Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

lawred2

MacDanger wrote: »

What would you (or your wife) need to be provided with to answer these questions?

Me? I'm going to get it.

But it's a good question.

But to be fair to my wife who is actually a medical professional herself - the absence of evidence of side effects is not the same as absence of side effects. So maybe such answers won't be forthcoming in the near future.

I still think she'll get it. But is she not entitled to have any concerns, ask some questions before doing so?

MacDanger

lawred2 wrote: »

Me? I'm going to get it.

But it's a good question.

But to be fair to my wife who is actually a medical professional herself - the absence of evidence of side effects is not the same as absence of side effects. So maybe such answers won't be forthcoming in the near future.

I still think she'll get it. But is she not entitled to have any concerns?

I'm not saying anyone's not entitled to have concerns but if they can't specify what would allay those concerns then it's fair to consider those concerns irrational imo.

Edit: reposting this but one fact which may help allay concerns around the speed with which the vaccine has been developed is that part of the reason (other than the obvious massive resources allocated to it) for the reduced development time is the prevalence of the virus in the community.

For the Phase 3 trials, you give X people the vaccine and X the placebo and you need to wait for Y people (say 100) to get contract the virus - then you see how many of those 100 people got the vaccine and how many got the placebo and that tells you how effective the vaccine is. For most viruses, you might have to wait years for 100 people to contract the virus but with Covid, it's very prevalent so that waiting time is greatly reduced.

plodder

The Pandemrix problems were nearly all with children. Certainly the study done here couldn't find enough adult cases to draw any conclusions. I'm not even sure that the current vaccines are being targeted for children, but even if they are or will be, it's going to be one to two years since the first trials started before children get them. So, effects in adults, should be well apparent if there are any, by then.

At the end of the day, to see any one in a million effects, you have to give the vaccine to millions of people. There's no way around that and there never has been. It's nothing to do with the speed that the vaccines were developed.

Happydays2020

Deep Thought wrote: »

I have worked in vaccine manufacturing for 20 years.

This is what the world looks like without ONE vaccine. I know the people who have developed, manufactured and testing some Covid vaccines.

The safety of patients is our primary objective. Integrity is paramount and is how we deliver products to make people’s lives better.

You don’t want it, fine at least those of us who do will be immune to you if you have it.

Don’t denigrate a team of people who’s primary goal is to make other people’s lives better.

Well said. The reality is that some of the world’s best scientists have turned their attention to trying to find a solution to a global problem. It has been fast because we needed it to be but from what I can see all the normal checks and balances have been applied.

I would take it tomorrow if I could (have an appointment already this pm).

lawred2

MacDanger wrote: »

I'm not saying anyone's not entitled to have concerns but if they can't specify what would allay those concerns then it's fair to consider those concerns irrational imo.

Edit: reposting this but one fact which may help allay concerns around the speed with which the vaccine has been developed is that part of the reason (other than the obvious massive resources allocated to it) for the reduced development time is the prevalence of the virus in the community.

For the Phase 3 trials, you give X people the vaccine and X the placebo and you need to wait for Y people (say 100) to get contract the virus - then you see how many of those 100 people got the vaccine and how many got the placebo and that tells you how effective the vaccine is. For most viruses, you might have to wait years for 100 people to contract the virus but with Covid, it's very prevalent so that waiting time is greatly reduced.

irrational

that's kinda the unhelpful discourse I was referring to

I'd have thanked the rest of your post though

MacDanger

lawred2 wrote: »

irrational

that's kinda the unhelpful discourse I was referring to

Irrational: not logical or reasonable.

How would you describe fears that cannot be allayed?

johnire

Excuse me?

lawred2 wrote: »

mindset?

wtf

johnire

Excuse me?

lawred2 wrote: »

mindset?

wtf

lawred2

Happydays2020 wrote: »

Well said. The reality is that some of the world’s best scientists have turned their attention to trying to find a solution to a global problem. It has been fast because we needed it to be but from what I can see all the normal checks and balances have been applied.

I would take it tomorrow if I could (have an appointment already this pm).

Is it actually available for taking already?

lawred2

MacDanger wrote: »

Irrational: not logical or reasonable.

How would you describe fears that cannot be allayed?

You claimed that they couldn't be allayed.

I never did. Not once.

josip

Criticism of those who want to wait a few months/a year before getting a vaccine seems a bit moot anyway.
The only 3 companies that have released interim results expect to be able to make 1.3 billion doses between them before the end of 2021.
That's enough for 650 million people globally.
Other vaccines will undoubtedly also be approved over coming months, but their large scale production will be starting later.
If you're not high risk, I don't expect someone in the EU to be getting the vaccine before Q3 2021 and probably Q4.

MacDanger

lawred2 wrote: »

You claimed that they couldn't be allayed.

I never did. Not once.

I didn't claim that they couldn't be allayed. The statement I made (which was labelled as unhelpful) was this:

I'm not saying anyone's not entitled to have concerns but if they can't specify what would allay those concerns then it's fair to consider those concerns irrational imo.

So if people have concerns and can say what they would need to allay them, then they are not irrational.

If people with such concerns however cannot say would be needed to allay these concerns, then it's they who are being "unhelpful"

ixoy

ixoy wrote: »

Because not everyone can take the vaccine so there's an element of collective responsibility to help them as there is with many vaccine programs.

I agree there is a collective responsibility.

There are an awful lot of people who believe that some childhood vaccines should be mandatory and unvaccinated children should not be allowed attend schools, creches etc....

I don't see what the difference is here with a covid vaccine.

If you have a genuine medical reason why you cannot be vaccinated, (as with some kids) then that is fair enough.

But if you don't, and you refuse to be vaccinated, then you should definately not be allowed access to places where there may be vulnerable people, e.g. hosptials, nursing homes etc, without a negative test - at your own expense - first.

Thats my thoughts on it.

ELM327

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

We might soon have an 8th reason. At present unvaccinated people face no restrictions. As I said unless a vaccine becomes mandatory I can an issue if service providers act unilaterally.

It will not be an issue.

No vaccine no entry. Same as other entry conditions.


And there's also no chance of anti vaccination idiots being added as a protected group.

Akrasia

KyussB wrote: »

That's not really how risk analysis works. You don't take a gamble in the first place, when you don't have to. All that people who are worried about the potential effects of the vaccine(s) need to do, is wait longer to see how it affects those who do take it, and minimize risk to themselves in the meantime.

Vaccine's take more than a decade to be developed, approved and rolled out safely. These current ones haven't even had a year.

There is a gamble either way. If you don't take the vaccine, you have a much higher chance of gettin the virus yourself and suffering some of the debilitating effects of having the virus, or passing it to someone you care about who may be badly affected.

If there is a .1% chance that unvaccinated, you get the virus and get suffer long term consequences, and there is a 0.001% chance that you suffer similar consequences from an adverse reaction to the vaccine, then it is rational to take the vaccine

As I said before, with a mass rollout of this vaccine, even if only 1 in a million people suffer severe adverse reactions, this is 8 thousand people world wide, or enough people for conspiracy theorists and anti vaccers to point at as proof that the vaccine is not safe

Meanwhile, the vaccine is saving hundreds of thousands of people from dying, and millions more from suffering serious illness with long term consequences for their health, not to mention the huge economic consequences

The 'Wait and see' approach is unscientific and cowardly. The vaccines have gone through safety trials, and they have been deemed as safe

The Belly

Russman wrote: »

What, if anything, would convince you corners weren't cut ? Genuinely curious. Its hard to prove a negative.
I've no idea myself, but I take the view that, given the scale of the problem and the focus on it, companies will be very wary of being seen to do something iffy. Especially with all the "at risk" manufacturing going on, and all their competitors trying to come up with the same thing. It'd be ruinous for a company to be caught at anything in this case I think.

So as long as the companies break even and can cover up to the max claim allowed they are at no loss should it have to be recalled and claims were taken.

If it works without problems then they will make billions as we have been told covid will be around in one form or another for the future so it means more vaccines and boosters etc.

Make no mistake pharma companies are not charities regardless of what horse sh.t the MSM spouts

If they were sure of the vaccine safety they are rushing through they would have not looked for indemnification from the governments.

Hector Savage

MrStuffins wrote: »

I will eventually, but not at first. I'm young and healthy, certainly not in the high risk bracket.

Let the at-risk take it first, make sure they're safe, and then the rest can take it.

Personally, i'll be waiting to see if there are any effects in others before I take it. I've taken many other vaccines but those were all different in that they had been around a long time. This, being brand new, I can wait.

100% agree, but this seems to be an "anti vaxxer" position on here ...

Hector Savage

Delta2113 wrote: »

-And to hell with my family,close friends, the rest off society -nice one.

And every year people die of the flu, and that is spread by people out and about - nothing is said of this though - get it in perspective.

ELM327

Hector Savage wrote: »

100% agree, but this seems to be an "anti vaxxer" position on here ...

Well it's a position of not taking the vaccine, so yes it is anti vax

antimatterx

Call me Al wrote: »

I take it they are in the 70+ age group?
Have they been cocooning to date? Do they expect they will have to continue with that indefinitely?
I'd love to know what they expect can change for them if they choose not to vaccinate themselves. I expect that once the vaccination rollout begins those who aren't vulnerable will begin to forget about the restrictions.

They are in their lates 40s/early 50s.

lawred2

MacDanger wrote: »

I didn't claim that they couldn't be allayed. The statement I made (which was labelled as unhelpful) was this:



So if people have concerns and can say what they would need to allay them, then they are not irrational.

If people with such concerns however cannot say would be needed to allay these concerns, then it's they who are being "unhelpful"

That's fair enough.

So she's somewhat worried about hitherto unknown side effects. What in the trials do you believe has eliminated such fears to such an extent as to render them irrational?

hmmm

josip wrote: »

The only 3 companies that have released interim results expect to be able to make 1.3 billion doses between them before the end of 2021.

Moderna & Pfizer are aiming for 1.3 billion each in 2021.

Astra Zeneca are aiming for 3 billion doses in 2021. 700 million by end Q1 2021.

These will be here quicker than we think.

Hector Savage

ELM327 wrote: »

Well it's a position of not taking the vaccine, so yes it is anti vax

Stop!

It's not anti vax, it's being cautious to a new vaccine, I and my boys have all the regular vaccines, anti vaxxers are against ALL vaccinations, I am 100% in favour of vaccines that have gone through proper safety trials.

These have been rushed, no matter what way you look at it, vaccines usually take the best part of a decade to develop.

This started development in February.

Irish Aris

MacDanger wrote: »

I didn't claim that they couldn't be allayed. The statement I made (which was labelled as unhelpful) was this:



So if people have concerns and can say what they would need to allay them, then they are not irrational.

If people with such concerns however cannot say would be needed to allay these concerns, then it's they who are being "unhelpful"

Not sure if lawred's concerns fall under the same category, but personal observation (by talking to friends) and personal concern would be that we can't know if there are any long term negative side effects. The reality is though that we can't know that - not now anyway.
Having said that, my plan would be to get the vaccine when it becomes available. Is there a risk that there might be long term side effects? Yes, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. My line of thinking (which could be completely wrong) is that these vaccines, though developed in a small period of time, probably use knowledge from previous coronaviruses or rhinoviruses researchers, so I consider the risk a bit low.
Another important reason for considering the vaccine earlier than later is my lifestyle. I'm going frequently to concerts, cinema and theatre and I play table tennis, therefore I spend time indoors with people I don't know. Thus I consider the vaccine a means to protect myself from catching the virus - and at the same time have a peace of mind that I'm not contagious.

Anyway, this is my 2 cents on this.

ELM327

Hector Savage wrote: »

Stop!

It's not anti vax, it's being cautious to a new vaccine, I and my boys have all the regular vaccines, anti vaxxers are against ALL vaccinations, I am 100% in favour of vaccines that have gone through proper safety trials.

These have been rushed, no matter what way you look at it, vaccines usually take the best part of a decade to develop.

This started development in February.

Stop!


Coronaviruses are not new, nor is vaccination against them.
Vaccinations have been given to cattle for decades against known coronaviruses.


This may be "rushed" but clinical trials are there for a reason. If they are approved and pass stage three trials then they are safe and you have no reason to avoid the vaccine beyond anti vax nonsense.

ixoy

Hector Savage wrote: »

These have been rushed, no matter what way you look at it, vaccines usually take the best part of a decade to develop.

That may be but they don't have to. This development is running at optimal - and that doesn't mean corner cutting - speed due to the severity of the pandemic.

This started development in February.

Not true either. Here's an article from the BBC on this which is well worth a read as it's specifically about how they got the Oxford vaccine so fast.

titan18

Akrasia wrote: »

There is a gamble either way. If you don't take the vaccine, you have a much higher chance of gettin the virus yourself and suffering some of the debilitating effects of having the virus, or passing it to someone you care about who may be badly affected.

If there is a .1% chance that unvaccinated, you get the virus and get suffer long term consequences, and there is a 0.001% chance that you suffer similar consequences from an adverse reaction to the vaccine, then it is rational to take the vaccine

As I said before, with a mass rollout of this vaccine, even if only 1 in a million people suffer severe adverse reactions, this is 8 thousand people world wide, or enough people for conspiracy theorists and anti vaccers to point at as proof that the vaccine is not safe

Meanwhile, the vaccine is saving hundreds of thousands of people from dying, and millions more from suffering serious illness with long term consequences for their health, not to mention the huge economic consequences

The 'Wait and see' approach is unscientific and cowardly. The vaccines have gone through safety trials, and they have been deemed as safe

Think of the wide range of existing drugs out there that people take. Has the vaccine been tested for any adverse interactions with those drugs? Why take a chance when you can wait, and likely will have to wait when more at risk people get vaccinated.

I'm not anti vax at all, I've taken flu vaccines this year and previous years, but I'm still not rushing into taking this one. Give it a few months and when everything is fine, grand.

Plumbthedepths

ELM327 wrote: »

It will not be an issue.

No vaccine no entry. Same as other entry conditions.


And there's also no chance of anti vaccination idiots being added as a protected group.

You seem so sure of yourself. Already Aer Lingus and RA have stated vaccination will not be a requirement to fly.
I find it amusing the intolerance in display.
I have already stated I will take a vaccine but I won't be in a rush.
Will businesses also turn away those for various reasons who cannot take a vaccine? Genuine question as you seem confident in your reply.

lbj666

titan18 wrote: »

Think of the wide range of existing drugs out there that people take. Has the vaccine been tested for any adverse interactions with those drugs? Why take a chance when you can wait, and likely will have to wait when more at risk people get vaccinated.

I'm not anti vax at all, I've taken flu vaccines this year and previous years, but I'm still not rushing into taking this one. Give it a few months and when everything is fine, grand.

Does every permutation of medication someone is on get trialled before the new flu vaccine everyyear

MacDanger

lawred2 wrote: »

That's fair enough.

So she's somewhat worried about hitherto unknown side effects. What in the trials do you believe has eliminated such fears to such an extent as to render them irrational?

The trials conducted to date haven't eliminated all risk, they're not designed to.

What trial would your wife like to see completed that would reduce this risk to an acceptable level? If the answer from her is "I don't know" then her position is irrational because she holds a concern that nobody can allay and that's simply illogical