CV19 - The Anti Vaxxers Are Back

[untakenname]

I'm not surprised people are wary, the amount of bs peddled by celebrity scientists recently about Covid which has proved to be wrong yet there's been no repercussions means they are right to question any vaccine especially if under the age of 50.

[Pit Pony]

DeWar said:

With respect to anti-vaxx in general, choose one or more from:

- Inability to critically evaluate information
- Scientific illiteracy
- A talent for tolerating cognitive dissonance
- Paranoia
- The cult of “celebrity”
- A lack of understanding of how truly horrific some diseases now rare or eradicated by vaccines actually are/were
- Contrarianism
- Being thick as mince

Or maybe they've worked in the Pharma industry, in Quality assurance, or remember thalidomide?

Personally I'd have it.

[WinstonWolf]

If you need the flu jab you should probably have it, if you don't you probably don't need it.

[monkfish1]

s2art said:

rxe said:

Rather depends on the testing and timeline. If phases have been skipped to get it out there, I would be wary. If it has been through the full testing regime, sure, but I wouldn’t want to be at the front of the queue.

Which phase do you think get skipped? For example the Oxford vac has passed its phase 1&2 trials. Its established safe, but not necessarily effective. Thats for the phase 3 trial to test. It may be worth vaccinating the most vulnerable with it now, its safe and whats to lose?

Long term testing will be skipped. It has to be. This has gone wrong enough times before. And a lot more recently than thalidomide.

On that basis count me out.

Given that, statistically, im more likely to die in a road traffic accident, why would i expose myself to a vaccine that has had no long term testing to protect me from something thats extremely unlikely to cause me harm? If i was 80 with a lung disease id probably take a different view.

[DeWar]

Pit Pony said:

Or maybe they've worked in the Pharma industry, in Quality assurance, or remember thalidomide?

You think so?! I doubt it.

I do understand the point you’re making but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. A more recent example than thalidomide might stick in people’s minds but the anti-vaxxers I’ve met - and that’s lots - are unlikely to have heard of it.

[durbster]

monkfish1 said:

Long term testing will be skipped. It has to be. This has gone wrong enough times before. And a lot more recently than thalidomide.

On that basis count me out.

Given that, statistically, im more likely to die in a road traffic accident, why would i expose myself to a vaccine that has had no long term testing to protect me from something thats extremely unlikely to cause me harm? If i was 80 with a lung disease id probably take a different view.

Logic failure here.You're significantly more likely to be harmed by COVID-19 than a potential vaccine, statistically speaking.

A vaccine with a tiny risk = count me out.
A disease with a higher risk = bring it on.

[Countdown]

Matt_N said:

I won’t be having it.

But then I’m in an age group that barely needs to worry about it.

I’m young’ish fit and healthy.

You'd be spreading it and infecting other people.

[Gadgetmac]

Matt_N said:

I won’t be having it.

But then I’m in an age group that barely needs to worry about it.

I’m young’ish fit and healthy.

So you don't care about catching it and passing it on with possibly fatal consequences?

Great.

What an altruistic bunch PH'ers are.

[mcdjl]

Gadgetmac said:

Matt_N said:

I won’t be having it.

But then I’m in an age group that barely needs to worry about it.

I’m young’ish fit and healthy.

So you don't care about catching it and passing it on with possibly fatal consequences?

Great.

What an altruistic bunch PH'ers are.

I'm also youngish and at low risk. I'll have the vaccine. I'll then wear an arm band that allows me to skip all the queues for shops, walk into a pub without booking and go back to living my life normally.
Any one that refuses because 'vaccine bad' should have to wear a mask/gloves until they change their mind and be refused a ventilator.

[s2art]

It seems to be forgotten that its not just for an individual to be protected, its achieving herd immunity. No point in vaccinating a small percentage of the population. Its why all kids should get MMR jabs, it minimises the chances of adults catching mumps later in life which is serious. Same for CV19, even if a jab is found it doesnt mean that resistance will be good in old age as the immune system weakens. So if you want to protect your parents/grandparents, get the jab.

[Gadgetmac]

Pit Pony said:

DeWar said:

With respect to anti-vaxx in general, choose one or more from:

- Inability to critically evaluate information
- Scientific illiteracy
- A talent for tolerating cognitive dissonance
- Paranoia
- The cult of “celebrity”
- A lack of understanding of how truly horrific some diseases now rare or eradicated by vaccines actually are/were
- Contrarianism
- Being thick as mince

Or maybe they've worked in the Pharma industry, in Quality assurance, or remember thalidomide?

Personally I'd have it.

My daughter and SiL are both Senior Clinical Data Managers in one of the biggest Pharma companies on the globe involved in running clinical trials for new drugs/vaccines all over the world and wouldn't hesitate to take any vaccine when it becomes available.

Let's not forget that a vaccine is completely different from a drug.

Either way as far as testing is concerned although it might be a reduced sample size as long as it's of a sample size that's big enough to produce a clear statistically relevant answer then it's good enough to release to the public. No ifs or buts.

As for drugs well things have moved on from Thalidomide.

[Derek Smith]

untakenname said:

I'm not surprised people are wary, the amount of bs peddled by celebrity scientists recently about Covid which has proved to be wrong yet there's been no repercussions means they are right to question any vaccine especially if under the age of 50.

I take Private Eye. Their response to the MMR conspiracy theorists was a shambles. It's not some red top. It was embarrassing for me to be seen carrying a copy. I cancelled my regular copy saved at a local newsagent. It's not only dotty celebrities who drink their own urine who were pushing the scare stories. I take New Scientist and have Science Focus on Readly, yet I wondered when I read the nonsense on PE whether I had fallen for a scam.

[grumbledoak]

What's the survival rate of COVID-19? 99.9996%?

I'll not be rushing for a shiny new vaccine with those odds.

[mcdjl]

Gadgetmac said:

My daughter and SiL are both Senior Clinical Data Managers in one of the biggest Pharma companies on the globe involved in running clinical trials for new drugs/vaccines all over the world and wouldn't hesitate to take any vaccine when it becomes available.

Let's not forget that a vaccine is completely different from a drug.

Either way as far as testing is concerned although it might be a reduced sample size as long as it's of a sample size that's big enough to produce a clear statistically relevant answer then it's good enough to release to the public. No ifs or buts.

As for drugs well things have moved on from Thalidomide.

wikipedia]It was approved for medical use in the United States in 1998.[3 said:

It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system.[8] It is available as a generic medication.[4] In the United Kingdom it costs the NHS about £1,194 per month as of 2018.[4] This amount in the United States costs about US$9,236 as of 2019.[9]

For most things its meant for thalidomide is great. In the early stages of pregnancy its the complete opposite. In later stages of pregnancy its fine. The big problem with drug development like that is that its near on impossible for ethical reasons to test drugs on pregnant women. That means that any pregnant woman taking a large number of drugs essentially volunteers as a trial.
Drugs however are not vaccines.

[s2art]

grumbledoak said:

What's the survival rate of COVID-19? 99.9996%?

I'll not be rushing for a shiny new vaccine with those odds.

So you have no older relatives/friends who might be vulnerable?

[grumbledoak]

s2art said:

So you have no older relatives/friends who might be vulnerable?

They can make their own decisions.

[WinstonWolf]

s2art said:

grumbledoak said:

What's the survival rate of COVID-19? 99.9996%?

I'll not be rushing for a shiny new vaccine with those odds.

So you have no older relatives/friends who might be vulnerable?

Shouldn't they be taking personal responsibility for their own welfare?

[GroundEffect]

WinstonWolf said:

s2art said:

grumbledoak said:

What's the survival rate of COVID-19? 99.9996%?

I'll not be rushing for a shiny new vaccine with those odds.

So you have no older relatives/friends who might be vulnerable?

Shouldn't they be taking personal responsibility for their own welfare?

NP&E in a nutshell.

[s2art]

WinstonWolf said:

s2art said:

grumbledoak said:

What's the survival rate of COVID-19? 99.9996%?

I'll not be rushing for a shiny new vaccine with those odds.

So you have no older relatives/friends who might be vulnerable?

Shouldn't they be taking personal responsibility for their own welfare?

Sure, but what makes you think that the jab will work as well on older people with weaker immune systems? As I said its herd immunity that is important.

[DeWar]

grumbledoak said:

What's the survival rate of COVID-19? 99.9996%?

I'll not be rushing for a shiny new vaccine with those odds.

According to the ONS the total number who have been infected in the U.K. is 2.8 million.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

That implies a survival rate of 98%

I’m not aware of a mass produced vaccine in history that is within three orders of magnitude of that rate of lethality.

You may choose not to be vaccinated, however the maths doesn’t support the decision.