Covid Vaccine... Well would you ??

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
877
Reaction score
696
Ffs where does this stuff come from and why don't people just check?

VERDICT​

False. The virus that causes the disease COVID-19 has been isolated and is named SARS-CoV-2. After being isolated, work began on developing a vaccine against the virus.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team.

 

fixedspool

Well-known member
Messages
1,084
Reaction score
478
Ffs where does this stuff come from and why don't people just check?

VERDICT​

False. The virus that causes the disease COVID-19 has been isolated and is named SARS-CoV-2. After being isolated, work began on developing a vaccine against the virus.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team.

Oh so that's alright then is it. Just give us the other reports that's say it's not, but that/s not your style is it.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
877
Reaction score
696
Oh so that's alright then is it. Just give us the other reports that's say it's not, but that/s not your style is it.
I keep having to explain the burden of proof.

The people that do this work have said that it's been isolated and provided the evidence. Two independent, reputable, fact checkers have confirmed it.

Why would anybody, then say that it hasn't been without providing absolute proof, and why would anyone that has no training or expertise in the area repeat it as fact?
 

keirross

Well-known member
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
119
Location
In a cooling North Atlantic...
I thought that the chinese shared the DNA of the virus in January, if you can believe them
Viruses replicate via RNA. More at https://www.technologynetworks.com/...he-key-differences-between-dna-and-rna-296719.

The 2019 Military World Games were held there then successively tested positive USA-side next month. Meantime, Italy's Lombardy region was kicking off... China's been very cute in the art of nu-found propagandad misinformation as us westernised admins were designed to follow. Follow the politics and dosh.
 
Last edited:

fixedspool

Well-known member
Messages
1,084
Reaction score
478

I keep having to explain the burden of proof.

The people that do this work have said that it's been isolated and provided the evidence. Two independent, reputable, fact checkers have confirmed it.

Why would anybody, then say that it hasn't been without providing absolute proof, and why would anyone that has no training or expertise in the area repeat it as fact?
There are plenty of experts who do question your so called absolute proof. The problem is most of you have to sing from the same song sheet or are afraid to step out of line and perhaps receive the ridicule of your associates or your bosses should you perceive an alternative views and heaven forbid seek to air it. You know that many of the deaths, especially in the elderly and who died from other diseases have been redesignated as Covid 19 with no evidence other than a doctors 'opinion'. Absolute proof -not in my book.
 

Nigel Passmore

Well-known member
Messages
548
Reaction score
876
If you put anything in your body for the first time it is a risk as to how you will react to it. So if you are taking a risk what is the reward? Given we have absolutley no way of knowing what if any the long time side effects of the 4 (if you count the Russian Sputnik) vaccines are I suggest the very minimum you'd want is:

  1. To prevent you becoming symptomatic with C19
  2. To prevent you spreading C19
  3. To have long term immunity
So having read as much as I can on Pfizer/BioNtech, Moderna (which are both mNRA Vaccines i.e. you don't actually need to have the virus to produce the vaccine you model its DNA and the vaccine causes the body to produce antigens which triggers the immune system to fight the virus) and Oxford Astra Zeneca which is an 'old Skool' one based on using a weakened version of the virus here are my observations (all others welcome):

So how do these vaccines stack up against the three tests?

1. To prevent you becoming symptomatic with C19


Well maximum claimed effectivenss is 95%. Yet 99.9% of us will neither die nor have serious illness with C19. So immediately nature triumphs science. Also, these vaccines have only been tried on healthy humans below the age of 55 (as I understand it) i.e the least at risk universe. As far as I am aware (happy to be corrected) there have been no trials on the over 70s who have co-morbidiites (yet that is the most at risk universe).

2. To prevent you spreading C19

At this stage (as far as I can find) there is no evidence, yet, that any of these vaccines prevent you spreading C19. Wait a minute, isn't that the key reason to vaccinate the healthy to stop killing Granny? Well there is no evidence these will do this in the same way the flu jab does not prevent flu mortality in the senior population.

3. To have long term immunity

This one is simple; we don't know because we can't know yet.

So I'd suggest the Vaccines to date score about 1/2 out of 3 in the above tests. And let's not even go there on the logisitcs of rolling these out which our government are already failing at spectacularly, if entirely predictably, against their own aspirations.

Side Effects

I don't know if there are as yet unknown side effects (previous attempts to have vaccines for similar viruses did - see EMA challenge below). However, I should draw your attention to the following petition this week to the European Medicine Agency to stop further roll out until Pfizer produce a Design Study followed by Sangar Sequencing on the vaccine. The summary sets out the clear risks that this is meant to address, if you are thinking of taking the vaccine you might want to consider this first as part of your overall risk assessment..


Oh and you should be aware the UK Health authorities have not approved this vaccine under normal health protocols but under the ones contained under Regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012, which enables rapid temporary regulatory approvals to address significant public health issues such as a pandemic. Think about that carefully and weigh up the possible additional risks. For more detail see here:


Whether you want to take a vaccine is and always should be a risk based personal choice. I have my own view for myself based on my research and personal circumstances. As ever, make your own minds up; all I suggest is you inform yourself of the evidence, such as it is, first.

Regards

NHP
 

wormo

Well-known member
Messages
4,507
Reaction score
3,315
Location
stirling
of course there's no connection here is there ???
The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation have a substantial shareholding in Pfizer.....
they happen to give the MHRA just short of £1 million pounds for "collaboration"
The MHRA become the first in the world to authorise the Pfizer vaccine
hmm as I say no connections there at all is there?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
877
Reaction score
696
There are plenty of experts who do question your so called absolute proof.

Those that have isolated the virus have provided the evidence of it. It has been independently verified. Please produce your evidence that this virus has not been isolated.

The problem is most of you have to sing from the same song sheet or are afraid to step out of line and perhaps receive the ridicule of your associates or your bosses should you perceive an alternative views and heaven forbid seek to air it. You know that many of the deaths, especially in the elderly and who died from other diseases have been redesignated as Covid 19 with no evidence other than a doctors 'opinion'. Absolute proof -not in my book.

What has and this got to do with whether the virus has been isolated or not? Can you please back up your claim that hasn't.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
877
Reaction score
696
If you put anything in your body for the first time it is a risk as to how you will react to it. So if you are taking a risk what is the reward? Given we have absolutley no way of knowing what if any the long time side effects of the 4 (if you count the Russian Sputnik) vaccines are I suggest the very minimum you'd want is:

  1. To prevent you becoming symptomatic with C19
  2. To prevent you spreading C19
  3. To have long term immunity
So having read as much as I can on Pfizer/BioNtech, Moderna (which are both mNRA Vaccines i.e. you don't actually need to have the virus to produce the vaccine you model its DNA and the vaccine causes the body to produce antigens which triggers the immune system to fight the virus) and Oxford Astra Zeneca which is an 'old Skool' one based on using a weakened version of the virus here are my observations (all others welcome):

So how do these vaccines stack up against the three tests?

1. To prevent you becoming symptomatic with C19


Well maximum claimed effectivenss is 95%. Yet 99.9% of us will neither die nor have serious illness with C19. So immediately nature triumphs science. Also, these vaccines have only been tried on healthy humans below the age of 55 (as I understand it) i.e the least at risk universe. As far as I am aware (happy to be corrected) there have been no trials on the over 70s who have co-morbidiites (yet that is the most at risk universe).

2. To prevent you spreading C19

At this stage (as far as I can find) there is no evidence, yet, that any of these vaccines prevent you spreading C19. Wait a minute, isn't that the key reason to vaccinate the healthy to stop killing Granny? Well there is no evidence these will do this in the same way the flu jab does not prevent flu mortality in the senior population.

3. To have long term immunity

This one is simple; we don't know because we can't know yet.

So I'd suggest the Vaccines to date score about 1/2 out of 3 in the above tests. And let's not even go there on the logisitcs of rolling these out which our government are already failing at spectacularly, if entirely predictably, against their own aspirations.

Side Effects

I don't know if there are as yet unknown side effects (previous attempts to have vaccines for similar viruses did - see EMA challenge below). However, I should draw your attention to the following petition this week to the European Medicine Agency to stop further roll out until Pfizer produce a Design Study followed by Sangar Sequencing on the vaccine. The summary sets out the clear risks that this is meant to address, if you are thinking of taking the vaccine you might want to consider this first as part of your overall risk assessment..


Oh and you should be aware the UK Health authorities have not approved this vaccine under normal health protocols but under the ones contained under Regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012, which enables rapid temporary regulatory approvals to address significant public health issues such as a pandemic. Think about that carefully and weigh up the possible additional risks. For more detail see here:


Whether you want to take a vaccine is and always should be a risk based personal choice. I have my own view for myself based on my research and personal circumstances. As ever, make your own minds up; all I suggest is you inform yourself of the evidence, such as it is, first.

Regards

NHP
Nigel I've fact checked the first two claims you've made and they are both incorrect

1. 99.9% of us will neither die nor have serious illness with C19

“Incorrect. It is estimated that Covid-19 has a fatality rate of around 0.5%-1% globally, though could be slightly higher in countries with older populations.”

We have an older population.

And that's just deaths. Many more will have serious illnesses.


Also, these vaccines have only been tried on healthy humans below the age of 55 (as I understand it) i.e the least at risk universe.

Again, you understand incorrectly.

The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,661 participants to date, 41,135 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 13, 2020. Approximately 42% of global participants and 30% of U.S. participants have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds, and 41% of global and 45% of U.S. participants are 56-85 years of age. A breakdown of the diversity of clinical trial participants can be found here from approximately 150 clinical trials sites in United States, Germany, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina. The trial will continue to collect efficacy and safety data in participants for an additional two years.

I'm afraid I read no further.

Please stop spreading false memes, it harms us as much as the virus.
 

fixedspool

Well-known member
Messages
1,084
Reaction score
478
Those that have isolated the virus have provided the evidence of it. It has been independently verified. Please produce your evidence that this virus has not been isolated.



What has and this got to do with whether the virus has been isolated or not? Can you please back up your claim that hasn't.
Listen to this link -fully- then tell me that the vast array of evidence produced is wrong if you can.
Not saying the guy is right but the evidence produced is conclusive in many peoples opions and who are far more qualified than yourself. Listen to it all -its not a waste of time.

 

fixedspool

Well-known member
Messages
1,084
Reaction score
478
Are you totally crazy? Why would any sane person click on that link. Get a grip man.
Like I said typical. Not prepared to look at a mass of other evidence by eminent scientists the world over. . Blinkered, So far up your own ass you can't see the wood for the trees.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
877
Reaction score
696
Like I said typical. Not prepared to look at a mass of other evidence by eminent scientists the world over. . Blinkered, So far up your own ass you can't see the wood for the trees.

It's a banned video. I don't click on links like that and neither should you.

If you've got evidence that shows that the COVID virus has not been isolated bring it here.
 

Nigel Passmore

Well-known member
Messages
548
Reaction score
876
Nigel I've fact checked the first two claims you've made and they are both incorrect



“Incorrect. It is estimated that Covid-19 has a fatality rate of around 0.5%-1% globally, though could be slightly higher in countries with older populations.”

We have an older population.

And that's just deaths. Many more will have serious illnesses.




Again, you understand incorrectly.

The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,661 participants to date, 41,135 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 13, 2020. Approximately 42% of global participants and 30% of U.S. participants have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds, and 41% of global and 45% of U.S. participants are 56-85 years of age. A breakdown of the diversity of clinical trial participants can be found here from approximately 150 clinical trials sites in United States, Germany, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina. The trial will continue to collect efficacy and safety data in participants for an additional two years.

I'm afraid I read no further.

Please stop spreading false memes, it harms us as much as
Nigel I've fact checked the first two claims you've made and they are both incorrect



“Incorrect. It is estimated that Covid-19 has a fatality rate of around 0.5%-1% globally, though could be slightly higher in countries with older populations.”

We have an older population.

And that's just deaths. Many more will have serious illnesses.




Again, you understand incorrectly.

The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,661 participants to date, 41,135 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 13, 2020. Approximately 42% of global participants and 30% of U.S. participants have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds, and 41% of global and 45% of U.S. participants are 56-85 years of age. A breakdown of the diversity of clinical trial participants can be found here from approximately 150 clinical trials sites in United States, Germany, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina. The trial will continue to collect efficacy and safety data in participants for an additional two years.

I'm afraid I read no further.

Please stop spreading false memes, it harms us as much as the virus.
As usual, with respect, you are very Tangled in your thinking; again it would seem.

UK population 65m (lower estimate)
UK official deaths from C19 60,000

ergo: 60,000/65,000,000 x100 = 0.09%
So to the population in general in Uk is 99.9% statistically not currently likely to die of C19.

What you are doing with your figures is confusing two different ratios. However, I am sure you’ll spot the easily made mistake you have made and correct yourself.

On testing ages, if you’d have read on you’d have seen the critical observation I made which you appear to have failed to notice because you didn’t bother to read, which seems to be your USP. Feel free to have another go.

Regards

NHP
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
877
Reaction score
696
As usual, with respect, you are very Tangled in your thinking; again it would seem.

UK population 65m (lower estimate)
UK official deaths from C19 60,000

ergo: 60,000/65,000,000 x100 = 0.09%
So to the population in general in Uk is 99.9% statistically not currently likely to die of C19.

What you are doing with your figures is confusing two different ratios. However, I am sure you’ll spot the easily made mistake you have made and correct yourself.

On testing ages, if you’d have read on you’d have seen the critical observation I made which you appear to have failed to notice because you didn’t bother to read, which seems to be your USP. Feel free to have another go.

Regards

NHP

umm, that is not a valid way to calculate the % of deaths likely to occur in a population.

You have calculated the % deaths so far in the whole population, most of whom have not yet been exposed to the virus. Last week the % was less, next week the % will be more.

We need to know the % of people who will die when exposed to the virus (actually, it's when infected by it). As I said, the correct estimate for the UK appears to be a little over 1%, probably about 1.1%

The key statistic to look at here is called the infection fatality rate (IFR). This is the proportion of people who die from the disease after contracting it.

We know for certain that the IFR is higher than 0.01% as suggested, because we know that 53,675 deaths in England and Wales have so far been registered with an underlying cause of Covid-19.
 

Nigel Passmore

Well-known member
Messages
548
Reaction score
876
umm, that is not a valid way to calculate the % of deaths likely to occur in a population.

You have calculated the % deaths so far in the whole population, most of whom have not yet been exposed to the virus. Last week the % was less, next week the % will be more.

We need to know the % of people who will die when exposed to the virus (actually, it's when infected by it). As I said, the correct estimate for the UK appears to be a little over 1%, probably about 1.1%
Uummn, actually, it is the only way to measure the impact on the general population. IFR is a measure of the relative severity of the disease inter se. That is a different thing and relevant to many things, but unfortunately not what I was talking about. It’s the population as a whole that is being asked to vaccinate not those who have tested ‘positive’ for C19

Your posting tone and style has an uncanny similarity with that of RPSalmon. So I think it’s time to respond appropriately, which is not at all.

Regards

NHP
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
877
Reaction score
696
Uummn, actually, it is the only way to measure the impact on the general population.

It says what % of the population has died so far. Measured in March it would be approximately zero, measured next march it will be much higher unless we're very lucky. It's meaningless until this virus has played out.

It tells you nothing about what you were trying to tell us which was that it only kills 0.01% of the population. This is what you said .

"Yet 99.9% of us will neither die nor have serious illness with C19."

Which is totally wrong. The actual figure for deaths if nothing stops this virus is c1%, 10 time more. And many, many times more for serious illness.
Your posting tone and style has an uncanny similarity with that of RPSalmon. So I think it’s time to respond appropriately, which is not at all.

No idea who RPSalmon is but I do think it would be a good idea if you didn't respond; at least until you've understood the facts and then checked them, it would save a lot of mistakes and missinformation.
 

Aidan Rocks

Active member
Messages
442
Reaction score
129
They did. That's how they found the correct spike protein to aim for. They make a new vaccine every year for the Flu. As it changes so much they have to guess the year before what strains we are likely to get. If they get it wrong its as much use as a bendy hook. They had already been working on ones for SARS and MERS but as no huge pandemic with these, their development slowed. Then came covid and full steam ahead. No waiting around for the next band of investment. It costs millions to get a vaccine to market, but for Covid the investment risk was worth it. The FDA meet on Thursday to discuss the new vaccine. As they need it most you think they could do a little overtime. But you can't rush the FDA and the public need to think they are taking their time. It will get passed and I am sure the rest of the US is not waiting on them sitting on their hands. They have a joke they use, In God we trust, everyone else bring data. 2000 people a day do not see the humour.
 

carrowmore

Well-known member
Messages
1,000
Reaction score
671
Location
Lancashire
They did. That's how they found the correct spike protein to aim for. They make a new vaccine every year for the Flu. As it changes so much they have to guess the year before what strains we are likely to get. If they get it wrong its as much use as a bendy hook. They had already been working on ones for SARS and MERS but as no huge pandemic with these, their development slowed. Then came covid and full steam ahead. No waiting around for the next band of investment. It costs millions to get a vaccine to market, but for Covid the investment risk was worth it. The FDA meet on Thursday to discuss the new vaccine. As they need it most you think they could do a little overtime. But you can't rush the FDA and the public need to think they are taking their time. It will get passed and I am sure the rest of the US is not waiting on them sitting on their hands. They have a joke they use, In God we trust, everyone else bring data. 2000 people a day do not see the humour.

Exactly right . From 2003 to 2012 there were studies to generate an RNA vaccine against SARS and MERS ( both Coronaviruses ) and they identified the spike protein as a good target for protective antibodies.

In January of this year the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) were working with Moderna on making another RNA vaccine for a trial against the Nipah virus , a nasty RNA virus transmitted by fruit bats. Then along came Covid and the NIAID redirected their efforts once the draft genome of the SARS-CoV-2 sequence had been shared.

RNA vaccines are new but they have a long pedigree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

offshore

Well-known member
Messages
2,062
Reaction score
482
Exactly right . From 2003 to 2012 there were studies to generate an RNA vaccine against SARS and MERS ( both Coronaviruses ) and they identified the spike protein as a good target for protective antibodies.

In January of this year the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) were working with Moderna on making another RNA vaccine for a trial against the Nipah virus , a nasty RNA virus transmitted by fruit bats. Then along came Covid and the NIAID redirected their efforts once the draft genome of the SARS-CoV-2 sequence had been shared.

RNA vaccines are new but they have a long pedigree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Speaking in your capacity as a fisherman, which of the vacines would you choose: RNA or non-RNA - based on the potential medium term side affects ( not initial effectiveness).

Thank you.
 

carrowmore

Well-known member
Messages
1,000
Reaction score
671
Location
Lancashire
Speaking in your capacity as a fisherman, which of the vacines would you choose: RNA or non-RNA - based on the potential medium term side affects ( not initial effectiveness).

Thank you.

I’m happy to have any MHRA approved vaccine as the safety data will have undergone rigorous evaluation. As yet we only have approval for the Pfizer RNA vaccine and are waiting to see if AstraZeneca’s , a “ viral vector “ vaccine , is approved.

The risks of vaccination are far less than the risks of Covid 19 and having witnessed the effects of Covid both in my work and in members of my immediate family I would have no hesitation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

offshore

Well-known member
Messages
2,062
Reaction score
482
I’m happy to have any MHRA approved vaccine as the safety data will have undergone rigorous evaluation. As yet we only have approval for the Pfizer RNA vaccine and are waiting to see if AstraZeneca’s , a “ viral vector “ vaccine , is approved.

The risks of vaccination are far less than the risks of Covid 19 and having witnessed the effects of Covid both in my work and in members of my immediate family I would have no hesitation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thank you.
 

offshore

Well-known member
Messages
2,062
Reaction score
482
This quite a good link for anybody interested. I have had to read each paragraph 3 times to understand it, so will look again this evening and not waste daylight.

I was thinking the one which had the least steps is the one for me (Dr Patricks Occams Razor previously quoted on here); but I like to buy the old model of a car that's had the teething problems sorted, so probably that's just me.

The links at the bottom of the first page, explain the other types.

 
Top