# The burning question asked about vaccine safety at todays covid briefing



## Amity Island (Nov 11, 2020)

BBC's Fergus Walsh asked the Deputy Chief Medical Officer Professor Jonathan Van Tam today if he would be prepared to be among the first people to be vaccinated?

He answered, *"If I could, rightly and morally, be at the very front of the queue then I would do so. "Because I absolutely trust the judgement of the MHRA on safety and efficacy. "But that clearly isn't right - we have to target most highest risk individuals in society and that is how it should be. "If I could be at the front of the queue, then I would be.


“I think the ‘mum test’ is very important here. My mum is 78, she will be 79 shortly, and I have already said to her, ‘mum, make sure when you are called you are ready, be ready to take this up, this is really important for you because of your age’.”*

You can watch at 25:00 into the video.


----------



## Robin (Nov 11, 2020)

And if they did announce, 'we are going to vaccinate the cabinet and the chief medical officers etc first', there’d be an outcry in the press about privilege.


----------



## Inka (Nov 11, 2020)

@Robin beat me to it. They’d be criticised if they took the vaccine ahead of the most vulnerable. Also, even if, say, the PM had the vaccine to demonstrate it was safe, I’d bet there’d be people saying it wasn’t really the vaccine and that he just had saline.

Personally, I’d be more worried not less if they went to such effort to show me it was safe. It’d smack of trying to hard.

Finally - who was it, John Gummer? Ostentatiously stuffing a beef burger in his child’s mouth to prove beef was safe during Mad Cow Disease?. Not a good look!


----------



## Christinepat (Nov 11, 2020)

I’m not going to take the vaccine ( if I’m offered it) until I know 100% that it’s safe as I feel it’s been rushed out without all the usual testing, after all it’s been made in months and can’t possibly have went though all the rigours testing


----------



## Robin (Nov 11, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> There are going to be thousands of doses of vaccines available, yet apparantly not a single dose can be spared to let our chief medical officer convince the public about taking the vaccine. Same for prime minster? Surely these are people in key positions and would be a high priorty for being vaccinated





Amity Island said:


> I never mentioned the cabinet, just the chief medical officer leading by example.


Ah, as you mentioned the Prime Minister specifically, and then talked about 'people in key positions' I read into it that you weren’t necessarily confining it to those two (either the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, who wasn’t actually asked about it, or his deputy, JVT)


----------



## Robin (Nov 11, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Robin,
> The point of my post is that, the people with the opportunity to re-assure the public are not taking the opportunity to do so. Obviously, some will come up with any reason to justify them not leading by example, by saying well, there'd be public outrage at them getting first chance", but for me, this is avoiding the issue, the issue is please show us you have personal confidence in the vaccine by being the first. And confirm that even without long term saftey testing you are happy to take it.


Yes, I got the point of your post, and I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that, if that were decided, the press would have a field day proclaiming 'Privilege!' It’s what the Press do.


----------



## nonethewiser (Nov 11, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> For me this is a very non-commital, a very un-reasuring response for a person who has the perfect opportunity to lead the way and lead the country by example. There are going to be thousands of doses of vaccines available, yet apparantly not a single dose can be spared to let our chief medical officer convince the public about taking the vaccine. Same for prime minster?



Exemplary behaviour if you ask me. 

Drug has already been tested on humans, albeit not in usual numbers or for longer duration.  First & foremost must be most vulnerable in society who get vaccine first to save lives.


----------



## mikeyB (Nov 12, 2020)

Well, I'd volunteer without worrying about side effects. Given that the target of the vaccine is the spike in the coat of the virus, which is lipid based and so wouldn't contain and virus RNA, any side effects would be at worst an allergic reaction to the preservatives. Unless, of course they grow the virus in eggs like they do with flu virus, in which case an allergy to eggs is a possible irritant.

The only person who had to drop out of the trial developed transverse myelitis. Though that can sometimes be caused by viruses such as mumps or herpes zoster, there are no reports anywhere among the millions who have had covid-19 infections developing it, but as there is no live virus in the vaccine there's no worry. Folk will get side effects, of course, because some people always will - even when given a placebo.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Nov 13, 2020)

I intend to take the vaccine at the first possible opportunity (and after those deemed more vulnerable/vital have had first option - either clinically, through age, or because of crucial work they do).

I hope everyone else does the same.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 13, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I intend to take the vaccine at the first possible opportunity (and after those deemed more vulnerable/vital have had first option - either clinically, through age, or because of crucial work they do).
> 
> I hope everyone else does the same.


Yep, me too.


----------



## trophywench (Nov 13, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Mike,
> And what do you think about someone (like deputy/chief medical officer) being an example to us all, to get a better take up across the population?


Not if it prevents a single other person getting theirs Amity Island.  I'll be damned (and that ain't the word I actually mean) if he will before me, or my husband, thanks.


----------



## rebrascora (Nov 13, 2020)

Why do you feel the need for someone to set an example? The chances of getting ill from the vaccine are minute so what benefit is it to you seeing any one person have it or agree to have it first. There are plenty of volunteers who have already trialed it, so what difference would another person make and if he was to have the vaccine, do you then wait weeks or months to see if he drops dead (or takes ill) before giving it to everyone else? Your argument isn't logical in my opinion. I agree with others that he would get slated in the press if he was given the vaccine ahead of front line workers.
I will have no hesitation in getting it when it is deemed that those who need it before me have been vaccinated. I am sure that is also the deputy chief medical officer's position and rightly so.


----------



## Inka (Nov 13, 2020)

*Apparently, they are struggling to convince everybody to take the new vaccine and are going to great lengths through advertising, articles, interviews and shutting down anti-vaccine posts on social media etc to change peoples minds. What could be more convincing than the people pushing the vaccine rollout to take it themselves first? *

But a fair number of those refusing the vaccine are mired in conspiracy theories. If the Chief Med Officer had the vaccine, the conspiracy people would just twist their narrative to make that even more suspicious (“Look how desperate they are to get you to have it! Microchips...5G....Bill Gates...blah...blah.....The vaccine he had was clear just like saline so obviously a fake....All a big act....blah blah..”)

The people with more usual fears will read the evidence and make their decision. I doubt the CMO having it would contribute much to persuade them.


----------



## mikeyB (Nov 13, 2020)

I agree, @rebrascora. It is a better example to show by not getting a vaccination ahead of the more needy. it would be a PR disaster if he did. It's one of those situations where you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't, and it's sod all to do with safety of the vaccine.

Strikes me that it's madness to worry about the unlikely event of adverse reactions. Would you prefer to risk the known possible effects of Covid-19 infections? Some folk need to learn a bit about relative risk. It's because i know about relative risk that I'll be perfectly happy to get vaccinated. The greater risk is not the unlikely event of an adverse reaction, but rather the vaccine is not completely effective.

The interesting question will be whether those who have had the infection will be offered immunisation. I suspect the illness gives you immunity just as well as a vaccine.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Nov 13, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> It's one of those situations where you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't, and it's sod all to do with safety of the vaccine.


What they surely need to avoid is the kind of disaster the Blair's fell into with MMR: when someone in their family ought to be having the vaccine, make sure they have it and say that they've had it. (Or have some plausible explanation for why they haven't yet or don't want to say. And make sure it doesn't involve crystals.)


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Nov 13, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Mike,
> And what do you think about someone (like deputy/chief medical officer) being an example to us all, to get a better take up across the population?



Personally I don't feel that would have much impact at all - and potentially could have a negative impact as others have suggested.

He has already said that if it were ethically right he would have the jab now, but knows he needs to wait for those in greater need to go first. And that he would encourage his mum to have it as soon as it was offered to her (I thought his 'Mum test' was pretty clear myself).

If you wanted someone to set an example and be a figurehead I don't think someone like him would do the job. It would need to be someone more universally liked. Closest example I can think of is David Attenborough, but he's got more of an environmental vibe. So someone as loved as him, but to do with science and medicine


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Nov 13, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Besides, the MMR vaccine wasn't new then, nor was it a new mRNA DNA technology that hadn't been used on humans before.


It was newly controversial. It would have helped had Blair been able to say that yes, his children had had the vaccine.


Amity Island said:


> I thought it was a perfectly reasonble question to ask the DCMO at the briefing if he'd be one of the first to receive the vaccine and I would have been re-assured if he'd of just said yes, without any further explanation.


Or he could have said that he'd be happy to receive it when invited to do so, but that given his age and medical status that wouldn't be for a while since there were lots of others who were rightly ahead of him.


----------



## pm133 (Nov 13, 2020)

rebrascora said:


> Why do you feel the need for someone to set an example? *The chances of getting ill from the vaccine are minute so what benefit is it to you seeing any one person have it or agree to have it first.*


What are you basing that on?
You might be right but there's not been anywhere near enough testing of it to be so certain.


----------



## pm133 (Nov 13, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Trophy,
> I didn't mean it in the way you mentioned, I don't think it's going to be offered on an individual "named" persons basis and I wouldn't expect any single person to give up their personally allotted dose, there is however 10,000,000 doses ordered and more to come after that. I'd hope everybody would be offered it at some point. I meant it in a "for the greater good" sense. I've always believed in "do I as I do" and not in the "do as I say and not as I do".


If I end up getting a letter offering the vaccine, he can have mine. I am more than happy to sit things out for a little while until this shows itself to be safe.


----------



## trophywench (Nov 13, 2020)

Well exactly!  Won't we generally have heard eg how many 80+ folk in care homes have had it and how many have perished within a few days or whatever, before someone sends us a personal invitation to get one?  Any number of people we're acquainted with have parents still living and in care, plus we have several 80+ personal acquaintances not in care ourselves anyway, and the 75+ ones too.


----------



## pm133 (Nov 13, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> pm133,
> 
> By the looks of it, I think the governement will be using AI to keep track of all the reported Adverse Drug Reactions from the covid19 vaccines, hopefully, they will keep us all up to date over the coming months after roll out.
> 
> ...


It certainly should be taken out of the hands of Pfizer who have a history of being fined for suppressing news of adverse reactions to its drugs.


----------



## mikeydt1 (Nov 14, 2020)

it is one of those scenarios.  we have the vaccine and are fine or we suffer with side effects so bad it keels you over and on the other hand we take our chances out there, we are okay or we get the virus and survive or again keel over.  not a good scenario for any of us to be in.


----------



## mikeyB (Nov 14, 2020)

You could, I suppose, send an FOI to Pfizer asking how many of their staff or managers have been vaccinated. That would answer our worries. If they have declined, that would indicate their level of concern.


----------



## pm133 (Nov 14, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Morning pm133,
> 
> From what I can tell, their fines run into the trillions. About $7,000,0000,000 of fines for breaches of healthcare, contracting, safety, competition and environment related offences.


Pfizer are not alone. You could pick any of them from GSK to Ely Lily and you'll find a similar history of fines for all sorts of things.


----------



## pm133 (Nov 14, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> MikeyB,
> 
> But is it actually worthwhile gettting a vaccine (with its risks) for something which affects so few of us?
> 
> ...


You can't look at the USA and extrapolate that to the UK. Our health systems are completely different.

You are right about the numbers affected though. Very few who catch covid experience long term problems, hospitalisation or death and that's worth bearing in mind.


----------



## Robin (Nov 14, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> But is it actually worthwhile gettting a vaccine (with its risks) for something which affects so few of us?


A family member has a compromised immune system. He's in his mid seventies, but leads an active life, has the annual flu jab, and is probably good for another ten years. Since the emergence of Covid, he’s had two choices.
1. Stop his active life and spend a boring existence at home or
2. Go about as usual and risk catching it, knowing that he's got a high chance of serious illness or death in the next year.
Don’t you think it would be nice if there was an option 3? 
3. Have the vaccine and be able to carry on some sort of normal life again.


----------



## mikeyB (Nov 14, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Hi pm133,
> 
> I agree, I wouldn't try to extrapolate their data to the UK. I mean it more in the sense that covid is been classed as a lethal worldwide pandemic, but looking at the article I attached, it doesn't seem that way.



Spanish Flu was a lethal worldwide pandemic, with a 50% death rate in the second wave. Covid is a pandemic, but in no way can it be described as lethal, as it is at least 95% benign.


----------



## Docb (Nov 15, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> Spanish Flu was a lethal worldwide pandemic, with a 50% death rate in the second wave. Covid is a pandemic, but in no way can it be described as lethal, as it is at least 95% benign.


I understand where you are coming from @mikeyB - getting a proper perspective on things is right.  

In this regard, do you think that if the "Spanish" flu virus turned up out of the blue today, it would have a 50% death rate or if COVID had turned up in the early 20th century it would have been more lethal? 

The world of 100 years ago was very different in terms of general health and robustness - and your ex-profession has come on a bit as well.


----------



## mikeyB (Nov 15, 2020)

The Spanish flu did take regard of general health and robustness - it killed, by and large, the 20-50 age group and those in the prime of health. The poor and ill fed tended to survive, because they didn't have immune systems that were capable of producing the cytokine storm that was the primary cause of death in Spanish Flu. It was the same generation who were killed in the War.

We do know that the Spanish Flu was H1N1, and samples of the virus still exist, so a vaccine could rapidly prepared.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 15, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> Spanish Flu was a lethal worldwide pandemic, with a 50% death rate in the second wave. Covid is a pandemic, but in no way can it be described as lethal, as it is at least 95% benign.


Where do you get that 50% death rate from?

The numbers seem to be very uncertain, but the best info I can find suggests an attack rate of ~25%-30% and an IFR of ~1.5% - 2.5% in countries with good (for the time) health infrastructure.

That's consistent with eg NHS saying it killed about 230K in the UK and the CDC saying about 800K in the US. 

If you scale up those Spanish flu numbers for 2020 pop levels, they're equivalent to about 350K in the UK and 2.5M in the US. That's versus 50K+ and 250K+ so far for COVID-19, so an order of magnitude better, but obviously it will end up being worse than that. Throw improvements in public health & health-care into the mix, and there seems to be zero basis for thinking that COVID-19 carries negligible fundamental fatality risk versus Spanish flu.

The attack rate in a really badly managed US state like North Dakota is probably getting up closer to Spanish flu levels: nothing much until quite recently, but recently growingqwuickly to around 8% at the moment in terms of reported cases - but with high positivity there true infection rates must be quite a lot higher - and now growing exponentially & out of control. The CFR is "only" about 1.1% there so far, so IFR will be less than 1% - but that's before it's really gotten to work in aged care homes. 

In places like Victoria and Canada where it did get into the homes in a big way, IFR has been more like 2%+, so very much in line with with Spanish flu.  Think you can expect per capita death rates to end up looking not so different by the time this thing is tamed, in some parts of the world.


----------



## rebrascora (Nov 16, 2020)

You also have to take into consideration that modern day living and media etc makes it easier for people to lockdown and isolate than during the Spanish flu where many people would have been working in manual jobs in close proximity with others and living in overcrowded multigenerational accommodation, so I think it is difficult to compare the two situations.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 16, 2020)

rebrascora said:


> You also have to take into consideration that modern day living and media etc makes it easier for people to lockdown and isolate than during the Spanish flu where many people would have been working in manual jobs in close proximity with others and living in overcrowded multigenerational accommodation, so I think it is difficult to compare the two situations.


Probably right, but on the other hand we've got a greater porportion of older people, and more of them living in high-risk aged care facilities. And I'm not sure about the relative proportions of the total population (including immigrants) living in crowded multigenerational dwellings & tower blocks? Also, the relative amount of time spent in no-social-distance bars/clubs/restaurants by young people?And relative mobility? Anyway, I don't think things are completely clear-cut.


----------

