Discussion
98elise said:
There were a couple of care home owners/managers on GMB this morning. One was saying all new employees must be vaccinated, and current employees who won't get vaccinated have been put on 2 month's notice (ie no jab, no job).
I think he said he employed 17,000 people.
I predict a legal challenge I think he said he employed 17,000 people.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Well with only 57% of doctors choosing to get vaccinated according to that Mail article the NHS is going to get a lot more overwhelmed when they introduce this policy.
According to the BMJ, 75% already had their vaccination more than a month ago (today:23rd Feb, article was posted 21st Jan based on data collected 16/17th Jan).https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n190
purplepenguin said:
98elise said:
There were a couple of care home owners/managers on GMB this morning. One was saying all new employees must be vaccinated, and current employees who won't get vaccinated have been put on 2 month's notice (ie no jab, no job).
I think he said he employed 17,000 people.
I predict a legal challenge I think he said he employed 17,000 people.
otolith said:
Nope.
I don't want people who have a tendency to assume knowledge about things they are ignorant of.
I don't want people who think that believing a random YouTuber over the body of scientific opinion is "critical thinking".
I don't want people who think that their contrarianism is proof of their superiority.
I don't want people who prefer their feelings to evidence.
I don't want people who are innumerate or just a bit thick.
I don't want people who have no social conscience.
That doesn't leave many antivax people.
Well as a youngster, the ability to calculate the risk from Covid (approximately zero) vs the risk from a vaccine (approximately zero) and say “I’m in no rush to have something that hasn’t been tested for more than 6 months” doesn’t suggest innumeracy. I don't want people who have a tendency to assume knowledge about things they are ignorant of.
I don't want people who think that believing a random YouTuber over the body of scientific opinion is "critical thinking".
I don't want people who think that their contrarianism is proof of their superiority.
I don't want people who prefer their feelings to evidence.
I don't want people who are innumerate or just a bit thick.
I don't want people who have no social conscience.
That doesn't leave many antivax people.
I’m struggling to see why people are getting worked up by this. If you want the vaccine, take it. For the record, I drove my mum down to get it and will have it myself - I’m not stressed about getting it now or in 6 months time, but I am able to calculate the benefit (slight, at 50 my risk from COVID is non-negligible),
Once you’ve had the vaccine, if you catch COVID, it appears to be akin to a cold. So for everyone vaccinated, COVID is not a big deal. Get on with your life.
There will be some people who don’t want a vaccine. Some will be morons, some won’t. But, depending on age and conditions, their risk will be higher. When they get COVID, there may be consequences. Oh dear, should have had the vaccine.
It’s like the hysteria about measles outbreaks in London. I don’t give a s
t, I’ve been vaccinated, everyone I know has been vaccinated, if you worry for more than a millisecond, get vaccinated. I’m much more worried about incurable stuff that we can’t control, like cancer.
98elise said:
purplepenguin said:
98elise said:
There were a couple of care home owners/managers on GMB this morning. One was saying all new employees must be vaccinated, and current employees who won't get vaccinated have been put on 2 month's notice (ie no jab, no job).
I think he said he employed 17,000 people.
I predict a legal challenge I think he said he employed 17,000 people.
rxe said:
I’m struggling to see why people are getting worked up by this. If you want the vaccine, take it. For the record, I drove my mum down to get it and will have it myself - I’m not stressed about getting it now or in 6 months time, but I am able to calculate the benefit (slight, at 50 my risk from COVID is non-negligible),
Fundamentally, it's that vaccination reduces transmission.You aren't simply being vaccinated for yourself, you're being vaccinated for the people you can unwittingly pass C19 to. That's why "social conscience" was listed in the post above yours.
Cue 17 antivaxers pointing out that none of the vaccination benefits are 100% or guaranteed, then umpteen people pointing out that it doesn't have to be 100% to be effective, that ~70% or so reduced transmission is good enough to send things back to effectively normal... followed by umpteen more antivaxer posts about the UK turning into IngSoc and lots of shaking of heads by people who aren't into conspiracy theories about the great reset or whatever.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
otolith said:
If I had believed Yeadon I would be feeling a bit foolish by now.
Quite a telling turn of phrase. It isn't about choosing who to "believe." He is a very well credentialed expert in respiratory diseases. I'd have thought a PhD and stint as Chief Scientific Officer for Pfizer Allergy and Respiratory Research would imply at least some capacity for critical thinking too. Bhakdi, Iaonnidis and others with serious credentials in the field have also raised similar concerns about our handling of all this.With what? A vested interest in saying don't panic? A ln over-riding ideological commitment to hesitation?
You may prefer to "believe" Chris Whitty or Tedros Adhanom if you like. Or even Matt Hancock.
I think a more rational, critical approach than cheering for your favourite epidemiologist as though they were a football team would be to recognise that this is an incredibly complex and evolving situation with a response necessarily formulated quickly and with very imperfect information. Quite simply nobody on the planet has dealt with this successfully or even badly before, and very likely nobody will get it completely right this time.
Everything I have ever read, heard or experienced about operating in such circumstances points towards removing as much emotion and pants-on-fire urgency from the decision making process as possible, hearing a broad range of qualified input and keeping a careful eye on the other important things which will be damaged or neglected by throwing everything at an emerging crisis.
He was out of step with the entire medical establishment.
He turned out to be wrong.
Following his advice would have been catastrophic.
How many times does he have to tell you things you want to hear but which are shown to be incorrect before you understand?
CraigyMc said:
Fundamentally, it's that vaccination reduces transmission.
You aren't simply being vaccinated for yourself, you're being vaccinated for the people you can unwittingly pass C19 to. That's why "social conscience" was listed in the post above yours.
Cue 17 antivaxers pointing out that none of the vaccination benefits are 100% or guaranteed, then umpteen people pointing out that it doesn't have to be 100% to be effective, that ~70% or so reduced transmission is good enough to send things back to effectively normal... followed by umpteen more antivaxer posts about the UK turning into IngSoc and lots of shaking of heads by people who aren't into conspiracy theories about the great reset or whatever.
Why do we care about transmission if a vaccine has been offered to everyone , which it looks like will be the case by June? If you’re concerned by COVID, get a vaccine and the worst that will happen is you might get a cold. If you’re worried about the vaccine, then the worst that can happen is that you might get COVID. You aren't simply being vaccinated for yourself, you're being vaccinated for the people you can unwittingly pass C19 to. That's why "social conscience" was listed in the post above yours.
Cue 17 antivaxers pointing out that none of the vaccination benefits are 100% or guaranteed, then umpteen people pointing out that it doesn't have to be 100% to be effective, that ~70% or so reduced transmission is good enough to send things back to effectively normal... followed by umpteen more antivaxer posts about the UK turning into IngSoc and lots of shaking of heads by people who aren't into conspiracy theories about the great reset or whatever.
Yes, there is a tiny number of people who can’t take the vaccine for some reason. But even with some percentage of take up, they are immeasurably better off than they were last year.
otolith said:
You're overstating his credentials. His PhD is pharmacology, his experience mostly in allergy. He has no specific background in epidemiology or in communicable respiratory disease.
He was out of step with the entire medical establishment.
He turned out to be wrong.
Following his advice would have been catastrophic.
How many times does he have to tell you things you want to hear but which are shown to be incorrect before you understand?
Compared to who?He was out of step with the entire medical establishment.
He turned out to be wrong.
Following his advice would have been catastrophic.
How many times does he have to tell you things you want to hear but which are shown to be incorrect before you understand?
Matt Hancock studied PPE at Oxford.
Chris Witty studied Physiology then Tropical Medicine & Hygiene.
Adhanom did his doctoral thesis on malaria.
I'm not saying Yeadon or anyone else has the final word on this or anything else, but that he probably knows a thing or two and is worth listening to, along with other who have similar concerns before rushing into drastic, panic driven measures.
Those cranks at the BMJ seem to broadly agree with this and express similar concerns about the politicisation and corruption of science during this episode
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425
When you say the 'entire medical establishment' what exactly are you referring to?
rxe said:
Yes, there is a tiny number of people who can’t take the vaccine for some reason. But even with some percentage of take up, they are immeasurably better off than they were last year.
Yes, vaccination is good and the more the better; I can't wait to get back to normal.There is still the significant number who can have it but won't. The unvaccinated the population is where the virus will continue to circulate and mutate. It's ironic that there is apparently a pretty big overlap between people who refuse to vaccinate and people who won't follow rules (both are effectively covered under "I won't do what you tell me"). It's the same set of people who are the "remove all lockdown rules" ones.
CraigyMc said:
He understands fine. He just wants to believe otherwise so searches out anything to enforce what he wants to believe. It's just cognitive bias.
It’s a bit more than cognitive bias, he goes out of his way to post misleading information (see the Daily Mail link about numbers of doctors vaccinated as the latest example) and doesn’t care when the lies are exposed. Here for entertainment value and not to be taken seriously. CraigyMc said:
rxe said:
I’m struggling to see why people are getting worked up by this. If you want the vaccine, take it. For the record, I drove my mum down to get it and will have it myself - I’m not stressed about getting it now or in 6 months time, but I am able to calculate the benefit (slight, at 50 my risk from COVID is non-negligible),
Fundamentally, it's that vaccination reduces transmission.You aren't simply being vaccinated for yourself, you're being vaccinated for the people you can unwittingly pass C19 to. That's why "social conscience" was listed in the post above yours.
Cue 17 antivaxers pointing out that none of the vaccination benefits are 100% or guaranteed, then umpteen people pointing out that it doesn't have to be 100% to be effective, that ~70% or so reduced transmission is good enough to send things back to effectively normal... followed by umpteen more antivaxer posts about the UK turning into IngSoc and lots of shaking of heads by people who aren't into conspiracy theories about the great reset or whatever.
It's a hell of a coincidence that on the day Boris announces his plans for the route out of lockdown that the pharmaceutical companies just discovered the vaccine which the government have been trying to push reduces transmission.
g4ry13 said:
They don't really know that it reduces transmission at all. Due to the number of variables they probably won't ever know either.
It's a hell of a coincidence that on the day Boris announces his plans for the route out of lockdown that the pharmaceutical companies just discovered the vaccine which the government have been trying to push reduces transmission.
It was reported fairly widely yesterday in the quality press that there’s now evidence that it reduces transmission, I’d be interested if you have a link to your point about the pharma companies.It's a hell of a coincidence that on the day Boris announces his plans for the route out of lockdown that the pharmaceutical companies just discovered the vaccine which the government have been trying to push reduces transmission.
Blue62 said:
g4ry13 said:
They don't really know that it reduces transmission at all. Due to the number of variables they probably won't ever know either.
It's a hell of a coincidence that on the day Boris announces his plans for the route out of lockdown that the pharmaceutical companies just discovered the vaccine which the government have been trying to push reduces transmission.
It was reported fairly widely yesterday in the quality press that there’s now evidence that it reduces transmission, I’d be interested if you have a link to your point about the pharma companies.It's a hell of a coincidence that on the day Boris announces his plans for the route out of lockdown that the pharmaceutical companies just discovered the vaccine which the government have been trying to push reduces transmission.
The press aren't going to pull up such claims from thin air without Pfizer, Astrazeneca etc. giving them some basis to print such a claim.
g4ry13 said:
Blue62 said:
g4ry13 said:
They don't really know that it reduces transmission at all. Due to the number of variables they probably won't ever know either.
It's a hell of a coincidence that on the day Boris announces his plans for the route out of lockdown that the pharmaceutical companies just discovered the vaccine which the government have been trying to push reduces transmission.
It was reported fairly widely yesterday in the quality press that there’s now evidence that it reduces transmission, I’d be interested if you have a link to your point about the pharma companies.It's a hell of a coincidence that on the day Boris announces his plans for the route out of lockdown that the pharmaceutical companies just discovered the vaccine which the government have been trying to push reduces transmission.
The press aren't going to pull up such claims from thin air without Pfizer, Astrazeneca etc. giving them some basis to print such a claim.
https://www.ft.com/content/2626ec05-5bc5-4121-afc4...
CraigyMc said:
Yes, vaccination is good and the more the better; I can't wait to get back to normal.
There is still the significant number who can have it but won't. The unvaccinated the population is where the virus will continue to circulate and mutate. It's ironic that there is apparently a pretty big overlap between people who refuse to vaccinate and people who won't follow rules (both are effectively covered under "I won't do what you tell me"). It's the same set of people who are the "remove all lockdown rules" ones.
The UK unvaccinated are not where it will mutate. It will mutate in the vaccinated if it has partial symptoms, and it will mutate in the billions of unvaccinated all over the planet. It is arguable that the evolutionary pressure to mutate will be greater in the vaccinated people, because a mutation that defeats the immune system will instantly be viable. Mutation generally has advantages and disadvantages - in a vaccinated person, the advantage is immense. In an unvaccinated person (or someone without immunity through infection), the disadvantage of the mutation (e.g. slower replication rate, greater energy usage .....) might stop the mutation instantly. There is still the significant number who can have it but won't. The unvaccinated the population is where the virus will continue to circulate and mutate. It's ironic that there is apparently a pretty big overlap between people who refuse to vaccinate and people who won't follow rules (both are effectively covered under "I won't do what you tell me"). It's the same set of people who are the "remove all lockdown rules" ones.
Mutation is a given, there is nothing we can do about it, any more than we’ve tried to control flu over several decades.
The only real impact of the unvaccinated in the UK is that they personally might get ill. Rather than getting excited about it, one might view it as Darwinism at work.
otolith said:
g4ry13 said:
Blue62 said:
g4ry13 said:
They don't really know that it reduces transmission at all. Due to the number of variables they probably won't ever know either.
It's a hell of a coincidence that on the day Boris announces his plans for the route out of lockdown that the pharmaceutical companies just discovered the vaccine which the government have been trying to push reduces transmission.
It was reported fairly widely yesterday in the quality press that there’s now evidence that it reduces transmission, I’d be interested if you have a link to your point about the pharma companies.It's a hell of a coincidence that on the day Boris announces his plans for the route out of lockdown that the pharmaceutical companies just discovered the vaccine which the government have been trying to push reduces transmission.
The press aren't going to pull up such claims from thin air without Pfizer, Astrazeneca etc. giving them some basis to print such a claim.
https://www.ft.com/content/2626ec05-5bc5-4121-afc4...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/covid-va...
"A study conducted by Pfizer and the Israeli Health Ministry shows that the vaccine is 89.4 per cent effective at preventing infections, whether symptomatic or not."
So Pfizer, a pharma company wasn't involved in the study?
FT said:
The Covid-19 vaccine made by BioNTech and Pfizer has been highly effective at preventing infection in Israel, according to the first real-world data showing that vaccination stops transmission of the virus.
The results gathered by Israel’s health ministry, and seen by the Financial Times, showed that the vaccine was 89 per cent effective at preventing infection of any kind and 94 per cent effective against symptomatic infection.
The new data — which has not yet been peer reviewed — provide the first real-world demonstration of the vaccine’s effectiveness and offers hope that those immunised will also help to stem the spread of infection.
The initial clinical trial run by BioNTech and Pfizer found the vaccine was 95 per cent effective in preventing disease, but the real world data provide more insight.
The study was conducted in the three weeks to February 6, during which the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine was the only shot available in Israel. At the end of that period, more than 27 per cent of all people in the country over the age of 15 were fully vaccinated.
The results gathered by Israel’s health ministry, and seen by the Financial Times, showed that the vaccine was 89 per cent effective at preventing infection of any kind and 94 per cent effective against symptomatic infection.
The new data — which has not yet been peer reviewed — provide the first real-world demonstration of the vaccine’s effectiveness and offers hope that those immunised will also help to stem the spread of infection.
The initial clinical trial run by BioNTech and Pfizer found the vaccine was 95 per cent effective in preventing disease, but the real world data provide more insight.
The study was conducted in the three weeks to February 6, during which the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine was the only shot available in Israel. At the end of that period, more than 27 per cent of all people in the country over the age of 15 were fully vaccinated.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff