Covid Vaccine... Well would you ??

kimbo

Well-known member
Messages
1,643
Reaction score
335
Location
Kingskerswell, Newton Abbot. Devon
The trouble is there are a lot of people giving opinions on something they know nothing about. Deal with the Facts not what was read in a newspaper or spoken by American experts who are jealous that we were the first, if you don't count the Russians and Chinese, I would be worried about those two vaccines for sure.
I for one will take any vaccine that had been certified, it had been ratified by far greater minds than mine based on facts that we have not been party to.
 

ABK

Active member
Messages
707
Reaction score
38
Location
AYRSHIRE
The problem is that we are being asked to make a so called informed decision. However we are not being informed with all the facts. One such fact which emerged today which made my ears prick up was made by an independent micro immunologist on the BBC, who was answering viewers questions. He stated that the phase 3 trials have still got another year to run. The first three months of the stage 3 trials are the minimum required under emergency regulation. What the government are really asking the public to do is take part in one of the biggest stage 3 trials without being up front about it. If some detrimental life changing side effect manifests through these trials, trying to get compensation will be a complete nightmare. Just look at Thalidomide for example, to name but one.

Additional the Government has granted Pfizer immunity from any prosecution which may be brought against them. I am liking the idea of being immunised less and less.

Speaking as a retired professional engineer in order to fix something you must first know how it fully works. The experts we are now supposed to believe, only just a few weeks ago, were saying that they are still in their infancy, regarding the full workings of this virus and that it would take years before they have a full understanding of it.
 
Last edited:

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,408
Reaction score
887
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
Perhaps let's wait another year to wait and see just in case the average age of CV19 deaths actually drops below the average life expectancy (and it starts killing those who probably wouldn't have died soon... :rolleyes: )

I will, unless forced, dragging and screaming by the CV19 Stasi...
 

offshore

Well-known member
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
428
The problem is that we are being asked to make a so called informed decision. However we are not being informed with all the facts. One such fact which emerged today which made my ears prick up was made by an independent micro immunologist on the BBC, who was answering viewers questions. He stated that the phase 3 trials have still got another year to run. The first three months of the stage 3 trials are the minimum required under emergency regulation. What the government are really asking the public to do is take part in one of the biggest stage 3 trials without being up front about it. If some detrimental life changing side effect manifests through these trials, trying to get compensation will be a complete nightmare. Just look at Thalidomide for example, to name but one.

Additional the Government has granted Pfizer immunity from any prosecution which may be brought against them. I am liking the idea of being immunised less and less.

Speaking as a retired professional engineer in order to fix something you must first know how it fully works. The experts we are now supposed to believe, only just a few weeks ago, were saying that they are still in their infancy, regarding the full workings of this virus and that it would take years before they have a full understanding of it.
Some good, rational points.

My question would be : how many trials of new vaccines, that have shown no detrimental effects in the first 6 months have subsequently gone on to show detrimental effects (later) - using the modern protocols with which these vacines are being tested?

I can only assume that problems have historically been identified almost immediately and they are banking on the laws of probability (through their knowledge and experience), that this will also be the case this time.

If I was a conspiracy theorists, I would say the esteemed professors Willey and Vallance have kept their heads down recently and let Van Dam take the limelight - which seems counter-intuitive considering the long road they have been on.

I haven't forgotten our Professors stated that the longer a lockdown was left the more effective it would be - which defied my common sense at the time and subsequently turned out to be cobblers.

I will probably end up taking a vaccine, but it will be on the basis of known unknowns - if you see what I mean. If there becomes a choice, I will plump for the most 'low tech' version that is reasonably effective. If I was in a high risk group (which I am not) I would swallow the first thing put on the table.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
829
Reaction score
605
That's the dilemma - his points and concerns aren't ridiculous though are they. Well I don't think so anyway.
It's not really a dilemma. There's a lot of knowledge now about vaccines. Any serious issues are found in the three phase trials. Very few side effect are found later. The thalidomide example is not relevant as pregnant women will not be given the vaccine.

On the other side of the equation we have the known effects of COVID to which we have no defence.

There is no absolute certainty, only balance of risk.
 

offshore

Well-known member
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
428
It's not really a dilemma. There's a lot of knowledge now about vaccines. Any serious issues are found in the three phase trials. Very few side effect are found later. The thalidomide example is not relevant as pregnant women will not be given the vaccine.

On the other side of the equation we have the known effects of COVID to which we have no defence.

There is no absolute certainty, only balance of risk.
I think we are saying the same thing; its a balance of risk - not completely without risk.
 

wormo

Well-known member
Messages
4,369
Reaction score
2,677
Location
stirling
"Additional the Government has granted Pfizer immunity from any prosecution which may be brought against them. I am liking the idea of being immunised less and less"

This for me says it all , they are grasping at straws with fingerless hands
how can they grant immunity from prosecution that in its self should be enough to put u off
its a leap of faith with the devil , in reality they gave no clue what the outcome will be as its a trial on a global scale
or they could know all along what they are doing as its part of the plan
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
829
Reaction score
605
I think we are saying the same thing; its a balance of risk - not completely without risk.
Sure, no medicines have no risk or no side effects - almost all the time we ignore them. The problem here is that we are overestimating unknown future risks of the vaccine while underestimating known immediate risks of COVID
 

happy days

Well-known member
Messages
4,737
Reaction score
892
Location
Liverpool
Sure, no medicines have no risk or no side effects - almost all the time we ignore them. The problem here is that we are overestimating unknown future risks of the vaccine while underestimating known immediate risks of COVID
How can you underestimate risks that are known ?
 

salarchaser

Well-known member
Messages
2,945
Reaction score
1,591
Location
Cheshire
A risk is either known or estimated can't be both
Rumsfeld springs to mind.
Known unknowns and unknown unknowns. :unsure:

Lots of strategies for risk. Reduce the liklihood, reduce the impact. Avoid the risk, transfer the risk, accept the risk.
The governments strategy (and I use that in the loosest possible sense) seems a maffled maelstrom of many of those approaches.
Whilst you can adopt your own approach, you may be affected by the approach of others.
Many party goers seem to have accepted the risk. However the risk isnt all theirs to take.
It looks as if the vaccine will reduce the impact though not necessarily the likelihood.
Isolation reduces the likelihood though not the impact.
Not an easy scenario to deal with, and not dealt with very well.
Will keep my head down.
 

ozzyian

Well-known member
Messages
5,277
Reaction score
1,064
Location
East Lothian
"Additional the Government has granted Pfizer immunity from any prosecution which may be brought against them. I am liking the idea of being immunised less and less"

This for me says it all , they are grasping at straws with fingerless hands
how can they grant immunity from prosecution that in its self should be enough to put u off
its a leap of faith with the devil , in reality they gave no clue what the outcome will be as its a trial on a global scale
or they could know all along what they are doing as its part of the plan

You might well be correct, however....

A company like Pfizer operates in a strictly controlled environment where process is everything. Companies like this are planning their income streams decades (in some cases) ahead. They have core business products (drugs) with planned obsolescence (license expiry) and new treatments at various stages of development.* They are supremely well managed and highly profitable and by and large know exactly what their situation is going to be 5 or 10 years down the road. They do this because stability is vital, after all profit is the big motivator and the pension funds prefer to set and forget.

I would think that when all is said and done the covid vaccines are probably pretty much rats and mice to big pharma profit wise, we'll see and I could be wrong. If it's right though the last thing a stable, process driven, box ticking, multi national, medical financial giant needs hanging over its head is unnecessary risk. Businesses like this usually insure themselves against these risks with a strategy of good planning and management, financial hedging, diversification, good legal practise/protection and insurance.

If they were able to say 'we can do it, but we're all well outside our regular box ticking process based practises here and frankly it's not really worth the risk and disruption, therefore you are going to have to give us a few concessions' - they would :)



* BTW, it is not all beer and skittles with big pharma. An allegation made against them is that they are so powerful (and patient) that they invent a cure and only after they have done that do they go out and create the medical condition. This doesn't mean deliberately creating illness it means defining and exaggerating one such that their 'cure' assumes far greater financial reward than had the medical situation been left well alone. A good example (amongst many) in the US is said to be Fentanyl. You've probably heard of it as it has basically ending up ruining hundreds of thousands of lives through opiate addiction. So, these companies aren't angels - they're in it for the money. Strangely enough, in the US where Fauci has pointed out how clever they are with their greater prudence when approving new drugs it seems to me that it's the same place where the greatest culture of over prescription and medically induced harm (for profit) occurs.
 
Last edited:

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,071
Reaction score
2,486
Indemnities are what happens when timelines are accelerated. It means nothing at all, good or bad, about this vaccine. Make your own mind up on the facts, for sure, but just make sure you’re interpreting the facts properly.
5C2FDD95-4A0C-4A60-87BC-366DA4F54CE2.jpeg
 

fixedspool

Well-known member
Messages
962
Reaction score
355
"Additional the Government has granted Pfizer immunity from any prosecution which may be brought against them. I am liking the idea of being immunised less and less"

This for me says it all , they are grasping at straws with fingerless hands
how can they grant immunity from prosecution that in its self should be enough to put u off
its a leap of faith with the devil , in reality they gave no clue what the outcome will be as its a trial on a global scale
or they could know all along what they are doing as its part of the plan
It's a leap of faith alright. First vaccination hysteria already set over all the media.
Quotes like, " The jab the world has been waiting for."
Arrival of vaccine at a Welsh hospital commentator said, "Is this the most valuable substance on earth"
another said, " a great day in the history of Britain and the World..and so on.....

YETand YET one expert when asked how long the vaccine might be effective said, " We don't know, Natural defence after having had Covid seems to be about six months. We hope the vaccine will give longer immunity but we don't know. etc etc
The fact is they don't know for how many it will be effective, or for how long any immunity might last or if there are any side effect now or in the future.
If it's only six/12 months effective then the big Pharm's will be in ecstasy for as far ahead as you can see.
Think I will manage without my badge thanks -the rest of you wear it with pride!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,408
Reaction score
887
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
"Leap of faith" indeed

"Dumb, unnecessary jump into the unknown" perhaps :D:)

Saffie's post #216 refers:

Since it's part of my strategic planning, I can say something about Ebola virus. Ebola (the virus, not the wonderful food) is really deadly, killing ~50% of those infected, most of them young with their lives ahead of them. Luckily for us it is ever so limited in geographical extent and kills very few people that don't come into direct contact with a carrier.

By contrast, CV19 is a totally different beast. Here are the main apparent differences with Ebola. CV19:

  • It is benign for the vast majority it infects (99+% and perhaps even as high as 99.99 - who knows, we will when the numbers are in).

  • The vast majorty of infected would hardly know they have had it

  • Countermeasures (masks etc.) ineffectual (Lockdown states worse or the same impact as non-Lockdown states, same with muzzles etc.) as it's airborne

  • The average age of dead people recorded as being "with/from" CV19 is over the life expectancy, meaning they have "had" their lives if it were.

  • Most people would not need a vaccine even if a safe and efficacious one were available

  • Bonkers political overreaction demonstrated to be ineffective at stopping it, but excellent at destroying economy and society


The other major difference is that Ebola kills poor Africans and the Big Pharma cannot monetise it and make a fortune, meaning that folk like the conflicted bods on Sage with shareholdings in Big Pharma won't benefit. In direct contrast with CV19!!!

Trebles all round (but not on the end of your lines, obvs.!)



(ps - speaking of Big Pharma, why has Ben Goldacre gone all silent on this kerfuffle and thrown his hand in with the "Over-reactors")
 
Last edited:

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,071
Reaction score
2,486
I wasn't saying ebola is the same as covid. Just that the vaccine followed an indemnity path... It's really important not to muddy the waters so people can make an informed decision.
 

fixedspool

Well-known member
Messages
962
Reaction score
355
I wasn't saying ebola is the same as covid. Just that the vaccine followed an indemnity path... It's really important not to muddy the waters so people can make an informed decision.
How can they make an informed decision when they are only getting one side of the story =the one pumped out by the Government and main media outlets. Mention anything else and you get sneered at.
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,071
Reaction score
2,486
How can they make an informed decision when they are only getting one side of the story =the one pumped out by the Government and main media outlets. Mention anything else and you get sneered at.
Mention something based in reality and you don't get sneered at. I've agreed with some sceptical people on this thread. Share conspiracy theories about vaccines that have already been discredited and yes, people will rebut them, because they're dangerous.
 

fixedspool

Well-known member
Messages
962
Reaction score
355
Mention something based in reality and you don't get sneered at. I've agreed with some sceptical people on this thread. Share conspiracy theories about vaccines that have already been discredited and yes, people will rebut them, because they're dangerous.
Not talking about conspiracy theories whatsoever. This is about the mass of qualified medical people and others out there who have a different story to tell. But you, and many others just won't listen will you/
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,071
Reaction score
2,486
Not talking about conspiracy theories whatsoever. This is about the mass of qualified medical people and others out there who have a different story to tell. But you, and many others just won't listen will you/
People are sharing stuff that's already been discredited, though. That's not spreading an alternative view. It's spreading untruths. The last video you shouted at me for not watching on that 'Banned' site had the description 'Proof of global depopulation programme' or something akin to that. That's a conspiracy theory. The idea that 'they' want to kill us all off using a vaccine in order to depopulate the planet, is a conspiracy theory.
 

fixedspool

Well-known member
Messages
962
Reaction score
355
People are sharing stuff that's already been discredited, though. That's not spreading an alternative view. It's spreading untruths. The last video you shouted at me for not watching on that 'Banned' site had the description 'Proof of global depopulation programme' or something akin to that. That's a conspiracy theory. The idea that 'they' want to kill us all off using a vaccine in order to depopulate the planet, is a conspiracy theory.
Oh Cummon. There was far more in it than that reference as you would have known had you listened to it all . A mass of evidence from all around the world. Banned -by whom-why? Because they didn't want you to listen perhaps= I wonder why?
 
Top