Covid 19 Vaccine - will you have it ?
Discussion
citizensm1th said:
This is a peak event for the anti vaxer brigade, I am quite happy for them and their family's not to have the vaccination.
I am also quite happy for other nations to put travel restrictions on people who do not have the vaccination.
The problem since the 1950,s is the the various vaccination programs have been to successfull and people have not seen the damage various viruses did to a population prior to mass vacation.
Maybe it is time some of these anti vaxers had the opportunity to find out first hand.
The antivax movement was a psyop. People are well within their rights to question and refuse vaccines.I am also quite happy for other nations to put travel restrictions on people who do not have the vaccination.
The problem since the 1950,s is the the various vaccination programs have been to successfull and people have not seen the damage various viruses did to a population prior to mass vacation.
Maybe it is time some of these anti vaxers had the opportunity to find out first hand.
Pit Pony said:
Jasandjules said:
Will the manufacturer be liable for any harm caused?
Yes. And yes I'd have the vaccine.
I have always been against the overuse of Antibiotics, but given the number of people who die from seasonal flu, and now this, surely a half effective but safe vaccine is better than nothing.
Do you have some proof the manufacturer will be liable?
monkfish1 said:
PSB1 said:
Genuinely surprised at the number of ‘not a chance’ responses here,
Why not?
Also, to those stating they would have it if adequately tested, how will you assess that?
Was the swine flu jab adequately tested? Not a trick question - the instances of narcolepsy in kids made me genuinely guilty about having my son inoculated.
This topic really interests me.
It wont be adequately tested. There isnt time for that. This fact opens it up for vested interests to push it through without the normal checks.Serious money to be made here.Why not?
Also, to those stating they would have it if adequately tested, how will you assess that?
Was the swine flu jab adequately tested? Not a trick question - the instances of narcolepsy in kids made me genuinely guilty about having my son inoculated.
This topic really interests me.
People have short memories of what can happen.
Add in the fact, the actual risk of death from the virus is very very low for the majority, i see no reason to take that chance. I trust NO ONE to be looking out for my interests or welfare.
(Just to be clear, I receive vaccinations, I ensure my kids receive all their vaccinations).
monkfish1 said:
I will add, if i was 85, and ill with other things, i might take a different view. But im not, im 50. The chances of dying from the virus are very small.
The chances of dying might be, the chances of getting seriously unwell to the point you need help breathing aren’t so small. I’d rather not ever see the inside of an ICU.Why are some people annoyed by the fact some folk don't want / won't take a vaccine once one becomes available?
I agree that the at risk/vulnerable people should have it, but the rest of us should be able to choose.
What's the problem here? The risk is super low to the mass majority of us and I dare say many £millions would be saved on unnecessary vaccines.
Its call having freedom of choice.
I agree that the at risk/vulnerable people should have it, but the rest of us should be able to choose.
What's the problem here? The risk is super low to the mass majority of us and I dare say many £millions would be saved on unnecessary vaccines.
Its call having freedom of choice.
Lincsls1 said:
Why are some people annoyed by the fact some folk don't want / won't take a vaccine once one becomes available?
I agree that the at risk/vulnerable people should have it, but the rest of us should be able to choose.
What's the problem here? The risk is super low to the mass majority of us and I dare say many £millions would be saved on unnecessary vaccines.
Its call having freedom of choice.
Because there’s a subset of the population who cannot be vaccinated. Everyone who isn’t vaccinated poses a threat to them. It’s why childhood vaccinations in particular are so incredibly important and why in the last few years thanks to a bunch of fI agree that the at risk/vulnerable people should have it, but the rest of us should be able to choose.
What's the problem here? The risk is super low to the mass majority of us and I dare say many £millions would be saved on unnecessary vaccines.
Its call having freedom of choice.
kwits on the internet spreading complete ste about vaccinations we and other first world nations are seeing a resurgence in diseases that were almost wiped out.Lincsls1 said:
Why are some people annoyed by the fact some folk don't want / won't take a vaccine once one becomes available?
I agree that the at risk/vulnerable people should have it, but the rest of us should be able to choose.
What's the problem here? The risk is super low to the mass majority of us and I dare say many £millions would be saved on unnecessary vaccines.
Its call having freedom of choice.
Probably over 70% of the population needs to be immune by vaccination or by infection to achieve the necessary herd immunity to halt virus spread. This would save billions in costs not to mention lives saved. At the moment this is the only credible exit strategy in town folks and that is why as many people as possible need to be vaccinated (assuming the vaccine is safe/ effective)I agree that the at risk/vulnerable people should have it, but the rest of us should be able to choose.
What's the problem here? The risk is super low to the mass majority of us and I dare say many £millions would be saved on unnecessary vaccines.
Its call having freedom of choice.
Biglips said:
Lincsls1 said:
Why are some people annoyed by the fact some folk don't want / won't take a vaccine once one becomes available?
I agree that the at risk/vulnerable people should have it, but the rest of us should be able to choose.
What's the problem here? The risk is super low to the mass majority of us and I dare say many £millions would be saved on unnecessary vaccines.
Its call having freedom of choice.
Probably over 70% of the population needs to be immune by vaccination or by infection to achieve the necessary herd immunity to halt virus spread. This would save billions in costs not to mention lives saved. At the moment this is the only credible exit strategy in town folks and that is why as many people as possible need to be vaccinated (assuming the vaccine is safe/ effective)I agree that the at risk/vulnerable people should have it, but the rest of us should be able to choose.
What's the problem here? The risk is super low to the mass majority of us and I dare say many £millions would be saved on unnecessary vaccines.
Its call having freedom of choice.
Biglips said:
monkfish1 said:
monkfish1 said:
Biglips said:
monkfish1 said:
It wont be adequately tested. There isnt time for that. This fact opens it up for vested interests to push it through without the normal checks.Serious money to be made here.
People have short memories of what can happen.
Add in the fact, the actual risk of death from the virus is very very low for the majority, i see no reason to take that chance. I trust NO ONE to be looking out for my interests or welfare.
There are lots of errors in this post. People have short memories of what can happen.
Add in the fact, the actual risk of death from the virus is very very low for the majority, i see no reason to take that chance. I trust NO ONE to be looking out for my interests or welfare.
There are lots of vaccines being evaluated - 70 or so worldwide. Of these, 4 or 5 of are serious candidates.
The global front runner is the Oxford one. It is being very thoroughly tested for both safety and efficacy. No shortcuts have been taken.
The usual timescales are hugely shortened because nearly all other UK medical research studies have been put on hold to focus all resource on this. It is an unprecedented effort
The Oxford vaccine is non profit so the money argument is not valid for this particular vaccine.
If it is successful, and there is no guarantee that it will be effective, then it will not work unless there is widespread take up, even in those who believe they are low risk. Don’t forget that although you might be fine, the economy won’t get back on its feet unless we can get Workers safely back to open up the country again and this relies on herd protection.
The fact that already, in amercia, immunity from prosecution has been granted says an awful lot about confidence level. And the fact that shortcuts will need to be taken. Likewise here, medics have also been granted immunity. Wonder why?
As i said before, i trust no one to be looking after my interests. If you are happy to put blind trust into this, then good for you, whilst you yourself say the process will be shortened! And everyone involved is immune from prosecution if they get it wrong!
Not me though.
Long term effects - always difficult for drug development. 5 years safely data would be good, 10 or 20 years even better. Would you have the vaccine if 5 year safety data are reassuring? Trouble is that the virus has decimated the economy and a lot of people have died by then. The shortcuts in this programme have been cutting red tape and increasing collaboration and funding.
The vector (ie the vaccine delivery system) that is being used has been used for other vaccines without any obvious safety worry so there are lots of safety data already available. Only the target has been changed.
There is no blanket immunity in place if there is negligent practice. What has been put in place it is for protection of doctors and nurses returning to help out who may have retired a few years ago and may not be up to date with latest practice.
Age - you are correct that the absolute risk of death is pretty low at age 50, but this is the point at which the uptick in mortality starts, particularly in men. I have treated several fit patients below the age of 50 who have not survived. It is a terrible illness.
Disclosure: I am treating Covid patients on a daily basis and also part of several Covid studies, both treatments and vaccines. I have no financial stake or benefit but I do want to eradicate this terrible illness.
Edited by Biglips on Sunday 3rd May 13:05
The shortcuts are the long term testing. It has to be that way, i get that. But when we have a repeat of thalodomide, just as a well known example, then what. Most of the population will have had it and its loo lete to do anything about it. I put it to you that is a real risk. How big? Who knows.
How will you feel if that happens, having administered thousands of doses of a vaccine that had had a short cut testing regime. Im glad im not in your shoes.
However, i maintain the same position. Not me. Not prepared to take that risk. I might die from that decision, i know that. Its a choice i have to make. But the risk of death from Covid is, even at this stage resonably well understood and documented. The long term effects of a hastily developed vaccine are completely unknown.
Lastly, the virus has not decimated the economy. The actions of government(s) has done that. Thats for another, well, several threads.
monkfish1 said:
Hmmm. But its not a credible strategy yet. Nor may it ever be. Are you really hanging your hat on this, and this alone?
Vaccine may not be effective, virus may mutate, immunity may not persist. Even if effective, manufacturing the volume needed will be a major challenge. However, plan B is lacking at present so back the best current option?
PSB1 said:
monkfish1 said:
PSB1 said:
Genuinely surprised at the number of ‘not a chance’ responses here,
Why not?
Also, to those stating they would have it if adequately tested, how will you assess that?
Was the swine flu jab adequately tested? Not a trick question - the instances of narcolepsy in kids made me genuinely guilty about having my son inoculated.
This topic really interests me.
It wont be adequately tested. There isnt time for that. This fact opens it up for vested interests to push it through without the normal checks.Serious money to be made here.Why not?
Also, to those stating they would have it if adequately tested, how will you assess that?
Was the swine flu jab adequately tested? Not a trick question - the instances of narcolepsy in kids made me genuinely guilty about having my son inoculated.
This topic really interests me.
People have short memories of what can happen.
Add in the fact, the actual risk of death from the virus is very very low for the majority, i see no reason to take that chance. I trust NO ONE to be looking out for my interests or welfare.
(Just to be clear, I receive vaccinations, I ensure my kids receive all their vaccinations).
oilslick said:
monkfish1 said:
I will add, if i was 85, and ill with other things, i might take a different view. But im not, im 50. The chances of dying from the virus are very small.
You're right, they are. However, the chances of an ill 85 year old picking up the virus will be significantly higher if we don't reach some form of herd immunity. So while you'll be alright, Jack, other people relying on your immunity might not be. I guess you are happy to trade a known very small risk, for a complete unknown? You are of course welcome to do so.
Biglips said:
monkfish1 said:
Hmmm. But its not a credible strategy yet. Nor may it ever be. Are you really hanging your hat on this, and this alone?
Vaccine may not be effective, virus may mutate, immunity may not persist. Even if effective, manufacturing the volume needed will be a major challenge. However, plan B is lacking at present so back the best current option?
Plan A will happen if Plan B doesnt materialise.
Niether plan works if it mutates.
monkfish1 said:
Let me take your last point first. You say you want to eradicate this illness. Nice sentiment, but the reality is, it wont be eradicated for a very long time, or most likely, ever. It will lurk in dark corners of the globe, just to make a resurgence. Only its effects will steadily dimininise. Dare i say it, but thats heading towards the Boris, "we will defeat the virus" nonsensense.
The shortcuts are the long term testing. It has to be that way, i get that. But when we have a repeat of thalodomide, just as a well known example, then what. Most of the population will have had it and its loo lete to do anything about it. I put it to you that is a real risk. How big? Who knows.
How will you feel if that happens, having administered thousands of doses of a vaccine that had had a short cut testing regime. Im glad im not in your shoes.
However, i maintain the same position. Not me. Not prepared to take that risk. I might die from that decision, i know that. Its a choice i have to make. But the risk of death from Covid is, even at this stage resonably well understood and documented. The long term effects of a hastily developed vaccine are completely unknown.
Lastly, the virus has not decimated the economy. The actions of government(s) has done that. Thats for another, well, several threads.
The shortcuts are the long term testing. It has to be that way, i get that. But when we have a repeat of thalodomide, just as a well known example, then what. Most of the population will have had it and its loo lete to do anything about it. I put it to you that is a real risk. How big? Who knows.
How will you feel if that happens, having administered thousands of doses of a vaccine that had had a short cut testing regime. Im glad im not in your shoes.
However, i maintain the same position. Not me. Not prepared to take that risk. I might die from that decision, i know that. Its a choice i have to make. But the risk of death from Covid is, even at this stage resonably well understood and documented. The long term effects of a hastily developed vaccine are completely unknown.
Lastly, the virus has not decimated the economy. The actions of government(s) has done that. Thats for another, well, several threads.
Yes there are risks. Risk vs benefit is why clinical trials are undertaken, and then we can take a decision when we have some evidence. I am trying my best not to be evangelical, but I see the effects of this every day. I just want to inform the discussion on here.
And in the haste to monetise research efforts, trial data may not be sufficient or thoroughly enough understood.
Personaly I am not anti vaccine. But I am wary of haste. Once you have been vaccinated.......there is no reset button for your body.
Remember Swine Flue? Remember Neil Fergusons apocalyptic predictions, which were completely and spectacularly wrong?
Many were relieved when a vaccine became available.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims...
Personaly I am not anti vaccine. But I am wary of haste. Once you have been vaccinated.......there is no reset button for your body.
Remember Swine Flue? Remember Neil Fergusons apocalyptic predictions, which were completely and spectacularly wrong?
Many were relieved when a vaccine became available.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims...
rival38 said:
And in the haste to monetise research efforts, trial data may not be sufficient or thoroughly enough understood.
Personaly I am not anti vaccine. But I am wary of haste. Once you have been vaccinated.......there is no reset button for your body.
Remember Swine Flue? Remember Neil Fergusons apocalyptic predictions, which were completely and spectacularly wrong?
Many were relieved when a vaccine became available.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims...
And that right there us EXACTLY what im talking about. For all the positive noises, thats what can and does happen. And its very recent too.Personaly I am not anti vaccine. But I am wary of haste. Once you have been vaccinated.......there is no reset button for your body.
Remember Swine Flue? Remember Neil Fergusons apocalyptic predictions, which were completely and spectacularly wrong?
Many were relieved when a vaccine became available.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims...
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff