Covid vacs cut back for under 65s

[XFool]

What is it you don't understand?

I don't understand how you seem to believe the Covid vaccine is prophylactic.

I didn't say anything about my beliefs in whether the vaccine is or is not "prophylactic" - whatever that means here.

I was commenting on your suggestion that the COVID vaccination is harmful, due to it leading to potentially harmful "mutations".

It doesn't stop infection. It doesn't stop transmission. It assists the vulnerable for a short period (measured in weeks). Does that meet the definition of prophylactic over therapeutic to you?

Well, yes. Why not? (Regardless of the validity or otherwise of your points)

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prophylactic

pro·phy·lac·tic (prō'fi-lak'tik)

1. Preventing disease; relating to prophylaxis.
Synonym(s): preventive.
2. An agent that acts to prevent a disease.
3. Colloq. used to mean condom, and to a lesser extent, a method of birth control.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/therapeutic

therapeutic (thĕr′ə-pyo͞o′tĭk)
adj. also therapeutical (-tĭ-kəl)
1. Having or exhibiting healing powers: a therapeutic agent; therapeutic exercises.
2. Of or relating to the medical treatment of a disease or condition.
n.
A drug or other therapeutic agent.

You should be able to see for yourself, from the above definitions, how the terms prophylactic and therapeutic differ and correspond to the very point being made in the medical article extract in my OP (about evolution of vaccine resistance). i.e. The difference between something that is used to prevent a condition or disease - before it has even been caught (a vaccine) and something that is used to treat a condition or disease (a drug such as penicillin) which is administered because a person is already suffering from the condition or disease. The old use of the word "prophylactic" for a condom makes this even clearer.

[Ashfordian]

I don't understand how you seem to believe the Covid vaccine is prophylactic.

I didn't say anything about my beliefs in whether the vaccine is or is not "prophylactic" - whatever that means here.

I was commenting on your suggestion that the COVID vaccination is harmful, due to it leading to potentially harmful "mutations".

It doesn't stop infection. It doesn't stop transmission. It assists the vulnerable for a short period (measured in weeks). Does that meet the definition of prophylactic over therapeutic to you?

Well, yes. Why not? (Regardless of the validity or otherwise of your points)

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prophylactic

pro·phy·lac·tic (prō'fi-lak'tik)

1. Preventing disease; relating to prophylaxis.
Synonym(s): preventive.
2. An agent that acts to prevent a disease.
3. Colloq. used to mean condom, and to a lesser extent, a method of birth control.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/therapeutic

therapeutic (thĕr′ə-pyo͞o′tĭk)
adj. also therapeutical (-tĭ-kəl)
1. Having or exhibiting healing powers: a therapeutic agent; therapeutic exercises.
2. Of or relating to the medical treatment of a disease or condition.
n.
A drug or other therapeutic agent.

You should be able to see for yourself, from the above definitions, how the terms prophylactic and therapeutic differ and correspond to the very point being made in the medical article extract in my OP (about evolution of vaccine resistance). i.e. The difference between something that is used to prevent a condition or disease - before it has even been caught (a vaccine) and something that is used to treat a condition or disease (a drug such as penicillin) which is administered because a person is already suffering from the condition or disease. The old use of the word "prophylactic" for a condom makes this even clearer.

I never said the Covid vaccine was harmful. I said that over deploying increases the risk a vaccine resistant mutations occurs. The text you posted yesterday rightly confirms that vaccine resistance mutations occur less frequently but a huge contribution to the reason for this is that other vaccines prevent infection and/or prevent transmission. The Covid vaccine does neither and is in effect a proactive drug treatment(therapeutic) as all it does is assist with fighting the infection. Hence increasing deployment into people who don't require this assistance increases the risk to the vulnerable because the risk of a vaccine resistant mutation occurring increases. This is really quite simple.

And this goes back to one of my original points, you would think 'experts' would know this!

[XFool]

I never said the Covid vaccine was harmful.

Really? Then the point you are making escapes me.

I said that over deploying increases the risk a vaccine resistant mutations occurs.

Yes. You said this. You also said, or at least implied, that while you knew this 'truth' the "experts" didn't. I failed to agree with you, I still do.

The text you posted yesterday rightly confirms that vaccine resistance mutations occur less frequently but a huge contribution to the reason for this is that other vaccines prevent infection and/or prevent transmission.

But the point made in that extract (prior to COVID-19 I believe) was nothing like your suggestion.

As I see it the point being made in the text I posted was, crudely put:

You have say 1000 ill people, all suffering from the same pathogen. You give them all an identical drug - say penicillin, as the pathogen is a bacterium. The drug directly targets the pathogen, in an identical manner in all 1000 suffering patients. Mostly the pathogen is killed and they recover. Some pathogens, in some patients, survive - perhaps through natural, evolving mutations, even while patients are being treated. They have evolved to dodge that particular chemical agent in penicillin. They are penicillin resistant and can then spread.

Now, you have 1000 non ill, non patients. There is a new infectious pathogen about. You give all 1000 non ill people a vaccine against the pathogen. The vaccine does not target any (hopefully) non present pathogen, it 'targets' the persons immune system - or rather each of the individual persons immune systems targets the vaccine's active ingredient, each in there own individual manner. Every person has a different reaction to the vaccine, some get quite unwell, some (such as myself) seem unaffected in any way. How each person's immune system actually reacts is likely different (I don't know) in every case - assuming none of the 1000 are identical twins. How this leaves each of the 1000 people, if they should in future meet the pathogen in the wild, is unknown and unpredictable. It won't be the same in every case. Maybe none of the 1000 people will ever encounter the pathogen, maybe none of them will be infected, maybe they will be. Some of their immune systems will now be very effective against the pathogen, some less so. Will a new variant of the pathogen evolve? Quite possibly - they do with COVID-19. Will it have evolved because of the vaccine? Perhaps, I don't know. But if it does evolve rapidly it will anyway, vaccine or no vaccine. Anyway, if say one person in the 1000 does have a vaccine resistant strain in then - that is an immune system response resistant variant - can they pass it on to somebody else? Quite possibly, where it will meet a different person with a different immune system (whether vaccinated or not), the new pathogen might survive and thrive there, it might not.

The Covid vaccine does neither and is in effect a proactive drug treatment(therapeutic) as all it does is assist with fighting the infection.

That is, more or less what any vaccine does - the job is actually done by the person's own immune system, not the vaccine. How effective any vaccine is perhaps depends on the pathogen and its capacity to change, as well as the immune system of the individual - just as with non vaccinated people, really. Smallpox was so slow and AFAIK had very limited co-hosts in the wild that it was eventually eradicated. Other pathogens differ.

Hence increasing deployment into people who don't require this assistance increases the risk to the vulnerable because the risk of a vaccine resistant mutation occurring increases. This is really quite simple.

Well, you say it is... So, are you a real "expert"? Or just someone who 'knows better' than the experts?

And this goes back to one of my original points, you would think 'experts' would know this!

You would. Well, I would! Don't know about you. Anyway, I will always favour the opinions of informed experts rather than 'opinions' from random people on bulletin boards. Guess that's just me.

"Vaccine resistance evolves less readily than drug resistance (Fig. 1). Elsewhere, we have argued that two key differences between drugs and vaccines explain why (6)."

[Ashfordian]

Hence increasing deployment into people who don't require this assistance increases the risk to the vulnerable because the risk of a vaccine resistant mutation occurring increases. This is really quite simple.

Well, you say it is... So, are you a real "expert"? Or just someone who 'knows better' than the experts?

And this goes back to one of my original points, you would think 'experts' would know this!

You would. Well, I would! Don't know about you. Anyway, I will always favour the opinions of informed experts rather than 'opinions' from random people on bulletin boards. Guess that's just me.

"Vaccine resistance evolves less readily than drug resistance (Fig. 1). Elsewhere, we have argued that two key differences between drugs and vaccines explain why (6)."

The problem with 'experts' is that they lose their credibility as 'experts' now they are wrong. These were the people who pushed the vaccine so hard at the start stating it prevented infection and prevented transmission. Just because you still believe in these people doesn't mean they are correct. They are simply trying to save their reputation at the expense of the gullible.

A perfect example of this is that you are still in denial that the virus escaped from China laboratory, because that is what 'experts' who are trying to protect their reputation are telling you and relying on the gullible to trust them.

As to your italicised text, I've already explained that despite how it is named, the Covid vaccine is now closer to a therapeutic drug than a vaccine. If it was released today it would not be labelled a vaccine. You could display some 'Foolishness' and confirm this yourself, but you have obviously decided you would prefer to die on a hill defending certain 'experts', who are simply trying to maintain their reputation for as long as possible before they lose it.

[XFool]

No can reply...

[servodude]

No can reply...

You could... But

[XFool]

...Still no reply here.

viewtopic.php?p=610251#p610251

I can post THIS, but I can't post my post.

Now, "content control"?

[XFool]

...Time to give up here.

[Lootman]

Personally I am eligible but don't think I will be taking it.

I just got a text from my GP inviting me to book for the Covid booster.

I wasn't going to but now I think I might, since they are making it so easy for me.

How long do you have to wait between a Covid booster jab and a flu jab? Or don't you?

[redsturgeon]

Personally I am eligible but don't think I will be taking it.

I just got a text from my GP inviting me to book for the Covid booster.

I wasn't going to but now I think I might, since they are making it so easy for me.

How long do you have to wait between a Covid booster jab and a flu jab? Or don't you?

You can take the two together if you wish.

[Lootman]

I just got a text from my GP inviting me to book for the Covid booster.

I wasn't going to but now I think I might, since they are making it so easy for me.

How long do you have to wait between a Covid booster jab and a flu jab? Or don't you?

You can take the two together if you wish.

OK, thanks. The appointment doesn't mention the option of also getting a flu jab at the same time. But maybe that just gets offered on the day?

My GP practice is doing these jabs on Saturdays and Sundays, presumably so as not to interfere with normal service.

[CliffEdge]

I didn't say anything about my beliefs in whether the vaccine is or is not "prophylactic" - whatever that means here.

I was commenting on your suggestion that the COVID vaccination is harmful, due to it leading to potentially harmful "mutations".


Well, yes. Why not? (Regardless of the validity or otherwise of your points)

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prophylactic


https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/therapeutic


You should be able to see for yourself, from the above definitions, how the terms prophylactic and therapeutic differ and correspond to the very point being made in the medical article extract in my OP (about evolution of vaccine resistance). i.e. The difference between something that is used to prevent a condition or disease - before it has even been caught (a vaccine) and something that is used to treat a condition or disease (a drug such as penicillin) which is administered because a person is already suffering from the condition or disease. The old use of the word "prophylactic" for a condom makes this even clearer.

I never said the Covid vaccine was harmful. I said that over deploying increases the risk a vaccine resistant mutations occurs. The text you posted yesterday rightly confirms that vaccine resistance mutations occur less frequently but a huge contribution to the reason for this is that other vaccines prevent infection and/or prevent transmission. The Covid vaccine does neither and is in effect a proactive drug treatment(therapeutic) as all it does is assist with fighting the infection. Hence increasing deployment into people who don't require this assistance increases the risk to the vulnerable because the risk of a vaccine resistant mutation occurring increases. This is really quite simple.

And this goes back to one of my original points, you would think 'experts' would know this!

Take a biscuit, you've earned it.

[scotia]

I have received an appointment for a Covid booster and a Flu vaccination in mid October (age 79, Scotland).

[daveh]

Last year I had covid and flu vaccines at the same time (Scotland). This year I'm due just flu, haven't got round to booking it yet, but was texted in early August to say I could book from 7th August.

[Arizona11]

If the body has reasonable immunity after having a jab, why are they giving out boosters? Presumably because they give even better protection.

My wife is under 65 but would like the booster. As so many over 65s will not bother to get the booster, could they not give it instead to younger people who would like it?

[kiloran]

Last year I had covid and flu vaccines at the same time (Scotland). This year I'm due just flu, haven't got round to booking it yet, but was texted in early August to say I could book from 7th August.

I had a letter a couple of days ago to say I'm booked in for covid and flu jabs at the same time in early November. Scotland.

--kiloran

[redsturgeon]

If the body has reasonable immunity after having a jab, why are they giving out boosters? Presumably because they give even better protection.

My wife is under 65 but would like the booster. As so many over 65s will not bother to get the booster, could they not give it instead to younger people who would like it?

The evidence shows that the booster will not prevent you from catching the virus, nor stop you passing it on to anyone else. The vaccine may lessen the severity of your illness and prevent hospitalisation. Since the omicron strain however the chances of serious illness from covid, resulting in hospitalisation is very rare in the under 65s unless you are immunocompromised, so it has been deemed not cost effective to mass vaccinate this year.

Private jabs may be available later in the year if you do not qualify for a free jab.

John

[Ashfordian]

Private jabs may be available later in the year if you do not qualify for a free jab.

John

I'm sure you are more up to date in this area but doesn't this require at least two things to happen first?

1) The Covid vaccines receive full authorisation. (Does this include the updated ones or just the original versions?)

2) That the pharmaceutical companies accept indemnity for the vaccines they produce (IIRC this still currently sits with the Government)?


As far am I am aware, considering billions of doses have been given it has gone very quiet regards the above in the UK.

[redsturgeon]

Private jabs may be available later in the year if you do not qualify for a free jab.

John

I'm sure you are more up to date in this area but doesn't this require at least two things to happen first?

1) The Covid vaccines receive full authorisation. (Does this include the updated ones or just the original versions?)

2) That the pharmaceutical companies accept indemnity for the vaccines they produce (IIRC this still currently sits with the Government)?


As far am I am aware, considering billions of doses have been given it has gone very quiet regards the above in the UK.

Indeed...that's why I wrote "may be available".

[Steveam]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... nt-spreads

Best wishes,

Steve