CV19 - The Anti Vaxxers Are Back
Discussion
mcdjl said:
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.
.
The anti-vax crowd will change their tune quickly when they have to choose to make everyday life harder for themselves just because of something they read on social media..
GroundEffect said:
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?I'll not be rushing for a shiny new vaccine with those odds.
"Are you on the pill"?
"Of course I am".
"But you said you were on the pill"...
WinstonWolf said:
It used to be known as common sense but now everyone seems to abdicate personal responsibility and expect others to do it for them.
"Are you on the pill"?
"Of course I am".
"But you said you were on the pill"...
What is your view of people who can’t take “personal responsibility”?"Are you on the pill"?
"Of course I am".
"But you said you were on the pill"...
There will be a large number of vulnerable people who cannot be vaccinated - the exact proportion depends on the nature of any vaccine. It’s possible that people on chemo, transplant recipients, certain cancer patients and the immunocompromised won’t be able to have the vaccine. To be clear the very people who are most likely to die if they catch COVID. Those people will have to rely on society at large to protect them, by minimising the risk of transmission, through vaccination.
Will get a vaccine once approved. Very little downside. Obviously there is a chance of a side effect in some few cases but the ability to return to a normal life is worth it.
The attitude of “I’m young, I’m ok” seems to mean “I’ll survive but no worries if my parents or other vulnerable people catch it from me “
The attitude of “I’m young, I’m ok” seems to mean “I’ll survive but no worries if my parents or other vulnerable people catch it from me “
DeWar said:
WinstonWolf said:
It used to be known as common sense but now everyone seems to abdicate personal responsibility and expect others to do it for them.
"Are you on the pill"?
"Of course I am".
"But you said you were on the pill"...
What is your view of people who can’t take “personal responsibility”?"Are you on the pill"?
"Of course I am".
"But you said you were on the pill"...
There will be a large number of vulnerable people who cannot be vaccinated - the exact proportion depends on the nature of any vaccine. It’s possible that people on chemo, transplant recipients, certain cancer patients and the immunocompromised won’t be able to have the vaccine. To be clear the very people who are most likely to die if they catch it. Those people will have to rely on society at large to protect them, by minimising the risk of transmission, through vaccination.
I don’t see the motivation to have it. It will be rushed out and there’s a tiny chance I’ll catch COVID then an even smaller chance it’ll kill me. Like one in a million odds when you factor the two. I also don’t think I’d have it as a matter of principle.
Anyone concerned or vulnerable can get vaccinated if they wish. Just like they can continue to hide from it they wish in the interim.
Anyone concerned or vulnerable can get vaccinated if they wish. Just like they can continue to hide from it they wish in the interim.
WinstonWolf said:
I suspect many of them are more than happy to take extra precautions given they know the situation. It would be utterly foolish of them if they didn't.
So, given that it’s unlikely COVID will go away by itself, you think that a tranche of society should continue to live (indeed, you seem to think will be happy to live) a sheltered existence - in some cases for their whole lives - in order for a minority of individuals to implicitly opt out of their social contract because they simply don’t want to be vaccinated for no logical reason?durbster said:
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.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.
A vaccine with a tiny risk = count me out.
A disease with a higher risk = bring it on.
You have NO idea of the long term risk from a vaccine not yet developed. Or the liklihood of of any such risk. It "may" be lower than the disease. It may not be.
Your assertion has no evidence to back it up. Statistical as you suggest or otherwise. It cannot have. Nor will it until a few years down the road.
The actual position is a very small risk (covid) V an unknown risk (a new vaccine).
You make your choices, i'll make mine. But there is no logic failure here.
Edited by monkfish1 on Tuesday 7th July 11:52
GroundEffect said:
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?I'll not be rushing for a shiny new vaccine with those odds.
I wouldn't take a vaccine either until some long-term data is available as to how it interacts with our health.
My individual risk to Covid is statistically speaking, 0.
DeWar said:
WinstonWolf said:
I suspect many of them are more than happy to take extra precautions given they know the situation. It would be utterly foolish of them if they didn't.
So, given that it’s unlikely COVID will go away by itself, you think that a tranche of society should continue to live (indeed, you seem to think will be happy to live) a sheltered existence - in some cases for their whole lives - in order for a minority of individuals to implicitly opt out of their social contract because they simply don’t want to be vaccinated for no logical reason?I've not signed a social contract, are you going to trust me to look after your welfare or will you look after it for yourself?
monkfish1 said:
No, YOU have the logic failure.
You have NO idea of the long term risk from a vaccine not yet developed. Or the liklihood of of any such risk. It "may" be lower than the disease. It may not be.
Your assertion has no evidence. Statistical as you suggest or otherwise. It cannot have. Nor will it until a few years down the road.
Would you refuse to buy a new car from an established manufacturer on the basis that you have no idea that the engine won’t explode a few hours after you drive it out of the showroom, until it’s been in production for a few years? The principle is little different to vaccine development - the basic make up of any COVID vaccine will not be radically different to something that has gone before. You have NO idea of the long term risk from a vaccine not yet developed. Or the liklihood of of any such risk. It "may" be lower than the disease. It may not be.
Your assertion has no evidence. Statistical as you suggest or otherwise. It cannot have. Nor will it until a few years down the road.
WinstonWolf said:
Should the whole of society live a sheltered existence to protect a minority?
I don’t consider “having a vaccination” to be equivalent to “living a sheltered existence”. Edited by DeWar on Tuesday 7th July 11:58
DeWar said:
monkfish1 said:
No, YOU have the logic failure.
You have NO idea of the long term risk from a vaccine not yet developed. Or the liklihood of of any such risk. It "may" be lower than the disease. It may not be.
Your assertion has no evidence. Statistical as you suggest or otherwise. It cannot have. Nor will it until a few years down the road.
Would you refuse to buy a new car from an established manufacturer on the basis that you have no idea that the engine won’t explode a few hours after you drive it out of the showroom, until it’s been in production for a few years? The principle is little different to vaccine development - the basic make up of any COVID vaccine will not be radically different to something that has gone before. You have NO idea of the long term risk from a vaccine not yet developed. Or the liklihood of of any such risk. It "may" be lower than the disease. It may not be.
Your assertion has no evidence. Statistical as you suggest or otherwise. It cannot have. Nor will it until a few years down the road.
DeWar said:
monkfish1 said:
No, YOU have the logic failure.
You have NO idea of the long term risk from a vaccine not yet developed. Or the liklihood of of any such risk. It "may" be lower than the disease. It may not be.
Your assertion has no evidence. Statistical as you suggest or otherwise. It cannot have. Nor will it until a few years down the road.
Would you refuse to buy a new car from an established manufacturer on the basis that you have no idea that the engine won’t explode a few hours after you drive it out of the showroom, until it’s been in production for a few years? The principle is little different to vaccine development - the basic make up of any COVID vaccine will not be radically different to something that has gone before. You have NO idea of the long term risk from a vaccine not yet developed. Or the liklihood of of any such risk. It "may" be lower than the disease. It may not be.
Your assertion has no evidence. Statistical as you suggest or otherwise. It cannot have. Nor will it until a few years down the road.
WinstonWolf said:
Should the whole of society live a sheltered existence to protect a minority?
I don’t consider “having a vaccination” to be equivalent to “living a sheltered existence”. Edited by DeWar on Tuesday 7th July 11:58
monkfish1 said:
That not remotely relevant. A) the manufacturer will have done testing, B) even if the engine explodes im very unlikely to die.
A) The vaccine will have been tested.B) Come on! You know what I mean. Ok, substitute “engine exploding” for “wheels falling off at 70mph” or any other vanishingly unlikely, lethal mechanical failure.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff