Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
L'oiseau français

Covid-19 #30: Vaccines and All That JJAZ

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, williamjm said:

That does seem like the right sort of thing to weigh up. I understand that it's always better to have more data but based on what we do know it seems the a Pfizer vaccination should be the safer option. I suspect AstraZeneca probably won't even be suggested for children unless they can figure out what's causing the blood clots in some adults.

Right - I'm in the US so almost certainly my kids are getting Pfizer.

Share this post


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

It is, but 100 cases per week in just the UK is still nasty for a syndrome that causes organ failure: https://www.dw.com/en/covid-more-cases-of-postviral-syndrome-in-uk-children/a-56523410

Meanwhile, as other users stated above, there are no drastic side effects that may result in death for Pfizer...

Well it says ‘up to’ 100 cases per week. It’s still 1 in 5000 cases has anything like this, so it is very rare.

Just to reiterate that the case fatality rate for the under 17’s is 0.002%. 
 

Without sounding like a crazy anti vaxxer, this vaccines are new, pfizer uses new technology, we really don’t know what the long term effects are yet. Mostly likely it’s totally fine, but there might not be. Which is why I wouldn’t be angry at anyone saying they won’t vaccinate their children. 
 

We also don’t need to vaccinate everyone to achieve herd immunity, that’s the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

We also don’t need to vaccinate everyone to achieve herd immunity, that’s the point. 

Could you define herd immunity in the case of a novel virus that is extremely infectious? How does that compare to measles or small pox? What percent of the population with a vaccine is "herd immunity"? What does that mean for those who are immunocompromised?

What are the long term dangers of the disease itself? If we're worried about the vaccine, which has mild and rare side effects, then we should worry about the side effects of the deadly virus that we've seen terrible long term effects already.

These are all real questions that you shut down with "herd immunity" as a response that seems lacking in justification and common sense.

Edited by Week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Week said:

Could you define herd immunity in the case of a novel virus that is extremely infectious? How does that compare to measles or small pox? What percent of the population with a vaccine is "herd immunity"? What does that mean for those who are immunocompromised?

What are the long term dangers of the disease itself? If we're worried about the vaccine, which has mild and rare side effects, then we should worry about the side effects of the deadly virus that we've seen terrible long term effects already.

What is your question? How much of the population needs to be immune to the virus to stop it spreading exponentially? That number is probably around 70ish% but it’s debatable at the moment  
 

What percentage of the population are immunocompromised and are we currently able to stop them getting all other diseases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

What is your question? How much of the population needs to be immune to the virus to stop it spreading exponentially? That number is probably around 70ish% but it’s debatable at the moment  
 

What percentage of the population are immunocompromised and are we currently able to stop them getting all other diseases?

Please show your work. You made an assertion to push back against people advocating for continued vaccinations. I have no idea why, clearly vaccinations are the only way out of the pandemic and we're pretty far from daylight worldwide. 

It's debatable because we don't know. How many deaths will still occur at your *pull out of hat* 70%? Why is that justified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Week said:

Please show your work. You made an assertion to push back against people advocating for continued vaccinations. I have no idea why, clearly vaccinations are the only way out of the pandemic and we're pretty far from daylight worldwide. 

It's debatable because we don't know. How many deaths will still occur at your *pull out of hat* 70%? Why is that justified?

Eh? I said if people didn’t want to vaccinate their kids then I wouldn’t be too upset at them. 
 

If we achieve herd immunity.. do you understand what that means? It means the disease won’t spread. 
 

Also.. the vulnerable would have been vaccinated by then ( they already have in the UK)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in most countries the under-16 crowd is about 20% of the population, and with vaccine skeptics being 10% or more of the adult population, herd immunity is not likely to be achieved, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If we achieve herd immunity.. do you understand what that means? It means the disease won’t spread. 

 

Also.. the vulnerable would have been vaccinated by then ( they already have in the UK)

Show your work. These assertions are very serious and lack any credibility. That is not what herd immunity means. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html

You are confidently declaring that we'll hit a certain threshold that we A) don't know what it is B.) is hampered by vaccine take-up in rich countries C) Vaccine availability in poor countries D) potential variants that erode efficacy of existing vaccines.

Edited by Week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JoannaL said:

But children are children and should be protected at all costs and while you can ask an adult who is 20 and will likely not die of Covid to get vaccinated for the greater good and to accept the risk, you can not ask this of children. In my opinion it is only right to vaccinate them if their personal risk of covid is higher than their risk of vaccination. this is likely the case and so it is likely right to vaccinate. I only would really feel better if this was not only likely so but scientifically proven.

That's all understandable.  We will know more at least by Aug/Sept.  But yes, there will still be some uncertainty.  Ultimately, its impossible to calculate the probablility of some very unusual side-effect emerging in a year or two (I mean, you know its very low but how low is low?).

Even with the AZ/J&J issue.  I know what the Maths say and while I would be happy for my sister to get either, it would be hard to take personal responsibility for somebody else taking the vaccine.  My biggest worry around this issue, is how the virus could continue to be circulating amongst kids, and possibly jumping from them to their older relatives (or anyone really), who, while vaccinated, may be the 1 in 20 who still get COVID.  (And there are other risks too, which other people have mentioned).

Anyhow, iIn random news, Pfizer in the US is starting to export vaccines to Mexico and Canada.  That must be a sign that the US has moved past its peak, with Pfizer and Moderna all ramped up.  And Emergent still has 115m doses of J&J that it isn't doing anything with right now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...