Which COVID Vaccine Should I Get?

I'm 32, I work in private practise health care (part of 1b) and I'm not sure whether to get the AZ vaccine, as I'm planning to have my second child later this year. i'm in regional NSW and we haven't had any COVID cases here for the last 9 months

Should I play russian roulette with the AZ and try to dodge a blood clot (higher risk as I'm female)

or

Wait for more Pfizer imports

or

Wait for either Novovax or Johnson & Johnson to be approved and available.

Poll Options

  • 179
    Roll the blood clot dice with AZ
  • 531
    Wait for Pfizer import for 1b
  • 10
    Wait for Novovax imports
  • 13
    Wait for Johnson and Johnson
  • 235
    Stay unvaccinated and wait for herd immunity

Comments

    • +1 vote

      wow - good insight.

      Not the least of which is including the comment that 'feeling side effects' is part of mounting a good immune response.
      Most people don't realise it is our immune response that gives us the familiar feeling of symptoms with most viruses.

  • +1 vote

    To be fair, you got more chances of getting clot from contraceptive pill

    • +2 votes

      The concern is the type of clot, in this instance it's central sinus thrombosis , as oppsoed to DVTs and PEs which are the OCP VTEs. Central sinus thrombosis is no joke. (i'm not against the Vax, i've had it)

    • +3 votes

      That's why a lot of women choose different contraceptive methods. And men don't take the pill, so there is no convincing reason for a young man to increase the risk of clot when there are other options available, and no urgency in people getting the vaccine in Australia.

    • +1 vote

      You fail to highlight there are different types of blood clots.
      Please stop pushing it as though it is the same thing.

    •  

      No. Completely different.

      1. You take the pill for months to years, you don't get a clot from a single dose.
      2. A DVT is one thing, the kind of brain or abdominal vessel clot that this is associated with has a very high death rate by comparison, after a single dose.
      3. We removed vaccines from the market in the seventies for much less adverse events than these, and we should for this too or community trust in vaccines is going to become more eroded.
  •  

    Where is option to not vaccinate because I'm not worried about getting Covid?

    • +2 votes

      "science says" your option is not an option.

      https://odysee.com/@corbettreport:0/ep398-sciencesays:2

    •  

      Where is option to not vaccinate because I'm not worried about getting Covid?

      that's a very selfish and/or ignorant option.

      Perhaps you'd like to financially compensate the events / tourism / hospitality sector and flow-on to wages and the economy personally for perpetuating this abnormal lockdown / border closure cycle?

      Or - maybe we should open up anyway and then How about would you like to volunteer giving up your place in hospital when you have an unrelated accident or injury or illness because the health system is overrun and can't treat you… presuming you are young, you will be turfing out an older person when the overrun doctors have to choose who gets to live or die with limited doctor / bed / hospital resources.

      Or - would you like to go just save some time and bludgeon an old person to death in the street so they die quicker and with less misery than when you pass on your covid to them and 6 other people instead… and/or take their hospital bed place?

      Wow, in times past brave respectable people fought to protect this country with their lives in war… you can't even get a needle that is 99.9% safe. What a hero.

      • +3 votes

        Perhaps you'd like to financially compensate the events / tourism / hospitality sector and flow-on to wages and the economy personally for perpetuating this abnormal lockdown / border closure cycle?

        You are making a lot of assumptions here. They can make us wear masks and lock us down at any time regardless if we are vaccinated. Just look at other countries.

        Or - maybe we should open up anyway and then How about would you like to volunteer giving up your place in hospital when you have an unrelated accident or injury or illness because the health system is overrun and can't treat you… presuming you are young, you will be turfing out an older person when the overrun doctors have to choose who gets to live or die with limited doctor / bed / hospital resources.

        Many countries have passed the peak of covid already and hospitals were not overrun. But right now, reports are saying that hosptitals are actually overrun with people with side effects from vaccine.

        Or - would you like to go just save some time and bludgeon an old person to death in the street so they die quicker and with less misery than when you pass on your covid to them and 6 other people instead… and/or take their hospital bed place?

        What?

        Wow, in times past brave respectable people fought to protect this country with their lives in war… you can't even get a needle that is 99.9% safe. What a hero.

        Where did you get 99.9% from? (which by the way is almost the same as the covid survival rate which we do have over 1 years worth of stats to back it up)

        •  

          Many countries have passed the peak of covid already and hospitals were not overrun. But right now, reports are saying that hosptitals are actually overrun with people with side effects from vaccine.

          Incredible. Where have I heard that before?

          It cannot get worse, right?

        •  

          I think you're got the wrong number for Covid survival rate because for it to be 99.9 % survival rate, something like 3 billion people would have had to have gotten Covid-19 (almost half the humans on the planet), with 2.997 billion surviving but I think the number of cases is closer to 140 million.

      •  

        Comparing getting the stupid vaccine with going to war 😂. Both are stupid. I'd rather be a coward and alive personally.

        • -2 votes

          Way to respect our fallen and served veterans - calling their bravery that protected freedoms, free speech, way of life, and stopped things like racial genocide (e.g. of the jews) stupid. Without it, you would not be able to choose not to have a vaccine - you wouldn't even be allowed to say you don't support it on here. People fought wars to protect those rights of yours. Governments we fought in wars would force you to have it and shut up about it.

          Furthermore, it is not a poor comparison…

          Your country is asking you to go do something unfortunate but necessary as part of a large plan to help our way of life.
          At least this is solely aimed at saving lives as well as our way of life (rather than just our way of life as with most wars).

          "The US military saw 405,399 deaths during World War II, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs."
          USA now has had 562,000 deaths from COVID confirmed. 562,000!!!! … more than the population of Canberra, or Newcastle/Maitland, and rapidly catching Gold Coast/Tweed…
          …and you lot are complaining about what will be less than 10 people die from a complication of a vaccine here. FFS!

          I'm ashamed to share a country with a bunch of whinging cowards. Imagine what a poor showing we'd have instead of the ANZACs if we had to call on the general population today (shakes head).

          Do you make the same decision about getting in a car and driving - every 400km cumulative? "Oh I'd rather walk and be a coward then get in that death trap" … Its the same level of risk as the vaccine.

          https://www.businessinsider.com.au/more-americans-dead-covid...

          • +2 votes

            @MrFrugalSpend: War is a bunch of assholes bickering, who then send the peasants in to do the fighting and dying for them, while making arms companies rich. War is just a waste of life.

            I'm ashamed to share a country with a bunch of whinging cowards

            Well, at least we can look up to hero's like you who took an experimental vaccine for a new variant of the flu.

            •  

              @brendanm: So when Hitler occupied by force Czechoslovakia after agreeing not to, and we didn't go to war (BTW, not that I expect you to know that), so he pushed his luck and did it again taking Poland killing a bunch of people, which he escalated to killing and displacing people on racial grounds, and so the allied forces declared war because he continued to violate treaties, it was 'just assholes bickering' according to you. Hitler was an elected official BTW - His father was merely a civil servant and his mother came from a poor "peasant" family. A bunch of his siblings died as kids etc. It was certainly not about making arms companies rich - they seized all sorts of normal companies to make things without profit or compensation for the war effort. Also the British nobility sent their families to war too - e.g. Henry Wellesley, 6th Duke of Wellington, who died. Many in the RAF. Here are some examples https://groups.google.com/g/peerage-news/c/W5elPn4U_Jw?pli=1 (click the top name to reveal the large list).

              War is not 'just' anything. Wars have been fought over very very serious matters such as racial genocide and loss of freedoms. Driving people out of their homes, systematic crimes like rape to make them flee in various places, human rights abuses. In some cases good people step in to stop such actions that results in war. Its at that point countries like ours ask people to help with the war effort. Hence my comparison about a country uniting in a common cause such as was seen in WWII.

              As for covid. It's factually not influenza. Doesn't even warrant a debate.

              Get some education

              •  

                @MrFrugalSpend: Yeah, war is so great.

                As for covid. It's factually not influenza. Doesn't even warrant a debate.

                Obviously it's not actually the flu. About as deadly though.

                • -1 vote

                  @brendanm: No one said war is great. In fact my point is the opposite. People have had to endure all sorts of more difficult things to help our way of life. We just have to get a simple vaccine and feel a bit crook for a week or two (which is our bodies building antibodies)… but save more people. Sounds like something we can be brave and manage I think.

                  As for your ill-informed flu comparison - No mate. Its more deadly.
                  The flu does not kill 567,000 americans each year like covid has. It is about 12,000 – 61,000 deaths annually since 2010. Their death rate is sitting at about 1.8%. Ours at 3% from our smaller sample size. Even if you slash that back for possible undetected covid over-conservatively its likely over 1%. That's 1 in 100. Vaccine deaths are looking to be about 1 in 800,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 - that's 0.000125%. No brainer.

                  "The risk of death from COVID-19 is more than triple that from seasonal flu, Canadian Researchers say"
                  https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2...

                  "COVID-19 is far more harmful and deadly than the seasonal flu, new studies confirm"
                  https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201218/covid-19-is-far-mor...

                  I repeat - get some education

                •  

                  @brendanm: But then we have to ask "Where did all the flu cases go"?

                  Seems like the COVAIDS is to the Flu what Batman is to Bruce Wayne. You never see them in the same room together.

                  • +1 vote

                    @EightImmortals: You don't think that the extra sanitary methods (masks, a boom of sanitising stations in public places, people actually washing thier hands, solical distancing, less hand shaking, etc) have had an effect on other transmissable viruses?

                    I'm less surprised that Flu has dissappeared so much, and more surprised how many people didn't wash their hands before Covid.

                    •  

                      @dizzle: 'Reduce' sure, but almost eliminate entirely? Nah, don't think so.

                      But that raises another question as well, Why have they been pushing flu vaccines for decades with limited results and inherent dangers when all they had to do to wipe the flu out was lock everyone down for 2 weeks and make them wash their hands?

                      Apparently the UK has had ZERO flu cases so far this year. Yup, totally believable…not.

                      • +1 vote

                        @EightImmortals: I don't know where you got 'ZERO' cases from, the UK still has people getting sick from influenza it has not magically disappeared, just reduced significantly.

                        Flu has not been wiped out, we could seriously do an impact with sustained hygiene and distancing though.
                        Also you have to remember type A influenza is just a variation of Spanish flu which killed like 50 million people, we are lucky only a few hundred thousand people die each year from flu. and to attribute none of that to vaccines is irresponsible, also not having smallpox is pretty cool too.

                        In my opinion the number of flu cases probably reduced for the following reasons;

                        • As mentioned before a general improvement in hygiene and social distancing. (remember CDC considers Covid-19 to be more contagious and has more "superspreader" events. Meaning if social distancing and better hygiene is working on Covid-19 it is working even better for flu)

                        • I have no research backing this so I could be completely wrong but I would say someone who caught Covid probably did it though not following the above point. So some people with Covid-19 might also have flu (as they did not follow the above point), but given Covid-19 is worse they would get tested for it rather than flu, if it comes back positive, covid, no need for other tests. If it came back negative they might get tested for flu or they might camp out at home and sleep it off, just relieved they did not have Covid.

                        Most of the flu statistic on Gov websites I have seen say something along the lines of, due to the effects of Covid-19, current flu statistics may not be accurate.

              •  

                @MrFrugalSpend: 'Yet in recent decades, the purportedly unstoppable force of military ethics has met a seemingly immovable object in the form of an entrenched Afghan child-rape culture. Because in that morally trying case, in which senior “leaders of character” regularly told their troopers to ignore the local practice (and occasionally punished those who refused), the U.S. military chose tactical expedience (or desperation) over virtue. And while what unfolded may not technically qualify as a violation of the honor code, tolerance of rape has nonetheless brought disgrace upon the entire U.S. military.'

                This applies to australian troops as well…

                another reason the australian military wanted to strip medals from the Afghan campaign but Dutton doesn't care about child rape clearly either, unlike the Australian Army.

                Your big on asserting others are stupid or uneducated but talking about wars being justified for human rights when they involve the USA is not only a joke but a lie.

                You really need to get your facts right before telling everyone else to get an education, because your opinion based on false statements is just your opinion. The real question is whose paying you to spin…

  •  

    I get the feeling the reason the government bought Pfizer even though the chance of getting a blood clot is very very small is because they want to avoid bad PR and want the vaccination process to go as smoothly as possible because they plan to make vaccinations mandatory in the future. I just can't see why they would make so many orders on a second vaccine otherwise on a minor risk and advise people under 50 to avoid it unless they had ulterior motives. Also Scomo has already hinted he would make vaccinations mandatory as well.

    •  

      They can't make them mandatory but what they'll 'probably' do is say something like "You can't go to cafes, sporting events, shops or work unless you take the shot….but it's not 'mandatory'" There was a petition doing the rounds the other week to get government to not down down the road of that kind of blatant discrimination but I'm sure it fell on deaf ears. The same is happening around the world, here's one from the U.K. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56202975

      Kinds reminds me what this other government is doing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXyzpMDtpSE (5 minutes)

      • -1 vote

        Social credit isn't even in the same league as a COVID passport.

        The majority don't want to live next door to someone who blast music at all hours.

        The majority don't want to drive near someone without a license (baseline ability).

        The majority don't want to live were there is rampant crime.

        The majority don't want firearms to be easily accessible.

        In the same vain, the majority dont't want to increase their risk of getting COVID by sitting next to non-immunized people (~2% fatality rate in western countries).

        It isn't about forcing you, it is about protecting others. That is why it is still your choice. You accept that in order to still protect others you won't be able to do everything.

    •  

      Mandatory how? Like you can't travel without one? Fined if you don't? Thrown in prison? What exactly do you mean by mandatory?

  •  

    Here

    That's what has happened so far…

    • +1 vote

      No, they are just trying to make out there is a high demand for vaccines by blaming the lack of uptake on the rollout. Real reason is people don't want it.

      • +1 vote

        Melbourne is receiving international flights again… VIC will screw up eventually, so there is demand for immunisation…

      • +1 vote

        AZ was a poor choice to promote uptake - way 2 many people were refused pfizer when they asked and told none available.

        that was a federal government decison. Scomo's personal choice was pfizer- other australians couldn't get it. Rollout failure is down to the federal government, particularly the prime minister.

        Thats why little lachie's here with his chaindogs to prop things up.

  • +1 vote

    Well I'm under 50 so I can't get AZ, so it's either Pfizer or whatever else gets approved. Don't particularly give a rats arse about the type of vaccine I get.

    • +1 vote

      you CAN get AZ if you want

  • +7 votes

    I'll wait until the 1-5 year study comes out. Not an emergency in Australia, so yeah.

    • +5 votes

      This. More like 5 years for me and my family.

    •  

      No disrespect to you RocketSwitch, but the whole point of getting people vaccinated is so we can open our borders, we cannot live in lockdown forever.

      What will happen (and this is not Rocket Science - pardon the pun), is that once a high enough portion of the population get vaccinated we will open the borders and those that are not vaccinated are at most risk, as even vaccinated people can still catch the virus and can possibly pass it on.

      Just my opinion but Australia cannot stay in lockdown forever.

      • -1 vote

        "even vaccinated people can still catch the virus and can possibly pass it on."

        QFT

      • +1 vote

        those that are not vaccinated are at most risk

        Then let people take the risk if they want to.

        •  

          Then they become responsible for the mutations that escapes the vaccine. We need a huge section of the community on board with this if we ever want to return to a semblage of normal.

          • +2 votes

            @MissG: It's pretty damn normal here at the moment. The only thing that's annoying is not being able go interstate without some power tripper possibly making you pay for 14 day quarantine.

          • +1 vote

            @MissG: And top scientists in the field are saying the opposite, that it's the vaccinated who will be the risk to EVERYONE.

            Geert Vanden Bossch is the latest one. He is as pro-vax as you can get. You can look it up and DYOR though.

            •  

              @EightImmortals: So would you be happy to take the vaccine he proposes the NK Vaccine?

              •  

                @Bjingo: Nope. "less dangerous" (presumably) does not mean it's "safe". The point of the post was that he is a very pro-vax, vax scientist who is sending the warning out about these mRNA 'vaccines' and therefore his opinion should carry some weight for those who can think outside of the narrow channels that the media corral them into. :)

                By all means, do what's right for you, but don;t force anyone else to fall in line with your beliefs.

                •  

                  @EightImmortals: I was more trying to put the fact that he speaks down on these vaccines but then promotes the vaccine he is making.
                  I would not call him a vax expert personally, I would call him a brilliant veterinarian with ample project management experience. The only time he has been a researcher is the past couple years as an independent researcher prior to this he mainly did management.
                  Geert has also been compared to Andrew Wakefield which is pretty funny.

                  To clarify he does not call himself anti-vax and he is not pro-vax. He is specifically dislikes modern vaccines that use the acquired immune system to gain immunity or as he says

                  "to naturally induce immune responses that ‘correlate’ with protection"

                  https://www.longdom.org/conference-abstracts-files/2157-7560...

                  His main points stem from this idea that these vaccines will make dangerous variant strains of virus' due to only specifically targeting the virus as it is now and that the vaccines wont work on them anymore. He also believes that vaccines will destroy our bodies innate immune system I assume he is talking about NK cells because that's what his vaccine uses, however this opinion of his is not recent he is just being more vocal about it now while people are worried about the vaccines.

                  Of course all of this wont matter if you use the vaccine he is making which is going to be safer and immunise you against everything, It also has 20 years less research done on it than mRNA vaccines and has no evidence of anything close to a theoretical prototype.

                  If he did not start trying to sell his unmade vaccine I would be way more into this.

                  You seem to have a healthy suspicion about things, I am surprised the fact he is denying these vaccines but heavily pushing his own vaccine does not prompt alarm bells for you.

                  •  

                    @Bjingo: Only small ones. Just because he is pushing his own product doesn't mean his arguments against the mRNA vaccines arent' valid. I mean maybe he invented his vaccine BECAUSE he knew the problems with mRNA ones? Either way, i wont be having either of them. :) Cheers

                    •  

                      @EightImmortals:

                      Just because he is pushing his own product doesn't mean his arguments against the mRNA vaccines arent' valid

                      You're right it does absolutely does not mean it is invalid, it means he has an agenda and just raises suspicions.

                      What I have issues with is his material itself, for example his… letter?

                      Why do Covid-19 mass vaccination campaigns promote dominance of selective immune escape variants?

                      His very initial premise is flawed in itself. the statement;

                      "To adapt viruses to grow at high infectious titers under suboptimal conditions, it is critical to passage the virus repeatedly under the same ‘stress’ conditions. Likewise, repeated person-to-person transmission of a highly mutable virus under similarly selective, suboptimal immune pressure would enable ‘training’ of selected immune escape variants."

                      There are so many issues I have with this statement;

                      He discusses viruses as if they are living organisms, they are not, they do not contain any cells, cannot produce energy and cannot replicate independently. They are a mass of DNA contained within a protein shell. This means they are inert so when they infect you it is purely by chance they are just floating around and hit a random cell then bind to it and reproduce.

                      The way a virus mutates is that while making copies of itself it might make a mistake in the copy and that's the mutation so the method that will cause the most mutations and therefore the worst mutations is for there to be more infected cells replicating. This as well as not being a living thing means that "stress conditions" do not exist for a virus and means they cannot undergo selective training.

                      I mean maybe he invented his vaccine BECAUSE he knew the problems with mRNA ones?

                      He started researching his idea about 10 years ago, he has an obsession with the innate immune system over the adaptive immune system, which I just do not get, the whole point is that the innate system kills basic things (because it has no method of remembering pathogens) and if it cant, it spurs the adaptive immune system to get the hard stuff and remember how to beat it. I can't say how he ended up with this issue with adaptive immune system vaccines but it is based on nothing other than his own belief of it. even the articles he referenced in the… letter did not actually agree and he was just cherry picking details to try push his point.

  • +6 votes

    "safe and effective" is the slogan. Yet, you waive your rights of any legal recourse if you have a reaction or family member die.

    • +8 votes

      Its safe and effective for the doctor administering it (no legal liability) but not for the patient.

  •  

    Unfortunately , if you have family abroad and need to travel and see them then you would have no choice but to get vaccinated.

    For those people who say they will wait for a couple of years to see if there are any side effects , that's just plain rubbish. For example the measles or whooping cough vaccines have been around for ages , yet there are people who still don't want to take them.

    •  

      if you have family abroad and need to travel and see them then you would have no choice but to get vaccinated.

      If you have to travel overseas then the benefits of vaccination would probably far exceed any risks, unless travelling to another country that has virtually eliminated covid.

      For those people who say they will wait for a couple of years to see if there are any side effects , that's just plain rubbish. For example the measles or whooping cough vaccines have been around for ages , yet there are people who still don't want to take them.

      True there are always a small minority (~6%) who aren't fully vaccinated. But some ppl are fully vaccinated who would also prefer to wait a bit before taking the covid vaccine, perhaps at least not so soon after provisional approval (or emergency use authorisations for overseas).

      Something the advice change demonstrates is that the covid vaccines will become safer as more data result in more advice changes. Thus ppl <50yo who delayed getting vaccinated in the past few weeks can now benefit from the updated AZ advice and receive Pfizer instead of AZ.

  • +9 votes

    Late here but whatever - to answer your question, either is appropriate and safe.

    To preface everything: all vaccines have a side-effect profile because, put simply, you're intentionally stimulating your body to have an acute immune response to something it doesn't recognise. Inflammation at the site of injection and general short-lived symptoms are very common.

    Two examples: If you remember your DTP (Diptheria, Tetanus & Pertussis) vaccination then you would most likely remember that injection-site muscular pain you experienced for the next week - it's nasty enough to limit mobility in your shoulder. If you have had the yellow fever or even a flu shot then you'd be forgiven for taking a half-day because of feeling generally fatigued. Most vaccines run the risk of potentially fatal anaphylaxis in the one per hundreds of thousands to millions range, but we rarely bat an eye. Similarly, oral polio vaccines have an extremely low rate of actually infecting someone with a weak version of polio, but we don't really bat an eye at it due to rarity and general societal acceptance of the vaccine and the desire to not make iron lungs fashionable again. It's exceedingly rare and yet we accept the risk because it's a medical event that we as a society deem necessary to roll the dice on in order to rid ourselves of harmful diseases.

    In the case of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine the UK data suggests that 1 per 250,000 recipients will develop a blood clot, with young adults at a higher risk. This is obviously a concerning risk but in the scheme of things fairly minimal - your prescription medicine is actually more dangerous in most cases - but that salient image of having some foreign "pharma juice" injected into you is an extremely potent image that provokes fear and distrust.

    Another note: you should never trust anecdotal evidence - it's prone to 'reporting bias.' That is, only people who have a perceived (not confirmed) side effect will publicly broadcast that they experienced one, whereas the vast majority who don't experience anything of note simply don't bother stating it. So, when talking about social circles, viewing social media and news articles the risk of experiencing a side effect is greatly amplified in your head compared to reality. Most humans, as it turns out, are terrible at probabilities and recognising bias.

    A final thought: I work with trials (academic, not pharma). What is obviously different for the AZ and Pfizer vaccines is that the turnaround on development appears to be extremely short, precluding normal long-term safety evaluations. That said, the vaccines were already somewhat in development before the COVID-19 pandemic as they were being researched for the highly similar MERS and SARS-1 viruses. Such a foundation of knowledge gave an enormous head start. A lot of safety evaluation is already done after market release of a drug/therapy - we call this post-market surveillance. It is, in effect, recognition that while our processes are good at weeding out the more damaging drugs, sometimes more subtle issues are missed. What AZ and regulatory agencies is doing now is no different - they're collating post-releasing data, assessing it, then readjusting their recommendations for use accordingly.

    Personally I want the Pfizer vaccine because the technology is bleeding edge and something I researched as a pie-in-the-sky hypothetical back in undergrad. It's just so cool to see it hit the market, and while I'll happily take either, an excited part of me wants to be part of medical history.

    •  

      close thread

    • +1 vote

      What is obviously different for the AZ and Pfizer vaccines is that the turnaround on development appears to be extremely short, precluding normal long-term safety evaluations

      Personally I want the Pfizer vaccine because the technology is bleeding edge

      Wow really?

      • +4 votes

        Totally! The Pfizer vaccine's "payload" is RNA (think of it as a protein blueprint for something usually seen on a virus), which enters cells at the site of injection. The cell then reads the RNA and creates the viral protein, but after creating it goes "huh, this is odd, am I infected? I better show this to an expert." The cell puts the protein on it's outside surface where your immune cells can examine it. Your immune cells take one look at it and go "yep, this isn't right" - then creates a way to both render inert and tag for clean-up any particles or cells that have this protein on it, and how to kill any cells that are showing it. Most pivotally, your immune system will remember how it did it - but this whole process takes time!

        So, the next time your body sees this protein when it's attached to a real life virus, it can deal with it swiftly and without the delay of creating a first-contact response.

        Traditional vaccines use one of the following methods to stimulate your immune system: killed pathogen fragments, purified protein fragments of a pathogen, a living but weakened form of the pathogen, or a purified sample of the toxins the pathogen can produce. By pathogen I mean a germ - viruses, bacteria etc. As I pointed out before, all of these are safe but can in exceptionally rare circumstances have severe side effects. And obviously, when we make these vaccines, we are working with a living version of the pathogen at some point in the process.

        Why am I excited abut an RNA vaccine? Well this is the first time one has ever been brought to market. Compared to traditional vaccines (I'll mention these later), RNA vaccines are theoretically extremely customisable as you can tweak the RNA to produce a different protein - which makes it handy for mutations and altogether new viruses. Once the technology is established they'll be cheaper to produce en masse. They'll also be safer to make and give to patients as at no point in the manufacturing process is the virus actually needed - so no contamination or risk of infection. The RNA payload also cannot be replicated in the cell (we as humans don't have the ability to copy RNA directly), which means it will never spread in the body unlike rare cases in live vaccines. Really, RNA vaccines are the convergence of cutting edge genetic technology, immune system sciences and pharmacology. It's so cool to see it finally be frontline!

        • +1 vote

          I understand the excitement but this is not like Apple releasing a beta version of Macbook and if it malfunctions you can just return it.

          • +4 votes

            @pipe: Yeah - a MacBook is a piece of technology superfluous to your need to live. You're making a false equivalence out of ignorance, which is totally OK given how little schools teach us on the subject of immunology, but this skepticism is simply hysteria writ large. I also feel like you're not exactly grasping the benefits of RNA vaccines over traditional methods - my explanation is both enthusiasm but also a layman's summary of how they work and why they're understood to be safe.

            Once again I'd like to point out that prescription medication is far more dangerous than vaccination - the oral hormonal contraceptive pill has a higher rate of causing clots in the total population (so I'm including males in these figures too!!!!!) than the AZ vaccine.

            With regards to the Pfizer vaccine. This technology has been in development for 30 years and the side effect profile of RNA vaccines are far more predictable than traditional formulations. While this vaccine is the first-of-class in the market, it is not the first time humans or primates in general have been administered and closely monitored for prolonged follow-up periods in well designed trials. I believe that human trials for DNA vaccines have already been completed for the highly similar MERS and SARS-1 viruses, and multiple have been done for RNA vaccine sin COVID-19 specifically. We aren't breaking new ground here in terms of what we're treating.

            My earlier consternation about short safety assessment periods is predominantly based on habit - but vaccination side effects are extremely predisposed to be short-lived and immediately following injection - not long term. It's as a formality that I want to see long-term safety follow-up studies, which are already in the works by Pfizer and AZ. On that note - there are tonnes of drugs on the market that have been "fast tracked" (google it) to market before and there's been barely a whimper about it because they aren't scary "pharma juice." Many of these legally cut the same long-term safety follow-up corners as well, then are retrospectively analysed.

    •  

      Just too much science and intelligence for this thread.

  •  

    Why do we have so many idiotic comments here???? Can't we just be objective???

    •  

      lol have you read any of the other threads here or the internet for that matter?

  •  

    Sino vac is the best. I prefer things that are made in China.

    • +2 votes

      Like COVID-19?

      •  

        if you know for 100%, then you should go with sinovac

    • +1 vote

      Why not Sputnik Vaccine, comrade?

  •  

    I had the first jab of AZ and now worried about the second- I'm a transplant recipient so more chance of having serious complications from Covid19. ..though on the other hand the vaccine does not produce antibodies in all transplant recipients…i will most likely get the second jab as potentialbenefitsoutweightherisks…its fine stating the risk is low until you or a loved one dies from blood clot/s. Whatever the O/P and medical staff choose I support the decisions as we are still relatively safe in Australia but it will be a shit storm if a variation gets lose in tne community

    • +1 vote

      How did you determine that benefits outweigh the risks?

      •  

        I suppose current peer reviewed studies and transplant team state transplant recipients are more likely to die or have serious complications from Covid19- the transplant team stated that some people with a transplant have very little symptoms while others die but in higher numbers than the general population (overseas studies). There isn't enough data on a vaccinated transplant patients but they think any protection that a vaccine may offer should be better than none but it's still unclear how much protection I would actually have or for how long..its relatively safe in Australia at the moment which makes the choice harder to have the second shot- I will have to talk to transplant team if still worth the risk of blood clots or be unprotected for about another friggen year till we get Pfizer in Australian arms. I have been ventilated before and it was awful and took a year to fully recover when young and fit …f that Covid19 so If specialist think the risk is worth it I will get the second jab

        • +1 vote

          What makes you think that the specialists even understand what the effects of the vaccines are? Vaccine has never been tested on someone with your condition.

          Plenty of anecdotes of people getting side effects from vaccines and doctors have no idea what to do and saying it is just a normal reaction, or dismissing it as coincidence. By law, doctors are banned from saying anything negative about them.

          • +2 votes

            @pipe:

            What makes you think that the specialists even understand what the effects of the vaccines are? Vaccine has never been tested on someone with your condition.

            Is this a serious take?

            By law, doctors are banned from saying anything negative about them.

            Based on which law?

        •  

          it's not about there being not enough data for inmuno compromised. There's ZERO data. The fact that nephrologist and doctors are advising to take the vaccine is beyond me. I have received a kidney transplant and unfortunately many years later I'm going through the process again so it buffles me when I hear "it's safe, risk outweights the benefits" They don't know that!!.

          The Department of Heath of Australia - TGA has the current fact sheets for both available vaccines. The AZ, on page 7 as of today the 14th of April page 4 it says "Immunocompromised individuals. The immunogenicity, efficacy and safety of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca has not been assessed in immunocompromised individuals, including those receiving immunosuppressive therapy|

          Keywords, "no proof of efficacy, and safety"
          https://tga-search.clients.funnelback.com/s/search.html?quer...

          Pfizer fact sheet it's just the same on page 6

          If there are any side effects, they will show inmediatley and/or many years to come. That's why a vaccine trial takes many many years to trial and test. At this point in time we are the test and I plan to take the best care of my body to receive my future transplant by other means.

    •  

      I had the first jab of AZ and now worried about the second- I'm a transplant recipient so more chance of having serious complications from Covid19. ..though on the other hand the vaccine does not produce antibodies in all transplant recipients…i will most likely get the second jab as potentialbenefitsoutweightherisks…its fine stating the risk is low until you or a loved one dies from blood clot/s.

      There are risks either way, but only you can choose which is most appropriate for you after receiving medical advice for your situation. You wouldn't want to do or not do something you end up regretting.

      When i recently had another MMR vaccine, i had very unpleasant side effects for a fortnight or so that stopped me from working or doing anything really. But i believed in the decision i made and so i have no regrets with what side effects it came with. The next time i get an MMR vaccine again, i'll again get medical advice on my situation and last vaccine experience, and then make another personal decision based on the risks of another MMR vaccine vs not.

      it will be a shit storm if a variation gets lose in tne community

      Next generation covid vaccines are in development which will better protect against new variants - hopefully they'll become available later this year.

      •  

        Yeah risks vs benefits is getting tiresome- my medication can kill me, cause cancer or (profanity) me over in multiple other ways but If I don't take it I will lose the organ and die or be stuck on a machine for life …quality if life much better playing Russian roulette with drugs and the calculated risks. BUT Now another thing to weigh up with vaccine but since hardly anyone is currently vaccinated in Australia if there is a community outbreak of the more contagious strain it's going to be hard to contain. Hope you don't get the same reaction if you have another MMR vaccine ..Take care friend

        •  

          The current recommendation is if you didn’t have issues with the first dose it’s unlikely you will with the second.

  • +3 votes

    Your chance of getting covid at all in australia is so negligible that the chance of a bad side effect from the vaccine is significantly higher (even though the chances are tiny) than the chance of having a bad case of covid.

  •  

    https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/12/3642/htm

    Evidence from observational studies is accumulating, suggesting that the majority of deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 infections are statistically attributable to vitamin D insufficiency and could potentially be prevented by vitamin D supplementation. Given the dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic, rational vitamin D supplementation whose safety has been proven in an extensive body of research should be promoted and initiated to limit the toll of the pandemic even before the final proof of efficacy in preventing COVID-19 deaths by randomized trials.

    • +2 votes

      I asked my specialist about this and said its too simplistic to say taking vit D will help you fight off a Covid19 infection as many issues revolved around low vit D levels in blood and can be attributed to so many other health issues. He said its fine to take vit D if your levels are low but don't expect a miracle boost in immune function by taking one tablet unless your critically difficent and related to a known cause. I suppose as more peer reviewed papers come out we will see - iike always get medical advice relating to your health before taking vitamins especially vit d.

      •  

        What do you have a specialist for?

        And here's a meta analysis of a bunch of covid vit D studies.

        https://vdmeta.com/#fig_fps (might have to select Vit D at the top)

      • +1 vote

        Your specialist is absolutely correct…observational studies cannot be used to draw conclusions of cause and effect due to high risk of bias, this is basic statistics. Unfortunately there are some people with agendas posting these kind of biased comments. They also did not post the reply to the comment from the author of the original study (the link above by the way is only a comment on a study, not an actual publication), which directly pointed out the problem of bias and confounders in observational studies.
        https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/12/3643/htm

        I hope people trust their doctors/specialists over some randoms on the internet copy pasting from their antivaxxer source…

        • +1 vote

          And I hope people DYOR instead of listening to fear-based trolls with agendas of their own and who can't even be bothered to read links.

          Here's my 'antivaxxer' (lols) source.

          https://www.mdpi.com/about

          "A pioneer in scholarly open access publishing, MDPI has supported academic communities since 1996. Based in Basel, Switzerland, MDPI has the mission to foster open scientific exchange in all forms, across all disciplines. Our 329 diverse, peer-reviewed, open access journals are supported by more than 84,200 academic editors. We serve scholars from around the world to ensure the latest research is freely available and all content is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).

          Journals include Molecules (launched in 1996; Impact Factor 3.267), the International Journal of Molecular Sciences (launched in 2000; Impact Factor 4.556), Sensors (launched in 2001; Impact Factor 3.275), Marine Drugs (launched in 2003; Impact Factor 4.073), Energies (launched in 2008; Impact Factor 2.702), the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (launched in 2004; Impact Factor 2.849), Viruses (launched in 2009; Impact Factor 3.816), Remote Sensing (launched in 2009; Impact Factor 4.509), Toxins (launched in 2009; Impact Factor 3.531) and Nutrients (launched in 2009; Impact Factor 4.546). With further offices in Beijing, Wuhan and Tianjin (China), Barcelona (Spain), Belgrade and Novi Sad (Serbia), Cluj-Napoca (Romania), Manchester (UK), Tokyo (Japan), Bangkok (Thailand) and Kraków (Poland), MDPI has published the research of more than 330,000 individual authors and our journals receive more than 14 million monthly webpage views."

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI

          MDPI or Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute is a publisher of open access scientific journals. Founded by Shu-Kun Lin as a chemical sample archive, it has established over 200 broad-scope journals.[2] MDPI is the largest open access publisher in the world and the 5th largest publisher overall in terms of journal paper output.[3] The number of published papers has been growing significantly in the last decade with year over year growth of over 50% in 2017, 2018 and 2019.[3]

          Also, merely trying to discredit the source without addressing the content is just another low-ball tactic along the lines of calling people names instead of addressing their claims.

          Now go get your vaccine like a good boy.

    • +2 votes

      This has already been responded to in countless studies which has demonstrated that the link to seriousness of symptoms and death is tenuous.

      But why is this relevant?

      Do you think that if Vitamin D was the answer, we would even bother with vaccines?

      Edit: just seen your vitamin d meta analysis website. It's from the same group that published the HCQ one and didnt post negative studies.

      • +2 votes

        Do you think that if Vitamin D was the answer, we would even bother with vaccines?

        Of course.

        HCQ is even apparently banned in QLD. If the pandemic is anywhere even near as bad as they are making it out to be, you'd think they wouldn't ban anything.

        https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/photos/a.2517945816818...

        Florida doing much better than most states too.

        How many masks do you wear?

        • +2 votes

          Craig Kelly posts….clearly the highest form of quality scientific and medical peer reviewed information.
          You can tell by the quality of commenters he gets in response to them..

          /End sarcasm

          • +2 votes

            @SBOB: Don't be scared to look at his sources.

        • +2 votes

          Craig Kelly is the type of person I go to for reliable information (not).

          In other words, thanks for the conspiracy! Big pharma out to get us.

          • +2 votes

            @DogGunn: Lol you guys need to stop just appealing to authority. Try think for yourselves, at least once in a while.

            • +1 vote

              @ozhunter: Sure.

              Here's a list of crazy Craig's conspiracy theories, from one of the very websites he used in your link:
              https://www.businessinsider.com.au/craig-kelly-conspiracy-th...

              He's a furniture salesman turned politian who seems to dip way too often into topics of immunology, virology and general medicine, despite having zero study or a single credential any of the areas.

              I can think for myself.

              I take nothing that vile person says seriously.

              • +2 votes

                @DogGunn: Lol, he's linking studies from other countries.

                • +1 vote

                  @ozhunter: Great stuff! Too bad he never links (or probably even reads) anything that might counter any of the nonsense he is spreading.

                  You know, the type of stuff that people who studied in the field tend to do - something that he is apparently completely incapable of doing.

                  • +2 votes

                    @DogGunn: Appealing to authority again, but obviously just the one you like. You can't even begin to comprehend that they could be wrong.

                    • +2 votes

                      @ozhunter: You realise that appealing to authority on topics that require expertise isn't a logical fallacy?

                      It is of no surprise that people with low intelligence like Craig Kelly and the stuff he spews (that is somewhat of an appeal to authority).

                      • +2 votes

                        @DogGunn: Oh I get that it's reasonable to believe those in authority, but when they won't allow cheap, available, easy to access medicine that's been around for ages that other countries have proven to help, I'd question their motive for not wanting me to access it.

                        Your only issue seems to be that Craig Kelly posted it.

                        • +1 vote

                          @ozhunter:

                          ages that other countries have proven to help

                          Inb4 you post the HCQ "metastudy" which refuses to list negative studies.

                          • +2 votes

                            @DogGunn: Here you go https://hcqmeta.com/

                            Studies from North America are 3.9 times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world combined, p = 0.0000000011.

                            Found this interesting bit

                            but HCQ doesn't make big pharma millions, I meant billons