Incidentally, thalidomide is given today to cancer patients as an anti emetic. It's effective, but people may still have adverse reactions to it. Drug regulations have moved on a lot since the 1950s, and I'm sure there are plenty of old medicines that wouldn't be sold over the counter had they been developed today - aspirin for example. There may be certain groups where the vaccine isn't approved for, such as pregnant women or those with certain immune deficiencies.
Had both parents nearly die (luckily both recovered) from covid this year. Both NHS frontline, dealing with idiots who didnt take covid seriously. Vaccines are there to help the population as a whole and work best if everyone takes them. I would be very disappointed if someone I knew didnt take it, unless they had significant medical reasons for not doing so. It is also proven medically that there is no link between vaccines and autism and every vaccine would have to go through clinical tests. Just get it it done.
Thalidomide isn't a useful comparative point. Whilst I understand the concerns regarding testing and the defects it caused, it must be noted that we are no longer in 1957.
Thalidomide was a horrific failure, but it fueled massive changes in how drugs (and vaccines) are tested. At the time of Thalidomide's usage, drugs only needed to be tested on animals. This is no longer the case. Drugs, and vaccines, have to go through a stringent testing process that includes human volunteers- not just mice.
Why do people who don't agree with someone elses opinion on a poll asking get annoyed and start getting derogatory to everyone hasn't voted their way? Dont worry - the guys at pfizer wont see this poll and divert their needles elsewhere.
I voted for whatever the middle option was. I have no strong feeling either way to be honest. I'd consider myself quite low on the priority list, so wouldn't be likely to get it till the second half of next year i reckon, so any fears of side effects will be discovered by those in the front of the queue. I'm also quite happy to continue with this reclusive life for a bit longer.
I think the reason why I'm not desperate for a jab is because my first instinct for any 'condition' i may have isn't to pop a pill, get a jab, make a docs appointment etc. Not consciously and I'm certainly not anti medication, but it seems that I prefer natural methods, peppermint tea, sleep, water, heat packs, cool packs etc. thankfully I've not had much in my life to require much else so I'm hesitant to put my hand up for a jab when there are others who would want it, and need it more than me. I'm not veggie/vegan or a hippy, in fact, I've never even thought about why i feel indifferent about the jab until this thread and think this is the only way i can explain it.
And against thalidomide we have numerous drugs and vaccines that have saved millions of lives. It's not much of an argument.
How many millions of lives did the smallpox vaccine save?
I have to say I've never heard many considered arguments against vaccines. I've met numerous idiots telling me the MMR vaccine was harmful despite the research of Andrew Wakefield being discredited.
One word for those abusing the cautious and uncertain in a patronising fashion.
Thalidomide. That was a miracle cure for Morning Sickness in the nineteen sixties and children were born with terrible disabilities as a result.
People have genuine concerns and those concerns do not make them conspiracy theorists.
We allegedly live in a Free Society. How 'free' is oppressing those who are sceptical about an untested State Injection?
Rather like double glazing the harder the sell the more questionable the product in my opinion.
For the record, before people presume, I regard myself as in the 'don't know' rather than 'no' camp although I have not voted above but, unlike some evidently, I can respect all shades of opinion.
I find this sort of post ridiculous scaremongering, and this particular example offensive. Before posting you should at least understand a little bit about what you are talking about.
Go and find out the difference between a drug and a vaccine.
My mate actually is doing his PHD in biology at Oxford, and has been working on the vaccine. We often message him asking questions (often jokingly berate him for not pulling his finger out).
I fully trust that they are not rushing this out and following scientific guidelines. He also is less sure we will see the vaccine as quickly as reported recently.
Saw a documentary on TV from a hospital in Hull, where at the moment, that is the worst place for Covid-19 in this country. Among the many serious cases was a female aged 31, who said that she had never taken it seriously, as young people do not normally get it badly if at all, She has now realised how wrong she was, I hope many younger people watch this and realise, any age can get very sick with this and some do die.
One word for those abusing the cautious and uncertain in a patronising fashion.
Thalidomide. That was a miracle cure for Morning Sickness in the nineteen sixties and children were born with terrible disabilities as a result.
People have genuine concerns and those concerns do not make them conspiracy theorists.
We allegedly live in a Free Society. How 'free' is oppressing those who are sceptical about an untested State Injection?
Rather like double glazing the harder the sell the more questionable the product in my opinion.
For the record, before people presume, I regard myself as in the 'don't know' rather than 'no' camp although I have not voted above but, unlike some evidently, I can respect all shades of opinion.
I find this sort of post ridiculous scaremongering, and this particular example offensive. Before posting you should at least understand a little bit about what you are talking about.
Go and find out the difference between a drug and a vaccine.
Vaccines and drugs both need to be tested. That is common ground so the 'differences' you raise are something of a 'strawman.'
Thalidomide testing was proved to be inadequate and there are all too many tragic examples of that.
There is enormous pressure commercially and otherwise to get this vaccine 'out there' so questioning the adequacy of testing in such fraught circumstances is a legitimate concern.
Sorry if that offends you but it offends me that those raising legitimate concerns are branded as conspiracy theorists or abused as is evident from this thread. That attitude smacks of authoritarianism and totalitarianism to me whereas I believe firmly in freedom of choice as far as possible.
I’m sure that the vaccine will be mandatory in some walks of life. Care home staff, clinical staff in the NHS, Armed Forces, Health Centre Staff, Police Service, Airport Staff, there’s probably a lot more where you can make a case. I would also imagine that some countries will require a vaccination stamp or some such in the passport to allow entry.
I think the uptake will be considerably more than we might think.
One word for those abusing the cautious and uncertain in a patronising fashion.
Thalidomide. That was a miracle cure for Morning Sickness in the nineteen sixties and children were born with terrible disabilities as a result.
People have genuine concerns and those concerns do not make them conspiracy theorists.
We allegedly live in a Free Society. How 'free' is oppressing those who are sceptical about an untested State Injection?
Rather like double glazing the harder the sell the more questionable the product in my opinion.
For the record, before people presume, I regard myself as in the 'don't know' rather than 'no' camp although I have not voted above but, unlike some evidently, I can respect all shades of opinion.
I find this sort of post ridiculous scaremongering, and this particular example offensive. Before posting you should at least understand a little bit about what you are talking about.
Go and find out the difference between a drug and a vaccine.
Vaccines and drugs both need to be tested. That is common ground so the 'differences' you raise are something of a 'strawman.'
Thalidomide testing was proved to be inadequate and there are all too many tragic examples of that.
There is enormous pressure commercially and otherwise to get this vaccine 'out there' so questioning the adequacy of testing in such fraught circumstances is a legitimate concern.
Sorry if that offends you but it offends me that those raising legitimate concerns are branded as conspiracy theorists or abused as is evident from this thread. That attitude smacks of authoritarianism and totalitarianism to me whereas I believe firmly in freedom of choice as far as possible.
We will have to agree to differ on this one.
There is absolutely no win for any of the vaccine manufacturers to get this wrong. With due respect to the Thalidomide tragedy which was a drug for women in early pregnancy and affected 10,000 births. In world population terms a minuscule event. Get this vaccine wrong and we’re talking possibly billions of people adversely affected. There is no way that this has been rushed for commercial gain.
My friend who is a teacher who worked through the first lock refused to even have a test until she was sure (in face she may still be denying to have one) that there would be no implications to any of her insurance policies if she was found to be positive. this was in August time when we had this conversation, and she may have changed her mind. I hadn't thought of it like that, but people are permitted to make their own choices for their own health as they wish.
The 'very likely' figure (now standing at 68%) is considerably lower than it was for quite a long time after the poll was posted (nearer 90%). I can only presume that there's some sort of correlation thing going on here and those that are slow on the uptake in one area of life, will be slow on the uptake in others
That’ll change minds. Do you actually think being abusive will win your point?
People have been given facts again, and again, and again about vaccines being safe for decades. Setting aside the absolutely disgraceful antics of Wakefield and a complicit media during the MMR fraud, which set science back by decades, a certain percentage of people have always (sometimes for religious reasons, more often because they're just wilfully dense) refused to take vaccines.
This 'attempt to convince people' of which you speak has been going on since vaccines were invented. We don't need to pay it any more credence now than we did forty years ago. The facts are there plain as day for anyone to see - just because some people WANT to believe vaccines are unsafe as a way of reinforcing their own belief in some amorphous big pharma/deep state/lizard overlord conspiracy doesn't mean these people should be given the same airtime as - y'know - *actual* experts, because doing so lends their lunatic theories an air of legitimacy that they don't deserve. Its this type of 'need for balance' (which is, in fact, a need for the media to stoke the fires of 'debate' to fill 24 hour news channels) that's led us to the sorry point where flat earth fuckwits are being given actual airtime on television (and not for the purposes of being pointed at and laughed at)
Even if there is a small risk, there is surely a more significant risk of side effects if you catch the virus. The worst of them being death. Or even worse, killing a loved one.
We need enough people to have the vaccine to create the conditions to beat the virus. We all have a duty to help beat this and I'd take it now if asked to. Which I'm sure I won't be.
One word for those abusing the cautious and uncertain in a patronising fashion.
Thalidomide. That was a miracle cure for Morning Sickness in the nineteen sixties and children were born with terrible disabilities as a result.
People have genuine concerns and those concerns do not make them conspiracy theorists.
We allegedly live in a Free Society. How 'free' is oppressing those who are sceptical about an untested State Injection?
Rather like double glazing the harder the sell the more questionable the product in my opinion.
For the record, before people presume, I regard myself as in the 'don't know' rather than 'no' camp although I have not voted above but, unlike some evidently, I can respect all shades of opinion.
"Patronising?" Bloody hell.
That's a really good word. It means the same as "talking down to people". Well done, you.
It’s going to be a year before we are through this and the vaccine won’t be out for at least 6 months and then inject the whole world twice and then boosters. It a long game ...
It’s going to be a year before we are through this and the vaccine won’t be out for at least 6 months and then inject the whole world twice and then boosters. It a long game ...
I’m fully expecting the majority of the western world to be vaccinated during 2021.
Off subject, sorry, but some of these posts remind me of the "poppy facism", as in people telling people they MUST wear a poppy because it shows that the War was won giving freedom of choice. Sorry.
Edit: I voted middle, would be willing, but, would like more information aswell.
My view for what’s it worth is that I am confident that enough people will take the vaccine to make it work. I really have no interest in people who won’t get vaccinated for whatever reason. It’s their choice and I respect their decision. That’s it really. Get vaccinated or don’t.
Off subject, sorry, but some of these posts remind me of the "poppy facism", as in people telling people they MUST wear a poppy because it shows that the War was won giving freedom of choice. Sorry.
Edit: I voted middle, would be willing, but, would like more information aswell.
Not wearing a poppy isn't likely to do anyone else any damage though
Off subject, sorry, but some of these posts remind me of the "poppy facism", as in people telling people they MUST wear a poppy because it shows that the War was won giving freedom of choice. Sorry.
Edit: I voted middle, would be willing, but, would like more information aswell.
Not wearing a poppy isn't likely to do anyone else any damage though
Without getting too involved or argumentative nobody is really sure the vaccine won't damage anyone. As I said, I have no sure idea whatsoever, just that I don't think anyone should be telling or insisting anything at the moment. We don't even know if this vaccine will be available soon.
For the record I wear a mask when required and I have no problem with that. And, more than likely I would have it. Just would like more reassurance about the safety.
Off subject, sorry, but some of these posts remind me of the "poppy facism", as in people telling people they MUST wear a poppy because it shows that the War was won giving freedom of choice. Sorry.
Edit: I voted middle, would be willing, but, would like more information aswell.
Not wearing a poppy isn't likely to do anyone else any damage though
Without getting too involved or argumentative nobody is really sure the vaccine won't damage anyone. As I said, I have no sure idea whatsoever, just that I don't think anyone should be telling or insisting anything at the moment. We don't even know if this vaccine will be available soon.
For the record I wear a mask when required and I have no problem with that. And, more than likely I would have it. Just would like more reassurance about the safety.
Stay safe.
Sadly I don’t think there is any more reassurance out there. My personal view and it’s worth nothing but I think you have more to fear from Covid-19 than you do from a vaccine.
Off subject, sorry, but some of these posts remind me of the "poppy facism", as in people telling people they MUST wear a poppy because it shows that the War was won giving freedom of choice. Sorry.
Edit: I voted middle, would be willing, but, would like more information aswell.
Equating 'poppy facism' with the argument over vaccines is somewhat bizarre? If you don't follow a coherent vaccination/immunization strategy the consequences can be severe and this is not simply about the rights of the individual but about protecting others.
A number of infectious diseases have resurfaced due to low vaccination rates and surely as a nation we should be working together to eradicate Covid 19. What other alternative is there in the short term to a vaccine?
Comments
#1. A vaccine.
Vaccines are there to help the population as a whole and work best if everyone takes them. I would be very disappointed if someone I knew didnt take it, unless they had significant medical reasons for not doing so.
It is also proven medically that there is no link between vaccines and autism and every vaccine would have to go through clinical tests. Just get it it done.
Whilst I understand the concerns regarding testing and the defects it caused, it must be noted that we are no longer in 1957.
Thalidomide was a horrific failure, but it fueled massive changes in how drugs (and vaccines) are tested. At the time of Thalidomide's usage, drugs only needed to be tested on animals. This is no longer the case. Drugs, and vaccines, have to go through a stringent testing process that includes human volunteers- not just mice.
I voted for whatever the middle option was. I have no strong feeling either way to be honest. I'd consider myself quite low on the priority list, so wouldn't be likely to get it till the second half of next year i reckon, so any fears of side effects will be discovered by those in the front of the queue. I'm also quite happy to continue with this reclusive life for a bit longer.
I think the reason why I'm not desperate for a jab is because my first instinct for any 'condition' i may have isn't to pop a pill, get a jab, make a docs appointment etc. Not consciously and I'm certainly not anti medication, but it seems that I prefer natural methods, peppermint tea, sleep, water, heat packs, cool packs etc. thankfully I've not had much in my life to require much else so I'm hesitant to put my hand up for a jab when there are others who would want it, and need it more than me. I'm not veggie/vegan or a hippy, in fact, I've never even thought about why i feel indifferent about the jab until this thread and think this is the only way i can explain it.
How many millions of lives did the smallpox vaccine save?
I have to say I've never heard many considered arguments against vaccines. I've met numerous idiots telling me the MMR vaccine was harmful despite the research of Andrew Wakefield being discredited.
I fully trust that they are not rushing this out and following scientific guidelines. He also is less sure we will see the vaccine as quickly as reported recently.
Thalidomide testing was proved to be inadequate and there are all too many tragic examples of that.
There is enormous pressure commercially and otherwise to get this vaccine 'out there' so questioning the adequacy of testing in such fraught circumstances is a legitimate concern.
Sorry if that offends you but it offends me that those raising legitimate concerns are branded as conspiracy theorists or abused as is evident from this thread. That attitude smacks of authoritarianism and totalitarianism to me whereas I believe firmly in freedom of choice as far as possible.
We will have to agree to differ on this one.
I am fearful that it’ll be act in haste repent at leisure.
We need enough people to have the vaccine to create the conditions to beat the virus. We all have a duty to help beat this and I'd take it now if asked to. Which I'm sure I won't be.
That's a really good word. It means the same as "talking down to people". Well done, you.
*ruffles your hair*
It a long game ...
Sorry.
Edit:
I voted middle, would be willing, but, would like more information aswell.
As I said, I have no sure idea whatsoever, just that I don't think anyone should be telling or insisting anything at the moment. We don't even know if this vaccine will be available soon.
For the record I wear a mask when required and I have no problem with that. And, more than likely I would have it.
Just would like more reassurance about the safety.
Stay safe.
A number of infectious diseases have resurfaced due to low vaccination rates and surely as a nation we should be working together to eradicate Covid 19. What other alternative is there in the short term to a vaccine?