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

daydorunrun

JTMan wrote: »

The US said that they would have 100 million vaccinated using the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines by the end of Feb. This stat excludes Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccines which both could produce results by January and get FCA approval by early February. Hence, there could be a lot more than 100 million vaccinated by the end of Feb. (Source).

The crisis in the US should be significantly reduced by March and over by May as the Head of Operation Warp Speed has said.

I wonder what the current view on immunity post infection? If people who have been infected do indeed receive some immunity countries like the US with high infection rates, together with vaccination programmes, I wonder could they perhaps get back to normal quicker than places like Oz, Nz and even ourselves?

carq

Surely the U.K's bullishness is for everyone's benefit?

Sit back and watch the results of their mass vaccine roll out and see how effective it is.
Beats lab testing and trials !

leahyl

Just reading an article on RTE this morning and Dr Margaret Harris from WHO says this "She said the vaccine will be an immune barrier, but it will not stop the transmission for a long time unless we continue with the public health guidelines."

Eh what? How long do we have to continue with masks and social distancing even after we get the vaccine and are protected?? It sounds like it's indefinite from that statement?

odyssey06

leahyl wrote: »

Just reading an article on RTE this morning and Dr Margaret Harris from WHO says this "She said the vaccine will be an immune barrier, but it will not stop the transmission for a long time unless we continue with the public health guidelines."
Eh what? How long do we have to continue with masks and social distancing even after we get the vaccine and are protected?? It sounds like it's indefinite from that statement?

I would assume the 'long time' is the time for enough people to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity \ block community transmission.

leahyl

odyssey06 wrote: »

I would assume the 'long time' is the time for enough people to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity \ block community transmission.

Ok thanks.....whenever that will be! Hopefully sometime in May/June....

drunkmonkey

If a vaccine is 95%/100% effective, why is it necessary to have 70% of the population vaccinated, surely the at risk and anyone else that wants it is enough.

What Username Guidelines

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If a vaccine is 95%/100% effective, why is it necessary to have 70% of the population vaccinated, surely the at risk and anyone else that wants it is enough.

Not everyone else that wants it can get it. By hitting 70% threshold, it becomes very difficult and far less likely to run into someone who is infectious.

ixoy

odyssey06 wrote: »

I would assume the 'long time' is the time for enough people to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity \ block community transmission.

Yep. It's to stop people who do get vaccinated from becoming too complacent and risk infecting those yet to be vaccinated until we reach a certain threshold that will cover enough that those can't be vaccinated are protected.

lbj666

leahyl wrote: »

Ok thanks.....whenever that will be! Hopefully sometime in May/June....

Herd immunity isnt going to happen over night once say 60%-70% of the population are vacinated.

dominatinMC

leahyl wrote: »

Just reading an article on RTE this morning...

Well, that's your first problem right there! :pac:

iguana

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If a vaccine is 95%/100% effective, why is it necessary to have 70% of the population vaccinated, surely the at risk and anyone else that wants it is enough.

Why does it feel like the same handful of posters are constantly asking the same questions every few days and ignoring the answers?

dominatinMC

Gael23 wrote: »

The U.K. are just doing it to be first really

And I would say more power to them. There is a lot of cynicism and skepticism - even condescension - exhibitied by our media towards the UK government. Some are implying there was political will to get this approval over the line first but, ultimately, we have to trust the integrity of the UK regulators, and assume they did their job.
In any case, I just hope our media will be as critical when our government and HSE combine to make a complete balls of our vaccination program - which deep down, we all know will happen!

lbj666

dominatinMC wrote: »

And I would say more power to them. There is a lot of cynicism and skepticism - even condescension - exhibitied by our media towards the UK government. Some are implying there was political will to get this approval over the line first but, ultimately, we have to trust the integrity of the UK regulators, and assume they did their job.
In any case, I just hope our media will be as critical when our government and HSE combine to make a complete balls of our vaccination program - which deep down, we all know will happen!

Yet senior members of parliament were claiming they got this through faster cause of brexit, when in fact it was approved was that it would still be covered under EU law which they would no longer be covered by beyond january 1st.

Its hard not to be a bit cynical

leahyl

dominatinMC wrote: »

Well, that's your first problem right there! :pac:

You know, I anticipated an answer like that before I posted it :pac:

Marhay70

What the UK has approved is exactly the same product as the EU is being asked to approve. If it takes the EU another month to come to the same conclusion as the UK, and in the meantime tens of thousands more people die, that's going to take a lot of explaining. We have been encouraged all along to trust the science, and by and large we have, so why all of a sudden are we so reticent?
What will be the excuse? They can't really say the UK regulators are not up to scratch because that is patently untrue so what else is there to say?

conor_mc

Marhay70 wrote: »

What the UK has approved is exactly the same product as the EU is being asked to approve. If it takes the EU another month to come to the same conclusion as the UK, and in the meantime tens of thousands more people die, that's going to take a lot of explaining. We have been encouraged all along to trust the science, and by and large we have, so why all of a sudden are we so reticent?
What will be the excuse? They can't really say the UK regulators are not up to scratch because that is patently untrue so what else is there to say?

You could’ve argued the same about the FAA until 737-Max aircraft started falling out of the sky.

Turns out the FAA were not up to scratch, so do your own diligence!

It’s hard not to suspect the UK approval has had some political interference, i.e. good news to distract from the political cliff edge that is Brexit. I’d hope not, but....

Sheep2020

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

None of my family members would get a vaccine in the first 20,000 or 30,000 doses so it doesnt matter to my family whether its approved now or after christmas. There wouldn't be more than that vaccinated this year.

It doesnt change my opinion that they should thoroughly review the data before approving it.

Not receive the data and approve it the next day (EMA received the data filings 2 days ago).

Let's be real here the EU are not going to reject the Pfizer vaccine, it's 100% going to be approved, they will find nothing to reject it or delay it, Pfizer will have tripled checked everything.

EU are just wasting valuable time right now

Many many vulnerable are going to meet people over Christmas holiday's, alot are going to get infected, alot are going to die over this time wasting excercise

is_that_so

Sheep2020 wrote: »

Let's be real here the EU are not going to reject the Pfizer vaccine, it's 100% going to be approved, they will find nothing to reject it or delay it, Pfizer will have tripled checked everything.

EU are just wasting valuable time right now

Many many vulnerable are going to meet people over Christmas holiday's, a lot are going to get infected, a lot are going to die over this time wasting excercise

Any numbers on a lot?

Sheep2020

is_that_so wrote: »

Any numbers on a lot?

150,000 or so died in the EU last month

Christmas is the biggest social gathering of the year

You can imagine

is_that_so

Sheep2020 wrote: »

150,000 or so died in the EU last month

Christmas is the biggest social gathering of the year

You can imagine

The EMA have their process and I am happy for them to stick to it. They cannot be held responsible for people being unable to follow guidelines. We'll still have deaths as vaccinations progress. I think the release of Christmas is vitally important for societal mental wellbeing and the public accept that more cases will come from it.

Marhay70

conor_mc wrote: »

You could’ve argued the same about the FAA until 737-Max aircraft started falling out of the sky.

Turns out the FAA were not up to scratch, so do your own diligence!

It’s hard not to suspect the UK approval has had some political interference, i.e. good news to distract from the political cliff edge that is Brexit. I’d hope not, but....

That would assume the EU will reject the vaccine. If the EU reject the vaccine the argument then a completely different question arises.

Cordell

UK had to approve it because they are not EU anymore and the EU approval is worth nothing to them, right? If this is the case, Boris had seized an opportunity to score some points and prove that they were right to leave and so on, while doing something good for a change.

BrianD3

Marhay70 wrote: »

What the UK has approved is exactly the same product as the EU is being asked to approve. If it takes the EU another month to come to the same conclusion as the UK, and in the meantime tens of thousands more people die, that's going to take a lot of explaining. We have been encouraged all along to trust the science, and by and large we have, so why all of a sudden are we so reticent?
What will be the excuse? They can't really say the UK regulators are not up to scratch because that is patently untrue so what else is there to say?

George Lee mentioned something on the RTE new last night about some questionnaire that was sent to the EU member states re: vaccine rollout preparation. All but 2 member states responded to it. Ireland was one of the two.

That is just an aside but it did make me think that if some countries are more ready than others, that there is a face saving going on i.e. make the approval date the limiting factor. Then if the British approve before then, criticise them for jumping the gun, imply that they are being reckless.

My own feeling on this is that the British have outmanoeuvred the EU here. I know people here can't bear to give them any credit for anything but perhaps they are ahead of the pack when it comes to preparing for a vaccine rollout., The additional risk associated with the British early approval of the vaccine is likely very small. Rolling reviews have been happening so it's not a case of (as some here are implying) that the EU only received the data with this week's application.

There is of course political stuff happening and Brexit is a factor. the British are political, the EU is political and many Irish people will automatically take the position of "EU good, Britain bad" for various historical reasons that have nothing to do with vaccines.

Ashbourne hoop

BrianD3 wrote: »

George Lee mentioned something on the RTE new last night about some questionnaire that was sent to the EU member states re: vaccine rollout preparation. All but 2 member states responded to it. Ireland was one of the two.

That is just an aside but it did make me think that if some countries are more ready than others, that there is a face saving going on i.e. make the approval date the limiting factor. Then if the British approve before then, criticise them for jumping the gun, imply that they are being reckless.

My own feeling on this is that the British have outmanoeuvred the EU here. I know people here can't bear to give them any credit for anything but perhaps they are ahead of the pack when it comes to preparing for a vaccine rollout., The additional risk associated with the British early approval of the vaccine is likely very small. Rolling reviews have been happening so it's not a case of (as some here are implying) that the EU only received the data with this week's application.

There is of course political stuff happening and Brexit is a factor. the British are political, the EU is political and many Irish people will automatically take the position of "EU good, Britain bad" for various historical reasons that have nothing to do with vaccines.

They really aren't ahead. There is still data been analysed by the EMA, but the Uk have gone ahead for purely political/Brexit reasons, possibly preparing for a no deal Brexit. It's a bit of a gamble by the UK, it'll most likely be fine, but a gamble none the less.

[Deleted User]

iguana wrote: »

Why does it feel like the same handful of posters are constantly asking the same questions every few days and ignoring the answers?

If it was a deliberate organised misinformation campaign it would take this format, as not every reader would have read the thread and be familiar with how thoroughly these statements have been debunked. Te goal is to slowly spread misinformation and catch a few uninformed people day by day to sow doubt.

If it was an organised campaign however, the message would at least be coherent which makes me think its just the ramblings of misinformed individuals who enjoy thinking of themselves as being above the "sheeple", but in reality are just chronically misinformed and lacking in the basic critical thinking skills to be able to distinguish between fact and deliberate misinformation

leahyl

BrianD3 wrote: »

George Lee mentioned something on the RTE new last night about some questionnaire that was sent to the EU member states re: vaccine rollout preparation. All but 2 member states responded to it. Ireland was one of the two.

Well, that doesn't sound encouraging!

is_that_so

leahyl wrote: »

Well, that doesn't sound encouraging!

Ours is still in planning, report on it to be given to government by tomorrow week.

leahyl

is_that_so wrote: »

Ours is still in planning, report on it to be given to government by tomorrow week.

yes, but we're only one of two in Europe that isn't ready? Every other country is? Wouldn't you think that we'd be well prepared by now? Anyway....I'm keeping positive!

Ashbourne hoop

Sheep2020 wrote: »

Let's be real here the EU are not going to reject the Pfizer vaccine, it's 100% going to be approved, they will find nothing to reject it or delay it, Pfizer will have tripled checked everything.

EU are just wasting valuable time right now

Many many vulnerable are going to meet people over Christmas holiday's, alot are going to get infected, alot are going to die over this time wasting excercise

This whole process is being rushed, usually takes 10 years....Also, why are they taking so long ????

funnydoggy

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

This whole process is being rushed, usually takes 10 years....Also, why are they taking so long ????

Got me in the first half, not gonna lie :pac: