Will people go back to normal after a vaccine?

[HSTEd]

Well there is one way to get people to take it without compelling it.

Simply announce that all restrictions will end on 1st May, no matter how many people have presented themselves to be vaccinated, with vaccination offers proceeding from the eldest to youngest.

NHS care after that time will proceed based on the rules of emergency triage.

 

[Bantamzen]

I certainly don't think a ban on mass gatherings will drag on for at least another year. Though whilst Johnson and some others are saying life should be back to normal by the spring/Easter(though one or two of them have actually said mid summer), whilst I think that may be the case, I think it's possible that bans on mass gatherings(i.e. proper mass gatherings of hundreds or thousands of people) may continue untill about mid summer/early July. In which case, that will mean a fair number of next year's festivals won't be able to go ahead. Additionally, festival organisers will ideally need at least 3 months notice really in advance of their intended festivals, whether social distancing is definitely being scrapped and the bans on mass gatherings scrapped and hence whether their festivals can definitely go ahead or not. Some of the festivals in early May for example, if the government still hasn't given the all clear by about early February and it's still looking uncertain by then, then the organisers will probably decide to cancel. And as you say, if some of these festivals have to cancel again for the second year in a row then they may well not return again unfortunately.

But as I posted in the other threat, according to Oliver Dowden the events industry should be back to complete normality by Easter. So if that happens, along with the government giving adequate advance notice of all these restrictions being lifted, then next year's festivals will all go ahead as hoped for. We shall see....

If the music industry loses another year, which what a ban to the summer will effectively be for it, then restarting festivals is going to be doubly hard. Many people in the industry have been furloughed for a very long time, some have already moved on, others considering the same. We have to remember that festivals don't just happen, there are a lot of skilled people and companies that make festivals even possible and they are not going to be able to survive hoping on a few scraps in the last couple of summer months. And in the wider scene, many smaller venues are on the verge of collapse which could see a drastically reduced live music scene, and things like recording studios, equipment hire etc are also in dire straights. Put simply many more months of this will kill the industry stone dead, save a handful of heavily capitalised events.

 

[Class 33]

If the music industry loses another year, which what a ban to the summer will effectively be for it, then restarting festivals is going to be doubly hard. Many people in the industry have been furloughed for a very long time, some have already moved on, others considering the same. We have to remember that festivals don't just happen, there are a lot of skilled people and companies that make festivals even possible and they are not going to be able to survive hoping on a few scraps in the last couple of summer months. And in the wider scene, many smaller venues are on the verge of collapse which could see a drastically reduced live music scene, and things like recording studios, equipment hire etc are also in dire straights. Put simply many more months of this will kill the industry stone dead, save a handful of heavily capitalised events.

Indeed so. There's a lot involved in making festivals happen. And for a large majority of next year's intended festivals to actually go ahead, the government will have to get a move on pretty soon in announcing the end date of social distancing and bans on mass gatherings and the all clear that festivals can definitely go ahead. Thinking about it more now, I'm not too confident that this will happen. Because whilst the legislation on these restrictions is due to end on 31st March, I guess there will have to be a parliament vote on whether this legislation will expire on that date or whether it will be extended again. But how far in advance of 31st March would that parliament vote be? It may well be pretty near to 31st March, because the parliament vote on the Tier system continuing beyond 3rd February takes place just one week before on 27th January! If we don't know what the situation is until as late as mid to late March, this will unfortunately be just too late for many festivals!

Also whilst the likes of Johnson, Dowden and surprisingly even Hancock seem optimistic that life will be back to normal by the spring/Easter/after Easter/mid summer, which gives us some optimism. Unfortunately the WHO are sticking their oar in this morning by saying "social distancing and face mask wearing must continue for many months to come yet." and "Normal life is still a couple of years away yet."!!!!! Normal life a couple of years away yet, even with this vaccine about to be rolled out???!!! You have got to be joking!!! It will be absolutely insanity and madness if social distancing and face mask wearing requirements are still dragging on well into 2021!!!! We need to get back to a normal life pretty soon now.

 

[kristiang85]

I'd only have the vaccine if I need it to travel - I'm not in a risk group so I don't see any point, and I've not been properly ill in my adult life (~20 years) beyond the occasional cold. So I believe in my immune system, and therefore the (tiny) risks of a rushed vaccine outweigh the (tinier) risks of getting COVID.

At the beginning of this crisis, Whitty et al were saying that herd immunity via vaccine is the preferable outcome, so they'd better stick to that. With the t-cell immunity that already exists from various coronaviruses, the immunity from those who've had COVID, and a targeted vaccination campaign to 'at risk' groups, we should be allowed normal life pretty quickly. If we aren't back to that by spring, there really does need to be a mass protest of some kind.

 

[MikeWM]

I don't mean to be a Cassandra (again!) but I sadly don't think it will be as easy as some people seem to think here.

Even when a person finally gets out of an abusive relationship - which perfectly sums up the relationship between the authorities and the populace over the last nine months - it takes considerable time to undo the damage and for them to return to something approximating to normal. In addition, the abuser, delighted at their success - far exceeding what they previously thought they could achieve so easily - and dismayed at the loss of their control when the abused finally slips away somehow, seeks further opportunities to do the same all over again.

Here's part of a twitter thread from yesterday from the excellent Telegraph cartoonist 'Bob'. Sadly I agree entirely.

https://twitter.com/bobscartoons/status/1335675729816772608

Even if the rules are lifted, it won't make a lot of difference if people's psychology has been permanently altered. If people no longer feel able to live with risk. If people think of their basic freedom as a kind of occasional treat, awarded for good behaviour. If the sight of other people's faces evokes feelings of fear and disgust. If the meaning of life has become preventing the deaths of the elderly at any and all cost. People either carry on thinking that way forever or they are made to understand that it's wrong. On every level. In every circumstance. It is no way to live. It's not enough to hope that governments declare an end to all this and lift the restrictions. We are going to have make everyone understand just how wrong it has been. We need to help everyone regain a sense of perspective, context, balance and meaning

The idea that this is some regrettable episode that we will just move on from is dangerously naive.

 

[greyman42]

Also whilst the likes of Johnson, Dowden and surprisingly even Hancock seem optimistic that life will be back to normal by the spring/Easter/after Easter/mid summer, which gives us some optimism. Unfortunately the WHO are sticking their oar in this morning by saying "social distancing and face mask wearing must continue for many months to come yet." and "Normal life is still a couple of years away yet."!!!!! Normal life a couple of years away yet, even with this vaccine about to be rolled out???!!! You have got to be joking!!! It will be absolutely insanity and madness if social distancing and face mask wearing requirements are still dragging on well into 2021!!!! We need to get back to a normal life pretty soon now.

What we do in the UK will not have anything to do with the WHO.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2020 ==

I don't mean to be a Cassandra (again!) but I sadly don't think it will be as easy as some people seem to think here.

Even when a person finally gets out of an abusive relationship - which perfectly sums up the relationship between the authorities and the populace over the last nine months - it takes considerable time to undo the damage and for them to return to something approximating to normal. In addition, the abuser, delighted at their success - far exceeding what they previously thought they could achieve so easily - and dismayed at the loss of their control when the abused finally slips away somehow, seeks further opportunities to do the same all over again.

Here's part of a twitter thread from yesterday from the excellent Telegraph cartoonist 'Bob'. Sadly I agree entirely.

https://twitter.com/bobscartoons/status/1335675729816772608

Regarding the twitter thread, if people want to carry on living the miserable life that we do at the moment then that is up to them. The vast majority of us will return to living as we did pre covid. What makes you think that thinking that is "dangerously naive"?

 

[MikeWM]

Regarding the twitter thread, if people want to carry on living the miserable life that we do at the moment then that is up to them. The vast majority of us will return to living as we did pre covid. What makes you think that thinking that is "dangerously naive"?

My opinion on that is summed up in the earlier part of my post. I think a lot of people will have a lot of difficulty returning to 'normal', and without a critical mass of people doing so, recovery is a lot harder.

I also think that people in power around the world are rubbing their hands in glee at how easy it was to destroy our liberties and our society and much that makes up our way of life. I don't expect they thought it would be remotely as easy as this. Now that they know, they will use that knowledge in the future, and not for our benefit.

If we don't show that we know this was all *wrong* - the lockdowns, the distancing, the masks, the 'don't hug people' - then even if we get out of this relatively unscathed, we can expect those or similar things to happen again and again going forwards.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Well,the vaccine is here,are you ready for it or has your opinion changed?. I think it's a huge step forward but I'm not going to be rushing. As I said in my post some way back I'd like to wait to see how it pans out.

 

[bramling]

Well,the vaccine is here,are you ready for it or has your opinion changed?. I think it's a huge step forward but I'm not going to be rushing. As I said in my post some way back I'd like to wait to see how it pans out.

Still no change for me. At present a firm no, but not opposed in principle to taking it in the distant future.

Pretty much everyone I associate with is saying the same thing, including some in older age groups.

 

[Journeyman]

I'll have it the second I'm offered it. I'm probably immune for the time being because I had COVID in October - but it was a horrific experience I never want to repeat.

 

[The Ham]

Well,the vaccine is here,are you ready for it or has your opinion changed?. I think it's a huge step forward but I'm not going to be rushing. As I said in my post some way back I'd like to wait to see how it pans out.

The other thing to bear in mind is that we've now got a lot more data on what's being offered.

For instance we know that as a minimum that it reduces the risk of being infected by at least 70% and most likely much more than that.

We also know that tends of thousands have been included in the trails, and by the time most people will be offered it several million will have had a vaccine before them.

 

[trebor79]

Yes of course I'll have it. I don't get this anti-vaxxer movement at all. The stuff about having chips injected is patently absurd nonsense on so many levels. As for safety, it's been through the proper trial and test protocols. That's good enough for me.
People say "oh but it usually takes year, so corners must have been cut". And that just isn't the case. It may have taken from years if starting from scratch, but some companies had work that they'd done for SARS-COV-1 to pick up (including in one case a vaccine that had completed phase 3 trials but was dropped because there was no need for it as the disease just sort of petered out).
Also with COVID, governments have placed pre-orders for hundreds of million of doses. I don't think that's ever happened before and it's a huge incentive to pharmaceutical companies to invest huge resources on their COVID vaccine effort, perhaps pausing other work that has a less certain payday.
Phase 3 trials have been able to be completed fairly quickly precisely because there is an epidemic. You give one cohort a placebo, and one the vaccine. Then you wait until a certain number of people in the trial get an infection. Then you "unblind" and see how many of the vaccinated people got infected vs how many who received the placebo, and you compare the severity of any infections too. That allows you to work out the efficacy of the vaccine candidate. With vaccine for other diseases (which might be much more deadly but far less prevalant), it can indeed take years to accumulate that statistical evidence. Phase 1 and 2 are mostly about safety, phase 3 is mostly about efficacy.

So I don't believe any "corners have been cut" in terms of the research, safet and trialling. Where corners have been cut will be in greenlighting development work, allocating resources in terms of researchers, capital, equipment, facilities, statisticians, commissioning trials, proceeding through the project pipeline etc. Companies have done this precisely because they have a guaranteed market for a successful vaccine.
Similarly with the liability waivers some governments have granted and conspiracy theorists are using to "prove" it's not safe, - that's not about rushing out an unsafe vaccine, that's about removing commercial risk for pharmaceutical companies so that they don't waste month or years prevaricating whilst their investment boards examine the risk profile, mitigations etc etc. It doesn't increase the risk that any individual will be one of the very unlucky people that has some kind of severe adverse reaction, it just means that the government rather than the company will pick up the cost of compensation etc that may result. Arguably, that's a better prospect anyway.

 

[DustyBin]

Yes of course I'll have it. I don't get this anti-vaxxer movement at all. The stuff about having chips injected is patently absurd nonsense on so many levels. As for safety, it's been through the proper trial and test protocols. That's good enough for me.
People say "oh but it usually takes year, so corners must have been cut". And that just isn't the case. It may have taken from years if starting from scratch, but some companies had work that they'd done for SARS-COV-1 to pick up (including in one case a vaccine that had completed phase 3 trials but was dropped because there was no need for it as the disease just sort of petered out).
Also with COVID, governments have placed pre-orders for hundreds of million of doses. I don't think that's ever happened before and it's a huge incentive to pharmaceutical companies to invest huge resources on their COVID vaccine effort, perhaps pausing other work that has a less certain payday.
Phase 3 trials have been able to be completed fairly quickly precisely because there is an epidemic. You give one cohort a placebo, and one the vaccine. Then you wait until a certain number of people in the trial get an infection. Then you "unblind" and see how many of the vaccinated people got infected vs how many who received the placebo, and you compare the severity of any infections too. That allows you to work out the efficacy of the vaccine candidate. With vaccine for other diseases (which might be much more deadly but far less prevalant), it can indeed take years to accumulate that statistical evidence. Phase 1 and 2 are mostly about safety, phase 3 is mostly about efficacy.

So I don't believe any "corners have been cut" in terms of the research, safet and trialling. Where corners have been cut will be in greenlighting development work, allocating resources in terms of researchers, capital, equipment, facilities, statisticians, commissioning trials, proceeding through the project pipeline etc. Companies have done this precisely because they have a guaranteed market for a successful vaccine.
Similarly with the liability waivers some governments have granted and conspiracy theorists are using to "prove" it's not safe, - that's not about rushing out an unsafe vaccine, that's about removing commercial risk for pharmaceutical companies so that they don't waste month or years prevaricating whilst their investment boards examine the risk profile, mitigations etc etc. It doesn't increase the risk that any individual will be one of the very unlucky people that has some kind of severe adverse reaction, it just means that the government rather than the company will pick up the cost of compensation etc that may result. Arguably, that's a better prospect anyway.

Be careful not to confuse anti-vaxxers with those who simply wish to wait and see if there are any unforseen side effects. If you're low risk I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance, given the rapid development of the vacine and the government's shambolic handling of more-or-less every aspect of the pandemic. For the record, I don't believe the vaccine contains a microchip and I accept that there's absolutely no proof it's unsafe, I will however happily wait to get it (I won't be elligible for a while yet in any case).

 

[Dent]

Be careful not to confuse anti-vaxxers with those who simply wish to wait and see if there are any unforseen side effects.

Seeing whether there are any unforeseen side effects is the main point of the trials, which it has already passed.

 

[DustyBin]

Seeing whether there are any unforeseen side effects is the main point of the trials, which it has already passed.

That should of course be enough, but it's not unheard of for issues to come to light subsequently. Unless your confidence in the process is unflinching, I can see why people are reluctant. The same as I wouldn't blame people for swerving the 737 MAX for a while!

 

[Darandio]

Seeing whether there are any unforeseen side effects is the main point of the trials, which it has already passed.

But that isn't the end of any possibility of further side effects, both short and longer term.

 

[Dent]

But that isn't the end of any possibility of further side effects, both short and longer term.

What would it take to satisfy you that the absoloute end of any possibility of further effects has been reached? Isn't that a completely unrealistic goal, and persuing it at the expense of taking sensible precautions a dangerous strategy?

 

[notlob.divad]

Be careful not to confuse anti-vaxxers with those who simply wish to wait and see if there are any unforseen side effects. If you're low risk I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance, given the rapid development of the vacine and the government's shambolic handling of more-or-less every aspect of the pandemic. For the record, I don't believe the vaccine contains a microchip and I accept that there's absolutely no proof it's unsafe, I will however happily wait to get it (I won't be elligible for a while yet in any case).

Low Risk of death <> low risk of long covid.

40% of people recovering from the SARS outbreak still had chronic fatigue symptoms 3.5 years later. Whilst Covid-19 seems to be lower than this, I will take my chances with a vaccine that has a faction of that risk.

Personally I will be front of the queue to take any vaccine if and when I may be offered it. At 34 years of age that will be a long long time away, but even if I was offered it yesterday I would have. If I was eligable I would have happily taken part on the trials. Why would I do this? Because I trust in the science and the scientists. I trust that they get to the positions they do through the expertise they have. I trust in the procedures, non of which have been bypassed or compromised in these trials. As has been pointed out above, it is far easier to gather the data required to prove the efficacy of a pharmacutical when the global pandemic you are trying to fight is happening all around. Combined with an understanding that the early sign off, from the UK government has been for a single batch production of this vaccine. Meaning future batches will have to be signed off individually, until they can be signed off on mass. The rest of Europe is waiting for all the data so they can sign off all of the batches in one go.

I don't trust the politicians in the slightest, the government has in your words, shown shambolic handling of the pandemic, and I have no doubt their roll out of the vaccine will be equally shambolic. But when it comes to my turn, (if I get a turn) at getting a needle stuck in my arm, at that point it isn't the government that I am putting my trust in. But the years and decades of careers that have gone into studying immunology since 1798 wher Dr Jenner triggered the movement from inoculation to vaccination.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Dec 2020 ==

But that isn't the end of any possibility of further side effects, both short and longer term.

And no amount of testing in other people will prove that any individual won't have an adverse reaction. You are looking for something that can never be proven.

In the meantime people are dying, other people are getting horrendously sick, and some people will never fully recover from the after effects; whilst you can play your part in developing the 'herd immunity' to surpress this.

It really is that simple. You are trying to conflate a miniscule but unquantifiable risk to yourself, with a large quantified risk to the wider population. There is a word for people who do that, but I won't use it through fear of causing offence, which is not my intention.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Dec 2020 ==

What would it take to satisfy you that the absoloute end of any possibility of further effects has been reached? Isn't that a completely unrealistic goal, and persuing it at the expense of taking sensible precautions a dangerous strategy?

Nail on head. Very succinctly put. Sadly my response was a bit mroe long winded.

 

[DB]

But that isn't the end of any possibility of further side effects, both short and longer term.

Indeed, and the shortened testing period could mean that if there are any longer term issues, they won't have been seen yet. This is one of the reasons for the normal testing timescale.

 

[notlob.divad]

That should of course be enough, but it's not unheard of for issues to come to light subsequently. Unless your confidence in the process is unflinching, I can see why people are reluctant. The same as I wouldn't blame people for swerving the 737 MAX for a while!

Completely false comparison. You choosing to get on or not get on a 737 Max, only impacts you. You choosing not to take a vaccination offered to you impacts everyone you may come into for the rest of your life. Once again, instead of taking the tiny, infinitesimally small risk to yourself, you are choosing to load the wider population with a much bigger risk.

 

[DB]

Completely false comparison. You choosing to get on or not get on a 737 Max, only impacts you. You choosing not to take a vaccination offered to you impacts everyone you may come into for the rest of your life. Once again, instead of taking the tiny, infinitesimally small risk to yourself, you are choosing to load the wider population with a much bigger risk.

If people consider themselves to be particularly at risk, they can have the vaccine themselves then, can't they? We don't expect everyone to have the flu vaccine because a small proportion of people are particularly at risk from flu.

How did we get to this point where anyone who doesn't go along with the government completely has become a granny killer or similar?

 

[Darandio]

And no amount of testing in other people will prove that any individual won't have an adverse reaction. You are looking for something that can never be proven.

In the meantime people are dying, other people are getting horrendously sick, and some people will never fully recover from the after effects; whilst you can play your part in developing the 'herd immunity' to surpress this.

It really is that simple. You are trying to conflate a miniscule but unquantifiable risk to yourself, with a large quantified risk to the wider population. There is a word for people who do that, but I won't use it through fear of causing offence, which is not my intention.

Go for it, i'm a grown man and I can handle it. I'll tread the eggshells less though, your response there was pure brainwashed piffle.

 

[notlob.divad]

If people consider themselves to be particularly at risk, they can have the vaccine themselves then, can't they? We don't expect everyone to have the flu vaccine because a small proportion of people are particularly at risk from flu.

How did we get to this point where anyone who doesn't go along with the government completely has become a granny killer or similar?

No they can't, because some people's immune system may already be compromised meaning, that the infinitesimally small risk to you gets magnified if they were to take a vaccine.

How did we get to the point where this narrow minded me me me capitalist attitude has taken over from the wider benefits of doing what is best for society as a whole, watching out for your fellow citizen, particularly if they are less fortunate than yourself?

(Don't answer that becasue I already know!!!!)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Dec 2020 ==

Go for it, i'm a grown man and I can handle it. I'll tread the eggshells less though, your response there was pure brainwashed piffle.

It isn't brainwashed piffle, it is an education and understanding of science and statistics. A critical thinking response to information I am exposed to, and a willingness to drill down into the detail of what I am talking about. Something that is sadly missing in wider society.

 

[Bantamzen]

No they can't, because some people's immune system may already be compromised meaning, that the infinitesimally small risk to you gets magnified if they were to take a vaccine.

You do realise that these scenarios are not exclusive to Covid right? For example my late step-father eventually died as a result of a common cold following extensive chemotherapy for leukaemia. As terrible as the situation was, no-one in my family demanded that the whole of the village / county he lived in were confined to quarters to stop any risk of him. He / we knew the risks, the consultants knew the risks, and decisions where made to try to keep him as safe as possible for as long as possible.

In the case of Covid, the vaccine will allow the vast majority of those at risk to have the vaccine where they can & choose to. As more do, so the risk to the NHS reduces drastically meaning we don't need these kind of hysterical responses because most people at risk will have a greater level of protection. For those that cannot have them, that is a matter for them, their consultants & family to discuss & mitigate for. If you are expecting an entire society to stay at home because of the risks to a few, then you can kiss goodbye to the vaccine & the NHS for reasons that by know should be bloody obvious.

 

[Yew]

Completely false comparison. You choosing to get on or not get on a 737 Max, only impacts you. You choosing not to take a vaccination offered to you impacts everyone you may come into for the rest of your life. Once again, instead of taking the tiny, infinitesimally small risk to yourself, you are choosing to load the wider population with a much bigger risk.

How exactly, none of the vaccines have studies the effect on transmission...

 

[DB]

(Don't answer that becasue I already know!!!!)

Ok then, all-knowing one - do tell us!

Afraid I don't have much patience with people like you, who seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is deserving of contempt.

 

[notlob.divad]

You do realise that these scenarios are not exclusive to Covid right? For example my late step-father eventually died as a result of a common cold following extensive chemotherapy for leukaemia. As terrible as the situation was, no-one in my family demanded that the whole of the village / county he lived in were confined to quarters to stop any risk of him. He / we knew the risks, the consultants knew the risks, and decisions where made to try to keep him as safe as possible for as long as possible.

In the case of Covid, the vaccine will allow the vast majority of those at risk to have the vaccine where they can & choose to. As more do, so the risk to the NHS reduces drastically meaning we don't need these kind of hysterical responses because most people at risk will have a greater level of protection. For those that cannot have them, that is a matter for them, their consultants & family to discuss & mitigate for. If you are expecting an entire society to stay at home because of the risks to a few, then you can kiss goodbye to the vaccine & the NHS for reasons that by know should be bloody obvious.

You have clearly missunderstood what I have been saying. No I don't expect (long term) for an entire society to lock itself away to protect a few.

What I would expect is people to embrace the very low risk preventative measure of getting vaccinated when their time comes in order for society to reach a new post covid normality in the most timely fashion. I would hope that this period has woken us all up to how closely we are interconnected to each other, even to people who's name you may not know, or who's face you may have never seen before. Thus I hope our new post covid normality brings out the compassionate society that we used to have. Where we look after one another, where those of us who can carry the burden do so on behalf of those less fortunate. That goes for all things, not just taking a vaccine when it is offered to you, but being proud to pay a higher share of taxes, to help those who have lost their jobs during this time, and choosing to travel by cleaner forms of transport= to protect the lungs of those around you.

 

[DB]

You have clearly missunderstood what I have been saying. No I don't expect (long term) for an entire society to lock itself away to protect a few.

What I would expect is people to embrace the very low risk preventative measure of getting vaccinated when their time comes in order for society to reach a new post covid normality in the most timely fashion. I would hope that this period has woken us all up to how closely we are interconnected to each other, even to people who's name you may not know, or who's face you may have never seen before. Thus I hope our new post covid normality brings out the compassionate society that we used to have. Where we look after one another, where those of us who can carry the burden do so on behalf of those less fortunate. That goes for all things, not just taking a vaccine when it is offered to you, but being proud to pay a higher share of taxes, to help those who have lost their jobs during this time, and choosing to travel by cleaner forms of transport= to protect the lungs of those around you.

So basically, you are saying that those who disagree with you are antisocial. How charming.

To take just one of your examples, I don't own a car and use public transport, but I don't go around delivering partronising lectures to car drivers telling that they should all do the same.

An he reaslly hasn't misunderstood you - you are clearly saying that everyone should have the vaccine to protect the miniscule number who are both at serious risk and can't have the vaccine themselves. Are you going to be demanding that everyone has the flu vaccine? Because exactly the same will apply there and those who can't have the Covid vaccine may well not be able to have the flu one either!

 

[bramling]

Completely false comparison. You choosing to get on or not get on a 737 Max, only impacts you. You choosing not to take a vaccination offered to you impacts everyone you may come into for the rest of your life. Once again, instead of taking the tiny, infinitesimally small risk to yourself, you are choosing to load the wider population with a much bigger risk.

I am getting so sick of this attitude, and to be honest this simply further discourages me from taking any vaccine. I am fast approaching the point of abandoning *all* Covid mitigation measures. I’m by no means the only person who is starting to feel this way.

 

[notlob.divad]

Ok then, all-knowing one - do tell us!

Afraid I don't have much patience with people like you, who seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is deserving of contempt.

And I have no patience for people who spout nonsense arguements without first going off and doing the nessesary research from reliable sources.