Will you accept the vaccine made available in the D.R.

windeguy

Platinum
Jul 10, 2004
34,110
1,755
113
Here is the DR's choice for vaccine:

About $2.50 US per dose, first with a half dose and then a full dose 1 months later with about 90% efficacy in tests. It does not suffer from the super cold storage requirements of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Available early next year, they say.


All will be good before we know it...........................................
 
  • Like
Reactions: zoomzx11

william webster

Platinum
Jan 16, 2009
25,200
1,529
113

How to deal with ‘vaccine hesitancy’​


There’s scepticism about vaccines’ safety, despite rigorous testing, so how can you feel able to make a fully informed choice?

Vaccines have been with us since 1798, after Edward Jenner inoculated a 13-year-old boy with cowpox virus (or vaccinia – hence the origin of the word vaccine), then found the child was immune to smallpox.


Today, vaccines protect us from contracting a wide range of diseases, from flu to cancer. In fact, the practice is so effective that Eve Dube, at the University of Sherbrooke in Canada, concluded vaccination “is considered to be one of the greatest achievements of public health” – and few would disagree.


But no medical intervention is without risk, and alongside the growing number of vaccines is increasing scepticism about their safety. This is despite the fact that new vaccines are subjected to much more rigorous testing than ever before. Scientists aren’t sure of the reasons for the rise in what they refer to as ‘vaccine hesitancy’, although Dube and colleagues, in their review of the literature, suggest four possibilities: newer vaccines are treated initially with greater scepticism; individuals are more hesitant to be vaccinated when the number of vaccines they’re encouraged to accept increases; parents are more conservative when the target population includes their own children; and people are more likely to hesitate if those in their own community are sceptical.


Another reason is data overload, particularly information based on emotion rather than facts. Although the science tells us that vaccines are being tested more than ever before, and the internet means we can easily access all the information we need, the latter can also mean that we are bombarded with misinformation too. Unfortunately, when you weigh up the risks of being vaccinated versus not, believing in unsubstantiated claims from anti-vaxxers could literally pose a risk to life.


So what, then, can those promoting vaccine uptake do to help individuals feel able to make a wise and fully informed choice? Heidi Larson, founder of the Vaccine Confidence Project, offers three suggestions:


  • First, scientists and politicians need to ask people directly about their concerns. For example, take-up for the Ebola vaccine in Africa increased after she arranged for local people to meet weekly with trial doctors who responded to their concerns.
  • Second, avoid jargon and instead use clear, simple, unambiguous language.
  • And third, present both sides of the argument. Explain the risks – with statistics if possible – as well as the benefits of taking the vaccine.

However, you may not feel this is happening. If that’s the case, and you want to learn more, what can you do? The best approach is to talk directly to a professional you trust: your GP, for example, or health visitor. If that’s not possible then seek out reputable sources, those that rely on well-conducted scientific studies rather than personal opinions. The NHS, Harvard Medical School and Centres for Disease Control and Prevention websites are good places to look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zoomzx11
Jan 9, 2004
9,243
579
113
Just to clarify a bit of misinformation posted here (seems to be a lot of that lately):

I do not, and did not, have Covid-19;

I will not take the current vaccines without more scientific clinical trial data.

That scientific data much like the origin of the virus, and whether it could or could not be transmitted human to human...........has been at the very least conflicting, and in some cases...............outright wrong.

Speaking of which, this mornings data on the Astrazeneca vaccine, for those who choose to read it carefully.............did not say 90% efficacy.................it said UP to 90%.............and when averaged with the other study at 62%.............gives a 70% result;


Not that 70%, may not be a good number.........................

But are any of the numbers even remotely accurate as wider distribution takes place?


Respectfully,
Playacaribe2
 

Big

Well-known member
Apr 24, 2019
1,963
899
113
we will have strong feedback on the side effects of this vaccine rapidly. Health care workers, old people and young healthy U.S troops will be getting these shots in short order. I have an occasional mamajuana here and that's probably a bigger risk, who knows what's in that stuff
 

william webster

Platinum
Jan 16, 2009
25,200
1,529
113
snippet from the Oxford results --- better than 70%

The first interim Phase Three trial data, released on Monday, showed that there were 30 cases of Covid in people who had two doses of the vaccine and 101 cases in people who received a non-Covid jab.


It equates to 70 per cent protection overall, which is better than the seasonal flu jab – but intriguing results suggested that when the first dose was halved, the efficacy rose to 90 per cent.


Using less vaccine for the first injection would mean the 100 million doses ordered by the UK Government will go far further than previously thought. The team also found that giving a smaller amount produces fewer side effects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bob saunders

william webster

Platinum
Jan 16, 2009
25,200
1,529
113
More on the Oxford/Astrazeneca

Researchers believe an initial half dose may be beneficial because it more accurately mirrors how the body would see the virus in the real world.
Professor Sarah Gilbert, the lead researcher of the vaccine development programme and professor of vaccinology at the University of Oxford, said: "We'll be digging into the details of exactly why we get a better efficacy with a half dose, but it may be because that better mimics what happens with a real infection.
"What we've always tried to do with the vaccine is fool the immune system into thinking that there's a dangerous infection so we get new memory and it's there waiting and ready if the pathogen itself is then encountered.
"It could be that, by giving a small amount of the vaccine to start with, following up with a big amount, that's a better way of kicking the immune system into action and giving us the strongest immune response and the most effective immune response."
The vaccine also appears to protect against hospitalisation and severe disease in people who do get the virus, and researchers said they were seeing early signs that the jab prevented people transmitting the virus to other – which would make it the first vaccine to show it also stops the spread.
In contrast, results from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have only shown that they stop people from picking up the virus.
AstraZeneca said there were four million dozes already in vials ready for distribution, but regulators must give the green light before distribution can begin. That process is likely to take several weeks, but the first jabs are expected to take place in Britain this year.
Mass vaccination centres are being planned, with care home residents and staff getting the jab first, followed by healthcare workers and the over-80s.
 

zoomzx11

Gold
Jan 21, 2006
7,848
428
83
Let everyone with compromised immune systems and pre existing conditions take the vaccine.

The rest of the population should absolutely not be required to take it for any reason whatsoever.
If it ever becomes mandatory for travel, that's when you'll know there's something rotten behind this plan.

Just ask yourself why did they have to rush a vaccine in record time for a disease that has literally a 98% survival rate. Rushing in with billions and billions and working overtime only to save 2% of the ill? Nah. I don't buy that.

Here is the DR's choice for vaccine:

About $2.50 US per dose, first with a half dose and then a full dose 1 months later with about 90% efficacy in tests. It does not suffer from the super cold storage requirements of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Available early next year, they say.


All will be good before we know it...........................................
wow dramatic change in the "wind" direction.
Originally AZ came out at 70% then claimed by juggling the shots it gets 90%.
Hopefully it is correct at 90.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neargale

zoomzx11

Gold
Jan 21, 2006
7,848
428
83
Just to clarify a bit of misinformation posted here (seems to be a lot of that lately):

I do not, and did not, have Covid-19;

I will not take the current vaccines without more scientific clinical trial data.

That scientific data much like the origin of the virus, and whether it could or could not be transmitted human to human...........has been at the very least conflicting, and in some cases...............outright wrong.

Speaking of which, this mornings data on the Astrazeneca vaccine, for those who choose to read it carefully.............did not say 90% efficacy.................it said UP to 90%.............and when averaged with the other study at 62%.............gives a 70% result;


Not that 70%, may not be a good number.........................

But are any of the numbers even remotely accurate as wider distribution takes place?


Respectfully,
Playacaribe2
Apparently I owe you an apology.
I understood you were ill and treated for CV19 in Miami.
Sorry for the error and glad you did not have the virus.
 

zoomzx11

Gold
Jan 21, 2006
7,848
428
83

How to deal with ‘vaccine hesitancy’​


There’s scepticism about vaccines’ safety, despite rigorous testing, so how can you feel able to make a fully informed choice?

Vaccines have been with us since 1798, after Edward Jenner inoculated a 13-year-old boy with cowpox virus (or vaccinia – hence the origin of the word vaccine), then found the child was immune to smallpox.


Today, vaccines protect us from contracting a wide range of diseases, from flu to cancer. In fact, the practice is so effective that Eve Dube, at the University of Sherbrooke in Canada, concluded vaccination “is considered to be one of the greatest achievements of public health” – and few would disagree.


But no medical intervention is without risk, and alongside the growing number of vaccines is increasing scepticism about their safety. This is despite the fact that new vaccines are subjected to much more rigorous testing than ever before. Scientists aren’t sure of the reasons for the rise in what they refer to as ‘vaccine hesitancy’, although Dube and colleagues, in their review of the literature, suggest four possibilities: newer vaccines are treated initially with greater scepticism; individuals are more hesitant to be vaccinated when the number of vaccines they’re encouraged to accept increases; parents are more conservative when the target population includes their own children; and people are more likely to hesitate if those in their own community are sceptical.


Another reason is data overload, particularly information based on emotion rather than facts. Although the science tells us that vaccines are being tested more than ever before, and the internet means we can easily access all the information we need, the latter can also mean that we are bombarded with misinformation too. Unfortunately, when you weigh up the risks of being vaccinated versus not, believing in unsubstantiated claims from anti-vaxxers could literally pose a risk to life.


So what, then, can those promoting vaccine uptake do to help individuals feel able to make a wise and fully informed choice? Heidi Larson, founder of the Vaccine Confidence Project, offers three suggestions:


  • First, scientists and politicians need to ask people directly about their concerns. For example, take-up for the Ebola vaccine in Africa increased after she arranged for local people to meet weekly with trial doctors who responded to their concerns.
  • Second, avoid jargon and instead use clear, simple, unambiguous language.
  • And third, present both sides of the argument. Explain the risks – with statistics if possible – as well as the benefits of taking the vaccine.

However, you may not feel this is happening. If that’s the case, and you want to learn more, what can you do? The best approach is to talk directly to a professional you trust: your GP, for example, or health visitor. If that’s not possible then seek out reputable sources, those that rely on well-conducted scientific studies rather than personal opinions. The NHS, Harvard Medical School and Centres for Disease Control and Prevention websites are good places to look.
I am unaware of any vaccine offered for public use ever that had any significant side effects.
Appreciate a correction if I am in error.
Healthy skepticism is fine but just thinking nonsense is not healthy skepticism.

Quantas Airlines has a solution for "vaccine hesitancy".
They announced this morning that in order to fly Quantas you will be required to show proof of CV19 vaccination.
Program set to begin as the vaccines become distributed.
This is such a common sense approach that I imagine it will become a popular treatment for vaccine hesitancy.

The yearly influenza vaccine has been around for years.
There has never been a single side effect associated with the vaccine or doubt of its efficacy yet only about 45% get the shot.
Makes no sense.
 

nanita

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2014
211
293
63
I am unaware of any vaccine offered for public use ever that had any significant side effects.
Appreciate a correction if I am in error.


 

DR fan1990

Active member
Sep 22, 2020
95
102
33
Canada
I am unaware of any vaccine offered for public use ever that had any significant side effects.
Appreciate a correction if I am in error.
Healthy skepticism is fine but just thinking nonsense is not healthy skepticism.

Quantas Airlines has a solution for "vaccine hesitancy".
They announced this morning that in order to fly Quantas you will be required to show proof of CV19 vaccination.
Program set to begin as the vaccines become distributed.
This is such a common sense approach that I imagine it will become a popular treatment for vaccine hesitancy.

The yearly influenza vaccine has been around for years.
There has never been a single side effect associated with the vaccine or doubt of its efficacy yet only about 45% get the shot.
Makes no sense.

Taking an OPTIONAL influenza vaccine that has been around for YEARS isn't quite the same as REQUIRING everyone to take a rushed vaccined that was made in 7 months in order to fly.

You fail to understand that being against the covid vaccine does NOT equal being against any other vaccine.

Also this travel requirement will only create a black market where people will pay someone to get a fake covid vaccine certificate. Especially in developing countries where you can easily bribe a doctor to write you said fake certificate.

Thats actually what I intend to do.
 

windeguy

Platinum
Jul 10, 2004
34,110
1,755
113
wow dramatic change in the "wind" direction.
Originally AZ came out at 70% then claimed by juggling the shots it gets 90%.
Hopefully it is correct at 90.
AstraZeneca shares fell after the drugmaker announced efficacy results for its Covid-19 vaccine that were below those reported by rivals Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. The shares ended the day 3.8% lower at £80.

Results from the phase 3 trial showed the vaccine developed with the University of Oxford can protect 70.4% of people from becoming ill and, in a surprise result, up to 90% if a lower first dose is used.

This is lower than the 95% efficacy reported for vaccines developed by the US drugmaker Pfizer and the German biotech BioNTech, and the US biotech Moderna. Analysts said the AstraZeneca/Oxford results left some unanswered questions.

Maxim Jacobs, of the investment research firm Edison Group, said: “It’s not normal for there to be lower efficacy for a higher dose, it can happen but it’s rare. There are some potential explanations, such as the vector immune response, but it’s hard to know without more data.”

James Bevan, the chief investment officer at the fund manager CCLA, told Sky News the efficacy data had been “rather less than had been anticipated by the market”.

AstraZeneca, which is Britain’s biggest pharmaceutical firm, also reiterated that it would not profit from the vaccine during the current pandemic – until at least July – by pricing “at cost”, about $3 (£2.25) to $5 a dose. This is far below Pfizer’s $19.50 and Moderna’s $25 to $37 a dose.

Neil Wilson, the chief market analyst at the trading platform Markets.com, said: “AstraZeneca shares have had a very good run this year so there is always a bit of ‘sell the news’ to this kind of thing unless it is better than expected.”

Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk
The shares slipped further after an analyst at the US investment bank SVB Leerink, Geoffrey Porges, cast doubt over whether the vaccine would be licensed in the US. Porges argued that the design of the studies did not meet the norms of the Food and Drug Administration for the representation of minorities, severe cases, previously infected individuals and the elderly.

In response, Ruud Dobber, the head of AstraZeneca’s biopharmaceuticals division, told Bloomberg TV: “In the US, we are running a trial with more than 30,000 participants, so let’s be patient to see how the FDA will react before making such harsh statements.”

Emily Field, the head of European pharmaceutical research at Barclays bank, said with the trial results out of the way, investors could concentrate on AstraZeneca’s strengths such as cancer treatment, via its oncology unit. “This will allow investor focus to return to Astra’s innovative oncology and other programmes and the company continues to offer one of the best earnings growth rates across EU pharma,” she said.




Which way will the wind blow tomorrow? Is it really 70%? 80% or 90% effective? I guess the half dose then full dose works better???

The CDC stated a while ago that even 50% would be good. It is for a batting average in baseball, but...

If the US doesn't approve the AstraZeneca vaccine, there would be more for the DR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zoomzx11

DR fan1990

Active member
Sep 22, 2020
95
102
33
Canada
Just thought you should know, the RNA vaccines that are currently being devloped for COVID 19 are a brand new technology, never used or tested on a wide scale before. It is NOT like conventional vaccines where a dead/weaken pathogen is grown and used to create an immune reaction. Instead, it employs nanotechnology to enter cell and CHANGE DNA and instruct it to produce mRNA sequence (the molecule which tells cells what to build) which is coded for a disease specific antigen. For the multibillion dollar pharma industry, it definitivly drives their cost down and their profits margin up, as they don't have to grow a pathogen in labs for months. It allows vaccines to be "manufactured" as they become more mecanical and closer to A.I. than 'biological'. Especially so, because it says that "THE DNA CAN BE SYNTHESIZED FROM AN ELECTRONIC SEQUENCE THAT CAN BE SENT ALL ACROSS THE WORLD IN AN INSTANT BY COMPUTER". (Source: https://www.breakthroughs.com/advan...es-rna-vaccine-different-conventional-vaccine) So we are talking about uploading info direct in your DNA with like wifi. I just thought it was important info for your family. I'm not saying if it was like all the other vaccines, but this one is completely different, please think about the ethic of forcing people with brand new technology, that's a little bit like human experimentation. No hate, just some food for thoughts.

 

drstock

Silver
Oct 29, 2010
2,843
488
83
Cabarete
Also this travel requirement will only create a black market where people will pay someone to get a fake covid vaccine certificate. Especially in developing countries where you can easily bribe a doctor to write you said fake certificate.

Thats actually what I intend to do.
And there's the big problem. The vaccine has been eagerly awaited by most people, and now it is becoming available people are going out of their way to negate its effects.
 

Cdn_Gringo

Gold
Apr 29, 2014
7,976
701
113
People will make a decision for themselves based on what vaccine is being offered to them and what has been conveyed to them about effectiveness and the safety of that particular vaccine. Painting all of these vaccine efforts with the same brush may be more of a public disservice than an accurate statement of scientific fact. Here in the DR. any vaccine may be better than no vaccine at all. It's not like we are going to have very many choices. It may not be prudent to be first in line, but any negatives adverse reactions should start to surface fairly quickly if the media here does their job and follows up.
 

chico bill

Lobotomy Surgeon
May 6, 2016
7,437
1,491
113
I am unaware of any vaccine offered for public use ever that had any significant side effects.
Appreciate a correction if I am in error.
Healthy skepticism is fine but just thinking nonsense is not healthy skepticism.

Quantas Airlines has a solution for "vaccine hesitancy".
They announced this morning that in order to fly Quantas you will be required to show proof of CV19 vaccination.
Program set to begin as the vaccines become distributed.
This is such a common sense approach that I imagine it will become a popular treatment for vaccine hesitancy.

The yearly influenza vaccine has been around for years.
There has never been a single side effect associated with the vaccine or doubt of its efficacy yet only about 45% get the shot.
Makes no sense.
Boy are you even doing any research ?

1955 - Cutter Polio vaccine actually caused a few hundred to contract polio, including my cousin
1976 - Sine Flu and Guillain-Barre
1998 - Hepatitis B vaccination linked to multiple sclerosis (MS)
1998 - RotaShield vaccine, vaccine to prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis. Some infants developed intussusception (rare type of bowel obstruction)
2017 - Vaccine for Dengue made the disease much worse
2019 - Vaccine for H1N1 caused narcolepsy in may patients

And there are others.............................

And then of course there was Thalidomide