Jab for a Job...

[durhamplumber]

Ah, so you believe that covid is merely a different form of 'flu'?

Ahh.....Lal senses a "" Gotcha"" moment

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

So, now you think our NHS ought to try to provide health care to the whole world? Are you similarly generous with your income, giving all of it away to the worlds charities? If you don't do that it would be rather selfish of you.

Absurd arguments!
The UK's NHS would not be responsible for providing health care to the whole world.
Spreading my income around will hardly save many hundreds of thousands of lives.

Such resort to absurdity as yours indicated that you have no rational argument.

 

[ellal]

When, in your opinion, does 'experimental' become acceptable - 1000, 10,000, 1M, we are now at >15M jabs given. How much does anyone know about any of the jabs they give us - it is all way beyond my ability to understand and without doubt, yours too.

The average time to fully develop and test a vaccine is 10-12 years. So in simple terms...

This means that there is a reasonable time to correlate any side effects...

Now obviously a bit of time could be saved over the paperwork. Although of course some trading blocs might not accept third country data per se.

Which is the best one - opinions vary, so the best thing is to just accept what you are offered and with good grace?

So you believe in 'jab and hope'?

And whose opinion do you ultimately rely on?

I would suggest a parent who denies a proven vaccination or life saving treatment, is an unfit parent.

A key word there is 'proven'. Could you tell us which covid jab is 'proven', or indeed which cocktail of covid jabs is 'proven'?

As for a 'life saving treatment', then I would agree that for example the Jehovah witness nutters are unfit at the point where a child could be saved because of some of their beliefs...

But to suggest that a parent who objects to the largest clinical trial ever imposed on the human race is an unfit parent would be laughable...

If it were not for the jabidiots demanding that everyone blindly join in and not question the methodology !

 

[ajohn]

If it were not for the jabidiots demanding that everyone blindly join in and not question the methodology !

Your just one of those trolls I mentioned.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Absurd arguments!
The UK's NHS would not be responsible for providing health care to the whole world.
Spreading my income around will hardly save many hundreds of thousands of lives.

Such resort to absurdity as yours indicated that you have no rational argument.

That is exactly what you were suggesting, that rather than prioritising UK nationals - we should be spreading the vaccine (very thinly) around the entire world.

 

[JP_]

The average time to fully develop and test a vaccine is 10-12 years.

This has all been clearly explained by the scientific community already. The time is always down to funding, decision making, politics etc, not because it takes a long time to make a vaccine.

Think of it like building a house. Given a plot of land and a massive pile of cash, we could get together (wouldn't that be fun!) and build a house in a month. But in reality, that cannot happen, as we'd have to get designs drawn up, then we'd disagree over these, then when finally agree, put in for planning, and then that will do a few rounds because we decided to do something a bit radical, then we'll start the project, run out of money, some of us will get pulled onto other jobs, then building control will spot something we messed up on, then after another delay, we run out of money again, then somebody else joins the project and decides they want a glazed roof for more light ... etc. etc. and 3 years later we have a house, but even then, cannot decide who gets to live in it, so lawyers and government get involved, and we spend more money, and wait more time.

That's vaccine development.

Where there's a will (and infinite funding) there's a way.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

That is exactly what you were suggesting, that rather than prioritising UK nationals - we should be spreading the vaccine (very thinly) around the entire world.

It may be counter productive to immunise a small group of a population when the virus is still rampaging through the rest of the world.
It is considered a better strategy by WHO to spread the vaccine more thinly than to vaccinate a small group of people on one island.
For sure the vaccination of a small group of people will be popular with that small group of people. But if that strategy turns out to be counter productive, much will have been lost.
Once people realise that it is not the vaccine that will combat Covid, and it is the other measures that are successful, than the vaccine becomes less important in the overall fight in the pandemic, and more of a life saver for the vulnerable, and the health services in general.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

It may be counter productive to immunise a small group of a population when the virus is still rampaging through the rest of the world.
It is considered a better strategy by WHO to spread the vaccine more thinly than to vaccinate a small group of people on one island.
For sure the vaccination of a small group of people will be popular with that small group of people. But if that strategy turns out to be counter productive, much will have been lost.

It can work perfectly well, where that island is isolated from the rest of the world. Isolation of populations/countries is the main way of restricting the spread at the moment, as vaccines are gradually rolled out.

 

[ajohn]

Well, you sit on your thumb for those 10-12 years and just hope you do not get the covid - I wish you the best of luck with that.

I've no idea where the info he posted came from but there has been a number of vaccines that have seen very wide spread use a lot quicker than that. One of the major problems is what to use. Modern techniques can speed that up to weeks. Polio is an interesting one. There was a need but nothing like the need for a covid jab. Need pumps money on. A couple of factors cropped up with that one that relate to live virus vaccines. One that had an effect on more people was a paralysed arm. It was found to be due to 100,000 poorly produced doses from one manufacturer. Quality checks are a lot more thorough these days and this is probably why. The other was mix of strains in the vaccine. Proportions need to be correct. One strain was wiped out so the problem one was dropped. The other is really odd. Vaccinated people giving people polio. No problem for the vaccinated people but it was for others. Limited cases. Past that a few people per million doses as with all vaccines and probably relating to their immune system. Age can mean that they don't help at all as can what be loosely called the condition of people's bodies.

I wondered if a weakened live covid vaccine might crop up but that clearly would take time. That's what flu jabs are. Instead we get some thing that contains a protein that corresponds to part of the covid virus. In one case it's a genetically modified virus that is live and the other it isn't. It's just a method of providing the protein that is harder to distribute. In both cases the immune system recognises that the protein shouldn't be there and reacts - if it can. It might not in some. Time will tell. They know it produces suitable antibodies and that it has helped people and no adverse reactions that didn't clear up. The Pfizer only on some people as per some of the EU may prove the best option. Maybe I can give people AZ disease at the moment. I seem to have a runnier nose than usual. If I can it shouldn't cause them problems. It's nothing like a covid virus, just similar to it in one aspect. It's base virus is one that humans are exposed to.

There is also another problem that can make development take a long time. Pharma not seeing any profit in it so as per Ebola it's left to charity and they are still trying. We still get cases of SARS COV1 here but at negligible levels. That's the one "that never got here". It still kills a few in some places. They just keep an eye on it. It's also the reason why some countries were more prepared for SARS COV2.

So in short he is an antivax troll. As simple as that. We also seem to have a bit of an anti anything that is posted one as well at times.

 

[ajohn]

It may be counter productive to immunise a small group of a population when the virus is still rampaging through the rest of the world.
It is considered a better strategy by WHO to spread the vaccine more thinly than to vaccinate a small group of people on one island.

I'm sure you are intelligent enough to realise that supply limits how vaccine can be used most effectively. Spreading what is available would have negligible effects at a world wide level.

The WHO isn't saying that either as they are intelligent enough. They are pointing out that we may well need world wide high levels of vaccination. That can not be done unless supplies allow it.

The other problem is -20C and -60C. True wide spread use of that really would take some sorting out. Those might turn out to be the most effective. The virus based ones are more intended for very wide spread use as they require normal procedures that are already used all over the place. AZ are not the only ones.

There is also a body of people that place enormous orders for pharma in general for third world use. Are they expected to leap in, pick one and buy loads of it. The countries that are vaccinating are test beds really. Hence comments from Boris the more types they use the better. It doesn't take much imagination to realise that we have created a bit of a hole in that area.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

The WHO isn't saying that either as they are intelligent enough.

That's exactly what they are saying:

In the COVID-19 vaccine race, we either win together or lose together
Of the 128 million vaccine doses administered so far, more than three quarters of those vaccinations are in just 10 countries that account for 60% of global GDP.
As of today, almost 130 countries, with 2.5 billion people, are yet to administer a single dose.​

This self-defeating strategy will cost lives and livelihoods, give the virus further opportunity to mutate and evade vaccines and will undermine a global economic recovery.
https://www.who.int/news/item/10-02...-race-we-either-win-together-or-lose-together​

They go on to explain that UK's strategy is not just erroneous, it's flat wrong.

Health workers have been on the frontlines of the pandemic in lower- and middle-income settings and should be protected first so they can protect us.​

They are pointing out that we may well need world wide high levels of vaccination. That can not be done unless supplies allow it.

Well that's so obvious that it's superfluous.

 

[Diver Fred]

That is exactly what you were suggesting, that rather than prioritising UK nationals - we should be spreading the vaccine (very thinly) around the entire world.

Exactly what I was going to post.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

It can work perfectly well, where that island is isolated from the rest of the world. Isolation of populations/countries is the main way of restricting the spread at the moment, as vaccines are gradually rolled out.

I don't disagree with that, in theory.
I think it's such a great pity that more nations didn't adopt the Australasian models this time last year.
But in practice you cannot stop international travel to and from an island that imports such a large quantity of essential supplies, and depends on such international commerce for the vast majority of its income.

 

[Diver Fred]

I see that in Israel many places remain shut to people who cannot prove they have the vaccine.

 

[ellal]

I see that in Israel many places remain shut to people who cannot prove they have the vaccine.

Jabidiots believe in apartheid