The Vaccine

I read 24,000 have had the Oxford vaccine in the trials so far, but the trials are ongoing worldwide. The adverse reactions to the majority of drugs in common use are higher than shown in the Oxford trials. This vaccine has already been tested on a lot more people than a lot of other drugs we are prescribed.

Simple equation for me, there’s much less chance of dying as a result of the vaccination than from the virus. The less older people who opt to have it, the more those people increase the chance of dying for themselves and other older people who haven’t been vaccinated.

And Prof Andrew Pollard - director of the Oxford vaccine group - said it had been "a very exciting day" and paid tribute to the 20,000 volunteers in the trials around the world, including more than 10,000 in the UK.

And some old folk criticise the young. Amongst the sensible, the wise, the careful grans, there are some very unwise, selfish, misinformed grans. I am always stunned. False facts are repeatedly rolled out. No, it they are not “live”, not “rushed”, not “compulsory”, and yes you can choose to not have it, because you are fearful, but if you spread conspiracies you are dangerous and it dismays me that you will be protected by the community spirited among us.

www.research.ox.ac.uk/Article/2020-07-19-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-trials
This is from the trials data -24,000.

Nothing frightens me more than people who think they have a right to dictate to others what they should or shouldn't do with their own body. Advise by all means, present figures and evidence to support your beliefs but stop playing the holier-than-thou card. It's not only wrong it's counter productive because people think who the hell are you to tell me what to do.

trisher

^And Prof Andrew Pollard - director of the Oxford vaccine group - said it had been "a very exciting day" and paid tribute to the 20,000 volunteers in the trials around the world, including more than 10,000 in the UK.^

The issue is not the actual numbers but the numbers needed to ensure the trial is sufficiently powered so that any effects produced can be statistically significant and not just down to chance, Different trials need different numbers depending on what is being measured and how large or small the difference in effect that is being investigated. Oxford say that the results are statistically significant for both the two full doses and the one and a half doses arms of the trial

Sorry suziewoozie all that makes me think of is the Mandy Rice Davies response "Well he would say that wouldn't he". (That's going to upset people, you're not supposed to joke about it are you?)

trisher

Nothing frightens me more than people who think they have a right to dictate to others what they should or shouldn't do with their own body. Advise by all means, present figures and evidence to support your beliefs but stop playing the holier-than-thou card. It's not only wrong it's counter productive because people think who the hell are you to tell me what to do.

Not beliefs, but Science. Facts. Reality.

Some people won't listen. I hope the ones who really want to understand have got something from this thread.

trisher

Sorry suziewoozie all that makes me think of is the Mandy Rice Davies response "Well he would say that wouldn't he". (That's going to upset people, you're not supposed to joke about it are you?)

trisher When clinic trials are peer reviewed and subject to scrutiny, one of the basic issues is the actual trial design and whether it is sufficiently powered. It’s a fundamental issue that quite frankly if you don’t understand then you’ve can’t make a meaningful comment on the sample size. Your joke is both pathetic and inappropriate.

Interesting thread, I most certainly will be having the vaccine. I have worked in medical laboratories and have a scientific degree. I feel very confident about the research that has been done. I cannot wait for my life to get back some to some sort of normality and to be able to travel to see my beloved Grandchildren as I have only managed to see them twice this year and will not be seeing them at Christmas. If I were able to I would be first in line.

It's a belief even with the science
It amuses me how many are slagging me off, I haven't decided if I will be vaccinated yet. It's my choice and your lecturing doesn't help

trisher

It's a belief even with the science
It amuses me how many are slagging me off, I haven't decided if I will be vaccinated yet. It's my choice and your lecturing doesn't help

I’m addressing your ill informed comments about sample size nothing else as you appear to be using those to criticise the validity of the research

No really, not belief. Science doesn't depend on belief. If you don't know the difference, that's pretty dispiriting. Nobody's slagging you off. Don't play that card.

I can’t knit ( loved the bagpiper btw) so don’t go on threads giving opinions about how to knit. Knitting isn’t a belief system and neither is research design

Alegrias2

trisher

Nothing frightens me more than people who think they have a right to dictate to others what they should or shouldn't do with their own body. Advise by all means, present figures and evidence to support your beliefs but stop playing the holier-than-thou card. It's not only wrong it's counter productive because people think who the hell are you to tell me what to do.

Not beliefs, but Science. Facts. Reality.

Some people won't listen. I hope the ones who really want to understand have got something from this thread.

Well said Alegrias.

As I keep posting, it hasn't been established whether any of the vaccines prevents transmission. At this stage, all we know is that there is a good chance that it will stop the virus from sneaking into cells via ACE2 receptors, thus preventing organ damage.

The only person who is known at this stage to benefit is the person who has been vaccinated. People in contact with the vaccinated people won't benefit, which is why the idea of people having "vaccination certificates" to travel is nonsense. It's not like the Yellow Fever vaccination. It's also why those most clinically vulnerable should be prioritised.

If people with known risk factors, which is everybody over about 60 and some other younger people, decide not to be vaccinated, that's their business. If they become seriously ill, having been given a choice, I can't say I'll be that bothered.

And I agree - science is not about beliefs. That's why it's science.

My dear friend is a medical research librarian. Its a specialist job she did many years at uni for.

Her work entails her working alongside WHO and all the other scientific medical research and communities.

I want to check info I go to her. This vaccine has not been rushed. I hope some of you who are concerned come back and read this.

1/ Vaccines can be produced much quicker than they are. The reason they usually take 5-10 years is because of all the paperwork and slow treadmill of each section going from dept to dept.

They have not been afforded the time with this. The medical science world have been working 24/7 on this and no delays have been allowed.

The slow process normally afforded they have had no time too and each section is dealt with straightaway meaning paperwork and so on. We can't afford the world to be like this for 10 years

2/ The other concern people have again involves how they have produced it so quickly.

Most don't realise that the original name of Corona virus comes from the umbrella term or group of viruses in the strain of the various types of common cold/pneumonia/flu virus whuch also includes SARS, MERS and so on. They all come under the group of Corona. Covid19 was named after.

The base of the vaccine are already available so it has been about adapting Covid19 with the other vaccine strains and finding ones to work.

That is how they have been come by so quickly and you have no here to worry.

I would rather have a jab than risk this virus and or giving it to someone

Dr carrie madej

Keffie thanks for a great post

‘The base of the vaccine are already available so it has been about adapting Covid19 with the other vaccine strains and finding ones to work.’

This part reminded me of something Sarah Gilbert said on the lines that the lorry already existed and all they had to do was load it up.

Stats were a big part of my actuarial science degree.

"If you tear out your enemy's tongue, it doesn't prove him a liar, it just proves you fear what he has to say."
Funny how the "strategy for countering anti-vax disinformation" never actually involves addressing the "disinformation" and proving it false.
It always and only involves censorship, name-calling, penalties and threats.
I note the "justification" for this latest encroachment into all-out tyranny is - as ever - predicated on health and longevity. "We must stamp out this evil disinformation or people will die!"
And for the seven billionth time (and that's just this morning), I wonder when it was I, or the rest of the nation, agreed it was the government's responsibility to protect our health or extend our lives?
If the government genuinely believes (which, of course, it doesn't) that this vaccine promotes optimal health and longevity, then the government is at liberty to state that belief. That is its right within a country founded upon principles of free speech - that people have the absolute right to waffle whatever nonsense they like.
Others are then at liberty to choose whether they believe the government's nonsense, or not. They are at liberty to offer counterarguments and present evidence to support their position. Other people can listen to both sides and make up their own minds. That is how people form opinions and make choices, for their health and everything else. By considering all the information and deciding.
There is no justification whatsoever for interfering with or suppressing that process on any issue, let alone one as critical and personal as deciding whether to have invasive, risky, experimental medical procedures.
That the government won't allow the process of dialogue and debate to openly take place should be a screaming red flag to every single thinking person in the country, regardless of their views on vaccines.
If they get these "emergency censorship laws" pushed through, then not only is that the death knell for any remaining last sliver of pretence we live in a "liberal democracy", but also, we can be sure, with weary predictability extrapolated from the whole of history, that these laws will never be revoked.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

"The AstraZeneca vaccine, by the way, is made with aborted human fetal cells from a 14-week-old male baby."

No. it isn't.

"Do your own research."

Why oh why do so many conspiracy theorists ask this question. Reading some website by a whacky peddler of rubbish doesn't count as research.