UK NHS likely to roll out CoViD 19 vaccine as early as Dec 7.

[Franco Vazquez]

Vaccine so far has been a bigger flop than Prithvi Shaw. The cases are rising rather than falling

[BacktoCricaddict]

13 hours ago, Franco Vazquez said:

Vaccine so far has been a bigger flop than Prithvi Shaw. The cases are rising rather than falling

 

Let's see:

 

Population 7 billion.  

Number vaccinated 6 million.

 

Put another way, if there are 7000 people in the world, 6 of them (less than 0.1%) have been vaccinated.  99.9% of the population is unvaccinated. 

 

Unless cases are on the rise in those 6 people, you cannot say that the vaccine is a flop.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

 

19 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Immunity explained..

 

 

 

 

6 million are vaccinated.  Where are the stories on the others who have not contracted the virus.

 

Two points:

 

(1) 95% efficacy.  If all 6 million vaccinated people are exposed to the virus, 300,000 people among them may still be infected.  

 

(2) Bigger point:  It's been less than 2 weeks that vaccines are being administered in the US.  If someone is exposed within a short period after the vaccine, unfortunately, their antibodies are not ready yet.  Wish journos and twitterers would understand that before spouting off.  

 

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

18 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

 

Studies have not been done but "experts" think you're likely gonna be okay anyway.  Big Pharma stooges will tell you to just shut up and "tRuSt tHe sCiEnCE". Absolute clown world we're living in.

 

Doing medicine is never a yes/no proposition.  It is always a risk/benefit analysis with multiple factors involved and thus difficult decisions for providers.

 

Pregnant women are more susceptible to severe illness if infected by Covid 19.  So, if they are in a high risk population (e.g., doctors, nurses, teachers, daycare providers, other essential workers), it may be prudent for them to consider a vaccine rather than risk being infected by CoViD.  If they are able to physically distance and keep their risk level low (e.g., IT workers who can work from home), then they may not want to take the vaccine.  

 

It would have been near impossible to get enough pregnant volunteers during the clinical trials and then seeing how many of them get infected.  As described in the link below, there are preliminary studies that indicated that it is as safe for pregnant women as it is for others. 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/pregnancy.html

 

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Doing medicine is never a yes/no proposition.  It is always a risk/benefit analysis with multiple factors involved and thus difficult decisions for providers.

 

Pregnant women are more susceptible to severe illness if infected by Covid 19.  So, if they are in a high risk population (e.g., doctors, nurses, teachers, daycare providers, other essential workers), it may be prudent for them to consider a vaccine rather than risk being infected by CoViD.  If they are able to physically distance and keep their risk level low (e.g., IT workers who can work from home), then they may not want to take the vaccine.  

 

It would have been near impossible to get enough pregnant volunteers during the clinical trials and then seeing how many of them get infected.  As described in the link below, there are preliminary studies that indicated that it is as safe for pregnant women as it is for others. 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/pregnancy.html

 

 

 

 

"However, the actual risks of mRNA vaccines to the pregnant person and her fetus are unknown because these vaccines have not been studied in pregnant women."

 

From the horse's mouth.

[coffee_rules]

20 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

 

"However, the actual risks of mRNA vaccines to the pregnant person and her fetus are unknown because these vaccines have not been studied in pregnant women."

 

From the horse's mouth.

 

 The thought that pregnant women will voluntarily subject themselves to a clinical trial and put their unborn babies at risk for their entire lives, itself is a scary thought. Maybe the should not recommend the vaccination to pregnant women altogether. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

4 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

 The thought that pregnant women will voluntarily subject themselves to a clinical trial and put their unborn babies at risk for their entire lives, itself is a scary thought. Maybe the should not recommend the vaccination to pregnant women altogether. 

Adhanne heLde naanu ("It would have been near impossible to get enough pregnant volunteers during the clinical trials and then seeing how many of them get infected.").  No one was expecting pregnant women to undergo a clinical trial.  Now the trials are done and the vaccines have been found to be safe and effective in all the other populations, including high-risk ones.  

 

Again, medical science is not a yes/no proposition.  Put yourself in the shoes of an ER nurse or ICU doctor who may be pregnant.  Ideally, she should not be working at all, but she may not be able to stay home because all the idiots out there who are refusing to follow guidelines.

 

This nurse or doctor's risk of getting CoViD is much higher than any other pregnant woman.  What is proven is that pregnant women have a higher risk of severe illness if infected.  Now she has put herself and her baby at much higher risk.  So, what do you do, considering clinical trials have not been done on pregnant women with these particular vaccines?  You rely on the best data available at this time - results from other preliminary studies and present the option to her.  It is a very, very difficult decision, but based on what we know, the vaccine option is a much lower risk than getting CoViD.  Would you be willing to let this woman risk getting CoViD and put her baby at risk because of that?  

 

The risk situation changes in the case of other pregnant women who can physically distance and take steps to avoid being infected.  There is no reason to vaccinate them.  There is not a one-size-fits-all approach.  

 

Here's a detailed article that explains this better than I can. It also includes references to data that show increased risk of severe CoViD-related symptoms in pregnant women:

 

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/covid-19-vaccine-and-pregnancy-safety-and-expert-recommendations/

 

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

4 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

 

"However, the actual risks of mRNA vaccines to the pregnant person and her fetus are unknown because these vaccines have not been studied in pregnant women."

 

From the horse's mouth.

True. Same horse also said this:

 

Quote

Pregnant people are at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19

Observational data demonstrate that, while the chances for these severe health effects are low, pregnant people with COVID-19 have an increased risk of severe illness, including illness that results in ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and death compared with non-pregnant women of reproductive age. Additionally, pregnant people with COVID-19 might be at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm birth, compared with pregnant women without COVID-19.

There are limited data about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for people who are pregnant

Until findings are available from clinical trials and additional studies, only limited data are available on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including mRNA vaccines, administered during pregnancy:

• Limited data are currently available from animal developmental and reproductive toxicity studies. No safety concerns were demonstrated in rats that received Moderna COVID-19 vaccine before or during pregnancy; studies of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are ongoing.
• Studies in people who are pregnant are planned.
• Both vaccine manufacturers are monitoring people in the clinical trials who became pregnant.

CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have safety monitoring systems in place to capture information about vaccination during pregnancy and will closely monitor reports.

mRNA vaccines do not contain the live virus that causes COVID-19 and, therefore, cannot give someone COVID-19. Additionally, mRNA vaccines do not interact with a person’s DNA because the mRNA does not enter the nucleus of the cell. Cells break down the mRNA quickly. Based on how mRNA vaccines work, experts believe they are unlikely to pose a specific risk for people who are pregnant.   However, the actual risks of mRNA vaccines to the pregnant person and her fetus are unknown because these vaccines have not been studied in pregnant women.

 

Bhai, bottom line is that this is a very difficult decision for a pregnant woman who is in a high-risk situation due to their profession.  Should they take a higher risk of getting CoViD infection?  

[Clarke]

Two vaccines for coronavirus, Pune-based Serum Institute's Covishield and Bharat Biotech's Covaxin, received emergency approval from the country's drug regulator today. The Drug Controller General of India VG Somani said both firms submitted data on their trial runs and both have been granted permission for "restricted use".

[BacktoCricaddict]

16 hours ago, Clarke said:

Two vaccines for coronavirus, Pune-based Serum Institute's Covishield and Bharat Biotech's Covaxin, received emergency approval from the country's drug regulator today. The Drug Controller General of India VG Somani said both firms submitted data on their trial runs and both have been granted permission for "restricted use".

Covishield is the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine manufactured by SII.  Must be noted that Phase III is still in progress for Covaxin.  

[coffee_rules]

BJP vaccine aka Covaxin. Sad that politicians have ruined it. 
 

 

 

Would The government agencies risk so much to get a desi vaccine approval?

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

I am a bit worried about not waiting for Phase III results to be completed.  But we must bear in mind that Phase III is for efficacy, not toxicity/adverse event analysis - those are Phase I mainly.  That has already been done.  So, while we may not have a clear picture of vaccine efficacy, we do have a handle on the safety of the vaccine and that has been shown to be acceptable.  It is probably a good idea to authorize this for mass manufacturing and distribution before a possible 2nd wave in India.

 

Considering that the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines are a pain to distribute in a vast nation with so much rural land, this is overall a good decision.

 

Screw Akhilesh. can get Sinopharm or Sputnik.  Or he can wrestle the virus into submission.  

Edited January 4, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

4 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

I am a bit worried about not waiting for Phase III results to be completed.  But we must bear in mind that Phase III is for efficacy, not toxicity/adverse event analysis - those are Phase I mainly.  That has already been done.  So, while we may not have a clear picture of vaccine efficacy, we do have a handle on the safety of the vaccine and that has been shown to be acceptable.  It is probably a good idea to authorize this for mass manufacturing and distribution before a possible 2nd wave in India.

 

Considering that the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines are a pain to distribute in a vast nation with so much rural land, this is overall a good decision.

 

Screw Akhilesh. can get Sinopharm or Sputnik.  Or he can wrestle the virus into submission.  

Costwise it is viable in India. Family in India said it costs Rs 400 in government hospitals and Rs. 800 in private. What is Immunogenicity? Will it prove it is able to fight the virus?

[BacktoCricaddict]

BTW, what is it with Soviets and Sputnik?  Anything that they think is worthwhile is named Sputnik.  It's been 60+ years since their first satellite called Sputnik was launched and they are still using the name.  

 

At least, change the vaccine spelling to SPUTINk to reflect current realities.  

Edited January 4, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

7 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Costwise it is viable in India. Family in India said it costs Rs 400 in government hospitals and Rs. 800 in private. What is Immunogenicity? Will it prove it is able to fight the virus?

Serum tests in the lab and animal testing have shown very good immunogenicity, i.e., antibody production.  Phase I and II have shown negligible adverse events.  Whether all this translates into full success would be clear from Phase III.  But at this time, known benefits far outweigh potential risks, so EUA is appropriate.  

 

Same logic - benefits outweigh risks - applies for Pfizer/Moderna recommendation for pregnant women in high-risk jobs.  

Edited January 4, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict

[Jimmy Cliff]

 

 

Get ready for regular patching then .

[Jimmy Cliff]

7 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

BJP vaccine aka Covaxin. Sad that politicians have ruined it. 
 

 

 

Would The government agencies risk so much to get a desi vaccine approval?

 

 

 

All Political nautanki. It's a Gates vaccine like most of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

On 1/1/2021 at 2:32 AM, BacktoCricaddict said:

True. Same horse also said this:

 

 

Bhai, bottom line is that this is a very difficult decision for a pregnant woman who is in a high-risk situation due to their profession.  Should they take a higher risk of getting CoViD infection?  

 

Unless the horse provides tangible data (preferably over long term) proving the probability as well as the severity of post vaccine adverse effects are lower than those of the infection, yes. Or at the very least, they should have the basic right to not take it .

[BacktoCricaddict]

 

 

Please see below the circuitry of the chip that is being inserted into your bodies via the CoViD-19 vaccines.  All of them have it, apparently.

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

15 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

Unless the horse provides tangible data (preferably over long term) proving the probability as well as the severity of post vaccine adverse effects are lower than those of the infection, yes. Or at the very least, they should have the basic right to not take it .

Bhai, no one is forcing them.  Rather, the CDC is clearly stating that, based on inferences from safety data available thus far and consequent risk/benefit analysis, it is recommended for pregnant women in high-risk jobs take it.