Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Vaccine

1737476787994

Comments

  • Just jumped on this thread for the first time - so apologies if this is all covered back in the pages and pages of this thread which no doubt it has been! 

    Got my vaccine booked for this Thursday and very likely cracking on with it. 

    Not done any specific reading or certainly googling at all, so not read any conspiracy theories or considered much beyond casual discussions with a few mates most of whom on the whole arent particularly opinionated on it either way. 

    But I am every so slightly on the fence.

    I’m 34 years of age. Fit and healthy as far as I know, healthy weight lots of exercise decent enough diet etc etc. Had covid 5 months ago, which passed no panic. 

    From an individual perspective, I feel like there is an extremely low/ practically zero risk from covid for me - stats I think support that just based on age and healthy weight status etc, and then added to the fact I had the virus with no probs a few months ago I would guess I’m a good / Even better place for my body to fight it off with ease if it came round again. 

    Generally always followed medical / doctors advice etc without question, but also always been broadly encouraged, I believe rightly, to avoid medicine etc if not necessary. (Also had a number of family medical experiences which have not given me great faith / trust in all medical advice but putting that to one side)

    So from a purely individual perspective I don’t really see any reason for me to actually get the vaccine - Covid is all a numbers game and I think the risk to me of anything vaguely problematic , even ‘long Covid’ is extremely, extremely low. 

    On that basis, my mindset is I should probably take it for the ‘greater good’ - but what actually is the logic on that?

    If most people especially those who are older or vulnerable to covid for other reasons such as diabetes and asthma have taken it, surely they are all broadly protected and therefore shouldn’t really be in danger even if somebody like me manages to contract the virus (hopefully quite unlikely in itself it the vaccine succeeds in helping to reduce spreadability which you would hope but I think is a bit of an unknown). My parents for example are older and with health conditions, but have been vaccinated.

    I know the idea is to keep it from circulating in general and I also know people hate the flu comparison (this is NOT a normal flu!! Etc etc). But obviously the vulnerable / elderly are vaccinated every year against flu as they’re at risk but healthy 34 year olds aren’t and are allowed to tear round pubs trains clubs football stadia spreading it around as they’re not at risk of it being any sort of problem.

    Is it about - less cases equals less
    chance of mutations etc etc? Which again there is obviously a logic to and I get that logic - but on the other hand, how likely is that in reality? Decades and lifetimes have raced by before covid suddenly popped up - how likely is it that it will suddenly now immediately turn into a way more deadly one? Again, I get there is a scientific possibility but if we were looking at odds - which this whole thing is about - is it really likely? And even if it is, given its spreading around the world and entering our country regardless and will never disappear either worldwide or in the UK, is it even worth trying to bother keeping levels very low rather than low. 

    I’m not anti vax as such and don’t really think there’s any likelihood of an issue from it - I’ve taken loads of travel vaccines etc before without batting an eyelid and people drink, take drugs and all sorts of other things with possibly side effects without a second thought. It’s only cos we’re being made to think about it that this is really coming up. 

    But on the flip side, I’m taking a vaccination which is new and not entirely known and that will probably make me feel shit for a day or two. In short I’m trying to find a compelling reason for me personally to be having it but what actually is that reason? In my view the covid risk to me is 0.1% and the vaccine risk + side effects Vs benefits (doesn’t actually even stop you getting it) probably amount to similar to that depending on how you look at it.

    So why take something unnatural? Don’t think it makes sense for me solely as an individual. The greater good is fine if that’s the case but I’m not sure if there is a properly convincing argument as to how me taking it is doing greater good.

    not after an argument or a condescending lecture! 
    Whatever the chances of you suffering in the future by the virus, by having the vaccine, you are reducing the chances of contracting it and passing it on to others that may be less 'fit' than you. Even if you've had it. 
    The vaccine not only reduces your symptoms should you catch it, it reduces your chances of catching it unknowingly, plus also the chances of passing it on. 
    the way i see it, how would you feel if you didn't have the vaccine, didn't know you were carrying the virus and passed it on to a family member or friend that went on to get seriously ill or die. I can't live knowing about that risk.  Although I hate putting chemicals in my body, don't even like taking paracetamol, i feel we morally shouldn't have a choice re the vaccine and should see it as a privilege to protect others not a choice to protect ourselves. (same with masks really but have learnt a while ago that people can be and are very selfish still believing it's themselves they are protecting wearing one and the 'i'm alright jack attitude' is one I despise. 
    I do still have tons of questions around complacency and the lateral flow testing, that I feel isn't encouraged as much as it should be, but as i know 2 people who contracted the virus post vaccine, it's highlighted to me the need to do lateral flow tests regularly just to double check even if the risk is reducing by the week.  
    Again I get the theory but that doesn't still seem convincing to me - isn't the point that those people you refer to are all vaccinated so protected themselves, so in theory it wouldn't actually matter if I pass it on to them? Which is underlined by hoof it up to benty's comment? My parents are very old and vulnerable as I say, but I haven't worried about them recently even though I'm unvaccinated, because they're protected (I know it's not 100% protection, but very high).
    Suzi has just offered you one of the calmest and well-written posts on this entire 75-page thread, if that reply hasn’t convinced you, then I have no idea what you’re expecting anyone to reply to your original post with. 
    Well I haven't read the first 74 pages, but my response to your comment is essentially the same as the response to Suzi. Suzi's suggestion which I'm not criticising, just challenging, is that I should be having the vaccine to protect others who might get seriously ill or die from it - but all of those should already have been vaccinated, so I'm not sure that's actually a convincing answer. 
    You don’t need to have read the previous pages, I’m telling you a fact that Suzi’s post is one of the best summaries of covid vaccination process. 

    As you’ve said the vaccination is not 100%, but does add protection to those taking it against the virus. The added protection bit is surely the part that convinces you though. 

    This isn’t a great analogy, but trying to think of something that will convince you after you’ve not accepted other great replies. If someone said you need to jump out of a plane, and you can either have a parachute or no parachute, which would you choose? Either way you’re jumping out of the plane, but one gives you some added protection. 
    that's an atrocious analogy.

    If I jump out of a plane there is a 0.01% chance (probably more) I will live. So I'll take the parachute which maybe gives me a 90% chance of living?

    If I don't take the covid vaccine there is a 0.01% (maybe less) chance I will die and what maybe a 0.01% chance I would contract the virus, pass it onto somebody vulnerable / unprotected and/or protected and they then die as a result? What percentage improvement is taking the vaccine giving versus using a parachute!

    I get the "added protection" point but like I say - this, and the whole thing, is built on statistics right. But the predicted added protection to either myself or others seems to be so, so minute and there are downsides and unknowns with the vaccine too?

    I suppose the purpose of my post was to see if anyone can give me what I see as a really compelling / indisputable argument for. I'm challenging Suzi's and yours because I don't think they comprise anything close to that. The arguments for seem so minute when you look at the maths, are also based on assumptions / guesswork to a large extent at this stage - and then there is the side point that (whilst also extremely unlikely) there could be a downside to the vaccine. 

    That said, as I said above, I'm cracking on with it anyway, but I'm just not convinced by it. 
  • Sensible points raised above, to a sensible original post. Who on Earth would have thought that was possible?

    Should bookmark pages 75 and 76 of this thread for the tinfoil hat nutters - if they can't figure it out after reading through these, there's no hope for them.

    This discussion does raise a serious debate - isn't it about time that vaccination was given a bigger focus in the Science syllabus? I know that Science education at GCSE level in this country is dreadful (which makes the fact we excel at it at degree level and beyond even more remarkable) - but surely something a bit more than the derisory half a lesson I think I got on it (and I took double science at GCSE) is appropriate now?
    Do they not teach each science as separate subject any more? When I was at school Biology, Human Biology, Chemistry and Physics were all taught as separate 'O' level subjects.

    The lessons are separate but usually a combined qualification.
  • Sensible points raised above, to a sensible original post. Who on Earth would have thought that was possible?

    Should bookmark pages 75 and 76 of this thread for the tinfoil hat nutters - if they can't figure it out after reading through these, there's no hope for them.

    This discussion does raise a serious debate - isn't it about time that vaccination was given a bigger focus in the Science syllabus? I know that Science education at GCSE level in this country is dreadful (which makes the fact we excel at it at degree level and beyond even more remarkable) - but surely something a bit more than the derisory half a lesson I think I got on it (and I took double science at GCSE) is appropriate now?
    Do they not teach each science as separate subject any more? When I was at school Biology, Human Biology, Chemistry and Physics were all taught as separate 'O' level subjects.

    No - unless it's changed again? When I was at school it was combined as 'science' or 'double science' if you chose it as an option - only returning to Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology etc at A level
  • I studied Biology at 'O' level, then Human Biology as a separate 'O' level in the first year of my Biology 'A' Level course. To have all sciences combined must be a very watered down version of the old system.
  • edited June 2021
    Just jumped on this thread for the first time - so apologies if this is all covered back in the pages and pages of this thread which no doubt it has been! 

    Got my vaccine booked for this Thursday and very likely cracking on with it. 

    Not done any specific reading or certainly googling at all, so not read any conspiracy theories or considered much beyond casual discussions with a few mates most of whom on the whole arent particularly opinionated on it either way. 

    But I am every so slightly on the fence.

    I’m 34 years of age. Fit and healthy as far as I know, healthy weight lots of exercise decent enough diet etc etc. Had covid 5 months ago, which passed no panic. 

    From an individual perspective, I feel like there is an extremely low/ practically zero risk from covid for me - stats I think support that just based on age and healthy weight status etc, and then added to the fact I had the virus with no probs a few months ago I would guess I’m a good / Even better place for my body to fight it off with ease if it came round again. 

    Generally always followed medical / doctors advice etc without question, but also always been broadly encouraged, I believe rightly, to avoid medicine etc if not necessary. (Also had a number of family medical experiences which have not given me great faith / trust in all medical advice but putting that to one side)

    So from a purely individual perspective I don’t really see any reason for me to actually get the vaccine - Covid is all a numbers game and I think the risk to me of anything vaguely problematic , even ‘long Covid’ is extremely, extremely low. 

    On that basis, my mindset is I should probably take it for the ‘greater good’ - but what actually is the logic on that?

    If most people especially those who are older or vulnerable to covid for other reasons such as diabetes and asthma have taken it, surely they are all broadly protected and therefore shouldn’t really be in danger even if somebody like me manages to contract the virus (hopefully quite unlikely in itself it the vaccine succeeds in helping to reduce spreadability which you would hope but I think is a bit of an unknown). My parents for example are older and with health conditions, but have been vaccinated.

    I know the idea is to keep it from circulating in general and I also know people hate the flu comparison (this is NOT a normal flu!! Etc etc). But obviously the vulnerable / elderly are vaccinated every year against flu as they’re at risk but healthy 34 year olds aren’t and are allowed to tear round pubs trains clubs football stadia spreading it around as they’re not at risk of it being any sort of problem.

    Is it about - less cases equals less
    chance of mutations etc etc? Which again there is obviously a logic to and I get that logic - but on the other hand, how likely is that in reality? Decades and lifetimes have raced by before covid suddenly popped up - how likely is it that it will suddenly now immediately turn into a way more deadly one? Again, I get there is a scientific possibility but if we were looking at odds - which this whole thing is about - is it really likely? And even if it is, given its spreading around the world and entering our country regardless and will never disappear either worldwide or in the UK, is it even worth trying to bother keeping levels very low rather than low. 

    I’m not anti vax as such and don’t really think there’s any likelihood of an issue from it - I’ve taken loads of travel vaccines etc before without batting an eyelid and people drink, take drugs and all sorts of other things with possibly side effects without a second thought. It’s only cos we’re being made to think about it that this is really coming up. 

    But on the flip side, I’m taking a vaccination which is new and not entirely known and that will probably make me feel shit for a day or two. In short I’m trying to find a compelling reason for me personally to be having it but what actually is that reason? In my view the covid risk to me is 0.1% and the vaccine risk + side effects Vs benefits (doesn’t actually even stop you getting it) probably amount to similar to that depending on how you look at it.

    So why take something unnatural? Don’t think it makes sense for me solely as an individual. The greater good is fine if that’s the case but I’m not sure if there is a properly convincing argument as to how me taking it is doing greater good.

    not after an argument or a condescending lecture! 
    Whatever the chances of you suffering in the future by the virus, by having the vaccine, you are reducing the chances of contracting it and passing it on to others that may be less 'fit' than you. Even if you've had it. 
    The vaccine not only reduces your symptoms should you catch it, it reduces your chances of catching it unknowingly, plus also the chances of passing it on. 
    the way i see it, how would you feel if you didn't have the vaccine, didn't know you were carrying the virus and passed it on to a family member or friend that went on to get seriously ill or die. I can't live knowing about that risk.  Although I hate putting chemicals in my body, don't even like taking paracetamol, i feel we morally shouldn't have a choice re the vaccine and should see it as a privilege to protect others not a choice to protect ourselves. (same with masks really but have learnt a while ago that people can be and are very selfish still believing it's themselves they are protecting wearing one and the 'i'm alright jack attitude' is one I despise. 
    I do still have tons of questions around complacency and the lateral flow testing, that I feel isn't encouraged as much as it should be, but as i know 2 people who contracted the virus post vaccine, it's highlighted to me the need to do lateral flow tests regularly just to double check even if the risk is reducing by the week.  
    Again I get the theory but that doesn't still seem convincing to me - isn't the point that those people you refer to are all vaccinated so protected themselves, so in theory it wouldn't actually matter if I pass it on to them? Which is underlined by hoof it up to benty's comment? My parents are very old and vulnerable as I say, but I haven't worried about them recently even though I'm unvaccinated, because they're protected (I know it's not 100% protection, but very high).
    Suzi has just offered you one of the calmest and well-written posts on this entire 75-page thread, if that reply hasn’t convinced you, then I have no idea what you’re expecting anyone to reply to your original post with. 
    Well I haven't read the first 74 pages, but my response to your comment is essentially the same as the response to Suzi. Suzi's suggestion which I'm not criticising, just challenging, is that I should be having the vaccine to protect others who might get seriously ill or die from it - but all of those should already have been vaccinated, so I'm not sure that's actually a convincing answer. 
    You don’t need to have read the previous pages, I’m telling you a fact that Suzi’s post is one of the best summaries of covid vaccination process. 

    As you’ve said the vaccination is not 100%, but does add protection to those taking it against the virus. The added protection bit is surely the part that convinces you though. 

    This isn’t a great analogy, but trying to think of something that will convince you after you’ve not accepted other great replies. If someone said you need to jump out of a plane, and you can either have a parachute or no parachute, which would you choose? Either way you’re jumping out of the plane, but one gives you some added protection. 
    that's an atrocious analogy.

    If I jump out of a plane there is a 0.01% chance (probably more) I will live. So I'll take the parachute which maybe gives me a 90% chance of living?

    If I don't take the covid vaccine there is a 0.01% (maybe less) chance I will die and what maybe a 0.01% chance I would contract the virus, pass it onto somebody vulnerable / unprotected and/or protected and they then die as a result? What percentage improvement is taking the vaccine giving versus using a parachute!

    I get the "added protection" point but like I say - this, and the whole thing, is built on statistics right. But the predicted added protection to either myself or others seems to be so, so minute and there are downsides and unknowns with the vaccine too?

    I suppose the purpose of my post was to see if anyone can give me what I see as a really compelling / indisputable argument for. I'm challenging Suzi's and yours because I don't think they comprise anything close to that. The arguments for seem so minute when you look at the maths, are also based on assumptions / guesswork to a large extent at this stage - and then there is the side point that (whilst also extremely unlikely) there could be a downside to the vaccine. 

    That said, as I said above, I'm cracking on with it anyway, but I'm just not convinced by it. 
    @paulsturgess

    Fair enough. Does seem to me that your stance does have to many I, I, I and Me, me me to it. The reality is to beat the virus we need as many people taking the vaccine as possible. If that mean some small sacrifices then I think it’s worth it. Good luck with you vaccine. 

    Chizz said:
    Hi @paulsturgess

    Mind if I ask you a quick question? Who would you prefer to be sat next to in a cinema, someone who has been vaccinated, or someone who hasn't? 


    .


  • Just jumped on this thread for the first time - so apologies if this is all covered back in the pages and pages of this thread which no doubt it has been! 

    Got my vaccine booked for this Thursday and very likely cracking on with it. 

    Not done any specific reading or certainly googling at all, so not read any conspiracy theories or considered much beyond casual discussions with a few mates most of whom on the whole arent particularly opinionated on it either way. 

    But I am every so slightly on the fence.

    I’m 34 years of age. Fit and healthy as far as I know, healthy weight lots of exercise decent enough diet etc etc. Had covid 5 months ago, which passed no panic. 

    From an individual perspective, I feel like there is an extremely low/ practically zero risk from covid for me - stats I think support that just based on age and healthy weight status etc, and then added to the fact I had the virus with no probs a few months ago I would guess I’m a good / Even better place for my body to fight it off with ease if it came round again. 

    Generally always followed medical / doctors advice etc without question, but also always been broadly encouraged, I believe rightly, to avoid medicine etc if not necessary. (Also had a number of family medical experiences which have not given me great faith / trust in all medical advice but putting that to one side)

    So from a purely individual perspective I don’t really see any reason for me to actually get the vaccine - Covid is all a numbers game and I think the risk to me of anything vaguely problematic , even ‘long Covid’ is extremely, extremely low. 

    On that basis, my mindset is I should probably take it for the ‘greater good’ - but what actually is the logic on that?

    If most people especially those who are older or vulnerable to covid for other reasons such as diabetes and asthma have taken it, surely they are all broadly protected and therefore shouldn’t really be in danger even if somebody like me manages to contract the virus (hopefully quite unlikely in itself it the vaccine succeeds in helping to reduce spreadability which you would hope but I think is a bit of an unknown). My parents for example are older and with health conditions, but have been vaccinated.

    I know the idea is to keep it from circulating in general and I also know people hate the flu comparison (this is NOT a normal flu!! Etc etc). But obviously the vulnerable / elderly are vaccinated every year against flu as they’re at risk but healthy 34 year olds aren’t and are allowed to tear round pubs trains clubs football stadia spreading it around as they’re not at risk of it being any sort of problem.

    Is it about - less cases equals less
    chance of mutations etc etc? Which again there is obviously a logic to and I get that logic - but on the other hand, how likely is that in reality? Decades and lifetimes have raced by before covid suddenly popped up - how likely is it that it will suddenly now immediately turn into a way more deadly one? Again, I get there is a scientific possibility but if we were looking at odds - which this whole thing is about - is it really likely? And even if it is, given its spreading around the world and entering our country regardless and will never disappear either worldwide or in the UK, is it even worth trying to bother keeping levels very low rather than low. 

    I’m not anti vax as such and don’t really think there’s any likelihood of an issue from it - I’ve taken loads of travel vaccines etc before without batting an eyelid and people drink, take drugs and all sorts of other things with possibly side effects without a second thought. It’s only cos we’re being made to think about it that this is really coming up. 

    But on the flip side, I’m taking a vaccination which is new and not entirely known and that will probably make me feel shit for a day or two. In short I’m trying to find a compelling reason for me personally to be having it but what actually is that reason? In my view the covid risk to me is 0.1% and the vaccine risk + side effects Vs benefits (doesn’t actually even stop you getting it) probably amount to similar to that depending on how you look at it.

    So why take something unnatural? Don’t think it makes sense for me solely as an individual. The greater good is fine if that’s the case but I’m not sure if there is a properly convincing argument as to how me taking it is doing greater good.

    not after an argument or a condescending lecture! 
    Whatever the chances of you suffering in the future by the virus, by having the vaccine, you are reducing the chances of contracting it and passing it on to others that may be less 'fit' than you. Even if you've had it. 
    The vaccine not only reduces your symptoms should you catch it, it reduces your chances of catching it unknowingly, plus also the chances of passing it on. 
    the way i see it, how would you feel if you didn't have the vaccine, didn't know you were carrying the virus and passed it on to a family member or friend that went on to get seriously ill or die. I can't live knowing about that risk.  Although I hate putting chemicals in my body, don't even like taking paracetamol, i feel we morally shouldn't have a choice re the vaccine and should see it as a privilege to protect others not a choice to protect ourselves. (same with masks really but have learnt a while ago that people can be and are very selfish still believing it's themselves they are protecting wearing one and the 'i'm alright jack attitude' is one I despise. 
    I do still have tons of questions around complacency and the lateral flow testing, that I feel isn't encouraged as much as it should be, but as i know 2 people who contracted the virus post vaccine, it's highlighted to me the need to do lateral flow tests regularly just to double check even if the risk is reducing by the week.  
    Again I get the theory but that doesn't still seem convincing to me - isn't the point that those people you refer to are all vaccinated so protected themselves, so in theory it wouldn't actually matter if I pass it on to them? Which is underlined by hoof it up to benty's comment? My parents are very old and vulnerable as I say, but I haven't worried about them recently even though I'm unvaccinated, because they're protected (I know it's not 100% protection, but very high).
    Suzi has just offered you one of the calmest and well-written posts on this entire 75-page thread, if that reply hasn’t convinced you, then I have no idea what you’re expecting anyone to reply to your original post with. 
    Well I haven't read the first 74 pages, but my response to your comment is essentially the same as the response to Suzi. Suzi's suggestion which I'm not criticising, just challenging, is that I should be having the vaccine to protect others who might get seriously ill or die from it - but all of those should already have been vaccinated, so I'm not sure that's actually a convincing answer. 
    You don’t need to have read the previous pages, I’m telling you a fact that Suzi’s post is one of the best summaries of covid vaccination process. 

    As you’ve said the vaccination is not 100%, but does add protection to those taking it against the virus. The added protection bit is surely the part that convinces you though. 

    This isn’t a great analogy, but trying to think of something that will convince you after you’ve not accepted other great replies. If someone said you need to jump out of a plane, and you can either have a parachute or no parachute, which would you choose? Either way you’re jumping out of the plane, but one gives you some added protection. 
    that's an atrocious analogy.

    If I jump out of a plane there is a 0.01% chance (probably more) I will live. So I'll take the parachute which maybe gives me a 90% chance of living?

    If I don't take the covid vaccine there is a 0.01% (maybe less) chance I will die and what maybe a 0.01% chance I would contract the virus, pass it onto somebody vulnerable / unprotected and/or protected and they then die as a result? What percentage improvement is taking the vaccine giving versus using a parachute!

    I get the "added protection" point but like I say - this, and the whole thing, is built on statistics right. But the predicted added protection to either myself or others seems to be so, so minute and there are downsides and unknowns with the vaccine too?

    I suppose the purpose of my post was to see if anyone can give me what I see as a really compelling / indisputable argument for. I'm challenging Suzi's and yours because I don't think they comprise anything close to that. The arguments for seem so minute when you look at the maths, are also based on assumptions / guesswork to a large extent at this stage - and then there is the side point that (whilst also extremely unlikely) there could be a downside to the vaccine. 

    That said, as I said above, I'm cracking on with it anyway, but I'm just not convinced by it. 
    @paulsturgess

    Fair enough. Does seem to me that your stance does have to many I, I, I and Me, me me to it. The reality is to beat the virus we need as many people taking the vaccine as possible. If that mean some small sacrifices then I think it’s worth it. Good luck with you vaccine. 
    don't think that's a remotely fair comment at all. The 'I' comments were essentially brought up in response to the frankly ridiculous parachute comparison which was clearly addressed to me as a single individual.

    All of my challenging on this has been trying to find a compelling reason in relation to wider society for both myself or people of my demographic to take the vaccine - because I'm already pretty convinced there's little to no personal benefit for me individually which you broadly acknowledged yourself.

    My questions are all about a general point here which applies to both myself as an individual and as a wider question for everybody, including government, weighing up pros and cons for society of this programme:

    - is a healthy under 40 year old doing themselves any good by taking the vaccine? possibly a tiny amount but negligible at most in statistical terms;
    - is a healthy under 40 year old doing others a favour by taking the vaccine? possibly, but again a tiny amount in statistical terms;
    - is a healthy under under 40 year old doing themselves any negatives by taking the vaccine? Probably not other than short-term but we don't necessarily know for sure?;

    Is it right for people to be coerced into taking a vaccine when all the stats and these points above are taken into account? I'm not saying it is or it isn't and I'm delighted so many people have taken it because I'm hoping it will translate into less hospital admissions which is ultimately all that matters and if it does should mean that society can remain open. But for me that is the primary question is - are hospital admissions going up? If not, even if only 50% of the population have been vaccinated, I don't really see why there is a need for the other 50% to be done.

    I think it's an unreasonable stance to call anyone selfish for wanting to think about and challenge these things - especially after such catastrophic f*** ups by those making the rules across the last 18 months. 
  • I studied Biology at 'O' level, then Human Biology as a separate 'O' level in the first year of my Biology 'A' Level course. To have all sciences combined must be a very watered down version of the old system.
    Truancy was my preference. 
    Probably shows in the way I post on here 😦
  • Just jumped on this thread for the first time - so apologies if this is all covered back in the pages and pages of this thread which no doubt it has been! 

    Got my vaccine booked for this Thursday and very likely cracking on with it. 

    Not done any specific reading or certainly googling at all, so not read any conspiracy theories or considered much beyond casual discussions with a few mates most of whom on the whole arent particularly opinionated on it either way. 

    But I am every so slightly on the fence.

    I’m 34 years of age. Fit and healthy as far as I know, healthy weight lots of exercise decent enough diet etc etc. Had covid 5 months ago, which passed no panic. 

    From an individual perspective, I feel like there is an extremely low/ practically zero risk from covid for me - stats I think support that just based on age and healthy weight status etc, and then added to the fact I had the virus with no probs a few months ago I would guess I’m a good / Even better place for my body to fight it off with ease if it came round again. 

    Generally always followed medical / doctors advice etc without question, but also always been broadly encouraged, I believe rightly, to avoid medicine etc if not necessary. (Also had a number of family medical experiences which have not given me great faith / trust in all medical advice but putting that to one side)

    So from a purely individual perspective I don’t really see any reason for me to actually get the vaccine - Covid is all a numbers game and I think the risk to me of anything vaguely problematic , even ‘long Covid’ is extremely, extremely low. 

    On that basis, my mindset is I should probably take it for the ‘greater good’ - but what actually is the logic on that?

    If most people especially those who are older or vulnerable to covid for other reasons such as diabetes and asthma have taken it, surely they are all broadly protected and therefore shouldn’t really be in danger even if somebody like me manages to contract the virus (hopefully quite unlikely in itself it the vaccine succeeds in helping to reduce spreadability which you would hope but I think is a bit of an unknown). My parents for example are older and with health conditions, but have been vaccinated.

    I know the idea is to keep it from circulating in general and I also know people hate the flu comparison (this is NOT a normal flu!! Etc etc). But obviously the vulnerable / elderly are vaccinated every year against flu as they’re at risk but healthy 34 year olds aren’t and are allowed to tear round pubs trains clubs football stadia spreading it around as they’re not at risk of it being any sort of problem.

    Is it about - less cases equals less
    chance of mutations etc etc? Which again there is obviously a logic to and I get that logic - but on the other hand, how likely is that in reality? Decades and lifetimes have raced by before covid suddenly popped up - how likely is it that it will suddenly now immediately turn into a way more deadly one? Again, I get there is a scientific possibility but if we were looking at odds - which this whole thing is about - is it really likely? And even if it is, given its spreading around the world and entering our country regardless and will never disappear either worldwide or in the UK, is it even worth trying to bother keeping levels very low rather than low. 

    I’m not anti vax as such and don’t really think there’s any likelihood of an issue from it - I’ve taken loads of travel vaccines etc before without batting an eyelid and people drink, take drugs and all sorts of other things with possibly side effects without a second thought. It’s only cos we’re being made to think about it that this is really coming up. 

    But on the flip side, I’m taking a vaccination which is new and not entirely known and that will probably make me feel shit for a day or two. In short I’m trying to find a compelling reason for me personally to be having it but what actually is that reason? In my view the covid risk to me is 0.1% and the vaccine risk + side effects Vs benefits (doesn’t actually even stop you getting it) probably amount to similar to that depending on how you look at it.

    So why take something unnatural? Don’t think it makes sense for me solely as an individual. The greater good is fine if that’s the case but I’m not sure if there is a properly convincing argument as to how me taking it is doing greater good.

    not after an argument or a condescending lecture! 
    Whatever the chances of you suffering in the future by the virus, by having the vaccine, you are reducing the chances of contracting it and passing it on to others that may be less 'fit' than you. Even if you've had it. 
    The vaccine not only reduces your symptoms should you catch it, it reduces your chances of catching it unknowingly, plus also the chances of passing it on. 
    the way i see it, how would you feel if you didn't have the vaccine, didn't know you were carrying the virus and passed it on to a family member or friend that went on to get seriously ill or die. I can't live knowing about that risk.  Although I hate putting chemicals in my body, don't even like taking paracetamol, i feel we morally shouldn't have a choice re the vaccine and should see it as a privilege to protect others not a choice to protect ourselves. (same with masks really but have learnt a while ago that people can be and are very selfish still believing it's themselves they are protecting wearing one and the 'i'm alright jack attitude' is one I despise. 
    I do still have tons of questions around complacency and the lateral flow testing, that I feel isn't encouraged as much as it should be, but as i know 2 people who contracted the virus post vaccine, it's highlighted to me the need to do lateral flow tests regularly just to double check even if the risk is reducing by the week.  
    Again I get the theory but that doesn't still seem convincing to me - isn't the point that those people you refer to are all vaccinated so protected themselves, so in theory it wouldn't actually matter if I pass it on to them? Which is underlined by hoof it up to benty's comment? My parents are very old and vulnerable as I say, but I haven't worried about them recently even though I'm unvaccinated, because they're protected (I know it's not 100% protection, but very high).
    Suzi has just offered you one of the calmest and well-written posts on this entire 75-page thread, if that reply hasn’t convinced you, then I have no idea what you’re expecting anyone to reply to your original post with. 
    Well I haven't read the first 74 pages, but my response to your comment is essentially the same as the response to Suzi. Suzi's suggestion which I'm not criticising, just challenging, is that I should be having the vaccine to protect others who might get seriously ill or die from it - but all of those should already have been vaccinated, so I'm not sure that's actually a convincing answer. 
    You don’t need to have read the previous pages, I’m telling you a fact that Suzi’s post is one of the best summaries of covid vaccination process. 

    As you’ve said the vaccination is not 100%, but does add protection to those taking it against the virus. The added protection bit is surely the part that convinces you though. 

    This isn’t a great analogy, but trying to think of something that will convince you after you’ve not accepted other great replies. If someone said you need to jump out of a plane, and you can either have a parachute or no parachute, which would you choose? Either way you’re jumping out of the plane, but one gives you some added protection. 
    that's an atrocious analogy.

    If I jump out of a plane there is a 0.01% chance (probably more) I will live. So I'll take the parachute which maybe gives me a 90% chance of living?

    If I don't take the covid vaccine there is a 0.01% (maybe less) chance I will die and what maybe a 0.01% chance I would contract the virus, pass it onto somebody vulnerable / unprotected and/or protected and they then die as a result? What percentage improvement is taking the vaccine giving versus using a parachute!

    I get the "added protection" point but like I say - this, and the whole thing, is built on statistics right. But the predicted added protection to either myself or others seems to be so, so minute and there are downsides and unknowns with the vaccine too?

    I suppose the purpose of my post was to see if anyone can give me what I see as a really compelling / indisputable argument for. I'm challenging Suzi's and yours because I don't think they comprise anything close to that. The arguments for seem so minute when you look at the maths, are also based on assumptions / guesswork to a large extent at this stage - and then there is the side point that (whilst also extremely unlikely) there could be a downside to the vaccine. 

    That said, as I said above, I'm cracking on with it anyway, but I'm just not convinced by it. 
    @paulsturgess

    Fair enough. Does seem to me that your stance does have to many I, I, I and Me, me me to it. The reality is to beat the virus we need as many people taking the vaccine as possible. If that mean some small sacrifices then I think it’s worth it. Good luck with you vaccine. 
    don't think that's a remotely fair comment at all. The 'I' comments were essentially brought up in response to the frankly ridiculous parachute comparison which was clearly addressed to me as a single individual.

    All of my challenging on this has been trying to find a compelling reason in relation to wider society for both myself or people of my demographic to take the vaccine - because I'm already pretty convinced there's little to no personal benefit for me individually which you broadly acknowledged yourself.

    My questions are all about a general point here which applies to both myself as an individual and as a wider question for everybody, including government, weighing up pros and cons for society of this programme:

    - is a healthy under 40 year old doing themselves any good by taking the vaccine? possibly a tiny amount but negligible at most in statistical terms;
    - is a healthy under 40 year old doing others a favour by taking the vaccine? possibly, but again a tiny amount in statistical terms;
    - is a healthy under under 40 year old doing themselves any negatives by taking the vaccine? Probably not other than short-term but we don't necessarily know for sure?;

    Is it right for people to be coerced into taking a vaccine when all the stats and these points above are taken into account? I'm not saying it is or it isn't and I'm delighted so many people have taken it because I'm hoping it will translate into less hospital admissions which is ultimately all that matters and if it does should mean that society can remain open. But for me that is the primary question is - are hospital admissions going up? If not, even if only 50% of the population have been vaccinated, I don't really see why there is a need for the other 50% to be done.

    I think it's an unreasonable stance to call anyone selfish for wanting to think about and challenge these things - especially after such catastrophic f*** ups by those making the rules across the last 18 months. 
    Fair enough.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Sensible points raised above, to a sensible original post. Who on Earth would have thought that was possible?

    Should bookmark pages 75 and 76 of this thread for the tinfoil hat nutters - if they can't figure it out after reading through these, there's no hope for them.

    This discussion does raise a serious debate - isn't it about time that vaccination was given a bigger focus in the Science syllabus? I know that Science education at GCSE level in this country is dreadful (which makes the fact we excel at it at degree level and beyond even more remarkable) - but surely something a bit more than the derisory half a lesson I think I got on it (and I took double science at GCSE) is appropriate now?
    Do they not teach each science as separate subject any more? When I was at school Biology, Human Biology, Chemistry and Physics were all taught as separate 'O' level subjects.

    No - unless it's changed again? When I was at school it was combined as 'science' or 'double science' if you chose it as an option - only returning to Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology etc at A level

    When I was at school it was watching kids trying to set each others costs alight on backs of chairs with bunsen burners! :-)
  • I did all three sciences at A level and the step from GCSE was giant (this was double science, back in '96 so God knows what's changed since) and I really struggled with physics in particular which had a lot of maths. The gap to degree level was less onerous particularly as I went to Scotland and the first year was piss easy as Scottish Highers are only one year!

    I think some practical science would be useful, in the same way that practical maths would be useful. I get you need to know the fundamentals of a very fundamental subject, but teaching people how to understand their financial affairs would make it relatable e.g. APR on credit cards and loans, 

    I also don't get how people don't want to understand their own body works, but then again people wonder about my total indifference to car maintenance
  • McBobbin said:
    I did all three sciences at A level and the step from GCSE was giant (this was double science, back in '96 so God knows what's changed since) and I really struggled with physics in particular which had a lot of maths. The gap to degree level was less onerous particularly as I went to Scotland and the first year was piss easy as Scottish Highers are only one year!

    I think some practical science would be useful, in the same way that practical maths would be useful. I get you need to know the fundamentals of a very fundamental subject, but teaching people how to understand their financial affairs would make it relatable e.g. APR on credit cards and loans, 

    I also don't get how people don't want to understand their own body works, but then again people wonder about my total indifference to car maintenance
    Thing is you can get by without the use of a car.
  • McBobbin said:
    I did all three sciences at A level and the step from GCSE was giant (this was double science, back in '96 so God knows what's changed since) and I really struggled with physics in particular which had a lot of maths. The gap to degree level was less onerous particularly as I went to Scotland and the first year was piss easy as Scottish Highers are only one year!

    I think some practical science would be useful, in the same way that practical maths would be useful. I get you need to know the fundamentals of a very fundamental subject, but teaching people how to understand their financial affairs would make it relatable e.g. APR on credit cards and loans, 

    I also don't get how people don't want to understand their own body works, but then again people wonder about my total indifference to car maintenance
    in 2009 I had the option of double sciences (all three squashed into 2 GCSE's) and triple science (A GCSE in each of Physics, Chemistry and Biology). I did double as there were more interesting things to study.
  • shine166 said:
    Just seen a fella on my train, using a carrier bag as a mask. 
    Did you suggest he needed to tie it tightly around his neck to ensure that it's as effective as possible?
  • Just jumped on this thread for the first time - so apologies if this is all covered back in the pages and pages of this thread which no doubt it has been! 

    Got my vaccine booked for this Thursday and very likely cracking on with it. 

    Not done any specific reading or certainly googling at all, so not read any conspiracy theories or considered much beyond casual discussions with a few mates most of whom on the whole arent particularly opinionated on it either way. 

    But I am every so slightly on the fence.

    I’m 34 years of age. Fit and healthy as far as I know, healthy weight lots of exercise decent enough diet etc etc. Had covid 5 months ago, which passed no panic. 

    From an individual perspective, I feel like there is an extremely low/ practically zero risk from covid for me - stats I think support that just based on age and healthy weight status etc, and then added to the fact I had the virus with no probs a few months ago I would guess I’m a good / Even better place for my body to fight it off with ease if it came round again. 

    Generally always followed medical / doctors advice etc without question, but also always been broadly encouraged, I believe rightly, to avoid medicine etc if not necessary. (Also had a number of family medical experiences which have not given me great faith / trust in all medical advice but putting that to one side)

    So from a purely individual perspective I don’t really see any reason for me to actually get the vaccine - Covid is all a numbers game and I think the risk to me of anything vaguely problematic , even ‘long Covid’ is extremely, extremely low. 

    On that basis, my mindset is I should probably take it for the ‘greater good’ - but what actually is the logic on that?

    If most people especially those who are older or vulnerable to covid for other reasons such as diabetes and asthma have taken it, surely they are all broadly protected and therefore shouldn’t really be in danger even if somebody like me manages to contract the virus (hopefully quite unlikely in itself it the vaccine succeeds in helping to reduce spreadability which you would hope but I think is a bit of an unknown). My parents for example are older and with health conditions, but have been vaccinated.

    I know the idea is to keep it from circulating in general and I also know people hate the flu comparison (this is NOT a normal flu!! Etc etc). But obviously the vulnerable / elderly are vaccinated every year against flu as they’re at risk but healthy 34 year olds aren’t and are allowed to tear round pubs trains clubs football stadia spreading it around as they’re not at risk of it being any sort of problem.

    Is it about - less cases equals less
    chance of mutations etc etc? Which again there is obviously a logic to and I get that logic - but on the other hand, how likely is that in reality? Decades and lifetimes have raced by before covid suddenly popped up - how likely is it that it will suddenly now immediately turn into a way more deadly one? Again, I get there is a scientific possibility but if we were looking at odds - which this whole thing is about - is it really likely? And even if it is, given its spreading around the world and entering our country regardless and will never disappear either worldwide or in the UK, is it even worth trying to bother keeping levels very low rather than low. 

    I’m not anti vax as such and don’t really think there’s any likelihood of an issue from it - I’ve taken loads of travel vaccines etc before without batting an eyelid and people drink, take drugs and all sorts of other things with possibly side effects without a second thought. It’s only cos we’re being made to think about it that this is really coming up. 

    But on the flip side, I’m taking a vaccination which is new and not entirely known and that will probably make me feel shit for a day or two. In short I’m trying to find a compelling reason for me personally to be having it but what actually is that reason? In my view the covid risk to me is 0.1% and the vaccine risk + side effects Vs benefits (doesn’t actually even stop you getting it) probably amount to similar to that depending on how you look at it.

    So why take something unnatural? Don’t think it makes sense for me solely as an individual. The greater good is fine if that’s the case but I’m not sure if there is a properly convincing argument as to how me taking it is doing greater good.

    not after an argument or a condescending lecture! 
    Whatever the chances of you suffering in the future by the virus, by having the vaccine, you are reducing the chances of contracting it and passing it on to others that may be less 'fit' than you. Even if you've had it. 
    The vaccine not only reduces your symptoms should you catch it, it reduces your chances of catching it unknowingly, plus also the chances of passing it on. 
    the way i see it, how would you feel if you didn't have the vaccine, didn't know you were carrying the virus and passed it on to a family member or friend that went on to get seriously ill or die. I can't live knowing about that risk.  Although I hate putting chemicals in my body, don't even like taking paracetamol, i feel we morally shouldn't have a choice re the vaccine and should see it as a privilege to protect others not a choice to protect ourselves. (same with masks really but have learnt a while ago that people can be and are very selfish still believing it's themselves they are protecting wearing one and the 'i'm alright jack attitude' is one I despise. 
    I do still have tons of questions around complacency and the lateral flow testing, that I feel isn't encouraged as much as it should be, but as i know 2 people who contracted the virus post vaccine, it's highlighted to me the need to do lateral flow tests regularly just to double check even if the risk is reducing by the week.  
    Again I get the theory but that doesn't still seem convincing to me - isn't the point that those people you refer to are all vaccinated so protected themselves, so in theory it wouldn't actually matter if I pass it on to them? Which is underlined by hoof it up to benty's comment? My parents are very old and vulnerable as I say, but I haven't worried about them recently even though I'm unvaccinated, because they're protected (I know it's not 100% protection, but very high).
    Suzi has just offered you one of the calmest and well-written posts on this entire 75-page thread, if that reply hasn’t convinced you, then I have no idea what you’re expecting anyone to reply to your original post with. 
    Well I haven't read the first 74 pages, but my response to your comment is essentially the same as the response to Suzi. Suzi's suggestion which I'm not criticising, just challenging, is that I should be having the vaccine to protect others who might get seriously ill or die from it - but all of those should already have been vaccinated, so I'm not sure that's actually a convincing answer. 
    You don’t need to have read the previous pages, I’m telling you a fact that Suzi’s post is one of the best summaries of covid vaccination process. 

    As you’ve said the vaccination is not 100%, but does add protection to those taking it against the virus. The added protection bit is surely the part that convinces you though. 

    This isn’t a great analogy, but trying to think of something that will convince you after you’ve not accepted other great replies. If someone said you need to jump out of a plane, and you can either have a parachute or no parachute, which would you choose? Either way you’re jumping out of the plane, but one gives you some added protection. 
    that's an atrocious analogy.

    If I jump out of a plane there is a 0.01% chance (probably more) I will live. So I'll take the parachute which maybe gives me a 90% chance of living?

    If I don't take the covid vaccine there is a 0.01% (maybe less) chance I will die and what maybe a 0.01% chance I would contract the virus, pass it onto somebody vulnerable / unprotected and/or protected and they then die as a result? What percentage improvement is taking the vaccine giving versus using a parachute!

    I get the "added protection" point but like I say - this, and the whole thing, is built on statistics right. But the predicted added protection to either myself or others seems to be so, so minute and there are downsides and unknowns with the vaccine too?

    I suppose the purpose of my post was to see if anyone can give me what I see as a really compelling / indisputable argument for. I'm challenging Suzi's and yours because I don't think they comprise anything close to that. The arguments for seem so minute when you look at the maths, are also based on assumptions / guesswork to a large extent at this stage - and then there is the side point that (whilst also extremely unlikely) there could be a downside to the vaccine. 

    That said, as I said above, I'm cracking on with it anyway, but I'm just not convinced by it. 
    I would expect a parachute to give you a better than 90% chance seeing so many do it for recreation or charity.
  • edited June 2021
    @paulsturgess, I think your posts are excellent and you have perfectly set out the correct position/question. 

    The younger you get the less personal benefit you get with the vaccine(for the healthy). 

    I have 2 sons 29 & 26, the conspiracy theorist won't be getting jabbed (no surprise), the other will. 

    I think they probably should, but no one on this planet can state with 100% certainty that there won't be long term issues with the vaccine (even if extremely unlikely). 

    I've had both mine, but I'm undoubtedly higher risk than someone in 20's/30's.
    I'd say on balance you should get vaccinated, but it's not clear cut unless you are putting the health of others as the greater priority or at least equalish priority. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • ^^^ great post.
  • Tom1982 said:
    Had first jab of Pfizer vaccine at 9 a.m today. No issues at all so far, can’t even see where I had the jab. If I was going to feel ropey, would I know by now? No idea of the time frames involved.
    Most people started getting the effect from 8 hours onwards, lasting up to 1/2 days. 
  • Tom1982 said:
    Had first jab of Pfizer vaccine at 9 a.m today. No issues at all so far, can’t even see where I had the jab. If I was going to feel ropey, would I know by now? No idea of the time frames involved.
    Most people started getting the effect from 8 hours onwards, lasting up to 1/2 days. 
    I think that was mostly people who had the AZ vaccine.
  • Tom1982 said:
    Had first jab of Pfizer vaccine at 9 a.m today. No issues at all so far, can’t even see where I had the jab. If I was going to feel ropey, would I know by now? No idea of the time frames involved.
    Had my jab (Pfizer) around 2pm and was fine until the following day when I had a dead arm, which lasted a few days. Like yourself - first day couldn’t even see where the jab was but could definitely feel it the 2nd day. 
    Re timeframes. Everyone I’ve seen or spoken to that’s had side effects, they have developed in the first 24hours.
  • edited June 2021
    aliwibble said:
    @paulsturgess You're right that part of the reason for encouraging vaccinations is to reduce the number of cases and hence the risk of further mutations, but you're being a bit blasé about the likelihood of those mutations being more dangerous. We saw before Christmas the way that the Kent variant was more infectious than the original one, and the Indian variant appears to be hospitalising younger people more often than both of those. (The effect may be exaggerated by the fact that older people are being hospitalised a lot less now that most of them have been vaccinated, but from what I've read that's not the only reason). As all mutations are random, the more infections there are the greater the risk that a mutation or accumulation of mutations comes along that is significantly more dangerous in terms of the degree of illness it causes or because it can evade the immunity provided by the vaccinations.
    You also can't assume that everyone who is vulnerable has been vaccinated, or hasn't been vaccinated because they don't care about their own health. There are people out there with undetected heart conditions who aren't even aware they're vulnerable for instance. There are also going to be people undergoing certain cancer treatments, transplant patients, and people with other conditions who take immunosuppressants who even if they can be vaccinated are not going to be as able to mount an appropriate immune response. Having as many people as possible vaccinated means individuals in the population at large are much less likely to get infected and much less likely to transmit it if they do, which significantly reduces the chances of those vulnerable people coming into contact with someone infectious in the first place. That's what the concept of herd immunity actually is, and the only reason it got a bad name early on in the pandemic, is that it would require such a large number of people to become infected that the level of deaths would have been astronomical.
    In addition, I wouldn't be blasé about the fact you've had Covid meaning you're now naturally immune. @SoundAsa£ was in intensive care as a result of contracting Covid, but when he was tested for antibodies a few months afterwards, the test came back negative. (And I know there's more to immunity than just antibodies, but they are the first line of defence). Infection acquired immunity isn't always as strong as that from vaccines - I had German Measles multiple times as a kid until I had the rubella vaccine at 11. Surely feeling like you've got a bit of a hangover for a couple of days, at worst, is worth it to make sure? And even if you are young and healthy now, you won't always be, so it makes sense to help our society to be one where we go out of our way for each other like this, so if it comes to a time where you need people to do the same for you, you can ask them to without being a hypocrite and can rely on them to do so.
    Good post.

    I understand everything you say above and obviously some very valid points there. I do get that I’m in theory still at risk, and I get that some others are too. I also completely get the point about protecting others in society. 

    I’m not being blasé about my immunity or the safety of others, but I’m also just not blasé about myself or others injecting themselves with an unnatural and relatively unknown foreign substance with known side effects and maybe unknown side effects. 

    As my posts have tried to explain though, I just don’t see it as clear cut. This is all a matter of probabilities and judgements, there are very little if any certainties. The concept of shaming people as selfish etc if they don’t vaccinate themselves because you’re therefore putting others at risk seems over the top to me - this is so nuanced. There’s an argument for example that somebody unvaccinated who doesn’t socialise in bars etc is much less of threat to either themselves or others than somebody vaccinated who then decided to go a busy pub 3 nights a week. Because the vaccine isn’t foolproof. 

    In theory everyone who takes the vaccine now could croak it before Charlton are promoted next season. Obviously drastic and ludicrous and not for a moment suggesting that is the case but whilst there may be some early data which shows that most people are protected from Covid by the vaccine, there is literally no data at this stage to say they won’t be dead in a year! It’s an unknown gamble. I read an article on BBC recently about unusual menstrual bleeding being a possible side effect of the vaccine , and obviously there’s the blood clotting point too which has emerged with the AZ. We just don’t know. I would bet money on there being none of these kind of issues; and clearly the minor chance of them is outweighed for a huge section of society. But are the tiny percentages we’re talking about with this worth bothering with that risk? And remember this whole thing (government policy wise) is about percentages. They’re willing for pubs shops socialising to open/ occur and some people to potentially die as a consequence because it’s considered the pros outweighs the risks maths wise. 
  • I am 22 years old. I have a resting heart rate that generally sits in the low 50s, I've had several amateur kickboxing fights, no serious health complications and a 5k PR in the 22minute region. By all measures, I'm at very low risk from COVID-19. 

    I am also already double vaccinated through my work for the local NHS trust. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that most of your age, and most of my age, will be at a low risk from COVID, this is not a statistical certainty. My own experience of having COVID was only a week long affair, with no long COVID symptoms thankfully. However, I will say it was a very rough week, with me left having to catch my breath going up and down stairs at the worst of it - something I can certainly say I have never experienced elsewhere!

    I have also seen a number of patients below 50 experiencing prolonged ITU stays. I know someone my age whose only real co-morbidity was being diabetic, who had to spend a significant time in hospital. Whilst the risk may seem negligible, this is not zero. One of Italy's earliest cases was a marathon runner. Whilst I cannot locate the post now, @Leroy Ambrose elucidated about some of his young riders who have been set back significantly by COVID. Again, young, fit and healthy individuals.

    There is also the fact that there will be individuals unable to take the vaccine - these may be oncology patients, these may be people with immune disorders or even simply allergic reactions to the vaccine. Part of why you take it is not just for yourself, but for people like them who benefit most from the herd immunity a well vaccinated society provides. These are people who will in many cases be hit hardest by COVID, but will lack the armour provided by a vaccine - the least we as a society, and us as healthy individuals can do, is protect them behind our shield. 

    A very good post WTM.

    I tried but failed with my brother in law at the weekend to convince him of the benefits to him and the world. Partly because I couldn’t explain as well as you, so I gave up but mainly he knows it’s all about controlling the population and the vaccine will cause future problems with thousands of people. Strangely enough he’s had his jabs, because he “he knows is will be mandatory requirement in the future to have it”. 
    He’s not as bright as his old  mother thinks he’s is. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!