This morning.

Collins Avenue, Dublin 9.

A pop up vaccination centre at the Helix Theatre at Dublin City University.

After you.

No, after you.

Please, I insist.


Earlier: Target Market


Sponsored Link

12 thoughts on “Jabs Fair

  1. Brother Barnabas

    “After you.
    No, after you.
    Please, I insist.

    everyone i know is keen to get it as soon as they can. me too.

  2. baz

    bring all the vulnerable old people to one location, indoors and spend lots of €€€ doing it
    follow the science unless HSE need to increase unnecessary risks and waste taxpayers dwindling cash €€€ all for photo ops

    now watch as Astra Zeneca become the HSE’s pinata for all HSE failings

    meanwhile in Israel, UAE, certain US States – hop in a car, roll up drop the window stick your arm out and done.

  3. MoRhustyDilis

    It’s for the exact reason below that I, and a vast majority of my friends, family and colleagues won’t be getting this or any vaccine.
    There are other reasons of course, but this being the main health concern.
    Amongst these people, including their families, some have had COVID and it was just like a bad flu.
    Some are in the medical profession and one in particular who owns a company that creates nanoscale technology and cell research. He and his won’t be going anywhere near this.
    Keep up the good work and conversation going Bodger.
    I for one really appreciate it.

    1. MoRhustyDilis

      The new vaccines do not contain the virus that triggers COVID-19, as a conventional vaccine might. Instead, Moderna and Pfizer researchers used a new technique to make messenger RNA (mRNA), which is similar to mRNA found in SARS-CoV-2. In theory, the artificial mRNA will act as instructions that prompt human cells to build a protein found on the surface of the virus. That protein would theoretically trigger a protective immune response. The entire Covid vaccine effort was essentially a giant shortcut. This is not an advantage, as the long term effects of any vaccine from 1 year to 5 years to 10 years should be understood before it is injected into human beings.

      1. alickdouglas

        No vaccine has ever taken that long to develop for strategic purposes, the critical path for vaccine development has always been down to resourcing, not deliberate follow up for safety. No regulator requires a decade of safety data because there is no convincing biological basis to think that a vaccine might elicit an effect that would only appear years later.

        In vitro and animal studies are used to inform a number of aspects of biological plausibility; such as uptake, trafficing and distribution. These are sometimes looked at again, where feasible in the phase I trial, but in tiny numbers of subjects. In the last few years there has been a bit of work on looking at how vaccine-induced products are shed from the body, but again at Phase I.

        Once you hit phase II and III the focus is on general safety and impact (efficacy or immunogenicity, depending ont he target). The number of subjects recruited to Phase III studies are usually driven by estimation of protection. The only case I’m aware of where sample size was driven by safety follow up was for the second gen Rota vaccines in the early 2000s. While phase III studies may do a year of follow up, the follow up beyond about 1 month after the last dose is almost always ‘passive’ (i.e. call us if you have a problem). The focus of every vaccine development program that I can think of therefore is the weeks around the active vaccination phase.

        What would the rationale be for mRNA vaccines to be treated differently to so-called traditional vaccines? By 2018 there had been 58 human trials of mRNA based cancer vaccines and 10 of mRNA based vaccines against infectious diseases. Small enough numbers of subjects, but fairly diverse.

  4. millie bobby brownie

    The anti-vax bias is becoming a bit of a joke now Bodger.

    Don’t think you can really claim impartiality anymore without looking silly.

    1. Brother Barnabas

      couldnt agree more

      and theres been quite a turnover of commenters so assume a lot have got fed up and moved on

      close to it myself

    2. Commenter #1

      Did he ever claim impartiality, though?

      From his posts, his comments, and Tomorrow Tonight, it’s pretty clear that Bodger has a particular perspective that he wants to showcase. Which is fine! His website after all. But it’s the refusal to be explicit about that perspective that’s annoying imo.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link