Vaccine vs Covid itself

Treatments and their effectiveness, herd immunity, masks, testing, etc.
Splatt
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by Splatt »

fon wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:04 pm look, if you are 45, you'll be 60 before the vaccine wears off.
There's no data to suggest that at all. We dont know how long immunity lasts. Its highly unlikely to be 15 years.

And in 15 years theres a good chance the virus as we know it has gone - transformed into a non-deadly seasonal irritation.
Plus by then there will likely be better, more effective and less likely to cause issue vaccines.

So by taking it you'd be increasing your risk now for something that might be utterly irrelevant by the time you "need" it.

thelightcavalry
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:11 pm

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by thelightcavalry »

Unfortunately the statistics are untrustworthy since they're curated by the same profession that grotesquely exaggerated the deaths from Covid and has a fierce prejudice in favour of vaccines.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by thinksaboutit »

Notice that people are estimating their own risk Vaccine vs. Covid, in terms of their probability of death. Not one mention of the benefit to their contacts, so I guess this isn't a factor being considered.

If you are young enough, then the chance of death is much lower.

Regardless of this there are still poor health outcomes to consider. Looking at NHS admissions figures, by age over the period of 12 October to 6 March, I see that over 22% of all admissions are for people 54 and under. (56,466).

If you consider the most recent month, the the under 54's are about 27% of admissions.
Not insignificant!

It's growing as a proportion, as the older groups get vaccinated.

Should the NHS be treating disease, which can be prevented?

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/s ... -activity/

fon
Posts: 1251
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:47 pm

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by fon »

Splatt wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:50 pm So by taking it you'd be increasing your risk now for something that might be utterly irrelevant by the time you "need" it.
Don't make the laugh, it's 2 micro morts FFS!

3/1.6m= 0.000002

Oh, by the way, there is evidence, saRS-CoV-1 reactive T cells were found in SARS patients 17 years after....

Splatt
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by Splatt »

Anything that increases risk unnecessarily that can be avoided, could be.

Lets assume a risk of say 1 in 2 million.

That means if there are 30M under 50s in the UK who aren't vulnerable to covid and you jab them anyway, 15 of them could end up seriously ill or dead directly because of a vaccine they don't need.

That's why standard public health policy is to NOT vaccinate those not at risk of a disease.
There's no benefit exposing them to that small but non-zero increased risk.

How lucky do you feel? Would you want to be one of those 15 people? Or want your partner, child or friend to be one of those 15 randoms?


As for reactive T-cells. Meaningless. SARs1 is not SARs2. We also have no idea about the T cell longevity from the vaccines.

Given the mutation rate, in 15 years time the vaccines will have changed completely anyway.

T-cells only get to work once you ARE infected. And by then, it could be too late.

There is no medical or mathematical sense exposing anyone to extra risk not for a hypothetical situation in 15 years time when the disease would have changed, the vaccine they had rendered useless due to mutation and other factors.



https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03 ... s-covid-19 gives some more detail about AZ.
Its possible there is more of a clot risk from the younger groups than older.
France have reauthorised it for over 55s only.
The UK isnt likely to have seen that signal much yet as we're concentrating on vaccinating the older. Germany, which did see the signal, wont allow AZ for over 65s so its the younger getting it.

Yes, the risk is small but its still there and is a risk that can be 100% mitigated by not having a vaccine if its not needed.

Have you made sure you've had your Yellow Fever, Ebola and Typhoid jabs this year? If not, why not?

fon
Posts: 1251
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:47 pm

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by fon »

Splatt wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:48 pm How lucky do you feel? Would you want to be one of those 15 people? Or want your partner, child or friend to be one of those 15 randoms?
Well since the it is known that risk of clots is greater in unvaccinated, if I felt unlucky, Ior if I felt lucky, I'd still take the vaccine.
As for reactive T-cells. Meaningless. SARs1 is not SARs2. We also have no idea about the T cell longevity from the vaccines.
Michael Yeadon has previously argued confidently that existing immunity is bolstered by exposure to similar corona viruses. Hence not Meaningless. And you previously forcefully stated memory cells take over from there more long term and can/will ramp up if needed. etc. etc. you are arguing against things you have previously said yourself.
e.g. To put it simply, immunity isn't as simple as a certain level of ABs.
Given the mutation rate, in 15 years time the vaccines will have changed completely anyway.
My point is that your hard cut-off at 50 is arbitrary, stupid and argumentative.

Splatt
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by Splatt »

fon wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:15 pm Well since the it is known that risk of clots is greater in unvaccinated, if I felt unlucky, Ior if I felt lucky, I'd still take the vaccine.
Except we don't know that. Im assuming you didn't read the Science article.

The cases from Norway and Germany were way above background and in a young demographic.
Most clots in society are the elderly not the young.

Its quite possible the UK, if there is an issue, may not have noticed because we're generally giving AZ to the older groups and the younger getting stabbed are mainly health care workers and they get Pfizer due to their work location.

Its not just clots, the risk of adverse reactions runs at 10-20 or so per million looking at MHRA so again, if you assume a 30 million adult population thats 1 or 2 people that will end up seriously ill or possibly dead from taking a vaccine they don't need.

Again its all about evaluating risk and not increasing it. If someone is older then yes the vaccine is worthwhile. No question.
But then someone who is NOT older the risk of an adverse vaccine reaction can outweigh the risk of catching and then becoming seriously ill from covid.
qCovid quite nicely shows that based on old, less "safe" data.
There's no medical, mathematical or ethical reason to vaccine those people as you are increasing risk. Its a small risk but when you're talking tens of millions, there'll be an unlucky few somewhere who will lose that gamble.

Michael Yeadon has previously argued confidently that existing immunity is bolstered by exposure to similar corona viruses. Hence not Meaningless. And you previously forcefully stated memory cells take over from there more long term and can/will ramp up if needed.
Memory cells have to recognise the pathogen. The whole point is in 15 years time there's likely to have been enough mutation that they wont.
The fact we've seem multiple immune escape variants within 6-12 months is a good indicator of that.

Or are you seriously claiming that these current vaccines, once given, will never ever need to be updated or need any form of booster?
Have you informed AstraZenica of this who have already started making one?
Because if there is need for a booster, you're entire argument about vaccinating now is utterly meaningless.

You're arguing for someone to put themselves at an increased risk to take a treatment that by the time they're in a group to have benefitted they'll need another vaccine anyway.
Its completely contradictory.



etc. etc. you are arguing against things you have previously said yourself.
e.g. To put it simply, immunity isn't as simple as a certain level of ABs.
My point is that your hard cut-off at 50 is arbitrary, stupid and argumentative.
No its not. Go and look up the MHRA or VAERA for the number of adverse reactions per million.
Then go plug some data into qCovid.
Then see where the figures come from.

Again, have you made sure you've had your Ebola, Typhoid and Yellow Fever vaccines this year? If not, why not?

thinksaboutit
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by thinksaboutit »

Considering vaccine risk should be against disease risk, which isn't zero for any age group.

So look up the accumulated death figures for people with no pre-existing conditions. From perhaps 20 million who have been infected.

1-19 years 9
20-39 years 78
40-59 years 604

Somewhat higher than your 1 or 2 estimate for death through adverse reactions from vaccine.

Splatt
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by Splatt »

thinksaboutit wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:18 pm Somewhat higher than your 1 or 2 estimate for death through adverse reactions from vaccine.
Not actually the case.
Why not check qCovid which is the official algorithm the government use.
And remember the figures off that are based after LD1.0 so the risks are even lower now.

Speedstick
Posts: 551
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:27 pm

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by Speedstick »

Even if the jab uptake only kills one or two people, although l highly suspect it will be many times that figure in reality, because once again government will doctor the figures, pun intended.
Families will lose loved ones, and very possibly much younger family members than those generally lost to Covid.
Therefore pro-jabbers, who gave you the right to play GOD!!!!
Your sanctimoniousness will KILL!!!

Post Reply