Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

jelem

Approved by who?
ive been watching and seems russians are way ahead even with
WHO application.
russians claim it will be about 20 dollars.
why all this 40 - 120 - 180 euros being touted.
What has happened to all the TAX breaks given by governments to pharmas
for Research and Developement ? .
con and profit with police state

whisky_galore

Yes.

The sooner this Covid shítshow is over, the better so we can take our lives off hold.

Hector Savage

ELM327 wrote: »

Ah sure go off and infect everyone.



No mask no entry, will soon transition to, no vaccine no entry.

utter hyperbole drivel ...

hmmm

jelem wrote: »

Approved by who?
ive been watching and seems russians are way ahead even with
WHO application.
russians claim it will be about 20 dollars.
why all this 40 - 120 - 180 euros being touted.
What has happened to all the TAX breaks given by governments to pharmas
for Research and Developement ? .
con and profit with police state

Astra Zeneca are charging less than €5 a dose. Moderna are charging the EU around €25. These are not huge costs.

The Russian vaccine has not been submitted to EU regulators for approval, and they would have to meet EU testing standards before it could be considered.

Hector Savage

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-pfizer-vp-no-need-for-vaccines-the-pandemic-is-effectively-over?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com

Interesting take ...

ELM327

Hector Savage wrote: »

utter hyperbole drivel ...

So you can read? It was intended as such, given the anti vax nonsense that was coming back

Akrasia

KyussB wrote: »

You are wrong, there is not a gamble either way, that depends on peoples individual circumstances. I have practically zero risk of getting the virus if I don't put myself in situations where I may be exposed.

We don't know the long term safety rate of the vaccines... We don't know if it's 1:1, 1:100, 1:1000, 1:1000000 or 0 - so your risk analysis is inherently wrong.

We don't even know if the vaccines are less-worse than the coronavirus yet.

Your approach is unscientific. You are making stuff up, when the only scientific answer about long term rates of harm is "we don't know yet".

The actual scientists have to wait up to and beyond a decade to verify the safety of their vaccines...

The phase 3 trials for these vaccines met the milestones required for the US FDA to declare the medication to be safe with 43k participants for the Pfizer vaccine and 30k for Moderna's phase 3 study. They are also being evaluated by the EMA independently of the USFDA

By the time you're offered the vaccine,these phase 3 trials will have been concluded for 5 or 6 months, so we will have 9+months of data from these participants where we would be able to identify if there is any emergence of possible long term side effects. If those side effects are common, it will be abundantly obvious by the time you are asked to take this vaccine, if they are very rare, then the risk to you personally is also very low

Do we have long term population level data? No, nor do we have that data for any medication that is released to market including the seasonal flu vaccines that are developed and released every year and taken by tens of millions of people annually and are generally considered to be safe.

Is there a tiny chance that this vaccine will cause some kind of negative reaction 5 years from now? Yes, but we also do not know what the long term consequences are from being infected with Covid. You're comparing two unknowns and deciding that one is a bigger risk than the other based on no data other than a misguided belief that you're such a hermit that you're never gonna get infected with covid and are discounting one side of the balance sheet down to zero

Akrasia

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Not a hope I'd take this.

Maybe in 10 years time when we actually know how it affects the body but by then covid might be a thing of the past so still no.

No.

Do you know the consequence of Covid infection 10 years from now?

Look at some other viral infections, Chicken Pox, can flare up and cause shingles decades later
Herpes can remain dormant and flare up and infect other parts of the body and can cause blindness and deafness (my Uncle for example is deaf in one ear because of Herpes)
HPV can cause infertility and cancer years after infection

We know that Covid can cause scarring of internal organs, we know that there is a risk that this virus can cause long term complications. You're not protecting yourself from risk by not taking the vaccine, you're just trading one set of risks for another

Fodla

Hector Savage wrote: »

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-pfizer-vp-no-need-for-vaccines-the-pandemic-is-effectively-over?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com

Interesting take ...

Very interesting. Professor Sucharit Bhakdi said he wouldn't dream of being vaccinated because "I'm not mad".

Fodla

Akrasia wrote: »

Do you know the consequence of Covid infection 10 years from now?

Look at some other viral infections, Chicken Pox, can flare up and cause shingles decades later
Herpes can remain dormant and flare up and infect other parts of the body and can cause blindness and deafness (my Uncle for example is deaf in one ear because of Herpes)
HPV can cause infertility and cancer years after infection

We know that Covid can cause scarring of internal organs, we know that there is a risk that this virus can cause long term complications. You're not protecting yourself from risk by not taking the vaccine, you're just trading one set of risks for another

Just on the damage COVID-19 can cause, Professor Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University said the talk of long COVID and the damage the virus can do to people is over the top because the flu can cause terrible damage as well.

Akrasia

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Which groups or who have been confirmed as unable to take it?

Out of interest...(before I get attacked)

Anyone who has had an allergic reaction to any other vaccine are high risk groups.
Anyone who has had anaphylaxis associated with any of the ingredients of the vaccine should not be administered the vaccine
People with compromised immune systems or people who are on existing medications that have not been tested for drug interactions with the vaccine
Any live attenuated vaccine is usually not advised to be administered to anyone with immune disorders or who are on immunosuppressants

It looks like we will have a number of different vaccines built on different technologies, so hopefully people who cannot take one vaccine, will be able to take another

victor8600

It would be nice if all anti-waxers just stayed at home and self-isolated for a year while the rest gets immunized by a vaccine.

Fodla

Fodla wrote: »

Very interesting. Professor Sucharit Bhakdi said he wouldn't dream of being vaccinated because "I'm not mad".

Excellent video interview with Dr. Mike Yeadon, Pfizer's former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory, at the end of that article you linked. Highly recommend everyone scroll down and watch it. Says mass vaccinations are completely unnecessary.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-pfizer-vp-no-need-for-vaccines-the-pandemic-is-effectively-over?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com

Video at bottom of page.

lbj666

Deleted User wrote: »

Excellent video interview with Dr. Mike Yeadon, Pfizer's former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory, at the end of that article you linked. Highly recommend everyone scroll down and watch it. Says mass vaccinations are completely unnecessary.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-pfizer-vp-no-need-for-vaccines-the-pandemic-is-effectively-over?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com

Video at bottom of page.

"LifeSite’s channel was suspended by YouTube. Watch our videos here."

hmmm

Fodla

lbj666 wrote: »

"LifeSite’s channel was suspended by YouTube. Watch our videos here."

hmmm

That's a good sign. YouTube have a habit of censoring the truth.

lbj666

lbj666 wrote: »

"LifeSite’s channel was suspended by YouTube. Watch our videos here."

hmmm

Sigh. Here it is on YouTube for you then The video is just him talking, nobody else. It has nothing to do with that website.

There is no better authority on this situation. I suggest everyone watch (or listen, whilst doing whatever you're doing)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bX-wFVBP94

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

Sigh. Here it is on YouTube for you then The video is just him talking, nobody else. It has nothing to do with that website.

There is no better authority on this situation. I suggest everyone watch (or listen, whilst doing whatever you're doing)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bX-wFVBP94

Channel was removed by youtube because it was found to be spreading misinformation.
Why are the assertions by this guy more reliable than all of the other medical experts who say Covid is serious and we should vaccinate against it?

Akrasia

Fodla wrote: »

That's a good sign. YouTube have a habit of censoring the truth.

Lol, are you including Alex Jones in this?

grogi

Akrasia wrote: »

Why are the assertions by this guy more reliable than all of the other medical experts who say Covid is serious and we should vaccinate against it?

For starters, he has no responsibility. He doesn't need to be cautious, as a mistake will not have dear consequences. Governments prefer to play safe, which often is too safe.

ixoy

grogi wrote: »

For starters, he has no responsibility. He doesn't need to be cautious, as a mistake will not have dear consequences. Governments prefer to play safe, which often is too safe.

So you believe many other scientists, maybe the majority, are only saying how dangerous it is to protect their careers or tow the party line? You'd think that little of them?

grogi

ixoy wrote: »

So you believe many other scientists, maybe the majority, are only saying how dangerous it is to protect their careers or tow the party line? You'd think that little of them?

Never claimed the above.

Firstly, it is not the scientists that make decisions - politicians do. A politician at power is someone that got there not by the virtue of scientific knowledge, but by being able to navigate the political landscape. Every single one is willing to compromise to progress their agenda - otherwise they wouldn't be at the position of making the decision.

Secondly, decision makes don't want to be held accountable for their wrong actions (Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan). If they do exactly what others do, the blame can be shifted and explained "this is what everyone did at the time". If they did something out of ordinary and it fails, it is their only fault. They behave like sheep in herd, looking around what others are doing. It is not worth the risk to say anything else. If everyone says it is dangerous, there is no point saying otherwise - you will only get a label of irresponsible wacko.

Lastly, generic population is generally stupid and needs a very simple message. You shouldn't expect Joe Average to follow scientific publications or even their digest (exp. Nature Briefing) in order to understand what's happening. The message the public receives should be simple and generally work in most scenarios. This policy is applied by WHO when talking about breast feeding ("Breast feeding is the best") and exactly same is applied when talking about COVID: "it is very dangerous".

The Belly

ixoy wrote: »

So you believe many other scientists, maybe the majority, are only saying how dangerous it is to protect their careers or tow the party line? You'd think that little of them?

A scientist working for big pharma in well a paid job with a defined benefit pension and share options who signed an employment contract that includes confidentiality clauses and restrictive covenants is unlikely to become a whistleblower on potential shortcomings or side effects of the vaccine.

Your only option is to leave and if you do will another pharma company employ you?

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Channel was removed by youtube because it was found to be spreading misinformation.
Why are the assertions by this guy more reliable than all of the other medical experts who say Covid is serious and we should vaccinate against it?

The channel has obviously NOT been removed if the video is there for you to watch embedded in this page. Besides, that channel has NO CONNECTION whatsoever to the Doctor speaking in the video.

ixoy

grogi wrote: »

You shouldn't expect Joe Average to follow scientific publications or even their digest (exp. Nature Briefing) in order to understand what's happening. The message the public receives should be simple and generally work in most scenarios. This policy is applied by WHO when talking about breast feeding ("Breast feeding is the best") and exactly same is applied when talking about COVID: "it is very dangerous".

But is there a scientific consensus that it's not dangerous? I've not seen that being touted either. I'd expect such a consensus, if it existed in any particular form, to have become more evident and not just blocked some "conspiracy" as others (not you) seem to suggest.
As to how it relates to vaccination programs, we have the likes of the EMA who do employ people with knowledge as opposed to politicians who should listen to them.

KyussB

Akrasia wrote: »

The phase 3 trials for these vaccines met the milestones required for the US FDA to declare the medication to be safe with 43k participants for the Pfizer vaccine and 30k for Moderna's phase 3 study. They are also being evaluated by the EMA independently of the USFDA

By the time you're offered the vaccine,these phase 3 trials will have been concluded for 5 or 6 months, so we will have 9+months of data from these participants where we would be able to identify if there is any emergence of possible long term side effects. If those side effects are common, it will be abundantly obvious by the time you are asked to take this vaccine, if they are very rare, then the risk to you personally is also very low

Do we have long term population level data? No, nor do we have that data for any medication that is released to market including the seasonal flu vaccines that are developed and released every year and taken by tens of millions of people annually and are generally considered to be safe.

Is there a tiny chance that this vaccine will cause some kind of negative reaction 5 years from now? Yes, but we also do not know what the long term consequences are from being infected with Covid. You're comparing two unknowns and deciding that one is a bigger risk than the other based on no data other than a misguided belief that you're such a hermit that you're never gonna get infected with covid and are discounting one side of the balance sheet down to zero

When vaccines meets the bar for hundreds of thousands of participants, then I'll wait a year from then pretty much. 9 months is not a bar for long term. Neither is a year, or even 2.

The seasonal flu vaccine's use a well established repeatable method of vaccine development, and they take 2 years pretty much. The coronavirus vaccines are new methods largely - that normally would take beyond a decade to approve.

Being infected with the coronavirus is not the alternative option, here...You keep on presenting that false dichotomy.

Government policy and a proper lockdown-to-Zero plus quarantine of all foreign entry, has been and is always the fastest route to normality - way faster than any vaccine.

The ironic thing about your zeal to try and paint people into the anti-vax corner, is that your condescending attitude and trying to railroad aside legitimate concerns with these vaccines (which are not like any other well established vaccines...), is that you're actually going to create bonafide anti-vaxxers with the way you approach things.

It's like atheists who think it's ok to be arseholes to religous people - and corporatist Science! advocates who forget that critical thinking and skepticism are a core part of the process, especially given the amount of corruption/fraud, monopolistic behaviour and tobacco/oil-industry level FUD, which comes from such a wide variety of scientific-research-heavy industry (hindering or corrupting the scientific process).

Akrasia

grogi wrote: »

For starters, he has no responsibility. He doesn't need to be cautious, as a mistake will not have dear consequences. Governments prefer to play safe, which often is too safe.

I asked for reasons to believe him, the fact that he has no responsibility and can be reckless is not a reason to believe him.

Generally, it is better to believe the considered professional opinion of an expert with a reputation worth protecting, than some guy who's just saying whatever he likes knowing he'll never be held accountable if people take his advice

You're much more likely to get better orbital mechanics calculations when sending a probe to mars from a guy who's responsibility it is to navigate that probe to mars, than from some random mathematician even if he's fully qualified to make those calculations

Akrasia

KyussB wrote: »

When vaccines meets the bar for hundreds of thousands of participants, then I'll wait a year from then pretty much. 9 months is not a bar for long term. Neither is a year, or even 2.

The seasonal flu vaccine's use a well established repeatable method of vaccine development, and they take 2 years pretty much. The coronavirus vaccines are new methods largely - that normally would take beyond a decade to approve.

Being infected with the coronavirus is not the alternative option, here...You keep on presenting that false dichotomy.

Government policy and a proper lockdown-to-Zero plus quarantine of all foreign entry, has been and is always the fastest route to normality - way faster than any vaccine.

The ironic thing about your zeal to try and paint people into the anti-vax corner, is that your condescending attitude and trying to railroad aside legitimate concerns with these vaccines (which are not like any other well established vaccines...), is that you're actually going to create bonafide anti-vaxxers with the way you approach things.

It's like atheists who think it's ok to be arseholes to religous people - and corporatist Science! advocates who forget that critical thinking and skepticism are a core part of the process, especially given the amount of corruption/fraud, monopolistic behaviour and tobacco/oil-industry level FUD, which comes from such a wide variety of scientific-research-heavy industry (hindering or corrupting the scientific process).

Ah here, come on now, you think it is a better option for Ireland to get to zero cases with essentially permanent travel restrictions that would absolutely devastate our economy? You think 'normality' involves lockdowns and travel restrictions?


The chance of the world getting rid of this virus just via social distancing and quarantines on travellers is zero. There will always be reservoirs that will allow it to re-infect the country from outside

We need to get herd immunity, and this can be done in 2 ways, either by enough people getting the virus, or by vaccines.

Coybig_

I see the infallible vaccine creators are already making "mistakes".

AstraZeneca, it seems, accidentally gave the wrong dosage and excluded old people from their trials, and got outstanding results. 90 percent.

Then when they corrected their mistake and gave the right dosage, it worked significantly less well. 62 percent.

They then decided to create an average from both results and say that it was 70 percent effective, despite the fact that the dosage was different, so the average wasn't worth much.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/health-pharma/admission-of-mistake-in-oxford-vaccine-dose-raises-doubts-over-reliability-1.4420289?mode=amp

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Ah here, come on now, you think it is a better option for Ireland to get to zero cases with essentially permanent travel restrictions that would absolutely devastate our economy? You think 'normality' involves lockdowns and travel restrictions?

The chance of the world getting rid of this virus just via social distancing and quarantines on travellers is zero. There will always be reservoirs that will allow it to re-infect the country from outside

We need to get herd immunity, and this can be done in 2 ways, either by enough people getting the virus, or by vaccines.

Spot on. "Zero Covid" is a fictional idea. Even attempting it would result in a completely destroyed economy and prolonged removal of human rights. Even then, it's not possible.

Fodla

Deleted User wrote: »

Spot on. "Zero Covid" is a fictional idea. Even attempting it would result in a completely destroyed economy and prolonged removal of human rights. Even then, it's not possible.

I agree, but the current approach consists of destroying the economy and the possible permanent removal of human rights. So not much of a difference. Either way the country is permanently finished.

A good interview with Neil Oliver in which he wonders if we were ever free: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhNoCKFDO8I