How many have been vaccinated so far?
Discussion
mondeoman said:
andy43 said:
Alucidnation said:
Has anyone had their first and not bothered with their second?
I know a couple of people who have done this and seem convinced one shot is 'good enough'.
WTF? No. I know a couple of people who have done this and seem convinced one shot is 'good enough'.
(Because I believe the scientists).
They walk among us still....
andy43 said:
mondeoman said:
andy43 said:
Alucidnation said:
Has anyone had their first and not bothered with their second?
I know a couple of people who have done this and seem convinced one shot is 'good enough'.
WTF? No. I know a couple of people who have done this and seem convinced one shot is 'good enough'.
(Because I believe the scientists).
They walk among us still....
vaud said:
andy43 said:
I think it’s already known that giving a baby calpol after immunisations will lower any fever but is proven to also reduce immune response.
It is explicitly recommended by the NHS fo the MenB "It's recommended that you give your baby liquid paracetamol after the MenB vaccine to reduce the risk of a high temperature."NHS
NIO Ireland
I can find a site that references an NHS study, discussing the reduction in efficacy from calpol:
https://www.nicswell.co.uk/health-news/paracetamol...
"There was no reduction in immunity following just a single dose of paracetamol or the use of paracetamol to treat a developed fever. It was only the regular use of preventative paracetamol use that was associated with decreased immune response. On this basis, parents should not be concerned about giving paracetamol to their baby/child to treat a raised temperature or associated symptoms of pain and irritability."
As ever, looking at studies and evidence is important. I was curious by your statement and went to look (having kids who have had vaccinations with calpol
mondeoman said:
andy43 said:
Alucidnation said:
Has anyone had their first and not bothered with their second?
I know a couple of people who have done this and seem convinced one shot is 'good enough'.
WTF? No. I know a couple of people who have done this and seem convinced one shot is 'good enough'.
(Because I believe the scientists).
They walk among us still....
andy43 said:
vaud said:
andy43 said:
I think it’s already known that giving a baby calpol after immunisations will lower any fever but is proven to also reduce immune response.
It is explicitly recommended by the NHS fo the MenB "It's recommended that you give your baby liquid paracetamol after the MenB vaccine to reduce the risk of a high temperature."NHS
NIO Ireland
I can find a site that references an NHS study, discussing the reduction in efficacy from calpol:
https://www.nicswell.co.uk/health-news/paracetamol...
"There was no reduction in immunity following just a single dose of paracetamol or the use of paracetamol to treat a developed fever. It was only the regular use of preventative paracetamol use that was associated with decreased immune response. On this basis, parents should not be concerned about giving paracetamol to their baby/child to treat a raised temperature or associated symptoms of pain and irritability."
As ever, looking at studies and evidence is important. I was curious by your statement and went to look (having kids who have had vaccinations with calpol
I took the vaccine because it looks like it’ll either be a prerequisite for travel to some locations this summer or at the very least make it a lot easier in terms of not having to have multiple tests etc
I do think the idea of health passports throws up some serious issues around eroding people’s freedoms, but the current government and the general public have clearly indicated that their fear of covid is more important than these issues.
As it’s pretty likely I had covid last year, ‘being protected’ wasn’t particularly high on the list of reasons.
survivalist said:
Seems like there’s a lot of overthinking going on.
I took the vaccine because it looks like it’ll either be a prerequisite for travel to some locations this summer or at the very least make it a lot easier in terms of not having to have multiple tests etc
I do think the idea of health passports throws up some serious issues around eroding people’s freedoms, but the current government and the general public have clearly indicated that their fear of covid is more important than these issues.
As it’s pretty likely I had covid last year, ‘being protected’ wasn’t particularly high on the list of reasons.
This argument about erosion of freedoms makes no sense. It doesn't erode half as many freedoms as having the virus flying around. The virus is also the new normal ( at least in the immediate future) so things are going to changeI took the vaccine because it looks like it’ll either be a prerequisite for travel to some locations this summer or at the very least make it a lot easier in terms of not having to have multiple tests etc
I do think the idea of health passports throws up some serious issues around eroding people’s freedoms, but the current government and the general public have clearly indicated that their fear of covid is more important than these issues.
As it’s pretty likely I had covid last year, ‘being protected’ wasn’t particularly high on the list of reasons.
Besides, you have to be vaccinated against other conditions to visit some countries , and always have.
On another level, you have to have acquire a licence if you want to drive a car. We all accept that because it means its safer for everybody if we all get some training. If you don't get a licence then you can't legally drive.
....hang on......
Wombat3 said:
survivalist said:
Seems like there’s a lot of overthinking going on.
I took the vaccine because it looks like it’ll either be a prerequisite for travel to some locations this summer or at the very least make it a lot easier in terms of not having to have multiple tests etc
I do think the idea of health passports throws up some serious issues around eroding people’s freedoms, but the current government and the general public have clearly indicated that their fear of covid is more important than these issues.
As it’s pretty likely I had covid last year, ‘being protected’ wasn’t particularly high on the list of reasons.
This argument about erosion of freedoms makes no sense. It doesn't erode half as many freedoms as having the virus flying around. The virus is also the new normal ( at least in the immediate future) so things are going to changeI took the vaccine because it looks like it’ll either be a prerequisite for travel to some locations this summer or at the very least make it a lot easier in terms of not having to have multiple tests etc
I do think the idea of health passports throws up some serious issues around eroding people’s freedoms, but the current government and the general public have clearly indicated that their fear of covid is more important than these issues.
As it’s pretty likely I had covid last year, ‘being protected’ wasn’t particularly high on the list of reasons.
Besides, you have to be vaccinated against other conditions to visit some countries , and always have.
On another level, you have to have acquire a licence if you want to drive a car. We all accept that because it means its safer for everybody if we all get some training. If you don't get a licence then you can't legally drive.
....hang on......
Travel vaccinations have existed for a limited number of countries, but I’ve never had to show a vaccination certificate or have multiple tests to travel around Europe or get on an aeroplane in the UK.
Having a license to drive a car is a poor comparison. It makes sense to ensure that someone who will be operating a dangerous and complex piece of machinery has some competence in doing so. We don’t, however, demand that they are injected with a vaccine.
Carl_Manchester said:
the AZ trials included paracetamol dosage and no reduced immune response was reported as a result.
Everyone took paracetamol in the study and so we don’t know if it reduced response. I think it is highly unlikely that paracetamol has a significant effect upon the generation of immunity, but we cannot say with certainty that the vaccine effectiveness reported in the study would not have been even better without it.Northernboy said:
If you don’t take your facts from well-controlled scientific studies then you take them from anecdote, prejudice and bias. That’s not a good thing.
You're quite right. You also have to work with broad facts to find the principles; the vaccines have integrated 'new' technology for treatments of this type. They have been tested on relatively small numbers of people over relatively short periods of time. They have been developed under intense political pressure.
On the patient side, the vaccines are aimed at being given to everybody, less a small number of medical exemptions. This includes people who are at little or no risk from the index disease.
Logic tells you that using;
i) New technology;
ii) Tested on relatively small numbers of people;
iii) Over a relatively small amount of time; and
iv) Subsequently given to everybody
Is relatively high risk. It's high risk in terms of development and high risk in terms of distribution because, if something does turn out to be wrong, you have already given it to everybody. You're too late to solve the problem.
You can mitigate the significance of the risks in some cohorts because the risk from the disease is high enough that it overcomes the risks from the vaccine. Look at immunology drugs and cancer patients; if you don't give them the drug they will likely die and if you give them immunotherapy drugs they might have side effects, but they might not die (or at least as soon as they would from the cancer). What a out a perfectly healthy 5 year old? Where does the justification of risk come from? You don't have to be a medical professional to understand the principle of risk and reward. Where is the reward for the risk?
It's ok saying there is no known risk from the vaccines. In December the AZ was suitable for everybody and nothing bad was allowed to be said about it. Then, after testing on millions of ordinary people in a live environment, it was decided to be not as safe as promoted to the under 30s. A few weeks later, it's the under 40s. The risk is manifesting before us.
Coercing populations to take little tested vaccines they don't need for reasons that are unexplained is a very dangerous game and people shouldn't be criticised for questioning it (nor should those who understand the risk and choose to take the vaccine). Adults who consider making their children take the vaccines have an obligation to think even harder about it, as do the governments who promote their doing so.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Northernboy said:
If you don’t take your facts from well-controlled scientific studies then you take them from anecdote, prejudice and bias. That’s not a good thing.
You're quite right. You also have to work with broad facts to find the principles; the vaccines have integrated 'new' technology for treatments of this type. They have been tested on relatively small numbers of people over relatively short periods of time. They have been developed under intense political pressure.
On the patient side, the vaccines are aimed at being given to everybody, less a small number of medical exemptions. This includes people who are at little or no risk from the index disease.
Logic tells you that using;
i) New technology;
ii) Tested on relatively small numbers of people;
iii) Over a relatively small amount of time; and
iv) Subsequently given to everybody
Is relatively high risk. It's high risk in terms of development and high risk in terms of distribution because, if something does turn out to be wrong, you have already given it to everybody. You're too late to solve the problem.
You can mitigate the significance of the risks in some cohorts because the risk from the disease is high enough that it overcomes the risks from the vaccine. Look at immunology drugs and cancer patients; if you don't give them the drug they will likely die and if you give them immunotherapy drugs they might have side effects, but they might not die (or at least as soon as they would from the cancer). What a out a perfectly healthy 5 year old? Where does the justification of risk come from? You don't have to be a medical professional to understand the principle of risk and reward. Where is the reward for the risk?
It's ok saying there is no known risk from the vaccines. In December the AZ was suitable for everybody and nothing bad was allowed to be said about it. Then, after testing on millions of ordinary people in a live environment, it was decided to be not as safe as promoted to the under 30s. A few weeks later, it's the under 40s. The risk is manifesting before us.
Coercing populations to take little tested vaccines they don't need for reasons that are unexplained is a very dangerous game and people shouldn't be criticised for questioning it (nor should those who understand the risk and choose to take the vaccine). Adults who consider making their children take the vaccines have an obligation to think even harder about it, as do the governments who promote their doing so.
GroundEffect said:
Sounds like a nice story but it's not true. The vaccines were tested on far larger numbers than most other medicines for phase 3 trials. And even then given limited licences.
It's the relative number and speed, not one factor in isolation. It's when you combine the factors. Hence the situation we now have with AZ, where the relative safety has only been discovered after roll-out and is evolving as we go. You might say that is normal for a vaccine, but then is it normal for any medicine to be simultaneously rolled out to all members of all demographics?How long does a vaccine normal take to go from trials to full approval? How many vaccines of the type we're rolling now have been used previously on a whole population basis and for how long?
andy43 said:
I think it’s already known that giving a baby calpol after immunisations will lower any fever but is proven to also reduce immune response.
The idea of a vaccine is to give the immune system a good kick up the arse so drinking loads of water (or beer!) and using drugs to lower any fever produced are exactly the opposite of what an animal does when it’s fighting infection - it’s off it’s food, won’t drink, and is hiding somewhere curled up in a ball usually. We want our bodies to go through hell after the vaccine to teach the immune system as best we can. There’s a Dr Campbell video on YT suggesting exactly this. Haven’t seen a scientific source but it makes sense.
But the fever’s not the bit of the immune response that confers immunity.The idea of a vaccine is to give the immune system a good kick up the arse so drinking loads of water (or beer!) and using drugs to lower any fever produced are exactly the opposite of what an animal does when it’s fighting infection - it’s off it’s food, won’t drink, and is hiding somewhere curled up in a ball usually. We want our bodies to go through hell after the vaccine to teach the immune system as best we can. There’s a Dr Campbell video on YT suggesting exactly this. Haven’t seen a scientific source but it makes sense.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
You're quite right.
You also have to work with broad facts to find the principles; the vaccines have integrated 'new' technology for treatments of this type. They have been tested on relatively small numbers of people over relatively short periods of time. They have been developed under intense political pressure.
It’s not new technology, and the rest of your post was doing exactly what I was writing about, ignoring the research and replacing it with anecdote and bias.You also have to work with broad facts to find the principles; the vaccines have integrated 'new' technology for treatments of this type. They have been tested on relatively small numbers of people over relatively short periods of time. They have been developed under intense political pressure.
That’s not how it works, your “common sense”, that you seem to think outranks research, doesn’t.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
It's the relative number and speed,
Again, you seem to be making things up. The trials were not carried out any faster than is normal.You are writing as though your views are scientifically informed, do you actually have any scientific degrees, or is this YouTube and Google speaking through someone who doesn’t have a scientific background?
It comes across that way, but I understand that I Kay be mis-reading.
Are you saying the vaccines have been through and completed the full trial process that vaccines would normally? Are you saying they're not being administered under emergency licence? Are.you saying the manufacturers are not operating under immunity from legal action? Are you saying the age related issues emerging with AZ were anticipated and as expected?
Your pithy put down of another point of view is unwarranted.
I am not anti vaccination at all. I am anti kneejerk, anti risk for little or no reward.
Your pithy put down of another point of view is unwarranted.
I am not anti vaccination at all. I am anti kneejerk, anti risk for little or no reward.
Northernboy said:
andy43 said:
I think it’s already known that giving a baby calpol after immunisations will lower any fever but is proven to also reduce immune response.
The idea of a vaccine is to give the immune system a good kick up the arse so drinking loads of water (or beer!) and using drugs to lower any fever produced are exactly the opposite of what an animal does when it’s fighting infection - it’s off it’s food, won’t drink, and is hiding somewhere curled up in a ball usually. We want our bodies to go through hell after the vaccine to teach the immune system as best we can. There’s a Dr Campbell video on YT suggesting exactly this. Haven’t seen a scientific source but it makes sense.
But the fever’s not the bit of the immune response that confers immunity.The idea of a vaccine is to give the immune system a good kick up the arse so drinking loads of water (or beer!) and using drugs to lower any fever produced are exactly the opposite of what an animal does when it’s fighting infection - it’s off it’s food, won’t drink, and is hiding somewhere curled up in a ball usually. We want our bodies to go through hell after the vaccine to teach the immune system as best we can. There’s a Dr Campbell video on YT suggesting exactly this. Haven’t seen a scientific source but it makes sense.
andy43 said:
Northernboy said:
andy43 said:
I think it’s already known that giving a baby calpol after immunisations will lower any fever but is proven to also reduce immune response.
The idea of a vaccine is to give the immune system a good kick up the arse so drinking loads of water (or beer!) and using drugs to lower any fever produced are exactly the opposite of what an animal does when it’s fighting infection - it’s off it’s food, won’t drink, and is hiding somewhere curled up in a ball usually. We want our bodies to go through hell after the vaccine to teach the immune system as best we can. There’s a Dr Campbell video on YT suggesting exactly this. Haven’t seen a scientific source but it makes sense.
But the fever’s not the bit of the immune response that confers immunity.The idea of a vaccine is to give the immune system a good kick up the arse so drinking loads of water (or beer!) and using drugs to lower any fever produced are exactly the opposite of what an animal does when it’s fighting infection - it’s off it’s food, won’t drink, and is hiding somewhere curled up in a ball usually. We want our bodies to go through hell after the vaccine to teach the immune system as best we can. There’s a Dr Campbell video on YT suggesting exactly this. Haven’t seen a scientific source but it makes sense.
)The reason animals don’t drink, eat and hide somewhere when they are ill, is that when they are ill they are vulnerable to predators.
Unless you’re worried that members of your friends and family are going to kill and eat you while you are under the weather, you should be ok to consume fluids (beer is 95% water anyway)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff