Vaccine megathread

[isha]

Wrong. Of course it's still about controlling transmission. Why do you think we still have social distancing, masks, etc, etc, etc.

You want all the NPIs even after vaccines? That's going to be a dystopian future.

[Scotty]

You want all the NPIs even after vaccines? That's going to be a dystopian future.

We're not 'after vaccines' though are we? Still 1.2m to go.

[Scotty]

Here is a tweet. It contains a video. The video is a doctor in a children's hospital from Israel. It says all that in the tweet but if I don't write it also some people say it is ''dumping''. It is interesting re information on adverse events.

Posting individual cases of suspected adverse cases is utterly pointless and a waste of everyone's time.

We know, like every other vaccine, there can be mild to fatal reactions. It's not news.

[isha]

We're not 'after vaccines' though are we? Still 1.2m to go.

The children, you mean. OK.

[Scotty]

The children, you mean. OK.

I don't think anyone should be forced to vaccinate but as long as there is a significant portion of the population unvaccinated, NPI's are necessary.

[isha]

Posting individual cases of suspected adverse cases is utterly pointless and a waste of everyone's time.

Ignoring the vast amount of recorded adverse events, largely submitted by medical personnel, the most on official global recording systems set up by bodies such as the EU and CDC and NHS for any medical product ever, is frankly willful obduracy.

Anyway I am unfollowing this thread again for a while. Onwards with ye. Time will tell.

[schmittel]

Wrong. Of course it's still about controlling transmission. Why do you think we still have social distancing, masks, etc, etc, etc.

Not a random YouTuber wailing about 5G but the Dept of Health's COVID-19 Vaccine: Your questions answered document:

Why you still need to wear a face covering and social distance when you have the vaccine

We will still need to wear masks and practise physical distancing until a large proportion of the population is vaccinated and we are sure the vaccine provides long-term protection.

This document was updated in July. They really ought to update it again now that a large proportion of the population is vaccinated and we are sure that the vaccine does not provide long-term protection.

While they are at it they should update their definitions of effectiveness and protection to reflect the reality that now the vaccines only offer effective protection against hospitalisation/ICU rather than immunity.

I presume this is same Dept of Heath who were issuing guidelines to GPs/pharmacists/healthcare workers in April/May/June/July on what to tell patients who had questions about the risks/rewards of the vaccines. Hopefully they have at least updated those guidelines so those GPs/pharmacists/healthcare workers can give up to date advice to their patients.

[Scotty]

Ignoring the vast amount of recorded adverse events, largely submitted by medical personnel, the most on official global recording systems set up by bodies such as the EU and CDC and NHS for any medical product ever, is frankly willful obduracy.

Anyway I am unfollowing this thread again for a while. Onwards with ye. Time will tell.

No one is ignoring the adverse effects. The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, & our best defence against the virus, but it can in extremely rare cases, can cause severe reactions.

[Scotty]

Not a random YouTuber wailing about 5G but the Dept of Health's COVID-19 Vaccine: Your questions answered document:



This document was updated in July. They really ought to update it again now that a large proportion of the population is vaccinated and we are sure that the vaccine does not provide long-term protection.

While they are at it they should update their definitions of effectiveness and protection to reflect the reality that now the vaccines only offer effective protection against hospitalisation/ICU rather than immunity.

I presume this is same Dept of Heath who were issuing guidelines to GPs/pharmacists/healthcare workers in April/May/June/July on what to tell patients who had questions about the risks/rewards of the vaccines. Hopefully they have at least updated those guidelines so those GPs/pharmacists/healthcare workers can give up to date advice to their patients.

So the purpose of masks, social distancing is NOT to contain transmission? I'm not sure if you are contradicting me or just adding to my point.

[6456739]

I don't think anyone should be forced to vaccinate but as long as there is a significant portion of the population unvaccinated, NPI's are necessary.

Outside the conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, is anyone actually advocating forced vaccination? It's such an abominable breach of civil liberties that I've not seen it even mooted.

[schmittel]

So the purpose of masks, social distancing is NOT to contain transmission? I'm not sure if you are contradicting me or just adding to my point.

So the purpose of masks, social distancing is NOT to contain transmission? I'm not sure if you are contradicting me or just adding to my point.

I'm just answering the question you posed with the official answer, which yes clearly indicates that masks etc are used to control transmission. So yes I'm adding to your point.

But the document I linked also clearly indicates that this was not the expected outcome for the vaccination programme. Which also adds to isha's point that the goalposts have shifted massively on the level of efficacy and protection we can expect from being vaccinated.

[Scotty]

the goalposts have shifted massively on the level of efficacy and protection we can expect from being vaccinated.

Yes but such is life with a novel virus and emergency vaccinations. It's an evolving situation. We're in a far better place than I would have expected a year ago. I thought it would be 2024 or 2025 before we'd even start to see vaccines.

Our worst case numbers in 10 months today. At almost our max realistic vaccine level, I hope we don't take a major step backwards this week regarding restrictions.

[schmittel]

Outside the conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, is anyone actually advocating forced vaccination? It's such an abominable breach of civil liberties that I've not seen it even mooted.

Nobody in officialdom as far as I'm aware, but plenty of individuals ranting on radio and penning opinion pieces. Eg Professor Dermot Cox is Associate Professor in Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences at the Royal College of Surgeons who thinks that "Mandatory Covid-19 vaccination may be appropriate for some - but there are other solutions"

Basically he believes that vaccines should be mandatory for healthcare workers, and for others we should wield the stick as much as the carrot:

If a person gets Covid-19 after refusing a vaccine, they should ultimately pay the bill for their medical treatment, as these are unnecessary costs incurred. There is no reason why the taxpayer should have to pay for those who refuse to be vaccinated.

Important to note that he was writing this in July 2021, and his strongly held beliefs were based on an important point:

It is important to appreciate that there are two reasons for someone be vaccinated: to protect yourself from a disease, and to create herd immunity that could eventually lead to the elimination of that disease.

Within weeks of publishing this it was clear that any hopes of herd immunity were nonsense. But there are many who will believe he is the kind of expert whose opinions and advice on this subject should be beyond question.

[schmittel]

Yes but such is life with a novel virus and emergency vaccinations. It's an evolving situation. We're in a far better place than I would have expected a year ago. I thought it would be 2024 or 2025 before we'd even start to see vaccines.

I totally agree - we are dealing with a novel virus and emergency vaccinations. Therein lies the whole point.

We cannot say that of course it is expected that the goalposts keep shifting given the evolving situation, accelerated regulation etc. and simultaneously say but we can be certain the vaccine is safe, free from long term effects and the risks outweigh the rewards for all.

It's just totally inconsistent, and it's not a conspiracy theory to say so.

[Scotty]

We cannot say that of course it is expected that the goalposts keep shifting given the evolving situation, accelerated regulation etc. and simultaneously say but we can be certain the vaccine is safe, free from long term effects and the risks outweigh the rewards for all.

The vaccine was tested on thousands of people before it was passed for emergency use. It may not have been declared 'safe' but it was decaled safe enough. We can see from the data that the vaccine is effective against severe infection. Yes, we know on very rare occasions people will die from taking the vaccine. We'd never get in a car, board a plane, or climb a ladder if we were to avoid everything that could kill us. Anaphylaxis can result from ANY vaccine and just about any medication.

So in my opinion, the fear of taking the vaccine is irrational. I've an 18 year old daughter who won't take it. She's perfectly fine walking home on her own at 11.45 at night but then won't go into her bedroom until I've removed the tiny spider that's on the ceiling. She's had covid but won't take the vaccine. She's watched one too many anti-vax tiktok clips. My 16 year old son couldn't wait to get it and stated this before we had a chance to discuss it with him. Different strokes...

[knownunknown]

Posting individual cases of suspected adverse cases is utterly pointless and a waste of everyone's time.

We know, like every other vaccine, there can be mild to fatal reactions. It's not news.

The difference between this vaccine and other vaccines is that other vaccines actually prevent the transmission of the virus. If you get the MMR vaccine you won't be getting measles, mumps or rhubella.

This is what would have traditionally been known as a 'leaky vaccine', even those vaccinated can still contract the virus. In the strictest sense it's not 100% a vaccine, its a leaky vaccine. Leaky vaccines haven't been approved in the past. Why?

I'd say the vaccine enthusiasts in this thread probably haven't read much about this stuff in the last few months, the leaks from the CDC which turned out true or the new information from the Imperial College London. They couldn't possibly be asking these types of questions if they read the recent data.

Is there scientific evidence available showing vaccinated people are a threat?

[Scotty]

If you get the MMR vaccine you won't be getting measles, mumps or rhubella.

Not quite true. 96% efficacy against Measles, 86% against Mumps, and 95% against Rubella, after two doses. Plus there's the Anaphylaxis risk, though very rare. It's good, but like all other vaccines, it's not perfect.

[schmittel]

Not quite true. 96% efficacy against Measles, 86% against Mumps, and 95% against Rubella, after two doses. Plus there's the Anaphylaxis risk, though very rare. It's good, but like all other vaccines, it's not perfect.

Yes, but in the case of MMR vaccine efficacy means immunity.

In the case of Covid vaccine efficacy means lower chances of being hospitalised.

Chalk and cheese.

[6456739]

Yes, but in the case of MMR vaccine efficacy means immunity.

In the case of Covid vaccine efficacy means lower chances of being hospitalised.

Chalk and cheese.

Some protection is better than none.

MMR and Wakefield's attempt to destroy it for the sake of his own product is what started the anti-vaxx nonsense.

[Scotty]

Yes, but in the case of MMR vaccine efficacy means immunity.
In the case of Covid vaccine efficacy means lower chances of being hospitalised.
Chalk and cheese.

I'm not really sure what your point is? Should we not use the covid vaccine because it only reduced the effects?

Perhaps after science has spent as long developing a covid vaccine (<24 months) as it has developing a measles vaccine (>200 years) we'll have one that also prevents transmission.

[schmittel]

I'm not really sure what your point is? Should we not use the covid vaccine because it only reduced the effects?

Perhaps after science has spent as long developing a covid vaccine (<24 months) as it has developing a measles vaccine (>200 years) we'll have one that also prevents transmission.

2u2me said "The difference between this vaccine and other vaccines is that other vaccines actually prevent the transmission of the virus. If you get the MMR vaccine you won't be getting measles, mumps or rhubella."

Your response was "Not quite true. 96% efficacy against Measles, 86% against Mumps, and 95% against Rubella, after two doses."

My point was that your response was either thoroughly disingenuous or badly misinformed.

[Scotty]

My point was that your response was either thoroughly disingenuous or badly misinformed.

how so?

[Del.Monte]

Mad bastard protest out of nowhere in town a few minutes ago. Gemma Doherty?/SF/Socialist loons and the usual Enniscorthy 'rent a mob' - not a Garda in sight as traffic blocked. Mad stuff.

[Del.Monte]

Apparently it's worse than I thought, this crowd are on the loony fringe that believe RTE are keeping their stars young by giving them something harvested from aborted foetuses.

[kadman]

Apparently it's worse than I thought, this crowd are on the loony fringe that believe RTE are keeping their stars young by giving them something harvested from aborted foetuses.

The use of fetal tissue thats associated with vaccines may have something to do with the protest, who knows.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027112/

Not sure of the source.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends fifteen different vaccines for children to induce protection against several viral and bacterial infections that are causes of morbidity and mortality (American Academy of Pediatrics 2016). Three of these vaccines, M-M-R-II (Merck 2016a), VARIVAX (Merck 2016b), and HAVRIX (Glaxo Smith Kline 2016) utilize cell lines WI-38 or MRC-5 that were derived from fetal tissues (Wong 2006) harvested from elective abortions in the 1960s to generate the attenuated viruses used in these immunizations for rubella (M-M-R-II), varicella (VARIVAX), or hepatitis A (HAVRIX). The efficacy of these vaccines has been clearly demonstrated.

In the pre-vaccine era, during the rubella pandemic of 1962–1965, 12.5 million clinical cases of rubella were reported in the United States that resulted in 2,000 cases of encephalitis, 11,250 fetal deaths, 2,100 neonatal deaths, and 20,000 infants born with congenital rubella syndrome, a grouping of birth defects that include blindness, deafness, and heart disease (Plotkin et al. 1965). Since introduction of the rubella vaccine in 1969, the number of rubella cases and newborns with congenital rubella syndrome has become so low (<10 annually) that rubella is no longer considered endemic in the United States (CDC 2005). A single dose of the VARIVAX vaccine is 80–85 percent effective in preventing varicella (chicken pox) (Seward et al. 2008) and the efficacy of HAVRIX in preventing hepatitis A infection in an endemic area (Thailand) was 95 percent (Innis 1994).