Vaccine

Topical debate, moral dilemmas and quirky questions. Join fellow shareholders in civilised discussions of issues of interest
Sarah
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sat Jun 26 2010 10:01am
Has thanked: 432 times
Been thanked: 4412 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

Post by Sarah » 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.
Thanked by: pabenny, Chadwick, blythburgh

macliam
Posts: 11226
Joined: Thu Jul 18 2013 12:26pm
Location: By the Deben, Suffolk
Has thanked: 1630 times
Been thanked: 9279 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

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

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

pabenny
Posts: 2732
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 5:21pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 2177 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

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

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

macliam
Posts: 11226
Joined: Thu Jul 18 2013 12:26pm
Location: By the Deben, Suffolk
Has thanked: 1630 times
Been thanked: 9279 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

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

Chadwick
Posts: 2435
Joined: Mon Jul 05 2010 4:21pm
Has thanked: 1234 times
Been thanked: 2583 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

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

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.
Thanked by: blythburgh, kevinchess1

BeautifulSunshine
Posts: 26721
Joined: Tue Sep 14 2010 8:23pm
Location: [The Finest City in the World: London]
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 3686 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

Post by BeautifulSunshine » Sun Dec 06 2020 4:25pm

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.
Thanked by: blythburgh
[imutual Cashback Investment Club]

blythburgh
Posts: 17733
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 7:14pm
Location: The Far East
Has thanked: 35001 times
Been thanked: 6106 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

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

expressman33
Posts: 12468
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 10:36pm
Location: stockport
Has thanked: 3006 times
Been thanked: 10641 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

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

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."
Thanked by: blythburgh

blythburgh
Posts: 17733
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 7:14pm
Location: The Far East
Has thanked: 35001 times
Been thanked: 6106 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

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

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
Thanked by: kevinchess1
Keep smiling because the light at the end of someone's tunnel may be you, Ron Cheneler

kevinchess1
Posts: 23770
Joined: Mon Jun 28 2010 11:02pm
Location: Miles away from the sea
Has thanked: 12599 times
Been thanked: 17167 times
Contact:

Re: Vaccine

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

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: No registered users and 11 guests