Why is everyone so eager to get vaccinated?

[FTMF30]

What I mean by this is that a SAFE vaccine for coronavirus wouldn't be available for at least a couple of years. Vaccines need to be thoroughly tested and, although a lot of Mumsnetters don't like to believe it, vaccine injury IS REAL.

It's very sinister how very interested Bill Gates has become in the pharma industry in the last few years and how he advocates forced vaccines, or at least loss of freedom of movement/access for those who choose not to vaccinate (which is pretty much a forced vaccine). He doesn't care about vaccine injury as we are basically collateral damage to his end goal.

Is it not fair to be wary of a rushed vaccine? Is it not fair to not want to be vaccinated if I'm not fully ware of the implications just yet? When I come on here, I see a lot of people who are very happy that we have to stay inside (I understand the reason for this), I see people who are quarantining food and washing eggs and would take a vaccine if one was available tomorrow. I find it quite alarming how we've been fed stories about death after death after death, really biased stuff with hardly any balanced information. We've been frightened into being heavily controlled and that's the thing that really scares me.

But, in general, I agree. I will not be having a rushed vaccine either.

"Rushed" is a subjective judgment. Unless there are lots of experts saying "this vaccine was rushed out and the following tests haven't been done properly" there is no point fretting about it. Not just anxious people on the Internet trying to guess how soon is "rushed".

'Ironically everyone saying that they would 100% trust a vaccine study that has been peer-reviewed and is published in a well respected journal, also agree that Andrew Wakefield's study was bollocks.'

I read it at the time that it came out, because my work involves knowing about research on developmental disorders such as autism. And you know what? I thought it was bollocks THEN! Of course, I didn't know about or suspect the fraud and unethical practices involved. But I could see that it was a very small-scale study with no control group, which is absolutely vital in such studies. I was amazed that it got through peer review.

I don't think that I am more alert than others to the inadequacies of certain research papers. I don't think that this paper was considered particularly important or valuable either among researchers or in clinical practice. The reason that it became so influential is not mainly that it was published in the Lancet (lots of things get published in high-level journals and still don't attract widespread attention). It is because the media, especially the Daily Mail, happened to fix on it and use it to propagandize against vaccines.

I also would not take a vaccine on the basis of a study with 11 participants and no control group; but I doubt very much that we will be asked to do so.

Amaryllis For me, it would depend how soon it came out, tbh. This year? Too soon for me. Once it comes out, I will wait and see how others who decide to have it react to it first.

Anyway... if/when a vaccine is introduced, it won't be backed by one paper by one man theorising on the basis of extremely limited data. Speculative papers do get peer reviewed and published - other scientists then may try to replicate them and succeed or fail... as happened with Wakefield. That's normal, what was bad was the paper getting publicity before it had had the next level of scrutiny, and some members of the public blindly believing it at that point and then sticking to that erroneous belief after the subsequent testing and disproving of the theory. (Oddly enough some of these people then accuse others of blind belief...)

By contrast, at the point any vaccine or therapeutic is put into use, it will have been subjected to many tests and much scrutiny of those tests.

Bill Gates said in interviews over the weekend that a vaccine might be available in 18 months but it won't have undergone the usual safety testing and governments will have to decide if they can accept that.

Anyone thinking a fully tested vaccine will be available in 18 months is naive to say the least.

Look into it. The quickest a vaccine has ever been made before is four years.

Doctors are supposed to take an oath to help and not hurt and here we are patients being sent do not recussitate letters like it or not.

This isn’t really true, though, is it?

Elderly people are being asked whether or not they would like to be resuscitated should it become necessary. If they want to be, they merely need to say so and their wishes will be respected. Many elderly people don’t want this. It is a brutal process and does not always extend life meaningfully. It can also severely limit quality of life. If an elderly person wishes to opt out, it’s better that the decision is made in the comfort of their own home where they have time to think, not in a crisis situation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Hippocratic Oath.

As for Andrew Wakefield being peer reviewed - Wakefield was guilty of serious fraud. He cherry picked data that supported his interests, he lied about his sampling, he conducted invasive experiments on children without obtaining the necessary ethical consents, and he failed to disclose his financial interests. These were all serious acts of deception and fraud.

This was a singular study based on fraud, and the only reason it’s still in discussion now is because a lot of people make a lot of money from convincing people that vaccines are bad. Compare this to the vast body of research, conducted by a large number of unrelated scientific groups and individuals, which has concluded that vaccine injury is rare, that vaccines do not cause autism, and that the risk from vaccine-preventable illnesses is orders of magnitude greater than the risk from vaccines. It is simply not credible to assert that this huge, independent body of research might not be right because 20 years ago Wakefield managed to lie successfully enough to get his fraudulent research published for a brief spell (before almost immediately being challenged by multiple studies which proved his conclusions wrong).

This is a very interesting discussion about C19 vaccine

Jesus Christ
My first ever !!

The first point isn't actually true when you look at death statistics for this time last year.

Well it actually IS true. Widely reported yesterday was the comparison of death rates for the week leading up to 3rd April were approximately 50% higher than the average for the same period over the previous 5 years. And the highest death rate since reporting in this form started in 2005.
Telegraph Link

@ddl1 - I don't think that I am more alert than others to the inadequacies of certain research papers.

If, as you state, your work involves knowing about research on developmental disorders such as autism then of course you are more alert than others to the inadequacies of research papers. In 1998 I was working in industry. I had very limited exposure to academic writing. I am now working in academia. The way I would approach a paper then and now is completely different. I now know what to look for in order to assess the quality of a paper. However, I would still not claim to capable of fully assessing papers outside my comfort zone in terms of stats, techniques etc

What I mean by this is that a SAFE vaccine for coronavirus wouldn't be available for at least a couple of years.

how do YOU know that OP? How do YOU know how long it takes to test a vaccine?
How do you know how things might be evolving in this time?

Have you been in a google frenzy?

Is it not fair to be wary of a rushed vaccine?

how do YOU know that this will be a 'rushed' vaccine?

Have you heard of the concept of fast tracking?

how do YOU know that OP? How do YOU know how long it takes to test a vaccine?

Have you looked into how long it takes? How long does it usually take?

Have they even decided yet what vaccine they will make? The dose? Is it safe? Is it safe for every group they will be giving it to - infants, children, teens, adults, men, women, pregnant women, different ethnic backgrounds maybe? Long term effects? Efficacy?

Dear good hooves you are like a dog with a fucking bone
Read back through the thread and read some really sensible posts from people working in this field
It might actually cheer you up a bit
And stop you me railing yet another thread
I swear some people don't actually want to hear anything positive

Have you looked into how long it takes? How long does it usually take?
@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

no idea. Just want to know why OP is convinced it will be 'rushed' and why OP things not enough testing will have been done.

And sorry I don't thing that google gives those answers.

The interview I linked above explains it. It usually brakes twenty years and the quickest ever done was four years.

Even the man investing in finding the vaccine, Bill Gates, has said that speed will come at a price - safety. It won't be as rigourously tested as vaccines usually are and governments must decide if they can accept it.

Dear good hooves you are like a dog with a fucking bone

Yes I am because anyone claiming that we will have a safe, rigourously tested, effective vaccine within 12 - 18 months isn't telling the truth.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

sorry an interview off the internet doesn't qualify anyone to know very much at all.
Like they say a little knowledge is dangerous.

Just like all the googlexperts on here.

My husband was working in medical research at the time that the Lancet article was picked up - not autism or gastric but paediatrics, so had a particular interest, . He looked at the study and commented to me that he thought it was a very questionable paper indeed on which to base claims in a non specialist article. There was disquiet - but the bandwagon had started rolling.

I got cornered on a train ride by a Wakefield cheerleader a couple of years ago - we had been politely chatting a bit about trivia and suddenly the conversation swung on to full on anti vaxxer spiel and how’ Andy ‘ was so misunderstood. Her scientific knowledge was woeful. All very bizarre.

Interesting how Bill Gates wealth has gone up +$4million in the last week though.
www.forbes.com/sites/hayleycuccinello/2020/04/11/billionaire-gainers-ortega-bezos-buffett/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

It's hardly "an interview off the internet is it"? The Dr being interviewed developed the rotavirus vaccine in the US and is on the panel that selects the influenza strains for the vaccine every year. He's not just some random bloke stopped on the street.

Do you dispute what he says? The fastest vaccine developed took four years? The issue with the Dengue fever vaccine that only came to light once it was in use?

@sleepingpup

And Bill Gates, who one could argue, is invested in a vaccine being developed quickly, said himself in interview that getting it out quickly will need a compromise in safety testing.

Do you dispute that too?

Why do people get annoyed or take the piss out of anyone questioning Bill Gates motives in all of this?

The guy was friends with Epstein for goodness sake - he isn’t the caring philanthropist he makes himself out to be.

sorry it totally is.

I don't dispute anything. Because I would not make a judgement call like that because I am not a doctor, a scientist or anything else related to that field.

But loads of posters on here are willing to make huge judgement calls based on what they find on the internet.

BeijingBikini "And I used to work in clinical trials" as a test subject maybe. Are you a beagle?

I didn't actually answer the original question. So here it is. I'm eager to get vaccinated so I can meet my friends, visit my family, go on holiday, go to the cinema and theatre, go walking in the hills and on the beach, go shopping - all without a high risk of catching a very nasty illness or passing it on to someone else.

"Why do people get annoyed or take the piss out of anyone questioning Bill Gates motives in all of this?" Ah I know this one too. It's because we know you're using the name to embellish your fantasy and trying to get us to play.

Coronavirus and 5G are currently combined in many conspiracies because educationally challenged and emotionally immature people pick words or names they hear a lot to incorporate into their fantasies. If Charlie Chaplin had been in the news lately some would be saying that he has a part in it.

Someone said "Bill Gates wealth has gone up +$4million" since he is worth 98 billion that's like saying he found sixpence.