COVID-19 vaccine #7 and general vaccine conversation

[Libbie]

So hypothetically, would you get the vaccine if there was no "coercion and blackmail" ?

Still a firm no from me. I’ve seen what the ‘vaccine’s’ done to my dad, previously a fit and healthy man, now resigned to a lifetime of heart medication and surgical procedures.
I feel that it’s a completely unnecessary risk, I refuse to take part in a clinical trial where the manufacturers have absolved themselves of all liability.

 

[xyzcba]

The vaccine was never going to be 100% effective. That’s fine if you believe it hasn’t worked and all the scientists and doctors who are qualified/have many years of experience in the field are chatting fig rolls.

I don't expect it to be 100% effective! My point was initially how could they possibly say in trials that this person didn't die/ get seriously ill from CV and therefore we can say it works - some people are affected by CV and some aren't.

My 99 year old Gran tested positive and didn't feel a thing, no symptoms whatsoever.

This book is a really good read. I have taken some pics of the pages on the AZ vaccine trial which is VERY interesting...

"Participants in the study were generally pretty healthy in other ways too. Only 11% had underlying cardiovascular disease. Only 12% had underlying respiratory disease. And only 2% had diabetes. So, even before we get to the results, we know one thing - this study cannot tell us anything about the ability of the vaccine to protect the people who are most at risk of severe disease. And it cannot tell us whether the vaccine is safe for these people either."

Covid: Why most of what you know is wrong Amazon product

 

[hollowcrown]

I don't expect it to be 100% effective! My point was initially how could they possibly say in trials that this person didn't die/ get seriously ill from CV and therefore we can say it works - some people are affected by CV and some aren't.

My 99 year old Gran tested positive and didn't feel a thing, no symptoms whatsoever.

This book is a really good read. I have taken some pics of the pages on the AZ vaccine trial which is VERY interesting...

"Participants in the study were generally pretty healthy in other ways too. Only 11% had underlying cardiovascular disease. Only 12% had underlying respiratory disease. And only 2% had diabetes. So, even before we get to the results, we know one thing - this study cannot tell us anything about the ability of the vaccine to protect the people who are most at risk of severe disease. And it cannot tell us whether the vaccine is safe for these people either."

Covid: Why most of what you know is wrong Amazon product

Isn't this a sampling issue?

Typically you want a representative population for your sample - there's statistical equations that you can run which will tell you what is appropriate sample size to get a good confidence level.

For clinical trials you don't want 100% of pople having underlying health conditions becuase then you won't know how the vaccine affects those without health conditions.

You'll want to stratify via sample size. The main takeaway from your exerpts in my opinion is the under 18 population - but you could probably predict the effect on 16 year olds based on how 18 year olds took the vaccine as their bodies were pretty similar. The numbers you posted for the older people were still 1560 specimens in the oldest age group which is a lot of people for a statistical sample size, especially if you've selected well for ethnic backgrounds, underlying health conditions etc.

Polling companies typically only need about 1000 people to predict outcomes of general elections depending on methodology. It's obviously a lot more complex with biological systems such as humans but that's why you have animal tests in prior rounds. 12k seems like a huge study to me. Previous clinical trials I've been involved in are much less - usually like 20 people but depends on the trial. I am more of a bioequivalence person than vaccine science.

 

[monga]

Miracle in Japan

 

[Purrrrrrr]

Miracle in Japan

Wonder what those who last loved ones will do when they realise their loved one could very well have been saved

 

[Tublet83]

Here is an example of a covid risk calculator for academia - you can work yourself out using it . I only know about this because it doesn’t see asthma as a risk which makes no sense to me

QCovid™ risk calculator

qcovid.org

 

[xyzcba]

Here is an example of a covid risk calculator for academia - you can work yourself out using it . I only know about this because it doesn’t see asthma as a risk which makes no sense to me

QCovid™ risk calculator

qcovid.org

Ooh thanks for this! Just done it and these are my results. Think I'll take the odds

 

[monga]

Wonder what those who last loved ones will do when they realise their loved one could very well have been saved

Dr Johns raising some valid points .I haven't looked into the ivermectin thing at all but somethings working out there I'm sure they'd be gutted to see that.

 

[xyzcba]

Isn't this a sampling issue?

Typically you want a representative population for your sample - there's statistical equations that you can run which will tell you what is appropriate sample size to get a good confidence level.

For clinical trials you don't want 100% of pople having underlying health conditions becuase then you won't know how the vaccine affects those without health conditions.

You'll want to stratify via sample size. The main takeaway from your exerpts in my opinion is the under 18 population - but you could probably predict the effect on 16 year olds based on how 18 year olds took the vaccine as their bodies were pretty similar. The numbers you posted for the older people were still 1560 specimens in the oldest age group which is a lot of people for a statistical sample size, especially if you've selected well for ethnic backgrounds, underlying health conditions etc.

Polling companies typically only need about 1000 people to predict outcomes of general elections depending on methodology. It's obviously a lot more complex with biological systems such as humans but that's why you have animal tests in prior rounds. 12k seems like a huge study to me. Previous clinical trials I've been involved in are much less - usually like 20 people but depends on the trial. I am more of a bioequivalence person than vaccine science.

Thank you for taking the time to read it.

I agree, definitely a sampling issue, which is why it is so astounding that this was deemed OK to proceed. I don't know much about medical trials (except my Husband was the first human to trial a new knee procedure, successful on horses, but fucked his up further, it was taken out and the trial cancelled within 6 months) - but surely a sample size of 12k for a drug that they want to put into billions across the world, doesn't seem very much to me.

 

[StrawberryCream]

Ooh thanks for this! Just done it and these are my results. Think I'll take the odds

Same

 

[hollowcrown]

Thank you for taking the time to read it.

I agree, definitely a sampling issue, which is why it is so astounding that this was deemed OK to proceed. I don't know much about medical trials (except my Husband was the first human to trial a new knee procedure, successful on horses, but fucked his up further, it was taken out and the trial cancelled within 6 months) - but surely a sample size of 12k for a drug that they want to put into billions across the world, doesn't seem very much to me.

It depends on how you stratify your sample. 12k could be sufficient if you select correctly.

When you're doing capability analysis on plastic mouldings (very different example of course) you can get the performance of how a complex mechanical device will function when you manufacture millions of the mouldings from measuring dimensions of about 60 specimens evenly taken from a batch - which can be done with fairly simple statistics.

I don't doubt that a 12k sample size, correctly sampled, could give confidence levels you need. I think the main points of alarm is 1. the children issue, you really shouldn't be vaccinating people under the age of 16 from what you posted, and obviously longer term implications, but that's a problem that you can really never get rid of in pharma trials unless you want treatment lagging 20 years behind tech.

 

[Superdude]

Today I've had my booster (Moderna) and my 'flu jag, so as protected as I can be ...

Very efficient, mostly folk in their forties and fifties but a fair few younger ones as well. Happy it's been done.

 

[Ensay]

Today I've had my booster (Moderna) and my 'flu jag, so as protected as I can be ...

Very efficient, mostly folk in their forties and fifties but a fair few younger ones as well. Happy it's been done.

Sounds good! Got mine tomorrow.

I thought all boosters were Pfizer.

 

[Superdude]

My 2 vaccines were Astra Zeneca, booster Moderna. Not sure why!

 

[Tublet83]

Sounds good! Got mine tomorrow.

I thought all boosters were Pfizer.

I think there has been a big delivery of moderna because I’m hearing of more people having that the last week or so as a booster, where before it was all pfizer.

 

[Poddular]

Not sure why I'm wasting my time as all you lovely posters who are concerned about peoples freedom of choice already get it but I have a few points.
Most of the people who "trust the science", talk about sides and think anyone not rolling up their sleeves must get their reasons from social media are the first people to answer anyone's testing/quarantine/vaccine queries with their words of wisdom without realising the irony.
Talking of irony broadcaster Danny Kelly has never seemingly cared about his own health before, nevermind mine or that of sportsmen and women. He's morbidly obese , talks about staying up all night and his love of a tipple. And yet suddenly every single radio show he does on talksport radio he gives a lecture on "antivaccer" sportsmen, the need to protect their teammates, themselves and more vaccine propaganda.
Ditto the high street, jam-packed with obese people stuffing junk down seemingly all day or drinking to excess not giving a fig about looking after their health. Most people I work with get pills if their cat died or if their partner leaves them.
My point being healthy people should not be taking unnecessary medicines imo. Most prescription drugs have bad side effects, some contribute to severe health conditions and even death and one must always way up whether the good outweighs the bad.
I prefer to eat proper food, exercise, fresh air and do everything to boost my immune system. The fact that this is how I live should be enough reason for anyone to accept why I don't want a vaccine.
While we are happy and nonjudgmental for our relatives, friends and colleagues to have any jab they want- my siblings and I, all in our 50s all decided independently that we didn't want the jabs ( 2 of us had very bad covid early on) ditto my husband. None of us are on twitter,Facebook,insta etc and none of us think it's 5g conspiracy or whatever else people like to tar us with.
Believe it or not there are people who don't rely on scientists or pharmacists unless absolutely necessary. We look after our health, we don't drink,we don't do drugs,we don't eat takeaways,we don't live sedentary lifestyles while criticising people who aren't " doing their bit to save lives".
We were brought up without a television and I still can't believe how in a country of nearly 70 million people UK and a world of billions how everyone seems to have the same few thoughts, likes and trends. Unfortunately these last few years have proven the power of propaganda to me. Have the vaccine, don't have the vaccine but for christsake get outraged about mandatory jabs.

 

[Brigitjonesbuttcheek]

It appears to me that we are looking at infection rate pre vaccine and comparing that to hospitalisation and death in the same period, then look at the same rates after vaccination.

We are then making an assumption that, more infection but less death and hospitalisation means vaccine must be working.

But, there are other factors at play. Better treatment in hospitals. People being able to access medical treatment. Many people highly susceptible to covid will have already died from it. The strain may have become less deadly as can happen with viruses. People may have had it and fought it off before and now have more risistance to it so they are not getting seriously ill. People may have improved their health to better protect themselves, losing weight improving their diet or taking suppliments. A wider section of society is getting tested so infection rates appear higher when they actually aren't, thus skewing the figures. Better air quality because less people are driving.

I'm just plucking this tit out of my head. But what I'm trying to say is, we live in a complex world full of many variables, this virus is alive we still don't have that much understanding of it and it's mutating all the time. It's not as simple as since the vaccine came in deaths went down. Because life is so much more complex than that. We can not be certain that the death Vs infection correlation is down to the vaccine alone or even at all. And it is definitely not evidence enough to start mandating vaccines on people who have a 0.0002% chance of getting seriously ill from covid.

 

[monga]

 

[Momin_mama]

I’ve seen first hand the consequences of the covid vaccines side effects. After hearing all the anecdotes of “I was fine” “ bit of a sore arm” etc etc from health professionals it makes me sick that I trusted them.
I don’t care how supposedly rare the side effects are, after watching my loved one suffer so badly because of the choice I made for them I will not put them through that again.

 

[monga]

My eldest son is going for his tomorrow he wants to get it with the vaccine passports being brought in and a trip in January it’s tit that healthy young people have to do this .