How does AstraZeneca's vaccine compare with Pfizer-BioNTech?

"I would say at this moment that every vaccine with relatively good efficacy - that means, at least 60 or 70% - should be put to use, when it has an appropriate safety profile."

surely we won't know the "safety profile" until the newly borns of vaccinated parents reach educational age

Yeah, we'll only know in a few years whether any of these vaccines are safe, assuming they are honest and open.

Yeah, we'll only know in a few years whether any of these vaccines are safe, assuming they are honest and open

We already know the most important part, that the vaccines are much safer than the natural infection.

There is only one ‘vaccine’ a complete lockdown for 71 days (the currently known maximum the virus survives in ‘living material’ , humans , pets, wildlife animals, zoo animals etc.) plus 2 or 3 standard deviations. I am now really tired of always discussing all other stupid options everyone lays their false hopes in.

Yeah, we'll only know in a few years whether any of these vaccines are safe, assuming they are honest and open

We already know the most important part, that the vaccines are much safer than the natural infection.

No, there is no evidence on the long-term safety.

No, there is no evidence on the long-term safety

Yes there is, the vaccine has not produced long term health problems in the same way that the natural infection does. That proves that even at this point the vaccine is to be considered safer than not vaccinating.

You want to prove the opposite? then show that vaccine volunteers also had neuronal degeneration, myocardic persisten inflammation, autoimmune diabetes, etc.

Again, the vaccine do not need to prove to be perfectly safe, only safer than not vaccinating. You are free to be in denial and not accepting this very evident truth but without proving actual objective dangers you would still be wrong.

Again, the vaccine do not need to prove to be perfectly safe, only safer than not vaccinating. 

Even safer and just as effective is supplementing with vitamin D.

Even safer and just as effective is supplementing with vitamin D.

False, people of advanced age and preexisting conditions die from COVID-19 even with perfectly normal levels of vitamin D, but the vaccine protects them very efficiently.

Even safer and just as effective is supplementing with vitamin D.

If you have a healthy level of vitamin D, supplements mean nothing.

You can't super power you immune system with supplements.

Even safer and just as effective is supplementing with vitamin D.

No. There’s not evidence to show vit D protects you against Covid. If you have adequate levels of vit D supplements are a waste of time and money. Too much vit D is toxic and can cause serious health issues. Stop spreading dangerous lies.

If you have a healthy level of vitamin D, supplements mean nothing.

I agree, if you have a healthy level of vitamin D, howev many people do not.

I agree, if you have a healthy level of vitamin D, howev many people do not.

Again, that is still false, people with normal levels also get complications and die from COVID-19, having normal levels of vitamin D is not a guarantee of a good result after infection

PMID: 33380209

There were no significant between-group differences in any outcome. Results were similar in those ≥50 years, in male/female-only cohorts, and when differing 25(OH)D thresholds were used (

Sorry, comment got cut

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33380209/

There was no relationship between 25(OH)D as a continuous variable and any outcome, even after controlling for age and pulmonary disease. Conclusions: These preliminary data do not support a relationship between prehospitalization vitamin D status and COVID-19 clinical outcomes.

Your mistaken idea can be demonstrated as wrong scientifically, people with normal levels of vitamin D can also get sick and die from COVID-19.

So you found one preliminary study showing no effect. The authors acknowledge it's a preliminary study, and they describe a number of limitations of their study, including using vitamin D levels obtained within 365 days prior to admission!

There are plenty more studies that do show an effect. That is why some countries have encouraged their citizens to take vitD supplements, and in some places offering them for free.

It has been known since early on in this pandemic that blacks are disproportionately affected by covid19. I believe it's because of vitD (darker skinned people make less upon sun exposure).

So you found one preliminary study showing no effect.

It is enough to prove that saying that having healthy levels of vitamin D protects the people from all negative consequences of COVID-19 is not true.

There are plenty more studies that do show an effect.

That is not what the comment said, literally it said "Even safer and just as effective..." than the vaccine, show the studies that prove this. It is a well known fact that many dietary deficiencies have a role in the disease, that is completely different than saying that having normal levels means you will not have any problems if infected, or even die. Much less when considering other preconditions of importance, approved vaccines data that support their efficacy for this more vulnerable population, if you cannot show that vitamin D protects people with advanced age, diabetes, obesity, etc, as the vaccine do that still means it is wrong.

It has been known since early on in this pandemic that blacks are disproportionately affected by covid19. I believe it's because of vitD

That would be terribly easy to corroborate with a simple epidemiological study, showing that people of dark skin but normal levels of vitamin D do not share that higher risk. Not finding that evidence is a very strong indicator that it is not the case.

In reality is a much more complicated problem because race is linked with many other factors that have an effect on how the disease progresses, that is a much more likely reason according to the experts.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/race-ethnicity.html

Another important point to keep in mind is what is a "normal" or "healthy" level of vitD. The recommended vitD used to be very low, basically the minimum needed to prevent rickets.

But the optimal vitD level to prevent other diseases, such as respiratory tract infections, is much higher. In fact the paper you're referring to uses a cut off level that is quite low.

And considering they accept vitD measurements within 365 days of admission, the study is pretty useless. Many of those who get very sick in winter from the flu or covid, probably had low vitD levels when they got sick, but might have had optimal levels during the summer.

How can you use such a weak study to disprove the overwhelming evidence showing that vitamin D protects against covid19 and other respiratory tract infections.

If one chooses to ignore safe and effective measures to prevent getting sick, and safe and effective treatments, then perhaps you such risk taking the vaccine.

But I will definitely use the safer options and avoid getting a vaccine produced with human embryonic cells (Astrazeneca) or the experimental mRNA vaccine, both of which are rushed.

No, there is no evidence on the long-term safety

Yes there is, the vaccine has not produced long term health problems

I was referring to the long term effects of the vaccines, meaning health issues that may show up in the long term, perhaps a year or two (or longer) after getting the vaccines.

Health problems (sterility, autism, allergies, neuropathy,...) may show up long after these vaccines are approved and administered to the public.

Another important point to keep in mind is what is a "normal" or "healthy" level of vitD. The recommended vitD used to be very low, basically the minimum needed to prevent rickets.

But the optimal vitD level to prevent other diseases, such as respiratory tract infections, is much higher. In fact the paper you're referring to uses a cut off level that is quite low.

That is the fallacy of moving the goal posts, when what is being said turns out to be false people without intellectual honesty change what they "mean" endlessly. "Normal levels" become "What I personally want to consider normal" after that "My personal normal levels plus an extra" then "As much as is possible" and eventually it has to be some special kind of moon light charged magical vitamin D.

Such a weak study as you call it is enough to prove the original argument as false (that is, that vitamin D is as effective as the vaccine). You have brought not even a "weak" study to prove that, thus this amount of evidence is enough to prove that no, some people have normal, adequate levels of vitamin D and still get sick or die because of COVID-19.

Again, bring a study that proves that vitamin D protects as well as the approved mRNA vaccines, including people with co-morbidities, advanced age, etc. or accept that this is a false statement. I already told you this is necessary, ignoring this requirement does not make it disappear.

There is no need to ignore any option, it may be a surprise for you but vaccines work decreasing the risk EVEN on people that have normal levels of vitamin D in a safe and effective way. Vaccines that are not rushed, since they use an schedule of testing already tested with previous vaccines that had not problems of efficacy nor safety.

You are free to be irrationally afraid from technology that is over a decade old, tested in hundreds of human trials without any particular safety concern, but coming from someone that recommends literally licking money as a better way to improve your immunity this does not come as a rational concern.

I was referring to the long term effects of the vaccines, meaning health issues that may show up in the long term, perhaps a year or two (or longer) after getting the vaccines.

That is the same point, you don't know either what will be the whole variety of long term effects from the COVID-19 infection, so both thing would be at exactly the same point, except that right now we already know some long and even permanent problems related with the natural infection, that means that at this point the vaccine is still much safer in the long term. Any kind of problems may happen with both things, but the natural infection has long term problems that already are happening now, so the risk is higher for the infection.

In short, it is still perfectly possible that the vaccine causes not long term problems, for COVID-19 this is no longer true, because it already has.

That is the fallacy of moving the goal posts, when what is being said turns out to be false people without intellectual honesty change what they "mean" endlessly. "Normal levels" become "What I personally want to consider normal" after that "My personal normal levels plus an extra" then "As much as is possible" and eventually it has to be some special kind of moon light charged magical vitamin D.

Well, if you were paying attention to the vitamin D research, you would have some idea what the optimal levels are today, and that they are much higher than what was considered ideal years ago to prevent rickets.

Many of us have already brought up a number of times studies on the benefits of vitD against covid19. It seems all you consider are the talking points provided by big pharma to try to disprove/discredit such studies. And it seems that all they have is that one very weak study...

Well, if you were paying attention to the vitamin D research, you would have some idea what the optimal levels are today, and that they are much higher than what was considered ideal years ago to prevent rickets.

And still, not a single study to prove that having vitamin D at today's acceptable levels is as efficient and safe as the vaccines in preventing complications and death? You know that is the point being discussed.

It is to be appreciated that you comment without including that very necessary piece of evidence, not everybody accept implicitly in such a clear way that you have no evidence to defend the point.

Anybody can present evidence that correcting dietary deficiencies (not only vitamin D) helps preventing complications, it has been known and promoted as part of the risk factors since the involvement of Europe in the pandemic. That is completely different from proving is as effective as the vaccines.

If someone came here and said that losing 10kg of weight protect people from problems as well as the vaccine, even if they still have diabetes, asthma, hypertension, hypovitaminosis, etc Would you be able to simply accept this must be true? I would not. And if that person brought reports that not being overweight helps surviving the disease that would still not be proving this point.