Would you vaccinate yourself against CV

[LaPerla]

Would you be the first to vaccinate yourself/children against CV when the vaccine is available?

"'The rushed swine flu vaccination pandemrix, was later shown to be associated with increased incidence in narcolepsy'"

Still a bit more complicated than that.
Iirc, all vaccines were rushed.
And as I explained earlier, it wasn't the type of effect that would show up in any safety trial because narcolepsy itself is very rare in the groups where the raised effect was detected.

So, the sentence is misleading because it implies that rushing was the problem, when it wasn't.

LookingGlassMilk I apologise for lumping you in with some of the extreme anti vac theorists on here. Sorry

Rushed as in put out as fast as possible, not skipping mandatory tests

I do think it's frightening how misinformation and speculation/possible links with side effects can quickly gain traction on social media and morph rapidly into full blown scare mongering and hearsay.

We are now seeing the disastrous fall out from the misinformation surrounding The MMR vaccine. Despite the link between autism being disproved many times over, the fear and lack of trust in MMR vaccinations is still influencing people.

I really hope there isn't a knee jerk fearful reaction to a covid19 vaccine.

Rushed as in put out as fast as possible, not skipping mandatory tests

It was reported in the Irish media that it had not fully completed trials

www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/government-told-of-swine-flu-drug-trouble-in-sweden-before-roll-out-started-38450028.html

No because it's only just come out. I used to work in clinical trials - normally drugs take several years of trials before release, and once they're released you do follow-up and ongoing studies for years. If anything comes up, they can recall them.

Look at thalidomide - or other drugs. You wouldn't want to take something and then find out 10 years down the line it's dramatically increased your chances of some other horrible condition. I'd rather have had CV before the vaccine comes out.

Considering the number of drugs that are produced each year, the number that have serious problems is really low. As the death toll rises from Covid I think the reaction to a vaccine with be more positive.

Let's remember that other strains of Corona virus have been around for a long time and vaccines have been developed for those. This is novel CV 19. The work on a CV 19 vaccination won't be starting from scratch as it were.

Also, let's not get carried away with a vaccination being rushed. No end date has been announced. It could take a few years before it is available and rationed even then.

Are the people talking about microchips for real? Or are they paid by the 'herd immunity' people to keep vaccine costs down in the future?!

I'd definitely have it, as soon as vulnerable people have been offered it.
If so many scientists around the world are working on something, I'm sure they'll come up with something safe and well-tested (if they collaborate, then they can share results).

To think that world governments would go to this level in crashing their economies, risking their own loved-ones' health, simply to implant a microchip is really stretching things. If they wanted to do that, they could do it with every routine thing, like normal flu vaccine (although then how would the chip stay where it was needed, and not float about with the rest of the vaccine?!), or dentist checkups or smear tests or something. Oh, and the government would have to pay off millions of medical staff globally, so they wouldn't mention the chips. And all the thousands of staff watching the dots wander around Googlemaps or whatever.

Seriously, though, I'd love to have a vaccine and feel safe to go out again and have 'normal' life, whatever that is after this. Probably it'll involve more handwashing in future whatever!

It was reported in the Irish media that it had not fully completed trials

According to the EMA the clinical trials took place in 2006 and GSK received their original licence in 2008. Newspapers lie.

Yes - if "big pharma" was a conspiracy, then hundreds of thousands of staff would all have to be in on it. Loads of horrible shit and testing without consent USED to happen (like in the Constant Gardener), but because of that, there is now sooooo much paperwork, red tape, documents, sign-offs and meetings that need to happen for anything to be done.

I used to sit in many 3-hour long meetings about how we're measuring the primary endpoint, what size vial it should be, how often to take it, whether they should be allowed to inject at home, whether a sentence was worded correctly. One project can take 4 years just at the human trial stage. It was so fucking boring that I left to work in travel (great decision that turned out to be LOL)

Yes - if "big pharma" was a conspiracy, then hundreds of thousands of staff would all have to be in on it.

I said something similar on a previous thread and was told I was an 'idiot savant' who didn't know I was being manipulated by my employer .

I think most of us will have had it by the time the vaccine becomes available. I would preferable get check for immunity first.

According to the EMA the clinical trials took place in 2006 and GSK received their original licence in 2008. Newspapers lie

The newspaper isn't lying.

It wasn't licenced for H1N1 in 2008, the Swine flu outbreak hadn't begun then. It was originally based on H5N1.

It was licenced for H1N1 in June 2009 as part of an accelerated process. Ireland granted GSK indemnity so it could be fast tracked.

I don't want to believe people seriously think they will be chipped with alongside the vaccine.

But having heard acquaintances talk up the most ridiculous conspiracy theories, I don't know anymore. I think people are actually serious about it.

Madness.

Unfortunately you only have to look at the flat earth society to see that some people are actually serious about being ridiculous

It's already missed crucial steps in my opinion. Ethics approval usually takes 7+months before you can even start research. And yet here we are. No way would I have a vaccine that had been so rushed. Imagine if something went wrong. Like the drug trials where people have been seriously injured, several went into organ failure after trialing a drug. Not a chance.

Fast track can simply mean that it gets ahead of other projects, and ethics committees work on it as a priority.
Groups already doing vaccine research will have protocols that can be applied to new vaccines for testing.

A completely new vaccine is very different from changing epitopes on an existing vaccines.
The other components will already have safety tests done.

It's fairly common that during drug tests, if a new drug shows to be much better than the previous or no treatment, that will start being given to patients before the end of the test, because it's the ethical thing to do.
It should be the same for vaccines undergoing tests. When you have a disease that kills young people and you have a vaccine that shows it offers enough protection that it would be unethical to hold it, then it could be deployed. All under surveillance to detect any emerging issues.

If a vaccine shows enough promise that we could all go back to our normal lives, I'd certainly take it.

As someone said above, I'm really hoping the BCG trial results are positive - that vaccine is tried and tested for about 100 years and probably quick and cheap to manufacture.

Fast track can simply mean that it gets ahead of other projects, and ethics committees work on it as a priority

Not in the case of pandemrix. It emerged in court a few months ago that it had never been tested on teenagers. It contained an ingredient that was not licenced for children.

I realise that it's really unfortunate that this occurred because it plays right into the hands of anti-vaxxers. But it is hypocritical to decry the knee-jerk reactions of anti-vaxxers to all vaccines, while at the same time jumping to a knee-jerk defence of a vaccine that was shown to be unsafe.

To answer the original question, I will get covid 19 vaccine, and allow my children to have it, provided that it has been fully trialed. If it hasn't been, then the general population effectively becomes the trial. I won't consent to being part of a de facto vaccination trial.

It would be fantastic if the BCG provided some protection. I didn't receive it as a child, I would happily get it now.

As someone said above, I'm really hoping the BCG trial results are positive - that vaccine is tried and tested for about 100 years and probably quick and cheap to manufacture.

It's a bit tricky to administer, it has to go right under the skin and there aren't many nurses who are trained for it, but I suppose that can be fixed.

I had it done, but it also doesn't offer lifelong protection, though I might be wrong there.

Would it be easy to manufacture enough BCG vaccine? I think I remember that there were frequent shortages of it in the recent past. At least one of my children had to wait a long time for their vaccine due to shortages.

I suppose the shortages were due to the falling demand, so maybe it was more expensive to make?

I don't know, but it's certainly something that used to be produced in huge quantities.

Still, overall it was a useful vaccine, and as side effects go, not the worst ever.

The BCG isn't a vaccine for covid, as such, btw. It's hoped that it will stimulate the immune system in the right direction and offer some protection, as it has been shown for other diseases, but it's not specific.
It has its own problems, but it would be better than nothing.

I'd absolutely have it - my DD too