New vaccine

[ace2542]

7 minutes ago, davecttr said:

Consider this , the Pfizer/Biontek and Moderna vaccines ordered total 45 million doses, enough to vaccinate 22.5 million people. About 20.5 million people in the UK are aged 55 or over. So there is enough of the 90%+ vaccine for all the more vulnerable groups. The net effect of the AstraZenica 'fiasco' will probably be some months delay in completing the hoped for vaccination programme. The by easter promises were just hoped for outcomes.

 

The JVT penalty analogy needs adjusting, the 3rd penalty needs retaking because an attacking player infringed the 10 yard limit, or will be if the video referee can make their mind up 😉

 

 

Can I get a VAR check on that followed by a second VAR check on Maradona hand of god goal! 🤣

 

In seriousness though what is your interpretation of the wording of this BBC article. I have read it 3 times and to me it suggests the Under 55 will only get it if one can be approved but doesn't one need to be approved for all?. But they may be just happy with the over 55 groups. The wording suggests that if the Pfizer and Moderna gets approved but Astra doesn't then they will leave it at 22.5 million vaccinated. And the Russian vaccine probably won' get considered.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55045639

[ace2542]

17 minutes ago, AnnieC said:

Dr Simon Clarke (Professor of Cellular Biology, University of Reading (other scientists are available)) has taken issue with Fergus Walsh of the BBC - according to him, the efficacy rate for the Oxford vaccine is 62%. The figure of 65-70% is reliant on the half dose mistake results being right, not yet proven.

 

 

So it is basically rubbish compared to the American vaccines? I can't see America, Canada, Australia or cruselines allowing you in or onboard with a 38% chance of not being protected.

[davecttr]

The Beeb forgot about the other 150 million doses ordered. 30 million from Johnson, 60 million from GSK and 60 million from Valneva. Apparently the request for approval is for a 'temporary' approval. I presume so they can plan for the roll out of the AstraZenica doses as if it is 62% effective, so won't be given to the highest risks groups. If the months long trial of the variable dose proves to work for the over 55's it could be considered an excellent bonus.

[yorkshirephil]

There is still so much uncertainty with current vaccines, none of which have been approved yet. If they do get approved we will unlikely have any control over which vaccine we are given, unless depending on contractual obligations Pharma companies sell the vaccine privately. 

 

We met 2 of our friends yesterday while out walking who are taking part in clinical trials, they are currently being assessed. They say they will drop out of the trial as part of the agreement is that they cannot have any other Covid vaccine within 12 months of the trial. Their fear is that they could get the placebo and not be protected.

 

 

[davecttr]

6 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

So it is basically rubbish compared to the American vaccines? I can't see America, Canada, Australia or cruselines allowing you in or onboard with a 38% chance of not being protected.

No it is not rubbish, the data is not in yet and we will have to wait months to find out. Even if it is 62% that is as good or better than the flu vaccine.

 

There is money involved in this, of course the other big pharma are going to rubbish the AstraZenica vaccine. It is cheap to make and easy to store and transport. With many billions of doses needed which one is most of the world very glad to have?

 

consider this, the lower age groups have a MUCH lower risk of a bad outcome from COVID, reducing that risk by 62% is worth doing

 

There might also be politics involved, was AstraZenica 'encouraged' to publish results to early because the vaccine was 'British' and a British good news story needed? I have no evidence of this of course 😉

 

Finally the Pfizer vaccine is not American, it was developed in Germany

[ace2542]

10 minutes ago, davecttr said:

The Beeb forgot about the other 150 million doses ordered. 30 million from Johnson, 60 million from GSK and 60 million from Valneva. Apparently the request for approval is for a 'temporary' approval. I presume so they can plan for the roll out of the AstraZenica doses as if it is 62% effective, so won't be given to the highest risks groups. If the months long trial of the variable dose proves to work for the over 55's it could be considered an excellent bonus.

I guess we all did then. I have never heard of half of that.😄 I only knew of Astra, Moderna and Pfizer situation. 

[ace2542]

1 minute ago, davecttr said:

No it is not rubbish, the data is not in yet and we will have to wait months to find out. Even if it is 62% that is as good or better than the flu vaccine.

 

There is money involved in this, of course the other big pharma are going to rubbish the AstraZenica vaccine. It is cheap to make and easy to store and transport. With many billions of doses needed which one is most of the world very glad to have?

 

consider this, the lower age groups have a MUCH lower risk of a bad outcome from COVID, reducing that risk by 62% is worth doing

 

There might also be politics involved, was AstraZenica 'encouraged' to publish results to early because the vaccine was 'British' and a British good news story needed? I have no evidence of this of course 😉

 

Finally the Pfizer vaccine is not American, it was developed in Germany

62% against 95%?. It is 33% less effective then. That is a big difference. And not for a second do I believe the data from Moderna/Pfizer has been forged. They wouldn't dare do that not in America.

 

A lot of companies will make money in this and a lot will lose out. Yet some not named on your list are planning for late 2021 approval of their vaccines then start the manufacturer process. I don't see the point. The market will be over saturated by then.

[AnnieC]

27 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

So it is basically rubbish compared to the American vaccines? I can't see America, Canada, Australia or cruselines allowing you in or onboard with a 38% chance of not being protected.

No. For a start it's much easier to transport and store. For another, further trials are needed to ascertain the accurate efficacy rate with the lower dosage on the over 55s. Or that's my understanding.

 

Caveat: Failed chemistry, biology and physics 'O' level in 1969.😉 I'm assuming Dr Clark did a little better.

[yorkshirephil]

Only time will tell how effective these vaccines are. It is not unusual for Pharma companies to statistically enhance their data to then be caught out by the FDA and MHRA during approval. Too many ifs and buts at the moment. However should I be offered a Covid vaccine in the near future I would happily accept 60%. 

[zap99]

1 minute ago, yorkshirephil said:

Only time will tell how effective these vaccines are. It is not unusual for Pharma companies to statistically enhance their data to then be caught out by the FDA and MHRA during approval. Too many ifs and buts at the moment. However should I be offered a Covid vaccine in the near future I would happily accept 60%. 

I can imagine the phone call. Good morning, this is the Doctor's surgery. Could you pop up this morning for your Covid jab. We will email your choices of vaccine. Would you care to select you favourite.

[ace2542]

15 minutes ago, yorkshirephil said:

Only time will tell how effective these vaccines are. It is not unusual for Pharma companies to statistically enhance their data to then be caught out by the FDA and MHRA during approval. Too many ifs and buts at the moment. However should I be offered a Covid vaccine in the near future I would happily accept 60%. 

These American RNA vaccines are more effective. They use part of the virus genetic code against it. The Astra doesn't do that. It uses a modified cold virus apparently hence the lower effectiveness perhaps.

Edited November 27, 2020 by ace2542

[ace2542]

19 minutes ago, AnnieC said:

No. For a start it's much easier to transport and store. For another, further trials are needed to ascertain the accurate efficacy rate with the lower dosage on the over 55s. Or that's my understanding.

 

Caveat: Failed chemistry, biology and physics 'O' level in 1969.😉 I'm assuming Dr Clark did a little better.

I failed the sciences but my maths is very good 1 plus 1 is 3 you do know that don't you? 🤣🤣🤣.

 

In all seriousness 33% is a hell of a figure. It is like a 3rd less effective fwiw. I have been thinking about this a lot and I now don't think that countries, airlines or cruiselines will have the balls for want of a better pun to reject any vaccine. It would cause way too much trouble on so many levels. But if I can I will still seek out of the Moderna privately seems to work better.

[ace2542]

10 minutes ago, KnowTheScore said:

Anyone who believes the "sales pitch" figures from a manufacturer is imo extremely naive.  OF COURSE each vaccine manufacturer is going to say their vaccine is the best and has high effectiveness. 

The TRUTH can only be determined by having the vaccines fully independently tested by ruthlessly impartial world leading research and testing bodies like the Cochrane Institute.

 

Look at Flu Vaccines and how they are aggressively marketed every year by the NHS (this year's  campaign has already begun!).    Yet Cochrane reviewed the Flu vaccines and concluded that:

 

"Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case"

 

 

https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influenza-healthy-adults

 

By any standard that is absolutely dire efficacy yet these vaccines are sold in their millions every year

 

To the OP, Hollyjess who posed the question of whether or not to have the vaccine I would say this.

 

The decision to have ANY vaccine, for me, is dependent on a number of factors which need to be carefully assessed.  To make that assessment you need to acquire a certain amount of information otherwise it is simply impossible to make any kind of informed decision.   The factors are:

 

- What are my chances of contracting the virus or disease in question

If I have more chance of winning the lottery then I personally wouldn't get a vaccine

 

- What are my chances of dying from the virus or disease if I did catch it?

Again if it is lottery chances then I wouldn't get the vaccine

 

- Has the vaccine been tested by totally impartial bodies like Cochrane?

If it hasn't then I wouldn't take the vaccine.  I don't remotely believe what Pharma puts out

Most Pharma companies have been heavily fined for fraudulent practices, falsifying data etc

Pfizer - Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History

www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history

Pfizer and the CIHR

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875889/

"Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results." AstraZeneca to Pay $520 Million to Settle Fraud Case

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Health/astrazeneca-pay-520-million-illegally-marketing-seroquel-schizophrenia/story?id=10488647

AstraZeneca: Corporate Rap Sheet

https://www.corp-research.org/astrazeneca

 

- What is the efficacy rate of the vaccine?

Compare this with your chances of catching and dying from the virus/disease above

 

- What are the full list of ingredients in the vaccine?

Look at every ingredient and assess how harmful it is and whether you have any allergies to them

In recent years many vaccines contained Thimerosal which is 50% Mercury,  very toxic, they no longer put this in.  Some Flu vaccines contain Squalene, another undesirable ingredient imo.  Others contain the adjuvant MF59 (research that).

 

- What are the known possible side effects of the vaccine?

MOST vaccines produce cases of very severe side effects but only in very small numbers.  Some side effects are life changing and debilitating.  You have to assess the very small chances that you might be the unlucky person against your chances of catching and dying from the virus/disease and make a judgement.  

 

- How many people have had side effects before?

You can run queries against the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database (VAERS) to see how many cases of side effects any given vaccine has had.  The results will likely surprise you.

Link here - https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html

 

There are many other factors than the above but I consider the above the absolute minimum research needed to be able to make any kind of informed decision for my personal health and safety.

 

I am not anti-vax, I am like millions of others simply doing sensible and appropriate research.

 

The difficult with COVID vaccines is that they have not been around for any length of time and thus most of the above are unknown quantities.  Because of that I can't currently make any kind of informed decision about them and consequently I personally will NOT be taking any Covid vaccine.

 

Every person is different and the older, vulnerable with underlying health conditions are at increased risk from Covid and thus have difficult decisions to make.  In fact any way you cut it they are going to have to make an "uninformed decision" based on the fear factor of dying from Covid.  I expect most will take the vaccines and hope for the best.   I wish them well and don't envy their position.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then you will never set on a foot on a cruise ship again and maybe even not on an airplane again. But that is your choice and I respect it. We all have that choice. I suspect most people if they can will seek out of the most effective one. A lot of money to be had for some people I think.

[yorkshirephil]

2 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

These American RNA vaccines are more effective. They use part of the virus genetic code. The Astra doesn't do. It uses a modified cold virus hence the lower effectiveness perhaps.

Nobody knows how effective any of the vaccines are, we only have the manufacturers statistical opinion. They are not approved and there is no guarantee that they will be regardless of the will of the government or the general population. The FDA and MHRA and other regulatory bodies will prioritise approval only if the vaccines meet the required standards set out in various Pharmacopeia and regulations. 

 

It will be a difficult decision for a lot of people as to whether they have the vaccine or not.

[Chrisdriving]

29 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

Then you will never set on a foot on a cruise ship again and maybe even not on an airplane again. 

 

What a load of tosh, of course you will be able to do either without being given the jab to protect you from the only health condition Human beings obviously only now can suffer from.

 

But if it did you are right, i would indeed never set foot on a cruise ship again we wont fly anyway, very happy with that personally if it came to it.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Chrisdriving

[pete14]

24 minutes ago, KnowTheScore said:

Anyone who believes the "sales pitch" figures from a manufacturer is imo extremely naive.  OF COURSE each vaccine manufacturer is going to say their vaccine is the best and has high effectiveness. 

The TRUTH can only be determined by having the vaccines fully independently tested by ruthlessly impartial world leading research and testing bodies like the Cochrane Institute.

 

Look at Flu Vaccines and how they are aggressively marketed every year by the NHS (this year's  campaign has already begun!).    Yet Cochrane reviewed the Flu vaccines and concluded that:

 

"Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case"

 

 

https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influenza-healthy-adults

 

By any standard that is absolutely dire efficacy yet these vaccines are sold in their millions every year

 

To the OP, Hollyjess who posed the question of whether or not to have the vaccine I would say this.

 

The decision to have ANY vaccine, for me, is dependent on a number of factors which need to be carefully assessed.  To make that assessment you need to acquire a certain amount of information otherwise it is simply impossible to make any kind of informed decision.   The factors are:

 

- What are my chances of contracting the virus or disease in question

If I have more chance of winning the lottery then I personally wouldn't get a vaccine

 

- What are my chances of dying from the virus or disease if I did catch it?

Again if it is lottery chances then I personally wouldn't get the vaccine

 

- Has the vaccine been tested by totally impartial bodies like Cochrane?

If it hasn't then I wouldn't take the vaccine.  I don't remotely believe what Pharma puts out.  Most Pharma companies have been heavily fined for fraudulent practices, falsifying data etc

Pfizer - Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History

www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history

Pfizer and the CIHR

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875889/

"Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results." AstraZeneca to Pay $520 Million to Settle Fraud Case

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Health/astrazeneca-pay-520-million-illegally-marketing-seroquel-schizophrenia/story?id=10488647

AstraZeneca: Corporate Rap Sheet

https://www.corp-research.org/astrazeneca

 

- What is the efficacy rate of the vaccine?

Compare this with your chances of catching and dying from the virus/disease above

 

- What are the full list of ingredients in the vaccine?

Look at every ingredient and assess how harmful it is and whether you have any allergies to them

In recent years many vaccines contained Thimerosal which is 50% Mercury,  very toxic, they no longer put this in.  Some Flu vaccines contain Squalene, another undesirable ingredient imo.  Others contain the adjuvant MF59 (research that).

 

- What are the known possible side effects of the vaccine?

MOST vaccines produce cases of very severe side effects but only in very small numbers.  Some side effects are life changing and debilitating.  You have to assess the very small chances that you might be the unlucky person against your chances of catching and dying from the virus/disease and make a judgement.  

 

- How many people have had side effects before?

You can run queries against the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database (VAERS) to see how many cases of side effects any given vaccine has had.  The results will likely surprise you.

Link here - https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html

 

There are many other factors than the above but I consider the above the absolute minimum research needed to be able to make any kind of informed decision for my personal health and safety.

 

I am not anti-vax, I am like millions of others simply doing sensible and appropriate research.

 

The difficulty with COVID vaccines is that they have not been around for any length of time and thus most of the above are unknown quantities.  Because of that I can't currently make any kind of informed decision about them and consequently I personally will NOT be taking any Covid vaccine.

 

Every person is different and the older, vulnerable with underlying health conditions are at increased risk from Covid and thus have difficult decisions to make.  In fact any way you cut it they are going to have to make an "uninformed decision" based on the fear factor of dying from Covid.  I expect most will take the vaccines and hope for the best.   I wish them well and don't envy their position.

 

 

Whilst there is nothing wrong with your questions, in these days, where everybody is an expert because of what they have found by following a simple Google search, I doubt most people have the knowledge or expertise to give reasoned answers based on accurate and valid evidence to answer them in an authoritative way.
 

Any vaccine that proves not to work or to have harmful side effects when used in the general population is likely to be hit with legal action bigger than we have ever seen. That prospect should give us confidence in their vaccines. Manufacturers stand to lose more than they gain, especially those who are selling the vaccine at cost price.
 

I have just returned from my third vaccine trial appointment for the Novavax virus. Nothing I have heard, seen or experienced during those 3 appointments leads me to believe that corners are being cut, quite the opposite in fact.

[ace2542]

1 minute ago, pete14 said:

Whilst there is nothing wrong with your questions, in these days, where everybody is an expert because of what they have found by following a simple Google search, I doubt most people have the knowledge or expertise to give reasoned answers based on accurate and valid evidence to answer them in an authoritative way.
 

Any vaccine that proves not to work or to have harmful side effects when used in the general population is likely to be hit with legal action bigger than we have ever seen. That prospect should give us confidence in their vaccines. Manufacturers stand to lose more than they gain, especially those who are selling the vaccine at cost price.
 

I have just returned from my third vaccine trial appointment for the Novavax virus. Nothing I have heard, seen or experienced during those 3 appointments leads me to believe that corners are being cut, quite the opposite in fact.

Especially those whom have been paid upfront for their work and some have haven't they? Or are they all just working off order books with payment to come?

[bobstheboy]

All these "experts" or are they ?

 

I'll take my chances if one is approved and offered to me.

[ace2542]

11 minutes ago, Chrisdriving said:

 

What a load of tosh, of course you will be able to do either without being given the jab to protect you from the only health condition Human beings obviously only now can suffer from.

I doubt it now that Qantas have put that line in the sand insisting upon a vaccine to fly. I can see many airlines doing that and the cruise lines following them the cruise lines in particular who in some case visit several countries in one sailing. Maybe in a few years they will back away from it but not in the short term. Like I have said before this could cause a lot of problems in the world.

Edited November 27, 2020 by ace2542

[Josy1953]

16 minutes ago, pete14 said:

Whilst there is nothing wrong with your questions, in these days, where everybody is an expert because of what they have found by following a simple Google search, I doubt most people have the knowledge or expertise to give reasoned answers based on accurate and valid evidence to answer them in an authoritative way.
 

Any vaccine that proves not to work or to have harmful side effects when used in the general population is likely to be hit with legal action bigger than we have ever seen. That prospect should give us confidence in their vaccines. Manufacturers stand to lose more than they gain, especially those who are selling the vaccine at cost price.
 

I have just returned from my third vaccine trial appointment for the Novavax virus. Nothing I have heard, seen or experienced during those 3 appointments leads me to believe that corners are being cut, quite the opposite in fact.

I agree 100%.

All of my appointments during in the trial have been very professional and have given me no reason to be concerned.  It seemed to be very quiet this morning compared to my 2 previous appointments I wondered whether people have dropped out or whether they were extremely busy earlier in the week.

I got there at 10am and was out by 11am.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Josy1953

[wowzz]

All I can say is that regardless of what anyone wants to post after trawling through Google, if I get offered a vaccine I will have it, as any vaccine us better than none.

[terrierjohn]

1 hour ago, AnnieC said:

Dr Simon Clarke (Professor of Cellular Biology, University of Reading (other scientists are available)) has taken issue with Fergus Walsh of the BBC - according to him, the efficacy rate for the Oxford vaccine is 62%. The figure of 65-70% is reliant on the half dose mistake results being right, not yet proven.

 

 

Why would you think that the half dose results should be any less reliable than the full dose ones? They were both undertaken at the same time under the same standards, so both should be acceptable.

It certainly would be helpful in the long term for the extra efficacy to be explained, because it could have implications for all sorts of other vaccinations, but that extra work should not necessarily lead to a delay in approval.

[AnnieC]

Just now, terrierjohn said:

Why would you think that the half dose results should be any less reliable than the full dose ones? They were both undertaken at the same time under the same standards, so both should be acceptable.

It certainly would be helpful in the long term for the extra efficacy to be explained, because it could have implications for all sorts of other vaccinations, but that extra work should not necessarily lead to a delay in approval.

I don't. I know no more than anyone else on here. However, the experts (possibly without exception) think it's perfectly possible as the mistaken half dose was apparently only trialled on under 55s. Further trials will presumably add to the sum of human knowledge.

[yorkshirephil]

10 minutes ago, pete14 said:

Whilst there is nothing wrong with your questions, in these days, where everybody is an expert because of what they have found by following a simple Google search, I doubt most people have the knowledge or expertise to give reasoned answers based on accurate and valid evidence to answer them in an authoritative way.
 

Any vaccine that proves not to work or to have harmful side effects when used in the general population is likely to be hit with legal action bigger than we have ever seen. That prospect should give us confidence in their vaccines. Manufacturers stand to lose more than they gain, especially those who are selling the vaccine at cost price.
 

I have just returned from my third vaccine trial appointment for the Novavax virus. Nothing I have heard, seen or experienced during those 3 appointments leads me to believe that corners are being cut, quite the opposite in fact.

You are bang on the money about about legal action, the ambulance chasers will have a field day, I can imagine the spam and mailshots coming fast and furious "Did you have a reaction to the covid vaccine, did you know you could be entitled to thousands in compensation?" sadly this is becoming the way of the world.

All good Pharmaceutical companies have robust Quality Assurance departments that do not answer to the company hierarchy, to stop corner cutting or shady practice. However that doesn't stop some of them trying to manipulate statistics, which is exactly why new drugs are approved by independent regulators. I worked in the Pharma industry for over 30 years and went through many FDA and MHRA audits. We would prepare for months ensuring we got all our ducks in a row for an audit, even though we got very few major findings against us.

Selling at cost price? yes after all expenses have been recouped.

 

Respect to you on the trial and good luck. I am down for 3 different trials but not been approached to actually take part, albeit I have Asthma which may be against me initially even though that raises my risk to covid.

 

[ace2542]

4 minutes ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

Utter nonsense.   That's an arrogant suggestion which totally fails to take into account that millions upon millions of people have already had Covid and thus have way better immunity than any vaccine can provide.   Are you proposing to raise vacinees to sainthood whilst leaving all the millions of other immune people as 2nd class citizens?!!  Wow.  That's the stuff of WW2 discrimination.

 

Here's the truth.  If I had to stand in close quarters to a person and there were 2 choices, a person who had been vaccinated and a person who had previous had Covid 2 months ago I would choose the Covid person every day of the week and twice on Sundays.   The vaccinated person poses far greater risk to me than the Covid person.   Not least because you can not beat naturally acquired immunity (because that gives you BOTH antibody immunity and T-Cell immunity) but also because none of the vaccines are 100% effective and even at 90% effectiveness (which I don't believe for a second) that means 1 in every 10 people who get the shots will not be protected.

 

Your reasoning is off by lightyears.

 

Consider a ship with 3000 passengers on board.  All vaccinated.

 

That means 300 of them ARE NOT protected purely because of vaccine efficacy limitations let alone any variations in efficacy caused by individual's personal health and response to the vaccines (did you think a 90% efficacy rate meant every individual gets that benefit)

 

300 cases of Covid on-board will be enough to shut down the cruise, get everyone isolated in cabins and all the rest.

 

Vaccines are not going to be the magic silver bullet I'm afraid.

 

The Covid threat will always be with us just like Flu.  Both kill vulnerable compromised people.  Do you propose to stop people cruising if they haven't had Flu jabs? 

Of course I am not proposing that but that is how it is going to be for a while at least. This could destroy a lot of relationships in the world forever. Whose idea do you think this no fly no vaccine business at Qantas? The head of the company or the Australia Prime Minister? There will never be 300 cases among a ship of 3000 with vaccines insisted upon and I think these vaccine do offer the antibody and t-cell protections. It seems like the vaccine will reduce the spread as well as offer protection. It takes a lot longer to show Covid cases than flu. And with the flu vaccine I think it is understood that most people on certain cruse ships have it.