Studies suggest AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine safe, effective

AstraZeneca vaccine is suggested to be safe and about 70% effective.

Hmmm, why would anyone risk with something that is only suggested to be safe, just for a 70% reduction.

And questions remain about how well it may help protect those over 55, which are are really the only ones for which a vaccine might be helpful. Younger people, if healthy, don't need a vaccine.

More work needed for this vaccine.

Younger people, if healthy, don't need a vaccine.

They can still be spreaders

Stop thinking about this like it's only about the person that matters - it also matters the people around that person

See the forest from the trees

No need to use these unproven, toxic vaccines...already adverse reactions from every single candidate (Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Moderna) it's no wonder people are hesitant.

New data on Ivermectin presented at the Senate hearing this week is incredible news:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuHq12B_Tvk

Younger people, if healthy, don't need a vaccine.

They can still be spreaders

Getting the vaccine does not prevent you from spreading the virus; the Moderna CEO admitted this.

@ Neowave

Thanks for the link. Strange that the big pharma-sponsored MSM hasn't mentioned this...

Hmmm, why would anyone risk with something that is only suggested to be safe, just for a 70% reduction.

Rational people would know that this would still mean an important reduction of the risk, but for that it would be needed an unbiased look at the evidence.

No need to use these unproven, toxic vaccines...already adverse reactions from every single candidate (Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Moderna) it's no wonder people are hesitant.

Vaccines are proved and not toxic, having risk of pain in the injection site is not comparable to dying from the infection as many healthy young adults have.

Getting the vaccine does not prevent you from spreading the virus; the Moderna CEO admitted this

Wrong, getting the vaccine is not guaranteed to stop the spreading, but it is still perfectly possible and even likely as seen on the difference between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Nobody can say the vaccine do not prevent spreading because that has not been studied yet.

Thanks for the link. Strange that the big pharma-sponsored MSM hasn't mentioned this...

That is the problem with you depend so strongly on mass media to get scientific information. None of the evidence is exactly new and there are plenty of evidence that Ivermectin is at best marginally useful but more likely just another mirage from limited studies, professionals are continuously looking at this evidence without having to depend on youtube to get it.

Unfortunately some people are still in denial and will insist that nothing is necessary, no vaccines nor meds, because COVID-19 is not even dangerous, it would be hypocritical for those people to complain for lack of promotion of other treatment options, after all according to them it is irrelevant.

Dr. Tal Zaks, Moderna’s chief medical officer:

“When we start the deployment of this vaccine, we will not have sufficient concrete data to prove that this vaccine reduces transmission.”

“When we start the deployment of this vaccine, we will not have sufficient concrete data to prove that this vaccine reduces transmission.”

There, thank you for proving yourself wrong.

Saying that you will not have enough data to prove something is completely different from saying you can prove the opposite. Therefore the Mderna CMO (not even the CEO) has never admitted the vaccine do not prevent transmission as you wrote, he simply said he does not know, nobody does, as I wrote.

No need to use these unproven, toxic vaccines..

Thanks for putting that at the beginning. No need to read the rest of it.

Good on you for putting it at the beginning. An approach I wish more posters would take up.

Yeah, but there is still no concrete evidence that the vaccine will reduce the spread. And there is no evidence that taking the vaccine will not have any serious long term side effects.

So why risk taking these rushed experimental vaccines, especially if you are relatively young and healthy.

Yeah, but there is still no concrete evidence that the vaccine will reduce the spread. And there is no evidence that taking the vaccine will not have any serious long term side effects.

Good to see at least you recognize your mistakes, it is a good thing. The next one is the long term side effect fallacy you like to repeat.

There is plenty of evidence that the natural infection increases very importantly the risk of many long term pathologies, no evidence of that in vaccine candidates. So that is enough to validly say that the natural infection is more risky than the vaccine, even for long term problems.

So why risk taking these rushed experimental vaccines, especially if you are relatively young and healthy.

Because it lowers the risk overall, even for young and healthy people.

Let me put you a simplistic example so you can understand it.

Lets say a non-vaccinated people have 1 in 10,000 (100, in a million) chances of catching the infection and dying.

A vaccinated person have 1 in a million chances of dying of the vaccine and still have 1 in a million chances of dying from the infection, because no vaccine is perfect.

If you compare both situations

non vaccinated have 100 chances in a million of dying.

vaccinated have 2 chances in a million of dying.

What is bigger? 100 or 2?

What is bigger? 100 or 2?

FYI, going from 100 to 2 does not represent a 70% decrease!

You might want to review your math before acting like the ultimate authority deciding who is correct and who is wrong/irrational/lying/misinformed.

According to the press releases. The vaccines decrease the probability of getting sick. We don't know yet if the vaccine will decrease the probability of death. We don't know if those who have died from Covid would have lived if they had been vaccinated.

There is plenty of evidence that the natural infection increases very importantly the risk of many long term pathologies, no evidence of that in vaccine candidates.

Because there is no data on the long term effects; long term safety that takes years to establish.

Also, at least for people who took the Pfizer vaccine got Bell's palsy. No thanks!

FYI, going from 100 to 2 does not represent a 70% decrease!

Do you understand what it means "a simplistic example"? it obviously do not mean having a detailed and exact example but something rounded up, just to explain a concept as simple as possible.

Lets put a 70% then.

non vaccinated person have 100 chances in a million of getting the disease and dying.

a vaccinated person have 31 chances in a million of dying because of the disease or the vaccine itself.

What is bigger 100 or 31?

Because there is no data on the long term effects; long term safety that takes years to establish.

Again because you apparently skipped that part in your reply, there are plenty of data that indicate risk for long term problems in people with the natural disease, no people vaccinated have the same problems. That means non-vaccinated people have higher risks for long term problems. It does not matter how much you want to ignore this, the data is there and it completely contradicts your beliefs.

Also, at least for people who took the Pfizer vaccine got Bell's palsy. No thanks!

People with propensity to allergies cannot enjoy many things, if a safe and effective vaccine is among them, because it would give them a temporary self-resolving problem, that is fine. The vaccine may still protect people with valid medical reasons to be exempted by increasing herd immunity.