Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
How Likely Are You To Take The Covid Vaccine?
Comments
-
Mmmm very interesting comment , a few points here for you to ponder !usetobunkin said: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!Number one , do you drink or smoke ? If so please remember to go to the back of the NHS queue for any illnesses related to these two activities.if so developed by your self ?
Number 2 , have you researched the vaccine and do you realise no legal comeback if you have adverse effects from it even if very serious ones . Do you realise how many negligence claims and been brought against Pfizer ( including one where children died as a result of their negligence )And will you go the back of the queue if this vaccine causes your lungs to turn to tissue paper or any other adverse effect you may experience by saying yes to a MRNA vaccine that hasn’t been administered before .Also does no bollocks about autism include other special needs or is is autism your specialist subject ?We all have right to say yes or no to the vaccine without people judging our decision . .5 -
Your last sentence would ‘normally hold true’.......however on this occasion those refusing will be judged and with significantshab2008 said:Mmmm very interesting comment , a few points here for you to ponder !usetobunkin said: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!Number one , do you drink or smoke ? If so please remember to go to the back of the NHS queue for any illnesses related to these two activities.if so developed by your self ?
Number 2 , have you researched the vaccine and do you realise no legal comeback if you have adverse effects from it even if very serious ones . Do you realise how many negligence claims and been brought against Pfizer ( including one where children died as a result of their negligence )And will you go the back of the queue if this vaccine causes your lungs to turn to tissue paper or any other adverse effect you may experience by saying yes to a MRNA vaccine that hasn’t been administered before .Also does no bollocks about autism include other special needs or is is autism your specialist subject ?We all have right to say yes or no to the vaccine without people judging our decision . .
justification.
This is as close as one can get to being on a war basis without actually being at war......no room for doubters I’m afraid.1 -
Your last sentence would ‘normally hold true’.......however on this occasion those refusing will be judged and with significantSoundAsa£ said:shab2008 said:Mmmm very interesting comment , a few points here for you to ponder !usetobunkin said: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!Number one , do you drink or smoke ? If so please remember to go to the back of the NHS queue for any illnesses related to these two activities.if so developed by your self ?
Number 2 , have you researched the vaccine and do you realise no legal comeback if you have adverse effects from it even if very serious ones . Do you realise how many negligence claims and been brought against Pfizer ( including one where children died as a result of their negligence )And will you go the back of the queue if this vaccine causes your lungs to turn to tissue paper or any other adverse effect you may experience by saying yes to a MRNA vaccine that hasn’t been administered before .Also does no bollocks about autism include other special needs or is is autism your specialist subject ?We all have right to say yes or no to the vaccine without people judging our decision . .
justification.
This is as close as one can get to being on a war basis without actually being at war......no room for doubters I’m afraid. So you want a dictatorship then?1 -
Outrageous to even think that MP’s should be given it first to “test” the vaccine.McBobbin said:
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 -
Ooooh yes please.......I love a nice dictator me.iainment said:
So you want a dictatorship then?SoundAsa£ said:
Your last sentence would ‘normally hold true’.......however on this occasion those refusing will be judged and with significantshab2008 said:usetobunkin said: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!Mmmm very interesting comment , a few points here for you to ponder !Number one , do you drink or smoke ? If so please remember to go to the back of the NHS queue for any illnesses related to these two activities.if so developed by your self ?
Number 2 , have you researched the vaccine and do you realise no legal comeback if you have adverse effects from it even if very serious ones . Do you realise how many negligence claims and been brought against Pfizer ( including one where children died as a result of their negligence )And will you go the back of the queue if this vaccine causes your lungs to turn to tissue paper or any other adverse effect you may experience by saying yes to a MRNA vaccine that hasn’t been administered before .Also does no bollocks about autism include other special needs or is is autism your specialist subject ?We all have right to say yes or no to the vaccine without people judging our decision . .
justification.
This is as close as one can get to being on a war basis without actually being at war......no room for doubters I’m afraid.1 -
I think this is the first time I've disagreed with SHG in the whole of the Covid saga. For me this is a question of leadership, I want them to prove to every doubter in the country that the vaccine is safe. I don't want them going first out of privilege, I want them going first out of duty. As soon as it's available, I expect 650 MPs, 800 Lords, every mayor and council leader and every member of The Royal Family to get in a very public queue and take their jabs. Any that choose to chicken out can pick up their P45s.ShootersHillGuru said:
Outrageous to even think that MP’s should be given it first to “test” the vaccine.McBobbin said:
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 scrutiny2 -
Not sure it's unworkable. If an App was created that was only authorised after the person had the vaccine successfully and, for those without smart phones, a laminated certificate provided then I'm sure it could be made a temporary law that restaurants, pubs, entertainment venues, whatever could only admit people on production of the approved certificate or App.SoundAsa£ said:
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 -
I knew it!SoundAsa£ said:
Ooooh yes please.......I love a nice dictator me.iainment said:
So you want a dictatorship then?SoundAsa£ said:
Your last sentence would ‘normally hold true’.......however on this occasion those refusing will be judged and with significantshab2008 said:usetobunkin said: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!Mmmm very interesting comment , a few points here for you to ponder !Number one , do you drink or smoke ? If so please remember to go to the back of the NHS queue for any illnesses related to these two activities.if so developed by your self ?
Number 2 , have you researched the vaccine and do you realise no legal comeback if you have adverse effects from it even if very serious ones . Do you realise how many negligence claims and been brought against Pfizer ( including one where children died as a result of their negligence )And will you go the back of the queue if this vaccine causes your lungs to turn to tissue paper or any other adverse effect you may experience by saying yes to a MRNA vaccine that hasn’t been administered before .Also does no bollocks about autism include other special needs or is is autism your specialist subject ?We all have right to say yes or no to the vaccine without people judging our decision . .
justification.
This is as close as one can get to being on a war basis without actually being at war......no room for doubters I’m afraid.
1 -
Well alright then but only if the jab is in the arse.Stig said:
I think this is the first time I've disagreed with SHG in the whole of the Covid saga. For me this is a question of leadership, I want them to prove to every doubter in the country that the vaccine is safe. I don't want them going first out of privilege, I want them going first out of duty. As soon as it's available, I expect 650 MPs, 800 Lords, every mayor and council leader and every member of The Royal Family to get in a very public queue and take their jabs. Any that choose to chicken out can pick up their P45s.ShootersHillGuru said:
Outrageous to even think that MP’s should be given it first to “test” the vaccine.McBobbin said:
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 scrutiny10 -
Not my view but seen it plastered all over the place. Not to be taken seriously!ShootersHillGuru said:
Outrageous to even think that MP’s should be given it first to “test” the vaccine.McBobbin said:
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 - Sponsored links:
-
Don't want the whole John Gummer feeding his daughter a burger situation... This should be a case of presenting the whole science m many will dispute it, but the majority will go along. I have trust that science is a flawed best chance we have0
-
Do drink don't smoke, Autism is NOT caused by Vaccination.
I have private med insurance, worked two jobs to have the life style i now have, and yes have paid all the taxes that were due on both jobs.
Don't have the vaccination if you are worried.0 -
I would rather we all took responsibility for the safety of our loved ones instead of cowering in our homes hoping someone else will sort it out. I wanted to take part in the Oxford trials but they were not recruiting down here, but respect to those that have. Proper hero’s that have taken a leap into the unknown to help us all. We need to sort this virus and start preparing for the next one, and yes, our leaders should do just that. Lead.Stig said:
I think this is the first time I've disagreed with SHG in the whole of the Covid saga. For me this is a question of leadership, I want them to prove to every doubter in the country that the vaccine is safe. I don't want them going first out of privilege, I want them going first out of duty. As soon as it's available, I expect 650 MPs, 800 Lords, every mayor and council leader and every member of The Royal Family to get in a very public queue and take their jabs. Any that choose to chicken out can pick up their P45s.ShootersHillGuru said:
Outrageous to even think that MP’s should be given it first to “test” the vaccine.McBobbin said:
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 scrutiny
I am seriously surprised that 40% of Millwall supporters are too scared to take it. Never had them down as cowards.If you don’t want to take it because you are scared of any repercussions , fine. Trying to dissuade others by peddling disinformation is just wrong.7 -
As they've been tested on 40,000 people already, way before roll out, I'm a definite. On these occasions you either trust the science or you trust the likes of David Icke. For me it's a no brainer.ForeverAddickted said:Went for Quite Unlikely but probably more in the Not Sure / Its in the Balance
Think I'll wait and see first... I'm not an anti-vaxing idiot but I'm very mistrusting of a lot
I've never bothered with a Flu Vaccine either each winter, and with the COVID vaccine will want to know its safe before I have it jabbed inside me8 -
shab2008 said:
Mmmm very interesting comment , a few points here for you to ponder !usetobunkin said: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!Number 2 , have you researched the vaccine and do you realise no legal comeback if you have adverse effects from it even if very serious ones . Do you realise how many negligence claims and been brought against Pfizer ( including one where children died as a result of their negligence )
What does 'have you researched the vaccine even mean'? How could he research the vaccine with greater authority than virologists?
Any mayor chemical/medical company will have had negligence claims brought against it over a long period. That does not mean that vaccines aren't safe.We all have right to say yes or no to the vaccine without people judging our decision . .
Vaccines require almost universal uptake to be fully effective. Polio is still clinging on in Afghanistan and Pakistan because religious extremists don't trust vaccines. Polio would never have been eliminated in most of the world without extremely high levels of uptake.
So if the actions of anti vaxers, and those that pedal anti-vax conspiracy theories, result in the vaccines not being effective, then why should they, and those that fall for their BS, be above criticism?
3 -
If you’re interested in this topic (you’re on this thread so I assume you are) check out this 15 minute discussion around the vaccine.It’s balanced, informative and answers a lot of the questions I see on here: https://youtu.be/sT80A5uPREo0
-
It's worth watching ... just about. Whoever the guy is (I don't recall seeing his name or credentials), he doesn't inspire too much confidence with his opening remarks, and I'm not sure that he 'answers a lot of the questions on here' ... but let's forgive him for that. He does provide some insight and some relevant information.ElliotCAFC said:If you’re interested in this topic (you’re on this thread so I assume you are) check out this 15 minute discussion around the vaccine.It’s balanced, informative and answers a lot of the questions I see on here: https://youtu.be/sT80A5uPREo
One point that I would like the sceptics to take away from the guy's comments is about the safety of the new vaccines.
He explains the various methods whereby a new vaccine may be developed.
Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are new vaccines developed using established approaches (you will see the term 'RNA - virus genetic code'). In other words, their mechanism of action is not new. This means that there is already a huge baseline of knowledge (including safety data) from previous experience with this mode of action (whereby the vaccine provokes an immune response).
On that basis, general side effects are already understood. Of course, something new can never be ruled out, but you have to ask ... why would this established mode of action suddenly produce a completely new, and disastrous side effect?
Science is based on cause and effect. For an established mode of action to suddenly produce a new effect implies that there is a new cause at play.
In football terms, it's like winning a penalty ... and scoring an own goal with a wayward wind-assisted shot. Not impossible ... especially at Yeovil ... but fairly unlikely.1 -
He's Nicholas Christakis - a graduate of Harvard Medical School and a Professor at Yale. His credentials are about as good as you can get.Dave Rudd said:
It's worth watching ... just about. Whoever the guy is (I don't recall seeing his name or credentials), he doesn't inspire too much confidence with his opening remarks, and I'm not sure that he 'answers a lot of the questions on here' ... but let's forgive him for that. He does provide some insight and some relevant information.ElliotCAFC said:If you’re interested in this topic (you’re on this thread so I assume you are) check out this 15 minute discussion around the vaccine.It’s balanced, informative and answers a lot of the questions I see on here: https://youtu.be/sT80A5uPREo
One point that I would like the sceptics to take away from the guy's comments is about the safety of the new vaccines.
He explains the various methods whereby a new vaccine may be developed.
Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are new vaccines developed using established approaches (you will see the term 'RNA - virus genetic code'). In other words, their mechanism of action is not new. This means that there is already a huge baseline of knowledge (including safety data) from previous experience with this mode of action (whereby the vaccine provokes an immune response).
On that basis, general side effects are already understood. Of course, something new can never be ruled out, but you have to ask ... why would this established mode of action suddenly produce a completely new, and disastrous side effect?
Science is based on cause and effect. For an established mode of action to suddenly produce a new effect implies that there is a new cause at play.
In football terms, it's like winning a penalty ... and scoring an own goal with a wayward wind-assisted shot. Not impossible ... especially at Yeovil ... but fairly unlikely.
0 -
That was my guess ... although I didn't see that in the video.ElliotCAFC said:
He's Nicholas Christakis - a graduate of Harvard Medical School and a Professor at Yale. His credentials are about as good as you can get.Dave Rudd said:
It's worth watching ... just about. Whoever the guy is (I don't recall seeing his name or credentials), he doesn't inspire too much confidence with his opening remarks, and I'm not sure that he 'answers a lot of the questions on here' ... but let's forgive him for that. He does provide some insight and some relevant information.ElliotCAFC said:If you’re interested in this topic (you’re on this thread so I assume you are) check out this 15 minute discussion around the vaccine.It’s balanced, informative and answers a lot of the questions I see on here: https://youtu.be/sT80A5uPREo
One point that I would like the sceptics to take away from the guy's comments is about the safety of the new vaccines.
He explains the various methods whereby a new vaccine may be developed.
Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are new vaccines developed using established approaches (you will see the term 'RNA - virus genetic code'). In other words, their mechanism of action is not new. This means that there is already a huge baseline of knowledge (including safety data) from previous experience with this mode of action (whereby the vaccine provokes an immune response).
On that basis, general side effects are already understood. Of course, something new can never be ruled out, but you have to ask ... why would this established mode of action suddenly produce a completely new, and disastrous side effect?
Science is based on cause and effect. For an established mode of action to suddenly produce a new effect implies that there is a new cause at play.
In football terms, it's like winning a penalty ... and scoring an own goal with a wayward wind-assisted shot. Not impossible ... especially at Yeovil ... but fairly unlikely.
Yes, good credentials. But he may have been more lucid if he had got (gotten?) his thoughts in order before the interview.0 -
I've made almost every important decision in my life based on a whim so why should I change that now?2
- Sponsored links:
-
They are in order. It’s a snippet of a 2+ hour conversation.Dave Rudd said:
That was my guess ... although I didn't see that in the video.ElliotCAFC said:
He's Nicholas Christakis - a graduate of Harvard Medical School and a Professor at Yale. His credentials are about as good as you can get.Dave Rudd said:
It's worth watching ... just about. Whoever the guy is (I don't recall seeing his name or credentials), he doesn't inspire too much confidence with his opening remarks, and I'm not sure that he 'answers a lot of the questions on here' ... but let's forgive him for that. He does provide some insight and some relevant information.ElliotCAFC said:If you’re interested in this topic (you’re on this thread so I assume you are) check out this 15 minute discussion around the vaccine.It’s balanced, informative and answers a lot of the questions I see on here: https://youtu.be/sT80A5uPREo
One point that I would like the sceptics to take away from the guy's comments is about the safety of the new vaccines.
He explains the various methods whereby a new vaccine may be developed.
Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are new vaccines developed using established approaches (you will see the term 'RNA - virus genetic code'). In other words, their mechanism of action is not new. This means that there is already a huge baseline of knowledge (including safety data) from previous experience with this mode of action (whereby the vaccine provokes an immune response).
On that basis, general side effects are already understood. Of course, something new can never be ruled out, but you have to ask ... why would this established mode of action suddenly produce a completely new, and disastrous side effect?
Science is based on cause and effect. For an established mode of action to suddenly produce a new effect implies that there is a new cause at play.
In football terms, it's like winning a penalty ... and scoring an own goal with a wayward wind-assisted shot. Not impossible ... especially at Yeovil ... but fairly unlikely.
Yes, good credentials. But he may have been more lucid if he had got (gotten?) his thoughts in order before the interview.0 -
Christakis is all over the place in first few minutes. And jokes about getting the words' virus' and 'vaccine' mixed up.ElliotCAFC said:
They are in order. It’s a snippet of a 2+ hour conversation.Dave Rudd said:
That was my guess ... although I didn't see that in the video.ElliotCAFC said:
He's Nicholas Christakis - a graduate of Harvard Medical School and a Professor at Yale. His credentials are about as good as you can get.Dave Rudd said:
It's worth watching ... just about. Whoever the guy is (I don't recall seeing his name or credentials), he doesn't inspire too much confidence with his opening remarks, and I'm not sure that he 'answers a lot of the questions on here' ... but let's forgive him for that. He does provide some insight and some relevant information.ElliotCAFC said:If you’re interested in this topic (you’re on this thread so I assume you are) check out this 15 minute discussion around the vaccine.It’s balanced, informative and answers a lot of the questions I see on here: https://youtu.be/sT80A5uPREo
One point that I would like the sceptics to take away from the guy's comments is about the safety of the new vaccines.
He explains the various methods whereby a new vaccine may be developed.
Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are new vaccines developed using established approaches (you will see the term 'RNA - virus genetic code'). In other words, their mechanism of action is not new. This means that there is already a huge baseline of knowledge (including safety data) from previous experience with this mode of action (whereby the vaccine provokes an immune response).
On that basis, general side effects are already understood. Of course, something new can never be ruled out, but you have to ask ... why would this established mode of action suddenly produce a completely new, and disastrous side effect?
Science is based on cause and effect. For an established mode of action to suddenly produce a new effect implies that there is a new cause at play.
In football terms, it's like winning a penalty ... and scoring an own goal with a wayward wind-assisted shot. Not impossible ... especially at Yeovil ... but fairly unlikely.
Yes, good credentials. But he may have been more lucid if he had got (gotten?) his thoughts in order before the interview.
Expertise or no, I'd expect a little better from a professional ... but, if you are happy ...0 -
I think the app idea is a bit unnecessary and shows our addiction to tech in all its glory. However I strongly suspect that most foreign travel will involve the production of proof of a vaccination having been administered. (Whether as an App or good old fashioned piece of paper.)
I have taken this almost at random from a list (well - it was close to the top as well).
"ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA Yellow fever (2014) Country requirement: a yellow fever vaccination certificate is required for travellers over 1 year of age arriving from countries with risk of yellow fever transmission."
It is surely going to be the case that pretty much all foreign countries will require production of a COVID-19 vaccination certificate upon entry? This would be for everyone as all countries will have the risk of transmission.
Those who say they are not having one may have to change their mind if they want to go to Spain on holiday.
6 -
Dave Rudd said:
Christakis is all over the place in first few minutes. And jokes about getting the words' virus' and 'vaccine' mixed up.ElliotCAFC said:
They are in order. It’s a snippet of a 2+ hour conversation.Dave Rudd said:
That was my guess ... although I didn't see that in the video.ElliotCAFC said:
He's Nicholas Christakis - a graduate of Harvard Medical School and a Professor at Yale. His credentials are about as good as you can get.Dave Rudd said:
It's worth watching ... just about. Whoever the guy is (I don't recall seeing his name or credentials), he doesn't inspire too much confidence with his opening remarks, and I'm not sure that he 'answers a lot of the questions on here' ... but let's forgive him for that. He does provide some insight and some relevant information.ElliotCAFC said:If you’re interested in this topic (you’re on this thread so I assume you are) check out this 15 minute discussion around the vaccine.It’s balanced, informative and answers a lot of the questions I see on here: https://youtu.be/sT80A5uPREo
One point that I would like the sceptics to take away from the guy's comments is about the safety of the new vaccines.
He explains the various methods whereby a new vaccine may be developed.
Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are new vaccines developed using established approaches (you will see the term 'RNA - virus genetic code'). In other words, their mechanism of action is not new. This means that there is already a huge baseline of knowledge (including safety data) from previous experience with this mode of action (whereby the vaccine provokes an immune response).
On that basis, general side effects are already understood. Of course, something new can never be ruled out, but you have to ask ... why would this established mode of action suddenly produce a completely new, and disastrous side effect?
Science is based on cause and effect. For an established mode of action to suddenly produce a new effect implies that there is a new cause at play.
In football terms, it's like winning a penalty ... and scoring an own goal with a wayward wind-assisted shot. Not impossible ... especially at Yeovil ... but fairly unlikely.
Yes, good credentials. But he may have been more lucid if he had got (gotten?) his thoughts in order before the interview.
Expertise or no, I'd expect a little better from a professional ... but, if you are happy ...He’s really not. It’s an informal discussion about all things Covid, he jokes that Joe Rogan mixed the two up and in a self-deprecating way admits that someone as qualified as himself sometimes does the same. If you’re going to disregard his points based on that then it says more about you than him.Having listened to the full conversation, he’s certainly an authority on the subject and has been liaising with China to study the virus since November 2019. The conversation is promoting the book he’s written on the virus.Apologies for posting the interview on here, all this time I could have gone straight to you for the answers.1 -
I think you and I might need to leave it, Elliot.ElliotCAFC said:Dave Rudd said:
Christakis is all over the place in first few minutes. And jokes about getting the words' virus' and 'vaccine' mixed up.ElliotCAFC said:
They are in order. It’s a snippet of a 2+ hour conversation.Dave Rudd said:
That was my guess ... although I didn't see that in the video.ElliotCAFC said:
He's Nicholas Christakis - a graduate of Harvard Medical School and a Professor at Yale. His credentials are about as good as you can get.Dave Rudd said:
It's worth watching ... just about. Whoever the guy is (I don't recall seeing his name or credentials), he doesn't inspire too much confidence with his opening remarks, and I'm not sure that he 'answers a lot of the questions on here' ... but let's forgive him for that. He does provide some insight and some relevant information.ElliotCAFC said:If you’re interested in this topic (you’re on this thread so I assume you are) check out this 15 minute discussion around the vaccine.It’s balanced, informative and answers a lot of the questions I see on here: https://youtu.be/sT80A5uPREo
One point that I would like the sceptics to take away from the guy's comments is about the safety of the new vaccines.
He explains the various methods whereby a new vaccine may be developed.
Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are new vaccines developed using established approaches (you will see the term 'RNA - virus genetic code'). In other words, their mechanism of action is not new. This means that there is already a huge baseline of knowledge (including safety data) from previous experience with this mode of action (whereby the vaccine provokes an immune response).
On that basis, general side effects are already understood. Of course, something new can never be ruled out, but you have to ask ... why would this established mode of action suddenly produce a completely new, and disastrous side effect?
Science is based on cause and effect. For an established mode of action to suddenly produce a new effect implies that there is a new cause at play.
In football terms, it's like winning a penalty ... and scoring an own goal with a wayward wind-assisted shot. Not impossible ... especially at Yeovil ... but fairly unlikely.
Yes, good credentials. But he may have been more lucid if he had got (gotten?) his thoughts in order before the interview.
Expertise or no, I'd expect a little better from a professional ... but, if you are happy ...He’s really not. It’s an informal discussion about all things Covid, he jokes that Joe Rogan mixed the two up and in a self-deprecating way admits that someone as qualified as himself sometimes does the same. If you’re going to disregard his points based on that then it says more about you than him.Having listened to the full conversation, he’s certainly an authority on the subject and has been liaising with China to study the virus since November 2019. The conversation is promoting the book he’s written on the virus.Apologies for posting the interview on here, all this time I could have gone straight to you for the answers.
You have your views, you have your favourites. That's fine.
I will counsel, however, that it's risky to make too many extrapolations from a handful of comments. You should remain open to the notion that there can be many interpretations in any given situation ... so please don't assume that your self-imposed conclusion is necessarily the correct one. Science, dear boy.
And, yes ... by all means ... if you want to come to me in the future, feel free.
In the meantime, let's spare everyone else and leave it there.0 -
How about the vaccine for children?
I don't believe the government intend that children will ever be given the vaccine routinely by the NHS let alone making it compulsory.
I will grab any vaccine as soon as I can get one but I'm glad I don't have to make that call for my children any more.
I may be wrong but I suspect that ,for young children, the miniscule risk of complications from the vaccine is still greater than the risks from Covid itself - even if you assume the child will catch the virus. It may be safer to deliberately infect the child than give him/ her a vaccination.
In these circumstances is it morally correct to force vaccinations just to prevent the virus spreading?
0 -
I'm just over over 50 but fit and healthy
But my partner and and our two lads all work in care or the NHS so they should all be quite high up I would think0 -
I doubt children under 11 will be routinely offered the vaccine but children become adults and eventually I would expect to see the vaccine routinely offered to children aged 11. Admittedly they will not be near the front of the queue.stevexreeve said:How about the vaccine for children?
I don't believe the government intend that children will ever be given the vaccine routinely by the NHS let alone making it compulsory.
I will grab any vaccine as soon as I can get one but I'm glad I don't have to make that call for my children any more.
I may be wrong but I suspect that ,for young children, the miniscule risk of complications from the vaccine is still greater than the risks from Covid itself - even if you assume the child will catch the virus. It may be safer to deliberately infect the child than give him/ her a vaccination.
In these circumstances is it morally correct to force vaccinations just to prevent the virus spreading?2 -
Vaccine Minister suggests bars, cinemas and football stadiums could BAN Brits who haven’t had jab as he admits No10 is looking at ‘immunity passports’.
Said earlier in this thread that this could happen so no surprise to me. I think people should get the jab, but not sure about this.0 -
Redrobo said:Vaccine Minister suggests bars, cinemas and football stadiums could BAN Brits who haven’t had jab as he admits No10 is looking at ‘immunity passports’.
Said earlier in this thread that this could happen so no surprise to me. I think people should get the jab, but not sure about this.
I'm not sure I have too much of a problem with this. If it can't be made mandatory (I agree it shouldn't) then a carrot and stick approach is not unreasonable.
9
This discussion has been closed.
