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

[dublin7]

The truth to Seany it seems is whatever he wants it to be. Me being a bigger fool did a google search to see what the professor has been saying and to see were Seany was getting the figures for the elderly. I've linked some of them here (including a piece from the BBC based on his Andrew Marr interview.)

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54949799?fbclid=IwAR3Xmm2FZvUsjEI00YYgmwP5raarc9aH2P-0_kSMwhprGCGsccPWGdhU4NM

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/10/ugur-sahin-and-ozlem-tureci-german-dream-team-behind-vaccine

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-found-to-be-90-effective-in-great-day-for-science-and-humanity-12128452

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/09/covid-19-vaccine-candidate-effective-pfizer-biontech

There is no mention of it not working on the elderly and the only figures anything close to 35% mentioned i have copied and pasted below:

There have been concerns that black and minority ethnic populations are particularly vulnerable to Covid. Approximately 42% of global participants and 30% of US participants in the trials have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds and appear to have been as well-protected as everyone else, the company says. But one important unanswered question is how long the vaccine will last.

[mackers]

The one where Prof Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder says that its around 35% effective in elderly people, and in which he expects it to be effective in elderly people but at the moment he can't say it is, I know i'd be a fool to myself.

Utter bullshit.  I watched the same interview and nothing of the sort was mentioned.  Just been announced that the Pfizer vaccine is 94% effective in adults aged over 65.

[thebigfella]

Just one point for anyone who's concerned about the rapid approval of these vaccines - the prevelance of the virus in the community has meant that the trials have hit their target infection numbers much quicker than you would with a vaccine for something that's less prevelant

Stop with the science and logic please. But what about Big Pharma   

[johnnycool]

The truth to Seany it seems is whatever he wants it to be. Me being a bigger fool did a google search to see what the professor has been saying and to see were Seany was getting the figures for the elderly. I've linked some of them here (including a piece from the BBC based on his Andrew Marr interview.)

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54949799?fbclid=IwAR3Xmm2FZvUsjEI00YYgmwP5raarc9aH2P-0_kSMwhprGCGsccPWGdhU4NM

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/10/ugur-sahin-and-ozlem-tureci-german-dream-team-behind-vaccine

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-found-to-be-90-effective-in-great-day-for-science-and-humanity-12128452

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/09/covid-19-vaccine-candidate-effective-pfizer-biontech

There is no mention of it not working on the elderly and the only figures anything close to 35% mentioned i have copied and pasted below:

There have been concerns that black and minority ethnic populations are particularly vulnerable to Covid. Approximately 42% of global participants and 30% of US participants in the trials have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds and appear to have been as well-protected as everyone else, the company says. But one important unanswered question is how long the vaccine will last.

That is the part thats the most concern and indeed only time will tell but even if it's only a year then that's workable IMO. A month or two and you'd think that we'll need something else long term.

[RedHand88]

The one where Prof Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder says that its around 35% effective in elderly people, and in which he expects it to be effective in elderly people but at the moment he can't say it is, I know i'd be a fool to myself.

Utter bullshit.  I watched the same interview and nothing of the sort was mentioned.  Just been announced that the Pfizer vaccine is 94% effective in adults aged over 65.

But what does Professor Jim Corr have to say?

[Franko]

The one where Prof Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder says that its around 35% effective in elderly people, and in which he expects it to be effective in elderly people but at the moment he can't say it is, I know i'd be a fool to myself.

Utter bullshit.  I watched the same interview and nothing of the sort was mentioned.  Just been announced that the Pfizer vaccine is 94% effective in adults aged over 65.

What the guy said in the interview was that 35-40% of the people involved in the trial were elderly.

Then, after getting it completely wrong, the chemical engineer's buddy thought he'd revise the figure down a bit for extra effect.

Fool is an understatement.

Pity you can't vaccinate against stupidity.

[LCohen]

Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.

This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.

There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.

So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?

Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people

Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?

[LCohen]

He has a point though - some serious profiteering going on here. 

Who has profiteered?

Prof Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder on the Andrew Marr show had no answer to how long immunity would last, or if it would stop transmission

Those are legitimate answers to legitimate questions. Its impossible to know know long immunity will last for. The longer the better or you will have to re-vaccinate more regularly (as is done elsewhere). Or a differenet vaccine that lasts longer gets used.

Some vaccines stop you suffering but dont stop you spreading. More tests needed. More tests being done. No big news here

is surely it is against the human rights of Care Home residents to have this forced upon them

Post a link to who is going to force them.

[LCohen]

I've laid out my reasonings for not and I'm being attacked for them. It's a personal choice at the end of the day and I'm having defend my incessantly despite my reasoning being completely valid and rational.

Tell me the problem with the vaccines and we can judge if they are indeed completely valid or rational

[LCohen]

So you are going to take a vaccine in which no one knows if it prevents covid spreading, no one knows how long it will give you immunity, and the 90percent  was quoted on Andrew Marr as about 30 percent in older people.

A vaccine that stops suffering but not spreading is better than no vaccine and is likely to be given to the most vulnerable. You get the logic of that?

[LCohen]

And no one knows the side effects.

I am reliably informed that side effects are one of the things that they look at in clinical trials and regulatory approval. This is one of the reasons why we don't have the vaccine in circulation today. 

We also look at the  effects of there not being a vaccine.

[Angelo]

Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.

There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.

So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?

Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people

Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?

This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.

I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.

So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?

I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.

Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.

All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?

[Franko]

Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.

There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.

So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?

Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people

Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?

This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.

I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.

So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?

I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.

Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.

All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?

Do you intend to never get this vaccination?

If not, how long would you let others get vaccinated for, before you were happy that it would be safe enough for you to get?

[Angelo]

Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.

There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.

So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?

Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people

Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?

This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.

I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.

So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?

I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.

Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.

All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?

Do you intend to never get this vaccination?

If not, how long would you let others get vaccinated for, before you were happy that it would be safe enough for you to get?

When I'm satisfied it is safe and works and the benefits of it outweigh potential consequnces then I would get it. But it will take years to find that out.

I've never got a flu vaccine. The majority of people I know in my demograph with no underlying health conditions don't either that I'm aware of.

[Milltown Row2]

When will you know? Do you know any chemical engineers?