How many have been vaccinated so far?
Discussion
Northernboy said:
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.
If the vaccines were sufficiently tested and established to be considered safe to the same degree as vaccines developed and tested in the 'normal' way, there would be no reason for the manufacturers to seek immunity from civil action and no justification for governments to grant it.
Again, this is not antivax sentiment for the sake of it. Nor is it screaming at the world not to take them. It is clearly better for at risk groups to take the vaccine.
Equally, I believe it is wrong to give the public the impression these vaccines are known to be as safe as any other, or to directly or indirectly coerce people who are not at risk to take them.
Whether you agree or not will tend to follow your attitude to risk and how dangerous you believe Covid is. It would be no surprise if people who work with vaccines, immunology or medicines to promote vaccination. Not for any bad motivation; just because they have a keen belief in their area of expertise and it's value to society. It's their vocation and team. You only have to look at the behaviour of SAGE to see how addictive the excitement of being front and centre is.
As for comments about firsts, well, that's obvious, isn't it? If you're testing firsts though, it's not usually a great idea to test them on everyone all at once. Are new drugs usually tested across the whole of society all at the same time?
Again, this is not antivax sentiment for the sake of it. Nor is it screaming at the world not to take them. It is clearly better for at risk groups to take the vaccine.
Equally, I believe it is wrong to give the public the impression these vaccines are known to be as safe as any other, or to directly or indirectly coerce people who are not at risk to take them.
Whether you agree or not will tend to follow your attitude to risk and how dangerous you believe Covid is. It would be no surprise if people who work with vaccines, immunology or medicines to promote vaccination. Not for any bad motivation; just because they have a keen belief in their area of expertise and it's value to society. It's their vocation and team. You only have to look at the behaviour of SAGE to see how addictive the excitement of being front and centre is.
As for comments about firsts, well, that's obvious, isn't it? If you're testing firsts though, it's not usually a great idea to test them on everyone all at once. Are new drugs usually tested across the whole of society all at the same time?
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 9th May 17:09
andy43 said:
spikeyhead said:
Today's jabs
First second total
169,027 438,837 607,864
Percentage with first jab 67.2, second 33.5%
600k+ is good. Highest first dose number for a while too. Maybe we're starting a new agegroup?First second total
169,027 438,837 607,864
Percentage with first jab 67.2, second 33.5%
Oh, and vaccines - boooo.
#coolkids
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
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.
Why don't you ask those with the expertise. MX5Biology?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.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
If the vaccines were sufficiently tested and established to be considered safe to the same degree as vaccines developed and tested in the 'normal' way, there would be no reason for the manufacturers to seek immunity from civil action and no justification for governments to grant it.
I may have missed it, but did you say that you have a scientific background, so this is an informed view, or is it exactly as it appears, just your uninformed thoughts?Edited by RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat on Sunday 9th May 17:09
It seems like the latter, as you post things such as the above, which you surely would know to be untrue if you understood the subject, as many vaccines are covered by immunity from prosecution.
Come on, what are your degrees in, and where are you getting this stuff from? It’s awful, so must be a pretty dodgy source.
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'.
Seems a bit odd. If you (I don't mean you personally) has gone to the trouble of having their first one, why would you not bother with the second ? I know a couple of people who have done this and seem convinced one shot is 'good enough'.
survivalist said:
snuffy said:
Another option instead of paracetamol is to have a skin full of beer. Then if the next day you feel rough then you'll never know if it was the jab or the pop !
Great minds think alike. I had handful of beers last night after getting jabbed in the morning. However, aching limbs and a painful arm aren’t part of the usual hangover experience, so I think I am suffering from vaccine side effects 
It's a bit like a friend of mine who a few years ago had kidney stones and he was told by his doctor to drink as much liquid as he could to flush them out. "Can I drink beer ?" he asked. "Yes, liquid is liquid, anything you like!" he told me the doctor replied.
Northernboy said:
AstraZeneca isn’t an mRNA vaccine. The conspiracist to whom I was responding implied that they were all new technology, but since you ask, they have been tested in vivo since 1990.
You're misrepresenting what I have said and my opinion.I asked why the pharmaceutical companies have sought and been given immunity from civil liability from their Covid vaccines. If they've gone through the normal testing procedures they wouldn't need or be given it, would they?
spikeyhead said:
andy43 said:
spikeyhead said:
Today's jabs
First second total
169,027 438,837 607,864
Percentage with first jab 67.2, second 33.5%
600k+ is good. Highest first dose number for a while too. Maybe we're starting a new agegroup?First second total
169,027 438,837 607,864
Percentage with first jab 67.2, second 33.5%
Oh, and vaccines - boooo.
#coolkids
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.
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.
The starting point of your "Logic" is clearly based on bias and prejudice - about as far from 'logic' as you can get. Seriously, you're acting like a computer - crap in, crap out.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.
Roman Rhodes said:
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.
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.
The starting point of your "Logic" is clearly based on bias and prejudice - about as far from 'logic' as you can get. Seriously, you're acting like a computer - crap in, crap out.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.
It’s only those who seem to be feverishly defend the vaccine that seem to have an agenda.
Alucidnation said:
speedy_thrills said:
Isn't there a better thread to idly ponder upon legal ethics of the Covid-19 vaccine? This one is supposed to be about tracking the number of people vaccinated, I think we should stay on topic. 
Since the anti vax thread got pulled, they have nowhere else to go.
Had my first AZ jab yesterday, now running a horrible fever since last night that paracetamol is just about bringing down.
Here’s hoping it subsides tomorrow.
Know quite a few people who were jabbed yesterday (aged late thirties / early forties) most had mild temperatures, aches, felt tired etc.
Here’s hoping it subsides tomorrow.
Know quite a few people who were jabbed yesterday (aged late thirties / early forties) most had mild temperatures, aches, felt tired etc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff