It's possible. But I should think the take up of the vaccine will likely be the overwhelming majority of the population which I should think will include virtually all the vulnerable people as what do they have to lose in getting it. Let's say that equates to 50m vaccinated with it effective in 47.5m of them with a minute proportion of that remainder liked being vulnerable. Thats going to take the level of risk and deaths down to a very low level amongst those that have had the vaccine. What happens to the rest that havent had it is not really a concern of mine as if we havent quite overwhelmed the NHS with the whole population infectable its unlikely to happen with just the unvaccinated exposed.
That's where you could be wrong though - the vaccine is reckoned to be 95% effective, so for 5% of people who have it it would be ineffective and they still stood the risk of catching it.
The more people out there for the virus to use as hosts, the longer it will take to irradicate it.
So those who refuse to have the vaccine could well infect some of the 5% who thought they were immune, and the virus lives on
Those with weak immune systems or taking immune suppressant drugs won't be able to take the 'live' vaccine such as the Pfizer, however will be able to take the Oxford vaccine which doesn't use live cells
I know Covid aint Funny but i saw a gay mate earlier in the week and he said he was sick of the Lockdowns and Restrictions, i said dont worry the Vaccines gonna change that hopefully, His reply sod that no ones sticking owt in me
Most vaccines rely on weakened or inactivated parts of the virus to provoke an immune response in their recipients, but the Pfizer version is synthetic.
The new vaccine is made using messenger ribonucleic acid (also known as messenger RNA or mRNA). Whereas DNA is where we store our genetic information, mRNA - as its name suggests - transmits information and helps to determine how our genes are expressed.
To put that another way, mRNA “essentially puts DNA instructions into action”, says Horizon.
In the case of the Pfizer vaccine, the researchers synthesised a form of mRNA that will “cause our own cells to make a viral protein” from the Covid-19 coronavirus, says The New York Times.
The protein is harmless in isolation, but prompts the human immune system to “make antibodies and immune cells that can recognise the protein quickly and deliver a swift attack”, the newspaper adds.
Since the active ingredient in the vaccine - the mRNA - is “made from a DNA template in a lab”, says Pfizer, scaling up production is “a more rapid process than [with] conventional vaccines and a major advantage when it comes to sudden pandemics”.
So not to mislead or confuse I've deleted my previous post
There was an interesting podcast from Sky news the other day.
Scroll down the page to get to the actual podcast bit, it's a shame this was buried, it highlights lesser known problems with the Pfizer vaccine.
Those exempt won't have to self-isolate, even if they are returning to England from a country not on the travel corridors list.
Go to around 13mins 30secs
"The scientist don't know how long it will protect and whether it will stop the transmission of the virus to other people" Basically all the Pfizer vaccine could do is make millions of people asymptomatic
A friend of mine caught covid from his family but was asymptomatic as were most of his family. His dad (85) caught it from my friend's son who was also asymptomatic, he is now on a respirator in ICU and unlikely to survive. As long as those who refuse any vaccine recognise they might cause the death of someone they care about then that's a tragedy they will have to live with. Unfortunately, the only way for some people to understand risk is to experience it. As with speeding, drink driving and other antisocial behaviours, there are some totally selfish folks out there.
Also good to see that a lack of understanding about vaccines, healthcare regulatory processes and the pharma industry can't deter those brave folks who can see through fake news. We are indeed fortunate that Facebook, YouTube and presidents are there to fill any gaps in knowledge for those who know better than those who have done it all their working lives.
If you have had covid would you need the vaccination?
Surely by actually having had the virus you will have anti bodies and immune cells that can recognise the same strain of covid if you were unfortunate enough to get it again. Yet I have read that the body doesn't retain any antibodies or an immunity response after 8 months or so after testing positive, which begs the question.
How can the vaccination actually help if the body can't retain antibodies or an immune response from having had the real deal?
I've been told that everyone will be offered the vaccine irrespective of if they have had it or not.
And it has been stated that if you have tested positive for CV then you do not need to isolate for a period of 8months from the date of the test.
I believe this was for track and trace purposes rather than a declaration of immunity.
There is an issue with regards to testing accuracy, especially in the early days, when there was somewhere in the region of 30% of negative tests which were false-negatives. Even now a test carried out after five days from first displaying symptoms can return a negative result.
If you are tested as negative it does not show history of covid on your medical records, even if like mine the test result was over-turned by a GP.
Hence why the vaccine will be made available to everyone
I saw on FB that the Oxford Vaccine is also not a live Vaccine, not sure it originated from Tracy though.
Saw a scientist being interviewed and he said the vaccines are safe as all ingredients in use have been used in other vaccines.