Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

323 wrote: »

"I want to be able to travel this year". One of those I was with and was gobsmacked, when got a late afternoon call last week if I could go to Africa the next morning. "But your not vaccinated?"

Short notice flights are fine, but scheduled holidays are a dice-roll if you're not vaccinated, particularly the risk of testing positive before the return flight.

323 wrote: »

Anyway the poll mentioned "an approved" vaccine? Most of the manufacturers of these vaccines "authorized " for use have not even applied for approval as yet, Pfizer just applied last month.

Indeed. With the best will in the world, nobody can claim these vaccines are approved and have only been in existence for under a year as emergency use. The single jab and AZ vaccines have slightly more legs over the MRNA two jabs as similar vaccines have been used and approved for ebola for longer. Signs are good, but there is no denying that these are very early days and we have no hard data in on long term effects if any with these vaccines. There probably won't be, but we can't say that with certainty. That's not anti vaxxer "Sharon on facebook told me" guff, it's the reality.

Wibbs wrote: »

If Marty decides not to be vaccinated the risks of him passing on the virus to someone it might actually harm, an already small percentage of risk, the majority of whom are vaccinated will make it an even smaller percentage. There will be people who won't take the vaccine and we have to live with that fact and the fact that the risks are significantly lower than we feared anyway and certainly lower than we, or some, are fearing now.

A disease that killed people of all ages while on the surface accurate is in reality not so much and with respect is more hype and fear than fact. The percentage of mortalities in the under 65's is tiny - in Ireland 0.15% - and again that's set against the figures we have for confirmed positive tests. The number of infected but intested will of course be much higher than that which will further reduce that number/percentage(as a small example among those I know I'm one of the few who have been tested because of work and the only one who has been tested multiple times). The vast majority of deaths have been in the over 70's and over 80's. The mean and median of which in Ireland corresponds extremely closely with the average longevity stats for Irish people. This is not a "disease that has killed people of all ages", at least not in the way you're implying or believe. In fact unlike other pandemics like annual flu it has been remarkably and thankfully avoiding the very young.

Let me reiterate; I'm not saying "this is just a flu", it is more serious than that, and even if it was "just a flu", that kills enough people every year. I am not seeking to minimise the effects, direct and especially indirect of this pox, I am seeking to inject some non fear based reality into the mix.

So we have to be happy that people will risk another person's health, because they don't want to take a vaccine as they think it's only about protecting themselves?
Is that what your saying?

323 wrote: »

Nope, still no.

Even more so as the marketing campaign ramps up. Blown away when told by a friend in the US last week that his daughter registered for university and was offered ticket in the weekly raffle for full scholarships, if she got jabbed. Wonder if we'll see that that one here.

Some friends who were reluctant do seem to have succumb to the scaremongers.

"I could loose my job" a few with public and semi-state contracts.

"I want to be able to travel this year". One of those I was with and was gobsmacked, when got a late afternoon call last week if I could go to Africa the next morning. "But your not vaccinated?" Evening walk-in PCR test and was in a west Africa 26 hours later, not a word anywhere along the way about vaccines.

Anyway the poll mentioned "an approved" vaccine? Most of the manufacturers of these vaccines "authorized " for use have not even applied for approval as yet, Pfizer just applied last month.

Why don't you want to take it?
Do you not want to protect your fellow humans?

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed. With the best will in the world, nobody can claim these vaccines are approved and have only been in existence for under a year as emergency use. The single jab and AZ vaccines have slightly more legs over the MRNA two jabs as similar vaccines have been used and approved for ebola for longer. Signs are good, but there is no denying that these are very early days and we have no hard data in on long term effects if any with these vaccines. There probably won't be, but we can't say that with certainty. That's not anti vaxxer "Sharon on facebook told me" guff, it's the reality.

So is it better to get infected and pass it on to someone who it could really effect?

tom1ie wrote: »

So we have to be happy that people will risk another person's health, because they don't want to take a vaccine as they think it's only about protecting themselves?
Is that what your saying?

I am saying the fact is some will not take up these vaccines. We will never have full coverage. We won't eradicate it either. Unlike smallpox it mutates too quickly and new variants and variant reserves will likely always be with us. That's the reality of it and we have to accept that. The other reality is the already low risk of mortality and hospitalisation because of how this virus works and who it is most dangerous for, the at least quarter of a million Irish people who've already had it and have some immunity and the uptake of vaccines in the older and more vulnerable groups, for whom the uptake appears to be very high, will make the already small risk even smaller. And sadly many of those who already died in nursing homes and similar settings are out of the picture now. We did well on many many points, but we screwed up there.

Ravendale

braychelsea wrote: »

Creating this thread because the poll on old thread is >6 months old and the main thread on vaccine progress/rollout is being diluted by arguments of people arguing over whether they would take the vaccine and anti-vaxxers.
@mods this okay?

Not until the official trials end.

Onion Bahji

astrofool wrote: »

I mean, you can do the mental gymnastics whatever way you want, your decision is not a rational one and that's your choice not to be rational.

Both decisions can be made rationally.

Wibbs wrote: »

I am saying the fact is some will not take up these vaccines. We will never have full coverage. We won't eradicate it either. Unlike smallpox it mutates too quickly and new variants and variant reserves will likely always be with us. That's the reality of it and we have to accept that. The other reality is the already low risk of mortality and hospitalisation because of how this virus works and who it is most dangerous for, the at least quarter of a million Irish people who've already had it and have some immunity and the uptake of vaccines in the older and more vulnerable groups, for whom the uptake appears to be very high, will make the already small risk even smaller. And sadly many of those who already died in nursing homes and similar settings are out of the picture now. We did well on many many points, but we screwed up there.

So let's not aim for full coverage because people don't understand the need to take the vaccine is what your saying.
Why settle for that?
Bring in a cert that shows if you have the vaccine or not.
It's not about protecting yourself.

theguzman

I got my first pfizer dose yesterday, I'm early thirties and cohort 7. Got the vaccine in my local GP as part of the standby list. It triggered a strong immune response and I had identical symptoms to when I had COVID last March 2020 at the beginning.

tom1ie wrote: »

So let's not aim for full coverage because people don't understand the need to take the vaccine is what your saying.
Why settle for that?
Bring in a cert that shows if you have the vaccine or not.
It's not about protecting yourself.

You're really locked into this "so you're saying" bit. We can aim for full coverage all we like, but we're not going to achieve that and we have to adjust accordingly. Unless you want to live in a society that makes vaccination compulsory which would be against all that is held dear by any society that wants to call itself a liberal civilised one. Even China hasn't pulled that stuff.

TBH the oft mob like authoritarian mentality around vaccines can be as disquieting to me as the rabid antivaxxer brigade. There's not a lot of nuance going on, never mind reality.

Wibbs wrote: »

You're really locked into this "so you're saying" bit. We can aim for full coverage all we like, but we're not going to achieve that and we have to adjust accordingly. Unless you want to live in a society that makes vaccination compulsory which would be against all that is held dear by any society that wants to call itself a liberal civilised one. Even China hasn't pulled that stuff.

Well it is what your saying wibbs.

People should be informed properly about why they take the vaccine.
It's clear from this thread they only think it's about protection for themselves that they don't need, which isn't the point!

tom1ie wrote: »

Well it is what your saying wibbs.

I'm not, but keep banging that drum.

People should be informed properly about why they take the vaccine.
It's clear from this thread they only think it's about protection for themselves that they don't need, which isn't the point!

And if some have weighed up the societal risks and decided that they personally feel the potential risks of a rushed to market set of vaccines and in the case of the MRNA type never been approved for use in humans before isn't worth the risk to them personally, what do you say to that? Should they be forced to take those vaccines?

And remember for those under the age of 65 the mortality rate without vaccines who tested positive for covid demographic since the first case in Ireland is 0.15%. The real figure will be even less. Which by the by is significantly lower than mortality rates for over 65's in "normal" annual influenza season. It is not "killing people of all ages". For those who are over 65 and/or with underlying conditions that leave them more vulnerable the risk/reward equation clearly makes far more sense and we've seen the uptake in that group is very high.

theguzman

tom1ie wrote: »

Well it is what your saying wibbs.

People should be informed properly about why they take the vaccine.
It's clear from this thread they only think it's about protection for themselves that they don't need, which isn't the point!

My motivation is three fold, firstly to protect my parents who are both fully vaxxed themselves.

Secondly I want to socialise and mix more this summer, vaccination will gie me less to worry about on this, again to protect my elderly parents.

Thirdly took the vaccine because I don't want to pay another €100 PCR test each time I travel out of the country and going via Belfast is a pain in the neck and often adds more than the €100 anyway.

I don't believe I needed it from a health point of view but I'm half way there now to my second dose in a few weeks.

Wibbs wrote: »

a rushed to market set of vaccines

How were they rushed?

Which practical steps were omitted?

Of course they were rushed. The technology of MRNA vaccines in humans is a new one. Plus there has never been a vaccine approved for a coronavirus in humans before. By the very nature of this crisis it had to be rushed. If this wasn't a crisis they would not have been approved/released for emergency use in such a short time. The main practical step omitted is time. Monitoring is ongoing and I personally don't expect much of import to come out of it and I am bloody glad that we were able to come up with such a defence in such short order, but it was rushed. There's no denying that.

My choice is to wait for the one jab. For two reasons. 1) the method has more "history" as other vaccines using that method have been approved in the usual non crisis fashion and 2) it's one jab so any sides I may get mild or irritating, will be the once. Chances are they'll be feck all, as they are for most people, though two in my circle of peers are dead set on refusing to take their second pfizer jab because of the symptoms they got from the first.

josip

Wibbs wrote: »

I am saying the fact is some will not take up these vaccines. We will never have full coverage. We won't eradicate it either. Unlike smallpox it mutates too quickly and new variants and variant reserves will likely always be with us. That's the reality of it and we have to accept that.

Is the speed of mutation related to its current prevalence?

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm not, but keep banging that drum.

And if some have weighed up the societal risks and decided that they personally feel the potential risks of a rushed to market set of vaccines and in the case of the MRNA type never been approved for use in humans before isn't worth the risk to them personally, what do you say to that? Should they be forced to take those vaccines?

They should take the vaccine to stop the transmission of the virus regardless if it effects them or not.
That's called the greater good.

And remember for those under the age of 65 the mortality rate without vaccines who tested positive for covid demographic since the first case in Ireland is 0.15%. The real figure will be even less. Which by the by is significantly lower than mortality rates for over 65's in "normal" annual influenza season. It is not "killing people of all ages". For those who are over 65 and/or with underlying conditions that leave them more vulnerable the risk/reward equation clearly makes far more sense and we've seen the uptake in that group is very high.

Irrelevant. I'm talking about the spread of the virus not the effects on people it won't harm but who can still deliver it to someone it can harm.

josip wrote: »

Is the speed of mutation related to its current prevalence?

The Indian variant seems to be a little more resistant to the vaccines and is more infectious. IIRC the South African variant has some issues there. Both minor, but the mutations are having some effect.

tom1ie wrote: »

Irrelevant. I'm talking about the spread of the virus not the effects on people it won't harm but who can still deliver it to someone it can harm.

So actual real world mortality rates are "irrelevant"? As are actual real world risks? Or the cast iron reality that we will not have 100% vaccinated or anything like it. And if you consider people's personal convictions as irrelevant you're not likely to reach them by badgering. Do you think they should be forced?

astrofool

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed. With the best will in the world, nobody can claim these vaccines are approved and have only been in existence for under a year as emergency use. The single jab and AZ vaccines have slightly more legs over the MRNA two jabs as similar vaccines have been used and approved for ebola for longer. Signs are good, but there is no denying that these are very early days and we have no hard data in on long term effects if any with these vaccines. There probably won't be, but we can't say that with certainty. That's not anti vaxxer "Sharon on facebook told me" guff, it's the reality.

Vaccines in Europe are not approved under emergency use approval. mRNA medicines have been in development for the last decade and during trials have shown to be more effective and importantly, safer than traditional vaccines, particularly those that used live cultures. Long term effects have also shown not to be an issue (with more positive data becoming available daily but we're nearly a year past when the early stage trials would have been in effect + the decade of development which would have had safety trials previously).

You're also missing the key point that vaccines work because they get populations to herd immunity which requires a high % of people to take them (luckily Ireland seems to be a high take up country), there is also no way to tell what severity of symptoms someone will suffer before they get infected with COVID whereas there is proven data on what happens when someone gets a vaccine.

Wibbs wrote: »

Of course they were rushed. The technology of MRNA vaccines in humans is a new one. Plus there has never been a vaccine approved for a coronavirus in humans before. By the very nature of this crisis it had to be rushed. If this wasn't a crisis they would not have been approved/released for emergency use in such a short time. The main practical step omitted is time. Monitoring is ongoing and I personally don't expect much of import to come out of it and I am bloody glad that we were able to come up with such a defence in such short order, but it was rushed. There's no denying that.

That's disappointingly waffly coming from you.

As I understand it the time to market was reduced due to certain steps that are normally done in sequence being parallelised.

"Rushed" implies excessive haste, i.e. haste that caused steps to be missed or poorly executed.

astrofool

Lumen wrote: »

That's disappointingly waffly coming from you.

As I understand it the time to market was reduced due to certain steps that are normally done in sequence being parallelised.

"Rushed" implies excessive haste, i.e. haste that caused steps to be missed or poorly executed.

That was the case, yes.

The safety trials were also far larger than is typical for medicines.

sligeach

tom1ie wrote: »

Irrelevant. I'm talking about the spread of the virus not the effects on people it won't harm but who can still deliver it to someone it can harm.

Those it can affect have been mostly vaccinated. My vulnerable family members have had their first dose, that's their choice, and I agree with them taking it. The RTE story I posted earlier today is proof that those who need the vaccine have largely had it, and the numbers have plummeted. I've been extremely responsible throughout this pandemic, followed every government guideline. I wear my mask, wash my hands, socially distance and will be for the foreseeable future.

Who are the people I can harm? Maybe a tiny portion of people who are immunocompromised and couldn't take the vaccine, but I won't be around them, they'll take every precaution, as will I when I'm out. That leaves only the people who haven't taken the vaccine, and we'll take our chances. But again, if they're careful, it hopefully won't be an issue.

astrofool wrote: »

Vaccines in Europe are not approved under emergency use approval. mRNA medicines have been in development for the last decade and during trials have shown to be more effective and importantly, safer than traditional vaccines, particularly those that used live cultures.

Citations please. MRNA drugs were in development alright, primarly by Moderna, but their use in areas like cancer and metabolic conditions was halted as side effects were considered too concerning and a load of companies dropped out of the research into them. Vaccines were seen as less troublesome because of the lower doses involved and a few were in development over the last few years, none of which were licenced or approved.

Long term effects have also shown not to be an issue (with more positive data becoming available daily but we're nearly a year past when the early stage trials would have been in effect + the decade of development which would have had safety trials previously).

As I have said I don't envisage any issues, but you can't define under a year as "long term". It's not.

You're also missing the key point that vaccines work because they get populations to herd immunity which requires a high % of people to take them

Which is an entirely different argument.

there is also no way to tell what severity of symptoms someone will suffer before they get infected with COVID whereas there is proven data on what happens when someone gets a vaccine.

Actually we have a pretty good idea of the severity involved depending on factors like age and underlying health conditions. In the Irish example in under 35's the hospitalisation rate is 0.7%, the mortality rate is 0.005%. In those who have been tested and tested positive. The actual percentage will be lower again. Those figures go up with age of course and above 70 the mortality rate jumps to 1.8%, which is serious and no trifle and certainly not "just a flu", but again we're not plodding around in the dark like we were a year ago. And yes vaccines will reduce those percentages even more.

Lumen wrote: »

That's disappointingly waffly coming from you.

As I understand it the time to market was reduced due to certain steps that are normally done in sequence being parallelised.

"Rushed" implies excessive haste, i.e. haste that caused steps to be missed or poorly executed.

I said: The technology of MRNA vaccines in humans is a new one. This is correct. I said: there has never been a vaccine approved for a coronavirus in humans before. This is correct. I said: By the very nature of this crisis it had to be rushed. If this wasn't a crisis they would not have been approved/released for emergency use in such a short time. Both correct. No "waffle" required. I also went on to say: Monitoring is ongoing and I personally don't expect much of import to come out of it and I am bloody glad that we were able to come up with such a defence in such short order. Just in case you missed it, that's a positive. If you're looking for some facebook antivaxxer you may want to look elsewhere.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

Citations please. MRNA drugs were in development alright, primarly by Moderna, but their use in areas like cancer and metabolic conditions was halted as side effects were considered too concerning and a load of companies dropped out of the research into them. Vaccines were seen as less troublesome because of the lower doses involved and a few were in development over the last few years, none of which were licenced or approved.

As I have said I don't envisage any issues, but you can't define under a year as "long term". It's not.
Which is an entirely different argument. Actually we have a pretty good idea of the severity involved depending on factors like age and underlying health conditions. In the Irish example in under 35's the hospitalisation rate is 0.7%, the mortality rate is 0.005%. In those who have been tested and tested positive. The actual percentage will be lower again. Those figures go up with age of course and above 70 the mortality rate jumps to 1.8%, which is serious and no trifle and certainly not "just a flu", but again we're not plodding around in the dark like we were a year ago. And yes vaccines will reduce those percentages even more.

I said: The technology of MRNA vaccines in humans is a new one. This is correct. I said: there has never been a vaccine approved for a coronavirus in humans before. This is correct. I said: By the very nature of this crisis it had to be rushed. If this wasn't a crisis they would not have been approved/released for emergency use in such a short time. Both correct. No "waffle" required. I also went on to say: Monitoring is ongoing and I personally don't expect much of import to come out of it and I am bloody glad that we were able to come up with such a defence in such short order. Just in case you missed it, that's a positive. If you're looking for some facebook antivaxxer you may want to look elsewhere.

mRNA is going to change the world, and that’s just in vaccines. Highly effective and rapidly redesigned influenza vaccines will be one of the major benefits but you can easily see common cold vaccines for older populations and a consequent increase in life expectancy. A lot of these viruses also trigger heart and other issues so the world is in for a massive change

astrofool

Wibbs wrote: »

Citations please. MRNA drugs were in development alright, primarly by Moderna, but their use in areas like cancer and metabolic conditions was halted as side effects were considered too concerning and a load of companies dropped out of the research into them. Vaccines were seen as less troublesome because of the lower doses involved and a few were in development over the last few years, none of which were licenced or approved.

You seem to have answered your own question here, thanks for that

You also have to remember that vaccines are not seen as money makers for pharma companies (even with the demand on them during the pandemic) they would be far happier selling treatments such as the one that trump received (and ironically a new treatment with less testing than the vaccines that his supporters would lap up without a thought). Hopefully the pandemic will refocus our efforts around vaccines and we'll see the end to flu and colds.

Wibbs wrote: »

As I have said I don't envisage any issues, but you can't define under a year as "long term". It's not.

It would be unprecedented for a medicine to only start exhibiting further symptoms after a certain amount of time, sure time is used in trials to figure out effects but usually as a way to catch things that might have been missed, the sheer numbers taking the COVID vaccines put this notion to bed, if we were going to see something long term we'd have already seen it (and again with the massive amount of people in the trials).

Wibbs wrote: »

Which is an entirely different argument. Actually we have a pretty good idea of the severity involved depending on factors like age and underlying health conditions. In the Irish example in under 35's the hospitalisation rate is 0.7%, the mortality rate is 0.005%. In those who have been tested and tested positive. The actual percentage will be lower again. Those figures go up with age of course and above 70 the mortality rate jumps to 1.8%, which is serious and no trifle and certainly not "just a flu", but again we're not plodding around in the dark like we were a year ago. And yes vaccines will reduce those percentages even more.

Sure, but you don't know if you'll be one of those impacted, some of those who have had severe COVID and died have been fit and healthy individuals without any conditions, the % chance is low, but you have no way to tell if you're vulnerable until you catch it (which can also vary with viral load as we've seen with some doctors succumbing to it)

Wibbs wrote: »

I said: The technology of MRNA vaccines in humans is a new one. This is correct. I said: there has never been a vaccine approved for a coronavirus in humans before. This is correct. I said: By the very nature of this crisis it had to be rushed. If this wasn't a crisis they would not have been approved/released for emergency use in such a short time. Both correct. No "waffle" required. I also went on to say: Monitoring is ongoing and I personally don't expect much of import to come out of it and I am bloody glad that we were able to come up with such a defence in such short order. Just in case you missed it, that's a positive. If you're looking for some facebook antivaxxer you may want to look elsewhere.

It's probably better referred to as a new/old technology

If it wasn't a crisis, these vaccines would never have been developed, companies would have continued happily selling treatments and medicines (and snake oil in some cases). We've never needed a coronavirus vaccine before, it wasn't something interesting to pursue until now.

(I will note this is better posted over in the vaccine thread as this one has now become the hideout for those selectively posting out of contxt links about vaccines, not including Wibbs in that)

edit: sorry, European vaccine approval is under Conditional Marketing Approval not Emergency Approval, the bar for which is higher than Emergency Approval.