COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 3 - Read OP

09-04-2021 11:02PM

giveitholly wrote: »

You totally contradict yourself in one paragraph. You say Sweden is wide open and normal since March 2020 but then list plenty of examples of restrictions in Sweden!!!

I only mentioned those restrictions because I knew someone would point them out. But they are extremely minor restrictions in the grand scheme of things. The only one that is a major restriction is large events being on hold in terms of theatres, clubs, concerts etc.

snotboogie · 09-04-2021 11:03PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I only mentioned those restrictions because I knew someone would point out that them out. But they are extremely minor restrictions in the grand scheme of things. The only one that is a major restriction is large events being on hold in terms of theatres, clubs, concerts etc.

So bars and restaurants have no social distancing requirements in Sweden?

GT89 · 09-04-2021 11:04PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nah. Take the vaccine or have a sh1t life. Them's the rules.

That's ridiculous like saying Muslims should be made have a sh1t life because of their religion

09-04-2021 11:05PM

Micky 32 wrote: »

If you check worldometer infections throughout europe are on the rise again. We are not Sweden or Florida. If we don’t take the vaccine ( that proves to work) the Irish government won’t let us get back to normal. They have already said extra freedoms for the vaccinated.

But how can they be extra freedoms when people have 0 freedoms? Extra is 'in addition to', but in addition to what? Everything is shut and there's very little people can do.

And what makes you so confident that the Irish Government will allow normal life to resume post-vaccination? I hope you're right, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that.

giveitholly · 09-04-2021 11:05PM

GT89 wrote: »

A recommendation is not a restriction

No large events taking place is a restriction so things are not normal in Sweden

Micky 32 · 09-04-2021 11:06PM

GT89 wrote: »

Not the first to try and play the I think you are stupid because you have an opposing opinion to me card

Nope it’s not, i think you genuinely don’t know how serious the situation is and how much sh1te that people have gone through the last year.

Professor Moriarty · 09-04-2021 11:07PM

Micky 32 wrote: »

If you check worldometer infections throughout europe are on the rise again. We are not Sweden or Florida. If we don’t take the vaccine ( that proves to work) the Irish government won’t let us get back to normal. They have already said extra freedoms for the vaccinated.

On average, Sweden's mortality rate form Covid-19 is 600% greater than that of Norway, Finland and Denmark.

09-04-2021 11:07PM

snotboogie wrote: »

So bars and restaurants have no social distancing requirements in Sweden?

In shops and supermarkets the maximum number of people allowed in at a given time is 124 or 125, I think.

In bars and restaurants there is a bit of a distance between the tables, but they always look full. Capacity hasn't really been reduced all that much. Same with gyms. Classes are always full of people.

I was in Sweden recently. That's how I know. It really was normal there.

Professor Moriarty · 09-04-2021 11:08PM

GT89 wrote: »

That's ridiculous like saying Muslims should be made have a sh1t life because of their religion

So Islam and a vaccine are the same? Okie dokie.

09-04-2021 11:09PM

giveitholly wrote: »

No large events taking place is a restriction so things are not normal in Sweden

That is definitely a restriction, but it's the only really major restriction. Life is about 95% normal there, I would say.

GT89 · 09-04-2021 11:16PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So Islam and a vaccine are the same? Okie dokie.

Could be any religion Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism or none at all. We have a freedom of choice in religion so we should also have a freedom of choice as to whether one wishes to take a vaccine or not.

Professor Moriarty · 09-04-2021 11:18PM

GT89 wrote: »

Could be any religion Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism or none at all. We have a freedom of choice in religion so we should also have a freedom of choice as to whether one wishes to take a vaccine or not.

Yeah. Prepare for a shock. A religion and a vaccine are two very different things.

09-04-2021 11:18PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

On average, Sweden's mortality rate form Covid-19 is 600% greater than that of Norway, Finland and Denmark.

I'm not here to defend Sweden, but Dr Anders Tegnell was interviewed recently and he explained why Sweden can't really be compared with its neighbours. He said Sweden was hit a lot harder and a lot earlier than Norway, Finland, and Denmark, and that the elderly in nursing homes weren't protected. Now, people might argue that of course he would say that, but he really went into detail as to why Sweden differs greatly from its neighbours.

Professor Moriarty · 09-04-2021 11:21PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not here to defend Sweden, but Dr Anders Tegnell was interviewed recently and he explained why Sweden can't really be compared with its neighbours. He said Sweden was hit a lot harder and a lot earlier than Norway, Finland, and Denmark, and that the elderly in nursing homes weren't protected. Now, people might argue that of course he would say that, but he really went into detail as to why Sweden differs greatly from its neighbours.

Sure. Put it this way. Ireland should thank its lucky stars that Tegnell wasn't in charge here during the pandemic.

GT89 · 09-04-2021 11:22PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah. Prepare for a shock. A religion and a vaccine are two very different things.

Masks and seatbelts are also two very different things

Professor Moriarty · 09-04-2021 11:23PM

GT89 wrote: »

Masks and seatbelts are also two very different things

Well spotted.

GT89 · 09-04-2021 11:26PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well spotted.

And people have been comparing the two for the best part of a year

Professor Moriarty · 09-04-2021 11:27PM

GT89 wrote: »

And people have been comparing the two for the best part of a year

Point?

Ten of Swords · 09-04-2021 11:27PM

OK that's enough, thread is going off topic. Discuss vaccines and testing procedures please, any more off topic posting will result in cards and threadbans

TomOnBoard · 10-04-2021 12:08AM

Apologies if it's already been asked and answered:

Can someone please explain this, using established science that has peer-reviewed bona-fides:

If I previously contracted Covid, and my antibody levels are good and high, as measured by a reliable test, should I still be vaccinated?

ACitizenErased · 10-04-2021 12:16AM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Apologies if it's already been asked and answered:

Can someone please explain this, using established science that has peer-reviewed bona-fides:

If I previously contracted Covid, and my antibody levels are good and high, as measured by a reliable test, should I still be vaccinated?

Why exactly do you want a 'peer reviewed bona-fides' answer? The answer is simple, yes.

eagle eye · 10-04-2021 12:21AM

GT89 wrote:

I'm guessing the reason why they're trying to coercise people into taking the shot is because a sizeable amount of people like myself don't want to take it so they need to try and force people to take it by only allowing the vaccinated partake in most everyday activities. In my opinion any business that enforces masks or vaccines should be boycotted. Regardless if you agree with vaccines or not.

How many people do you reckon don't want a vaccine? I'd imagine it's a very small number. I want a vaccine myself.
I do agree though that it's unfair for anybody whose got a vaccine to be given preferential treatment.

TomOnBoard · 10-04-2021 12:26AM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Why exactly do you want a 'peer reviewed bona-fides' answer? The answer is simple, yes.

Why do you need to know why I asked what I asked? Does one need to preface all questions on here with a statement of the reason for asking them?

I think not!

To avoid further snarky responses, let me re-iterate that I'm looking for answers that are meaningful, i.e. with a sound scientific basis, and not just yes/no opinions plucked out of wherever.. if such science-based answers are not possible here, maybe a Mod could do me a favour and point to some forum on Boards where serious Covid-related questions can be met with serious answers. Thank you!

JPup · 10-04-2021 12:27AM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Apologies if it's already been asked and answered:

Can someone please explain this, using established science that has peer-reviewed bona-fides:

If I previously contracted Covid, and my antibody levels are good and high, as measured by a reliable test, should I still be vaccinated?

How do you intend to test whether your antibodies are good and high? Much simpler to just take the vaccine and then you will know for sure that they are.

eagle eye · 10-04-2021 12:28AM

JPup wrote:

How do you intend to test whether your antibodies are good and high? Much simpler to just take the vaccine and then you will know for sure that they are.

It's easily done, I know a few people who have got it done.

astrofool · 10-04-2021 12:40AM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Why do you need to know why I asked what I asked? Does one need to preface all questions on here with a statement of the reason for asking them?

I think not!

To avoid further snarky responses, let me re-iterate that I'm looking for answers that are meaningful, i.e. with a sound scientific basis, and not just yes/no opinions plucked out of wherever.. if such science-based answers are not possible here, maybe a Mod could do me a favour and point to some forum on Boards where serious Covid-related questions can be met with serious answers. Thank you!

The current data (on the scientific side) points to the antibody levels in those who've previously been infected by SARS-COV2 to be lower compared to those who've taken a vaccine, and also that the antibodies are specific to the strain they were infected with, so less protection against mutations.

Some countries were looking at single doses for those previously infected, but health officials recommend that people still get vaccinated for strong lasting immunity, there has certainly been no adverse effects by those who were previously infected getting a vaccine.

Your questions are also quite broad and more detail of the specific situation is needed to give a fuller answer.

marno21 · 10-04-2021 01:45AM

Not sure if it's been reported here amongst the last 80 posts or so which I scrolled through rather swiftly

https://www.ft.com/content/df5020f4-461e-443e-8d55-f3234690d049

AstraZeneca are cutting next weeks delivery by 49%. Roughly 14k coming now instead of 28k. They still say they aim to deliver 70m "as promised" (the original promise was 180m) in Q2.

stephenjmcd · 10-04-2021 01:48AM

marno21 wrote: »

Not sure if it's been reported here amongst the last 80 posts or so which I scrolled through rather swiftly

https://www.ft.com/content/df5020f4-461e-443e-8d55-f3234690d049

AstraZeneca are cutting next weeks delivery by 49%. Roughly 14k coming now instead of 28k. They still say they aim to deliver 70m "as promised" (the original promise was 180m) in Q2.

1 batch won't have progressed through QA in time for the delivery date next week so can't be released for delivery. Expected to be included in the next delivery.

It's not a yield issue etc so it's different to their previous reasoning but it's another example of their unreliability to stick to schedules

hmmm · 10-04-2021 01:49AM

marno21 wrote: »

AstraZeneca are cutting next weeks delivery by 49%. Roughly 14k coming now instead of 28k. They still say they aim to deliver 70m "as promised" (the original promise was 180m) in Q2.

They should never have done this on a no-profit basis, and it shows the folly of celebrating that approach.

If I was Astra Zeneca I'd walk away and cut their losses. Let one of the big EU manufacturers who have done little to nothing pick up the vaccine.

marno21 · 10-04-2021 01:54AM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

1 batch won't have progressed through QA in time for the delivery date next week so can't be released for delivery. Expected to be included in the next delivery.

It's not a yield issue etc so it's different to their previous reasoning but it's another example of their unreliability to stick to schedules

Clear example of why it's prudent to withhold some doses for second doses if this is the level of reliability we are operating at.

COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 3 - Read OP

Comments