Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


villakram

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I expect the Oxford vaccine will pretty quickly get approved anyway and that will be available alongside Pfizer until that runs out.

Yes, I actually think they are just waiting for that for the care homes in all honesty. Saves the headache of the deliveries, just chuck a few in a cool box and off they go. 

Problem is it's not as good so not sure how that will play out in care homes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

Yes, I actually think they are just waiting for that for the care homes in all honesty. Saves the headache of the deliveries, just chuck a few in a cool box and off they go. 

Problem is it's not as good so not sure how that will play out in care homes. 

It's up to 90% effective ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was bound to happen at some point, I'm just surprised it took 9 months. Test and Trace have just been in touch over a driver because he took someone to get test who was positive

9 months! The second largest Private Hire firm in the country in terms of bookings accepted...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

I would treat all claims about the effectiveness of the Oxford/AstraZeneca effort with great skepticism until they produce more robust research TBH.

You have shares in Pfizer?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I would treat all claims about the effectiveness of the Oxford/AstraZeneca effort with great skepticism until they produce more robust research TBH.

I dunno about great scepticism. Just the same as any other.

The 'accidental half dose' was clearly an idiot exec in Astrazeneca wanting to make a sensational story when the reality was it was part of the standard testing.

It's just another attenuated virus vaccine. Bog standard. If it gets approved by the MHRA that's good enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worth a watch:

Some very reasoned, apparently sensible stuff here, I thought.

Especially important was when he pointed out about the emergency use approval by the UK for the Pfizer vaccine and that this wasn't simply a case of splitting hairs but had a lot of specific conditions attached to it.

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused (again). Why exactly does everyone need a vaccine? We don't all have a flu jab, just the people who are susceptible.

I see the argument to "protect others" but surely if you're vaccinating in priority order, they no longer need that same protection.

So once the people who are elderly, sick or have high risk factors have been vaccinated aren't you covered and you can go for the much talked about herd immunity in everyone else? A large amount of which will be asymptomatic anyway.

If this is the case, you're back to 'normal' in a fraction of the time. Why do kids need vaccinating after granny has already been?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

I'm confused (again). Why exactly does everyone need a vaccine? We don't all have a flu jab, just the people who are susceptible.

I see the argument to "protect others" but surely if you're vaccinating in priority order, they no longer need that same protection.

So once the people who are elderly, sick or have high risk factors have been vaccinated aren't you covered and you can go for the much talked about herd immunity in everyone else? A large amount of which will be asymptomatic anyway.

If this is the case, you're back to 'normal' in a fraction of the time. Why do kids need vaccinating after granny has already been?

Vaccinating the 9 categories currently on the priority list is going to take most of next year unless the Oxford Vaccine gets approval and the Oxford Vaccine is rather troubled at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

I'm confused (again). Why exactly does everyone need a vaccine? We don't all have a flu jab, just the people who are susceptible.

I see the argument to "protect others" but surely if you're vaccinating in priority order, they no longer need that same protection.

So once the people who are elderly, sick or have high risk factors have been vaccinated aren't you covered and you can go for the much talked about herd immunity in everyone else? A large amount of which will be asymptomatic anyway.

If this is the case, you're back to 'normal' in a fraction of the time. Why do kids need vaccinating after granny has already been?

There will still be thousands out there who have unknown health conditions. Some people still just get very ill anyway, even young fit people, and many many people who were not in those categories and didn't get particularly ill at the time are now finding themselves trying to live with quite serious "long covid" conditions which will affect them and probably drain the NHS for years to come. 

People really really have to get away from thinking this is just a slightly worse flu. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, limpid said:

Why, who said that?

Maybe that's my confusion! But then based on the two other responses to my post - they are saying everyone should have it.

The talk in the media is that there is a hierarchy and eventually everyone should have it basically. "Will you take the vaccine?" is being asked of mid 20s celebrities. They're being asked if they'd happily give it to their kids too.

So are we thinking everyone should have it or not?

Edited by jackbauer24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

Maybe that's my confusion! But then based on the two other responses to my post - they are saying everyone should have it.

The talk in the media is that there is a hierarchy and eventually everyone should have it basically. "Will you take the vaccine?" is being asked of mid 20s celebrities. They're being asked if they'd happily give it to their kids too.

So are we thinking everyone should have it or not?

Should the question be the other way around?

If there is a vaccine freely available that appears safe and effective, and there is a virus that has a remote chance of harming the apparently young and healthy, what reason would there be not to have the vaccine?

My car has airbags and crumple zones and radar emergency braking, and I’m a good driver and do very few miles, should I wear a seatbelt?

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

Maybe that's my confusion! But then based on the two other responses to my post - they are saying everyone should have it.

The talk in the media is that there is a hierarchy and eventually everyone should have it basically. "Will you take the vaccine?" is being asked of mid 20s celebrities. They're being asked if they'd happily give it to their kids too.

So are we thinking everyone should have it or not?

I know what you mean, not literally 'everyone' but there does seem to be a worry for a lot of people that it's going to take ages before they get their vaccine and things aren't going to be back to normal for another year or longer.  I asked the same question about a week ago, I'm not sure at which stage of the vaccination process it will be before you can have enough at-risk people protected to let the virus just spread among the rest of the population like any other virus and I haven't heard anything official about it.  Obviously there are cases where even among healthy people of getting it badly, so there may still be a cautious and gradual relaxation of the lockdown and young people should be getting the vaccine to make sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â