Does anyone know an Anti Covid vaxxer?

[ben5575]

shost said:

I'm all for choice but with reason. I've already said I'm reluctant on flu vaccine, and I've not yet had it this season. But covid is another matter and I'm in full agreement with Prof on this that we need greater uptake and hope that most will take it when offered.

I have a genuine question. Why is covid 'another matter' to you?

Again as a genuine question, why do you feel more obliged to protect the 120k covid dead than the 40k flu dead (in a bad year)?

I do struggle to reconcile this and the morality behind it, hence the question, because it leads on to the attitude towards the minority who choose not to have the covid vaccine.

Simplistically to make the point as opposed turn this into a statistical exercise, with the vaccine 85% of those 120k - 102k wouldn't have died with covid (and I know it is not as simple as that). Meaning that 18k would have died. So generally around the equivalent of flu.

If the number of flu deaths is sufficiently acceptable to you that you don't have a jab, how do you get to the stage in your thinking that it is acceptable to start creating a two tier society for those who don't get the covid jab for a similar level of deaths?

I can't get my thinking there which is why I'm asking the question because I may be missing something. I'm also picking up your post to ask that wider question.

[Prof Prolapse]

ben5575 said:

I have a genuine question. Why is covid 'another matter' to you?

Again as a genuine question, why do you feel more obliged to protect the 120k covid dead than the 40k flu dead (in a bad year)?

I do struggle to reconcile this and the morality behind it, hence the question, because it leads on to the attitude towards the minority who choose not to have the covid vaccine.

Simplistically to make the point as opposed turn this into a statistical exercise, with the vaccine 85% of those 120k - 102k wouldn't have died with covid (and I know it is not as simple as that). Meaning that 18k would have died. So generally around the equivalent of flu.

If the number of flu deaths is sufficiently acceptable to you that you don't have a jab, how do you get to the stage in your thinking that it is acceptable to start creating a two tier society for those who don't get the covid jab for a similar level of deaths?

I can't get my thinking there which is why I'm asking the question because I may be missing something. I'm also picking up your post to ask that wider question.

You can't get the thinking because you're making comparisons which are incorrect, and your maths looks way off as well... Sticking with the first point, the viruses are vastly different. So the purpose of the vaccination program is vastly different.

The Influenza virus mutates surface regularly, which is characteristic of that group of viruses. This makes lasting immunity extremely difficult. Also, as a rule of thumb, the mortality rate is considerably lower as well, you yourself cite 80,000 less deaths. The goal of the Influenza vaccine program is therefore, broadly speaking, to protect the individual.

This is stark contrast to the COVID-19 vaccinations. Firstly this is a single virus, which save for mutations, we can achieve lasting immunity against. We would hope that will extend to other members of the virus family. So the goal of the vaccination program of achieving herd immunity against the virus, is something we can realistically hope to achieve. At the very least we can control future outbreaks. As has been proven to be the case with vacination programs throughout history, small pox, measles, etc.

It also cannot have escaped your attention we are in a global pandemic which is destroying our economy due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus, as opposed to the Influenza virus. For this reason it would seem pretty obvious which vaccination you are morally obliged to take right now....

Edited by Prof Prolapse on Friday 5th March 11:04

[otolith]

I suppose it is worth mentioning that we have only managed to restrict the Covid deaths to 120k-ish by cratering our economy and severely restricting personal freedoms. I think comparing it to flu deaths with no non-pharmaceutical interventions is a bit apples and lobsters.

[ben5575]

Thanks for that.

So crudely (and genuinely); personal protection vs heard protection when considering flu vs covid. So it is not 'selfish' to not have the flu jab (as you only have yourself to blame), but it is selfish not to have the covid jab as you can actually stop it like measles (as a crude example)?

[scoopdydoo]

Yeah comparing seasonal flu with covid is pointless but something anti-vaxxers/anti-lockdown/flat earthers like to do to illustrate their point.

Covid deaths are despite lockdown measures. It's vastly more contagious which is a large part of the problem.

[scoopdydoo]

ben5575 said:

Thanks for that.

So crudely (and genuinely); personal protection vs heard protection when considering flu vs covid. So it is not 'selfish' to not have the flu jab (as you only have yourself to blame), but it is selfish not to have the covid jab as you can actually stop it like measles (as a crude example)?

Sort of, only it's not so much you only have yourself to blame, but more like, you'll know you have flu and are less likely to pass it on to someone who might not survive.

[Prof Prolapse]

otolith said:

I suppose it is worth mentioning that we have only managed to restrict the Covid deaths to 120k-ish by cratering our economy and severely restricting personal freedoms. I think comparing it to flu deaths with no non-pharmaceutical interventions is a bit apples and lobsters.

I think that's probably true.

I have to admit though, I have a foot in two camps here, I'm a huge proponent of vaccines, but simultaneously a massive critic about some of the decisions which have been made and curtailing of freedoms, and very reluctant to endorse their effectiveness.

Politicians will, of course, claim that all our sacrifices were necessary, but personally I think the heavy handed nature of the lockdown often failed the common sense test, and frankly will have led to unnecessary deaths. A friend's sister is a registrar on A&E, the amount of young folk having offed themselves is incredible, and with cancer rates the worst is yet to come. So I am not sure how many lives have been saved, and quality of life adjusted years are the critical piece here which is missing. Saving a thousand 80-something year olds and the expense of a five hundred young men and women is not a fair trade.

If anything the poor political judgements made in the lockdown I would argue have led to the skepticism of the vaccination program, as some people cannot see the distinction between what the scientists say, lawmakers, and what the government says, as the latter often outright lies by saying it is following the advice of the former two. It is a very sad state of affairs when our politicians lie to our faces in these times, and we just accept it.

Just my two pence of course... But I digress.. I'm talking too much. Regardless of your viewpoint, we need the vaccine to end this fking non-sense.

[nealeh1875]

Prof Prolapse said:

Cyprus today announced they'd reopen to vaccinated tourists from May.

I wonder how many of those who do not want the COVID vaccine would refuse their "holiday jabs" when going abroad?

This will be my breaking point to get a vaccine. I don't particularly want or need a vaccine but we go Cyprus at least once a year so I will have to get it then unfortunately.

[Prof Prolapse]

ben5575 said:

Thanks for that.

So crudely (and genuinely); personal protection vs heard protection when considering flu vs covid. So it is not 'selfish' to not have the flu jab (as you only have yourself to blame), but it is selfish not to have the covid jab as you can actually stop it like measles (as a crude example)?

[Insert caveat here about I am not a "proper" scientist] but yes, that is my understanding, and you should be able to verify anything I've said in a short time.

The government has published a "covid-19 vaccination delivery plan". It is two phased, the first phase is to protect the vulnerable (as with the influenza vaccine), then phase two it is to be rolled out to the wider UK community.

The early data does already show signs of herd immunity, as it has in Israel, you can't however get guarantees of herd immunity within a time frame (or ever) due to the unpredictable nature of mutations (which also slow as the R number drops).

It remains the goal however.

[anonymous-user]

Prof Prolapse said:

[Insert caveat here about I am not a "proper" scientist] but yes, that is my understanding, and you should be able to verify anything I've said in a short time.

The government has published a "covid-19 vaccination delivery plan". It is two phased, the first phase is to protect the vulnerable (as with the influenza vaccine), then phase two it is to be rolled out to the wider UK community.

The early data does already show signs of herd immunity, as it has in Israel, you can't however get guarantees of herd immunity within a time frame (or ever) due to the unpredictable nature of mutations (which also slow as the R number drops).

It remains the goal however.

As I said earlier the Israel cases haven’t dropped like a stone with the vaccinations now at 95%+, unless the last 5% are being hammered by the virus. It’s been more of a gradual lockdown effect on the case numbers but that’s still good as if we can get down to ‘good lockdown’ numbers without there actually being a lockdown then everyone will be happy.

....apart from the militant anti vaxxers wanting to be seen as an oppressed minority race in a 2-tier society etc yawn.

[monkfish1]

otolith said:

monkfish1 said:

I'll accept as time rolls on and the death numbers go up, the statistical chance of dying from covid has actually just got slightly worse (for me) than driving, but only just. Ive not stopped driving? Have you?

If I could cut my risk of dying or being seriously injured in an RTA by 95% by doing nothing more than having a jab in the arm and at worst feeling rough for a couple of days, I'd jump at it. Wouldn't you?

Not if the risk from said jab was greater than the risk of an RTA. Thats the point.

Im not saying the risk IS greater. We just dont know yet.

[paulguitar]

monkfish1 said:

Not if the risk from said jab was greater than the risk of an RTA. Thats the point.

Im not saying the risk IS greater. We just dont know yet.

If there was some serious issue with the vaccines, would we not know by now?

AIUI vaccines do not tend to suddenly develop issues after years. Happy to be educated on this if I am wrong.

[otolith]

Yeah, we won't really have suicide data for some time because of the time it usually takes to complete inquests and because the system was disrupted due to Covid - but what we have provisionally isn't suggesting an increase.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

[otolith]

monkfish1 said:

otolith said:

monkfish1 said:

I'll accept as time rolls on and the death numbers go up, the statistical chance of dying from covid has actually just got slightly worse (for me) than driving, but only just. Ive not stopped driving? Have you?

If I could cut my risk of dying or being seriously injured in an RTA by 95% by doing nothing more than having a jab in the arm and at worst feeling rough for a couple of days, I'd jump at it. Wouldn't you?

Not if the risk from said jab was greater than the risk of an RTA. Thats the point.

Im not saying the risk IS greater. We just dont know yet.

We have a pretty good idea, given that we have jabbed a third of the population over a few months without it noticeably killing anyone and that Covid has very noticeably killed lots of people without - to our best estimates - having infected anywhere near a third of us.

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

Yeah, we won't really have suicide data for some time because of the time it usually takes to complete inquests and because the system was disrupted due to Covid - but what we have provisionally isn't suggesting an increase.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

The Samaritans also said just before Christmas that the suicide rate increase that they had expected hadn’t happened

[monkfish1]

shost said:

monkfish1 said:

You have, reather neatly, demonstrated my point about risk.

The risk of an RTA isnt anything like 1 in 200 in a life time. In a really crude calculation its 1 in 4700 or so over a lifetime. In a year its 1 in 87,000. (based on2019 nuners) Covid wont be a threat for ever, so "lifetime" nubers dont mean much.

I'll accept as time rolls on and the death numbers go up, the statistical chance of dying from covid has actually just got slightly worse (for me) than driving, but only just. Ive not stopped driving? Have you?

So, ignoring driving, if the chances of dying from covid is circa i in 80,000. The numbers dont really take into account how fat you are, which im not, so id suggest my risk is lower, but its not possible to take it down accurately to an individual level. I might have something that makes my risk higher. I dont know about, but its possible. The vaccine needs to be demonstrably better than that. It could well be, hope it is, but no one can say right now what the long term effects are. In "some" years time, we will have data and if it looks good, great, i'll take it. Right now, no chance. If other people want to be part of a widespread trial, thats good for them. They have a different view of risk.

Im not really interested in long covid, getting covid, feeling unwell etc. Thats all temporary and will likely pass (except a small number of cases maybe) and thats just life. Ive been ill before, and doubtless will be again. Im only concerned about dying or suffering permanently something which would change my life.

I agree driving is safe (and the stats are vague at best!) but why is it safe? Its not because we ignored advances in safety. Three point seatbelts can cause plenty of injuries, airbags cause burns and lung irritation but would you prefer to drive a car without these advances? I'm pretty sure the same sort of discussion were had when these were made compulsory. The vaccine is our seatbelt/airbag/auto emergency braking right? Though I've not met anyone who likes lane control...

We can't be sure about individual risk both from covid or the vaccine, but going back to Pandremix the narcolepsy risk was 1 in 18,000-27,000. Thats 0.005% risk if say its 1 in 20,000. That risk minuscule. Thats 1,000 out of the 2,000,000 vaccinated getting a side effect. Granted if you feel thats still more than 1 in 80,000 you quote (I'm not sure yout working on that one but lets ignore that for now) but still the data for this vaccine is already great. We haven't had wards filling with vaccine side effects and we are reducing our bed capacities not increasing it.

But as I've posted in reply to others corona viruses are here to stay. So even though potential infections and complications from the virus may pass, another version of it will be along to get you again.

No driving isnt "safe". It has an element of risk attached. I gave you that risk (of death). But its a risk, i, and most others are happy to take.

I drive cars both with and without said safety devices.

However, my point was about risk level. Comparing car safety improvements isnt a valid comparison. To have the benefit of those things, i dont need to be injected with something. Of themselves they cannot affect me.

My point remains, we dont know what the long term effects are, if any, or the levels at which they may occur. This is simply fact, however much people might say otherwise. Yes, you can try to compare to other vaccines, extapolate from short term data etc. These may give some indication, but we dont actually know. Which means assesing the long term risk isnt possible.

If you are convinced the level of risk is OK, that all good. Indeed, we need guinea pigs for this trial. Without them there would never be a vaccine. But it is not and cannot be a decision based on data (for long term risk specifically). Its is to all intents a leap of faith. Faith that those involved in its delivery, from Boris down, have your best interests at heart. Ive got news. They dont. They couldnt give a flying toss if you live or die. The best person to look after my best interests is me.

[monkfish1]

otolith said:

monkfish1 said:

otolith said:

monkfish1 said:

I'll accept as time rolls on and the death numbers go up, the statistical chance of dying from covid has actually just got slightly worse (for me) than driving, but only just. Ive not stopped driving? Have you?

If I could cut my risk of dying or being seriously injured in an RTA by 95% by doing nothing more than having a jab in the arm and at worst feeling rough for a couple of days, I'd jump at it. Wouldn't you?

Not if the risk from said jab was greater than the risk of an RTA. Thats the point.

Im not saying the risk IS greater. We just dont know yet.

We have a pretty good idea, given that we have jabbed a third of the population over a few months without it noticeably killing anyone and that Covid has very noticeably killed lots of people without - to our best estimates - having infected anywhere near a third of us.

No really we dont. We have what, 6 months-ish of data. Not 5-10 years. Thats impossible for obvious reasons.

Covid has indeed killed a lot of people. But its specific gropus and conditions. Im not in those. Most of the younger population at low or virtually zero risk. It doesnt help the argument to say "loads of people dies therefore you might" without considering that a 90 year old with a lung condition is unlikley to come out of it wel, but a fit 25 year old probably wont even know they had it..

[scoopdydoo]

monkfish1 said:

The best person to look after my best interests is me.

And here we have the ultimate final point of whether people will take the vaccine or not. Millions of healthy individuals in non-risk categories have already had the vaccine for totally selfless reasons.

I can absolutely understand why people might be sceptical because it takes a small degree of knowledge and understanding of how the vaccine works, which not everyone will have, but thankfully most people will trust those that do. Meaning the scientists, not Boris.

[gregs656]

You seem to be insistent on ignoring the very real long term side effects of, in some cases, a mild form of COVID-19 while inventing a risk from vaccination which hasn’t been seen at all.

You are totally pre-occupied with deaths as well which is strange in this context for most people, who, as you say, are at a low risk of dying.

Most hospitalisations for this haven’t resulted in death.

Edited by gregs656 on Friday 5th March 13:47

Edited by gregs656 on Friday 5th March 13:49

[Prof Prolapse]

V6 Pushfit said:

As I said earlier the Israel cases haven’t dropped like a stone with the vaccinations now at 95%+, unless the last 5% are being hammered by the virus. It’s been more of a gradual lockdown effect on the case numbers but that’s still good as if we can get down to ‘good lockdown’ numbers without there actually being a lockdown then everyone will be happy.

....apart from the militant anti vaxxers wanting to be seen as an oppressed minority race in a 2-tier society etc yawn.

I'm not sure what you're looking at?

Israel has administered 1.03 doses per 100 people, remember the vaccine is two part, so they still have a way to go, but despite that the the infection rates in Israel have pretty much halved in just over six weeks;
(https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/)

Also in Israel, Pfizer BioNtech vaccine had results published a few weeks ago which claims to show 94% effectiveness in a real world setting. That's subject to various interpretations, but still staggeringly effective. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/25/pfizer-covid-vaccine-94-effective-study-of-12m-people-finds)

I believe their critical care admissions etc. have also fallen significantly, it's anecdotal, but my Israeli team at work also seem to be quite positive at the moment!

Edit: fked the dosing figure for Israel, can't be arsed to correct.

Edited by Prof Prolapse on Friday 5th March 17:06