Excellent discussion by an research virologist. Not an anti-vaxxer. But with serious and important criticism of the worldwide vaccine and other policies. Be ready with your ivermectin, the vaccine may not be at all what you hoped it would be. Lord, have mercy. We are captured by idiots.

[-] Bandoolero | 2 points | Mar 13 2021 15:03:18

Do you have the courage to post this on r/science as well? :D

[-] Alexanderandjeff | 1 points | Mar 15 2021 03:43:26

For many , the reason for getting the vaccine is to prevent getting Covid 19 , that's obvious. But if you ever want to air travel as long as rhere are cases ,the airlines may require ,evidence of being vaccinated . If not vaccinated the host country may require that you quarantine yourself from 10 to 14 days..

[-] thaw4188 | 0 points | Mar 13 2021 16:19:15

only a privileged moron in denial would put on paper a thought that "I would prefer natural immunity (to covid)"

absolute idiot who obviously has never had pneumonia in their life and feels they have access to superior medical care - let me tell you, it feels like drowning, because you are, for lack of air, it is death coming to get you

the vax works, get it, also ivermectin works though not perfect, use it as a treatment for mutated variants that will definitely be coming because people are definitely not going to keep doing safe behavior if they ever did it in the first place

[-] Besensiblewouldya | 4 points | Mar 13 2021 17:39:18

I watched his presentation and I did not think he came across as any sort of moron.

Certainly as a viral immunologist, who is working on the development of next generation coronavirus vaccines, he can hardly be accused of not knowing what he is talking about.

I thought he made sense. He spoke about how vaccines have been a very good way to control infectious diseases (true), the pros and cons of the different types of vaccines, different types of immunity, how the vast majority of people who get Covid recover (true), how the elderly and those with underlying conditions are the most at risk (true) from Covid, that naturally acquired immunity was probably better than vaccine acquired immunity - probably true but dependent upon what you have to go through to get that immunity - but given that he works in vaccine development he probably reckons that vaccine acquired immunity is better than none.

He spent a fair amount of time on anti-vaxxers and those with vaccine hesitancy, dismissing the former and saying the latter had legitimate concerns that the pharma industry and medical profession should take seriously.

He also compared the speed of development of these new vaccines to previous ones and expressed some concerns that it'll be 2 or 3 years before any real problems come to light - probably true.

He also said that everyone should make up their own minds about whether to get vaccinated or not - taking into account their own circumstances.

I thought his reasons behind perhaps not taking the vaccines were reasonably well developed. He did not think that he was in an at most risk group, that if he did contract it that he most likely to be mildly infected and I got the impression there was something else that he wasn't prepared to mention as well. In the end that's his business.

He expressed concerns about vaccine rollout, that it was too general, wasn't targeted enough at the most at risk groups and that it was a waste of scarce resources giving it to people who had already acquired immunity through infection and that that decision, based on time and cost is flawed.

You're right that pneumonia is not a pleasant experience - it nearly killed me 54 years ago. However, pneumonia is not an inevitable consequence of contracting the disease in the majority of cases.

Ivermectin or any other therapeutic treatment did not come up in the entire presentation, and I think this is one area of viral disease control/treatment that the pharmaceutical industry has been lacking in, though that may because it is too difficult to achieve- I just don't have enough knowledge to be definitive about it. With what you stated about using Ivermectin as a treatment for mutated variants may be right, may also be wrong.

In the end you must make your own decision about taking the vaccine.

[-] Skybright77777 | 2 points | Mar 14 2021 05:18:27

Completely disagree with your comment here. The man is 100% right to express caution. These vaccines have no long-term safety profile. There is no reason for someone to get this agent injected into their blood stream when they are fit and healthy or already had the disease. Particularly because there is such a treatment as ivermectin. This disease is absolutely treatable. Pneumonia is not inevitable. If you recommend ivermectin for the variants then why on earth would you push people to get vaccinated. Makes no sense.

[-] Besensiblewouldya | 1 points | Mar 14 2021 09:52:56

The main reason I responded to thaw4188's comment was his characterisation of the speaker as a complete moron, when he clearly wasn't and also that the speaker had clearly well thought out reasons why he may not take the vaccine. In the end, that decision will only turn out to be right if he contracts the disease and survives unscathed.

But equally thaw4188 is exercising his right, as the speaker suggested, to make his own decisions based on his circumstances. And he/she clearly feels that the risk of developing pneumonia outweighs the risk of something worse happening if they get vaccinated. But also, like the speaker says, it may take 2 to 3 years before that decision is fully known - there may be little acute effect but some chronic effect - or there may not.

And the whole point since Edward Jenner first started working on the smallpox vaccine is to do it when you are fit and healthy. Otherwise it's too late.

As to the debate on Ivermectin use, Yes, the drug has a good safety profile, yes it appears to have some viral protection effect, etc, etc. But as far as I can see much of the evidence for it falls into the "better safe than sorry" and "what harm can it do" category. And I say that because there is a lot of use of the word "may" in the abstracts and conclusions" and that many of the patients display 'mild to moderate" symptoms and quite often there are other drugs involved in the study.

Now I happen to believe that it is going to take a few more years to crunch the numbers and see the real epidemiological pathway of this disease is understood and whether or not its a smallpox type disease or a cold type disease but based on an approximately 2% case fatality rate as it currently stands, that'll be a lot of deaths.

Of all the things that the speaker said that I fear will turn out to be the case is his last statement - that history will record this pandemic as being poorly managed. And I say that because I feel that there is no-one in any authority position who is not having to deal with the day to day shitstorm of deaths, sick people, out of work people, businesses failing, cresking economies, creaking healthcare systems, people demanding tighter restrictions, people demanding looser restrictions, etc, etc.

When this does wash through the system a lot of people are going to lift their head and say "what the fuck just happened?"

[-] Skybright77777 | 1 points | Mar 14 2021 11:23:03

\The main reason I responded to thaw4188's comment was his characterisation of the speaker as a complete moron, when he clearly wasn't and also that the speaker had clearly well thought out reasons why he may not take the vaccine.

My main objection with the person's response was his/her use of words such as "idiot" or "moron" to describe the speaker.

\But equally thaw4188 is exercising his right, as the speaker suggested, to make his own decisions based on his circumstances.

It is his/her right, for sure. Likewise however, to say "the vax works, get it" does not sound like they think the same way about my right not to opt for the vaccine.

\But also, like the speaker says, it may take 2 to 3 years before that decision is fully known - there may be little acute effect but some chronic effect - or there may not.

Exactly. And the speaker is by far not the only expert pointing to the lack of long-term study data and the potentially catastrophic outcome of mass-vaccinations with an insufficiently studied agent.

\And the whole point since Edward Jenner first started working on the smallpox vaccine is to do it when you are fit and healthy. Otherwise it's too late.

When I said "fit and healthy", what I meant was that statistically it is highly unlikely you will suffer severe consequences from contracting the virus if you are fit and healthy. I think we all know by now that the main group who is at risk are not the young and healthy.

What you said about ivermectin, I would like to challenge a little bit. Ivermectin has a well-defined mechanism of action when it comes to its use in viral infections, like Covid. It is right that we don't know enough about side-effects associated with long-term use but when you synthesise the data from the many smaller-scale studies, the conclusion is unambiguously "pro" ivermectin.

My take on the vaccines is that no amount of current data replaces the time spent on accumulating long-term study data. Particularly when we're talking about a novel agent that has never been used in such a way before. None of the studies done on mRNA agents have been seen to their completion. Hence, logically, therapeutics like ivermectin ought to be used to bridge the gap until vaccines are cleared as "safe" and this unfortunately can't be done in a matter of a few months. Meanwhile, encourage and support people to look after their health, vitamin D, etc etc. and make early treatments accessible to everyone, which would avoid hospitalisations, breakdown of healthcare system, and the resulting lockdowns etc.

\When this does wash through the system a lot of people are going to lift their head and say "what the fuck just happened?"

I couldn't agree more.

[-] Besensiblewouldya | 2 points | Mar 14 2021 12:04:04

I think regarding invermectin use, we are pretty much in the same camp. You'd appear to be a bit better read on the mechanism of how it works- I'm more in the "its discoverers got a Nobel Prize for it, it's seen to work on viruses like dengue fever, it seems to have some effect on Covid and its pretty harmless - so doctor's should just prescribe it anyway along with whatever else they think might work" camp.

It's just that it's only approved for use as a scabies treatment on humans in Europe or for animals.

[-] Skybright77777 | 2 points | Mar 14 2021 12:21:15

The issue with ivermectin is indeed that our medical authorities are far too hesitant to approve it for use in Covid. I'm a supporting member of a group of medics and scientists who are fighting for the drug to receive the necessary (emergency-) approval and media coverage it deserves. Without sounding conspiratorial but unfortunately it appears that there are powerful players who are keen to suppress this drug, possibly due to the fact that emergency approval for the vaccines could not have been given if there was an effective prophylactic treatment available.