Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
How Likely Are You To Take The Covid Vaccine?
Comments
-
If the wording was 'want to take' rather than just 'take.' There's the possibility of some other obstruction to actually taking it.LargeAddick said:Should have had a definitely category.
Just being pedantic 😉0 -
The thing is though, this situation isn't comparable with people's usual way of operating. I also prefer to see how I'm going to deal with something before going to the doctor. Partially because unless it's obviously something major I prefer to see if I can get over it myself and partially because sometimes I'm a bit of an idiot and can't be bothered. Also the receptionist at my surgery is a total wang and I'd rather not see her if I don't have to. There's no room for that here though; as many people as possible need to get it for it to be fully effective, that's the end of it. All this talk of wanting to know more about the vaccine, what are people honestly expecting they will do? I doubt they'll go through the full list of active ingredients with a fine toothed comb and research what each of them do and what the clinical effect of the specific combination has been in the thousands of trials. What they mean is they'll sit doing nothing and keep an eye on the news to see if the papers report that people have reacted badly months later. By then it will be too late to save a large number of lives. The reason people get upset is because thousands of lives have been lost and normalcy has been completely uprooted, and there's potentially a way through it if people will just accept the basic science put in front of them and take the responsibility of being part of societal recovery. Sure, there remains the possibility, however slight, that the vaccine will actually be a poisonous people killer but at the moment the trial evidence does not indicate that, which is the standard for all of our medicine. It's frustrating hearing and reading unscientific and unsubstantiated views on the vaccine when a lot of us are sat here having not seen family in months, missed out on seeing nieces and nephews grow or lost loved ones and friends to the virus.orpingtonRED said:suzisausage said: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.
I am the same, prefer to let my body fight anything before I go and see a DR that gives a magic pill. Too many antibiotics are given unnecessarily in my opinion but that's another subject.
I am not anti vax or anything and I won't be a priority for a vaccine but I can understand peoples concerns.
Some of the finger points and outright bully behaviour on here by some respected people is totally out of order.
2 -
You have hit on something I have believed is important for some time. My thoughts were that an app that was your passport to access pubs, shops etc... would mean everybody would feel they have to have it. I would be more confident going into a shop or boarding a plane if I knew everybody on it had the app and hadn't been in contact with people who had it in a system that most of the country was using.Jints said:
No, obviously not. Anyone who doesn't take the vaccine risks catching the virus and spreading it to others. That has implication for the NHS in terms of capacity and cost. Therefore, anyone not vaccinated should be refused access to pubs etc until the virus has been reduced to mimimal levels.iainment said:
Are you advocating that some tax payers get treatment but not others?Jints said:
You can pass it on to other people who have chose not to have a vaccine (and of course the 5-10% for whom the vaccine won't work). That would be fine if people who choose not to be vaccinated were paying the costs of hospitalisation (£400 per day, much more if in ICU) but they're not. I'll choose to take the vaccine as soon as it's available at what I perceive to be a negligible risk to me. If you choose not to, that's fien but why should anyone other that you have to pay for theshine166 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.
The same applies to vaccinations. If I know everybody was vaccinated I would have no qualms about say going to a cinema. People that chose not to have a vaccination could still get food delivered but the rest of us can say, we don't want you potentially infecting us. Surely we have a right to protect our families and this would be a way.
Of course, they can't vaccinate everybody at the same time so this is something that would need to be introduced later, but I think it should be introduced. People still have a choice and if a pub or a shop doesn't want to restrict people who have chosen not to have a vaccine, fine, but the rest of us will probably chose to use one that has.2 -
"The milligram of alcohol doesn't replicate. The virus will."
This is a good point and Professor Bhakdi needs to be challenged on this, but bear in mind The Prof is a very highly qualified epidemiologist and virologist and is surely aware of this. But as he says, as things stand you can walk past someone who has a tiny amount of Covid-19 and that may be enough to cause you to be quarantined for a fortnight on the current track and trace system. That does seem over the top to me.1 -
I have seen conspiracy theorists come out with the politician line. Clearly the conspiracy does not stretch to the PM (a man well known for his honestly and integrity) having a jab live on TV, which actually only contains a regular everyday flu vaccine...thewolfboy said:Of interest, I think. On the Millwall HOF site, they also have a Covid-19 vaccine poll that asks:
When offered, are you going to take the vaccine? Basic Yes/No response.
Surprisingly the last time I looked 41.7 voted NO! Quite a big difference between their response and ours and I don't understand why. Mind you, a lot of their fans were stating something like, 'Let someone else (preferably a politician) take it first and I'll see what happens.0 -
I think it’s very unlikely that any kind of restrictions to those not having received the vaccination would happen in this country. By restrictions I mean non admission to cinemas, pubs, restaurants etc. It’s just not going to happen and shouldn’t. Where I think we might see vaccination compliance required is in some jobs where they will insist on it. Mostly in public services or in travel industries I would think. It’s also very likely that some countries will require a vaccination confirmation to allow entry. I would be at all surprised if some Far Eastern countries lean this way.MuttleyCAFC said:
You have hit on something I have believed is important for some time. My thoughts were that an app that was your passport to access pubs, shops etc... would mean everybody would feel they have to have it. I would be more confident going into a shop or boarding a plane if I knew everybody on it had the app and hadn't been in contact with people who had it in a system that most of the country was using.Jints said:
No, obviously not. Anyone who doesn't take the vaccine risks catching the virus and spreading it to others. That has implication for the NHS in terms of capacity and cost. Therefore, anyone not vaccinated should be refused access to pubs etc until the virus has been reduced to mimimal levels.iainment said:
Are you advocating that some tax payers get treatment but not others?Jints said:
You can pass it on to other people who have chose not to have a vaccine (and of course the 5-10% for whom the vaccine won't work). That would be fine if people who choose not to be vaccinated were paying the costs of hospitalisation (£400 per day, much more if in ICU) but they're not. I'll choose to take the vaccine as soon as it's available at what I perceive to be a negligible risk to me. If you choose not to, that's fien but why should anyone other that you have to pay for theshine166 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.
The same applies to vaccinations. If I know everybody was vaccinated I would have no qualms about say going to a cinema. People that chose not to have a vaccination could still get food delivered but the rest of us can say, we don't want you potentially infecting us. Surely we have a right to protect our families and this would be a way.
Of course, they can't vaccinate everybody at the same time so this is something that would need to be introduced later, but I think it should be introduced. People still have a choice and if a pub or a shop doesn't want to restrict people who have chosen not to have a vaccine, fine, but the rest of us will probably chose to use one that has.3 -
I wouldn't make it a legal requirement but allow shops/companies to decide. Those of us that wish to protect those around us will probably pick and choose to use what we consider safe pubs, shops, cinemas etc... I can't see why that would be a problem.0
-
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?
5 -
I thought the app had a risk threshold to avoid exactly this. Could be wrong but just walking past someone on the street isn't enough to give a quarantine notice.thewolfboy said:"The milligram of alcohol doesn't replicate. The virus will."
This is a good point and Professor Bhakdi needs to be challenged on this, but bear in mind The Prof is a very highly qualified epidemiologist and virologist and is surely aware of this. But as he says, as things stand you can walk past someone who has a tiny amount of Covid-19 and that may be enough to cause you to be quarantined for a fortnight on the current track and trace system. That does seem over the top to me.
0 -
@MuttleyCAFC
What you are advocating is that people who do not own a smartphone should not be allowed into certain public places.2 - Sponsored links:
-
No, I had a solution for that which I won't go into now. It was covered in depth a few months ago. But I was referring to vaccinations and a system that doesn't impose laws but gives rights to those choosing to try and prevent the spread of the vaccine by having a vaccination. But yes, the aim would be to nudge as many people as possible into having the vaccine.0
-
It would be a massive problem and burden to put on as you suggest shops / companies. I’m as you probably gather very much in favour of putting public safety ahead of the economy in general but the policing would be very difficult and that’s before we start looking at civil liberties which is important too.MuttleyCAFC said:I wouldn't make it a legal requirement but allow shops/companies to decide. Those of us that wish to protect those around us will probably pick and choose to use what we consider safe pubs, shops, cinemas etc... I can't see why that would be a problem.0 -
We are told.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?It will be on the side of the boxes. All you need to do is Google what it all means.
The original Stem science (back in I think 1966) I believe used a foetus that had been aborted. Nobody has ever claimed that the abortion took place to provide the foetus. There would not have been any reason to do this anyway.
From what I have gleaned from my sons Chemistry A level books, human cells are now taken from eggs that are fertilised in labs. They are not dragging live babies from the womb!
This science is not secret - it is in school books!3 -
I did have to look this up. Not sure you've completely understood everything, but this article here in fascinating https://www.chop.edu/news/news-views-why-were-fetal-cells-used-make-certain-vaccinesthewolfboy 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?
Some vaccines are made in a cell line derived from fetal lungs, rather than being an ingredient. Also, the ingredients of vaccines is always publicly available3 -
Maybe we should just concentrate our minds on getting the vaccine to the vulnerable and elderly as quickly as possible.
Every day's delay means another unnecessary hundred deaths. We should really be debating the ethics of whether to prioritise 95 year olds in care homes or mothers with mild diabetes who are bringing up children. Who do you save first?
By the time these vaccines are freely available for people to choose, so many people will have already had Covid it will be too late to worry about compulsory vaccination in this country - although it may be relevant in places like New Zealand and Australia which have been able to close their borders.
0 -
Their will be those that have ethical issues with the contents of the vaccine be it an animal or human derivative. They must weigh up those ethical issues and choose to either take the vaccine or not. It is their choice and in my opinion although individually valid it should not impact in the slightest for those who choose to receive the vaccine. In my book it’s a non topic. The vaccine contains what it contains and the choice is simple.0
-
Absolutely right.ShootersHillGuru said:Their will be those that have ethical issues with the contents of the vaccine be it an animal or human derivative. They must weigh up those ethical issues and choose to either take the vaccine or not. It is their choice and in my opinion although individually valid it should not impact in the slightest for those who choose to receive the vaccine. In my book it’s a non topic. The vaccine contains what it contains and the choice is simple.
Plus, as Stevexreeve says that the ingredients of vaccines is 'always publicly available' and as REDROBO suggests "We are told.it will be on the side of the boxes" is also welcome...if true. Must admit though, I'd like to see the politicians take it first.1 -
I think opinion is split on whether politicians should be at the front of the queue!
Indo hope though they there is sensible coverage of the safety trials, though I'll bet hardly anyone questions any other vaccine or medication (or illegal drug!) They've taken with as much scrutiny0 -
If you are not sure about the vaccine, don't have it! But please don't clog up the NHS while you are gasping for breath because your lungs have turned to tissue paper.
Remember Measle, Mumps and Rubella are nasy horrible diseases , that no longer blight childhood,because of vaccination.
And please no old bolloxes about autism cause you are talking out of your arse!1 -
Can’t see how it’s split. They should be prioritised or not just like any other individual.McBobbin said:I think opinion is split on whether politicians should be at the front of the queue!
Indo hope though they there is sensible coverage of the safety trials, though I'll bet hardly anyone questions any other vaccine or medication (or illegal drug!) They've taken with as much scrutiny0 - Sponsored links:
-
It can’t come soon enough for me.3
-
0
-
There are photos of the boxes already out there. It is where the link to foetus comes from.thewolfboy said:
Absolutely right.ShootersHillGuru said:Their will be those that have ethical issues with the contents of the vaccine be it an animal or human derivative. They must weigh up those ethical issues and choose to either take the vaccine or not. It is their choice and in my opinion although individually valid it should not impact in the slightest for those who choose to receive the vaccine. In my book it’s a non topic. The vaccine contains what it contains and the choice is simple.
Plus, as Stevexreeve says that the ingredients of vaccines is 'always publicly available' and as REDROBO suggests "We are told.it will be on the side of the boxes" is also welcome...if true. Must admit though, I'd like to see the politicians take it first.0 -
In his one hour video, the Prof uses this kind of argument frequently.thewolfboy said:"The milligram of alcohol doesn't replicate. The virus will."
This is a good point and Professor Bhakdi needs to be challenged on this, but bear in mind The Prof is a very highly qualified epidemiologist and virologist and is surely aware of this. But as he says, as things stand you can walk past someone who has a tiny amount of Covid-19 and that may be enough to cause you to be quarantined for a fortnight on the current track and trace system. That does seem over the top to me.
He makes a statement (as a very highly qualified epidemiologist and virologist) and the general public will take this on face value. But, as you and I and others have observed, these statements do not always hold up to closer scrutiny.
Later in the video, he dismisses the 20,000+ new cases per day as 'false positives' as (he says) the PCR test has about a 2% failure rate.
Two things, Prof ... why don't you mention 'false negatives'? And what about the deaths? I submit that anyone who registered a false positive and then dies of Covid-19 is either pretty unlucky, or (more likely) the so-called 'false positive' was probably a true positive.
I also gasped for breath when the Prof mentioned how the virus can use up any antibodies we may have because each one is occupied in a one-to-one relationship with the virus. On that basis, he believes that we can run out of antibodies.
Are you serious, Prof? This is how therapeutic doses are calculated. You don't send an army of 1,000 to deal with 1,000 trouble-makers ... you send 10,000.
Good luck in retirement with the book, Prof. And thank you for telling us that it's available everywhere, and that it has been translated into eight languages.
1 -
Again not true. Two app users walking past each other would not register as a contact. I think it needs minutes within a couple of metres to register as a contact.Dave Rudd said:
In his one hour video, the Prof uses this kind of argument frequently.thewolfboy said:"The milligram of alcohol doesn't replicate. The virus will."
This is a good point and Professor Bhakdi needs to be challenged on this, but bear in mind The Prof is a very highly qualified epidemiologist and virologist and is surely aware of this. But as he says, as things stand you can walk past someone who has a tiny amount of Covid-19 and that may be enough to cause you to be quarantined for a fortnight on the current track and trace system. That does seem over the top to me.
He makes a statement (as a very highly qualified epidemiologist and virologist) and the general public will take this on face value. But, as you and I and others have observed, these statements do not always hold up to closer scrutiny.
Later in the video, he dismisses the 20,000+ new cases per day as 'false positives' as (he says) the PCR test has about a 2% failure rate.
Two things, Prof ... why don't you mention 'false negatives'? And what about the deaths? I submit that anyone who registered a false positive and then dies of Covid-19 is either pretty unlucky, or (more likely) the so-called 'false positive' was probably a true positive.
I also gasped for breath when the Prof mentioned how the virus can use up any antibodies we may have because each one is occupied in a one-to-one relationship with the virus. On that basis, he believes that we can run out of antibodies.
Are you serious, Prof? This is how therapeutic doses are calculated. You don't send an army of 1,000 to deal with 1,000 trouble-makers ... you send 10,000.
Good luck in retirement with the book, Prof. And thank you for telling us that it's available everywhere, and that it has been translated into eight languages.1 -
Well, some say they should take it first to prove the safety, others they should wait their turn.ShootersHillGuru said:
Can’t see how it’s split. They should be prioritised or not just like any other individual.McBobbin said:I think opinion is split on whether politicians should be at the front of the queue!
Indo hope though they there is sensible coverage of the safety trials, though I'll bet hardly anyone questions any other vaccine or medication (or illegal drug!) They've taken with as much scrutiny0 -
MRC-5 is not a carcinogen, nor an ingredient of the vaccines. It is the cell line (derived from stem cells from a foetus that is used to produce the virus. Said virus will then be attenuated, or more likely the key spike proteins/other relevant antigens from it can be isolated and put into the vaccine so that our bodies can raise antibodies against them and acquire immunity to the virus (this must be done as viruses cannot replicate on their own, they need a cell to paracitize in order to do so).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?
As has been said above, this (clonal cell lines etc.) is a well understood technology and has been used for quite some time. Also, the ingredients to the vaccine will also be known and open to scrutiny.
Just remember. Some people on the interwebs either deliberately mis-interpret such things or, most probably, have no understanding of them, but do have an interest in trying to scare others.1 -
Interesting idea but unworkable of course.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.0 -
usetobunkin you are the one talking out your arse as you clearly haven't a clue about autism and special needs. I find your comment so insulting. And as regards clogging up the NHS I hope you feel the same about smokers and drinkers clogging up the NHS too!4
-
A very good question Neil.Alwaysneil said:If my son has been tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies should he be vaccinated?
Problem will be though that at some point he will no longer retain the antibodies.......the most perceived figure at present is about three months or so......though that seems to vary from person to person.
I myself had a very serious encounter with Covid in March/April and one would have thought I would have had bundles of antibodies at some point, however I had two antibody tests done in mid August and to my dismay both came back with negative results.
To this day I don’t know what level of antibodies I had or indeed, did I ever have any?
It could be that my recovery was achieved more by the reaction of my T cells.....once again a mystery for me to ponder over......there have been so many questions over these last few months, almost all unanswered and now with a vaccine becoming available another one has arisen......... just what must I do?
0
This discussion has been closed.
