Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
How Likely Are You To Take The Covid Vaccine?
Comments
-
Interesting comment. We missed out on our 40th wedding anniversary holiday this year and have re-booked for next year. Intended to have vaccine anyway but if I require it to get a ‘vaccine passport’ in order to enter Indonesia ... which is quite possible ... then fine with me.Stonewallpenalty19 said:People will suddenly find the risks a lot less if they can't go on holiday. Wait until the summer and then use their own selfishness against them.
my sister-in-law is an avid anti-vaxxer, but also likes to travel frequently. Will be intriguing to see what she does.0 -
ThanksWattsTheMatter said:Without going into the particular detail, I always get uneasy when I see Dr Yeadon involved. His claim in October that the pandemic in the UK is 'effectively over', a take that really hasn't aged well given the numbers since.
He has also claimed London has herd immunity, which would require around 70% of the population of the capital to have had it, which would make London's level of cases significantly higher than Bergamo, New York or Madrid, all of whom experienced horrific situations in the first wave.
As for Wodarg, who claimed COVID-19 is no more dangerous than the seasonal flu, I would hope we can all see how poorly that has aged.
I do not dispute the medical credentials of these two individuals. But I cannot help but feel sceptical about their intentions currently- their stances have been purely contrarian from the beginning of the pandemic, and both have seemed relatively comfortable with their statements being used to fuel conspiracy theories.
Their point about PCR is an interesting one, but I note that neither doctor has expressed concerns regarding the usage of PCR for forensic purposes, not for the many other conditions it is used for as diagnostics (HIV and TB to name just two).0 -
My sister in law works in a care home. She’s an anti vaxxer and subscribes to most of the loop fruit conspiracy theories. I’ve no idea whether the care home industry will require employees to be vaccinated but she has quite a decision to make if they do.2
-
Now that will be interesting.ShootersHillGuru said:My sister in law works in a care home. She’s an anti vaxxer and subscribes to most of the loop fruit conspiracy theories. I’ve no idea whether the care home industry will require employees to be vaccinated but she has quite a decision to make if they do.0 -
My sister in laws argument is that vaccines are full of poisonsShootersHillGuru said:My sister in law works in a care home. She’s an anti vaxxer and subscribes to most of the loop fruit conspiracy theories. I’ve no idea whether the care home industry will require employees to be vaccinated but she has quite a decision to make if they do.
0 -
Around 600,000 people die "normally" in a year.McBobbin said:
What use would that statistic be? One report I saw shows that if you catch covid your risk of dying in a particular year doubles. So for most people that not very likely. You only need to look at the excess deaths over the spring to show that many more people died than would have died normally.thewolfboy said:
The problem with these statistics is that they are malleable. People, especially the geriatrics, were dying anyway and Covid-19 was the last straw that wiped them out. Poor things. The point being is that they many of these old folk were at deaths door anyway with cancer and suchlike, but Covid-19 was given as the killer on the death certificate. I wish we had a statistic of previously healthy people who suddenly died of Covid-19.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ve posted this before and don’t mean to minimise the importance of thalidomide and those that were affected by it. It was a tragedy.
The point I’m making is that thalidomide affected 10,000 people. A tragedy no question but Covid-19 has already killed 60,000 people in this country alone and 1.5 million people worldwide.
Around a tenth of that amount (60,000) excess deaths will occur this year.
It is fair to ask whether the majority of those excess deaths were children, adults with families, or people over 80.
I believe a child dying or being born with no limbs is a 10,000 times worse than a demented 94 year old dying from flu, cancer covid or whatever. It's only my opinion but I'm sure my demented 94 year old mother would have agreed with me before she died earlier this year.
2 -
I’m gonna leave this thread again for a bit.2
-
Your posts have been very informative and helpful, Canters. Your other half will know more and understand better the ins and outs of vaccination than pretty much everyone on this planet, bar a few, maybe!
Good work.2 -
Stonemuse, as has been pointed out already, the information in your quote is dodgy AF. Not least the way they conflate the production of antibodies with a hyperimmune response.
Where did you find it?0 -
I posted the link.bigstemarra said:Stonemuse, as has been pointed out already, the information in your quote is dodgy AF. Not least the way they conflate the production of antibodies with a hyperimmune response.
Where did you find it?https://2020news.de/en/dr-wodarg-and-dr-yeadon-request-a-stop-of-all-corona-vaccination-studies-and-call-for-co-signing-the-petition/As I mentioned, it’s beyond me and wanted some feedback ... which has been gratefully received. Always good to look at and analyse counter-arguments or theories.Hasn’t changed my mind, I will still take the vaccine.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Once again, we appear to have entered the 'surivial of the fittest' phase of discussions. Nothing like a bit of Internet banter on who deserves to live or die, eh? Just lucky you weren't around in Bergamo during the first wave when doctors were *literally* having to make that choice because they'd run out of respirators.
Have a word with yourselves ffs.6 -
We all make that choice every day. Unfortunately most people make the wrong choice.
https://www.anthonynolan.org/8-ways-you-could-save-life/donate-your-stem-cells
0 -
Good information Canters. I’m pro vaccine but still found that comforting and useful. It’s the kind of information that needs a wider audience and I’ll now have that in my armoury if/when my parents get nervous about it.cantersaddick said:
See my post on the top of page 16. Below is a section from that. The testing part of the process is just as thorough as before. it has not been rushed.iainment said:
If it normally takes 10+ years to get a vaccine to market I’d be way happier after some more time. Or if the producing companies were happy to go to market without needing government indemnities.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:I think we need at least a 60% take up for this to work - we need to protect those who won't take the vaccine. The anti-vaxxers seem to be growing in number and I doubt any vaccine will meet their criteria.
I keep hearing from some that they're not happy with the way the vaccine has been tested but they're unable to explain at what point the testing will be okay?
I am closer to taking it than before but every time I think it might be something I could live with something else comes up like the indemnity issue.
As for the claims that "the testing has been rushed". I am assured they are completely untrue. In fact I'm told that due to the timescales these have been made to jump through more hoops not less. Yes Vaccines usually take years to be approved but the delays are not due to testing they are due to factors including; gaining funding, finding sponsors, getting senior academics to support testing, getting testing facilities, getting enough people to volunteer for the trials, getting enough research assistants to analyse the results, by the time that's all done people lose motivation for the write up as its taken years so the writing of the results itself is known to take years, it then has to wait in a queue for the approval process. The global pandemic has focused the minds of the whole world on this, governments, institutions and companies are throwing money at it, all lab space and research expertise have been given to it, every academic wants to sponsor it, more people are willing to volunteer for the trials, all efforts are focused on this and its prioritised for the approval. That is where the time has been saved, the actual testing has been as rigorous as with any other vaccine.
We dont yet know what proportion of the population will require the vaccine in order to be able to go about our lives as normal but it is thought to be very high - so anyone offered it should take it. There is no point thinking "well I wont have it but I will gain from the herd immunity of everyone else getting it" we simply don't know at what point that will happen (or if it will - the virus could be like flu requiring a new vaccine every season for the vulnerable at least).0 -
Are you suggesting that children will be born without limbs and die because of the covid vaccine?stevexreeve said:
Around 600,000 people die "normally" in a year.McBobbin said:
What use would that statistic be? One report I saw shows that if you catch covid your risk of dying in a particular year doubles. So for most people that not very likely. You only need to look at the excess deaths over the spring to show that many more people died than would have died normally.thewolfboy said:
The problem with these statistics is that they are malleable. People, especially the geriatrics, were dying anyway and Covid-19 was the last straw that wiped them out. Poor things. The point being is that they many of these old folk were at deaths door anyway with cancer and suchlike, but Covid-19 was given as the killer on the death certificate. I wish we had a statistic of previously healthy people who suddenly died of Covid-19.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ve posted this before and don’t mean to minimise the importance of thalidomide and those that were affected by it. It was a tragedy.
The point I’m making is that thalidomide affected 10,000 people. A tragedy no question but Covid-19 has already killed 60,000 people in this country alone and 1.5 million people worldwide.
Around a tenth of that amount (60,000) excess deaths will occur this year.
It is fair to ask whether the majority of those excess deaths were children, adults with families, or people over 80.
I believe a child dying or being born with no limbs is a 10,000 times worse than a demented 94 year old dying from flu, cancer covid or whatever. It's only my opinion but I'm sure my demented 94 year old mother would have agreed with me before she died earlier this year.2 -
Crackpot false dichotomystevexreeve said:
Around 600,000 people die "normally" in a year.McBobbin said:
What use would that statistic be? One report I saw shows that if you catch covid your risk of dying in a particular year doubles. So for most people that not very likely. You only need to look at the excess deaths over the spring to show that many more people died than would have died normally.thewolfboy said:
The problem with these statistics is that they are malleable. People, especially the geriatrics, were dying anyway and Covid-19 was the last straw that wiped them out. Poor things. The point being is that they many of these old folk were at deaths door anyway with cancer and suchlike, but Covid-19 was given as the killer on the death certificate. I wish we had a statistic of previously healthy people who suddenly died of Covid-19.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ve posted this before and don’t mean to minimise the importance of thalidomide and those that were affected by it. It was a tragedy.
The point I’m making is that thalidomide affected 10,000 people. A tragedy no question but Covid-19 has already killed 60,000 people in this country alone and 1.5 million people worldwide.
Around a tenth of that amount (60,000) excess deaths will occur this year.
It is fair to ask whether the majority of those excess deaths were children, adults with families, or people over 80.
I believe a child dying or being born with no limbs is a 10,000 times worse than a demented 94 year old dying from flu, cancer covid or whatever. It's only my opinion but I'm sure my demented 94 year old mother would have agreed with me before she died earlier this year.3 -
FTFYMcBobbin said:
Crackpotstevexreeve said:
Around 600,000 people die "normally" in a year.McBobbin said:
What use would that statistic be? One report I saw shows that if you catch covid your risk of dying in a particular year doubles. So for most people that not very likely. You only need to look at the excess deaths over the spring to show that many more people died than would have died normally.thewolfboy said:
The problem with these statistics is that they are malleable. People, especially the geriatrics, were dying anyway and Covid-19 was the last straw that wiped them out. Poor things. The point being is that they many of these old folk were at deaths door anyway with cancer and suchlike, but Covid-19 was given as the killer on the death certificate. I wish we had a statistic of previously healthy people who suddenly died of Covid-19.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ve posted this before and don’t mean to minimise the importance of thalidomide and those that were affected by it. It was a tragedy.
The point I’m making is that thalidomide affected 10,000 people. A tragedy no question but Covid-19 has already killed 60,000 people in this country alone and 1.5 million people worldwide.
Around a tenth of that amount (60,000) excess deaths will occur this year.
It is fair to ask whether the majority of those excess deaths were children, adults with families, or people over 80.
I believe a child dying or being born with no limbs is a 10,000 times worse than a demented 94 year old dying from flu, cancer covid or whatever. It's only my opinion but I'm sure my demented 94 year old mother would have agreed with me before she died earlier this year.1 -
Wtf is going on inside your head?stevexreeve said:
Around 600,000 people die "normally" in a year.McBobbin said:
What use would that statistic be? One report I saw shows that if you catch covid your risk of dying in a particular year doubles. So for most people that not very likely. You only need to look at the excess deaths over the spring to show that many more people died than would have died normally.thewolfboy said:
The problem with these statistics is that they are malleable. People, especially the geriatrics, were dying anyway and Covid-19 was the last straw that wiped them out. Poor things. The point being is that they many of these old folk were at deaths door anyway with cancer and suchlike, but Covid-19 was given as the killer on the death certificate. I wish we had a statistic of previously healthy people who suddenly died of Covid-19.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ve posted this before and don’t mean to minimise the importance of thalidomide and those that were affected by it. It was a tragedy.
The point I’m making is that thalidomide affected 10,000 people. A tragedy no question but Covid-19 has already killed 60,000 people in this country alone and 1.5 million people worldwide.
Around a tenth of that amount (60,000) excess deaths will occur this year.
It is fair to ask whether the majority of those excess deaths were children, adults with families, or people over 80.
I believe a child dying or being born with no limbs is a 10,000 times worse than a demented 94 year old dying from flu, cancer covid or whatever. It's only my opinion but I'm sure my demented 94 year old mother would have agreed with me before she died earlier this year.3 -
A 90-year-old woman from Northern Ireland has become the first person in the world to receive the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine outside trial conditions - marking the start of the UK's mass vaccination programme.
Margaret Keenan, from Enniskillen, said she felt "so privileged" to receive the jab at University Hospital, Coventry.
7 -
hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Wtf is going on inside your head?stevexreeve said:
Around 600,000 people die "normally" in a year.McBobbin said:
What use would that statistic be? One report I saw shows that if you catch covid your risk of dying in a particular year doubles. So for most people that not very likely. You only need to look at the excess deaths over the spring to show that many more people died than would have died normally.thewolfboy said:
The problem with these statistics is that they are malleable. People, especially the geriatrics, were dying anyway and Covid-19 was the last straw that wiped them out. Poor things. The point being is that they many of these old folk were at deaths door anyway with cancer and suchlike, but Covid-19 was given as the killer on the death certificate. I wish we had a statistic of previously healthy people who suddenly died of Covid-19.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ve posted this before and don’t mean to minimise the importance of thalidomide and those that were affected by it. It was a tragedy.
The point I’m making is that thalidomide affected 10,000 people. A tragedy no question but Covid-19 has already killed 60,000 people in this country alone and 1.5 million people worldwide.
Around a tenth of that amount (60,000) excess deaths will occur this year.
It is fair to ask whether the majority of those excess deaths were children, adults with families, or people over 80.
I believe a child dying or being born with no limbs is a 10,000 times worse than a demented 94 year old dying from flu, cancer covid or whatever. It's only my opinion but I'm sure my demented 94 year old mother would have agreed with me before she died earlier this year.
3 -
There is just so much wrong with this. I'll gloss over what may or may not constitute a normal death. Where on earth does a child being born with no limbs come into it? Is this another ill-informed allusion to thalidomide or are you living life from the set of some slasher movie? Either way it is hideously wrong. Why are we expecting 94 year olds to have dementia? It's a bugger of an illness as you will well know, but it's not something that everybody gets. Finally, even if you can get to the point of morally deciding that one person's life is more important than another based on their age (I'm not sure that I can), you might want to think a little more about how much of a life they would lose. A newborn doesn't live anything like 10,000 times longer than a 94 year old. As it happens the difference is (perhaps surprisingly) about 25 times.stevexreeve said:
Around 600,000 people die "normally" in a year.McBobbin said:
What use would that statistic be? One report I saw shows that if you catch covid your risk of dying in a particular year doubles. So for most people that not very likely. You only need to look at the excess deaths over the spring to show that many more people died than would have died normally.thewolfboy said:
The problem with these statistics is that they are malleable. People, especially the geriatrics, were dying anyway and Covid-19 was the last straw that wiped them out. Poor things. The point being is that they many of these old folk were at deaths door anyway with cancer and suchlike, but Covid-19 was given as the killer on the death certificate. I wish we had a statistic of previously healthy people who suddenly died of Covid-19.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ve posted this before and don’t mean to minimise the importance of thalidomide and those that were affected by it. It was a tragedy.
The point I’m making is that thalidomide affected 10,000 people. A tragedy no question but Covid-19 has already killed 60,000 people in this country alone and 1.5 million people worldwide.
Around a tenth of that amount (60,000) excess deaths will occur this year.
It is fair to ask whether the majority of those excess deaths were children, adults with families, or people over 80.
I believe a child dying or being born with no limbs is a 10,000 times worse than a demented 94 year old dying from flu, cancer covid or whatever. It's only my opinion but I'm sure my demented 94 year old mother would have agreed with me before she died earlier this year.
6 -
Sponsored links:
-
Spent quite a while thinking about it, as although not anti vax at all, I am slightly, slightly skeptical.
I'll basically not have it until asked to, so if not enough people have taken it for herd immunity to kick in in order to protect society, I will put myself forward, but won't choose to as soon as I am eligible (which won't be for a long time anyway).
That way I won't be taking a vaccine off someone that would seek comfort from having one, but will take it if it is required for the benefit of society.1 -
Only posting as I keep being told I've misheard, but this info is from the government website. You may still get infected and you may still pass it on to others.. youl just get less sick even with the vaccine.
2 -
Pretty much spot on, I feel. There is a tiny, infinitesimally small risk that the vaccine will have side effects for a small group of people. That risk is worth taking to protect the most vulnerable in society. I'll be about second bottom of the queue (not in an at-risk group, not yet old enough to be in the age risk group, slightly older than the least risk group) but would have no qualms about taking it if rolled out to everyone.Huskaris said:Spent quite a while thinking about it, as although not anti vax at all, I am slightly, slightly skeptical.
I'll basically not have it until asked to, so if not enough people have taken it for herd immunity to kick in in order to protect society, I will put myself forward, but won't choose to as soon as I am eligible (which won't be for a long time anyway).
That way I won't be taking a vaccine off someone that would seek comfort from having one, but will take it if it is required for the benefit of society.2 -
I think you have misunderstood that. No vaccine is 100% effective, so this is saying "this does not guarantee you wont get ill but it does make it much less likely, if you do get ill you are again much less likely to get badly ill". Social distancing measures will still be in place until the majority of people have been vaccinated.shine166 said:Only posting as I keep being told I've misheard, but this info is from the government website. You may still get infected and you may still pass it on to others.. youl just get less sick even with the vaccine.5 -
'We do not yet know' is not the same as what you said. I understand there's no 100% success rate, but thats not what is being saidcantersaddick said:
I think you have misunderstood that. No vaccine is 100% effective, so this is saying "this does not guarantee you wont get ill but it does make it much less likely, if you do get ill you are again much less likely to get badly ill". Social distancing measures will still be in place until the majority of people have been vaccinated.shine166 said:Only posting as I keep being told I've misheard, but this info is from the government website. You may still get infected and you may still pass it on to others.. youl just get less sick even with the vaccine.4 -
I bow down to you on this because I know you know a lot more, but I thought the idea was that the vaccine did not necessarily stop you contracting the virus, but did prevent you from becoming ill from it. I think this might be separate from the 90% efficacy argument?cantersaddick said:
I think you have misunderstood that. No vaccine is 100% effective, so this is saying "this does not guarantee you wont get ill but it does make it much less likely, if you do get ill you are again much less likely to get badly ill". Social distancing measures will still be in place until the majority of people have been vaccinated.shine166 said:Only posting as I keep being told I've misheard, but this info is from the government website. You may still get infected and you may still pass it on to others.. youl just get less sick even with the vaccine.
I think the key point to focus on in that picture is "We do not yet know whether it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus" which I read as basically meaning that we know that it stops you getting severely ill with it, but don't necessarily know if you can still become "infected and infectious" but presumably with no symptoms?
I don't know if what I have said there is right...3 -
No you are right too, I think i was talking about a different part of the text there. Its not yet known whether you can pass it on which is exactly why social distancing measures will remain for the foreseeable and why its soo important that everyone that can have the vaccine does.Huskaris said:
I bow down to you on this because I know you know a lot more, but I thought the idea was that the vaccine did not necessarily stop you contracting the virus, but did prevent you from becoming ill from it. I think this might be separate from the 90% efficacy argument?cantersaddick said:
I think you have misunderstood that. No vaccine is 100% effective, so this is saying "this does not guarantee you wont get ill but it does make it much less likely, if you do get ill you are again much less likely to get badly ill". Social distancing measures will still be in place until the majority of people have been vaccinated.shine166 said:Only posting as I keep being told I've misheard, but this info is from the government website. You may still get infected and you may still pass it on to others.. youl just get less sick even with the vaccine.
I think the key point to focus on in that picture is "We do not yet know whether it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus" which I read as basically meaning that we know that it stops you getting severely ill with it, but don't necessarily know if you can still become "infected and infectious" but presumably with no symptoms?
I don't know if what I have said there is right...3 -
Exactly this, which is why there is so much buzz around the uk vaccine, as its the first to potentially stop that happening.Huskaris said:
I bow down to you on this because I know you know a lot more, but I thought the idea was that the vaccine did not necessarily stop you contracting the virus, but did prevent you from becoming ill from it. I think this might be separate from the 90% efficacy argument?cantersaddick said:
I think you have misunderstood that. No vaccine is 100% effective, so this is saying "this does not guarantee you wont get ill but it does make it much less likely, if you do get ill you are again much less likely to get badly ill". Social distancing measures will still be in place until the majority of people have been vaccinated.shine166 said:Only posting as I keep being told I've misheard, but this info is from the government website. You may still get infected and you may still pass it on to others.. youl just get less sick even with the vaccine.
I think the key point to focus on in that picture is "We do not yet know whether it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus" which I read as basically meaning that we know that it stops you getting severely ill with it, but don't necessarily know if you can still become "infected and infectious" but presumably with no symptoms?
I don't know if what I have said there is right...1 -
It's a play on words:
Rushed is a negative word; we raced to get this Vaccines ready just sounds more positive.
We need the Vaccines ASAP as this will take a heroic effort to deliver in a quick timeframe. Green light will be given and anomalies noticed. That why Oxford-AstraZeneca need to do more test of the over 55's and sort out the dosage amount.
There are risks because public confidence is paramount and to go with it in such a short time when the data can only cover months rather than years for the Guinea pigs and volunteers, but lives are being lost, as well as careers and livelihoods.
Staff in care homes should've the vaccination the same time as the old folk.
NHS and all medical staff should be in stage 1 along with the 80 year old plus and the care homes.
Pfizer you have the green light; this needs to be a winner.
0 -
Pfizer's blue tablet certainly got a firm reaction.soapboxsam said:
Pfizer you have the green light; this needs to be a winner.
0
This discussion has been closed.
