Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you think vaccination will be the silver bullet against the coronavirus?

67 Comments
© RikiWeb

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

67 Comments
Login to comment

It might help some old unhealthy people with covid, but who knows what other problems they will bring.

-23 ( +10 / -33 )

Hello? Vaccines have been the silver bullet against a host of other diseases that used to kill hundreds of millions of people....so, um, yeah.

They only fail when significant numbers of people reject them. Yeah, let's bring back polio!

24 ( +36 / -12 )

Childhood vaccinations. Smallpox. Yellow Fever.

https://www.healthline.com/health/vaccinations

19 ( +19 / -0 )

No. because some of the mutations are proving to be more resilient to the vaccines. Masks and social distancing are going to be important for a long time to come. Vaccines are essential but I would disagree with classifying them as silver bullets

-5 ( +13 / -18 )

Not sure about a silver bullet regarding Covid, but vaccines are the best we’ve got.

27 ( +32 / -5 )

My comment was not about vaccines in general, but rather on the current ones for coronavirus.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Regimented doses of vaccines combined with face masks, and social distancing is what's needed. Unfortunately, those actions alone won't work, as society has never been disciplined enough to make it work. It's always about me, me, and me.

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

The corona/flu vaccines are different and are meant to be applied every year to have any meaning. Besides they protect not against getting or spreading the infection but on a personal level to fight the disease.

So no, it won't solve the main problem but will help to reduce severe cases and deaths.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

It's a start. As others have ppinted out, the virus mutates and thus, the jabs will have to keep up too.

But this is with us for the forseeable future, unfortunately.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Major contributors to decreased incidence of disease in modern times are higher standards of sanitation, clean drinking water and food. This along with maintaining a healthy immune system should be the first line if defense. Then vaccines should be considered, but not mandatory.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Yes - Of course they are the silver bullet. Are these current brand new, out the box vaccines perfect, No. Will we need boosters, For sure. Can the world turn this virus into something no more than a case of a light fever and the sniffles and NOT kill over the coming years despite variants which will only increase in number, Sure. The only thing standing in our way are the idiot anti-vaxxers.

11 ( +17 / -6 )

definitely not.

all vaccines except sputnik from Russia at at experimental level so untested and have many side effects.

to be honest get vaccinated by untested experimental substance may damage health of these who are completely healthy.there are many documented as well as undocumented cases around the world.

to get vaccinated means be part of experiment...worldwide experiment.

sure these who wants get vaccinated just go,wait in line and get your jabs,i will leave you mine..

-19 ( +3 / -22 )

The only thing standing in our way are the idiot anti-vaxxers.

What is idiotic about a healthy person not wanting to inject a rushed unapproved vaccine into their body, just to reduce the symptoms from an infection that has a very very low IFR?

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

@Matej - I assume you are Russian with your unrelenting support of the Sputnik Vaccine. No vaccine has been properly 'approved' anywhere to the best of my knowledge - al of then have been put it into use under 'emergency approval only' To be clear, I am aware that Sputnik has been peer reviewed and does seem very good. I would be happy to have it put into my arm, as I would Pfizer, AZ, Moderna or J&J. They are ALL experimental as it stands. I would NOT however waste my time with one of the Chinese Vaccines when even their own government admits they may not be up to the task.

If your retort is that Sputnik had been fully approved in Russia, then I don't think that really counts as being 'approved'

Neither the virus itself or the vaccines it has spawned in such a short time have been around long enough to be fully understood.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Vaccines offer hope but we still don't know if it will prevent people from becoming infected with the virus. Although the vaccine is very promising, no vaccine is 100% effective.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

What is idiotic about a healthy person not wanting to inject a rushed unapproved vaccine into their body, just to reduce the symptoms from an infection that has a very very low IFR?

Then, don't have the jab. Especially if you don't believe in the pandemic. But please keep your distance from the rest of us. And remember, ten thousand dead in our host nation is not to be dismissed.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Right now @mariasjapan, you are correct, we don't know if it stops us becoming infected OR we can transmit it, but in the few countries that have got a good percentage of the population jabbed, the amount of people that end up with serious symptoms is way down, hence the death rates have plummeted. Shouldn't this be our first target? I don't think anybody is pretending that these vaccines offer 100% protection from being infected - but if they offer a 90% chance of being kept out of hospital that should be enough for the moment to get the world back on track.

Incredible achievements by scientists in 16 months. If you don't want the vaccine, that's fine, but those that have the bare faced cheek to criticise 'big-pharma' really need a reality check.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

But please keep your distance from the rest of us.

If you are vaccinated, why do you care? You would be protected, right?

If I am infected and feel sick, I'll stay home. But if I get the vaccine and become infected, I probably won't feel anything and I'll be spreading it to everyone around me because I won't know that I was infected. The only evidence I have seen indicating reduction in transmission was a comment by a doctor on a Pfizer press release.

the amount of people that end up with serious symptoms is way down, hence the death rates have plummeted. Shouldn't this be our first target?

Yes, the vulnerable might want to get the vaccine.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Vaccines are the silver bullet against many deseases saving millions of lives every year..

Remember childhood..

This is 21th Century..

No time for antivaxxer losers..

4 ( +10 / -6 )

If you are vaccinated, why do you care? You would be protected, right?

Vaccines are developed with the intention of working in populations, they don't offer perfect protection to all individuals. If vaccines are able to replace social distancing measures then it is perfectly logical to keep those distancing measures for those that are not interested in replacing them. This is with the purpose of protecting those that are unable to be vaccinated by medical reasons, In this situation you would still be able to choose which kind of measure you are more confortable in assuming.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

This is 21th Century..

No time for antivaxxer losers..

As Wick's pencil mentioned, we are not talking about vaccines in general, this is about rushed unapproved vaccines for a disease that for must of us does not require a vaccine.

And what if you are one of the 30% that are asymptomatic?

Yeah, same as being vaccinated, we can unknowingly spread it. Basically, the reason for taking the vaccine should be for your own protection (if you need it), there is no evidence it significantly helps to protect others.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

They are one helping factor against the viruses, but surely no silver bullets. It’s taking longer and other measures to end the pandemic, if there weren’t vaccines, and on the other hand it’s not ending the pandemic when relying on the vaccines too much.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

As Wick's pencil mentioned, we are not talking about vaccines in general, this is about rushed unapproved vaccines for a disease that for must of us does not require a vaccine.

COVID vaccines in use for the population had safety and efficacy testing in order with a period already used in previous vaccines that had not problems. And since they are considered safe enough to be used in the general population this argument does not hold much weight. Up to this moment the vaccines are simply much safer for anybody immunized than COVID.

Yeah, same as being vaccinated, we can unknowingly spread it. Basically, the reason for taking the vaccine should be for your own protection (if you need it), there is no evidence it significantly helps to protect others.

The data on transmission is already being collected and it seems to indicate a very strong effect interrupting not only symptomatology but also detectable levels of infection and transmission. This surpasses the levels found for just asymptomatic patients

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-vaccine-int/israeli-studies-find-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-reduces-transmission-idUSKBN2AJ08J

Of course you can always choose to remain with the current measures instead of getting immunized, but for people that can understand and accept scientific information, and have some consideration for others choosing to be vaccinated is clearly the better option by much, they will not only reduce the risk for themselves but also for others and also accelerate the timing for economically damaging measures to be lifted. Helping preventing the emergence of variants is another benefit that people that think beyond themselves can surely value.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

No because too many variants spreading too quickly.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Somehow the vaccine can provide a psychological or mental leeway to lessen the overall paranoia over the virus.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

If people all get vaccinated it will prevent the appearance of new variants and indeed prove to be the 'silver bullet' against Covid-19, but if people selfishly refuse to get vaccinated, it will drag on for many years to come.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

As Wick's pencil mentioned, we are not talking about vaccines in general, this is about rushed unapproved vaccines for a disease that for must of us does not require a vaccine.

COVID vaccines in use for the population had safety and efficacy testing in order with a period already used in previous vaccines that had not problems. And since they are considered safe enough to be used in the general population this argument does not hold much weight. Up to this moment the vaccines are simply much safer for anybody immunized than COVID.

But not enough to get normal approval, only authorized for emergency use. And some of these covid19 vaccines that were "considered safe enough to be used in the general population" are banned in some countries. Hmmm, interesting that!

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

But not enough to get normal approval, only authorized for emergency use.

That do not depend on degree of safety, from where did you get that mistaken idea? something do not becomes safer with a different kind of approval. And specially it doesn't mean it is not hugely safer than COVID.

No vaccine being used in the general population is banned in any country, and they all still are safer than the infection. Even if every single case of clots were because of the vaccines it would still mean it reduces the risk compared with COVID. That is clear from the evidnece.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Yeah, same as being vaccinated, we can unknowingly spread it. Basically, the reason for taking the vaccine should be for your own protection (if you need it), there is no evidence it significantly helps to protect others.

The data on transmission is already being collected and it seems to indicate a very strong effect interrupting not only symptomatology but also detectable levels of infection and transmission.

Well, I will wait to see the actual paper after peer review. When you previously brought up these results in the Pfizer press release, it did mention something about differences in "test-seeking behaviors".

We do not have the details of the study, but perhaps transmission appears to go down because vaccinated people are less likely to get symptoms and therefore request a test.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Well, I will wait to see the actual paper after peer review. When you previously brought up these results in the Pfizer press release, it did mention something about differences in "test-seeking behaviors".

We do not have the details of the study, but perhaps transmission appears to go down because vaccinated people are less likely to get symptoms and therefore request a test

That makes no sense, your explanation would give no differences in the rates of infection not would it affect at all viral load, it would only give differences in the rates of testing. The article is already in preprint, open to peer reviewing from anybody interested all over the world. The trend of the reports is clear, so just insisting that it all must be mistaken does not hold much weight, for that you would at least need evidence that contradicts this trend.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

We have much experience with respiratory viruses and vaccines and, occasionally, we even get the right vaccine out for the particular 'flu' variant doing the viral world tour in any particular year. With that said, and with what appears to be a talent for adapting itself to new circumstances, SARS-CoV-2 could just switch from 'pan'demic to 'en'demic and become another "wonder of our modern world" like mass murders and Corporate parasites and be with Humanity for a long time in this 'great adventure' we all share, but not at all equally. And the thing we share the least equally is intelligence, such as those holding celebrations of mask burning and denial of the physical reality of viruses because their 'leader' told them it was an election ploy... Given our overcrowded and increasingly life challenging self-inflicted planetary circumstances, COVID-19 may simply be the FIRST such wave of species level disease because we have no idea of what new gifts the living world around us may have yet to be revealed and shared with the most foolishly hubristic animal for whole parsecs in any direction. And 'Science' is criticized by people who do not understand that 'science' is just our still very scant knowledge of this Universe and how it works. And it is because the critics are so profoundly ignorant of any knowledge of this place that they so greatly overestimate what we do know and can control. The 'theory' of vaccines has saved many lives but not ALL vaccines are the same, such as the disastrous Dengvaxa in the Philippines. Vaccines are a TOOL which, in practice, have proven very effective in shielding us from disease but mostly in particles with a low potential for genetic variation. Respiratory viruses in general and SARS-CoV-2 in particular demonstrate high variability as they travel through us so long term vaccine efficacy really cannot be predicted here. That the frequency of pandemic level disease will increase with our now exploding population is almost a given. Honestly, it's a very good time in this world to already be old and done...

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

A vaccine will play a major part, but not the only part. People will still have to wear masks for a while until this war against the corona virus is brought to an end. However, the vaccine will be important just as the polio vaccine was important for putting that awful fire out.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

No more so than flu vaccines are for the annual flu. we will eventually learn to live with this as a new endemiv virus (I hope).

1 ( +4 / -3 )

It's the "only" silver bullet we have. Social distancing and washing your hands will only work for so long. Vaccines have worked for so many other diseases, everyone roll up your sleeves and take a shot. I did 2 months ago and I felt nothing.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

No, the WHO and Fauci say it's not. We must listen to them and not question.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

This poll I think is a pretty great representation of how misinformation from mainstream media, mixed and contradictory statements from some health officials have completely stained trust in vaccination, way more than Anti-vaxxers.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been showed time and time again to reduce mortality rates dramatically, which is the main focus of the vaccine in the first place, to the point that for people vaccinated, even if vulnerable, the risk of dying of covid becomes completely irrelevant.

If that is not a "silver bullet", then nothing will ever be.

Irrational fear around scary variants, and speculation around what "might happen" in some future is just pure panic porn perpetrated by news organizations.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Weasel

Regimented doses of vaccines combined with face masks, and social distancing is what's needed. Unfortunately, those actions alone won't work, as society has never been disciplined enough to make it work.

Vaccines by themselves will work. Nobody talks about masks when talking about Measles.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

bogva

The corona/flu vaccines are different and are meant to be applied every year to have any meaning.

The smallpox/flu vaccines are different and are meant to be applied every year to have any meaning.

Wait, why am I conflating smallpox with the flu?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Matej

definitely not.

all vaccines except sputnik from Russia at at experimental level so untested and have many side effects.

One billion people have been vaccinated worldwide and you think it is untested? Wow!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Raw Beer

The only evidence I have seen indicating reduction in transmission was a comment by a doctor on a Pfizer press release.

You haven't been looking very far then. There are numerous studies that suggest that these vaccines drastically cut down transmission. Just look at Israel that seems to be close to achieving herd immunity. Infections have plummeted.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Kaerimashita

No more so than flu vaccines are for the annual flu. we will eventually learn to live with this as a new endemiv virus (I hope).

Why do you jump to that conclusion?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yet having a vaccine alone will not get a person into Japan unless they are a Japanese national or alien resident. I am embarrassed that Japan is doing such a poor job vaccinating its residents. It is easy to get the vaccine in the US. I have had both doses with no problems.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If people would bother to take 30 minutes to read about these "vaccines" they would conclude that they are not only ineffective, they are possibly very dangerous.

They tell us they won't make you immune (you can still catch it).

They tell us they won't keep you from spreading it.

So, would someone remind me why I should take an untested MRNA shot, a type of shot that has failed in previous attempts to bring to market? Even the former Chief Science Officer of Pfizer (Michael Yeadon) said it's potentially very dangerous.

And while you are at it, why does it requiree giving away free donuts (Krispy Kreme) and beer (Budweiser), holding hipster concerts (VaxxLive, with Jennifer Lopez), former U.S. Presidents (Clinton, Bush and Obama) urging people to get it and paying social media influencers to promote it?

If this is so safe and effective, let's see the CEOs, CEOs, CSOs and all VPs at Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Astra Zeneca and Moderna hold a televised event where they get their (verified) shots?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Its the globalist agenda to take down the economy of the world. After people are tired and desperate. Then the Great Reset begins. Look at the civil liberties are being destroyed, control of travel, social media censors, on and on.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

If people would bother to take 30 minutes to read about these "vaccines" they would conclude that they are not only ineffective, they are possibly very dangerous.

Except of course for all the professionals that do that for a living and concluded exactly the opposite?

You are mistaken and this can easily be proven. Vaccines help reducing infection, symptoms, death and transmission, that has been already corroborated, they are simply much safer than not vaccinated, they have been obviously tested, it is extremely successful, without any corroborated danger.

Now, explain exactly how is is that you believe the whole scientific and medical community of the world can pull out an incredibly difficult conspiracy to fool everybody in the world with well correlated data taken not only from human trials but also from millions of people in many countries, but somehow seeing important people getting a shot is a bigger proof of the safety of vaccines? You understand what would be easier to fake, right?

Its the globalist agenda to take down the economy of the world. After people are tired and desperate. Then the Great Reset begins. Look at the civil liberties are being destroyed, control of travel, social media censors, on and on.

Or is a dangerous pandemic that require action in order to avoid many unnecessary deaths, this explanation have multiple sources of evidence to prove it, yours?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

It is astounding to think some actually believe that Covid-19 is a global conspiracy between all the nations of the world who are so distrustful of each other that it has taken decades of data to convince them of climate change and the need to take corrective action on that issue. To think they all got together somehow, unbeknownst to all the worlds media, and colluded on a grand plan to release a "fake pandemic" and get global cooperation for some nefarious freedom and rights reducing plan to do nobody knows what. America and Iran cooperating with China and Russia and even the Vatican and every other country and territory on the planet in a conspiracy. There is more chance the moon is made of cheese than nations with so much hate for each other coming together to carry out anything so deceitful to the people of the world. Anyone actually truly believing such a thing defies all logic and they must be drug effected fools with the level of intelligence of gullible child. It would be funny if it wasn't so disturbingly sad.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

You are mistaken and this can easily be proven. Vaccines help reducing infection, symptoms, death and transmission, that has been already corroborated, they are simply much safer than not vaccinated, they have been obviously tested, it is extremely successful, without any corroborated danger.

Unfortunately not these COVID vaccines. Pfizer, Moderna, J&J and AstraZen do not reduce infection. The only goal was to reduce symptoms. Liquid Nyquil in the end and injectors will experience a slew of negative adverse events which you entirely ignore.

With such a scientific background I'm shocked you are perfectly fine with zero long term studies...not days but years. We are getting short term data from people who have already injected but long term effects remain to be seen.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Unfortunately not these COVID vaccines. Pfizer, Moderna, J&J and AstraZen do not reduce infection. The only goal was to reduce symptoms.

Sorry but that is mistaken, the vaccines do reduce infection rates, also symptoms, risk of complications, death and transmissibility. It is very easy to prove it since you will not find any reference that prove they do not, and the latest research results heavily indicate this.

Long term studies are unnecessary to prove the vaccine are less risky than the infection, which is the whole point. vaccines have not produced long term problems while COVID has, from neuronal degeneration to auotimmune problems.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

You haven't been looking very far then. There are numerous studies that suggest that these vaccines drastically cut down transmission. Just look at Israel that seems to be close to achieving herd immunity. Infections have plummeted.

Have infections plummeted? It does appear the number of symptomatics has decreased, but I am not convinced the actual transmissions have decreased.

There is a study based on the Israeli vaccinations that suggests transmissions are reduced by the vaccins, but some of the researchers in that study have serious conflicts of interest with Pfizer...

Long term studies are unnecessary to prove the vaccine are less risky than the infection

Long term studies are obviously necessary to prove the vaccines are less risky in the long term. There is no data proving they are less risky in the long term.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Have infections plummeted? It does appear the number of symptomatics has decreased, but I am not convinced the actual transmissions have decreased.

Infectious will drop as long as the rate of immunity close to the theoretical point of herd immunity, it is pointless to say they have "only" reduced before that point. Because it is not what is predicted to happen.

Conflicts of interest do not automatically disqualify studies, they are useful to explain why problems detected are present, and obviously a reference is needed for this to be even proved. Just saying that any and all studies about reduction of transmissibility "must" have them is not enough.

Long term studies are not necessary to compare between two options when one is already been identified as a source of long term risk, because this option (in this case the COVID infection) can already be considered a higher risk until the other option has the same evidence, at this point all long term risks from the vaccine are purely imaginary, which puts them in the same category as imaginary benefits (preventing cancer, improving general health, making easier to keep a good mental health) without evidence both positive and negative consequences are exactly the same.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Sorry but that is mistaken, the vaccines do reduce infection rates, also symptoms, risk of complications, death and transmissibility. It is very easy to prove it since you will not find any reference that prove they do not, and the latest research results heavily indicate this.

No, unfortunately not. Some vaccines do reduce infection (chicken pox vaccine works but causes painful nerve stinging Shingles during the later years - natural infection / immunity is an inconvenience but preferable).

You say reduces death but these COVID vaxxes increased deaths:

3,486 DEATHS in the U.S. Following COVID Injections in 4 Months: More Vaccine Deaths Recorded Than the Past 15 Years COMBINED

The CDC announced this week that deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a U.S. Government funded database that tracks injuries and deaths caused by vaccines, following experimental COVID injections, have now recorded 3,486 deaths since December of 2020, when the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID shots were given emergency use authorization (EUA) by the FDA.

Reduced COVID infection rates? Gimme a break. Search "Breakthrough COVID cases" and you will find that people are still contracting COVID in so many US states and some have died. This vax is a joke.

Long term studies are unnecessary to prove the vaccine are less risky than the infection, which is the whole point. vaccines have not produced long term problems while COVID has, from neuronal degeneration to auotimmune problems.

Long term studies are unnecessary? By saying that I would say you must be representing pharma in all forms to make sure everyone follows the narrative and vaccinates their family.

Vaccines have not produced long term problems? I know you are not fond of VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) that provide CDC data on negative side effects from all vaccines because is puts Pharma at risk when more and more people find out about it.

For VAERS in UK search: UK Yellow Card Coronavirus Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting

These COVID vaxxes have in fact produced a slew of negative side effects (yes, even death which is being censored):

Chest pain, Headache, Nausea, Dizziness, Vomiting, Blood pressure increase, Hives, Facial swelling, Lip swelling, Whole body rash, Itchiness (eyes, throat), Analphylactic shock (get your epipen ready), Belle's Palsy (paralyzed on one side of face), Blood clots, Miscarriages, Permanent Disability, Emergency Room visit, Hospitalized, Birth Defect, Life Threatening, Death

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Long term studies are not necessary to compare between two options when one is already been identified as a source of long term risk, because this option (in this case the COVID infection) can already be considered a higher risk until the other option has the same evidence, at this point all long term risks from the vaccine are purely imaginary...

I'd have to say your scientific background is entirely pharma science and not actually science based and puts people at risk. Already children (2 year old died and 12 year old paralyzed from the waist down) have been injured from Pfizer and Moderna's vaxx testing to inject all children this year. I wonder if you even care...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GKIFgmm7xI

A regional independent drug assessment center, the CTIAP (Centre territorial d’Information indépendante et d’Avis pharmaceutiques), which is linked to the Cholet public hospital in the west of France, recently published a report showing that the vaccines used against COVID were not only submitted to insufficient clinical testing, but that the quality of the active substances, their “excipients, some of which are new,” and the manufacturing processes are problematic. “These new excipients should be considered as new active substances,” the Cholet hospital team stated, in a study that according to them raises issues that have not been commented to date.

All of the studies submitted during the MA application are summarized in the EPAR (European Public Assessment Report). This report is published on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) website. The planned studies, not yet completed, are also included.

This schedule, which “extends from 2021 to at least 2024,” depending on which COVID-19 vaccine is involved, is defined in the “annexes” of the conditional marketing authorization and in the published EPARs.

As an example, the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine received this European conditional MA on December 21, 2020. And the deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of this vaccine is “December 2023.”

The Moderna vaccine was granted marketing authorization on January 6, 2021. The deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the vaccine is “December 2022” at the earliest.

AstraZeneca’s vaccine was granted marketing authorization on January 29, 2021. The deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the vaccine is “March 2024.”

The Janssen vaccine was granted conditional European marketing authorization on March 11, 2021. The deadline for submitting “confirmation” of the vaccine’s efficacy, safety and tolerance is “December 2023.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-drug-assessment-center-demands-removal-of-all-four-widely-used-covid-vaccines

Safety studies do not conclude until after 2022-2024. I know you'll probably ignore that information that everyone is just a guinea pig in this experiment but the reply is for others to read as an opposing opinion to Pharma's narrative.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Antivaxxer propaganda is becoming more and more desperate the longer the vaccines have proved everything that they feared it would be proved, that they are safe, effective and a huge relief from the situation until now.

Trying to misrepresent the well performed safety trials as insufficient, while trying to ignore the evidence of close to a billion doses already performed that confirm the trials.

Forcefully attributing to vaccines anything bad that happens to people, even extreme examples that only happened once (out of the millions people vaccinated) as if it was rational to think the only possibility was that the vaccine caused it, instead of the obvious opposite.

Misleading people with VAERS data without mentioning that the same data proves that people vaccinated have no increase of risk of any important complication and that deaths are the same with or without the vaccine.

Insisting on imaginary dangers and the supposed need of long term studies, while desperately trying to hide the fact that COVID already has proved correlation with long term and permanent health problems, so the vaccine is still safer, even for the long term.

At the end the conclusion is that science (as in every recognized medical and scientific institution of the world) vouch for the huge value of the vaccines, even if science deniers try to misrepresent this as "big pharma".

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

(chicken pox vaccine works but causes painful nerve stinging Shingles during the later years - natural infection / immunity is an inconvenience but preferable

You've completely misunderstood both chickenpox and shingles. You've misunderstood vaccination as well, but that's a given.

After recovery from chickenpox (usually contracted in childhood), inactive virus remains in the body. Shingles occurs later (usually in middle age or older) and is caused by reactivation of the virus. This is what happens even with natural infection resulting in natural immunity to chickenpox, which is why it has been observed for centuries, and the link with the chickenpox virus has been known for over a century.

Chickenpox vaccination has only been routine since the mid-1990s, and almost everyone older than that remains unvaccinated and has natural immunity from contracting chickenpox in childhood. They do not have immunity from shingles, and nor do people vaccinated against chickenpox.

There is a vaccine for shingles, and the most recently approved has very high efficacy. In the US, it is recommended for people aged 50 or over.

With "natural" you don't get to pick and choose the bits you like. Most diseases are natural, so you can't choose an assumed natural immunity to shingles over the most distressing effects of the disease itself - and it can be fatal, by the way.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@wipeout

"Shingles usually appears as a painful rash in a line on one side of the body with spots that look like chickenpox spots. 

Shingles becomes increasingly common with age - in those over 55 years, there is also an increasing risk of the pain persisting even after the spots have completely healed.

This is very expensive for the health system to manage as the treatments generally don't work very well and are costly. 

Some studies have indicated the risk of shingles in older adults is reduced by exposure to children who have chickenpox during the adult's life. 

This results in a boost of immune responses against the virus and delays the waning of immunity which would eventually lead to shingles.

So why doesn't the UK use the chickenpox vaccine for children if it is safe and effective at preventing severe disease? 

All vaccines in the UK are assessed for their cost-effectiveness to ensure the health budget spent on services which provide the greatest health benefit for the population as a whole.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation's (JCVI) last review found there could be an increase in the rate of shingles in adults over time, which would make the vaccine programme not cost-effective.

This is because, if chickenpox in children disappears as a result of a vaccine programme, adults would no longer have their immunity (to shingles).

Put simply, the conclusion of the previous review was it would not be cost-effective for the NHS to immunise children against chickenpox."

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Antivaxxer propaganda is becoming more and more desperate the longer the vaccines have proved everything that they feared it would be proved, that they are safe, effective and a huge relief from the situation until now.

No one is desperate here. You already know that I am not antivaxxer but resort to that verbiage as a last resort. I am PRO SAFE COVID VAX and seeing what is happening there is no SAFE COVID VAX for you to take.

You are only pushing compliance to Pharma and avoiding the need for long term data. I'd call that Pharma based science and not scientific at all.

These COVID vaxxes are NOT SAFE, HAVE ZERO LONG TERM STUDIES, still cause infection and transmission (search "COVID Breakthrough cases in vaccinated" ) with negative side effects that still can lead to permanent disability and death.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

No one is desperate here. You already know that I am not antivaxxer but resort to that verbiage as a last resort. I am PRO SAFE COVID VAX and seeing what is happening there is no SAFE COVID VAX for you to take.

Every point in the post you keep copy-pasted was demonstrated as false, so much that you could not defend even one. The scientific consensus have already proved that the COVID vaccines are much safer than not vaccinated, and there is no recognized medical or scientific institution in the world that says something different. Desperation is trying to misrepresent them all as if they were part of the "big pharma" excuse, sorry but it is science that proved all the misleading information you use as false.

Science, medicine say the COVID vaccines are safe, effective and you have no evidence to the contrary, insisting on information that was easy to demonstrate mistaken so easily does nothing to prove it is not false, it just helps making evident that you have no real arguments anymore.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

After recovery from chickenpox (usually contracted in childhood), inactive virus remains in the body. Shingles occurs later (usually in middle age or older) and is caused by reactivation of the virus. This is what happens even with natural infection resulting in natural immunity to chickenpox, which is why it has been observed for centuries, and the link with the chickenpox virus has been known for over a century.

Chickenpox vaccination has only been routine since the mid-1990s, and almost everyone older than that remains unvaccinated and has natural immunity from contracting chickenpox in childhood. They do not have immunity from shingles, and nor do people vaccinated against chickenpox.

Here's an article which you will find fascinating:

"Vaccinating one-year-olds against chickenpox could temporarily nearly double the incidence of shingles in the wider population, but in younger adults than previously thought.

The effect occurs because vaccination reduces the likelihood of adults who experienced chickenpox as a child being re-exposed to the virus. Re-exposure boosts immunity to shingles, caused by the same virus, Varicella-zoster virus.

In a study to be published in the journal eLife, scientists from the Universities of Antwerp and Hasselt (Belgium) have predicted that the temporary effect of a rise in shingles cases dominates in 31 to 40-year-olds. This is younger than previously predicted and this age group is less at risk of developing the most serious shingles symptoms. Many countries have avoided introducing universal chickenpox vaccination in children because it was previously predicted that the reduction in chickenpox related disease would be outbalanced by the temporarily increase in shingles-related disease.

A new model developed by the scientists also confounds previous findings on the length of time re-exposure chickenpox boosts immunity to shingles. The effect was thought to last for up to 20 years, but results of the current modeling study show it only lasts for two. The new model is the first based on real immunological and virological data from individuals.

*"We were surprised to find that re-exposure to chickenpox is beneficial for so few years and also that the most pronounced effect of vaccination on increasing cases of shingles is in younger adults," says lead author Dr Benson Ogunjimi.*

"Our findings should allay some fears about implementing childhood chickenpox vaccination," he says."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150811103555.htm

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Here's an article which you will find fascinating:

It is not everyday but it is nice to see you recognize your mistake, at least enough to provide proof of what you believed is actually false and that vaccinating against chickenpox is much more beneficial than risky, even taking in account shingles (for which a safe and effective vaccine is available).

Or as your own source says

"Our findings should allay some fears about implementing childhood chickenpox vaccination," he says."

The study demonstrate the protection from exposure to chickenpox infection is short lived and that vaccination is not going to increase importantly the risk for older adults.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

"The annual incidence of shingles for those aged 70 to 79 years is estimated to be around 790 to 880 cases per 100,000 people in England and Wales"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/503773/2905109_Green_Book_Chapter_28a_v3_0W.PDF

Those are far from trivial numbers, and they represent people who have "natural immunity" - that is, the immunity to chickenpox they got from actually contracting the disease, plus any boost to that immunity that may have occurred from further exposure to the virus - seeing as Britain still doesn't routinely vaccinate.

This is not particularly wonderful immunity to shingles in older people. Shingles also hits middle-aged people, has extremely unpleasant and painful symptoms, and can even be fatal.

Then there's chickenpox itself, one of the classic childhood diseases. The problem with those - in some imaginations benign - diseases is that while they may be fairly mild in most cases, it is certainly not always so. Chickenpox is far less of a worry than measles, but is still capable of being fatal in young children or of having serious and lasting outcomes. Another problem with childhood diseases is that some children in the unvaccinated populations don't get them at all in the first few years of life, but contract them later, either in their teenage years or as adults. They spend the first part of their life with no immunity at all to these diseases, then experience severe symptoms when they eventually catch them.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

was happy to see vaccine related news without the collection of fake news "some" users really love to spam on them, didn't notice the spam were all concentrated in one single piece of news, nice collection of lies to keep the site as a repository in the antivaxxer forums

0 ( +1 / -1 )

According to NHK, a paltry 157,864 people were vaccinated in Japan on April 22. At that rate, it will be 2 more years before everyone in Japan is vaccinated.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

For economic recovery and travel liberties to recommence (like it or not) vaccinations to at least herd immunity are necessary.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I certainly would want to be vaccinated. I miss my parents, my sister, my friends, my travels. Vaccines is my passport to return to normal life.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It's not that we do not trust 'vaccines', per se, it's that we do not trust the psychopaths who sell them. And knowing little of the mechanics of viruses, vaccines, or the tiniest fact of how the machine we live in work, we must rely on AUTHORITIES who, we know, favor their own welfare well above ours. Fear is to be expected. And most of the discussion above in not about vaccines but about what other people say or try to hide about vaccines. For the most part regarding what will happen next, nobody knows...

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Antivaxxer losers everywhere ..

A cheers for them.. "to the losers!!"..

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Raw Beer

Have infections plummeted? It does appear the number of symptomatics has decreased, but I am not convinced the actual transmissions have decreased.

Yes. infections have plummeted. Especially in countries, like Israel, that have a high vaccination rate. Remember, that you need 70%+ vaccination of the general population before you start to get herd immunity.

There is a study based on the Israeli vaccinations that suggests transmissions are reduced by the vaccines, but some of the researchers in that study have serious conflicts of interest with Pfizer...

Maybe, but just look at the numbers of infections in Israel. Cases have plummeted since the start of the year.

Long term studies are obviously necessary to prove the vaccines are less risky in the long term. There is no data proving they are less risky in the long term.

No they aren't because the risk of Covid include serious health effects of long covid and death.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites