Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

How have they tested the long term effects?

56 replies

BecomeStronger · 08/12/2020 08:11

I trust that the vaccine is safe. I won't be in any priority group but I'll have it as soon as it's available to me.

I am happy that we wouldn't be offered it if there's any prospect of long term damage. I'm told "they" know it's safe, but how?

How do they know it's safe from long term side effects without long term trials? Is it all because they know similar vaccines are safe?

OP posts:
trulydelicious · 08/12/2020 10:28

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Ponoka7 · 08/12/2020 10:31

Sparklingbrook
"Hopefully if Margaret is still ok by bedtime it's all good."

All jokes aside, stroke and other risks are high. Many of the people getting vaccinated will die, or deteriorate within 18 months. I can see the same bullshit starting that did over the MMR and Autism.

Sparklingbrook · 08/12/2020 10:33

@Ponoka7

Sparklingbrook "Hopefully if Margaret is still ok by bedtime it's all good."

All jokes aside, stroke and other risks are high. Many of the people getting vaccinated will die, or deteriorate within 18 months. I can see the same bullshit starting that did over the MMR and Autism.

Yes, any elderly people having the vaccination then dying of other causes-questions will be asked if it was the vaccination that speeded it up or something.
Ponoka7 · 08/12/2020 10:38

"and yet, on a trailer for a TV show about Covid, the voiceover said that 'long covid' effects could last for 'up to 2 years'. How the hell do they now that - when the disease has only been about for 1 year?"

I've got post viral CF. This has been around for decades. So by studying this for at least 30 years, they can calculate how post viral recovery from Covid will be. Also some of the effects are liver/kidney issues. Again they know how long it takes for internal organs to recover. The brain bit we aren't so sure about. But people who had it in February are starting to make full recovery or showing good improvement. This is after 10 months. The younger you are, the quicker the recovery. Some older people may never fully recover, as they don't for pneumonia etc.

PowerslidePanda · 08/12/2020 11:21

There are no similar vaccines mRNA vaccines and to an extent the Oxford one use new technology not used before. So we cannot extrapolate in that way

I disagree.

The technology behind the Oxford one is well established and has been used for a variety of other vaccines - please do tell me exactly what is so novel about it?

And while the mRNA is indeed newer technology, it's still a vaccine - not some new category of drug. It stimulates an immune response, and all signs so far suggests that our bodies react to it the same way as other vaccines. So you absolutely can extrapolate in that way.

AccountCreateUsername · 08/12/2020 11:44

Powerslide I agree the technology isn’t new but this is the first licensed mRNA vaccine I thought?

Stellaris22 · 08/12/2020 11:52

I am not worried about long term effects from the vaccine as they are highly unlikely. I am very worried about the proven and long term effects of post covid.

The fact that these anti vax threads occur several times a day on various sites like this worries me even more. It is scare tactics, misleading and frankly wrong.

PowerslidePanda · 08/12/2020 11:55

@AccountCreateUsername

Powerslide I agree the technology isn’t new but this is the first licensed mRNA vaccine I thought?
It is - but it's still a vaccine. What it's does isn't new - just the way it does it. And yes, there are some unknowns associated with that - but so far, the response in humans is in line with that of other vaccines. And given that delayed side effects isn't usually seen with vaccines, there's no reason to think this one will be any different in that sense.
FatCatThinCat · 08/12/2020 12:05

I think some of the concerns about this vaccine stem from the belief that it's gone from start to roll out in just 10 months. But this isn't correct. Covid-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Scientists have been working on a vaccine for the SARS-Cov virus for more than 15 years. Most of the work for the covid-19 vaccine had been done long before this new strain emerged.

titchy · 08/12/2020 12:08

But I think inaccuracies being repeated over and over on threads are not helpful for anyone

Then stop going on about Pandremix and narcolepsy. As many posters on many other threads have pointed out, the number of people who had narcolepsy was vanishingly low and causality not proven.

AlphaJura · 08/12/2020 12:11
StealthPolarBear · 08/12/2020 12:52

@Ponoka7

Sparklingbrook "Hopefully if Margaret is still ok by bedtime it's all good."

All jokes aside, stroke and other risks are high. Many of the people getting vaccinated will die, or deteriorate within 18 months. I can see the same bullshit starting that did over the MMR and Autism.

Really good point.
ptumbi · 08/12/2020 13:39

Ponoka - actually that is the exact thing I thought this morning. She's 90!!! Lovely that she won't die of Covid, but how will they stop her dying of heart attack/stroke/falls/organ failure...
I think the vaccine would be better off injected into the NHS workers (If they want it) and people who are vulnerable-young.

And I say that as a vaccine-refuser, with a 92yo DM and 90yo MIL .

trulydelicious · 08/12/2020 13:48

@titchy

As many posters on many other threads have pointed out, the number of people who had narcolepsy was vanishingly low and causality not proven

I keep on posting because those who appear to be Covid vaccines fanatics keep on posting misinformation

www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-shot-caused-narcolepsy

PowerslidePanda · 08/12/2020 15:59

[quote trulydelicious]***@titchy*

As many posters on many other threads have pointed out, the number of people who had narcolepsy was vanishingly low and causality not proven

I keep on posting because those who appear to be Covid vaccines fanatics keep on posting misinformation

www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-shot-caused-narcolepsy[/quote]
I'm clearly missing something here... how does your link contradict what @titchy said?

@titchy said that the number of people who had narcolespy was vanishingly low - your article confirms it as 1300 people out of 30 million.

@titchy also said that causality was not proven - your article says that "how the vaccine might have triggered the condition has been unclear" and that "researchers offer a possible explanation". It also said the results still need to be confirmed by a larger study (pointing out that the results of a previous study were irreproductable and had to be retracted). That was back in 2015 and I assume it still hasn't happened, or you would have linked to that instead.

So where is the misinformation?

trulydelicious · 08/12/2020 17:07

@PowerslidePanda

The wording is emotional, vanishingly low or biased causality not proven (it was not disproven either, by the way)

The vaccine was withdrawn for a reason. Compensation was paid out for a reason.

That kind of language comes across as the opposite of scaremongering. It can convey (unwittingly or not) excessive reassurance. I consider that to be misinformation.

GabriellaMontez · 08/12/2020 17:11

those who are opposing the vaccine, trying to convince others to do the same using social media platforms, they will have blood on their hands for sure.

Where? I've seen and heard plenty of people say they wont have it. I've yet to hear them try and convince anyone else to do the same.

yeOldeTrout · 08/12/2020 17:33

I'm saying this as a person who firmly doesn't want the jab at all.

Live covid infection is much more likely to give long term effects than any of the jabs are likely to give you. So the logic is simple which one is safer.

FatCatThinCat · 09/12/2020 10:47

I've just read that 2 NHS workers who got the vaccine yeterday have had adverse reactions, which is worrying. The MHRA is now reviewing the data and advising people with bad allergies not to get it.

Stellaris22 · 09/12/2020 11:39

Link?

DumplingsAndStew · 09/12/2020 12:38

Is it worrying though? Sounds like very quick action was taken and advice has been given. There are people who are allergic to ingredients in all sorts of vaccines and medications, IIRC the flu nasal spray is contradicted in those who have an allergy to egg?

I imagine now they are aware of the potential affect, they will be making steps to isolate exactly what the allergen is.

Delatron · 09/12/2020 13:03

Listening now. Both people had a serious history of allergies and carried an epipen. They are fine now.

PowerslidePanda · 09/12/2020 13:21

Glad they're ok. Seems to be quite a common thing - none of my family have any allergies, but every vaccination we've ever had, we've been asked to remain in the waiting room for a few minutes after, just in case.

LemonTT · 09/12/2020 13:30

[quote DumplingsAndStew]@trulydelicious

Wasn't the narcolepsy connection with Pandremix apparent within a 1 - 2 month timescale of the vaccine?[/quote]
Yes this is correct. The poster is one of those people who is “not Anti-Vax” yet obsessively posts a lot of anti vax rhetoric.