30 somethings - are you going to vax?

[Polite M135 driver]

Colonel Cupcake said:

Why don't we round up all the people like your sister and have them living in an isolated, sealed compound and let the rest of society carry on as normal?

Why should I, and the vast majority of society be punished because some woman wants to force everyone else, including kids into taking a vaccine, unproven at that, that they don't need and don't derive any benefit from.

Absolute selfish tt.

What’s the standard of proof that you’re looking for before you would be satisfied that the vaccine is effective and safe? Presumably, and hypothetically, if it was 100 % effective and had 0% risk of any negative effects at all (lets say we can even remove the pain of the injection, too), you would take it?

[A500leroy]

Personally im waiting for 5 years to see what the long term effects are, A normal timeline for new medications is around 10 years but due to the scale of roll out I think most thinks will show up in half that time.

[vixen1700]

In answer to the above question, I'd imagine something a little better than the government's own figures of nearly 950k adverse reaction and over 1300 deaths:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronav...

That have been recorded.

[Polite M135 driver]

davey83 said:

^ 100% agreed. Give consenting adults the choice to have a medication or not. They will then only be a threat to themselves and other consenting adults who also have opt'd out of taking the vaccine. Those that have taken the vaccine are protected. I really don't see the point or drive for everyone taking the vaccine.

Either the vaccine protects you from corona viruses or they don't.

If you don’t understand the drive of having ‘everyone’ take the vaccine then you don’t understand how vaccines work on a population level. The reason to get absolutely as many people as possible to be vaccinated to achieve a level of population immunity sufficient to prevent transmission of the virus, and basically to attempt to eradicate it, as the vaccination programme for smallpox successfully did. Polio was almost there too, until the anti-Vaxer’s comrades, the Taliban, got up to speed with their anti vaccination campaign.

There will always be people who cannot be vaccinated, but we don’t need to vaccinate everyone, we need to vaccinate as many as possible. i.e. everyone that can be vaccinated.

If you have concerns, nobody should force you to be vaccinated. We do and should of course have complete control over what we put into our bodies. (Although weirdly we agree as a society that people shouldn’t be able to put certain substances - heroin, ecstasy, etc. - into themselves).

But even if you are uncomfortable with being vaccinated, you ought to see the societal benefits of getting vaccinated. Therefore an ethical person would feel some kind of obligation to be vaccinated, because to go unvaccinated is to increase harm to others (albeit in a largely invisible way at an individual level).

There is no way that that ethical obligation would over-rule, for example, individual circumstances that make personal harm very likely. It’s even the case that we could class the effects of irrational mental distress, anxiety, or paranoia at the thought of being vaccinated as a personal harm that doesn’t outweigh the ethical prerogative to be vaccinated, therefore justifying not getting the vaccine. But in a rational individual, satisfaction that your personal risk is low should be enough to justify vaccination on ethical grounds.

Therefore, if you are rational, and want to behave ethically, you should do all you can to investigate the risk and satisfy yourself that it’s low enough for you to be vaccinated.

[Polite M135 driver]

vixen1700 said:

In answer to the above question, I'd imagine something a little better than the government's own figures of nearly 950k adverse reaction and over 1300 deaths:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronav...

That have been recorded.

Ok, can I ask how these numbers of adverse reactions compare to drugs that are regularly available and commonly taken. Do you know?

What are the risks of death from contracting the disease compared to having the vaccine?

And what are the risks of other (non-fatal) complications of the disease (e.g. blood clots) compared to adverse reactions to the vaccine?

What ratio of risk of the effect of the risk to risk of the vaccine would you be looking for, before you felt that vaccination was better than not being vaccinated?

I.e. what is the target here, the target level of adverse effects, at which you be satisfied to be vaccinated? What’s your standard? How did you choose it?

Edited by Polite M135 driver on Sunday 20th June 10:07

[Polite M135 driver]

A500leroy said:

Personally im waiting for 5 years to see what the long term effects are, A normal timeline for new medications is around 10 years but due to the scale of roll out I think most thinks will show up in half that time.

There is a difference between a medication (drug molecule) and a vaccine (biological material to which your immune system reacts). The reason for that 10-year timeline is more a result of the way drugs are conceived, discovered, scaled up, tested, then approved. Normally only the last 3 years or so would actually be in humans. So it’s reasonably inaccurate to claim that normally we would have 10 years of human subject data on a drug before it is commercialised.

[vixen1700]

Polite M135 driver said:

Ok, can I ask how these numbers of adverse reactions compare to drugs that are regularly available and commonly taken. Do you know?

What are the risks of death from contracting the disease compared to having the vaccine?

And what are the risks of other (non-fatal) complications of the disease (e.g. blood clots) compared to adverse reactions to the vaccine?

I'm not getting into an arguement with you as your previous post suggests you're evangelical about these vaccines and you've made your decision, please accept my decision not to have any of these.

I purely linked the government stats on side effect numbers. This is short-term. Nobody knows the effects medium-term (next flu season) or long-term. I base my decsion on that.

I'm 55 this year by the way and am happy to run the risks.

[Polite M135 driver]

vixen1700 said:

Polite M135 driver said:

Ok, can I ask how these numbers of adverse reactions compare to drugs that are regularly available and commonly taken. Do you know?

What are the risks of death from contracting the disease compared to having the vaccine?

And what are the risks of other (non-fatal) complications of the disease (e.g. blood clots) compared to adverse reactions to the vaccine?

I'm not getting into an arguement with you as your previous post suggests you're evangelical about these vaccines and you've made your decision, please accept my decision not to have any of these.

I purely linked the government stats on side effect numbers. This is short-term. Nobody knows the effects medium-term (next flu season) or long-term. I base my decsion on that.

I'm 55 this year by the way and am happy to run the risks.

I am evangelical about the power of rationality. I’m not evangelical about the vaccine.

I do accept your decision - you will see that I wrote that I believe everyone has the right to decide what they do (or don’t) put into their body.

But I am interested in how you arrived at your decision. When people say that they believe the risks of the vaccine are too high, they must necessarily have in mind what an acceptable level of risk is. I am interested in what that level of risk that you would find acceptable is.

It’s useful to compare what that is to other commonly taken risks (e.g. we accept in the UK that the maximum tolerable risk of death in any given year at work is 1 in 1000. So some people refusing the vaccine who work in dangerous jobs (e.g. lion tamers) may be taking 50 times more risking of dying this year, just by going to work, than they are of getting a blood clot from the vaccine (0.02/1000), let alone dying from that blood clot (0.000000003/1000, a 6.5 million times lower risk than what we deem an acceptable risk of dying at work in any given year).

In the UK we accept for the public a risk of 0.1/1000 of death from failure of chemical/industrial factories. So that level of acceptable risk alone is 3.3 million times more likely than the risk of dying from an AZ vaccine induced blood clot.

[Colonel Cupcake]

Polite M135 driver said:

Colonel Cupcake said:

Why don't we round up all the people like your sister and have them living in an isolated, sealed compound and let the rest of society carry on as normal?

Why should I, and the vast majority of society be punished because some woman wants to force everyone else, including kids into taking a vaccine, unproven at that, that they don't need and don't derive any benefit from.

Absolute selfish tt.

What’s the standard of proof that you’re looking for before you would be satisfied that the vaccine is effective and safe? Presumably, and hypothetically, if it was 100 % effective and had 0% risk of any negative effects at all (lets say we can even remove the pain of the injection, too), you would take it?

Well, I'm 53. The last time I had any kind of respiratory infection was 15 years ago. I wouldn't consider taking a vaccine for Covid until I was at least in my late 60s, if ever. Why? Certainly, at this point in time, if I do catch it, it is likely to be little more than a sniffle.

I wouldn't take a brand new vaccine for the common cold or any other minor ailment. This planet is teeming with microbial life and I would say that everyone picks up some infections along the way. It's pointless fretting about germs, bacteria and viruses and building your entire lifestyle around avoiding them. Prior to 2020, that would be a diagnosable mental illness and you would be offered treatment for it.

Is the vaccine effective? Who knows? The powers that be don't project that belief, considering that 80% of the adult population have had 1 dose and 60% have had both (thats the entire population, not just the vulnerable) because we still have restrictions (that the elite don't seem to adhere to) and they just keep getting put back and put back.

Is the vaccine safe? Again, long-term, who knows? If Covid were on a par with Ebola for killing rates, then I probably would take a vaccination for that.

[Ashfordian]

Polite M135 driver said:

vixen1700 said:

Polite M135 driver said:

Ok, can I ask how these numbers of adverse reactions compare to drugs that are regularly available and commonly taken. Do you know?

What are the risks of death from contracting the disease compared to having the vaccine?

And what are the risks of other (non-fatal) complications of the disease (e.g. blood clots) compared to adverse reactions to the vaccine?

I'm not getting into an arguement with you as your previous post suggests you're evangelical about these vaccines and you've made your decision, please accept my decision not to have any of these.

I purely linked the government stats on side effect numbers. This is short-term. Nobody knows the effects medium-term (next flu season) or long-term. I base my decsion on that.

I'm 55 this year by the way and am happy to run the risks.

I am evangelical about the power of rationality. I’m not evangelical about the vaccine.

I do accept your decision - you will see that I wrote that I believe everyone has the right to decide what they do (or don’t) put into their body.

But I am interested in how you arrived at your decision. When people say that they believe the risks of the vaccine are too high, they must necessarily have in mind what an acceptable level of risk is. I am interested in what that level of risk that you would find acceptable is.

It’s useful to compare what that is to other commonly taken risks (e.g. we accept in the UK that the maximum tolerable risk of death in any given year at work is 1 in 1000. So some people refusing the vaccine who work in dangerous jobs (e.g. lion tamers) may be taking 50 times more risking of dying this year, just by going to work, than they are of getting a blood clot from the vaccine (0.02/1000), let alone dying from that blood clot (0.000000003/1000, a 6.5 million times lower risk than what we deem an acceptable risk of dying at work in any given year).

In the UK we accept for the public a risk of 0.1/1000 of death from failure of chemical/industrial factories. So that level of acceptable risk alone is 3.3 million times more likely than the risk of dying from an AZ vaccine induced blood clot.

Why don't you read what he has written rather than what you want to think vixen1700 has written? (I've highlighted it to help you)

All you try to do is twist it and reference the short term known side effects. These are known and not denied.

[isaldiri]

Polite M135 driver said:

I am evangelical about the power of rationality. I’m not evangelical about the vaccine.

.....than they are of getting a blood clot from the vaccine (0.02/1000), let alone dying from that blood clot (0.000000003/1000, a 6.5 million times lower risk than what we deem an acceptable risk of dying at work in any given year).

In the UK we accept for the public a risk of 0.1/1000 of death from failure of chemical/industrial factories. So that level of acceptable risk alone is 3.3 million times more likely than the risk of dying from an AZ vaccine induced blood clot.

I suggest as someone so evangelical about rationality you recheck your case fatality rate for ViTT if you get it.

And if you were rational about it, it should be quite obvious that this

Polite M135 driver said:

If you don’t understand the drive of having ‘everyone’ take the vaccine then you don’t understand how vaccines work on a population level. The reason to get absolutely as many people as possible to be vaccinated to achieve a level of population immunity sufficient to prevent transmission of the virus, and basically to attempt to eradicate it

is an unachieveable pipe dream which would be insane to attempt.

And I'm someone who is in agreement that anyone over the age of 30, certainly 40 should take the vaccine for their own good. I don't however believe in compulsion or coercion of people to do so as people can and are alowed to do all manner of irrational and dangerous things.

[vixen1700]

I'm not going into statistical numbers regarding risk, I'm not analytical like that.

I do (as does my wife who is a healthy unvaxxed 65 year old) have faith in our immune systems, eat healthily, aren't overweight, take vitamins and have assessed the risk since all of this started.
We have been out and about in a city of 9 million since March last year, have read plenty of information on who is mostly at risk which also adds to our risk assessment.

In our small circle of friends and family we know of one Covid hospitalisation, somebody severly overweight, stressed and really not a picture of health. Nice bloke, mind.

We also know of one stroke which resulted in a death, one hospitalisation with blood clots after a jab.

Then findiing my mother on the floor a week after her AZ jab and being told she had a bleed on the brain.
We first thought the fall caused it, as it was back in January, then the clot stories started emerging. Which made us think the bleeed caused the fall, not the other way round. Of course we can't prove that. She's now in a care home full time, whereas in January she could look after herself in her own home.

I'm not that keen to be jabbed to be honest.

[Polite M135 driver]

Colonel Cupcake said:

Well, I'm 53. The last time I had any kind of respiratory infection was 15 years ago. I wouldn't consider taking a vaccine for Covid until I was at least in my late 60s, if ever. Why? Certainly, at this point in time, if I do catch it, it is likely to be little more than a sniffle.

I wouldn't take a brand new vaccine for the common cold or any other minor ailment. This planet is teeming with microbial life and I would say that everyone picks up some infections along the way. It's pointless fretting about germs, bacteria and viruses and building your entire lifestyle around avoiding them. Prior to 2020, that would be a diagnosable mental illness and you would be offered treatment for it.

Is the vaccine effective? Who knows? The powers that be don't project that belief, considering that 80% of the adult population have had 1 dose and 60% have had both (thats the entire population, not just the vulnerable) because we still have restrictions (that the elite don't seem to adhere to) and they just keep getting put back and put back.

Is the vaccine safe? Again, long-term, who knows? If Covid were on a par with Ebola for killing rates, then I probably would take a vaccination for that.

We know that the vaccines are safe. E.g. AZ, 71 deaths from 24 million first doses. We know that they are effective. We have this data. You are writing ‘who knows?’ Like the data on these issues isn’t available.

We also know that your risk of harm (not death) from the vaccine (about 10 blood clots per million doses - 0.0001 %) is 10,000 times lower than the risk of death from COVID - about 1 %.

The ‘powers that be’ are convinced that the vaccine is effective (why do it otherwise?) but they are also convinced that the level of immunity is not yet high enough to prevent hospitals being overwhelmed if we had no restrictions. That is why we still have no restrictions, it’s nothing to do with doubts bout vaccine effectiveness, it’s because 40 % of the country is still a lot of people, if infection rates go up then our hospitals wouldn’t cope.

Vixen, and your implication here too, is right, we do not know what the risk of long term effects from these vaccines are. Do you know how many other vaccines display long term harmful effects, or how common that is? Ok, the immunogenic material will be different, but the concept and general mode of operations is the same.

[vixen1700]

Polite M135 driver said:

Vixen, and your implication here too, is right, we do not know what the risk of long term effects from these vaccines are. Do you know how many other vaccines display long term harmful effects, or how common that is?

No I don't know, but I'm not getting letters and texts to go and have any other vaccines! So I'm only really concerned about these ones.

[Polite M135 driver]

vixen1700 said:

I'm not going into statistical numbers regarding risk, I'm not analytical like that.

I do (as does my wife who is a healthy unvaxxed 65 year old) have faith in our immune systems, eat healthily, aren't overweight, take vitamins and have assessed the risk since all of this started.
We have been out and about in a city of 9 million since March last year, have read plenty of information on who is mostly at risk which also adds to our risk assessment.

In our small circle of friends and family we know of one Covid hospitalisation, somebody severly overweight, stressed and really not a picture of health. Nice bloke, mind.

We also know of one stroke which resulted in a death, one hospitalisation with blood clots after a jab.

Then findiing my mother on the floor a week after her AZ jab and being told she had a bleed on the brain.
We first thought the fall caused it, as it was back in January, then the clot stories started emerging. Which made us think the bleeed caused the fall, not the other way round. Of course we can't prove that. She's now in a care home full time, whereas in January she could look after herself in her own home.

I'm not that keen to be jabbed to be honest.

Hi Vixen. Fair enough. As I said, I respect your decision. Thank you for giving me insight into your thinking, I appreciate you doing it.

And I am very sorry to hear about your mother. That sounds traumatic, and is very sad outcome and situation. I guess you will never know why it happened, which could be hard. I hope that, although she is now in a home, your mother experiences some recovery from the fall/bleed. One of my grandmothers had a stroke and while initially she was quite impaired, she did recover a good deal with some time (until Alzheimers - horrible thing - got worse).

[vixen1700]

Polite M135 driver said:

Hi Vixen. Fair enough. As I said, I respect your decision. Thank you for giving me insight into your thinking, I appreciate you doing it.

And I am very sorry to hear about your mother. That sounds traumatic, and is very sad outcome and situation. I guess you will never know why it happened, which could be hard. I hope that, although she is now in a home, your mother experiences some recovery from the fall/bleed. One of my grandmothers had a stroke and while initially she was quite impaired, she did recover a good deal with some time (until Alzheimers - horrible thing - got worse).

Cheers.

Yeah, it's been quite stressful the last few months, but she's in a decent place and she seems well cared for now.

The visits are just half an hour a week at the moment, so hopefully that won't be left out of the lifting of restrictions.

[Polite M135 driver]

Gosh, yeah, the way that care home residents/families were denied access early on last year was really inhumane. Let’s hope they can get good ways to safety allow families to be together more often/longer again.

[davey83]

vixen1700 said:

I'm not going into statistical numbers regarding risk, I'm not analytical like that.

I do (as does my wife who is a healthy unvaxxed 65 year old) have faith in our immune systems, eat healthily, aren't overweight, take vitamins and have assessed the risk since all of this started.
We have been out and about in a city of 9 million since March last year, have read plenty of information on who is mostly at risk which also adds to our risk assessment.

In our small circle of friends and family we know of one Covid hospitalisation, somebody severly overweight, stressed and really not a picture of health. Nice bloke, mind.

We also know of one stroke which resulted in a death, one hospitalisation with blood clots after a jab.

Then findiing my mother on the floor a week after her AZ jab and being told she had a bleed on the brain.
We first thought the fall caused it, as it was back in January, then the clot stories started emerging. Which made us think the bleeed caused the fall, not the other way round. Of course we can't prove that. She's now in a care home full time, whereas in January she could look after herself in her own home.

I'm not that keen to be jabbed to be honest.

Very sorry to hear that, my prayers are with you all.

[ORD]

Polite M135 driver said:

We know that the vaccines are safe. E.g. AZ, 71 deaths from 24 million first doses. We know that they are effective. We have this data. You are writing ‘who knows?’ Like the data on these issues isn’t available.

We also know that your risk of harm (not death) from the vaccine (about 10 blood clots per million doses - 0.0001 %) is 10,000 times lower than the risk of death from COVID - about 1 %.

The ‘powers that be’ are convinced that the vaccine is effective (why do it otherwise?) but they are also convinced that the level of immunity is not yet high enough to prevent hospitals being overwhelmed if we had no restrictions. That is why we still have no restrictions, it’s nothing to do with doubts bout vaccine effectiveness, it’s because 40 % of the country is still a lot of people, if infection rates go up then our hospitals wouldn’t cope.

Vixen, and your implication here too, is right, we do not know what the risk of long term effects from these vaccines are. Do you know how many other vaccines display long term harmful effects, or how common that is? Ok, the immunogenic material will be different, but the concept and general mode of operations is the same.

I don’t think the maths point helps much. My risk of dying from Covid is zero. It wouldn’t even register. So the vaccine is much riskier. I’m still having it, but it’s not based on relative risk.

[anonymous-user]

I was hoping this was a thread about cleaning carpets!