Covid 19 Vaccine - Take it or not?
Poll: Covid 19 Vaccine - Take it or not?
Total Members Polled: 230
Discussion
sutoka said:
Had this debate with my sister the other day. A lot of women in her work are adamant they want to be first in the queue because ' you should always trust the government to do the right thing'. - should you eff.
Incredible that so many educated people can be so naive. I mean the government told women to take a supplement to control morning sickness that resulted in them giving birth to babies with deformities and in many cases missing limbs. Then denied thalidomide was the cause for years.
Another is the contaminated blood scandal in the 1970's. People trusted the government health bodies and what they got were blood transfusions which resulted in some getting Hep C and dying. Some people are still trying to get answers from this scandal.
I certainly won't be taking a vaccine that has clearly been rushed and fast tracked.
Don’t forget the growth hormone infected with CJD (a truly horrible way to go) in the 70s/80sIncredible that so many educated people can be so naive. I mean the government told women to take a supplement to control morning sickness that resulted in them giving birth to babies with deformities and in many cases missing limbs. Then denied thalidomide was the cause for years.
Another is the contaminated blood scandal in the 1970's. People trusted the government health bodies and what they got were blood transfusions which resulted in some getting Hep C and dying. Some people are still trying to get answers from this scandal.
I certainly won't be taking a vaccine that has clearly been rushed and fast tracked.
Edited by sutoka on Saturday 10th October 04:38
monkfish1 said:
What isnt a conspiracy is, the manufacturers are granted full immunity for any harms caused, and it wont even be covered by the goverment vaccine compensation scheme.
Which for anyone with even a couple of braincells should at least raise a few questions.
I have had the vaccine (or placebo). There are risks, but I was comfortable with the level of risk which I assessed as low having read the literature. We need a vaccine. Someone has to go first.Which for anyone with even a couple of braincells should at least raise a few questions.
I understand why others could be nervous especially at an early phase of vaccine development. However, the indemnity/ compensation aspect played absolutely no part in my decision and I don’t understand this argument. If I have a complication from treatment, the NHS will look after me. If I die then I am well insured with life cover. If I made a bad decision I will live (or die) with he consequences but at least I will have tried to do something about this situation we are in.
Big lips said:
I have had the vaccine (or placebo). There are risks, but I was comfortable with the level of risk which I assessed as low having read the literature. We need a vaccine. Someone has to go first.
I understand why others could be nervous especially at an early phase of vaccine development. However, the indemnity/ compensation aspect played absolutely no part in my decision and I don’t understand this argument. If I have a complication from treatment, the NHS will look after me. If I die then I am well insured with life cover. If I made a bad decision I will live (or die) with he consequences but at least I will have tried to do something about this situation we are in.
witko999 said:
Why don't you use the same attitude towards Covid itself? There is likely a higher risk from the vaccine than from the virus for the majority. Seems a bit odd to say 'if I take the vaccine and die, so be it'. Why not say 'if I get Covid and die, so be it'?
Because others will not benefit from me getting Covid but they may benefit if a vaccine is successful. witko999 said:
Big lips said:
I have had the vaccine (or placebo). There are risks, but I was comfortable with the level of risk which I assessed as low having read the literature. We need a vaccine. Someone has to go first.
I understand why others could be nervous especially at an early phase of vaccine development. However, the indemnity/ compensation aspect played absolutely no part in my decision and I don’t understand this argument. If I have a complication from treatment, the NHS will look after me. If I die then I am well insured with life cover. If I made a bad decision I will live (or die) with he consequences but at least I will have tried to do something about this situation we are in.
I suppose it depends whether you buy into the apparent risk level of the 'deadly virus' or not.
42,000 dead in 7 months-ish is, to be blunt, absolutely nothing. In the same period close to 10x that number will have died of other causes in this country. Yet all that exists is Coronavirus tunnel vision.
It would be interesting to carry out a survey in the street, asking the average person how many people they think die every year in the UK. I suspect their answers would be a fraction the true number.
People with no grasp or concept of maths and statistics should be roundly ignored when it comes to implementing such crippling political policies.
42,000 dead in 7 months-ish is, to be blunt, absolutely nothing. In the same period close to 10x that number will have died of other causes in this country. Yet all that exists is Coronavirus tunnel vision.
It would be interesting to carry out a survey in the street, asking the average person how many people they think die every year in the UK. I suspect their answers would be a fraction the true number.
People with no grasp or concept of maths and statistics should be roundly ignored when it comes to implementing such crippling political policies.
Biglips said:
monkfish1 said:
What isnt a conspiracy is, the manufacturers are granted full immunity for any harms caused, and it wont even be covered by the goverment vaccine compensation scheme.
Which for anyone with even a couple of braincells should at least raise a few questions.
I have had the vaccine (or placebo). There are risks, but I was comfortable with the level of risk which I assessed as low having read the literature. We need a vaccine. Someone has to go first.Which for anyone with even a couple of braincells should at least raise a few questions.
I understand why others could be nervous especially at an early phase of vaccine development. However, the indemnity/ compensation aspect played absolutely no part in my decision and I don’t understand this argument. If I have a complication from treatment, the NHS will look after me. If I die then I am well insured with life cover. If I made a bad decision I will live (or die) with he consequences but at least I will have tried to do something about this situation we are in.
It simple numbers. My chances of dying are tiny, much less than than dying in a road traffic accident. Im happy with that chance, as are virtually the entire adult population as evidenced by the widespread use of cars. Or take a vaccine of unknown risk, but definitely HIGHER risk than other vaccines (see above) to protect me from something that is virtually no risk.
In short, its not logical.
monkfish1 said:
How do you not understand? If no one will put there name to it, why do you think that might be? Let me tell you. Because the risk that it causes harm is significantly greater than is normally the case. Thats why. it IS that simple.
It simple numbers. My chances of dying are tiny, much less than than dying in a road traffic accident. Im happy with that chance, as are virtually the entire adult population as evidenced by the widespread use of cars. Or take a vaccine of unknown risk, but definitely HIGHER risk than other vaccines (see above) to protect me from something that is virtually no risk.
In short, its not logical.
But I understood that risk when I signed up. Why is it a problem? Unless we did clinical trials we would still be using leeches.It simple numbers. My chances of dying are tiny, much less than than dying in a road traffic accident. Im happy with that chance, as are virtually the entire adult population as evidenced by the widespread use of cars. Or take a vaccine of unknown risk, but definitely HIGHER risk than other vaccines (see above) to protect me from something that is virtually no risk.
In short, its not logical.
Edited by Biglips on Monday 12th October 18:56
Biglips said:
monkfish1 said:
How do you not understand? If no one will put there name to it, why do you think that might be? Let me tell you. Because the risk that it causes harm is significantly greater than is normally the case. Thats why. it IS that simple.
It simple numbers. My chances of dying are tiny, much less than than dying in a road traffic accident. Im happy with that chance, as are virtually the entire adult population as evidenced by the widespread use of cars. Or take a vaccine of unknown risk, but definitely HIGHER risk than other vaccines (see above) to protect me from something that is virtually no risk.
In short, its not logical.
But I understood that risk when I signed up. Why is it a problem?It simple numbers. My chances of dying are tiny, much less than than dying in a road traffic accident. Im happy with that chance, as are virtually the entire adult population as evidenced by the widespread use of cars. Or take a vaccine of unknown risk, but definitely HIGHER risk than other vaccines (see above) to protect me from something that is virtually no risk.
In short, its not logical.
monkfish1 said:
Fine by me. Your life, do as you please. But you said you dont understand. Thats surely not true?
No I don’t really. A person decides to do something. Risks are explained. Some cannot be fully quantified. Decide to do it or not. Why does someone need to be responsible for that other than myself?Next lot through the cycle, the risks will be a little better understood and decision making is easier.
If you look at the list of the potential health ramifications of a poorly tested vaccine and then consider that scale of any vaccination programme globally, the consequences would be devastating at a species level and make Covid look like a mere graze.
I may be being overly benevolent to our leaders but I do not think that there's a single government on earth that would sign-off on such a risk at such scale.
Medical knowledge has increased exponentially since the 60s and 70s so it's reasonable to assume should a vaccine ever emerge that it will be good to go.
All that said, I'd not be first in the line!
I may be being overly benevolent to our leaders but I do not think that there's a single government on earth that would sign-off on such a risk at such scale.
Medical knowledge has increased exponentially since the 60s and 70s so it's reasonable to assume should a vaccine ever emerge that it will be good to go.
All that said, I'd not be first in the line!
StevieBee said:
Medical knowledge has increased exponentially since the 60s and 70s so it's reasonable to assume should a vaccine ever emerge that it will be good to go.
All that said, I'd not be first in the line!
2009, "Swine Flu", Pandemrix -All that said, I'd not be first in the line!
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims...
grumbledoak said:
StevieBee said:
Medical knowledge has increased exponentially since the 60s and 70s so it's reasonable to assume should a vaccine ever emerge that it will be good to go.
All that said, I'd not be first in the line!
2009, "Swine Flu", Pandemrix -All that said, I'd not be first in the line!
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims...
But questions remain about how much was known before this time.
Despite these precautions, some of the contaminated blood products remained in circulation and continued to be used.
Screening of all blood products did not begin until 1991 and it was not until the late 1990s, when synthetic treatments for haemophilia became available, the infection risk was removed.
'Colin' is a sobering thought, at just 2 yrs old he went into hospital for the simple op of having grommets fitted. The doctors used an old batch of the blood product, and the child was infected with HIV. Five years later, after months of terrible chest infections, raging fevers and debilitating diarrhoea, Colin died. He weighed just 13 pounds.
Back to Vaccines - they normally take between 5 to 10 yrs to be properly tested and safe.
I'm glad guinea pigs are still out there and willing. Thank you!
The old saying 'your life in their hands' is very true. Remember, you have only one 'life'. There is enough 'risk' daily, everywhere. Why add to it?
dandarez said:
grumbledoak said:
StevieBee said:
Medical knowledge has increased exponentially since the 60s and 70s so it's reasonable to assume should a vaccine ever emerge that it will be good to go.
All that said, I'd not be first in the line!
2009, "Swine Flu", Pandemrix -All that said, I'd not be first in the line!
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims...
But questions remain about how much was known before this time.
Despite these precautions, some of the contaminated blood products remained in circulation and continued to be used.
Screening of all blood products did not begin until 1991 and it was not until the late 1990s, when synthetic treatments for haemophilia became available, the infection risk was removed.
'Colin' is a sobering thought, at just 2 yrs old he went into hospital for the simple op of having grommets fitted. The doctors used an old batch of the blood product, and the child was infected with HIV. Five years later, after months of terrible chest infections, raging fevers and debilitating diarrhoea, Colin died. He weighed just 13 pounds.
Back to Vaccines - they normally take between 5 to 10 yrs to be properly tested and safe.
I'm glad guinea pigs are still out there and willing. Thank you!
The old saying 'your life in their hands' is very true. Remember, you have only one 'life'. There is enough 'risk' daily, everywhere. Why add to it?
I'd be happy to have it..... but only after I've seen those that invented it inject, inject into their kids and the world's leaders all do the same.
StevieBee said:
dandarez said:
grumbledoak said:
StevieBee said:
Medical knowledge has increased exponentially since the 60s and 70s so it's reasonable to assume should a vaccine ever emerge that it will be good to go.
All that said, I'd not be first in the line!
2009, "Swine Flu", Pandemrix -All that said, I'd not be first in the line!
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims...
But questions remain about how much was known before this time.
Despite these precautions, some of the contaminated blood products remained in circulation and continued to be used.
Screening of all blood products did not begin until 1991 and it was not until the late 1990s, when synthetic treatments for haemophilia became available, the infection risk was removed.
'Colin' is a sobering thought, at just 2 yrs old he went into hospital for the simple op of having grommets fitted. The doctors used an old batch of the blood product, and the child was infected with HIV. Five years later, after months of terrible chest infections, raging fevers and debilitating diarrhoea, Colin died. He weighed just 13 pounds.
Back to Vaccines - they normally take between 5 to 10 yrs to be properly tested and safe.
I'm glad guinea pigs are still out there and willing. Thank you!
The old saying 'your life in their hands' is very true. Remember, you have only one 'life'. There is enough 'risk' daily, everywhere. Why add to it?
I'd be happy to have it..... but only after I've seen those that invented it inject, inject into their kids and the world's leaders all do the same.
Ken Sington said:
Found myself talking to a couple yesterday who turned out to both work in pharmacology. They said that anything that comes out in the near future will be nowhere near meeting the usual testing protocols for new medication, and as such, they wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
Do you only use the brake pads you MOT tester recommends?Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff