Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[SlipperyP]

8 hours ago, Thereisalight.. said:

True, but they were wearing masks and covid was still running wild. 

Deaths in the continent sit at 142,000.  remembering this was the first place the virus was spreading with no preparation time, unlike Europe or the Americas.  I think we have done not bad. People were told to wear mask very early, no fuss we just done it. 

[Tight minge]

I think most folk in Asian cities have been wearing  masks for years due to pollution and smog rather than in anticipation of pandemics

Wouldn’t say it is anywhere near ‘most’ but it is common and acceptable practice to wear a face mask in certain scenarios, eg: pollution, driving as well as having a flu/virus.

It really is just not a big deal to wear a mask here.

[hk blues]

9 hours ago, Thereisalight.. said:

True, but they were wearing masks and covid was still running wild. 

Not all Asian countries had a mask wearing culture before Covid, and certainly even those that did  didn't have a majority wear them as a habit.  The difference is they were able to adopt the habit quickly once Covid struck.  Where I am the adoption rate went from probably less than 5% to more like 95%+ almost overnight. 

[Jacksgranda]

11 hours ago, Snafu said:

Having a watch of this just now.

 

Basically nobody knows a f***.

[vikingTON]

10 hours ago, Beans on Toast said:

I don't know and to be honest that's the point. Obviously its unlikely to be anything like Thalidomide, but when I am in the low risk group for Covid, is it worth risking taking a vaccine which has not been proven to be safe long term?

What vaccines have been proven to be unsafe in the long term? 

Quote

To clarify, I'm not some mad anti-vaxer, but I would worry about the longer term impacts of a drug which has been rushed to market.

A vaccine is not a drug. The only thing it is supposed to do is develop your own body's immune response to a specific bacteria/virus: we know how to do this and have known that it is a fundamentally safe technology to use for the best part of 200 years already. 

[Beans on Toast]

36 minutes ago, virginton said:

What vaccines have been proven to be unsafe in the long term? 

A vaccine is not a drug. The only thing it is supposed to do is develop your own body's immune response to a specific bacteria/virus: we know how to do this and have known that it is a fundamentally safe technology to use for the best part of 200 years already. 

On your first point, I believe there's a fair few. RotaShield's rotavirus for example. The majority of "unsafe" vaccines are ones with relatively minor side effects, I don't expect a Covid vaccine to kill me or make my arm fall off. But as I said, if Covid is unlikely to have much impact on me personally is it worth the risk? If you're in a high risk category you may feel this risk is small and Covid presents a much larger risk. In that case you'd be happy to take the likely safe vaccine.

Your second point is correct. We do know how to do this. There are likely thousands of very clever people working on this right now. But that doesn't mean a vaccine that has not been trailled and tested in the same way as we have for every other vaccine for the last 50odd years should be treated the same as getting a flu jab.

[welshbairn]

18 minutes ago, Beans on Toast said:

On your first point, I believe there's a fair few. RotaShield's rotavirus for example. The majority of "unsafe" vaccines are ones with relatively minor side effects, I don't expect a Covid vaccine to kill me or make my arm fall off. But as I said, if Covid is unlikely to have much impact on me personally is it worth the risk? If you're in a high risk category you may feel this risk is small and Covid presents a much larger risk. In that case you'd be happy to take the likely safe vaccine.

Your second point is correct. We do know how to do this. There are likely thousands of very clever people working on this right now. But that doesn't mean a vaccine that has not been trailled and tested in the same way as we have for every other vaccine for the last 50odd years should be treated the same as getting a flu jab.

The only way to kill off the virus with herd immunity is for a large percentage of people to take the vaccine, including those at low risk. It's the only way to get back to normal. New technology has massively speeded up the process of developing and testing vaccines, they aren't cutting any corners. If they were, as it seems they are in Russia and Trump wants, I wouldn't trust it either.

Edited September 1, 2020 by welshbairn

[Steven W]

16 minutes ago, Beans on Toast said:

On your first point, I believe there's a fair few. RotaShield's rotavirus for example. The majority of "unsafe" vaccines are ones with relatively minor side effects, I don't expect a Covid vaccine to kill me or make my arm fall off. But as I said, if Covid is unlikely to have much impact on me personally is it worth the risk? If you're in a high risk category you may feel this risk is small and Covid presents a much larger risk. In that case you'd be happy to take the likely safe vaccine.

Your second point is correct. We do know how to do this. There are likely thousands of very clever people working on this right now. But that doesn't mean a vaccine that has not been trailled and tested in the same way as we have for every other vaccine for the last 50odd years should be treated the same as getting a flu jab.

For a vaccine to be effective, does it not take a signiciant percentage  (over 80% i seem to recall) of the population to take it?) So if you, and thousands like you don't take it, then we're all stuffed.

Cheers.

[vikingTON]

19 minutes ago, Beans on Toast said:

On your first point, I believe there's a fair few. RotaShield's rotavirus for example. The majority of "unsafe" vaccines are ones with relatively minor side effects, I don't expect a Covid vaccine to kill me or make my arm fall off. But as I said, if Covid is unlikely to have much impact on me personally is it worth the risk? If you're in a high risk category you may feel this risk is small and Covid presents a much larger risk. In that case you'd be happy to take the likely safe vaccine.

Your second point is correct. We do know how to do this. There are likely thousands of very clever people working on this right now. But that doesn't mean a vaccine that has not been trailled and tested in the same way as we have for every other vaccine for the last 50odd years should be treated the same as getting a flu jab.

In what way is it not being 'trialled and tested' like every other vaccine? This isn't the Russian military effort we're talking about here: those that are being produced in Western countries are ultimately subject to the same phased trial conditions as any other medical treatments. Now we are speeding up that process by moving to the human trials while the results of the previous phases are still being crunched but that only affects the safety of those who have volunteered for the Phase 3 trial.

You keep talking about long-term risks as if we normally produce vaccines, run the trials and then sit around for years to see if there are any long-term effects before using them. In reality, once a vaccine passes the Phase 3 trial it goes on the market just like any other treatment. It doesn't matter whether it takes research groups six months or six years to get to that point, the level of safety assurance is exactly the same.

No rational person should be looking at the infinitesimally small risk of a vaccine produced following this procedure and going 'nah I'll take my chances alongside those of the rest of my community thanks'. It is simply a failure to handle small probabilities in the exact same way as you would large ones.

Edited September 1, 2020 by vikingTON

[ICTChris]

31 minutes ago, Beans on Toast said:

On your first point, I believe there's a fair few. RotaShield's rotavirus for example. The majority of "unsafe" vaccines are ones with relatively minor side effects, I don't expect a Covid vaccine to kill me or make my arm fall off. But as I said, if Covid is unlikely to have much impact on me personally is it worth the risk? If you're in a high risk category you may feel this risk is small and Covid presents a much larger risk. In that case you'd be happy to take the likely safe vaccine.

Your second point is correct. We do know how to do this. There are likely thousands of very clever people working on this right now. But that doesn't mean a vaccine that has not been trailled and tested in the same way as we have for every other vaccine for the last 50odd years should be treated the same as getting a flu jab.

As others have explained, herd immunity through vaccines require people who think they are at a low risk to get the vaccine.  If you are at low risk from Covid you are at even lower risk from a Covid vaccine.

[Michael W]

Surely the main risk of the vaccine as it stands is that it might not work? 

The quality assurance processes to determine the safety of it aren't going to be bypassed. 

[welshbairn]

14 minutes ago, Michael W said:

Surely the main risk of the vaccine as it stands is that it might not work? 

The quality assurance processes to determine the safety of it aren't going to be bypassed. 

The phase 3 trials should determine if it works, it's for how long that we won't know for a while.

[Todd_is_God]

On the assumption that the least trustworthy government in a long time are able to convince the vast majority that they should take the vaccine, the biggest potential drawback with it will be how long it lasts. The flu vaccine is only really effective for about 6 months, and is only offered to those most at risk.

Assuming a similar period of effectiveness, and that covid-19 doesn't go away, vaccinating the entire population (not just the at risk group) every 6 months is a surely impossible task?

Even doubling the effectiveness period to 12 months means youd be vaccinating the equivalent of the population of Scotland every month. Indefinitely.

I think a lot of people when they talk about a vaccine are thinking of it as a one time deal (like the vaccines they have maybe had in the past), rather than something that will need to be done again and again.

I don't know what the capacity for administering vaccines in Scotland is, but, say it was 20,000 per day. That would take 9 months to get round everyone, during which period restrictions would assumedly need to remain in place.

I can't see any appetite for restrictions being in place for anything like 9 months from now, never mind 9 months from an unknown point in the future.

[Todd_is_God]

2 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

It'll just end up being something offered to vulnerable groups like flu is now.

I think so too. Which makes any arguments about whether or not @Beans on Toast is being daft to not see it as a risk worth taking moot.

[Beans on Toast]

I won't reply to everyone who quoted me, but thanks for the replies.

I'm not an expert in this, or any, field and appreciate the majority of responses that provided reasonable points as to why any vaccine that makes it to market will be safe and why it should be taken.

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, Snafu said:

The difference here is that COVID-19 is still with us and could for years. Immune systems have memory.

Yes.

But the point was that if the immunity period only lasted 12 months then it would need vaccinated again.

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Yes.

But the point was that if the immunity period only lasted 12 months then it would need vaccinated again.

It will probably get bundled in with the flu vaccine eventually.

[welshbairn]

47 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

It'll just end up being something offered to vulnerable groups like flu is now.

15 million doses were taken up in England last year, out of 25 million available. 30 million have been ordered this year. If you don't qualify for a free one I think it costs about a tenner. The logistical problems are being overstated, once production capacity is sorted.

Edited September 1, 2020 by welshbairn

[Todd_is_God]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

15 million doses were taken up in England last year, out of 25 million available. 30 million have been ordered this year. If you don't qualify for a free one I think it costs about a tenner. The logistical problems are being overstated, once production capacity is sorted.

No they aren't.

Given the vaccine doesn't work immediately, the same precautions about distancing, cleaning down rooms in between shots etc would need to be taken. That reduces capacity.

The 15 million doses you reference were taken up over a period of 4 months. You'd need to more than triple the number of doses given out to get round everyone, with less capacity per day.

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

No they aren't.

Given the vaccine doesn't work immediately, the same precautions about distancing, cleaning down rooms in between shots etc would need to be taken. That reduces capacity.

The 15 million doses you reference were taken up over a period of 4 months. You'd need to more than triple the number of doses given out to get round everyone, with less capacity per day.

They could do it kerbside like testing. It's just a jab, not an intravenous injection. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by welshbairn