Covid-19 News

  • So when the vaccine comes out, who should governments mandate vaccinations for...all age groups, or only those at high-risk?


    If this were 1963, the government would order everyone to get it, and everyone would line up and be vaccinated. That is what happened when the oral polio vaccine was developed. That would be the best thing to do. That saved thousands of lives. Unfortunately in the present era people no longer follow the rules and do what experts say they should do. People have ridiculous ideas about what constitutes "freedom." They do not trust science or experts. I blame the Vietnam war and right-wing radio for that. Regardless of what brought it about, you can no longer order people to be vaccinated. So, we will have to let people do as they please. I expect that enough people will get it to ensure herd immunity. If I were the Emperor of America I would be tempted to make a rule:


    You don't have to get the COVID-19 vaccination. But if you don't get it, and you get sick, you are on your own. You will have to pay 100% of hospital costs. No insurance, and no government help of any kind will be given to you.


    To put it another way, the people who die from the disease after a vaccine is made available should be given a Group Darwin Award for improving the overall intelligence of the population.




    Vaccinations for children is a different matter. An adult has a de facto right to kill himself. He can drink himself to death. He can refuse medical treatment that could easily cure him. But a parent should not be free to endanger a child by refusing to have the child vaccinated against common childhood diseases. That was not allowed in the past. It is no longer allowed in California, Mississippi or West Virginia. It should not be allowed anywhere. The child's life, health and welfare trumps the adult's lunatic conspiracy theory beliefs. For the same reason parents are not allowed to cut off their children's hands.


    Having said that . . . it might be prudent to withhold a COVID-19 vaccine from children at first. I would wait until it has been administered to millions of adults and we are certain it is safe. Children seldom die from COVID-19 so we should not risk vaccinating them at first. Old people (including me) should get it first because if it knocks us off, so what? We are old and will die soon anyway. Compared to children we should be considered expendable and well suited to be guinea pigs.

  • So when the vaccine comes out, who should governments mandate vaccinations for...all age groups, or only those at high-risk?


    The highly respected professor in the video states at the end

    - nobody under 65 should get it, as they have virtually no risk of morality, especially given a new genetic paradigm of vaccine is being used. Taking the vaccine coupled with the natural T-cell defense may thrown the immune system off leading severely bad outcomes (mortality). He literally said, the risk/benefit is infinity (because the denominator is zero). Watch what he said for details, this isn't the entire argument you have to know about the immunology of why he said that

    - over 65, if this is tested on people with comorbidities and not tested only on those under 65, then if that safety check is done perhaps the community should openly debate this

  • So when the vaccine comes out, who should governments mandate vaccinations for...all age groups, or only those at high-risk?

    I know,


    How about all government officials go 1st.


    I wanna see the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government ALL

    Subject themselves to the vaccine, then monitor their physical & health conditions, publish the data for all to see.


  • Best way to lead, is by example. Those who propose the vaccine be mandated, or effectively so through other means, should be the first to have themselves, their children, and grandchildren vaccinated and proof given. Then the rest of us can follow their lead.


    Those in the high risk group are not the issue IMO. For obvious reasons, they will be first to line up, and I put myself in that group. Where it gets more complicated is for those with little, if anything, to gain and everything to lose. How do you convince a parent to vaccinate their child, when they are at no risk?

  • Yes. It was poorly explained.

    Former FDA officials said the misstatement was inexcusable, particularly for a cancer specialist like Hahn.

    “It’s extraordinary to me that a person involved in clinical trials could make that mistake,” said Dr. Peter Lurie, a former FDA.


    mixing up absolute risk with relative risk is not a slip of the tongue


    Its sounds llke gilding an imperfect lily unintentionally.. IMHO

    when people get into admin./management roles they often lose touch with the meaning of numbers..

    and politics creeps in


    the last research which addressed the absolute versus relatve risk issue by Hahn himself(not multiple other authors)

    was probably some time ago

  • THHuxleynew


    I also live in the UK so I remember when the law was changed.

    I moaned about it. Overreach of authority, telling me what to do etc.

    But the data has shown reduced road deaths so that argument is over and I am a good citizen who obeys the law.

    However I still moan at the bloody bleeping noise in the car after I have just reversed out of the drive. Maybe the car nagging me is a step too far!



  • Sorry Jed but you are wrong and you did not see the video. Vaccination is not suitable for every infection otherwise there would not be infections anymore. The death rate of the swine flue was higher than sars cov 2. The chance of getting narcolepsy through the vaccination was double the death rate of the flue. So for every saved (weak) old guy we have two children or young people with narcolepsi (which ruins your life). This is not acceptable for me. I am totally in on vaccination (actually refreshing tetanus etc. in two weeks) but this makes only sense for some viruses. Forced vaccination with untested premature stuff for a desease killing only 2% of >65 year old already sick people exactly as every flue, rhinovirus etc.? Give this stuff on a free choice basis to the elderly! My children will not get forced vaccination for sars cov 2, only for deseases for that it makes sense.

  • Best way to lead, is by example. Those who propose the vaccine be mandated, or effectively so through other means, should be the first to have themselves, their children, and grandchildren vaccinated and proof given. Then the rest of us can follow their lead.


    Those in the high risk group are not the issue IMO. For obvious reasons, they will be first to line up, and I put myself in that group. Where it gets more complicated is for those with little, if anything, to gain and everything to lose. How do you convince a parent to vaccinate their child, when they are at no risk?


    I doubt many free countries will make vaccination compulsory. It will be down to communication and whether the population care about getting back to normal.


    At least at first there will be limited vaccine available - and it will go to those at highest risk. That will also be the best thing to reduce R. I think you will find that health workers who have watched patients and colleagues die, and who can read the test data, will accept a 1 in 10,000 risk of nasty vaccine side effects to reduce chances of COVID infection. After 100,000 health care workers have been vaccinated we will have a much better bound on side effect risks than we do after phase 3 trials.


    The vaccine will also go to those most at risk from COVID, even if they are not in high risk occupations. Unless they are like the poor US couple above who disastrously confused antivax propaganda with fact, they will queue up for vaccination.


    The question then is how much of the lower risk population will also be vaccinated. If a vaccine is available and good enough it does not matter a lot. Those who choose not to be vaccinated will have a higher risk of dying of COVID, but the death rates will be low and bearable for society.


    If a vaccine is (say) only 50% effective for older at risk people, then the picture is more difficult. Without widespread vaccination many people will stay with changed, permanent socially distanced, behaviour. That will affect the economy. Those who don't take the vaccine because the see the personal gain from that is low of negative will also be contributing to a permanent adverse change for everyone.


    That is what you get in a free society. People are free to harm themselves, and also free to do things which collectively harm others. I'd expect the US to be an outier on the side of low vaccination uptake and high continuing COVID infection rate.


    Interestingly, for this disease, it seems that children can catch COVID easily but fight it off so well that they do not spread it much. So no vaccination for children would not matter much in terms of suppressing the virus. Paernts can make a decision about risks of vaccine side effects versus risks of COVID. Both will be small. Antivaxers will not evaluate the risks but do a gut "vaccines are bad" avoidance. Luckily for them, that will not matter much for their children.


    Perhaps you can see now why I believe it is a moral imperative to counteract false information peddled by antivaxers. The medical establishment (as we see from trumps attempts to push vaccines out before phase 3 testing is complete) are risk averse. That applies to treatments (HCQ) and vaccines. In fact prophylatic treatments - given to most of the population - have very similar issues to vaccines. They are worse because the prophylaxis must be taken forever, whereas the vaccine is one-off. in the case of HCQ taking it forever means blindness (it is a very long term side effect due to accumulation in the retina).


    THH

  • I am not sure if this is posted already but it is very important for the decision wether mass vaccination makes sense or not:

    https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-35331/v1%20


    Rammensee is one of the leading researches on this topic. Bottom line: 80% of people in germany already have direct strong immune response to sars cov 2 (same as being vaccinated prior) because of other corona infections in the past (cross immunity). 80%!!! 10 year old blood could fight sars cov 2 what means that the virus is not changing very fast. This is fantastic news and sheds a different light on all decisions taken so far.

  • Sorry Jed but you are wrong and you did not see the video. Vaccination is not suitable for every infection otherwise there would not be infections anymore. The death rate of the swine flue was higher than sars cov 2. The chance of getting narcolepsy through the vaccination was double the death rate of the flue. So for every saved (weak) old guy we have two children or young people with narcolepsi (which ruins your life). This is not acceptable for me. I am totally in on vaccination (actually refreshing tetanus etc. in two weeks) but this makes only sense for some viruses. Forced vaccination with untested premature stuff for a desease killing only 2% of >65 year old already sick people exactly as every flue, rhinovirus etc.? Give this stuff on a free choice basis to the elderly! My children will not get forced vaccination for sars cov 2, only for deseases for that it makes sense.


    While I agree vaccines have side effects and can sometimes be higher risk than the disease they protect you from, that is why doctors are careful about delivering them to whole population. Flu vaccination is allowed to everyone over 16 - though only given free to those over 65. And compulsory for no-one.


    The medical establishment - far from pushing dangerous vaccines to the [population, are very very risk-conscious. They keep on doing things like this:


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S1473309920301304


    The state of vaccine safety science: systematic reviews of the evidence


    Results


    Our combined searches initially identified 25 103 unique articles (figure). In this Review, we included 155 articles that added to the existing epidemiological evidence base from the IOM and AHRQ reports. All other articles were excluded by the authors based on the exclusion criteria outlined in the methods. A causal relationship with at least one vaccine routinely administered in the USA was established based on published evidence of sufficient quality for 12 of 46 AEFI reviewed (table 1). These 12 AEFI confirmed that the adverse reactions are: anaphylaxis, arthralgia or arthritis (mild, acute and transient, not chronic), deltoid bursitis (when vaccine is administered improperly), disseminated varicella infection (in immune deficient individuals for whom the varicella vaccine is contraindicated), encephalitis, febrile seizures, Guillain-Barré syndrome, hepatitis (in immune deficient individuals for whom the varicella vaccine is contraindicated), herpes zoster, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, meningitis, and syncope. Other than mild acute and transient arthralgia or arthritis, which is very common in adult women after rubella vaccine, all these adverse reactions are rare (approximately 0·01–0·1%) or very rare (<0·01%). The attributable risk of anaphylaxis after most commonly administered vaccinations is estimated to be 1 in 100 000–1 000 000;54 the attributable risk of febrile seizures after vaccination in children aged 3–5 months is estimated to be 3·92 in 100 000;55 the attributable risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome after influenza vaccination in adults is estimated to be 1–3 in 1 000 000;56, 57, 58 and the attributable risk of immune thrombocytopenic purpura after the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination is estimated to be 1–3 in 100 000.59, 60, 61 Estimations of risk can also vary depending on the specific vaccine and population in question. For example, rubella-containing vaccines can cause mild, acute, transient arthralgia, or arthritis very commonly in adult women (10–25%), but less commonly in men and rarely in children;61 and although syncope was estimated to occur between 4·4 and 14·1 times per 100 000 immunisations, this rate might be higher among adolescents, especially female adolescents.62


    And for Flu vaccines:


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5861790/

    Influenza vaccines: Evaluation of the safety profile

    Overall, influenza vaccines are very safe186 and well tolerated in most age-groups and formulations. Admittedly, they can cause AEs and/or rare AEs, some of which are more prevalent in children, while others are more prevalent in adults. However, symptoms due to AEs, such as rhinorrhea or congested nose, are usually transient. Severe allergic reactions to influenza vaccines are very rare, being estimated at less than 1 in a million doses.187 Another critical factor is that the currently available influenza vaccines are not well suited for use in low and middle-income countries (LMIC),188 the health systems of which often lack the resources to implement vaccination adequately. Indeed, the WHO standards concerning the programmatic suitability of vaccines are not met by many influenza vaccines in LMICs. In these conditions, the priority target group is that of young children (< 5 years), whereas other risk groups are considered secondary targets.189 Further studies of all influenza vaccines, involving follow-up periods to bring to light possible increases in hospitalization, should be conducted on children < 2 years, children from LMICs or children with prior asthma or wheezing. It is necessary that safety tests be conducted in this age group, for which data regarding AEs upon LAIV administration are currently insufficient. Vaccines have to meet higher safety standards, since they are administered to healthy people, mainly healthy children.8 The monitoring of annual influenza vaccine safety, which is particular important on account of the annual changes in the viral antigen composition of the vaccine, constitutes a critical component of the influenza vaccination program. Indeed, not only does this strategy ensure the safety of vaccines, it can also maintain public trust in the national vaccination program. However, it must be borne in mind that no vaccine is 100% safe in all subjects, that vaccines may potentially cause AEs, and that the safety profile of a given pandemic influenza vaccine may not be completely described.3,80

    Severe allergic reactions to influenza vaccines are very rare, being estimated at less than 1 in a million doses


    Ballpark compare with:


    https://jech.bmj.com/content/59/7/586


    Main results: Average winter respiratory deaths attributed to influenza in children 1 month–14 years were 22 and to RSV 28; and all cause deaths to influenza 78 and to RSV 79. All cause RSV attributed deaths in infants 1–12 months exceeded those for influenza every year except 1989/90; the average RSV and influenza attributed death rates were 8.4 and 6.7 per 100 000 population respectively. Corresponding rates for children 1–4 years were 0.9 and 0.8 and for older children all rates were 0.2 or less, except for an influenza rate of 0.4 in children 10–14 years.


    Child death rate from Flu: variable 67 / million to 2 / million depending on age for one winter. (But vaccines typically cover only one winter, partial protection after).


    These are all incredibly low rates, but based on these figures - and they are ballpark - you could try to drill down to individual groups - both risks from Flu and risks from Flu vaccine are very very low, with vaccine risks a bit lower than Flu risks.

  • I am not sure if this is posted already but it is very important for the decision wether mass vaccination makes sense or not:

    https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-35331/v1%20


    Rammensee is one of the leading researches on this topic. Bottom line: 80% of people in germany already have direct strong immune response to sars cov 2 (same as being vaccinated prior) because of other corona infections in the past (cross immunity). 80%!!! 10 year old blood could fight sars cov 2 what means that the virus is not changing very fast. This is fantastic news and sheds a different light on all decisions taken so far.


    I agree it is interesting. One unexplored and important issue: do CV vaccines provide the same or better protection (to other CVs) that catching the relevant CV disease does?


    THH

  • The realisation that mild or asymptomatic infections can result in immunity to more deadly diseases is in my opinion a very important development. Big Pharma obviously won't support the idea of a vaccine that is distributed free of charge around the world, but imagine if we could eliminate (say) Ebola in the wild monkey population by creating a virus infection that maybe gave them the sniffles for a couple of days but then conferred immunity. Seed the virus by spraying a few chimps with a suspension of it and then let communal grooming spread it through a whole population.


    Self-disseminating vaccines to suppress zoonoses - NATURE - free read.


    Download PDF


    Abstract

    The SARS-CoV-2 epidemic is merely the most recent demonstration that our current approach to emerging zoonotic infectious disease is ineffective. SARS, MERS, Ebola, Nipah and an array of arenavirus infections sporadically spillover into human populations and are often contained only as a result of their poor transmission in human hosts, coupled with intense public health control efforts in the early stages of an emerging epidemic. It is now more apparent than ever that we need a better and more proactive approach. One possibility is to eliminate the threat of spillover before it occurs using vaccines capable of autonomously spreading through wild animal reservoirs. We are now poised to begin developing self-disseminating vaccines targeting a wide range of human pathogens, but important decisions remain about how they can be most effectively designed and used to target pathogens with a high risk of spillover and/or emergence. In this Perspective, we first review the basic epidemiological theory establishing the feasibility and utility of self-disseminating vaccines. We then outline a road map for overcoming remaining technical challenges: identifying high-risk pathogens before they emerge, optimizing vaccine design with an eye to evolution, behaviour and epidemiology, and minimizing the risk of unintended consequences.


  • The anti-vaxers don't like vaccines. god knows what they will think of infectious self-disseminating vaccines!


    More seriously - the medical establishment are going to be very cautious about anything like this because the unintended consequences issue is a big one, and with a vaccine if it proves to have unexpected side effects you just stop giving it.


  • Thanks for the newest confirmation. I posted the 80% value some time ago after it was clear that many countries are very close to herd immunity what only can be the case if the immunity is well above 80%.

    This virus behaves way more complex than the well known ones and most doctors, politicians (commentators) obviously act like donkeys and just without reflection repeat what they have learned.

    Interesting research discussing why the curve seems to go linear in many countries.


    Why Covid 19 Infection Curves Behave So Unexpectedly.


    This is exactly what people - that started to think - here (German part) said about a month ago.

    In the U.S., Biden is proposing mandatory mask wearing (just for starters) --

    Biden and Harris call for nationwide mandatory mask order

    If we do not all wear masks in the U.S., experts estimate that 30,000 more people will die this year.


    Masks are dangerous if you wear them to long as they are an ideal substrate for growing fungus, germs etc.. You will need at least 5 a day. But these are still sold at 4x the pre corona time prize... so about 2$/day for masks.

    I'm pretty confident that mask overall make it worse as latest aerosol trials did show that e.g. in classrooms the critical level is reached very fast. Masks do not stop aerosols except the high grade fitted ones.

    To repeat ones more: We here had 5 weeks without any masks and absolute no increase in cases. The increase was after opening restaurants and shops with circulation air condition that is a main cause for infections!


    Making - promoting - things mandatory that almost help nothing or are negative is a sign of stupidity! May be if you are older than 65 your brain stops to correctly analyze problems concerning your live.


    As you say, there are not two sides. There is only one. The whole history of modern medicine going back to Jenner shows that vaccination has saved far more lives than any other breakthrough in history. It shows that without vaccination, millions of people, mainly children, will suffer and die in agony.

    If you want to live in a society where vaccination is not enforced, or where drivers are free to threaten pedestrians with death, or for that matter where anyone is free to shit on the floor in a store or on the street, you should move to some third world country.

    You don't have to get the COVID-19 vaccination. But if you don't get it, and you get sick, you are on your own. You will have to pay 100% of hospital costs. No insurance, and no government help of any kind will be given to you.


    If you are older than 65 your brain turns you mad. There is no vaccination for CoV-19. Discussing about making something inexistent mandatory is asking for a health check.

    Vaccines will not give you 100% protection. For the flu it can be as low as 30% e.g. in late season. This is the main reason why most nurses here don't take it. The side effects of the flu vaccination are far to severe to justify its use for all. In fact only cancer or other severely ill patients should take it as it makes do more difference to the damage...

    Of course we all are happy that polio has been eradicated in Western countries but polio induced by vaccination is still not completely solved, but a new better polio vaccine is in development.


    Basically your statements JedRothwell are XXXX like as you want to exclude a group based on a body feature.


    The integrity of my body is a human right! Only slaves can be treated the way you propose/think.

  • If you are older than 65 your brain turns you mad. There is no vaccination for CoV-19.


    I think two more Wyttenfacts here?


    Many thousands of people have been given COVID vaccines: not sure what is the efficacy yet but we will find out soon (except for the Chinese military release vaccine - still shrouded in secrecy). And preparations for widespread use are well underway as soon as we want to do this.


    I personally know over-65s who have recovered from COVID and are not mad. Nor (not quite sure what the Wyttenfact means) were they mad before, on account of age.

  • Where it gets more complicated is for those with little, if anything, to gain and everything to lose. How do you convince a parent to vaccinate their child, when they are at no risk?


    Children are at some risk. A few have died, but many others have had symptoms similar to toxic shock syndrome. See:


    https://www.healio.com/pediatr…s-of-covid-19-in-children


    Furthermore, children can spread the disease, so if you live in a multi-generation house with elderly people, or a house with someone suffering from cancer, children put them at risk.



    Having said that, children should be the last to get the vaccine, after we are 100% sure it has no serious side effects. Or if it has side effects, after we are sure we can identify the people it might harm.

  • Vaccines will not give you 100% protection. For the flu it can be as low as 30% e.g. in late season.


    This is disingenuous. Surely you know that vaccines give you 100% protection against some diseases such as smallpox, polio, rabies and tetanus. That is why smallpox is extinct. Polio would also be extinct if it were not for politics. Vaccines do not prevent all influenza because there are so many different types, and they evolve quickly. COVID-19 does not evolve quickly. Experts say a vaccine will probably prevent it 100% of the time.


    If you understood that, you should not have introduced technically deceptive information into this discussion. If you did not understand that, I suggest you do your homework and stop confusing the issue.


    The integrity of my body is a human right! Only slaves can be treated the way you propose/think.


    Yeah, sure. Go ahead and kill yourself if you want. Jump off a bridge. Drink yourself to death. Eat until you are morbidly obese. When you get an infection, don't go to the hospital, and let it kill you instead. That's your business. You will do us a favor and you will get a posthumous Darwin Award. The thing is, however, if you have children, you have no right to impose your death cult lunacy on them. They should be vaccinated for childhood diseases, and for COVID-19 after we are certain it will not harm them.

  • For all those libertarians, here is how a government could quite reasonably encourage vaccination - though it goes further than I expect most democracies will want to:


    (1) Have strong regulations on business around a "COVID Clear" mark that, if you comply with conditions, you are allowed to promote via advertising, signs, etc.

    (2) For non-COVID-clear business require strong social distancing measures

    (3) COVID clear businesses must implement checks to enusre positively that only people who have been vaccinated are allowed in COVID clear areas

    (4) Government provides suitable easy to use proof for citizens who need to show they have been vaccinated


    And let the large number of customers who want COVID-clear shopping, without masks etc, do the persuasion!