Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Treatments and their effectiveness, herd immunity, masks, testing, etc.
Splatt
Posts: 1583
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Splatt »

thinksaboutit wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:48 pm A. The public health response is focussed on vaccinating as many adults as possible, to reduce cases, admissions and deaths. But also states that reducing the amount of virus circulating, reduced reproduction and the probability of problem mutations arising.
Except its not. We have vaccines that reduce severe sickness. Our main vaccine has minimal effect on reducing cases so if you want to follow that route, the public health route is never ending restrictions.
Mutation rate is going to increase the more we partially vaccinate regardless.

. If immunity from vaccination is narrower than that from surviving natural infection, this could lead to a vaccine resistant mutation dominating. There are some here with an absolute conviction that this effect will dominate.
Well E484K is evolved multiple times globally independently and has done so at least twice in the UK as well.
6 variants (i think 7 with todays news) circulating here with it already.
1. What evidence is there that vaccine derived immunity is narrower than disease derived immunity?
The more epitopes you expose the immune system to the more chance there is of it being recognised by the immune system next time round or destroying it.

The current vaccines expose a small part and only the spike protein so we're only training on one, highly variable part of the virus. Again look at 484K to see how a small mutation can reduce vaccine neutralisation 6 fold which reduces the effectiveness of all of them and in AZ case, to zero.

There are a couple of whole inactivated virus vaccines (Sinovac etc) and these likely will provide far more resistance to mutation and a better immune response. Nottingham and a few others (Valneva maybe?) are also working on broader epitope vaccines.

Never before have we vaccinated against such a small, specific part of a pathogen.

Natural infection you're exposing the whole virus and many many more targets for the immune system which means that memory is going to be far less weakened when a specific part mutates.

miahoneybee
Posts: 1493
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:26 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by miahoneybee »

From where I am sitting the risks far outweigh the benefits.. since when did I ask the population to wear masks....socially distance...close down any possible leisure activity..criminalize them If they didn't.. issue fines..ruin the economy ..pay them to stay off work and all get vaccinated just so I dont get flu...I didnt see the 99% as selfish in that scenario and I dont see them as selfish now for this bs..
:roll:

thinksaboutit
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by thinksaboutit »

Splatt wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:27 pm
thinksaboutit wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:48 pm A. The public health response is focussed on vaccinating as many adults as possible, to reduce cases, admissions and deaths. But also states that reducing the amount of virus circulating, reduced reproduction and the probability of problem mutations arising.
Except its not. We have vaccines that reduce severe sickness. Our main vaccine has minimal effect on reducing cases so if you want to follow that route, the public health route is never ending restrictions.
Mutation rate is going to increase the more we partially vaccinate regardless.

. If immunity from vaccination is narrower than that from surviving natural infection, this could lead to a vaccine resistant mutation dominating. There are some here with an absolute conviction that this effect will dominate.
Well E484K is evolved multiple times globally independently and has done so at least twice in the UK as well.
6 variants (i think 7 with todays news) circulating here with it already.
1. What evidence is there that vaccine derived immunity is narrower than disease derived immunity?
The more epitopes you expose the immune system to the more chance there is of it being recognised by the immune system next time round or destroying it.

The current vaccines expose a small part and only the spike protein so we're only training on one, highly variable part of the virus. Again look at 484K to see how a small mutation can reduce vaccine neutralisation 6 fold which reduces the effectiveness of all of them and in AZ case, to zero.

There are a couple of whole inactivated virus vaccines (Sinovac etc) and these likely will provide far more resistance to mutation and a better immune response. Nottingham and a few others (Valneva maybe?) are also working on broader epitope vaccines.

Never before have we vaccinated against such a small, specific part of a pathogen.

Natural infection you're exposing the whole virus and many many more targets for the immune system which means that memory is going to be far less weakened when a specific part mutates.
A couple of points.

Hasn't both Pfizer and the Oxford vaccine both shown substantial benefits in reduced transmission? So how come vaccines don't reduce cases & qty of virus in circulation?

Is evidence actually available to back up your opinion on vaccine induced protection, vs. natural infection?

How do you consider each of the 2 mechanisms against each other, to determine which dominates.

Without this analysis, it all amounts to an opinion only, but stated with absolute certainty.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by thinksaboutit »

miahoneybee wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:29 pm From where I am sitting the risks far outweigh the benefits.. since when did I ask the population to wear masks....socially distance...close down any possible leisure activity..criminalize them If they didn't.. issue fines..ruin the economy ..pay them to stay off work and all get vaccinated just so I dont get flu...I didnt see the 99% as selfish in that scenario and I dont see them as selfish now for this bs..
:roll:
Interesting to know you have done the risk analysis. What are the numbers?

jotheboat
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:34 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by jotheboat »

miahoneybee wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:29 pm From where I am sitting the risks far outweigh the benefits.. since when did I ask the population to wear masks....socially distance...close down any possible leisure activity..criminalize them If they didn't.. issue fines..ruin the economy ..pay them to stay off work and all get vaccinated just so I dont get flu...I didnt see the 99% as selfish in that scenario and I dont see them as selfish now for this bs..
:roll:
From where I'm sitting the benefit outweighs the risks.
If a jab lessens my symptoms and saves my life, which evidence seems to point towards with the Pfizer vaccine, it's worth it.
As I've said before, if I was under 50 in perfect health and wasn't bothered about seeing my grandchildren, I wouldn't have taken it.

Speedstick
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:27 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Speedstick »

I have to agree with Miahoneybee here.
How can posters in this thread claim the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risk, when the longer term risks of having this new vaccine administered, are a total unknown, is this not why the government or manufacturers will not guarantee their vaccines?
Once again here these posters are seeing everything solely through a Covid lens, as if Covid were the only danger posed to human health, there are many ailments or diseases you may fall foul of, in the future, not just Covid.
Furthermore is there not a danger that a long term adverse vaccine reaction could ruin one's quality of life, even if it protects one from Covid 19.

Speedstick
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:27 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Speedstick »

I have to agree with Miahoneybee here.
How can posters in this thread claim the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risk, when the longer term risks of having this new vaccine administered, are a total unknown, is this not why the government or manufacturers will not guarantee their vaccines?
Once again here these posters are seeing everything solely through a Covid lens, as if Covid were the only danger posed to human health, there are many ailments or diseases you may fall foul of, in the future, not just Covid.
Furthermore is there not a danger that a long term adverse vaccine reaction could ruin one's quality of life, even if it protects one from Covid 19.

miahoneybee
Posts: 1493
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:26 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by miahoneybee »

Jotheboat
The only thing ever stopping you seeing your grandchildren was and still is your choice.
There is no guarantee you wont get it or give it with the jab. There is no guarantee in life full stop that you eont get cancer.. run over by a bus..die in a plane crash..get hit by a tree falling and so on.
I dont need an experimental vaccine to live my life without fear and taking risks or to see my grandchildren .I can do them all without. I think I may have had it who knows. I was poorly for about a week then up and getting on with life again much as I would with a cold or anything else.
Watching the care home deaths after the vaccines and other reports ( that censors attempt to keep from the population) no thanks to the vaccine. The risks to me far outweigh the benefits. Anyone's choice to not have an experimental vaccine should be respected and not coerced or bullied and allowed to take their own risks in life . Positive risk taking.
14 months into this fiasco and what beyond misery have we achieved. Just look to the countries and states in America who didnt lock down and compare.

Fingal
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:11 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Fingal »

Splatt wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:16 pm
amanuensis wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:29 am One reason to be cautious regarding universal vaccination is that it produces a homogeneous immunity profile. This might increase risks for the vulnerable groups.
That's the issue nobody seems to be bothered about.
You could just as easily argue the opposite. The more infections you have, the more chance you have for new mutations. So there's a case for reducing overall infections to the lowest level possible, whether or not those people are in high risk groups.

The most worrying news variants (South African, Brazilian, Kent) are emerging in locations with existing very high infection rates. Obviously it's way too soon to draw a conclusion from that but you have to accept it as a significant possibility.

User avatar
MikeAustin
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:27 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by MikeAustin »

Fingal wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:22 am The most worrying news variants (South African, Brazilian, Kent) are emerging in locations with existing very high infection rates.
News is news. Worrying is optional.
Unfortunately, even that option seems subject to government and media coercion.

Post Reply