Vuvu vaccine works perfectly and builds strong immunity to virus

Says new report by researchers

Well this is awkward - Clergs told us it was a load of shit which wouldn't work and wouldn't change anything

God I hope so and we can stop all the nonsense that much sooner

 

Given they've only been testing for a few months, the life-span of the immunity would be hard to confirm..

Well, let’s see. Of course this project cannot be allowed to fail, even if a few people die along the way, eh...

this means we wait until 2023 before acknowledging that covid is never going away

Has anyone screened it for the lizard mind control chemicals?

No. I bet now.

WAKE UP, SHEEPLE.

Moderna, Pfizer and AZ have published the endpoints for their Phase 3 trials.  Success for the first two would be 50% efficacy.  For the third, 60%.  The FDA have said they will accept 50% efficacy.

heh. of course it fucking works. we know how to design these things now.

WHAM BAM, DO THE VACCINE SLAM

GET ON THE GURNEY, ANTIVAXERS!

I'm getting my vaccine with built-in 5g.  It's the internet of things, and it cannot be stopped. 

The length of time it’s effective for is a pretty important factor. Anyway, after you laz

it certainly is, but until it's been tested over a period of time, you cannot really say how long it will be viable. Can't believe I have to type that, but it's 2020.

ReAlly, I would have thought the clinical testing would have given you a good idea of that

Sam-in other words you are dubious about this "works perfectly" description?

to say it works perfectly mean it works exactly as well as we said it would which means it is 50% effective

Fingers crossed. 

They say repeatedly in the article that it's working how it's supposed to work. 

What does that mean?

I can't cross my fingers for a vaccine I don't think is needed and which I would not take myself

"They say repeatedly in the article that it's working how it's supposed to work."

I don't really care how it works or for how long, as long as it works enough to satisfy the vuvu zealots so we can have our lives back 

will be mildly interesting to see how NZ and Australia react when they vaccinate and release all controls, and several thousand elderly people die each winter from it.  

Would you take a monthly/quarterly vaccine for the rest of your life? I wouldn’t. 

I don't care if it works or its a big fat placebo.

If the end result is the world can stop focusing 100% of its attention to covid and reducing covid cases that would be very nice.

 

risky - me neither and frankly we don't have the infrastructure for anyone to do it

I think that the highly profitable covid obsession will continue for most of this decade either way

Sam-in other words you are dubious about this "works perfectly" description?

to say it works perfectly mean it works exactly as well as we said it would which means it is 50% effective

The published trial details say 50% and 60% efficacy are acceptable endpoints and the FDA will licence.

Analysts have said of the Oxford vaccine that if data is published in November it will probably be closer to 60% and if it is still pending by December it will be closer to 50%.

The FDA has said efficacy of between 30% and 50% is required for an Emergency Use Application.

From all published materials, people should be expecting any vaccine which arrives to be nowhere near as efficacious as vaccines for other diseases.

 

Massive heh at the goalpost moving. “Oh but it won’t work 100%! Oh but it will require boosters!”

Would you take a monthly/quarterly vaccine for the rest of your life? I wouldn’t. 

All current indications point towards annual vaccinations.

Got to say it’s really weird how some people seem to think being against COVID social distancing measures means they are also obliged to be vaccine sceptics.

That's not goalpost moving. The vast majority of people - thanks to the governments simplistic 'measures are needed to control the virus until we get a vaccine' - think a vaccine will eradicate the virus 

most vaccines against viruses do not achieve eradication. I've always said this 

Massive heh at the goalpost moving. “Oh but it won’t work 100%! Oh but it will require boosters!”

I don't think anyone said it would work 100% did they?

We have a large annual flu vaccination programme.  Between 2015 and 2020 the vaccination programme prevented between 15% and 52% of flu cases.  We still do it though don't we and I've not heard many complaints about it before.

Quarterly is fine and assume they'd end up rolling it out in offices like flu jabs so not a problem that we don't have enough GP appointments, etc. for everyone to turn up to their local surgery every three months.  Surely we must be reaching the point where some of this stuff can be self-administered as I managed to give myself anti-clotting injections every day for six weeks a decade ago without infecting myself with something?

The fda have fully licence remaidivir (so) which the WHO says is useless!

Surely we must be reaching the point where some of this stuff can be self-administered

That depends on the vaccine.  But I'd wager the cost of putting freezers which can keep some of them which need to be kept below -70 degrees celcius in every UK home might be prohibitive.

"I managed to give myself anti-clotting injections every day for six weeks a decade ago without infecting myself with something?"

Sub cutaneous injections are easy, you don't have to find a vein. People can be taught to do it obvs but I can't imagine there would be need or take up for self administration. 

There was a story the other day that there isn’t enough refrigerated air capacity to actually distribute billions of doses

The fda have fully licence remaidivir (so) which the WHO says is useless!

They haven't "fully licence[d]" it, they've granted an Emergency Use Authorisation.  And they've explained the scientific evidence which they consider justifies it (copied below).

And I know who out of the FDA and WHO I'd trust more!

Regulatory and Scientific Basis for Emergency Use 

Under the law, the FDA may revise an emergency use authorization, as appropriate, based on additional public health considerations, such as new data. Based on the Agency’s ongoing review of the EUA for Veklury, including its review of the totality of scientific information now available, the Agency is revising the EUA to expand the scope of the authorized uses to include the treatment of hospitalized adult and pediatric patients, irrespective of their disease severity. The expansion of the scope of the EUA to include hospitalized patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 is supported by the Agency’s analysis of additional data from two randomized, controlled clinical trials that included patients with mild or moderate disease.

One randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-1), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, evaluated how long it took for subjects to recover from COVID-19 within 29 days of being treated. The trial looked at 1,062 hospitalized subjects with mild, moderate and severe COVID-19 who received Veklury (n=541) or placebo (n=521), plus standard of care. Recovery was defined as either being discharged from the hospital or being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care. The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 10 days for the Veklury group compared to 15 days for the placebo group, a statistically significant difference. Overall, the odds of clinical improvement at Day 15 were also statistically significantly higher in the Veklury group when compared to the placebo group. In hospitalized patients with mild to moderate disease, the results for time to recovery as well as the odds of improvement at Day 15 numerically favored the Veklury group and were consistent with the overall study results.

A separate randomized, open-label multi-center clinical trial (Study GS-US-540-5774) of hospitalized adult subjects with moderate COVID-19 compared treatment with Veklury for five days (n=191) and treatment with Veklury for 10 days (n=193) with standard of care (n=200). Researchers evaluated the clinical status of subjects on Day 11. Overall, the odds of a subject’s COVID-19 symptoms improving were statistically significantly higher in the five-day Veklury group at Day 11 when compared to those receiving only standard of care. The odds of improvement with the 10-day treatment group when compared to those receiving only standard of care were numerically favorable, but not statistically significantly different. At Day 28, mortality was less than or equal to 2 percent in all treatment groups. Limitations of this trial included the open-label design. 

To say it works perfectly is NOT to say it is 50% effective. 50% effectiveness was not a projection, it was an indication of the minimum efficacy the authorities would accept. It’s perfectly possible the oxvax will be 99% effective.

the assumption that take up of the vuvuvaccine will necessarily be as limited as take up of flu vaccine was before vuvu is just ridiculously flawed

if you want evidence of this, look at how oversubscribed this year’s flu vaccine is

It’s perfectly possible the oxvax will be 99% effective.

Yes, it's possible.  It's also possible that Beyonce may sit on my face.

Thanks Risky - good to know.  Which bit of the evidence used by the FDA for their authorisation do you disagree with?

The approval of Veklury was supported by the agency’s analysis of data from three randomized, controlled clinical trials that included patients hospitalized with mild-to-severe COVID-19.

One randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-1), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, evaluated how long it took for subjects to recover from COVID-19 within 29 days of being treated. The trial looked at 1,062 hospitalized subjects with mild, moderate and severe COVID-19 who received Veklury (n=541) or placebo (n=521), plus standard of care. Recovery was defined as either being discharged from the hospital or being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care. The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 10 days for the Veklury group compared to 15 days for the placebo group, a statistically significant difference. Overall, the odds of clinical improvement at Day 15 were also statistically significantly higher in the Veklury group when compared to the placebo group.

A second randomized, open-label multi-center clinical trial of hospitalized adult subjects with moderate COVID-19 compared treatment with Veklury for five days (n=191) and treatment with Veklury for 10 days (n=193) with standard of care (n=200). Researchers evaluated the clinical status of subjects on Day 11. Overall, the odds of a subject’s COVID-19 symptoms improving were statistically significantly higher in the five-day Veklury group at Day 11 when compared to those receiving only standard of care. The odds of improvement with the 10-day treatment group when compared to those receiving only standard of care were numerically favorable, but not statistically significantly different.

A third separate, randomized, open-label multi-center clinical trial of hospitalized adult subjects with severe COVID-19 compared treatment with Veklury for five days (n= 200) and treatment with Veklury for 10 days (n= 197). Researchers evaluated the clinical status of subjects on Day 14. Overall, the odds of a subject’s COVID-19 symptoms improving were similar for those in the five-day Veklury group as those in the 10-day Veklury group, and there were no statistically significant differences in recovery rates or mortality rates between the two groups.

I’ll ask her if she wants to when I unsit from hers

"the assumption that take up of the vuvuvaccine will necessarily be as limited as take up of flu vaccine was before vuvu is just ridiculously flawed

if you want evidence of this, look at how oversubscribed this year’s flu vaccine is"

this year 

let's see in three or five years tho

 

tbh I don't care either way, I just want this rubbish over 

the assumption that take up of the vuvuvaccine will necessarily be as limited as take up of flu vaccine was before vuvu is just ridiculously flawed

Any assessment of likely take-up is necessarily a guess.

My guess is that in the elderly and vulnerable groups takeup will be high (70%+).  In healthy adults the takeup will be medium (25%-35%).  In children it will be low (15%).

Your guesses?

I think it will be lower than 15% in children, if they get offered it (didn't PHE or sage say recently children would not be offered it initially)

Where did I say that Sam? You seem

to have assumed something in my post that wasn’t there

Efficacy levels aside, and Linda makes some good points on that, I’m a little wary of a vaccine that’s been rushed through like this. We can’t possibly know how safe it is after such a short period.
 

Anyone else remember the rush job swine flu vaccine and the narcolepsy side effects? 
 

faod I love vaccines and have had lots

my guess is: 75% across all adult cohorts

beyoncé’s guess is mmmpppflllssslllllppfll

It will only be anywhere near 75 percent take up if the government starts a “you’re only allowed in pubs and shops if you have a vaccine armband” noise.

Wellers, you’re doing this all wrong.

After making what is on the face of it an outlandish claim in an OP, the one thing you absolutely should not do is to provide a verifiable reputable link to the source.

Rather, you should obfuscate, ignore and insult until you start another thread on the same matter.

At which point, rinse and repeat.

A study released by the World Health Organization last week found that the antiviral drug did not help cut deaths of hospitalized Covid-19 patients.

A study released by the World Health Organization last week found that the antiviral drug did not help cut deaths of hospitalized Covid-19 patients.

Which would be a damning assessment if it was approved to cut deaths.  But it wasn't.  It was to speed up recovery times following serious illness.  Have a read, it's just up there ^^^

Effectiveness of 50-75% and some reduction in transmissibility is my guess.

Refined to higher effectiveness and greater reduction in transmissibility (perhaps even fully sterilising) in 2/3G vaccines in 2-3 years' time.

I don't understand being unconcerned by Covid but worried by a vaccine. Given how the (in particular) AZN vaccine works, what's the basis for imputing greater risk to a low dose adenovirus-with-a-coronavirus-spike to unknown dose full-coronavirus-spikes-and-all?

If everyone refused to take a vaccine which hadn't been taken by everyone else first, we would have no vaccines. How can you say it's selfish and cowardly to advocate for any lockdown-style restrictions against the risk of Covid, but not selfish and cowardly to refuse to accept a vaccine? Why should the lockdown cohort accept the risk of Covid but the let-it-rip cohort not accept the risk of the vaccine?

because the entire premise of the let it rip gang is based on extreme self interest. As long as they are alright, fuck society. As long as they can go to the pub with their mates, it doesn't matter if a few peoples parents die a decade earlier than they would have normally.

I wouldn't take this vaccine because covid isn't a risk to me and it's extremely new

Even the UK government vaccine task force says the balance of risk is different for under 55s

I might get covid, I almost certainly won't notice

No need to take something that might harm me and I don't need

The point of herd immunity through vaccination is that people who aren’t at high risk get vaccinated to avoid becoming vectors of transmission to those who are.

That’s also why it doesn’t matter so much if it isn’t 100% effective. It’s supposed to function on a population level, not at the level of individuals.

If it's only 50% effective I will just double up.

#maths

Wot Chimp said. Chances are it will only he 60% effective so everyone needs to take it. Can't we just mandate it? Sod these anti-vax idiots.

Clergs would choose to rail against the never ending nightmare of being alive. 

TI, I think she has said she would be infected if they were the theee choices 

Well she may have been infected on the anti-muzzle march in London she no doubt attended today.

there is absolutely no possibility of the vaccine being materially harmful if it is approved by the U.K. government

there is a small, but material, chance of covid being harmful

My entire family will be getting it the first day we’re able

ducks the chances are it will be much more effective than 60%

there is absolutely no possibility of the vaccine being materially harmful if it is approved by the U.K. government
 

Er, swine flu vaccine. Narcolepsy. there’s a reason it got withdrawn really bloody quickly. 
 

it may well be fine, but the idea that a rushed approval presents no risk of harm is just silly based on the actual track record of this stuff. Also worth looking up Dengvaxia and its rushed rollout in the Philippines.

im 100 percent not anti vax, having had many, but there’s a reason vaccines normally take a long while to prove out.

Absolutely sometimes the risk of not using them outweighs the risk of using them though.  

Is this another thread about the bug that's going round? Getting a bit much now.

literally hardly anyone got narcolepsy from the swine flu vax

the chances of doing so were certainly an order of magnitude lower than, say, the chances of dying if you catch the vu vu

You know they talk about glass half full types and glass half empty types? You're not really either are you, Clergs? More the sledgehammer the glass into a thousand tiny shards and then start on the crockery type person. 

Yeah it was just a few people

in Scandinavia BEFORE THEY STOPPED OTHER PEOPLE TAKING IT!

There is absolutely no way that me or my kids are taking a vaccine until it has been out there for at least as long as Covid. 

My chances of contracting Covid and having serious health complications: 0.001%

My chances of taking an unknown vaccine and having serious health complications: ?%

I couldn’t give a monkeys about society. I am white, wealthy and in good health. Regardless of what happens with covid, i will be fine. 

“My chances of contracting Covid and having serious health complications: 0.001%”

Total bollocks unless you’re under ten years old. And yes I did factor in your chances of catching it.

My kids are under 10 years old so thanks for proving my point 

‘I couldn’t give a monkeys about society. I am white, wealthy and in good health. Regardless of what happens with covid, i will be fine.’

Seamus summarising TeamSane’s ethos nicely.

Tom - that is perhaps the wrongest thing ever posted on the internet. It is the vuvuzealots that are prepared to chuck millions of children in the third world under the bus to save white wealthy elderly people in the first world. 

 

Heamus

Are you your own child, then?

Rhamnousia/Heamus - I get that that's your position, I just don't understand it.

1/ What is the basis for the assumption that the risk from the vaccine is greater than the risk from Covid? You are ascribing functionally zero risk to contracting Covid. Even if that's right, what's the logical basis (given the structure of, say, the Oxford vaccine) for assuming the vaccine risk is (i) greater (ii) unknown, in the context of the novelty of Covid itself, the lifetime consequences of which - and prevalence of those consequences - being still largely unknown.

Perhaps I'm thinking about this the wrong way.

2/ Societal benefit. Even if risk to you of Covid is low, what about everyone who is more vulnerable. Isn't it reasonable to accept some risk for the benefit of those people? And isn't that what you're asking them to do for you (and calling them cowards if they don't)? Tell me how I'm wrong.

Sam, is it even possible to compare this vaccine with flu ?

 

I thought the Covid -19 vaccine was for a single strain novel form coronavirus that mutates slowly whereas the flu vaccine is a multiple strain vaccination that attempts (bi-annually?) to keep up with more rapidly mutating / evolving strains of influenza?

Sam, is it even possible to compare this vaccine with flu ?

I thought the Covid -19 vaccine was for a single strain novel form coronavirus that mutates slowly whereas the flu vaccine is a multiple strain vaccination that attempts (bi-annually?) to keep up with more rapidly mutating / evolving strains of influenza?

I wasn't comparing the science with the flu.  I was noting that we run a large-scale immunisation programme for flu which kills tens of thousands of people every year with relatively low efficacy (for whatever and likely different reasons).  The prospect that we might do the same for a C19 vaccine with similarly low efficacy levels (for whatever reason) isn't totally implausable.

re societal benefit, nobody has an obligation to take on a risk to themselves for the benefit of someone else (except, perhaps, their own child)

re risk, the statistical risk to me of covid is the same or slightly less than the statistical risk to me of flu

there is a risk with taking any medicine and you should only do so if the benefit outweighs that risk

I absolutely am asking no one to do anything for me

but I won't accept living for another year under the restrctions that the government has laid out

it will be a pity if everyone just ignores the rules but they remain in place, destroying businesses and health

but I think that is most likely

TeamSane: LET IT RIP OR ELSE SOCIETY WILL DIE #SCAMDEMIC #CUIBONO

Also Team Sane: VACCINATE? WHY SHOULD I DO ANYTHING TO HELP SOCIETY.

I know I know

there was a scandal in Glasgow earlier in the year but everyone was just like "meh WE ARE PROTECTING THE VULNERABLE"

what by drugging them so they can't scream?

absolute fuckers

Tom - there is no reason to take this vaccine. It is not my fault that the hysterics wrongly believe it's "the way out".

there is a risk with taking any medicine and you should only do so if the benefit outweighs that risk

Spot on.  Medicines are basically poisons with benefits.  Should always understand the benefits being better for you than the poison.

Genuine Q for Clergs - if proving you had had vax was the only way you could travel abroad (seems quite conceivable to me) will you still not take it?

I'll answer that too if I may.  I'd do it for me, but I'll take a year's worth of staycations after it's introduced for the kids so see how it plays out

(Also there is going to be a MASSIVE criminal fraud market in providing "proof" of vaccination)

‘Tom - there is no reason to take this vaccine. It is not my fault that the hysterics wrongly believe it's "the way out".‘
 

But Laz believes it’s the answer to...actually yes I see your point.

if that were the case it is not a world I would want to live in

the absolute absurdity of having to prove you don't have a disease that is harmless to most people

I think that the vaccine is likely to have extremely unpleasant side effects for a very small number of people and I think that is an ethical fucking disaster

"hey you lsot the use of your hands and feet at the age of 20 but on the plus side a tiny number of 80 year olds will get an extra 3 years woooo"

I think that this is probably not a world I can come to terms with living in

I was thinking about it last night, though, and realistically I am entering the age when I could just expect to die of natural causes so it's not terribly sad if I hasten things along a bit

I am sad that the world has come to this, though. Have always strongly felt it is much worse to die in the middle of a global disaster than just to die as an individual while everyone else goes on quite happily without you

something quite sickening about this