Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?

[Milltown Row2]

Hilary Jones the famous virologist

Met Hilary once, lovely fella, took a class I attended. As a GP he's brilliant

[armaghniac]

Clearly you know f**k all about immunology.

Which thing I said shows this? What are your confidence limits?

It either prevents clinical infection in the majority of cases or it doesn't. There'll be no doctor putting his hands up saying "well it's working but we don't know how" in 6 months time. It's very easy to vaccinate someone, challenge them with the virus, see if they develop clinical signs and finally see if they become shedders or not.

A challenge test would short circuit the data collection. However, challenge tests are somewhat artificial, for ethical reasons you generally wouldn't perform a challenge test in any person who would be likely to get a severe case of Covid.

"where it seems to work but can't be proven". f**k me that's homeopathy 101.

People will get Covid and it will be hard to prove where exactly they got it.

[Seaney]

Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?

No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.

Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.

[Seaney]

To look at it positively, does the current vaccine, if accurate to its description, reduce Covid to a normal flu in terms of potential to be fatal?

The clinical trial data suggested that the vaccines triggered an immune response significant enough to give Covid a kicking. That response will inevitably be different per person depending on what your baseline is, but if it gives the most vulnerable a fighting chance it's worth a shot.

Again I will rephrase, we will know more when the live clinical trail going on in the UK has more information, I note the other countries rushing the start it around the world.

[Angelo]

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

Plenty of agendas out there.

The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.

In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.

The "real agendas"??

Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.

You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?

Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.

Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?

I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?

I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.

Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.

Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.

[dublin7]

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

Plenty of agendas out there.

The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.

In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.

The "real agendas"??

Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.

You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?

Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.

Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?

I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?

I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.

Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.

Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.

You don't seem to know how big pharma, corporate CEO's and the stock market operate either so I wouldn't go throwing stones in glass houses

[trueblue1234]

Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?

No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.

Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.

This is true. However what they do know to date is the vaccine efficiency rate is around 90%. A fairly welcome stat.

[Angelo]

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

Plenty of agendas out there.

The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.

In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.

The "real agendas"??

Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.

You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?

Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.

Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?

I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?

I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.

Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.

Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.

You don't seem to know how big pharma, corporate CEO's and the stock market operate either so I wouldn't go throwing stones in glass houses

I've already schooled you on this.

Ethics is important for me, not for you.

[trueblue1234]

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

Plenty of agendas out there.

The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.

In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.

The "real agendas"??

Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.

You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?

Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.

Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?

I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?

I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.

Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.

Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.

So you believe you are OK to challenge anyone who is positive about the vaccine because of the unknown long term effects, of which there may be none as being sheep who follow big pharma. But if someone challenges your "big pharma" claims because there's no proof of anything in these processes then you get all snowflakely and cry about these comments don't help, stifling people who have genuine concerns etc.   

[Angelo]

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

Plenty of agendas out there.

The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.

In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.

The "real agendas"??

Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.

You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?

Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.

Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?

I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?

I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.

Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.

Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.

So you believe you are OK to challenge anyone who is positive about the vaccine because of the unknown long term effects, of which there may be none as being sheep who follow big pharma. But if someone challenges your "big pharma" claims because there's no proof of anything in these processes then you get all snowflakely and cry about these comments don't help, stifling people who have genuine concerns etc.

People can believe what they wish to. I only responded to defend my opinions on the optics that a Pfizer CEO offloading his shares on the day it was approved was appalling. dublin7 then goes on an attack against because I called out how this is very, very bad look for the industry and I have given a number of examples of the culture of sleaze and greed in which big pharma conduct their business. If people want to ignore the factual evidence of misconduct and reckless behaviour of Big Pharma then that's up to them but it sure does make them look silly.

[LeoMc]

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

Plenty of agendas out there.

The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.

In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.

The "real agendas"??

Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.

You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?

Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.

Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?

I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?

I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.

Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.

Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.

So you believe you are OK to challenge anyone who is positive about the vaccine because of the unknown long term effects, of which there may be none as being sheep who follow big pharma. But if someone challenges your "big pharma" claims because there's no proof of anything in these processes then you get all snowflakely and cry about these comments don't help, stifling people who have genuine concerns etc.

People can believe what they wish to. I only responded to defend my opinions on the optics that a Pfizer CEO offloading his shares on the day it was approved was appalling. dublin7 then goes on an attack against because I called out how this is very, very bad look for the industry and I have given a number of examples of the culture of sleaze and greed in which big pharma conduct their business. If people want to ignore the factual evidence of misconduct and reckless behaviour of Big Pharma then that's up to them but it sure does make them look silly.

You do know the sale was planned and agreed many months ago.

[Angelo]

You do know the sale was planned and agreed many months ago.

You do know the contract was signed in August, in the middle of the pandemic, just a couple of months before the announcement was made?

This wasn't some pre-existing contract from before the pandemic, this was something agreed on in the middle of it. It represents a huge conflict of interests and Pfizer have a history of really poor unethical practices.

[trueblue1234]

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

Plenty of agendas out there.

The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.

In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.

The "real agendas"??

Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.

You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?

Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.

Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?

I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?

I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.

Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.

Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.

So you believe you are OK to challenge anyone who is positive about the vaccine because of the unknown long term effects, of which there may be none as being sheep who follow big pharma. But if someone challenges your "big pharma" claims because there's no proof of anything in these processes then you get all snowflakely and cry about these comments don't help, stifling people who have genuine concerns etc.

People can believe what they wish to. I only responded to defend my opinions on the optics that a Pfizer CEO offloading his shares on the day it was approved was appalling. dublin7 then goes on an attack against because I called out how this is very, very bad look for the industry and I have given a number of examples of the culture of sleaze and greed in which big pharma conduct their business. If people want to ignore the factual evidence of misconduct and reckless behaviour of Big Pharma then that's up to them but it sure does make them look silly.

I'm not going back down that rabbit hole. It was pointed out that the shares were set to sell when they reached a certain price. A standard process in the purchase and sell of shares. You were trying to spin it as something more. This has been roundly rubbished, hence the lack of interest in the story in the media. Providing facts on other processes doesn't automatically mean there was issues with this. If you believe there was misconduct on this process explain why? show what it's based on? You can't claim something happened just because there's precedence. There has to be a bit more to it than that I'm afraid or you will quite rightly be challenged on your opinions. 

[Angelo]

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

Plenty of agendas out there.

The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.

In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.

The "real agendas"??

Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.

You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?

Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.

Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?

I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?

I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.

Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.

Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.

So you believe you are OK to challenge anyone who is positive about the vaccine because of the unknown long term effects, of which there may be none as being sheep who follow big pharma. But if someone challenges your "big pharma" claims because there's no proof of anything in these processes then you get all snowflakely and cry about these comments don't help, stifling people who have genuine concerns etc.

People can believe what they wish to. I only responded to defend my opinions on the optics that a Pfizer CEO offloading his shares on the day it was approved was appalling. dublin7 then goes on an attack against because I called out how this is very, very bad look for the industry and I have given a number of examples of the culture of sleaze and greed in which big pharma conduct their business. If people want to ignore the factual evidence of misconduct and reckless behaviour of Big Pharma then that's up to them but it sure does make them look silly.

I'm not going back down that rabbit hole. It was pointed out that the shares were set to sell when they reached a certain price. A standard process in the purchase and sell of shares. You were trying to spin it as something more. This has been roundly rubbished, hence the lack of interest in the story in the media. Providing facts on other processes doesn't automatically mean there was issues with this. If you believe there was misconduct on this process explain why? show what it's based on? You can't claim something happened just because there's precedence. There has to be a bit more to it than that I'm afraid or you will quite rightly be challenged on your opinions.

Signed in the middle of a pandemic.

You don't see how this could be:

a) A conflict of interest in cutting corners to get the vaccine to market
b) Perceived to be the above

[trueblue1234]

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

Plenty of agendas out there.

The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.

In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.

The "real agendas"??

Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.

You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?

Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.

Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?

I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?

I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.

But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.

These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.

Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.

Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.

So you believe you are OK to challenge anyone who is positive about the vaccine because of the unknown long term effects, of which there may be none as being sheep who follow big pharma. But if someone challenges your "big pharma" claims because there's no proof of anything in these processes then you get all snowflakely and cry about these comments don't help, stifling people who have genuine concerns etc.

People can believe what they wish to. I only responded to defend my opinions on the optics that a Pfizer CEO offloading his shares on the day it was approved was appalling. dublin7 then goes on an attack against because I called out how this is very, very bad look for the industry and I have given a number of examples of the culture of sleaze and greed in which big pharma conduct their business. If people want to ignore the factual evidence of misconduct and reckless behaviour of Big Pharma then that's up to them but it sure does make them look silly.

I'm not going back down that rabbit hole. It was pointed out that the shares were set to sell when they reached a certain price. A standard process in the purchase and sell of shares. You were trying to spin it as something more. This has been roundly rubbished, hence the lack of interest in the story in the media. Providing facts on other processes doesn't automatically mean there was issues with this. If you believe there was misconduct on this process explain why? show what it's based on? You can't claim something happened just because there's precedence. There has to be a bit more to it than that I'm afraid or you will quite rightly be challenged on your opinions.

Signed in the middle of a pandemic.

You don't see how this could be:

a) A conflict of interest in cutting corners to get the vaccine to market
b) Perceived to be the above

I don't believe a man who's earnings were around $18M a year between shares, salary and bonus would go to that lengths and risk his entire career and reputation for a personal gain of around 1/3 of his annual salary (It's actually far less that 1/3 as the shares had value prior to the agreement). In fact I would seriously question either the motivations or intelligence of someone who believes that. If i'm honest.