Covid Vaccine. Your plans?


Covid Vaccine  

228 members have voted

  1. 1. Once the Covid Vaccine is available, when do you plan to receive it?

    • Immediately once I’m selected.
      92
    • Wait a month and let others who need it go first.
      22
    • Wait 3 to 6 months and see the data.
      55
    • Never, this rushed vaccine has too much potential detriment
      25

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 01/01/2021 at 05:59 AM

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, potpest said:

I was wondering when the Hydroxychloroquine misinformation crap would appear.

Sent from my SM-G770F using Tapatalk
 

Strange you should mention Hydroxychloroquine? I didnt. This report is from 2005.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

"Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds."

Hydroxychloroquine has become entirely political because one person suggested its use, not to mention that it is a generic drug with no patents.

http://www.francesoir.fr/politique-monde/italy-council-state-says-yes-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19

https://hcqmeta.com/

Anyway, I've already said enough.

We will all be finding out whats been going on over the next few weeks, that much i can promise.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 570
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

cigar smokers talking about adverse health results of a vaccine ....  Only in 2020.  Can't wait for this dumpster fire of a year to be over. 

I was vaccinated today.  No issues with me, or anyone else at my hospital who has been vaccinated.    

In a key sense, this is absolutely true: prevention and treatment are fundamentally different approaches to managing an epidemic. Invariably both are used whenever possible (e.g. STD's). A vaccine is

 

 

 

Strange you should mention Hydroxychloroquine? I didnt. This report is from 2005.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

"Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds."

Hydroxychloroquine has become entirely political because one person suggested its use, not to mention that it is a generic drug with no patents.

http://www.francesoir.fr/politique-monde/italy-council-state-says-yes-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19

https://hcqmeta.com/

Anyway, I've already said enough.

We will all be finding out whats been going on over the next few weeks, that much i can promise.

 

 

 

 

 

Hydoxychloroquine is a metabolite of Chloroquine, they are very similar treatments, one is just less toxic.

Your article is also about treatment of SARS - COV which is a different virus to SARS - COV2. They have different genomes Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine isn't relevant for SARS COV 2 as it was found to be ineffective.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, potpest said:

 

 

 

 

 

Hydoxychloroquine is a metabolite of Chloroquine, they are very similar treatments, one is just less toxic.

Your article is also about treatment of SARS - COV which is a different virus to SARS - COV2. They have different genomes Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine isn't relevant for SARS COV 2 as it was found to be ineffective.

 

https://hcqmeta.com/

 

"HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 162 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 614 trillion (p = 0.000000000000002)."

 

"For the record, hydroxychloroquine has been on the Food & Drug Administration’s list of approved drugs since 1955. In 2017 it was the 128th most prescribed drug in the country with more than 5.5 million annual prescriptions. That means it gets prescribed more often than prednisolone, testosterone, morphine, lithium, hydrocortisone, cyanocobalamin (vitamin B-12) and penicillin."

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/2/hydroxychloroquine-rated-most-effective-therapy-do/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

 

"An international poll of more than 6,000 doctors released Thursday found that the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine was the most highly rated treatment for the novel coronavirus.

The survey conducted by Sermo, a global health care polling company, of 6,227 physicians in 30 countries found that 37% of those treating COVID-19 patients rated hydroxychloroquine as the “most effective therapy” from a list of 15 options."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 162 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 614 trillion (p = 0.000000000000002)."

 

"For the record, hydroxychloroquine has been on the Food & Drug Administration’s list of approved drugs since 1955. In 2017 it was the 128th most prescribed drug in the country with more than 5.5 million annual prescriptions. That means it gets prescribed more often than prednisolone, testosterone, morphine, lithium, hydrocortisone, cyanocobalamin (vitamin B-12) and penicillin."

These are retrospective studies, which become redundant once randomised control trials take place and are published in a peer reviewed journal as they supercede previous inferior studies.

 

This is not evidence it's meaningless.

 

No clinical trials have found in favour of using it to treat covid 19.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, potpest said:

These are retrospective studies, which become redundant once randomised control trials take place and are published in a peer reviewed journal as they supercede previous inferior studies.

 

This is not evidence it's meaningless.

 

No clinical trials have found in favour of using it to treat covid 19.

 

Regardless of anything we say, it is being used successfully throughout the world now and has been for months.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304258

"First COVID-19 outpatient study based on risk stratification and early antiviral treatment at the beginning of the disease.

Low-dose hydroxychloroquine combined with zinc and azithromycin was an effective therapeutic approach against COVID-19.

Significantly reduced hospitalisation rates in the treatment group.

Reduced mortality rates in the treatment group."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/2/hydroxychloroquine-rated-most-effective-therapy-do/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

"Hydroxychloroquine rated 'most effective therapy' by doctors for coronavirus: Global survey"

.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are showing articles from April, that’s about 30 days after the world was taken over and there was zero research at that point since the virus was completely unknown.  If you look at the research done since, it’s pretty unanimous that hydroxychloroquine does not help.  And any help it did give was not enough to warrant the risk of side effects.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/hydroxychloroquine-does-not-benefit-adults-hospitalized-covid-19

I know of one particular world leader who was diagnosed with COVID, and even he did NOT get hydroxychloriquine for treatment.  He got dexamethasone, regeneron, and remdesivir.   

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of anything we say, it is being used successfully throughout the world now and has been for months.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304258
"First COVID-19 outpatient study based on risk stratification and early antiviral treatment at the beginning of the disease.
Low-dose hydroxychloroquine combined with zinc and azithromycin was an effective therapeutic approach against COVID-19.
Significantly reduced hospitalisation rates in the treatment group.
Reduced mortality rates in the treatment group."
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/2/hydroxychloroquine-rated-most-effective-therapy-do/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork
"Hydroxychloroquine rated 'most effective therapy' by doctors for coronavirus: Global survey"
.
 
 
Clinical trials show it to be ineffective, quoting surveys, studies and newspaper articles doesn't alter the outcomes and conclusions of those trials.

For my own sanity I'm not commenting any further on this thread. It's like banging my head against a brick wall.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, mprach024 said:

You are showing articles from April, that’s about 30 days after the world was taken over and there was zero research at that point since the virus was completely unknown.  If you look at the research done since, it’s pretty unanimous that hydroxychloroquine does not help.  And any help it did give was not enough to warrant the risk of side effects.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/hydroxychloroquine-does-not-benefit-adults-hospitalized-covid-19

I know of one particular world leader who was diagnosed with COVID, and even he did NOT get hydroxychloriquine for treatment.  He got dexamethasone, regeneron, and remdesivir.   

"First COVID-19 outpatient study based on risk stratification and early antiviral treatment at the beginning of the disease.
Low-dose hydroxychloroquine combined with zinc and azithromycin was an effective therapeutic approach against COVID-19.
Significantly reduced hospitalisation rates in the treatment group.
Reduced mortality rates in the treatment group."
 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304258
 
The same reasons The Lancet had to pull their 'findings' Very Embarrassing for them but the damage had been done.
 
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200605/lancet-retracts-hydroxychloroquine-study
 
There is ample evidence throughout the world of this drug combinations worth and a reason so many countries have cleared it for use with treating Covid 19.
 
http://www.francesoir.fr/politique-monde/italy-council-state-says-yes-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Peekay said:

The same reasons The Lancet had to pull their 'findings'

Lol.  You should actually read the article as to why they pulled their findings, it had nothing to do with it “miraculously” working and they apologized.  It had to do with the 3rd party peer review, so that offers zero evidence of it working.

You keep posting articles, and from sources I’ve never heard of.   Might as well be giving me a dozen articles telling me 4 out of 5 dentists recommend hydroxychloroquine.  The clinical trials speak for themselves.  It was an option that was used when we had nothing else, and at the time doing anything was better than nothing.  We’ve got better options now, pretty sure you are one in a million who’d want that treatment over what they are using now.  I could be wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Available vaccines that work? So what's the problem with Vaccines ? Tin foil hats and the the nonsense crowd .Get real.

Cholera

Dengue

Diphtheria

Hepatitis

Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)

Human papillomavirus (HPV)

Influenza

Japanese encephalitis

Malaria

Measles

Meningococcal meningitis

Mumps

Pertussis

Pneumococcal disease

Poliomyelitis

Rabies

Rotavirus

Tetanus

Tick-borne encephalitis

Tuberculosis

Typhoid

Varicella

Yellow Fever

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mprach024 said:

Lol.  You should actually read the article as to why they pulled their findings, it had nothing to do with it “miraculously” working and they apologized.  It had to do with the 3rd party peer review, so that offers zero evidence of it working.

You keep posting articles, and from sources I’ve never heard of.   Might as well be giving me a dozen articles telling me 4 out of 5 dentists recommend hydroxychloroquine.  The clinical trials speak for themselves.  It was an option that was used when we had nothing else, and at the time doing anything was better than nothing.  We’ve got better options now, pretty sure you are one in a million who’d want that treatment over what they are using now.  I could be wrong.

The Lancet report was pulled due to incorrect findings which just happened to suit the narrative at the time i.e. Hydroxychloroquine was dangerous whilst adding no benefit, they took it down for a very good reason, it was false. The clinical trials omit the drug Zinc & Z-pac combination, along with the early use of it.

 

And again, it is used successfully throughout the world.

http://www.francesoir.fr/politique-monde/italy-council-state-says-yes-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take the vaccine as soon as it becomes available to me!

 

8 hours ago, Peekay said:

The Lancet report was pulled due to incorrect findings which just happened to suit the narrative at the time i.e. Hydroxychloroquine was dangerous whilst adding no benefit, they took it down for a very good reason, it was false. The clinical trials omit the drug Zinc & Z-pac combination, along with the early use of it.

 

And again, it is used successfully throughout the world.

http://www.francesoir.fr/politique-monde/italy-council-state-says-yes-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19

Your claim is presented without evidence. The official reason given for retraction can be found here and seems to be widely accepted as accurate.

 

Genuine question: is the link provided with your last statement offered as evidence to support the claim? If so, it fails to meet that bar:

1. The focus of the article is Italy. A single country doesn't represent the world.

2. The article mentions nothing about the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine, only that it can now be used for off-label treatment, which was previously prohibited. If we're defining success as: can Hydroxychloroquine be used as a treatment for Covid-19 in Italy? Then yes, but again, Italy is not the world and I think that falls outside the definition most people would associate with success in this situation: is Hydroxychloroquine an effective treatment for Covid-19.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, helix said:

Available vaccines that work? So what's the problem with Vaccines ? Tin foil hats and the the nonsense crowd .Get real.

Cholera

Dengue

Diphtheria

Hepatitis

Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)

Human papillomavirus (HPV)

Influenza

Japanese encephalitis

Malaria

Measles

Meningococcal meningitis

Mumps

Pertussis

Pneumococcal disease

Poliomyelitis

Rabies

Rotavirus

Tetanus

Tick-borne encephalitis

Tuberculosis

Typhoid

Varicella

Yellow Fever

bit scary looking at that list and realising how many of them i have been vaccinated for. still here and kicking, although i think it was the typhoid jab or perhaps yellow fever that put me in bed for four days praying i'd get the real thing and cark it. not fun. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Between the provincially mandated as a child , the required ones while in the military and as a laboratory environment tech in animal research I can check quite a few from the list also. Do not recall a bad outcome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This poll was not intended to begin a polarized debate on treatments, mortality, etc...

But it has elucidated many responses that demonstrate the various statistics and beliefs clung to by the diverse membership here. Let’s play the ball and not the man as is the standing in the BOTL community.

9 hours ago, scap99 said:

I didn't vote because my scenario wasn't a choice.

I have no plans to get the vax, but also don't feel like it's a Mark of the Beast chip implantation.

Here in the states, it is voluntary, so I've chosen the pro-choice path for this situation.  I just choose to not partake.

The poll was meant to be in good fun and keep it light with our senses of humor intact. The chip part was not serious at all. I apologize for that slant. It was meant as ‘to hell’ with this current rushed vaccine product and its potential for detriment. I have updated the poll to reflect this choice.

The poll is entirely anonymous for the reason that everyone can post and no one can see. Not even myself.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

...I can see it and  have recorded all the names of those who do not agree with my point of view.   :D



24:24

<The record being checked> ? ? 
“Sorry, you could’ve had yourself a box... ;-(

Regards,

Diana”

 

?????



I had suspicion the president (and probably mods?) could see that which the OP & rest of us could not...and... Argghhh! So much for untampered statistics....! ?

The both of us are deflated to not be able to see where your vote is (and Ken’s! ? ).

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

...I can see it and  have recorded all the names of those who do not agree with my point of view.   :D

and of whom dopes that remind one???? 

i hope i voted for the chip. can't remember. votes usually depend on the sort of day one is having. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2020 at 12:42 AM, Ken Gargett said:

your problem is that i'm not really sure you can do much about it. if a country says no one gets in without the certificate saying you've been jabbed then you have the choice. get the jab or don't go to that country. and it is not as though you can vote in their elections to have it overturned. and is the fact that your own country (whichever it might be) is imposing this on other countries going to be an issue anyone gets fired up over? don't think so. 

but i do not see it as a big deal. very happy to get the jab when available here. protection not just for me but hopefully family and friends.

when i went travelling back in the 80s, we needed a fist full of certificates for all manner of diseases etc, for crossing into many countries. i had shots, tablets etc, for about 9 different diseases from memory. yellow fever, meningitis, typhoid, polio (i needed a day off work after that sip of pink syrup), rabies and so on and on. without all that, i simply would not have been allowed into many of the countries i wanted to visit. this is no difference and hardly any great imposition on anyone's rights. not much point in whinging. 

i suspect many countries will require it, as is their right, but that once this fades as a major issue (assuming it does), so will the requirement. 

As I stated i m pro vaccine. However, i strongly believe that your body is your body and you should be the only person to decide what to do with it. In short, no mandatory vaccine for a country should become a reality. 

 

If one's body become the property of the government, I have no insurance that one day, ones mind will not be the property of the government as well (we can extend that to many concept like home ownership, ect).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Lunettesman said:

As I stated i m pro vaccine. However, i strongly believe that your body is your body and you should be the only person to decide what to do with it. In short, no mandatory vaccine for a country should become a reality. 

leaving aside govt ownership of one's mind, i am also in favour of as little govt interference as possible. however there are limits. we live in communities. should your right to do what you want be allowed to impact on others (serious question)? for example, talking of putting things into one's body, should you be allowed to pour as much alcohol into your own body and bugger the consequences to others. if for example, you then decide to get in a car? 

say someone refuses to have their child vaccinated but then wants to send them to school and thereby threaten harm to others?

we all have lines to draw and we don't all agree on just where those lines should be. 

with the virus, if you choose not to be vaccinated, should you then be allowed to do what you want and go where you want, notwithstanding the impact it might have on others? for what it is worth, i am not in favour of mandatory vaccination (though happy to get it as soon as available), but i am very much not in favour of those who do not get it then being allowed to do whatever they want. 

but my point was that a country should be able to make whatever laws it deems fit to protect its citizens. you don't like it (and it is your country), you can vote them out. but i don't get to vote in your elections, nor you in mine (unless we are both aussies). so if my govt decides that if you want to come here (just using this as a hypothetical), you must have the vaccination, then you need to comply with our laws. you have a choice. get it or don't come. but you do not have the right to say that i do not believe in vaccinations so i am coming without one. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crossing the border into a foreign country is that weird situation where you have practically no rights. As whatever constitution guarantees rights applies to and protects the citizens of that country and not you the foreigner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

leaving aside govt ownership of one's mind, i am also in favour of as little govt interference as possible. however there are limits. we live in communities. should your right to do what you want be allowed to impact on others (serious question)? for example, talking of putting things into one's body, should you be allowed to pour as much alcohol into your own body and bugger the consequences to others. if for example, you then decide to get in a car? 
say someone refuses to have their child vaccinated but then wants to send them to school and thereby threaten harm to others?
we all have lines to draw and we don't all agree on just where those lines should be. 
with the virus, if you choose not to be vaccinated, should you then be allowed to do what you want and go where you want, notwithstanding the impact it might have on others? for what it is worth, i am not in favour of mandatory vaccination (though happy to get it as soon as available), but i am very much not in favour of those who do not get it then being allowed to do whatever they want. 
but my point was that a country should be able to make whatever laws it deems fit to protect its citizens. you don't like it (and it is your country), you can vote them out. but i don't get to vote in your elections, nor you in mine (unless we are both aussies). so if my govt decides that if you want to come here (just using this as a hypothetical), you must have the vaccination, then you need to comply with our laws. you have a choice. get it or don't come. but you do not have the right to say that i do not believe in vaccinations so i am coming without one. 
If one child/person chooses to not get the vaccine for whatever reason, but everyone else in a given group has gotten inoculated, how would the unvaccinated person threaten them in any way? They're protected correct?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.