Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…237238240242243…325

Comments

  • Options
    #7172
    tobefrank321
    Registered Users Posts: 4,470 ✭✭✭tobefrank321


    Sconsey wrote: »
    You're right, it's all about those healthy people, as long as they are ok then balls to everyone else.

    I hope you won't be one of the people moaning about endless restrictions as the pandemic drags on into the future because the 'reasonably healthy' are too selfish to get vaccinated.

    I don't think he's speaking for himself, more for others and his points are perfectly valid, whether you agree with them or not.

    There will be reluctance to a vaccine in some quarters - you cannot control what people think.

    So, if people think a 70% vaccine may still leave them susceptible to infection, that could be a deal breaker for some.

    I've seen a large amount of people say "I will take the vaccine but I'm going to wait a year first to see if there are side effects". You can see the obvious fallacy here in this mindset, but it does exist.

    And there is a strong resistance to the vaccine in many countries such as the US. They may struggle to get to 70% take up within the first year. Which will leave them in trouble for that year.


  • Options
    #7173
    funnydoggy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭funnydoggy


    Irish Stones wrote: »
    Why not? His opinion is worth a lot, given his importance in the control and tracing of the pandemic in this country.
    He had been praised when back in March he was able to do miracles and his peers said he was the best we had, and now he's been dumped by his peers for his opinion.
    It seems that as long as you comform with the thought of the majority, all is well and you're a hero, and as soon as you say something out of the common thought, you lose your value.

    I know how it is. I'm one of the people who think our restrictions are too tough, but I'm not getting into that here. It's a science thread. The trials have been done, and all requisite data is ready for the associated bodies in charge of vaccine approval & rollout. If they're approved (and I'd do a charity bet on it), I can *guarantee* that professor will take it.


  • Options
    #7174
    Irish Stones
    Registered Users Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭Irish Stones


    El Sueño wrote: »
    Well the last time you quoted one of these professors he said there'd be no vaccine until 2023. About two hours later Pfizer made their announcement so forgive me if I don't pay any heed to the people you're quoting.


    Forget about me for just a moment. The point is that if people (not me, just the millions others) listened to him on TV from home, many of them might follow his example/suggestion/whatever you want to call it, be it right or wrong, doesn't matter. Because he's so highly regarded, chances are that a number of persons won't take the vaccine because he said it's not good.

    Add to this the fact that it will take a couple of years to give a shot to a good part of the population who really wants to have the vaccine and wants to ignore the nonsense of the same professor.

    The result is that by the end of 2021, my country will be only halfway through the vaccination plan.
    How this could be take us to the normal in 12 months, when most part of the population isn't covered by the vaccine is what I wonder.
    If a country, or more than one, in the continent faces the same route, moving safely across it won't be feasible.


  • Options
    #7175
    Sconsey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    tobefrank321 wrote: »
    I don't think he's speaking for himself, more for others and his points are perfectly valid, whether you agree with them or not.

    There will be reluctance to a vaccine in some quarters - you cannot control what people think.

    So, if people think a 70% vaccine may still leave them susceptible to infection, that could be a deal breaker for some.

    I've seen a large amount of people say "I will take the vaccine but I'm going to wait a year first to see if there are side effects". You can see the obvious fallacy here in this mindset, but it does exist.

    And there is a strong resistance to the vaccine in many countries such as the US. They may struggle to get to 70% take up within the first year. Which will leave them in trouble for that year.

    Yeah I agree. I do think that anyone that wants to make a song and dance next year about not being able to go to the pub should be told to f**k off if they are refusing to get vaccinated.


  • Options
    #7176
    Deeper Blue
    Registered Users Posts: 7,662 ✭✭✭Deeper Blue


    Irish Stones wrote: »
    Forget about me for just a moment. The point is that if people (not me, just the millions others) listened to him on TV from home, many of them might follow his example/suggestion/whatever you want to call it, be it right or wrong, doesn't matter. Because he's so highly regarded, chances are that a number of persons won't take the vaccine because he said it's not good.

    Add to this the fact that it will take a couple of years to give a shot to a good part of the population who really wants to have the vaccine and wants to ignore the nonsense of the same professor.

    The result is that by the end of 2021, my country will be only halfway through the vaccination plan.
    How this could be take us to the normal in 12 months, when most part of the population isn't covered by the vaccine is what I wonder.
    If a country, or more than one, in the continent faces the same route, moving safely across it won't be feasible.

    Once the vulnerable are vaccinated and hospitalisations and deaths fall off a cliff there'll be no need for restrictions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7177
    tobefrank321
    Registered Users Posts: 4,470 ✭✭✭tobefrank321


    El Sueño wrote: »
    Once the vulnerable are vaccinated and hospitalisations and deaths fall off a cliff there'll be no need for restrictions.

    Yes, that's probably true, although only if its a highly effective vaccine for the vulnerable. If they use a 90% effective one, that will be a great start.


  • Options
    #7178
    Micky 32
    Registered Users Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    tobefrank321 wrote: »
    Yes, that's probably true, although only if its a highly effective vaccine for the vulnerable. If they use a 90% effective one, that will be a great start.

    We have 2 upcoming vaccines 90% plus, so shouldn’t be a problem.


  • Options
    #7179
    Micky 32
    Registered Users Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    Sconsey wrote: »
    Yeah I agree. I do think that anyone that wants to make a song and dance next year about not being able to go to the pub should be told to f**k off if they are refusing to get vaccinated.

    Lets hope the vaccines also prevent people from being contagious carriers of the virus so at least people who take the vaccines can start living normally again.


  • Options
    #7180
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Irish Stones wrote: »
    Unfortunately, he's the most regarged virologist in this country, he has a remarkable experience in this field and was taken as an example at the beginning of the pandemic even in other parts of the planet, and chances are that most of us will follow his example, leading to a non completed plan of vaccinations within the year, unless something safer (in his highly regarded opinion) comes up later in 2021.
    Irish Stones wrote: »
    Why not? His opinion is worth a lot, given his importance in the control and tracing of the pandemic in this country.
    He had been praised when back in March he was able to do miracles and his peers said he was the best we had, and now he's been dumped by his peers for his opinion.
    Irish Stones wrote: »
    The point is that if people (not me, just the millions others) listened to him on TV from home, many of them might follow his example/suggestion/whatever you want to call it, be it right or wrong, doesn't matter. Because he's so highly regarded, chances are that a number of persons won't take the vaccine because he said it's not good.
    This wonderful professor got a name?


  • Options
    #7181
    celt262
    Registered Users Posts: 3,418 ✭✭✭celt262


    Micky 32 wrote: »
    Lets hope the vaccines also prevent people from being contagious carriers of the virus so at least people who take the vaccines can start living normally again.

    Is there any data on this ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7182
    Hmmzis
    Registered Users Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭Hmmzis


    celt262 wrote: »
    Is there any data on this ?

    Only a statement from Oxford that they observed less asymptomatic infections in their trial:

    https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-23-oxford-university-breakthrough-global-covid-19-vaccine


  • Options
    #7183
    Irish Stones
    Registered Users Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭Irish Stones


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    This wonderful professor got a name?

    Yes, Andrea Crisanti.
    I am aware that to an English-speaking person's ear the name Andrea might remind of a woman, but actually in our language it's a male name, stands for Andrew, as you can figure it out.

    I think that this link might give you a glimpse on him
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Crisanti_(scientist)


  • Options
    #7184
    tobefrank321
    Registered Users Posts: 4,470 ✭✭✭tobefrank321


    I'm beginning to wonder where or how a lot of these professors got their qualifications.


  • Options
    #7185
    Deeper Blue
    Registered Users Posts: 7,662 ✭✭✭Deeper Blue


    Irish Stones wrote: »
    Yes, Andrea Crisanti.
    I am aware that to an English-speaking person's ear the name Andrea might remind of a woman, but actually in our language it's a male name, stands for Andrew, as you can figure it out.

    I think that this link might give you a glimpse on him
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Crisanti_(scientist)

    Thanks for that, hopefully that's the last we hear of him in this thread


  • Options
    #7186
    Irish Stones
    Registered Users Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭Irish Stones


    tobefrank321 wrote: »
    I'm beginning to wonder where or how a lot of these professors got their qualifications.


    What's wrong with his qualifications?


  • Options
    #7187
    Deeper Blue
    Registered Users Posts: 7,662 ✭✭✭Deeper Blue


    Irish Stones wrote: »
    What's wrong with his qualifications?

    The guy is obviously clueless and I can't be the only one that doesn't want to hear his nonsense opinions.


  • Options
    #7188
    CIARAN_BOYLE
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    tobefrank321 wrote: »
    I'm beginning to wonder where or how a lot of these professors got their qualifications.

    He is qualified for messing with mosquitos. That's all well and good but not really relevant for coronavirus.


  • Options
    #7189
    jackboy
    Registered Users Posts: 4,519 ✭✭✭jackboy


    CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »
    He is qualified for messing with mosquitos. That's all well and good but not really relevant for coronavirus.

    Do you hate him because he is unqualified or because he holds a different opinion to you.


  • Options
    #7190
    tobefrank321
    Registered Users Posts: 4,470 ✭✭✭tobefrank321


    Irish Stones wrote: »
    Yes, Andrea Crisanti.
    I am aware that to an English-speaking person's ear the name Andrea might remind of a woman, but actually in our language it's a male name, stands for Andrew, as you can figure it out.

    I think that this link might give you a glimpse on him
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Crisanti_(scientist)

    I read his profile and while it seems impressive, he has no background in vaccine development, so to use his reputation to cast doubt on vaccines which he knows little about, is irresponsible.


  • Options
    #7191
    Hmmzis
    Registered Users Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭Hmmzis


    On a lighter Friday note, Prof. Adrian Hill from Oxford answering some questions about the ChAdOx1 vaccine interim results and other related topics:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhTcofDqOw&feature=youtu.be&t=1250

    We might have a published version of the interim results next week if the unnamed journal reviewer and editors can make it happen.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7192
    Micky 32
    Registered Users Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    I see prof Horgan downplaying the vaccines, just merely tools along with our behaviours. If this vaccine doesn’t work expect the rest of our lives to be just as an existence while listening to George Lee and the taiseacht with his Friday speeches on what we can’t do, f*****g depressing future...


  • Options
    #7193
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    Press briefings going on for at least an hour now and I'm only half listening tbh



    Since 6pm have these wasters mentioned a single thing about a rollout plan?


  • Options
    #7194
    ACitizenErased
    Registered Users Posts: 11,641 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    Does anyone know what the story is with the EMA now? Are we close to an EUA?
    Seems to be like we're in a bit of an unknown period now


  • Options
    #7195
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    Press briefings going on for at least an hour now and I'm only half listening tbh



    Since 6pm have these wasters mentioned a single thing about a rollout plan?
    That will be delivered to government by December 11 I believe, by the task force.


  • Options
    #7196
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    ACitizenErased wrote: »
    Does anyone know what the story is with the EMA now? Are we close to an EUA?
    Seems to be like we're in a bit of an unknown period now
    Here's a link from a couple of days ago.

    "Reviewing the data and optimistic of a decision before Christmas!"

    https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1125/1180439-coronavirus-vaccines/


  • Options
    #7197
    Deeper Blue
    Registered Users Posts: 7,662 ✭✭✭Deeper Blue


    is_that_so wrote: »
    That will be delivered to government by December 11 I believe, by the task force.


    A rollout plan should have been delivered the same week that Pfizer made their announcement.

    That was 3 weeks ago, and it'll be another 2 weeks before the task force deliver it to government?

    Not good enough.


  • Options
    #7198
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    El Sueño wrote: »
    A rollout plan should have been delivered the same week that Pfizer made their announcement.

    That was 3 weeks ago, and it'll be another 2 weeks before the task force deliver it to government?

    Not good enough.
    They set it up on Nov 11 and the HSE/DoH had some preliminary planning going on from August.


  • Options
    #7199
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    El Sueño wrote: »

    Not good enough.


    100%

    Nothing mentioned about it and they've been prattling on for 90 mins?

    Disgraceful


  • Options
    #7200
    ACitizenErased
    Registered Users Posts: 11,641 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    El Sueño wrote: »
    A rollout plan should have been delivered the same week that Pfizer made their announcement.

    That was 3 weeks ago, and it'll be another 2 weeks before the task force deliver it to government?

    Not good enough.
    But they're meeting!!! is that not good enough for us peasants


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7201
    froog
    Registered Users Posts: 3,784 ✭✭✭froog


    did people miss this or something?

    https://twitter.com/davidmurphyRTE/status/1332387942799650816


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement