Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
jrs

Covid-19 Are we being told the truth ?

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, DC2 said:

I thought the consensus was that people who have had the virus will be immune for nine months?

Regardless, the consensus also seems to be that it’s a mutating virus that will return every year, like flu, and require annual vaccination until our immune systems become sufficiently familiar with it to make it no more fatal than flu.

Don't think there is a consensus. This was just what one expert was saying on tv the other night due to Immunity passes and those with immunity getting special treatment like being able to go to Cinema's or something. But I do think the consensus is that everybody will have a different immunity as the body reacts differently

One topic seems to be that those who recover quickly will have a stronger immunity than those that don't. One idea was if you delay the 2nd jab you will be immune for longer, but whether that was guesswork or just trying to justify the delay ?

The WHO states

Most people who are infected with COVID-19 develop an immune response within the first few weeks after infection.

Research is still ongoing into how strong that protection is and how long it lasts. WHO is also looking into whether the strength and length of immune response depends on the type of infection a person has: without symptoms (‘asymptomatic’), mild or severe. Even people without symptoms seem to develop an immune response.

Globally, data from seroprevalence studies suggests that less 10% of those studied have been infected, meaning that the vast majority of the world’s population remains susceptible to this virus.

For other coronaviruses – such as the common cold, SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) – immunity declines over time, as is the case with other diseases. While people infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus develop antibodies and immunity, we do not yet know how long it lasts.

Or this

https://www.axios.com/cdc-covid-19-three-months-immunity-468558d4-3218-424a-84cc-a6c86119ef69.html

Edited by iris123

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, iris123 said:

Is it actually anything to do with the second jab being delayed?

Isn’t it supposed to be the case that the vaccine doesn’t become effective for three weeks or so and that it protects only against the worst symptoms, not against contracting the disease?

So the fact that he contracted the disease might be said to be irrelevant.

And the fact that he had symptoms on 7 January might indicate that he contracted it on 2 January, just three days past the 21 day “effective” timescale.

Now, If he goes on to suffer badly that calls the vaccine into question, not merely the delayed second jab.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, iris123 said:

 

Globally, data from seroprevalence studies suggests that less 10% of those studied have been infected, meaning that the vast majority of the world’s population remains susceptible to this virus.

 

 

So either the UK is an exception, with at least 20%, and probably nearer 30%, having been infected, or the ONS estimates of weekly infections are grossly exaggerated?

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, DC2 said:

Is it actually anything to do with the second jab being delayed?

Isn’t it supposed to be the case that the vaccine doesn’t become effective for three weeks or so and that it protects only against the worst symptoms, not against contracting the disease?

So the fact that he contracted the disease might be said to be irrelevant.

And the fact that he had symptoms on 7 January might indicate that he contracted it on 2 January, just three days past the 21 day “effective” timescale.

Now, If he goes on to suffer badly that calls the vaccine into question, not merely the delayed second jab.

I would agree with that, for a change :D

Obviously the 2nd jab gives you even more protection. But he could just be one of the 5,10 or so % that aren't protected by the vaccine....

Share this post


Link to post

There was a doctor on TV this morning who said that the first jab gives you about 85% protection and the second bumps that up to about 90% protection. What that protection means, I don't know. Does it mean percentage within yourself or percentage of people?

He then said that, in comparison, the flu jab, which nobody is questioning, gives about 65% protection.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Grachan said:

There was a doctor on TV this morning who said that the first jab gives you about 85% protection and the second bumps that up to about 90% protection. What that protection means, I don't know. Does it mean percentage within yourself or percentage of people?

He then said that, in comparison, the flu jab, which nobody is questioning, gives about 65% protection.

Thought it was % of people, worked out from the group who have the vaccine in the tests and who don't get infected

Thought I saw something about a Chinese vaccine that comes out at 50% in tests, but didn't look at the article, just the headline

Edited by iris123

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Grachan said:

There was a doctor on TV this morning who said that the first jab gives you about 85% protection and the second bumps that up to about 90% protection. What that protection means, I don't know. Does it mean percentage within yourself or percentage of people?

He then said that, in comparison, the flu jab, which nobody is questioning, gives about 65% protection.

It surely means that if you have had both doses you only have a 10% chance of getting it, and even then the seriousness of the infection will be greatly reduced if you unfortunately are 1 of the 10% 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, racers and royals said:

It surely means that if you have had both doses you only have a 10% chance of getting it, and even then the seriousness of the infection will be greatly reduced if you unfortunately are 1 of the 10% 

Thought different. You can still get it and pass it on even if you have had the jabs, but if you are in the 95% it won't be serious. Plus the chances of you passing it on are greatly reduced

Edited by iris123
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, iris123 said:

Thought different. You can still get it and pass it on even if you have had the jabs, but if you are in the 95% it won't be serious

You are probably correct- i was just commenting on how it effects the person receiving the vaccination.

Share this post


Link to post

“There is also some evidence the new variant may not be quite as fast-spreading as first feared - a Public Health England study suggested rather than being 70% more transmissible it may actually be somewhere between 30% to 50%.”   

BBC

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, racers and royals said:

It surely means that if you have had both doses you only have a 10% chance of getting it, and even then the seriousness of the infection will be greatly reduced if you unfortunately are 1 of the 10% 

 

Nope.

We all thought the vaccines prevented you getting it but the message was changed to “preventing you getting the worst symptoms and effects”!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

Nope.

We all thought the vaccines prevented you getting it but the message was changed to “preventing you getting the worst symptoms and effects”!

There must be a % figure  where if you have had 2 doses you will not catch it and you are protected- this must have been extrapolated  from the clinical trials

Edited by racers and royals

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, racers and royals said:

There must be a % figure  where if you have had 2 doses you will not catch it and you are protected- this must have been extrapolated  from the clinical trials

No, not protected from getting it, just protected from suffering the worst effects.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ruffdiamond said:

Was watching the local news last night and, there was a bit about folk complaining about having to wait upto an hour, sometimes outside in the cold!!!,,, to receive their vaccine by appointment at the vaccination centre.

A member of staff said in the interview that some customers were turning up, upto an hour and a half early,,, is being unable to tell the time a symptom??? ;)

Where I work at a local Tourist Attraction admittance was only by pre-booked time slots (like most, if not all, attractions) pre-lockdown. Of course you had people turning up prior to their allotted time hoping to get in and some got quite upset when we were having to send them away...and some wonder why I don't like people? :angry:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

24 minutes ago, racers and royals said:

There must be a % figure  where if you have had 2 doses you will not catch it and you are protected- this must have been extrapolated  from the clinical trials

A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 (commonly known as the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine) was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6).

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy