Pogue Mahone
The caf's Camus.
Yeah, probably.Considering these numbers, would it be accurate to assume we'd probably need to vaccinate less people than initially anticipated to achieve national herd immunity?
Yeah, probably.Considering these numbers, would it be accurate to assume we'd probably need to vaccinate less people than initially anticipated to achieve national herd immunity?
Side effects can include fatigue, mild fevers and soreness.. from what I've read.. There are doctors here who can probably confirm it..Wife was vaccinated this morning , been in bed a couple of hours now not feeling too clever. Is this normal?
Thanks , I will keep an eye on her.Side effects can include fatigue, mild fevers and soreness.. from what I've read.. There are doctors here who can probably confirm it..
Not a doctor (or practising one), but yes. I had some pretty debilitating side effects for about 48 hours (shivering, high fever, aches) which all subsided soon after that, im right as rain now. If she's got it bad, it suggests she may have already been exposed to the virus at some point. Obviously, make sure you consult an actual physician if concerned, but from what I've ready and my own experiences, I wouldn't be too worried.Wife was vaccinated this morning , been in bed a couple of hours now not feeling too clever. Is this normal?
Thanks mate , she had it last year so possible , I will keep an eye on her.Not a doctor (or practising one), but yes. I had some pretty debilitating side effects for about 48 hours (shivering, high fever, aches) which all subsided soon after that, im right as rain now. If she's got it bad, it suggests she may have already been exposed to the virus at some point. Obviously, make sure you consult an actual physician if concerned, but from what I've ready and my own experiences, I wouldn't be too worried.
My mum had it yesterday currently bed bound was throwing up earlier now just a fever.Wife was vaccinated this morning , been in bed a couple of hours now not feeling too clever. Is this normal?
It is normal. Ibuprofen is better than paracetamol for this I've found. Fever 24-48 hours with aching headache, tiredness, aching at injection site is not uncommon. But if the fever is significant e.g. 39.5 celsius or above or persistent despite regular ibuprofen/paracetamol then she should get a swab, isolate etc (ofcourse if she gets cough or loss or smell or taste too)Wife was vaccinated this morning , been in bed a couple of hours now not feeling too clever. Is this normal?
Yes perfectly common what what I've heard, although if its the 2 dose one more people are feeling rough after the 2nd.Wife was vaccinated this morning , been in bed a couple of hours now not feeling too clever. Is this normal?
jesusTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
In the leaflet my wife had today it says the same thing , that you will have protection 12 to 14 days after the second jab. All the carers that have had it have been told to act as if they haven`t had it as they may still be able to contract and transmit the virus to the elderly they are caring for.Researchers warn of another Covid spike if people mix after vaccine
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...other-covid-spike-if-people-mix-after-vaccine
We've said it before. The next big increase is going to happen after idiots get the vaccine and think that immediately makes them immune, and also that it means they won't still be carriers. Expect large gatherings and morons walking around shops without masks on saying "I'm fine, I've had the vaccine hehehe".
2 weeks after the first jab or second jab? Wasnt the UK looking at delaying the 2nd jab because the first jab will do the job for now ?In the leaflet my wife had today it says the same thing , that you will have protection 12 to 14 days after the second jab. All the carers that have had it have been told to act as if they haven`t had it as they may still be able to contract and transmit the virus to the elderly they are caring for.
I will probably be vaccinated by september, but will be wearing a mask when out for a good long while.Researchers warn of another Covid spike if people mix after vaccine
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...other-covid-spike-if-people-mix-after-vaccine
We've said it before. The next big increase is going to happen after idiots get the vaccine and think that immediately makes them immune, and also that it means they won't still be carriers. Expect large gatherings and morons walking around shops without masks on saying "I'm fine, I've had the vaccine hehehe".
Wouldn't surprise me. My 91 year old Gran picked it up in hospital last April after a fall and was asymptomatic so they sent her to a care home for respite/recovery after a couple of weeks once she tested positive. She was back there later in the summer due to blood clots in the lungs and other ailments caused by it. To be fair, in that time everyone was still learning what the virus actually does to people.I wonder if rushing people out to cater for new cases was a factor?
It's not half though, is it? I think it makes a lot of sense but of course it's a balancing act and opinions will differ.Leaving vulnerable people with weak immune systems half vaccinated for 3 months in the middle of a huge surge is an incredibly risky game to play when it comes to mutations.
Nobody knows what it is, and that's why it's a huge risk doing it on such a large scale.It's not half though, is it? I think it makes a lot of sense but of course it's a balancing act and opinions will differ.
Are you just referring to the Pfizer vaccine here?Nobody knows what it is, and that's why it's a huge risk doing it on such a large scale.
I don't believe any of them have data for a single jab 3 months out do they?Are you just referring to the Pfizer vaccine here?
I don't believe any of them have data for a single jab 3 months out do they?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext
60.3% efficacy with a 12 week gap, considering the large percentage of the population will receive the AstraZeneca vaccine, and with supply hitting critical mass in 12 weeks, the decision by the JCVI to prioritise the first shot roll out to assist in the hospital pressures the right one. Which will have a greater impact than any lockdown that people want to talk about.
The Pfizer one is an unknown, however the JCVI wouldn’t have started conversations on single dose administration back in July, if they didn’t have a degree in confidence of its efficacy.
I will happily be corrected here, but that reads to me that AZ vaccine is shown to be effective AFTER a second dose is given at 12 weeks. It doesn't comment on what the protection level is like before the second dose is given, i.e at 11 weeks and 6 days.
In the leaflet she was given it says after the 2nd jab. It says 12 to 14 days after the 2nd jab in the guardian article that the Pigeon posted too. Doesn`t sound too good.2 weeks after the first jab or second jab? Wasnt the UK looking at delaying the 2nd jab because the first jab will do the job for now ?
Albeit a small data set:I will happily be corrected here, but that reads to me that AZ vaccine is shown to be effective AFTER a second dose is given at 12 weeks. It doesn't comment on what the protection level is like before the second dose is given, i.e at 11 weeks and 6 days.
The trials of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine did include different spacing between doses, finding that a longer gap (two to three months) led to a greater immune response, but the overall participant numbers were small
Well that is not ideal for the UK, especially the Dr's and others who have been given the first then had the 2nd delaedNot great news coming out of Israel about delaying second dose of Pfizer vaccine.
They’ll be fuming.Well that is not ideal for the UK, especially the Dr's and others who have been given the first then had the 2nd delaed
I appreciate your contribution in this thread but you seem to be constantly bearing bad news.Not great news coming out of Israel about delaying second dose of Pfizer vaccine.
Key caveat in that article:Not great news coming out of Israel about delaying second dose of Pfizer vaccine.
Could be a case of folks prematurely getting out and about, thinking they're protected so soon after receiving the jab....although the public health services head, Sharon Alroy-Preis, said that in most cases this was because the individuals had not built up sufficient antibodies after being inoculated before being exposed to the virus.
Well there’s not a whole lot of good news out there!I appreciate your contribution in this thread but you seem to be constantly bearing bad news.
Definitely. Already hearing a lot of anecdotal reports of hospital staff coming down with covid a week or two after vaccination. Which isn’t surprising as the Pfizer study seemed to show protection only kicking in on day 10. Need to wait at least 3 weeks (with or without second dose) to get a good level of protection.Key caveat in that article:
Could be a case of folks prematurely getting out and about, thinking they're protected so soon after receiving the jab.
I don't see that in it's constitution. From Wikipedia quoting their constitution "The WHO Constitution, which establishes the agency's governing structure and principles, states its main objective as "the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health." The WHO have had huge success and I think you are misunderstanding its role and how it operates. It isn't set as a world health police but is just a specialist unit of the UN but it is mainly a managerial bureaucracy and will need some redesign if it is to become the pandemic response unit. It has had many great successes and the world would be far poorer (and fewer in number) without it. If you said it is too bureaucratic, sensitive to politics and slow moving in general I'd agree, but to lay the pandemic at its feet is drawing a very long bow. There was more than enough information out there for governments (who should be making the actual decisions) to act in time, as did a few countries, but to lay the blame for the incompetence of many government at the feet of the WHO isn't fair or reasonable.According to the WHO, its one and only mission is to "promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the vulnerable". Yet it still fails to achieve, and one of the most successful regions combating the pandemic (Taiwan) is banned from the WHO. What an irony. Trump might be wrong in many things but you can't really blame him for withdrawing from this corrupted organization.
The tweet oversells the actual paper. The strongest statement they make is
They say their data may mean people who had one variant of covid may be more prone to reinfection with this new variant and that this means it is possible some/all vaccines may be less effective.These data highlight the prospect of reinfection with antigenically distinct variants and may foreshadow reduced efficacy of current spike-based vaccines.
That is the mission they claim and it is quoted in numerous papers. I agree they have had huge success in stopping the spread of various diseases, but certainly not in this pandemic. I do not expect them to become a pandemic response unit, quite the contrary if they had done their job there wouldn't have been a pandemic at all. They recommended against issuing a travelling ban to China in January, missing the best shot to contain the virus within Wuhan, or at least within China. By that time, there was little information and governments had no choice but to foolishly follow their advice. After this point, all efforts are just damage limitation. Yes some countries are handling better than others; but to me, the one who causes the damage shoulders a much more responsibility than those who fail to limit the damage.I don't see that in it's constitution. From Wikipedia quoting their constitution "The WHO Constitution, which establishes the agency's governing structure and principles, states its main objective as "the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health." The WHO have had huge success and I think you are misunderstanding its role and how it operates. It isn't set as a world health police but is just a specialist unit of the UN but it is mainly a managerial bureaucracy and will need some redesign if it is to become the pandemic response unit. It has had many great successes and the world would be far poorer (and fewer in number) without it. If you said it is too bureaucratic, sensitive to politics and slow moving in general I'd agree, but to lay the pandemic at its feet is drawing a very long bow. There was more than enough information out there for governments (who should be making the actual decisions) to act in time, as did a few countries, but to lay the blame for the incompetence of many government at the feet of the WHO isn't fair or reasonable.
Taiwan not being part of the WHO is because it isn't part of the UN which is tied up with relations with China. The WHO can't decide who is part of the UN and in any case what that has to do with the WHO's pandemic response isn't clear. And I do blame trump for cutting funding to the WHO because it was a purely political act. If you want them to change keep funding and negotiate KPI's. Don't cut them off at the knees mid pandemic. Like everything Trump did that was idiotic and hopefully Biden will reveres it ASAP.
How come?Pretty much no one in Serbia wants to get a shot so I, 33 in May and with no chronic problems, am getting my first shot on Thursday.