Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 41 of 41
  1. #26
    I am not a cat
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,889
    ^ not particularly looking for a fight here, but do you honestly think you are informed enough to have your own opinion? Could you, for example discuss ( without going to Google) the difference between antigenic drift, versus antigenic shift? That is kind of essential when considering flu vaccines for example.

    The rise of google virologists and immunologist frankly worries me.

  2. #27
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    79,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Farang Ky Ay View Post
    ...and that's my issue with the concept of creating a vaccine in a hurry for a virus known to evolve quickly (like the flu). Some of the vaccines are based on such a narrow target that they can (and IMHO will) be by-passed by a new strain too easily. Future will tell.

    I can agree to a certain extent (waiting for some compared data between vaccinated/unvaccinated on the gravity of the cases) that current vaccines may lead to milder cases, but I would focus more on treating the cases than trying to prevent them for the part of the population not deemed at risk (elderly, health issues should be vaccinated)
    One of the main drivers behind trying to stop the virus is that infected people then become a factory for mutations which can then lead to more dangerous variants.

    Allowing infections to multiply is increasing the risk of a more transmissible, more dangerous variant.

  3. #28
    Thailand Expat
    Farang Ky Ay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    2,032
    ^^ no I don't, I read stuff from renowned scientists on this field (virology) whose statements differ from most of the TV stages doctors.

    I think I aired their views more than 1 year ago and so far they were right (my wait and see stance regarding side effects, vaccines efficiency vs rapidly evolving viruses...).

    I worry too, but about people so willing to believe those who are funded by pharma companies, many of whom have been judged guilty of falsifying data for profit sake. I think I already stated what data would be needed to get a clearer view of the vaccines efficiency in another thread and concluded on my "wait and see" stance and letting everyone judge things according to their own situation (age, health, lifestyle) as I don't do proselytism.



    ^ But vaccinated people can get infected and spread it to others, right? (I get it that they -may- get milder symptoms).
    Current vaccines roll-out are not coordinated worldwide, so no you can't reasonably expect to achieve global vaccine-generated immunity globally with such rapidly evolving viruses.
    Last edited by Farang Ky Ay; 22-07-2021 at 10:10 PM.

  4. #29
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    79,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Farang Ky Ay View Post
    ^^ no I don't, I read stuff from renowned scientists on this field (virology) whose statements differ from most of the TV stages doctors.
    I don't know anyone here who relies on "TV stages doctors". But perhaps if you have an alternative viewpoint, you could cite some of these renowned scientists to illustrate how they differ from mainstream scientific opinion and why.

    I think I aired their views more than 1 year ago and so far they were right (my wait and see stance regarding side effects, vaccines efficiency vs rapidly evolving viruses...).
    A reminder would be most welcome.

    I worry too, but about people so willing to believe those who are funded by pharma companies, many of whom have been judged guilty of falsifying data for profit sake. I think I already stated what data would be needed to get a clearer view of the vaccines efficiency in another thread and concluded on my "wait and see" stance and letting everyone judge things according to their own situation (age, health, lifestyle) as I don't do proselytism.
    Who has falsified data? I have seen a clear example of that this week from a heavily-relied-upon Ivermectin study, and I've seen the Russians and Chinese publish what turned out to be otherwise falsified data, but can you give an example of one of the vaccine manufacturers doing it?

    ^ But vaccinated people can get infected and spread it to others, right? (I get it that they -may- get milder symptoms).
    Vaccinated patients have a higher immunity to the virus, and if infected have a significantly lower level of infection and virus shedding. This is a numbers game.

    There are currently 13 recognised variants out of <200m infections which is roughly one in 15 million. Realistically it's actually an even smaller number that that when you consider asymptomatic infections, especially where there is no testing going on. So the number could be as small as one in a 60 million (given current estimates).

    Current (proper) vaccines have proven highly effective against the worst current variant (Delta). Pushing four billion doses have now gone out (ok exclude the ones that don't work very well) and production is ramping up all the time.

    With the addition of an African Pfizer hub next year, and the speed with which mRNA can be adapted, I favour this particular virus being knocked on the head within a couple of years - providing we don't get the variant from hell.

    Current vaccines roll-out are not coordinated worldwide, so no you can't reasonably expect to achieve global vaccine-generated immunity globally with such rapidly evolving viruses.
    I think you can; the important thing now is to get as many doses out there as possible as quickly as possible.

    Oh: And Vaccine Passports. Stop people travelling if they aren't vaccinated.

  5. #30
    Thailand Expat
    Farang Ky Ay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    2,032
    Pablo goldsmith, Sucharit Bhakdi, Didier Raoult...I particularly followed the last one as he's not affiliated to any pharma group and is more a public sector researcher along with actually taking care of covid patients (both theoretical and empirical view on the subject).

    His position is what I said about vaccines Vs rapidly evolving viruses, quite the opposite of what is said on TV (at least from what I've seen), he doesn't make predictions as he needs to see the data beforehand, which I like as I'm wary of omniscient gurus...He's particularly cautious about the new vaccines focussing on slim targets, as they're more likely to let new variants go through (because they don't have the protein targeted by the current vaccines)thus increasing the odds of creating new variants.

    I saw a nutritionist guest on numerous TV shows explaining, promoting, arguing about vaccines or various cure strategies without any evidence, data etc as if he was a viruses specialists (well this guy has links with a major pharma company and advise the government). Maybe the TV shows I had a glimpse on are particularly poor (I don't watch TV appart from documentaries), if other countries TV offer is better good on them.

    My earliest "significant" comment on the topic :
    Questions raised about when Covid-19 vaccine will be available to expats

    I didn't and still don't insist on that as I don't particularly appreciate being called names and TBH I'm not here to convince anyone at all costs, each to his own as I said (age, health, traveling, lifestyle can give you reasons to use the current vaccines)

    Pfizer has been judged guilty of Pharmaceutical fraud in Europe, it also had to pay the highest fine in the US for fraud and data manipulation (removing adverse results), promoting the use of one of its painkillers at dosages explicitly refused by the FDA. Along with the usual bribing of doctors and insurance companies and misrepresenting other medicines as able to cure other issues that they were not designed for, without proper studies.

    Astrazeneca has been fined for promoting the use of one of its antipsychotic to treat sleeplessness and depression. They falsified studies data of a gastric medicine misleading authorities on its efficiency.

    I focused on the two main ones, but I think all Pharma companies had their reputation smeared by fraud scandals at one point (Sanofi, Merck, Roche...), with such pedigree clearly showing a lack of ethics in such a crucial sector, anyone should be cautious about anything they say, especially with such big bucks at stake.

    Regarding vaccinated people still spreading the virus, I don't know to which extend it is reduced (need the numbers, obviously not coming from the companies), the fact that they still spread it should make you re-think the idea of a vaccine passport for traveling or , as some countries seem to consider, going to supermarkets or entertainment place (restaurants, bars, cinemas etc).

    And all of this subject to the next variants to come.
    Last edited by Farang Ky Ay; 23-07-2021 at 02:44 AM.

  6. #31
    Thailand Expat Saint Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:33 PM
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by nidhogg View Post
    ^ not particularly looking for a fight here, but do you honestly think you are informed enough to have your own opinion? Could you, for example discuss ( without going to Google) the difference between antigenic drift, versus antigenic shift? That is kind of essential when considering flu vaccines for example.

    Crickets...

  7. #32
    dairy dairy me
    Hugh Cow's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 02:12 PM
    Location
    Qld/Bangkok
    Posts
    3,216
    I think Harrys post made a lot of sense but FKA made some relevant points also. Some of these companies have been responsible for such marvels as Zyklon B and it is a cautionary note to view results from them with a degree skepticism, certainly before multiple recognised peer review.
    The difference worth noting is that while companies were able to skew results on some previous drugs, the universal oversight by so many scientists and organisations over covid 19 drugs/vaccines is IMO probably far too high for a company to risk skewing the facts intentionally. That said, it will also depend on how much the govt controls press scrutiny in the country of manufacture and yes China and to a slightly lesser extent Russia, are two examples that come to mind.

  8. #33
    Thailand Expat David48atTD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Palace Far from Worries
    Posts
    12,670
    Sinovac and Sinopharm don’t provide the same level of protection when compared to other vaccines.

    But for some countries, they’re better than nothing.


  9. #34
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,269
    Quote Originally Posted by David48atTD View Post
    But for some countries, they’re better than nothing
    ...imagine living in a country where better than nothing is acceptable...

  10. #35
    Thailand Expat David48atTD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Palace Far from Worries
    Posts
    12,670
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...imagine living in a country where better than nothing is acceptable...
    Agreed

    Imagine Indonesia where ...
    • Indonesia's then health minister Terawan Agus Putrantro attributed the low number of infections to prayer.
    • Indonesian President Joko Widodo promoted traditional herbal remedies and touted nationally-made anti-malaria drug Chloroquine as a "second-line defence" against the virus, despite a lack of scientific evidence.
    • Last year, the Agriculture Ministry sold "antivirus" eucalyptus necklaces, which it said would kill the virus if worn for 30 minutes.
    Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago ...


  11. #36
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    79,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Cow View Post
    I think Harrys post made a lot of sense but FKA made some relevant points also. Some of these companies have been responsible for such marvels as Zyklon B and it is a cautionary note to view results from them with a degree skepticism, certainly before multiple recognised peer review.
    The difference worth noting is that while companies were able to skew results on some previous drugs, the universal oversight by so many scientists and organisations over covid 19 drugs/vaccines is IMO probably far too high for a company to risk skewing the facts intentionally. That said, it will also depend on how much the govt controls press scrutiny in the country of manufacture and yes China and to a slightly lesser extent Russia, are two examples that come to mind.
    My thoughts exactly. Russia has been caught falsifying data and Chinastan just doesn't release it.

    Regarding vaccinated people still spreading the virus, I don't know to which extend it is reduced (need the numbers, obviously not coming from the companies), the fact that they still spread it should make you re-think the idea of a vaccine passport for traveling or , as some countries seem to consider, going to supermarkets or entertainment place (restaurants, bars, cinemas etc).
    Agreed, vaccination passports are a good way of limiting the spread but until the virus has been all but eliminated standard measures should continue to be used (mask, handwashing, social distancing).

  12. #37
    I am not a cat
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Farang Ky Ay View Post
    ^^ no I don't, I read stuff from renowned scientists on this field (virology) .

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Farang Ky Ay
    Pablo goldsmith, Sucharit Bhakdi, Didier Raoult
    .

    We have a very, very different view of who qualifies as a "renowned scientist"

  13. #38
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    79,061
    Quote Originally Posted by nidhogg View Post
    .

    We have a very, very different view of who qualifies as a "renowned scientist"
    In fairness, all that means is a lot of people know them.

  14. #39
    I am not a cat
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,889
    ^point taken.

  15. #40
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:41 AM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    5,365
    Quite early in the pandemic, a number of new vaccines were authorized ‘for emergency use’. The key word here is emergency. While big pharma does not have the best reputation for probity, it is still obliged to get involved in a global pandemic treatment. While the efficacy of certain vaccines can be questioned, there is no doubt that many of them offer protection. The level of protection may vary, but these vaccines are now acknowledged by serious scientists as affording a certain level of protection against the most serious impacts of the disease, I.e. death and complicated hospitalisation.

    For the simple logic before us lay persons, I believe it is a sensible and minor risk, for individual to get vaccinated with the best vaccine available to them. For some, the better vaccines are available. For others, usually the poor, there is no choice.

  16. #41
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    79,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    Quite early in the pandemic, a number of new vaccines were authorized ‘for emergency use’. The key word here is emergency. While big pharma does not have the best reputation for probity, it is still obliged to get involved in a global pandemic treatment. While the efficacy of certain vaccines can be questioned, there is no doubt that many of them offer protection. The level of protection may vary, but these vaccines are now acknowledged by serious scientists as affording a certain level of protection against the most serious impacts of the disease, I.e. death and complicated hospitalisation.

    For the simple logic before us lay persons, I believe it is a sensible and minor risk, for individual to get vaccinated with the best vaccine available to them. For some, the better vaccines are available. For others, usually the poor, there is no choice.
    But you should still avoid the chinky shit if an alternative is available.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •