FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Anti-vaccination
Anti-vaccination
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those with medical reasons, unfortunately don’t have a choice to have or not. " Yes they do. My Dad is 76, has COPD and a heart condition and his doctor left him to make the decision himself and my dad has chosen not to have it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those with medical reasons, unfortunately don’t have a choice to have or not. Yes they do. My Dad is 76, has COPD and a heart condition and his doctor left him to make the decision himself and my dad has chosen not to have it. " That is one scenario however those that have been advised not to have it, don’t have a choice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone genuinely has a moral, religious or ethical reason not to be vaccinated I really can't see them being coerced to have it. We actually have a criminal law against forced vaccines. I know there's lots of news about 'mandatory vaccine requirements to enter' as yet though a little research behind the headline shows there will be exceptions. It's all speculation for now "Wife had first jab then had a sevier reaction and now advised not to have it due to complications. So there are some that just can't have it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone genuinely has a moral, religious or ethical reason not to be vaccinated I really can't see them being coerced to have it. We actually have a criminal law against forced vaccines. I know there's lots of news about 'mandatory vaccine requirements to enter' as yet though a little research behind the headline shows there will be exceptions. It's all speculation for now "Hi as you have pointed out about law their is also a law in putting another's life in danger ( endangering life) this will I believe be applied in case law, regarding this virus, same applies if a person has a sti and infected another | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the moral or ethical reason not to have it?" Isn't one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone genuinely has a moral, religious or ethical reason not to be vaccinated I really can't see them being coerced to have it. We actually have a criminal law against forced vaccines. I know there's lots of news about 'mandatory vaccine requirements to enter' as yet though a little research behind the headline shows there will be exceptions. It's all speculation for now
Hi as you have pointed out about law their is also a law in putting another's life in danger ( endangering life) this will I believe be applied in case law, regarding this virus, same applies if a person has a sti and infected another"I’ll take that bet - shall we say £500 to the charity of the winners choice? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone genuinely has a moral, religious or ethical reason not to be vaccinated I really can't see them being coerced to have it. We actually have a criminal law against forced vaccines. I know there's lots of news about 'mandatory vaccine requirements to enter' as yet though a little research behind the headline shows there will be exceptions. It's all speculation for now
Hi as you have pointed out about law their is also a law in putting another's life in danger ( endangering life) this will I believe be applied in case law, regarding this virus, same applies if a person has a sti and infected another
I’ll take that bet - shall we say £500 to the charity of the winners choice? "I already give to charity and more than one always have and what bet  but as all these things are spoken of putting things in place it'll be a case law at some stage as human rights go | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the moral or ethical reason not to have it?" Physical medical issues aside... There aren’t any. Equally all of the major religions have no objections - there’s only a handful of obscure religions that voice theological objections to vaccines. Ultimately it’s purely down to personal choice if someone decides not to have it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy. "You are correct that we don't know the effect of any of the different vaccines on unborn children. None of the vaccines are licensed yet for pregnant women. We do however know the effect of covid on the unborn child. You can pass it on to them in the womb and make them very ill and risk death. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
You are correct that we don't know the effect of any of the different vaccines on unborn children. None of the vaccines are licensed yet for pregnant women. We do however know the effect of covid on the unborn child. You can pass it on to them in the womb and make them very ill and risk death."I can pass all sorts of stuff onto an unborn child there's medical evidence to help dictate my decisions if it does. No one knows what the vaccine will do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of people who can't have it for medical reasons my be very very very small.it must be something like 0.000005% or something" Neither I nor anyone in my extended family can, for medical reason, have it. That's 12 of us in total. Yet we're all very healthy and have no other 'underlying conditions' except we're allergic to the vaccine's 'gloop'. Can't have Flu jabs for same reason. I know of 3 other people I work with too. Another person I know is a Level 7 (the highest rank) mid-wife. So I don't know the exact figure but I can't but help ponder you were a bit trigger happy with your zeros!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those with medical reasons, unfortunately don’t have a choice to have or not. " You are offered it, it's not compulsory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy. "It’s not just about the individual though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though."Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's no one elses business what so ever if an individual choses not to have a vaccine. It will be discrimination if they close events etc to those without a vaccine. I can see many legal caws arising in years to come. " Why is it discrimination? The right to opt out of a vaccination isn’t a protected characteristic. If it’s due to being a member of one of the very small number of minor religions or on health reasons then yes you could argue protected characteristics, but otherwise I don’t see which one it would fall under? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. ". Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both."This  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both."Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation. "Actually, I didn’t ever have a flu jab, because I didn’t need it, but then I was told how it protected others, so now I have it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation.
Actually, I didn’t ever have a flu jab, because I didn’t need it, but then I was told how it protected others, so now I have it. "Why? The flu jab is only offered to certain groups for a reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of people who can't have it for medical reasons my be very very very small.it must be something like 0.000005% or something Neither I nor anyone in my extended family can, for medical reason, have it. That's 12 of us in total. Yet we're all very healthy and have no other 'underlying conditions' except we're allergic to the vaccine's 'gloop'. Can't have Flu jabs for same reason. I know of 3 other people I work with too. Another person I know is a Level 7 (the highest rank) mid-wife. So I don't know the exact figure but I can't but help ponder you were a bit trigger happy with your zeros! "But equally I don’t know a single person who can’t have it. I think the number in your family has to be discounted as it’s clearly due to genetics... but the others you know? Is it fluke you know 3? Who knows! I would be interested to know the real statistics around the % of the population who are allergic to vaccine components. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation.
Actually, I didn’t ever have a flu jab, because I didn’t need it, but then I was told how it protected others, so now I have it.
Why? The flu jab is only offered to certain groups for a reason. "And I’m in that group, but I didn’t feel I needed it, I do it for others | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation.
Actually, I didn’t ever have a flu jab, because I didn’t need it, but then I was told how it protected others, so now I have it.
Why? The flu jab is only offered to certain groups for a reason. "It’s only offered for free on the NHS to specific groups - if money was no object in the budget I’m sure they’d offer it to everyone. Anyone can pay to have it privately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation.
Actually, I didn’t ever have a flu jab, because I didn’t need it, but then I was told how it protected others, so now I have it.
Why? The flu jab is only offered to certain groups for a reason.
And I’m in that group, but I didn’t feel I needed it, I do it for others "Aren't you a Saint!? But those that Feel they are vulnerable are having it anyway so the point of you having it is what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation.
Actually, I didn’t ever have a flu jab, because I didn’t need it, but then I was told how it protected others, so now I have it.
Why? The flu jab is only offered to certain groups for a reason.
It’s only offered for free on the NHS to specific groups - if money was no object in the budget I’m sure they’d offer it to everyone.
Anyone can pay to have it privately."But why would they? I don't think I'm at risk and I don't feel at risk of covid either. So why do I need a jab? I'm not seeing anyone to pass it on to and those that are vulnerable have all had the jab ... why do I need it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation.
Actually, I didn’t ever have a flu jab, because I didn’t need it, but then I was told how it protected others, so now I have it.
Why? The flu jab is only offered to certain groups for a reason.
And I’m in that group, but I didn’t feel I needed it, I do it for others
Aren't you a Saint!? But those that Feel they are vulnerable are having it anyway so the point of you having it is what?"It’s not about being a saint, it’s about doing what you can to help others. The more people that are vaccinated, the less likely it is to be transmitted to other more vulnerable people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation.
Actually, I didn’t ever have a flu jab, because I didn’t need it, but then I was told how it protected others, so now I have it.
Why? The flu jab is only offered to certain groups for a reason.
And I’m in that group, but I didn’t feel I needed it, I do it for others
Aren't you a Saint!? But those that Feel they are vulnerable are having it anyway so the point of you having it is what?
It’s not about being a saint, it’s about doing what you can to help others.
The more people that are vaccinated, the less likely it is to be transmitted to other more vulnerable people."But the vulnerable have all had the chance to have the jab. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not having it. I may change my mind once phase 3 trails are completed in 2023 if the vaccines are given a full license. As yet they are still in trial stage with no longer term testing. Once I'm satisfied with the long term results I may decide to have it then." This
Based an a personal risk assesnent... I doubt if I caught it, which in itself is infinitesamally small, it would cause anything more than an annoyance for a short period of time.
Covid = certain death, because that's what the propaganda says
Vaccine = reduced symptoms at best, long term affects, unknown.
I'll give it a miss ta | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not about being a saint, it’s about doing what you can to help others. The more people that are vaccinated, the less likely it is to be transmitted to other more vulnerable people." But no one can tell Scarlet Seduction that the vaccine won't affect her unborn or even unconceived children. The studies have not been done yet. Asking a mother or expectant mother to potentially put her children at risk for the sake of anyone else is ridiculous. As a father I can tell you this. If i knew there was a risk to my child but not taking it would risk the lives of others, I sure as hell wouldn't take it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation.
Actually, I didn’t ever have a flu jab, because I didn’t need it, but then I was told how it protected others, so now I have it.
Why? The flu jab is only offered to certain groups for a reason.
It’s only offered for free on the NHS to specific groups - if money was no object in the budget I’m sure they’d offer it to everyone.
Anyone can pay to have it privately.
But why would they? I don't think I'm at risk and I don't feel at risk of covid either. So why do I need a jab? I'm not seeing anyone to pass it on to and those that are vulnerable have all had the jab ... why do I need it?"That’s entirely up to you to make that decision based on your personal circumstances. Others (who aren’t personally vulnerable) may decide to have it for reasons of their own. Fear of passing it on to a vulnerable family member? Working in a high contact public facing job? Purely not wanting to risk catching it because they don’t want to be ill unnecessarily? There’s lots of reasons a “healthy” individual might opt in for a flu jab. You can probably add social responsibility to the list of reasons for the Covid vaccination. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not about being a saint, it’s about doing what you can to help others. The more people that are vaccinated, the less likely it is to be transmitted to other more vulnerable people. But no one can tell Scarlet Seduction that the vaccine won't affect her unborn or even unconceived children. The studies have not been done yet. Asking a mother or expectant mother to potentially put her children at risk for the sake of anyone else is ridiculous. As a father I can tell you this. If i knew there was a risk to my child but not taking it would risk the lives of others, I sure as hell wouldn't take it." Exactly my point. No one can say categorically that it won't have any long term effect on an unborn child. I'll leave it thanks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not about being a saint, it’s about doing what you can to help others. The more people that are vaccinated, the less likely it is to be transmitted to other more vulnerable people. But no one can tell Scarlet Seduction that the vaccine won't affect her unborn or even unconceived children. The studies have not been done yet. Asking a mother or expectant mother to potentially put her children at risk for the sake of anyone else is ridiculous. As a father I can tell you this. If i knew there was a risk to my child but not taking it would risk the lives of others, I sure as hell wouldn't take it. Exactly my point. No one can say categorically that it won't have any long term effect on an unborn child. I'll leave it thanks. " I couldn’t work out if you are actually pregnant or planning, and didn’t ask as it’s none of my business, but absolutely, I would be the same in that case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not about being a saint, it’s about doing what you can to help others. The more people that are vaccinated, the less likely it is to be transmitted to other more vulnerable people. But no one can tell Scarlet Seduction that the vaccine won't affect her unborn or even unconceived children. The studies have not been done yet. Asking a mother or expectant mother to potentially put her children at risk for the sake of anyone else is ridiculous. As a father I can tell you this. If i knew there was a risk to my child but not taking it would risk the lives of others, I sure as hell wouldn't take it. Exactly my point. No one can say categorically that it won't have any long term effect on an unborn child. I'll leave it thanks. " To play devils advocate you also can’t categorically say that catching Covid as an unvaccinated individual and / or the effects of long Covid won’t have an impact on fertility / birth defects / successfully carrying to term | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation. "I wouldn’t presume to know others motivations & ultimately it doesn’t matter, as long as they get injected. You don’t get extra immunity for either reason...or both. I am thus a fool, thank you for your insight. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation.
Actually, I didn’t ever have a flu jab, because I didn’t need it, but then I was told how it protected others, so now I have it.
Why? The flu jab is only offered to certain groups for a reason.
It’s only offered for free on the NHS to specific groups - if money was no object in the budget I’m sure they’d offer it to everyone.
Anyone can pay to have it privately.
But why would they? I don't think I'm at risk and I don't feel at risk of covid either. So why do I need a jab? I'm not seeing anyone to pass it on to and those that are vulnerable have all had the jab ... why do I need it?
That’s entirely up to you to make that decision based on your personal circumstances. Others (who aren’t personally vulnerable) may decide to have it for reasons of their own.
Fear of passing it on to a vulnerable family member?
Working in a high contact public facing job?
Purely not wanting to risk catching it because they don’t want to be ill unnecessarily?
There’s lots of reasons a “healthy” individual might opt in for a flu jab. You can probably add social responsibility to the list of reasons for the Covid vaccination. "Add social responsibility to the list for the Covid vaccination?? Sorry but it doesn't stop you catching it, nor spreading it to others.. It reduces (they hope) the symptoms in those at risk with other health issues.. It'll be interesting to see the numbers dying in october and onwards this year | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not about being a saint, it’s about doing what you can to help others. The more people that are vaccinated, the less likely it is to be transmitted to other more vulnerable people. But no one can tell Scarlet Seduction that the vaccine won't affect her unborn or even unconceived children. The studies have not been done yet. Asking a mother or expectant mother to potentially put her children at risk for the sake of anyone else is ridiculous. As a father I can tell you this. If i knew there was a risk to my child but not taking it would risk the lives of others, I sure as hell wouldn't take it. Exactly my point. No one can say categorically that it won't have any long term effect on an unborn child. I'll leave it thanks. To play devils advocate you also can’t categorically say that catching Covid as an unvaccinated individual and / or the effects of long Covid won’t have an impact on fertility / birth defects / successfully carrying to term" As yet very little evidence that Covid does affect this. Also it's not a given you will even catch Covid. Catching Covid isn't a choice but taking the vaccine is. Why would you choose a potential risk to an unborn child? And as the vaccine does not stop you from catching Covid, who is to say, if there is a risk to an unborn child from covid, that risk isn't still there when vaccinated | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation. "When it comes to talking about having the vaccine on here it does seem like most people have had it to protect others. Like every thing else with this pandemic protest the vunerable, protect the nhs. I'm not saying that's wrong. It depends on your situation as to whether you think you should/need it. It's interesting that the uptake in the UK is in the 90% bracket but only 60%ish in Europe. They obviously question things more than the brits do. And quite right to! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Hi as you have pointed out about law their is also a law in putting another's life in danger ( endangering life) this will I believe be applied in case law, regarding this virus, same applies if a person has a sti and infected another" ** You'd have to prove that someone knew they had the STI or in this case covid and deliberately put another at risk. If someone who refused the vaccine, with a confirmed case of covid, went out and started licking the face of a random elderly person (or similar) I would hope they would be detained, quickly, and on something mental health based before vague charges on endangering life. Actually getting the charge of 'endangering life' for covid would certainly get headlines but would the CPS ever actually take it on? They rarely take it as a option when there's an actual traffic accident. I don't honestly know why people don't vaccinate, it baffled me that 3 of my son's classmates joined him for the nasal flu spray last November. 4 kids from what is a class size of 20 on the school roll, after extensive publicity of the benefits of the flu jab during the pandemic. The results were no better for the other year groups in school. If we can't get people to trust something that long established then I suspect we have little hope of people taking something 'new' "The influenza vaccination this year was ‘opt in’ for all children, not ‘opt out’. Unless parents completed online requests, their child did not receive this. Many parents just failed to sign their children up or chose not to temporarily weaken their immune system based upon COVID data at the time. Mrs SW | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation.
Actually, I didn’t ever have a flu jab, because I didn’t need it, but then I was told how it protected others, so now I have it.
Why? The flu jab is only offered to certain groups for a reason.
It’s only offered for free on the NHS to specific groups - if money was no object in the budget I’m sure they’d offer it to everyone.
Anyone can pay to have it privately.
But why would they? I don't think I'm at risk and I don't feel at risk of covid either. So why do I need a jab? I'm not seeing anyone to pass it on to and those that are vulnerable have all had the jab ... why do I need it?
That’s entirely up to you to make that decision based on your personal circumstances. Others (who aren’t personally vulnerable) may decide to have it for reasons of their own.
Fear of passing it on to a vulnerable family member?
Working in a high contact public facing job?
Purely not wanting to risk catching it because they don’t want to be ill unnecessarily?
There’s lots of reasons a “healthy” individual might opt in for a flu jab. You can probably add social responsibility to the list of reasons for the Covid vaccination.
Add social responsibility to the list for the Covid vaccination??
Sorry but it doesn't stop you catching it, nor spreading it to others..
It reduces (they hope) the symptoms in those at risk with other health issues..
It'll be interesting to see the numbers dying in october and onwards this year"You are completely misinterpreting my words. I was listing possible reasons a non vulnerable individual may opt to get a vaccine. Many consider it their social responsibility to get a vaccination. Whether you share that view is an entirely separate discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation.
When it comes to talking about having the vaccine on here it does seem like most people have had it to protect others. Like every thing else with this pandemic protest the vunerable, protect the nhs. I'm not saying that's wrong. It depends on your situation as to whether you think you should/need it.
It's interesting that the uptake in the UK is in the 90% bracket but only 60%ish in Europe. They obviously question things more than the brits do. And quite right to! "This has more to do with European vaccine availability and the fact they have to pay! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not about being a saint, it’s about doing what you can to help others. The more people that are vaccinated, the less likely it is to be transmitted to other more vulnerable people. But no one can tell Scarlet Seduction that the vaccine won't affect her unborn or even unconceived children. The studies have not been done yet. Asking a mother or expectant mother to potentially put her children at risk for the sake of anyone else is ridiculous. As a father I can tell you this. If i knew there was a risk to my child but not taking it would risk the lives of others, I sure as hell wouldn't take it. Exactly my point. No one can say categorically that it won't have any long term effect on an unborn child. I'll leave it thanks. To play devils advocate you also can’t categorically say that catching Covid as an unvaccinated individual and / or the effects of long Covid won’t have an impact on fertility / birth defects / successfully carrying to term As yet very little evidence that Covid does affect this. Also it's not a given you will even catch Covid. Catching Covid isn't a choice but taking the vaccine is. Why would you choose a potential risk to an unborn child? And as the vaccine does not stop you from catching Covid, who is to say, if there is a risk to an unborn child from covid, that risk isn't still there when vaccinated " There’s also no evidence that the vaccination has any impact on any of the things listed. The point I’m making is that we aren’t able to categorically say either way and that’s why it’s up to each individual woman to make the right decision for their personal circumstances. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s also no evidence that the vaccination has any impact on any of the things listed. The point I’m making is that we aren’t able to categorically say either way and that’s why it’s up to each individual woman to make the right decision for their personal circumstances. " Which goes back to my original point. There is no evidence is does but no evidence is doesn't. So why would any mother take the risk of the unknown with their child? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation.
When it comes to talking about having the vaccine on here it does seem like most people have had it to protect others. Like every thing else with this pandemic protest the vunerable, protect the nhs. I'm not saying that's wrong. It depends on your situation as to whether you think you should/need it.
It's interesting that the uptake in the UK is in the 90% bracket but only 60%ish in Europe. They obviously question things more than the brits do. And quite right to!
This has more to do with European vaccine availability and the fact they have to pay! "Those figures were from a few weeks ago before all the availability problems. Do they have to pay? People we know don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s also no evidence that the vaccination has any impact on any of the things listed. The point I’m making is that we aren’t able to categorically say either way and that’s why it’s up to each individual woman to make the right decision for their personal circumstances. Which goes back to my original point. There is no evidence is does but no evidence is doesn't. So why would any mother take the risk of the unknown with their child?" If she’s already pregnant she won’t be getting the jab anyway. As for future pregnancies... that’s up to the individual woman and for no else to decide for her. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s also no evidence that the vaccination has any impact on any of the things listed. The point I’m making is that we aren’t able to categorically say either way and that’s why it’s up to each individual woman to make the right decision for their personal circumstances. Which goes back to my original point. There is no evidence is does but no evidence is doesn't. So why would any mother take the risk of the unknown with their child? If she’s already pregnant she won’t be getting the jab anyway. As for future pregnancies... that’s up to the individual woman and for no else to decide for her. " I Absolutely agree the choice is theirs. And Scarlet Seduction has chosen not to and I fully understand and back her decision | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s also no evidence that the vaccination has any impact on any of the things listed. The point I’m making is that we aren’t able to categorically say either way and that’s why it’s up to each individual woman to make the right decision for their personal circumstances. Which goes back to my original point. There is no evidence is does but no evidence is doesn't. So why would any mother take the risk of the unknown with their child? If she’s already pregnant she won’t be getting the jab anyway. As for future pregnancies... that’s up to the individual woman and for no else to decide for her. I Absolutely agree the choice is theirs. And Scarlet Seduction has chosen not to and I fully understand and back her decision " In that case I would suggest you don’t question why a woman would potentially take a risk with her unborn child by having the vaccine. It’s her decision and if she feels the least risk and right choice is by taking the vaccine that’s her decision to make. Just like it’s equally her decision if not taking the vaccine is the right choice for her. Supporting her right to make her own choice goes both ways | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In that case I would suggest you don’t question why a woman would potentially take a risk with her unborn child by having the vaccine. It’s her decision and if she feels the least risk and right choice is by taking the vaccine that’s her decision to make. Just like it’s equally her decision if not taking the vaccine is the right choice for her. Supporting her right to make her own choice goes both ways " I fully support any Woman's decision on this matter or similar but I am allowed to express my opinion. Just as others did on Scarlet Seduction choice not to get vaccinated | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of people who can't have it for medical reasons my be very very very small.it must be something like 0.000005% or something Neither I nor anyone in my extended family can, for medical reason, have it. That's 12 of us in total. Yet we're all very healthy and have no other 'underlying conditions' except we're allergic to the vaccine's 'gloop'. Can't have Flu jabs for same reason. I know of 3 other people I work with too. Another person I know is a Level 7 (the highest rank) mid-wife. So I don't know the exact figure but I can't but help ponder you were a bit trigger happy with your zeros!
But equally I don’t know a single person who can’t have it. I think the number in your family has to be discounted as it’s clearly due to genetics... but the others you know? Is it fluke you know 3? Who knows!
I would be interested to know the real statistics around the % of the population who are allergic to vaccine components. "We just don't know and my guess is we never will as those sorts of figures - bearing in mind the 'aim of the game' is to get all that can have it to take it - will never be published. Not officially anyway. For clarity I am NOT anti-vaccine. Like I say for myself and the others mentioned we simply don't have the choice. The vast majority, including your goodself, do. So the worry (for want of a better word) is will they really enforce a two-tiered world of medical apartheid? If so its going to be a legal minefield. The other important factor that is being skirted around (again... don't want any 'news' that might put people off) is that the vaccine does not stop you getting or for that matter spreading it. It 'merely' boosts somoeone's survival chances if they do get infected. If it was a 'cure all' wonder drug then maybe just maybe enforcements might work (same as they do with Yellow Fever for example) but, alas, the vaccine does not yield that level of benefit. So in conclusion I could see mandatory testing to, say, get on a plane or into a country. But as for being vaccinated? Its going to cause a LOT of bother down the line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In that case I would suggest you don’t question why a woman would potentially take a risk with her unborn child by having the vaccine. It’s her decision and if she feels the least risk and right choice is by taking the vaccine that’s her decision to make. Just like it’s equally her decision if not taking the vaccine is the right choice for her. Supporting her right to make her own choice goes both ways I fully support any Woman's decision on this matter or similar but I am allowed to express my opinion. Just as others did on Scarlet Seduction choice not to get vaccinated " I personally haven’t questioned anyone’s choice. I opened the discussion that it’s not possible to categorically state either way what the long term outcomes will be after she said that because it cannot be categorically proven that the vaccine won’t impact future pregnancies. And I fully agree. We can’t categorically state either way. I won’t be replying further as you aren’t prepared to discuss the topic outside of the scope of your own opinion and perspective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy. "And also maybe a bit selfish? The point is not that you are young and healthy but that others are not.. Why do people find it so hard to understand?. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In that case I would suggest you don’t question why a woman would potentially take a risk with her unborn child by having the vaccine. It’s her decision and if she feels the least risk and right choice is by taking the vaccine that’s her decision to make. Just like it’s equally her decision if not taking the vaccine is the right choice for her. Supporting her right to make her own choice goes both ways I fully support any Woman's decision on this matter or similar but I am allowed to express my opinion. Just as others did on Scarlet Seduction choice not to get vaccinated I personally haven’t questioned anyone’s choice. I opened the discussion that it’s not possible to categorically state either way what the long term outcomes will be after she said that because it cannot be categorically proven that the vaccine won’t impact future pregnancies. And I fully agree. We can’t categorically state either way. I won’t be replying further as you aren’t prepared to discuss the topic outside of the scope of your own opinion and perspective." Well surely that is how we should discuss it,not quote so called experts which really annoys me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can’t have it due to health reasons, it’s a genuine worry that because I can’t, that will mean no holidays, no concerts no doing all the things I love. The last jab I had was the flu and it damaged my body. So I feel sad worried that because I can’t have it, then I just get forgotten about and no chance to do the things I want to xxxx" I believe there is a massive drive yo develop new strains that will work with people who could previously have it.. So hopefully it won't be long before you can get one that won't cause any problems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I opened the discussion that it’s not possible to categorically state either way what the long term outcomes will be after she said that because it cannot be categorically proven that the vaccine won’t impact future pregnancies. And I fully agree. We can’t categorically state either way. I won’t be replying further as you aren’t prepared to discuss the topic outside of the scope of your own opinion and perspective." I can't talk for others opinions and perspectives. But that's how a discussion works, to people present there opinion and reply with a challenge or an agreement or question. But I respect your right to walk away from the discussion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
And also maybe a bit selfish?
The point is not that you are young and healthy but that others are not..
Why do people find it so hard to understand?. "Read back through the thread. Your questions have already been debated for some time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
And also maybe a bit selfish?
The point is not that you are young and healthy but that others are not..
Why do people find it so hard to understand?.
Read back through the thread. Your questions have already been debated for some time."Who? Me My point is that I don't agree with the previous points as being valid .. Not that they don't exist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s also no evidence that the vaccination has any impact on any of the things listed. The point I’m making is that we aren’t able to categorically say either way and that’s why it’s up to each individual woman to make the right decision for their personal circumstances. Which goes back to my original point. There is no evidence is does but no evidence is doesn't. So why would any mother take the risk of the unknown with their child? If she’s already pregnant she won’t be getting the jab anyway. As for future pregnancies... that’s up to the individual woman and for no else to decide for her. I Absolutely agree the choice is theirs. And Scarlet Seduction has chosen not to and I fully understand and back her decision In that case I would suggest you don’t question why a woman would potentially take a risk with her unborn child by having the vaccine. It’s her decision and if she feels the least risk and right choice is by taking the vaccine that’s her decision to make. Just like it’s equally her decision if not taking the vaccine is the right choice for her. Supporting her right to make her own choice goes both ways " An I just say that without anyone taking any risk we don't develop anything that works.. The nature of medical research is to test and then re develop.. This situation in at the moment kind of suggests we are all now part of one huge arguably necessary experiment.. There is bound to be extreme cases that won't work or have done sort of negative reaction.. Realistically we have to expect things may not work for some of us. I see the point about unborn children and choice at the moment . However, I know this will be an unpopular point. Would it arguably be advisable for people to now consider waiting a while before having children? Given we are in an already overpopulated world I would think slowing down the number of births would be better than putting unborn babies at some sort of potential risk from something associated with the vaccine. Once everything's been proved to be safe and okay again.. Then people should maybe think about starting families again. That way the problem or worry doesn't exist at least for now.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s also no evidence that the vaccination has any impact on any of the things listed. The point I’m making is that we aren’t able to categorically say either way and that’s why it’s up to each individual woman to make the right decision for their personal circumstances. Which goes back to my original point. There is no evidence is does but no evidence is doesn't. So why would any mother take the risk of the unknown with their child? If she’s already pregnant she won’t be getting the jab anyway. As for future pregnancies... that’s up to the individual woman and for no else to decide for her. I Absolutely agree the choice is theirs. And Scarlet Seduction has chosen not to and I fully understand and back her decision In that case I would suggest you don’t question why a woman would potentially take a risk with her unborn child by having the vaccine. It’s her decision and if she feels the least risk and right choice is by taking the vaccine that’s her decision to make. Just like it’s equally her decision if not taking the vaccine is the right choice for her. Supporting her right to make her own choice goes both ways An I just say that without anyone taking any risk we don't develop anything that works.. The nature of medical research is to test and then re develop.. This situation in at the moment kind of suggests we are all now part of one huge arguably necessary experiment.. There is bound to be extreme cases that won't work or have done sort of negative reaction.. Realistically we have to expect things may not work for some of us. I see the point about unborn children and choice at the moment . However, I know this will be an unpopular point. Would it arguably be advisable for people to now consider waiting a while before having children? Given we are in an already overpopulated world I would think slowing down the number of births would be better than putting unborn babies at some sort of potential risk from something associated with the vaccine. Once everything's been proved to be safe and okay again.. Then people should maybe think about starting families again. That way the problem or worry doesn't exist at least for now.. " That's a fair point. I personally wouldn't choose to have any more children at this current time. Other may see it differently and fair play to them. Procreation is an inbuilt instinct to all creatures. Many pregnancies are also unplanned | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't be having the vaccine. In the original question by the op, what would change my mind? It would be old age and if I had any underlying health conditions. Everything has a risk, my risk is very very small, I'm physically fit, I've taken D3 for years, etc. I've had other vaccines in the past, people always should question information and experts. Johnson and johnson opioid scam cost them 572 million dollars in just 2019. Now they are in the US vaccine rollout. I use this as an example, thousands of trusted doctors and health workers were involved, never believe a lie can't be 'that' big. Like I say, if I felt I was at risk, I would probably take it. It was mentioned on another thread that we are all aware of the death rate, are we? I've mentioned it a few times, the death rate per thousand in 2020 was 10.2, in 2003 it was 10.3. So as not to cherry pick in 2018 it was 9.3. In terms of social responsibility, I look after my family, my children are kind and very polite, I do alot of things for the wider society, I don't smoke nor take drugs and am not obese. If taking a vaccine is your measure of doing something for the wider society, then really you should possibly at examining your values. If you would like to take it for you or your family then great, but the people calling others who don't, selfish and ignorant are just idiots. There is a couple on here who have quite that attitude, but are quite happy to take whatever as they are "Chem friendly", now that is a pair of clowns! There has been threads where people lambast others and say about wearing seatbelts, it's the law for your benefit and why wouldn't you. I agree, however you don't inject a seatbelt into your arm!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s also no evidence that the vaccination has any impact on any of the things listed. The point I’m making is that we aren’t able to categorically say either way and that’s why it’s up to each individual woman to make the right decision for their personal circumstances. Which goes back to my original point. There is no evidence is does but no evidence is doesn't. So why would any mother take the risk of the unknown with their child? If she’s already pregnant she won’t be getting the jab anyway. As for future pregnancies... that’s up to the individual woman and for no else to decide for her. I Absolutely agree the choice is theirs. And Scarlet Seduction has chosen not to and I fully understand and back her decision In that case I would suggest you don’t question why a woman would potentially take a risk with her unborn child by having the vaccine. It’s her decision and if she feels the least risk and right choice is by taking the vaccine that’s her decision to make. Just like it’s equally her decision if not taking the vaccine is the right choice for her. Supporting her right to make her own choice goes both ways An I just say that without anyone taking any risk we don't develop anything that works.. The nature of medical research is to test and then re develop.. This situation in at the moment kind of suggests we are all now part of one huge arguably necessary experiment.. There is bound to be extreme cases that won't work or have done sort of negative reaction.. Realistically we have to expect things may not work for some of us. I see the point about unborn children and choice at the moment . However, I know this will be an unpopular point. Would it arguably be advisable for people to now consider waiting a while before having children? Given we are in an already overpopulated world I would think slowing down the number of births would be better than putting unborn babies at some sort of potential risk from something associated with the vaccine. Once everything's been proved to be safe and okay again.. Then people should maybe think about starting families again. That way the problem or worry doesn't exist at least for now.. May I just ask what is "safe"? For the average range a woman would get pregnant, is she more so at risk of covid or more at risk with the new vaccines. I agree on population, the only thing I would say, if I was in a slum in India let's say (very very unsafe), I wouldn't dream of bringing another life into it, however I've seen documentaries where people actually plan to have kids....... " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
Doesn't answer my question though. People don't have the flu jab each year to protect others. Just like they aren't having the covid jab to protect others. You're a fool if you believe that is people's motivation. "well they do, children have flu jab as they are number one spreaders. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's no one elses business what so ever if an individual choses not to have a vaccine. It will be discrimination if they close events etc to those without a vaccine. I can see many legal caws arising in years to come. " Where do you draw the line of what’s discrimination? I fully agree it’s an individual’s choice to have the vaccine or not, but with that choice will come implications. Some restaurants, shops etc don’t allow dogs in, that’s their choice, as it is the choice of an individual to own a dog, but would you say it’s discrimination against dog owners that they can’t take their dogs wherever they want? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can’t have it due to health reasons, it’s a genuine worry that because I can’t, that will mean no holidays, no concerts no doing all the things I love. The last jab I had was the flu and it damaged my body. So I feel sad worried that because I can’t have it, then I just get forgotten about and no chance to do the things I want to xxxx" And people like you are the reason l have had the vaccine, because it helps protect the vulnerable | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can envisage a scenario where vaccination will eventually become compulsory; people won't be held down and injected but they may be quarantined at a secure location until they comply. " Like a re-education camp? Welcome to communist China | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the moral or ethical reason not to have it?" its called FREE WILL | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the moral or ethical reason not to have it?its called FREE WILL " It's called selfishness or not caring about others you may pass it onto | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy. "You are right the chances of dying from Covid at your age are low, but the chances of getting long Covid and having a long recovery period or no recovery are not as low as you might think. The other thing to consider is that as more and more people are vaccinated and the rules are relaxed your chances of getting Covid will increase dramatically. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't be having the vaccine. In the original question by the op, what would change my mind? It would be old age and if I had any underlying health conditions. Everything has a risk, my risk is very very small, I'm physically fit, I've taken D3 for years, etc. I've had other vaccines in the past, people always should question information and experts. Johnson and johnson opioid scam cost them 572 million dollars in just 2019. Now they are in the US vaccine rollout. I use this as an example, thousands of trusted doctors and health workers were involved, never believe a lie can't be 'that' big. Like I say, if I felt I was at risk, I would probably take it. It was mentioned on another thread that we are all aware of the death rate, are we? I've mentioned it a few times, the death rate per thousand in 2020 was 10.2, in 2003 it was 10.3. So as not to cherry pick in 2018 it was 9.3. In terms of social responsibility, I look after my family, my children are kind and very polite, I do alot of things for the wider society, I don't smoke nor take drugs and am not obese. If taking a vaccine is your measure of doing something for the wider society, then really you should possibly at examining your values. If you would like to take it for you or your family then great, but the people calling others who don't, selfish and ignorant are just idiots. There is a couple on here who have quite that attitude, but are quite happy to take whatever as they are "Chem friendly", now that is a pair of clowns! There has been threads where people lambast others and say about wearing seatbelts, it's the law for your benefit and why wouldn't you. I agree, however you don't inject a seatbelt into your arm!" This and yes many doctors say that too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
You are correct that we don't know the effect of any of the different vaccines on unborn children. None of the vaccines are licensed yet for pregnant women. We do however know the effect of covid on the unborn child. You can pass it on to them in the womb and make them very ill and risk death."Where is the evidence for that? RCOG reported study stated There was no increase in stillbirth rate, and no increase in infant death for babies born to women who had COVID-19. Not all the babies were tested, but overall, only 1 baby in 50 tested positive for COVID-19, suggesting that transmission of the infection to the baby is low. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If for whatever reason you wont be getting the vaccine this year be it medical reasons or you made your mind up not to get it what would make you change your mind ? Not being able to go abroad, Go to concerts, Large sporting events etc and if those rules are in place for years to come will it impact your life much " Somewhere easier to get to i think. Upto now my option is 190 mile round trip. Trying to find out if i can wait until somewhere closer comes up but wait longer. I don't like the idea of taking ill while driving home | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
You are correct that we don't know the effect of any of the different vaccines on unborn children. None of the vaccines are licensed yet for pregnant women. We do however know the effect of covid on the unborn child. You can pass it on to them in the womb and make them very ill and risk death.
Where is the evidence for that? RCOG reported study stated
There was no increase in stillbirth rate, and no increase in infant death for babies born to women who had COVID-19. Not all the babies were tested, but overall, only 1 baby in 50 tested positive for COVID-19, suggesting that transmission of the infection to the baby is low."From Medical News Today an article entitled: Are pregnant women and their babies at risk of severe COVID-19? Written by Yella Hewings-Martin, Ph.D. on March 18, 2021 — Fact checked by Hilary Guite, FFPH, MRCGP This contains some updated stats which suggest pregnant women are more likely to require ICU care, especially if they have comorbidities and also shows some increase in premature and stillbirth (with caveats). Quote: "The researchers found that pregnant women or those who had recently given birth were more likely to die if they had COVID-19 than those who were the same age but not pregnant. In addition, the rates of premature birth and stillbirth were higher for women with the disease. However, the team caveat that the premature births are likely to be the result of medical decisions to induce early delivery in those with COVID-19 as the number of spontaneous preterm births was the same as baseline levels. The number of stillbirths across all of the studies included in the review was very small (9 out of 5,794 women with COVID-19)." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone genuinely has a moral, religious or ethical reason not to be vaccinated I really can't see them being coerced to have it. We actually have a criminal law against forced vaccines. I know there's lots of news about 'mandatory vaccine requirements to enter' as yet though a little research behind the headline shows there will be exceptions. It's all speculation for now
Hi as you have pointed out about law their is also a law in putting another's life in danger ( endangering life) this will I believe be applied in case law, regarding this virus, same applies if a person has a sti and infected another"Actually if the vaccine is good as is claimed and I'm not saying it isn't, who's life are you putting in danger if you don't have the vaccine? Case law doesn't come into it until it goes to the courts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone genuinely has a moral, religious or ethical reason not to be vaccinated I really can't see them being coerced to have it. We actually have a criminal law against forced vaccines. I know there's lots of news about 'mandatory vaccine requirements to enter' as yet though a little research behind the headline shows there will be exceptions. It's all speculation for now
Hi as you have pointed out about law their is also a law in putting another's life in danger ( endangering life) this will I believe be applied in case law, regarding this virus, same applies if a person has a sti and infected another
Actually if the vaccine is good as is claimed and I'm not saying it isn't, who's life are you putting in danger if you don't have the vaccine?
Case law doesn't come into it until it goes to the courts. "Anyone you come into contact with...potentially, if you are carrying the virus. More so if vulnerable & not themselves vaccinated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's no one elses business what so ever if an individual choses not to have a vaccine. It will be discrimination if they close events etc to those without a vaccine. I can see many legal caws arising in years to come. Where do you draw the line of what’s discrimination? I fully agree it’s an individual’s choice to have the vaccine or not, but with that choice will come implications. Some restaurants, shops etc don’t allow dogs in, that’s their choice, as it is the choice of an individual to own a dog, but would you say it’s discrimination against dog owners that they can’t take their dogs wherever they want? " Guide dog owners have a legal right to use any taxi or minicab. Denial due to religious reason is no excuse. Goining blind isn't a choice. discrimination is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well according to the experts on here anyone who doesn't have the jab will be dead within the year so it will become irrelevant anyway." Not sure about that but until now no one in the UK who has had both vaccine jabs has died of Covid so it seems likely that the vast majority of those dying will be those who haven’t been vaccinated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well according to the experts on here anyone who doesn't have the jab will be dead within the year so it will become irrelevant anyway. Not sure about that but until now no one in the UK who has had both vaccine jabs has died of Covid so it seems likely that the vast majority of those dying will be those who haven’t been vaccinated." I understand that those who drive a Bentley continental in sapphire blue are similarly protected against it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
You are right the chances of dying from Covid at your age are low, but the chances of getting long Covid and having a long recovery period or no recovery are not as low as you might think. The other thing to consider is that as more and more people are vaccinated and the rules are relaxed your chances of getting Covid will increase dramatically."So where is the evidence to back up this no recovery from long covid not being as low as people think? I don’t blame the women. I wouldn’t be risking taking the jab if I was looking to get pregnant either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well according to the experts on here anyone who doesn't have the jab will be dead within the year so it will become irrelevant anyway." LOL | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not having it. I may change my mind once phase 3 trails are completed in 2023 if the vaccines are given a full license. As yet they are still in trial stage with no longer term testing. Once I'm satisfied with the long term results I may decide to have it then." Never in the history of vaccine development had there been a vaccine which produced delayed long term side effects. Either side effects show very quickly or not at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well according to the experts on here anyone who doesn't have the jab will be dead within the year so it will become irrelevant anyway. LOL "And according to the other group of “experts” anyone who does will be dead within the year. Neither those experts are correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not having it. I may change my mind once phase 3 trails are completed in 2023 if the vaccines are given a full license. As yet they are still in trial stage with no longer term testing. Once I'm satisfied with the long term results I may decide to have it then. Never in the history of vaccine development had there been a vaccine which produced delayed long term side effects. Either side effects show very quickly or not at all." Not true. The study into Narcolepsy cause by the Swine Flu vaccine went on for 5 years. It saw cases of Narcolepsy developing in vaccinated children rise above rates developing in unvaccinated children over those 5 years. Also never in the history of vaccines has MRNA technology been licensed for use on humans before. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not having it. I may change my mind once phase 3 trails are completed in 2023 if the vaccines are given a full license. As yet they are still in trial stage with no longer term testing. Once I'm satisfied with the long term results I may decide to have it then. Never in the history of vaccine development had there been a vaccine which produced delayed long term side effects. Either side effects show very quickly or not at all. Not true. The study into Narcolepsy cause by the Swine Flu vaccine went on for 5 years. It saw cases of Narcolepsy developing in vaccinated children rise above rates developing in unvaccinated children over those 5 years. Also never in the history of vaccines has MRNA technology been licensed for use on humans before." I believe China and Taiwan both showed similar increased frequency in Narcolepsy during that time frame and they didn’t use the swine flu vaccine... MRNA vaccines have been studied in clinical trials for 20 years, there is a fair bit of history there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not having it. I may change my mind once phase 3 trails are completed in 2023 if the vaccines are given a full license. As yet they are still in trial stage with no longer term testing. Once I'm satisfied with the long term results I may decide to have it then. Never in the history of vaccine development had there been a vaccine which produced delayed long term side effects. Either side effects show very quickly or not at all. Not true. The study into Narcolepsy cause by the Swine Flu vaccine went on for 5 years. It saw cases of Narcolepsy developing in vaccinated children rise above rates developing in unvaccinated children over those 5 years. Also never in the history of vaccines has MRNA technology been licensed for use on humans before. I believe China and Taiwan both showed similar increased frequency in Narcolepsy during that time frame and they didn’t use the swine flu vaccine... MRNA vaccines have been studied in clinical trials for 20 years, there is a fair bit of history there." Multiple countries did studies and multiple countries paid out huge sums in damages. Deny it if you will. And in those 20 years not one MRNA vaccine made it this far in clinical trails. This is new territory | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone genuinely has a moral, religious or ethical reason not to be vaccinated I really can't see them being coerced to have it. We actually have a criminal law against forced vaccines. I know there's lots of news about 'mandatory vaccine requirements to enter' as yet though a little research behind the headline shows there will be exceptions. It's all speculation for now
Hi as you have pointed out about law their is also a law in putting another's life in danger ( endangering life) this will I believe be applied in case law, regarding this virus, same applies if a person has a sti and infected another
Actually if the vaccine is good as is claimed and I'm not saying it isn't, who's life are you putting in danger if you don't have the vaccine?
Case law doesn't come into it until it goes to the courts.
Anyone you come into contact with...potentially, if you are carrying the virus. More so if vulnerable & not themselves vaccinated."How as if they're not vaccinated, they're putting themselves in danger. I am vaccinated btw but but it doesn't stop me getting the virus or passing it on so they're putting themselves in danger not me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not having it. I may change my mind once phase 3 trails are completed in 2023 if the vaccines are given a full license. As yet they are still in trial stage with no longer term testing. Once I'm satisfied with the long term results I may decide to have it then. Never in the history of vaccine development had there been a vaccine which produced delayed long term side effects. Either side effects show very quickly or not at all. Not true. The study into Narcolepsy cause by the Swine Flu vaccine went on for 5 years. It saw cases of Narcolepsy developing in vaccinated children rise above rates developing in unvaccinated children over those 5 years. Also never in the history of vaccines has MRNA technology been licensed for use on humans before. I believe China and Taiwan both showed similar increased frequency in Narcolepsy during that time frame and they didn’t use the swine flu vaccine... MRNA vaccines have been studied in clinical trials for 20 years, there is a fair bit of history there. Multiple countries did studies and multiple countries paid out huge sums in damages. Deny it if you will. And in those 20 years not one MRNA vaccine made it this far in clinical trails. This is new territory " The reason mRNA vaccines didn't come on stream sooner is purely due to the people who bankroll pharmaceutical development not wanting to take the plunge on something different. Why change the habit of a lifetime when it's worked thus far (attenuated whole virus vaccines etc). The Oxford-AZ vaccine uses established viral vector technology (used in the Ebola vaccine, for example) and finally, due to some out-of-the-box thinking and a huge amount of funding, the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine has gone live. mRNA technology has been used in anti cancer therapies for a while and so its application to vaccines wasn't completely out of the blue. And yes, the original concept was developed in the late 1980s by Katalin Karakó, VP of BioNTech. She deserves the Nobel Prize for certain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone genuinely has a moral, religious or ethical reason not to be vaccinated I really can't see them being coerced to have it. We actually have a criminal law against forced vaccines. I know there's lots of news about 'mandatory vaccine requirements to enter' as yet though a little research behind the headline shows there will be exceptions. It's all speculation for now
Hi as you have pointed out about law their is also a law in putting another's life in danger ( endangering life) this will I believe be applied in case law, regarding this virus, same applies if a person has a sti and infected another"That is knowingly though i believe, so as most dont know they have this virus, then they are unwillingly putting folk at risk. Devils advocate post by the way before i get jumped on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wont be getting the jab.before covid a drug had to do two years trials and the jabs have only done six month testing before been given.remember if a bee stings you its just a sting but the person next to you may have an alergy and die. We are all difrent and react in difrent ways to the same drug.six months isent long inough testing. The last time a drug was given after a short test was falidamide and i am old inough to remember the deformed kids. I will wait untill 2023 before i have an experimental drug" Everything stated here is factually incorrect. The Covid vaccines have gone through all the same trials as any other drug. Instead of doing phase I, then having to fight for funding for a couple of years, then phase II and more funding battles etc, various Governments and pharma companies stumped up masses of cash without any of the usual guarantees and the trials were run in parallel (so separate phase trials running simultaneously). Thalidomide is a completely irrelevant point. One of the only positive things to come out of that's scandal (which happened a very long time ago now, a totally different era for medical science) is that it was the impetus for better regulation of new drug approval. So, in a perverse way, we have, in part, the Thalidomide scandal to thank for our current very stringent processes. As am I sure you are well aware, Thalidomide continues to be used as an anti cancer drug, but either is not given to reproductive age women or they have to have long acting contraception (implant etc) in place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wont be getting the jab.before covid a drug had to do two years trials and the jabs have only done six month testing before been given.remember if a bee stings you its just a sting but the person next to you may have an alergy and die. We are all difrent and react in difrent ways to the same drug.six months isent long inough testing. The last time a drug was given after a short test was falidamide and i am old inough to remember the deformed kids. I will wait untill 2023 before i have an experimental drug Everything stated here is factually incorrect. The Covid vaccines have gone through all the same trials as any other drug. Instead of doing phase I, then having to fight for funding for a couple of years, then phase II and more funding battles etc, various Governments and pharma companies stumped up masses of cash without any of the usual guarantees and the trials were run in parallel (so separate phase trials running simultaneously). Thalidomide is a completely irrelevant point. One of the only positive things to come out of that's scandal (which happened a very long time ago now, a totally different era for medical science) is that it was the impetus for better regulation of new drug approval. So, in a perverse way, we have, in part, the Thalidomide scandal to thank for our current very stringent processes. As am I sure you are well aware, Thalidomide continues to be used as an anti cancer drug, but either is not given to reproductive age women or they have to have long acting contraception (implant etc) in place. " You’re right that it’s been through the full phase 3 trials. However, look up how many drugs in the last 30 years have passed these three phases of trials but later been withdrawn due to safety and you may have a shock. There’s plenty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wont be getting the jab.before covid a drug had to do two years trials and the jabs have only done six month testing before been given.remember if a bee stings you its just a sting but the person next to you may have an alergy and die. We are all difrent and react in difrent ways to the same drug.six months isent long inough testing. The last time a drug was given after a short test was falidamide and i am old inough to remember the deformed kids. I will wait untill 2023 before i have an experimental drug" Comparing today’s medicine/ technology with that during the thalidomide case or Spanish flu is ridiculous. Our ability to develop, produce and test drugs has improved enormously since then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wont be getting the jab.before covid a drug had to do two years trials and the jabs have only done six month testing before been given.remember if a bee stings you its just a sting but the person next to you may have an alergy and die. We are all difrent and react in difrent ways to the same drug.six months isent long inough testing. The last time a drug was given after a short test was falidamide and i am old inough to remember the deformed kids. I will wait untill 2023 before i have an experimental drug Everything stated here is factually incorrect. The Covid vaccines have gone through all the same trials as any other drug. Instead of doing phase I, then having to fight for funding for a couple of years, then phase II and more funding battles etc, various Governments and pharma companies stumped up masses of cash without any of the usual guarantees and the trials were run in parallel (so separate phase trials running simultaneously). Thalidomide is a completely irrelevant point. One of the only positive things to come out of that's scandal (which happened a very long time ago now, a totally different era for medical science) is that it was the impetus for better regulation of new drug approval. So, in a perverse way, we have, in part, the Thalidomide scandal to thank for our current very stringent processes. As am I sure you are well aware, Thalidomide continues to be used as an anti cancer drug, but either is not given to reproductive age women or they have to have long acting contraception (implant etc) in place. You’re right that it’s been through the full phase 3 trials. However, look up how many drugs in the last 30 years have passed these three phases of trials but later been withdrawn due to safety and you may have a shock. There’s plenty." Correct. And the rain is wet. This is not a new or surprising fact. Patients are routinely given newly licensed medications for all sorts of things. How do you expect new medicines to actually be put into use? All meds were new once upon a time. The fact is the Covid vaccines have been through exactly the same trial process as the SSRI or anti coagulant or asthma drug that many people take. Phase IV is the post licensing stage where all new drugs are monitored in the longer term and that's where we are with the vaccines. These trials processes have been going on in exactly the same way for all meds, yet how many people have questioned the newly licensed drug their doctor has prescribed or even known it was new to the market? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not having it. I may change my mind once phase 3 trails are completed in 2023 if the vaccines are given a full license. As yet they are still in trial stage with no longer term testing. Once I'm satisfied with the long term results I may decide to have it then. Never in the history of vaccine development had there been a vaccine which produced delayed long term side effects. Either side effects show very quickly or not at all. Not true. The study into Narcolepsy cause by the Swine Flu vaccine went on for 5 years. It saw cases of Narcolepsy developing in vaccinated children rise above rates developing in unvaccinated children over those 5 years. Also never in the history of vaccines has MRNA technology been licensed for use on humans before." Yes but when they did that study into narcolepsy they didn’t have the data that we have now. The biggest study in Sweden showed that approximately 800 children developed narcolepsy ( which was around 1 in 2,200) we now know that approximately 1 in 2000 people develop narcolepsy normally. This is no more of a story than the so called blood clot issue with the AZ vaccine . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wont be getting the jab.before covid a drug had to do two years trials and the jabs have only done six month testing before been given.remember if a bee stings you its just a sting but the person next to you may have an alergy and die. We are all difrent and react in difrent ways to the same drug.six months isent long inough testing. The last time a drug was given after a short test was falidamide and i am old inough to remember the deformed kids. I will wait untill 2023 before i have an experimental drug Everything stated here is factually incorrect. The Covid vaccines have gone through all the same trials as any other drug. Instead of doing phase I, then having to fight for funding for a couple of years, then phase II and more funding battles etc, various Governments and pharma companies stumped up masses of cash without any of the usual guarantees and the trials were run in parallel (so separate phase trials running simultaneously). Thalidomide is a completely irrelevant point. One of the only positive things to come out of that's scandal (which happened a very long time ago now, a totally different era for medical science) is that it was the impetus for better regulation of new drug approval. So, in a perverse way, we have, in part, the Thalidomide scandal to thank for our current very stringent processes. As am I sure you are well aware, Thalidomide continues to be used as an anti cancer drug, but either is not given to reproductive age women or they have to have long acting contraception (implant etc) in place. You’re right that it’s been through the full phase 3 trials. However, look up how many drugs in the last 30 years have passed these three phases of trials but later been withdrawn due to safety and you may have a shock. There’s plenty. Correct. And the rain is wet. This is not a new or surprising fact. Patients are routinely given newly licensed medications for all sorts of things. How do you expect new medicines to actually be put into use? All meds were new once upon a time. The fact is the Covid vaccines have been through exactly the same trial process as the SSRI or anti coagulant or asthma drug that many people take. Phase IV is the post licensing stage where all new drugs are monitored in the longer term and that's where we are with the vaccines. These trials processes have been going on in exactly the same way for all meds, yet how many people have questioned the newly licensed drug their doctor has prescribed or even known it was new to the market?" Therefore it’s each to their own whether they have the vaccine. I would certainly question a newly licensed drug and would weigh it up against the illness I had. Exactly the same as I weigh up this new vaccine against my chances of serious illness from covid. I believe that’s why many people under 40 will turn the vaccine down, as their chances of serious illness are small. Overall, I firmly believe each individual should make their own decision for their own body. Pressure and coercion is not cool. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't pressurised anyone into having a vaccine. I've refuted inaccurate "facts" by some posters. Yes, people need to make informed decisions. Informed decisions are made by people in possession of accurate information, not made up nonsense." Sorry that wasn’t aimed at you specifically. I just feel there is a lot of pressure and coercion going on in general at the moment. But sorry I didn’t mean you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't pressurised anyone into having a vaccine. I've refuted inaccurate "facts" by some posters. Yes, people need to make informed decisions. Informed decisions are made by people in possession of accurate information, not made up nonsense." Actually refuted facts with inaccurate ones. Animals trails were skiped and phase 3 trails are still underway. It's very easy to do a quick google search to show they will not be complete until 2023. This is why the vaccine only have a Temporary licence. Full licensing will not be given until these trials are completed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won't have it. There's no evidence what impact it will have in unborn children yet. Also I don't think I'm at risk of dying from covid. I'm young and healthy.
It’s not just about the individual though.
Isn't it? Tell me. Is everyone rushing to have it having it for other people's benefits? I doubt that very much. .
Protect me, protect my neighbour, it can be both.
This "I think I'm in love  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't pressurised anyone into having a vaccine. I've refuted inaccurate "facts" by some posters. Yes, people need to make informed decisions. Informed decisions are made by people in possession of accurate information, not made up nonsense. Actually refuted facts with inaccurate ones. Animals trails were skiped and phase 3 trails are still underway. It's very easy to do a quick google search to show they will not be complete until 2023. This is why the vaccine only have a Temporary licence. Full licensing will not be given until these trials are completed." If you say so. Except: We're now in post licensing phase of the trials (often known as phase IV), which is absolutely usual and normal in newly licensed drugs and devices. Studies continue to assess the impact on transmission (so this is phase III looking at a different hypothesis) and in different age groups (children) and with different dosing regimes. The fact that there is ongoing research into other aspects of the vaccines is a good thing and does not detract from the wealth of evidence that the vaccines are safe and efficacious in preventing serious disease. And From the Medical Research Council website, article "Impact of animal research in the COVID-19 response" "Professor Sarah Gilbert and her team at the University of Oxford are spearheading another vaccine trial in which they are using a safe version of an adenovirus (a virus that can cause a common cold-like illness). Previous work funded by the MRC through the UK Vaccine Network used this adenovirus (known as ChAdOx1) by Professor Gilbert in the production of vaccines against the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus. The team has engineered ChAdOx1 to make a specific coronavirus protein, known as the Spike protein, from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As a result, our immune system should in theory be able to recognise the Spike protein as ‘foreign’ and form antibodies against it, and then attack the SARS-CoV-2 virus and stop it from causing an infection. By ‘bluffing’ the body in this way, and slipping in parts of the virus that do not harm, but induce the release of antibodies, it is hoped that long lasting immunity can be provided through vaccination. The vaccine has now started animal trials in ferrets and non-human primates at the Public Health England (PHE) laboratories. The team is also collaborating with researchers at the BBSRC funded Pirbright Institute to study the effect of this vaccine in pigs. Under normal circumstances, animal work must be completed before human trials can start, but because similar vaccines have worked safely in trials for other diseases, the work has been accelerated and is happening in parallel." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't pressurised anyone into having a vaccine. I've refuted inaccurate "facts" by some posters. Yes, people need to make informed decisions. Informed decisions are made by people in possession of accurate information, not made up nonsense. Actually refuted facts with inaccurate ones. Animals trails were skiped and phase 3 trails are still underway. It's very easy to do a quick google search to show they will not be complete until 2023. This is why the vaccine only have a Temporary licence. Full licensing will not be given until these trials are completed. If you say so. Except: We're now in post licensing phase of the trials (often known as phase IV), which is absolutely usual and normal in newly licensed drugs and devices. Studies continue to assess the impact on transmission (so this is phase III looking at a different hypothesis) and in different age groups (children) and with different dosing regimes. The fact that there is ongoing research into other aspects of the vaccines is a good thing and does not detract from the wealth of evidence that the vaccines are safe and efficacious in preventing serious disease. And From the Medical Research Council website, article "Impact of animal research in the COVID-19 response" "Professor Sarah Gilbert and her team at the University of Oxford are spearheading another vaccine trial in which they are using a safe version of an adenovirus (a virus that can cause a common cold-like illness). Previous work funded by the MRC through the UK Vaccine Network used this adenovirus (known as ChAdOx1) by Professor Gilbert in the production of vaccines against the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus. The team has engineered ChAdOx1 to make a specific coronavirus protein, known as the Spike protein, from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As a result, our immune system should in theory be able to recognise the Spike protein as ‘foreign’ and form antibodies against it, and then attack the SARS-CoV-2 virus and stop it from causing an infection. By ‘bluffing’ the body in this way, and slipping in parts of the virus that do not harm, but induce the release of antibodies, it is hoped that long lasting immunity can be provided through vaccination. The vaccine has now started animal trials in ferrets and non-human primates at the Public Health England (PHE) laboratories. The team is also collaborating with researchers at the BBSRC funded Pirbright Institute to study the effect of this vaccine in pigs. Under normal circumstances, animal work must be completed before human trials can start, but because similar vaccines have worked safely in trials for other diseases, the work has been accelerated and is happening in parallel." " Oxford yes but the MRNA ones no. And you can easily see on Pfizers website and .gov that they are indeed still in phase 3 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has undergone animal trials too. This is all easily available at the touch of a few buttons, by the way: From Pfizer's own website: PFIZER AND BIONTECH ANNOUNCE DATA FROM PRECLINICAL STUDIES OF MRNA-BASED VACCINE CANDIDATE AGAINST COVID-19 Wednesday, September 09, 2020 - 07:45am Immunization of non-human primates (rhesus macaques) with BNT162b2, a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) candidate that expresses the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, resulted in strong anti-viral effects against an infectious SARS-CoV-2 challenge BNT162b2 immunization prevented lung infection in 100% of the SARS-CoV-2 challenged rhesus macaques, with no viral RNA detected in the lower respiratory tract of immunized and challenged animals. The BNT162b2 vaccination also cleared the nose of detectable viral RNA in 100% of the SARS-CoV-2 challenged rhesus macaques within 3 days after the infection The BNT162b2 vaccine candidate induced SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies in rhesus macaques, pseudovirus neutralizing antibodies in mice, and strong, antigen-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in mice and macaques And I've already explained why trials appear to be ongoing: 1) Post licensing monitoring 2) To test different hypotheses, such as the vaccine efficacy in reducing transmission, efficacy in children etc. " My mistake. All though it does appear animal trails were shorterned and in some cases run alongside human trails which is usual. But the stage 3 situation is correct. All drugs are in stage 3. A drug would not normally be licensed by the UK or fda untill after completion of these. What happens in a clinical trial? Testing a new medicine All clinical trials of new medicines go through a series of phases to test whether they're safe and whether they work. The medicines will usually be tested against another treatment called a control. This will either be a dummy treatment (a placebo) or a standard treatment already in use. Phase 1 trials: A small number of people, who may be healthy volunteers, are given the medicine. The drug is being trialled in human volunteers for the first time. Researchers test for side effects and calculate what the right dose might be to use in treatment. Researchers start with small doses and only increase the dose if the volunteers do not experience any side effects, or if they only experience minor side effects. Phase 2 trials: The new medicine is tested on a larger group of people who are ill. This is to get a better idea of its effects in the short term. Phase 3 trials: Carried out on medicines that have passed phases 1 and 2. The medicine is tested in larger groups of people who are ill, and compared against an existing treatment or a placebo to see if it's better in practice and if it has important side effects. Trials often last a year or more and involve several thousand patients | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has undergone animal trials too. This is all easily available at the touch of a few buttons, by the way: From Pfizer's own website: PFIZER AND BIONTECH ANNOUNCE DATA FROM PRECLINICAL STUDIES OF MRNA-BASED VACCINE CANDIDATE AGAINST COVID-19 Wednesday, September 09, 2020 - 07:45am Immunization of non-human primates (rhesus macaques) with BNT162b2, a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) candidate that expresses the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, resulted in strong anti-viral effects against an infectious SARS-CoV-2 challenge BNT162b2 immunization prevented lung infection in 100% of the SARS-CoV-2 challenged rhesus macaques, with no viral RNA detected in the lower respiratory tract of immunized and challenged animals. The BNT162b2 vaccination also cleared the nose of detectable viral RNA in 100% of the SARS-CoV-2 challenged rhesus macaques within 3 days after the infection The BNT162b2 vaccine candidate induced SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies in rhesus macaques, pseudovirus neutralizing antibodies in mice, and strong, antigen-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in mice and macaques And I've already explained why trials appear to be ongoing: 1) Post licensing monitoring 2) To test different hypotheses, such as the vaccine efficacy in reducing transmission, efficacy in children etc. My mistake. All though it does appear animal trails were shorterned and in some cases run alongside human trails which is usual. But the stage 3 situation is correct. All drugs are in stage 3. A drug would not normally be licensed by the UK or fda untill after completion of these. What happens in a clinical trial? Testing a new medicine All clinical trials of new medicines go through a series of phases to test whether they're safe and whether they work. The medicines will usually be tested against another treatment called a control. This will either be a dummy treatment (a placebo) or a standard treatment already in use. Phase 1 trials: A small number of people, who may be healthy volunteers, are given the medicine. The drug is being trialled in human volunteers for the first time. Researchers test for side effects and calculate what the right dose might be to use in treatment. Researchers start with small doses and only increase the dose if the volunteers do not experience any side effects, or if they only experience minor side effects. Phase 2 trials: The new medicine is tested on a larger group of people who are ill. This is to get a better idea of its effects in the short term. Phase 3 trials: Carried out on medicines that have passed phases 1 and 2. The medicine is tested in larger groups of people who are ill, and compared against an existing treatment or a placebo to see if it's better in practice and if it has important side effects. Trials often last a year or more and involve several thousand patients " The phase III trials have been split into lots of smaller hypotheses to test. They have completed the most critical part "is the vaccine safe in a large population and does it reduce/prevent serious disease?" Based on the data from that portion of the phase III trials, the vaccines have been licensed in adults and is in a post licensing observation phase. They continue to test other hypotheses in phase III, as I explained already - transmission, children, different dosing spacings etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of people who can't have it for medical reasons my be very very very small.it must be something like 0.000005% or something Neither I nor anyone in my extended family can, for medical reason, have it. That's 12 of us in total. Yet we're all very healthy and have no other 'underlying conditions' except we're allergic to the vaccine's 'gloop'. Can't have Flu jabs for same reason. I know of 3 other people I work with too. Another person I know is a Level 7 (the highest rank) mid-wife. So I don't know the exact figure but I can't but help ponder you were a bit trigger happy with your zeros!
But equally I don’t know a single person who can’t have it. I think the number in your family has to be discounted as it’s clearly due to genetics... but the others you know? Is it fluke you know 3? Who knows!
I would be interested to know the real statistics around the % of the population who are allergic to vaccine components. "I am not allowed the flu jab due to having an allergic reaction when I did have one. I have been a week ago given clearance from doctor to have covid vaccination after checks were done. So had done. So far no side effects. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think given a few months all of these discussions will become irrelevant as the majority of anti vaxxers realise that the only people dying from COVID are those that haven’t been vaccinated. A friend who is an consultant working on a Covid ward at a major Birmingham hospital told me that the vast majority of his new patients now are those that haven’t been vaccinated and they haven’t had a single case of anyone who has been fully vaccinated who is seriously ill." Less than 7% of all those vaccinated have received two doses in England.... so that's a pretty small pool In other news, according to worldometer, out of 21.3 million active infections today 0.4% are in a serious or critical condition, the rest are mild cases | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the moral or ethical reason not to have it? Isn't one " no religious one either | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If for whatever reason you wont be getting the vaccine this year be it medical reasons or you made your mind up not to get it what would make you change your mind ? Not being able to go abroad, Go to concerts, Large sporting events etc and if those rules are in place for years to come will it impact your life much " You should not be going abroad spreading the disease. Nor should you attend concerts or any sporting events. Doris has proclaimed that the vaccine does not prevent you from contracting the disease or spreading the disease. Even with the vaccine administered you may have contracted the disease without knowing it and also be spreading it without knowing it. You should think about other people before putting your own enjoyment first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the pubs are gona ask for proof of vax i can see a lot of illegal raves this summer.only half ofadults beenjabbed so far so your looking at millions being band from pubs until they have had it.cant see a bunch of 18-25 year olds waiting for there turn while everyone over fifty can get back in the pubs" By the time the pubs open, I am sure significantly more age groups will be included, even if just with the first jab which gives a good degree of protection. The devil As they say will be in the detail of how this will work .... great messaging though to ‘incentivise those who currently don’t want to!! R xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the pubs are gona ask for proof of vax i can see a lot of illegal raves this summer.only half ofadults beenjabbed so far so your looking at millions being band from pubs until they have had it.cant see a bunch of 18-25 year olds waiting for there turn while everyone over fifty can get back in the pubs By the time the pubs open, I am sure significantly more age groups will be included, even if just with the first jab which gives a good degree of protection. The devil As they say will be in the detail of how this will work .... great messaging though to ‘incentivise those who currently don’t want to!! R xx" like myself not even been offerd it yet.round here they are just starting on the 50-59 and medicaly vunerable.but i guess that to do with the fact its a older population round here.no idea when i likley to get it.bruvs 55 and not heard anything yet.plus the vac centre round here is covering 5 or 6 different areas | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"no idea when i likley to get it.bruvs 55 and not heard anything yet." Your brother can go on the NHS website and book himself a test. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think given a few months all of these discussions will become irrelevant as the majority of anti vaxxers realise that the only people dying from COVID are those that haven’t been vaccinated. A friend who is an consultant working on a Covid ward at a major Birmingham hospital told me that the vast majority of his new patients now are those that haven’t been vaccinated and they haven’t had a single case of anyone who has been fully vaccinated who is seriously ill. Less than 7% of all those vaccinated have received two doses in England.... so that's a pretty small pool In other news, according to worldometer, out of 21.3 million active infections today 0.4% are in a serious or critical condition, the rest are mild cases " Over 2.5 million have received both doses and not a single death from Covid, that seems pretty conclusive to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That’s nonsense for starters. My dad has COPD and had a quadruple heart bypass and he’s over 76, and he has the Astra Zeneca jab. There is NO medical reason for not having the jab, as older and sicker people benefit from having the jab. Deniers are nothing short of lunatics like Piers Corbyn and the rest of the Covid deniers - super spreaders! When these idiots get sick, let them pay for treatment themselves and NOT on the NHS. " So if they already pay tax and insurence you would like them to pay again? I was always under the impression you paid in so everyone got free treatment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When a vaccine is being given, for free, and people are not taking it, therefore placing others and themselves in danger, they should be forced to pay! " how are they placing others in danger the vacs protects those who have it and the ones who chose not to are obviously ok taking there chances.see lots on here in there 40s are getting it around here they still doing the over 50s.guessing those in there 40s getting itat mo are living in places where they steaming through there lists.vaxcentre round here is luckyifitopen three days a week | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When a vaccine is being given, for free, and people are not taking it, therefore placing others and themselves in danger, they should be forced to pay! how are they placing others in danger the vacs protects those who have it and the ones who chose not to are obviously ok taking there chances.see lots on here in there 40s are getting it around here they still doing the over 50s.guessing those in there 40s getting itat mo are living in places where they steaming through there lists.vaxcentre round here is luckyifitopen three days a week" The main advantage of a vaccinated population is reducing the chain of infection. If you have an immunity to a virus (however it is achieved) you will have less symptoms, you will carry a smaller viral load as the virus won't be growing, most importantly though, you will be infected & infectious for a much shorter time... this means that you have a much reduced capacity to infect others. The other really important factor in mass vaccination is that the lower the infection rates are, the less mutations will occur and the lower the risk of a "vaccine resistant" strain emerging. Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When a vaccine is being given, for free, and people are not taking it, therefore placing others and themselves in danger, they should be forced to pay! how are they placing others in danger the vacs protects those who have it and the ones who chose not to are obviously ok taking there chances.see lots on here in there 40s are getting it around here they still doing the over 50s.guessing those in there 40s getting itat mo are living in places where they steaming through there lists.vaxcentre round here is luckyifitopen three days a week The main advantage of a vaccinated population is reducing the chain of infection. If you have an immunity to a virus (however it is achieved) you will have less symptoms, you will carry a smaller viral load as the virus won't be growing, most importantly though, you will be infected & infectious for a much shorter time... this means that you have a much reduced capacity to infect others. The other really important factor in mass vaccination is that the lower the infection rates are, the less mutations will occur and the lower the risk of a "vaccine resistant" strain emerging. Cal" Will have to just wait till i get called whenever that is as for people who dont wana take it they wont take it no matter how much theyare threatend with sanctions of one sort o another if anything will prob convince em even more not to take it and people saying they should be charged fortreatment if they get ill i hope they can opt out of paying towards the nhsif this was the case | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reposting the below. Yes it's a bit long, but it spells out the reason why if we don't get enough people vaccinated, we are NEVER getting back to swinging as usual... Okay, the deal is this: 1. Covid-19 is very very contagious to unvaccinated people. If you are not vaccinated and you spend any amount of time in close proximity with someone who is actively infected with covid and in the virus shedding phase, then there is a very high likelihood of you catching it. This applies across ALL age groups as far as we can tell. The proof of this is that the initial infection of one person, probably in China, spread exponentially with a doubling period of three to four days and very quickly infected every country. 2. Without using vaccination, the only way to slow the exponential spread of covid is to enforce quite draconian infection control measures - masking, hand cleaning, social distancing, disinfection of surfaces, lock downs. We have seen that even these infection control measures are unable to reduce infection numbers to zero, merely to cut the rate, and as soon as the control measures are weakened the growth resumes on the exponential pattern again. 3. The illness caused by covid in unvaccinated people varies considerably with strong correlation to age and underlying conditions. Depending on availability of medical treatment, the death rate across full population caused by the CURRENT strains of covid appears to be anything from 0.1% up to 15%. At present with treatments available in the UK, the death rate appears to be averaging about 2%. The majority of those dying are older people, but not all. There is also a considerably higher rate of serious long term illness and disability occurring in younger people. [Does anyone have any decent figures for this? The government/media seem to say very little on this topic, possibly because while 130,000 dead is damning, having ten or twenty or more times this with long term disability would be utterly crucifying for them]. 4. Unvaccinated people suffering from covid have very high likelihood of shedding high levels of the virus into the atmosphere, apparently even if not showing serious symptoms themselves. This all contributes to the very high infection rate unless draconian infection control procedures are enforced. All the above is very bad already, although the correlation of serious illness/death with age and underlying conditions has led to large number of younger/fitter members of the population appearing to not give a toss, and being quite happy to let the pandemic continue because they feel they personally are in little danger. However: 5. The raw mutation rate of the coronavirus family of viruses is low, which under normal conditions would mean that new strains would be very slow to emerge. But across the globe there have been over a hundred million confirmed cases of covid, probably many more unconfirmed or with low symptomology. Every single one of these cases gives a chance for viral mutation to occur. Low mutation rate multiplied by high number of cases = high rate of new strains emerging. This is very serious, because sooner or later there is almost certain to be strains evolving that are any of (a) more deadly to younger people, (b) resistant to the current treatments, (c) more infectious, (d) resistant to the current vaccines. Point (d) is especially bad because although we are told that the vaccines can be tweaked for new strains, there is a danger that strains may emerge faster than the vaccines can be caught up, and the world will be perpetually on the covid treadmill until some really bad strain emerges and kills huge numbers of the population. NOTE: There has probably never been any virus before that has been simultaneously infecting such a high number of people, since the advent of high speed global movement. Things like the black death and the spanish flu killed millions, but global movement was considerably slower, so that while variants would emerge, those variants would largely remain regional. With covid we see every new variant having global reach within only days. But vaccines can help, and it is incredibly vital that the maximum possible amount of the population are vaccinated: 6. Vaccinated people are much less likely to die or have serious illness. This is good news to older people and those with underlying conditions. By itself this appears to be less vital for younger people [ref. "There's bugger all chance of it killing me, so why should I bother with a vaccine?"]. However issues 1 through 5 above remain - sooner or later covid will explode again, with high likelihood of more dangerous strains emerging, at which time those young/fit people may start dropping by the million. 7. What has been definitely proven now is that although vaccination does not 100% absolutely prevent any particular person catching the virus, being ill, or spreading the virus, it does considerably reduce the chance of catching and spreading. Vaccinated people are less likely to catch covid than unvaccinated people. Vaccinated covid sufferers infect fewer people than unvaccinated covid sufferers. This means that AS LONG AS ENOUGH PEOPLE GET VACCINATED we can throw away all the masks, end the lockdowns, go back to the pub, and the week-on-week infection numbers will still go down rather than going up. This is the HERD IMMUNITY effect, where the disease dies down to the extent that even the unvaccinated people are protected because the likelihood of exposure to an ill person becomes very low. 8. IF AND ONLY IF the global number of cases falls, then the emergence of new strains will happen at slower and slower rates. Which removes the danger of new strains coming faster than vaccines can be tweaked. Which allows more people to be vaccinated before the vaccines need tweaking again. Which reduces the number of cases further etc. This is probably the most important thing because this REDUCES THE CHANCE OF ANY ULTRA DEADLY STRAIN EMERGING. The moral of this story is this: If everyone who can be vaccinated, does get vaccinated, then there is a halfway good chance of the world emerging from the gloom, everyone chucking the masks, and something like normal life resuming. BUT if too many people say "nah, I don't need a vaccine, I'll be okay" then there is a horrible chance that we will never get back to normal, and a growing chance of death on a scale that would dwarf the last twelve months." Like i said above those who have chosen not to take it wont all of a sudden change there minds just because of pressure being put on them by everyone more likley the oppisite and they will double down on not having it.myself i will take it when offerd.but i do see more turning it down in future if it becomes a yearly thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven’t had it, and don’t intend on having it yet. I’m not anti vaccination. My mind may change in the future when more and more people have had it, I’m 27, so the vaccine wouldn’t get to my age group for a while as far as I’m aware. I can’t say there’s anything specific that would change my mind, it’s early days and I’d rather wait a while. " I am all in favour of people having the right to choose and as long as the bulk of people are vaccinated, they shouldn't impact the larger population. So far, around 350 million people have had a jab. Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reposting the below. Yes it's a bit long, but it spells out the reason why if we don't get enough people vaccinated, we are NEVER getting back to swinging as usual... Okay, the deal is this: 1. Covid-19 is very very contagious to unvaccinated people. If you are not vaccinated and you spend any amount of time in close proximity with someone who is actively infected with covid and in the virus shedding phase, then there is a very high likelihood of you catching it. This applies across ALL age groups as far as we can tell. The proof of this is that the initial infection of one person, probably in China, spread exponentially with a doubling period of three to four days and very quickly infected every country. 2. Without using vaccination, the only way to slow the exponential spread of covid is to enforce quite draconian infection control measures - masking, hand cleaning, social distancing, disinfection of surfaces, lock downs. We have seen that even these infection control measures are unable to reduce infection numbers to zero, merely to cut the rate, and as soon as the control measures are weakened the growth resumes on the exponential pattern again. 3. The illness caused by covid in unvaccinated people varies considerably with strong correlation to age and underlying conditions. Depending on availability of medical treatment, the death rate across full population caused by the CURRENT strains of covid appears to be anything from 0.1% up to 15%. At present with treatments available in the UK, the death rate appears to be averaging about 2%. The majority of those dying are older people, but not all. There is also a considerably higher rate of serious long term illness and disability occurring in younger people. [Does anyone have any decent figures for this? The government/media seem to say very little on this topic, possibly because while 130,000 dead is damning, having ten or twenty or more times this with long term disability would be utterly crucifying for them]. 4. Unvaccinated people suffering from covid have very high likelihood of shedding high levels of the virus into the atmosphere, apparently even if not showing serious symptoms themselves. This all contributes to the very high infection rate unless draconian infection control procedures are enforced. All the above is very bad already, although the correlation of serious illness/death with age and underlying conditions has led to large number of younger/fitter members of the population appearing to not give a toss, and being quite happy to let the pandemic continue because they feel they personally are in little danger. However: 5. The raw mutation rate of the coronavirus family of viruses is low, which under normal conditions would mean that new strains would be very slow to emerge. But across the globe there have been over a hundred million confirmed cases of covid, probably many more unconfirmed or with low symptomology. Every single one of these cases gives a chance for viral mutation to occur. Low mutation rate multiplied by high number of cases = high rate of new strains emerging. This is very serious, because sooner or later there is almost certain to be strains evolving that are any of (a) more deadly to younger people, (b) resistant to the current treatments, (c) more infectious, (d) resistant to the current vaccines. Point (d) is especially bad because although we are told that the vaccines can be tweaked for new strains, there is a danger that strains may emerge faster than the vaccines can be caught up, and the world will be perpetually on the covid treadmill until some really bad strain emerges and kills huge numbers of the population. NOTE: There has probably never been any virus before that has been simultaneously infecting such a high number of people, since the advent of high speed global movement. Things like the black death and the spanish flu killed millions, but global movement was considerably slower, so that while variants would emerge, those variants would largely remain regional. With covid we see every new variant having global reach within only days. But vaccines can help, and it is incredibly vital that the maximum possible amount of the population are vaccinated: 6. Vaccinated people are much less likely to die or have serious illness. This is good news to older people and those with underlying conditions. By itself this appears to be less vital for younger people [ref. "There's bugger all chance of it killing me, so why should I bother with a vaccine?"]. However issues 1 through 5 above remain - sooner or later covid will explode again, with high likelihood of more dangerous strains emerging, at which time those young/fit people may start dropping by the million. 7. What has been definitely proven now is that although vaccination does not 100% absolutely prevent any particular person catching the virus, being ill, or spreading the virus, it does considerably reduce the chance of catching and spreading. Vaccinated people are less likely to catch covid than unvaccinated people. Vaccinated covid sufferers infect fewer people than unvaccinated covid sufferers. This means that AS LONG AS ENOUGH PEOPLE GET VACCINATED we can throw away all the masks, end the lockdowns, go back to the pub, and the week-on-week infection numbers will still go down rather than going up. This is the HERD IMMUNITY effect, where the disease dies down to the extent that even the unvaccinated people are protected because the likelihood of exposure to an ill person becomes very low. 8. IF AND ONLY IF the global number of cases falls, then the emergence of new strains will happen at slower and slower rates. Which removes the danger of new strains coming faster than vaccines can be tweaked. Which allows more people to be vaccinated before the vaccines need tweaking again. Which reduces the number of cases further etc. This is probably the most important thing because this REDUCES THE CHANCE OF ANY ULTRA DEADLY STRAIN EMERGING. The moral of this story is this: If everyone who can be vaccinated, does get vaccinated, then there is a halfway good chance of the world emerging from the gloom, everyone chucking the masks, and something like normal life resuming. BUT if too many people say "nah, I don't need a vaccine, I'll be okay" then there is a horrible chance that we will never get back to normal, and a growing chance of death on a scale that would dwarf the last twelve months." Thanks for re posting this. Having had a first jab, it is nothing to be scared of. It is worth doing whenever it is offered to you. Even if you are anti it, you can always just get it and pretend you haven’t changed your mind | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reposting the below. Yes it's a bit long, but it spells out the reason why if we don't get enough people vaccinated, we are NEVER getting back to swinging as usual... Okay, the deal is this: 1. Covid-19 is very very contagious to unvaccinated people. If you are not vaccinated and you spend any amount of time in close proximity with someone who is actively infected with covid and in the virus shedding phase, then there is a very high likelihood of you catching it. This applies across ALL age groups as far as we can tell. The proof of this is that the initial infection of one person, probably in China, spread exponentially with a doubling period of three to four days and very quickly infected every country. 2. Without using vaccination, the only way to slow the exponential spread of covid is to enforce quite draconian infection control measures - masking, hand cleaning, social distancing, disinfection of surfaces, lock downs. We have seen that even these infection control measures are unable to reduce infection numbers to zero, merely to cut the rate, and as soon as the control measures are weakened the growth resumes on the exponential pattern again. 3. The illness caused by covid in unvaccinated people varies considerably with strong correlation to age and underlying conditions. Depending on availability of medical treatment, the death rate across full population caused by the CURRENT strains of covid appears to be anything from 0.1% up to 15%. At present with treatments available in the UK, the death rate appears to be averaging about 2%. The majority of those dying are older people, but not all. There is also a considerably higher rate of serious long term illness and disability occurring in younger people. [Does anyone have any decent figures for this? The government/media seem to say very little on this topic, possibly because while 130,000 dead is damning, having ten or twenty or more times this with long term disability would be utterly crucifying for them]. 4. Unvaccinated people suffering from covid have very high likelihood of shedding high levels of the virus into the atmosphere, apparently even if not showing serious symptoms themselves. This all contributes to the very high infection rate unless draconian infection control procedures are enforced. All the above is very bad already, although the correlation of serious illness/death with age and underlying conditions has led to large number of younger/fitter members of the population appearing to not give a toss, and being quite happy to let the pandemic continue because they feel they personally are in little danger. However: 5. The raw mutation rate of the coronavirus family of viruses is low, which under normal conditions would mean that new strains would be very slow to emerge. But across the globe there have been over a hundred million confirmed cases of covid, probably many more unconfirmed or with low symptomology. Every single one of these cases gives a chance for viral mutation to occur. Low mutation rate multiplied by high number of cases = high rate of new strains emerging. This is very serious, because sooner or later there is almost certain to be strains evolving that are any of (a) more deadly to younger people, (b) resistant to the current treatments, (c) more infectious, (d) resistant to the current vaccines. Point (d) is especially bad because although we are told that the vaccines can be tweaked for new strains, there is a danger that strains may emerge faster than the vaccines can be caught up, and the world will be perpetually on the covid treadmill until some really bad strain emerges and kills huge numbers of the population. NOTE: There has probably never been any virus before that has been simultaneously infecting such a high number of people, since the advent of high speed global movement. Things like the black death and the spanish flu killed millions, but global movement was considerably slower, so that while variants would emerge, those variants would largely remain regional. With covid we see every new variant having global reach within only days. But vaccines can help, and it is incredibly vital that the maximum possible amount of the population are vaccinated: 6. Vaccinated people are much less likely to die or have serious illness. This is good news to older people and those with underlying conditions. By itself this appears to be less vital for younger people [ref. "There's bugger all chance of it killing me, so why should I bother with a vaccine?"]. However issues 1 through 5 above remain - sooner or later covid will explode again, with high likelihood of more dangerous strains emerging, at which time those young/fit people may start dropping by the million. 7. What has been definitely proven now is that although vaccination does not 100% absolutely prevent any particular person catching the virus, being ill, or spreading the virus, it does considerably reduce the chance of catching and spreading. Vaccinated people are less likely to catch covid than unvaccinated people. Vaccinated covid sufferers infect fewer people than unvaccinated covid sufferers. This means that AS LONG AS ENOUGH PEOPLE GET VACCINATED we can throw away all the masks, end the lockdowns, go back to the pub, and the week-on-week infection numbers will still go down rather than going up. This is the HERD IMMUNITY effect, where the disease dies down to the extent that even the unvaccinated people are protected because the likelihood of exposure to an ill person becomes very low. 8. IF AND ONLY IF the global number of cases falls, then the emergence of new strains will happen at slower and slower rates. Which removes the danger of new strains coming faster than vaccines can be tweaked. Which allows more people to be vaccinated before the vaccines need tweaking again. Which reduces the number of cases further etc. This is probably the most important thing because this REDUCES THE CHANCE OF ANY ULTRA DEADLY STRAIN EMERGING. The moral of this story is this: If everyone who can be vaccinated, does get vaccinated, then there is a halfway good chance of the world emerging from the gloom, everyone chucking the masks, and something like normal life resuming. BUT if too many people say "nah, I don't need a vaccine, I'll be okay" then there is a horrible chance that we will never get back to normal, and a growing chance of death on a scale that would dwarf the last twelve months." Dwarf the last twelve months...... we haven't gone above a death rate in the last 20 years. I believe from what is said this year will be a very low death rate. There is no evidence that there would be ' a dwarfing'of this past years death rate in the future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dwarf the last twelve months...... we haven't gone above a death rate in the last 20 years. I believe from what is said this year will be a very low death rate. There is no evidence that there would be ' a dwarfing'of this past years death rate in the future. " This time last year there was no evidence that there would now be 126,515 (UK), 2,782,269 (worldwide) deaths, and 5 trillion pounds of economic cost (that is £5,000,000,000,000) caused by a pandemic that could have been prevented by closing down a few airlines for a few weeks. I will be overjoyed if in another twelve months time you can tell me that today I am talking bollocks and scaring people. On the other hand if it turns out that it was you talking bollocks, it will be a global tragedy that will have destroyed tens of millions of families and utterly collapsed the global economy. If I am wrong, my influence will have contributed towards briefly upsetting a few people. If you are wrong, your influence will have contributed towards killing tens of millions. If I am wrong, I will still be able to sleep at nights. If I was you, and I was wrong, I would never be able to sleep peacefully again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s isn’t any evidence that once vaccinated that you can’t carry the virus tho? " Your point being? Vaccines are not cures, no one ever said they were. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s isn’t any evidence that once vaccinated that you can’t carry the virus tho? " They're doing the studies and the evidence of reduction in infection and transmission is coming. It's also worth noting that most of the vaccines we have (childhood) were not designed to prevent transmission, only severe illness - they also slow or stop transmission with enough uptake. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s isn’t any evidence that once vaccinated that you can’t carry the virus tho? " The main way that vaccines reduce infections, is by reducing the amount of time that you are infected... and consequently infectious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just spent an hour with my daughter on a lovely walk albeit bickering about her decision not to have the vaccine when it's her time, she's 25 a PhD student and clinical psychologist.... I despair " What's her reasoning, if you don't mind me asking? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just spent an hour with my daughter on a lovely walk albeit bickering about her decision not to have the vaccine when it's her time, she's 25 a PhD student and clinical psychologist.... I despair What's her reasoning, if you don't mind me asking?" She doesn't feel that due diligence from the research to testing then production has been sufficient. She would prefer to wait 3 years to see more evidence. Bloody kids hey | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dwarf the last twelve months...... we haven't gone above a death rate in the last 20 years. I believe from what is said this year will be a very low death rate. There is no evidence that there would be ' a dwarfing'of this past years death rate in the future. This time last year there was no evidence that there would now be 126,515 (UK), 2,782,269 (worldwide) deaths, and 5 trillion pounds of economic cost (that is £5,000,000,000,000) caused by a pandemic that could have been prevented by closing down a few airlines for a few weeks. I will be overjoyed if in another twelve months time you can tell me that today I am talking bollocks and scaring people. On the other hand if it turns out that it was you talking bollocks, it will be a global tragedy that will have destroyed tens of millions of families and utterly collapsed the global economy. If I am wrong, my influence will have contributed towards briefly upsetting a few people. If you are wrong, your influence will have contributed towards killing tens of millions. If I am wrong, I will still be able to sleep at nights. If I was you, and I was wrong, I would never be able to sleep peacefully again." The thing is I have actually offered no feelings on this, you have. Neither have you upset me. What I did respond with is an actual fact, are you saying the one fact that I quoted is not true? Please do not confuse facts with feelings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just spent an hour with my daughter on a lovely walk albeit bickering about her decision not to have the vaccine when it's her time, she's 25 a PhD student and clinical psychologist.... I despair What's her reasoning, if you don't mind me asking? She doesn't feel that due diligence from the research to testing then production has been sufficient. She would prefer to wait 3 years to see more evidence. Bloody kids hey "It's been as well tested as any other new drug that's hit the market in the past 20 years. It's just that instead of running phase I, II, III trials sequentially, they ran in parallel and squillions of pounds/dollars/euros was chucked at it with none of the usual scr@ping around for funding that scientists usually have to do. The Governments and pharmaceutical companies of the world took a massive gamble because those squillions could easily have come to naught. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just spent an hour with my daughter on a lovely walk albeit bickering about her decision not to have the vaccine when it's her time, she's 25 a PhD student and clinical psychologist.... I despair What's her reasoning, if you don't mind me asking? She doesn't feel that due diligence from the research to testing then production has been sufficient. She would prefer to wait 3 years to see more evidence. Bloody kids hey
It's been as well tested as any other new drug that's hit the market in the past 20 years. It's just that instead of running phase I, II, III trials sequentially, they ran in parallel and squillions of pounds/dollars/euros was chucked at it with none of the usual scr@ping around for funding that scientists usually have to do. The Governments and pharmaceutical companies of the world took a massive gamble because those squillions could easily have come to naught."Your preaching to the converted I totally agree. Had mine 6 weeks ago at the Etihad. I was massively impressed and in total admiration of the whole operation and everyone of the people giving their time to make it All a smooth success | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just spent an hour with my daughter on a lovely walk albeit bickering about her decision not to have the vaccine when it's her time, she's 25 a PhD student and clinical psychologist.... I despair What's her reasoning, if you don't mind me asking? She doesn't feel that due diligence from the research to testing then production has been sufficient. She would prefer to wait 3 years to see more evidence. Bloody kids hey
It's been as well tested as any other new drug that's hit the market in the past 20 years. It's just that instead of running phase I, II, III trials sequentially, they ran in parallel and squillions of pounds/dollars/euros was chucked at it with none of the usual scr@ping around for funding that scientists usually have to do. The Governments and pharmaceutical companies of the world took a massive gamble because those squillions could easily have come to naught."The one observation I have made about this is that perhaps if the same funds and research testing process was thrown at cancer.. Perhaps they could find a cure for that too? Perhaps the Covid thing will open the door to other big changes in medicine in the future? Let's hope so.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just spent an hour with my daughter on a lovely walk albeit bickering about her decision not to have the vaccine when it's her time, she's 25 a PhD student and clinical psychologist.... I despair What's her reasoning, if you don't mind me asking? She doesn't feel that due diligence from the research to testing then production has been sufficient. She would prefer to wait 3 years to see more evidence. Bloody kids hey
It's been as well tested as any other new drug that's hit the market in the past 20 years. It's just that instead of running phase I, II, III trials sequentially, they ran in parallel and squillions of pounds/dollars/euros was chucked at it with none of the usual scr@ping around for funding that scientists usually have to do. The Governments and pharmaceutical companies of the world took a massive gamble because those squillions could easily have come to naught.
The one observation I have made about this is that perhaps if the same funds and research testing process was thrown at cancer.. Perhaps they could find a cure for that too?
Perhaps the Covid thing will open the door to other big changes in medicine in the future?
Let's hope so.. "Cancer is a fundamentally different issue. With cancer, you're fighting your own cells that have "gone rogue". Far harder to achieve without horrendous side effects or organ damage and that's why we struggle with that. Tackling an infectious agent is generally easier (unless it's a fungus or protozoan parasite, which have pretty much identical cellular structures to us). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just spent an hour with my daughter on a lovely walk albeit bickering about her decision not to have the vaccine when it's her time, she's 25 a PhD student and clinical psychologist.... I despair What's her reasoning, if you don't mind me asking? She doesn't feel that due diligence from the research to testing then production has been sufficient. She would prefer to wait 3 years to see more evidence. Bloody kids hey
It's been as well tested as any other new drug that's hit the market in the past 20 years. It's just that instead of running phase I, II, III trials sequentially, they ran in parallel and squillions of pounds/dollars/euros was chucked at it with none of the usual scr@ping around for funding that scientists usually have to do. The Governments and pharmaceutical companies of the world took a massive gamble because those squillions could easily have come to naught.
Your preaching to the converted I totally agree. Had mine 6 weeks ago at the Etihad. I was massively impressed and in total admiration of the whole operation and everyone of the people giving their time to make it All a smooth success"I've not jabbed at the Ethiad but did a smaller centre in Manc yesterday... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just spent an hour with my daughter on a lovely walk albeit bickering about her decision not to have the vaccine when it's her time, she's 25 a PhD student and clinical psychologist.... I despair What's her reasoning, if you don't mind me asking? She doesn't feel that due diligence from the research to testing then production has been sufficient. She would prefer to wait 3 years to see more evidence. Bloody kids hey
It's been as well tested as any other new drug that's hit the market in the past 20 years. It's just that instead of running phase I, II, III trials sequentially, they ran in parallel and squillions of pounds/dollars/euros was chucked at it with none of the usual scr@ping around for funding that scientists usually have to do. The Governments and pharmaceutical companies of the world took a massive gamble because those squillions could easily have come to naught.
Your preaching to the converted I totally agree. Had mine 6 weeks ago at the Etihad. I was massively impressed and in total admiration of the whole operation and everyone of the people giving their time to make it All a smooth success
I've not jabbed at the Ethiad but did a smaller centre in Manc yesterday..."I've got my second end of April. Astra Zeneca. The lady there told me they had been doing 2000 a day there. That's pretty phenomenol .
I will be walking with her again tomorrow and of course having another go..... Its what Dad's do right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dwarf the last twelve months...... we haven't gone above a death rate in the last 20 years. I believe from what is said this year will be a very low death rate. There is no evidence that there would be ' a dwarfing'of this past years death rate in the future. This time last year there was no evidence that there would now be 126,515 (UK), 2,782,269 (worldwide) deaths, and 5 trillion pounds of economic cost (that is £5,000,000,000,000) caused by a pandemic that could have been prevented by closing down a few airlines for a few weeks. I will be overjoyed if in another twelve months time you can tell me that today I am talking bollocks and scaring people. On the other hand if it turns out that it was you talking bollocks, it will be a global tragedy that will have destroyed tens of millions of families and utterly collapsed the global economy. If I am wrong, my influence will have contributed towards briefly upsetting a few people. If you are wrong, your influence will have contributed towards killing tens of millions. If I am wrong, I will still be able to sleep at nights. If I was you, and I was wrong, I would never be able to sleep peacefully again. The thing is I have actually offered no feelings on this, you have. Neither have you upset me. What I did respond with is an actual fact, are you saying the one fact that I quoted is not true? Please do not confuse facts with feelings." Talking about Facts - you were wrong. The deaths reported are excess of the normal deaths in this country. Please research, it will help you understand the problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Undoubtedly there will be a few dying of covid that will wish they had changed their minds..." One chap I knew was denying the existence of C19 right up until we intubated him and put him on a ventilator, now hes off the vent but look like long covid syndrome with damage to many otgans | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
