Second Lockdown 😥😥😥😥😥😥😥

[otherclive]

They state tests are showing that vaccines are 90%, but what they are not telling you is what has happened to the other 10%. Oxford university used a figure of 45000 so in essence 4500 either got infected or died. Of those people how many passed the virus on friends, family and others? Of those that had the vaccine and suffer no ill effects where they then exposed to people who had the virus? No one knows enough about how the tests were conducted and what parameters or constraints were used

The vaccine has to be kept at temperatures of minus 70C. So we now have a logistics issue of transporting the vaccine and it being kept at hospitals or surgeries at the required temperature of minus 70C. I do not think many hospitals or surgeries have that sort of refrigeration

You should perhaps look at the Pfizer and Oxford/AstraZeneca web sites before raising such nebulous points. The development and testing of drugs isn’t just some freewheeling activity. There will be continuous oversight and peer review and prior to moving on to a stage the results of the present stage are reviewed. U.K., EU and US regulators will be being kept involved. And each nations health body will also be engaged. Trials will continue even when the first vaccines are being administered and long after to assure and investigate.
Re -70 deg C the Pfizer vaccine can come up to a more normal cool temperature for a few days prior to use. It’s somewhat mischievous to spread partly complete information. Best to go to the official websites.
Are you aware that the annual flu vaccine rarely exceeds 50% effectiveness. But if sufficient people are vaccinated against flu it’s effects particularly on the elderly, vulnerable and key staff are significantly reduced.

 

[Buckman]

Not strictly true.
The British version by Oxford University and partner are stored at normal fridge temp.
The American versions are required to be at -20 and -70.

Apologies that is not what I understood regarding the Oxford vaccine. I now see that it can be stored at normal fridge temperatures of between 2 & 8C. However the high failure rate is still an area for concern plus how are the tests conducted. Further reading shows that it is actually only 70.4% effective. We can only hope that it will improve over time as they are stating mid 2021.

 

[Buckman]

You should perhaps look at the Pfizer and Oxford/AstraZeneca web sites before raising such nebulous points. The development and testing of drugs isn’t just some freewheeling activity. There will be continuous oversight and peer review and prior to moving on to a stage the results of the present stage are reviewed. U.K., EU and US regulators will be being kept involved. And each nations health body will also be engaged. Trials will continue even when the first vaccines are being administered and long after to assure and investigate.
Re -70 deg C the Pfizer vaccine can come up to a more normal cool temperature for a few days prior to use. It’s somewhat mischievous to spread partly complete information. Best to go to the official websites.
Are you aware that the annual flu vaccine rarely exceeds 50% effectiveness. But if sufficient people are vaccinated against flu it’s effects particularly on the elderly, vulnerable and key staff are significantly reduced.

I appreciate what you and Damien are saying and agree with your points raised concerning the tests and distribution, but what is the life span from the point that it leaves the minus 70C facility? No matter how much oversight and peer review there is they cannot cover all the bases. Thalidomide is still fresh in the minds of any people and should never be forgotten!
BTW are there any vaccines that are 100% effective that have totally eradicated the disease?

 

[Parksy]

Thalidomide wasn't a vaccine.
It was marketed as Distaval here in the UK and prescribed in tablet form.
Pharmaceutical testing has come a long way since the 1960s with much tighter controls which still have to be met even if a development of a drug is accelerated.

 

[JezzerB]

I made that mistake-lots of negative press re 70% success rate but that was with one dose-2 doses-90% which was found out by accident-so much rubbish and fake news out there this could be too-best to avoid specualation and wait with excitement and optimism and ignore the rediculous press ramblings at the mo.

 

[Raywood]

I gather the hospitals have the equipment but the vaccine has a three day shelf life after being removed so the problems are not as bad as first appeared.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I appreciate what you and Damien are saying and agree with your points raised concerning the tests and distribution, but what is the life span from the point that it leaves the minus 70C facility? No matter how much oversight and peer review there is they cannot cover all the bases. Thalidomide is still fresh in the minds of any people and should never be forgotten!
BTW are there any vaccines that are 100% effective that have totally eradicated the disease?

Why have you raised Thalidomide again? The lessons of that disaster have been learned, which is why we now have such strict verification and licencing of drugs.

No Vaccine is 100% effective, but it is unusual to have the apparent success rates of all the Covid vaccines that have released figures.

The eradication of a disease has occurred and the classic case is Smallpox. Another high contagious disease, with deadly consequences. Vaccines played a key role in helping to break the transmission, but it was a combination of interventions that have eradicated it. You don't necessarily have to vaccinate 100% of the population, only enough to prevent transmission. The problem C19 presents is it can remain active in the environment on surfaces, and can be picked up many hours if not days after it was deposited. For that reason the C19 vaccines will need to be given to a very large proportion of the population.

 

[JezzerB]

Thalidomide is clinically nothing like a vaccine. it was a chemical just like nicotine or heroin is a drug. A vaccine stimulates the immune system and is not a drug per se bit often a teeny bit of the disease or something similar eg cow pox small pox. Totally irrelevant comparison.

 

[Buckman]

Why have you raised Thalidomide again? The lessons of that disaster have been learned, which is why we now have such strict verification and licencing of drugs.

No Vaccine is 100% effective, but it is unusual to have the apparent success rates of all the Covid vaccines that have released figures.

The eradication of a disease has occurred and the classic case is Smallpox. Another high contagious disease, with deadly consequences. Vaccines played a key role in helping to break the transmission, but it was a combination of interventions that have eradicated it. You don't necessarily have to vaccinate 100% of the population, only enough to prevent transmission. The problem C19 presents is it can remain active in the environment on surfaces, and can be picked up many hours if not days after it was deposited. For that reason the C19 vaccines will need to be given to a very large proportion of the population.

I am sorry I did not realise it was against forum rules to mention Thalidomide.

 

[JezzerB]

I think that it's simply because it isn't relevant as you are not comparing the vaccine with a vaccine but in this case a chemical. Better to find a vaccine with serious side effects,not aware of any. Unpleasant yes but not life changing quite the reverse. The anti vaxers will disagree but even the dreaded MMR was proved to be v safe in spite of the hype and antivaxers imo are akin to those who believe the earth is flat!sorry just my opinion.

 

[otherclive]

I am sorry I did not realise it was against forum rules to mention Thalidomide.

It’s not but you are not basing your comments on a comparison of vaccines. To answer your question re vaccine effectiveness the NHS website quotes. MMR as 99% for measles and rubella and 88% for mumps. I’m sure the figures for polio, tb etc are out there if you wanted to look.

 

[JezzerB]

For interest article about how safe the vaccine is not gospel but interesting view
The Oxford-AstraZeneca team adopted the ‘traditional’ approach of using a harmless, weakened virus (that chimp ‘cold’ virus) to deliver spike protein to trigger the body’s immune system to protect from future infection.

In contrast, Pfizer and Moderna used the more novel method of ‘messenger RNA’ (ribonucleic acid — the genetic material of the coronavirus), causing the production of viral proteins in the body which spark the immune system to create antibodies and T-cells to combat the virus.

 

[Parksy]

I am sorry I did not realise it was against forum rules to mention Thalidomide.

Forum members have explained quite clearly that there can be no comparison between Thalidomide and the possibility of a vaccine which will reduce the potential death toll from Covid 19.
A more accurate comparison would be the anti- flu vaccine that many of us have every year.
I happen to have an annual flu jab, some years it works, some years it doesn't seem to, some years I've felt slightly under the weather a few days after the vaccination and other times, like this year, I've had no visible ill effects whatsoever.
People become irritated by the repetition of the Thalidomide tragedy because the comparison with an anti- Covid 19 vaccine has no validity, it's needless scare mongering.

 

[Buckman]

Forum members have explained quite clearly that there can be no comparison between Thalidomide and the possibility of a vaccine which will reduce the potential death toll from Covid 19.
A more accurate comparison would be the anti- flu vaccine that many of us have every year.
I happen to have an annual flu jab, some years it works, some years it doesn't seem to, some years I've felt slightly under the weather a few days after the vaccination and other times, like this year, I've had no visible ill effects whatsoever.
People become irritated by the repetition of the Thalidomide tragedy because the comparison with an anti- Covid 19 vaccine has no validity, it's needless scare mongering.

I have to disagreed as my reference was to the testing of the product prior to being released to the public and not the way it was administered or the reason why it was administered. I also seem to recall that not so long ago at a testing facility in the UK a number of people had a bad reaction to a new drug that was being tested and some nearly died. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35766627 Also https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/trial-error-thousands-left-seriously-5867052 Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough? Common mistake.

 

[Parksy]

The point is that present day testing for an anti- Covid 19 vaccine bears absolutely no relationship to the testing methods used back in the 1960s.
The Thalidomide references have no relevance to this discussion.
There were near fatalities some years ago during the testing phase of a new drug.
If there had been serious illness or deaths from the new anti- Covid 19 vaccines being trialled we would have heard about it by now.
Pharmaceutical companies are obliged to disclose any negative results or responses from drugs being tested.
The three front runners have stated that there have been no serious effects which involve death or serious illness.
I'm not sure if you're playing Devil's advocate here Buckman?
When these new vaccines are released and approved for general prescription if you don't fancy being vaccinated no one can force you.
Invoking the spectre of Thalidomide is a short sighted and invalid reason to opt out of something that may save your life, and possibly the lives of your family and friends.
I've said it before, we are all getting excited about something that is some way off yet.
I think that I'll take the advice of my GP and other health professionals when the time comes rather than basing my decision to be vaccinated or not on a caravan forum discussion 😊

 

[Jcloughie]

I heard from one of the TV doctors, that the new vaccines have a similar, if not better, effectiveness rate then the flu vaccination. But they felt confident that, with the indications provided so far, it will be sufficient to get on top of the spread.

Very little is 100% effective and free from side effects. I recognise that developing and initial testing of the current vaccines is much accelerated compared to the norm. But that is necessary for the current situation we find ourselves in.

I say, bring it on.

John

 

[Damian]

I heard from one of the TV doctors, that the new vaccines have a similar, if not better, effectiveness rate then the flu vaccination

Well, it would not be too difficult to better the flu vaccine effectiveness as the flu one is only 40% effective.

 

[Jcloughie]

Well, it would not be too difficult to better the flu vaccine effectiveness as the flu one is only 40% effective.

I think they said higher than that. But the point they/I was making, is that it does not have to be a high percentage in order to be effective within the community.

John

 

[thomas_374576025]

hi all hope your well the only way the vaccine will work if everybody has it ive spoken to people who said they dont want it cheers .tom

 

[Damian]

Quote " I think they said higher than that. "

From WebMD site:

. On average, it’s been 40% effective, meaning it’s prevented illness 40% of the time. Since health officials started tracking it in 2003, effectiveness has varied from year to year, ranging from a low of 10% in 2004-05 to a high of 60% in 2010-11.


From Public Health England:

Public Health England (PHE) has today (Wednesday, 18 July 2018) published data on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in the 2017 to 2018 season. The data show that overall, flu vaccine was 15% effective in all age groups. However, effectiveness varied considerably. By age-group, the vaccine was overall:

• 26.9% effective in children aged 2 to 17 years (who received the nasal spray)
• 12.2% in at risk groups aged 18 to 64 years
• 10.1% in those aged 65 and over

 

[otherclive]

Quote " I think they said higher than that. "

From WebMD site:

. On average, it’s been 40% effective, meaning it’s prevented illness 40% of the time. Since health officials started tracking it in 2003, effectiveness has varied from year to year, ranging from a low of 10% in 2004-05 to a high of 60% in 2010-11.


From Public Health England:

Public Health England (PHE) has today (Wednesday, 18 July 2018) published data on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in the 2017 to 2018 season. The data show that overall, flu vaccine was 15% effective in all age groups. However, effectiveness varied considerably. By age-group, the vaccine was overall:

• 26.9% effective in children aged 2 to 17 years (who received the nasal spray)
• 12.2% in at risk groups aged 18 to 64 years
• 10.1% in those aged 65 and over

Thanks for detailing good references. Very useful.
The 2017/18 season was a bit of an oddity as there were two potential flu strains and the vaccine chosen was not the optimum for the strain that eventually dominated that year. It lead to several hospitals declaring a top level category alert due to wards filling up and many staff contracting flu even when vaccinated. But given the success of the WHO over the years in predicting the dominant flu strain the system works remarkably well, and i for one am grateful for the outcomes.
Also what some seem to be unaware of is that even at 40 % effective the vaccine may still give reduced symptoms to those who still contract flu. It’s not a black and white 40 %youre okay, 60% you are not.

 

[Mel]

When Swine flu first emerged, it was learned that people who had received an annual seasonal flu vaccination (which hadn’t had a swine flu component as there wasn’t one) had a less severe swine flu illness than those who hadn’t had a regular flu vaccine. It was believed that the similarity between previous flu vaccines and the H1N1 strain of swine flu led to some protection.
mel

 

[Jcloughie]

Quote " I think they said higher than that. "

From WebMD site:

. On average, it’s been 40% effective, meaning it’s prevented illness 40% of the time. Since health officials started tracking it in 2003, effectiveness has varied from year to year, ranging from a low of 10% in 2004-05 to a high of 60% in 2010-11.


From Public Health England:

Public Health England (PHE) has today (Wednesday, 18 July 2018) published data on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in the 2017 to 2018 season. The data show that overall, flu vaccine was 15% effective in all age groups. However, effectiveness varied considerably. By age-group, the vaccine was overall:

• 26.9% effective in children aged 2 to 17 years (who received the nasal spray)
• 12.2% in at risk groups aged 18 to 64 years
• 10.1% in those aged 65 and over

The doctor I was referring to may have been quoting a recent flu effectiveness result. But it was not the point of what they were saying.

That was. Unlike what Tom has said above. It does not have to be a massively high percentage, or a full take up, in order for it to have a pronounced effect on the community. In terms of spread, progress to heard immunity and reduced damage to the economy.

I noticed in post #238 that your experience with the flu jab has not been great. Mine has been the opposit, but we all react differently. No doubt effect and effectiveness of the new vacines will also be varied.


John

 

[Damian]

I noticed in post #238 that your experience with the flu jab has not been great.

I have never said anything about the flu jab and its effects on me as I have never had it !!!!!!!

 

[Jcloughie]

I have never said anything about the flu jab and its effects on me as I have never had it !!!!!!!

Sorry Damien, I quoted Parksy, got my moderators mixed up.

John