Page 2 of 5

Re: Vaccine

Posted: Sat Dec 05 2020 9:29am
by Sarah
bprev wrote:
Sat Dec 05 2020 1:07am
But was extensively tested for safety before being released and that was a release on commercial grounds. I only hope this rushed vaccine has been better tested but I doubt it
Quite the opposite - knowledge, technology, procedures, standards, regulations, etc have advanced significantly in the nearly 70 years since Thalidomide. It would be ridiculously paranoid to think no lessons were learned in all that time from such a huge scandal and failure.

Re: Vaccine

Posted: Sat Dec 05 2020 6:26pm
by macliam
expressman33 wrote:
Fri Dec 04 2020 12:07pm
macliam wrote:
Thu Dec 03 2020 11:15pm
AAAlphaThunder wrote:
Thu Dec 03 2020 5:20pm
Overall most people will benefit as it is an effective vaccine and we can move on with our lives.
Yeah, let's just forget Thalidomide.

You go first........
Thalidomide was a drug not a vaccine
It was a treatment for which great claims were made and which proved to have catastrophic side-effects. Proving that a treatment doesn't have adverse effects a sample group does not mean that it is "safe", just that it didn't cause that sample group issues - tests test what they test.

Given the obvious political (if not commercial) kudos of being first to approve a vaccine, there is reason for some scepticism.....

Re: Vaccine

Posted: Sun Dec 06 2020 11:28am
by pabenny
So what will it require before you're comfortable to have one of the vaccines?

Re: Vaccine

Posted: Sun Dec 06 2020 1:30pm
by macliam
I won't be rushing.

With several alternatives in the offing, I certainly won't be volunteering for the first one available.

I will wait until there is a more general consensus on the relative merits and the counter-indications.

Re: Vaccine

Posted: Sun Dec 06 2020 3:00pm
by Chadwick
pabenny wrote:
Sun Dec 06 2020 11:28am
So what will it require before you're comfortable to have one of the vaccines?
This is the heart of the question, and I think there are only four good answers and one rubbish answer. Can you guess which is the rubbish one?

  1. I know nothing about vaccines, but I trust the people who do. if they say it's safe, that's good enough for me.
  2. I know nothing about vaccines, and although I trust the people who do, I feel this one has skipped many of the conventional checks. I won't take it until I've seen some more 'peer review' evidence from other people who know about vaccines.
  3. I know nothing about vaccines and I don't trust the people who do, so I won't take it until I've learnt all about vaccines and tested it to my own satisfaction.
  4. I know nothing about vaccines and no matter how many experts approve it, I won't take it until I've seen that there are no long term effects. 10 years should be sufficient.
  5. I don't believe there is a virus/I don't care if my family and friends catch it from me/something about lizard people.

Re: Vaccine

Posted: Sun Dec 06 2020 4:25pm
by BeautifulSunshine
Sarah wrote:
Sat Dec 05 2020 9:29am
bprev wrote:
Sat Dec 05 2020 1:07am
But was extensively tested for safety before being released and that was a release on commercial grounds. I only hope this rushed vaccine has been better tested but I doubt it
Quite the opposite - knowledge, technology, procedures, standards, regulations, etc have advanced significantly in the nearly 70 years since Thalidomide. It would be ridiculously paranoid to think no lessons were learned in all that time from such a huge scandal and failure.
I wholeheartedly agree with Sarah.

Re: Vaccine

Posted: Fri Jan 08 2021 8:10am
by blythburgh
Saw this on FB and as the poster says: "A lesson that nationalism has consequences"

standard.co.uk/news/health/patients-rejected-pfizer-vaccine-wait-oxford-jab-b740836.html?fbclid=IwAR166fTJfihjtpq6fvdjUmvup0VICnPCWmQBu20TQFHZCr5Ed19f33FupMQ

Re: Vaccine

Posted: Fri Jan 08 2021 11:50am
by expressman33
blythburgh wrote:
Fri Jan 08 2021 8:10am
Saw this on FB and as the poster says: "A lesson that nationalism has consequences"

standard.co.uk/news/health/patients-rejected-pfizer-vaccine-wait-oxford-jab-b740836.html?fbclid=IwAR166fTJfihjtpq6fvdjUmvup0VICnPCWmQBu20TQFHZCr5Ed19f33FupMQ
Pfizer first jab is meant to give 90% protection , and 95% after the second PROVIDED it is given after 3 weeks https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... -regulator ,
The Astrazenica jab only gives 70% protection and 2 jabs are needed ,the second not more than 12 weeks after the first . "Overall, the MHRA said, the efficacy of the vaccine reached about 70% between three weeks and 12 weeks, when given as a single standard dose. The second dose, not later than 12 weeks afterwards, was necessary because the effect may not last without the booster shot, it said."

Re: Vaccine

Posted: Fri Jan 08 2021 8:13pm
by blythburgh
macliam wrote:
Sun Dec 06 2020 1:30pm
I won't be rushing.

With several alternatives in the offing, I certainly won't be volunteering for the first one available.

I will wait until there is a more general consensus on the relative merits and the counter-indications.
Do not worry the 75 to 80 age group is next in line and at current rate it will be a few weeks before even that group get the call

Re: Vaccine

Posted: Sun Jan 10 2021 8:21pm
by kevinchess1
I'll take it when it's offer to me
I'm not worried if it's safe because it is.
But I don't feel that some of these claims for High percentages protection are optimistic.
I'm completely against Compulsory vacs, if you don't want it then don't have it.
But then don't be complaining about 'persistent lock down and/or 'Economic collapse' or 'High mortality rate in this country