not a medical scientist but I can read technical articles and understand them. I've got a bit of stick for saying that on Gransnet before, apparently opinions are just as good as science

One man said “the side effects are like a bad hangover” but that’s HIS side effects a lot of people are getting the virus and its causing no more than a brief moment of discomfort but the next man in line may be effected very differently and very badly same with the vaccine
I m NOT anti vaccine at all, but I am anti rushed (big money) vaccines that give people a lot of ‘premature’ hope, but having said that may be people need the hope more than they need the vaccine

‘It doesn't mean that this announcement is grounds for total optimism and unrealistic expectations. ‘

growstuff I’ve never posited total optimism or had unrealistic expectations. The press release is what it is and the safety data and peer reviewing is awaited. Within those parameters there is scope for optimism and positive expectation.

You’re right Alegrias2 I’ve gone back and listened to it again and it said it didn’t have info on older adults, so apologies. In my defence I had simply happened upon the broadcast so was probably not 100% focused on it.

I was actually surprised there were quite so many unknowns to be honest though. There was, however an article in Nature that said there wasn’t enough data on the over 65s ... BUT the good news is that even once all the data is in, it is still likely to be easily above 50% effective.

Thank you for providing the link.

You're welcome NotSpaghetti . All in all, its still very good news.

suziewoozie

‘It doesn't mean that this announcement is grounds for total optimism and unrealistic expectations. ‘

growstuff I’ve never posited total optimism or had unrealistic expectations. The press release is what it is and the safety data and peer reviewing is awaited. Within those parameters there is scope for optimism and positive expectation.

What really concerns me are the kind of comments about being allowed to travel if somebody has the vaccine and thinking life will go back to normal.

The government has issued priorities based on clinical need, so most of the talk is futile.

The kind of vaccine it is doesn't even mean that there will be no transmission. What it means is that T-cells will be activated, so that anybody who is infected hopefully doesn't go on to develop symptoms. It hasn't been established yet whether people are contagious in the few days between becoming infected and when symptoms would usually appear.

As those who know what they're talking about have said, it won't be until well into 2021 before we even know whether the vaccine has been effective in maintaining immunity. I'm fairly sure it hasn't been tested on the oldest people, who are the most vulnerable.

I just wish the media and government wouldn't keep dishing out sweeties to keep the public excited. It's like offering a toddler an elaborate birthday cake and giving them a jam sandwich at the last minute. It just undermines any trust and is a breeding ground for conspiracy theories.

This was not from the government growstuff - even if it suits them.

No, there are many unknowns and this is just a preliminary report on findings.
It hasn't even been peer reviewed yet.
It will be 2 years apparently before the work is actually completed... however, by the end of the month there will be enough data to put it before FDA etc for some sort of approval.

I'm not suggesting it won't be approved. What I am suggesting is that it's not going to be a quick fix, as some people are hoping for.

To date, it hasn't been established how long immunity lasts (and can't be until time has passed after vaccination), nor does it stop transmission.

PS. I agree about HPV. I made a mistake about the age. I still don't see why younger people should be the first priority, given that its most important function is to stop symptoms developing and killing people.

Maybe younger people are wary of the vaccine because the spectre of thalidomide hangs over any new vaccine and that doesn’t concern those of us past child bearing age. Also, as a young mother I was always concerned for my own health because I knew I had to be there for my children. However I can’t help but feel this virus will always be regarded as one that only kills the old and vulnerable and it saddens me that many younger people disregard it because they think it won’t affect them. We don’t seem to be an animal that, unlike many other groups of animals (wolves, dolphins etc) work as a whole for the common good.

Thalidomide isn't a vaccine.

Of course not (I’ve just woken up and not thinking straight). I have heard it mentioned in arguments against having the vaccine, though. I think what I meant was it has left a realisation that side effects can be far greater than just headaches etc. but that us older people don’t have as much to lose. I don’t really understand the anti vaccine movement at all: it seems to be frowned upon to have dogs vaccinated yearly these days as well. But people that don’t depend on the fact that their dogs are safe because plenty of other people do.