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.
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.
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.
El Sueño wrote: » Once the vulnerable are vaccinated and hospitalisations and deaths fall off a cliff there'll be no need for restrictions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
celt262 wrote: » Is there any data on this ?
El Weirdo wrote: » This wonderful professor got a name?
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 himhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Crisanti_(scientist)
tobefrank321 wrote: » I'm beginning to wonder where or how a lot of these professors got their qualifications.
Irish Stones wrote: » What's wrong with his qualifications?
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » He is qualified for messing with mosquitos. That's all well and good but not really relevant for coronavirus.
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?
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
is_that_so wrote: » That will be delivered to government by December 11 I believe, by the task force.
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.
El Sueño wrote: » Not good enough.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0ec48fe92b0cf92f5cdae52d3485d794.svg)
