Covid-19 vaccine

[realtimesave]

I don't trust the vaccine but at least they tried.

 

[Lacius]

I don't trust the vaccine but at least they tried.

The vaccines have been demonstrated to be safe and effective. It is very important that as many people as possible get vaccinated as soon as possible.

 

[Armadillo]

Nothing for me yet. Not even sure when my group is suppose to get it (30-39 group) and no health issues. So just phase 2, don't know when that is.

 

[Alexander1970]

It appears that Sputnik V is actually more effective than AstraZeneca. Who knows, maybe it is a better alternative...

Putin is still alive........I presume.......so...

 

[izy]

I mean you there seems to be nothing wrong with mixing vaccines if there is limited supply, that and booster shots.

your healthcare systems must think the vaccine are fine if they are willing to be distributed in your country.

bionech requires specialised freezers to store it so it cant be mass rolled out as easy.

dont know why people think taking less efficient vaccine that is still viable to because of feelings and chance of risk.
vs
you know not actually taking a vaccine and having complete risk

that and the fact you can get boosters/2nd doses of a vaccine from another maker just fine

 

[notimp]

It appears that Sputnik V is actually more effective than AstraZeneca. Who knows, maybe it is a better alternative...

I'd still prefer BioNTech or Moderna to those.

Issue with Sputnik currently is, that its not EMA approved:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/clarification-sputnik-v-vaccine-eu-approval-process

Which would basically mean, that it couldnt be part of a european vaccination pass 'regime'.

In terms of effectiveness, It would have to be given twice, same as AstraZeneca. (Has higher effectiveness though.)

It is a vector vaccine same as AstraZeneca, but it used two different adenovirus types as a base which lead to the higher effectiveness.

It got its numbers vetted by the Lancet (so no, or statistically very good meddling with the numbers in the datapool provided.. ), but it didnt undergo a testing regime vetted in the EU, basically.

Oh, and Russia has three vaccines in production in total.

edit: Rolling review is under way:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-starts-rolling-review-sputnik-v-covid-19-vaccine

 

[Alexander1970]

Issue with Sputnik currently is, that its not EMA approved:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/clarification-sputnik-v-vaccine-eu-approval-process

Which would basically mean, that it couldnt be part of a european vaccination pass 'regime'.

In terms of effectiveness, It would have to be given twice, same as AstraZeneca.

It got its numbers vetted by the Lancet (so no, or statistically very good meddling with the numbers in the datapool provided.. ), but it didnt undergo a testing regime vetted in the EU, basically.

Yes,we got a "Warning" about that,but ...who cares.....at least not our Chancellor....who made the Deal with Russia...

 

[Xzi]

Well I was gonna go get my first jab today, but turns out the J&J vaccine will be available in my area starting Monday, so I might as well wait a little longer and save myself a trip.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

If you are referring to herd immunity, that number is probably higher than 60%. If the R0 of COVID-19 is 4, for example, then 1-(1/4) is 75%, but you also have to take into account the efficacy of the vaccine. 75% vaccination rate with a vaccine that's 90% effective gets you at a 67.5% effective vaccine rate, under the 75% number needed for herd immunity with a hypothetical R0 of 4. It would need to be 83% vaccination rate with a 90% efficacy to get to 75% effective vaccination rate and herd immunity.

The R0 is hard to measure, since mask-wearing, social distancing, hand-washing, etc. affect it. Not counting the variants, I'd say a natural R0 of 2-3 is likely. That would put the herd immunity number around 60% (again, without taking into account variants), but with a 90% effective vaccine, that's about 54%. To actually get 60% effective vaccination, you need about 67% of the population to get vaccinated.

Tldr, to get herd immunity, the vaccination rate is probably closer to 70% at least, and that doesn't fully take into account emerging variants.

If we want to return to normal, we need as many people to get vaccinated as soon as possible. You have a choice between the status quo (masks, social distancing, etc.) or vaccination. If we are too slow to get people vaccinated, new emerging variants may reduce the efficacy of the vaccine and cause a positive feedback loop of reduced vaccine efficacy. That could mean we start back at square one with no effective vaccine and going back to lockdowns, mask-wearing, etc. Based on your previous posts, you of all people should be promoting timely vaccination.

This is all assuming that Big Pharma isn't lying about everything. I'm no lab rat.

 

[Blaze163]

Already had my first dose. Made me feel exhausted for a couple days but it's better than dying so all's fair I guess.

 

[Xzi]

This is all assuming that Big Pharma isn't lying about everything. I'm no lab rat.

No shit sherlock, if you wanted to be a lab rat you missed your chance to join in the clinical trials about a year ago. What we've got now are vaccines that have already undergone human testing.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

No shit sherlock, if you wanted to be a lab rat you missed your chance to join in the clinical trials about a year ago. What we've got now are vaccines that have already undergone human testing.

Not enough human testing to ensure that there aren't any long-term side effects. Developing a vaccine for a new disease in less than a year is unprecedented, and should not be trusted for the next five years.

 

[phonemonkey]

See my post above for why each person has a moral imperative to be vaccinated as soon as possible. It affects more than just oneself.

No they don't, it's their choice, their decision.

 

[Xzi]

Not enough human testing to ensure that there aren't any long-term side effects. Developing a vaccine for a new disease in less than a year is unprecedented, and should not be trusted for the next five years.

Bruh, there aren't going to be any long-term side effects. Tens of millions of people have been vaccinated and there's barely any short-term side effects being reported. All the vaccine does is tell your body to build its own spike protein, and then your body attacks that protein as if it were part of coronavirus.

Like just think about what you're saying for a second: you're afraid of the roughly 0.000001% chance that you'll have a bad reaction to the vaccine, but not the 1% chance you have of dying from COVID-19 or the 5% to 10% chance it does serious damage to your lungs or other organs. In case you aren't much of a math guy or an XCOM player: the latter percentages are way higher.

 

[KingVamp]

It is pretty crazy that we went from using the weakened versions of viruses to using mRNA or DNA instead.

 

[Xzi]

It is pretty crazy that we went from using the weakened versions of viruses to using mRNA or DNA instead.

AFAIK the Johnson & Johnson vaccine works more traditionally, by using dead cold virus cells to deliver the spike protein from COVID. The rest though, yeah. Amazing how far we've come with sequencing the human genome and all that.

 

[Lacius]

This is all assuming that Big Pharma isn't lying about everything. I'm no lab rat.

It isn't ALL assuming "big pharma" isn't lying. The only part they could potentially be lying about is the efficacy of the vaccine, since that's the only information we got from what you would call "big pharma," and I cannot overstate how unlikely that is. Clinical trials were done all over the country by numerous independent parties and institutions that have no personal stake in whether or not they say the vaccines work. You're suggesting a conspiracy so large that it's just not possible. We would have people from all over the country shouting from the metaphorical mountaintops that the data was manipulated if the data had actually been manipulated.

If you do some research on how the efficacy and safety of a vaccine are determined, you'll see that the "big pharma is lying" argument is both unsubstantiated and impossible.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

No they don't, it's their choice, their decision.

I didn't say people don't have a choice; they do. I said they have a moral imperative. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Not enough human testing to ensure that there aren't any long-term side effects. Developing a vaccine for a new disease in less than a year is unprecedented, and should not be trusted for the next five years.

The vaccines have been demonstrated to be both safe and effective. As far as I can tell, this " wait five years" number is completely made-up with no medical science behind it. In truth, the medical science is very clear that as many people as possible should get vaccinated as soon as possible, and I explained why in a previous post.

 

[phonemonkey]

It isn't ALL assuming "big pharma" isn't lying. The only part they could potentially be lying about is the efficacy of the vaccine, since that's the only information we got from what you would call "big pharma," and I cannot overstate how unlikely that is. Clinical trials were done all over the country by numerous independent parties and institutions that have no personal stake in whether or not they say the vaccines work. You're suggesting a conspiracy so large that it's just not possible. We would have people from all over the country shouting from the metaphorical mountaintops that the data was manipulated if the data had actually been manipulated.

If you do some research on how the efficacy and safety of a vaccine are determined, you'll see that the "big pharma is lying" argument is both unsubstantiated and impossible.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


I didn't say people don't have a choice; they do. I said they have a moral imperative. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


The vaccines have been demonstrated to be both safe and effective. As far as I can tell, this " wait five years" number is completely made-up with no medical science behind it. In truth, the medical science is very clear that as many people as possible should get vaccinated as soon as possible, and I explained why in a previous post.

They don't have a moral imperative at all. If you feel that way fine, don't insinuate others should.

Im classed as vulnerable, always ill, asthma, chest infections. I would never expect anyone to feel thay should take any medication to make my life easier.

 

[Lacius]

They don't have a moral imperative at all. If you feel that way fine, don't insinuate others should.

Im classed as vulnerable, always ill, asthma, chest infections. I would never expect anyone to feel thay should take any medication to make my life easier.

If we don't get enough people vaccinated in time to get herd immunity and beat the variants that will reduce vaccine efficacy, we will go backwards to a time when we had a lot more daily deaths than now. There is absolutely a moral imperative to get vaccinated.

 

[phonemonkey]

If we don't get enough people vaccinated in time to get herd immunity and beat the variants that will reduce vaccine efficacy, we will go backwards to a time when we had a lot more daily deaths than now. There is absolutely a moral imperative to get vaccinated.

Lol, cool story bro. Grow up and stop forcing your opinion onto others.