Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
How Likely Are You To Take The Covid Vaccine?
Comments
-
Very good. I hope we can all be the wiser for appreciating your critical thought and ability to consider all aspects of a debate that such education equips you with.ShootersHillGuru said:
I have a post grad degreeValleyOfTears said:
You are right it doesn't mean you have "....skipped part of the process". But it CAN mean that you have.ShootersHillGuru said:
Oh dear. This is 100% trolling to get a reaction. You know full well that most processes including clinical trials follow a well defined pattern and in the case of clinical trials the outcome is then independently scrutinised (peer reviewed) by whom ever wishes to do so. When I paint a room it follows a process. Depending on how much time and resources I throw at it, will impact on the time the job takes. The keener I am to get it done the sooner it’s completed. That doesn’t mean in any way shape or form that I’ve skipped parts of the process. The independent scrutiny of the trial results was also completed in quick time. The reason was that there was a pandemic. Resources and money not usually available were provided in spades. From the way you express yourself you’re obviously not a stupid person. There was no need for me to use a child friendly analogy to explain it to you but that’s not why you posted your drivel.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Btw do you have the results to the trials you mention? I was lead to believe that the clinical trials are to be completed in 2023.
Not "trolling", no. Just interested in both sides of the argument. As stated before ~ in order to trust (and everything about this covid situation is based on trust) ~ those that are telling us what to do, must show integrity, consistency and transparency.
Among other traits. It is because these traits have been absent in various incidences throughout this pandemic that has lead to some people to question various points. That is all.
To call such enquiries "trolling" "drivel" "f***wits" and all the other names bandied around seems to point more to someone who is not standing on firm ground with regard this issue.
I also learned, during these enquiries, that it is a myth that everyone who questions some of the Covid policies being implemented are "covidiots" and "numbskulls". Apparently the demographics are that yes, a large proportion of those uneducated choose to not present themselves for the jab. That is absolutely correct. As the education level increases (to Bachelor degree) the uptake of the jab increases enormously.
But in those with post-graduate degrees and PHD, those numbers fall greatly and such persons choose not to present themselves for the jab in significant numbers. This would indicate that simply labelling those persons, as yet unvaccinated, as morons and idiots, is factually incorrect. And, dare I say it, perhaps idiotic.1 -
I would agree it is A of course.. But A in itself requires a further option surely?. It requires the option to be offered that those best qualified to say whether a vaccine has been trialled enough MAY ALSO BE those medical experts who have indeed practiced in the field their entire lives who are saying "there are some areas of concern here".BR7_addick said:
VoT can you answer my post please mate.BR7_addick said:
I have an A or B question.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Who do you think is best qualified to say whether the vaccine was trialed enough to be rolled out to the public?
A. The medical experts who’ve studied and practiced in the field their entire lives.
or
B. The sceptical unqualified public.
Ill wait.2 -
Yes, very often the case.ME14addick said:In my experience the most highly qualified people often have little common sense.0 -
It will be a sad development. But it certainly looks like it is going that way...hoof_it_up_to_benty said:It will be interesting to see if the Government attempts to produce a vaccine passport at events like football matches. I have no idea how they attempt to enforce it?0 -
Let us hope that the very best qualified and morally sound professionals are heading up public health at this time.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Given there was a global pandemnic normal timescales were never going to apply. Imagine if anti vaxxers were put in charge of public health?charltonkeston said:“Rushed” doesn’t have to mean, not done properly.
It could mean, (and I think I’m correct), finances, resources and the will to collaborate were all in place in a timely manner.0 -
Well my options cover literally everyone. Medical experts.. or non-medical experts to put it more frankly. As simple as my point seems, I think the debate ends there.ValleyOfTears said:
I would agree it is A of course.. But A in itself requires a further option surely?. It requires the option to be offered that those best qualified to say whether a vaccine has been trialled enough MAY ALSO BE those medical experts who have indeed practiced in the field their entire lives who are saying "there are some areas of concern here".BR7_addick said:
VoT can you answer my post please mate.BR7_addick said:
I have an A or B question.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Who do you think is best qualified to say whether the vaccine was trialed enough to be rolled out to the public?
A. The medical experts who’ve studied and practiced in the field their entire lives.
or
B. The sceptical unqualified public.
Ill wait.0 -
You can dress up your nonsense with as much “please look at every side of the argument” as you like. When 99.9 % of the worlds elite scientists on the planet who have spent a lifetime in their fields tell me that I ought to believe what they are telling me. Their evidence is peer reviewed and still holds firm. I tell you what. I feckin believe them. I don’t listen to social media nonsense that tries to cast doubt on what are scientific facts. Based of evidence in the real world where vaccines have saved probably millions of lives. Anyone who does subscribe to this dangerous misinformation is and yes I’ll say it a moron.ValleyOfTears said:
Let us hope that the very best qualified and morally sound professionals are heading up public health at this time.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Given there was a global pandemnic normal timescales were never going to apply. Imagine if anti vaxxers were put in charge of public health?charltonkeston said:“Rushed” doesn’t have to mean, not done properly.
It could mean, (and I think I’m correct), finances, resources and the will to collaborate were all in place in a timely manner.7 -
I can’t give you a link to prove or disprove your last paragraph but you have not offered one either. But as someone who works in higher education with some very clever academics who have the relevant letters after their names, I find what you have claimed to be a bit wrong.ValleyOfTears said:
You are right it doesn't mean you have "....skipped part of the process". But it CAN mean that you have.ShootersHillGuru said:
Oh dear. This is 100% trolling to get a reaction. You know full well that most processes including clinical trials follow a well defined pattern and in the case of clinical trials the outcome is then independently scrutinised (peer reviewed) by whom ever wishes to do so. When I paint a room it follows a process. Depending on how much time and resources I throw at it, will impact on the time the job takes. The keener I am to get it done the sooner it’s completed. That doesn’t mean in any way shape or form that I’ve skipped parts of the process. The independent scrutiny of the trial results was also completed in quick time. The reason was that there was a pandemic. Resources and money not usually available were provided in spades. From the way you express yourself you’re obviously not a stupid person. There was no need for me to use a child friendly analogy to explain it to you but that’s not why you posted your drivel.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Btw do you have the results to the trials you mention? I was lead to believe that the clinical trials are to be completed in 2023.
Not "trolling", no. Just interested in both sides of the argument. As stated before ~ in order to trust (and everything about this covid situation is based on trust) ~ those that are telling us what to do, must show integrity, consistency and transparency.
Among other traits. It is because these traits have been absent in various incidences throughout this pandemic that has lead to some people to question various points. That is all.
To call such enquiries "trolling" "drivel" "f***wits" and all the other names bandied around seems to point more to someone who is not standing on firm ground with regard this issue.
I also learned, during these enquiries, that it is a myth that everyone who questions some of the Covid policies being implemented are "covidiots" and "numbskulls". Apparently the demographics are that yes, a large proportion of those uneducated choose to not present themselves for the jab. That is absolutely correct. As the education level increases (to Bachelor degree) the uptake of the jab increases enormously.
But in those with post-graduate degrees and PHD, those numbers fall greatly and such persons choose not to present themselves for the jab in significant numbers. This would indicate that simply labelling those persons, as yet unvaccinated, as morons and idiots, is factually incorrect. And, dare I say it, perhaps idiotic.
In my department all my colleagues, without exception, are fully vaccinated myself included. Although I don’t have a PhD just normal potato peelers qualifications, which are adequate for distinguishing real science from Gillian Mckeith type science.1 -
It's most certainly an eye opener hearing the vaccine hesitancy arguments put forward on here.0
-
Vaccines hesitancy is one thing. Promoting misinformation is quite another.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:It's most certainly an eye opener hearing the vaccine hesitancy arguments put forward on here.3 - Sponsored links:
-
The two seem to go hand in hand going by some of the bizarre stuff posted on here.ShootersHillGuru said:
Vaccines hesitancy is one thing. Promoting misinformation is quite another.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:It's most certainly an eye opener hearing the vaccine hesitancy arguments put forward on here.1 -
I suspect I have infected no less or more people than anyone else.Redrobo said:
Not the same, better. The sick, the old and most of the population have tested it now.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Lets hope that you and all the people you may have infected are alive to read those results in 2023.
May I also point out that in any trial, some humans have to volunteer to test a vaccine. I guess when the call came, you were hiding behind the settee.
Its safe now, you can come out.
On this journey of simply trying to look at both sides of this discussion in various places/platforms/social media/speaking to people face to face (at a social distance!) I have observed that "proud antivaxxers" do indeed very often promote very suspect claims. And seem to believe anything that is opposed to any position the mainstream may hold. That is all true. But I think their number "proud antivaxxers" is far fewer than we care to admit. It is easier to lump everyone into one category. It was ever thus I suppose.
And I have found a sizeable number who never question the narrative proposed by the key players in the Pandemic ~ Fauci, Gates, CDC, WHO and the Governments around the globe that take their cue from these bodies. And if any of this narrative is ever challenged ~ the response is often immediately discredit, abuse, deplatform, vilify etc
But I realise there is another group . A group of sincere people who are both vaccinated and in some cases not yet vaccinated. Or perhaps never will be vaccinated? Flexible and open to an ever changing landscape. Critical thinking is part of how they seemingly navigate this often complex life. And their concern has always been for the greater good. To protect the elderly. To consider impacts on children and on the mental health of the nation. To show appreciation for the many doctors and nurses and "invisible" heroes that have kept us all going but also to note that "when the facts change, we should change our minds" and, with humility, put their hands up if they got things wrong. Such people see that some measures of The State have been too heavy and in some cases unnecessary. And this group is I believe the majority of people really.
. Rarely is anything completely black and white in life. And they, more than the aforesaid groups seem aware of this.
I believe we know in our heart of hearts individually whether we have sacrificed for the greater good or not during this pandemic. Our consciences tell us this. That may have meant taking the vaccine or may have meant we didn't take the vaccine.
On the football front ...
I can't wait to see a full Valley again, winning the league and seeing TS' "plan" realised in the coming years.
Off the pitch and on, it has been the worst year of most of our lives. We have a lot to look forward to ...1 -
.0
-
There are still 6 million adults in this country who have not been vaccinated, which is very worrying.
0 -
Go and talk to your GP whom I presume you give enough credit to be able think for himself ? Ask if they disagree with Fauci, CDC, WHO and governments around the globe advised by their best scientific and medical brains as to whether having a Covid vaccine is a good idea. I note you added GATES to your list. WTF. Conspiracy central.ValleyOfTears said:
I suspect I have infected no less or more people than anyone else.Redrobo said:
Not the same, better. The sick, the old and most of the population have tested it now.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Lets hope that you and all the people you may have infected are alive to read those results in 2023.
May I also point out that in any trial, some humans have to volunteer to test a vaccine. I guess when the call came, you were hiding behind the settee.
Its safe now, you can come out.
On this journey of simply trying to look at both sides of this discussion in various places/platforms/social media/speaking to people face to face (at a social distance!) I have observed that "proud antivaxxers" do indeed very often promote very suspect claims. And seem to believe anything that is opposed to any position the mainstream may hold. That is all true. But I think their number "proud antivaxxers" is far fewer than we care to admit. It is easier to lump everyone into one category. It was ever thus I suppose.
And I have found a sizeable number who never question the narrative proposed by the key players in the Pandemic ~ Fauci, Gates, CDC, WHO and the Governments around the globe that take their cue from these bodies. And if any of this narrative is ever challenged ~ the response is often immediately discredit, abuse, deplatform, vilify etc
But I realise there is another group . A group of sincere people who are both vaccinated and in some cases not yet vaccinated. Or perhaps never will be vaccinated? Flexible and open to an ever changing landscape. Critical thinking is part of how they seemingly navigate this often complex life. And their concern has always been for the greater good. To protect the elderly. To consider impacts on children and on the mental health of the nation. To show appreciation for the many doctors and nurses and "invisible" heroes that have kept us all going but also to note that "when the facts change, we should change our minds" and, with humility, put their hands up if they got things wrong. Such people see that some measures of The State have been too heavy and in some cases unnecessary. And this group is I believe the majority of people really.
. Rarely is anything completely black and white in life. And they, more than the aforesaid groups seem aware of this.
I believe we know in our heart of hearts individually whether we have sacrificed for the greater good or not during this pandemic. Our consciences tell us this. That may have meant taking the vaccine or may have meant we didn't take the vaccine.
On the football front ...
I can't wait to see a full Valley again, winning the league and seeing TS' "plan" realised in the coming years.
Off the pitch and on, it has been the worst year of most of our lives. We have a lot to look forward to ...7 -
FfsValleyOfTears said:
I suspect I have infected no less or more people than anyone else.Redrobo said:
Not the same, better. The sick, the old and most of the population have tested it now.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Lets hope that you and all the people you may have infected are alive to read those results in 2023.
May I also point out that in any trial, some humans have to volunteer to test a vaccine. I guess when the call came, you were hiding behind the settee.
Its safe now, you can come out.
On this journey of simply trying to look at both sides of this discussion in various places/platforms/social media/speaking to people face to face (at a social distance!) I have observed that "proud antivaxxers" do indeed very often promote very suspect claims. And seem to believe anything that is opposed to any position the mainstream may hold. That is all true. But I think their number "proud antivaxxers" is far fewer than we care to admit. It is easier to lump everyone into one category. It was ever thus I suppose.
And I have found a sizeable number who never question the narrative proposed by the key players in the Pandemic ~ Fauci, Gates, CDC, WHO and the Governments around the globe that take their cue from these bodies. And if any of this narrative is ever challenged ~ the response is often immediately discredit, abuse, deplatform, vilify etc
But I realise there is another group . A group of sincere people who are both vaccinated and in some cases not yet vaccinated. Or perhaps never will be vaccinated? Flexible and open to an ever changing landscape. Critical thinking is part of how they seemingly navigate this often complex life. And their concern has always been for the greater good. To protect the elderly. To consider impacts on children and on the mental health of the nation. To show appreciation for the many doctors and nurses and "invisible" heroes that have kept us all going but also to note that "when the facts change, we should change our minds" and, with humility, put their hands up if they got things wrong. Such people see that some measures of The State have been too heavy and in some cases unnecessary. And this group is I believe the majority of people really.
. Rarely is anything completely black and white in life. And they, more than the aforesaid groups seem aware of this.
I believe we know in our heart of hearts individually whether we have sacrificed for the greater good or not during this pandemic. Our consciences tell us this. That may have meant taking the vaccine or may have meant we didn't take the vaccine.
On the football front ...
I can't wait to see a full Valley again, winning the league and seeing TS' "plan" realised in the coming years.
Off the pitch and on, it has been the worst year of most of our lives. We have a lot to look forward to ...0 -
Okay with that in mind then. What makes you side with the tiny minority of experts who have “concerns” instead of the large majority who think the vaccine currently rolled out is safe and effective?ValleyOfTears said:
I would agree it is A of course.. But A in itself requires a further option surely?. It requires the option to be offered that those best qualified to say whether a vaccine has been trialled enough MAY ALSO BE those medical experts who have indeed practiced in the field their entire lives who are saying "there are some areas of concern here".BR7_addick said:
VoT can you answer my post please mate.BR7_addick said:
I have an A or B question.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Who do you think is best qualified to say whether the vaccine was trialed enough to be rolled out to the public?
A. The medical experts who’ve studied and practiced in the field their entire lives.
or
B. The sceptical unqualified public.
Ill wait.I mean I’m not a scientist so I’m unable to do my own research, so I go with the majority of experts who claims it’s safe and effective, but what’s your logic?3 -
So they test the annual flu vaccine for 10 years do they? The one where they release a new vaccine every year based on new strains.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Stop spouting shit.
The clinical trials were completed in exactly the same way as always an in accordance with the regulations (actually with a much larger sample size than most). Trials are now in the final stage which is where they monitor impacts as it is widely used.
You keep chatting about clinical trials when you know nothing about them.8 -
My post from December on this thread. Have a read what I said about clinical trials from someone who very much knows how they workcantersaddick said:Haven't posted (or read) on anything COVID Related on here as it really wasn't good for my mental health. Now things are starting to look more positive I've had a quick skim through this thread.
Overall the poll numbers are positive - though it would have been nice to see even more people in the very likely category. This is a step we have to take to get back to a normal life.
As I mentioned on the original COVID thread my GF has a masters in Epidemiology and works for NHSE as an analyst. She was in the team that set up the death reporting system and has now been seconded onto the team working on modelling the distribution of the vaccine.
People saying "it'll be ages before I get offered it" - they have one scenario where everyone has been offered it by the end of May. I don't think that is likely to happen (my own opinion from reading the news and professional analytical cynicism) but it could well be by the end of 2021.
The first people are expected to get this on Monday.
the Pfizer vaccine is the one that was approved yesterday - this is the one with 95% effectiveness. We currently have 10m doses of this but are likely to get more. They will be trying to target this one at the most vulnerable.
The Oxford Vaccine is less effective, depending on how it is delivered somewhere between 65-90%. There are still some question marks over the completeness of their testing so it will be a bit longer before this one is approved. We will have as many doses of this as we need.
Pfizer vaccine has issues over storage which are a major force which will slow down the distribution mostly to do with storage and it needing some kind of super fridge. Its actually much more complicated than that as you cant just install a super fridge somewhere because every time you open the door you will compromise the batches left in there. So it really needs a number of small super fridges within a refrigerated room. For this reason the Pfizer one will largely be distributed from hospitals. There are no such storage issues with the Oxford one so it can be distributed from every pharmacy and GP surgery in the country much like the flu vaccine so expect to see the numbers really rocket once that is approved and starts rolling out.
As for the claims that "the testing has been rushed". I am assured they are completely untrue. In fact I'm told that due to the timescales these have been made to jump through more hoops not less. Yes Vaccines usually take years to be approved but the delays are not due to testing they are due to factors including; gaining funding, finding sponsors, getting senior academics to support testing, getting testing facilities, getting enough people to volunteer for the trials, getting enough research assistants to analyse the results, by the time that's all done people lose motivation for the write up as its taken years so the writing of the results itself is known to take years, it then has to wait in a queue for the approval process. The global pandemic has focused the minds of the whole world on this, governments, institutions and companies are throwing money at it, all lab space and research expertise have been given to it, every academic wants to sponsor it, more people are willing to volunteer for the trials, all efforts are focused on this and its prioritised for the approval. That is where the time has been saved, the actual testing has been as rigorous as with any other vaccine.
We dont yet know what proportion of the population will require the vaccine in order to be able to go about our lives as normal but it is thought to be very high - so anyone offered it should take it. There is no point thinking "well I wont have it but I will gain from the herd immunity of everyone else getting it" we simply don't know at what point that will happen (or if it will - the virus could be like flu requiring a new vaccine every season for the vulnerable at least).
Happy to try and answer questions but as I said I'm not an expert just passing on what the missus has explained to me.
Edit. She also spent some time working for Gavi the Global vaccine alliance a non-governmental charity body providing vaccines to less developed countries for free. And has worked on clinical trials - not of vaccines though.1 -
ShootersHillGuru said:
Vaccines hesitancy is one thing. Promoting misinformation is quite another.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:It's most certainly an eye opener hearing the vaccine hesitancy arguments put forward on here.
SHG: I don't see anyone on this thread "promoting misinformation".0 - Sponsored links:
-
Feel free to lol @redskin as you do all my posts about the vaccine trails.cantersaddick said:
So they test the annual flu vaccine for 10 years do they? The one where they release a new vaccine every year based on new strains.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Stop spouting shit.
The clinical trials were completed in exactly the same way as always an in accordance with the regulations (actually with a much larger sample size than most). Trials are now in the final stage which is where they monitor impacts as it is widely used.
You keep chatting about clinical trials when you know nothing about them.
As said in my other post this is from someone with significant knowledge of clinical trials having worked on them, also significant knowledge of vaccines having a masters in epidemiology and having worked for Gavi the global vaccine NGO and whose current job involves (amongst other things) sending daily data updates to the MHRA.
Feel free to say where your information comes from.1 -
ValleyOfTears said:ShootersHillGuru said:
Vaccines hesitancy is one thing. Promoting misinformation is quite another.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:It's most certainly an eye opener hearing the vaccine hesitancy arguments put forward on here.
SHG: I don't see anyone on this thread "promoting misinformation".
0 -
Firstly, I don't 'lol' 'all' your posts. Where's your evidence of that?cantersaddick said:
Feel free to lol @redskin as you do all my posts about the vaccine trails.cantersaddick said:
So they test the annual flu vaccine for 10 years do they? The one where they release a new vaccine every year based on new strains.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Stop spouting shit.
The clinical trials were completed in exactly the same way as always an in accordance with the regulations (actually with a much larger sample size than most). Trials are now in the final stage which is where they monitor impacts as it is widely used.
You keep chatting about clinical trials when you know nothing about them.
As said in my other post this is from someone with significant knowledge of clinical trials having worked on them, also significant knowledge of vaccines having a masters in epidemiology and having worked for Gavi the global vaccine NGO and whose current job involves (amongst other things) sending daily data updates to the MHRA.
Feel free to say where your information comes from.
Where we differ is at what stage of the trials we are currently in, something to which I gave a comprehensive answer to on the Covid thread which you didn't reply to or simply ignored.
0 -
You lol all my posts about the clinical trails have a look back and you'll see it.Redskin said:
Firstly, I don't 'lol' 'all' your posts. Where's your evidence of that?cantersaddick said:
Feel free to lol @redskin as you do all my posts about the vaccine trails.cantersaddick said:
So they test the annual flu vaccine for 10 years do they? The one where they release a new vaccine every year based on new strains.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Stop spouting shit.
The clinical trials were completed in exactly the same way as always an in accordance with the regulations (actually with a much larger sample size than most). Trials are now in the final stage which is where they monitor impacts as it is widely used.
You keep chatting about clinical trials when you know nothing about them.
As said in my other post this is from someone with significant knowledge of clinical trials having worked on them, also significant knowledge of vaccines having a masters in epidemiology and having worked for Gavi the global vaccine NGO and whose current job involves (amongst other things) sending daily data updates to the MHRA.
Feel free to say where your information comes from.
Where we differ is at what stage of the trials we are currently in, something to which I gave a comprehensive answer to on the Covid thread which you didn't reply to or simply ignored.
Again I'd love to know where your expertise comes from?
Cant really disagree about published fact. The pre use clinical trials are complete as per usual process. We are in the testing and monitoring during rollout phase which is the bit that usually takes years (your favourite argument) but will be quicker due to how quick rollout has been.
Sorry I missed your post on the Covid thread I'm a couple weeks behind on there, been very busy with work and don't really have the energy to catch up.0 -
Redrobo said:
Not the same, better. The sick, the old and most of the population have tested it now.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Lets hope that you and all the people you may have infected are alive to read those results in 2023.
May I also point out that in any trial, some humans have to volunteer to test a vaccine. I guess when the call came, you were hiding behind the settee.
Its safe now, you can come out.
Aren't fully vaccinated people still getting covid, so therefore still able to pass it on?1 -
Of course.Gribbo said:Redrobo said:
Not the same, better. The sick, the old and most of the population have tested it now.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Lets hope that you and all the people you may have infected are alive to read those results in 2023.
May I also point out that in any trial, some humans have to volunteer to test a vaccine. I guess when the call came, you were hiding behind the settee.
Its safe now, you can come out.
Aren't fully vaccinated people still getting covid, so therefore still able to pass it on?
A vaccine prepares one to fight the infection.0 -
. 5 -
I was seriously considering doing another poll based on SHG's suggestion, but frankly I don't fancy getting loads more notifications where someone is posting nonsense in the name of free thinking.6
-
Yes and, speaking to my GP this evening ~ sadly in some cases dying in hospital also. I was under the impression that the vaccine eliminated this possibility of hospitalisation and death from covid~19. Very sad to learn this.Gribbo said:Redrobo said:
Not the same, better. The sick, the old and most of the population have tested it now.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Lets hope that you and all the people you may have infected are alive to read those results in 2023.
May I also point out that in any trial, some humans have to volunteer to test a vaccine. I guess when the call came, you were hiding behind the settee.
Its safe now, you can come out.
Aren't fully vaccinated people still getting covid, so therefore still able to pass it on?0 -
Apparently there is mounting evidence that having the vaccination reduces the chances of passing on the virus by 44-60%.1
This discussion has been closed.
