Does anyone know an Anti Covid vaxxer?
Discussion
APontus said:
wish you and your kids a swift recovery.
I've young children and have spent time in A&E/overnights with them being ill following severe allergic reactions, seizures and croup that wasn't responding to treatment. It's never anything other than worrying.
However, isolated anecdotal examples aren't a good basis for forming a principle. Would I put my children at risk from a new vaccine solely to protect yours and others from Covid? No. My duty of care is to my own children first.
Thank you. I've young children and have spent time in A&E/overnights with them being ill following severe allergic reactions, seizures and croup that wasn't responding to treatment. It's never anything other than worrying.
However, isolated anecdotal examples aren't a good basis for forming a principle. Would I put my children at risk from a new vaccine solely to protect yours and others from Covid? No. My duty of care is to my own children first.
I'm not aware children are even eligible for the vaccine?
My point is that having the vaccine reduces spread, and the purpose of the anecdote was to point out that (1) there's costs here outside deaths and (2) the protection offered to the most vulnerable isn't absolute.
You should protect your children by having the vaccine. At the very least it allows you to look after them when they're sick.
Ashfordian said:
It will be interesting how the pro-vaxxers (I'm looking at you Prolapse and Pushfit) try to discredit this expert and his views, expecially when the views he is expressing are similar to many of us on here
https://twitter.com/rwjdingwall/status/14101774538...
I'm going to guess they will take one of three approaches:
1) Climb back into their hole and ignore this
2) Attack the poster
3) Diversion by implying there are no similarities.
What views?https://twitter.com/rwjdingwall/status/14101774538...
I'm going to guess they will take one of three approaches:
1) Climb back into their hole and ignore this
2) Attack the poster
3) Diversion by implying there are no similarities.
Things like;
"Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine. "
?
Why does his opinion on that have any more weight than yours or mine, given that his field of expertise is sociology?
otolith said:
Why does his opinion on that have any more weight than yours or mine, given that his field of expertise is sociology?
Ask the JCVI. He's a member so I'd suggest it's recognised that balancing public health measures isn't simply a matter for virologists or infectious disease specialists.Prof Prolapse said:
If you can't eliminate something 100% that doesn't mean you don't bother at all.
Actually it is because of the characteristics of the disease. There are 2 plausible longer term outcomes - global elimination
- the virus reaches an endemic state like the hundreds of other respiratory diseases humans get causing similar levels of mortality and illness.
I don't believe the first is at all possible, certainly now and likely even by Jan 2020. You however are suggesting we try then I take it?
Edited by isaldiri on Wednesday 30th June 14:46
APontus said:
Would I put my children at risk from a new vaccine solely to protect yours and others from Covid? No. My duty of care is to my own children first.
Even though the risk of death / serious illness to the young is low, it's higher than the risk from the vaccine. Therefore, by denying them the vaccine, you are placing them at a higher risk than is necessary and are failing in your duty of care. Ashfordian said:
It will be interesting how the pro-vaxxers (I'm looking at you Prolapse and Pushfit) try to discredit this expert and his views, expecially when the views he is expressing are similar to many of us on here
https://twitter.com/rwjdingwall/status/14101774538...
I'm going to guess they will take one of three approaches:
1) Climb back into their hole and ignore this
2) Attack the poster
3) Diversion by implying there are no similarities.
4) not understand what your point ,or his, is.https://twitter.com/rwjdingwall/status/14101774538...
I'm going to guess they will take one of three approaches:
1) Climb back into their hole and ignore this
2) Attack the poster
3) Diversion by implying there are no similarities.
isaldiri said:
otolith said:
Why does his opinion on that have any more weight than yours or mine, given that his field of expertise is sociology?
Ask the JCVI. He's a member so I'd suggest it's recognised that balancing public health measures isn't simply a matter for virologists or infectious disease specialists.I thought plague enthusiasts had a problem with members of government committees making public policy statements of their own, or is it only when they disagree with them?
isaldiri said:
Actually it is because of the characteristics of the disease. There are 2 plausible longer term outcomes
- global elimination
- the virus reaches an endemic state like the hundreds of other respiratory diseases humans get causing similar levels of mortality and illness.
I don't believe the first is at all possible, certainly now and likely even by Jan 2020. You however are suggesting we try then I take it?
I don't know what you mean by "Jan2020", also by definition you can't say something is "plausible" but not "possible", it's an oxymoron. But I think I agree, insomuch as global eradication seems somewhat unlikely at this point, I would speculate it could happen as the vaccines are refined however.- global elimination
- the virus reaches an endemic state like the hundreds of other respiratory diseases humans get causing similar levels of mortality and illness.
I don't believe the first is at all possible, certainly now and likely even by Jan 2020. You however are suggesting we try then I take it?
The way out seems obvious. We get immunity, even partial is useful, and I suspect selection pressure makes the virus less damaging, in both economic and human costs. Vaccines help with this process by boosting immunity, that's especially useful in those more vulnerable.
Again, I'm not sure of the counter point you're trying to make.
Prof Prolapse said:
isaldiri said:
Actually it is because of the characteristics of the disease. There are 2 plausible longer term outcomes
- global elimination
- the virus reaches an endemic state like the hundreds of other respiratory diseases humans get causing similar levels of mortality and illness.
I don't believe the first is at all possible, certainly now and likely even by Jan 2020. You however are suggesting we try then I take it?
I don't know what you mean by "Jan2020", also by definition you can't say something is "plausible" but not "possible", it's an oxymoron. But I think I agree, insomuch as global eradication seems somewhat unlikely at this point, I would speculate it could happen as the vaccines are refined however.- global elimination
- the virus reaches an endemic state like the hundreds of other respiratory diseases humans get causing similar levels of mortality and illness.
I don't believe the first is at all possible, certainly now and likely even by Jan 2020. You however are suggesting we try then I take it?
The way out seems obvious. We get immunity, even partial is useful, and I suspect selection pressure makes the virus less damaging, in both economic and human costs. Vaccines help with this process by boosting immunity, that's especially useful in those more vulnerable.
Again, I'm not sure of the counter point you're trying to make.
Prof Prolapse said:
If you can't eliminate something 100% that doesn't mean you don't bother at all.
My point is that if you can't eliminate it then you try to live with it. By jan2020 with the virus spread throughout the planet by the , eradication was going to be very unlikely and would entail extremely damaging costs to achieve.And the way out being obvious is as you pointed out to vaccinate those where it is most useful ie the older more vulnerable groups so the impact of the disease is minimised. This as you might have noticed has been achieved quite a while ago with a whole heap of over 50s vaccinated already.
Everyone else regardless of vaccination status is liable to get infected then reinfected repeatedly. Coercing more younger people to do so now is not meaningfully going to change the course of the virus longer term.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Even though the risk of death / serious illness to the young is low, it's higher than the risk from the vaccine. Therefore, by denying them the vaccine, you are placing them at a higher risk than is necessary and are failing in your duty of care.
You can't possibly know the medium or long term risks of the vaccine a) at all or b) in children, as the testing hasn't been done.In any case, the logic that you must do something with risk because statistically it reduces more risk than it creates is flawed. For example, you would certainly reject living in s house with stairs.
The reality is, the risk from Covid is so low, that it doesn't justify any medical intervention at all, for me or my children.
isaldiri said:
My point is that if you can't eliminate it then you try to live with it. By jan2020 with the virus spread throughout the planet by the , eradication was going to be very unlikely and would entail extremely damaging costs to achieve.
And the way out being obvious is as you pointed out to vaccinate those where it is most useful ie the older more vulnerable groups so the impact of the disease is minimised. This as you might have noticed has been achieved quite a while ago with a whole heap of over 50s vaccinated already.
Everyone else regardless of vaccination status is liable to get infected then reinfected repeatedly. Coercing more younger people to do so now is not meaningfully going to change the course of the virus longer term.
Yes I agree, you live with it, and vaccinate.And the way out being obvious is as you pointed out to vaccinate those where it is most useful ie the older more vulnerable groups so the impact of the disease is minimised. This as you might have noticed has been achieved quite a while ago with a whole heap of over 50s vaccinated already.
Everyone else regardless of vaccination status is liable to get infected then reinfected repeatedly. Coercing more younger people to do so now is not meaningfully going to change the course of the virus longer term.
I think it really depends on what you mean by "younger people", as you should recall, I'm all for JCVI guidelines.
As you know (and unless it's changed) there's no vaccination for children, and if you mean the 20-30 group, I've honestly not see any of the rationale either way, as it's not relevant to the discussions we have which are typically with "30-somethings".
APontus said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Even though the risk of death / serious illness to the young is low, it's higher than the risk from the vaccine. Therefore, by denying them the vaccine, you are placing them at a higher risk than is necessary and are failing in your duty of care.
You can't possibly know the medium or long term risks of the vaccine a) at all or b) in children, as the testing hasn't been done.In any case, the logic that you must do something with risk because statistically it reduces more risk than it creates is flawed. For example, you would certainly reject living in s house with stairs.
The reality is, the risk from Covid is so low, that it doesn't justify any medical intervention at all, for me or my children.
https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/...
Calculating IFR
The true severity of a disease can be described by the Infection Fatality Ratio:
Serological testing of a representative random sample of the population to detect evidence of exposure to a pathogen is an important method to estimate the true number of infected individuals [7,8,9]. Many such serological surveys are currently being undertaken worldwide [10], and some have thus far suggested substantial under-ascertainment of cases, with estimates of IFR converging at approximately 0.5 - 1%
CDC states 94% of the above less than 1% (and that is absolute tops as deaths are deaths and infection numbers are highs than published as not every person well or sick gets tested) had multiple comorbidities.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/in...
For over 5% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death.
But the hospitals you say....
Of course hospitals are overwhelmed because they are operating at a reduced capacity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55536762
- Less space for beds due to the need for larger gaps between them
- The division of wards into three zones: those for people with coronavirus, those awaiting test results and those who have tested negative
- Increased infection control - including cleaning and putting on personal protective equipment (PPE) - which takes up staff time
- Increased critical care beds and patients, which require more intensive staffing
- Combined, these factors mean that hospitals have less capacity than usual, meaning fewer beds are available for fewer patients.
In total, NHS hospitals in England have about 7,000 fewer available beds than usual.
How much extra room is there?
In theory, there are 12,000 free beds in NHS hospitals in England.
What a great use of the Nightingale....
I can not begin to express how unworried i am about CV19 going of the data. No tinfoil links, all MSM and when you draw up the dots it paints a clear picture. Minimal fatality rate from infection, even less as the age range comes down. 94% of deaths already had underlying health conditions, of which are killers of their own. Hospitals are overrun during a normal flu season, let alone removing several thousands beds.
Hospitals can no longer afford the most modern scanners and surgical equipment to treat patients who have cancer and other diseases because of multibillion-pound cuts to the NHS’s capital budget, research reveals.
Wow thats changed its tune, now we are concerned with public heath.......
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features...
The global pharmaceutical industry is expected to witness positive growth as the top pharma companies are at forefront of the fight against COVID-19.
The world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies: Top ten by revenue
1. Johnson & Johnson – $56.1bn
2. Pfizer – $51.75bn
3. Roche – $49.23bn
4. Novartis – $47.45bn
5. Merck & Co. – $46.84bn
Long may that continue
Calculating IFR
The true severity of a disease can be described by the Infection Fatality Ratio:
Serological testing of a representative random sample of the population to detect evidence of exposure to a pathogen is an important method to estimate the true number of infected individuals [7,8,9]. Many such serological surveys are currently being undertaken worldwide [10], and some have thus far suggested substantial under-ascertainment of cases, with estimates of IFR converging at approximately 0.5 - 1%
- # Yes 0.5-1% IFR
CDC states 94% of the above less than 1% (and that is absolute tops as deaths are deaths and infection numbers are highs than published as not every person well or sick gets tested) had multiple comorbidities.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/in...
For over 5% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death.
But the hospitals you say....
Of course hospitals are overwhelmed because they are operating at a reduced capacity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55536762
- Less space for beds due to the need for larger gaps between them
- The division of wards into three zones: those for people with coronavirus, those awaiting test results and those who have tested negative
- Increased infection control - including cleaning and putting on personal protective equipment (PPE) - which takes up staff time
- Increased critical care beds and patients, which require more intensive staffing
- Combined, these factors mean that hospitals have less capacity than usual, meaning fewer beds are available for fewer patients.
In total, NHS hospitals in England have about 7,000 fewer available beds than usual.
How much extra room is there?
In theory, there are 12,000 free beds in NHS hospitals in England.
What a great use of the Nightingale....
I can not begin to express how unworried i am about CV19 going of the data. No tinfoil links, all MSM and when you draw up the dots it paints a clear picture. Minimal fatality rate from infection, even less as the age range comes down. 94% of deaths already had underlying health conditions, of which are killers of their own. Hospitals are overrun during a normal flu season, let alone removing several thousands beds.
- I can hear it now, but but i trust the uk government, the science (and how its presented) and the pharmaceutical industry to put public health over stakeholder interest.
Hospitals can no longer afford the most modern scanners and surgical equipment to treat patients who have cancer and other diseases because of multibillion-pound cuts to the NHS’s capital budget, research reveals.
Wow thats changed its tune, now we are concerned with public heath.......
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features...
The global pharmaceutical industry is expected to witness positive growth as the top pharma companies are at forefront of the fight against COVID-19.
The world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies: Top ten by revenue
1. Johnson & Johnson – $56.1bn
2. Pfizer – $51.75bn
3. Roche – $49.23bn
4. Novartis – $47.45bn
5. Merck & Co. – $46.84bn
Long may that continue
isaldiri said:
Everyone else regardless of vaccination status is liable to get infected then reinfected repeatedly. Coercing more younger people to do so now is not meaningfully going to change the course of the virus longer term.
Bojo and his team basically onto "arse" covering exercise. They are fully aware that, they neglected the situation in the beginning, and acted very slow so likely will face some serious repercussions (if we still have any law in that near future, looks like we lost that too). so by enforcing younger and younger is just a window dressing.Prof Prolapse said:
All my kids have Covid at the moment. I've just tested positive this morning despite being double-vaccinated. It's extremely unpleasant for them, I've spent the last two days listening to my five month old baby wheeze and cough. Its nothing like a cold.
I'm not even "vulnerable" and I got re-infected. I really would not be so confident I was the only one, so I wouldn't be so confident of the protection offered to the most needing of it. You really could still spread and kill someone.
Having the vaccine reduces the risk of spreading to others, and there's a real human cost here outside only concentrating on whether we die or not, having the vaccine remains the socially responsible thing to do.
Despite all these pages of non-sense, there's still not a single sensible reason not to take it, it's all cowardice and ignorance.
Sorry, but your own double-vaccination did not prevent re-infection, but there is "not a single sensible reason" not to take it?I'm not even "vulnerable" and I got re-infected. I really would not be so confident I was the only one, so I wouldn't be so confident of the protection offered to the most needing of it. You really could still spread and kill someone.
Having the vaccine reduces the risk of spreading to others, and there's a real human cost here outside only concentrating on whether we die or not, having the vaccine remains the socially responsible thing to do.
Despite all these pages of non-sense, there's still not a single sensible reason not to take it, it's all cowardice and ignorance.
Why can't I just have a double espresso instead? That won't prevent reinfection either, but it's lower risk and I'll enjoy it.
grumbledoak said:
Prof Prolapse said:
All my kids have Covid at the moment. I've just tested positive this morning despite being double-vaccinated. It's extremely unpleasant for them, I've spent the last two days listening to my five month old baby wheeze and cough. Its nothing like a cold.
I'm not even "vulnerable" and I got re-infected. I really would not be so confident I was the only one, so I wouldn't be so confident of the protection offered to the most needing of it. You really could still spread and kill someone.
Having the vaccine reduces the risk of spreading to others, and there's a real human cost here outside only concentrating on whether we die or not, having the vaccine remains the socially responsible thing to do.
Despite all these pages of non-sense, there's still not a single sensible reason not to take it, it's all cowardice and ignorance.
Sorry, but your own double-vaccination did not prevent re-infection, but there is "not a single sensible reason" not to take it?I'm not even "vulnerable" and I got re-infected. I really would not be so confident I was the only one, so I wouldn't be so confident of the protection offered to the most needing of it. You really could still spread and kill someone.
Having the vaccine reduces the risk of spreading to others, and there's a real human cost here outside only concentrating on whether we die or not, having the vaccine remains the socially responsible thing to do.
Despite all these pages of non-sense, there's still not a single sensible reason not to take it, it's all cowardice and ignorance.
Why can't I just have a double espresso instead? That won't prevent reinfection either, but it's lower risk and I'll enjoy it.
Prof Prolapse said:
As you know (and unless it's changed) there's no vaccination for children, and if you mean the 20-30 group, I've honestly not see any of the rationale either way, as it's not relevant to the discussions we have which are typically with "30-somethings".
Yes I do mean especially the under 30 age group but the same calculation applies to people up to the late 30s given their risk of severe illness from the virus being very low. Whether or not that group is vaccinated has little medical impact especially over the longer term as everyone will at some point get infected and reinfected as I said. There is already going to be a reasonable vaccine takeup in that group anyway and I don't agree that the 'refusers' as such should be branded as anti vaxxers and treated as lepers or societal outcasts because that would be unnecessarily divisive for no meaningful improvement in well.. anything long term.
And given the CDC and data from Israel has flagged a fairly clear myocarditis risk for those <25 from the vaccines, perhaps you should look a little harder as to the rationale as to whether people of that age group should continue to be coerced or compelled to vaccinate.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff