Hmmzis wrote: » The viral infection can abrogate or diminish the part of the immune response that is responsible for giving you long term protection from infection. The vaccine construct is meant to do the exact opposite, it tries to stimulate that part of the immune system as best it can. Some early 'finger in the air' estimates are putting the vaccine induced protection around the 1-3 year marker, with a subsequent booster that might become much longer (see HPV vaccine).
Deleted User wrote: » Literally the first one - consent. You can consent to them processing the data that confirms your vaccinated status for the purpose of attending an event. Otherwise you don't attend the event. They do not need to store the data for anything other than the purpose of a single event so it can be deleted immediately after. Glastonbury put your photo on your ticket, ie you consent when purchasing to provide a photo that will be used to allow you access. The same could apply here, when purchasing a ticket for an event, you consent to providing confirmation of your vaccination status.
Water John wrote: » Some may think its a daft one but 100s of dairy farmers have liquid nitrogen thermos flasks for storing semen straws. The AI companies like Dovea or Munster Bovine could easily store the vaccine regionally IWT.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » Is there any links to this? My understanding albeit it limited is that natural infeciton immunity almost always gives better immunity than vaccines. I have listened to a few people talk on this and I just keep hearing they don't know how long a vaccine immunity will last.
Common cold vaccines they reckon are pointless due to how short the vaccine immunity would last that and there are 140+ different cold viruses.
Flu has a very fast mutation turn around so flu shots are given annually.
I am trying to find information just on what you are saying that a vaccine will be better than natural infection immunity which is what you are saying.
Hmmzis wrote: » That is categorically wrong. Best examples are rabies and HPV, our immune systems can't fight those viruses at all, but we have excellent vaccines against them. In case of SARS-cov-2 this would be the best paper describing the reasons for the decaying antibody levels in most people:
Hmmzis wrote: » https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420314586
AssetBacked2 wrote: » The first reason is consent "except where Union or Member State law provide that the prohibition referred to in paragraph 1 may not be lifted by the data subject". I'm quite sure there is member state law, if not EU law, which protects people from being discriminated against in certain contexts as a result of their health status. For example; Why stop at covid? Why not also include STDs at events like Glastonbury then? You need to see the wood from the trees. There is no compelling reason to justify this type of personal data harvesting just because of covid. Additionally, where does it end; supermarkets? Public transport? Going in to your office?
Hmmzis wrote: » https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420314586https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-09-china-covid-vaccines.html
tobefrank321 wrote: » You can forget about crowds at concerts, football matches, etc until at least enough people for herd immunity are vaccinated. There's going to be no restrictions lifted on those events until that happens. The more people vaccinated the sooner we get back to normal. A large indoor concert in the 3 Arena for example would be a massive superspreader event if at least 50% aren't vaccinated. Even a 90% effective vaccine means 10% are not vaccinated which in the vulnerable group alone is a lot of people. They will depend on herd immunity. The vaccine is not a silver bullet. Its going to reduce hospitalisations and the like rather than eliminate them altogether. Only when something like 80% are vaccinated will full normality return.
Le Bruise wrote: » But if every person inside the 3 Arena/Aviva has shown that they are either vaccinated/tested negative, then they are no longer super spreader events. If we wait until we have 80% of the population vaccinated before opening up to crowds, there'll be nothing left for the crowds to go to!
tobefrank321 wrote: » Not sure a mobile vaccination unit for nursing homes would work as such units would probably only get through 2 or 3 nursing homes a day. Really you'd want nursing homes with the right refrigeration capabilities and staff trained to administer the vaccine or else a local GP or pharmacist trained. And specifically trained in the refrigeration element as without that the vaccine could be useless.
Gael23 wrote: » Could the staff nurse on duty do it?
tobefrank321 wrote: » I agree. Those who are vaccinated should be allowed go about their daily lives. Anti Vaxxers should not be allowed benefit fully from herd immunity while avoiding a vaccine, which is what they always do.
tobefrank321 wrote: » I agree. Those who are vaccinated should be allowed go about their daily lives. Anti Vaxxers should not be allowed benefit fully from herd immunity while avoiding a vaccine, which is what they always do. As for those testing negative, the only way to do that is test everyone before a concert - logistical nightmare.
Spudman_20000 wrote: » Didn't we recently have a referendum in this country in which one of the cornerstones in favour of it was body autonomy? There isn't even great uptake of the flu vaccine within healthcare workers. They must all be anti vaxxers too I guess. Good luck forcing a vaccine on people.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » Not sure the state would want to pay for the right refrigeration capabilities in every nursing home. Some are very small for what would be a very expensive piece of kit.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » I do not think these metrics are going to work without know how long a vaccine is going to last even if we take what is being said 1 - 3 years. Lets take the lower figure - A vaccine for covid is probably going to be more akin to a flu shot that might give immunity for 12 months only so every year you have the job of knowing who is vaccinated I do not see a silver bullet on the cards.
polesheep wrote: » Does it have to be a silver bullet? If vulnerable people have to be vaccinated every year that's no big deal. Most of them already get the flu vaccine yearly.
tobefrank321 wrote: Only when something like 80% are vaccinated will full normality return.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » They do which is fine but we don't have herd immunity for flu we have flu season.This was more aimed at the comment But this is not that simple 80% vaccination rate at all times? Which would mean this is not just about getting 80% of the country vaccinated but keeping 80% of the country vaccinated.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » My understanding albeit it limited is that natural infeciton immunity almost always gives better immunity than vaccines. I have listened to a few people talk on this and I just keep hearing they don't know how long a vaccine immunity will last.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » But this is not that simple 80% vaccination rate at all times? Which would mean this is not just about getting 80% of the country vaccinated but keeping 80% of the country vaccinated.
hmmm wrote: » Those are two different questions. The current front-running vaccines are producing immune responses at least as strong as "natural" infections, if not better.https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32137-1/fulltext Pfizer: "At day 21 after the first vaccine dose, geometric mean titres of RBD-specific IgG were measurable, ranging from 534 U/mL to 1778 U/mL, and were similar to, or more than, those observed in a human convalescent serum panel. " Oxford: "Humoral immune outcomes in vaccine recipients were similar to those observed in convalescent plasma from patients who had recovered from COVID-19." Moderna: "These humoral immune responses were similar to those observed in convalescent plasma from patients who had recovered from COVID-19. " Gamaleya (Russia): "with RBD ELISA titres and neutralising antibody titres equal to or more than titres observed in convalescent plasma from patients who had recovered from COVID-19. "
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » OK now that I have had time to read this. They do not provide the information alebit I do not think we have this information yet. The first link is really a study on natural immunity where it plots people fast healers and slow healers in terms of immunity decay which is interesting. But the study is pretty small. The second link just says: "Sinopharm said it anticipates the antibodies from its jab to last between one and three years—although the final result will only be known after the trials." So we don't know yet it seems!
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » But what is also being said is someone who has recovered from Covid may only see 3 months immunity which is pretty short however the vaccine is going to give people years of immunity? I am trying to understand how the vaccine is going to give a much longer immune response to actually surviving the virus.
