Except it really hasn't, has it. If it had, I wouldn't have had the flippant, "It turns you into a goat". I would have had a list of possible side effects with a list of cited study sources.
Which are all public and listed on MHRA data and the UK governments own portal.
Absolutely none of which are worse than or in any higher number than other approved vaccines.
They vaccines are as tested as any other new entry to the market. Absolutely no difference at all.
This is simply untrue.
doobedoobedo : Have you ready the documentation on trials and side effects?
Which are all public and listed on MHRA data and the UK governments own portal.
Absolutely none of which are worse than or in any higher number than other approved vaccines.
They vaccines are as tested as any other new entry to the market. Absolutely no difference at all.
This is simply untrue.
doobedoobedo : Have you ready the documentation on trials and side effects?
Point me to documentation on long-term side effects.
The little gang of vaccine zealots here seem unable to admit that the vaccines that have been rushed out, with minimal testing and given emergency licenses are not as well tested as other medicines.
You are claiming the opposite of reality. How can anyone take people whose entire argument is a lie seriously?
So this is just sales blurb and the Oxford vaccine works the same way?
Its totally different. And the technique used by Oxford/AZ has also never been used in a vaccination before.
So both Pfizer and Oxford are novel.
There's absolutely no reason to treat mRNA difference from Oxford in that respect.
And no reason to treat either different from any other vaccine on the planet given its undergone identical regulatory approval and trials.
So this is just sales blurb and the Oxford vaccine works the same way?
Its totally different. And the technique used by Oxford/AZ has also never been used in a vaccination before.
So both Pfizer and Oxford are novel.
There's absolutely no reason to treat mRNA difference from Oxford in that respect.
And no reason to treat either different from any other vaccine on the planet given its undergone identical regulatory approval and trials.
So all quite normal then. Both use different techniques than have previously been used, and are quite safe with the testing used for older techniques.
I don't know as much as you do on these things. As an aircraft stress engineer who used metallic structures and moved to carbon fibre - something quite different in its operation - we would never have produced safe structures using exactly the same tests. In fact, more testing was required - and it took longer.
I am sure you understand why there may be a reasonable feeling of unease about this - even among those who are quite comfortable with vaccines so far. Therefore, when discussing the pros and cons of the vaccines on offer, I still maintain it is reasonable to distinguish which ones we are referring to.
Sweden has 3x the deaths/million population of neighbouring and similar Denmark.
Sweden is also not Denmark.
Compare Sweden to Sweden.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/
Sweden death rate for 2020 is an 8% increase over mean of prior 9 years.
Sweden certainly had a big spike at the end of the year. But that seems to have dipped massively at the start of this year.
