Vaccine/Health Passports

[Vanden Saab]

GMT13 said:

What I find interesting is that, although you can see the number of deaths caused by the vaccines on the government website (1253 dead as of 28th May), they don't offer a breakdown by age.

Interesting because you can see from the NHS covid stats that only 90 'healthy' (i.e no pre existing conditions) under 40's have died in England since the whole thing began.

Therefore I think there is a fair chance the vaccine has already proven to be more deadly than the disease for under 40's (there being a fair chance that more than 90 of the 1253 vaccine deaths so far were in under 40's).

Presumably this is justified by the prospect of more older people being saved with everybody being vaccinated than younger lives are sacrificed, but it'd be nice to have been told about this decision making.

You can't blame any under 40 not getting the jab, a vaccine passport might be needed to coerce them to have it if more people were aware of these figures.

Vaccine deaths - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronav...

NHS England Covid deaths by age/condition - https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/u...

To know that you would have to know what percentage of the under 40s had caught covid to produce 90 deaths and also how many under 40s had died as a result of the vaccine and with which vaccine. It really is not as clear cut as you make out. Full disclosure I think everybody should have the choice whether to take the vaccine of not.

[Boringvolvodriver]

voyds9 said:

That's the salami argument. Just a little bit at a time and before long you've been stuffed with the whole sausage

Correct - and yet many people fail to see that argument. Once you give away some your rights and freedoms to the government, it is highly unlikely that that they will be given back to you.

In my opinion, governments across the world have been pretty good at “persuading” large parts of the population that they acting for their benefit, when the reverse is probably closer to reality

[anonymous-user]

Boringvolvodriver said:

voyds9 said:

That's the salami argument. Just a little bit at a time and before long you've been stuffed with the whole sausage

Correct - and yet many people fail to see that argument. Once you give away some your rights and freedoms to the government, it is highly unlikely that that they will be given back to you.

In my opinion, governments across the world have been pretty good at “persuading” large parts of the population that they acting for their benefit, when the reverse is probably closer to reality

If you weren’t so afflicted by the Slippery Slope Fallacy you (and many others on the COVID threads) would be so much less fearful about life.

[Boringvolvodriver]

Roman Rhodes said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

voyds9 said:

That's the salami argument. Just a little bit at a time and before long you've been stuffed with the whole sausage

Correct - and yet many people fail to see that argument. Once you give away some your rights and freedoms to the government, it is highly unlikely that that they will be given back to you.

In my opinion, governments across the world have been pretty good at “persuading” large parts of the population that they acting for their benefit, when the reverse is probably closer to reality

If you weren’t so afflicted by the Slippery Slope Fallacy you (and many others on the COVID threads) would be so much less fearful about life.

And yet so many people still have a belief that government and politicians have our best interests at heart and now trust them whilst before where complaining that all those MPs are only in it for themselves.

What was it Reagan said was one of the worst things you could hear?

“I’m from the government and I’m here to help”

[blackrabbit]

Flooble said:

The people saying you are already tracked seem to ignore that lots of us don’t feel bonded to our phone and hence don’t carry it everywhere. Introduce digital ID that is demanded for entry to anywhere and it becomes a requirement to always ha e your phone and hence to always be tracked.

Exactly, lots of people don't have a mobile phone already. Others turn on all privacy settings.

People need to wake up and realise this is all about money and control. Big tech are lobbying non stop to sell to government. Tracking apps will give recurring revenue for ever for companies like Capita etc if they win the contracts. Follow the money and you will see why Covid is being handled the way it is right now. Big tech and pharma are looking to take advantage long term from this and are subtly pushing over reaction and scare tactics.

It was also obvious government would do all they could to stop people travelling this summer as they want all the excessive Covid relief money handed out spent back in the UK not overseas.

[RizzoTheRat]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

As a layman who is often told I should trust the experts, this appears worryingly close to what unpopular expert Mike Yeadon noted early on, that otherwise healthy middle aged women are most at immediate risk from the vaccine.

The numbers are pretty low though, the risk of a 40-50 year old woman getting a clot from the Janssen vaccine is 9.8 per million, for comparison there's about a 10 per million chance of dying from riding a motorbike 60 miles or doing 2 scuba dives.

There's also a bit of a "greater good" argument. Various trials have shown once you vaccinate more than a certain percentage of the population (can't remember the exact number I think I was something over 70%) you see a reduction in the virus spreading. However as the virus spreads it mutates and if you get versions that spread more easily that percentage increases.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

RizzoTheRat said:

The numbers are pretty low though, the risk of a 40-50 year old woman getting a clot from the Janssen vaccine is 9.8 per million, for comparison there's about a 10 per million chance of dying from riding a motorbike 60 miles or doing 2 scuba dives.

There's also a bit of a "greater good" argument. Various trials have shown once you vaccinate more than a certain percentage of the population (can't remember the exact number I think I was something over 70%) you see a reduction in the virus spreading. However as the virus spreads it mutates and if you get versions that spread more easily that percentage increases.

That is the immediate risk based on what we know so far. It's a new drug which is essentially still experimental in that it has obtained emergency authorisation.

There are plenty of women in their 40s and 50s who wouldn't get on a motorbike. They probably have an exaggerated perception of that risk, and an idea that the risk of the vaccine is far lower.

I think they and everyone else should be given honest and impartial information about the risks and benefits of taking this new medicine which appears to carry some risk as well as benefits, not be subjected to a barrage of propaganda and thinly veiled threats that our freedom depends on taking it.

As for the greater good, again while it is experimental I don't think that can even be a consideration. Those at the greatest risk are already vaccinated, we have a wealth of information about who is vulnerable, how to shield them and how to treat them if they do get infected that wasn't available a year ago. Demanding everyone take this vaccine and/or continue to live with restrictions indefinitely is both ethically terrible and practically destructive.

[anonymous-user]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

That is the immediate risk based on what we know so far. It's a new drug which is essentially still experimental in that it has obtained emergency authorisation.

There are plenty of women in their 40s and 50s who wouldn't get on a motorbike. They probably have an exaggerated perception of that risk, and an idea that the risk of the vaccine is far lower.

I think they and everyone else should be given honest and impartial information about the risks and benefits of taking this new medicine which appears to carry some risk as well as benefits, not be subjected to a barrage of propaganda and thinly veiled threats that our freedom depends on taking it.

As for the greater good, again while it is experimental I don't think that can even be a consideration. Those at the greatest risk are already vaccinated, we have a wealth of information about who is vulnerable, how to shield them and how to treat them if they do get infected that wasn't available a year ago. Demanding everyone take this vaccine and/or continue to live with restrictions indefinitely is both ethically terrible and practically destructive.

Presumably this information isn't "honest and impartial"?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-1...

[GMT13]

No jab no job begins - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57492264

'Care staff are expected to be given 16 weeks to have the jab - or face being redeployed away from frontline care, or lose their jobs'

The constant daily propaganda about the dirty unvaccinated worries me about where we are headed. Any rise in cases/new variants can be blamed on them to help justify vaccine passports that will then be used for virtually everything. All lapped up and supported by the baying mob.

[MiniMan64]

GMT13 said:

No jab no job begins - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57492264

'Care staff are expected to be given 16 weeks to have the jab - or face being redeployed away from frontline care, or lose their jobs'

The constant daily propaganda about the dirty unvaccinated worries me about where we are headed. Any rise in cases/new variants can be blamed on them to help justify vaccine passports that will then be used for virtually everything. All lapped up and supported by the baying mob.

Of all the jobs out there you don’t think having care home staff vaccinated might be a good idea?

[GMT13]

MiniMan64 said:

GMT13 said:

No jab no job begins - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57492264

'Care staff are expected to be given 16 weeks to have the jab - or face being redeployed away from frontline care, or lose their jobs'

The constant daily propaganda about the dirty unvaccinated worries me about where we are headed. Any rise in cases/new variants can be blamed on them to help justify vaccine passports that will then be used for virtually everything. All lapped up and supported by the baying mob.

Of all the jobs out there you don’t think having care home staff vaccinated might be a good idea?

Using coercion to force people to have a medical treatment against their will is not a good idea, no. It's not even proven that having a vaccine reduces transmission.

No offer of the staff having an antibody test instead? Or even having a test every day before work? Nope, just desperate to force people to get the jab. They won't stop until 100% uptake.

[grumbledoak]

GMT13 said:

No jab no job begins - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57492264

'Care staff are expected to be given 16 weeks to have the jab - or face being redeployed away from frontline care, or lose their jobs'

The constant daily propaganda about the dirty unvaccinated worries me about where we are headed. Any rise in cases/new variants can be blamed on them to help justify vaccine passports that will then be used for virtually everything. All lapped up and supported by the baying mob.

That will be all of us, soon. If we want to work.

I don't believe the baying mob is very big. Just a small number of the loud and thick. But that won't matter. The media will portray it as a majority to "manufacture consent" for the policies the government want to implement.

[MiniMan64]

GMT13 said:

MiniMan64 said:

GMT13 said:

No jab no job begins - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57492264

'Care staff are expected to be given 16 weeks to have the jab - or face being redeployed away from frontline care, or lose their jobs'

The constant daily propaganda about the dirty unvaccinated worries me about where we are headed. Any rise in cases/new variants can be blamed on them to help justify vaccine passports that will then be used for virtually everything. All lapped up and supported by the baying mob.

Of all the jobs out there you don’t think having care home staff vaccinated might be a good idea?

Using coercion to force people to have a medical treatment against their will is not a good idea, no. It's not even proven that having a vaccine reduces transmission.

Yes it has.

I agree that forcing an entire population to have it probably isn’t going to go well but every profession has particular requirements, some more stringent than others. I’m sorry but if you work in health care, frontline at least, then you should be having it.

[cb31]

I'm double jabbed so not an anti-vaxxer.

Imagine you were under 40 so the jab offered you no benefit personally but actually did come with some small risk which I think everyone agrees with. You work for minimum wage in a care home and don't want the jab. When they come to force you to have it are you going to say ok then, or leave and get a nice cushy minimum wage job elsewhere?

It doesn't need a psychic to see a care home staff shortage in the next few months. Forced medical procedures with unproven long-term vaccines, what is this country coming to?

[Gecko1978]

Again 42 a (soon to be) double jabbed, I think forcing people to have it is a slippery slope.

[Shnozz]

Gecko1978 said:

Again 42 a (soon to be) double jabbed, I think forcing people to have it is a slippery slope.

Another 42 year old agreeing with you here.

Indeed, based on my risk profile, I wouldn't have stepped forward were it not for all the talk of vaccine passports and a deep desire to be first in the queue to get on a plane and fook off. You could argue that was coercion/propaganda in itself.

[vixen1700]

Forced vaccines?

Untested medium and long term effects, they're still collating the information on the short term effects with over 922,000 reported side-effects and nearly 1300 reported deaths according to government figures: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronav...

How many hospitalisations and how many deaths due to Covid19?

Surely more and more people have think 'this doesn't quite add up'

It's insane.

[Boringvolvodriver]

vixen1700 said:

Forced vaccines?

Untested medium and long term effects, they're still collating the information on the short term effects with over 922,000 reported side-effects and nearly 1300 reported deaths according to government figures: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronav...

How many hospitalisations and how many deaths due to Covid19?

Surely more and more people have think 'this doesn't quite add up'

It's insane.

It is indeed insane - although many people seem to be going along with it all and think that those who oppose it are the insane ones!


The government strategy is working on the hard of thinking

[Ian974]

There's got to be a fairly significant chunk of people who follow the data being published and decide "I'm not in an age group that's at risk, everyone who is at risk has been offered it, what is the actual harm in waiting a little longer?"

I've found the clamouring of some folk in their twenties and thirties to get the vaccine absolutely as soon as possible frankly bizarre.

[rscott]

vixen1700 said:

Forced vaccines?

Untested medium and long term effects, they're still collating the information on the short term effects with over 922,000 reported side-effects and nearly 1300 reported deaths according to government figures: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronav...

How many hospitalisations and how many deaths due to Covid19?

Surely more and more people have think 'this doesn't quite add up'

It's insane.

I guess you missed these two statements on the page you linked to
" It is important to note that Yellow Card data cannot be used to derive side effect rates or compare the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccinations as many factors can influence ADR reporting."
and
"The MHRA has received 406 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 863 reports for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 4 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 22 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified. The majority of these reports were in elderly people or people with underlying illness. Usage of the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca has increased rapidly and as such, so has reporting of fatal events with a temporal association with vaccination however, this does not indicate a link between vaccination and the fatalities reported. Review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccine played a role in the death."

As for the reported side effects, 267,671 yellow card reports, so many of those will be multiple side effects from the same jab. That's against a total of 66m injections .

The vast majority of those side-effects are the expected ones - pain/rash at the injection site, headache, fatigue, chills, fever. These all pass within a few days and are usually an indicator that the body is reacting as expected to the vaccine.

I take a couple of medications which have been approved for 30+ years and have higher rates of side effects than these, but they don't attract the same level of headlines.