Q for Gonzo and any other medical ppl

[Westsidex]

First off, I put your name in this out of respect for the fact that you actually know something about medical science. What do you think of the latest relevations that the Pfizer bio vaccine along with one other., loose efficiency at over 50% over six months. This will obviously mean regular boasters. Just curious of your take on this.

Westside

[lol brb]

I was told by a doctor friend. That the initial group who received the Pfizer jab are showing just as good immunity over a year later.
So this is conflicting to this latest information.

[yourehighered]

More like 30%

[Westsidex]

I was told by a doctor friend. That the initial group who received the Pfizer jab are showing just as good immunity over a year later.
So this is conflicting to this latest information.

Yeah it's very conflicting.

Westside

[WeeJimmy]

Gonzo knows his stuff and I pretend not to listen to him but really I do
To me he is our very own Doctor Gonzo, he learnt all he knows from Professor Goggle

[gonzo76]

First off, I put your name in this out of respect for the fact that you actually know something about medical science. What do you think of the latest relevations that the Pfizer bio vaccine along with one other., loose efficiency at over 50% over six months. This will obviously mean regular boasters. Just curious of your take on this.

Westside

I think there isn't enough data to be honest and while I trust the science, I never trust the companies.

What we know is that the vaccines are incredibly effective at preventing serious illness and deaths. Even against delta.

From what I understand, if you're double jabbed, a booster at some stage may be needed but I'm not sure at a policy level whether it is more beneficial to give people a third jab if some have not even gotten one. And in this area I mean that it is better to have everyone with some immunity to help stop getting more variants spreading.

What might make sense is for vulnerable people to get a booster, like the elderly or people at risk. I think generally healthy people would be fine with the current double jab course, at least for now.

Two things then to consider - first, here in Ireland we have very high uptake of the vaccine so the spread in the community in general now is a fairly low risk, despite the headlines. Based on that I would say, don't worry too much about waning effectiveness - for now.

The other thing, the pandemic, and therefore the risk of new variants etc, won't go away until probably 80% of the global population is vaccinated (based on the mathematics of the transmissability of delta. The percentage changes based on How easily the virus can spread. Measles for example needs 95% of the population to be vaccinated because it is so transmissible). So I think it is more important for poorer countries now to be supported to get the vaccine rolled out, then for us to get a "top up".

And that leads to my final point - the Pharma companies have an incentive to sell more drugs. So when they come out saying we think you need another jab, I read that with caution, though not with concern. They know they can't do any harm by people getting another jab but do we really need it now? Is it just profiteering?

In this area, I would say it it's no cause for safety concerns, just greed, which while shameful, it is par for the course for any company.

The doctors, scientists and regulators are all normal people, professionals, with parents, spouses and children. They take pride in their work like all people do, and the vast majority work to the highest level of ethics and with excellent talents. Listen to them, they are not trying to fool us.

[Westsidex]

I think there isn't enough data to be honest and while I trust the science, I never trust the companies.

What we know is that the vaccines are incredibly effective at preventing serious illness and deaths. Even against delta.

From what I understand, if you're double jabbed, a booster at some stage may be needed but I'm not sure at a policy level whether it is more beneficial to give people a third jab if some have not even gotten one. And in this area I mean that it is better to have everyone with some immunity to help stop getting more variants spreading.

What might make sense is for vulnerable people to get a booster, like the elderly or people at risk. I think generally healthy people would be fine with the current double jab course, at least for now.

Two things then to consider - first, here in Ireland we have very high uptake of the vaccine so the spread in the community in general now is a fairly low risk, despite the headlines. Based on that I would say, don't worry too much about waning effectiveness - for now.

The other thing, the pandemic, and therefore the risk of new variants etc, won't go away until probably 80% of the global population is vaccinated (based on the mathematics of the transmissability of delta. The percentage changes based on How easily the virus can spread. Measles for example needs 95% of the population to be vaccinated because it is so transmissible). So I think it is more important for poorer countries now to be supported to get the vaccine rolled out, then for us to get a "top up".

And that leads to my final point - the Pharma companies have an incentive to sell more drugs. So when they come out saying we think you need another jab, I read that with caution, though not with concern. They know they can't do any harm by people getting another jab but do we really need it now? Is it just profiteering?

In this area, I would say it it's no cause for safety concerns, just greed, which while shameful, it is par for the course for any company.

The doctors, scientists and regulators are all normal people, professionals, with parents, spouses and children. They take pride in their work like all people do, and the vast majority work to the highest level of ethics and with excellent talents. Listen to them, they are not trying to fool us.

That's the problem. The pharma companies weighing in with their own conclusions which can't be trusted as it looks like greed but it does damage to people's perception of things.

Westside

[gonzo76]

That's the problem. The pharma companies weighing in with their own conclusions which can't be trusted as it looks like greed but it does damage to people's perception of things.

Westside

It's a double edged sword. They have the knowledge and skills and resources to develop the medications, nobody else does and in general it works well enough.

But they are companies like any other and cash is king. So they have to be regulated. And they are. Very well.

It is not a perfect system but it is not one we really need to worry about in terms of safety. The implications of them releasing something untested and unsafe would be the end of the business.