Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
How Likely Are You To Take The Covid Vaccine?
Comments
-
Addickted said:Would you encourage your wife or daughter to have the vaccine if she were pregnant?Are you able to get the vaccine of you are pregnant? My partner's daughter is expecting a baby and I thought he said you don't. Btw I redrafted my first sentence several times as initially it was 'can expectant women have the vaccine' but (sadly) wasn't sure if I could use the word 'women' or 'mothers' in this context these days
How do I vote in the poll? I have voted on CL polls before but can't see how/where on this one0 -
So it’s imperative to vaccinate the population. But not pregnant women?SELR_addicks said:There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
If the development of this vaccine followed normal procedures I guess that in, say, year 6+ of the testing when it’s shown to be safe in the general population that sections like pregnant women might then be invited in to the study.
It’s been rushed.3 -
They were working on it long before covid 19iainment said:
So it’s imperative to vaccinate the population. But not pregnant women?SELR_addicks said:There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
If the development of this vaccine followed normal procedures I guess that in, say, year 6+ of the testing when it’s shown to be safe in the general population that sections like pregnant women might then be invited in to the study.
It’s been rushed.1 -
iainment said:
So the testing was rushed then.soapboxsam said:Prof Van-Tam is asked again, as he was on BBC Breakfast earlier, whether pregnant women are able to have the vaccine.
He says that for now the vaccine should not be given to pregnant women - simply because there is no data on whether there is any effect.
He adds it is "safety first"
No pregnant woman were volunteers.
Who’d a thunk it.
Pregnant women wouldn't be included whether the trials took five years or 6 months.
Of course we need the Vaccines ASAP, because over a million people have died from the disease COVID-19 after their own immune system couldn't handle the virus SARS-Cov-2.
Do most of us need the Vaccines ?
Yes: if we care about our our Society in the UK and the world:
For most of us, our natural defence will ward off the virus, and we won't be "ill"
But we are protecting the people with poor immune systems. This runs into millions if you add the elderly who's immune systems are compromised by wear and tear.
No: We only have self interest and what affects us and our immediate family. We are all fit so why should we bother.
The choice is yours if you live in the UK.
I have doubts, because that's a normal human reaction and I never take anything at face value so have read information from every medical journal in the world over the last 10 months; and listened to the for and against by medical professionals and Scientists who didn't all agree on a lockdown.
5 -
Really?PrincessFiona said:
They were working on it long before covid 19iainment said:
So it’s imperative to vaccinate the population. But not pregnant women?SELR_addicks said:There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
If the development of this vaccine followed normal procedures I guess that in, say, year 6+ of the testing when it’s shown to be safe in the general population that sections like pregnant women might then be invited in to the study.
It’s been rushed.1 -
If anyone has seen the conspiracy around Bill Gates/Microsoft/population control thats being spouted on FB this is truly ridiculous. If Bill gates really wanted population control/reduced population why would the Bill and Melinda gates foundation have funded 10's of millions of vaccines for the 3rd world? If they wanted that surely they would have not funded this and let Polio/TB etc. ravage the 3rd world and kill millions?
Where is the logic people?!10 -
The thing is what do we all do?iainment said:
So it’s imperative to vaccinate the population. But not pregnant women?SELR_addicks said:There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
If the development of this vaccine followed normal procedures I guess that in, say, year 6+ of the testing when it’s shown to be safe in the general population that sections like pregnant women might then be invited in to the study.
It’s been rushed.
I , like many others dont want to be jabbing myself with something theyve only been working on for 9 months.
But can we afford to sit around for a couple of years and see what affects if any these vaccines have?1 -
long time ago but I remember (e.g.) thalidomide .. and YES I am suggesting that government pressure can be put on any quango if not to lie about results, then to cut a corner or two to dig the government, the economy and the public out of a very deep and getting deeper hole .. and in saying that 'getting the vaccine out is nothing to do with the government', you are showing a nice old fashioned dose of extreme naivety. I hope you are keeping well b t wShootersHillGuru said:
You do realise that getting the vaccine out there is nothing to do with the government. It’s the independent MHRA that approves medicines. I would say one of the finest regulatory bodies of its type in the world. Do you think that it’s not going to be approved elsewhere in the world but Johnson can swing it here ?Lincsaddick said:
I am going to wait being injected until the Az/Ox 'product' has been circulating for a while and is seen to be both safe and effective (hard to totally prove either of course) .. hope is a very last resort and is VERY unscientific ((:>) .. the government is in a real sweat to get some kind of preventative measures up and running .. I have NO faith in any of their promises and assurances at the present time .. remember the very old maxim .. there are lies, damned lies and statisticshoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Hopefully it is the first step in a return to normality. We have to hope...Lincsaddick said:
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 -
The only slight question I have is as the Pfizer one is likely to be distributed from hub hospitals , my county doesn't have a hospital on the list so would I likely be asked to travel into Brighton to get it?
Not that I have any qualms about a quick 25 min trip into Brighton for it , just wondering how it might work logistically.0 -
Yesiainment said:
Really?PrincessFiona said:
They were working on it long before covid 19iainment said:
So it’s imperative to vaccinate the population. But not pregnant women?SELR_addicks said:There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
If the development of this vaccine followed normal procedures I guess that in, say, year 6+ of the testing when it’s shown to be safe in the general population that sections like pregnant women might then be invited in to the study.
It’s been rushed.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Scrap that, I'm not going to Croydonclb74 said:
The thing is what do we all do?iainment said:
So it’s imperative to vaccinate the population. But not pregnant women?SELR_addicks said:There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
If the development of this vaccine followed normal procedures I guess that in, say, year 6+ of the testing when it’s shown to be safe in the general population that sections like pregnant women might then be invited in to the study.
It’s been rushed.
I , like many others dont want to be jabbing myself with something theyve only been working on for 9 months.
But can we afford to sit around for a couple of years and see what affects if any these vaccines have?1 -
You can pass it on to those with a genuine medical reason to not have the vaccine e.g. the immuno-suppressed, the pregnant, the very young infants.shine166 said:
Well if youre being vaccinated, I can't pass it to you can I?Jints said:
Sure, nobody should be obliged to take the vaccine if they don't want to. But it's not a choice without consequences on the rest of us. If they catch teh virus, they can spread it to others and if they become seriously ill they will cost the NHS (and therefore us) a significant amount of time and cost. Those who have chosen not to be vaccinated should not be allowed to use public transport or go to pubs or restaurants or sporting events until rates are down to insifgnificant levels.EastTerrace said:Although I’ll be taking it, I’ll respect the choice of the individual.
Most of us get in a car most days knowing that it has a high possibility of
being a killing machine. Even if we drive safely and even if any accident may not be our fault, we still decide to do it, knowing the danger to others.
Love the way people are reminded that, this is down to choice... but if you turn it down and a vulnerable person near you dies its all on them... and if you don't get the jab, you should stay in lockdown for the rest of eternity.
As with any vaccine there is a small proportion of the population that can "get away" with not having the vaccine and not cause outbreaks. That proportion id thought to be absolutely tiny in this case due to how virulent this virus is. So its important that anyone who can get the vaccine does to prevent spreading to the vulnerable who cant.
Its also not an all or nothing question, there will still be others yet to receive the vaccine who you could spread it to, including those with an unknown underlying condition.4 -
Apparently scientists working on the vaccines made a major breakthrough when they discovered that pregnancy is a temporary condition, not a permanent one.iainment said:
So it’s imperative to vaccinate the population. But not pregnant women?SELR_addicks said:There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
If the development of this vaccine followed normal procedures I guess that in, say, year 6+ of the testing when it’s shown to be safe in the general population that sections like pregnant women might then be invited in to the study.
It’s been rushed.13 -
Yes, really.iainment said:
Really?PrincessFiona said:
They were working on it long before covid 19iainment said:
So it’s imperative to vaccinate the population. But not pregnant women?SELR_addicks said:There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
If the development of this vaccine followed normal procedures I guess that in, say, year 6+ of the testing when it’s shown to be safe in the general population that sections like pregnant women might then be invited in to the study.
It’s been rushed.The common cold and flu are COVID viruses. Flu viruses mutate regularly which is why they are always changing.
Depending on the herd immunity will have its risks. This virus will not go away. Ever.
Like the flu vaccine, this vaccine will help stop you getting the virus, and if you do, it will have prepared your body to defend its self.1 -
Pregnant women will have to wait a maximum of nine months, then they can take it. They are not pregnant permanently!iainment said:
So it’s imperative to vaccinate the population. But not pregnant women?SELR_addicks said:There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
If the development of this vaccine followed normal procedures I guess that in, say, year 6+ of the testing when it’s shown to be safe in the general population that sections like pregnant women might then be invited in to the study.
It’s been rushed.7 -
Not sure what your point is but Flu is not a corona virus it is an influenza virus. Some forms of the cold virus' are corona virus many aren't.Redrobo said:
Yes, really.iainment said:
Really?PrincessFiona said:
They were working on it long before covid 19iainment said:
So it’s imperative to vaccinate the population. But not pregnant women?SELR_addicks said:There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
If the development of this vaccine followed normal procedures I guess that in, say, year 6+ of the testing when it’s shown to be safe in the general population that sections like pregnant women might then be invited in to the study.
It’s been rushed.The common cold and flu are COVID viruses. Flu viruses mutate regularly which is why they are always changing.
Depending on the herd immunity will have its risks. This virus will not go away. Ever.
Like the flu vaccine, this vaccine will help stop you getting the virus, and if you do, it will have prepared your body to defend its self.3 -
https://fullfact.org/online/foetal-cells-covid-vaccine/thewolfboy said:
I don't know if this is relevant to Covid-19 vaccines. I hope not, but apparently MRC-5, a hugely carcinogenic ingredient of vaccines, is made from the lungs of aborted human foetuses. When I read about this kind of potential ingredient it makes me think that we should be told what is in the vaccines - not have it all kept as a scientific secret.addick1956 said:
Is a virus animal, vegetable or mineral.thewolfboy said:What's actually in the vaccine? Any animal substances?
Wrong. MRC-5 (or a similar strain) may be used earlier in the process for producing the vaccine but there is no part of this in the vaccine.3 -
As with any vaccine there is a small proportion of the population that can "get away" with not having the vaccine and not cause outbreaks. That proportion id thought to be absolutely tiny in this case due to how virulent this virus is. So its important that anyone who can get the vaccine does to prevent spreading to the vulnerable who cant.
Its also not an all or nothing question, there will still be others yet to receive the vaccine who you could spread it to, including those with an unknown underlying condition.
Exactly! Ironically and unfortunately mask wearing protects others from catching it from you rather than you protecting you - maybe if it was the other way round, there would be more compliance. I am referring to people who wantonly refuse to wear one, not those who are genuinely exempt.
Asthma seems to be the default 'reason' - I'd be interested to hear from those on here with asthma and mask wearing as everyone I know who has asthma that I have spoken to about this (which I appreciate is a tiny number) is able to wear one and importantly wants/needs to as more vulnerable.
There seems to a concerningly high percentage of some demographics with asthma0 -
50% of people are of below average intelligence.ShootersHillGuru said:If people don’t want the vaccine it really doesn’t bother me. I think they’re foolish beyond belief but the world is full of people foolish beyond belief.2 -
Covered End said:
Indications are that its gonna need to be nearer or even over 90%.
I'm not sure there is a definitive figure but 70% is said to be required for herd immunity.Dave Rudd said:
Phew!Covered End said:
I'll start worrying about the 2% vegans and other anti vaccers if the take up rate is only 60% ish.Dave Rudd said:
Unless others die as a result?Covered End said:
If vegans do not wish to be vaccinated it's up to them and inconsequential in the scheme of things.thewolfboy said:Got sent this. I assume it's true?
That's OK then.
So if we've got 70% plus already, 2% or less vegans is not essential.
If we're only at 60% level and need another 10% at least, then 2% is important.0 - Sponsored links:
-
How many people need to have it before you will be happy? as said its been tested on well over 40,000 people. Exactly what number of people will need to have had it before you are happy?Lincsaddick said:
I am going to wait being injected until the Az/Ox 'product' has been circulating for a while and is seen to be both safe and effective (hard to totally prove either of course) .. hope is a very last resort and is VERY unscientific ((:>) .. the government is in a real sweat to get some kind of preventative measures up and running .. I have NO faith in any of their promises and assurances at the present time .. remember the very old maxim .. there are lies, damned lies and statisticshoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Hopefully it is the first step in a return to normality. We have to hope...Lincsaddick said:
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 😂0 -
Thy have been working on coronaviruses and 'just' had to tweak it for covid-19. So did not have to start from scratchcantersaddick said:
Not sure what your point is but Flu is not a corona virus it is an influenza virus. Some forms of the cold virus' are corona virus many aren't.Redrobo said:
Yes, really.iainment said:
Really?PrincessFiona said:
They were working on it long before covid 19iainment said:
So it’s imperative to vaccinate the population. But not pregnant women?SELR_addicks said:There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
If the development of this vaccine followed normal procedures I guess that in, say, year 6+ of the testing when it’s shown to be safe in the general population that sections like pregnant women might then be invited in to the study.
It’s been rushed.The common cold and flu are COVID viruses. Flu viruses mutate regularly which is why they are always changing.
Depending on the herd immunity will have its risks. This virus will not go away. Ever.
Like the flu vaccine, this vaccine will help stop you getting the virus, and if you do, it will have prepared your body to defend its self.0 -
50% of people are of below average intelligenceShootersHillGuru said:If people don’t want the vaccine it really doesn’t bother me. I think they’re foolish beyond belief but the world is full of people foolish beyond belief.
Surely there will be a number of average intelligence as well as those above and below?1 -
There are numerous reasons why I will swerve the C-19 vaccine for the forseeable future. I'll keep it to my main concerns, I am surprised these haven't already cropped up in this thread.1. The MHRA put out the following tender several weeks ago:The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs)IMO this is an obvious admission the testing process has been rushed to get this vaccine out.2. As an NHS responder I have received an invitation to be a Volunteer Vaccinator. WTF!! I have zero medical experience yet I could be sticking a needle in your arm following just a couple of days training.I give blood regularly and would never consider it if the staff were not fully trained. Why therefore would I risk letting an amateur administer the C19 vaccine. No thank you!
0 -
If you wonder why Men of middle age and older are more prone than women or children to suffer the illness/ disease.
High % of men dying was clear from the beginning with the figures from Northern Italy who developed COVID-19 from SARS-Cov-2.
ACE2 is a protein on the surface of many cell types. It is an enzyme that generates small proteins – by cutting up the larger protein angiotensinogen – that then go on to regulate functions in the cell.Using the spike-like protein on its surface, the SARS-CoV-2 virus binds to ACE2 – like a key being inserted into a lock – prior to entry and infection of cells. Hence, ACE2 acts as a cellular doorway – a receptor – for the virus that causes COVID-19. In children and younger men and women the key won't unlock unless underlying issues are there. ( Will always be some exceptions that can't be explained until a autopsy)
Don't be ignorant read up on the medical and scientific world of Viruses and their History.
Professor Gilbert(Oxford university) belived back in April that the Vaccines that helped to tackle MERS(she went out to the middle East and helped) could fight against the Corona virus. The reason she was rather over ambitious by saying September was believe it or not: FUNDING.
How a vaccine that can save lives is struggling for funding is mind blowing.
This is why the Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccines when given the green light will be so different to Pfizer and Moderna vaccine which was RNA based vaccine. It will also be not for profit at first unlike the other Vaccines which will be announced.
1 -
1) AI is used commonly for analysing data. Its used commonly in my line of work. There is absolutely no way the MHRA will use this instead of qualified analysts checking data. It will be used alongside the usual people checks. The trails will have millions of datapoints, I imagine the AI will be used in the process of checking these. Manual checking will only be able to check a tiny% of the datapoints. this manual checking will still take place but if you add in alongside that AI which can check every single datapoint and highlight any potential issues which can then be looked at manually.stuart_lee_SE9 said:There are numerous reasons why I will swerve the C-19 vaccine for the forseeable future. I'll keep it to my main concerns, I am surprised these haven't already cropped up in this thread.1. The MHRA put out the following tender several weeks ago:The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs)IMO this is an obvious admission the testing process has been rushed to get this vaccine out.2. As an NHS responder I have received an invitation to be a Volunteer Vaccinator. WTF!! I have zero medical experience yet I could be sticking a needle in your arm following just a couple of days training.I give blood regularly and would never consider it if the staff were not fully trained. Why therefore would I risk letting an amateur administer the C19 vaccine. No thank you!
The use of AI in this situation can only be a good think and will make checks more complete. Nothing in the slightest to worry about.
2) Simply not the case, no one not qualified to deliver this will be asked to deliver it. As I said above my partner is working on the modelling for the distribution of this, her sister is a pharmacist and has received the same thing - its going out to a large number of health workers. Its not a case of you say yes then you'll be out giving the vaccine. They ask whether you have had training before (and when) so they can decide who to use and whether you need refresher training. Many NHS responders have previously worked in other healthcare roles so will have previously had training and so with a refresher course will be more than qualified to deliver this.8 -
OK, any back up for that?PrincessFiona said:
Yesiainment said:
Really?PrincessFiona said:
They were working on it long before covid 19iainment said:
So it’s imperative to vaccinate the population. But not pregnant women?SELR_addicks said:There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
If the development of this vaccine followed normal procedures I guess that in, say, year 6+ of the testing when it’s shown to be safe in the general population that sections like pregnant women might then be invited in to the study.
It’s been rushed.0 -
Does it temporarily give immunity?Stig said:
Apparently scientists working on the vaccines made a major breakthrough when they discovered that pregnancy is a temporary condition, not a permanent one.iainment said:
So it’s imperative to vaccinate the population. But not pregnant women?SELR_addicks said:There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
If the development of this vaccine followed normal procedures I guess that in, say, year 6+ of the testing when it’s shown to be safe in the general population that sections like pregnant women might then be invited in to the study.
It’s been rushed.0 -
Covered by other posts. Scientists already working on coronaviruses before and 'just' needed to tweak it for covid-19, so were not starting from scratchiainment said:
OK, any back up for that?PrincessFiona said:
Yesiainment said:
Really?PrincessFiona said:
They were working on it long before covid 19iainment said:
So it’s imperative to vaccinate the population. But not pregnant women?SELR_addicks said:There's a lot of medications that are in circulation that are completely safe but not to be recommended to be taken by pregnant women. Not a major issue i'd say.
If the development of this vaccine followed normal procedures I guess that in, say, year 6+ of the testing when it’s shown to be safe in the general population that sections like pregnant women might then be invited in to the study.
It’s been rushed.1 -
I have asthma and, except for a couple of quickly amended memory lapses, always wear a mask where required.PrincessFiona said:As with any vaccine there is a small proportion of the population that can "get away" with not having the vaccine and not cause outbreaks. That proportion id thought to be absolutely tiny in this case due to how virulent this virus is. So its important that anyone who can get the vaccine does to prevent spreading to the vulnerable who cant.
Its also not an all or nothing question, there will still be others yet to receive the vaccine who you could spread it to, including those with an unknown underlying condition.
Exactly! Ironically and unfortunately mask wearing protects others from catching it from you rather than you protecting you - maybe if it was the other way round, there would be more compliance. I am referring to people who wantonly refuse to wear one, not those who are genuinely exempt.
Asthma seems to be the default 'reason' - I'd be interested to hear from those on here with asthma and mask wearing as everyone I know who has asthma that I have spoken to about this (which I appreciate is a tiny number) is able to wear one and importantly wants/needs to as more vulnerable.
There seems to a concerningly high percentage of some demographics with asthma2
This discussion has been closed.
