The lethality of corona is in the order of magnitude of that of a severe flu, so quite serious. Because there is no vaccine yet, the country is being shut down. If there is a corona vaccine in the flu cocktail, I wonder if we have made much progress. 82% of the population does not bother to get the flu shot, as has been the case for years.
Most The Dutch suffer every year of the flu shot. This includes half of the vulnerable (half!) whom we are now desperately protecting. So they don't think it's worth it to get the free shot.
Of course they can decide that for themselves, but it does give food for thought.
We expect miracles from a corona vaccine. The regular flu shot now offers approximately 40% protection among vaccinated people against the deadly flu wave that plagues our country every year. The question is whether a corona vaccine will score better than the 40% less chance of getting corona. Maybe, because the virus mutates more slowly - but still. There are also signals that immunity is disappearing quickly. How many times a year are we going to get vaccinated?
A 100% effective shot has never been developed against other coronas, such as SARS/MERS/the common cold. Started, but research eventually stopped. SARS and MERS could be controlled effectively [because they were too deadly to be successful]. So for some reason I don't get a cold.
You would say that there must be a market, especially for the seasonal disease of the common cold. With nose drops or something, that would lower the threshold. In third world countries vaccination is often done with drops (there is no money for a needle fetish and oh well, a drop more or less...). Get three drops for a tenner and you are guaranteed not to catch a cold in the coming months - isn't that what everyone does?
Verplicht stellen dan? Dat zal een probleem worden in NL, dat kan niet. De prikbereidheid voor een coronaprik zou dus ineens véél hoger moeten zijn dan voor de griepprik. Als duidelijk wordt dat beide mortaliteiten elkaar niet zoveel ontlopen, zie ik dat niet gebeuren dus de bevolking zal misleid moeten worden. De focus op de horizon "zolang er geen vaccin is" vind ik dan ook een van de vele enorme aannamefouten die er worden gemaakt. Er zijn teveel onzekerheden om er zo hard op te rekenen.
Should the well-being of the entire population be jeopardized for such a shaky promise with snags? Isn't that a question that should be considered by those in charge of public health?
ADDITION 22 August 2020:
- People still think that it is a one-time injection, like BMR etc. However, these are annual or even semi-annual vaccination campaigns that everyone should take, not just the vulnerable
- A corona vaccine triggers a well-functioning immune system, so that it can prepare itself for a serious attack by the virus with a high lethality. A well-functioning immune system naturally has sufficient defense against flu and related diseases (the lethality of corona is in the order of a severe flu). However, it is precisely the poorly functioning immune systems, such as in the elderly, that matter.
- It is precisely the vulnerable group that needs to be protected that benefits from a vaccine at most indirectly. But maybe they should not even take the vaccinations. In the first trials, an adverse side effect was also observed: in vaccinated groups, the immune system runs wild more often after a real corona infection. To what extent this is related to other syndromes will still be investigated. That is normally a process of many years.
- It was recently also announced that obese patients can hardly benefit from a vaccine. That is already where a significant share of the '50% effectiveness' assumed here and there goes.
- If you have been vaccinated and you come into contact with the virus, you will become infected, otherwise your immune system will not get to work. Are you also contagious during that period, just as children who do not get sick themselves are also major spreaders? Some studies say that it is precisely then that the infectivity is highest. If so, the vaccine has almost no effect: Active immune systems would clear the virus anyway, dysfunctional ones do not respond well to the vaccine. And also no indirect effect because the contagiousness remains.
With all these uncertainties as potential showstoppers, it is inconceivable that billions are being put on a vaccine, while the HCQ+zinc protocol, with more quantified certainties and hardly any uncertainties, is banned.
We are far from sure if it will help at all. We know for sure that HCQ/zinc does not help in 1% of cases due to known contraindications. HCQ costs less than 0.1% of what vaccination costs.
50% uncertainty on 100% failure may apparently be 100x as expensive as 99% certainty on 1% failure. It's gambler's logic.
The vaccine must be 50% effective to be approved, Fauci said. If half of the population gets the shot every year, you are at an effectiveness of 25%, and that is still the case for the obese and dysfunctional immune systems. Furthermore, vaccinated people are probably still contagious after an infection and 99.8% of these would also recover spontaneously, assuming an IFR of 0.2%. If 20% get it, as is currently the case with the flu shot, you are at an 'effectiveness' of 10%... Does that add anything? What do they actually think they can achieve?
