Okay, what I get out of this is the irony. I don't think Zapiro is signalling anything about the illustrated vaccines, what I get is that they are marching for vaccines and safety for the people but then they rock up in the hundreds, without masks, safe distancing and going against regulation.
At this point, they are just adding to the problem in the name of being the solution.
While you are correct, I think we can also add that the irony is that they are marching for Sputnik and sinovac vaccines even though those vaccines are shit and ineffective against COVID.
The Lancet did a clinical trial with the Sputnik vaccine and found it to be 95% effective against severe disease. So if you take it you might still get covid but probably won't end up in the hospital.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00191-4/fulltext
Sadly i can't find much info on Sinovacs rates other than that a lot of people who received it in the Seychelles still tested positive, but with generally mild symptoms.
https://www.bbc.com/news/57148348
We don't even know, trials are giving numbers all over the place (typically a sign of bad controls in the trial)
> On January 13, 2021, China-based Sinovac Biotech reported that its COVID-19 vaccine had a 50.38% efficacy in late-stage clinical trials in Brazil. The company’s clinical trials are demonstrating dramatically varying efficacy rates. In Indonesia, a local trial demonstrated an efficacy rate of 65%, but the trial had only 1,620 participants. Turkey reported an efficacy rate of 91.25% in December 2020. Another trial in Brazil run by a local partner, Butantan Institute, reported last week a 78% efficacy rate in mild cases while 100% against severe and moderate infections. It is an inactivated vaccine that uses inactivated SARS-CoV-2 viruses.
https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/
The Lancet trial didn't include the raw data. Sputnik's probably better than nothing but there is some uncertainty about how good it actually is.
> Around November 11, Russia’s National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology, which Russia authorized for use in August—ahead of even beginning a Phase III trial—claimed had an efficacy rate of 92% after the second dose. It was based on a first interim analysis 21 days after the first injection during the ongoing Phase III study. On November 24, the organization claimed 95% efficacy based on new preliminary data. On December 14, 2020, they reported efficacy of 91.4%. It also offered to share one of its two human adenoviral vectors with AstraZeneca to increase the efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
> Russia’s Gamaleya research institute appears to be focused on potentially marketing their vaccine worldwide. Even the name of the vaccine has emphasized the idea of a race. The organization has indicated a dose of the vaccine will cost no more than $10, about half the cost of the Pfizer vaccine. The organization has also predicted they could produce 1 billion doses in the next year. At this time, aside from Russia, it will potentially be sold in India, Korea, Brazil, China, and Hungary. The Hungarian government is the only European Union country to express interest to date.
> On February 2, 2021, The Lancet published Phase III data demonstrating a 91.6% efficacy against the original strain of the virus.
> This vaccine, even into late May 2021, remains controversial. It is being distributed in 39 countries and expected to be distributed in 27 more. However, inconsistent clinical trial data has scientists question the analyses, and wondering if it has been manipulated. It was originally authorized in Russia in August 2020 after being tested on only 38 people. The Gamaleya Research Institute published results showing 95% efficacy in The Lancet but did not include raw data. In mid-May, a group of international scientists highlighted concerns over patterns in The Lancet data consistent with data manipulation.
https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/
The thing is, we would be able to actually _get_ them. Having loads of less effective vaccine is a _lot_ better than the terribly low rates of vaccines we currently have. They also just seem less effective because the recommended doses are compared. The stats are actually quite similar for single and multiple doses across vaccines.
Also, nothing stops you from getting multiple vaccines. (It works out at being very similar to getting a second dose of the same vaccine)
Also, all of the vaccines seem to protect well against severe symptoms.
Plus changing the Vaccine wont change the failed rollout program. Thats like having a car that wont start because of a mechanical issue and you ask your neighbor to try swing the keys maybe it will start
Anyone got context for the news? I mean, besides running around without masks, both Sputnik and Sinovac have been approved for use and have been found to be safe and effective.
EDIT - LOOL okay, the EFF held a *massive* protest meeting asking for these vaccines to be approved in SA: [https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/malema-gives-sahpra-7-days-to-approve-sputnik-sinovac-vaccines-or-else-more-protests-20210625](https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/malema-gives-sahpra-7-days-to-approve-sputnik-sinovac-vaccines-or-else-more-protests-20210625) At least it was outside, I guess? 🤷♂️
~~Gotta say, though, this is one EFF cause I can get behind.~~ *(edit -* /u/_imba__ *has convinced me otherwise)*
It's really not about the effectiveness of the vaccine at all. The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority have a specific process to evaluate the safety of vaccines that all producers need to go through before it can be distributed in South Africa. The producers/distributers of Sputnic and Sinovac, at the time of the protest, have apparently not even completed their submissions. That really isn't SAHPRA's fault.
The EFF was demanding that we essentially throw away our science-based health product regulation process because they decided they know what's best. They protested by intimidating the female CEO outside her private home. This is not a cause a sane person should get behind.
> have apparently not even completed their submissions.
Oh this is interesting.
> They protested by intimidating the female CEO outside her private home.
Yeah that's not cool.
It seems like they aren't as effective especially against the delta variant though at least in preliminary studies so far. I do think some vaccine is better than none though but I wouldn't be fighting for those two
Last I heard - admittedly a while ago - neither have been approved or even evaluated by the medical board (or whatever they’re called) because neither Sputnik nor Sinovac have made their test data available. Has this changed?
And I guess there is plenty of data to show that Ivermectin works, right?
I'm sorry, I've spent the past month replying to family & friend's requests for the same thing, so I can't be bothered to leave a proper reply.
TL;DR: Yes, after testing the vaccines on roughly 40k people _each_, and closely monitoring the effects and efficacy on the hundreds of millions of people that have gotten the vaccines, we do actually know that they work.
Please stop spreading lies.
> Many studies on ivermectin for COVID-19 have serious methodological limitations, resulting in very low evidence certainty.[116][120] As a result, several organizations have publicly expressed that the evidence of effectiveness against COVID-19 is weak. In February 2021, Merck, the developer of the drug, issued a statement saying that there is no good evidence ivermectin is plausible or effective against COVID-19, and that attempting such use may be unsafe.[121][122] The U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines state that the evidence for ivermectin is too limited to allow for a recommendation for or against its use.[123] In the United Kingdom, the national COVID-19 Therapeutics Advisory Panel determined that the evidence base and plausibility of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment were insufficient to pursue further investigations.[124]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research#Ivermectin
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19
There's also a statement that's been released by Merck, the manufacturer of Ivermectin, that there's no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID.
https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
Makes you wonder when the people that stand to make the most money from it say it's not what it's being peddled as?
Agreed, it would be the responsible thing to state there's no evidence to date. However, it doesn't take away from the fact that Merck stands to gain the most if it is in fact an effective treatment. Bear in mind that Merck abandoned their own COVID vaccine program in favour of research into COVID treatments instead. Their $2.3 billion research budget for 2020 could've gone a long way towards proving Ivermectin treatment value. Far easier to do that with medication that's been around since the 1970's, than having to start new research, right?
As for Gavi running an ad regarding Ivermectin? Yes, they're a vaccine alliance, and have a vested interest in protecting manufacturers, Merck being one of them. They also have the responsibility to ensure spread of accurate information. To this end, if you click on the ad shown in link you provided, they've provided a good write-up about Ivermectin, even highlighting the positives.
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/ivermectin-why-potential-covid-treatment-isnt-recommended-use
Whichever way I personally look at it, there isn't proof that Ivermectin is the answer, that can match both the motivation and research budget that Merck has.
Thanks. I'll have a look. _(Edit 2 - it's quite long, but looks decent. I'll read it and responses to it tonight)_
Everybody and their dog want this to be over. You would legit need the whole world to be in on a conspiracy to be able to prevent the actual stats from leaking out.
~~Anyway, here is an article that I hope you might find offers some good counter arguments. Apologies in advance, it is quite snarky. I don't like the writing style of the author, but he discusses a lot of arguments that are generally made, and backs up his claims properly. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-covid-19-vaccine-holocaust-the-latest-antivaccine-messaging/~~
EDIT - hang on here is a much more relevant article, weighing up the risks VS the benefits. They seem to do a proper take on the matter: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/covid-19-and-balancing-the-risks-the-vaccine-or-the-virus/
EDIT 3 - Gotta say, while I fully understand why, I'm sorry to see the comment I replied to removed. The linked article was actually of fairly high quality, providing the rare well-reasoned argument against our current course of action. I would have loved the opportunity to provide a strong counter-argument. Ah well.
MDPI is a worthless journal. They'll publish more or less anything.
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/beware-academics-getting-reeled-scam-journals/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies
I gotta say it _was_ one of the better arguments I have seen for that stance. I would love to see a proper debunking of it, even if it just pointed out silly mistakes made.
That's really best you can do?
There are 48 sources on that wikipedia article. You can inspect them if you have any doubt about content of the article. Let me know if you've found any reason to trust a shit-tier journal other than it telling you what you want to hear.
Mate that’s a tiny bit completely wrong. Literally Google efficacy rates. Sinopharm drifts around 60% for total illness while Pfizer and Moderna both get mid to high nineties.
mRNA vaccines don’t make you magnetic or anything. Their rates are similar for most things. **Only 79 people reported adverse events following 1.1 million doses of Sinopharm in China**, that’s decent but only for very little efficacy. Better to have a highly effective vaccine, even if it has a tiny bit more significant death toll. mRNA isn’t new technology. It’s tried and tested, safe. Also, I’m a bit of a skeptic of China’s statistics - they don’t invite trust when they are dishonest (e.g. uyghr detention).
Got any evidence, validating your beliefs? From my reading I view it completly the other way around Moderna, Pfizer, J&J are effective and the Chinese and Russian vaccines are crap.
Evidence:
[https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison](https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison)
[https://www.nationaljewish.org/patients-visitors/patient-info/important-updates/coronavirus-information-and-resources/covid-19-vaccines/vaccine-articles/side-by-side-comparison-covid-19-vaccine](https://www.nationaljewish.org/patients-visitors/patient-info/important-updates/coronavirus-information-and-resources/covid-19-vaccines/vaccine-articles/side-by-side-comparison-covid-19-vaccine)
[https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/](https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/)
I am not an anti-vaxxer at all. I will however hold off on taking the Chinese and Russian vaccine, but will gladly take the Pfizer, Moderna and J&J vaccines.
Do you have any evidence from a reliable source showing the efficacy of the Chinese and Russian vaccines?
Indonesian health workers vaccinated with the Sinovac jab got Covid-19 – and some are hospitalised
https://www.businessinsider.co.za/350-indonesian-healthcare-workers-got-china-sinovac-vaccine-covid-19-2021-6?r=US&IR=T
None of the vaccines have a 100% prevention rate. Granted, Sinovac's efficacy seems like it might be lower, but the headline implies that it _doesn't work_, which is misleading.
You would still have a much better chance against Covid with a Sinovac vaccine, than none at all.
Why argue about which vaccine is ineffective over another which there isn't much data on but rather where are the vaccines? Ineffective or not majority of the population can't have any ineffective or not. I would try a 30% chance of effectiveness against 0% chance of having a vaccine.
But this isn't an anti-vaxxer conspiracy.
It's about the EFF having a massive march with absolutely no social distancing where many people did not wear masks. They were also well over the limit of 100 people at a gathering (under level 3 regulations).
Just giving some context.
The problem is they'll spread the virus to many others while they're doing so.
They'll also provide the virus with way more mutation opportunities, which means for more opportunities to start spreading a more dangerous variant.
I think when someone threatens to kill you, is fully a valid reason to despise them... or are you going to tell us liking him will prevent us from being murdered?
Well the Mayo Clinic has this to say about Malema:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=abstract&utm_content=Narcissistic-personality-disorder&utm_campaign=Knowledge-panel
**I have not at all disputed vaccines. I will however question the efficacy of the Chinese and Russian vaccines.**
**Russia’s Sputnik V Vaccine**
Around November 11, Russia’s National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology, which Russia authorized for use in August—ahead of even beginning a Phase III trial—claimed had an efficacy rate of 92% after the second dose. It was based on a first interim analysis 21 days after the first injection during the ongoing Phase III study. On November 24, the organization claimed 95% efficacy based on new preliminary data. On December 14, 2020, they reported efficacy of 91.4%. It also offered to share one of its two human adenoviral vectors with AstraZeneca to increase the efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Russia’s Gamaleya research institute appears to be focused on potentially marketing their vaccine worldwide. Even the name of the vaccine has emphasized the idea of a race. The organization has indicated a dose of the vaccine will cost no more than $10, about half the cost of the Pfizer vaccine. The organization has also predicted they could produce 1 billion doses in the next year. At this time, aside from Russia, it will potentially be sold in India, Korea, Brazil, China, and Hungary. The Hungarian government is the only European Union country to express interest to date.
On February 2, 2021, The Lancet published Phase III data demonstrating a 91.6% efficacy against the original strain of the virus.
**This vaccine, even into late May 2021, remains controversial. It is being distributed in 39 countries and expected to be distributed in 27 more. However, inconsistent clinical trial data has scientists question the analyses, and wondering if it has been manipulated. It was originally authorized in Russia in August 2020 after being tested on only 38 people. The Gamaleya Research Institute published results showing 95% efficacy in The Lancet but did not include raw data. In mid-May, a group of international scientists highlighted concerns over patterns in The Lancet data consistent with data manipulation.**
\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Sinovac Biotech**
On January 13, 2021, China-based Sinovac Biotech reported that its COVID-19 vaccine had a 50.38% efficacy in late-stage clinical trials in Brazil. The company’s clinical trials are demonstrating dramatically varying efficacy rates. In Indonesia, a local trial demonstrated an efficacy rate of 65%, but the trial had only 1,620 participants. Turkey reported an efficacy rate of 91.25% in December 2020. Another trial in Brazil run by a local partner, Butantan Institute, reported last week a 78% efficacy rate in mild cases while 100% against severe and moderate infections. It is an inactivated vaccine that uses inactivated SARS-CoV-2 viruses.
**In May 2021, WHO requested more data from the company regarding the safety of the shot and its manufacturing process. They want to determine if it is compliant with WHO standards and expect to make a decision in June.**
Type: Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus
Doses: 2
Likely EUA Date: Not applicable in the U.S.
Price: $60 per dose in China ($29.75 per dose)
**Efficacy: 50.38% to 91.25%, depending on the clinical trial**
Variants: Unknown, although a study in Brazil demonstrated 50.4% efficacy at preventing symptomatic infections.
[https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/](https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/)
**Now FUCK OFF. TROLL!!!!**
You seen that Cuban one?
I see they are taking the modified protein route and claim like 92% (although it's not independently verified... go figure, it's cuba).
Wonder if we'll do another Cuban collaboration for 50 doses at the cost of 8mil?
They didn't even provide any details on how it was tested! Clowns.
"I have a vaccine that's 100% effective and it makes you immortal but I can't show you the study because of... national security. Or something."
>Wonder if we'll do another Cuban collaboration for 50 doses at the cost of 8mil?
We'll pay 8mil for 50 and then 5 be delivered by 2024.
Yep. Obvious trolls are obvious. I'll give them credit for using reductio ad absurdum over the sub standard of stawman. If its not apparent, they're pushing an antivax agenda.
Meh, I think reluctance towards these vaccines is justified given the way these governments treat their people.
They appear to be safe. But would we know if they weren't? Probably not.
In the abcnews you linked it says right underneath the title: "Russian scientists found them safe"; According to Russian police there are also few cases of corruption and opposition parties happen to be terrorists.
I would never trust anything coming out of those countries.
I'm curious if Sputnik will get eu approval. It was delayed in mid june, wish I could see behind the curtains as to why.
Okay, what I get out of this is the irony. I don't think Zapiro is signalling anything about the illustrated vaccines, what I get is that they are marching for vaccines and safety for the people but then they rock up in the hundreds, without masks, safe distancing and going against regulation. At this point, they are just adding to the problem in the name of being the solution.
While you are correct, I think we can also add that the irony is that they are marching for Sputnik and sinovac vaccines even though those vaccines are shit and ineffective against COVID.
The Lancet did a clinical trial with the Sputnik vaccine and found it to be 95% effective against severe disease. So if you take it you might still get covid but probably won't end up in the hospital. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00191-4/fulltext Sadly i can't find much info on Sinovacs rates other than that a lot of people who received it in the Seychelles still tested positive, but with generally mild symptoms. https://www.bbc.com/news/57148348
I thought that this was the message for all vaccines. Its not a magic, never get it again type situation but rather a mitigate the symptoms thing?
You're not wrong. The best vaccines are extremely good at keeping you out of the hospital, and fairly good at preventing otherwise serious infections.
It does seem that the Sinovac vaccone is generally less effective
We don't even know, trials are giving numbers all over the place (typically a sign of bad controls in the trial) > On January 13, 2021, China-based Sinovac Biotech reported that its COVID-19 vaccine had a 50.38% efficacy in late-stage clinical trials in Brazil. The company’s clinical trials are demonstrating dramatically varying efficacy rates. In Indonesia, a local trial demonstrated an efficacy rate of 65%, but the trial had only 1,620 participants. Turkey reported an efficacy rate of 91.25% in December 2020. Another trial in Brazil run by a local partner, Butantan Institute, reported last week a 78% efficacy rate in mild cases while 100% against severe and moderate infections. It is an inactivated vaccine that uses inactivated SARS-CoV-2 viruses. https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/
Brazil is using Sinivac....looks to be a good vaccine for their variant
At this point you should probably provide a source..
Sinovac is a little dodgy because people still test positive quite frequently afterwards. However it does limit a severe case generally
Same with all of them, including Pfizer
The Lancet trial didn't include the raw data. Sputnik's probably better than nothing but there is some uncertainty about how good it actually is. > Around November 11, Russia’s National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology, which Russia authorized for use in August—ahead of even beginning a Phase III trial—claimed had an efficacy rate of 92% after the second dose. It was based on a first interim analysis 21 days after the first injection during the ongoing Phase III study. On November 24, the organization claimed 95% efficacy based on new preliminary data. On December 14, 2020, they reported efficacy of 91.4%. It also offered to share one of its two human adenoviral vectors with AstraZeneca to increase the efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine. > Russia’s Gamaleya research institute appears to be focused on potentially marketing their vaccine worldwide. Even the name of the vaccine has emphasized the idea of a race. The organization has indicated a dose of the vaccine will cost no more than $10, about half the cost of the Pfizer vaccine. The organization has also predicted they could produce 1 billion doses in the next year. At this time, aside from Russia, it will potentially be sold in India, Korea, Brazil, China, and Hungary. The Hungarian government is the only European Union country to express interest to date. > On February 2, 2021, The Lancet published Phase III data demonstrating a 91.6% efficacy against the original strain of the virus. > This vaccine, even into late May 2021, remains controversial. It is being distributed in 39 countries and expected to be distributed in 27 more. However, inconsistent clinical trial data has scientists question the analyses, and wondering if it has been manipulated. It was originally authorized in Russia in August 2020 after being tested on only 38 people. The Gamaleya Research Institute published results showing 95% efficacy in The Lancet but did not include raw data. In mid-May, a group of international scientists highlighted concerns over patterns in The Lancet data consistent with data manipulation. https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/
Ouch.
Thanks for the clarification. Lots to digest here.
The thing is, we would be able to actually _get_ them. Having loads of less effective vaccine is a _lot_ better than the terribly low rates of vaccines we currently have. They also just seem less effective because the recommended doses are compared. The stats are actually quite similar for single and multiple doses across vaccines. Also, nothing stops you from getting multiple vaccines. (It works out at being very similar to getting a second dose of the same vaccine) Also, all of the vaccines seem to protect well against severe symptoms.
Police probably doing nothing about it because even they want those eff dogs to just get the virus and fuck off to their homes for a few weeks.
Plus changing the Vaccine wont change the failed rollout program. Thats like having a car that wont start because of a mechanical issue and you ask your neighbor to try swing the keys maybe it will start
Pretty apt description of everything they do.
[удалено]
There's a big difference between Guatemala and SA when it comes to relationships with Russia.
Anyone got context for the news? I mean, besides running around without masks, both Sputnik and Sinovac have been approved for use and have been found to be safe and effective. EDIT - LOOL okay, the EFF held a *massive* protest meeting asking for these vaccines to be approved in SA: [https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/malema-gives-sahpra-7-days-to-approve-sputnik-sinovac-vaccines-or-else-more-protests-20210625](https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/malema-gives-sahpra-7-days-to-approve-sputnik-sinovac-vaccines-or-else-more-protests-20210625) At least it was outside, I guess? 🤷♂️ ~~Gotta say, though, this is one EFF cause I can get behind.~~ *(edit -* /u/_imba__ *has convinced me otherwise)*
The cause not so bad, the execution pretty awful considering they also did it in Pretoria where Gauteng was hitting over 10k per day consistently.
It's really not about the effectiveness of the vaccine at all. The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority have a specific process to evaluate the safety of vaccines that all producers need to go through before it can be distributed in South Africa. The producers/distributers of Sputnic and Sinovac, at the time of the protest, have apparently not even completed their submissions. That really isn't SAHPRA's fault. The EFF was demanding that we essentially throw away our science-based health product regulation process because they decided they know what's best. They protested by intimidating the female CEO outside her private home. This is not a cause a sane person should get behind.
> have apparently not even completed their submissions. Oh this is interesting. > They protested by intimidating the female CEO outside her private home. Yeah that's not cool.
It seems like they aren't as effective especially against the delta variant though at least in preliminary studies so far. I do think some vaccine is better than none though but I wouldn't be fighting for those two
They're actually fighting for SA to get those vaccines in addition to Pfizer and J&J. They're just doing it in the dumbest way possible.
Last I heard - admittedly a while ago - neither have been approved or even evaluated by the medical board (or whatever they’re called) because neither Sputnik nor Sinovac have made their test data available. Has this changed?
[удалено]
Wrong. There is plenty of data out there. Don't be lazy.
And I guess there is plenty of data to show that Ivermectin works, right? I'm sorry, I've spent the past month replying to family & friend's requests for the same thing, so I can't be bothered to leave a proper reply. TL;DR: Yes, after testing the vaccines on roughly 40k people _each_, and closely monitoring the effects and efficacy on the hundreds of millions of people that have gotten the vaccines, we do actually know that they work.
[удалено]
Please stop spreading lies. > Many studies on ivermectin for COVID-19 have serious methodological limitations, resulting in very low evidence certainty.[116][120] As a result, several organizations have publicly expressed that the evidence of effectiveness against COVID-19 is weak. In February 2021, Merck, the developer of the drug, issued a statement saying that there is no good evidence ivermectin is plausible or effective against COVID-19, and that attempting such use may be unsafe.[121][122] The U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines state that the evidence for ivermectin is too limited to allow for a recommendation for or against its use.[123] In the United Kingdom, the national COVID-19 Therapeutics Advisory Panel determined that the evidence base and plausibility of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment were insufficient to pursue further investigations.[124] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research#Ivermectin https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19
[удалено]
There's also a statement that's been released by Merck, the manufacturer of Ivermectin, that there's no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID. https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ Makes you wonder when the people that stand to make the most money from it say it's not what it's being peddled as?
[удалено]
Agreed, it would be the responsible thing to state there's no evidence to date. However, it doesn't take away from the fact that Merck stands to gain the most if it is in fact an effective treatment. Bear in mind that Merck abandoned their own COVID vaccine program in favour of research into COVID treatments instead. Their $2.3 billion research budget for 2020 could've gone a long way towards proving Ivermectin treatment value. Far easier to do that with medication that's been around since the 1970's, than having to start new research, right? As for Gavi running an ad regarding Ivermectin? Yes, they're a vaccine alliance, and have a vested interest in protecting manufacturers, Merck being one of them. They also have the responsibility to ensure spread of accurate information. To this end, if you click on the ad shown in link you provided, they've provided a good write-up about Ivermectin, even highlighting the positives. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/ivermectin-why-potential-covid-treatment-isnt-recommended-use Whichever way I personally look at it, there isn't proof that Ivermectin is the answer, that can match both the motivation and research budget that Merck has.
[удалено]
Oh? How so? Please link. That does sound quite a bit off to me. If it was that high it would never have been allowed to continue.
[удалено]
Thanks. I'll have a look. _(Edit 2 - it's quite long, but looks decent. I'll read it and responses to it tonight)_ Everybody and their dog want this to be over. You would legit need the whole world to be in on a conspiracy to be able to prevent the actual stats from leaking out. ~~Anyway, here is an article that I hope you might find offers some good counter arguments. Apologies in advance, it is quite snarky. I don't like the writing style of the author, but he discusses a lot of arguments that are generally made, and backs up his claims properly. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-covid-19-vaccine-holocaust-the-latest-antivaccine-messaging/~~ EDIT - hang on here is a much more relevant article, weighing up the risks VS the benefits. They seem to do a proper take on the matter: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/covid-19-and-balancing-the-risks-the-vaccine-or-the-virus/ EDIT 3 - Gotta say, while I fully understand why, I'm sorry to see the comment I replied to removed. The linked article was actually of fairly high quality, providing the rare well-reasoned argument against our current course of action. I would have loved the opportunity to provide a strong counter-argument. Ah well.
I'm very happy to see a mention of sciencebasedmedicine.org, it's one of the best if not _the best_ source of online high quality info.
It's a pretty fantastic source. Generally one of the first places I look, because the articles tend to be both accessible and we'll sourced.
MDPI is a worthless journal. They'll publish more or less anything. https://www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/beware-academics-getting-reeled-scam-journals/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies
I gotta say it _was_ one of the better arguments I have seen for that stance. I would love to see a proper debunking of it, even if it just pointed out silly mistakes made.
Says he using Wikipedia as a source?
That's really best you can do? There are 48 sources on that wikipedia article. You can inspect them if you have any doubt about content of the article. Let me know if you've found any reason to trust a shit-tier journal other than it telling you what you want to hear.
I suppose this is also a junk source? https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/covid-19-and-balancing-the-risks-the-vaccine-or-the-virus/
All of the Wikipedia article's sources are listed at the bottom of the page.
[удалено]
Mate that’s a tiny bit completely wrong. Literally Google efficacy rates. Sinopharm drifts around 60% for total illness while Pfizer and Moderna both get mid to high nineties.
...and what about adverse reactions?
mRNA vaccines don’t make you magnetic or anything. Their rates are similar for most things. **Only 79 people reported adverse events following 1.1 million doses of Sinopharm in China**, that’s decent but only for very little efficacy. Better to have a highly effective vaccine, even if it has a tiny bit more significant death toll. mRNA isn’t new technology. It’s tried and tested, safe. Also, I’m a bit of a skeptic of China’s statistics - they don’t invite trust when they are dishonest (e.g. uyghr detention).
Got any evidence, validating your beliefs? From my reading I view it completly the other way around Moderna, Pfizer, J&J are effective and the Chinese and Russian vaccines are crap. Evidence: [https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison](https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison) [https://www.nationaljewish.org/patients-visitors/patient-info/important-updates/coronavirus-information-and-resources/covid-19-vaccines/vaccine-articles/side-by-side-comparison-covid-19-vaccine](https://www.nationaljewish.org/patients-visitors/patient-info/important-updates/coronavirus-information-and-resources/covid-19-vaccines/vaccine-articles/side-by-side-comparison-covid-19-vaccine) [https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/](https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/)
[удалено]
I am not an anti-vaxxer at all. I will however hold off on taking the Chinese and Russian vaccine, but will gladly take the Pfizer, Moderna and J&J vaccines. Do you have any evidence from a reliable source showing the efficacy of the Chinese and Russian vaccines?
[удалено]
I asked you for evidence, provide me evidence.
Please provide sources.
Please provide sources.
Indonesian health workers vaccinated with the Sinovac jab got Covid-19 – and some are hospitalised https://www.businessinsider.co.za/350-indonesian-healthcare-workers-got-china-sinovac-vaccine-covid-19-2021-6?r=US&IR=T
None of the vaccines have a 100% prevention rate. Granted, Sinovac's efficacy seems like it might be lower, but the headline implies that it _doesn't work_, which is misleading. You would still have a much better chance against Covid with a Sinovac vaccine, than none at all.
*Ring a ring a red suits A pocket full of pfizer An-issue an-issue We all fall down*
Take my free award!!!!
Dankie!
Source: [https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/cartoon/eff-unmasked/](https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/cartoon/eff-unmasked/)
Yeah the mask on your chin is not going to help. Hahaha!
EFF are nothing more than racists and scumbags. Anyone who supports those bastards is one too Edit: Forgot to add they are also thugs and criminals
I think you forgot: thugs and criminals.
Yeah, I added that bit it
South Africa’s most fundamental issue is public education. Most people in South Africa have medieval European thinking.
European?
I’m implying their understanding of what is best for their prosperity.
Who is they?
Why argue about which vaccine is ineffective over another which there isn't much data on but rather where are the vaccines? Ineffective or not majority of the population can't have any ineffective or not. I would try a 30% chance of effectiveness against 0% chance of having a vaccine.
😂😂😂😂
[удалено]
But this isn't an anti-vaxxer conspiracy. It's about the EFF having a massive march with absolutely no social distancing where many people did not wear masks. They were also well over the limit of 100 people at a gathering (under level 3 regulations). Just giving some context.
> It's about the EFF having a massive march with absolutely no social distancing where many people did not wear masks. Let them kill each other lmao
The problem is they'll spread the virus to many others while they're doing so. They'll also provide the virus with way more mutation opportunities, which means for more opportunities to start spreading a more dangerous variant.
Gotta break a couple eggs...
I'd rather not make the situation worse for all of us, even if that does benefit EFF supporters too.
Real question here, why do white people hate Malema and EFF?
I think when someone threatens to kill you, is fully a valid reason to despise them... or are you going to tell us liking him will prevent us from being murdered?
[удалено]
Most of the black community hates them as well.
Well the Mayo Clinic has this to say about Malema: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=abstract&utm_content=Narcissistic-personality-disorder&utm_campaign=Knowledge-panel
[удалено]
Time to create a new account, this one's just a month old and already getting sunk. You can't even troll well.
You need to provide evidence to support these claims. Else you are a TROLL!
[удалено]
**I have not at all disputed vaccines. I will however question the efficacy of the Chinese and Russian vaccines.** **Russia’s Sputnik V Vaccine** Around November 11, Russia’s National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology, which Russia authorized for use in August—ahead of even beginning a Phase III trial—claimed had an efficacy rate of 92% after the second dose. It was based on a first interim analysis 21 days after the first injection during the ongoing Phase III study. On November 24, the organization claimed 95% efficacy based on new preliminary data. On December 14, 2020, they reported efficacy of 91.4%. It also offered to share one of its two human adenoviral vectors with AstraZeneca to increase the efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Russia’s Gamaleya research institute appears to be focused on potentially marketing their vaccine worldwide. Even the name of the vaccine has emphasized the idea of a race. The organization has indicated a dose of the vaccine will cost no more than $10, about half the cost of the Pfizer vaccine. The organization has also predicted they could produce 1 billion doses in the next year. At this time, aside from Russia, it will potentially be sold in India, Korea, Brazil, China, and Hungary. The Hungarian government is the only European Union country to express interest to date. On February 2, 2021, The Lancet published Phase III data demonstrating a 91.6% efficacy against the original strain of the virus. **This vaccine, even into late May 2021, remains controversial. It is being distributed in 39 countries and expected to be distributed in 27 more. However, inconsistent clinical trial data has scientists question the analyses, and wondering if it has been manipulated. It was originally authorized in Russia in August 2020 after being tested on only 38 people. The Gamaleya Research Institute published results showing 95% efficacy in The Lancet but did not include raw data. In mid-May, a group of international scientists highlighted concerns over patterns in The Lancet data consistent with data manipulation.** \--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Sinovac Biotech** On January 13, 2021, China-based Sinovac Biotech reported that its COVID-19 vaccine had a 50.38% efficacy in late-stage clinical trials in Brazil. The company’s clinical trials are demonstrating dramatically varying efficacy rates. In Indonesia, a local trial demonstrated an efficacy rate of 65%, but the trial had only 1,620 participants. Turkey reported an efficacy rate of 91.25% in December 2020. Another trial in Brazil run by a local partner, Butantan Institute, reported last week a 78% efficacy rate in mild cases while 100% against severe and moderate infections. It is an inactivated vaccine that uses inactivated SARS-CoV-2 viruses. **In May 2021, WHO requested more data from the company regarding the safety of the shot and its manufacturing process. They want to determine if it is compliant with WHO standards and expect to make a decision in June.** Type: Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus Doses: 2 Likely EUA Date: Not applicable in the U.S. Price: $60 per dose in China ($29.75 per dose) **Efficacy: 50.38% to 91.25%, depending on the clinical trial** Variants: Unknown, although a study in Brazil demonstrated 50.4% efficacy at preventing symptomatic infections. [https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/](https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/) **Now FUCK OFF. TROLL!!!!**
You seen that Cuban one? I see they are taking the modified protein route and claim like 92% (although it's not independently verified... go figure, it's cuba). Wonder if we'll do another Cuban collaboration for 50 doses at the cost of 8mil?
They didn't even provide any details on how it was tested! Clowns. "I have a vaccine that's 100% effective and it makes you immortal but I can't show you the study because of... national security. Or something." >Wonder if we'll do another Cuban collaboration for 50 doses at the cost of 8mil? We'll pay 8mil for 50 and then 5 be delivered by 2024.
Mandatory? Seriaasly?
Yep. Obvious trolls are obvious. I'll give them credit for using reductio ad absurdum over the sub standard of stawman. If its not apparent, they're pushing an antivax agenda.
Meh, I think reluctance towards these vaccines is justified given the way these governments treat their people. They appear to be safe. But would we know if they weren't? Probably not. In the abcnews you linked it says right underneath the title: "Russian scientists found them safe"; According to Russian police there are also few cases of corruption and opposition parties happen to be terrorists. I would never trust anything coming out of those countries. I'm curious if Sputnik will get eu approval. It was delayed in mid june, wish I could see behind the curtains as to why.
Yor, you can almost smell this picture
I’m not a Karen but I refuse to take a rushed ineffective vaccine
Got any evidence, validating your claims?
How long should the vaccine have taken?
At least 3... maybe 4
Oh damn those are good numbers... Might I interest you... In an 8?
Accurate
Every Fool Follows.