Flyingfifer said:
Well, it looks like what I and others were concerned about has begun to happen, the antibody (protection) levels in those that had the Jab first are starting to diminish, that means that the people most at risk are, at the point we are opening back up, losing their protection given by the vaccine.
SAUCE
2nd SAUCE
Additionally and also related, exactly what I was also saying in terms of the longevity of the vaccine is also now looking like its less than 6months
SAUCE 2
Furthermore there are now concerns that in addition to the Astra Zenica both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines also appear to cause blood clots at a similar level (a minuscule level BUT this is the issue of pushing something through testing, problems appear afterwards)
SAUCE 3
Seems to me that there is a lot of conflicting data out there at the moment. I follow a few scientists on Twitter and they express that the data shows no need for an additional "top up" then a yearly one after other than for financial reasons. I wonder who funded the two studies you mentioned.
It will always be the case with any vaccine where you rush it through trials as quickly as possible. Set the trials up so you can get the best possible numbers (very small % of the over 60's and 80's in the trial groups for example).
I really wish that they recorded and showed the reactions to the jab's with as much rigor as they do with "died within 28 days of a positive test". I see in a lot of places they say that only 1% of side effects are reported. I don't know how true that is or if there is any explanation to the %.
As the weeks progress and the numbers come down (on the floor at the moment) it's interests me to see how the ethic's come into play with regards to jabbing the youngsters. I feel that there doesn't seem to be the pressure there was from the media a month ago (or perhaps it's going over my head?)
The following article from the times really got me thinking about it last weekend.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/829f8476-99f7-11eb-95c0-62c72371ccf4?shareToken=d8d4b8ae13861249382961f2ecf80dcf
It was the following table:
Covid vs clots
The risk of being admitted to ICU with Covid-19 as opposed to suffering a blood clot from the AstraZeneca jab, per 100,000 people and by age
20-29 ICU admissions from virus 1
Blood clots from vaccine 1.1
Interesting figures. I suspect that alot of the people in that age range are in hospital with something else plus covid so I suspect the numbers are in less of a favour.
We know this information now but 3 weeks ago we knew nothing. The question I have is what are we going to know in other 3 weeks? And by this point we will be jabbing 30+ year olds at that point. There might not be any further issues but you just don't know do you. And if you take the money aspect out of it (all hail mighty Pharma) is the juice really worth the squeeze with it knowing the effects of covid on the young?
The final bit in the article that made me shudder:
"They might have to persuade the young to accept the risk of clots for the good of society. Fortunately, in the UK there are others on offer. The regulator has not suspended the use of AstraZeneca for young people — it has simply suggested doctors choose another variety."
Not sure I feel the same values as the writer with that one.
