Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
How Likely Are You To Take The Covid Vaccine?
Comments
-
cantersaddick said:
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.
I have just checked this with MENSA and this is 100% correct.
Other than life and sport coaches who say give 110% !
0 -
I remember thalidomide well enough to know it was a drug not a vaccine. Chucking that into the conversation is offensive to those who know people who suffered from the repercussions and no doubt done to deliberately worry those who have genuine concerns.Lincsaddick said:
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 😂Try reading a non fiction book for a change.2 -
How can that be, lol?soapboxsam said:cantersaddick said:
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.
I have just checked this with MENSA and this is 100% correct.
Other than life and sport coaches who say give 110% !
Obviously there are a number of ways of calculating the 'average' but the way it is calculated, the average IQ is 100. Many people have an IQ of 100.
So surely the number below the average = the number above the average which is (100% - the number with an IQ of 100) / 2?
0 -
You should always give 100% except when you give blood!soapboxsam said:cantersaddick said:
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.
I have just checked this with MENSA and this is 100% correct.
Other than life and sport coaches who say give 110% !2 -
Northupper said:
You should always give 100% except when you give blood!soapboxsam said:cantersaddick said:
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.
I have just checked this with MENSA and this is 100% correct.
Other than life and sport coaches who say give 110% !
"I mean, I came here in all good faith, to help my country. I don't mind giving a reasonable amount, but a pint? Why, that's very nearly an armful."
5 -
My new favourite, Professor Sarah Gilbert:
A Professor of vaccinology and major player at Oxford is a super woman ?
Well not only as bright as a button and works from morning to night six days a week trying to find funding and a winning vaccine but she has been doing this for decades against all the nasty viruses that crop up in the world. But this woman wanted a family as well so she had Triplets so she could get back to work and her husband looked after the children because she earned more money than him and she could save lives.
All 3 children are now studying biochemistry at university.
Not a lot of people know that.6 -
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. That’s not even taking into consideration those that have recovered and are still being impacted by long Covid. The very best brains in vaccinology, virology and immunology as well as other disciplines have thrown every resource at this in order to stop a catastrophe.Likening a new drug licensed 63 years to a vaccine developed in 2020 doesn’t really stack up as a comparison.I’ve also posted this before but if you don’t feel safe having the vaccine then fine. You have that right. I’d say you’re foolish but I’m sure you’d say I was.4 -
I have no hesitation in taking it , fuck it I’ll even double drop, after everything i chucked in me in the 90s one more won’t hurt16
-
You accuse me of being deliberately offensive to disabled people ?Redrobo said:
I remember thalidomide well enough to know it was a drug not a vaccine. Chucking that into the conversation is offensive to those who know people who suffered from the repercussions and no doubt done to deliberately worry those who have genuine concerns.Lincsaddick said:
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 😂Try reading a non fiction book for a change.
0 -
the rest of my comment on the above post has been deleted, presumably by a moderator .. so my advice is, never make a comment online that you are not prepared to say face to face .. that makes you a cowardly little keyboard warrior and [another comment edited by a moderator - no need for the willy waving at the end]Redrobo said:
I remember thalidomide well enough to know it was a drug not a vaccine. Chucking that into the conversation is offensive to those who know people who suffered from the repercussions and no doubt done to deliberately worry those who have genuine concerns.Lincsaddick said:
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 😂Try reading a non fiction book for a change.4 - Sponsored links:
-
Obviously not, but given that it will take longer than 9 months to vaccinate everyone and that very few pregnant people are in the highly vulnerable over 70s category, it's really not a problem.iainment said:
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.1 -
To you.Stig said:
Obviously not, but given that it will take longer that 9 months to vaccinate everyone and that very few pregnant people are in the highly vulnerable over 70s category, it's really not a problem.iainment said:
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 -
My family were affected by it, so I will clarify. I am offended.Lincsaddick said:
the rest of my comment on the above post has been deleted, presumably by a moderator .. so my advice is, never make a comment online that you are not prepared to say face to face .. that makes you a cowardly little keyboard warrior and [another comment edited by a moderator - no need for the willy waving at the end]Redrobo said:
I remember thalidomide well enough to know it was a drug not a vaccine. Chucking that into the conversation is offensive to those who know people who suffered from the repercussions and no doubt done to deliberately worry those who have genuine concerns.Lincsaddick said:
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 😂Try reading a non fiction book for a change.
Thanks for the advice. 🖕1 -
Oh, and as for being a coward, it is not me that is scared to have the vaccination.1
-
lol .. and b t w, you are totally wrong about my reading habits (check e.g. 'This week I have been Reading' pp81 and 82) and I do know the difference between a drug and a vaccine .. AND I try to answer arguments without getting too much into personal insults, you should try it yourselfRedrobo said:Oh, and as for being a coward, it is not me that is scared to have the vaccination.
0 -
Here’s a list of all the vaccinations a pregnant woman shouldn’t get. Were they all rushed.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.6 -
No. They were tested over the usual time and it was decided the risk outweighed the benefit.SomervilleAddick said:
Here’s a list of all the vaccinations a pregnant woman shouldn’t get. Were they all rushed.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.They haven’t spent the usual time on these vaccines so don’t know. Probably the outcome would be not to vaccinate pregnant women but my main concern is that the development of these vaccines has been rushed.To the point that the developers require the government to take on any risk and indemnify them against any possible future financial problems. If they aren’t able to accept that risk or find insurance companies willing to cover them affordably then I feel my concern has validity.2 -
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?
0 -
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.0 -
Nobody has to take it but some sadly don't really have any choice. People are going to look for reasons not to take it - no vaccine will ever be 100% risk free but If not enough people take it then the virus will continue and more people will die.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.
I imagine a lot of people who don't think the virus will affect them will simply refuse to take it. It won't concern them if the take up is high enough.
Some concerns will be genuine but a lot will be ignorance and selfishness.
Interesting to see if the rollout is successful.0 - Sponsored links:
-
One last time. The risks to the vast vast vast majority of people of this vaccine will be statistically less than the risks posed by Covid. You base your decision on that and make your choice.8
-
It's ultimately down to trust.ShootersHillGuru said:One last time. The risks to the vast vast vast majority of people of this vaccine will be statistically less than the risks posed by Covid. You base your decision on that and make your choice.1 -
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.1 -
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).
8 -
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.3 -
Some interesting facts, thanks.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).1 -
Below is far beyond my understanding but any thoughts from your side?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).On December 1, 2020, the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).
Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon demand that the studies – for the protection of the life and health of the volunteers – should not be continued until a study design is available that is suitable to address the significant safety concerns expressed by an increasing number of renowned scientists against the vaccine and the study design.
On the one hand, the petitioners demand that, due to the known lack of accuracy of the PCR test in a serious study, a so-called Sanger sequencing must be used. This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19. On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty, which is why testing the vaccine on humans is unethical per se.
Furthermore, they demand that it must be excluded, e.g. by means of animal experiments, that risks already known from previous studies, which partly originate from the nature of the corona viruses, can be realized. The concerns are directed in particular to the following points:
- The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
- The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
- The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
- The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.
0 -
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.7
-
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).
5 -
The post was highlighting that you cannot compare the drug thalidomide with the vaccines to combat Covid 19.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.The rest of your post is to me anyway somewhat dubious in its intent.1
This discussion has been closed.
