Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,118
Agreed there has been some evidence that Covid does affect organs other than the lungs, for example the bowel and it has also been witnessed that some people seemly recover from an infection only to get a second dose even in isolation.Good summary Paul.
The only addition I would make is that we must compare the risk of taking the vaccine with the risk of being infected with Covid.
It seems that the long-term risk of illness due to taking the vaccine is very small.
The risk of serious illness if you get Covid is fairly high - depending on your personal profile.
Brendan
But what happens if you need a "vaccine passport" to go on holidays or to go to a crowded concert or bar , maybe there will be bouncers not checking for age but for your Covid passport. I see RTE have suddenly switched to discussing the arrival of the vaccine, I wonder whyI'm not planning to be in the first wave of vaccine take up and should compulsion/mandatory vaccination come in (mooted as a possibility in the UK), I would regard that as a very negative development.
They have basically said nothing bad about the vaccine because they have no data themselves but they are still trying to spread doubt without any data.
I do have reservations about the speed at which this has been developed/tested.
But what happens if you need a "vaccine passport" to go on holidays or to go to a crowded concert or bar , maybe there will be bouncers not checking for age but for your Covid passport.
Very Monty Python. In Cork RTC in the 80s we were given 3 options but couldn't take the first 2.I don't think that the vaccine should be compulsory. But if someone chooses not to be vaccinated then they should not be allowed to go on a plane, go to a bar or any other crowded indoor space.
Brendan
Just to add to this, the vaccines will still have to get licences from all various Regulatory agencies globally, like all other vaccines that we now have.I don't think you need reservations on this aspect.
The companies halted most of the other research and threw everything at this. Which is why they have come up with some vaccines so quickly.
Likewise the approval process won't take shortcuts. But they have a team on standby to review this as soon as the application is submitted. It won't go to the back of a long queue of other drugs.
Brendan
The FDA and EMA , the UK regulator all have the data, and that is more important than the Lancet.The key issue is that data concerned has not yet been made public. So one cannot make assumptions either way.
The article expresses the same view held by reputable scientists worldwide, including our own - cautious optimism while prudently awaiting more substantial information, which was not contained in press releases but critical to evaluation of efficacy and to ongoing pandemic management.
All the answers are available in the public domain.@PM9999, you are probably right at present.
This article from The Lancet summarizes the position. The following is an extract:
“Unfortunately, the trials' results were announced via press releases, leaving many scientific uncertainties that will dictate how the vaccines will affect the course of the pandemic. Little safety data are available. How well the vaccines work in older people or those with underlying conditions and their efficacy in preventing severe disease are still unclear. Peer-reviewed publication should resolve these issues, but other questions will not be answerable for some time. For one, the duration of protection is unknown and will have a huge bearing on the practicalities and logistics of immunisation (will boosters be needed? How often?).
Whether the vaccines prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or mainly just protect against illness is largely unknown too. If the latter, achieving herd immunity through immunisation becomes a difficult prospect. Pfizer and Moderna together project that there will be enough vaccine for 35 million individuals in 2020, and perhaps up to 1 billion in 2021. As a result, many millions of people at high risk of disease will not be immunised any time soon, necessitating the continued use of non-pharmaceutical interventions. There is a danger that the public might become complacent following the news of promising vaccines, but how much more difficult will it be to ensure adherence to guidance and restrictions when a vaccine is available to many but others remain unprotected?”
OK I saw this too, and on further research the UK system needs to be updated as the pure volume of vaccination is going to dwarf anything that has gone before.I'm certainly no anti vaxxer generally, but I do have reservations about the speed at which this has been developed/tested. Some of the peripheral govt. activities have increased my concern, not least the immunity from prosecution granted by the U.S. for any adverse effects of administering the new Covid vaccine.
There was also a very interesting tender issued last month by the U.K. for software to monitor "adverse drug reactions" arising from the new vaccine. I quote:
"Strictly necessary — it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine. Therefore, if the MHRA does not implement the AI tool, it will be unable to process these ADRs effectively. This will hinder its ability to rapidly identify any potential safety issues with the Covid-19 vaccine and represents a direct threat to patient life and public health."
See https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:506291-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&tabId=1
I'm in my 60s, in reasonable health, and not hugely scared about the prospect of catching Covid 19. I'm not planning to be in the first wave of vaccine take up and should compulsion/mandatory vaccination come in (mooted as a possibility in the UK), I would regard that as a very negative development.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?