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

Gael23

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Why would there be a requirement? Its likely its not allowed to force staff to get vaccinated

They can’t force it but can’t they not say if you don’t take it then you cannot enter the office and must continue working form home

lawrencesummers

seamus wrote: »

Pregnant and breastfeeding women are generally excluded from normal trials. There are considerable ethical issues that manufacturers would rather avoid if at all possible.

Virtually every medicine in existence, even over-the-counter stuff, advises that pregnant/breastfeeding women should either consult their doctor first, or just not take it at all.

Paracetemol is about the only thing allowed, and that's because we inadvertently proved it was safe by letting pregnant women take it. It wasn't formally tested on them.

Someone with known severe allergies, having an allergic reaction, is not news. It's as useful as reporting that grass is green. The purpose of reporting something is to imply that it's new or unknown. If it's reported by media, people assume that it's unexpected and a danger. It was not at all unexpected, it was an error by the NHS (and the people who received it, presumably).

In what way has it not been fully tested? What has been skipped?

Yet the approval document says nothing about not giving it to people with a history of severe allergic reactions.

I’m of the opinion that this vaccine is largely untested and like many other vaccines before it can lead to problems. Problems that will only be discovered as it’s being given to the general population. Problems that can be a lot worse than actual covid.

That opinion right or wrong goes in hand with the fact that I’m not in any of the risk categories for COVID-19 and way down the list to be eligible for the vaccines so I’m goibg to stay away from it until more questions are answered.

brisan

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Nonsense? People reporting adverse reaction to a medicine is nonsense?

They have no way of proving it is linked to the vaccine, as the numbers are the same as in the general population

seamus

Gael23 wrote: »

They can’t force it but can’t they not say if you don’t take it then you cannot enter the office and must continue working form home

There is a weird civil rights conflict appearing on the horizon. This probably isn't the thread for it. But I do have extended family working in healthcare where it's been unsubtly implied that staff who don't get the vaccine can forget about their job.

Most likely the standard process will be that anyone who won't get vaccinated and can't be facilitated to work remotely on a permanent basis will be made redundant.

stephenjmcd

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

Don't know if this piece from this morning's news has been posted.

Yup being discussed a bit.

For me this is added reason to wait for EMA approval and FDA. UK went too quickly in my opinion. FDA & EMA are more in depth.

Secondly why on earth they didn't think of asking about allergies is beyond me. Its standard practise in Ireland for any vaccine you get to supply your history with regards to allergies. They weren't bog standard allergies these were people with severe underlying allergies bad enough to carry EPI pens.

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

If you take 50,000 random people, you'd expect about ten of them to develop Bell's Palsy spontaneously in any given year.

In drug and vaccine trials, all adverse events have to be recorded and reported.

The existence of adverse events doesn't mean they were caused by the vaccine.

We're going to see a lot of this nonsense appear in the coming months.

I understand that but then wouldn't you print every other ailment that was experienced and would otherwise be in the population? why was the Bells palsy mentionable then? or note worthy.

seamus

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Yet the approval document says nothing about not giving it to people with a history of severe allergic reactions.

Oh, I disagree;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#contraindications

In fact, the ingredients are stated a number of times throughout the documentation as well as the warning that anyone sensitive to them should not receive the vaccine.

I’m of the opinion that this vaccine is largely untested

An opinion based on nothing.

You're free to hold it, but don't try to claim that it's based on anything but your gut instinct or argue that it's a fact.

The fact is that the vaccine is as fully tested as any other. To claim otherwise is objectively wrong.

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

There is a weird civil rights conflict appearing on the horizon. This probably isn't the thread for it. But I do have extended family working in healthcare where it's been unsubtly implied that staff who don't get the vaccine can forget about their job.

Most likely the standard process will be that anyone who won't get vaccinated and can't be facilitated to work remotely on a permanent basis will be made redundant.

Yes I can see this being the case and it's very very worrying. why should I or you be treated like this whilst kids and teenager below 16 don't have to take anything. I can see the legal system being very very busy off the back of this.

Is there any negative effects to a vaccine that must be handled this way if for example it's delayed in delivery? a freezer truck was actually at minus 50 etc, or there was more than 5 days above the threshold etc. these are all open to human error..an apology from GOVT for a vaccine that is tacitly forced is no good when your life is ruined because of logistical failings in following the protocol..we have a history of this stuff.

seamus

rusty cole wrote: »

I understand that but then wouldn't you print every other ailment that was experienced and would otherwise be in the population? why was the Bells palsy mentionable then? or note worthy.

That's kind of the point. It's not noteworthy. That particular website decided to mention it, just because it might sound like a fun thing to worry people with.

Mitch Connor

seamus wrote: »

Oh, I disagree;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#contraindications

In fact, the ingredients are stated a number of times throughout the documentation as well as the warning that anyone sensitive to them should not receive the vaccine.
An opinion based on nothing.

You're free to hold it, but don't try to claim that it's based on anything but your gut instinct or argue that it's a fact.

The fact is that the vaccine is as fully tested as any other. To claim otherwise is objectively wrong.

Are people really *entitled* to opinions that are utter rubbish though?am i *entitled* to the opinion that planes are magical and only fly due to magical beans the pilot takes 3 hours before takeoff? Who cares if flight can be proven... my opinion is that it is magic beans?

seamus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Are people really *entitled* to opinions that are utter rubbish though?

It's off-topic, but everyone is entitled to hold any opinion. That doesn't mean it has to be respected or protected.

ceegee

Irish Stones wrote: »

Is it right to say that during the trials with the volunteers, no allergic reactions were observed?
If so, why are they showing up now when the vaccine is going to be approved?
And, will these reactions put the EU approval on hold?

The FDA noted a "slight numerical imbalance of adverse events potentially
representing allergic reactions, with more participants reporting hypersensitivity-related adverse
events in the vaccine group (137 [0.63%]) compared with the placebo group (111 [0.51%])"
Hypersensitivity-related is a fairly broad description so could be just a rash/itch or something more severe

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

That's kind of the point. It's not noteworthy. That particular website decided to mention it, just because it might sound like a fun thing to worry people with.

I see, that makes sense why the doctor mentioned it on RTE, the worry medium de jour!

I would have thought it was out of context then he would not bother mentioning it in the broadcast, he said this and other things are interesting and would need to be watched further. that's all, I take your point, watch this space for now I guess.

Pasteur.

Micky 32 wrote: »

Maybe it’s me but it seems there’s a certain misery cohort that would love to see this vaccine fail to prevent life going back to normal for whatever their agenda is.

There's a Puritanical element to society who don't enjoy sex(or can't get it) and socializing

They want to bring everyone down to their level

cgc5483

seamus wrote: »

That's kind of the point. It's not noteworthy. That particular website decided to mention it, just because it might sound like a fun thing to worry people with.

That text is based on the FDA published document of their review of the data and as usual it has been taken out of context for those with certain agendas

Irish Stones

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Is it possible that the trials were only conducted with healthy people and nobody with allergies was included?

So the testers chose a wrong panel of persons?
Or generally people with known allergies are rejected for the panel in the first place?

KrustyUCC

seamus wrote: »

There is a weird civil rights conflict appearing on the horizon. This probably isn't the thread for it. But I do have extended family working in healthcare where it's been unsubtly implied that staff who don't get the vaccine can forget about their job.

Most likely the standard process will be that anyone who won't get vaccinated and can't be facilitated to work remotely on a permanent basis will be made redundant.

I think a lot of jobs will go down that route as well as airlines

No vaccine no flight

JacksonHeightsOwn

Pasteur. wrote: »

There's a Puritanical element to society who don't enjoy sex

Yes, they're called wives...........

bush

KrustyUCC wrote: »

I think a lot of jobs will go down that route as well as airlines

No vaccine no flight

How can they do this if they dont even know yet if the vaccine stops you transmitting the virus?

lawrencesummers

seamus wrote: »

Oh, I disagree;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#contraindications

In fact, the ingredients are stated a number of times throughout the documentation as well as the warning that anyone sensitive to them should not receive the vaccine.
An opinion based on nothing.

You're free to hold it, but don't try to claim that it's based on anything but your gut instinct or argue that it's a fact.

The fact is that the vaccine is as fully tested as any other. To claim otherwise is objectively wrong.

You can disagree all you want, but that document doesn’t say what you purport it does.

KrustyUCC

bush wrote: »

How can they do this if they dont even know yet if the vaccine stops you transmitting the virus?

Just speculation at this stage but I think many will follow Quantas

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55048438

Irish Stones

seamus wrote: »

There is a weird civil rights conflict appearing on the horizon. This probably isn't the thread for it. But I do have extended family working in healthcare where it's been unsubtly implied that staff who don't get the vaccine can forget about their job.

Most likely the standard process will be that anyone who won't get vaccinated and can't be facilitated to work remotely on a permanent basis will be made redundant.

Because one (or more) country said that those who got the coronavirus before will be the last ones to receive the vaccine, say, in about 15-18 months, what should these workers do in the meantime?

tom1ie

Not an anti Vaxer, I take the flu vaccine every year, and I took vaccines when I headed to Egypt and Thailand in the past.

Questions about this vaccine:
Question 1: do we know what the long term effects of injecting ourselves with the rna of the vaccine is?

Question 2: If we take the vaccine, does this mean we can still pass the virus onto others if we were to catch the virus in the “wild” after getting the vaccine, ie if I get the vaccine and I go to gigs, pubs as before COVID restrictions, but I catch COVID, and then give COVID to my pregnant wife who isn’t allowed the vaccine. Is this scenario possible or does the vaccine stop people being carriers of COVID?

Question 3: Last question, if a member of the family has a low white blood cell count, I presume this has a say on wether the person can take the vaccine or not?
If they can’t take the vaccine, is the family then back to question 2 above?

Again I am not an anti vaxer but have genuine questions.

Irish Stones

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Its standard practise in Ireland for any vaccine you get to supply your history with regards to allergies.

OK, but what if one has no known history because simply they have never taken a vaccine before?
One could be allergic and still not know that.

stephenjmcd

Irish Stones wrote: »

OK, but what if one has no known history because simply they have never taken a vaccine before?
One could be allergic and still not know that.

If someone had the underlying issues the 2 in the NHS did they'd know about it.

You don't carry around an EPI pen for the craic

Really nobody has ever taken a vaccination before and all of a sudden will put themselves up for a covid vaccine? Wishful thinking. If they've never taken a vaccine they're probably anti vax and wouldn't be taking this anyway.

lawrencesummers

Irish Stones wrote: »

So the testers chose a wrong panel of persons?
Or generally people with known allergies are rejected for the panel in the first place?

I didnt say that.
The testing was carried out on a group of people. They all had to satisfy certain criteria.

Those that didn’t satisfy that criteria were not part of the testing. Many of those people are now part of the rollout.

Take pregnant people for instance, they are specifically listed as part of the rollout, (albeit last) while the uk document states that it should not be given to pregnant people because of lack of safety information.

ceegee

tom1ie wrote: »

Not an anti Vaxer, I take the flu vaccine every year, and I took vaccines when I headed to Egypt and Thailand in the past.

Questions about this vaccine:
Question 1: do we know what the long term effects of injecting ourselves with the rna of the vaccine is?

Question 2: If we take the vaccine, does this mean we can still pass the virus onto others if we were to catch the virus in the “wild” after getting the vaccine, ie if I get the vaccine and I go to gigs, pubs as before COVID restrictions, but I catch COVID, and then give COVID to my pregnant wife who isn’t allowed the vaccine. Is this scenario possible or does the vaccine stop people being carriers of COVID?

Question 3: Last question, if a member of the family has a low white blood cell count, I presume this has a say on wether the person can take the vaccine or not?
If they can’t take the vaccine, is the family then back to question 2 above?

Again I am not an anti vaxer but have genuine questions.

1 The RNA is broken down within a few days. Longterm effects will be no different than other vaccine methods.

2+3 We do not know for certain if we can still pass it on after vaccination, however general consensus seems to be that its likely we will have at least reduced transmission.

Irish Stones

ceegee wrote: »

with more participants reporting hypersensitivity-related adverse
events in the vaccine group (137 [0.63%]) compared with the placebo group (111 [0.51%])"

From what I understand and know, the panel who takes the placebo is receiving a shot of saline solution or another harmless fluid rather the real vaccine? Right?
I wonder how a saline solution injection can give people an adverse reaction. Is it a reaction given by a mental state, I mean "oh, I got an untested vaccine, I might develop a rash" and the rash appears?

lawrencesummers

tom1ie wrote: »

Not an anti Vaxer, I take the flu vaccine every year, and I took vaccines when I headed to Egypt and Thailand in the past.

Questions about this vaccine:
Question 1: do we know what the long term effects of injecting ourselves with the rna of the vaccine is?

Question 2: If we take the vaccine, does this mean we can still pass the virus onto others if we were to catch the virus in the “wild” after getting the vaccine, ie if I get the vaccine and I go to gigs, pubs as before COVID restrictions, but I catch COVID, and then give COVID to my pregnant wife who isn’t allowed the vaccine. Is this scenario possible or does the vaccine stop people being carriers of COVID?

Question 3: Last question, if a member of the family has a low white blood cell count, I presume this has a say on wether the person can take the vaccine or not?
If they can’t take the vaccine, is the family then back to question 2 above?

Again I am not an anti vaxer but have genuine questions.

Be careful asking fair questions in this thread, people don’t like that because it might mean the pubs won’t open quick enough if some people put their health before herd immunity

ceegee

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I didnt say that.
The testing was carried out on a group of people. They all had to satisfy certain criteria.

Those that didn’t satisfy that criteria were not part of the testing. Many of those people are now part of the rollout.

Take pregnant people for instance, they are specifically listed as part of the rollout, (albeit last) while the uk document states that it should not be given to pregnant people because of lack of safety information.

Pregnant people are listed as part of the rollout with the specific caveat that it is pending further trials. The UK documents state that they should not receive it because these trials have not been carried out yet.

I struggle to see how anyone could take issue with this unless they are deliberately trying to find things to complain about.