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?

Why do people think they will need to have the vaccine so they can travel? Countries won't care if you have had it, as you are still infectious and can shed the virus. It only stops you getting poorly.

Yes! The vaccines we purchase will have been thoroughly tested and the best research scientists in the world have created them.

I’m sick and tired of reading the scaremongering on social media about the vaccines. My relatives are fond of this, one of them is sure he knows more about science than the eminently qualified scientists.

I am very optimistic that the Oxford vaccine will be as (or almost as) effective as the Pfizer vaccine so it's very likely you could choose to have a more "traditional" vaccine in due course

An attenuated chimp adenovirus carrying a new 'spike' to replicate a different virus (in thus case SAR-COV2) isn't 'traditional'. It's new for human vaccines, and is currently in use only for one veterinary immunusation.

Attentuated vaccines are more problematic for the immune compromised, than killed strain Ines. So mRNA may well be the safer jab.

Vaccines can 'take' differently in the older population too, which is why there are two types of flu jab.

Further study on effectiveness in both the elderly and those with varying types of immune issues and other co-morbitities needs to be done. Depending on the outcome, that could change the planned categorisation if recipients considerably. (And that has been said all along)

@Smallwhiterat

They’ll know if it wasn’t correctly stored and will bin it. It will be shipped with temperature monitors and gps trackers.

Thanks for your reply. That's interesting. I just hope "they" will know and "they" will bin it and also that there is no danger with it if it hasn't been stored correctly and is injected. My confidence in all these processes is low after all the mistakes in testing, track & trace, statistics, reporting etc we've seen over this pandemic. I've always been very pro vaccine but it's the storage and logistics which is preventing me from feeling excited about this one - minus 70 is a very different ball game from regular vaccine refrigeration.

Getting in a car is almost certainly going to be more of a risk than these vaccines.
They didn't rush the safety testing. All that was speeder up was the paperwork and red tape stuff.

So much sense in one short paragraph

@frankie246

Why do people think they will need to have the vaccine so they can travel? Countries won't care if you have had it, as you are still infectious and can shed the virus. It only stops you getting poorly.

I agree countries may not make vaccination mandatory, but why are you claiming that the vaccine “only stops you getting poorly”?

I agree countries may not make vaccination mandatory, but why are you claiming that the vaccine “only stops you getting poorly”?

Because that may be the case

"It’s unclear whether the vaccine can prevent people who show no or only very mild symptoms of COVID-19 from spreading the coronavirus. A transmission-blocking vaccine could accelerate the end of the pandemic. But it will be difficult to determine whether the Pfizer vaccine, or others in late-stage trials, can achieve this, says Krammer, because it would involve routinely testing trial participants. “You can’t do that with 45,000 people,” he says"

('he' = a virologist who is in the trial)

Source: www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03166-8

@Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

So how do we know the RNA vaccine doesn’t damage our DNA subtly and lead to increased risk of disease such as cancer or autoimmunity?

How do we know that it won’t turn us in to flesh eating zombies? How do we know the sky isn’t going to fall in tomorrow? How do we know that this isn’t the matrix?

If course it’s been FUCKING RUSHED ffs!
We are in the middle of a debilitating, economy ruining pandemic! If they’d taken their time with all the insouciance of a tortoise mooching about for lettuce leaves, I’d have thought they would have needed a rocked shoved up their arse!
Huge swathes of medical professionals, people taking part in trials etc have been working really fucking hard to come up with a vaccine to get us out of this fucking mess and all people can say is ‘ah but they rushed it’
What would you have said if they DIDNT rush it??

I’m also sick to the back teeth of people parroting phrases they’ve read on FB like it makes them some kind of fucking expert. Come up with your own opinion, at least. Morons.

The post is correct above (Nature) in terms of what the BBC has said too. It does not stop you being infections (Pfizer vaccine). It just stops you catching it once you have had the vaccine in 90% of cases. The 90% is important too - eg my son who had the MMR about 20 years ago which reduces chances of getting mumps to 10% still caught mumps at university whereas his twin did not (whereas those who catch real mumps believe have a 0% chance of getting mumps).

However given the number of people the measures taken against the vaccine by states who are dying as a result, never mind the CV19 deaths themselves, I am certainly not against trying various vaccines.

One reason the Pfizer one has come out quicker than usual is they are doing the various steps and tests at the same time rather than one step , pause, check, then test 2 etc. I don't regard that as risky and it makes sense in the situation in which we are in.

Radio 4 had a profile of the 2 scientists behind the vaccine, Ugur Sahin and Ozlem Tureci - it's not an in-depth piece, but worth a listen. We should be kissing the ground they walk on, for this vaccine and the other incredible work they do. They sound like truly amazing human beings.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000pdrk

It just stops you catching it once you have had the vaccine in 90% of cases

No it doesn't.

They do not yet know if it is a transmission blocking vaccine.

You say you are non-scientific. That is showing.

@scaevola

It just stops you catching it once you have had the vaccine in 90% of cases

No it doesn't.

They do not yet know if it is a transmission blocking vaccine.

You say you are non-scientific. That is showing.

This! Why are people quoting such bollocks misinformation with such a high degree of confidence?? It’s baffling! All you’re going to do is convince people NOT to get vaccinated. And this circus will last forever.

I am not anti-vax, am pro vax and like to be corrected. I think the Pfizer one is 90% effective - as the BBC say here www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-54880084

I agree with you that it is not "transmission blocking". It stops you developing symptoms.

"The vaccine trains the immune system to fight coronavirus.

It is a new type of vaccine called an RNA vaccine and uses a tiny fragment of the virus' genetic code. This starts making part of the virus inside the body, which the immune system recognises as foreign and starts to attack.

It is given in two doses - three weeks apart - and early data suggests it protects more than 90% of people from developing Covid symptoms."

What we need and the Government is working on is a very clear campaign about the vaccine which does not assume the public are stupid and gives them accurate facts. That way people will trust the campaign and buy into the programme.

If there was a way to volunteer I would in a heart beat. I am 79 and have faith in the science otherwise we might as well be back in time when vaccinations and antibiotics were not available and loves were cut short. My dd has a friend who has worked on this new scientific technology for five years as it was intended to work on other diseases.She has explained it in detail to my dd and it is groundbreaking with the likelihood that it can be adapted to be use speedily on other future pandemics. Please do not spread fear and let us stand up to this dreadful virus which is damaging all our lives.

The government has actually said all this, as has Pfizer.

Unfortunately they cannot prevent journalists occasionally getting it wrong, or the tidal wave of people posting bollocks online.

"In the press release, Pfizer and BioNTech said they had identified 94 cases of COVID-19 among 43,538 trial participants. The companies did not indicate how many of those cases were in the placebo group or among those who got the vaccine. But they said that the split of cases between the groups suggested that the vaccine was more than 90% effective at preventing disease, when measured at least one week after trial participants had received a second vaccine dose 3 weeks after the first. The trial will continue until a total of 164 COVID-19 cases are detected, so initial estimates of the vaccine’s effectiveness could change.

"Although the vaccine might not turn out to be quite so effective once the trial is complete and all the data have been analysed, its effectiveness is likely to stay well above 50%, says Eric Topol, a cardiologist and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, California. This is the threshold that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says is required for a coronavirus vaccine to be approved for emergency use. “I think this is an extraordinary achievement, even without many details, because there was no assurance of vaccine efficacy before we got the first read-out from a trial,” Topol says.

Lives not loves. A,so used speedily “in” other pandemics. Sorry about mistakes. Too much haste.

@HappydaysArehere

If there was a way to volunteer I would in a heart beat. I am 79 and have faith in the science otherwise we might as well be back in time when vaccinations and antibiotics were not available and loves were cut short. My dd has a friend who has worked on this new scientific technology for five years as it was intended to work on other diseases.She has explained it in detail to my dd and it is groundbreaking with the likelihood that it can be adapted to be use speedily on other future pandemics. Please do not spread fear and let us stand up to this dreadful virus which is damaging all our lives.

Well said

They do not know yet if it blocks transmission or not.

It will absolutely not be safe. Scientists don't know what they're doing half the time, and most of them are really stupid. Also, drugs companies always rush through medicine just because they want money... can you believe it... I certainly won't be having the vaccine that will save people's lives and means we can go back to relative normal.

@SexTrainGlue

Attentuated vaccines are more problematic for the immune compromised, than killed strain Ines. So mRNA may well be the safer jab.

I was thinking more about inactivated whole virus vaccines, which would be safer, rather than live attenuated whole virus vaccines

@SexTrainGlue

I am very optimistic that the Oxford vaccine will be as (or almost as) effective as the Pfizer vaccine so it's very likely you could choose to have a more "traditional" vaccine in due course

An attenuated chimp adenovirus carrying a new 'spike' to replicate a different virus (in thus case SAR-COV2) isn't 'traditional'. It's new for human vaccines, and is currently in use only for one veterinary immunusation.

Attentuated vaccines are more problematic for the immune compromised, than killed strain Ines. So mRNA may well be the safer jab.

Vaccines can 'take' differently in the older population too, which is why there are two types of flu jab.

Further study on effectiveness in both the elderly and those with varying types of immune issues and other co-morbitities needs to be done. Depending on the outcome, that could change the planned categorisation if recipients considerably. (And that has been said all along)

No, the same process was used to develop the MERS vaccine. That is still in clinical trials (there isn't much MERS about) but from a safety perspective it's widely accepted to be safe. Obviously we are still waiting for the full data so it remains to be seen how effective it is but I'm optimistic.

Have you listened to "the life scientific" podcast with Sarah Gilbert? It's very informative on the development of the vaccine.

[quote scaevola]I agree countries may not make vaccination mandatory, but why are you claiming that the vaccine “only stops you getting poorly”?

Because that may be the case

"It’s unclear whether the vaccine can prevent people who show no or only very mild symptoms of COVID-19 from spreading the coronavirus. A transmission-blocking vaccine could accelerate the end of the pandemic. But it will be difficult to determine whether the Pfizer vaccine, or others in late-stage trials, can achieve this, says Krammer, because it would involve routinely testing trial participants. “You can’t do that with 45,000 people,” he says"

('he' = a virologist who is in the trial)

Source: www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03166-8[/quote]
Of course it may be the case. But this is not known. The PP suggested it was.

@Purplehaze34

I’m sick and tired of reading the scaremongering on social media about the vaccines. My relatives are fond of this, one of them is sure he knows more about science than the eminently qualified scientists.

But surely people can read, inform themselves and think. It's not the case that if you're not a scientist you shouldn't be allowed an opinion or have a genuine concern about a specific issue.

trulydelicious, many of the prople spouting bollocks about the vaccine seem to only get their info from spoutings on social media. If they read scientific papers, looked at the evidence etc it wouldn't be so bad, but they seem totally prepared to accept the views of some anonymous troll on SM rather than the views of someone with decades of education, experience and knowledge.