• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

COVID vaccine outcomes

coronavirus

  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#1 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 326 posts
  • 20

Posted 28 February 2021 - 05:00 PM


I thought I would start a thread about people's response to being vaccinated. I got my first dose last Friday (2/26/21). I am 54 and was vaccinated because I fall under the "Agricultural workers" tier. The only effects I feel are that my arm was very sore the first night, similar to what I remember after my shingles vaccine. From talking with others the effects of the 2nd dose can be much stronger. 


  • Cheerful x 2

#2 geo12the

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 326 posts
  • 20

Posted 28 February 2021 - 07:04 PM

I should add it was the Moderna vaccine.



#3 Droplet

  • Life Member, Advisor Honorary Advisor
  • 6,628 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:UK

Posted 01 March 2021 - 08:16 AM

I'm 37 and was vaccinated Sunday 21st February 2021 because my employment falls under the social care category. I had a sore arm for a week or so and one day where I had a headache and felt dizzy. Over the Christmas period, I contracted Covid-19 (swab test confirmed that I had it) and I was unwell for a couple of weeks. Thankfully I wasn't in hospital. I think that one day of feeling unwell is a small price to pay compared to having the actual disease. I know that it doesn't guarantee 100% immunity but just doing all that I can to reduce the chances of being really ill again makes me feel better. My vaccine was the Astra Zeneca one. 2nd dose booked for May 15th 2021.


  • like x 2

#4 zorba990

  • Guest
  • 1,513 posts
  • 249

Posted 03 March 2021 - 10:01 PM

Why would anyone get a vaccine for an illness they already had?
  • like x 1

#5 geo12the

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 326 posts
  • 20

Posted 04 March 2021 - 04:53 AM

Why would anyone get a vaccine for an illness they already had?

 

It's rare but some people have gotten reinfected. And we don't know how long immunity lasts in people who have been infected. A friend who got it early on just got the vaccine. She has MS which was in remission but COVID made it flare up in a big way. 

 

https://www.nature.c...586-021-00071-6


  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#6 Droplet

  • Life Member, Advisor Honorary Advisor
  • 6,628 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 March 2021 - 03:36 PM

Why would anyone get a vaccine for an illness they already had?

 

Geo12the has answered your question....reinfection is possible and anything that could boost my immunity is a good thing. That and I sometimes work around vulnerable people and want to reduce my chance of being reinfected and spreading it on to them.
 


  • Informative x 1

#7 zorba990

  • Guest
  • 1,513 posts
  • 249

Posted 04 March 2021 - 11:44 PM

It's rare but some people have gotten reinfected. And we don't know how long immunity lasts in people who have been infected. A friend who got it early on just got the vaccine. She has MS which was in remission but COVID made it flare up in a big way.

https://www.nature.c...586-021-00071-6


Yes, that sounds quite bad. I wonder how many such effects will be delayed and show up over the next 6-12 months?
Vaccinating someone within a month of having had Covid seems bad practice to me. And the behavior of the pushers of this
seems suspect.

https://www.bitchute...o/5HUp0XfAm04r/
  • Agree x 4
  • Good Point x 1
  • dislike x 1

#8 geo12the

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 326 posts
  • 20

Posted 05 March 2021 - 02:47 AM

Yes, that sounds quite bad. I wonder how many such effects will be delayed and show up over the next 6-12 months?
Vaccinating someone within a month of having had Covid seems bad practice to me. And the behavior of the pushers of this
seems suspect.

https://www.bitchute...o/5HUp0XfAm04r/

 

I actually meant to say that contracting COVID made her MS worse. Not the vaccine. She contacted COVID early in the epidemic (Last March or April while visiting her mom in Europe). Before COVID her MS was in remission. After COVID her symptoms and diagnosis were much worse.  She got the vaccine just recently because she was afraid of what another bout of COVID would do to her MS. She had no side effects from the vaccine. Another friend who got COVID early on is still having all sorts of weird effects like changes in hair texture and losing clumps of beard hair. People should get vaccinated, this disease can be weird and nasty. And the only thing I felt from my first shot was a sore arm similar to after my second shingles vaccine. 


  • Agree x 2
  • like x 1

#9 Gal220

  • Member
  • 465 posts
  • 152
  • Location:United States

Posted 06 March 2021 - 08:49 PM

I would skip the 2nd shot, 3% more effectiveness really worth it?

 

From Ben Stein

https://www.youtube....h?v=S6M9SBYIFbU



#10 Droplet

  • Life Member, Advisor Honorary Advisor
  • 6,628 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:UK

Posted 07 March 2021 - 08:31 AM

I would skip the 2nd shot, 3% more effectiveness really worth it?

 

Surely any extra immunity is worth it, even if it is only 3%. It is a nicer figure than 0%.
 


  • Ill informed x 2
  • unsure x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#11 calimero

  • Guest
  • 18 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Romania

Posted 07 March 2021 - 11:34 AM

I'm 37 and was vaccinated Sunday 21st February 2021 because my employment falls under the social care category................................... Over the Christmas period, I contracted Covid-19 

 

 

If you’ve had COVID-19, you might delay vaccination until 90 days after your diagnosis


  • Good Point x 1

#12 Droplet

  • Life Member, Advisor Honorary Advisor
  • 6,628 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:UK

Posted 08 March 2021 - 06:04 PM

 

They do ask you at the vaccination appointment when and how long ago you had Covid-19. I told them and they didn't say anything about it being an issue. I am not a biologist or medical professional so I just listen to those who are. Maybe different countries advise different things? I don't know.


  • Informative x 1

#13 joesixpack

  • Member
  • 159 posts
  • 13
  • Location:arizona
  • NO

Posted 11 March 2021 - 05:03 AM

My wife and I had both and we had minor, we are a week out for the second Pfizer vaccine.


  • Cheerful x 1

#14 Oakman

  • Member
  • 1,200 posts
  • 1,531
  • Location:CO

Posted 11 March 2021 - 06:24 PM

I should add it was the Moderna vaccine.

 

The 2nd moderna one isn't like the 1st at all. Not the shot itself, but after 12-24hrs you'll feel bad for another 12-24hrs. Then it'll be gone.

As I understand, the stronger your immune system, the more reaction to the 2nd dose. But a stronger reaction should give you more antibodies.


  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#15 Gal220

  • Member
  • 465 posts
  • 152
  • Location:United States

Posted 14 March 2021 - 06:22 AM

This reddit thread has quite posts as well

https://www.reddit.c...:"Side-effects"


Edited by Gal220, 14 March 2021 - 06:22 AM.

  • Informative x 1

#16 joelcairo

  • Guest
  • 568 posts
  • 151
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • NO

Posted 14 March 2021 - 11:17 PM

I would skip the 2nd shot, 3% more effectiveness really worth it?

 

From Ben Stein

https://www.youtube....h?v=S6M9SBYIFbU

 

What is this 3% figure based on? All the charts I have seen show a very significant increase in immunity after the second shot.


  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#17 Droplet

  • Life Member, Advisor Honorary Advisor
  • 6,628 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 March 2021 - 08:05 AM

What is this 3% figure based on? All the charts I have seen show a very significant increase in immunity after the second shot.

 

I would like to add to the questions posed regarding this. I do not have a scientific background and would like to understand why 3% immunity is worse than 0%. Could someone please explain this in simple terms to me?
 



#18 Gal220

  • Member
  • 465 posts
  • 152
  • Location:United States

Posted 15 March 2021 - 02:13 PM

What is this 3% figure based on? All the charts I have seen show a very significant increase in immunity after the second shot.

 

https://www.nejm.org...56/NEJMc2036242

 

Even before the second dose, BNT162b2 was highly efficacious, with a vaccine efficacy of 92.6%, a finding similar to the first-dose efficacy of 92.1% reported for the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna).3


#19 Gal220

  • Member
  • 465 posts
  • 152
  • Location:United States

Posted 15 March 2021 - 02:19 PM

I would like to add to the questions posed regarding this. I do not have a scientific background and would like to understand why 3% immunity is worse than 0%. Could someone please explain this in simple terms to me?
 

 

If the 1st shot is so effective and most of the worst side effects are coming from the 2nd shot, is it worth getting the 2nd?  Just something to consider


Edited by Gal220, 15 March 2021 - 02:42 PM.

  • Agree x 1

#20 Ekatostis

  • Member
  • 5 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Temecula,Ca
  • NO

Posted 15 March 2021 - 04:01 PM

Out of curiosity, has anybody noticed an additional positive effect from the Pfizer vaccine? I used to have frequent herpes simplex events (cold sores) especially after taking arginine or citrulline for ED. But since I got my Pfizer vaccine in early February  and consuming citrulline, no cold sores. It could be a coincidence or something else, anyway just wondering.



#21 joelcairo

  • Guest
  • 568 posts
  • 151
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • NO

Posted 15 March 2021 - 05:28 PM

 

Thanks for posting the reference, but it's important to note this is a letter to the editor in which the author is attempting to reinterpret data from the original study.

 

The number of actual cases being cited is so small that the 95% confidence interval for protection after the first shot is enormous (69%-98%). You can see this on the chart.



#22 Gal220

  • Member
  • 465 posts
  • 152
  • Location:United States

Posted 15 March 2021 - 05:48 PM

Thanks for posting the reference, but it's important to note this is a letter to the editor in which the author is attempting to reinterpret data from the original study.

 

The number of actual cases being cited is so small that the 95% confidence interval for protection after the first shot is enormous (69%-98%). You can see this on the chart.

Looks like forbes and others are claiming 85%.

 

It would be interesting to know if Ben Stein had to do it over again, what would he choose.


  • Ill informed x 1

#23 joesixpack

  • Member
  • 159 posts
  • 13
  • Location:arizona
  • NO

Posted 15 March 2021 - 06:41 PM

Here is the article claiming 92% effectiveness after the first shot, with a 2% hike after the second shot.

 

In looking at a number of articles on the subject the numbers are all over the place. They range from 52% after the first shot to 85% with varying numbers in between. And of course, the article below showing 92%.

 

Apparently they base these numbers on "calculations" and interpretations of the data in their studies. And depending on which calculation is used, and the interpretation of the data, you can get differing results.

 

My interpretation is that you get significant effectiveness somewhere between 52% and 92%, and the second shot adds more than 2%.

 

https://nypost.com/2...fective-as-two/



#24 geo12the

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 326 posts
  • 20

Posted 16 March 2021 - 12:40 AM

If the 1st shot is so effective and most of the worst side effects are coming from the 2nd shot, is it worth getting the 2nd?  Just something to consider

 

The efficacy that has been measured is short term efficacy. We don't know what the efficacy will be in the longer term. For that reason it's worth getting the second shot. 


  • Good Point x 1
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#25 Gal220

  • Member
  • 465 posts
  • 152
  • Location:United States

Posted 16 March 2021 - 02:22 AM

My interpretation is that you get significant effectiveness somewhere between 52% and 92%, and the second shot adds more than 2%.

 

https://nypost.com/2...fective-as-two/

All the recent articles are 85 and up.  Early articles were 52.


  • Ill informed x 1

#26 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,428 posts
  • 509
  • Location:Austria

Posted 16 March 2021 - 02:38 PM

All the recent articles are 85 and up. Early articles were 52.


It's truely shocking to me, that such a scientifically informed community like at Lonegcity seriously considers relative risk reduction only, without even considering it in the context of the more informative absolute risk reduction. For all covid-vaccines hovering around 1%!

https://www.globalre...own-phd/5739826
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#27 geo12the

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 326 posts
  • 20

Posted 16 March 2021 - 03:10 PM

It's truely shocking to me, that such a scientifically informed community like at Lonegcity seriously considers relative risk reduction only, without even considering it in the context of the more informative absolute risk reduction. For all covid-vaccines hovering around 1%!

https://www.globalre...own-phd/5739826

 

globalresearch.ca is on a list of unreliable news sources (iffy.news):

 

Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: Canada
World Press Freedom Rank: Canada 16/180

History

Founded in 2001, GlobalResearch or Centre for Research on Globalization is a Canadian conspiracy website. It was founded by Michel Chossudovsky who is currently the President of GlobalResearch and professor emeritus of economics at the University of Ottawa. The website does not have an about page, but they do list the people involved with the operation.


  • Ill informed x 3
  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#28 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,428 posts
  • 509
  • Location:Austria

Posted 16 March 2021 - 03:15 PM

globalresearch.ca is on a list of unreliable news sources (iffy.news):

Absulute risk reduction in relation to relative risk reduction is a calculation, everyone can do oneself (with known numbers of the intervention and placebo group, and each outcome). Therefore nothing industry-sponsored 'fact-checker' could ever disprove.

In a climate where even the FDA ignores its own guidelines in also considering absolute risk reduction, it will of course only be fringe sides reporting on. Which still isn't a valid excuse why even scientific minded members here loose any sensible reasoning.

Edited by pamojja, 16 March 2021 - 03:24 PM.

  • Agree x 3
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#29 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,592 posts
  • 672

Posted 16 March 2021 - 04:43 PM

Well, Israel has over 50% of their population vaccinated and continuing on, so I guess we'll see if the risk reduction is 90% or 1% soon enough.

Other countries have vaccinated millions also, so I guess we'll see how many of those millions ultimately get infected or not versus the people choosing not to vaccinate.

No matter what any particular expert wants to argue at this point, the proof will be in the pudding one way or another soon enough.

#30 geo12the

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 326 posts
  • 20

Posted 16 March 2021 - 04:49 PM

Absulute risk reduction in relation to relative risk reduction is a calculation, everyone can do oneself (with known numbers of the intervention and placebo group, and each outcome). Therefore nothing industry-sponsored 'fact-checker' could ever disprove.

In a climate where even the FDA ignores its own guidelines in also considering absolute risk reduction, it will of course only be fringe sides reporting on. Which still isn't a valid excuse why even scientific minded members here loose any sensible reasoning.

 

I do statistical analysis as one of my jobs and I've seen firsthand how people can do all kinds of statistical tricks to prove their hypothesis or disprove a hypothesis they don't like. In fact though statistics is very important it can be misused. Most people don't understand statistics  and I have been at meetings where people misuse statistics to support a hypothesis but the audience is so confused by statistics their eyes glaze over and they believe anything the speaker is saying. I encourage people to LOOK AT THE DATA. The data from the Moderna trial speaks for itself and is easy to digest without complicated statistical tricks. People can draw their own conclusions:

 

Control group: 14,073 people

Vaccine group: 14,134 people

Control group number of people who got sick: 185 

Vaccine group number of people who got sick: 11

Control group number of people who got severe illness: 30 

Vaccine group number of people who got severe illness: 0

 

My sensible reasoning tells me that the data is pretty strong, regardless of what some skeptics Absolute risk reduction calculations claim 


Edited by geo12the, 16 March 2021 - 04:55 PM.

  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: coronavirus

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users