Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!
- Thread starter bullybeef
- Start date
- Status
They are experimental to an extent. The clinical trials, for obvious reasons, were not able to cover everything.
They are as safe as can be given the circumstances but a vaccination on this scale in this amount of time has never been done before. It is unprecedented. Hence, experimental, to an extent.
I'm not being conspiratorial about it, but there has, as far as I know, never been anything like this in modern times, so of course there is going to be an element of trial and error.
To say there hasn't been issues with the vaccines is as ignorant and stupid as to say they are evil and about microchipping people.
EDIT: Look at the boosters in the UK. Initially 6 months, then 5 months, now 3 months spacing. How is changing the spacing (even if for the right reasons) not experimental? It is experimental.
Could be worse - you ever been to West Croydon?! ??
@mill appreciate that the wording in my post was wrong. I just mean, this whole thing is an experiment isn't it - as in the vaccines are 'experimental' in that we don't know for certain that they work against every variant, we don't know for certain why they work better in some people than others. They keep refining them on an as and when needed basis. I didn't mean it in the sense that we're all lab rats.
They are obviously not in the 'experimental stage' that they aren't safe for use.
They are obviously not in the 'experimental stage' that they aren't safe for use.
40% incidental is quite positive I'd say. Far better than the tops 5% it was in the wave last year!
I know that, my wording was wrong in the original post.
However, a vaccination of this scale, a mass vaccination of the world's population, has never ever taken place in this short a timeframe. Hence, it's unprecedented and somewhat experimental.
It wasn’t picked up in the trials because it is so rare that you needed a huge number of people being vaccinated to spot it, not because of the speed of the trials. The AZ trials were done on a comparatively large group of about 30k people but at a rate of 8 incidences per million there is a good chance that there were no cases in the trial group.
AstraZeneca finds small clot risk after 1st COVID shot, less after 2nd
AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine carries a small extra risk of rare blood clots with low platelets after the first dose and no extra risk after the second, a study led and funded by the drugmaker showed on Wednesday, after worries over side-effects.www.reuters.com
- Study finds TTS rate 8.1 per million after 1st dose
- Study finds TTS rate 2.3 per million after 2nd dose
- Results back 2nd dose, unless TTS after 1st - company
yeah @ForeverBlue92 I was gonna say to your post that it's more about the numbers in the trials, not the time itself.
Though of course if there was more time, then there'd be more numbers in the trials.
Was in bed for 3 days from Boxing Day very Poorly … and the mrs too… tested every day for covid and all negative … daughter has tested positive today so I’m now looking forward to inevitably catching it
Seanjd
Player Valuation: £30m
You said earlier that the vaccine was ‘knocked together’ in twelve months. You do sound quite anti the vaccine.
The irony here though is claiming that the masses have been brainwashed, not those who think being vaccinated will kill them.
I don’t think that is accurate tbh, the FDA website says several thousand for stage 4 trials is typical
My understanding is a lot of the time taken in trials is finding enough people that either have the medical issue you are trying to solve or are exposed to the disease you are trying to stop.
These vaccines didn’t have that issue as a) there were lots of selfless volunteers willing to take part right from the off b) lots of Covid about so could quickly get the data that showed the statistical improvement vs the control group and determine the safety.
summerisle
The rain, it raineth every day
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
You’ll be fine…..
If anyone has an hour I'd recommend watching this. I listened to the Rogan interview he's assessing and was interested but at the same time doubtful as the Dr sounded extremely arrogant and convinced of himself even the few times Rogan pushed him on stuff. That being said I do think there were some points he made which seemed feasible and they were the ones that weren't as conspiratorial.
This Dr assesses that info and lays it out in a balanced way. Debunks a lot of what was said but does sit between both sides of the divide. He also lays out his biases at the start of the video so you know where he stands. An interesting watch.
And yes, I'm on day six of COVID round two and very bored lol
Sake, woke up in a concentration camp this morning. Where was the warning?
- Status