cougie uk
Guru
You might not make it to 10 years.
What's the next Variant after Delta ? How might that affect you ?
Medical Science Question
- Thread starter twentysix by twentyfive
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
What's the next Variant after Delta ? How might that affect you ?
Archie_tect
De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
- Location
- Northumberland
26x25, if the benefit of the 1st dose of the vaccine declines to zero, would there be any value or point in taking a second one unless you knew befoerehand that the second would be more effective than the first- otherwise you are risking a reaction to the vaccine with no benefit outweighing the risk of a second reaction.
I've been pondering the following. I'll try to keep things general and suppose an ideal type situation to attempt to get my question across clearly. (Tough ask in my case)
Let's suppose an individual is vaccinated (topical at the moment). Let's assume that the vaccine is safe with, say, a 1 in 1 million (or whatever) chance of an unpleasant and definitely unwanted side effect. Let's further suppose that the individual in question is very unlucky and is that 1 in 1 million and has the side effect. Let's now suppose that the protective effect of the vaccine declines to zero (so that the population as a whole and our individual are set to the same biological start points as before) so that another vaccination is required (in this case the same one as before). My question is - does our previously unlucky individual have the 1 in 1 million risk of that side effect this second time around or is the risk to the individual 100%? ie is the individual always the unlucky one in the population due to some inherent individual biological quirk?
I've tried to exclude other external influences which would certainly be present in a real world scenario to get at the essence of the pondering.
Just wondering. It would be interesting to hear from a medical scientist/doctor/biologist/vaccine expert........ Any of those on here?
Not a vaccine but:
I had a rare, but severe, reaction to Omeprazole, a common gut med. I developed a severe rash over about 25% of whole-body skin area. Stopping the med and a course of steroids solved the problem.
BUT, I have been instructed NEVER to take Omeprazole again as further exposure could provoke potentially fatal skin necrosis.
- Location
- Inside my skull
Nope. It’s only 1 in million before the individual takes the vaccine. That’s population level. Once they take the vaccine and have a poor reaction. Then you know the individual is one of those whose genetics (and lifestyle) means they will more than likely have that reaction if you give them another dose a few months down the line.
Its bit like asking what’s the chance you are allergic to nuts? Someone says one in 500,000 or whatever it is. You then have a nut and go into anaphylactic shock. They save you. But 6 months later you are offered a nut and told don’t worry only 1:500,000 chance you’ll have a bad reaction. You go, nope, I went into shock last time. The chances are you’ll have exactly that same reaction again.
Its bit like asking what’s the chance you are allergic to nuts? Someone says one in 500,000 or whatever it is. You then have a nut and go into anaphylactic shock. They save you. But 6 months later you are offered a nut and told don’t worry only 1:500,000 chance you’ll have a bad reaction. You go, nope, I went into shock last time. The chances are you’ll have exactly that same reaction again.
Milzy
Guru
Mu. I don’t know. Probably still no paid time off work.
I have another question, are the vax passports just blackmail? I may be going to a night club soon. Passports don’t make any sense other to put pressure on people to have the jiby jabby.
captain nemo1701
Space cadet. Deck 42 Main Engineering.
- Location
- Bristol
I had a mild reaction to the first jab, nothing on second. As I'm fond of telling anti-vaxxers, if you drive a car, you're at a greater risk of death in a crash. The risk from these vaccines is incredibly low, not even worth bothering about. TBH, cycling on an ordinary urban street is riskier and the kitchen is the worst place for accidents in the home, apparently.
Don't worry about the vaccines
.
Don't worry about the vaccines
.
captain nemo1701
Space cadet. Deck 42 Main Engineering.
- Location
- Bristol
Gove dancing?
bitsandbobs
Über Member
"Meadow's Law" is a sorry example of where this type of analysis went wrong.
Seevio
Guru
- Location
- South Glos
Point of order: These people are not science deniers. Science is a methodology not dogma. They are denying the conclusions derived from the data/experiments.
They're still very wrong though.
In the case of flat earthers, in the average persons experience, the earth is flat. We can't see the curve on the horizon. Water always tends towards a flat plane. Etc. It's fairly easy to see why some people can fall for this stuff.
On the other hand, to paraphrase Clarke, any sufficiently advanced trolling is indistinguishable from stupidity.
They're still very wrong though.
In the case of flat earthers, in the average persons experience, the earth is flat. We can't see the curve on the horizon. Water always tends towards a flat plane. Etc. It's fairly easy to see why some people can fall for this stuff.
On the other hand, to paraphrase Clarke, any sufficiently advanced trolling is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Milzy
Guru
As long as the vaccine injured will get looked after.
- Location
- Inside my skull
Ponder this.
A person goes into anaphylactic shock from eating a peanut. Before they had the peanut the chance of anaphylactic shock was quoted as 1 in a million. If they have a peanut a month later, what is the chance they will go into shock again?
