Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Tom Stinny said:

I'm a 26 year old lad with a partner whose slightly older. This mentality of if you don't get vaccinated your selfish, dangerous and should be basically segregated from society is wrong, immoral and inhuman. 

 

Where is your compassion and logical thinking? What about the thousands who will have died through cancelled hospital appointments, suicides from lost businesses, incomes and homes. 

 

Of course it is and it will never happen, but by refusing a vaccine you are allowing the virus to flourish - People need to be made to see this.

As for your cancelled appointments point, they have died because this incompetant Government's inability to make the hard decisions and lockdown properly has caused our hospitals to be at breaking point. It's not the restrictions that have caused these deaths, but the lack of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 15.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • chaddyrovers

    1361

  • Gav

    1241

  • den

    1085

  • philipl

    994

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

False dichotomy alert. I don't quite see how the two are related. I mean it's not an either or is it? Given the furlough and mortgage schemes (both excellent btw) are already in place before Cumm

Have spent a couple of days thinking what to write on here as I am utterly bewildered as to what this so called government is up to regarding schools. Firstly, before Christmas my school had seve

as you know i dont post on here anymore but i will this once just to wish everyone the best and hope everyone stays safe and comes thru at the other side  of this sad mess.  i would also like to

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

Of course it is and it will never happen, but by refusing a vaccine you are allowing the virus to flourish - People need to be made to see this.

As for your cancelled appointments point, they have died because this incompetant Government's inability to make the hard decisions and lockdown properly has caused our hospitals to be at breaking point. It's not the restrictions that have caused these deaths, but the lack of them.

The quote "NHS at breaking point" has been used every years for almost the last decade while the government still cut funding and staff numbers.

 

Like I said how can i do what the government say when they don't do it themselves, example being Boris doing a 7 mile bike ride away from his home during lockdown.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

This is so very true! 

Mate it's mad. My mum was diagnosed as terminal with cancer almost three years ago but luckily thank God see got better. If that has started last year she would have died.

 

I feel for the others who have been forgotten and tossed to the side. Cancer is just one disease that is far deadlier than covid ever has or will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimbo said:

 

Ah! The ME! ME! culture - It's not about personal choice, it's about social responsibilty. Every person that refuses a vaccine deminishes the effectiveness by a small amount, the more that refuse the more people there are  in the virus pool for Covid to carry on reproducing.

 

There should be some draconian penalties for these people, refuse the vaccine and be denied access to medical facilities for Covid related  issues. |If you don't want to do your part, then you don't get the benefits.

Germany is talking about opening up restaurants, theatres etc to those who have had the vaccine and refusing entry to those who haven't had it yet or have refused to have it. 

The problems with along with that route are obvious but it is one way forward to force people to go along with vaccinations.

I've never had a flu jab and have to say a while ago I wasn't keen on  having the Covid vaccination (not the same as being anti-vax) but this virus is getting closer to home and I will be having it when the call comes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, philipl said:

Overwhelming reason for getting the vaccine.

It makes you 99.96% protected.

https://www.economicsobservatory.com/question/what-does-95-effective-mean-covid-19-vaccine

This is a really important and lucid clarification. Thanks for posting.

I do think how the "efficacy" numbers are reported does cause a lot of confusion. Both in the way described in the article and also in terms of how it describes the chances of getting Covid overall but does not express the near 100% prevention of serious illness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RoverDom said:

Also surely the only people who should fear unvaccinated people is other unvaccinated people? 

I think this is basically true but with a couple of caveats : 

  1. Probably will take the rest of this year to vaccinate everyone, so in the lag there will be a lot of people who are vulnerable
  2. The absolute hypothesis and purpose of the vaccine is to prevent serious illness in anyone who has had the vaccine. However that hasn't actually been fully tested at scale. Studies have only had thousands of participants (who have been healthy adults, not frail people) not millions. So it does need to be seen that the vaccine is truly near 100% effective at preventing serious illness. (But as said before if that isn't the case we are in a really bad position). 

There is an interesting question of moral hazard coming up about what to do about vulnerable people who refuse the vaccine. Do they get factored into decisions when lockdown is eased, or is it more a "you make your choice you take your chances"? I suspect realistically the driving factor will be forecasting how many hospitailsations will the refuseniks generate, and is that within the threshold of what is acceptable to the health infrastructure. If its a few % points of people in the risk categories maybe it doesn't make much difference. If its 30% then maybe it does....

The key thing for us now is the hospitalisation / ICU forecast, specifically validating that the vaccine will vastly reduce admissions to hospital and then ICU for COVID. As far as I can tell valuating that should not be rocket science. NHS admissions will be able to check the vaccination date of every single new patient. If there are no/very few admissions for COVID for those who had a jab over 3 weeks ago then great. If on the other hand even relatively low numbers of vaccinated patients get admitted we will desperately need to understand why, and compare to the stats before jabs to see how big an issue we have. If no significant reductions to hospital/ICU then panic stations. But that is not expected. 

Looking at the government stats around 1.5M 80+ follks have been vaccinated over 3 weeks ago. So we should (hopefully) be seeing none of them coming into hospital for COVID, or if they do only for mild cases. 

I do think those who think we should wait to open up until everyone is vaccinated, rather than just those who drive hospital admissions, are not being realistic. Obviously social distancing will be in place to keep things under control, but a significant rise in the infection rate will be accepted as long as hospitalisations remain under control. Remember the reason we are in this lockdown is for hospitalisations and deaths, not infections. 

Edited by joey_big_nose
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RoverDom said:

Interesting debate on the whole mandated vaccines / anti vax issue on GMB, caught the tail end of it. 

I really detest anti-vaxers however do agree it's about personal choice. One lady stated that currently she wouldnt take it because the current advice is if you are pregnant or looking to get pregnant soon, dont have it. Apart from susanna she was imo belittled for this view despite what I think is a pretty valid concern and one me and my partner discussed at length  before she had her jab. 

Interestingly the response from Dr Hillary Jones was "that's only because we dont have the data yet". I wouldnt find that particularly comforting. 

Especially concerning that 'Dr. Hillary' was going on about data. As far as I'm aware (going off recent experience and recommendations from our midwives) the only vaccines actually safe during pregnancy are the flu and whooping cough vaccines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

There is an interesting question of moral hazard coming up about what to do about vulnerable people who refuse the vaccine. Do they get factored into decisions when lockdown is eased, or is it more a "you make your choice you take your chances"? I

 I'm very much of the 'make your choice take your chances' mindset. I dont beleive in mandatory vaccinations but if you refuse to take it you cant expect everyone else to stay locked away for you, you've been offered a way out. I could refuse to wear my seatbelt but I wouldnt expect the speed limit to be halved to accommodate my refusal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

 I'm very much of the 'make your choice take your chances' mindset. I dont beleive in mandatory vaccinations but if you refuse to take it you cant expect everyone else to stay locked away for you, you've been offered a way out. I could refuse to wear my seatbelt but I wouldnt expect the speed limit to be halved to accommodate my refusal. 

I know but if people refuse the vaccine and end up in hospital the existing situation continues. It's not possible for medics to refuse to treat people ethically, morally or professionally. The whole profession is built on treating everyone.

If people refuse the vaccine in significant numbers we stay in lockdown longer. Those who refuse should be reminded of this fact...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tom Stinny said:

Like I said how can i do what the government say when they don't do it themselves, example being Boris doing a 7 mile bike ride away from his home during lockdown.

God knows I can find plenty of things to complain about Johnson but I'm not sure this is one. It's not at all clear to me that going 7 miles for a bike ride is against any guidelines - if it is I've been breaking them as well. If you're allowed to go out on a bike then it must be OK to say ride for an hour and even an overweight 68 year old me can do 14 miles in an hour. Given I ride by myself so don't come anywhere near anyone else on my ride I can't see how that's risking anything.

If what he did was get driven to the Olympic Park for a bike ride then maybe that's against the rules, but even then I can see that it might make more sense given he has to have a security detail with him, it might be less safe to ride right through town to get there.

Frankly driving with an entourage to Bristol the day after just for a photo op at Ashton Gate was quite a bit worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im extremely concerned at the speed with which this vaccine has been rolled out and have said so before on this forum. Does that mean I won't have it? Almost certainly it doesn't. I'll be watching my health like a hawk afterwards and anxious about any side effects but in the end it comes down to the lesser of 2 evils. 

When my eldest daughter was small there were a lot of studies linking whooping cough vaccine to possible autism risks. I discussed these with my GP . He asked if I'd ever seen a child with whooping cough or one who had suffered the long term problems it can cause and told me that he had and, given the choice, he'd have his child vaccinated (and had in fact done so) even with a slightly raised risk of autism. Weve all seen the effects of Covid-19 through the medium of TV if not in the flesh. Weigh that against a small potential risk of the vaccine affecting you badly and decide. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some really encouraging news that the restrictions and school closures are starting to bring the infection rates down across some parts of the country. The current rates are still significantly higher than we saw in the spring, but they are starting to come down.

If this trend continues we shouldn't see any further tightening of the restrictions, but one thing about this pandemic, you can't predict what will happen next, but the current signs are encouraging.  

🤞

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware. apart from the two who were vaccinated on the first day and had a reaction (although they were both susceptible) I haven't seen any media stories about anyone having a reaction. I assume therefore that it is vanishingly rare and/or the effects are minor.

I had whooping cough as a young kid - bloody horrible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

I know but if people refuse the vaccine and end up in hospital the existing situation continues. It's not possible for medics to refuse to treat people ethically, morally or professionally. The whole profession is built on treating everyone.

If people refuse the vaccine in significant numbers we stay in lockdown longer. Those who refuse should be reminded of this fact...

Part of the answer to the first one is a properly funded health service. 

As for the second point, if the numbers are significant then maybe you do need to start enforcing it? 

Edited by RoverDom
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderation Lead

Just been catching up with this thread after a busy morning....

Had to hide a few posts directed at some posters politely asking legitimate questions having their intelligence questioned in doing so.

I know we are all having a bad time at the minute, but that doesn’t mean that manners and politeness should be escaping you.

It’s possible to disagree with people without being rude. To summarise- civility is king.

There won’t be any further warnings like this, only bans issued. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

Part of the answer to the first one is a properly funded health service. 

As for the second point, if the numbers are significant then maybe you do need to start enforcing it? 

Personally I think it will be done in a private way. Maybe airlines don’t allow people to fly without “health cards” or whatever. People will end up having it to allow themselves to do everything they want to do. 
 

I think if govt tried to enforce it there’d be riots. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Personally I think it will be done in a private way. Maybe airlines don’t allow people to fly without “health cards” or whatever. People will end up having it to allow themselves to do everything they want to do. 
 

I think if govt tried to enforce it there’d be riots. 

It could well turn out that other countries won't let you cross their borders if you haven't had the vaccine in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Personally I think it will be done in a private way. Maybe airlines don’t allow people to fly without “health cards” or whatever. People will end up having it to allow themselves to do everything they want to do. 
 

I think if govt tried to enforce it there’d be riots. 

Yes it's really hard to see how the government forcing people to have injections will end well.

I am sure genuine fear of catching it + enormous peer pressure will do the trick and the vulenrable groups will overwhelming uptake. Those in the non-vulnerable groups will have lower take up but will present less of an issue for the NHS. Reckon it will come out at well above 80% by end of the programme.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

Covid-related deaths in care homes in England jump by 46%

 

This is  a bloody disgrace, have this Government learned nothing since May - What the hell happened to Hancock's ring of steel ?

Thankfully care home residents and staff have been prioritised in the vaccine roll out, its the only sure way to make sure people are protected.

Its sadly to late for many care home residents, the inquiry thats coming should focus on the scandal that is care homes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although the vaccines were developed really quickly there is no need to be concerned about safety outside of the same risks that apply to other vaccines (MMR, polio etc.).

Dr. Hillary is right that there have not been many (if any) done on pregnant populations. They will but the results will take longer to come out. Being pregnant and having coronavirus can cause all sorts of problems though. As Philip says, it's a vascular disease. Pregnancy increases blood flow dramatically.

Coronavirus wasn't hard to replicate, nor was it hard to develop. I think it took Moderna 24 hours or so to come up with the blueprint for theirs. The world learned a lot via HIV medicine development. This expertise was transposed onto Covid and the results are now bearing fruit.  

Getting the vaccine is an individual choice. That choice though has ramifications to society as a whole. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jimbo said:

 

As Jim has pointed out the two subjects are intrinsically linked.

Of course, they're linked. They're the same sort of people with the same sort of views. They were on view on Capitol Hill last week too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.