Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
How Likely Are You To Take The Covid Vaccine?
Comments
-
Do us all a favour and stay in your utopian Cannuck bubble and let the rest of the real World carrying on fighting this terrible virus.Major said:Sorry, Being called stupid by some superior know nothing twit does not sit well with me.Back on topic, despite living in a beautiful part of the world where we are not terribly affected by the restrictions, if having a jab meant I could fly back home, see my mates, enjoy the pub and most of all, get to the Valley, stick me now.2 -
0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.
0 -
I won't take untested technology in my body at least until I see the effect it has on the public first and then only MAYBE. I am cautious like everyone else in my family and some of my family have had mild forms of this disease including me.0
-
PeanutsMolloy said:0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.
But perfectly happy to risk being infected with Covid-19 which we know is a known killer or contracting it and being asymptomatic or having very mild case and spreading to other people and making them ill, very ill or even killing them. I love this attitude to life. Makes me proud.WK6824Nine said:I won't take untested technology in my body at least until I see the effect it has on the public first and then only MAYBE. I am cautious like everyone else in my family and some of my family have had mild forms of this disease including me.10 -
Tosh I'm afraid. It doesn't stop being infected or infecting others - just reduces the symptoms in the "vaccinated".ShootersHillGuru said:PeanutsMolloy said:0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.
But perfectly happy to risk being infected with Covid-19 which we know is a known killer or contracting it and being asymptomatic or having very mild case and spreading to other people and making them ill, very ill or even killing them. I love this attitude to life. Makes me proud.WK6824Nine said:I won't take untested technology in my body at least until I see the effect it has on the public first and then only MAYBE. I am cautious like everyone else in my family and some of my family have had mild forms of this disease including me.1 -
And there we have it.AddickUpNorth said:Dave Rudd said:
I don't think it's about vegans saying that they don't mind humans dying.AddickUpNorth said:
Must’ve missed where any vegans have said they don’t mind humans dying.Redrobo said:Don’t like killing animals but don’t mind humans dying. That would be very we weird.
Sometimes you gotta look at the big picture guys.
Anyhoo, to stop this going off topic I think it would be wise to divert this discussion away from the ethical beliefs of a minority of the population as Covered End rightly points out. We can always revisit it if it becomes necessary.
Nice try ... but it is about acting thoughtlessly such that humans do die.
And, yes ... let's divert the discussion as you don't have sensible counter-arguments.
2% vegans in the World? Maybe. I make that about 160 million worldwide.
And it only takes one selfish, thoughtless individual to be responsible for the death of another, innocent person.
Your point is?
I didn’t really have a point, I was just picking up on something another poster had implied so there was no real reason for you to butt in with such a condescending response. You prove to me, with sources, that not a single vegan will take the vaccine thus endangering the lives of others and maybe I’ll discuss it with you. Until then I have no interest in your self righteous muttering.1 -
Go on then, how does the moderna vaccine affect your DNA. Looking forward to this.PeanutsMolloy said:0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.8 -
What?PeanutsMolloy said:
Tosh I'm afraid. It doesn't stop being infected or infecting others - just reduces the symptoms in the "vaccinated".ShootersHillGuru said:PeanutsMolloy said:0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.
But perfectly happy to risk being infected with Covid-19 which we know is a known killer or contracting it and being asymptomatic or having very mild case and spreading to other people and making them ill, very ill or even killing them. I love this attitude to life. Makes me proud.WK6824Nine said:I won't take untested technology in my body at least until I see the effect it has on the public first and then only MAYBE. I am cautious like everyone else in my family and some of my family have had mild forms of this disease including me.1 -
I would be very interested in seeing a source for the claim that the vaccine is 'DNA-affecting'.PeanutsMolloy said:0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.5 -
Tosh I'm afraid. It doesn't stop being infected or infecting others - just reduces the symptoms in the "vaccinated".Dave Rudd said:
What?PeanutsMolloy said:
Tosh I'm afraid. It doesn't stop being infected or infecting others - just reduces the symptoms in the "vaccinated".ShootersHillGuru said:PeanutsMolloy said:0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.
But perfectly happy to risk being infected with Covid-19 which we know is a known killer or contracting it and being asymptomatic or having very mild case and spreading to other people and making them ill, very ill or even killing them. I love this attitude to life. Makes me proud.WK6824Nine said:I won't take untested technology in my body at least until I see the effect it has on the public first and then only MAYBE. I am cautious like everyone else in my family and some of my family have had mild forms of this disease including me.
1 - Sponsored links:
-
Oh, OK.PeanutsMolloy said:
Tosh I'm afraid. It doesn't stop being infected or infecting others - just reduces the symptoms in the "vaccinated".Dave Rudd said:
What?PeanutsMolloy said:
Tosh I'm afraid. It doesn't stop being infected or infecting others - just reduces the symptoms in the "vaccinated".ShootersHillGuru said:PeanutsMolloy said:0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.
But perfectly happy to risk being infected with Covid-19 which we know is a known killer or contracting it and being asymptomatic or having very mild case and spreading to other people and making them ill, very ill or even killing them. I love this attitude to life. Makes me proud.WK6824Nine said:I won't take untested technology in my body at least until I see the effect it has on the public first and then only MAYBE. I am cautious like everyone else in my family and some of my family have had mild forms of this disease including me.
A sort of expensive paracetamol then?2 -
Tosh yourself. If everyone was like you then the herd immunity that is essential would not be achieved.PeanutsMolloy said:
Tosh I'm afraid. It doesn't stop being infected or infecting others - just reduces the symptoms in the "vaccinated".ShootersHillGuru said:PeanutsMolloy said:0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.
But perfectly happy to risk being infected with Covid-19 which we know is a known killer or contracting it and being asymptomatic or having very mild case and spreading to other people and making them ill, very ill or even killing them. I love this attitude to life. Makes me proud.WK6824Nine said:I won't take untested technology in my body at least until I see the effect it has on the public first and then only MAYBE. I am cautious like everyone else in my family and some of my family have had mild forms of this disease including me.1 -
Sleeves rolled up ready to go.3
-
This is amazing news. When they get to my tier I'll get it as soon as they'll let me. Might take a while afterwards for me to have any confidence in going to things with big crowds or some big indoor shopping centre.0
-
Given that the vast majority of us were born since the inception of the NHS, it's a fact that we were vaccinated against childhood killers whether we wanted to or not (being babies and infants). The flu vaccine (in its various forms) has saved countless lives since being introduced on a mass scale for over 65's back in 1999. Anybody travelling long haul invariably has a number of vaccinations, some requiring top ups.
Given that the world's great minds of science and medicine have focused solely on finding a vaccine for Covid-19 over the past 10 months, and that the effectiveness of the various products range from 70 to 90 plus percent (as opposed to around 40 to 60 percent for flu), I am getting a Covid vaccine as fast as I can. How long will it last? Who knows. Does it stop transmission? Who knows? Time will tell. But if it gives people security and allows us some return to normality (for instance a full house at the Valley)...then it's fine by me.6 -
I'm unclear why anyone wouldn't take it. Haven't heard many good reasons from those who argue against it?1
-
There is no way of testing long term effects in under a year. Which is why prior to now vaccines took a decade or more to be approved.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:I'm unclear why anyone wouldn't take it. Haven't heard many good reasons from those who argue against it?
Just because it looks good so far doesn’t mean there might not be long term effects.
That’s why I am sceptical and needed more persuading than Johnson and Hancock crowing about the new vaccines.2 -
You shouldn’t listen to Johnson or Hancock but I’m not sure why you wouldn’t listen to the MHRA.iainment said:
There is no way of testing long term effects in under a year. Which is why prior to now vaccines took a decade or more to be approved.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:I'm unclear why anyone wouldn't take it. Haven't heard many good reasons from those who argue against it?
Just because it looks good so far doesn’t mean there might be long term effects.
That’s why I am sceptical and needed more persuading than Johnson and Hancock crowing about the new vaccines.8 -
I don’t take anything Johnson or Hancock or any Tory says as truth.ShootersHillGuru said:
You shouldn’t listen to Johnson or Hancock but I’m not sure why you wouldn’t listen to the MHRA.iainment said:
There is no way of testing long term effects in under a year. Which is why prior to now vaccines took a decade or more to be approved.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:I'm unclear why anyone wouldn't take it. Haven't heard many good reasons from those who argue against it?
Just because it looks good so far doesn’t mean there might be long term effects.
That’s why I am sceptical and needed more persuading than Johnson and Hancock crowing about the new vaccines.
I do listen to and read as much as I can from reliable sources about the vaccine’s progress. They are all probably going to be effective with little or no long term effects but I am still finding it difficult to trust the process. It’s been speeded up by a factor of more than 10 and I can’t help feeling this is for political reasons as much as medical ones. This doesn’t fill me with anything other than scepticism.
For the record I have no problem with taking properly tested vaccines and have the flu vaccine every year. I am not a denier of COVID 19.1 -
But it has been properly tested. The MHRA has worked incredibly hard to turn around the approval of this as fast as possible, looking at all the data on a rolling basis as it has come in in order to get the vaccine approved asap. Things have been done more quickly because there has been an unprecedented abundance of volunteers, money and time put into this vaccine over any others in history. I understand a bit of trepidation about it now that it's feeling a lot more real but I don't think there's any real need to worry over the speed. The eyes of the world are on these vaccines, they've gone quickly because of the huge resources, not because they've skipped stepsiainment said:
I don’t take anything Johnson or Hancock or any Tory says as truth.ShootersHillGuru said:
You shouldn’t listen to Johnson or Hancock but I’m not sure why you wouldn’t listen to the MHRA.iainment said:
There is no way of testing long term effects in under a year. Which is why prior to now vaccines took a decade or more to be approved.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:I'm unclear why anyone wouldn't take it. Haven't heard many good reasons from those who argue against it?
Just because it looks good so far doesn’t mean there might be long term effects.
That’s why I am sceptical and needed more persuading than Johnson and Hancock crowing about the new vaccines.
I do listen to and read as much as I can from reliable sources about the vaccine’s progress. They are all probably going to be effective with little or no long term effects but I am still finding it difficult to trust the process. It’s been speeded up by a factor of more than 10 and I can’t help feeling this is for political reasons as much as medical ones. This doesn’t fill me with anything other than scepticism.
For the record I have no problem with taking properly tested vaccines and have the flu vaccine every year. I am not a denier of COVID 19.
3 - Sponsored links:
-
More garbage sadly.ShootersHillGuru said:
Tosh yourself. If everyone was like you then the herd immunity that is essential would not be achieved.PeanutsMolloy said:
Tosh I'm afraid. It doesn't stop being infected or infecting others - just reduces the symptoms in the "vaccinated".ShootersHillGuru said:PeanutsMolloy said:0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.
But perfectly happy to risk being infected with Covid-19 which we know is a known killer or contracting it and being asymptomatic or having very mild case and spreading to other people and making them ill, very ill or even killing them. I love this attitude to life. Makes me proud.WK6824Nine said:I won't take untested technology in my body at least until I see the effect it has on the public first and then only MAYBE. I am cautious like everyone else in my family and some of my family have had mild forms of this disease including me.
The Pfizer and Moderna "vaccines" will not assist herd immunity because they do not suppress the virus. They make it less unpleasant and potentially less fatal, which is fine but no one has the feintest idea of the long-term potential side effects of something that alters your genetic programming. The AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine is a conventional vaccine that does not do so and is one that I would happily take.
However, the fact is that the virus is and will remain forever more endemic and herd immunity will be achieved by enough of us getting exposed to it in due course. That includes people who are "vaccinated" with the Pfizer or Moderna "vaccine" because, I repeat, it does not prevent infection or prevent you infecting others.3 -
WattsTheMatter said:
I would be very interested in seeing a source for the claim that the vaccine is 'DNA-affecting'.PeanutsMolloy said:0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.Near as I can tell the original source for this nonsense is Emerald Robinson, who works for NewsMax, which is an insane alt-right pro-Trump 'news' nuthouse, and then from there that uncle you don't speak and Sharon down the road sharing a meme about it on Facebook. Basically it's a misunderstanding of how genetics works and a fear of words that sound similar, thinking that RNA, which is a fragment of the virus's genetic material, can have any altering effects on DNA. RNA basically tells your body to make a protein that resembles one in COVID, causing your body to recognise it and create an antibody for it. It can't change your genetic make-up in any way, and the RNA only lasts in your cells for a few hours.Unfortunately, all this vaccine stuff is kind of like when the World Cup is on and people in your office who never normally watch football start giving you their opinions on how England should be lining up at the back. They don't know what they're talking about, they don't understand what they're seeing, but it's a big thing in the news so they're hearing fragments of conversation and want to be involved in giving their thoughts on what's happening. Sadly spreading misinformation in the COVID situation is much more dangerous than people complaining that Southgate never picks Sol Campbell anymore9 -
Where are you getting all this made up shit? Both vaccines lead to the coronavirus spike protein being introduced into the body to produce an immune response which leads to immunity.PeanutsMolloy said:
More garbage sadly.ShootersHillGuru said:
Tosh yourself. If everyone was like you then the herd immunity that is essential would not be achieved.PeanutsMolloy said:
Tosh I'm afraid. It doesn't stop being infected or infecting others - just reduces the symptoms in the "vaccinated".ShootersHillGuru said:PeanutsMolloy said:0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.
But perfectly happy to risk being infected with Covid-19 which we know is a known killer or contracting it and being asymptomatic or having very mild case and spreading to other people and making them ill, very ill or even killing them. I love this attitude to life. Makes me proud.WK6824Nine said:I won't take untested technology in my body at least until I see the effect it has on the public first and then only MAYBE. I am cautious like everyone else in my family and some of my family have had mild forms of this disease including me.
The Pfizer and Moderna "vaccines" will not assist herd immunity because they do not suppress the virus. They make it less unpleasant and potentially less fatal, which is fine but no one has the feintest idea of the long-term potential side effects of something that alters your genetic programming. The AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine is a conventional vaccine that does not do so and is one that I would happily take.
However, the fact is that the virus is and will remain forever more endemic and herd immunity will be achieved by enough of us getting exposed to it in due course. That includes people who are "vaccinated" with the Pfizer or Moderna "vaccine" because, I repeat, it does not prevent infection or prevent you infecting others.4 -
Do you trust the MHRA? They effectively sign off on medicines so if you don't trust them you don't have much else left.iainment said:
I don’t take anything Johnson or Hancock or any Tory says as truth.ShootersHillGuru said:
You shouldn’t listen to Johnson or Hancock but I’m not sure why you wouldn’t listen to the MHRA.iainment said:
There is no way of testing long term effects in under a year. Which is why prior to now vaccines took a decade or more to be approved.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:I'm unclear why anyone wouldn't take it. Haven't heard many good reasons from those who argue against it?
Just because it looks good so far doesn’t mean there might be long term effects.
That’s why I am sceptical and needed more persuading than Johnson and Hancock crowing about the new vaccines.
I do listen to and read as much as I can from reliable sources about the vaccine’s progress. They are all probably going to be effective with little or no long term effects but I am still finding it difficult to trust the process. It’s been speeded up by a factor of more than 10 and I can’t help feeling this is for political reasons as much as medical ones. This doesn’t fill me with anything other than scepticism.
For the record I have no problem with taking properly tested vaccines and have the flu vaccine every year. I am not a denier of COVID 19.
It's not how long a test takes it's all about the quality of the testing. There is undoubtedly political pressure but I still trust the MHRA to be diligent. We have no other alternative tbf1 -
Exactly. People getting retroviruses, which have RNA that is reverse transcribed into your DNA mixed up with mRNA, which is part of protein synthesis and is what's in the Moderna/Pfizer vaccines mixed up. This is barely GCSE science.Garrymanilow said:WattsTheMatter said:
I would be very interested in seeing a source for the claim that the vaccine is 'DNA-affecting'.PeanutsMolloy said:0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.Near as I can tell the original source for this nonsense is Emerald Robinson, who works for NewsMax, which is an insane alt-right pro-Trump 'news' nuthouse, and then from there that uncle you don't speak and Sharon down the road sharing a meme about it on Facebook. Basically it's a misunderstanding of how genetics works and a fear of words that sound similar, thinking that RNA, which is a fragment of the virus's genetic material, can have any altering effects on DNA. RNA basically tells your body to make a protein that resembles one in COVID, causing your body to recognise it and create an antibody for it. It can't change your genetic make-up in any way, and the RNA only lasts in your cells for a few hours.Unfortunately, all this vaccine stuff is kind of like when the World Cup is on and people in your office who never normally watch football start giving you their opinions on how England should be lining up at the back. They don't know what they're talking about, they don't understand what they're seeing, but it's a big thing in the news so they're hearing fragments of conversation and want to be involved in giving their thoughts on what's happening. Sadly spreading misinformation in the COVID situation is much more dangerous than people complaining that Southgate never picks Sol Campbell anymore5 -
Ffs, no wonder I failedMcBobbin said:
Exactly. People getting retroviruses, which have RNA that is reverse transcribed into your DNA mixed up with mRNA, which is part of protein synthesis and is what's in the Moderna/Pfizer vaccines mixed up. This is barely GCSE science.Garrymanilow said:WattsTheMatter said:
I would be very interested in seeing a source for the claim that the vaccine is 'DNA-affecting'.PeanutsMolloy said:0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.Near as I can tell the original source for this nonsense is Emerald Robinson, who works for NewsMax, which is an insane alt-right pro-Trump 'news' nuthouse, and then from there that uncle you don't speak and Sharon down the road sharing a meme about it on Facebook. Basically it's a misunderstanding of how genetics works and a fear of words that sound similar, thinking that RNA, which is a fragment of the virus's genetic material, can have any altering effects on DNA. RNA basically tells your body to make a protein that resembles one in COVID, causing your body to recognise it and create an antibody for it. It can't change your genetic make-up in any way, and the RNA only lasts in your cells for a few hours.Unfortunately, all this vaccine stuff is kind of like when the World Cup is on and people in your office who never normally watch football start giving you their opinions on how England should be lining up at the back. They don't know what they're talking about, they don't understand what they're seeing, but it's a big thing in the news so they're hearing fragments of conversation and want to be involved in giving their thoughts on what's happening. Sadly spreading misinformation in the COVID situation is much more dangerous than people complaining that Southgate never picks Sol Campbell anymore6 -
I found a mistake in your post.
More garbage sadly.ShootersHillGuru said:
Tosh yourself. If everyone was like you then the herd immunity that is essential would not be achieved.PeanutsMolloy said:
Tosh I'm afraid. It doesn't stop being infected or infecting others - just reduces the symptoms in the "vaccinated".ShootersHillGuru said:PeanutsMolloy said:0% chance of me or Mrs Molloy taking a DNA-affecting "vaccine" that is in fact not a vaccine but a pre-infection treatment i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna products.
But perfectly happy to risk being infected with Covid-19 which we know is a known killer or contracting it and being asymptomatic or having very mild case and spreading to other people and making them ill, very ill or even killing them. I love this attitude to life. Makes me proud.WK6824Nine said:I won't take untested technology in my body at least until I see the effect it has on the public first and then only MAYBE. I am cautious like everyone else in my family and some of my family have had mild forms of this disease including me.
The Pfizer and Moderna "vaccines" will not assist herd immunity because they do not suppress the virus. They make it less unpleasant and potentially less fatal, which is fine but no one has the feintest idea of the long-term potential side effects of something that alters your genetic programming. The AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine is a conventional vaccine that does not do so and is one that I would happily take.
However, the fact is that the virus is and will remain forever more endemic and herd immunity will be achieved by enough of us getting exposed to it in due course. That includes people who are "vaccinated" with the Pfizer or Moderna "vaccine" because, I repeat, it does not prevent infection or prevent you infecting others.
It should be 'faintest'.
As for the rest ... where to start?0 -
So brexit has allowed us to become the first country to get the vaccine ahead of our European friends 😂0
-
@PeanutsMolloy
Have you been in touch with the MHRA re your concerns? It appears they have not given the genetic programming angle much thought?
Is it a cover up?4 -
Guinea Pigs R Usstop_shouting said:So brexit has allowed us to become the first country to get the vaccine ahead of our European friends 😂1
This discussion has been closed.
