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

dominatinMC

lawrencesummers wrote: »

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

And be careful reading some of the replies you get as it could mean never leaving your house again

seamus

tom1ie wrote: »

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

Obviously we cannot know if anything will appear within 12/24/48 months for this particular vaccine, but that's not to say we've never done anything like this before. Long-term effects can also be extrapolated from the short-term data and outcomes from similar vaccines.

Most drugs do not have a long-term "testing" element. The long-term portion is the bit where it's approved for general use and the outcomes are monitored.

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?

This is not known. It requires a specific kind of test where people are vaccinated and then deliberately infected to determine what happens next. It's ethically fraught.

Strictly speaking vaccination doesn't prevent an pathogen from getting into your body, it just trains your body kill it when it does.

The question is about how far the virus gets before being eliminated by the immune system. We know that it reduces the severity of any infection, which by implication suggests that it limits the propagation of the virus within the body.
One can then deduce that if someone's viral load is lower, their infectiousness is also lower.

But that's supposition and cannot be known.

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're classed as immunocompromised, then vaccination is not advised. Other family members should still get vaccinated as this will still limit the compromised person's risk of exposure.

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.

Anyone who had never taken a vaccine before is not going to take this one, that's kind of a given.

It is so unlikely that it's basically impossible that someone could get to adulthood and be unaware of a severe allergy to the ingredients. They will have received multiple vaccinations as a child, but will also have been exposed to them through food or the environment.

Irish Stones wrote: »

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?

If someone *can't* get the vaccine, then their employer can't do anything about it. If vaccination is important to their work, then they will be prioritised.

JimmyVik

KrustyUCC wrote: »

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

No vaccine no flight

I got an email last week from my hr department telling me no vaccine no job.
They said at an as yet undetermined date in the new year anyone who hasnt received a vaccine will not be allowed to work for them.

ceegee

Irish Stones wrote: »

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?

Could be anything really. Most likely 0.5% is the baseline for the average population to have some sort of rash/itch etc at any given time.

Micky 32

lawrencesummers wrote: »

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

You can disagree all you want regarding that you’re young and healthy and that you don’t need to take the vaccine BS.

Yes you are correct, if you’re young and healthy Covid probably will do nothing to you or even me for that matter because like you i’m healthy too. The problem is the virus isn’t going anywhere. It’s too contagious, spreadable and won’t stop and never will. As long as that keeps happening and people don’t take the vaccine governments will keep implementing restrictions, social distancing and lockdowns indefinately( regardless how healthy you are)and Tony will be the star of the show until he retires. Life in this country will merely become an existence.

Necro

lawrencesummers wrote: »

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.

Mod:

You can stay away from this thread too while you're at it seeing as you haven't read the OP or the many, many mod warnings posted

Do not post in this thread again

brisan

JimmyVik wrote: »

I got an email last week from my hr department telling me no vaccine no job.
They said at an as yet undetermined date in the new year anyone who hasnt received a vaccine will not be allowed to work for them.

Is that a MNC
Reason I am asking is if they can do it without fear of reprimand then a lot will follow

Irish Stones

stephenjmcd wrote: »

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

OK, sorry, for a minute I forgot the EPI pen detail.

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.

The last vaccine I got was the tetanus, in 1985, when I was first hired in a big firm. Because it left me with a painful buttock for days, I refused the next boosts.
And before that, the other vaccines were those for smallpox and polio.

Since 1985 I never took a vaccine, even for the seasonal flu, because I never felt the need for it. As a matter of fact, I never had a flu in all my life (50+) and I only got the Covid in a non severe form.
I don't even take medicines, apart from pain killers (ibuprophene).
So I'm not aware of any possible ADR.

timsey tiger

Irish Stones wrote: »

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?

It even has a name the nocebo effect, though a rash would be pretty exterme.

Deeper Blue

Amazing how people can get so worked up about the allergy thing, it's literally the case for every vaccine in the world.

It's the definition of a non story.

I see it's the number one headline on the rte website though. Quelle suprise

Pasteur.

El Sueño wrote: »

Amazing how people can get so worked up about the allergy thing, it's literally the case for every vaccine in the world.

It's the definition of a non story.

I see it's the number one headline on the rte website though. Quelle suprise

Rte wants a kick up the hole

Aren't we paying them

polesheep

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.

Pure speculation. I'm surprised at you. I have direct family members working in healthcare with the HSE across a number of disciplines and this has not come up in any shape or form. The idea that people on permanent contracts that won't take a vaccine will be made redundant is absolute nonsense. That an already understaffed HSE would willingly lose staff is ludicrous. Your post is as valid as the nonsense being spouted by anti-vaxers.

Micky 32

El Sueño wrote: »

Amazing how people can get so worked up about the allergy thing, it's literally the case for every vaccine in the world.

It's the definition of a non story.

I see it's the number one headline on the rte website though. Quelle suprise

Aspirin can cause reactions in some people. Some of the other upcoming vaccines might be more allergy friendly.

bush

JimmyVik wrote: »

I got an email last week from my hr department telling me no vaccine no job.
They said at an as yet undetermined date in the new year anyone who hasnt received a vaccine will not be allowed to work for them.

What kind of work is this?

speckle

ACitizenErased wrote: »

As normal - people in the UK who experience severe allergic reactions have been told not take the Pfizer vaccine.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-vaccine-uk-regulators-warn-people-with-history-of-significant-allergic-reactions-not-to-have-pfizer-biontech-jab-12155916

Thankyou that is part of the information that I have been waiting on.

speckle

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Course they have. No surprise, expect a few more to do similar.

Same as every other vaccine reactions and side effects are always listed.

I find it odd how the NHS are only asking from today about history of allergies, thats usually standard. The 2 people involved were carrying adrenaline auto injectors, why the fcuk wouldn't the NHS have covered that off in advance

The leaflet sent to health professional in the uk asked re allergys to any components but did not advise re previous adverse vaccine reactions or mention adrenaline auto injectors/epipens. Also no mention of those with autoimmune illnesses or different type of immune senstivitys. eg type 1 2 3 or 4. It did mention those on immune suppresing medications.

expectationlost

Michael Martin said seasonal flu vaccine "worked very well, notwithstanding all of the complaints and criticisms" https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2020-12-08/speech/8/ if he thought that was a success,covid vaccination is going to be a disaster.Despite telling everyone to get it they didn't buy enough of it!

expectationlost

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.

had you never heard similar things said about the seasonal flu vaccine? but never came to pass?

ixoy

expectationlost wrote: »

Michael Martin said seasonal flu vaccine "worked very well, notwithstanding all of the complaints and criticisms" https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2020-12-08/speech/8/ if he thought that was a success,covid vaccination is going to be a disaster.Despite telling everyone to get it they didn't buy enough of it!

Yes but the EU are buying this vaccine effectively on our behalf. So it's not like the flu vaccine in that way.

funnydoggy

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

The fact that a member of NPHET went shaming people for having vaccine hesitancy for a vaccine barely used is telling...

As many have said, these jabs have not been tested enough.....Let people weigh the risk of getting COVID or getting the JAB, obviously if im over 80 or 70+ with end of life conditions I will take jab.... but for others....there really is no reason why the benefit would outweigh the risk...

odyssey06

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

The fact that a member of NPHET went shaming people for having vaccine hesitancy for a vaccine barely used is telling...

As many have said, these jabs have not been tested enough...

Are you aware this kind of reaction happens with other vaccines?
How would more testing have picked it up?

323

ACitizenErased wrote: »

RTE have hopped on the allergy bandwagon now. FFS

No surprised there

ninebeanrows

Posts getting killed?

expectationlost

ixoy wrote: »

Yes but the EU are buying this vaccine effectively on our behalf. So it's not like the flu vaccine in that way.

is there enough covid vaccine for everyone ? so they can get it before next winter? no? so the fact the EU is buying it is not going to help.

Our Taoiseach making rubbish claims about the seasonal flu, so when things go wrong with distribution of the covid for any variety of reasons hes probably going to claim its all going swimmingly, thats my point.

seamus

polesheep wrote: »

Pure speculation.

expectationlost wrote: »

had you never heard similar things said about the seasonal flu vaccine? but never cam to pass?

Of course it's pure speculation. Nobody knows what's going to happen.

But this quite unprecedented. We've had pandemics before, but not ones that have been quashed by a vaccine within a year. The 'flu vaccine is not the same thing, the risk to patients is lower.

We can speculate as to what will likely happen though.

Telling someone (in at-risk areas) that they can't come into work until they've been vaccinated is kind of a given. And is not unheard of - new training, new certs, etc can all result in someone being kept out of the workplace until they've upskilled.

What they can't (not really) do is fire them or withhold pay for not getting vaccinated. That's crossing the line into civil rights.

So what's an employer to do? Put the person on different duties perhaps; something lower risk where vaccination is not necessary. This is standard if the job requirements change and someone is no longer qualified to do it.

But what if the employer has nothing else for them? The next step there is redundancy. And it's perfectly legal.

speckle

For clarity here is the list that healthcare professionals got on the Uk for ingredients/componentsa1

ALC-0315 = (4-hydroxybutyl) azanediyl)bis (hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate)
ALC-0159 = 2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide
1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine
cholesterol
potassium chloride
potassium dihydrogen phosphate
sodium chloride
disodium hydrogen phosphate dihydrate
sucrose
water for injections

is_that_so

ACitizenErased wrote: »

RTE have hopped on the allergy bandwagon now. FFS

It's just a cut and paste from the UK MHRA so not wholly RTE's fault. The warning is not a surprising development and TBH flags should have been raised well before this as part of their plan.

expectationlost

seamus wrote: »

Of course it's pure speculation. Nobody knows what's going to happen.

But this quite unprecedented. We've had pandemics before, but not ones that have been quashed by a vaccine within a year. The 'flu vaccine is not the same thing, the risk to patients is lower.

We can speculate as to what will likely happen though.

Telling someone (in at-risk areas) that they can't come into work until they've been vaccinated is kind of a given. And is not unheard of - new training, new certs, etc can all result in someone being kept out of the workplace until they've upskilled.

What they can't (not really) do is fire them or withhold pay for not getting vaccinated. That's crossing the line into civil rights.

So what's an employer to do? Put the person on different duties perhaps; something lower risk where vaccination is not necessary. This is standard if the job requirements change and someone is no longer qualified to do it.

But what if the employer has nothing else for them? The next step there is redundancy. And it's perfectly legal.

you are worrying about something thats not going to effect you and and think your are underestimating the effect the seasonal flu has on the cohort of people likely to be in hospital.

JimmyVik

bush wrote: »

What kind of work is this?

IT. Multinational.

polesheep

seamus wrote: »

Of course it's pure speculation. Nobody knows what's going to happen.

But this quite unprecedented. We've had pandemics before, but not ones that have been quashed by a vaccine within a year. The 'flu vaccine is not the same thing, the risk to patients is lower.

We can speculate as to what will likely happen though.

Telling someone (in at-risk areas) that they can't come into work until they've been vaccinated is kind of a given. And is not unheard of - new training, new certs, etc can all result in someone being kept out of the workplace until they've upskilled.

What they can't (not really) do is fire them or withhold pay for not getting vaccinated. That's crossing the line into civil rights.

So what's an employer to do? Put the person on different duties perhaps; something lower risk where vaccination is not necessary. This is standard if the job requirements change and someone is no longer qualified to do it.

But what if the employer has nothing else for them? The next step there is redundancy. And it's perfectly legal.

Contriving to fire someone and redundancy are not the same thing.

The HSE is extremely short-staffed in specialist, often high-risk, areas. It is not going to tell staff in those areas not to come in.