Should NHS Staff in the UK Face Mandatory Vaccination?

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Mark78L said:

"Should vaccines be mandated for NHS staff?"

I think that entirely depends upon the threat posed by a disease and the safety and efficacy profile of the vaccine.

A vaccine proven to be effective at protecting others as well as the recipient, that has a very good safety profile with long term safety data to support it, is very different from an experimental vaccine that does not protect others, has no long-term safety data and has questionable efficacy to boot, and especially where the full trial data has not been released or normal clinical trial protocol followed.

The latter example should clearly not be mandatory especially if natural immunity is being ignored - a mandatory vaccine for someone already immune poses a heightened risk to the recipient with little to no benefit for others while ignoring the robust protection a doctor or nurse may have already acquired.

You can do safety tests two ways: Have a few thousand volunteer testers over some years, or have many millions of patients in a much shorter time. The data from real world application of a novel vaccine of so many subjects will provide vastly more, and higher quality, information into the potential adverse reactions. Couple that with intense collaboration between all disciplines, you have a much faster, as safe QC process. This analogy sums it up well:

Quote

It’s a bit like driving across a busy city in rush hour. Normally you spend lots of time waiting at traffic lights, but when you have a police escort, you can take the same journey and get to the same place, just as safely, but faster.

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Mark78L said:

A vaccine proven to be effective at protecting others as well as the recipient, that has a very good safety profile with long term safety data to support it, is very different from an experimental vaccine that does not protect others, has no long-term safety data and has questionable efficacy to boot, and especially where the full trial data has not been released or normal clinical trial protocol followed.

Red herring again. The same information as for other trials are available. There is no long-term data for other vaccines as those are not long-term treatments. If you have issues somewhere in your life, how would you trace it back to a vaccination you got as a child? Most has been addressed by Arete:

  

On 1/25/2022 at 3:48 PM, Arete said:

OK, so the vast majority of mRNA vaccine components (i.e. lipids, PBS and sucrose) have been in use in various medications for decades. 

The only active component that could be considered novel is a strand of mRNA that encodes the SARS COV 2 S protein. 

Do you know what else mRNA is in? EVERY ORGANISMAL CELL ON THE PLANET. Every time you eat, breathe and drink you ingest mRNA. Your gut microbiome produces billions of strands of foreign mRNA inside your body every day, which can and do cross the gut epithelium into the bloodstream.

Also, the mRNA from the vaccines is cleared from the body in around 72 hours, the spike proteins encoded by them in 21 days. 

So, given how ubiquitously and frequently your cells encounter foreign mRNA molecules, and that no component of the vaccine actually persists in the body long term, by what mechanism would the mRNA cause an adverse reaction years after the fact? 

I mean, no one knows if you sprout wings out your butt 30 years after drinking Monster Energy, but there's not really a mechanism that would lend itself to that being a realistic concern.  

 

[Mark78L]

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You can do safety tests two ways: Have a few thousand volunteer testers over some years, or have many millions of patients in a much shorter time. The data from real world application of a novel vaccine of so many subjects will provide vastly more, and higher quality, information into the potential adverse reactions. Couple that with intense collaboration between all disciplines, you have a much faster, as safe QC process. This analogy sums it up well:

 

You're view is based on a major misconception: That you can expedite long-term safety testing by simply throwing money and people at the experiment - you can't. The aim of long-term safety testing is to establish safety over, say 3 years, because some long-term side-effects only manifest themselves after a number of years, as may be the case with infertility. For instance, recently Pfizer highlighted there was insufficient data on the myocarditis risk to young children with their covid vaccine, and to fully understand this risk these children would need to be monitored for 5 years.

It doesn't matter whether you throw 10,000 people or 1 million people in to a 4 month trial, the data you get will only be for 4 months - adverse effects may not be seen for 2 years in all of these subjects - you cannot expedite human metabolism and latent reactions - time is a standard metric you cannot 'speed up', hence why clinical trials can take up to 10 years, or 6 years minimum.

Your analogy presents many fallacies where you conflate a constant (time to reach a destination / time it takes to get long term safety data) with the ability to speed up that constant (police escort in a traffic jam / adding more people and money can speed up time).

A better travel analogy would be: In 1066 it would take you 5 days to travel between London and Birmingham by horse on your own (the horse being the fastest mode or transport at the time). Throwing 500 more horse riders at the journey will not make you or anyone else get there any quicker - on average it will still take 5 days. The limiting factor is the fitness of the horse, you may be able to tweak the weight the horse carries (speed of developing a vaccine), but by and large you are restricted by the constant of time and the metabolic requirements of the horse that cannot be changed regardless of money and people thrown at it (this represents the metabolic constant of humans, you cannot increase this rate to reduce the reaction time of the vaccine trial).

13 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Red herring again. The same information as for other trials are available. There is no long-term data for other vaccines as those are not long-term treatments. If you have issues somewhere in your life, how would you trace it back to a vaccination you got as a child? Most has been addressed by Arete:

  

 

What exactly is the red herring you are referring to? You haven't rebutted any of my points. In the quote of Arete she does not deal with long-term safety trial data. Please show me the many 'other vaccines' you claim don't have any long term data. The recent Ebola vaccine was rushed through and safety corners were cut, but this still took 6 years to produce. Your claim doesn't appear to have merit. The long-term safety data is usually part of the clinical trial - hence why the PfizerCovid vaccine is still in its trial phase and won't finish till March 2023 - they are actively collating the long-term data because sufficient time has not yet passed to show any long-term data - how then, can it be claimed to be safe, when by Pfizers own admission, through the way in which the trial has been set up (standard trial requirements), the long-term safety part of the trial is still underway?

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

So, should it be mandated for the NHS staff or not?

..."it"... what exactly are you referring to? What is "it" in reference to various vaccines with different efficacy and disease threat ratios? 

[CharonY]

26 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

The aim of long-term safety testing is to establish safety over, say 3 years, because some long-term side-effects only manifest themselves after a number of years, as may be the case with infertility.

You don't take vaccines over several years. 

 

26 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

For instance, recently Pfizer highlighted there was insufficient data on the myocarditis risk to young children with their covid vaccine, and to fully understand this risk these children would need to be monitored for 5 years.

Can you show me the article for details?

 

26 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

It doesn't matter whether you throw 10,000 people or 1 million people in to a 4 month trial, the data you get will only be for 4 months - adverse effects may not be seen for 2 years in all of these subjects - you cannot expedite human metabolism and latent reactions - time is a standard metric you cannot 'speed up', hence why clinical trials can take up to 10 years, or 6 years minimum.

The vaccine components are eliminated from the body in a fairly short time frame. What effects are you looking for and how would you ever now it was because of the vaccine rather than what happened to you between taking the vaccine and the point when it happened? In typical trials folks are not monitored for years after taking a vaccine. What is generally monitored are acute side effects, but those normally manifest while components of the vaccines are still present. So the typically monitoring time is roughly 2 months.

You can find examples here:

https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-side-effects-covid-19-vaccine

Fundamentally the number of folks vaccinated is still the best way to get safety data. The longer you look back, the fuzzier the sources becomes. Moreover, we also already know that COVID-19 causes long-term issues. So you have the choice between high risk of immediate and long-term issues up and including death and then another option of minimal risk. 

[zapatos]

30 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

..."it"... what exactly are you referring to? What is "it" in reference to various vaccines with different efficacy and disease threat ratios? 

Perhaps you missed it. In this thread "it" refers to "mandatory vaccination policy for Covid -19".

You can read the very first post for more details.

Edited February 8, 2022 by zapatos

[StringJunky]

Deleted. Quoted wrong post.

Edited February 8, 2022 by StringJunky

[Mark78L]

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

You don't take vaccines over several years.

This is a nonsensical response that lacks meaning or context - odd coming from a 'biology expert'. A phase 3 longitudinal study is designed over several years to establish the long-term side effects of a drug or vaccine - or have you forgotten this?

16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Can you show me the article for details?

Yes here you go: this is from the FDA website (the link is below the quote, which is on page 11)

"The number of participants in the current clinical development program is too small to detect any potential risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination. Long-term safety of COVID-19 vaccine in participants 5 to <12 years of age will be studied in 5 post-authorization safety studies, including a 5-year follow-up study to evaluate long term sequelae of post-vaccination myocarditis/pericarditis."

https://www.fda.gov/media/153409/download

18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The vaccine components are eliminated from the body in a fairly short time frame. What effects are you looking for and how would you ever now it was because of the vaccine rather than what happened to you between taking the vaccine and the point when it happened?

See my previous response regarding a nonsensical comment and context in terms of phase 3 studies looking at long term safety data.

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

This is a nonsensical response that lacks meaning or context - odd coming from a 'biology expert'. A phase 3 longitudinal study is designed over several years to establish the long-term side effects of a drug or vaccine - or have you forgotten this?

Yes here you go: this is from the FDA website (the link is below the quote, which is on page 11)

"The number of participants in the current clinical development program is too small to detect any potential risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination. Long-term safety of COVID-19 vaccine in participants 5 to <12 years of age will be studied in 5 post-authorization safety studies, including a 5-year follow-up study to evaluate long term sequelae of post-vaccination myocarditis/pericarditis."

https://www.fda.gov/media/153409/download

See my previous response regarding a nonsensical comment and context in terms of phase 3 studies looking at long term safety data.

Let me emphasise the correct words in your quote:

Quote

Long-term safety of COVID-19 vaccine in participants 5 to <12 years of age will be studied in 5 post-authorization safety studies, 

So, the studies are done after the trials and after they've been authorized fror use. You can only get long term data by putting it out in the field. Phase 3 trials test for acute reactions  and efficacy.

Edited February 8, 2022 by StringJunky

[Mark78L]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

So, should it be mandated for the NHS staff or not?

Absolutely not. Why would you mandate something where the evidence does not support the requirement for the mandate? The vaccine does not stop or reduce transmission - the viral load is the same within a vaccinated, uninfected individual as it is within an unvaccinated uninfected individual. Scientifically this does not warrant mandatory vaccination.

Furthermore, up to 70% of NHS staff have recovered from infection and developed robust natural immunity - these people provide better protection than those who are vaccinated given that the mucosal immunity of the vaccinated is not developed, hence the high viral load in the vaccinated. Removing these protective NHS staff members based on the false premise that vaccination protects others more so, is clearly incorrect and detrimental to both staff and patients - again, on this basis there is no justification for mandatory vaccination because the science supports natural immunity, a concept that many seem to have forgotten.

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

The vaccine does not stop or reduce transmission

This is false. 

14 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

robust natural immunity - these people provide better protection than those who are vaccinated

This is false. 

15 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

the science supports natural immunity

This is false. 

[Mark78L]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

So, the studies are done after the trials and after they've been authorized fror use. You can only get long term data by putting it out in the field. Phase 3 trials test for acute reactions  and efficacy.

No, only in this case because the trials have been rushed through before any such phase 3 longitudinal studies have been performed. Please provide me with another example of a new vaccine created in 11 months and where the population became the guinea pigs, only for the long term trial data to be done after administration because it was brought out too fast to perform it in the trial.

This is from the NHS website:

Phase 3 trials:

Carried out on medicines that have passed phases 1 and 2.

The medicine is tested in larger groups of people who are ill, and compared against an existing treatment or a placebo to see if it's better in practice and if it has important side effects.

Trials often last a year or more and involve several thousand patients.

Phase 4 trials:

The safety, side effects and effectiveness of the medicine continue to be studied while it's being used in practice.

Not required for every medicine.

Only carried out on medicines that have passed all the previous stages and have been given marketing licences – a licence means the medicine is available on prescription.

----------

It seems like you have your phase 3 and phase 4 trials mixed up. The covid vaccine was produced in 11 months (phase 1, 2 and 3) And yet the minimum requirement for Phase 3 is 12 months. Clearly it has not yet been proven safe long term - it is therefore not ethical or scientifically justifiable to mandate such a vaccine.
 

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is false. 

This is false. 

This is false. 

Let's see the evidence to support your opinion please - such an assertion is not proof you are correct, misguided and misinformed maybe, but certainly not correct.

[StringJunky]

28 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

No, only in this case because the trials have been rushed through before any such phase 3 longitudinal studies have been performed. Please provide me with another example of a new vaccine created in 11 months and where the population became the guinea pigs, only for the long term trial data to be done after administration because it was brought out too fast to perform it in the trial.

This is from the NHS website:

Phase 3 trials:

Carried out on medicines that have passed phases 1 and 2.

The medicine is tested in larger groups of people who are ill, and compared against an existing treatment or a placebo to see if it's better in practice and if it has important side effects.

Trials often last a year or more and involve several thousand patients.

Phase 4 trials:

The safety, side effects and effectiveness of the medicine continue to be studied while it's being used in practice.

Not required for every medicine.

Only carried out on medicines that have passed all the previous stages and have been given marketing licences – a licence means the medicine is available on prescription.

----------

It seems like you have your phase 3 and phase 4 trials mixed up. The covid vaccine was produced in 11 months (phase 1, 2 and 3) And yet the minimum requirement for Phase 3 is 12 months. Clearly it has not yet been proven safe long term - it is therefore not ethical or scientifically justifiable to mandate such a vaccine.
 

Let's see the evidence to support your opinion please - such an assertion is not proof you are correct, misguided and misinformed maybe, but certainly not correct.

 Phase 4 is done in the field after it's been approved and released for use to the public. That's where the information in a black box warning on prescribed drugs containers comes from, monitoring subjects in the field aka Phase 4. As for the minimum time required:

Quote

There is no established time for testing and approving a drug, but in general, completing the first 3 phases of clinical trials can take 10-15 years or longer before starting the approval stage.

https://www.bioclever.com/duration-of-clinical-trials-and-observational-studies-n-46-en

You appear to be confidently making assertions that are factually wrong.

Quote

Confirmation bias: the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

This is the problem you are having because of your strong beliefs.

Edited February 8, 2022 by StringJunky

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Mark78L said:

Let's see the evidence to support your opinion please

Try reading the thread you decided to aggressively troll. 

[CharonY]

The reason why trials take so long is not because they need to be so long, but it is because they phases are traditionally done one after the other. In large part because they are expensive. Safety is assessed predominantly in Phase I. Phase II is looking for efficacy and III is generally used to assess whether it works better than e.g. existing treatments. So one way to accelerate the process, is to increase the recruitment and basically conduct II and III at virtually the same time, rather waiting for a result and then decide on making a decision to go forward. The fact that countries threw money at them clearly helped in the process.

The length is often determined by the type of treatment (i.e. how long has it to be taken to show an effect) and time required to recruit sufficient number of people. Moreover, each trial has specific endpoints being monitored, which determines the length of the trial. In case of vaccinations, an important point is to get a certain amount of people infected, so that you can compare how many of the infected were in the placebo vs the treatment arm.

For some diseases this can indeed take years. If they are are rare, it is very unlikely that any of the participants will get infected within a short time frame. The companies were "lucky" as during the trials there were several COVID-19 surges and they hit their endpoint fast.

As StringJunky pointed out Phase 4 are after-market observations (which includes aspects like manufacturing quality, impurities and other issues). But again, it is not looking at an individual for a long time, but it is looking at side effects in a large population. For vaccines a typical Phase 4 would be a follow-up for side effects for three months and analysis of efficacy over 2 years (e.g. involving antigen/antibody tests, surveys etc.).

Others have already commented on the other aspects that are misunderstood.

To go back on-topic: the the vaccination mandate was scrapped for fear of losing workers.

[Arete]

1 hour ago, Mark78L said:

Phase 3 trials:

Trials often last a year or more ...

And yet the minimum requirement for Phase 3 is 12 months

The fact a phase III clinical trail MAY take a year =/= minimum requirement. 

The duration of clinical trials is, more often than not, dictated by finances - A company on the hook for the cost of clinical trial would never proceed to Phase 2 trials until the conclusion of successful Phase 1 trials due to the financial risk - massive public investment in these trials allowed for concurrent safety and efficacy trials, compressing the timeline by several years. 

Also, the COVID vaccine trials utilized unprecedented streamlining of regulatory processes - emergency scheduling of panels, skipping of lines for other approvals, etc. reducing the bureaucratic processing time from several months to days.

Given the unprecedented manner in which these trials were conducted, the data is actually much denser than is typical for e.g. approval for the flu shot. 

Also, The vaccines all seem to reduce transmission by 40-60% https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2107717

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, Mark78L said:

Clearly it has not yet been proven safe long term - it is therefore not ethical or scientifically justifiable to mandate such a vaccine.

This is absolute rubbish. Aspirin isn't safe long term, nor is paracetamol. Nor is staying at home, and being fed through a tube. Nothing is safe in this world. 

Being vaccinated is not safe. Not being vaccinated is definitely not safe. That's your choice, two unsafe options. But being vaccinated is definitely much SAFER than not being vaccinated, and so it is definitely ethically and scientifically justifiable to mandate such a vaccine. You only have to apply the tiniest bit of logic to reach that conclusion. 

Having said that, in the UK they can't afford to make it mandatory, they haven't got enough staff, so they have had to backtrack. But the principle of mandatory vaccination is ethically and scientifically sound.

[StringJunky]

29 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Having said that, in the UK they can't afford to make it mandatory, they haven't got enough staff, so they have had to backtrack.

Relaxing public restrictions was already imminent iirc, so I don't think it made much sense to cause more problems for the NHS as a whole.

[Mark78L]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

Try reading the thread you decided to aggressively troll. 

I've read the thread and can see no evidence or points being made that support your flippant and lazy response of 'false, false and false' to the points I raised in relation to them. I also see that most of your comments are deflections away from dealing with the points raised - hence your unsubstantiated 'false, false, false' claims are followed by your misdirection away from my request for you to justify your position. 

My assertion is that you can't justify your position with evidence, and you'll likely respond in another dismissive manner, use further misdirection and possibly resort to childish memes again to deflect attention away from my simple request to support the claims you make.

"aggressively trolling"... lol... it's called having a discussion. Making incorrect assertions like this only exposes your inability to support your view by reverting to making more incorrect assertions about my intentions and actions.

Please justify your 'false, false, false' claims, otherwise your contribution here is pointless - unless its simply to push your bias.

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

Please justify your 'false, false, false' claims, otherwise your contribution here is pointless - unless its simply to push your bias.

The science justifies all methods that can help to reduce the spread, from social distancing, wearing masks, and lockdowns where necessary. No one, (as far as I know is held down and been forcibly jabbed), by the same token, mandatory rules about fully vaccinations are most certainly desirable in some industries, such as health workers, store assistants and other areas of concern. Thankfully these mandatory rules do apply in many parts of Australia, and just as thankfully the noisy minority of anti vaxxer nuts is getting less and less and being gradually drowned out. 

[iNow]

The claim that natural immunity is better than vaccine has been refuted across studies and across populations. Here and elsewhere and people saying otherwise are lying or mistaken or both m. 

Having spent so many years arguing with creationists and climate change deniers, I recognize this type of poster. Nothing I post will change his mind. He’s too emotionally committed to his conclusion, or simply stirring the pot. Either way, a waste of time. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by iNow

[Mark78L]

19 hours ago, StringJunky said:

 Phase 4 is done in the field after it's been approved and released for use to the public. That's where the information in a black box warning on prescribed drugs containers comes from, monitoring subjects in the field aka Phase 4. As for the minimum time required:

You appear to be confidently making assertions that are factually wrong.

This is the problem you are having because of your strong beliefs.

Incoherent and again nonsensical responses, and you've managed to contradicted yourself arguing against your own previous point. You previously stated:

" the studies are done after the trials and after they've been authorized fror use. You can only get long term data by putting it out in the field. Phase 3 trials test for acute reactions  and efficacy."

You were arguing that 11 months to create a vaccine is sufficient for safety - I disagreed stating that Phase 3 longitudinal studies haven't been performed, which take at least 1 year and can span several years. I also confirmed that the Pfizer vaccine trial doesn't end till March 2023.

You attempted to conflate Phase 3 trials with data collection performed after the approval and administration of the vaccine in an attempt to falsely support the notion that 11 months provides enough saftey data. I corrected you again highlighting that Phase 3 studies, according to the NHS, last at least 1 year and can be several years. I also highlighted that Phase 4 is the point at which data is collated after a vaccine is 'licensed' and administered, which you seem to have confused with Phase 3.

Then contradicting your own opinion, and vindicating my point the link you provided actually states:

"Studies for Phase III clinical trials usually take from 1 to 4 years."
"in general, completing the first 3 phases of clinical trials can take 10-15 years or longer before starting the approval stage."

One would think, that for a novel RNA vaccine never administered before in humans on such a large scale, we should be using the maximum time possible to ensure it is safe long term before unleashing it on the entire global population and speaking of mandating it.

A final point - in that same link, it states something critical to this discussion:

"If you are thinking of taking part in a clinical trial or an observational study, you should be clearly aware of how long it will last and the time commitment it will require from you. This information should be very clear before signing the informed consent."

Informed consent is legally required before submitting oneself to a clinical trial. The current Pfizer vaccine is still in its clinical trial phase (phase III closes in March 2023) - How can this vaccine be legally mandated when it is still in its trial phase and informed consent is removed?

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

I've read the thread and can see no evidence or points being made that support your <…> points

You should try harder then. 

In fairness though, we've seen your same claims refuted so many times here over the last 2 years that it's not surprising you haven't seen them being so new to the community. 

Either way, I'm bored arguing that evolution is valid against creationists, that anthropogenic climate change is real against deniers, and that covid vaccine is more effective than natural immunity. It's a level of ignorance I expect in a child, not in a functioning adult. 

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20211031/covid-vax-5-times-more-protective-than-natural-immunity

42 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

"aggressively trolling"... lol

Yes:

20 hours ago, Mark78L said:

This is a nonsensical response that lacks meaning or context - odd coming from a 'biology expert'.

44 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

your flippant and lazy response

18 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

Incoherent and again nonsensical responses

Discussion is not your intent here.

[Mark78L]

18 hours ago, CharonY said:

1) ...So one way to accelerate the process, is to increase the recruitment and basically conduct II and III at virtually the same time, rather waiting for a result and then decide on making a decision to go forward. The fact that countries threw money at them clearly helped in the process.

2) ...Moreover, each trial has specific endpoints being monitored, which determines the length of the trial. 

3) ...Others have already commented on the other aspects that are misunderstood.

4) To go back on-topic: the the vaccination mandate was scrapped for fear of losing workers.

3) Interesting response where you make false statements that make it appear to others that I've misunderstood the subject matter - this is misleading and disingenuous.

1, 2) Phase 1 trials were dropped, already this is questionable. Phase II studies started in May. Phase III started in Aug. Vaccine was approved for use in some countries in December. That's approximately 4 months of data in the Phase III trial before it was approved. As we've already determined, Phase 3 longitudinal studies last at least a year - unless of course you're not bothered about identifying long term complications such as infertility, myocarditis, brain damage for multiple vaccines and their boosters, etc... You are defending the indefensible, why?

4) Even so, this is not a measure of vaccine safety, efficacy nor is it any sort of justification for making these experimental vaccines mandatory. I've also not mentioned the scrapping of the mandate.
 

52 minutes ago, iNow said:

You should try harder then. 

In fairness though, we've seen your same claims refuted so many times here over the last 2 years that it's not surprising you haven't seen them being so new to the community. 

Either way, I'm bored arguing that evolution is valid against creationists, that anthropogenic climate change is real against deniers, and that covid vaccine is more effective than natural immunity. It's a level of ignorance I expect in a child, not in a functioning adult. 

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20211031/covid-vax-5-times-more-protective-than-natural-immunity

Yes:

Discussion is not your intent here.

It's clear that unbiased discussion is not your intent:

You did exactly what I expected, again dismissive, making excuses and you've not been able to support your 'false, false, false' claims, instead you've provided a weak, questionable and outdated CDC study against immunity highlighting your confirmation bias. Anyone can cherrypick data to support their opinion. You are quick to pass judgement, but when pressed to support your position, you can't. Which would explain why your appear so aloof in your responses.

Here's a detailed analysis of both your chosen CDC study and the Israeli study that shows natural immunity to be 27 times more effective than vaccine induced immunity. Here Martin Kulldorff concludes the Israeli study to be far more accurate and trustworthy.

https://brownstone.org/articles/a-review-and-autopsy-of-two-covid-immunity-studies/

[CharonY]

32 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

3) Interesting response where you make false statements that make it appear to others that I've misunderstood the subject matter - this is misleading and disingenuous.

1, 2) Phase 1 trials were dropped, already this is questionable. Phase II studies started in May. Phase III started in Aug. Vaccine was approved for use in some countries in December. That's approximately 4 months of data in the Phase III trial before it was approved. As we've already determined, Phase 3 longitudinal studies last at least a year - unless of course you're not bothered about identifying long term complications such as infertility, myocarditis, brain damage for multiple vaccines and their boosters, etc... You are defending the indefensible, why?

4) Even so, this is not a measure of vaccine safety, efficacy nor is it any sort of justification for making these experimental vaccines mandatory. I've also not mentioned the scrapping of the mandate.
 

I would appreciate it if you would conduct at least do some basic fact checking before stating falsehoods as facts. All clinical trials are listed and you can easily look them up on clinicaltrials.gov. 

There, you can easily see that the BioNTech has set the trial up in two parts. One PhaseI and one PhaseII/III. Phase I started April 2020 and moved into Phase II/III in July. Again, that is publicly available information. As noted, the endpoint is not length, but whether a sufficiently large cohort of individuals got infected to evaluate efficacy, and in November an interim report indicated that they were hitting those numbers.

Again, all of that is available and documented. Why are you making things up? It is not like that the virus is going to pay you anything, yo know?

 

 

[Mark78L]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The science justifies all methods that can help to reduce the spread, from social distancing, wearing masks, and lockdowns where necessary. No one, (as far as I know is held down and been forcibly jabbed), by the same token, mandatory rules about fully vaccinations are most certainly desirable in some industries, such as health workers, store assistants and other areas of concern. Thankfully these mandatory rules do apply in many parts of Australia, and just as thankfully the noisy minority of anti vaxxer nuts is getting less and less and being gradually drowned out. 

No, the science doesn't justify all methods currently being proposed and used to reduce the spread. I thought this was a scientific forum - none of these claims have any basis in science regarding the current zeitgeist the evidence is quite the opposite of the opinion you just expressed - I get the impression that this forum has devolved into an echo chamber for those who simply want to believe in the official narrative. And rather than using evidence, misguided opinion seems to be the order of the day.

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I would appreciate it if you would conduct at least do some basic fact checking before stating falsehoods as facts. All clinical trials are listed and you can easily look them up on clinicaltrials.gov. 

There, you can easily see that the BioNTech has set the trial up in two parts. One PhaseI and one PhaseII/III. Phase I started April 2020 and moved into Phase II/III in July. Again, that is publicly available information. As noted, the endpoint is not length, but whether a sufficiently large cohort of individuals got infected to evaluate efficacy, and in November an interim report indicated that they were hitting those numbers.

Again, all of that is available and documented. Why are you making things up? It is not like that the virus is going to pay you anything, yo know?

 

 

How condescending are you? I like how your approach is to a discussion that challenges your perspective is to make it appear as though the other person is misinformed. For your information I used the data presented in the respected medical journal 'NATURE' the link is here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1

How can a 'biology expert' be so wrong on so many points?

17 hours ago, mistermack said:

This is absolute rubbish. Aspirin isn't safe long term, nor is paracetamol. Nor is staying at home, and being fed through a tube. Nothing is safe in this world. 

Being vaccinated is not safe. Not being vaccinated is definitely not safe. That's your choice, two unsafe options. But being vaccinated is definitely much SAFER than not being vaccinated, and so it is definitely ethically and scientifically justifiable to mandate such a vaccine. You only have to apply the tiniest bit of logic to reach that conclusion. 

Having said that, in the UK they can't afford to make it mandatory, they haven't got enough staff, so they have had to backtrack. But the principle of mandatory vaccination is ethically and scientifically sound.

You've made many misconceptions I'm afraid. Each vaccine's efficacy and safety need to be taken in context and on their own merits. Yes vaccination is good, but not all vaccines are made equal, it is naive to assume that all vaccines are good. Vaccinating a child at near zero risk of covid, with an experimental vaccine that has no long-term safety data when that child has already developed natural immunity is immoral, unethical and scientifically unjustifiable especially given the increased risk of myocarditis, and the fact that this risk has not been studied, not to mention over stimulation of the immune system. Since when has it been acceptable to experiment on children?

I think you should look up the word logic, because I'm afraid you've not applied it here.