• Join ccmfans.net

    ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!

    If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.

    ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.

The COVID Chat

pjennings

Well-Known Member
The flu is not as 'benign' as some make out. I know around a number die from it each year in Australia but it also can have long term effects. I had normal blood pressure and a healthy heart until I had a bad flu maybe 15 years ago. It damaged my heart and I have had high blood pressure (controlled by medication) ever since. Since then I have religiously had a flu shot each year.

I know I don't ask what brand the flu shot is, just that it is the most up to date.
 
Last edited:

Ancient Mariner

Well-Known Member
Of course we each have a right to choose whether or not we have any vaccine, just as we do with influenza and countless others. Yes the risks from COViD may be significant and vaccination may improve your chances of reducing its effects if you become infected, so that’s what each of us have to take into consideration.

In my opinion, mandating any form of medication or medical procedure is just plain wrong, regardless of the circumstances as it simply crosses the civil liberties line.

A great many people in history have fought and died to protect our right to choose and so we should all be respectful of that. Don’t hate on those who are reluctant to be vaccinated if you have chosen to, just remember it’s their right.
Would you, in the past, and defended a persons right not to have a smallpox vaccination because it was their "right" and allow the disease to continue?
Or polio, or scarlet fever ?
Would you allow someone the right not to be vaccinated against whooping cough visit you new born.

FFS vaccination is for the protection of those who are part of our community not just those selfish few who want to stand upon their rights.

I do not see vaccinations being made mandatory for everyone, however I do see that the minority who are selfishly insisting on their rights not to be vaccinated being rightly excluded from many of the activities that make our society. Many freedoms, like the freedom to travel, to attend gatherings and to work in many occupations.

You may have the right to choose whether you get vaccinated, but society will have the right to exclude you.
 

Ironbark

Well-Known Member
I love how thalidomide is always used as an example for people not to use vaccines. It’s like saying I refuse to have any builders build my house because of some bad building work causing houses to collapse in the US in the 70s, as building practices were different back then.

These vaccines are not experimental and we probably know more about them than most medicines we have. mRNA and Vector Virus vaccines have been used and studied for decades now. The SARS Covid vaccine have been in development for twenty years now. There are now millions of patient years of safety data available. More safety data than most medications. We know through decades of vaccine research that there is not likely to be any new safety signals in the medium or long term that we don’t know now.

By the way, Thalidomide is now being used successfully as a blood cancer medication for multiple myeloma.
Good post. Accurate. I hear the experimental talk all the time but it's actually decades in the making
 
Would you, in the past, and defended a persons right not to have a smallpox vaccination because it was their "right" and allow the disease to continue?
Or polio, or scarlet fever ?
Would you allow someone the right not to be vaccinated against whooping cough visit you new born.

FFS vaccination is for the protection of those who are part of our community not just those selfish few who want to stand upon their rights.

I do not see vaccinations being made mandatory for everyone, however I do see that the minority who are selfishly insisting on their rights not to be vaccinated being rightly excluded from many of the activities that make our society. Many freedoms, like the freedom to travel, to attend gatherings and to work in many occupations.

You may have the right to choose whether you get vaccinated, but society will have the right to exclude you.
I agree about what vaccinations are designed for. What i find hard to believe is that "fully vaccinated" individuals will have better freedoms. A great concept on paper but FFS we seem to struggle to enforce the current PHO and keep people at home. How will being vaccinated or not vaccinated be enforced? How can the boys in blue or anyone enforce it. Ideally businesses would employ extra individuals to "man the door" for proof. Currently most don't even care that you've checked in. Will be soo many loopholes and ways around. Imagine checking 20,000 Vaxx passports upon entry to a stadium, you'll need to arrive 4 hours beforehand plus stadiums are not going to pay security who check passports and extra 2 hours to say "look everyone in here is vaccinated".
Also businesses that have been shut down because of the current restrictions are not going to turn away "not vaccinated" people, money talks and turning money away is not how businesses make money.
I could be wrong but just can't see how it will work
 

Corsair

Well-Known Member
Different types of vaccines - one is a mRNA (Pfizer) and one is a viral vector (AZ). A quick google search will tell you how they work.
So essentially AZ contains actual covid-19 fragments and Pfizer has synthetically produced material. The 2 vaccines produce similar but not identical responses from the body. A lot more to it than just branding.
 

Ironbark

Well-Known Member
On making it mandatory...

I've had a think about this issue and I think it is fair that at risk industries mandate the requirement for vaccination of its workers.
Aged care, hospital staff etc. have a responsibility to protect their clients/patients and not put them at additional risk of death, as being unvaccinated does.

BUT, they shouldn't be able to force people to get it. People who refuse are in the minority so most would still get it, I hope.

So, the middle ground here could be mandatory vaccination for any new hires, or else they are ineligible to work in the industry.
Maybe it could also be mandatory after a window of time, say 3 years, so employees who really don't want it have time to retrain for another industry.
That way when someone joins the industry, or moves to a new employer or role, they have to have it. By attrition the unvaccinated will disappear from the industry over time.

This is fair. An industry can require you to have safety training and certificates, PPE, risk assessments, be drug-free, alcohol-free, whatever they need to if it reduces the risk of death. It is, in fact, their obligation. Vaccines that protect the vulnerable from covid fall into this category like it or not. And for those that are fundamentally opposed to getting it? That's fine, and up to you. But you can't work in industries where you increase the risk to others.

The drawback is it's slower to build the protections into an industry this way.

For the record, personally I'm double vaccinated and won't be comfortable until my whole family, including my kids, have the same level of protection. Comparing the risks from the vaccine to the risks from covid are like comparing a snowflake to a blizzard.
 

marinermick

Well-Known Member
So essentially AZ contains actual covid-19 fragments and Pfizer has synthetically produced material. The 2 vaccines produce similar but not identical responses from the body. A lot more to it than just branding.

Neither are live vaccines and contain “fragments of the Covid virus”. As posted before do a simple Google search to see how they work.

The AZ and J&J are vaccines are viral vector vaccines that contain a harmless virus that would elicit a similar antibody response in the body than if that body had the coronavirus.
 
Last edited:

pjennings

Well-Known Member
On making it mandatory...

I've had a think about this issue and I think it is fair that at risk industries mandate the requirement for vaccination of its workers.
Aged care, hospital staff etc. have a responsibility to protect their clients/patients and not put them at additional risk of death, as being unvaccinated does.

BUT, they shouldn't be able to force people to get it. People who refuse are in the minority so most would still get it, I hope.

So, the middle ground here could be mandatory vaccination for any new hires, or else they are ineligible to work in the industry.
Maybe it could also be mandatory after a window of time, say 3 years, so employees who really don't want it have time to retrain for another industry.
That way when someone joins the industry, or moves to a new employer or role, they have to have it. By attrition the unvaccinated will disappear from the industry over time.

This is fair. An industry can require you to have safety training and certificates, PPE, risk assessments, be drug-free, alcohol-free, whatever they need to if it reduces the risk of death. It is, in fact, their obligation. Vaccines that protect the vulnerable from covid fall into this category like it or not. And for those that are fundamentally opposed to getting it? That's fine, and up to you. But you can't work in industries where you increase the risk to others.

The drawback is it's slower to build the protections into an industry this way.

For the record, personally I'm double vaccinated and won't be comfortable until my whole family, including my kids, have the same level of protection. Comparing the risks from the vaccine to the risks from covid are like comparing a snowflake to a blizzard.

Probably illegal PRIVACY ACT 1988 - SECT 16B

 

Insertnamehere

Well-Known Member
My brother lives in the UK so I know what people are experiencing there first hand. You don't want to catch this thing.

The vaccines are not without their own risks, some of the science they're using is unproven and they are not a silver bullet, but if you catch covid and are unvaccinated there's a strong possibility you're in for a really really bad time.

A friend i grew up with and his wife both caught it in London in March 2020. Some of her sense of smell has still not returned and he gets tired very easily. Neither were vaccinated at the time as there was no vax available then.

I respect people's right to choose, for some people i think it's going to take them knowing someone that's had it before they'll be convinced. I know people that have had it, i got vaccinated.
Care to elaborate on the unproven science?
 

Corsair

Well-Known Member
Care to elaborate on the unproven science?
I'm sure someone will shoot me down in flames, however as far as I'm aware no mRNA vaccine has previously been approved for use outside of clinical trials. Maybe unproven was the wrong choice of word, never been widely used is what i meant.
 

Insertnamehere

Well-Known Member
I'm sure someone will shoot me down in flames, however as far as I'm aware no mRNA vaccine has previously been approved for use outside of clinical trials. Maybe unproven was the wrong choice of word, never been widely used is what i meant.
You're absolutely correct. None to my knowledge have been taken to phase 3 but the tech has been around for 30 years give or take. Its proven but as with most meds it comes to bucks and return on those bucks.
Sars2 is the one to go to phase 3. But phase 3 isnt the be all for a clinical trial. Phase 2 is where efficacy is established, phase 3 is where you recruit large cohorts to tick off statistical power and look for adverse effects.
 

Insertnamehere

Well-Known Member
Behind paywall unfortunately
The Sydney Morning Herald

AnalysisNationalCoronavirus pandemic

How do we know vaccines won’t have long-term safety risks?
For our free coronavirus pandemic coverage, learn more here.
By Liam Mannix
August 3, 2021 — 7.30pm

Examine, a weekly newsletter written by national science reporter Liam Mannix, is sent every Tuesday. The latest instalment is below. Sign up to get it in your inbox here.

Whenever I talk to people about vaccines, the same questions come up over and over again: have we tested them for long enough?

And how do we really know they are going to be safe, long term?

It seems like a compelling point. The first vaccine trials started about 16 months ago. Sure, we can be confident in their short-term safety … but how do we know in a decade or two we’re not going to start turning into horrifying lizard creatures?
Click to reload

The answers are surprising. Vaccine trials are shorter than you might think – but time and time again, they produce safe and effective vaccines. And we probably have better data about COVID-19 vaccines at this point than almost any other vaccine we have developed.

And yes, it is scientifically impossible to know if a lizard-creature future awaits us in a decade. But basic science, evidence from every other vaccine we’ve developed and critical thinking can give us an awful lot of confidence.
How long should you trial a vaccine for, anyway?

One telling of the “we don’t know if the COVID-19 vaccines are safe” idea goes like this: typically, a vaccine is tested for seven or eight years, and that’s how we know it’s safe before we roll it out.

Pfizer’s phase-three trial of its COVID-19 vaccine went for about four months; AstraZeneca’s ran about six months. That seems short, no?

The truth is more reassuring.

The scientists I spoke to aren’t sure where the “seven or eight years” rule comes from. Most phase-three vaccine trials – that’s the big one you do before you apply to roll it out – follow up volunteers for just 12 months, Jim Buttery, head of signal investigation at Victoria’s immunisation safety service, tells me.

Alejandra Gerardo, nine, gets the first of two Pfizer vaccinations during a clinical trial for children in North Carolina, United States. Duke Health

This testing schedule has produced many safe vaccines.

Of 57 vaccines approved by the US since 1996, the median safety follow-up was 1½ months. Yet only one had to be withdrawn from the market for safety reasons; at the same time, these vaccines cut the incidence of common viruses such as polio and measles by more than 90 per cent.

It is quite amazing how safe and effective these medicines are.

And the trials often have to run longer than COVID-19 ones because they have to capture enough infections in the placebo group to be sure a vaccine is working. It might take a long time to capture enough shingles infections; that is not a problem when testing a COVID-19 vaccine in the middle of a pandemic.

Why are the COVID vaccine trials so short?

To get the answer, we need to look not at vaccines but at the thing they are acting on: our immune system. Remember, a vaccine by itself does not do anything. It’s the immune system that needs to spot it, respond, and develop immunity.

If something is going to go wrong, it will probably go wrong there. But the thing about the immune system is, it is designed for speed.
Related Article
Explainer Coronavirus pandemic
‘Nothing sinister’: What are COVID vaccine side effects?

“The immune responses act very quickly. If they don’t, we wouldn’t be able to fight infections. They need to get on top of the pathogens before they replicate and kill us,” says Stephen Turner, head of microbiology at Monash University’s biomedical institute.

This explains why scientists are so confident the vast majority of side effects will be spotted within the first few months of vaccination.

There’s more good news: we are no longer in a situation where we have five months of data on 30,000 people.

We now have more than a year of data for some people, and an extraordinary 4.18 billion doses of vaccine administered worldwide (at the time of writing) in which we can look for safety signals.

“A phase-three is typically tens of thousands. We already have real-world experience in tens of millions. We have massive experience using the best surveillance system we’ve ever had,” says Robert Booy, senior professorial fellow at the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance.
OK, but what about long-term safety? Am I going to wake up one day as a lizard person?

It would be nice if I could simply say, “There is a 0 per cent chance of long-term consequences.” Due to our continued failure to invent a time-travel machine, we cannot do that.

“Logically and scientifically, you can’t talk to the long-term protection or safety for more than a year. That’s an impossibility,” says Professor Booy.

This problem, of course, applies to all new vaccines. So what gives scientists and medical regulators the confidence to recommend vaccinations?

First, experience with past vaccines. As we have seen, if something is going to go wrong with the immune system, it’s going to happen fast, probably within the first six weeks after being given a vaccine, says Professor Buttery.

We see this with other vaccines. The only vaccine to be removed from the US market for safety reasons since 1996 was the Rotashield, which was intended to prevent rotavirus gastro in children. Its extremely rare side effect occurred within two to three weeks of vaccination, and was swiftly picked up by post-market surveillance.

Without 10-year safety data, “you have to always think from the best analogy”, says Professor Booy. “The best analogy is, we have a dozen or more routine vaccinations, for which we know the long-term safety profile is excellent, and adverse events that are important happen within six minutes or six weeks of getting the vaccine.”
Click to reload

But doctors would never recommend a treatment that came with a risk, even a small one, if that risk outweighed the benefit.

Over time, your chances of being exposed to COVID-19 rise to close to 100 per cent. Australia is not going to remain closed forever. Therefore, the correct risk-benefit balance is the long-term risk of vaccines versus the long-term risk of COVID-19.
Related Article
Coronavirus pandemic
Vaccinate the young: Modelling backs strategy to slow virus spread

We cannot know what will happen in a decade to people infected with COVID-19. But, unlike vaccines, the signs are not good.

Simply being in hospital with COVID-19 is not good for you, leaving patients with impaired cognitive and physical function and mental health. Problems have been reported in the heart, lungs, and brain. In a large Lancet study, 63 per cent of patients reported fatigue or muscle weakness six months after being diagnosed. People with severe illness ended up with damaged lungs. The stories of patients trapped on ventilators because their damaged lungs cannot support them are particularly harrowing. What is the long-term prognosis for this group?

“It’s always a balance of risks,” says Tony Cunningham, director of the Centre for Virus Research at the University of Sydney and one of the country’s leading vaccine experts.

“You have to always weigh the risk of any intervention in medicine against the disease its
 

Online statistics

Members online
8
Guests online
318
Total visitors
326

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
6,716
Messages
378,677
Members
2,708
Latest member
KguaooChami
Top