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

[Seaney]

You can say whatever you want, I don't know you from Adam, you've made up some stupid comments why should I believe an anonymous poster on a discussion board?

You calling me a ballbag sums up you completely.

You claim that this virus is not safe, your phd mucker told you. But happy for people to get it in a care home?

Very strange behaviour

I claim the virus is not safe!!!! You read our families situation,  ballbag is too good a word to describe a parasite like you.

Just to be clear here Seaney - do you believe the vaccine to be safe or not?

Why do you care, I have answered this question many times.

[Seaney]

Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122

As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.

Did you read the piece or just the headline?

Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.

Fact is no one knew of this reaction until live use on the general population - do you not understand that or are you so intransigent with your position you simple don't care.

Not true

So was main news story for nothing.

[Seaney]

And those who just follow the narrative like sheep call anyone who questions it antivax.

I'm not calling you out for asking questions.

You're failure to answer questions that is your big problem. It busts any vague interest you might have in credibility

Unlike your own ability to cut and paste internet articles.

[LCohen]

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.

90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?

Why is that a big issue for you? Do you think people will refuse to be revaccinated?

[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.

What is you issue about the duration of the immunity? Why would it be a bad thing if people needed revaccinated?

Be nice to know when do you not think, otherwise granny will remain locked up forever.

[LCohen]

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.

90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?

So if by spring all the vulnerable are vaccinated and the UK opens up only to find in summer it only offered 6 months protection, that be some mess!

Would it not be a case of revaccinating with the same or possibly a longer lasting one if it's available?

[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.

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

90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?

Why is that a big issue for you? Do you think people will refuse to be revaccinated?

I have answered this, read back.

[LCohen]

It's actually around $700,000. The increase was around 15%. The shares weren't zero prior to the vaccine.

I think we can all agree this would not amount to much to the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly anyone who things this amount would be worthwhile taking the risks Angelo is suggesting is either lacking the intelligence to have worked out the full story or using it as a tool to push a separate agenda.

5-6m amounts to a lot for anyone, it's a third of his salary, that's significant. I think you struggle to comprehend the way capitalist pigs operate. You act like he is a compassionate man who cares what people think, that's not the way these people work. They don't care about these things as long as they get away with it, look at all the tax loopholes billionaires cheat the taxpayer out of every year, they don't care as long as they get away with it.

Why did corporate bankers take all those risks in the financial crash?

There's so many studies done about the sociopathic nature of major corporate executives. These are not ordinary thinkers you are talking about, these are callous and driven people who care only about how much money they make and that greed is what can do for them in the end.

Sean Quinn is a classic example, why did the richest man in Ireland want more and more and more?

Yeah but as i mentioned $700K isn't that much for the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly not enough to jeopardize a $18M a year package.

Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?

The issues was it was agreed in the middle of a pandemic, two months before the announcement. He had a self-interest in getting the vaccine to market first. His decision making was certainly compromised or could easily be perceived to be. So was he putting his own interests first? That is a question we should not be asking but we now are.

Wonderfully vague.

There is a commercial incentive in developing a vaccine. It's not the sole interest

Developing the first one isn't necessarily where the commercial advantage will last.

If company A develops its first but company B develops it's the next day but it's more efficacious, cheaper, safer and easier to use who gets the commercial benefit?

Also the firms developing the vaccine do not get to approve them. You can only "rush" so much

[LCohen]

90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?

Sure tell you what we'll do.

We'll just monitor those in the trial for the next 10 years to see long term effects.

In the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die - but sure its OK 'cos we can estimate with a better degree of accuracy how long protection lasts.


How do you politely call someone a fukkwit?

Millions are dying anyway.

Why have we never had this sort of a drive to stop cancer which takes the lives of young, fit and healthy people and reduces them to years of pain and suffering?

We have

[LCohen]

90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?

Sure tell you what we'll do.

We'll just monitor those in the trial for the next 10 years to see long term effects.

In the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die - but sure its OK 'cos we can estimate with a better degree of accuracy how long protection lasts.


How do you politely call someone a fukkwit?

Oh dear the personal abuse, how many have died from covid, one doesn't know as the figures are skewed, all the predictions have been well, horseshite, but you are correct monitor the live clinical trial in the UK, you need to start taking more tablets those you are on aren't working.

Seaney is that you drawing a line in the sand? There will be no personal abuse forthcoming form the Seaney account?

[LCohen]

I am cautious of the expediency of it's origination, so you are very confused.

What part of the origination process do you think has been left out?

Why do you keep asking questions nobody knows the answer to? It's fair to have worries about it and you can't prove those worries are founded or unfounded. You merely ask us to have blind faith is an industry renowned for knowingly putting people's health at risk to make millions.

It's the argument of an idiot.

The vaccines will only be used when approved. If you have a problem with the pace of the development and approval you must have a concern that something has been left out. So what bit?

You can't just say it's quicker than before as that has been explained time and time again ( the benefit of earlier research, the level of resource, the simultaneous running of processes etc etc)

[LCohen]

Yeah I read it.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said the advice applies to anyone who has had significant reactions to medicines, food or vaccines.

As I mentioned as UK is effectively a live clinical trial one wonders what other side effects, this was day one, you really should maybe start to think for yourself instead of following a scripted narrative.

How is it a live clinical trial?

It was known that people with strong allergic reactions might react strongly to the vaccine.

What about folk with complicated medical needs, wait and see? Bizarre the reaction story made all the headlines when it was known well in advance, was it the small clinical trial showed this up?

Bizarre or not would not change the fact that it was known in advance though would it?

The facts here that this was a known issue and only impacts on those who experience significant allergic reactions. When they had this vaccine they had a reaction that would not be expected in others and they were 100% within a couple of hours. All the things that were supposed to happen, did happen and the media were fully informed.

Text book

[J70]

90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?

Sure tell you what we'll do.

We'll just monitor those in the trial for the next 10 years to see long term effects.

In the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die - but sure its OK 'cos we can estimate with a better degree of accuracy how long protection lasts.


How do you politely call someone a fukkwit?

Millions are dying anyway.

Why have we never had this sort of a drive to stop cancer which takes the lives of young, fit and healthy people and reduces them to years of pain and suffering?

We have

Plus cancer isn't contagious; there are a multitude of environmental and genetic causes, many of which are barely understood after years of research; many of them don't reveal themselves for years or even decades, by which time its too late.

[LCohen]

Is it not a bit strange that the posters who are "uneasy" about the vaccine seem to share common traits around answering questions, quoting discredited sources, making claims about the vaccine being forced etc?

Far be from me to suggest that they are one person, in cahoots or gaslit by a common source

Lets see how the care homes pan out, I am next of kin for my parent in care, Ill let you know if and when I am contacted for approval but as of yet no one has mentioned the vaccine to me.

Well don't you get agitated until there is something to get agitated about

You do well to sit with no reason to care, good for yourself.

We all have skin in this game.

I would question why someone would get agitated because they have not been asked to give their consent to a process that has not happened?

[LCohen]

And headbangers who as a collective think they can bully, berate and try to intimidate folk with reasonable health care concerns about a vaccine ten months in the making and only being administrated currently in a country run by liars and swindlers to achieve nothing but political gain.

I think that when people ask you questions or don't believe your lies when claim to have already answered the questions you think they are bullying you.

Na I was thinking how the saviours of the board collectively direct personal abuse against those who disagree or question the narrative and belittle ones sense of duty to protect those who raised them. Again you do well not to have such worries, good for yourself.

Is inventing the personal biogs of other posters a past time of yours?