Oxford vaccine shows 70% success rate rising to 90%

[SEASIDE2020]

I have to defend x3 here.

Don't get me wrong, I often disagree with him and I am not necessarily agreeing with him on this thread but I think you should question what he has to say rather than state that he is a "dangerous individual".

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

But the press release doesn't say that at all.

Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine | University of Oxford

Oxford announces interim trial data from its Phase III trials that show its candidate coronavirus vaccine is effective at preventing COVID-19 and offers a high level of protection.

www.ox.ac.uk

In the article linked above which is on the OU website released today it says (the fourth bullet point);

• Early indication that vaccine could reduce virus transmission from an observed reduction in asymptomatic infections

So they think that the vaccine actually reduces transmission based on the EVIDENCE of their own results. They do not overstate this finding but it looks very promising.

The doomsday scenario that you have outlined above is based on what evidence?

Like I said (and this isn’t limited to this vaccine) some of the wording seems to be ambiguous (especially when considered in conjunction with the BBC report and comments from reps from Oxford / AZ). I’m interested to see what the actual results look like.

If 90% is consistently achieved and the vaccine gives full immunity and prevents onward transmission, then that’s good news.

I have to defend x3 here.

Don't get me wrong, I often disagree with him and I am not necessarily agreeing with him on this thread but I think you should question what he has to say rather than state that he is a "dangerous individual".

It’s the AVFTT way to come out with these kinds of ridiculous statements.... I think some people genuinely think AVFTT is the centre of the universe and not some obscure messageboard

 

[1950`spoolfan]

I have to defend x3 here.

Don't get me wrong, I often disagree with him and I am not necessarily agreeing with him on this thread but I think you should question what he has to say rather than state that he is a "dangerous individual".

No surprise from you then 2020 .As ever if you actually manage to climb down off the fence which you usually find very difficult,, when you`re not assuming your role of an apologetic devil`s advocate,you will actually gallop off in all directions at once.`Twas ever thus and I suspect always will be..

 

[Poolcat1]

It’s the AVFTT way to come out with these kinds of ridiculous statements.... I think some people genuinely think AVFTT is the centre of the universe and not some obscure messageboard

says the person with 2140 messages?

 

[Wizaard]

I love these medical symposiums. I’m always amazed by how many scientists we have amongst our 2000 avftt’ers

must be somewhere between 62 and 95 percent at a guess

But what percentage are effective

 

[Wizaard]

says the person with 2140 messages?

Is that all?

 

[Sooty59]

Lytham proms may go ahead after all.
To get everyone vaccinated by Easter is very challenging nevertheless this is fantastic news.
Don't understand why we can't forego Christmas and celebrate when this thing is back under control.

I tend to agree with the Christmas cancellation, but I fear many would just ignore it anyway, whatever we think of the government's handling of this crisis, this can be seen as a carrot to loosely keep more people on board.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

says the person with 2140 messages?

Ah, we’re heading into playground territory are we?

How about we drop the childish stuff and discuss the subject.

If you seriously think expressing an opinion on a small Internet forum is ‘dangerous’ then fair do’s, I’ll leave it there.

 

[1950`spoolfan]

Getting a little sensitive are we x3.I thought he made his point very neatly and succinctly.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

Like I said (and this isn’t limited to this vaccine) some of the wording seems to be ambiguous (especially when considered in conjunction with the BBC report and comments from reps from Oxford / AZ). I’m interested to see what the actual results look like.

If 90% is consistently achieved and the vaccine gives full immunity and prevents onward transmission, then that’s good news.




It’s the AVFTT way to come out with these kinds of ridiculous statements.... I think some people genuinely think AVFTT is the centre of the universe and not some obscure messageboard

They have understated the results / hedged at this stage because they really are proper scientists who will not make rash statements to the press that are not based on proof to a scientific standard. However the underlying message, which the data must point to given the press release, is that some sort of immunity is achieved by this vaccine. How much / how long remains to be seen, but it is certainly encouraging news.

This reality is a long way from your knee-jerk reaction to the announcement that said that this vaccine would probably actually make things worse in terms of contagion and that if the results were 'only' 70% effective we should 'chuck it in the dumpster'.

I know that you are trying to appear like a reasonable poster now, but you posted those things a few hours ago. Don't be surprised if some of us object to such misinformation.

 

[CompleteControl]

The government is apparently buying batches of all 3 of the vaccines so far produced - it will be interesting to see which are given to different areas of society e.g. NHS workers, old people, and if we will even be told.

 

[1950`spoolfan]

x3 also said on a previous thread a few weeks ago(2 or 3?) that he probably would not get vaccinated to which others responded that not getting vaccinated meant that you were not only more likely to be infected but as a result more likely to infect others which seemed to me to be dead right and therefore showed a lack of responsibility to those around him.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

They have understated the results / hedged at this stage because they really are proper scientists who will not make rash statements to the press that are not based on proof to a scientific standard. However the underlying message, which the data must point to given the press release, is that some sort of immunity is achieved by this vaccine. How much / how long remains to be seen, but it is certainly encouraging news.

This reality is a long way from your knee-jerk reaction to the announcement that said that this vaccine would probably actually make things worse in terms of contagion and that if the results were 'only' 70% effective we should 'chuck it in the dumpster'.

I know that you are trying to appear like a reasonable poster now, but you posted those things a few hours ago. Don't be surprised if some of us object to such misinformation.

So only 70% effective and that doesn’t take account of asymptomatic infection. I’m not sure whether that will just make the problem worse than it already is, depending on how the protection pans out.

Essentially you could have 30% of people vulnerable, with loads of asymptomatic people not knowing or showing any signs of having it.

Im not sure we can particularly change our current lifestyle based on that can we?

It’s difficult to say when you are dealing with such a small number I suppose.

We need to understand more about what protection actually means (in all the vaccines) not just this one.

If the vaccine only offers protection from the worst symptoms, rather than sterilising, then I’m not convinced that 70% is that good..... In fact I’d go as far as to say that if other vaccines are safe and 90-95% effective then you may as well Chuck the Oxford one in the dumpster....

Funny...Context & Truth is everything

 

[deary]

its good news even if only 70% effective . At 90% i would say it is very good news.

=

The cynic in me says the oxford trial may be more transparent in reporting than those by the major pharma brands?

I am not suggesting any vaccine is better than another. It is obviously way too early to make such claims.
Hopefully they are all effective enough to make a real difference .

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

Funny...Context & Truth is everything

You said;
If the vaccine only offers protection from the worst symptoms, rather than sterilising, then I’m not convinced that 70% is that good..... In fact I’d go as far as to say that if other vaccines are safe and 90-95% effective then you may as well Chuck the Oxford one in the dumpster....

That statement in itself completely ignores the press release today which says clearly enough that the results point towards an immunisation effect, the precise opposite the opposite of the doomsday scenario that you have repeated on here at least twice on this thread (in which using this vaccine would increase contagion).

You said;
So only 70% effective and that doesn’t take account of asymptomatic infection. I’m not sure whether that will just make the problem worse than it already is, depending on how the protection pans out.

Again you are making stuff up - you state here with certainty that the results don't take into account asymptomatic infection. I asked you twice how you knew this to be true and you have just ignored me. Therefore, I will assume that you don't have any evidence to back this up and are posting misinformation again.

Please stop making stuff up, it is very irresponsible.

And later on, without any apparant irony you said;
I do object to misleading and innacurante information, particularly where the general public are concerned and particulary where public confidence is vital.

 

[SEASIDE2020]

No surprise from you then 2020 .As ever if you actually manage to climb down off the fence which you usually find very difficult,, when you`re not assuming your role of an apologetic devil`s advocate,you will actually gallop off in all directions at once.`Twas ever thus and I suspect always will be..

50's

Sorry but I don't know what you are trying to say there.

All I did was suggest that it is better to question somebody rather than abuse them, do you disagree with that ?

 

[Insider]

Bifster likes to provoke debate and there's nothing wrong with that.
Obviously "Big Pharma" are going to blow their own trumpet and give the results the best possible spin.
Like I said further up the thread what concerns me is say that the vaccine is 70% effective based on a trial of 20,000 people (only half of whom will have had the vaccine) and efficacy based on 100 getting CV19 who weren't vaccinated and 30 who were. I think those numbers are way too small.
I'm also not sold on the non-hospilisation claim either as trial volunteers are generally healthy people.
BUT this is still all good news.
I may have already had the Novavax vaccine but I won't know that until I've been contacted to have an approved vaccine at which point my position in the trial will be disclosed to me.

 

[1950`spoolfan]

We don`t know for sure but I think it was mentioned that the sample is representatively spread over all age groups.I would certainly hope and expect so if not it would cast doubt over the validity of the results.The fact that there was not a single hospitalisation of any age must be very good news.

The fact that flu vaccine is only 40% to 50% effective is an interesting comparison.

 

[Poolcat1]

Bifster likes to provoke debate and there's nothing wrong with that.

There is a big distinction between provoking debate and distorting information and presenting it as fact to suit ones own agenda.

 

[BlackpoolWolves]

I'm certain as part of the trial ALL volunteers will be tested for Covid at intervals so asymptomatic cases will be picked up.
I do think the small number of infections across the 20,000 makes it difficult to predict efficacy with any degree of accuracy.
Those with symptons didn't need hospitalisation.
I'm part of the Novavax trial.
The good thing about this vaccine is the suggestion that it might reduce passing on the virus.

Novavax vaccine stops coronavirus spreading between monkeys

Novavax told The Mail on Sunday that its vaccine 'prevented infection' between rhesus macaque monkeys in testing.

www.dailymail.co.uk

(That's not me in the picture)
I had a Covid test before we started along with a blood test.
I got a jab and the computer decided if it was live or a placebo.
I've had no side effects.
I get another jab on Day 21 and a third visit is needed on Day 35.
I then go back after 3 months, 6 months and 12 months and will have blood tests each time.
If I become eligible for an approved vaccine over the period of the trial I won't be prevented from having it.

I'm on this trial too. Had my first jab at Layton Medical Centre yesterday. No side effects (so far )...
A friend had it during Phase 1 back in September and had a headache afterwards (very unusual for them).
The actual injection was given to me very quickly and I didn't notice much liquid going in. Therefore, I reckon (no scientific basis, just gut feeling) that I probably had the placebo - but hope I had the real thing. Will know at some point (as you'll be aware).

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

I'm on this trial too. Had my first jab at Layton Medical Centre yesterday. No side effects (so far )...
A friend had it during Phase 1 back in September and had a headache afterwards (very unusual for them).
The actual injection was given to me very quickly and I didn't notice much liquid going in. Therefore, I reckon (no scientific basis, just gut feeling) that I probably had the placebo - but hope I had the real thing. Will know at some point (as you'll be aware).

Volumes given will be the same for both placebo and vaccine. The procedure will be exactly the same for both groups as the person giving the vaccination doesn't know which group you are in either so they can't give you any clues as to what to expect.
In some of the vaccine trials another established vaccine is given as the placebo (I think it was a meningitis vaccine in one of them).

 

[BlackpoolWolves]

Volumes given will be the same for both placebo and vaccine. The procedure will be exactly the same for both groups as the person giving the vaccination doesn't know which group you are in either so they can't give you any clues as to what to expect.
In some of the vaccine trials another established vaccine is given as the placebo (I think it was a meningitis vaccine in one of them).

You may well be right except in this case a "doctor and a nurse" came in to the room just to give the jab - the others vacated the room for the approximate one minute duration so I assumed the two that came in for the jab only knew which one it was they were giving me. It was quite surreal and with all the PPE on, I felt like I was in a science fiction film

 

[Insider]

You may well be right except in this case a "doctor and a nurse" came in to the room just to give the jab - the others vacated the room for the approximate one minute duration so I assumed the two that came in for the jab only knew which one it was they were giving me. It was quite surreal and with all the PPE on, I felt like I was in a science fiction film

My experience was alot more relaxed than that. The "vaccine" was administered by a Nurse in the muscle at the top of my left arm. 2nd shot will be in my right arm. My experience was no different than having a flu jab and it only took about 10 seconds.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

You said;
If the vaccine only offers protection from the worst symptoms, rather than sterilising, then I’m not convinced that 70% is that good..... In fact I’d go as far as to say that if other vaccines are safe and 90-95% effective then you may as well Chuck the Oxford one in the dumpster....

That statement in itself completely ignores the press release today which says clearly enough that the results point towards an immunisation effect, the precise opposite the opposite of the doomsday scenario that you have repeated on here at least twice on this thread (in which using this vaccine would increase contagion).

You said;
So only 70% effective and that doesn’t take account of asymptomatic infection. I’m not sure whether that will just make the problem worse than it already is, depending on how the protection pans out.

Again you are making stuff up - you state here with certainty that the results don't take into account asymptomatic infection. I asked you twice how you knew this to be true and you have just ignored me. Therefore, I will assume that you don't have any evidence to back this up and are posting misinformation again.

Please stop making stuff up, it is very irresponsible.

And later on, without any apparant irony you said;
I do object to misleading and innacurante information, particularly where the general public are concerned and particulary where public confidence is vital.

The statement was made in reference to the BBC article, which wasn't at all clear that the results pointed towards an immunisation effect (whatever that means). I'm not sure the results are exactly clear in that respect either, though my statement was framed with "IF".

If you read the BBC statement... You will see quite clearly how I reached the conclusion regarding the asymptomatic infection..The article opens up with this statement "The coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford is highly effective at stopping people developing Covid-19 symptoms"...This was the context in which I read the article... By the way, contrary to what you have said above, I posted this as a reply to you above.

Why would I consider that statement to be ironic?

At the end of the day, I'm just a bloke on a football forum, expressing my opinion, based upon the information available to me at the time. That's hardly the same as infrmation being published throughout the mainstream media, in regard to a matter of International significance. From the outset, these vaccine companies have failed to be clear about the nature of the immunity which is achieved and that remains the case to date. We are still unclear what the 70% or 90% actually means (i.e. relief from most severe symptoms, relief from all symptoms or complete relief from the virus altogether)... Of course, they continue to give the impression that it is the latter, which I will admit, I find frustrating.

 

[hertfordseasider]

"BFC x 3 a dangerous individual!" I nearly wet myself when I read that.

Freddy Kruger, Michael Myers, Hannibal Lecter &............ Daz x 3!

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

x3 also said on a previous thread a few weeks ago(2 or 3?) that he probably would not get vaccinated to which others responded that not getting vaccinated meant that you were not only more likely to be infected but as a result more likely to infect others which seemed to me to be dead right and therefore showed a lack of responsibility to those around him.

Untrue !

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

There is a big distinction between provoking debate and distorting information and presenting it as fact to suit ones own agenda.

What Agenda?

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

The statement was made in reference to the BBC article, which wasn't at all clear that the results pointed towards an immunisation effect (whatever that means). I'm not sure the results are exactly clear in that respect either, though my statement was framed with "IF".

If you read the BBC statement... You will see quite clearly how I reached the conclusion regarding the asymptomatic infection..The article opens up with this statement "The coronavirus vaccine developed by the University of Oxford is highly effective at stopping people developing Covid-19 symptoms"...This was the context in which I read the article... By the way, contrary to what you have said above, I posted this as a reply to you above.

Why would I consider that statement to be ironic?

At the end of the day, I'm just a bloke on a football forum, expressing my opinion, based upon the information available to me at the time. That's hardly the same as infrmation being published throughout the mainstream media, in regard to a matter of International significance. From the outset, these vaccine companies have failed to be clear about the nature of the immunity which is achieved and that remains the case to date. We are still unclear what the 70% or 90% actually means (i.e. relief from most severe symptoms, relief from all symptoms or complete relief from the virus altogether)... Of course, they continue to give the impression that it is the latter, which I will admit, I find frustrating.

I think that the findings are wrapped up in caveats because scientists are naturally very cautious when things are not completely clear or statistically proven. The results look encouraging and should be treated as that, I feel that you have tried to do the opposite.
I'm not going to post on this thread again but you do come across as having an agenda against vaccines and have posted (more than once) stuff that is either misleading or false about the vaccine research that has taken place. And of course you are a bit like Hannibal Lecter too.
It all has an effect on the sceptical at a time when we need the public to be confident enough to get vaccinated - I probably come across as a self righteous pedant but I don't care. We are in a war against this virus and careless talk costs lives - that is as true now as it was in WWII.

 

[Shandypants]

Can't wait for the vaccine and then getting taxed relentlessly by this govt

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I think that the findings are wrapped up in caveats because scientists are naturally very cautious when things are not completely clear or statistically proven. The results look encouraging and should be treated as that, I feel that you have tried to do the opposite.
I'm not going to post on this thread again but you do come across as having an agenda against vaccines and have posted (more than once) stuff that is either misleading or false about the vaccine research that has taken place. And of course you are a bit like Hannibal Lecter too.
It all has an effect on the sceptical at a time when we need the public to be confident enough to get vaccinated - I probably come across as a self righteous pedant but I don't care. We are in a war against this virus and careless talk costs lives - that is as true now as it was in WWII.

I disagree with you..

I don't think the way this is reported is "Wrapped up in Caveats", but rather "Wrapped up in such a way as to mislead" and particularly mislead the every day bloke in the street. As I have said before, AZ have done this from the very outset, when the initial Primate Study was billed as one thing and the detail showed it to be something different entirely.

I have no agenda, save to understand the truth behind the headlines....

I view the misleading headlines and also the willingness of you and others to over-promote as dangerous too. Public confidence is gained by open and honest information and not by misleading or over-promising..... Public trust is undermined by such things...

Like it or lump it, I'll continue to raise questions about these vaccines and express my opinions.... That doesn't mean I am against vaccines, nor that I seek to prevent people having them or undermine the process...

 

[Mexboroseasider]

If 30% still get it and most dont know it, and the balance aren't hospitalised.....sounds pretty good to me.

At least there’s one sensible comment in the middle of this thread.

 

[Tangerinemoss]

Untrue !

But it isn't is it? Back in March April, you and I were having a conversation about vaccines, and you were saying that you both had concerns about what else was in them ( remember thiomersal which someone told us hadn't been used since 2004?) and, as you were healthy and in the low risk group, would not take the vaccine.

We are all free to change our opinions as we wish, but please do not pretend you haven't.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

But it isn't is it? Back in March April, you and I were having a conversation about vaccines, and you were saying that you both had concerns about what else was in them ( remember thiomersal which someone told us hadn't been used since 2004?) and, as you were healthy and in the low risk group, would not take the vaccine.

We are all free to change our opinions as we wish, but please do not pretend you haven't.

Firstly, March / April isn't 2-3 weeks ago, it's several months ago.

Secondly, I said that whilst I am not an anti-vaxxer myself (and I believe I confirmed that my kids were fully vaccinated), that I recognise the right for people to choose not to and that I was aware of some of the reasons why.

In regard to the Covid Vaccine, I believe what I said (and please feel free to correct me by quoting the actual text, rather than from your memory) was that at that time I would probably choose to rely on my own immune system as I was not high risk, though I would continue to review that situation as time progressed. That was at a time when it was considered that immunity would possibly be achieved by natural means and also before we became aware of issues relating to long covid...

I have since made it clear on more than one occasion (and long before the last 2-3 weeks) that, given the circumstances, I would be extremely likely to have the vaccine when it becomes available to me.

I've no problem with being quoted, but I do have a problem with people making things up that are not accurate.

 

[southshore]

At least there’s one sensible comment in the middle of this thread.

I can be extremely sensible whilst sober!

 

[Tangerinemoss]

Firstly, March / April isn't 2-3 weeks ago, it's several months ago.

Secondly, I said that whilst I am not an anti-vaxxer myself (and I believe I confirmed that my kids were fully vaccinated), that I recognise the right for people to choose not to and that I was aware of some of the reasons why.

In regard to the Covid Vaccine, I believe what I said (and please feel free to correct me by quoting the actual text, rather than from your memory) was that at that time I would probably choose to rely on my own immune system as I was not high risk, though I would continue to review that situation as time progressed. That was at a time when it was considered that immunity would possibly be achieved by natural means and also before we became aware of issues relating to long covid...

I have since made it clear on more than one occasion (and long before the last 2-3 weeks) that, given the circumstances, I would be extremely likely to have the vaccine when it becomes available to me.

I've no problem with being quoted, but I do have a problem with people making things up that are not accurate.

I am delighted you have changed your mind, very sensible. Sorry I haven't seen this in the last few months, I don't read this board every day.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I am delighted you have changed your mind, very sensible. Sorry I haven't seen this in the last few months, I don't read this board every day.

I'm not sure I have exactly "changed my mind", but just made upo my mind...

Incidentally this was the discussion that preceded our general discussions about vaccines back in April. And my reference to "being reticent about having the C19 vaccine"... My comments about my own immune system were on a different thread relating to Flu, where I said that I wouldn't (and didn't require) the Flu Vaccine... And had to point out to BRR (who berated me for failing to protect the wider community) that the vaccine was not even recommended for people of my age group and that (as it was in short supply) it ought to be user for those that actually need it.

Amazon can look all they want, you;d still have to be an idiot to get vaccinated for the common cold....How about stop eating garbage, get healthy and boost your immune system naturally?

Bifster. Not everbody thinks the same as you. It's all about the money. It always is.

I get that, which is why I'd be reticent to get vaccinated for CV19, never mind a cold.... I seriously can't see people with any sense getting vaccinated for a cold though.... Maybe they will though....

There'll come a point where our immune system stops functioning if we keep dulling it with pharnmaceuticals IMO,

Sorry to be a pedant... But when it comes to people telling me what I have said, I'd rather have it straight.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

I can be extremely sensible whilst sober!

That’ll explain why you so rarely come out with so much sense.

 

[Tangerinemoss]

Pedant all you wish, facts are important. The other side is that my memory of you being reticent to have the Covid vaccine was indeed exactly as I remembered it.

Had forgotten the name of the antivaxxer, DodgyKeeper, a great sealion.

 

[1950`spoolfan]

Clearly I got the timing of your post wrong but I knew I had read a post from you saying you probably wouldn`t have this vaccine and I`m glad Mossy( thanks for that ) remembered it too as your terminological inexactitudes (as Churchill once described them in an attempt to avoid calling an MP a liar in the House of Commons)won`t wash on here.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Pedant all you wish, facts are important. The other side is that my memory of you being reticent to have the Covid vaccine was indeed exactly as I remembered it.

Had forgotten the name of the antivaxxer, DodgyKeeper, a great sealion.

DodgyKeeper has different opinions and me and him have locked horns a few times over some of his more 'out-there' theories. That said, he puts his points over reasonably well and has some interesting opinions.

Clearly I got the timing of your post wrong but I knew I had read a post from you saying you probably wouldn`t have this vaccine and I`m glad Mossy( thanks for that ) remembered it too as your terminological inexactitudes (as Churchill once described them)won`t wash on here.

Not only did you get the timing of my post wrong, you also completely misrepresented the circumstances...

Quite how someone who is famous for suggesting that the death of homeless people would "reduce the surplus population" could ever talk about anyone else showing a "lack of responsibility to those around them" is beyond me.... And don't try to deny it... It's a comment that is permanently etched in my memory and one which has ensured my utter disdain for you as an individual thereafter.

 

[1950`spoolfan]

Does getting proved wrong or dishonest,force you to start posting yet more terminological inexactitudes.

Sad person there was a thread several years ago I think when I vaguely remember posting something which you seized on and completely misinterpreted with sanctimonious indignation but clearly you choose to store up these bitter twisted little memories.

I certainly don`t think the above that you totally misquote, never did,get a life and while you`re at it get a vaccination too!

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Does getting proved wrong or dishonest,force you to start posting yet more terminological inexactitudes.

Sad person there was a thread several years ago I think when I vaguely remember posting something which you seized on and completely misinterpreted but clearly you choose to store up these bitter twisted little memories.

I certainly don`t think the above that you totally misquote, never did,get a life and while you`re at it a vaccination!

You know what you said!!

On the thread you are referencing from months ago..

My opening comments were actually defending the production of the C19 Vaccine in actual fact. Someone was saying that they would struggle to find a C19 vaccine on the basis that they had never found one for the common cold.

I said "Why would anyone want to produce a vaccine for the common cold" and went on to say.....

The point is...We wouldn't want a vaccined for the common cold...There's absolutelky no need for one....Hence why nobody including so called 'Big Pharma' has wasted any time or valuable resource on such a trivial matter. I mean what kind of fool would seriously consider jacking themselves full of poison in order to avoid a minor inconvenience?

The point being...That the lack of a vaccine for existing and generally harmless coronavirus has no relevance at all to the ability of scientists to develop one for this new virus.

I susequently made a non-descript comment (primarily about the Common Cold) where I said I would be reticent "Hesitant" about having the C19 vaccine, let alone one for a cold..... There was no mention from anyone about me not being pub;lic spirited at all... To be hesitent or have reservations about something isn't "Probably not going to take it"

That, I presume was from a thread in September (2-3 weeks ago?) that both you and Tangerinemoss were around on and related not to C19, but to the Flu Vaccine....

(1) It's not just about what YOU need though, is it? If you get infected, you're a liability to the rest of us several times over, not least in the (avoidable) cost of looking after you if or when you fall ill. if enough people had that attitude, we'd just add a fresh layer of self-inflicted disadvantage into the system. You know, that system that you are constantly telling us is thoroughly pernicious already.

(2) I take your point - up to a point - but it is not necessarily true. My mobile phone thinks I haven't left the house in the last six months. That's because for the time being it lives on the couch. Unlike many, I don't think it needs to come to Sainbury's with me so I can tell my partner about all the dreary minutae of daily life. And by exercising that choice I make myself much harder to monitor.

Well clearly, it is about me...given that it's my body and therefore my choice.

Firstly, I am not at high risk of contracting flu or passing it on as my social interactions are limited. Secondly, given that (as reported today) demand for Flu Vaccinations is currently outstrippoing supply, then it is far better that those that genuinely need them, have access to them.

EDIT: In case you are unclear, the NHS infromation on Flu Vaccines and who should have them is HERE



I wasn't really talking specifics. as you seem to acknowledge, though whether at home or at the shops, your online activity and interactions are constantly being monitored...

 

[Loco]

Bfc x3 , I think you are a very dangerous individual. It is people like you with an agenda who try to pass off your interpretations of facts as scientific,
when it is just opinion based on your obvious preconceptions. Even if the vaccine is only 70% effective(and it could be better but we don't have the facts to say otherwise) then it a huge advance as billions of people in the world will need vaccinating as quick as possible.
How many doses do you think, Pfizer/Moderna can make in say 1 year. the answer is nowhere near enough. This vaccine could save 100,000 of lives worldwide and you claim in earlier posts that it might make the situation worse than it is already or that we should bin it!!

Maybe he's been reading New Scientist, which has similar concerns in the possibility it could make things worse, in certain circumstances.

 

[tangerine_neil]

On the face of it, this is good news, if not entirely predictable.
They did this in the earliest trial. Tested a ridiculously low dosage which showed some benefits but wasn’t particularly amazing. Then they upped the dose (to a level still below normal dosage) and the results were markedly improved.
I remember reading about the American trial dosages at the time and they were far in excess of what was being tested in the Oxford trial. Talk about making your product look superior.
We really should be comparing like for like efficiency, and that simply isn’t the case. Not surprised Oxford manage to be considerate and trustworthy. I know which I would rather have, given a choice.

Also, the Oxford vaccine can be kept in a fridge or at room temperature, so no need to get specialist cold chain facilities to store at -94’C etc.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

On the face of it, this is good news, if not entirely predictable.
They did this in the earliest trial. Tested a ridiculously low dosage which showed some benefits but wasn’t particularly amazing. Then they upped the dose (to a level still below normal dosage) and the results were markedly improved.
I remember reading about the American trial dosages at the time and they were far in excess of what was being tested in the Oxford trial. Talk about making your product look superior.
We really should be comparing like for like efficiency, and that simply isn’t the case. Not surprised Oxford manage to be considerate and trustworthy. I know which I would rather have, given a choice.

Also, the Oxford vaccine can be kept in a fridge or at room temperature, so no need to get specialist cold chain facilities to store at -94’C etc.

The greater success with the Oxford Vaccine is as a result of using a lower dose, not a higher dose

 

[1950`spoolfan]

Oh well you carry on ,make it up as you go along.Pick and choose from your never ending posts carefully avoiding any that undermine your case.I know what you posted ,others clearly do too but I`ve got better things to do which is not difficult so I`ll leave you to it.Good luck .

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Oh well you carry on ,make it up as you go along.Pick and choose from your never ending posts carefully avoiding any that undermine your case.I know what you posted ,others clearly do too but I`ve got better things to do which is not difficult so I`ll leave you to it.Good luck .

I've not avoided anything 1950's... Like so many on here, you fail to read and comprehend what people actually post and strawman them to suit your agenda...

Here's more of what I had to say on vaccines back in early April

British scientists are already in advance testing of a vaccine that they believe works. They claim that the Covid 19 strain is poorly protected and is therefore likely to be reltively easy to protect against.

Just to add a bit of positivity to this increasingly 'wrist slitting' thread of doom.

And back then answering an accusation of being anti-vaccine, because I stated I didn't agree with enforced vaccination, but rather in freedom to choose.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Anti-Vac'?


I'm certainly very selective about the toxicity of anything that goes into my body and I'm very suspiscious about the proliferation of vaccine and pharmaceutical 'industry'. When profit is involved in vaccines / drugs, then there will always be cause for a healthy concern IMHO. So it would be a case of determining the pro's and cons of any proposed vaccine and then deciding whether or not I wanted to rely on my own immune system.

EDIT--- Oh and surprise surprise take a look at my comments from this thread from 2 weeks ago...A thread you had obviously read!! Being as you appeared to be raising similar concerns that you are seemingly criticising me for...

I’d want to see more information, but I’d expect that he risk is likely outweighed by the benefit. It seems daft to dismiss it though ?

They certainly seem to have jumped the gun with their announced of the vaccine`s success before the final stages of the trials have been completed unlike others including our Oxford version and so far details including the age range tested are missing.

Whilst it is certainly very encouraging it seems probable that the motivation to be first and make another fortune may have been the priority rather than first completing all the required stages of the necessary trials.

All actual quotes from actual threads... evidenced properly... NOT accusations based on vague memories (or as you like to put it..."Making it up as you go along")

 

[Hazi]

Not read all the facts on this vaccine as frankly gave myself a break from my degree in corona these last few weeks. But and forgive me if I am wrong that currently 5% of those being tested test positive across the country does that mean that not having the vaccine is 95% effective? Do they blast those who have had the vaccine with Corona to see how effective it is? or just re test them a few weeks later, if so 30% infection rate is far larger than the national average.

Interestingly the largest infected group in recent weeks has been older teenagers/young adults, university etc. or is it because it has done the rounds of the older generation wiping out the weakest along the way. I think and hope it will eventually fade away as herd immunity gathers pace like SARS corona virus did. Which raged in 2002 but had disappeared completely by 2004.

As I say, I am no expert and I don't know what the right and wrongs of it all are, will I have the vaccine? Probably but will want to be at the back of the queue to see what side effects if any transpire. If it genuinely raises immunity levels and has no health risks then we should all have it done pronto but I remain to be convinced.

 

[seasideone]

Any not having a vaccine may as well forget about international travel!

The CEO of QANTAS has just come out and said you will have to have a vaccine if it’s available before you can fly on our airline - and most other CEOs I know in the industry agree.’

If this pushes more of the selfish to have it then brilliant

Medical exclusions would still be allowed.

Vaccination to Be a ‘Necessity’ for Overseas Travel, Qantas Says

Qantas Airways Ltd. plans to require future international passengers to have a Covid-19 vaccination before they fly, and said it’s likely to become a requirement at airlines across the world.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Just working out those numbers... To average 70% across the two with one at 62% and one at 90% that would mean..

Half Dose/Full Dose 2741 Participants with 33 people contracting virus in total (30 from Placebo and 3 from vaccinated group)
Full Dose / Full Dose 8895 Participants with 98 peopls contracting virus in total (71 from Placebo and 27 from vaccinated group)