Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
If there is one thing that irritates me the most, it is this ridiculous notion that people are selfish during the pandemic. It started off with people being selfish for going outside, going to work, hugging family and now for not wanting to have a vaccine. Viruses are not out fault, they have existed as long as life has existed, and will continue to exist for as long as it does. If people are selfish for not having vaccines, are people who have had but choose to interact with other humans also selfish? That's a long dark rabbit hole there.
As for hospitals, if they really are shutting down entire areas for one patient with covid then they need to have a really serious rethink on how they handle these situations. Because covid is not the respatory illness to happen nor will it be the last. "Because covid" is not an excuse for this.
What I don’t understand is why declining the covid vaccine is seen as selfish, yet there’s no such criticism when it comes to the flu vaccine. It’s yet another extension of the hysteria we’ve seen over the last 14 months. I suspect many of those ranting and raving about people declining the vaccine were toilet roll stockpilers and enthusiastic Thursday night clappers…
What I don’t understand is why declining the covid vaccine is seen as selfish, yet there’s no such criticism when it comes to the flu vaccine. It’s yet another extension of the hysteria we’ve seen over the last 14 months. I suspect many of those ranting and raving about people declining the vaccine were toilet roll stockpilers and enthusiastic Thursday night clappers…
Its really just another form of virtue signalling as you rightly point out was the case with the Thursday happy clappers. Sadly the government are kind of relying on these types to shame the proles into compliance. And they relish being relevent for a while...
If there is one thing that irritates me the most, it is this ridiculous notion that people are selfish during the pandemic. It started off with people being selfish for going outside, going to work, hugging family and now for not wanting to have a vaccine. Viruses are not out fault, they have existed as long as life has existed, and will continue to exist for as long as it does. If people are selfish for not having vaccines, are people who have had but choose to interact with other humans also selfish? That's a long dark rabbit hole there.
As for hospitals, if they really are shutting down entire areas for one patient with covid then they need to have a really serious rethink on how they handle these situations. Because covid is not the respatory illness to happen nor will it be the last. "Because covid" is not an excuse for this.
I judge people not by the circumstances they are in, but how they respond to those circumstances. And, yes, I do consider some behaviours and attitudes during Covid to have been thoroughly selfish, treating their individual preference as though it's all that matters and hang the consequences.
I judge people not by the circumstances they are in, but how they respond to those circumstances. And, yes, I do consider some behaviours and attitudes during Covid to have been thoroughly selfish, treating their individual preference as though it's all that matters and hang the consequences.
I judge people not by the circumstances they are in, but how they respond to those circumstances. And, yes, I do consider some behaviours and attitudes during Covid to have been thoroughly selfish, treating their individual preference as though it's all that matters and hang the consequences.
I hope this applies to both sides of the argument, because I consider those who want continued lockdowns and restrictions and forced vaccines very selfish indeed
I hope this applies to both sides of the argument, because I consider those who want continued lockdowns and restrictions and forced vaccines very selfish indeed
What I don’t understand is why declining the covid vaccine is seen as selfish, yet there’s no such criticism when it comes to the flu vaccine. It’s yet another extension of the hysteria we’ve seen over the last 14 months. I suspect many of those ranting and raving about people declining the vaccine were toilet roll stockpilers and enthusiastic Thursday night clappers…
I would disagree, I've always been keen on people having vaccines that are available to them (be that primarily for their own protection or for others, with the Flu vaccine for children being a classic example of the latter).
However when it came to the start of the pandemic we continued to buy what we needed (to be fair we do hold a reasonable amount of food in our cupboards, however it is for we use up and it rarely goes to waste, unlike many who paid brought who ended up binning food) and didn't rush out and panic buy stuff.
Nor did we clap for carers or the NHS (and whilst we could hear those who did none that we could see), as although they were doing a great job they needed government support more than us clapping (they still do).
I'd go further and say that if we want good public services then we need to be willing to pay for them through taxes. Chances are a small increase in taxes would be enough, as how much do we all waste on things which are now charged for when they used to free to cover some of the lost government grants to local councils. However those income streams will have costs associated with them so have to cover more than just the lost grants. For instance staff time in dealing with the transactions.
And so we come back to the key point, why aren't people having the vaccine? If there's a medical reason (i.e. one that has been diagnosed by healthcare staff) that's fine, however if it's they have questions over it then share them.
As I've said before I'm genuinely interested as to why people aren't opting to have the vaccine when otherwise they could.
What would people rather do, have the vaccine and then know that government enforced lockdowns aren't needed or not have the vaccine and run the risk of big government being able to shut everything down on a whim?
There are now some hospitals with no Covid patients, and they are trying to get through backlog of people with other illnesses. It doesn’t really help the other ill people if they have to take in a Covid patient and then have to close a whole ward again.
If the Covid person refused a vaccine, got more seriously ill, and is now effectively blocking 12-18 beds then in my view it is rather more than selfish. The isolation hospitals of decades ago are long gone.
Perhaps we should be reviewing if such measures are necessary and proportionate in a vaccinated population, rather considering adopting views on medical ethics from Nazi concentration camps?
I would disagree, I've always been keen on people having vaccines that are available to them (be that primarily for their own protection or for others, with the Flu vaccine for children being a classic example of the latter).
However when it came to the start of the pandemic we continued to buy what we needed (to be fair we do hold a reasonable amount of food in our cupboards, however it is for we use up and it rarely goes to waste, unlike many who paid brought who ended up binning food) and didn't rush out and panic buy stuff.
Nor did we clap for carers or the NHS (and whilst we could hear those who did none that we could see), as although they were doing a great job they needed government support more than us clapping (they still do).
I'd go further and say that if we want good public services then we need to be willing to pay for them through taxes. Chances are a small increase in taxes would be enough, as how much do we all waste on things which are now charged for when they used to free to cover some of the lost government grants to local councils. However those income streams will have costs associated with them so have to cover more than just the lost grants. For instance staff time in dealing with the transactions.
And so we come back to the key point, why aren't people having the vaccine? If there's a medical reason (i.e. one that has been diagnosed by healthcare staff) that's fine, however if it's they have questions over it then share them.
As I've said before I'm genuinely interested as to why people aren't opting to have the vaccine when otherwise they could.
What would people rather do, have the vaccine and then know that government enforced lockdowns aren't needed or not have the vaccine and run the risk of big government being able to shut everything down on a whim?
If you have a consistent viewpoint that’s fair enough, however I suspect you are in the minority (my post wasn’t aimed at you or anybody else on here just for the record!).
As for why people aren’t being vaccinated, I suspect a common answer would equate to something along the lines of “slight safety concerns coupled with questionable benefit, therefore I’ll wait”. As somebody in a very low risk demographic myself I can fully understand this. I think there’s a trust issue as well; again my own confidence in the scientific community has been somewhat dented over the last few months in particular, and whilst the charlatans we see on the news each day have nothing to do with the vaccines, not everybody will be able to break that link.
I don’t agree with your final point, for two reasons. Firstly, the government will do what they want regardless. The original objective of vaccinating the vulnerable to protect the NHS has been achieved and there is no good reason for maintaining restrictions. What they’re doing amounts to coercion. Secondly, I don’t trust the government or (more so) their advisors not to shift the goalposts again. If they absolutely guarantee that all restrictions will be removed on June 21st I’ll roll my sleeve up, I can’t however tolerate being “conned”. You may think I’m bloody minded (I probably am!) but this is a “who’ll blink first” scenario as far as I’m concerned. I really really can’t stand the thought of falling for a lie.
Perhaps we should be reviewing if such measures are necessary and proportionate in a vaccinated population, rather considering adopting views on medical ethics from Nazi concentration camps?
I'm not sure which concentration camp ethics you've in mind, but you demean yourself by that highly offensive comparison. The discussion point was on attempts to make more people well, not an attempt at genocide.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If you have a consistent viewpoint that’s fair enough, however I suspect you are in the minority (my post wasn’t aimed at you or anybody else on here just for the record!).
As for why people aren’t being vaccinated, I suspect a common answer would equate to something along the lines of “slight safety concerns coupled with questionable benefit, therefore I’ll wait”. As somebody in a very low risk demographic myself I can fully understand this. I think there’s a trust issue as well; again my own confidence in the scientific community has been somewhat dented over the last few months in particular, and whilst the charlatans we see on the news each day have nothing to do with the vaccines, not everybody will be able to break that link.
I don’t agree with your final point, for two reasons. Firstly, the government will do what they want regardless. The original objective of vaccinating the vulnerable to protect the NHS has been achieved and there is no good reason for maintaining restrictions. What they’re doing amounts to coercion. Secondly, I don’t trust the government or (more so) their advisors not to shift the goalposts again. If they absolutely guarantee that all restrictions will be removed on June 21st I’ll roll my sleeve up, I can’t however tolerate being “conned”. You may think I’m bloody minded (I probably am!) but this is a “who’ll blink first” scenario as far as I’m concerned. I really really can’t stand the thought of falling for a lie.
It's not a lie, though - it's a situation where the roadmap relies on our individual actions where we do take a balanced view of risk for both ourselves as individuals and the population at large.
As for the charlatans, I'm not sure quite who you have in mind. Generally, my observation of scientists has been that they have been trying to make sense of this pandemic and applying their intelligence to it. That includes some contentious ones, for example Heneghan and Sridhar, who have come at this from very different perspectives and framed very different policy responses.
It's not a lie, though - it's a situation where the roadmap relies on our individual actions where we do take a balanced view of risk for both ourselves as individuals and the population at large.
As for the charlatans, I'm not sure quite who you have in mind. Generally, my observation of scientists has been that they have been trying to make sense of this pandemic and applying their intelligence to it. That includes some contentious ones, for example Heneghan and Sridhar, who have come at this from very different perspectives and framed very different policy responses.
You can't say it isn't a lie, you may well trust the government and their advisors more than me, but neither of us know for sure what they'll do. The roadmap used to rely on us vaccinating the vulnerable and therefore the goalposts have moved already, hence my mistrust....
I'm sorry but people like Susan Michie, Christina Pagel, Devi Sridhar and Ravi Gupta (to name but a few) have dragged science through the gutter over the last few months with their wild predictions and unsubstantiated claims. Surely you can see that?
What's the difference between fully authorised and authorised on a batch by batch basis going to mean to how much someone is willing to trust having it?
Because 'fully authorised' requires the third phase of the clinical trials to have been completed, and that phase is there because it is how any longer-term side-effects or complications are picked up. Until you know those results it is much harder to accurately evaluate potential risk.
Back in January I could understand the logic as beyond those in the trails there hasn't been many who had had it, now many million (and not just in the UK) have had it and the number of serious adverse effects is limited.
Short-term adverse effects, yes. Potential other issues (for example ADE, or fertility issues) literally cannot be known for some time to come.
Of course the big risk isn't to you, it's to those who you may infect who are unable to have the vaccine (which includes older children), who as a cohort may be very low risk, but they may have underlaying breath conditions which could put them at serious risk of harm.
We have a very fundamental principle that we undergo medical treatment for our own benefit, not for the benefit of others. (That doesn't mean that some people choose to do so - eg. donate a kidney - but there should never be any pressure or coercion to do so). If we want to change that, it is a very big shift in our society - we need to debate it, and we need to be *very* careful about doing so, as there are big warnings from history about going down that route.
As for long term issues, most children now have a vaccine against the Rotavirus, yet it wasn't that long ago that it was universally offered and they will mostly have 60+ years of life ahead of them. Should we not offer then that as we've not tested it for 60 years?
As a parent of a child who wasn't vaccinated (it wasn't offered at the time) and they ended up in hospital with complications from the infection (not life threating, but it involved a week of them being in hospital and multiple or patient appointments until the blood tests were confirmed as clear - which was a significant inconvenience and fairly worrying for many people who know is). Then anyone suggesting that it's a bad idea and we should wait, then you are doing to have an uphill struggle to come up with an argument as to why.
Likewise I've seen people talk about their childhood where they were living abroad and their friends were dying of preventable illnesses and they were moved to action as an adult to limit that from happening.
But in all those cases you're talking about vaccinating people because they themselves are at risk. There's a massive jump from that to vaccination of those at negligible risk, in order to reduce the risk to others.
You can't say it isn't a lie, you may well trust the government and their advisors more than me, but neither of us know for sure what they'll do. The roadmap used to rely on us vaccinating the vulnerable and therefore the goalposts have moved already, hence my mistrust....
I'm sorry but people like Susan Michie, Christina Pagel, Devi Sridhar and Ravi Gupta (to name but a few) have dragged science through the gutter over the last few months with their wild predictions and unsubstantiated claims. Surely you can see that?
Strangely, no, I don’t. And I’m fascinated that you pick those four who have represented one side of the debate, rather than the would be eugenicists of Great Barrington, or the deliberate misrepresentations of Heneghan, or the utter crankery of the likes of Yeadon, or the HCQ aficionados like Raoult who are now trying to use the law to suppress the truth about their lies.
And, no, I don’t support “zero Covid” as a strategy.
Strangely, no, I don’t. And I’m fascinated that you pick those four who have represented one side of the debate, rather than the would be eugenicists of Great Barrington, or the deliberate misrepresentations of Heneghan, or the utter crankery of the likes of Yeadon, or the HCQ aficionados like Raoult who are now trying to use the law to suppress the truth about their lies.
And, no, I don’t support “zero Covid” as a strategy.
The reason I picked those four is that they're the ones making repeated TV appearances and influencing public and possibly government thinking. Take Gupta yesterday, he effectively claimed that the vaccines don't work. What he said was not grounded in science, it was frankly ridiculous. These people specialise in presenting barely feasible worst case scenarios, subtly caveated with with the words "could", "may" and "possibly", in order to terrify a large unquestioning section of the population. I'm happy to call out the cranks on either side of the debate, but it's the pro-lockdown lot that are the real danger here.
Whilst I don't agree with much of what you have to say in regard to Covid restrictions, you do come across as an intelligent enough person. At what point therefore is the penny going to drop that left to these people we'll be living under restrictions for the rest of this year, and likely beyond?
The reason I picked those four is that they're the ones making repeated TV appearances and influencing public and possibly government thinking. Take Gupta yesterday, he effectively claimed that the vaccines don't work. What he said was not grounded in science, it was frankly ridiculous. These people specialise in presenting barely feasible worst case scenarios, subtly caveated with with the words "could", "may" and "possibly", in order to terrify a large unquestioning section of the population. I'm happy to call out the cranks on either side of the debate, but it's the pro-lockdown lot that are the real danger here.
Whilst I don't agree with much of what you have to say in regard to Covid restrictions, you do come across as an intelligent enough person. At what point therefore is the penny going to drop that left to these people we'll be living under restrictions for the rest of this year, and likely beyond?
You obviously haven't read what Sridhar's said today, then - underpinning a change of strategy by Sturgeon. As for what Ravi Gupta said (and I'm going from the BBC website's report of his interview on Today), which bit of what he said was nonsense? Here is a scientist, with more knowledge of the epidemiology than you or I, saying frankly what he sees in the figures, and then drawing conclusions from that data.
Alternatively, let's try Sunetra Gupta and her assertion that Covid was over. In early summer last year. Or Heneghan's misrepresentation of what a study said in an attempt to prove himself right. Or, or, or,...
I have real questions about the assumptions underpinning the models that are causing concern, but that doesn't mean we should treat those using them as pariahs because they give inconvenient answers. And, given, the choice between the camps, I'd rather the over-cautious than the completely and recklessly careless.
It is for the politicians to form their assessment of this information, and what it means. I very much hope that in the next week or two, something clearly emerges that demonstrates the relaxations on the 21st are the right thing to do. But I'd like that to be science, not pseudo-science intended to validate a pre-ordained answer.
You obviously haven't read what Sridhar's said today, then - underpinning a change of strategy by Sturgeon. As for what Ravi Gupta said (and I'm going from the BBC website's report of his interview on Today), which bit of what he said was nonsense? Here is a scientist, with more knowledge of the epidemiology than you or I, saying frankly what he sees in the figures, and then drawing conclusions from that data.
Alternatively, let's try Sunetra Gupta and her assertion that Covid was over. In early summer last year. Or Heneghan's misrepresentation of what a study said in an attempt to prove himself right. Or, or, or,...
I have real questions about the assumptions underpinning the models that are causing concern, but that doesn't mean we should treat those using them as pariahs because they give inconvenient answers. And, given, the choice between the camps, I'd rather the over-cautious than the completely and recklessly careless.
It is for the politicians to form their assessment of this information, and what it means. I very much hope that in the next week or two, something clearly emerges that demonstrates the relaxations on the 21st are the right thing to do. But I'd like that to be science, not pseudo-science intended to validate a pre-ordained answer.
I'll be honest no I haven't, I try not to read Sridhar's confused ramblings if I can help it. She appears to have been instrumental in delaying the easing of restrictions in Scotland though so job done....
As for Ravi Gupta, where would you like me to start? The bit where he said that vaccines were masking the spread of Covid? Surely that's the point isn't it? Or how about this quote from the Evening Standard:
"The virus is going to do some weird things. I mean, this is just the beginning. I think it’s going to recombine, you’re going to get super mutant viruses, I believe."
I'm sorry but that is hyperbolic language designed to frighten people, it's not what I'd expect from a "top" scientist. In fact, if Donald Trump had came out with something like that he'd have been universally ridiculed.
Again, I'm happy to acknowledge that some people on the other side of the debate got it wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. Where is the calm sensible analysis here? And as for reckless, maintaining restrictions unnecessarily is just that as they come at enormous cost (I don't just mean monetary either).
The issue here is that whatever happens over the next two weeks these same "experts" will find another reason to delay the easing of restrictions. That was another thing Gupta said actually, that infections will drop as schools are closed for a week so we can't rely on the data. If he gets his way we'll be ready to reopen just in time for the summer holidays, now call me cynical but what do you think he might say at that point?
They'll never be satisfied until we're living how they think we should be living as they know best (they think). I'm pleased you've seen through comrade Michie but some of the others are no better....
You can't say it isn't a lie, you may well trust the government and their advisors more than me, but neither of us know for sure what they'll do. The roadmap used to rely on us vaccinating the vulnerable and therefore the goalposts have moved already, hence my mistrust....
I'm sorry but people like Susan Michie, Christina Pagel, Devi Sridhar and Ravi Gupta (to name but a few) have dragged science through the gutter over the last few months with their wild predictions and unsubstantiated claims. Surely you can see that?
For vaccines to work effectively is not just those few at the highest risk who need to have it, it's as many people as possible.
It's why even though, for example, there's only been a fairly small drop in the number of people having the MMR vaccine there's been a much higher increase in the number of measles cases and deaths. As there's always going to be natural gaps in the vaccine program (i.e. people who can't have it, people who haven't had it an they lived in an area which didn't offer the vaccine, those for whom it doesn't work at it should).
Whilst the government may have changed its message (in part so that the most at risk get the vaccine first), the science has always been reliant on as many people as possible getting the vaccine (as it's the case with all vaccines).
The next step, once the UK is done is to ensure that the rest of the world is vaccinated, so that the protection can be near universal (and limit the risk of some of those gaps which might cause us issues later down the line).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Because 'fully authorised' requires the third phase of the clinical trials to have been completed, and that phase is there because it is how any longer-term side-effects or complications are picked up. Until you know those results it is much harder to accurately evaluate potential risk.
Short-term adverse effects, yes. Potential other issues (for example ADE, or fertility issues) literally cannot be known for some time to come.
We have a very fundamental principle that we undergo medical treatment for our own benefit, not for the benefit of others. (That doesn't mean that some people choose to do so - eg. donate a kidney - but there should never be any pressure or coercion to do so). If we want to change that, it is a very big shift in our society - we need to debate it, and we need to be *very* careful about doing so, as there are big warnings from history about going down that route.
But in all those cases you're talking about vaccinating people because they themselves are at risk. There's a massive jump from that to vaccination of those at negligible risk, in order to reduce the risk to others.
From this source it says that phase 4 trails cover long term impacts, however that's after FDA approval (it's American, but the principal is unlikely to be vastly different here):
Every wonder how new medical treatments are evaluated for safety? Most go through a multiphase clinical trial. Learn what happens during each phase.
www.healthline.com
ADE can be caused by previous infections as well as from vaccines and whilst it's a risk in any vaccine during the human trails no examples of it were identified (given the tens of thousands in the trail rather than the more typical few thousand is likely to be a low risk).
However, even if it is a risk to some, unless it's a widespread risk then the risk of serious harm is reduced if there's significant vaccine uptake as you'd be unlikely to catch the virus.
The risk of having an issue (just an issue, not even death) with blood clots, for instance, is 336 out of 35 million, that's 0.001% chance. Even if we halve the death rate (to allow for those who die from something else after a diagnosis) and assume everyone in the UK has had it. Then the risk of death from Covid is 63,500 in 66.67 million or 0.1% (100 times higher, although not everyone can have had it otherwise we'd be seeing near 0 cases now so it's likely that this is an under estimate of the risk).
As for fertility; being unfit (or too fit) and eating a poor diet can influence that as well as many other reasons.
However I come back to the Rotavirus vaccine given to very young children my eldest isn't 10 (wasn't routinely offered), therefore, even with a 15 year trail period it wouldn't likely be known of there would be fertility side effects yet from giving it at such a young age.
As such, unless you're never go to accept a treatment which had been around for (say) 50 years, there's always going to be the risk that there's something which crops up which is an unknown.
However most chemistry has a good idea of what does what, and so the Covid Vaccine "unknowns" are mostly linked to the active element of the vaccine, that being the spike protein and the base influenza virus. That later, although from a Chimpanzee version, is fairly well know and if that caused issues (such as infertility) then it should be well know about by now.
If it's the spike protein, then catching the full blown virus is likely to cause the problems to be much more of a problem.
Even if estimates for the number of people with long Covid are out by a factor of 10 (so 100,000 rather than 1 million) the risk of that is 0.15%, or at least 50% more than dying after being diagnosed with Covid.
A total of 1/4 of 1% doesn't sound much of a risk, but if that was the risk of something happening on a given day then the probability is that it would happen within 15 months (400 days is about 13.5 months). Whilst for it to be 0.01% would require the passing of 10,000 days that being nearly 329 months or 27 years and 5 months.
I live somewhere with a population of not quite 10,000 people, statically 1 of them could have an issue with blood clots. Even if that calculated risk was half what it is then that's 2 people.
Within the borough the population is basically 100,000, that's 10 (even at double the calculated risk that's 20), whilst there's been about 175 deaths after a Covid diagnosis (so sightly lower than the national average).
Should the NHS refuse treatment for people that haven’t had the vaccination?
Absolutely not. There are many people who haven't had 'the' vaccination, for various quite legitimate reasons. To suggest that the NHS refuse to treat people is totally against the ethos of the organization. Refusing to treat sick people could be unlawful on the grounds it is likely to be discriminatory.
"
That's a (deliberately?) poorly-worded press release. Note that it says further down that
The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,661 participants to date, 41,135 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 13, 2020... The trial will continue to collect efficacy and safety data in participants for an additional two years.
(bold mine)
From this source it says that phase 4 trails cover long term impacts, however that's after FDA approval (it's American, but the principal is unlikely to be vastly different here):
Yes, phase 4 is the 'yellow-card' system in the UK/VAERS in the US and is after community rollout. However, under normal circumstances that would only be done after phase 3 is complete. Obviously some would argue that Covid is so serious and so impacting that overlapping phase 3 and phase 4 is justified - and indeed, despite my opinion that the whole reaction to Covid has been insanely excessive, I would myself argue it would have been wrong to have not made the vaccines available *to those who want them* for another 2 years or more.
But when we're talking about coersion and compulsion to take the vaccine for people who aren't keen (either for that reason or another), we're getting into very dodgy territory anyway; still more-so when these sorts of important stages have been abbreviated.
ADE can be caused by previous infections as well as from vaccines and whilst it's a risk in any vaccine during the human trails no examples of it were identified (given the tens of thousands in the trail rather than the more typical few thousand is likely to be a low risk).
Note (from the press release you provided) there weren't remotely a large enough number of Covid cases observed in the vaccinated group in the trial to make any statistically significant claim on that. Given ADE has been a particular issue with all previous attempts to create vaccines for coronaviruses, I'm going to wait and see the evidence over the next year or two on that one. Also due to the nature of how ADE works, this is one place where variants may cause issues.
However, even if it is a risk to some, unless it's a widespread risk then the risk of serious harm is reduced if there's significant vaccine uptake as you'd be unlikely to catch the virus.
I think it is most likely that the virus will end up mutating into something like a common cold, like previous coronaviruses have. So I think it quite likely it will still be around and people will encounter it regularly, but it won't be as serious as now.
(Or at least, that is what was likely if we hadn't interfered in the way we have, with lockdowns etc. and now vaccinations during the epidemic - all actions that seem to make it less likely that the virus will mutate into something less serious, so I'm not entirely sure what will happen next).
However I come back to the Rotavirus vaccine given to very young children my eldest isn't 10 (wasn't routinely offered), therefore, even with a 15 year trail period it wouldn't likely be known of there would be fertility side effects yet from giving it at such a young age.
Again though, in that case you're vaccinating against a disease that would be serious in the person that is being vaccinated.
I appreciate you're attempting to make the point that this applies to Covid too, but I have to say that I'm not convinced that is the case for the majority of the population. (and if the risk was sufficiently large, you wouldn't need coercion or compulsion anyway - if this was a disease with a 50% mortality rate, I'd be elbowing my way to the front of the vaccination queue, potential issues or not. But Covid isn't that).
That's a (deliberately?) poorly-worded press release. Note that it says further down that
The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,661 participants to date, 41,135 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 13, 2020... The trial will continue to collect efficacy and safety data in participants for an additional two years.
(bold mine)
Yes, phase 4 is the 'yellow-card' system in the UK/VAERS in the US and is after community rollout. However, under normal circumstances that would only be done after phase 3 is complete. Obviously some would argue that Covid is so serious and so impacting that overlapping phase 3 and phase 4 is justified - and indeed, despite my opinion that the whole reaction to Covid has been insanely excessive, I would myself argue it would have been wrong to have not made the vaccines available *to those who want them* for another 2 years or more.
But when we're talking about coersion and compulsion to take the vaccine for people who aren't keen (either for that reason or another), we're getting into very dodgy territory anyway; still more-so when these sorts of important stages have been abbreviated.
Note (from the press release you provided) there weren't remotely a large enough number of Covid cases observed in the vaccinated group in the trial to make any statistically significant claim on that. Given ADE has been a particular issue with all previous attempts to create vaccines for coronaviruses, I'm going to wait and see the evidence over the next year or two on that one. Also due to the nature of how ADE works, this is one place where variants may cause issues.
I think it is most likely that the virus will end up mutating into something like a common cold, like previous coronaviruses have. So I think it quite likely it will still be around and people will encounter it regularly, but it won't be as serious as now.
(Or at least, that is what was likely if we hadn't interfered in the way we have, with lockdowns etc. and now vaccinations during the epidemic - all actions that seem to make it less likely that the virus will mutate into something less serious, so I'm not entirely sure what will happen next).
Again though, in that case you're vaccinating against a disease that would be serious in the person that is being vaccinated.
I appreciate you're attempting to make the point that this applies to Covid too, but I have to say that I'm not convinced that is the case for the majority of the population. (and if the risk was sufficiently large, you wouldn't need coercion or compulsion anyway - if this was a disease with a 50% mortality rate, I'd be elbowing my way to the front of the vaccination queue, potential issues or not. But Covid isn't that).
The problem with these arguments is that they are confusing - and some anti-vaxxers have done this knowingly and deliberately - the scientific study with the legal status of the vaccines.
The problem with these arguments is that they are confusing - and some anti-vaxxers have done this knowingly and deliberately - the scientific study with the legal status of the vaccines.
Sorry, I'm not at all sure what you mean here, or which part of my argument you're referring to. (Unless you're suggesting Pfizer are anti-vaxxers for writing a rather misleading press release - but I suspect that isn't what you mean
Should the NHS refuse treatment for people that haven’t had the vaccination?
Absolutely not. There are many people who haven't had 'the' vaccination, for various quite legitimate reasons. To suggest that the NHS refuse to treat people is totally against the ethos of the organization. Refusing to treat sick people could be unlawful on the grounds it is likely to be discriminatory.
"
I think it was aimed at those that did not want the vaccine, as it may alter their DNA, or other weird effect on them, not those that could not have it, even if they wanted it
The experts denounced the MMR vaccine, and many stopped their kids having it, with many suffering the consequences in the years that followed, only to find out the experts were wrong in what they said was as a dangerous vaccine
The experts denounced the MMR vaccine, and many stopped their kids having it, with many suffering the consequences in the years that followed, only to find out the experts were wrong in what they said was as a dangerous vaccine
Quite honestly this charade has gone on long enough... Right now the UK is in lockdown to preserve votes for the political party in charge. Anybody who took biology knows that a known virus mutates and the most successful version proliferates and the less successful ones die off, this is called natural selection. The most successful ones are the ones that keep the host alive, because they provide the most chance of reproducing themselves by being able to infect a higher number of other hosts (longer duration they are infectious, than in a dead body). Today the government announced zero deaths, but still a lot of infections reported. This virus WAS dangerous, it is now no longer a threat.
1 - We aren't really in lockdown anymore. Complain about restrictions as much as you want but I really don't think we can say its lockdown when you can go on holiday, or visit the pub, or go to the restaurant, or travel to see family and friends etc etc.
2 - How exactly does it preserve votes for the Tories? And what votes, given we don't have an election due for a while?
Sorry, I'm not at all sure what you mean here, or which part of my argument you're referring to. (Unless you're suggesting Pfizer are anti-vaxxers for writing a rather misleading press release - but I suspect that isn't what you mean
If they refuse the vaccine, for no 'good' reason, then they should waive the rights for Hospital treatment, harsh ? yes, but fair to everyone who have the well being of everyone else in mind
It is abhorrent to me for you to suggest that someone who has a family history of blood clots should be in any way pressurised in to taking a vaccine whose manufacturer is protected from legal action that is mainly for other peoples benefit.
Fortunately for us this stupid idea will never happen in the UK as no one will be ever able to properly define a "good reason"
Should I be allowed to sue the NHS if I get Covid as a result of catching it when I was in hospital for something else
Should I be allowed to sue the NHS if I still catch Covid even though I was vaccinated ?
Since a vaccine takes 3 weeks or so become effective what possible benefit is it to insist on immediate vaccination before being allowed to receive treatment unless you are going to make people stay in hospital for 3 weeks for what should be an overnight stay which in my view shows that the person making the suggestion is hard of thinking ?
I am surprised they did not say 15 weeks stay so that maximum protection could be received.
Do these people have any concept of the real world?
1 - We aren't really in lockdown anymore. Complain about restrictions as much as you want but I really don't think we can say its lockdown when you can go on holiday, or visit the pub, or go to the restaurant, or travel to see family and friends etc etc.
2 - How exactly does it preserve votes for the Tories? And what votes, given we don't have an election due for a while?
Lockdown or otherwise, I don't see things as "normal" at the moment. Next week we're off to Wales. Our hotel is twice the price it was two years ago (fortunately we booked well in advance, so aren't personally affected by this). If we want extra nights it's going to be a pain, both through likely lack of availability, and the aforementioned extra cost. If we want to travel by train (or, apparently even set foot in a railway station car park) technically a mask is required. Goodness knows what we're going to do about food, as booking meals each day is not really a viable option as we never know quite what time each day's activities are going to finish. Likewise visiting attractions is also going to be a nuisance thanks in many cases due to the need to pre-book. Some attractions still appear to be closed. Hardly the pleasant relaxing experience it should be.
I think the point about votes is that the government (what colour they are isn't really relevant I don't think) have gone so far down a policy alley-way that it's virtually impossible to turn back. This policy *has* to be the right one, because of the sheer amount of money and political capital invested in it. Many of the costs aren't readily apparent yet, and taking two years of normal life away from people is a pretty massive thing by any measure. A lot of people in their 60s and early 70s are now very jittery - "I worked for 40 years, and *this* is my retirement"; they might have been happy to accept restrictions before vaccination, but having had that are now taking the pragmatic view that they should be enjoying whatever time they have left. This doesn't exclusively apply to older people either - none of us knows how long we have, and some younger people have already suffered long-term damage with things like exams, university or jobs - opportunities lost which they will probably never get back.
Having said all this, I'm sure there's plenty of people in the Home Counties who are happy with their current lifestyle, and so want it to continue, and it is probably the case that many (but by no means all) of these happen to be Conservative voters. The Northern Line at 1745 today told its own story - just like yesterday only a handful of people in the carriage, what would have been crush loading only in normal times.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It is abhorrent to me for you to suggest that someone who has a family history of blood clots should be in any way pressurised in to taking a vaccine whose manufacturer is protected from legal action that is mainly for other peoples benefit.
Fortunately for us this stupid idea will never happen in the UK as no one will be ever able to properly define a "good reason"
Should I be allowed to sue the NHS if I get Covid as a result of catching it when I was in hospital for something else
Should I be allowed to sue the NHS if I still catch Covid even though I was vaccinated ?
Since a vaccine takes 3 weeks or so become effective what possible benefit is it to insist on immediate vaccination before being allowed to receive treatment unless you are going to make people stay in hospital for 3 weeks for what should be an overnight stay which in my view shows that the person making the suggestion is hard of thinking ?
I am surprised they did not say 15 weeks stay so that maximum protection could be received.
Do these people have any concept of the real world?
I agree with all this. I do think, however, that what we're going to get in practice is indirect pressure to take the vaccine - it won't be people denied treatment, but it might be "if you present at a hospital unvaccinated, you go straight into a Covid unit".
It is abhorrent to me for you to suggest that someone who has a family history of blood clots should be in any way pressurised in to taking a vaccine whose manufacturer is protected from legal action that is mainly for other peoples benefit.
Fortunately for us this stupid idea will never happen in the UK as no one will be ever able to properly define a "good reason"
Should I be allowed to sue the NHS if I get Covid as a result of catching it when I was in hospital for something else
Should I be allowed to sue the NHS if I still catch Covid even though I was vaccinated ?
Since a vaccine takes 3 weeks or so become effective what possible benefit is it to insist on immediate vaccination before being allowed to receive treatment unless you are going to make people stay in hospital for 3 weeks for what should be an overnight stay which in my view shows that the person making the suggestion is hard of thinking ?
I am surprised they did not say 15 weeks stay so that maximum protection could be received.
Do these people have any concept of the real world?
1 - We aren't really in lockdown anymore. Complain about restrictions as much as you want but I really don't think we can say its lockdown when you can go on holiday, or visit the pub, or go to the restaurant, or travel to see family and friends etc etc.
2 - How exactly does it preserve votes for the Tories? And what votes, given we don't have an election due for a while?
Well, not quite, you can't go on holiday, unless it's within the UK, shops are still having daft one way rules, and only 2, 3 4 etc in the shop at one time, you can't go to a nightclub, cinemas etc are a max of 50% capacity, many are still 'working from home' which sometimes gives rise to a rubbish service, and over long to reply.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.healthline.com
