Does anyone know an Anti Covid vaxxer?
Discussion
I'm a healthcare professional. I frequent twitter for the usual multitude of reasons but find the number and of ferocity anti covid vaxxers/covid deniers really quite alarming.
I'm sure some of these accounts are bots and a few just odd balls.
But I don't know anyone, at least anongst my circle or who would admit at least.
Really curious to see is there anyone on this forum who thinks its all a hoax or over response or does anyone know someone well. What has been their logic? Have they changed their mind or doubled down?
I don't want to get into heated arguments, though this is PH afterall, but at least I assume that most posters here are actual people.
I'm sure some of these accounts are bots and a few just odd balls.
But I don't know anyone, at least anongst my circle or who would admit at least.
Really curious to see is there anyone on this forum who thinks its all a hoax or over response or does anyone know someone well. What has been their logic? Have they changed their mind or doubled down?
I don't want to get into heated arguments, though this is PH afterall, but at least I assume that most posters here are actual people.
Edited by shost on Thursday 25th February 12:49
Just finally getting to sit down and respond. Some points have been already responded to so I’ll focus on what I know or believe.
I have briefly looked at the other threads but that’s a task in itself and I’ll try to read through more.
At my trust over 20,000 staff had been vaccinated, I’m checking what proportion that equates to.
Globally I can’t comment, but I’m sure fear of effects and testing features. One or two colleague were also concerned, but all have still had it, but perhaps weren’t pushing to front of the queue. Everything is experimental. Short term effects have been studied and the mechanism of action analysed to ensure risks are reduced. To keep with the motoring analogy most cars are tested to destruction (lab rats) and yet still when sold to public one or two catch fire or break down out of several thousand units. But they don’t all explode randomly. Unless it’s a JLR product.
70% effective - yes I’d take it and I have had mine. I think 70% effective in nature is a good result. In sport, that’s bloody brilliant. Lewis Hamilton only won 64.7% of races this year...
I’d love to say COVID is not that big a issue, but really it is. Hospital admissions are the key one here as increased cases is muddied by the vastly increased testing. Our area despite being relatively unscathed the first time was hit hard second time.
So I’m still curious to know more about those who don’t believe the vaccine and why. Does seem from replies that they are still in the minority.
Lastly data from our trust would suggest deaths occur in 40 year olds upwards, ramping up with each decade to around 4%. ITU has death rate of around 55% of all admissions, and we should know that COVID can have significant lasting effects in all ages.
I have briefly looked at the other threads but that’s a task in itself and I’ll try to read through more.
At my trust over 20,000 staff had been vaccinated, I’m checking what proportion that equates to.
Globally I can’t comment, but I’m sure fear of effects and testing features. One or two colleague were also concerned, but all have still had it, but perhaps weren’t pushing to front of the queue. Everything is experimental. Short term effects have been studied and the mechanism of action analysed to ensure risks are reduced. To keep with the motoring analogy most cars are tested to destruction (lab rats) and yet still when sold to public one or two catch fire or break down out of several thousand units. But they don’t all explode randomly. Unless it’s a JLR product.
70% effective - yes I’d take it and I have had mine. I think 70% effective in nature is a good result. In sport, that’s bloody brilliant. Lewis Hamilton only won 64.7% of races this year...
I’d love to say COVID is not that big a issue, but really it is. Hospital admissions are the key one here as increased cases is muddied by the vastly increased testing. Our area despite being relatively unscathed the first time was hit hard second time.
So I’m still curious to know more about those who don’t believe the vaccine and why. Does seem from replies that they are still in the minority.
Lastly data from our trust would suggest deaths occur in 40 year olds upwards, ramping up with each decade to around 4%. ITU has death rate of around 55% of all admissions, and we should know that COVID can have significant lasting effects in all ages.
I totally get caution with the vaccine. When it comes to the seasonal flu vaccine, myself and colleagues openly admit that short term side effects put us off. I've not had flu vaccine in years. When I have, it has resulted in a bad flu symptoms. My parents have flu vaccine for years and have been fine. The flu vaccine however is more to protect those vulnerable to it from catching it, rather than with the COVID herd immunity goal.
What do I make of deaths reported? Deaths from side effects or anyone soon after vaccination will be investigated. But we have now vaccinated 19,000,000 plus and we aren't hearing that there have been loads of deaths. To put it perspective 1% mortality from vaccination would be 190,000 people. A risk of death of 0.1% would be 19,000 in less than three months. We've all seen how enept our government is but your talking some huge conspiracy if you think they and we medics could cover that up.
I've read those links regarding care home deaths. Most seem like unfortunate outbreaks of covid before vaccine taken effect. We hypothesise the frail with poor inmune systems won't mount the same response and hence the vaccine is less effective.
I think the poster whose children changed minds is encouraging, it shows a normal apprehension that through advice has been addressed.
Again though COVID it is relatively harmless to most people, its fatal to a significant proportion. Far more harmful than the vaccine.
I really struggle to see the argument that it has been over blown. There is some spin on reporting and I get frustrated by the poorly written headlines. I.e "cases in England drop in February" published six weeks after lockdown like its some surprise.
Queuing up with sick people to get vaccine. Well yes but if you socially distance or queue outside all is fine. Limiting indoor exposure is vital in this.
Comments about not important as no celebs, well if your a celeb your much less likely to catch it because you probably live in a big house and don't use the bus... its a disease of the poor because they can't escape it.
Edited to include updated vaccination numbers
What do I make of deaths reported? Deaths from side effects or anyone soon after vaccination will be investigated. But we have now vaccinated 19,000,000 plus and we aren't hearing that there have been loads of deaths. To put it perspective 1% mortality from vaccination would be 190,000 people. A risk of death of 0.1% would be 19,000 in less than three months. We've all seen how enept our government is but your talking some huge conspiracy if you think they and we medics could cover that up.
I've read those links regarding care home deaths. Most seem like unfortunate outbreaks of covid before vaccine taken effect. We hypothesise the frail with poor inmune systems won't mount the same response and hence the vaccine is less effective.
I think the poster whose children changed minds is encouraging, it shows a normal apprehension that through advice has been addressed.
Again though COVID it is relatively harmless to most people, its fatal to a significant proportion. Far more harmful than the vaccine.
I really struggle to see the argument that it has been over blown. There is some spin on reporting and I get frustrated by the poorly written headlines. I.e "cases in England drop in February" published six weeks after lockdown like its some surprise.
Queuing up with sick people to get vaccine. Well yes but if you socially distance or queue outside all is fine. Limiting indoor exposure is vital in this.
Comments about not important as no celebs, well if your a celeb your much less likely to catch it because you probably live in a big house and don't use the bus... its a disease of the poor because they can't escape it.
Edited to include updated vaccination numbers
Edited by shost on Saturday 27th February 12:25
Edited by shost on Saturday 27th February 13:22
Teddy Lop said:
how do you calculate this?
Official global deaths stand at 2,538,333 which on a global population of 7.8 billion I make 0.03%.
UK deaths at 122k are 0.18% of pop.
Anyway back on topic define anti vaxer, like so much today it gets muddied and turned into a binary issue. On the one hand I know people talking utter codswallop such as covid is a conspiracy to wipe out all the old people and the vaccine whatever.... I'm sure there's easier ways for the government to get mind control/whatever they think into people....
And on the other hand Its not unreasonable to be concerned at the long term implications of experimental/rushed drugs, especially so when (1) for anyone young and healthly the risk from covid is miniscule, the above figures are overwhelmingly weighted to elderly nearing end of life, sorry to be blunt, but its not something as a fit 43 yr old I have reason to fear. (Probably had it last Feb anyway) (2) its not like humans don't have an extensive history of screwing up by not understanding what they're doing, DDT, thalidomide, asbestos, lead paint, and so on and so on.
If I'm told to take it ill take it so I can get back to the pub and gigs and flying to exciting places and motor races etc. It'll probably be fine. But anyone not at least a little concerned is by definition a fool, and exercising blind faith not logic... maybe if I was a 20 yr old girl planning to have kids and thinking what implications a largely untested and unknown vaccine might have, compared to a virus thats vanishingly unlikely to seriously affect me, I'd say that's a wholly justifiable concern to have.
But like so much today you're assigned a binary position with no nuance, as in the social media age the extremities get to set the tone of the conversation that too many centrists are bullied into picking from, rather than laughing at.
Teddy, thank you for reply will discuss shortly. Just replying now to clarify your numbers.Official global deaths stand at 2,538,333 which on a global population of 7.8 billion I make 0.03%.
UK deaths at 122k are 0.18% of pop.
Anyway back on topic define anti vaxer, like so much today it gets muddied and turned into a binary issue. On the one hand I know people talking utter codswallop such as covid is a conspiracy to wipe out all the old people and the vaccine whatever.... I'm sure there's easier ways for the government to get mind control/whatever they think into people....
And on the other hand Its not unreasonable to be concerned at the long term implications of experimental/rushed drugs, especially so when (1) for anyone young and healthly the risk from covid is miniscule, the above figures are overwhelmingly weighted to elderly nearing end of life, sorry to be blunt, but its not something as a fit 43 yr old I have reason to fear. (Probably had it last Feb anyway) (2) its not like humans don't have an extensive history of screwing up by not understanding what they're doing, DDT, thalidomide, asbestos, lead paint, and so on and so on.
If I'm told to take it ill take it so I can get back to the pub and gigs and flying to exciting places and motor races etc. It'll probably be fine. But anyone not at least a little concerned is by definition a fool, and exercising blind faith not logic... maybe if I was a 20 yr old girl planning to have kids and thinking what implications a largely untested and unknown vaccine might have, compared to a virus thats vanishingly unlikely to seriously affect me, I'd say that's a wholly justifiable concern to have.
But like so much today you're assigned a binary position with no nuance, as in the social media age the extremities get to set the tone of the conversation that too many centrists are bullied into picking from, rather than laughing at.
As of yesterday 4,170,519 people who have tested positive, that’s people not positive tests so should exclude repeat tests.
Deaths within 28 days (which will miss those who had long admissions from it but died from other complications) are 122,705. If died with COVID on death certificate it’s higher 135,613.
If just taking within 28 days it’s 2.94% mortality, with COVID its 3.25% mortality. Defined as death following inoculation with COVID 19.
You can’t work out mortality based on those who haven’t caught it yet because they may not have been exposed to it and remain susceptible. Yes not everyone who had it might not have been tested and yes the percentage of death may decrease but circa 3% is very high.
Edited by shost on Sunday 28th February 11:46
Edited by shost on Sunday 28th February 11:52
Teddy Lop said:
it might seem fair to use % of positive tests but its very flawed as we know of every with-covid death but we've logged only a fraction of cases and even less exposures, and that's before you factor for age or health.
Take for example the USS Roosevelt being as it was a handy reasonably closed ecosystem to study, 4800 odd working in close quarters and you'd have to expect everyone had repeated close quarter exposure, yet only 27% actually tested positive, of which 77% were symptonless and only 55% developed any symptoms at all, and of 1300 odd positives 4 needed intensive care and 1 succumbed.
Agree it’s not perfect, and certainly for the first wave I’m sure many mild cases were missed. I’d hope now with widespread availability of testing most symptomatic people would get tested. I’m sure those from low socioeconomic backgrounds and young are probably underrepresented in the stats too. Take for example the USS Roosevelt being as it was a handy reasonably closed ecosystem to study, 4800 odd working in close quarters and you'd have to expect everyone had repeated close quarter exposure, yet only 27% actually tested positive, of which 77% were symptonless and only 55% developed any symptoms at all, and of 1300 odd positives 4 needed intensive care and 1 succumbed.
I wasn’t aware of the Roosevelt case study, and it is interesting. The report suggests 400 people contact traced from original three cases, so yes many confined spaces but even so they weren’t in contact with ethe majority of the crew. It was 13 days at sea, so I assume they were all assymptomatic before then. If one had been infected day 0, then from around day 5 they’ll have first symptoms. What I’m saying is 13 days means that not long has passed given the incubation period. See the graph. The index case was probably someone as symptomatic. Yet in that short time a quarter infected. Despite contract tracing being performed with 24hrs.
I think this case shows just how quickly in can spread and how assymptomatic particularly young people can be, therefore acting as super spreaders. In terms of the effects of the virus on the population is highly unrepresentative of a normal population, mean age under 30 and interquartile range below 35. Yet still one person died from something they didn’t have a few days before. I would be very reluctant to say COVID isn’t a problem to you unless you are under 35 and able to pass fitness test for the US Navy. Even so there is a duty to reduce spread to others who aren’t under 35 with minimal health issues.
Edited by shost on Sunday 28th February 13:10
Difficult said:
If only 1 million out of 8 billion catch it, then it's not very infectious. I'd take my chances. But if it was 1 million out of a population of 1 million, then it's a bit different. You can't just ignore the world population number to make the statistics match your own level of terror.
I’m with V6 on this. On the first day a COVID was found in UK at that moment the UK COVID survival rate was zero. But it wrong to keep quoting that as UK death rate. It’s nonsensical to calculate death rate at point X from a population N. You can only calculate those who have tested positive. If you do then you have a 3% chance of dying. There might be those from low socioeconomic classes who can’t get tested but I’d assume most people would have access to a test. Even if a fifth of cases were unrecorded that’s still 2.4% risk of death. Way higher than any serious vaccine complication
Driller said:
Dentist here for what it’s worth.
I won’t be having the vaccine unless absolutely forced to, for eg being allowed to travel internationally. Even then I wouldn’t be bloody happy about it.
Reason? I find it very strange that a vaccine should be pushed so hard for something that effects such a tiny amount of people. I don’t know why they’re doing it, it doesn’t make sense and that makes me uneasy enough to want to avoid it.
If 1% of people are vulnerable then vaccinate them and confine them but let the rest of us catch it, get immune and get on with it including our kids.
Appart from that I’m neither old nor sick so there’s no point.
Hi Driller, are you still providing clinical care? If so what are your patients and nurses saying? I won’t be having the vaccine unless absolutely forced to, for eg being allowed to travel internationally. Even then I wouldn’t be bloody happy about it.
Reason? I find it very strange that a vaccine should be pushed so hard for something that effects such a tiny amount of people. I don’t know why they’re doing it, it doesn’t make sense and that makes me uneasy enough to want to avoid it.
If 1% of people are vulnerable then vaccinate them and confine them but let the rest of us catch it, get immune and get on with it including our kids.
Appart from that I’m neither old nor sick so there’s no point.
Where are you calculating 1% of population vulnerable to it?
Edited by shost on Monday 1st March 10:56
gregs656 said:
I have 1 full on it’s a conspiracy 5g bill gates nutter on Facebook. Someone I went to school with.
Mostly people I know are very positive about the vaccine. I would take it no worries.
My current feeling is that, assuming it continues to mutate beyond the original scope of the vaccine, as the virus becomes endemic the idea of vaccinating the younger populations is going to lose support quickly, it’s not practical or cost effective.
Actually it’s the mutation side that has me reluctantly realising why lockdown continues. If we allow the virus to run around unchecked the chances are so much higher of mutation strains that effect the young. Mostly people I know are very positive about the vaccine. I would take it no worries.
My current feeling is that, assuming it continues to mutate beyond the original scope of the vaccine, as the virus becomes endemic the idea of vaccinating the younger populations is going to lose support quickly, it’s not practical or cost effective.
I take it you haven’t tried to engage with the Fb friend or have they been dismissive?
Heathwood said:
I won’t be having the vaccine. Not because I’m an anti-vaxxer, but because, as mentioned on a previous CV thread, I’m a massive needle phobic (Trypanophobia).
I would hope and expect that if you are effected that you’ll be granted a exception certificate to whatever is devised. However, bring me on to the passport suggestion. Personally I can’t see that being enforced by the government. We can’t even enforce face masks whether you agree or not (I didn’t at first as didn’t protect wearer, but do now as it protects others).
Maybe we will go back to something like smokers experienced with smoking areas in planes and restaurants.
Would those who don’t want it be vaccinated of your own volition be happy to have segregated areas? Just like smokers did in the past indoors and much like they do now outside.
dirky dirk said:
Yes my brother in law
He’s a knob
His mum had cancer and both his parents are elderly
And he’s telling them they mustn’t have it.
His mrs is very embarrassed about him.
He spouts claptrap about everything.
Cyder - well done for challenging.He’s a knob
His mum had cancer and both his parents are elderly
And he’s telling them they mustn’t have it.
His mrs is very embarrassed about him.
He spouts claptrap about everything.
Dirk sounds like your bro in laws Mrs had some work to do. It’s one thing to not want it but telling others vulnerable to it not to is unfortunate. Have they ignored his advice?
grumbledoak said:
A 3% CFR is very much at the high end of calculations. The CFR 95% confidence interval for Europe is 1.1 to 3.2 - call it 2.2 -
http://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-...
And this is the case fatality rate - people actually sick enough to see a doctor. The infection fatality rate is estimated to be 0.55% - a bit less than flu.
All very age dependent, obviously.
Interesting data, need to take a good look, but my first thoughts are that the less effected countries are wealthier or more sparsely populated. Still this county the death rate remains very high which is highly inconvenient to all of us http://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-...
And this is the case fatality rate - people actually sick enough to see a doctor. The infection fatality rate is estimated to be 0.55% - a bit less than flu.
All very age dependent, obviously.
V6 Pushfit said:
Yes and some keep coming up with with nonsensical figures ‘showing’ Covid has almost no effect on the annual death rate over and above flu. It has in fact had an effect, plus because of lockdowns, distancing etc etc a good 9 out of 10 haven’t had it YET. If/when they do it’s about 3-4% chance they won’t make it through (as we are worse than the world average of 3%) and if they are hospitalised around 30% chance they won’t make it. I don’t know what the hospitalisation rate is but presume most people die in hospital so it must be around 10%.
Thank you, I calculate 10% (440,000) cases admitted, so that would equate to around 3/10 dying. And death rate is headline grabbing. However those admitted can spend anywhere from a few hours to several weeks in hospital, and the long term effects are real. Several colleagues have been effected by minor things such as loss of smell/taste, persistent tiredness and breathlessness for done weeks after infection, let alone long COVID which has effected at least one colleague.
Difficult said:
You mean like a leper colony? Maybe you'd have us ring a bell if we get too close to your clean world? We could have our own shops, money and everything.
Or are you thinking of something a bit more 1940s?
Godwin #6 or thereabouts.
No I mean like simple smoking areas that were in use till relatively recently in restaurants and planes. Just so that those who can’t have a vaccine say can be socially distanced from those who don’t want to be? I believed smokers used the same money and used the same shops.Or are you thinking of something a bit more 1940s?
Godwin #6 or thereabouts.
Lots of replies to catch up on, thank you to all who have contributed so far!
Theme with those not wanting a vaccination appears to fall into a few categories:
1. Total deniers
2. Deny vaccine/medications in general
3. Concern about short side effects
4. Concern about long term side effects
5. COVID isn’t a big a problem
6. Young and healthy so don’t need it
At this point I’ll add that I’m a consultant anaesthetist. Before this pandemic my role was assisting with major surgery, but during it I have assisted my ITU colleagues and cared for several COVID patients.
Therefore I have little time for those who flatly deny the pandemic exists (981GTS). But do understand why some in the other camps feel the way they do.
Regarding the long term side effects, what is it people are worried about happening to them? Pandremix may have caused some isolated cases of narcolepsy (disordered sleep cycle in the main) but the increased harm, if one exists, is minimal and it’s one fairly mild disorder of many possible conditions that can get you at any time.
The issue with proving long term safety of any drug or food is one of compounding factors. These will be diet, travel, genetics, age amongst many others. It would be near impossible to say after a year or two if a disease occurring after vaccination was as a result of the vaccine and nothing else. Though the huge numbers in this vaccine programme will provide some of the most comprehensive data yet. It is important to note however that “association” does not equal “caused by and proven”. See pandremix.
The other hyperbole is “being pumped full of drugs”. The vaccine is just 0.3ml (AZ). I’m presuming the digestive system would destroy the protein molecules before it arrived at the target cells, otherwise you could drink it. And I’d wager you could drink a full 10ml vial and be totally unharmed. A shot of Sambuca is at least 80x the volume of the typical dose and probably far more harmful to more people. The vaccine as explained by Wombat and Prof is a protein that elicits a response from your own immune system, something it does all the time in response to crap you are exposed to.
Being a healthcare worker does not necessarily make you an expert, so I’m not surprised but disappointed by the number that appear to be working in the industry and fearing the vaccine.
So what are people worried about in terms of side effects? What is unacceptable and what isn’t?
Do those who deny the vaccine on this basis also refrain from alcohol, processed food, or air travel (radiation risk)?
Theme with those not wanting a vaccination appears to fall into a few categories:
1. Total deniers
2. Deny vaccine/medications in general
3. Concern about short side effects
4. Concern about long term side effects
5. COVID isn’t a big a problem
6. Young and healthy so don’t need it
At this point I’ll add that I’m a consultant anaesthetist. Before this pandemic my role was assisting with major surgery, but during it I have assisted my ITU colleagues and cared for several COVID patients.
Therefore I have little time for those who flatly deny the pandemic exists (981GTS). But do understand why some in the other camps feel the way they do.
Regarding the long term side effects, what is it people are worried about happening to them? Pandremix may have caused some isolated cases of narcolepsy (disordered sleep cycle in the main) but the increased harm, if one exists, is minimal and it’s one fairly mild disorder of many possible conditions that can get you at any time.
The issue with proving long term safety of any drug or food is one of compounding factors. These will be diet, travel, genetics, age amongst many others. It would be near impossible to say after a year or two if a disease occurring after vaccination was as a result of the vaccine and nothing else. Though the huge numbers in this vaccine programme will provide some of the most comprehensive data yet. It is important to note however that “association” does not equal “caused by and proven”. See pandremix.
The other hyperbole is “being pumped full of drugs”. The vaccine is just 0.3ml (AZ). I’m presuming the digestive system would destroy the protein molecules before it arrived at the target cells, otherwise you could drink it. And I’d wager you could drink a full 10ml vial and be totally unharmed. A shot of Sambuca is at least 80x the volume of the typical dose and probably far more harmful to more people. The vaccine as explained by Wombat and Prof is a protein that elicits a response from your own immune system, something it does all the time in response to crap you are exposed to.
Being a healthcare worker does not necessarily make you an expert, so I’m not surprised but disappointed by the number that appear to be working in the industry and fearing the vaccine.
So what are people worried about in terms of side effects? What is unacceptable and what isn’t?
Do those who deny the vaccine on this basis also refrain from alcohol, processed food, or air travel (radiation risk)?
Edited by shost on Tuesday 2nd March 21:08
monkfish1 said:
Long term effecys is the only reason i wont take it. Your dismissivness of narcolepsy is a bit sad. For those affected, some at least, its pretty grim and a life changing condition. One in 18000 is hardly low. Thats a greater risk than dying in an RTA.
Which is the driver. The risk of covid is known. The risk from long term effects is unknown. The risk from covid (for me) is less than an RTA. But i still drive, as do most of us.
What long term side effecs am i worried about? How can anyone know that? We dont know what, if any there might be. Other than saying, a temporary side effect doesnt concern me at all, but a long term debilitating effect (like narcolepsy) definitely does.
In a nutshell, the risk to me of covid is tiny, the long term risks from the vaccine(s) unknown. To take it is a leap of faith that it will be OK. Lets hope it is for everyones sake. The thought of a widespread serious side effect doesnt bear thinking about.
I don’t mean to be dismissive of narcolepsy but with all conditions there is a range of severity and in relation to Pandremix vaccine no definitive causal link or significantly increased risk has been confirmed. Some reports put it at 1 in 27,000 odd but there were only statistically significant cases in those two Scandinavian studies. Which is the driver. The risk of covid is known. The risk from long term effects is unknown. The risk from covid (for me) is less than an RTA. But i still drive, as do most of us.
What long term side effecs am i worried about? How can anyone know that? We dont know what, if any there might be. Other than saying, a temporary side effect doesnt concern me at all, but a long term debilitating effect (like narcolepsy) definitely does.
In a nutshell, the risk to me of covid is tiny, the long term risks from the vaccine(s) unknown. To take it is a leap of faith that it will be OK. Lets hope it is for everyones sake. The thought of a widespread serious side effect doesnt bear thinking about.
I would challenge that the risk of being killed in a car is less than risk of dying of COVID, not higher. It’s very hard to compare but by billion vehicles miles travelled its 1.8 fatalities. I’ve seen 1 in 200 quoted lifetime risk but it’s not clear how they achieve that figure.
But as we’ve said many have not been exposed to COVID due to lockdown etc, where as most of us have been in a car. So my point is I don’t think the risk from the virus is small but I do feel that risk from the vaccine is very small. But, I’m happy to be corrected.
That said the fear of a long term debilitating condition is not unreasonable but I would stress that no recent vaccines to best of my knowledge have been proven to cause anything like that. Not even Pandremix where concerns were raised within one to two months of that vaccine.
Edited by shost on Tuesday 2nd March 23:56
gts.981 said:
Exactly! They had been exposed to it like everyone r de and it had no effect on them.
BECAUSE.
ITS.
NOT.
THAT.
SERIOUS!!!!
Having read all the above, what brings you to the conclusion that the entire 66 million of us have been exposed to it and that it’s not that serious? BECAUSE.
ITS.
NOT.
THAT.
SERIOUS!!!!
In response to Uggers question, I think Prof hss answered it really.
The Corona type virus has been around a while and it is different to a influenza virus in terms of structure. Specifically the protein molecules that the virus present that allow then to get into lung tissue.
We had developed influenza vaccines but never one for a corona virus - which to me does seem strange given the ease in which one was developed when the need was there.
However like influenza, Corona virus are now endemic and sadly I accept part of life. The "we need to live with this" statement is meant to mean we need to protect and react to this for ever. Not "oh lets just ignore it and us healthy young people will be fine".
Such is the high risk of this virus we do need huge numbers vaccinated and rolling vaccination programs if we are to live with it.
The Corona type virus has been around a while and it is different to a influenza virus in terms of structure. Specifically the protein molecules that the virus present that allow then to get into lung tissue.
We had developed influenza vaccines but never one for a corona virus - which to me does seem strange given the ease in which one was developed when the need was there.
However like influenza, Corona virus are now endemic and sadly I accept part of life. The "we need to live with this" statement is meant to mean we need to protect and react to this for ever. Not "oh lets just ignore it and us healthy young people will be fine".
Such is the high risk of this virus we do need huge numbers vaccinated and rolling vaccination programs if we are to live with it.
Uggers said:
Prof Prolapse said:
I'm not sure of the relevance of the question. How does the ongoing global economic cost of vaccination effect you getting a vaccine at this moment?
Are you suggesting you're somehow hoping to reduce national debt and be a martyr to the financial institutions by not taking your medicine?
It's impossible to predict cost at this point. But vaccination programs cost hugely less than the economic and human consequences of not implementing them. That's the whole point, and they do this very well.
Vaccines really aren't that expensive. In the first eight months of last year the UK borrowed an addition £188billion above par, this was allegedly due to the effects of the pandemic. Now, the Moderna jab costs ~£26, Oxford jab ~£3, Pfizer ~£15. So compared to just eight months of additional borrowing, our country alone could have vaccinated the entire world, for many years.
Again, vaccination programs make enormous economic sense.
We decided that all the elderly and vulnerable should be vaccinated first as an order of priority domestically. Get the deaths down and open up the economy. Are you suggesting you're somehow hoping to reduce national debt and be a martyr to the financial institutions by not taking your medicine?
It's impossible to predict cost at this point. But vaccination programs cost hugely less than the economic and human consequences of not implementing them. That's the whole point, and they do this very well.
Vaccines really aren't that expensive. In the first eight months of last year the UK borrowed an addition £188billion above par, this was allegedly due to the effects of the pandemic. Now, the Moderna jab costs ~£26, Oxford jab ~£3, Pfizer ~£15. So compared to just eight months of additional borrowing, our country alone could have vaccinated the entire world, for many years.
Again, vaccination programs make enormous economic sense.
But that approach doesn't work on a worldwide scale?
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...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.
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.
PrinceRupert said:
My sister is an ICU nurse and is refusing the vaccine.
Moron
What are her reasons? Presumably she has cared for COVID patients? That’s hugely disturbing.Moron
As with Drillers claim, a dentist to refusing it. Working in close proximity to someone’s airway and not wanting the vaccine is... unusual.
I think if I were a patient I would want to know those caring for me are free of disease that could cause harm. It’s part of GMC guidance to be vaccinated against common serious communicable diseases. Though the flu vaccine uptake is not strictly enforced usually we are checked for Hep B and HIV, at least when starting a new job. I expect COVID vaccine status will be added to that.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff