Will the new vaccines be safe?

[Covidfears]

I’ve read a lot about the vaccines (mainly Oxford and Pfizer ones) and know that they have gone through all of the safety tests albeit in just a shorter amount of time as they have had money thrown at it so haven’t had to secure funding etc etc which takes the time.

However, does this mean that they haven’t had the chance to see if there are any long term effects?

I think I feel less worried about the Oxford one as that is based on old technology but the Pfizer one is the new r-DNA one. I’ve read a paper on it that says that the chance of it ‘getting into your dna’ is low. That doesn’t sound great! Am I worrying unnecessarily.

I’m certainly not an antivaxxer - the whole family had had everything going and I really need to the Covid vaccine as I’m very high risk (2% chance of death).

Is it just a matter of picking whether to take the risk of Covid or the risk of the vaccine when the long term effects of neither are known?

@lovelemoncurd

I don't think this should be left to personal choice tbh. We need 80% of the population to be vaccinated in order to stop the spread so people need to suck it up and get on with it.

You cannot pin someone down, break their skin and push liquid chemicals into their body if they choose not to have it. You cannot. There should never, EVER be a society where this is allowed.

All you can do is make sure that everyone has as much information as possible, and they can then make an informed choice.

If the vaccine is safe, I'm sure we'll get our 80%. If there are any doubts, however, then we simply cannot risk it.

We have actually had compulsory vaccinations in the U.K. before. But I don’t think it’s the way to go; it means people are likely to be less trusting of the system overall, it’s loads of fuel for the antivax conspiracy theorists, and what helps most is having the willing consent of the public.

Seems like most people will be happy to get the vaccine once the regulators are satisfied that it’s safe and effective, so that’s good.

But we do know that vaccines don’t cause the kind of side effects that take years to show up, and there’s no reason to think this one could be different, no mechanism by which it could really do that. Surely that should provide some reassurance on that front?

But that's for 'traditional' whole virus vaccines right which have been used for years

How do we know this is still the case for 'new generation' experimental mRNA vaccines?

@GoldenOmber

An RNA vaccine just goes “here’s page 73 of the instruction manual! Make more of what’s on page 73!”, which in this case is the virus spike protein.

A bit simplistic on my part, but why would our bodies have to be given an instruction to make a virus spike protein? Why would we have to be made to produce anything other than antibodies? Countless things could go wrong with that 'instruction' or our response to it

Would not it be safer to use a traditional tried an tested approach?

We have actually had compulsory vaccinations in the U.K. before

Not in recent times surely? I believe the smallpox vaccine was compulsory for a while two centuries ago, but even that compulsion was overturned later

@Puzzledandpissedoff

We have actually had compulsory vaccinations in the U.K. before

Not in recent times surely? I believe the smallpox vaccine was compulsory for a while two centuries ago, but even that compulsion was overturned later

No, not in recent times.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

We have actually had compulsory vaccinations in the U.K. before

Not in recent times surely? I believe the smallpox vaccine was compulsory for a while two centuries ago, but even that compulsion was overturned later

Not in this case either.

There's not enough of it.

Thank goodness for anti vaxxers. The queue for a vaccine is already too long.

Would not it be safer to use a traditional tried an tested approach?

The traditional tried and tested approaches often do the same thing (except with the whole virus rather than bits of it), and the virus itself of course does the same thing, that's how they replicate. Basically any virus that's replicating at ALL inside your body - covid, common cold, weakened virus used in vaccines like MMR - is using that "okay human cells, make more of me!" mechanism. That bit isn't the bit that's new.

Radio 4 are providing loads of coverage about the vaccine
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000p8d7
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000p8c6 (the last 5 minutes).
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000py6r a whole series on the subject!

I just find this whole idea of having to research everything all the time, and on this subject I am supremely happy to trust the experts. It's not like these vaccines have been created by snake oil salesmen, it's Pfizer fgs and Oxford University. I am just so grateful they've found a vaccine.

But that's for 'traditional' whole virus vaccines right which have been used for years

How do we know this is still the case for 'new generation' experimental mRNA vaccines?

Because there isn't anything extra in them that COULD hang around for years to cause problems further down the line. They work like other vaccines - you put in the body, body develops an immune response to clear them out, body remembers the immune response if it meets the actual virus in the future. They might be 'new' vaccines but they're still vaccines doing vaccine things and their whole job is to cause that immune response.

I suppose anything's possible, maybe they'll make you grow an extra nose on your forehead in ten years, but when we know that there's no precedent for vaccines doing this and there's no mechanism we can see for these vaccines to do this it doesn't really seem worth waiting ten years just in case. (And then, why stop after ten years? Maybe they'll grow extra noses in fifteen years, or twenty... maybe let's wait fifty years just to be sure...)

@GoldenOmber

The problem is, why add so much risk and unknowns with this new approach rather than use something that is already working?

@GoldenOmber

And again, why do we have to generate the virus spikes ourselves rather than them being created in a lab, checked and given to us through a vaccine?

Why do we have to 'do' this extra work ourselves?

I'm not trying to sound confrontational, I just find it puzzling

[quote trulydelicious]@GoldenOmber

The problem is, why add so much risk and unknowns with this new approach rather than use something that is already working?[/quote]
Ironically partly because it reduces the risks you get with those 'already working' approaches. Live attenuated virus vaccines have a fair number of risks of their own. mRNA vaccines could remove a lot of those risks, plus be easier and faster to manufacture in bulk.

I think a couple of the Chinese vaccines are using attenuated virus approaches.

And again, why do we have to generate the virus spikes ourselves rather than them being created in a lab, checked and given to us through a vaccine?

So this is how a live vaccine works:

• you inject it
• it gets into cells
• it says "cells, make more of this whole virus!" (in a punier way than the non-weakened version you'd catch in the wild, but it still DOES that)
• immune system spots it, says "this is a virus, kill it and file for future reference."

Here is how an mRNA vaccine would work:

• you inject it
• it gets into cells
• it says "cells, make more of this little bit of the virus!"
• immune system spots it, says "this is a virus, kill it and file for future reference."

What's different is NOT the bit where it's replicating inside human cells. What's different is the bit that is being replicated - for mRNA vaccines it's just a bit of the virus, rather than the whole thing.

Just heard about this on the six o'clock news: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54897737

Was what that they were saying yesterday about there "wouldn't be any political pressure" on the safety regulators over vaccines ... ?

(and again, this is not my specialist area, I do not work in pharma, I do not make vaccines. I'm only going with what I've read myself in response to whoever it was upthread that asked why people were so blasé about this. This is why I'm so blasé about this. If the experts whose job this was were saying "Actually this is dangerous because XYZ," I'd probably listen, but if they're all saying "it's fine so long as it passes this degree of safety testing" then that seems fine to me.)

I am not sure why there is such hostility to people that feel more cautious or nervous about having the vaccine. All medication has potential side effects. Hopefully this is a safe one and these side effects will affect few people but no-one can claim that it's 100% risk-free, which is why there needs to be choice in taking it, and I mean proper choice, not compulsion via social and economic exclusion.

I did wince a bit reading someone saying "it's Pfizer, of course it's safe!"; I have long term damage from a medication that was created by Pfizer.

I am totally pro vaccination and have anything that's going! That said, I do have some worries about the speed with which this has been rolled out. After all, they initially thought Thalidomide was safe (and to some extent it is, and it is still used, but obviously not in at risk groups). However, I want freedom back so will take the vaccination when offered.

While I don't think we will ever be directly forced to have the vaccine, it is entirely possible that we will be required to prove vaccination to do certain things such as fly or go on cruises.

I’ve seen hostility from the people who don’t want the vaccine as well. Apparently those of us that do are fools, sheep etc.

@PinkSparklyPussyCat

I’ve seen hostility from the people who don’t want the vaccine as well. Apparently those of us that do are fools, sheep etc.

Sheep are very intelligent 🐑

www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170418-sheep-are-not-stupid-and-they-are-not-helpless-either#:~:text=Reality%3A%20Sheep%20are%20actually%20surprisingly,destructive%20creatures%20on%20the%20planet.

No idea why any hostility towards anti vaxxers. With (initially, at least) limited supplies, there are many more ready to take their place in the queue.

I did wince a bit reading someone saying "it's Pfizer, of course it's safe!"; I have long term damage from a medication that was created by Pfizer

I'm sorry to hear that, MaxNormal, but regrettably you're not alone: www.drugwatch.com/manufacturers/pfizer/

In fairness, at least they're no longer the recipient of the largest fine for healthcare fraud ever given; I believe that honour's now gone to GSK

Also in fairness none of this means the current vaccine's necessarily dangerous; all it suggests (at least to me) is that a little caution might be in order

www.drugwatch.com/manufacturers/pfizer/

I watched this earlier and found it a good overview, although I'm not sure your specific questions were answered OP:

I do not trust Pfizer at all. They are very unethical.

www.corp-research.org/pfizer

I’ve seen hostility from the people who don’t want the vaccine as well. Apparently those of us that do are fools, sheep etc.

That's not on either. Overall I would just like there to be less hostility in general, the whole covid thing has felt dreadfully polarising and I've had my moments myself.
Of course I don't think anyone is an idiot for having the vaccine any more than I would think they're an idiot for taking any other medication.

Puzzledandpissedoff ironically the medication that injured me isn't even on the list. It was out of licence and is largely produced as a generic now so no-one can be sued for adverse effects. And Janssen made a very similar drug which has similarly adverse effects so I'm not pointing the finger at any one company exclusively.

@lovelemoncurd

I don't think this should be left to personal choice tbh. We need 80% of the population to be vaccinated in order to stop the spread so people need to suck it up and get on with it.

We don't know yet if any of the promising vaccines stop the spread or whether they simply stop infected people becoming unwell.

We'll be doing well to vaccinate 20% of the population over the next year - the whole world needs vaccines.

According to this article the government is only intending to vaccinate less than half the population in any case:

www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-7889-4d5d-84a3-43e51355a751

If we get a vaccine that does actually prevent transmission then personally I think that's a bit short sighted and unambitious and we should be looking to eventually vaccinate 60, 70 or 80% (I've heard different estimates of what's needed) - but that would be years away and we can get there without making it compulsory.