All borders to reopen.
Bet you can find photos of these idiots protesting against whatever they can find to protest against.
Who cares if they dont get vaccinated,they have a choice & so do the many business owners who will soon be deciding who is & who isnt welcome to enter their premises.
Maybe the brain will engage when 1 of them or 1 of their family is on a ventilator.
Who cares if they dont get vaccinated,they have a choice & so do the many business owners who will soon be deciding who is & who isnt welcome to enter their premises.
Maybe the brain will engage when 1 of them or 1 of their family is on a ventilator.
Just like that vegan activist who has been causing trouble at KFCs across the country. Makes all the socials, news sites, 6pm news. Turns out she is a Instagram model with a few hundred thousand followers. Her following has soared since she started her public protests.
Moreover - and this seems to be lost on many - coming into the pandemic, despite 25 years of trying no pharmaceutical company had ever produced an mRNA vaccine. None, nobody, zilch, zero. mRNA vaccine had been spruiked as a concept for years - a good mate of mine did his PhD thesis on them back in the mid-1990s - but the concept had never been made real.
Insofar as the AZ vaccine, AIUI, blood clots were never considered to be a problem in the trials, until they were found during the rollout of the Scandinavian vaccination program. And that's what concerns a lot of intelligent people who have been slapped with the anti-vaxxer tab, both here and elsewhere, they don't feel the need to be guinea pigs for this kind of vaccine delivery tech until longer term results are in. It could almost be the plot for a sequel of I am Legend... should things go pear-shaped in later years...
For the actual clotting syndrome, TTS, 've had a - fairly brief - look at the TGA and other websites and cannot seem to find if this is a one-off issue, or TTS can cause ongoing complications that will require something like ongoing anticoagulant treatments following the diagnosis. Anyone shed any light on long-term treatment for TTS should you develop it?
Originally Posted by dr dre View Post
Another day, another bunch of lies to debunk spread by the anti-vaxxers that have infected this site.
Another day, another bunch of lies to debunk spread by the anti-vaxxers that have infected this site.
It also confirms that the drug manufacturers can't be sued for side effects.
Insofar as the AZ vaccine, AIUI, blood clots were never considered to be a problem in the trials, until they were found during the rollout of the Scandinavian vaccination program. And that's what concerns a lot of intelligent people who have been slapped with the anti-vaxxer tab, both here and elsewhere, they don't feel the need to be guinea pigs for this kind of vaccine delivery tech until longer term results are in. It could almost be the plot for a sequel of I am Legend... should things go pear-shaped in later years...
And that's what concerns a lot of intelligent people who have been slapped with the anti-vaxxer tab, both here and elsewhere, they don't feel the need to be guinea pigs for this kind of vaccine delivery tech until longer term results are in.
For the actual clotting syndrome, TTS, 've had a - fairly brief - look at the TGA and other websites and cannot seem to find if this is a one-off issue, or TTS can cause ongoing complications that will require something like ongoing anticoagulant treatments following the diagnosis. Anyone shed any light on long-term treatment for TTS should you develop it?
A candidate vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 might act against infection, disease, or transmission, and a vaccine capable of reducing any of these elements could contribute to disease control. However, the most important efficacy endpoint, protection against severe disease and death, is difficult to assess in phase 3 clinical trials.
From a public health perspective hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths are what you want a vaccine to prevent or minimise because those are the factors that burden the health system. That is why those efficacy measures are far more important and why simply focussing on efficacy with regards to symptomatic transmission (which is subject to variation depending on when and where the Stage III trial was conducted) is the wrong measure.
Last edited by MickG0105; 25th Jul 2021 at 00:54. Reason: Tidy up, added point for clarity
If you want details on each Vax go to the WHO website, or better still ask your GP. Don't folly around with local studies and in process research. Reading incomplete and study in progress data leads you to information that could be tainted by financial or ideological bias, and without a full medical background you will most likely misconstrue the information and come to some weird conclusions that were never the intent, hence half the comments on this page.
Fact is no medicine is completely safe, Astro Zeneca has a morbidity rate of about 1 in 250,000 vs the 2 in 100 rate of death for the virus it protects against. MMR vaccine given to children has a seizure rate of 1 in 3000 under 7 years old and is still advised to be administered at 12-15 months. In medical terms doctors the death rate has to be below 1 in 10,000 for it to be a worry, and of course much less than the condition it protects against.
To clarify, both vaccines do not prevent you from getting Covid, however the efficacy is the rate at which it prevents the virus from becoming serious and life threatening.
AZ at present has a 63% efficacy rating, which IMO is too low, however this will still protect you from the most serious effects of the virus should you get it. So like the WHO advise, take whatever approved vaccine is available as this could save your life/health in the short term. You can always back up and take the next version later to boost your immunity. If you are worried about the side effects of AZ, isolate and stay out of the community until you can get the Pf and talk to your GP. My GP is relatively young and has taken AZ, his only worry is the efficacy holding up over time.
Fact is no medicine is completely safe, Astro Zeneca has a morbidity rate of about 1 in 250,000 vs the 2 in 100 rate of death for the virus it protects against. MMR vaccine given to children has a seizure rate of 1 in 3000 under 7 years old and is still advised to be administered at 12-15 months. In medical terms doctors the death rate has to be below 1 in 10,000 for it to be a worry, and of course much less than the condition it protects against.
In terms of efficacy, the Pfizer vaccine protects 94.5% of people from developing COVID.
The AstraZeneca shot protects 70% of people on average — still pretty good and on par with the protection given by a flu vaccine in a good year.
The AstraZeneca shot protects 70% of people on average — still pretty good and on par with the protection given by a flu vaccine in a good year.
AZ at present has a 63% efficacy rating, which IMO is too low, however this will still protect you from the most serious effects of the virus should you get it. So like the WHO advise, take whatever approved vaccine is available as this could save your life/health in the short term. You can always back up and take the next version later to boost your immunity. If you are worried about the side effects of AZ, isolate and stay out of the community until you can get the Pf and talk to your GP. My GP is relatively young and has taken AZ, his only worry is the efficacy holding up over time.
I'm always chuffed when you duck the substance of my posts, Mick.
So, the UNSW School of Population Health is definitely incompetent. How does that change the validity of my conclusion about the "perception" of "safety" of the Pfizer v AZ?
So, the UNSW School of Population Health is definitely incompetent. How does that change the validity of my conclusion about the "perception" of "safety" of the Pfizer v AZ?
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 25th Jul 2021 at 01:31.
short flights long nights
I must not understand this Sydney lockdown properly. There is now a positive case that flew on a flight from Sydney to Ballina. ( amongst an ever increasing number of exposure sights).
Can someone explain to me, if you are in lockdown, why are you on a flight to Ballina?!
Can someone explain to me, if you are in lockdown, why are you on a flight to Ballina?!
What is your source for that please?
As this diagram illustrates there are multiple points at which efficacy can be measured; some are more important than others.
Source: What defines an efficacious COVID-19 vaccine? A review of the challenges assessing the clinical efficacy of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Hodgson et al
As this diagram illustrates there are multiple points at which efficacy can be measured; some are more important than others.
Source: What defines an efficacious COVID-19 vaccine? A review of the challenges assessing the clinical efficacy of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Hodgson et al
AZ at present has a 63% efficacy rating ...
What is your source for that please?
That's the WHO rundown on it, under how effective it towards the bottom;
The AZD1222 vaccine against COVID-19 has an efficacy of 63.09% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.
I could probably say the same. For the sake of clarity and the avoidance of doubt, what was the substance of your post? I thought that it was, at least in part, trying to demonstrate that my contention regarding efficacy end points was wrong. I addressed that quite specifically.
Seriously? You're going to run that nonsense line? That credits neither of us.
So, was that the substance of your post? That's a long way from arguing that we bought into AstraZeneca based on costs or that in January we knew that Pfizer was 'the better vaccine'.
You'll get no arguments from me that thanks to a variety of factors, not the least of whom being the future Governor of Queensland, AstraZeneca has been pretty well trashed in the court of public opinion.
Seriously? You're going to run that nonsense line? That credits neither of us.
You'll get no arguments from me that thanks to a variety of factors, not the least of whom being the future Governor of Queensland, AstraZeneca has been pretty well trashed in the court of public opinion.
The substance of my post is that one of the primary causes of 'vaccine hesitancy' in Australia is that Pfizer is perceived to be better [has better efficacy] and safer [not as high a risk of bad side-effects] compared with AZ, and no amount of numbers you cite will change that, even if the numbers are correct.
And I don't see the point of your assertion that I used a 'nonsense line'. If, as you say, the UNSW School of Population Health has used the wrong measure of efficacy in numbers that it has published, it follows that the UNSW School of Population Health is incompetent (and contributing to misconceptions).
Oh...
And better get sh*t tonnes of Pfizer, ASAP.
And I don't see the point of your assertion that I used a 'nonsense line'. If, as you say, the UNSW School of Population Health has used the wrong measure of efficacy in numbers that it has published, it follows that the UNSW School of Population Health is incompetent (and contributing to misconceptions).
Oh...
And better get sh*t tonnes of Pfizer, ASAP.
https://www.who.int/news-room/featur...u-need-to-know
That's the WHO rundown on it, under how effective it towards the bottom;
It does say longer dose intervals increase that but does not specify by how much.
That's the WHO rundown on it, under how effective it towards the bottom;
It does say longer dose intervals increase that but does not specify by how much.
There have been subsequent studies posted, such as this one out of the UK, showing Pfizer and AstraZeneca as providing similar levels of protection against both symptomatic infection (not a critical measure) and hospitalisation. That UK study is instructive in that it shows Pfizer and AstraZeneca side-by-side in a high risk population (age 70 and over) during a period of medium-high exposure risk (December 2020 - January 2021).
But, at the end of the day, you do you.
Last edited by MickG0105; 25th Jul 2021 at 02:01. Reason: Tidy up
The substance of my post is that one of the primary causes of 'vaccine hesitancy' in Australia is that Pfizer is perceived to be better [has better efficacy] and safer [not as high a risk of bad side-effects] compared with AZ, and no amount of numbers you cite will change that, even if the numbers are correct.
That hasn't been updated since mid-April.
Aged 70 and over...
Participants 156 930 adults aged 70 years and older who reported symptoms of covid-19 between 8 December 2020 and 19 February 2021 and were successfully linked to vaccination data in the National Immunisation Management System.
That BMJ Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines ... paper is not a 'preliminary study'. It's an International Committee of Medical Journal Editors peer reviewed case-control study.
But, you do you.
But, you do you.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: HKG
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That BMJ Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines ... paper is not a 'preliminary study'. It's an International Committee of Medical Journal Editors peer reviewed case-control study.
But, you do you.
But, you do you.