So what happens if I get a certain vaccine but don't develop immunity to the virus, can I get another vaccine?
Buy on AliExpress.com
Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (38 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
Look at numbers for cancer deaths in us and uk. As for transmissibility there's HPV. unfortunately appeal to a false sense of ethics and non sequitur are not valid, hey do you really need that phone? That money could be spent to help others, you pretending they don't exist does impact their plight. It's truly amazing how easily manipulated people are.
First they didn't deliver (who's fault that is I don't care, has nothing to do with the vaccine itself anyway)
But that was soon followed by the question whether or not it actually works for elderly people, as there apparently weren't enough studies to back that up, and now you have the blood clot cases to investigate. The bad reputation is very much science based, or at least lack of information/transparency
But that was soon followed by the question whether or not it actually works for elderly people, as there apparently weren't enough studies to back that up, and now you have the blood clot cases to investigate. The bad reputation is very much science based, or at least lack of information/transparency
Last edited:
That stat is flawed, 17 million doses have been given to date. However, 37 cases of blood clots were recorded since last week. Either way, the percentage would still be low enough to regarded as negligible.
I dont like how media reports this, straight from the horses mouth.
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-c...e-safety-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca.html
I dont like how media reports this, straight from the horses mouth.
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-c...e-safety-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca.html
But don't you think we should should look into it regardless?
Not to piss off some big pharma or another country, but to dismiss the growing scepticism people have regarding vaccines.
Why would you as healthy young person take a vaccine that may or may not cause blood clots? Look into it and sort it out, or give me another one.
Not to piss off some big pharma or another country, but to dismiss the growing scepticism people have regarding vaccines.
Why would you as healthy young person take a vaccine that may or may not cause blood clots? Look into it and sort it out, or give me another one.
I don't particularly see it as an ethical argument, but a common sense one in reducing numbers enough so people can lead regular lives. That someone's obese father or 85 year old granny doesn't die is an additional bonus. Who wouldn't want that? It is not a false sense to everybody, but if that is your take then fine.
I've no idea, it could be either AZ or Pfizer. I'm not bothered which one it is. I know from others that both can make you feel like shit for a day or two.
If I die from a blood clot at least I don't have to read Elvin's post-CL exit posts near year.
You think this bad media rep is based on science, but I disagree. Micron made a political play and eventually backed down from pressure. But it's up to each member state to make their own decisions, interpret the data. Ultimately what I see is more EU bureaucracy. The UK might have jumped in with both feet but it is working very well so far.
I'm not criticising the procedure. That is absolutely correct and a tried and tested scientific method - where data is insufficient you stop the application until further testing. But there has never been a case where the entire population is the sample, so you have to weigh one against the other. I just think that in this scenario one decision is better than the other.
If I die from a blood clot at least I don't have to read Elvin's post-CL exit posts near year.
You think this bad media rep is based on science, but I disagree. Micron made a political play and eventually backed down from pressure. But it's up to each member state to make their own decisions, interpret the data. Ultimately what I see is more EU bureaucracy. The UK might have jumped in with both feet but it is working very well so far.
I'm not criticising the procedure. That is absolutely correct and a tried and tested scientific method - where data is insufficient you stop the application until further testing. But there has never been a case where the entire population is the sample, so you have to weigh one against the other. I just think that in this scenario one decision is better than the other.
They should look at it, there are way too many countries involved now, even though it's precautionary. WHO has been saying all along there is no medical link between the vaccine and blood clots but are now reviewing it themselves, and rightly so. There needs to be a certain level of confidence and both sides need to be sensible about it.
I've personally been apprehensive about these vaccines, throughout this journey, to me everything was rushed. Creating a vaccine takes a number of years, and there are reasons behind that. I remember the CEO of Pfizer and Merck were the first to highlight that it would be a huge feat to prepare one within a year, in fact they were saying late 2021 at one point. To me it felt like a race, it's been created but at what cost? what shortcuts were made? how the risks were mitigated? we will never know...
That said, every vaccine carries a risk and in the end, if the numbers of recipients with thrombosis are actually higher than reported then it's possibly to do with an underlying and unknown medical condition that wasn't spotted during trials they will find out.
As a prediction, i reckon they''ll get to bottom of it new guidance will be issued, some fines might make their way, some countries will ban it, others will have no choice but to continue or accept it. On the other hand, if nothing is found, then maybe it is all political.
I've personally been apprehensive about these vaccines, throughout this journey, to me everything was rushed. Creating a vaccine takes a number of years, and there are reasons behind that. I remember the CEO of Pfizer and Merck were the first to highlight that it would be a huge feat to prepare one within a year, in fact they were saying late 2021 at one point. To me it felt like a race, it's been created but at what cost? what shortcuts were made? how the risks were mitigated? we will never know...
That said, every vaccine carries a risk and in the end, if the numbers of recipients with thrombosis are actually higher than reported then it's possibly to do with an underlying and unknown medical condition that wasn't spotted during trials they will find out.
As a prediction, i reckon they''ll get to bottom of it new guidance will be issued, some fines might make their way, some countries will ban it, others will have no choice but to continue or accept it. On the other hand, if nothing is found, then maybe it is all political.
