Vaccine

Topical debate, moral dilemmas and quirky questions. Join fellow shareholders in civilised discussions of issues of interest
Sarah
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:01 am
Has thanked: 265 times
Been thanked: 2513 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

Post by Sarah » Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:29 am

bprev wrote:
Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:07 am
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.
Thanked by: pabenny, Chadwick, blythburgh

macliam
Posts: 9156
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:26 pm
Location: By the Deben, Suffolk
Has thanked: 1413 times
Been thanked: 7395 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

Post by macliam » Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:26 pm

expressman33 wrote:
Fri Dec 04, 2020 12:07 pm
macliam wrote:
Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:15 pm
AAAlphaThunder wrote:
Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:20 pm
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.....
Thanked by: blythburgh
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get me

pabenny
Posts: 1934
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:21 pm
Has thanked: 537 times
Been thanked: 1532 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

Post by pabenny » Sun Dec 06, 2020 11:28 am

So what will it require before you're comfortable to have one of the vaccines?

macliam
Posts: 9156
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:26 pm
Location: By the Deben, Suffolk
Has thanked: 1413 times
Been thanked: 7395 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

Post by macliam » Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:30 pm

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.
Thanked by: blythburgh
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get me

Chadwick
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 4:21 pm
Has thanked: 1006 times
Been thanked: 2218 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

Post by Chadwick » Sun Dec 06, 2020 3:00 pm

pabenny wrote:
Sun Dec 06, 2020 11:28 am
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.
Thanked by: blythburgh, kevinchess1

AAAlphaThunder
Posts: 26530
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:23 pm
Location: [The Finest City in the World: London]
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 3652 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

Post by AAAlphaThunder » Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:25 pm

Sarah wrote:
Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:29 am
bprev wrote:
Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:07 am
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.
Thanked by: blythburgh
[Secretary] imutual Cashback Investment Club

blythburgh
Posts: 15989
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:14 pm
Location: The Far East
Has thanked: 29898 times
Been thanked: 5771 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

Post by blythburgh » Fri Jan 08, 2021 8:10 am

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
Thanked by: Sarah
Keep smiling because the light at the end of someone's tunnel may be you, Ron Cheneler

expressman33
Posts: 11128
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: stockport
Has thanked: 2704 times
Been thanked: 10205 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

Post by expressman33 » Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:50 am

blythburgh wrote:
Fri Jan 08, 2021 8:10 am
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."
Thanked by: blythburgh

blythburgh
Posts: 15989
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:14 pm
Location: The Far East
Has thanked: 29898 times
Been thanked: 5771 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

Post by blythburgh » Fri Jan 08, 2021 8:13 pm

macliam wrote:
Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:30 pm
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
Thanked by: kevinchess1
Keep smiling because the light at the end of someone's tunnel may be you, Ron Cheneler

kevinchess1
Posts: 23315
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:02 pm
Location: Miles away from the sea
Has thanked: 12181 times
Been thanked: 16556 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

Post by kevinchess1 » Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:21 pm

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
Thanked by: blythburgh
Politically incorrect since 69

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest