Concerns about vaccine.

[DigitalChristmas]

I wouldn’t classify myself as an anti vaxxer in the sense that all DC are fully up to date with their vaccines but I’m strongly considering whether or not to for the DC or I to have the covid vaccine. I feel it’s been so rushed that the potential side effects/long term health effects have not been fully evaluated. Does anyone else feel this way?

[quote Madhairday]The problem is there is far too much misinformation out there about this. This article should help set your mind at rest. The vaccine has not been rushed; merely expedited by the amount of scientists all working on it at the same time and the cutting of much red tape usually involved. It's as safe as it can be, or at least the Oxford and Pfizer ones will be

BBC News - Vaccine rumours debunked: Microchips, 'altered DNA' and more
www.bbc.co.uk/news/54893437[/quote]
Thanks for the link.

@1940s

I won't be getting it and I won't let my children either. I'd rather the risk of Covid as the survival rates are so high

But the survival rates for the vaccine are likely to be 100%. Covid is much more unpredicatable and as Babdoc says survival is just part of it.

Also how will you feel if everyone agrees with you and because of that the economic and social damage of COVID continues?

Babdoc I am so sorry you are sufferimg, I really hope it won't be permanent.

If im offered, i will take the vaccine, no hesitation.

@Babdoc your post is heart wrenching, I’m so sorry to hear that you have been affected so horrendously by long covid. I knew that there were cases I had no idea that we were looking at 500K known cases and possibly more that have not as yet been linked to covid. Like a pp, I too am hoping that the symptoms and your suffering will not be permanent. 💐

I suggest that everybody who is reticent to accept the vaccine just shut up.

Let those who want to take it do so.

Its in all of our best interests if you pause to really think about it.

I thought this was interesting- in the Times today many healthcare workers and GPs aren't happy either

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus-nhs-staff-flock-to-anti-vax-group-k8sq7q63w

If you read the article, you’ll see that those staff include people who have been suspended from their NHS posts for promoting nonsense like the Andrew Wakefield theory of autism being caused by vaccines. There are reality deniers and borderline delusionists in any profession.
Thankfully, of the 1.5 million people employed by the NHS, only a few hundred have joined the anti vax brigade. Please don’t listen to them.

I'm a bit concerned that we keep being told there is no clear idea if the vaccine works on the elderly

Thinking there will be pressure for others therefore to get vaccinated to protect the elderly perhaps. Younger people

@Orangeblossom7777

I'm a bit concerned that we keep being told there is no clear idea if the vaccine works on the elderly

Thinking there will be pressure for others therefore to get vaccinated to protect the elderly perhaps. Younger people

The research hasn't been published yet, so we don't know about the Pfizer vaccine and its effect in older people. It will be published and peer-reviewed before it is rolled out.

The Oxford vaccine was reported as stimulating a good immune response in the elderly in their interim analysis. There are rumours that their results will be out this week or next. In the past, they have published in a journal and released a press release at the same time, so we may get more information from them.

I'm pretty sure the vaccine will be less harmful than the chemicals most of us ingest daily of our own accord:
Traffic pollution, inhaling cigarette smoke (even secordary), Preservatives in our food, contraception, sugar, fluoride, other food additives such as folic acid, fumes from cleaning chemicals, vit B (those last two aren't harmful, but demonstrate that the government is putting chemicals in our food and water all the time).

3. how transparent is the information provided

4. how transparent are the study parameter and what do other medical researchers say about that being sturdy enough

It will be very transparent. The U.K. govt has already said it will come to its own conclusion about the vaccine, as will all other govts.

And all the research is/will be well scrutinised, published in medical journals etc.

It's been said so many times: NO-ONE IS CUTTING ANY CORNERS. They are just working faster, with probably more people involved, sharing more information around the globe, than with traditional drug development.

The problem with all those saying they won't have it is that they are either:

1. happy for everyone else to have it in order to provide the protection of herd immunity for themselves
2. happy for the world to go back to normal without a vaccine and for the elderly and vulnerable to take the hit with their lives
3. happy to stay in lockdown for the next few years without a vaccine with millions of lives lost or devastated through poverty and the impact on health services.

And don't get me started on the poster who couldn't see the hypocrisy of being outraged that they may have to prove they've had the vaccine to attend a music event, without realising that music events are highly unlikely to go ahead in the near future without a good uptake of the vaccine.

Unfortunately I can see how those who are just listening to the negative reports (usually on social media) and not really looking into the research would feel worried about it. It's usually those who claim the 'rushing through' is their problem with the vaccine, when many posters above have explained how this is just not the case.

My concerns are:

1. I wouldn't trust a vaccine from Russia or China.

1. I like the sound of the mRNA technology but I was disappointed yesterday to hear the Biontech developer say that it seems to have:

50% efficacy in preventing the virus and 90% efficacy in curing the virus.

50% doesn't sound anywhere near high enough to be in preventing it. There would need to be a massive take-up to have a great effect, surely?

1. If older and vulnerable people are the main concern and immune systems don't work as well as people age, is it actually going to protect those who are in greatest need?

1. If no-one knows how long a vaccine would provide immunity for (and obviously they can't know at this stage) then I assume we only know when people who have had the vaccine contract the virus or die from it. I'm worried that the vaccine could give people a false sense of being safe from the virus.

1. After reading a previous post, I’m now going to go away and research Pfizer and lawsuits they've been involved in regarding fraud.

I want to have the vaccine as a way of helping others around me. I don't want to contract the virus anyway but, more than that, I don't want to inadvertently cause someone else to become seriously ill or die.

There’s some interesting information out there if you’re at all interested in the development of vaccines generally to understand where the risks may be with the covid ones.

I won’t pretend I understand all of the ins and outs but looking at simplified information I can see many steps could be made considerably shorter with unlimited resources (which is pretty much what has happened). When you also consider that some of these vaccines - particularly the Oxford one - have been developed from already tested formulations for similar diseases I can completely see how it can be done quickly and safely.

www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/vaccine-development-barriers-coronavirus/

www.ifpma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/IFPMA-ComplexJourney-2019_FINAL.pdf (2019 pdf from the international federation of pharmaceutical manufacturers and Associations)

My biggest concern is that a better vaccine could be developed from scratch and be available in a few years time but a previous vaccine would interfere with its effectiveness. I suspect that this has been a factor in considering priority groups, the higher your risk the more urgent your need is for some kind of protection. The rest of the population has a little more time to play with and may benefit from something that’s still being developed as we speak.

Not a choice I’d like to have to make but a sensible one given that we have to think strategically.

50% doesn't sound anywhere near high enough to be in preventing it. There would need to be a massive take-up to have a great effect, surely

The TB vaccine only has a 20% efficiency but has been a valuable tool in controlling TB. We’re back to accepting it’s not a silver bullet but that it has a place in fighting an outbreak alongside other measures.

medicine.wustl.edu/news/study-helps-explain-tuberculosis-vaccines-ineffective/

A quote I’m hearing a lot lately (and I agree with) is that we can’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. 50% would be 50% more than we’ve got now and life would look very different for all of us. Covid would still be here but manageable in that people would survive with better care and better long term support.

Why do you feel it's being rushed? Think about it - the time factor is short (yes, the vaccine has been developed in record time) but so many experts are working on it, it's a massive increase in person/hour.

Secondly, our knowledge of how to develop vaccines has grown hugely over the last, say, 30 years.

Thirdly, you and your children will not be vaccinated. Unless you are over 50 then you might be offered it, but not soon.

The problem is that there is so much misinformation out there that it sows doubt in people like you who are not anti-vax. It's part of their strategy. That's how anti-vax promote their crap.

mRNA vaccines have never been used and I want to understand side effects first

There is no reason why the side effects from an mRNA vaccine would be any different to any other vaccine. Every cell in your body is jam packed full of mRNA all the time.

Interestingly there was an expert (can't remember who I'm afraid) on the Today programme this morning who say that any of the known side effects that may have occurred from vaccines all happened within 1-2 months of the vaccine so there is no reason to suppose that we need to wait months to see if there any long term side effects as we know by now what the side effects are. As these trials have treated large numbers of people in a short-amount of time we can also be fairly sure that we are picking up any rare side effects.
Most vaccine trials take longer because they are much slower to recruit than the current coronavirus trials, not because they follow the patients for longer.

The vaccine companies also take no liability for side effects

Who takes liability for the side effects of covid? If you do a risk benefit analysis I'm pretty sure that the risk of side effects from a vaccine still comes out as lower than any risks of organ damage/ long-term fatigue from covid for anyone over the age of 18.

If (big if) the Russian or Chinese vaccines had been approved by the MHRA and that was the one I was offered, I would take it. Because I trust the scientists in the MHRA to interrogate the evidence and only approve it if they believe it to be safe and effective.

I also don't care much whether I get Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford, or Old Uncle Tom Cobbley's patent vaccine - as long as it has been signed off by the MHRA and is thought, on the basis of the available evidence, to be the one best suited to me. Basically, whichever MHRA-approved vaccine I am offered, I will take.

Because, at 56, severely obese and with diabetes, I don't want to die of Covid, or develop long Covid, and I also want to be able to hug my Mum, go to concerts and lounge around all day in bookshops/coffee shops like I used to do on my day off before all this lot happened.

Biontech developer say that it seems to have:
50% efficacy in preventing the virus and
90% efficacy in curing the virus.

If you're referring to the same interview I saw, then that's not what he said. What he said was, we have demonstrated it is 90% effective in preventing people from developing disease. We don't know how effective it is in preventing people from transmitting the virus, but if, as a guess, it was only 50% effective, that would still help to suppress the pandemic.

I'll see if I can find the quote and link it.

Here we go - it was on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54949799

"I'm very confident that transmission between people will be reduced by such a highly effective vaccine - maybe not 90% but maybe 50% - but we should not forget that even that could result in a dramatic reduction of the pandemic spread," he said.

By stopping the disease the moderna one included some severe cases in the controls. As far as I can see the BioNTech one could have had just people with a cough and a positive test.

I'm concerned that there are going to be several different vaccines and wonder whether it will be a post-code lottery as to which you get. Will they monitor the data effectively enough to monitor whether the efficacy and safety profiles stand up between the different vaccines? Will they even be competent enough to store the vaccines correctly? After the farces we've seen with PPE and track and trace I have doubts.

[quote Orangeblossom7777]I thought this was interesting- in the Times today many healthcare workers and GPs aren't happy either

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus-nhs-staff-flock-to-anti-vax-group-k8sq7q63w[/quote]
"The group, NHS Workers for Choice, No Restrictions for Declining a Vaccine, has gained more than 250 Facebook members in a month. They include a GP, several accident and emergency nurses, healthcare assistants, lab workers, and private and public care home staff."

That is not "many healthcare workers" that is at most 250 health and social care workers out of a workforce of 2-3 million. Not sure why The Times even bothered to mention it.