The Vaccine

Hope that answers your question trisher. I'm not a scientist, but I've known enough scientists to understand scientific method and some of the specific ways scientists use language.

I also remember Thalidomide, the drug that was given to pregnant women because it was safe. Turned out it wasnt safe for lots of their children.

starlily106

I also remember Thalidomide, the drug that was given to pregnant women because it was safe. Turned out it wasnt safe for lots of their children.

And DES. There are many reasons people are more likely to question medication and processes now. I always refused to take anything at all when pregnant after attending the lecture on teratogens. I am grateful for what medical science can offer and it can do amazing things, save many lives, but I personally only ever take medication when there is no other option. That is partly borne of learning and personal experiences.

starlily106

I also remember Thalidomide, the drug that was given to pregnant women because it was safe. Turned out it wasnt safe for lots of their children.

Safety procedures have improved vastly since Thalidomide was given to pregnant women.

In any case starlily nobody's forcing you to be vaccinated. It's your choice, especially if you're prepared to take the risk.

OceanMama

starlily106

I also remember Thalidomide, the drug that was given to pregnant women because it was safe. Turned out it wasnt safe for lots of their children.

And DES. There are many reasons people are more likely to question medication and processes now. I always refused to take anything at all when pregnant after attending the lecture on teratogens. I am grateful for what medical science can offer and it can do amazing things, save many lives, but I personally only ever take medication when there is no other option. That is partly borne of learning and personal experiences.

Nobody's forcing you.

growstuff scientists like most people use evidence which supports their (often) preconceived concepts and reject evidence that doesn't. Especially when such evidence might result in a reputation they have worked to establish being undermined. In other words they believe what suits them. I named Hugh Everett because his 1950's research is a classic example of something which didn't fit. It wasn't until the 1970s that it was really acknowledged. Call it by a different name if you wish but it is a belief and No really, not belief. Science doesn't depend on belief is wrong because sometimes it absolutely does..

So far COVID has killed at least 57,000 people and left many people very ill for an unknown period (long COVID).

If I understand your arguments correctly starlily106. You are saying that you feel safer living in a country where up to 100,000 people a year may well die from a pandemic disease than risk having an innoculation against it that could save your life and many others?

I am sorry, I do not get it

growstuff

OceanMama

starlily106

I also remember Thalidomide, the drug that was given to pregnant women because it was safe. Turned out it wasnt safe for lots of their children.

And DES. There are many reasons people are more likely to question medication and processes now. I always refused to take anything at all when pregnant after attending the lecture on teratogens. I am grateful for what medical science can offer and it can do amazing things, save many lives, but I personally only ever take medication when there is no other option. That is partly borne of learning and personal experiences.

Nobody's forcing you.

After it was clear they had no respect for my autonomy I went off and had all my babies at home and stated engaging with the medical profession on my own terms. Doesn't mean it wasn't tried.

I won't be rushing into anything. We've been sheilding since before the first lockdown and are quite prepared to continue doing so until we feel ready. I'm mostly housebound anyway and have poor health so would rather wait until I feel the time is right for me.

growstuff

starlily106

I also remember Thalidomide, the drug that was given to pregnant women because it was safe. Turned out it wasnt safe for lots of their children.

Safety procedures have improved vastly since Thalidomide was given to pregnant women.

In any case starlily nobody's forcing you to be vaccinated. It's your choice, especially if you're prepared to take the risk.

It wasn’t given to pregnant women because it was safe - it was never tested on pregnant women so they had no idea if it were safe to do so. The regulatory framework back then was very poor. The country which emerged with most credit was the US because the FDA refused to approve its marketing, thanks mainly to a very brave female pharmacologist at the agency who resisted the pressures from the drug company. An annual medal is awarded in her name every year. Many changes in regulation and drugs trials followed in the mid to late 60s which changed the whole face of drug development. Both the US and the Uk have much to be proud of in this regard and it was scientists themselves who fought for the changes and forced pharmaceutical companies to have to be open about the results of clinical trials. In addition at this time, the whole framework of ethical approval for clinical trials was properly established, with the UK a leading light. So as awful as the thalidomide scandal was, it lead to improvements that we have benefitted from for the last 50 years or more.

Sorry but I just cannot understand the fools who say they can't wait to get this vaccine. For YEARS they have been trying to find a vaccine and cure for Cancer to no avail, YEARS trying to find a vaccine and cure for all sorts of diseases to no avail, they come up trumps on certain diseases but not very many. Suddenly they find a vaccine for something in just a few months and if you believe that then more fool you. How many times in the past have they discovered a vaccine for something only for things to go wrong because it wasn't tested for long enough. These vaccines have only been tested for so many months and it takes years to find the right vaccine for the right disease. So they know what they can do with their vaccine now, go find another guinea-pig.

and I don't get people wanting a vaccine that has only been tested for a few months, it's obvious to any sane minded person surely that it cannot [ no matter what the government say ] be 100% safe as it just has not been tested for long enough.

And I don't understand the fools who seem unaware of their own ignorance.

Go on then! Tell us all how many times a vaccine has been discovered, only for it all to go wrong because it wasn't tested enough. Go on! Name them!

And for your information, no medical intervention - ever - is 100% safe.

It really does seem one village is missing its idiot tonight - and a very rude one too.

hugshelp

I won't be rushing into anything. We've been sheilding since before the first lockdown and are quite prepared to continue doing so until we feel ready. I'm mostly housebound anyway and have poor health so would rather wait until I feel the time is right for me.

That's fair enough. Your approach is perfectly understandable.

OceanMama

growstuff

OceanMama

starlily106

I also remember Thalidomide, the drug that was given to pregnant women because it was safe. Turned out it wasnt safe for lots of their children.

And DES. There are many reasons people are more likely to question medication and processes now. I always refused to take anything at all when pregnant after attending the lecture on teratogens. I am grateful for what medical science can offer and it can do amazing things, save many lives, but I personally only ever take medication when there is no other option. That is partly borne of learning and personal experiences.

Nobody's forcing you.

After it was clear they had no respect for my autonomy I went off and had all my babies at home and stated engaging with the medical profession on my own terms. Doesn't mean it wasn't tried.

Lovely! How's that relevant?

Ellie666

Sorry but I just cannot understand the fools who say they can't wait to get this vaccine. For YEARS they have been trying to find a vaccine and cure for Cancer to no avail, YEARS trying to find a vaccine and cure for all sorts of diseases to no avail, they come up trumps on certain diseases but not very many. Suddenly they find a vaccine for something in just a few months and if you believe that then more fool you. How many times in the past have they discovered a vaccine for something only for things to go wrong because it wasn't tested for long enough. These vaccines have only been tested for so many months and it takes years to find the right vaccine for the right disease. So they know what they can do with their vaccine now, go find another guinea-pig.

Oh dear. What have you been reading? This is just nonsense

M0nica

So far COVID has killed at least 57,000 people and left many people very ill for an unknown period (long COVID).

If I understand your arguments correctly starlily106. You are saying that you feel safer living in a country where up to 100,000 people a year may well die from a pandemic disease than risk having an innoculation against it that could save your life and many others?

I am sorry, I do not get it

Neither do I MOnica. If people started dying as a result of any vaccine, it would be stopped very quickly.

It wasn't so long ago that people were being mocked for not wanting to go out, especially without a mask. They were told they were scared.

I wonder if it's the same people who are too scared to take a risk in being vaccinated.

Ellie666

and I don't get people wanting a vaccine that has only been tested for a few months, it's obvious to any sane minded person surely that it cannot [ no matter what the government say ] be 100% safe as it just has not been tested for long enough.

The government has not said that this or any other vaccine is 100% safe - medicine doesn’t work like that. Honestly it doesn’t

Crikey, our world has produced scientists who have worked day and night to come up with a vaccine at record speed to save us all from a terrifying pandemic, our regulators are poised to rigorously test and hopefully approve, our distributors and health professionals are ready to vaccinate us all for our own protection and yet the naysayers continue to throw the most ridiculous arguments around.
I appreciate that their is some trepidation among those with underlying health conditions and they must be guided by health professionals but the rest, just unbelievable.

There is some trepidation not their

Ellie666 corona viruses are not new.
Cancer is not a virus.

Are UK Doctors Sceptical of COVID-19 Vaccine?
Tim Locke
November 25, 2020
A Medscape UK reader poll of 308 UK doctors found 4 in 10 would not have a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as one is approved by the MHRA.
Online polling took place 18-23 November after the positive Pfizer/BioNTech results but with most responses received before the positive news about the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine.
Safety Concerns
Of those who wouldn't have the jab at this stage:
56% cited safety concerns
27% would rather wait
7% mentioned personal health reasons
14% had other reasons
Overall, 59% said vaccination for healthcare staff should not be compulsory. Among those who wouldn’t have the jab at this stage, 9 out of 10 were against compulsory staff vaccination.
Herd Immunity
Vaccination rates against SARS-CoV-2 of around 60-72% are thought to be needed to make it effective, according to a recent Lancet article.
Polling by Kantar of 1000 people carried out 10-11 November found 76% of people in Britain would have a vaccine for COVID-19.
That's fallen since June when 78% said they would be vaccinated.
In these latest results, 53% were worried about safety and the speed of development.
However, 57% were confident that a vaccine will not be dangerous if it is proposed by public authorities.

Well said @Ellie666

I thought I might go over to the gardening threads this morning. I don't know anything about gardening, can't even replant a geranium, but I once saw an article in the Radio Times about roses so I've certainly got enough knowledge to tell them all how wrong they are and explain how they should really be pruning their holly trees.

*Ellie666. How does the risk of vaccination compare with the chances of dying from COVID?

Nothing is without risk. Look at the accident statistics and see how many people have accidents while getting out of bed, putting on socks, making a cup of coffee, but you still do all these things.

Why do so many people so casually accept the risks of leaving their homes, travelling in cars and dying of COVID yet strain at the remote risk that the COVID vaccine might damage them.

With vaccines it is the extent of testing before release, not necessarily the length of time. Phase 3 tests for the Oxford vaccine involved 20,000 people, including DH, in the UK, Brazil and several other countries.

growstuff I have worn a mask since the pandemic began. If you looked and listened to the government advice not to wear masks at the start of the pandemic, the clear message was that they were worried that if the general population started buying masks at a time when every bit of PPE was needed for the NHS at that time of chronic shortage, this would aggravate the shortage.

I know they put a veneer of 'not being necessary' on their propaganda because they did not want to cause a panic - but no-one could deny that at that point the NHS requirement must come first. But it was always clear that this reason they didn't want the public buying and wearing mask.

Masks protect other people from you as much as protecting you from them and I sneeze a lot so I made my own masks and have worn them since the end of March.

I'm still trying to work my way through the wood from the trees. But reports like the one attached do not help my confidence (or lack of it in the proposed vaccines at this stage). www.ft.com/content/4583fbf8-b47c-4e78-8253-22efcfa4903a. Please note the point about the age range (under 50), of those tested in the second tier.

In addition I have a number of points that may throw many of the issues raised in the questions and statements of this whole thread.

1) it is likely to take 9 - 15months for any vaccine to be administered to the whole country. No one vaccination has been trialled on the full range of the population for more than 4 months. It is therefore unclear at this point for how long the vaccinations offer immunity.
2) It is expected that the vaccinations being considered would offer immunity for 6 - 12 months. It is therefore reasonable to assume that people will begin to need a booster dose after 6 - 12months. On this basis, any certification attesting vaccination, would become invalid after 6 - 12 months.
3) It would also mean that members of the vulnerable population would need to be given the booster which has NOT been tested on ANY subject group and would mean that potentially an overload might occur.
4) In addition, it is reasonable to assume that boosters would need to be of the SAME vaccination to be validated.
5) Potentially, those members of the community who do not fall into the priority groups may never receive the vaccination, as the vulnerable groups would need the booster 're administering before the primary dose being administered.
6) No testing has taken place in respect of the impact of the booster (third dose), on subjects, and of interactions with the annual flu vaccination.
7) Within the Oxford vaccination testing, results of testing are flawed. Some of those within the trial were administered different doses, others received menninccocal drugs, others saline, and others the vaccine, results were only assessed as those receiving the vaccine or not.

For me these points clarify that in respect of the testing of the Oxford vaccine there have been major flaws in the trials. There are also too many unanswered questions at this stage. It is reasonable to assume that these flaws and questions are valid in respect of all of the vaccines.