[3-GT]

So with all the debate around a vaccine been possible, I thought it'd be interesting to see how many people would/wouldn't have the vaccine if they are successful.

[Panchoa]

Yep if it’s proven then I would be near the front of the queue assuming I can 🤣

Why wouldn’t you?!?! At least then we can get back some form. Of normality!

[3-GT]

Originally Posted by Panchoa

Yep if it’s proven then I would be near the front of the queue assuming I can

Why wouldn’t you?!?! At least then we can get back some form. Of normality!

I'm more team yes than no. But what concerns me the most is how quick they've had to develop it.

[jackstrath]

Im a No, but with no underlying health issues, young ish (30) and otherwise fit and healthy i certainly wouldn't be rushing off to get it.

The shear speed its been created scares me.... and there is the other side of it that virus's develop, new strings so you could end up with a vaccine thats only good for "the original" covid-19.... next year it could be covid-20 ect ect

What will be interesting is to see if its made mandatory by default... IE can't travel unless you can prove you have had it, or fly on certain airlines ect ect, i doubt it will come to that but you never know!

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by jackstrath

The shear speed its been created scares me

It concerns me as well.

Normally a vaccine will be in trials for at least a couple of years before being given to millions of people, to make sure it’s safe, but this one will be fast tracked out due to the current pandemic emergency before it has been shown to be completely safe (i.e no health problems cropping up from it months or longer down the line).

I certainly won’t be one of the first 20 million or so people to get it, they will be the guinea pigs and any unwanted side effects will probably show up by then.

If it’s proven completely safe with no adverse effects in the population months down the line I might have it, but once over half the population have had it we’ll be moving into herd immunity anyway I guess.

[johnung]

Originally Posted by 3-GT

So with all the debate around a vaccine been possible, I thought it'd be interesting to see how many people would/wouldn't have the vaccine if they are successful.

If it's a vaccine promoted by Putin or Trump, hah I wouldn't go near it.

When actual renowned scientists say it's a good vaccine, then YES I would get vaccinated!

[CajunBMW]

The Russian vaccine I believe is a ripped off hybrid with part from the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine and another part from the J&J vaccine. Of course it has not been tested in any reliable clinical trials....I also don't think they have done any animal trials or not any big ones...so don't sign up for this trial.

With that stated there are some very good and promising vaccine candidates. The Oxford/AstraZeneca, J&J, Pfizer, Moderna/NIH to name a few. They have all had some very promising early results. They are doing it the right way and enrolling subjects slowly and measuring the right variables. I am going to put my hat in the ring for the next stage of one of the vaccine trials when it comes to our Med School. I don't know if i will get picked, but I figure why not give it a shot.

So far these candidate vaccines look safe in the tests they have done to date . But until lots of folks are tested ( phase 3), we won't know (even then issues could crop up when millions are jabbed and vaccinated). The immune response variables that have been measured also seem promising in the early trials. After safety, which is of course a big issue, comes efficacy, which at this point is unclear. They are setting the bar low for the first ones at 50% or above in the hopes that anything to slow the friendly CoV pandemic down is good. The hope then is that more efficacious vaccines will slowly come online.

Yes this would be the quickest vaccine to hit market, but because the technologies used for the vaccines are established, they are hoping for good results in this fast paced vaccine development due to necessity. Let's hope it works.

Cheers,

[BBri89]

I'm not sure. I absolutely don't feel I need one to protect myself, but it could stop me spreading it to others. But I feel if vaccine stocks are limited there would be someone else it would be far more beneficial to give to.

The speed at which it has been developed and the small scale testing so far is not convincing, but in wider trials it might demonstrate it's ok.

However I thoroughly believe, and I've done a lot of reading lots of different studies and stats, that this coronavirus is globally hyped up. It's nowhere near as bad as the narrative is saying.

Yeah it spreads pretty easily and kills very old very ill (preexisting illness) people. But if you're young and very ill it's statistically not that bad, if you're old but not very ill again it's not that bad, and if you're young and not ill it pretty much is harmless.

We have locked down our countries and deprived tens of millions of education for most of a year, sent our countries plummeting into recession, thrown millions of people into unemployment and bankrupted hundreds of companies.
All to "protect" people mostly in their 80s+ and very ill already from dying a few weeks or months early.

Economic doom is directly linked to early deaths in younger people. We have prolonged the life of a handful of old sick people, and in exchange we have crippled the economy and will see tens of millions of years of life cut short as a result of missed or delayed cancer diagnosis and treatments, suicides, children and adults in poverty. It's unforgivable.

[DougMcL]

It's an extremely worrying trend that people are saying no to a vaccine. Mirrors what is going on in society in general. If it is properly tested, take it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...19-vaccination

Having seen what this illness does first hand in Intensive Care, I certainly wouldn't want to go through what my patients went through. Andrew Wakefield has a lot to answer for.

[Craig-SM]

The speed it’s been developed and side effects unknown when it goes to market I would delay having the vaccine for as long as possible. It’s a no from me even though I’m in the higher risk group but not because I don’t believe in the vaccine but I don’t want to be a guinea pig either.

[Sennen]

Originally Posted by BBri89

I'm not sure. I absolutely don't feel I need one to protect myself, but it could stop me spreading it to others. But I feel if vaccine stocks are limited there would be someone else it would be far more beneficial to give to.

The speed at which it has been developed and the small scale testing so far is not convincing, but in wider trials it might demonstrate it's ok.

However I thoroughly believe, and I've done a lot of reading lots of different studies and stats, that this coronavirus is globally hyped up. It's nowhere near as bad as the narrative is saying.

Yeah it spreads pretty easily and kills very old very ill (preexisting illness) people. But if you're young and very ill it's statistically not that bad, if you're old but not very ill again it's not that bad, and if you're young and not ill it pretty much is harmless.

We have locked down our countries and deprived tens of millions of education for most of a year, sent our countries plummeting into recession, thrown millions of people into unemployment and bankrupted hundreds of companies.
All to "protect" people mostly in their 80s+ and very ill already from dying a few weeks or months early.

Economic doom is directly linked to early deaths in younger people. We have prolonged the life of a handful of old sick people, and in exchange we have crippled the economy and will see tens of millions of years of life cut short as a result of missed or delayed cancer diagnosis and treatments, suicides, children and adults in poverty. It's unforgivable.

You sound like a very kind and compassionate individual........ your parents must be very proud.....

[BBri89]

Originally Posted by Sennen

You sound like a very kind and compassionate individual........ your parents must be very proud.....

I'm a realist.
I also make complex decisions every day and make them based on evidence, risk/benefits, options and consequences. Not knee jerk reactions.

Every death is tragic.
But ultimately every life has a value as well put on it. £30k per year of useful life is roughly what they use for medication. That's not me who sets that.


What should have happened as it became much clearer, and it did so in late April, was shield the elderly, shield the vulnerable and ill, and get anyone young (less than 40, maybe even 50) who did not have preexisting conditions back to work.
I'm all for protecting the vulnerable, and avoiding their deaths and illnesses, but not at the expense of decades and decades of economic recovery.
We only finished paying WWII off this century! We've thrown hundreds of billions at the lockdown and coronavirus. People in their teens and 20s will be paying for that all their working life. I'll be dead before it's paid off.

What is worse, if 100,000 people died weeks, months or up to 1 year early, as a result of coronavirus.
Or 1,000,000+ people die years early as a result of untreated heart attacks, strokes, untreated and undiagnosed cancers.

The total years of life lost will be far far greater in that second case. That is what I wish had been avoided by a better plan and earlier relaxation of lockdown.


And yes my parents are very proud of me.

[lethbridge]

I'd like to understand the vaccine in more detail and not a politician's 'science' or that from a pharma company riding on their coat tails. From what I understand Coronavirus is more like the common cold than flu in terms of its makeup (NOT its effect - none of us should be in any doubt it is virulent and highly damaging to most organs for those that seem to be more susceptible). It constantly mutates and once you've had it it seems you may only have very limited immunity. That should give you a clue to the impact a vaccine could have - I suspect it will probably need to be used as a short term fix to peaks - I suspect its effectiveness could be measured in weeks - but anything that is safe and saves lives is clearly worth it. I don't think people should feel they are immune when they've had it which is a concern as many seem to see it as a fix like a typhoid jab. Please note these are just my observations I am not an expert.

[BBri89]

You're correct there lethbridge.

Although immunity is still not well understood, part of the issue is that they're only testing for antibodies.
If we had antibodies for everything we'd been exposed to, our blood would be like treacle.

There is far more to the human immune system than just antibodies, and memory T-cells play a huge part. We don't NEED antibodies present necessarily.

The fact that it is being reported not everyone has antibodies, and fewer people with antibodies than expected. The media narrative being pushed is that means there is no immunity, which is not true.


But yes I think it will be like the flu, recurring over winter when indoor transmission is higher. Immunity may only last a few years, therefore it may be necessary for long-term vaccine programmes like the flu.
I believe it'll be something we have to live with for a long time, possibly forever. With regular vaccines.
The good thing is it doesn't appear children spread the virus much, if at all. Unlike flu where they are superspreaders. That suggests there should be no reason to not fully reopen schools as normal, something we should have done months ago, or even not close them in the first place, which was one of the good parts of the governments original plan.

But it's nowhere near as bad for most people as we first feared, or as the narrative keeps pushing.

Yes for those susceptible, the elderly with preexisting conditions, it is bad, but then so is flu and common winter colds. Colds and flu have always killed lots of people in nursing homes, and always will.

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by Craig-SM

The speed it’s been developed and side effects unknown when it goes to market I would delay having the vaccine for as long as possible. It’s a no from me even though I’m in the higher risk group but not because I don’t believe in the vaccine but I don’t want to be a guinea pig either.

Completely agree^

I’m not an ‘anti-vaxxer’ but I am careful to check that a vaccine is thoroughly tested and proven completely safe over long term trials before having it. There’s always a slight risk of something similar to Gulf War syndrome happening to people if a vaccine is fast tracked too quickly without monitoring for any long term side effects, and once you are fucked up you can’t go back and fix it.

In reality as an under 50 currently in pretty good health I probably have a roughly 0.2% mortality risk from covid-19, so won’t be risking potentially life changing side effects from a rushed out vaccine until I’ve seen the effects of it on the general populace.

[mmarkk1990]

The level of social manipulation that's happened over the last few months has been incredible and scary.

I'm currently in the "no" camp. I wouldn't consider myself an anti-vaxxer before but I suppose by definition maybe I am one now. Make no mistake that the anti-vaxxer tagline will be used against anyone who is hesitant to take a rushed vaccine, in order to ridicule them and invalidate their concerns.

In addition, the media (followed very quickly by the general populace) will have you believe it is your absolute duty to take the vaccine to help protect others. Displaying any caution here will make you a selfish cretin who doesn't care about anyone but themselves and probably thinks the whole thing is caused by 5g. You #stayedthefuckhome for months, social distanced where possible, wore a mask and donated to Captain Tom? Doesn't count for anything now, take the jab or else you're a bad person.

The vulnerable should be first in line for the vaccine for obvious reasons, but also because any delayed side-effects are less likely to be experienced. Is it my job to risk taking a vaccine for a disease that's low-risk to me, in order to protect the few who are vulnerable and also cannot be vaccinated? Sorry, but no. You have to draw the line somewhere. If you want to take the vaccine then please go ahead, I hope it is fine and if so then I'll be happier having it myself.

[rjwojcik]

Any one seen I Am Legend?

Saying that, I would probably take it

[chris-c]

At the moment hell no. Putin's one is relatively un tested I might aswell just shoot up a random needle I found in an alley way.

In a couple of months time when more trials are complete then sure thing.

Trials are needed for a reason! I wont trust the politicians when they tell us it is safe. They know as much about it as my elderly neighbour who spends her entire day talking to her cats. I'll wait for the WHO or similar to give it the green light.

[Lincoln61]

I'm usually very pro vaccines, but the speed of this one worries me. Even if its proven safe in the very short test window, that won't give any indication of long term impacts or problems. These will only show years later, which is usually within the window of trials.

[BBri89]

It is somewhat acceptable to rush things out in a hurry. Like a vaccine for those at great risk. Or a Covid tracking app.

But when you do that, be honest. Admit it's not ideal, that it can be improved. Yes there may be side effects to a vaccine, or there may be glitches to an app, but that for some it is better than the alternative.

Don't declare it "world leading". Nobody buys that kind of bullshit, especially when you're cobbling something together in a few weeks, while on the other side you've got Apple & Google, the masters of technology, improving their existing app.


It's the ability of this government to eradicate trust by bullshitting that means I'm reluctant to believe what they say.
I understand they are not medical/epidemiological experts, and I'm sure 99% of the public get that too.
Don't underestimate the public, they will forgive honest mistakes when you're doing your best and going with the experts advice. What they don't forgive is bullshit, which is exactly what they've done.


This vaccine will not be ideal, but it might be "good enough" to protect those that most need it.
With the transmissions so ridiculously low now, the chances of encountering someone you might catch coronavirus from is remote. In a single week you will statistically likely never see even 1 person who is carrying the virus. Nevermind meeting someone you might actually catch it from, because not all are contagious, and those that are don't pass it on to every single person they see either.

Protect the vulnerable, like with the flu jab, and work on a better tested trial to ensure it is safe.


I am a vehement anti anti-vaxxer. Unless there is a medical reason to withhold vaccines from a child (and there are a few genuine reasons) I believe it to be abuse and should be punished as such.
Children should not be allowed in schools unless they have had their vaccines or are medically exempt.

But you cannot enforce a coronavirus vaccine until it is demonstrated in wide scale trials to be safe.
Once you have done so, fine, enforce it, make it mandatory, incentivise people by giving them vouchers, whatever. But only once it has been proven to be safe and suitable.


If the vulnerable need one every other year though for example, we might not be able to (logistics or economically) vaccinate everybody all the time, so it'll become like the flu jab... those elderly, infants, vulnerable medical conditions and frontline medical/health workers should obviously get priority.

I see this as sticking around for a long time, we better get used to it, because we can't keep living in lockdown. It does not work... look at Australia and New Zealand, as soon as they relax and open up, they have a whole population with no immunity, so back to a ridiculously hard lockdown again. And repeat. It does not work.

London (strict lockdown) and Stockholm (no lockdown with only social distancing and hand washing) have virtually the same transmission rate. Lockdown doesn't work... social distancing and hand washing does.
Protect the vulnerable, protect the economy.

[jackstrath]

Originally Posted by Hooded

Completely agree^

I’m not an ‘anti-vaxxer’ but I am careful to check that a vaccine is thoroughly tested and proven completely safe over long term trials before having it. There’s always a slight risk of something similar to Gulf War syndrome happening to people if a vaccine is fast tracked too quickly without monitoring for any long term side effects, and once you are fucked up you can’t go back and fix it.

In reality as an under 50 currently in pretty good health I probably have a roughly 0.2% mortality risk from covid-19, so won’t be risking potentially life changing side effects from a rushed out vaccine until I’ve seen the effects of it on the general populace.

Yup snap.. Im not an "anti-vaxxer" ether, i got all the jabs and such when i was little and for the whole, thankful for getting them, including the MMR vaccine... and even though 4 years ago i got the Mumps...


I don't get the flu jab yearly ether, is it luck that i don't come down with anything? I work on offshore rigs where there's always a large population with cold/flu like symptoms and manage to survive symptom free so for me there's no need. Maybe when i get older and do start to show something i will change my mind, My dad without fail gets the flu yearly for example....
I think it really should be up to the person, everyone's different, but like i say it will be interesting to see if its made mandatory.

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by rjwojcik

Any one seen I Am Legend?

Saying that, I would probably take it

Yeah I quoted that movie in relation to the rushed Russian vaccine on the main covid-19 thread

You take it and 3 years later I’ll be like Will Smith setting a trap for you