Covid vaccine.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Pfizer will be ultra sensitive on this - imagine the impact to their company if a significant safety concern arose. It would ruin their reputation and destroy their brand.
People are right to be sceptical of pharmaceutical companies, but you'd be surprised which of them have been rocked by massive scandals and yet still make money hand over fist. Spoiler: all of them, including Pfizer, who did some truly shocking things during an outbreak of meningitis in Nigeria.

The most obvious one that comes to mind: you know that terrible, life-ruining drug heroin?
Ever wonder how it got its name? What if I told you that Heroin is a brand name of Bayer AG?
It was marketed as cough and pain relief "without the addictive nature of morphine"

As for the vaccine, I'll take it when it comes to me, assuming it hasn't been recalled by then. I don't envy those first in the queue, though.
Edit to add: it'll almost certainly be fine, but as a species, humans have a knack for being spectacularly poor at either predicting or mitigating unintended consequences.
 
Last edited:
If the vaccine still let's you have the virus in you, but not make you ill from it, would it still be possible to transmit it to someone else?
No. It takes time for the virus to hijack your cells to make copies of itself, and to ramp up production. You're only truly infectious once your body is producing enormous amounts of virus particles.

If you are innoculated, your immune system, entrained by the vaccine, will recognise them and kill them on sight, and so, the virus doesn't replicate, and you aren't infectious.

However, with mutant strains we could end up in a situation where people need to get boosters and seasonal jabs to target different strains (in the same way people get winter flu jabs to target different strains of flu viruses.)
 

Accy cyclist

Legendary Member
I'm about 6th down the list of the ones to be vaccinated. Maybe the government of many U-turns will have decided it doesn't work by then,though i doubt it. Will i have it? I'll do my best to avoid a sadly it seems,craved for by many,compulsory jab.
 
Last edited:

roubaixtuesday

self serving virtue signaller
Ding Ding Ding, Nobody knows anything yet about this miracle vaccine, there's an old saying which says if it's seems to be too good to be true, it probably is.

What we know:

Phase I results
Phase Iii interim readout summary results.

Why pretend this is "nothing"?

What's your rationale?
 
  • Like
Reactions: srw
D

Deleted member 26715

Guest
Why pretend this is "nothing"?
In the grand scheme that is nothing, how many deaths has there been as a result of receiving the vaccination?

I also wonder how they are going to produce enough of it within the time period, the UK has ordered 40 million units, the US is 6x bigger so that's potentially another 250 million, then there's all the other countries the world population topped 7.8 Billion earlier in the year.
What's your rationale?
Not sure I follow your question, I'm just a sceptic that there are not any long term side effects of such a hurriedly produced vaccine, I hope I'm wrong, I really do, maybe it's just not as complicated to do as I thought it was.
 

PK99

Legendary Member
Location
SW19
Put your own Political spin on it if you wish, but show me another vaccine that has been brought to market & made freely available within 6 months?

It would be interesting to compare the number of strands of Covid vaccine research and man-hours expended vs "normal" vaccine research. In terms of resource allocation (financial and human), Covid research holds all the trump cards.
 
Last edited:

Paulus

Started young, and still going.
Location
Barnet,
I'm well down the list to get any potential vaccine. I'm only 63 and I don't think I will be offered it for many months to come, once it has been licensed for use.
I would have it anyhow.
 
D

Deleted member 26715

Guest
It would be interesting to compare the number of strands of Covid vaccine research and man-hours expended vs "normal" vaccine research. In terms of resource allocation (financial and human), Covid research holds all the trump cards.
But could you not only compare this if all the work was open source always being published on a day to day basis so each could see what the others are doing, I suspect this has not happened as the commercial gain is immense.

Now if Pfizer are prepared to publish all it's findings & not put a patent on the drug, that would be another matter.
 

vickster

Legendary Member
But could you not only compare this if all the work was open source always being published on a day to day basis so each could see what the others are doing, I suspect this has not happened as the commercial gain is immense.

Now if Pfizer are prepared to publish all it's findings & not put a patent on the drug, that would be another matter.
It is likely in that scenario that there'll be no more new drugs as government (or charities and philanthropists such as Bill Gates) can't afford to fund ALL medical research (as well as all the losses on the 95% of treatments that are researched and never get approved).
It costs around $1.3bn to develop a drug and get it approved and available (and usually around 10 years). Many of these drugs (unlike a Covid vaccine) are appropriate for a relatively small number of patients (eg orphan/rare genetic diseases/some cancers)
 
Last edited:

roubaixtuesday

self serving virtue signaller
In the grand scheme that is nothing

Please answer the question rather than deflect. How is preventing 90% of Covid cases "nothing"? So far even in the UK there have been over 50,000 deaths. Describing the potential to avoid 45,000 of them as "nothing" seems positively perverse.



maybe it's just not as complicated to do as I thought it was

Review article (pre covid) here on the development and potential for this type of vaccine if you're interested in learning more.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00594/full

I'm just a sceptic that there are not any long term side effects of such a hurriedly produced vaccine

It's pretty hard to conceive of significant or frequent long term effects with this vaccine that would not be evidenced at all from the shorter term response. It is, of course, impossible to prove, proof being for whisky and mathematics. And certainly in comparison with a disease that is killing about 1% of those infected and leaving a further significant proportion with long term effects.
 

vickster

Legendary Member
In the grand scheme that is nothing, how many deaths has there been as a result of receiving the vaccination?

I also wonder how they are going to produce enough of it within the time period, the UK has ordered 40 million units, the US is 6x bigger so that's potentially another 250 million, then there's all the other countries the world population topped 7.8 Billion earlier in the year.
Not sure I follow your question, I'm just a sceptic that there are not any long term side effects of such a hurriedly produced vaccine, I hope I'm wrong, I really do, maybe it's just not as complicated to do as I thought it was.
If you don't want it, don't have it. Simple :okay: Means someone else further down the list can :smile:
 
D

Deleted member 26715

Guest
Please answer the question rather than deflect.
I did, but follow your own advice, I asked a direct question, how many of the 43K have died as a result of being given the vaccine?
If you don't want it, don't have it. Simple :okay: Means someone else further down the list can :smile:
I doubt I will be offered it or at least not in the first guinea pig wave
 

johnblack

Über Member
I was reading an article a while back which I've chopped a bit and copied. I can certainly see the same kind of issues arising again.

Gerald Ford was persuaded to initiate an immediate effort to vaccinate every man, woman and child in the USA after an army recruit at Fort Dix, New Jersey died just a few hours after developing the symptoms of a flu-like illness. It took two weeks for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to identify the culprit: a strain of pig influenza.

The public health experts who had advised a more cautious approach did not do so for want of an effective vaccine. They did so because of the backlash that might occur when millions of people received it. Dr Hans Neumann from the New Haven Department of Health noted that, based on the projected scale of the immunisations, about 2,300 people would have a stroke within two days of getting a flu shot and 7,000 would have a heart attack. ‘Why?’ he asked. ‘Because that is the number statistically expected, flu shots or no flu shots.’ Likewise, in the week following, about 9,000 people would catch pneumonia and 900 would die — not as a consequence of the vaccine, but because those are the normal numbers every week. But the public would blame the vaccine.

It wasn’t long before Neumann’s fears were realised. Three elderly nursing home patients who received their vaccine died on the same day. There was a media frenzy, with one paper claiming the vaccine had been used as a weapon to kill the head of a crime family.
Ford tried to reassure the public by getting his flu shot on television. It made no difference. A rare neurological disease was then mistakenly linked to the vaccine, and the CDC had had enough. In December it halted the vaccination programme. Recriminations followed. The New York Times called it a ‘sorry debacle’. The head of the CDC was forced to resign. And this being America, lawsuits followed. Within four years 3,900 claims had been filed, seeking more than $3.5 billion in compensation.
 

vickster

Legendary Member
I was reading an article a while back which I've chopped a bit and copied. I can certainly see the same kind of issues arising again.

Gerald Ford was persuaded to initiate an immediate effort to vaccinate every man, woman and child in the USA after an army recruit at Fort Dix, New Jersey died just a few hours after developing the symptoms of a flu-like illness. It took two weeks for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to identify the culprit: a strain of pig influenza.

The public health experts who had advised a more cautious approach did not do so for want of an effective vaccine. They did so because of the backlash that might occur when millions of people received it. Dr Hans Neumann from the New Haven Department of Health noted that, based on the projected scale of the immunisations, about 2,300 people would have a stroke within two days of getting a flu shot and 7,000 would have a heart attack. ‘Why?’ he asked. ‘Because that is the number statistically expected, flu shots or no flu shots.’ Likewise, in the week following, about 9,000 people would catch pneumonia and 900 would die — not as a consequence of the vaccine, but because those are the normal numbers every week. But the public would blame the vaccine.

It wasn’t long before Neumann’s fears were realised. Three elderly nursing home patients who received their vaccine died on the same day. There was a media frenzy, with one paper claiming the vaccine had been used as a weapon to kill the head of a crime family.
Ford tried to reassure the public by getting his flu shot on television. It made no difference. A rare neurological disease was then mistakenly linked to the vaccine, and the CDC had had enough. In December it halted the vaccination programme. Recriminations followed. The New York Times called it a ‘sorry debacle’. The head of the CDC was forced to resign. And this being America, lawsuits followed. Within four years 3,900 claims had been filed, seeking more than $3.5 billion in compensation.
When was this? I can't see a date other than 'December'
And what was the outcome of the lawsuits, also doesn't say, just that they were filed
 
Top Bottom