nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures Megathread [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Masala

Today being Paddy Day 2020... when do you think we will have a ‘flu jab’ / pill / syrup that we can take to make us immune/ les likely to catch this 19 virus?.

Mod: The purpose of this thread is baked into the title - COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures - it's not a platform to push an anti vaccination agenda. If posters wish to discuss the perceived cons of vaccinations, or push various theories regarding 'the agenda' (whatever that is supposed to mean), open a thread elsewhere on it.

Threadbanned Users:
3xh
Dr.Frost
kingbhome
nannerbenahs
skooterblue2
Fodla
Caraibh
drunkmonkey
lawrencesummers
Howard Beale

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Harry Palmr

Might be time for a new thread with a better, up to date poll and options.

With talk about highest risk groups here getting the chance before Christmas this is suddenly a pressing matter.

jackboy

funnydoggy wrote: »

Got the flu jab in Boots today. She said it wasn't common for people my age (30) to get the vaccine, they usually dismiss the idea.

I'd imagine it'll be different with COVID, but damn I didn't really know it was so uncommon. I knew some people would turn away from it but I'm in a bubble where my friends all would get vaccinated.

A high profile well respected doctor came into my workplace last year to give us talk on various health issues. He said the flu vaccine should only be taken by the medically vulnerable and the elderly. He said healthy people should never ever take the flu vaccine. I thought it was strange what he was saying, he didn’t elaborate.

leahyl

funnydoggy wrote: »

Got the flu jab in Boots today. She said it wasn't common for people my age (30) to get the vaccine, they usually dismiss the idea.

I'd imagine it'll be different with COVID, but damn I didn't really know it was so uncommon. I knew some people would turn away from it but I'm in a bubble where my friends all would get vaccinated.

I’m 35 - got the flu vaccine for the first time 2 weeks ago!

stephenjmcd

Cork2021 wrote: »

Just reading up on what Hancock was saying in his press conference.
The way he’s talking it’s the oxford vaccine that’ll get them over the line going forward. That’s my taking from it. They’d only get a couple of million of any of the Pfizer vaccine come approval?
You’d think they’ll fast track approval especially when it’s there own medical agency doing the reviews

They get 30 million from Pfizer and Hancock said in his press conference that they've started the rolling review

Gradius

I'm fairly resigned to wearing a mask for at least another year, whatever anyone says about it whether government or not.

Reading more into the vaccine development makes me, personally, hesitant.

A case of "after you" kinda thing, thanks.

How they intend these rna vaccines to be effective long term is a big question, both socially and scientifically. The amount of challenges ahead is quite simply brain-spinning.

They better pray there isn't some unintended kink in immunomodulation, because if there is it's going to change the entire landscape of practical medicine for decades.

And that's what leads me to the basic precaution, wear masks whether you're around vaccinated or unvaccinated next year.

Harry Palmr

funnydoggy wrote: »

Got the flu jab in Boots today. She said it wasn't common for people my age (30) to get the vaccine, they usually dismiss the idea.

So you're not a nurse then!

Duke of Url

The numbers and UK are fantasy considering the have no idea when vaccines will be delivered and how many they will receive in each batch.

Micky 32

I see MM being interviewed there on the tv. Seemed to have a positive spin on the vaccine, hoping to be back at matches in the coming year ( if i heard it correctly).

froog

i'm just going to assume we're going to f*ck up something about the vaccine program then i won't be disappointed and may be pleasantly surprised if we don't. kind of like watching ireland in the soccer.

wadacrack

froog wrote: »

i'm just going to assume we're going to f*ck up something about the vaccine program then i won't be disappointed and may be pleasantly surprised if we don't. kind of like watching ireland in the soccer.

I think the HSE will wait and see how it goes first in other countries ie. UK and US . That's the impression I'm getting. I expect a very cautious approach

Storm 10

On Sky the UK hope to have every citizen vaccanited by March next year

froog

wadacrack wrote: »

I think the HSE will wait and see how it goes first in other countries ie. UK and US . That's the impression I'm getting. I expect a very cautious approach

the refrigeration requirement has banana skin written all over it.

Gradius

Storm 10 wrote: »

On Sky the UK hope to have every citizen vaccanited by March next year

Never going to happen, forced or otherwise.

Just look at the poll on this thread for one reason why.

mean gene

Storm 10 wrote: »

On Sky the UK hope to have every citizen vaccanited by March next year

good to see the premiership with fans again I presume paddy will be in the bar socially distanced without a vaccine

opinionated3

wadacrack wrote: »

I think the HSE will wait and see how it goes first in other countries ie. UK and US . That's the impression I'm getting. I expect a very cautious approach

If they are too cautious, surely that will cause even more delay/ irreparable damage to reopening business and the economy as a whole? I would have thought the government would want this rolled out ASAP?

Call me Al

Gradius wrote: »

Never going to happen, forced or otherwise.

Just look at the poll on this thread for one reason why.

This poll was initiated last March.

A lot of water has passed under the bridge for most households since then i would imagine.

Gradius

Call me Al wrote: »

This poll was initiated last March.

A lot of water has passed under the bridge for most households since then i would imagine.

I highly doubt there has been any significant change in opinion regarding a new vaccine at this scale and speed. That's just one problem.

When you're talking about, essentially, vaccinating the entire human race with an rna vaccine, the law of unintended consequences simply must be considered.

I'm expecting compliance with the vaccine program to top out around 50 to 55% for the first year, and even if nothing goes wrong scientifically, I'd expect lots of civil unrest as carrots and sticks are used.

Not to mention the problems of opening everything up again with a sub-optimal take up. Sure you can ban people from getting on planes, but what about immunocompromised people? Are they stuck like this forever? So many questions!

A million caveats and if's and but's and maybe's, and then the unknown too. This time next year is probably going to be wild

Responder XY

funnydoggy wrote: »

Got the flu jab in Boots today. She said it wasn't common for people my age (30) to get the vaccine, they usually dismiss the idea.

I'd imagine it'll be different with COVID, but damn I didn't really know it was so uncommon. I knew some people would turn away from it but I'm in a bubble where my friends all would get vaccinated.

I think a lot would - but we are not in the grouping encouraged to get it and there are not enough vaccines for those who actually need it. In that circumstance I think a 30-something with no underlying conditions is a bit irresponsible using one up.

hmmm

Gradius wrote: »

When you're talking about, essentially, vaccinating the entire human race with an rna vaccine, the law of unintended consequences simply must be considered.

I love the way people who are trying to talk down vaccines keep saying things like "RNA vaccine". Because that's meant to sound scary although I'm sure the vast majority have no idea what that even means. But it's a rna vaccine you know. RNA. It's like 5G, 5G RNA.

Stark

hmmm wrote: »

I love the way people who are trying to talk down vaccines keep saying things like "RNA vaccine". Because that's meant to sound scary although I'm sure the vast majority have no idea what that even means. But it's a rna vaccine you know. RNA. It's like 5G, 5G RNA.

Thank god the actual virus has none of that nasty "RNA" stuff or risk of hijacking cellular machinery.

hmmm

Responder XY wrote: »

I think a lot would - but we are not in the grouping encouraged to get it and there are not enough vaccines for those who actually need it. In that circumstance I think a 30-something with no underlying conditions is a bit irresponsible using one up.

At this stage if someone who is in a vulnerable group has not got a vaccine that's their problem. People who aren't directly vulnerable are doing the right thing by getting vaccinated as it will increase overall herd immunity.

hmmm

Stark wrote: »

Thank god the actual virus has none of that nasty "RNA" stuff or risk of hijacking cellular machinery.

The virus doesn't use RNA, it's completely natural.

Gradius

hmmm wrote: »

I love the way people who are trying to talk down vaccines keep saying things like "RNA vaccine". Because that's meant to sound scary although I'm sure the vast majority have no idea what that even means. But it's a rna vaccine you know. RNA. It's like 5G, 5G RNA.

For example, the possibility of a spontaneous reverse transcriptase originating via simple proximity to the nucleome, not merely conveniently staying put in the cytoplasm is a possibility considering the sheer number of people involved. Unlikely, but when talking about literally every human, potentially, it must be considered.

There, is that sufficiently complicated to scare you? Do you even realise the ramifications of such a thing?

And that's an extreme outlier. Puuhhhlenty more to choose from that are perhaps even likely, nevermind 50/50

jackboy

Gradius wrote: »

For example, the possibility of a spontaneous reverse transcriptase originating via simple proximity to the nucleome, not merely conveniently staying put in the cytoplasm is a possibility considering the sheer number of people involved. Unlikely, but when talking about literally every human, potentially, it must be considered.

There, is that sufficiently complicated to scare you? Do you even realise the ramifications of such a thing?

What are the ramifications?

hmmm

Gradius wrote: »

There, is that sufficiently complicated to scare you? Do you even realise the ramifications of such a thing?

What I see is someone throwing out phrases to make themselves sound clever. "spontaneous reverse transcriptase originating via simple proximity to the nucleome" is the same as "rna vaccine", just an attempt to scare people by sounding informed. I know the tactic, it doesn't impress me. If you have somehow cracked the code which means that all the scientists in all the companies and universities and institutes working on vaccines are wrong good for you - but I doubt it, and you can't explain yourself either.

BTW I think you meant "nucleosome" and not "nucleome".

[Deleted User]

hmmm wrote: »

The virus doesn't use RNA, it's completely natural.

The virus is an RNA virus

Gradius

jackboy wrote: »

What are the ramifications?

Replication, simply enough. There is an observed cytokine over reaction that results in multi organ failure with the virus, so that's just one of many.

hmmm

Deleted User wrote: »

The virus is an RNA virus

Sorry I was joking

Denny61

Has anyone thought about the situation that will arise when our front line workers and elderly are given the vaccine first..are they told that now they can leave off their ppe .masks visors Gowns gloves .and hand sanitiser no longer be necessary. Cos first of all if they do that. We will not know if they will have a immunity built up towards the vaccine and plus if they are still then told to leave on the ppe ..we will then not know if they have the immunity built up as they are not open to the virus cos they have all the protection on..this is the scenario that awaits us

Gradius

hmmm wrote: »

What I see is someone throwing out phrases to make themselves sound clever. "spontaneous reverse transcriptase originating via simple proximity to the nucleome" is the same as "rna vaccine", just an attempt to scare people by sounding informed. I know the tactic, it doesn't impress me. If you have somehow cracked the code which means that all the scientists in all the companies and universities and institutes working on vaccines are wrong good for you - but I doubt it, and you can't explain yourself either.

BTW I think you meant "nucleosome" and not "nucleome".

Throwing out phrases, tactics, scaring people...

Pray tell, is your credibility earned by people saying what you want to hear? That's rhetorical as this will go nowhere.

Believe what you like, that's science these days.