AstraZeneca vaccine

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just now, ditchman said:

...............a believer.............

"and the lord saith unto moses...."come forth".........but he came fifth and lost his tobacco money...."

and that was the rent gone and nothing to puff on!

[serrac]

22 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

the vaccine does not alter DNA. 

Given the novel mRNA vaccines have only been in widespread use for a few months the data does not yet exist to support such a claim.  Nor is it likely to for several years, if not decades.

The most assertive honest statement any scientist could make at this point would be along the lines of "according to prevailing theory we do not expect genetic material from the vaccine to be incorporated into the recipient's DNA"

However it is a leap of faith to presume prevailing theory can fully predict the behavior surrounding lab-engineered RNA. 

For example the vaccine mRNA is engineered to ensure it stays intact within the cells longer than natural RNA - this to increase the production of spike proteins.  This could potentially create conditions favorable to molecular processes which could not occur naturally due to the transient lifespan of natural RNA.

Biology is no stranger to Black Swan events - the granddaddy of these being inanimate organic compounds assembling themselves into complex living systems.  This process has never been observed or reproduced and science is still struggling to characterize it, yet Evolutionary theory absolutely requires that it happened at some point in the past.  If we accept it is possible to go from molecules to Mozart by entirely natural processes is it too much of a stretch to entertain the possibility that attempting to repeatedly vaccinate the entire population of the planet with an experimental gene therapy might encounter a few unintended consequences along the way?

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, serrac said:

Nor is it likely to for several years, if not decades.

I have had the vaccine (1st dose), and I will have the second when the slot comes - and any subsequent doses deemed necessary.  In view of what we know, there is no credible risk of the vaccine altering DNA.

Looking at the risks of the vaccine versus the risks from the virus, unless you have a medical condition making you unsuited to the vaccine - you would have to be half-witted to refuse it!

[serrac]

35 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I have had the vaccine (1st dose), and I will have the second when the slot comes - and any subsequent doses deemed necessary.  In view of what we know, there is no credible risk of the vaccine altering DNA.

Looking at the risks of the vaccine versus the risks from the virus, unless you have a medical condition making you unsuited to the vaccine - you would have to be half-witted to refuse it!

The reliability of the official vaccine safety data is a story for another day 🤐

My absolute risk of dying from covid according to qcovid.org is 0.0175% and that presumably assumes I am unaware of and have no access to the emerging prophylactic and early treatment protocols for Covid.

If I do take the vaccine it will be several years in the future and because of coercive pressure rather than fear of the virus.

But thanks anyway for enrolling in the long-term safety trials - your dedication to the advancement of medical research is appreciated 😇

[Sako7mm]

Presumably,  serrac, you haven't bothered with a flu vaccine, polio, tetanus or TB jab, or anything else? Don't ever put a plaster on, will you? I mean, you never know...

[ordnance]

1 hour ago, serrac said:

The reliability of the official vaccine safety data is a story for another day 🤐

My absolute risk of dying from covid according to qcovid.org is 0.0175% and that presumably assumes I am unaware of and have no access to the emerging prophylactic and early treatment protocols for Covid.

If I do take the vaccine it will be several years in the future and because of coercive pressure rather than fear of the virus.

But thanks anyway for enrolling in the long-term safety trials - your dedication to the advancement of medical research is appreciated 😇

There will be, and are already some vaccines not using RNA for people concerned it will alter their DNA. 

[ordnance]

Quote

For example the vaccine mRNA is engineered to ensure it stays intact within the cells longer than natural RNA - this to increase the production of spike proteins.  This could potentially create conditions favorable to molecular processes which could not occur naturally due to the transient lifespan of natural RNA.

Did you cut and paste that, or do we have a expert on vaccines and immunology on the forum 

[Cannon]

2 hours ago, ordnance said:

Did you cut and paste that, or do we have a expert on vaccines and immunology on the forum 

Bit rich coming from the king of cut and paste

[oowee]

10 hours ago, serrac said:

The most assertive honest statement any scientist could make at this point would be along the lines of "according to prevailing theory we do not expect genetic material from the vaccine to be incorporated into the recipient's DNA"
 

Your DNA is continually subject to change throughout your life as a consequence with your interaction with the environment and as a result of time. It's more likely that your DNAbe altered by a virus developed by nature specifically to attack your metabolism, rather than by vacinne developed to protect it. 

[oscarsdad]

11 hours ago, serrac said:

The reliability of the official vaccine safety data is a story for another day 🤐

My absolute risk of dying from covid according to qcovid.org is 0.0175% and that presumably assumes I am unaware of and have no access to the emerging prophylactic and early treatment protocols for Covid.

If I do take the vaccine it will be several years in the future and because of coercive pressure rather than fear of the virus.

But thanks anyway for enrolling in the long-term safety trials - your dedication to the advancement of medical research is appreciated 😇

And your risk of a blood clot from the AZ vaccine is < 0.00000167%, so Covid is 10,000 times more likely to kill you that the jab is to cause a blot clot (which probably wouldn’t kill you). 

[stuartc44]

13 minutes ago, oscarsdad said:

And your risk of a blood clot from the AZ vaccine is < 0.00000167%, so Covid is 10,000 times more likely to kill you that the jab is to cause a blot clot (which probably wouldn’t kill you). 

To compare deaths from covid and the vaccine, you need to know how many people die within 28 days of having the vaccine, not purely beacause of the vaccine. If not comparing like for like you will always get the answers you want.

Or how about how many people actually died of covid not for any reason within 28 days of a positive test.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/man-who-died-after-falling-from-ladder-ruled-a-coronavirus-death-by-doctors-report/ar-BB1bd6ND

[figgy]

I'm Surprised how many halfwits are around.  I think it's simple, no vaccine your not coming in. Be it the country for foreigners. Shops restraints and other leisure places. 

They have a choice, vaccine and integration or not and segregation.  Not hard is it.

 

Are there people who still think covid don't exist and people are not dying of it.

Edited April 5, 2021 by figgy

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, figgy said:

I'm Surprised how many halfwits are around.  I think it's simple, no vaccine your not coming in. Be it the country for foreigners. Shops restraints and other leisure places. 

They have a choice, vaccine and integration or not and segregation.  Not hard is it.

+1

[stuartc44]

So all under 16's and others who are told not to have it, those who wish to wait until the UK medicines regulator give the vaccine full approval are segregated to keep you safe from a virus you have been vaccinated against. Do you not believe that the vaccine works?

[stuartc44]

If vaccine passports are not to be used for pubs and shops etc. does that mean you will segregate yourselves from those places?

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, stuartc44 said:

Do you not believe that the vaccine works?

No vaccine 100% works, but that is not the main issue. 

The main issue is that the more cases there are in either vaccinated or un-vaccinated people, the more variants/mutations will arise - and sooner or later one of those will risk the whole thing starting out all over again - and no one wants that.  Therefore the best route is for everyone (who is medically suitable) should have the vaccine as soon as possible.  It isn't rocket science - it is plain common sense.

[Newbie to this]

8 minutes ago, stuartc44 said:

So all under 16's and others who are told not to have it, those who wish to wait until the UK medicines regulator give the vaccine full approval are segregated to keep you safe from a virus you have been vaccinated against. Do you not believe that the vaccine works?

A vaccine doesn't stop you catching what you are vaccinated against. It just hopefully stops it being lethal.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Newbie to this

[oscarsdad]

8 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

No vaccine 100% works, but that is not the main issue. 

The main issue is that the more cases there are in either vaccinated or un-vaccinated people, the more variants/mutations will arise - and sooner or later one of those will risk the whole thing starting out all over again - and no one wants that.  Therefore the best route is for everyone (who is medically suitable) should have the vaccine as soon as possible.  It isn't rocket science - it is plain common sense.

/\ this

[stuartc44]

4 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

No vaccine 100% works, but that is not the main issue. 

The main issue is that the more cases there are in either vaccinated or un-vaccinated people, the more variants/mutations will arise - and sooner or later one of those will risk the whole thing starting out all over again - and no one wants that.  Therefore the best route is for everyone (who is medically suitable) should have the vaccine as soon as possible.  It isn't rocket science - it is plain common sense.

 

3 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

A vaccine doesn't stop you catching what you are vaccinated against. It just hopefully stops it being lethal.

So if it doesn't stop you catching it, explain how vaccination will stop mutation. All the information I found said it is unknown if it stops spreading.

You can choose to have an at the moment experimental vaccine if you wish, certainly not should have it.

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, stuartc44 said:

So if it doesn't stop you catching it, explain how vaccination will stop mutation.

My guess is it doesn't, just like the flu vaccine. But it is just that, a guess.

1 hour ago, stuartc44 said:

You can choose to have an at the moment experimental vaccine if you wish

I will, as soon as it is offered to me, I hope for people like you, they do not introduce vaccine passports.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Newbie to this

[JohnfromUK]

36 minutes ago, stuartc44 said:

So if it doesn't stop you catching it, explain how vaccination will stop mutation.

It doesn't stop all cases of 'you catching it' - but it does stop about 70-80% of cases, so a large reduction in cases.  It also makes those cases that do still occur much less serious, greatly reducing hospital admissions.

It doesn't stop mutation (as far as is known), but less cases = less mutations, so it reduces mutations.  There is also good reason to believe that shorter (less severe cases also = less mutations) - which will reduce mutations still more.

Reducing mutations (and cases) is important - because sooner or later one will come that will evade the present vaccine.  If we have low cases, that will be easier to control spread of the variant until the vaccine can be tweaked to cover the new threat strain.

No one wants a repeat of all the restrictions and lockdowns to happen all over again. - If we didn't vaccinate - then we would be still having high cases and more controls coming in - just like France has just introduced.

Those who refuse the vaccine (without good medical reason) are putting the whole strategy at risk.

[stuartc44]

With approximately 20% of the population under 16 years of age plus those with 'good medical reason' by your reasoning it's already at very great risk of failing.

As for your lockdowns, those in higher risk groups should have been staying at home and those at low risk carry on working and then we won't be in quite so much debt. Of course, we had to save the NHS. It's pushed beyond it's limits every year with the flu, of witch there have been almost no cases at all this year. Due to way beds and staff were deployed, 'caution should be exercised in comparing overall occupancy rates between this year and previous years. In general hospitals will experience capacity pressures at lower overall occupancy rates than would previously have been the case.'

[oowee]

2 hours ago, figgy said:

I'm Surprised how many halfwits are around.  I think it's simple, no vaccine your not coming in. Be it the country for foreigners. Shops restraints and other leisure places. 

They have a choice, vaccine and integration or not and segregation.  Not hard is it.

 

Are there people who still think covid don't exist and people are not dying of it.

No too harsh and does not allow for choice. We should demand a vaccine and a negative test. If no vaccine then enforced hotel isolation. That way those that have to travel can but will need to keep others safe. We will still want to go abroad and whilst the vaccine helps we should still have a negative test to travel. 

[JohnfromUK]

24 minutes ago, stuartc44 said:

With approximately 20% of the population under 16 years of age

I believe Pfizer are trialling/have trialled their vaccine in U 16s as the intention is to roll out to all ages once the pressure is off.  Not sure if AZ and others have tried in younger ages?

[stuartc44]

Maybe 'trialling', the ones you have had they are still trialling. Why would would you put your child forward for testing anything until it's been fully approved for adults? It's possible risks of long term problems that are the issue.