Coronavirus

[trousers]

Had my 6th covid jab on Sunday. Anyone know what the world record is? 

[skintsaint]

2 hours ago, trousers said:

Had my 6th covid jab on Sunday. Anyone know what the world record is? 

Keep going...

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-04-03/man-in-germany-gets-90-covid-19-shots-to-sell-forged-passes

[Turkish]

7 hours ago, skintsaint said:

Keep going...

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-04-03/man-in-germany-gets-90-covid-19-shots-to-sell-forged-passes

Fake news. This is all a scam by the Germans to prove how safe the vaccine is. They think we are idiots.

[Turkish]

Interesting news coming from Pfizer 🤔

 

 

[Lighthouse]

What is it you think you have proof/evidence of there? Assuming this guy isn’t misquoting what he was told, the fact that they weren’t able to test how the vaccine affects transmissibility at the time of introduction isn’t really news. It was tested in laboratories and on volunteers for its effects on the virus and more importantly to ensure there were no significant negative side effects. You can’t test it for real world transmission because there are far too many variables in the real world; time and distance people spent in contact with each other, ventilation, number of people together, atmospheric conditions etc.

All they could really say was that based on the science it should reduce the rate of infection.

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

What is it you think you have proof/evidence of there? Assuming this guy isn’t misquoting what he was told, the fact that they weren’t able to test how the vaccine affects transmissibility at the time of introduction isn’t really news. It was tested in laboratories and on volunteers for its effects on the virus and more importantly to ensure there were no significant negative side effects. You can’t test it for real world transmission because there are far too many variables in the real world; time and distance people spent in contact with each other, ventilation, number of people together, atmospheric conditions etc.

All they could really say was that based on the science it should reduce the rate of infection.

Listen to it. The narrative was get a vaccine to protect others, if you don’t get one you’re selfish and you’ll kill your nan etc. turns out that there was never tested to stop transmission. 

[badgerx16]

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-tra-idUSKBN2AQ1A7

 

"A single dose of Pfizer and BioNtech’s COVID-19 vaccine cuts the number of asymptomatic infections and could significantly reduce the risk of transmission of the virus, results of a UK study found......."

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Listen to it. The narrative was get a vaccine to protect others, if you don’t get one you’re selfish and you’ll kill your nan etc. turns out that there was never tested to stop transmission. 

It looks like it wasn't tested because there was not time and that wasn't it's primary aim, it was rushed out to stop serious illness. That doesn't mean it doesn't reduce transmission, that was something they would find out over time.

It's nothing to piss your pants over.

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, aintforever said:

It looks like it wasn't tested because there was not time and that wasn't it's primary aim, it was rushed out to stop serious illness. That doesn't mean it doesn't reduce transmission, that was something they would find out over time.

It's nothing to piss your pants over.

BioNTech vaccine scientist says jab could halve Covid transmission | Coronavirus | The Guardian

That's not what was said here, just before it was released.

[aintforever]

9 minutes ago, Turkish said:

BioNTech vaccine scientist says jab could halve Covid transmission | Coronavirus | The Guardian

That's not what was said here, just before it was released.

That is saying exactly what I said, they never claimed to have tested for transmission or said it has been proven to reduce transmission. Just said it COULD do based on how other viruses behave.

“As a scientist and from extrapolation of what we have seen so far from other viruses, I would expect a high efficacy in preventing disease translates into at least some efficacy in preventing infection.

“I’m very confident that transmission between people will be reduced by such a highly effective vaccine – maybe not 90% but maybe 50%. But we should not forget that even that would result in a dramatic reduction of the pandemic spread.”

Şahin said the scientists would have a better understanding of the vaccine candidate’s impact in slowing transmission “in a few months” following further analysis of the antibody response in trial participants.

BioNTech has said previously that some crucial questions regarding the jab’s efficacy will only be answerable in the coming weeks and months. Establishing for certain whether it can also stop asymptomatic infections could take up to a year."

 

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

Listen to it. The narrative was get a vaccine to protect others, if you don’t get one you’re selfish and you’ll kill your nan etc. turns out that there was never tested to stop transmission. 

It wasn’t tested but it was very likely based on how viruses behave. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you’re less severely ill for a shorter period of time, you’re probably less likely to pass it around. There’s also the fact that lots of people are stupid and say stuff like, "I’m fit and healthy and trust my immune system," so don’t get vaccinated. The best way to connect with them might be to point out that they’re putting others, including elderly loved ones, at risk.

[badgerx16]

Vaccines almost certainly do not provide 100% prevention of onward transmission within the population. This is due to the fact that everybody's immune systems will respond to the virus and vaccine slightly differently. It was always the case, based on experience with previous vaccination programs that in a significant proportion of the population, vaccination would prevent transmission, in most others it would reduce it, and in a few, whilst preventing the infection from developing fully, would not impact transmissibility very much.

The best 'defence' was always to wear a mask.

Edited 12 October, 2022 by badgerx16

[Turkish]

38 minutes ago, aintforever said:

That is saying exactly what I said, they never claimed to have tested for transmission or said it has been proven to reduce transmission. Just said it COULD do based on how other viruses behave.

“As a scientist and from extrapolation of what we have seen so far from other viruses, I would expect a high efficacy in preventing disease translates into at least some efficacy in preventing infection.

“I’m very confident that transmission between people will be reduced by such a highly effective vaccine – maybe not 90% but maybe 50%. But we should not forget that even that would result in a dramatic reduction of the pandemic spread.”

Şahin said the scientists would have a better understanding of the vaccine candidate’s impact in slowing transmission “in a few months” following further analysis of the antibody response in trial participants.

BioNTech has said previously that some crucial questions regarding the jab’s efficacy will only be answerable in the coming weeks and months. Establishing for certain whether it can also stop asymptomatic infections could take up to a year."

 

Unsurpringly you’re missing the point, not for the first time, so let me spell it out to you

it appears it was claimed that the vaccine stopped transmission. We were told if you don’t have one you’ll kill your nan. Yet it appears the claim and guilty tripping was made before any testing had been done that confirmed if it did or didnt reduce transmission. 
 

clear now? 
 

as for your typical childish “don’t piss you pants” aintclever bingo comment I’m not pissing my pants about anything, merely raising a discussion point that is currently in the news. Sadly once again you don’t seem bright enough to comprehend when someone posts something that is opposed to your simplistic view of the world it doesn’t mean they’re automatically they’re upset about it.

[Turkish]

34 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

It wasn’t tested but it was very likely based on how viruses behave. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you’re less severely ill for a shorter period of time, you’re probably less likely to pass it around. There’s also the fact that lots of people are stupid and say stuff like, "I’m fit and healthy and trust my immune system," so don’t get vaccinated. The best way to connect with them might be to point out that they’re putting others, including elderly loved ones, at risk.

That’s was the claim wasn’t it.

It appears that was made before there was proof that was true..

[ecuk268]

My primary reason for getting vaccinated was to protect me.

[The Left Back]

It's a moot point as we're all going to be dead 2 years after the initial vaccine (which for me will be Feb next year). Where is Salmon Si these days?

On the topic, not sure there's anything new here.  Everyone knew the vaccine development process was shortened from 10 years to 10 months.  Something had to give, longitudinal studies being one, broad field studies being another.  Governments took decisions at the time.  Most appreciated that, some resented it and a few smelt the whiff of conspiracy.  

Seems to me it's a bit like complaining of the psychological harm done by the education program on how to respond to a nuclear attack in the 60/70s.  Just because there was no nuclear attack, doesn't mean we were all victims of mass manipulation at the time.

[Jimmy_D]

43 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Unsurpringly you’re missing the point, not for the first time, so let me spell it out to you

it appears it was claimed that the vaccine stopped transmission. We were told if you don’t have one you’ll kill your nan. Yet it appears the claim and guilty tripping was made before any testing had been done that confirmed if it did or didnt reduce transmission. 
 

clear now? 
 

as for your typical childish “don’t piss you pants” aintclever bingo comment I’m not pissing my pants about anything, merely raising a discussion point that is currently in the news. Sadly once again you don’t seem bright enough to comprehend when someone posts something that is opposed to your simplistic view of the world it doesn’t mean they’re automatically they’re upset about it.

If it prevents you getting it, that protects every other person you would have been in contact while ill. This was a tested effect. Contributing to herd immunity was one of the effects that’s saved thousands of lives.

[Turkish]

14 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

If it prevents you getting it, that protects every other person you would have been in contact while ill. This was a tested effect. Contributing to herd immunity was one of the effects that’s saved thousands of lives.

Does it prevent you getting it? I've had 3 vaccines and had it twice. My wife got it about a month after having the 3rd vaccine, she's also had it twice. I know loads of people of have had it since getting the vaccine. None of them have been seriously ill. A good friend of mine was seriously ill with it and nearly died before the vaccine, he also got it again after being vaccinated and was not seriously ill. No doubt it prevents against serious illness but im not convinced it prevents you getting it.

[buctootim]

19 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Does it prevent you getting it? I've had 3 vaccines and had it twice. My wife got it about a month after having the 3rd vaccine, she's also had it twice. I know loads of people of have had it since getting the vaccine. None of them have been seriously ill. A good friend of mine was seriously ill with it and nearly died before the vaccine, he also got it again after being vaccinated and was not seriously ill. No doubt it prevents against serious illness but im not convinced it prevents you getting it.

Dont think anyone, except maybe some over eager politicians, claimed vaccination stopped transmission. It was always about reducing transmission and reducing transmission rates inevitably did save some lives. If not your gran then somebody elses. 

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests-covid-vaccines-do-reduce-transmission-how-does-work?gclid=Cj0KCQjwy5maBhDdARIsAMxrkw2igHWGoJ98TwvT9UBTC8HpsbXt9fROxNZjV749kUXwVUsg7-J9jP8aAr-hEALw_wcB

 

[trousers]

37 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Does it prevent you getting it? I've had 3 vaccines and had it twice

Playing my devil's advocate card quite a lot today but.... how do you know you wouldn't have got it, say, 4 times instead of twice if you hadn't had some/any vaccine jabs? I don't think the vaccine was ever touted as reducing the chance of catching it to zero was it? In other words, maybe the vaccine was 50% effective in your case? (which is better than nothing, I'd have thought?)

Edited 12 October, 2022 by trousers

[Turkish]

36 minutes ago, trousers said:

Playing my devil's advocate card quite a lot today but.... how do you know you wouldn't have got it, say, 4 times instead of twice if you hadn't had some/any vaccine jabs? I don't think the vaccine was ever touted as reducing the chance of catching it to zero was it? In other words, maybe the vaccine was 50% effective in your case? (which is better than nothing, I'd have thought?)

that's not playing devils advocate that's asking someone to speculate on something it's impossible to answer. Why have some people who haven't had a vaccine not even had it once? Why have some people who've had 4 vaccines had it twice? Why did someone who hadn't had a vaccine have it but not even know they did. Why, why, why why....

[Jimmy_D]

14 minutes ago, Turkish said:

that's not playing devils advocate that's asking someone to speculate on something it's impossible to answer. Why have some people who haven't had a vaccine not even had it once? Why have some people who've had 4 vaccines had it twice? Why did someone who hadn't had a vaccine have it but not even know they did. Why, why, why why....

Because individual immune response varies? It’s not difficult.

You’re conflating anecdotal cases with the recorded large scale effect of vaccination reducing transmission, severity, and mortality.

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Because individual immune response varies among individuals? It’s not difficult.

You’re conflating anecdotal cases with the recorded large scale effect of vaccination reducing transmission, severity, and mortality.

so that answers Trousers devil advocate question then, why didn't you respond to him and not me? He asked the orginal question. 

Surely real life anecdotal cases are equally as important as large scale data which can be manipulated to suit certain agendas?

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Why have some people who haven't had a vaccine not even had it once?

Some people have natural immunity, some people are just lucky.

[Turkish]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Some people have natural immunity, some people are just lucky.

you're also responding to the wrong person, trousers asked the original question, not me.

[The Left Back]

12 minutes ago, Turkish said:

that's not playing devils advocate that's asking someone to speculate on something it's impossible to answer. Why have some people who haven't had a vaccine not even had it once? Why have some people who've had 4 vaccines had it twice? Why did someone who hadn't had a vaccine have it but not even know they did. Why, why, why why....

Time for you to re-read the laws of probability and swat up on standard deviation from the norm.  also a refresh on co-morbidity factors will be needed to answer your questions.  

PS - 3 jabs, one semi-mild dose of Covid - if you want to play that into your statistical analysis.

[Noodles34]

do people still test themselves when they have symptoms? I don't, what's the point? You can still go to work etc. so is there any point in knowing as everyone vulnerable should be vaccinated anyway. I think it's a bloody inconvenience when staff test themselves positive and then come in and say 'yeah, i've got it' which puts everyone else on edge. Whereby if they just came came in anyway, and did not know, everyone would just get on. We never tested ourselves for 'actual' flu previously, even though that can be just as harmful to some people. 

[badgerx16]

Just now, Turkish said:

you're also responding to the wrong person, trousers asked the original question, not me.

Strange, I am sure I quoted you asking a question.

[Turkish]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Strange, I am sure I quoted you asking a question.

my questions was a series of questions forming a response to trousers asking me to speculate on something it was impossible to answer. Keep up

[whelk]

2 hours ago, The Left Back said:

It's a moot point as we're all going to be dead 2 years after the initial vaccine (which for me will be Feb next year). Where is Salmon Si these days?

On the topic, not sure there's anything new here.  Everyone knew the vaccine development process was shortened from 10 years to 10 months.  Something had to give, longitudinal studies being one, broad field studies being another.  Governments took decisions at the time.  Most appreciated that, some resented it and a few smelt the whiff of conspiracy.  

Seems to me it's a bit like complaining of the psychological harm done by the education program on how to respond to a nuclear attack in the 60/70s.  Just because there was no nuclear attack, doesn't mean we were all victims of mass manipulation at the time.

I think SalmonSi was Kwasi Kwarteng all along

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, Noodles34 said:

do people still test themselves when they have symptoms? I don't, what's the point? You can still go to work etc. so is there any point in knowing as everyone vulnerable should be vaccinated anyway. I think it's a bloody inconvenience when staff test themselves positive and then come in and say 'yeah, i've got it' which puts everyone else on edge. Whereby if they just came came in anyway, and did not know, everyone would just get on. We never tested ourselves for 'actual' flu previously, even though that can be just as harmful to some people. 

Bit mental that wasn't it. You're not ill but you're testing yourself to prove you're not ill. 

[whelk]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

Bit mental that wasn't it. You're not ill but you're testing yourself to prove you're not ill. 

You seem to be struggling a bit this afternoon on very basic stuff

[Jimmy_D]

7 minutes ago, Turkish said:

so that answers Trousers devil advocate question then, why didn't you respond to him and not me? He asked the orginal question. 

Surely real life anecdotal cases are equally as important as large scale data which can be manipulated to suit certain agendas?

Trousers was asking a series of questions to try to get you to figure out for yourself that anecdotal cases aren’t anywhere near painting the whole picture. You obviously hadn’t got that so I was supporting his argument in a different way.

In short, no, anecdotal cases aren’t anywhere near being as important for the purposes of vaccination policy.For a start it’s countless anecdotal cases that are being used to create the large scale data.

To take the opposite extreme as an example, one person being vaccinated and not getting ill wouldn’t mean that the vaccine was proved to be effective.

[Turkish]

Just now, Jimmy_D said:

Trousers was asking a series of questions to try to get you to figure out for yourself that anecdotal cases aren’t anywhere near painting the whole picture. You obviously hadn’t got that so I was supporting his argument in a different way.

In short, no, anecdotal cases aren’t anywhere near being as important for the purposes of vaccination policy.For a start it’s countless anecdotal cases that are being used to create the large scale data.

To take the opposite extreme as an example, one person being vaccinated and not getting ill wouldn’t mean that the vaccine was proved to be effective.

No, he asked me how i know i wouldn't have had it more if if i hadn't had a vaccine, my response to that was it's impossible to say which it is. Also asking why some people have never had it, others have had more vaccines and had it more times. 

I'm obviously not talking about using anecdotal cases for countries policies FFS. I thought that would be obvious, poor old Karens great auty who had 3 vaccines went to hospital and caught it there. I'm talking about if people personally know 50, 60, 100 people who have had covid, that gives quite an interesting perspective, rather than relying soley on what you read in the media. 

[Turkish]

13 minutes ago, whelk said:

You seem to be struggling a bit this afternoon on very basic stuff

not really pal, just put a post out there to open a discussion up, unfortunately in this place when you do that and it's something the majority dont like they tend to jump up and down ignoring the topic and play the poster.

[Jimmy_D]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

No, he asked me how i know i wouldn't have had it more if if i hadn't had a vaccine, my response to that was it's impossible to say which it is. Also asking why some people have never had it, others have had more vaccines and had it more times. 

I'm obviously not talking about using anecdotal cases for countries policies FFS. I thought that would be obvious, poor old Karens great auty who had 3 vaccines went to hospital and caught it there. I'm talking about if people personally know 50, 60, 100 people who have had covid, that gives quite an interesting perspective, rather than relying soley on what you read in the media. 

So you’re trying to make some point, large scale peer reviewed studies don’t back that point up, and you’re looking for smaller data sets in the hope that they’ll back you up?

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

So you’re trying to make some point, large scale peer reviewed studies don’t back that point up, and you’re looking for smaller data sets in the hope that they’ll back you up?

what are you on about? You're making stuff up now.

[badgerx16]

 

[badgerx16]

This is a pre-Covid article:

https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/who-benefits-vaccination

[whelk]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

not really pal, just put a post out there to open a discussion up, unfortunately in this place when you do that and it's something the majority dont like they tend to jump up and down ignoring the topic and play the poster.

But surely you understood that testing could been precautionary so people could stay in isolation to avoid spreading the virus when wouldn’t necessarily know they had it?

[whelk]

On a separate note has anyone watched ThIs England?

[trousers]

Maybe I should refrain from posing rhetorical questions in future

[Turkish]

26 minutes ago, whelk said:

On a separate note has anyone watched ThIs England?

Yeah Stephen Graham is excellent in it 

[AlexLaw76]

36 minutes ago, trousers said:

Maybe I should refrain from posing rhetorical questions in future

😉

[scally]

 

[badgerx16]

You cannot have Global Conspiracy Hoax bollocks without Scally.

[aintforever]

7 hours ago, Turkish said:

Unsurpringly you’re missing the point, not for the first time, so let me spell it out to you

it appears it was claimed that the vaccine stopped transmission. We were told if you don’t have one you’ll kill your nan. Yet it appears the claim and guilty tripping was made before any testing had been done that confirmed if it did or didnt reduce transmission. 
 

clear now? 
 

as for your typical childish “don’t piss you pants” aintclever bingo comment I’m not pissing my pants about anything, merely raising a discussion point that is currently in the news. Sadly once again you don’t seem bright enough to comprehend when someone posts something that is opposed to your simplistic view of the world it doesn’t mean they’re automatically they’re upset about it.

But that article didn’t claim it stopped transmission, that’s the point you have missed. It said it COULD reduce transmission based on how previous viruses have behaved. It was crystal clear that they never claimed it had been tested or proven to stop transmission.

Politicians and the media have made all sorts of claims but from what I read from the science it was clear all along that the vaccines purpose was to stop serious illness and might help slow the spread.

[Lighthouse]

Evening Tiss, nice to have you back mush.

I do love the irony of the fact that the "project fear, population control, sheeple etc." brigade are the ones who seem to be terrified prisoners in their own mind. Most of the world had their jabs, moved on and went back to normal. I’ve barely thought about Covid since I caught it on a ski trip in January, something I’m looking forward to doing without restriction for the first time in three years, this winter.

[scally]

25 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

You cannot have Global Conspiracy Hoax bollocks without Scally.

Can you explain where the Global Conspiracy is in that video?

[buctootim]

 

1 hour ago, scally said:

 

 

So what? They knew it was safe. They knew it greatly reduced severity of illness and saved lives by reducing viral load. They knew that reducing viral load had in previous vaccines reduced transmission from person to person. There were very good grounds for an assumption that this one would also have preventative effects but there wasnt yet evidential proof.   

I dont know why you or this duffer think this is news. The link posted above to an article a year or so after the pandemic started made it clear that proof was building then.    

Edited 12 October, 2022 by buctootim