Covid 19 Vaccine - will you have it ?
Discussion
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
I live by a simple principle; I don't take any medicine unless I need it. I don't see Covid as a risk, so I don't need to swallow the spider to catch the fly. Other people will feel differently. It's called personal choice and should be respected (in all directions).
As long as people like you don't come on my airplane mutating away then thats fine. All for vacinne passports here.gregs656 said:
You are of course free to make your choice, but if you post the rationale behind that choice and it seems to be lacking don't be surprised if other people comment. I am surprised you are not used to that by now.
Not sure the rationale is that complicated. On principle, if the disease a vaccine tries to prevent is either not very harmful, or is harmful but exceptionally rare, I don't bother with a vaccine. I'll let my immune system do the heavy lifting. I maybe get ill with a heavy cold once or twice a year. I'm 42 and in those years the only 'serious' illnesses I can remember having are glandular fever and swine flu. The former didn't really do much and went fairly quickly and the latter was a b
h that took me 2 stone and two months to fully recover from.Even if my rationale were utterly irrational, which It isnt, it wouldn't matter because it's my choice and my risk to take. Other people can take the same set of facts and come to a different conclusion. I'm not trying to stop anybody else take anything the want.
gregs656 said:
It has always been a problem that people are preoccupied by the death statistics.
This is a very good point. Mrs. Guitar is involved in research in NYC pertaining to the effects covid can have on long-term brain function and it is a serious cause for concern. Those looking only at death stats might wish to expand their considerations to also allow for survival, but with a significantly reduced quality of life, and it's early days too, so more long-term covid issues will possibly reveal themselves.RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Not sure the rationale is that complicated. On principle, if the disease a vaccine tries to prevent is either not very harmful, or is harmful but exceptionally rare, I don't bother with a vaccine. I'll let my immune system do the heavy lifting. I maybe get ill with a heavy cold once or twice a year. I'm 42 and in those years the only 'serious' illnesses I can remember having are glandular fever and swine flu. The former didn't really do much and went fairly quickly and the latter was a bh that took me 2 stone and two months to fully recover from.
Even if my rationale were utterly irrational, which It isnt, it wouldn't matter because it's my choice and my risk to take. Other people can take the same set of facts and come to a different conclusion. I'm not trying to stop anybody else take anything the want.
I didn't say it was complicated, nor did I say you were trying to stop anybody else.h that took me 2 stone and two months to fully recover from.Even if my rationale were utterly irrational, which It isnt, it wouldn't matter because it's my choice and my risk to take. Other people can take the same set of facts and come to a different conclusion. I'm not trying to stop anybody else take anything the want.
This is a discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss your position on not taking a vaccine, don't post about it. It is senseless to say you're not going to take the vaccine, give reasons why, and then b
h about free choice when people challenge you on your position.Your thought process is obvious to me. You are choosing to inflate the risk of a vaccine, and dismiss the risk of COVID. That is fine, your choice, but that's all it is and people are going to call you out on it.
What is the blood clot risk from COVID by the way, seeing as you were so interested in blood clots just a page a go?
I haven't bhed about anything. That's a figment of your imagination.
If a new vaccine is given to millions of people, with millions more encouraged to take it, I think it's newsworthy when its reported efficacy and risk both change significantly amidst that process. I don't think it's particularly strange to find that concerning. It certainly affects my decision making when it comes to whether my young children should be vaccinated.
hed about anything. That's a figment of your imagination. If a new vaccine is given to millions of people, with millions more encouraged to take it, I think it's newsworthy when its reported efficacy and risk both change significantly amidst that process. I don't think it's particularly strange to find that concerning. It certainly affects my decision making when it comes to whether my young children should be vaccinated.
paulguitar said:
gregs656 said:
It has always been a problem that people are preoccupied by the death statistics.
This is a very good point. Mrs. Guitar is involved in research in NYC pertaining to the effects covid can have on long-term brain function and it is a serious cause for concern. Those looking only at death stats might wish to expand their considerations to also allow for survival, but with a significantly reduced quality of life, and it's early days too, so more long-term covid issues will possibly reveal themselves.So they focus on a long term risk from a vaccine (because who wants to be a guinea pig), but totally ignore being a guinea pig for the study of the long term risks of COVID (which we are already seeing).
They focus on blood clot risk now, but ignore blood clot risk from COVID (and many other things)
They focus on the time frame the vaccine was produced in, ignore the many many reports from people in the industry of why that is (hint, vaccines are not studied for side effects for 10 years, or even 1 year).
My expectation at this point is that the vast majority of people will be vaccinated this year, and over time the vaccination programs will become more targeted. I am ok with that.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
I haven't bhed about anything. That's a figment of your imagination.
If a new vaccine is given to millions of people, with millions more encouraged to take it, I think it's newsworthy when its reported efficacy and risk both change significantly amidst that process. I don't think it's particularly strange to find that concerning. It certainly affects my decision making when it comes to whether my young children should be vaccinated.
Sorry what is the blood clot risk from COVID?hed about anything. That's a figment of your imagination. If a new vaccine is given to millions of people, with millions more encouraged to take it, I think it's newsworthy when its reported efficacy and risk both change significantly amidst that process. I don't think it's particularly strange to find that concerning. It certainly affects my decision making when it comes to whether my young children should be vaccinated.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
That ground has been covered. Suggest you read the earlier pages and/or the relevant reports.
As desperate as you are to belittle me for having a contrary option to your own, I'm really not that bothered. Enjoy your weekend.
I haven’t shared an opinion. As desperate as you are to belittle me for having a contrary option to your own, I'm really not that bothered. Enjoy your weekend.
I have no issue with your choice.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What do you mean about no long term testing having taken place? Compared to what?
Other vaccines that have undergone many years of trials before being signed off.t spouted by morons and lapped up by idiots. If a vaccine appears today having been trialled for the last 15 years, anyone doing the trial 15, 13, or 10 years ago, will have been monitored for 4-6 months tops. If they died 7 months later, the vaccine company won't even know.
That's because we've had vaccines for over 300 years, and we know for a fact that they NEVER throw up long term problems. Most issues are evident in minutes, maybe hours. A few years back there was a vaccine in Sweden that caused issues 6-8 weeks later, and that was a real shock, and was considered to be very long term.
But anyone who thinks because a vaccine has been trialled for 10 years, the long term effects are monitored, is an idiot. They aren't, because there are none.
In the case of covid, they haven't had to recruit and pay for 50K triallists. People have volunteered. in their tens of thousands.
I really don't know how many times this has to be repeated before the penny drops.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Saturday 24th April 14:02
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Saturday 24th April 14:05
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's different from long term testing. Vaccines undergo many years of trials because the vaccine firm have to recruit and pay 50K people to trial them. That's expensive, so it's done gradually, and takes years. But you said they undergo long term testing, and they don't. It's utter internet bullst spouted by morons and lapped up by idiots.
If a vaccine appears today having been trialled for the last 15 years, anyone doing the trial 15, 13, or 10 years ago, will have been monitored for 4-6 months tops. If they died 7 months later, the vaccine company won't even know.
That's because we've had vaccines for over 300 years, and we know for a fact that they NEVER throw up long term problems. Most issues are evident in minutes, maybe hours. A few years back there was a vaccine in Sweden that caused issues 6-8 weeks later, and that was a real shock, and was considered to be very long term.
But anyone who thinks because a vaccine has been trialled for 10 years, the long term effects are monitored, is an idiot. They aren't, because there are none.
In the case of covid, they haven't had to recruit and pay for 50K triallists. People have volunteered. in their tens of thousands.
I really don't know how many times this has to be repeated before the penny drops.
I don't think I'm disagreeing with you in principle, but there's a few inaccuracies here. I don't think it's material to go through and start nit-picking, save for the point where you seem to imply the effects of a vaccine are not monitored long term routinely, my understanding is this isn't true. t spouted by morons and lapped up by idiots. If a vaccine appears today having been trialled for the last 15 years, anyone doing the trial 15, 13, or 10 years ago, will have been monitored for 4-6 months tops. If they died 7 months later, the vaccine company won't even know.
That's because we've had vaccines for over 300 years, and we know for a fact that they NEVER throw up long term problems. Most issues are evident in minutes, maybe hours. A few years back there was a vaccine in Sweden that caused issues 6-8 weeks later, and that was a real shock, and was considered to be very long term.
But anyone who thinks because a vaccine has been trialled for 10 years, the long term effects are monitored, is an idiot. They aren't, because there are none.
In the case of covid, they haven't had to recruit and pay for 50K triallists. People have volunteered. in their tens of thousands.
I really don't know how many times this has to be repeated before the penny drops.
Wordwide suspected side effects are reported to drug manufacturers on an ongoing basis. This is usually via the regulator, in the UK this is via the MHRA yellow card scheme; https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/ (Patients can do this as well as clinicians).
You'll see the MHRA have also updated their website to include a special section just for reporting COVID medication side effects, I believe this is absolutely unprecedented, and will undoubtedly increases the numbers of data collected.
Medics and pharmaceuticals also typically also carry out their own research in to side effects and uses of medications long after the manufacturer has obtained their marketing licence. I understand OAZ have already started a follow up study (this wasn't free it was undoubtedly very expense, we don't work for free even the volunteers do).
If the pharmaceutical company is making money from a medicine or vaccine, it is in their interests to continue to monitor the safety of it, for ethical and financial reasons. I don't know for certain but I would speculate it's a condition of their licence in most countries to monitor safety if they wish to sell it in the first place.
The point is the vaccine was proven safe, sure, but then a s
t load of work has been ongoing to make sure nothing has been missed. That's the real reason you can be certain it definitely is safe.TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's because we've had vaccines for over 300 years, and we know for a fact that they NEVER throw up long term problems. Most issues are evident in minutes, maybe hours. A few years back there was a vaccine in Sweden that caused issues 6-8 weeks later, and that was a real shock, and was considered to be very long term.
Please note I will in all likelihood be accepting the offer of the vaccine (just not in a rush as I've already had COVID), however this vaccine that Sweden found to cause issues is quite pertinent, as from I can tell from your post that vaccine was Pandemrix, which was rolled out for the swine flu pandemic. Patented in 2006 (when presumably the testing was done), it wasn't rolled out until 2009 and the narcolepsy issues weren't picked up until 2010, after we'd rolled it out to 6 million people. From what I can tell the NHS bill for this is sizeable. Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Saturday 24th April 14:02
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Saturday 24th April 14:05
Leaked company reports afterwards, suggested GSK may not have been 100% honest around the trial phase - or even tested it on anything resembling Swine Flu:
https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948
So when you say NO vaccine has thrown up long term issues that isn't entirely accurate, as seen by Pandemrix.
bodhi said:
Please note I will in all likelihood be accepting the offer of the vaccine (just not in a rush as I've already had COVID), however this vaccine that Sweden found to cause issues is quite pertinent, as from I can tell from your post that vaccine was Pandemrix, which was rolled out for the swine flu pandemic. Patented in 2006 (when presumably the testing was done), it wasn't rolled out until 2009 and the narcolepsy issues weren't picked up until 2010, after we'd rolled it out to 6 million people. From what I can tell the NHS bill for this is sizeable.
Leaked company reports afterwards, suggested GSK may not have been 100% honest around the trial phase - or even tested it on anything resembling Swine Flu:
https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948
So when you say NO vaccine has thrown up long term issues that isn't entirely accurate, as seen by Pandemrix.
Leaked company reports afterwards, suggested GSK may not have been 100% honest around the trial phase - or even tested it on anything resembling Swine Flu:
https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948
So when you say NO vaccine has thrown up long term issues that isn't entirely accurate, as seen by Pandemrix.
That link doesn't back up your point though does it?
Aside from the fact it's not viewable in full, it's a journal piece which highlights the court case, which aside from not being a scientific review, was thrown out of court or settled outside of it, wasn't it?
It looks like it's Pandemrix had legal backlash in a number of countries, but the the jury is (almost literally) still out in several of them. It doesn't seem accurate me to say it's proven this an example of a failed vaccine and GSK cover up.
This is a relatively small number of individuals seeking compensation. Their claims have yet to be proven. It's worth noting this trial was over 12 years ago and there's still not enough evidence to bring forward, and the licence in Europe has expired rather than ever been withdrawn due to safety concerns.
That said, I wouldn't say anything is "completely safe", everything has side effects. It's the "risk-benefit" ratio which is key here, and the one from Pandemrix compared with COVID vaccines is very different. I get why you highlighted it based on what Twig said, but it's not comparable.
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Monday 26th April 16:47
Prof Prolapse said:
That link doesn't back up your point though does it?
Aside from the fact it's not viewable in full, it's a journal piece which highlights the court case, which aside from not being a scientific review, was thrown out of court or settled outside of it, wasn't it?
It looks like it's Pandemrix had legal backlash in a number of countries, but the the jury is (almost literally) still out in several of them. It doesn't seem accurate me to say it's proven this an example of a failed vaccine and GSK cover up.
This is a relatively small number of individuals seeking compensation. Their claims have yet to be proven. It's worth noting this trial was over 12 years ago and there's still not enough evidence to bring forward, and the licence in Europe has expired rather than ever been withdrawn due to safety concerns.
That said, I wouldn't say anything is "completely safe", everything has side effects. It's the "risk-benefit" ratio which is key here, and the one from Pandemrix compared with COVID vaccines is very different. I get why you highlighted it based on what Twig said, but it's not comparable.
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Monday 26th April 16:47
For me the only area where the "risk-benefit" ratio gets a little fuzzy is for those who have already had SARS-Cov2 and recovered, as natural immunity still looks to be more effective, judging by the numbers recently published from Israel.
https://twitter.com/andrewbostom/status/1386421513...
ZOE seemed to be suggesting the previously infected were more likely to suffer from minor side effects, such as fatigue, fever etc and whilst they are all perfectly harmless overall, I'm not entirely seeing the benefit of those couple of days in bed feeling rough. For anyone vulnerable or anyone who has managed to avoid the bug itself so far, then they are clearly the way forwards and should be encouraged (but not coerced).
bodhi said:
As you say in your last paragraph I simply mentioned Pandemrix due to Twig's comment about we have never found out about side effects over the longer term which was demonstrably false - the difference is in this case Pandemrix also seemed to be a fairly useless vaccine by the time it was administered, the CV-19 vaccines all seem pretty effective, with incredibly low chances of severe complications.
For me the only area where the "risk-benefit" ratio gets a little fuzzy is for those who have already had SARS-Cov2 and recovered, as natural immunity still looks to be more effective, judging by the numbers recently published from Israel.
https://twitter.com/andrewbostom/status/1386421513...
ZOE seemed to be suggesting the previously infected were more likely to suffer from minor side effects, such as fatigue, fever etc and whilst they are all perfectly harmless overall, I'm not entirely seeing the benefit of those couple of days in bed feeling rough. For anyone vulnerable or anyone who has managed to avoid the bug itself so far, then they are clearly the way forwards and should be encouraged (but not coerced).
With all respect to Andrew Bostom M.D., back in the real world, it seems bloody obvious why you need to vaccinate everyone, aside from the practical issues of confirming who has antibodies, the risk of mild symptoms due to vaccine is hugely outweighed by the benefits of the vaccination programme to both society and individual. That's an abstract, but even if his results are valid, the suggestion of working out which individual has pre-existing immunity, seems critically flawed.For me the only area where the "risk-benefit" ratio gets a little fuzzy is for those who have already had SARS-Cov2 and recovered, as natural immunity still looks to be more effective, judging by the numbers recently published from Israel.
https://twitter.com/andrewbostom/status/1386421513...
ZOE seemed to be suggesting the previously infected were more likely to suffer from minor side effects, such as fatigue, fever etc and whilst they are all perfectly harmless overall, I'm not entirely seeing the benefit of those couple of days in bed feeling rough. For anyone vulnerable or anyone who has managed to avoid the bug itself so far, then they are clearly the way forwards and should be encouraged (but not coerced).
He's based in a fine hospital in Israel, a country that led the world in vaccination because they negotiated the vaccine well, and took decisive steps. They didn't f
k around working out who needed what and if they'd get upset about, they just dosed everyone they could safely and quickly. I wrote this in another thread, I have a team in Israel, who actually work in that same hospital, last week they're telling me how they're basically back to normal. They are reaping the rewards of a country that did not fk around unnecessarily, whilst mainland Europe were going from fk up to fk up, the Israeli's were just getting on with it. Even the UK Government was taking huge decisive steps securing drug, and even building without permissions to support, we took risks and decisive steps, on balance they look to have paid off. This is the problem though, in times of crisis you need to act decisively, and having a bunch of idiots and pussies rejecting the vaccine without basis, honestly could endanger the whole programme. That's why a vocal but small number of people need to wind their neck in here, because unless you are in the business of publishing serious scientific papers, you should, literally, just shut up and take your medicine.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No reply to my post above. That's always the way on these anti vax bullst threads. You hit them with actual facts, and they go quiet. Then another thread pops up with the same old nonsense. Rinse and repeat.
There was no reply from me because your post, as very politely pointed out, was claptrap.t threads. You hit them with actual facts, and they go quiet. Then another thread pops up with the same old nonsense. Rinse and repeat. Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff