I'm unclear why anyone wouldn't take it. Haven't heard many good reasons from those who argue against it?
There is no way of testing long term effects in under a year. Which is why prior to now vaccines took a decade or more to be approved. Just because it looks good so far doesn’t mean there might be long term effects. That’s why I am sceptical and needed more persuading than Johnson and Hancock crowing about the new vaccines.
You shouldn’t listen to Johnson or Hancock but I’m not sure why you wouldn’t listen to the MHRA.
I don’t take anything Johnson or Hancock or any Tory says as truth. I do listen to and read as much as I can from reliable sources about the vaccine’s progress. They are all probably going to be effective with little or no long term effects but I am still finding it difficult to trust the process. It’s been speeded up by a factor of more than 10 and I can’t help feeling this is for political reasons as much as medical ones. This doesn’t fill me with anything other than scepticism. For the record I have no problem with taking properly tested vaccines and have the flu vaccine every year. I am not a denier of COVID 19.
Do you trust the MHRA? They effectively sign off on medicines so if you don't trust them you don't have much else left.
It's not how long a test takes it's all about the quality of the testing. There is undoubtedly political pressure but I still trust the MHRA to be diligent. We have no other alternative tbf
I don’t question the quality of any of the testing apart from the long term testing. Which can’t happen without more time.
So brexit has allowed us to become the first country to get the vaccine ahead of our European friends 😂
Guinea Pigs R Us
Hopefully it is the first step in a return to normality. We have to hope...
I am going to wait being injected until the Az/Ox 'product' has been circulating for a while and is seen to be both safe and effective (hard to totally prove either of course) .. hope is a very last resort and is VERY unscientific ((:>) .. the government is in a real sweat to get some kind of preventative measures up and running .. I have NO faith in any of their promises and assurances at the present time .. remember the very old maxim .. there are lies, damned lies and statistics
I'm unclear why anyone wouldn't take it. Haven't heard many good reasons from those who argue against it?
There is no way of testing long term effects in under a year. Which is why prior to now vaccines took a decade or more to be approved. Just because it looks good so far doesn’t mean there might be long term effects. That’s why I am sceptical and needed more persuading than Johnson and Hancock crowing about the new vaccines.
You shouldn’t listen to Johnson or Hancock but I’m not sure why you wouldn’t listen to the MHRA.
I don’t take anything Johnson or Hancock or any Tory says as truth. I do listen to and read as much as I can from reliable sources about the vaccine’s progress. They are all probably going to be effective with little or no long term effects but I am still finding it difficult to trust the process. It’s been speeded up by a factor of more than 10 and I can’t help feeling this is for political reasons as much as medical ones. This doesn’t fill me with anything other than scepticism. For the record I have no problem with taking properly tested vaccines and have the flu vaccine every year. I am not a denier of COVID 19.
Do you trust the MHRA? They effectively sign off on medicines so if you don't trust them you don't have much else left.
It's not how long a test takes it's all about the quality of the testing. There is undoubtedly political pressure but I still trust the MHRA to be diligent. We have no other alternative tbf
I don’t question the quality of any of the testing apart from the long term testing. Which can’t happen without more time.
More testing would be great but this is all time critical sadly. I have to put my trust in the MHRA on this.
Vaccines will continue to be monitored once they are rolled out and everything is built on a level of acceptable risk.
So brexit has allowed us to become the first country to get the vaccine ahead of our European friends 😂
How?
Hancock said that the European Medicines Agency have been moving too slowly. As we are no longer part of that, we’ve been able to move faster based on the UK regulator who will do the same safety checks and processes as the EMA.
Peanuts; I've always considered you a thoughtful poster, but you're way off beam on this one.
You've fallen for some scientific analysis of the vaccine by someone who doesn't know the difference between DNA and RNA. That's pretty basic stuff in the biological sciences.
And by the way, every viral infection you have ever had has 'changed' your DNA; it's what they do to in order to replicate. Ironically, having an saRNA vaccine won't change your DNA, but contracting coronavirus will.
I'm unclear why anyone wouldn't take it. Haven't heard many good reasons from those who argue against it?
There is no way of testing long term effects in under a year. Which is why prior to now vaccines took a decade or more to be approved. Just because it looks good so far doesn’t mean there might be long term effects. That’s why I am sceptical and needed more persuading than Johnson and Hancock crowing about the new vaccines.
You shouldn’t listen to Johnson or Hancock but I’m not sure why you wouldn’t listen to the MHRA.
I don’t take anything Johnson or Hancock or any Tory says as truth. I do listen to and read as much as I can from reliable sources about the vaccine’s progress. They are all probably going to be effective with little or no long term effects but I am still finding it difficult to trust the process. It’s been speeded up by a factor of more than 10 and I can’t help feeling this is for political reasons as much as medical ones. This doesn’t fill me with anything other than scepticism. For the record I have no problem with taking properly tested vaccines and have the flu vaccine every year. I am not a denier of COVID 19.
Do you trust the MHRA? They effectively sign off on medicines so if you don't trust them you don't have much else left.
It's not how long a test takes it's all about the quality of the testing. There is undoubtedly political pressure but I still trust the MHRA to be diligent. We have no other alternative tbf
I don’t question the quality of any of the testing apart from the long term testing. Which can’t happen without more time.
More testing would be great but this is all time critical sadly. I have to put my trust in the MHRA on this.
Vaccines will continue to be monitored once they are rolled out and everything is built on a level of acceptable risk.
Acceptable risk is based on an opinion though isn’t it?
I'm unclear why anyone wouldn't take it. Haven't heard many good reasons from those who argue against it?
There is no way of testing long term effects in under a year. Which is why prior to now vaccines took a decade or more to be approved. Just because it looks good so far doesn’t mean there might be long term effects. That’s why I am sceptical and needed more persuading than Johnson and Hancock crowing about the new vaccines.
You shouldn’t listen to Johnson or Hancock but I’m not sure why you wouldn’t listen to the MHRA.
I don’t take anything Johnson or Hancock or any Tory says as truth. I do listen to and read as much as I can from reliable sources about the vaccine’s progress. They are all probably going to be effective with little or no long term effects but I am still finding it difficult to trust the process. It’s been speeded up by a factor of more than 10 and I can’t help feeling this is for political reasons as much as medical ones. This doesn’t fill me with anything other than scepticism. For the record I have no problem with taking properly tested vaccines and have the flu vaccine every year. I am not a denier of COVID 19.
Do you trust the MHRA? They effectively sign off on medicines so if you don't trust them you don't have much else left.
It's not how long a test takes it's all about the quality of the testing. There is undoubtedly political pressure but I still trust the MHRA to be diligent. We have no other alternative tbf
I don’t question the quality of any of the testing apart from the long term testing. Which can’t happen without more time.
More testing would be great but this is all time critical sadly. I have to put my trust in the MHRA on this.
Vaccines will continue to be monitored once they are rolled out and everything is built on a level of acceptable risk.
Acceptable risk is based on an opinion though isn’t it?
Risk levels have to be assessed - the MHRA have to make the call. There is a limit as to how much testing can be done.
You could debate this ad infinitum. If the vaccine were to be rolled out and problems arise you would say they have got it wrong.
Risk can never be completely eliminated but it can be minimised.
So brexit has allowed us to become the first country to get the vaccine ahead of our European friends 😂
Guinea Pigs R Us
Hopefully it is the first step in a return to normality. We have to hope...
I am going to wait being injected until the Az/Ox 'product' has been circulating for a while and is seen to be both safe and effective (hard to totally prove either of course) .. hope is a very last resort and is VERY unscientific ((:>) .. the government is in a real sweat to get some kind of preventative measures up and running .. I have NO faith in any of their promises and assurances at the present time .. remember the very old maxim .. there are lies, damned lies and statistics
....and of course those who are scared witless. Maybe reading the science will help? it may help to understand what the different vaccines are and how they work. There is so much information out there. We do know that the tests results have to pass through two independent bodies of scientists to be validated and approved. Government have no say in the process.
Unless you have health issues or in any of the other categories, the sick and the aged will be testing it for you. Let’s be honest here. They are the weakest and if there is an issue we will soon know about it.
Long term issues are a bit of a red herring. Most of us will be offered the Oxford one because it is cheaper and does not have the storage issues. Other similar vaccines to this one have been used for years.
When considering ones own risk in having the vaccine, you should also consider the impact of getting the virus itself and the consequences of that. Death is statistically unlikely if you are not in the high risk group.
However, long COVID seems to affect a lot more people across all age groups (and not just those who required hospitalisation). 1 in 7 that get COVID will have issues for four weeks or longer, 1 in 20 for eight weeks or longer, 1 in fifty for twelve weeks or longer.
Doctors are struggling to get to the bottom of Long COVID but it is know that excessive tiredness, problems with lungs, brain, heart and other organs are just some of the issues that are coming to light. Women seem more susceptible for some reason. All in all very frightening for long term health.
Personally, I would be more worried of the long term risks of catching COVID than the side effects of a vaccine. Hopefully you will feel more reassured by the time it is your turn to pull up your shirt sleeve.
I'm unclear why anyone wouldn't take it. Haven't heard many good reasons from those who argue against it?
There is no way of testing long term effects in under a year. Which is why prior to now vaccines took a decade or more to be approved. Just because it looks good so far doesn’t mean there might be long term effects. That’s why I am sceptical and needed more persuading than Johnson and Hancock crowing about the new vaccines.
You shouldn’t listen to Johnson or Hancock but I’m not sure why you wouldn’t listen to the MHRA.
I don’t take anything Johnson or Hancock or any Tory says as truth. I do listen to and read as much as I can from reliable sources about the vaccine’s progress. They are all probably going to be effective with little or no long term effects but I am still finding it difficult to trust the process. It’s been speeded up by a factor of more than 10 and I can’t help feeling this is for political reasons as much as medical ones. This doesn’t fill me with anything other than scepticism. For the record I have no problem with taking properly tested vaccines and have the flu vaccine every year. I am not a denier of COVID 19.
Do you trust the MHRA? They effectively sign off on medicines so if you don't trust them you don't have much else left.
It's not how long a test takes it's all about the quality of the testing. There is undoubtedly political pressure but I still trust the MHRA to be diligent. We have no other alternative tbf
I don’t question the quality of any of the testing apart from the long term testing. Which can’t happen without more time.
More testing would be great but this is all time critical sadly. I have to put my trust in the MHRA on this.
Vaccines will continue to be monitored once they are rolled out and everything is built on a level of acceptable risk.
Acceptable risk is based on an opinion though isn’t it?
Risk levels have to be assessed - the MHRA have to make the call. There is a limit as to how much testing can be done.
You could debate this ad infinitum. If the vaccine were to be rolled out and problems arise you would say they have got it wrong.
Risk can never be completely eliminated but it can be minimised.
I understand that. As I have said I am moving closer to accepting the risk but I’m not fully on board yet.
I'm unclear why anyone wouldn't take it. Haven't heard many good reasons from those who argue against it?
There is no way of testing long term effects in under a year. Which is why prior to now vaccines took a decade or more to be approved. Just because it looks good so far doesn’t mean there might be long term effects. That’s why I am sceptical and needed more persuading than Johnson and Hancock crowing about the new vaccines.
You shouldn’t listen to Johnson or Hancock but I’m not sure why you wouldn’t listen to the MHRA.
I don’t take anything Johnson or Hancock or any Tory says as truth. I do listen to and read as much as I can from reliable sources about the vaccine’s progress. They are all probably going to be effective with little or no long term effects but I am still finding it difficult to trust the process. It’s been speeded up by a factor of more than 10 and I can’t help feeling this is for political reasons as much as medical ones. This doesn’t fill me with anything other than scepticism. For the record I have no problem with taking properly tested vaccines and have the flu vaccine every year. I am not a denier of COVID 19.
Do you trust the MHRA? They effectively sign off on medicines so if you don't trust them you don't have much else left.
It's not how long a test takes it's all about the quality of the testing. There is undoubtedly political pressure but I still trust the MHRA to be diligent. We have no other alternative tbf
I don’t question the quality of any of the testing apart from the long term testing. Which can’t happen without more time.
More testing would be great but this is all time critical sadly. I have to put my trust in the MHRA on this.
Vaccines will continue to be monitored once they are rolled out and everything is built on a level of acceptable risk.
Acceptable risk is based on an opinion though isn’t it?
Risk levels have to be assessed - the MHRA have to make the call. There is a limit as to how much testing can be done.
You could debate this ad infinitum. If the vaccine were to be rolled out and problems arise you would say they have got it wrong.
Risk can never be completely eliminated but it can be minimised.
I understand that. As I have said I am moving closer to accepting the risk but I’m not fully on board yet.
You can’t be fairer than that. Hopefully the roll out will go smoothly.
I've seen various comments from people (elsewhere) claiming the vaccines have been developed too quickly. But the scientists weren't starting from zero as coronoviruses have been around for a while so it is just 'tinkering' for this particular one.
Whilst the long-term effectiveness is not clear, my understanding is with a any vaccine because of the way they work, it is almost impossible there will be a long-term adverse reaction or issue. Which is why they can approve them as sufficiently confident of the negligible risk of any short term adverse reactions, which they have been able to test
So brexit has allowed us to become the first country to get the vaccine ahead of our European friends 😂
How?
Hancock said that the European Medicines Agency have been moving too slowly. As we are no longer part of that, we’ve been able to move faster based on the UK regulator who will do the same safety checks and processes as the EMA.
Thanks for your response. It does look that we may get the Pfizer vaccine first. Given that Pfizer and Biontech only made their submission to the EMA two days ago though, I'd think it is perhaps a little early to start making claims that they are moving slowly. One can only guess that Mr Hancock can't be too fussy when looking for political showboats.
So brexit has allowed us to become the first country to get the vaccine ahead of our European friends 😂
How?
Hancock said that the European Medicines Agency have been moving too slowly. As we are no longer part of that, we’ve been able to move faster based on the UK regulator who will do the same safety checks and processes as the EMA.
Thanks for your response. It does look that we may get the Pfizer vaccine first. Given that Pfizer and Biontech only made their submission to the EMA two days ago though, I'd think it is perhaps a little early to start making claims that they are moving slowly. One can only guess that Mr Hancock can't be too fussy when looking for political showboats.
I guess with the amount of stick the health secretary had received, a lot of it justified, I imagine he feels a bit of “political showboating” fair game. However you or I want to spin this, I imagine we’re in agreement that only positives have come out of today’s announcement 👍
I think it will end up that if you want to travel h wear as you will need a vaccination certificate and that the vaccine then (outside of any mass vaccination programme) will be paid for by the individual travelling.
I don’t think that 3 (or maybe more) vaccines with a vaccination plan that is necessarily u certain as we do not yet know how each vaccine really works or how many does we will get or be able to deliver when, will immunise the whole country for probably a couple of years if at all.
I think it will end up that if you want to travel h wear as you will need a vaccination certificate and that the vaccine then (outside of any mass vaccination programme) will be paid for by the individual travelling.
I don’t think that 3 (or maybe more) vaccines with a vaccination plan that is necessarily u certain as we do not yet know how each vaccine really works or how many does we will get or be able to deliver when, will immunise the whole country for probably a couple of years if at all.
Nope. I've tried - but I can't make any sense out of that 🤷🏽♂️
Professor Van Tam just said on a BBC phone in that the Pfizer vaccine because of the temperature required, the house bound will have to be transported to have their injections. I guess that was obvious but does create logistical problems for many in care homes and the 80+ age group who struggle to get out. The winter weather could be a major factor and transportation to the vaccination point.
This is why the Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccines will be less difficult to administrate because of the temperature it's stored in.
I'm not sure that there are many women who would risk their unborn child to volunteer to test a new vaccine, however long it had been in development for and however safe they were told it would be.
There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
Haven't posted (or read) on anything COVID Related on here as it really wasn't good for my mental health. Now things are starting to look more positive I've had a quick skim through this thread.
Overall the poll numbers are positive - though it would have been nice to see even more people in the very likely category. This is a step we have to take to get back to a normal life.
As I mentioned on the original COVID thread my GF has a masters in Epidemiology and works for NHSE as an analyst. She was in the team that set up the death reporting system and has now been seconded onto the team working on modelling the distribution of the vaccine.
People saying "it'll be ages before I get offered it" - they have one scenario where everyone has been offered it by the end of May. I don't think that is likely to happen (my own opinion from reading the news and professional analytical cynicism) but it could well be by the end of 2021.
The first people are expected to get this on Monday.
the Pfizer vaccine is the one that was approved yesterday - this is the one with 95% effectiveness. We currently have 10m doses of this but are likely to get more. They will be trying to target this one at the most vulnerable.
The Oxford Vaccine is less effective, depending on how it is delivered somewhere between 65-90%. There are still some question marks over the completeness of their testing so it will be a bit longer before this one is approved. We will have as many doses of this as we need.
Pfizer vaccine has issues over storage which are a major force which will slow down the distribution mostly to do with storage and it needing some kind of super fridge. Its actually much more complicated than that as you cant just install a super fridge somewhere because every time you open the door you will compromise the batches left in there. So it really needs a number of small super fridges within a refrigerated room. For this reason the Pfizer one will largely be distributed from hospitals. There are no such storage issues with the Oxford one so it can be distributed from every pharmacy and GP surgery in the country much like the flu vaccine so expect to see the numbers really rocket once that is approved and starts rolling out.
As for the claims that "the testing has been rushed". I am assured they are completely untrue. In fact I'm told that due to the timescales these have been made to jump through more hoops not less. Yes Vaccines usually take years to be approved but the delays are not due to testing they are due to factors including; gaining funding, finding sponsors, getting senior academics to support testing, getting testing facilities, getting enough people to volunteer for the trials, getting enough research assistants to analyse the results, by the time that's all done people lose motivation for the write up as its taken years so the writing of the results itself is known to take years, it then has to wait in a queue for the approval process. The global pandemic has focused the minds of the whole world on this, governments, institutions and companies are throwing money at it, all lab space and research expertise have been given to it, every academic wants to sponsor it, more people are willing to volunteer for the trials, all efforts are focused on this and its prioritised for the approval. That is where the time has been saved, the actual testing has been as rigorous as with any other vaccine.
We dont yet know what proportion of the population will require the vaccine in order to be able to go about our lives as normal but it is thought to be very high - so anyone offered it should take it. There is no point thinking "well I wont have it but I will gain from the herd immunity of everyone else getting it" we simply don't know at what point that will happen (or if it will - the virus could be like flu requiring a new vaccine every season for the vulnerable at least).
Happy to try and answer questions but as I said I'm not an expert just passing on what the missus has explained to me.
Edit. She also spent some time working for Gavi the Global vaccine alliance a non-governmental charity body providing vaccines to less developed countries for free. And has worked on clinical trials - not of vaccines though.
So brexit has allowed us to become the first country to get the vaccine ahead of our European friends 😂
Guinea Pigs R Us
Hopefully it is the first step in a return to normality. We have to hope...
I am going to wait being injected until the Az/Ox 'product' has been circulating for a while and is seen to be both safe and effective (hard to totally prove either of course) .. hope is a very last resort and is VERY unscientific ((:>) .. the government is in a real sweat to get some kind of preventative measures up and running .. I have NO faith in any of their promises and assurances at the present time .. remember the very old maxim .. there are lies, damned lies and statistics
You do realise that getting the vaccine out there is nothing to do with the government. It’s the independent MHRA that approves medicines. I would say one of the finest regulatory bodies of its type in the world. Do you think that it’s not going to be approved elsewhere in the world but Johnson can swing it here ?
Comments
Can't be too careful.
Vaccines will continue to be monitored once they are rolled out and everything is built on a level of acceptable risk.
You've fallen for some scientific analysis of the vaccine by someone who doesn't know the difference between DNA and RNA. That's pretty basic stuff in the biological sciences.
And by the way, every viral infection you have ever had has 'changed' your DNA; it's what they do to in order to replicate. Ironically, having an saRNA vaccine won't change your DNA, but contracting coronavirus will.
You could debate this ad infinitum. If the vaccine were to be rolled out and problems arise you would say they have got it wrong.
Risk can never be completely eliminated but it can be minimised.
Unless you have health issues or in any of the other categories, the sick and the aged will be testing it for you. Let’s be honest here. They are the weakest and if there is an issue we will soon know about it.
When considering ones own risk in having the vaccine, you should also consider the impact of getting the virus itself and the consequences of that. Death is statistically unlikely if you are not in the high risk group.
Doctors are struggling to get to the bottom of Long COVID but it is know that excessive tiredness, problems with lungs, brain, heart and other organs are just some of the issues that are coming to light. Women seem more susceptible for some reason. All in all very frightening for long term health.
Personally, I would be more worried of the long term risks of catching COVID than the side effects of a vaccine. Hopefully you will feel more reassured by the time it is your turn to pull up your shirt sleeve.
Whilst the long-term effectiveness is not clear, my understanding is with a any vaccine because of the way they work, it is almost impossible there will be a long-term adverse reaction or issue. Which is why they can approve them as sufficiently confident of the negligible risk of any short term adverse reactions, which they have been able to test
https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-details/pfizer-and-biontech-submitted-application-conditional-marketing
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55163730
Summary: no
But we do have an excellent regulator, and I'm very happy that we are getting a vaccine as soon as considered acceptable
I don’t think that 3 (or maybe more) vaccines with a vaccination plan that is necessarily u certain as we do not yet know how each vaccine really works or how many does we will get or be able to deliver when, will immunise the whole country for probably a couple of years if at all.
This is why the Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccines will be less difficult to administrate because of the temperature it's stored in.
Prof Van-Tam is asked again, as he was on BBC Breakfast earlier, whether pregnant women are able to have the vaccine.
He says that for now the vaccine should not be given to pregnant women - simply because there is no data on whether there is any effect.
He adds it is "safety first"
No pregnant woman were volunteers.
Overall the poll numbers are positive - though it would have been nice to see even more people in the very likely category. This is a step we have to take to get back to a normal life.
As I mentioned on the original COVID thread my GF has a masters in Epidemiology and works for NHSE as an analyst. She was in the team that set up the death reporting system and has now been seconded onto the team working on modelling the distribution of the vaccine.
People saying "it'll be ages before I get offered it" - they have one scenario where everyone has been offered it by the end of May. I don't think that is likely to happen (my own opinion from reading the news and professional analytical cynicism) but it could well be by the end of 2021.
The first people are expected to get this on Monday.
the Pfizer vaccine is the one that was approved yesterday - this is the one with 95% effectiveness. We currently have 10m doses of this but are likely to get more. They will be trying to target this one at the most vulnerable.
The Oxford Vaccine is less effective, depending on how it is delivered somewhere between 65-90%. There are still some question marks over the completeness of their testing so it will be a bit longer before this one is approved. We will have as many doses of this as we need.
Pfizer vaccine has issues over storage which are a major force which will slow down the distribution mostly to do with storage and it needing some kind of super fridge. Its actually much more complicated than that as you cant just install a super fridge somewhere because every time you open the door you will compromise the batches left in there. So it really needs a number of small super fridges within a refrigerated room. For this reason the Pfizer one will largely be distributed from hospitals. There are no such storage issues with the Oxford one so it can be distributed from every pharmacy and GP surgery in the country much like the flu vaccine so expect to see the numbers really rocket once that is approved and starts rolling out.
As for the claims that "the testing has been rushed". I am assured they are completely untrue. In fact I'm told that due to the timescales these have been made to jump through more hoops not less. Yes Vaccines usually take years to be approved but the delays are not due to testing they are due to factors including; gaining funding, finding sponsors, getting senior academics to support testing, getting testing facilities, getting enough people to volunteer for the trials, getting enough research assistants to analyse the results, by the time that's all done people lose motivation for the write up as its taken years so the writing of the results itself is known to take years, it then has to wait in a queue for the approval process. The global pandemic has focused the minds of the whole world on this, governments, institutions and companies are throwing money at it, all lab space and research expertise have been given to it, every academic wants to sponsor it, more people are willing to volunteer for the trials, all efforts are focused on this and its prioritised for the approval. That is where the time has been saved, the actual testing has been as rigorous as with any other vaccine.
We dont yet know what proportion of the population will require the vaccine in order to be able to go about our lives as normal but it is thought to be very high - so anyone offered it should take it. There is no point thinking "well I wont have it but I will gain from the herd immunity of everyone else getting it" we simply don't know at what point that will happen (or if it will - the virus could be like flu requiring a new vaccine every season for the vulnerable at least).
Happy to try and answer questions but as I said I'm not an expert just passing on what the missus has explained to me.
Edit. She also spent some time working for Gavi the Global vaccine alliance a non-governmental charity body providing vaccines to less developed countries for free. And has worked on clinical trials - not of vaccines though.