Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
ALLEGATION: 1st dose of Pfizer vaccine not AS effective AS FIRST THOUGHT
However, in its “green book” Public Health England said that during the phase III trial most of the vaccine failures were in the days immediately after the first dose, indicating that the short term protection starts around day 10.6 Looking at the data from day 15 to 21, it calculated that the efficacy against symptomatic covid-19 was around 89% (95% confidence interval 52% to 97%).
Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.
Israel are running the live trail on 1 dose vs no doses.
What they are saying is that there are 33% lower incidences of cases, from people who have been vaccinated, against the control group that hasn't , after 2 weeks. Thats a good news story to some extent.
The BMJ are clearly as unified as the Liberal Democrats! Lots of conflicting views: Vetran's seems to endorse 1 dose, long gap, whilst this one doesn't:
Personally, I'd wish we weren't experimenting with MRNA vaccines , but would be happy to do so with the Oxford one, as the theory they are applying is as good as proven with that tech.
But, I'm not anywhere near an expert , but with Pfizer themselves objecting to it as untested it just "feels" like a gamble to me - and we've got a very poor record with all the gambles we've taken so far.
Apparently DNA changing elements, 5G modules and Cow/Pork grease according to some people.
None of that. Would love to know what it is. The entire population is injected and then an announcement that it is not effective. Alarm bells rang out when a new vaccine was developed within a year.
None of that. Would love to know what it is. The entire population is injected and then an announcement that it is not effective. Alarm bells rang out when a new vaccine was developed within a year.
Did you actually read the article? At no point does anyone say it is not effective.
None of that. Would love to know what it is. The entire population is injected and then an announcement that it is not effective. Alarm bells rang out when a new vaccine was developed within a year.
It's a naturally produced (albeit under lab conditions) strand of Messenger RNA, which is how the template for a protein gets from the DNA in the nucleus to the cell. What it does is tell a cell - in this case the immune system cells - that it has an infection from something with a given protein structure on it. The cell responds by generating an antibody that stops the invader reproducing. When the real virus turns up, the immune system recognises the protein signal and responds by generating the necessary antibodies, stopping the invader before it can do its own thing. Long term, it will store the response in case the virus has another go later on.
If the virus mutates significantly then perhaps the antibody won't be triggered. However the protein the mRNA is looking at will be a fundamental component of the virus so is highly unlikely to nutate significantly to prevent identification of the virus; if it does you have a new virus to play with anyway (and, as an aside, the new process is quickly adaptable to such a change).
The vaccine does not go near the DNA in the cell nucleus, it merely induces a reaction as though it had. Its "ingredients" are the mRNA and a buffered, stabilised transport medium that is mostly normal saline.
Comment