Covid vaccine
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 palace_in_frogland  In a broken dream 16 Jan 21 2.41pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
From where has this information come? Do you think 11,636 is a small number? 0.0175% of the UK population.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Mapletree  Croydon 16 Jan 21 2.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
The thing is that, for a vaccine being given to tens of millions, it was only tested on a very small number of, presumably, younger, fit and healthy people (and remember half of those in the test were given a placebo anyway). It's hardly surprising really that these sort of problems are only now coming to light. How many countries have failed to mark or report cases, I wonder? 'These sorts of problems are now coming to light'. No, it was always known that the vaccinations would result in side effects. It appears Norway was not as cautious as the UK and decided to take a known risk, although I am sure more will come out. We also don't actually know if there is a problem, there is a suspicion there could be a very small issue with a specific group but nothing unexpected in any case. “It may be a coincidence, but we aren’t sure,” Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told The BMJ. “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.” “We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease,” he emphasised. “We are now asking for doctors to continue with the vaccination, but to carry out extra evaluation of very sick people whose underlying condition might be aggravated by it.” Misleading information is extremely dangerous at the moment and needs calling out.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 16 Jan 21 2.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by palace_in_frogland
0.0175% of the UK population. IS IT A SMALL NUMBER? This is the US approach: Clinical trials of drugs are usually described based on their phase. The FDA typically requires Phase I, II, and III trials to be conducted to determine if the drug can be approved for use. A Phase I trial tests an experimental treatment on a small group of often healthy people (20 to 80) to judge its safety and side effects and to find the correct drug dosage. A Phase II trial uses more people (100 to 300). While the emphasis in Phase I is on safety, the emphasis in Phase II is on effectiveness. This phase aims to obtain preliminary data on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition. These trials also continue to study safety, including short-term side effects. This phase can last several years. A Phase III trial gathers more information about safety and effectiveness, studying different populations and different dosages, using the drug in combination with other drugs. The number of subjects usually ranges from several hundred to about 3,000 people. If the FDA agrees that the trial results are positive, it will approve the experimental drug or device. A Phase IV trial for drugs or devices takes place after the FDA approves their use. A device or drug's effectiveness and safety are monitored in large, diverse populations. Sometimes, the side effects of a drug may not become clear until more people have taken it over a longer period of time. Edited by Mapletree (16 Jan 2021 2.48pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| palace_in_frogland In a broken dream 16 Jan 21 2.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
IS IT A SMALL NUMBER? 0.000142% of the world population. Yes. And stop shouting.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 16 Jan 21 2.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by palace_in_frogland
0.000142% of the world population. Yes. Ah, it's a small number. So please give me a small loan.£11,636 will be fine
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 16 Jan 21 2.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by palace_in_frogland
0.000142% of the world population. Yes. And stop shouting.
Well it gets me very angry It was a huge trial done very efficiently and not particularly quickly. We are now used to rapid trials post Ebola. Implying the trials were insufficient effectively makes you an anti-vaxxer. Anybody putting people off vaccinations will ultimately be responsible for deaths.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 16 Jan 21 2.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Note that we are now in Phase IV. So far 40 million doses. But sadly we know of 23 very frail people who, just possibly, may have had their deaths accelerated as a result. I am sure you can calculate the percentage for me.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 becky over the moon 16 Jan 21 3.02pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Note that we are now in Phase IV. So far 40 million doses. But sadly we know of 23 very frail people who, just possibly, may have had their deaths accelerated as a result. I am sure you can calculate the percentage for me. That's 23 in Norway + the Germans, acknowledged so far...... However, your above post agrees with what I said - it's only now that these problems are coming to light as they always do with any new drug/vaccine/medicine, as clinical trials do not and cannot cover all contingencies. That does not make me an anti-vaxxer!
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| Stirlingsays 16 Jan 21 3.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Note that we are now in Phase IV. So far 40 million doses. But sadly we know of 23 very frail people who, just possibly, may have had their deaths accelerated as a result. I am sure you can calculate the percentage for me. Mmmmm...not your smartest comments.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 16 Jan 21 3.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Well it gets me very angry It was a huge trial done very efficiently and not particularly quickly. We are now used to rapid trials post Ebola. Implying the trials were insufficient effectively makes you an anti-vaxxer. Anybody putting people off vaccinations will ultimately be responsible for deaths.
Adults make their own minds up and take responsibility for their own lives. Are you responsible for any deaths that result from taking this vaccine? No, so the opposite is also true. If the car was fine, the car seller is not responsible for what happens after it's sold. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Jan 2021 3.13pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 16 Jan 21 3.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Adults make their own minds up and take responsibility for their own lives. Are you responsible for any deaths that result from taking this vaccine? No, so the opposite is also true. If the car was fine, the car seller is not responsible for what happens after it's sold. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Jan 2021 3.13pm) Ah yes, freedom of expression even when that results in deaths The Derek Bentley case springs to mind. No, people that lie about 'knowing' something and thereby convince others to their viewpoint - knowing that will result in excess deaths - are completely despicable If you can't see that due to your rather strange tinted glasses then you are simply not worth debating with. I expect you 'know' about the nano tech in the vaccines, that they are made from babies, that they make you sterile and if you give them to anyone over 80 there is a huge chance they will die of an allergic reaction.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 16 Jan 21 4.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Ah yes, freedom of expression even when that results in deaths The Derek Bentley case springs to mind. No, people that lie about 'knowing' something and thereby convince others to their viewpoint - knowing that will result in excess deaths - are completely despicable If you can't see that due to your rather strange tinted glasses then you are simply not worth debating with. I expect you 'know' about the nano tech in the vaccines, that they are made from babies, that they make you sterile and if you give them to anyone over 80 there is a huge chance they will die of an allergic reaction. Ah...the maple who once didn't like labelling people now can't stop constantly ascribing opinions to others. I can't say you seem that rational nowadays. I have no objections to the vulnerable and elderly taking vaccines if they so desire. The fact that these vaccinations are beta tests on millions is a judgement for the individual to take. My personal view is that the vulnerable should take them based upon the balance of probabilities. For healthy young people, it's not required,.....the risk of them dying is statistically tiny. However, they are adults and can make their own choices. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Jan 2021 4.10pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.