How many have been vaccinated so far?

[otolith]

Zoobeef said:

otolith said:

The comparability of 50k dying in a bad flu year, when we do basically nothing - and 120k dying over a period when we have massively reduced social contact is the question.

I think that if we had treated this like flu (i.e. done nothing) we would have several times as many deaths - so the suggestion that it's weird that we didn't treat it like flu because when we shut half the economy down and confined everyone to quarters we "only" got about two and a half times as many deaths as a bad flu year with no NPIs at all makes no sense.

Speculation and self justification.

Not really. Simply saying that you cannot compare the number of flu deaths with BAU with the number of covid deaths under unprecedented restrictions on social contact. Which should be blindingly obvious.

[otolith]

Zoobeef said:

Murph7355 said:

Zoobeef said:

otolith said:

The comparability of 50k dying in a bad flu year, when we do basically nothing - and 120k dying over a period when we have massively reduced social contact is the question.

I think that if we had treated this like flu (i.e. done nothing) we would have several times as many deaths - so the suggestion that it's weird that we didn't treat it like flu because when we shut half the economy down and confined everyone to quarters we "only" got about two and a half times as many deaths as a bad flu year with no NPIs at all makes no sense.

Speculation and self justification.

Do you think your views aren't?

I'm basing mine on history. You are going to kill more long term than you've saved (for a few months and then they die anyway).

You justify it to yourselves because its spread over a longer period.
Every lockdown nutter has blood on their hands.

You seem to be determined to have a different conversation to the one you're joining in.

[98elise]

Blib said:

Mrs B, 55yo. Just managed to book first shot through the NHS link after several days of automatic "too young to be eligible " messages

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19...

I've done the same. My wife (52) got a text this morning from our GP, so she booked. I didn't get a text (55) so thought I would try the site, and got booked in for next week.

[tertius]

Zoobeef said:

vaud said:

Source?

I'm sure you're grown up enough to search for almost any paper on it.

Tell, you what since you are making the assertion why don't you demonstrate how grown up you are ... ?

I have done a search and whilst the jury is still out the overwhelming view seems to be that the vaccine will provide immunity that will be be as good or better than catching COVID and will certainly be safer.

Here are some links with some quick quotes extracted:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-na...

"The short answer: We don’t know. But Covid-19 vaccines have predictably prevented illness, and they are a far safer bet, experts said."

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/01/419691/covid-19-...

“So that immune response might be bigger, better and longer lasting than just getting the infection one time” Bryn Boslett, MD, an infectious disease expert

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/14/covi...

"A Public Health England study of healthcare workers found that Covid infection led to about 83% protection against reinfection for at least five months."

compare with:

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-...

"Both Pfizer and Moderna report that their vaccines show approximately 95% efficacy at preventing both mild and severe symptoms of COVID-19. " and "Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this."

and

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210221/Study-s...

"This corresponds to a vaccine efficacy of 88.7%, which the team says is in line with the previously reported efficacies."

https://www.verywellhealth.com/antibodies-from-vac...

"However, this doesn’t mean that the antibodies formed are any less effective than those formed in a natural infection."

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/does-the-va...

"Vaccines, on the other hand, are believed to induce stronger and longer lasting immunity. They’re also a lot safer than waiting to catch the virus for the first time – or waiting to catch it again, as we don’t know how common reinfections are."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/vaccination-infecti...

"Grommerman, who has done research testing people for COVID-19 antibodies after infection, shares that opinion. "There is no reason to believe that the immunity elicited by the vaccine would be inferior to that elicited by the virus." She noted that there's also the safety risk to consider. "The vaccine has a better chance of making sure that you generate immunity that's not going to be deleterious."

[98elise]

Zoobeef said:

Murph7355 said:

Zoobeef said:

otolith said:

The comparability of 50k dying in a bad flu year, when we do basically nothing - and 120k dying over a period when we have massively reduced social contact is the question.

I think that if we had treated this like flu (i.e. done nothing) we would have several times as many deaths - so the suggestion that it's weird that we didn't treat it like flu because when we shut half the economy down and confined everyone to quarters we "only" got about two and a half times as many deaths as a bad flu year with no NPIs at all makes no sense.

Speculation and self justification.

Do you think your views aren't?

I'm basing mine on history. You are going to kill more long term than you've saved (for a few months and then they die anyway).

You justify it to yourselves because its spread over a longer period.
Every lockdown nutter has blood on their hands.

But definitely not based on science?

[Tankrizzo]

tertius said:

Tell, you what since you are making the assertion why don't you demonstrate how grown up you are ... ?

I have done a search and whilst the jury is still out the overwhelming view seems to be that the vaccine will provide immunity that will be be as good or better than catching COVID and will certainly be safer.

Here are some links with some quick quotes extracted:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-na...

"The short answer: We don’t know. But Covid-19 vaccines have predictably prevented illness, and they are a far safer bet, experts said."

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/01/419691/covid-19-...

“So that immune response might be bigger, better and longer lasting than just getting the infection one time” Bryn Boslett, MD, an infectious disease expert

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/14/covi...

"A Public Health England study of healthcare workers found that Covid infection led to about 83% protection against reinfection for at least five months."

compare with:

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-...

"Both Pfizer and Moderna report that their vaccines show approximately 95% efficacy at preventing both mild and severe symptoms of COVID-19. " and "Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this."

and

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210221/Study-s...

"This corresponds to a vaccine efficacy of 88.7%, which the team says is in line with the previously reported efficacies."

https://www.verywellhealth.com/antibodies-from-vac...

"However, this doesn’t mean that the antibodies formed are any less effective than those formed in a natural infection."

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/does-the-va...

"Vaccines, on the other hand, are believed to induce stronger and longer lasting immunity. They’re also a lot safer than waiting to catch the virus for the first time – or waiting to catch it again, as we don’t know how common reinfections are."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/vaccination-infecti...

"Grommerman, who has done research testing people for COVID-19 antibodies after infection, shares that opinion. "There is no reason to believe that the immunity elicited by the vaccine would be inferior to that elicited by the virus." She noted that there's also the safety risk to consider. "The vaccine has a better chance of making sure that you generate immunity that's not going to be deleterious."

You're wasting your time unfortunately.

[CraigyMc]

Tankrizzo said:

tertius said:

Tell, you what since you are making the assertion why don't you demonstrate how grown up you are ... ?

I have done a search and whilst the jury is still out the overwhelming view seems to be that the vaccine will provide immunity that will be be as good or better than catching COVID and will certainly be safer.

Here are some links with some quick quotes extracted:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-na...

"The short answer: We don’t know. But Covid-19 vaccines have predictably prevented illness, and they are a far safer bet, experts said."

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/01/419691/covid-19-...

“So that immune response might be bigger, better and longer lasting than just getting the infection one time” Bryn Boslett, MD, an infectious disease expert

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/14/covi...

"A Public Health England study of healthcare workers found that Covid infection led to about 83% protection against reinfection for at least five months."

compare with:

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-...

"Both Pfizer and Moderna report that their vaccines show approximately 95% efficacy at preventing both mild and severe symptoms of COVID-19. " and "Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this."

and

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210221/Study-s...

"This corresponds to a vaccine efficacy of 88.7%, which the team says is in line with the previously reported efficacies."

https://www.verywellhealth.com/antibodies-from-vac...

"However, this doesn’t mean that the antibodies formed are any less effective than those formed in a natural infection."

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/does-the-va...

"Vaccines, on the other hand, are believed to induce stronger and longer lasting immunity. They’re also a lot safer than waiting to catch the virus for the first time – or waiting to catch it again, as we don’t know how common reinfections are."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/vaccination-infecti...

"Grommerman, who has done research testing people for COVID-19 antibodies after infection, shares that opinion. "There is no reason to believe that the immunity elicited by the vaccine would be inferior to that elicited by the virus." She noted that there's also the safety risk to consider. "The vaccine has a better chance of making sure that you generate immunity that's not going to be deleterious."

You're wasting your time unfortunately.

I disagree.

Every time someone posts antivax bullst and has the bullst patiently explained as being bullst it is the right thing to do.

The alternative is letting the antivax nonsense run riot, which would be worse.

[tertius]

Tankrizzo said:

You're wasting your time unfortunately.

In Zoobeef's case, yes I dare say, but I'm hoping it will help prevent other people from taking unsubstantiated assertions at face value.

[Murph7355]

Zoobeef said:

Murph7355 said:

Zoobeef said:

otolith said:

The comparability of 50k dying in a bad flu year, when we do basically nothing - and 120k dying over a period when we have massively reduced social contact is the question.

I think that if we had treated this like flu (i.e. done nothing) we would have several times as many deaths - so the suggestion that it's weird that we didn't treat it like flu because when we shut half the economy down and confined everyone to quarters we "only" got about two and a half times as many deaths as a bad flu year with no NPIs at all makes no sense.

Speculation and self justification.

Do you think your views aren't?

I'm basing mine on history. You are going to kill more long term than you've saved (for a few months and then they die anyway).

You justify it to yourselves because its spread over a longer period.
Every lockdown nutter has blood on their hands.

Crikey.

Has it been difficult getting the meds during lockdown? Couldn't someone have delivered them for you

I've held the view since Day 1 that we won't have a clue what the "right" and "wrong" approaches are with any of this for several years, and that they will depend on many sociodemographic factors that nobody is modelling properly yet.

The logic of what you were replying does seem to have merit. That doesn't in itself say that hard lockdowns were the only course of action.

I guess for every "lockdown nutter" there is an "anti-vaxxer whack job"

[Murph7355]

lowdrag said:

An interesting conversation today with a friend who had been in hospital for a small operation but nothing to do with Covid. He overheard two nurses discussing the vaccine and why they don't want it; it seems that it is because any contact with someone who has the virus leads to several weeks quarantine. Take it for what you will, but I have no reason to disbelieve a friend of 30 years standing.

What did your friend of 30yrs take that to mean?

One presumes that any unprotected contact with people with the virus when in the nursing profession would mean quarantining would be likely anyway? Whether you've been vaccinated or not.

[Wombat3]

98elise said:

Blib said:

Mrs B, 55yo. Just managed to book first shot through the NHS link after several days of automatic "too young to be eligible " messages

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19...

I've done the same. My wife (52) got a text this morning from our GP, so she booked. I didn't get a text (55) so thought I would try the site, and got booked in for next week.

Me too (55) ,

Got my first one on Sunday.

[oyster]

Zoobeef said:

oyster said:

Zoobeef said:

oyster said:

1. To help reduce spread of Covid, thereby enabling society to open up faster and return to normality sooner.

Edited by oyster on Saturday 6th March 23:14

Ahhh, you're one of those people.

Can you explain what you mean by that?
Genuinely not sure.

I am firmly of the belief that lower infection numbers will give more ammunition for the government to stick with the published roadmap dates. And, as recent evidence seems to suggest, vaccinations have an effect on reducing infection spread, then this would back up my point.

Infection gives better immunity than the vaccine. If we had opened up earlier last summer it would have reduced numbers in hospital this winter. Then, aided by the vaccine program, got to the stage where everyone has some immunity much quicker.

They should work together.

Where’s your evidence that infection gives better immunity than the vaccine?

By the way I had Covid in March 2020. I had 2 antibody tests since, in June 2020 and January 2021. In my first test I had high volume of antibodies. By January they were low.

Again, if you can show some quality evidence to back up your assertions I’ll take your view more seriously.

Edited by oyster on Monday 8th March 13:01

[clockworks]

Murph7355 said:

What did your friend of 30yrs take that to mean?

One presumes that any unprotected contact with people with the virus when in the nursing profession would mean quarantining would be likely anyway? Whether you've been vaccinated or not.

I took it to mean that the nurses would get 2 weeks paid holiday if they came into contact with a positive patient or colleague.

Presumably this would happen whether they were vaccinated or not for now, but it may change in the future if (or when) it's proven conclusively that the vaccine reduces transmission substantially?
Everything I've read points to this being the case, but I guess there's no way to be sure yet.

If they have the vaccine, they might not get anymore free time off next winter. Human nature, but a strange mindset for a healthcare professional.

[Alpha1]

I had a text this morning from my GP inviting me for a vaccine, I'm 34 with no health issues. I called the GP and apparently they're onto my age group around here so perfectly legit. Sounds odd, anyone else? I'm in North Hampshire.

[PRTVR]

Still waiting.....
On line booking over 60 miles away nearest availability, two weeks since receiving letter, 64 years young,
Decided to contact my surgery, even though they say on the website and on the introduction message when you phone them, don't call about getting vaccinated, no I hadn't been missed , it will be about another 2 weeks,
the lady let slip they are only having vaccination clinics on Monday and Tuesday, good to see they are pulling out all the stops to get everyone vaccinated as quickly as possible.
Friends of a similar age received a call within 2 days of getting their letter, different surgeries.

[CraigyMc]

Alpha1 said:

I had a text this morning from my GP inviting me for a vaccine, I'm 34 with no health issues. I called the GP and apparently they're onto my age group around here so perfectly legit. Sounds odd, anyone else? I'm in North Hampshire.

Not odd. Go get vaccinated.

[Jordan210]

Alpha1 said:

I had a text this morning from my GP inviting me for a vaccine, I'm 34 with no health issues. I called the GP and apparently they're onto my age group around here so perfectly legit. Sounds odd, anyone else? I'm in North Hampshire.

Thats good news. Hopefully Test Vally won't be far away then I can get jabbed

[Zoobeef]

tertius said:

Tell, you what since you are making the assertion why don't you demonstrate how grown up you are ... ?

I have done a search and whilst the jury is still out the overwhelming view seems to be that the vaccine will provide immunity that will be be as good or better than catching COVID and will certainly be safer.

Here are some links with some quick quotes extracted:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-na...

"The short answer: We don’t know. But Covid-19 vaccines have predictably prevented illness, and they are a far safer bet, experts said."

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/01/419691/covid-19-...

“So that immune response might be bigger, better and longer lasting than just getting the infection one time” Bryn Boslett, MD, an infectious disease expert

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/14/covi...

"A Public Health England study of healthcare workers found that Covid infection led to about 83% protection against reinfection for at least five months."

compare with:

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-...

"Both Pfizer and Moderna report that their vaccines show approximately 95% efficacy at preventing both mild and severe symptoms of COVID-19. " and "Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this."

and

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210221/Study-s...

"This corresponds to a vaccine efficacy of 88.7%, which the team says is in line with the previously reported efficacies."

https://www.verywellhealth.com/antibodies-from-vac...

"However, this doesn’t mean that the antibodies formed are any less effective than those formed in a natural infection."

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/does-the-va...

"Vaccines, on the other hand, are believed to induce stronger and longer lasting immunity. They’re also a lot safer than waiting to catch the virus for the first time – or waiting to catch it again, as we don’t know how common reinfections are."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/vaccination-infecti...

"Grommerman, who has done research testing people for COVID-19 antibodies after infection, shares that opinion. "There is no reason to believe that the immunity elicited by the vaccine would be inferior to that elicited by the virus." She noted that there's also the safety risk to consider. "The vaccine has a better chance of making sure that you generate immunity that's not going to be deleterious."

You realise most of those side with me

[Zoobeef]

98elise said:

Zoobeef said:

Murph7355 said:

Zoobeef said:

otolith said:

The comparability of 50k dying in a bad flu year, when we do basically nothing - and 120k dying over a period when we have massively reduced social contact is the question.

I think that if we had treated this like flu (i.e. done nothing) we would have several times as many deaths - so the suggestion that it's weird that we didn't treat it like flu because when we shut half the economy down and confined everyone to quarters we "only" got about two and a half times as many deaths as a bad flu year with no NPIs at all makes no sense.

Speculation and self justification.

Do you think your views aren't?

I'm basing mine on history. You are going to kill more long term than you've saved (for a few months and then they die anyway).

You justify it to yourselves because its spread over a longer period.
Every lockdown nutter has blood on their hands.

But definitely not based on science?

Simple question for you poppet.

If a third of the admissions in January (you know, the number that this whole lockdown was based on) had happened last summer while the world was tik toking along. Would we have locked down?

[Zoobeef]

oyster said:

Zoobeef said:

oyster said:

Zoobeef said:

oyster said:

1. To help reduce spread of Covid, thereby enabling society to open up faster and return to normality sooner.

Edited by oyster on Saturday 6th March 23:14

Ahhh, you're one of those people.

Can you explain what you mean by that?
Genuinely not sure.

I am firmly of the belief that lower infection numbers will give more ammunition for the government to stick with the published roadmap dates. And, as recent evidence seems to suggest, vaccinations have an effect on reducing infection spread, then this would back up my point.

Infection gives better immunity than the vaccine. If we had opened up earlier last summer it would have reduced numbers in hospital this winter. Then, aided by the vaccine program, got to the stage where everyone has some immunity much quicker.

They should work together.

Where’s your evidence that infection gives better immunity than the vaccine?

By the way I had Covid in March 2020. I had 2 antibody tests since, in June 2020 and January 2021. In my first test I had high volume of antibodies. By January they were low.

Again, if you can show some quality evidence to back up your assertions I’ll take your view more seriously.

Edited by oyster on Monday 8th March 13:01

Your lack of understanding on how antibodies work explains alot.