Confused

[teacake44]

Confused or I've missed some news. The Pfizer jab is reported to be slowing down due to the Pfizer factory being re-organised for better output, whether this be true or not? My question really is, what has happened to the other 2 vaccines that have been passed and available.?

[teacake44]

Where does it say I don't share their views ^^

[Zacs-Master]

Teacake, you were having another do at the Govt via Pfizer's slowdown as proven by your comment 'I've become sceptical mainly due to the British government almost failing to meet any target that they have set themselves, or to meet any promise they have made in the past 12 months.'

Your disrespect is evident in your ignorant comments such as 'are we being asked to take a vaccine that as no known protection against the new variant'. Fortunately we have an expert in our midst who has repudiated your inane comments.

[ToraToraTora]

ZM ^^^ bang on!

[Zacs-Master]

Teacake actually thinks Angela Ripon exposes cowboys herself, so.......

[teacake44]

Zac 12.52 You're first paragraph I stand by 100%. You're second paragraph is fact!! so I stand by that, ( no one) as yet knows if the vaccine is effective against the new variant, or they would not be running tests. I still don't see were I have been disrespectful theprof?? TTT? @ 12.59 BANG ON? must mean I can't come up with an answer of my own.

[Zacs-Master]

Your disrespect lies in the fact that you make out we're being asked to take a vaccine which, without any proof, you cite as being defective when people like The Prof are working extremely hard to give us protection.

[Bobbisox1]

//No one knows the level of protection it gives against new variants as yet. Annual flu vaccination gives theoretical 40% to about 70% protection against flu yet it's provided every year but can't be called 100% effective. The Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective after two doses. So let me ask you this: define effectiveness for me. What would you regard as an effective vaccine? Would it be the 40% or so of the flu or the 95% of the Pfizer. Is some protection better than none? Would you decline the vaccine because it may not meet your criteria for an "effective" vaccine?

The Pfizer vaccine is considered to be effective against the current variants in the UK. You cannot conclude that because we are not 100% certain about the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine against new variants that you are being asked to take a vaccine that offers no known protection against the new variant. Our uncertainty does not mean that you can conclude it offers no known protection. ///


I've only taken an excerpt from what the Prof has typed, I find it par excellence and without addressing TC in it, should be made a sticky in Body & Soul such is it's in depth reporting , thank you Prof for the work you do

[MTbowels]

Try this teacake44:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine/pfizer-vaccine-appears-effective-against-coronavirus-variant-found-in-britain-study-idUSKBN29P13A

[teacake44]

Again Zac your making it up as you go along, ( Where is the disrespect Directly at theprof?? Who said that the prof, and thousands of others are (not) working extremely hard to protect us. My question relates to how protective the vaccine is.?? That's still not very clear especially now the powers that be decided to stretch the second dose to more than three weeks. When you have medication from a doctor you're instructed to take a certain dose, no more less, more can be dangerous, less may not prove to do any good. Right or wrong??

[Zacs-Master]

'Again Zac your making it up as you go along'

Erm, I've quoted your own words in each of my posts so that's patently not the case!

[MTbowels]

You really do need to read my link teacake44

[teacake44]

MT @16.48 Thank you very much for the link and very interesting, not seen this before, that's what I was asking for!! Not abuse from two posters. My post does start of by.. (or have I missed some news)Will now read that in depth. thanks again.

[teacake44]

16.54 Zac, last word from me to you, you are still unable to come up with were I have been disrespectful to theprof, that' because I haven't.

[Spicerack]

The Prof worries me. As has been predicted, sounds like we're being set up for a never ending array of new vaccines and never ending restrictions. Remember flatten the curve.

[Zacs-Master]

I told you at 16:20, teacake.

[theprof]

Jno @0210. The plan has always been to develop a vaccine as rapidly as possible and get the population vaccinated as quickly as possible. In order to do this, some technical issues that would normally be in place have been given a lower priority than they would normally. The quest has always been to get jabs into arms as government representatives are saying these days and quite rightly so - lives must be saved.

In the light of this, such things as looking why one vaccine may be preferred over another has been given a lower priority. Such research takes time and I'll be frank, we can't afford the time. The public wouldn't thank us for continuing to bang test tubes together and run interminable viral sequencing etc while their loved ones are dying in droves. I can tell you that safeguarding protocols in place in the NHS have not indicated to date any major concerns with either of the vaccines currently in use using the yellow card notification system or via other medical reporting methods in place.

Vacinees are carefully screened at vaccine centres before they have the jab. Should the vacinnee screening show up something that the vaccinator is dubious about, the matter is referred to an on-site senior medical advisor for a decision.

Due to the logistics of the roll-out, I can assure you that I doubt we'll ever reach the point of having a choice of vaccine in the NHS for the foreseeable future. There is no evidence that any one of the two vaccines currently in use is better than the other.

[jno]

thanks, theprof.

I was curious about the Israeli report that the first Pfizer jab wasn't very successful and very much neeeded the second one. I note that this has since been attributed to a misunderstanding. (The Prizer one is the one available near me, so I wondered.)

[theprof]

Spicerack, I understand your concern, believe me. I will say I've tried to point out in this thread that tweaking the flu vaccine has been necessary annually for years. There is no reason to suppose that vaccines designed for use on Covid in the future cannot undergo the same procedure. This occurred during the SARS outbreak and the latter is a very close relative of Covid. It has also occurred during this outbreak.

Suggestions have been made that coronavirus infection will rise and fall in an unpredictable manner just like flu with some serious infections, some mild and some asymptomatic. We simply don't know right now how it will pan out. Nevertheless, research into covid will not stop.

The UK governments advice on adhering to hands face space and suchlike is having a tangible effect on the prevalence of thr virus in the community and remains good advice in my view.

[theprof]

jno, although I'm well aware of issue in Israel, I'm really not in a position to answer your question here. It would be very wrong of me to do so because there is so much about this that remains unknown not least because it's another country.

In reality, this is based upon a political decision and that's a realm I don't enter here on AB.

Sorry!

[jno]

I figured it might be beoynd your ambit, theprof. Thanks for answering anyway.