How many of you will trust Covid-19 vaccine with own lives?

How many of you will trust Covid-19 vaccine with own lives?   84 votes

  1. 1. How many of you will trust Covid-19 vaccine with own lives?

    • I will do it, this vaccine is made by doctors, and they know how is done and if is efficient.
      53
    • I will not do it, doctors got different opinions about side effects, for the moment they don't trust this vaccine, why should I do it?
      1
    • Vaccine? For Covid-19? GTFOOH! Doctors still learn the virus and you want to do a vaccine? Are you insane?
      1
    • They plan to force people to do the vaccine, in order to fly, otherwise you cannot fly or travel internationally without one.
      9
    • I am ok without one, I am still healthy, after 8-9 months of ''quarantine living'. With mask and disinfectants who needs a vaccine?
      2
    • I will do it, but in a year or so, first persons are ''lab rats'' testers. I don't trust them yet.
      16
    • I was already sick. No need for a vaccine for me.
      2

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

455 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, Jonny said:

 

So did the numbers go up ?

 

I have felt no need to investigate but you are most welcome to if you're interested.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel revoked license of an antivax doctor.

 

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/health-min-revokes-license-of-anti-vaccination-doctor-rapeh-party-head-659919

Quote

 

Explaining the decision to revoke Avni's license, Strashnov said that his articles published on websites, YouTube, Facebook and elsewhere against the public immunization of the coronavirus pose a danger to public health. 

 

"This goes far beyond what is reasonable and permissible in the context of freedom of expression, which is an important and protected value in any democratic society - and you have a clear prescription for the complete anarchy that the recipient is trying to cause, while boasting the title of doctor," Strashnov said.


 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, dessa_dangerous said:

I feel like it would help if they would talk in the media more about how the vaccine doesn't contain any of the virus (I'm not sure about the differences between the vaccines, do any of them contain the virus?),

That´s the main difference between the Biontech/Pfizer and Moderna vaccines on the one hand and the Astrazeneca and Russian vaccines on the other. The latter contain a modified virus (but not a corona-virus, but a harmless adenovirus) which is used to transport parts of  the coronavirus DNA  which is active ingredient, into your body´s cells. One problem with the Astrazeneca vaccine might be that the vector used is a virus endemic in chimpanzees and to some extent in humans as well. Therefore, parts of the African population already have anitibodies against that vector which decreases the odds the vaccine will work for them (as their immune system attacks the vector). However, this is a theoretical consideration, which hasn´t been tested yet (AFAIK).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jeba said:

That´s the main difference between the Biontech/Pfizer and Moderna vaccines on the one hand and the Astrazeneca and Russian vaccines on the other. The latter contain a modified virus (but not a corona-virus, but a harmless adenovirus) which is used to transport parts of  the coronavirus DNA  which is active ingredient, into your body´s cells. One problem with the Astrazeneca vaccine might be that the vector used is a virus endemic in chimpanzees and to some extent in humans as well. Therefore, parts of the African population already have anitibodies against that vector which decreases the odds the vaccine will work for them (as their immune system attacks the vector). However, this is a theoretical consideration, which hasn´t been tested yet (AFAIK).

 

Where did you get this from?  Sounds like absolute rubbish again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, bennetn said:

 

Where did you get this from?  Sounds like absolute rubbish again.

Sorry, but today I'm not inclined to answer postings for which the wrong tone was chosen. Feel free to do your own research.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jeba said:

Sorry, but today I'm not inclined to answer postings for which the wrong tone was chosen. Feel free to do your own research.

I did as I was shocked that could be posted as a fact, then went back to check to see if the OP could actually provide clearer substance to what seems like an almost racist propoganda.  No problem, you stay offended.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bennetn said:

I did as I was shocked that could be posted as a fact, then went back to check to see if the OP could actually provide clearer substance to what seems like an almost racist propoganda.  No problem, you stay offended.

He wanted to say that this vaccine does not work against South African strain. Actually, this can be the case with Pfizer/Moderna, too, but these are already working on the 3rd booster shot. Basically, mRNA vaccines are very easy to adjust to various mutations.

 

He thinks that Africans have different genes than Jermans. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I'm in a schoolyard and the local school bullies teamed up to beat up the nerdy kid because he says things the bullies have no idea about.

Things like scientific facts.

 

jeba is right, it is well-known that the AstraZeneca vaccine uses an Adeno chimpanzee virus delivery vector to get the important parts into our cells: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-how-do-viral-vector-vaccines-work

By the way, AstraZeneca then re-uses the same Adeno virus in the second jab, which is stupid, since by then even people who didn't have any immunity to it will for sure have gotten it through the 1st AstraZeneca jab, so the 2nd jab won't work that well, since our own immune system will by then stop the delivery vector.

At least Sputnik, the Russian vaccine, uses 2 different delivery vector viruses in jabs 1 and 2, so it probably has a better chance of actually delivering the payload of the 2nd jab.

Although Sputnik uses human Adeno viruses, so there may also already be immunity against them in the population, which admittedly is less likely with the chimpanzee virus of AstraZeneca.

 

It will be interesting to see what the Cuban "Sovereign 2" vaccine uses: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/world/americas/coronavirus-cuba-vaccine.html

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yourkeau said:

He wanted to say that this vaccine does not work against South African strain.

No, I wanted to say what I said. Namely, that the vector virus managed to "jump" from chimpanzees to humans (and as chimpanzees are slightly more often to be found in Africa than elsewhere, Africans are more at risk).  Irrespective of that your statement may also be correct.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, PandaMunich said:

By the way, AstraZeneca then re-uses the same Adeno virus in the second jab, which is stupid,

I heard they are talking to the Russians with the aim to combine forces and use the Russian vector for the second jab.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jeba said:

I heard they are talking to the Russians with the aim to combine forces and use the Russian vector for the second jab.

Brexit in an nutshell.

 

You dream about restoring the old Empire with London as its capital but end up being a Russian province.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel vaccination data is peer reviewed and now published in New England Journal of Medicine:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765


 

Quote

 

Each study group included 596,618 persons. Estimated vaccine effectiveness for the study outcomes at days 14 through 20 after the first dose and at 7 or more days after the second dose was as follows:

 

for documented infection, 46% and 92%

for symptomatic Covid-19, 57% and 94% 

for hospitalization, 74% and 87% 

and for severe disease, 62%  and 92%,

 

respectively. Estimated effectiveness in preventing death from Covid-19 was 72%  for days 14 through 20 after the first dose.

 

 

It"s Pfizer. There are also Moderna vaccines in the country, reportedly all taken by the army.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PandaMunich said:

By the way, AstraZeneca then re-uses the same Adeno virus in the second jab, which is stupid, since by then even people who didn't have any immunity to it will for sure have gotten it through the 1st AstraZeneca jab, so the 2nd jab won't work that well, since our own immune system will by then stop the delivery vector.

You sure have forgotten to provide a peer reviewed article to support this claim.

 

Here is what I found:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

 

This study compares efficacy of 2 standard doses vs 0.5 dose+1 standard dose. The second setup is indeed more effective. However they do not conclude that 1 dose is enough.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, yourkeau said:

You sure have forgotten to provide a peer reviewed article to support this claim.

 

Here is what I found:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

 

This study compares efficacy of 2 standard doses vs 0.5 dose+1 standard dose. The second setup is indeed more effective. However they do not conclude that 1 dose is enough.

In what way does that contradict what Panda stated? It doesn´t. You could even hypothetize (and very plausibly so) that it strengthens the argument that reapplication of the same vector is a bad idea since application of half the dose (which should be expected to provoke less of an immune response against the vector) seemed more efficacious (since the vector was attacked by the immune system less intensely).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2021, 1:51:12, jeba said:

In what way does that contradict what Panda stated? It doesn´t. You could even hypothetize (and very plausibly so) that it strengthens the argument that reapplication of the same vector is a bad idea since application of half the dose (which should be expected to provoke less of an immune response against the vector) seemed more efficacious (since the vector was attacked by the immune system less intensely).

My article neither confirms nor denies what Panda stated, this is the only thing I found. 

 

However, the official recommendation of the vaccine producer is 2 doses, not 1. I believe that vaccine producers know better how effective their vaccine is, and if you suggest something contrary you have to prove that. 

 

The Brexit bullshit about vaccinating 100% of the population with 1 dose only is not proven to be correct so far. Whoever orders this, does it on own risk. Maybe it will work, maybe not. 

 

Are you personally willing to take the risk? You are free to take 1 dose only. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, yourkeau said:

My article neither confirms nor denies what Panda stated, this is the only thing I found. 

However, the official recommendation of the vaccine producer is 2 doses, not 1. I believe that vaccine producers know better how effective their vaccine is, and if you suggest something contrary you have to prove that. 

The Brexit bullshit about vaccinating 100% of the population with 1 dose only is not proven to be correct so far. Whoever orders this, does it on own risk. Maybe it will work, maybe not. 

Are you personally willing to take the risk? You are free to take 1 dose only. 

 

Sorry, but this shows me that you did not understand at all what we were talking about.

 

We are saying that AstraZeneca should use 2 jabs, that was never in question.

However, the way they went about this, by re-using the same vector in both jabs, they all but ensured that it is a 1 jab vaccine, since not much of the 2nd jab's payload will in reality get through.

So - unless they change things and use a different 2nd jab vector - it is only a "pretend" 2 jab vaccine, de facto it is a one jab vaccine.

 

You apparently do not understand what jeba was alluding to with this:

On 25/02/2021, 12:51:12, jeba said:

You could even hypothetize (and very plausibly so) that it strengthens the argument that reapplication of the same vector is a bad idea since application of half the dose (which should be expected to provoke less of an immune response against the vector) seemed more efficacious (since the vector was attacked by the immune system less intensely).

 

Please read this: 

 

In summary, a mistake happened in the AstraZeneca trials, by mistake one group only got a "half-dose" 1st jab instead of a "full-dose" 1st jab as was intended.

And what happened then?

They found that that "mistake" group unexpectedly did better:

  • 1st jab: full dose + 2nd jab: full dose --> 62% effective in preventing COVID-19
  • 1st jab: half dose + 2nd jab: full dose --> 90% effective in preventing COVID-19

What jeba is now speculating (and I agree that it's a promising hypothesis) is that one of the reasons for this unexpected result, is that this "half-dose" mistake inadvertently "repaired" a bit of the in-built error of the AstraZeneca methodology of re-using the same vector from the 1st jab in the 2nd jab.

 

********************************************************************************************************************************

 

I will try to explain this in simple, graphic terms (anyone from the biological/medical field, please excuse this simplistic explanation, but I have the slight suspicion that yourkeau did not pay much attention in his biology lessons in school, not thinking them "important", I take him to be more a maths guy).

 

You can think of a vector vaccine as a "rocket", with a "payload" (= the important part, which will immunise us against Corona) attached to it, just like a rocket has explosives strapped to it.

The rocket is just meant to get the payload past our immune system (which you can think of as a wall with chinks, for non-native speakers: a wall with many holes), i.e. to deliver the payload through the "wall", to where it counts.

Our "wall" (= immune system) - when first encountering a specific type of "rocket" - learns how to stop that type of rocket.

Just like we only fall for a trick once, it's the same with our "wall" (immune system), once it has "learned" about this new type of rocket, it will not let it through again, since it will by then have posted guardians at the wall who recognise this as a rocket and will therefore shoot down any rockets of this type, should they ever appear again.

However, our wall also acts economically, if the first attack was made with just a few rockets, that attack will have been seen as less dangerous than an attack with many rockets, so our immune system will not post as many guardians against that type of rocket than it would do after a major attack with this type of rocket. 

 

So what did AstraZeneca do right?

They used a type of "rocket" (= vector) that is unknown to most human immune systems, a chimpanzee Adeno virus, so the first jab will mostly get through (some rockets will always get shot down, even by untutored guardians).

 

What did AstraZeneca do wrong?

They didn't stop to think that by the time the 2nd jab was given, our immune system would have posted many guardians to shoot down this specific "rocket" (this chimpanzee Adeno virus) and that therefore most of the payload of the 2nd attack would not get through.

The Russians did think of that, so in their Sputnik vaccine, they use a different type of rocket (= vector) in the 2nd attack (= jab) than the rocket type used in the 1st attack (= jab).

 

Where did AstraZeneca get lucky?

By mistake, in their tests, in one group they used a volley with only half as many "rockets" as usual for the 1st attack.

And this meant, that the walls in that "half force group" then did not post as many guardians as the walls that had experienced "full force" 1st attacks.

So when they did the 2nd attack with the same type of rocket in this "half force group", more from the 2nd attack got through the wall, than through the walls in the "full force" group, hence the 90% effectiveness in preventing COVID-19 in the "half force group", as compared to only 62% in the "full force group".

 

Summary:

We think this whole problem could have been avoided by using a different type of rocket (= vector) in the second attack (= jab), i.e. like the Russians do.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yourkeau said:

The Brexit bullshit about vaccinating 100% of the population with 1 dose only is not proven to be correct so far.

Even the Brits don´t suggest you should only get 1 dose. They´re  mereley delaying application of the second dose by 8 weeks to 12 (from 4). And that has meanwhile proven to be working.

 

3 hours ago, yourkeau said:

Are you personally willing to take the risk? You are free to take 1 dose only. 

As Panda rightly pointed out I never suggested to only take 1 dose. Even though 1 dose is already providing decent protection (around 90%). That´s true both for the Biontech as well as the AZ vaccine. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3789264

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this gets misunderstood again, the "around 90%" jeba mentions is just about preventing hospitalisation from COVID-19, it's not the percentage for preventing COVID-19 itself.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now