5 Filters

Covid vaccine: Nurse 'caught virus waiting for second jab'

Covid
#1

Well, lots of ways to think about this. Firstly even 95% efficacy (if that’s even true) means it likely won’t help 5 out of 100 people (50K out of a million vaccinated). Secondly the govt is playing some weird game extending the time between the two doses from 3 weeks to 12 weeks, despite the fact that there a worry that this might give the virus enough time to evolve some form of resistance to the vaccine. Thirdly, she might have been more protected with Ivermectin! Fourthly, as far as I know there is no evidence that having the jab stops one from contracting the virus and passing it on to someone else (her family in this case).

At least getting the virus post vaccine didn’t trigger a severe immune response in her and kill her… I suppose that’s good.

A shitshow in other words.

The saddest part of all this for be is how bad the impact on our NHS staff is, and how badly nurses in particular have been treated during the pandemic (and decades before now).

"Nurses are on their knees. A lot… feel unprotected and unsupported.

“We’re well aware that this is what we signed up for, but it’s heartbreaking. I think a lot of them will leave - I’m one of them.”

#2

All the worse of a betrayal of our good healers because we know now that they could be protected, easily, cheaply and a whole lot more effectively than any rushed-out iffy commercial vaccine will do it - if only we could get the truth about the actually-effective prophylactics/cures heard and acted on widely. Shitshow is putting it very restrainedly. Huge crime against humanity by the BPh gics and their servants, I’d say.

1 Like
#3

Yes lots of issues brought into play. The extension to 12 weeks is interesting, an understandable thing to wish for but it flies in the face of the evidence and completely undermines the basis for people rationally deciding to take the vaccine in the first place. When people are aware of the risks but elect to take the vaccine anyway, they do so because they are persuaded (or just hopeful, it’s been a long year) that the science and the evidence shows they will be better off. IMO the game the govt are playing is buying into ‘science’ then thinking they themselves can improvise it on the hoof.
It’s a stupid game because people can see that the evidence wasn’t for the extended timescale and trust is diminished. But that’s what they get for listening to Tony Blair.

1 Like
#4

Agree 100%. And there isn’t a lot of trust to begin with (for very good reason).

Goddam. I forgot that arse stuck his oar in

#5

I’m coming round to ‘shitshow’ :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
#6

Damn right RG! Even among the different vaccines, the GICS are still playing the profit game. Did you notice that the US has not certified the Astrazeneca vaccine, showing only the Pfizer one. Surely that had nothing to do with the fact that the AZ vaccine is a not-for-profit option?

Bastardi - the lot of em

#7

The BBC article contains a whopper on the second line.

“Vaccination has been shown to prevent severe infection, so even if people do catch the virus, they would be protected from getting seriously ill.”

File under Misinformation and Fake News. One of the big criticisms that the BMJ endorsed was that the endpoints of the vaccine trials weren’t serious outcomes, but pcr negatives.

The associate editor of the BMJ no less, Peter Doshi writes:

"But what will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared “effective”?
To the public this seems fairly obvious. “The primary goal of a covid-19 vaccine is to keep people from getting very sick and dying,” a National Public Radio broadcast said bluntly.6

Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said, “Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission."

Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either (table 1). None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus."

Although a positive (ie bad for the vaccine) outcome included, along with the pcr positive, a symptom, like a cough, lots of people have these. There is no necessary connection between reducing moderate disease and reducing serious disease - you need to count the serious diseases as part of the primary outcomes.
It is true that serious disease, hospitalizations and death are rare so that bumps up the numbers needed for the stats, and the costs.

1 Like
#8

Holy crap. Good catch there mate. It’s so much worse than we think… What was the source you were quoting there?

#9

Thanks PP. I should say for the hat-tip…Ivor Cummings +1. And Rhis too, thereby :slightly_smiling_face:

Sorry - I meant to link to the Doshi piece
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037

It’s worth clicking on Table 1, to see the details of the main vaccines (and the others emerging). Down the bottom are the outcomes:

They all targeted the prevention of symptomatic disease in vaccine recipient.

But Reduction in severe covid-19 (hospital admission, ICU, or death) - N, N, N, N and N!

Interruption of transmission (person to person spread) - N, N, N, N and N.

It’s monotonous - a ‘Y’ in there would be so nice…

#10

Thanks ED

this puts me in mind of the video that @Rippon posted here a few days ago with Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi. He spent the beginning of that interview questioning (as I remember) whether it has been shown that the virus vaccine (Freudian slip there!) will actually save lives. He thought not. It’s worth putting the full title of the link to the BMJ editorial you posted - it’s pretty shocking…

Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us

Cheers

#11

Hi Evvy_dense (W!),

(For some reason your email server apparently doesn’t want to receive this message directly and it keeps coming back. So I’m posting it here.)

No problem about coming out of the blue. Yes, I still occasionally post at TLN – not sure it’s any use though!

It does seem there’s little to no resistance to any form of lockdown from what I would normally consider leftwing people, which I find surprising. Especially at TLN, where government and media claims are usually quickly rubbished. I get the impression being seen to agree with “rightwingers” is the worst sin. And you’re right, about this allegiance to official science. Re vaccines, I’ve not really thought much about them, but am very sceptical about a hastily produced one and which is highly experimental.

Cheers,

Willem