Jump to content

Pedrogaz

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    3,338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Pedrogaz

  1. 16 hours ago, mohinga said:

    50% is the minumum required effectiveness required to be granted emergency use authorization (EUA). Sinovac was granted this by the WHO a couple of weeks ago. Meanwhile, Sputnik V, with over 90% effectiveness (the highest of all vaccines except for the mRNA ones) has yet to be granted EUA by either the WHO or the European agency. Politics paramount in all aspects of this pandemic and vaccines. AZ and J&J approved despite many serious risks being reported. Sinovac and Sinpharm approved with slightly more than mimium effectiveness.

    Then there's the question of the political stigmatization of anyone, including many doctors, who posit the possibility of hydroxychlorquine and Ivermectin as treatment... despite an abundance of anecdotal evidence.

    The fact that experimental treatments, such as the vaccines, cannot be granted EUA if there is an effective treatment available is not reported in the media. All that is stessed is that one must get the jab in order to be allowed some portion of the freedoms that we all once took for granted.

    I would opt for the Russian jab if it were available. But it is not. There are some rumours of it getting the WHO approval in the coming months. But, failing that, I would get one of the Chinese old school endovirus jabs. Maybe not very effective, but at least it would allow me to operate on a longer leash.

    At best they could potentially lessen the severity of symptoms if one were to get the virus.

    And the risk of serious side effects seems minimal. The same cannot be said for the 2 mRNA jabs.

    100% agree. I'm less keen on getting an mRNA vaccine due to how much safety testing can have been done in the time allowed. I'm with the billion people who have Sinopharm.

  2. Sloppy headline.....of course there is a 'link'...they all had the vaccine. The issue is, and always will be, did the vaccine cause the side effect? Is this 'cause' and 'effect', or is it a result of random 'noise' in a large population?

    You cannot ever rule out cause and effect because you would need to do a huge randomised controlled double blind study of treated vs non-treated people, simply to say it is, say, less than a 1 in 20 chance. Such a study cannot be implemented anyway under current medical ethics rules.

    • Like 2
  3. 16 minutes ago, BestB said:

    And they surprised?

     

    What did they expect? tourists lining up to spend 14 days in the quarantine even though fully vaccinated paying premium prices and having to jump through hundreds of hoops which change daily.

     

    Once again, poor planning, poor execution and  no clear future

    Yup, it's fire, ready, aim with our junta.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...