This morning.

What’s your poison?

Via RTÉ News:

Strict conditions on the use of the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines in people aged between 40 and 49 will mean people will have a choice to accept them, or wait for an mRNA vaccine, like Pfizer or Moderna…

…..The J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines will only be permitted to be used if an mRNA vaccine is not available at the time of vaccination.

People must be given a choice at that time on what vaccine to accept, with fully-informed consent…

….It expects to start vaccinations for this group of people later this month.

People aged 40-49 can decide to accept J&J or AZ jabs (RTÉ)

RollingNews

Meanwhile…

More metallic vax shenanigans.

Or sleight of arm?

Only you can decide.

Previously: Opposites Distract

Stuck On You

Sponsored Link

65 thoughts on “Your Call

  1. scottser

    tell you what bodger, i’m registered for the shot and should get mine in the next week or so. when i do, i’ll come on your live newspaper thing and do a magnet test for ye.

    Reply
  2. george

    Chips aren’t made with ferrous metals. The vaccine dose is 0.3ml. I doubt that much ferrous metal would hold a magnet to your arm. The chips would have to be 100 times smaller than the smallest chips we currently have.

    Reply
    1. Col

      That was my thought here- is there any video showing those magnets sticking to chips outside of people’s arms?

      Reply
      1. Dr.Fart

        Jesus that’s woeful. don’t want that either. Irish government lumped on both of those because they’re way way cheaper than the others. so now we have to make do with em.

        Reply
        1. Col

          I’m not an expert- but I think AZ has better efficacy against severe disease. So you still might get Covid, but you won’t get (as) sick from it.
          That’s my understanding and could be wrong.

          Reply
          1. Dr.Fart

            I looked it up. J&J is very low compared to all the others. They’re all like 95%-100% efficacy and J&J is 62%. Must be cheap as chips, that’s why our Gov. got so much in. Just give us a way less effective one to save a few bob. All while wasting millions in other areas. Beyond useless.

      2. george

        That’s not the full picture. Nobody in the trials required hospitalisation or death unlike the control group.
        It is 100% effective in preventing severe covid-19. It is not 100% effective at preventing mild cases of covid-19 .

        Reply
  3. Broadbag

    The HSE and the govt need to work on their messaging on this one, it currently looks like ”we have a load of these vaccines left over that we can’t give to certain age groups and we said you were also in that age group but now it’s fine, ignore that…unless you don’t want it which we understand because it is a little bit dodgy” – I’m not filled with confidence by this stance.

    Reply
    1. Redundant Proofreaders Society

      Exactly. This suggests that the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines are inferior.

      Reply
      1. Broadbag

        On top of that they said there would be no choice, now there is, the constant flip-flopping is unnerving when they are supposed to be following scientific facts not which way the wind is blowing or how full of unwanted vaccines the warehouses are, it reads like they are more interested in hitting some specious target of x amount vaccinated by x date.

        Reply
        1. Cian

          As the scientific evidence changes – so does the government advice.
          That isn’t “flip-flopping” or “which way the wind is blowing”.

          Reply
          1. Broadbag

            Different countries across the EU are offering these vaccines to different age cohorts, or in Denmark’s case not using either for anyone – individual governments are making distinctly different judgement calls, where’s the science in that?

    2. alickdouglas

      Yup, messaging has been awful, governments everywhere have tried to dumb down the complexity, and they are being bitten by it now. They had more than a year to get it right.

      Regarding the J&J vaccine, worth remembering that their uninspiring efficacy estimate is based on a single shot, and the others based on two shots. There’s no way to compare them directly. Data from non-human primates would however suggest that the immune responses of 1 shot are similar so it seems plausible that all 4 of the EU-registered vaccines probably induce the same degree of protection. Presumably J&J will release 2 shot data eventually and then introduce a variation to their license to permit two shots.

      Reply
  4. ian-oG

    I have decided. I spend too much time on a website that thinks its funny to be constantly promoting not only moronic but oft times dangerous nonsense.

    Decision made, cheerio.

    Reply
    1. Micko

      Ah I wouldn’t worry about it being a danger Ian.

      As anyone who’d believe that a magnet is sticking to you after a jab, is clearly already more dangerous to themselves then any vaccine. Walking out into traffic, off cliffs etc ;)

      There’s reasons for non-vulnerable folks to be cautious about these vaccines – but this is not one of them.

      Reply
  5. SOQ

    People must be given a choice at that time on what vaccine to accept, with fully-informed consent…

    The Moderna information leaflet is completely blank apparently- how is that informed consent? That statement has a legal disclaimer bang off it because if the injuries do actually start piling up, the person or persons administering it will be liable.

    In the US, some have made it mandatory which means they are also liable for any injuries incurred. I expect their employers liability insurers are having a canary right now- because it would surely be classed as a workplace injury?

    Reply
    1. John

      The US is very litigious but the employers know that. Your employer making it mandatory for you to take the vaccine does not force you to take the vaccine. You can always find another job. Most employees are “at will” so can be terminated for any reason (subject to local discrimination laws which are few and far between, being fired for being gay is still legal in much of the US) at any time anyway. That approach may not work in Ireland where there are stronger legal protections for workers.

      I believe the drug companies have been pretty much indemnified by governments on these vaccines.

      Reply
      1. Micko

        The vaccine roll out and proof of inoculation in most countries has been logged in a little piece of card that you’re given afterwards.

        So I can’t imagine them being too hard to forge. So no real issue for people who want to keep their jobs. I’d think there’s already a booming business around forged “papers”going on.

        Unless world governments start sharing your personal medical info with your employers, which I’d think is a WAY more serious issue.

        Reply
        1. scottser

          cards? pfft
          sure the vaccine is shot full of 5g, we’ll just be able to scan your eyeballs to check if you’re clean.

          Reply
      2. SOQ

        Then that is a breech of employment contract because it wasn’t stated up front? The US army have not made it mandatory, and they line them up to play darts. And, it is not mandatory for US health workers either.

        I expect in due course it will be tested in the courts because by the law of averages, at some stage someone is going to get injured- or worse.

        Reply
        1. Micko

          I’d think it would be alright. Definitely a breach of GDPR in Europe.

          And yep, probably will be tested in the courts at some point.

          Could you imagine if governments did give your info over to employers – especially in the US?

          “Ummm Steve, we see you have a heart condition. We’re gonna have to let you go I’m afraid.”

          “We need our top guy on this this Asia deal and you’re not gonna cut it.
          We can’t have you dropping dead and flailing around on the ground in front of Mr Yakimoto and the other Japanese for God’s sake. That’d be a sign of weakness!!!” :)

          Reply
          1. Daisy Chainsaw

            A whole 2 ft by 3 ft sized sheet of paper left completely blank, wedged into a box that holds a 5 ml vial? I’m sure you found that on some completely reputable website that isn’t neck deep in conspiracy and woo!

          2. SOQ

            You are by your own admission a state sector employee Daisy- probably the same on twitter hurling poo at Marcus de Brun so- let me ask you a question.

            How many of your friends have lost credit down to the point where there are about to lose their homes- do you even care?

          1. Bitnboxy

            @Cian To be fair, it’s quite a logical jump. SOQ, given his 2020 contributions, was always going to see the vaccine roll out as fertile ground for intrigue and shadowy deep state malevolence. I can only hope he’ll get some sort of vaccine (although given today’s NIAC-inspired confusion, it’s not exactly helping the doubters and vaccine hesitant/resistant).

  6. eoin

    The origins and complexity of the virus is still under debate. Was it natural or was it developed in a lab? Still being discussed. I would imagine that any pharma company that has developed a vaccine for covid19 must have studied the virus and can answer this question of it’s origins?

    Reply
    1. John

      lol, how does that work?
      Will there be a monsanto logo stamped on the virus RNA chain, or a manufacturing datecode?
      Corona viruses are naturally occurring, and naturally mutating. It wont have been manufactured in a lab.
      That doesnt mean it wasnt being studied in a lab and escaped or mutated while in the lab and escaped containment.

      Reply
    2. SOQ

      Sars-Cov-2 is the virus, CoVid-19 is the set of symptoms. It is not possible to be diagnosed as having Covid-19 without a medication examination by a qualified medic. Sars-Cov-2 has apparently never been isolated apparently which is peculiar.

      Although I am not sure how the rapid antigen test works then, because it appears to be counting the viral load.

      Reply
      1. alickdouglas

        From what I can tell, the terms antibody/antigen are used interchangeably for rapid tests, so an antibody test and an antigen test are functionally the same (i.e. the rapid test strip has antibodies on it to detect antigens in your nasal mucus). The Roche test that they call ‘antigen test’ is qualitative, you are pos/neg based on a cut-off: it works similarly to a pregnancy test, in that it’s calibrated vs. a laboratory standard and if the line goes dark you are positive (like a pregnancy test, there’s a second line to show that the test has worked in accordance with expectations).

        The full user leaflet is here. This and other Roche literature suggests that it’s in the ballpark of being equivalent to a PCR cycle threshold of around 30.

        https://diagnostics.roche.com/content/dam/diagnostics/be/covid-literature/SARS-CoV-2%20Rapid%20Antigen%20Test_V2_en_master_v11.12.2020%20(3).pdf

        Reply
        1. SOQ

          According to Michael Nma, the antigen test is more focused on infectiousness meaning viral load, does it then use some sort of higher cut off point when returning a positive?

          Reply
          1. alickdouglas

            The antigen test doesn’t directly measure viral load, but a positive antigen test is likely to be associated with a fairly substantial viral load (i.e. if you were positive on a PCR Test with a Ct of about 30-ish or lower, you would be 95% likely to be antigen-test positive).

            I do see how you can interpret that as being ‘more focused on infectiousness’, but since the relationship between viral load and infectiousness is not altogether clear, it’s not necessarily absolutely true. It requires you to assume that higher viral load=more infectious (and perhaps =greater likelihood of being sick).

            PCR done right is the most widely accepted means of measuring viral load since there is a statistical relationship between the amount of viral genetic material in the sample and the Ct number–if the sample is collected appropriately and if the PCR run correctly (emphasis on both the IF). Antigen tests account for the confidence interval and the statistical probablility of the answer being correct, so strictly speaking it is not possible to determine the viral load with an antigen test (just high/low).

      2. Cian

        @SOQ
        Sars-Cov-2 has apparently never been isolated apparently which is peculiar.
        rubbish.
        its full genome has been sequenced… as far back as Jan 2020

        Reply
  7. jeremy kyle

    Jaysus it’s going to be madness when we can travel again, but every single vaccinated person is setting off the metal detectors in the airport.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie