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.
Now you're being ridiculous. All the vaccines have been tested, and there haven't been a large number of deaths associated with the initial test cohorts, so we know that's not a risk. (There have been one or two in the trials, but I think more in the unvaccinated group than the vaccinated one.) The unusual menstrual bleeding is annoying not life threatening, and the risk of blood clotting is less than that of taking a long haul flight, and several orders of magnitude less than taking certain birth control pills. You really do seem to be clutching at straws here.
“ 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.”
That’s life, there’s only one certainty - you’re going to die. The rest is all probabilities. The risks from the vaccine appear to be (because nothing is ever certain) vanishingly small, but you’re right, you can avoid that small risk.
There is a 12.5% chance you’ll die of a heart attack - I do hope you’re as concerned about that risk and taking all the necessary steps to avoid it.
It’s an odd thing to be concerned about people having too much information, but it’s been shown that people are useless at assessing risk. Around here people worry about getting attacked by a shark, the real danger is that they’ll just drown, but they ignore that risk.
You are certainly in a low risk group. No question but you should in my opinion take the vaccine. We are certain that over months the antibodies you have from your having had Covid will diminish. That’s not to say that other parts of your immune system, the T cells, B cells and Killer cells will not be functioning but because not enough time has elapsed we just don’t know that for certain. In my opinion I believe those parts of immunity will last many years but we don’t know. Still low risk ? Certainly but you will leave yourself more open to having the virus again and although you might not even know you have it you could be shedding to others more vulnerable than you. Not even taking the vaccine might stop re infections but it might reduce your viral load and therefore your ability to shed the virus. The only way this pandemic is defeated is by using every tool in the box to reduce transmission. By you, even in your low risk category taking the vaccine you are being a very tiny part in a very big but important cog in saving lives. In my opinion and that’s all it is, we have a responsibility and duty to get vaccinated. I suppose you could add that international travel will be seriously curtailed for you for many years if you cannot prove you’ve had both doses.
Thanks for response. This still doesn't seem particularly convincing to me - and by the way I'm just playing devil's advocate to an extent here, because I am booked in to get it tomorrow.
If it's accepted pretty much that I'm incredibly low risk of the virus, then it's the point about shedding to others more vulnerable - again most/all of whom should now have had it, or if they haven't they have chosen not to have it? And in that case should somebody who doesn't need the vaccine (i.e. me in theory) be vaccinated to protect somebody who is unwilling to have it to protect themselves?
Other point is with this stuff - for example we just don't regarding functioning of parts of the immune system you mention because not enough time has elapsed. Is there not a comparable point regarding lack of time elapsed in terms of measurement of impacts both positive (in terms of longevity) and negative (possible side effects) of the vaccine?
Not criticising anything you say and a very measured and honest appraisal from you - and it seems so to me because it doesn't actually still show in my view a compelling case for those in a similar position to me for having the vaccine - especially if it is accepted that there could be possible side effects from it? How confident are we that there are no longer term side effects of vaccine? Not saying there are at all and don't expect there to be.
But like you say, international travel seems to me to be the biggest factor for somebody young and healthy and that shouldn't really by why somebody would be having the vaccine!
You contracted covid and didn't suffer, bully for you. Unvaccinated your risk of becoming seriously ill from a subsequent covid infection is probably low, but there is negligible clinical evidence for this, only observation.
Talking of which...
The 2020 death rate in the UK was 'average' for the last 20 years and low for the last 80 Office for National Statistics
NHS bed occupancy for 2020/21 is lower than in the four previous years coviddashboard.live/#beds
A sample of Disease Deaths per day worldwide for 2020 TB: 3,014 HIV/AIDS: 2,110 Malaria: 2,002 Whooping Cough: 440 Rabies: 162 Covid 19: 56 CDC; WHO; TheLancet - 9.3.20
Whilst I understand the concerns from many younger people on here about the vaccine, in Australia where only 2% of the population are currently vaccinated and their vaccination programme has been a disaster, the 'milliennials' are desperate to get the vaccination to get their lives back to some sort of normality and stop holding them back. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-57325514
@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.
Why don't you just not take the vaccine - you don't seem to want to. Nobody is going to convince you.
I think you're significantly
underestimating the risk that younger adults not getting vaccinated
poses to vulnerable people. There's a good explanation of how this works
here:
It's
not as simple as saying vulnerable people have been vaccinated,
therefore they are safe if the virus is still circulating among healthy
younger adults. A large proportion of the population need to be
vaccinated if vulnerable people are to be effectively protected. And, as
aliwibble points out, although you're not vulnerable now, you have been
vulnerable to infectious diseases before (as a baby) and will be again
(in old age), at which time you'll be relying on people in the position you're in now being vaccinated.
Also, I'd question how you've determined the risk to you of becoming seriously ill with Covid as being 0.01%. Is there an actual statistical basis for that, or is it just a number you've made up? Similarly, is there any evidential basis for your assertion that you are unlikely to develop Long Covid? The reason I ask is that we're all prone to underestimating risks to ourselves. It's called optimism bias, and you can read about it here:
It may very well mean that you're underestimating the risk to yourself. Plenty of young, previously healthy people have had their lives changed through Long Covid. Given that your confidence that you wouldn't be one such person could be misplaced, would it really be worth the risk of not getting vaccinated?
Finally - and this is perhaps the greatest reason in terms of self-interest for someone in your position - the only way we're going to escape from the cycle of lockdowns we've been stuck in for the past year is if there's mass vaccination of the whole population, not just those who are especially vulnerable.
For what it's worth, I'm a similar age to you, and had no side effects from the vaccine at all, so don't necessarily assume you're in for a rough couple of days. I hope everything goes well with yours.
You are certainly in a low risk group. No question but you should in my opinion take the vaccine. We are certain that over months the antibodies you have from your having had Covid will diminish. That’s not to say that other parts of your immune system, the T cells, B cells and Killer cells will not be functioning but because not enough time has elapsed we just don’t know that for certain. In my opinion I believe those parts of immunity will last many years but we don’t know. Still low risk ? Certainly but you will leave yourself more open to having the virus again and although you might not even know you have it you could be shedding to others more vulnerable than you. Not even taking the vaccine might stop re infections but it might reduce your viral load and therefore your ability to shed the virus. The only way this pandemic is defeated is by using every tool in the box to reduce transmission. By you, even in your low risk category taking the vaccine you are being a very tiny part in a very big but important cog in saving lives. In my opinion and that’s all it is, we have a responsibility and duty to get vaccinated. I suppose you could add that international travel will be seriously curtailed for you for many years if you cannot prove you’ve had both doses.
Thanks for response. This still doesn't seem particularly convincing to me - and by the way I'm just playing devil's advocate to an extent here, because I am booked in to get it tomorrow.
If it's accepted pretty much that I'm incredibly low risk of the virus, then it's the point about shedding to others more vulnerable - again most/all of whom should now have had it, or if they haven't they have chosen not to have it? And in that case should somebody who doesn't need the vaccine (i.e. me in theory) be vaccinated to protect somebody who is unwilling to have it to protect themselves?
Other point is with this stuff - for example we just don't regarding functioning of parts of the immune system you mention because not enough time has elapsed. Is there not a comparable point regarding lack of time elapsed in terms of measurement of impacts both positive (in terms of longevity) and negative (possible side effects) of the vaccine?
Not criticising anything you say and a very measured and honest appraisal from you - and it seems so to me because it doesn't actually still show in my view a compelling case for those in a similar position to me for having the vaccine - especially if it is accepted that there could be possible side effects from it? How confident are we that there are no longer term side effects of vaccine? Not saying there are at all and don't expect there to be.
But like you say, international travel seems to me to be the biggest factor for somebody young and healthy and that shouldn't really by why somebody would be having the vaccine!
You contracted covid and didn't suffer, bully for you. Unvaccinated your risk of becoming seriously ill from a subsequent covid infection is probably low, but there is negligible clinical evidence for this, only observation.
Talking of which...
The 2020 death rate in the UK was 'average' for the last 20 years and low for the last 80 Office for National Statistics
NHS bed occupancy for 2020/21 is lower than in the four previous years coviddashboard.live/#beds
A sample of Disease Deaths per day worldwide for 2020 TB: 3,014 HIV/AIDS: 2,110 Malaria: 2,002 Whooping Cough: 440 Rabies: 162 Covid 19: 56 CDC; WHO; TheLancet - 9.3.20
Not sure I get your point. The mortality rate in the UK has been falling for over a century.due to improvements in sanitation, nutrition and medicine.
Just because 2020 has been "average" for 20 years (which isn't true according to this graph) it shows bucking a trend.
Regarding bed occupancy, this caveat from the NHS website which has the stats: "Note for 2020-21 data
Hospital capacity has had to be organised in new ways as a result of the pandemic to treat Covid and non-Covid patients separately and safely in meeting the enhanced Infection Prevention Control measures. This results in beds and staff being deployed differently from in previous years in both emergency and elective settings within the hospital. As a result caution should be exercised in comparing overall occupancy rates between this year and previous years. In general hospitals will experience capacity pressures at lower overall occupancy rates than would previously have been the case."
Your other point showing worldwide deaths does of course highlight the scandal of treatable diseases not being eradicated worldwide with affordable medicines and vaccines. As ever, if it effects the rich western countries it gets the funding.
I don’t think @paulsturgess is worried about the immediate after effects but is weighing up the pros and cons of taking the vaccine or not. My personal opinion is each to their own. I’ve been double jabbed and I’m pleased for it but I wouldn’t hold it against anyone if they choose not to. I think in a case like this the vast majority are going with the flow and opting for the jab but there will always be people who just opt against it. And that is their right.
I do find it weird when people are against it because of conspiracy theories but I have no problem with people being against it if they have a genuine concern for its safety. I prefer to just let it be and focus on the positive.
I don’t think @paulsturgess is worried about the immediate after effects but is weighing up the pros and cons of taking the vaccine or not. My personal opinion is each to their own. I’ve been double jabbed and I’m pleased for it but I wouldn’t hold it against anyone if they choose not to. I think in a case like this the vast majority are going with the flow and opting for the jab but there will always be people who just opt against it. And that is their right.
I do find it weird when people are against it because of conspiracy theories but I have no problem with people being against it if they have a genuine concern for its safety. I prefer to just let it be and focus on the positive.
For vaccine programs to be effective there needs to be a high uptake. If too many people opt out they won't work - if the anti-vax sentiment grows then we will all live with the consequences.
Vaccines are not just about the individual and affect society as a whole especially the most vulnerable.
The antivax movement needs to be tackled on several fronts. Decent education based on facts for those that are amenable to such, but how to deal with the conspirators? I wish I knew, other than to try and stop misinformation being spread. I go along with the adage that you cannot logic out something that wasn't logiced in
The antivax movement needs to be tackled on several fronts. Decent education based on facts for those that are amenable to such, but how to deal with the conspirators? I wish I knew, other than to try and stop misinformation being spread. I go along with the adage that you cannot logic out something that wasn't logiced in
If people choose to take their info based on anecdotes from Facebook and conspiracy theories then there is not much you can do really. If suspicion of science and medicine keeps growing then we will be in trouble as the consequences start to escalate.
We have world leaders and politicians who renounce critical thinking. Trump was a supporter of anti-vaxxer Andrew Wakefield who was struck off in the UK yet is now taken seriously across the world.
@McBobbin You have a graph from the BMJ and I have one from the Office of National Statistics which contradict each other, so it would seem we have a reached graphic impasse. My point about an average death rate was concerned with how the current pandemic hasn't drastically affected it; improved sanitation etc from a hundred years go is hardly relevant to this very particular context. The NHS 'caveat' with its real caution should be exercised,in general... and an artistic licence with its language affords it a slight whiff of 'spin', but perhaps that's my default position of scepticism of all Covid related reportage kicking in... I totally agree with your last point, but it wasn't my point. I think you knew that... Must say, as one who is invariably pilloried for having an opposing opinion to the vast majority on here during the current zeitgeist, it's refreshing to have a reasoned and considerate reply that doesn't resort to lazy pejoratives or ad hominem argument.
You are certainly in a low risk group. No question but you should in my opinion take the vaccine. We are certain that over months the antibodies you have from your having had Covid will diminish. That’s not to say that other parts of your immune system, the T cells, B cells and Killer cells will not be functioning but because not enough time has elapsed we just don’t know that for certain. In my opinion I believe those parts of immunity will last many years but we don’t know. Still low risk ? Certainly but you will leave yourself more open to having the virus again and although you might not even know you have it you could be shedding to others more vulnerable than you. Not even taking the vaccine might stop re infections but it might reduce your viral load and therefore your ability to shed the virus. The only way this pandemic is defeated is by using every tool in the box to reduce transmission. By you, even in your low risk category taking the vaccine you are being a very tiny part in a very big but important cog in saving lives. In my opinion and that’s all it is, we have a responsibility and duty to get vaccinated. I suppose you could add that international travel will be seriously curtailed for you for many years if you cannot prove you’ve had both doses.
Thanks for response. This still doesn't seem particularly convincing to me - and by the way I'm just playing devil's advocate to an extent here, because I am booked in to get it tomorrow.
If it's accepted pretty much that I'm incredibly low risk of the virus, then it's the point about shedding to others more vulnerable - again most/all of whom should now have had it, or if they haven't they have chosen not to have it? And in that case should somebody who doesn't need the vaccine (i.e. me in theory) be vaccinated to protect somebody who is unwilling to have it to protect themselves?
Other point is with this stuff - for example we just don't regarding functioning of parts of the immune system you mention because not enough time has elapsed. Is there not a comparable point regarding lack of time elapsed in terms of measurement of impacts both positive (in terms of longevity) and negative (possible side effects) of the vaccine?
Not criticising anything you say and a very measured and honest appraisal from you - and it seems so to me because it doesn't actually still show in my view a compelling case for those in a similar position to me for having the vaccine - especially if it is accepted that there could be possible side effects from it? How confident are we that there are no longer term side effects of vaccine? Not saying there are at all and don't expect there to be.
But like you say, international travel seems to me to be the biggest factor for somebody young and healthy and that shouldn't really by why somebody would be having the vaccine!
You contracted covid and didn't suffer, bully for you. Unvaccinated your risk of becoming seriously ill from a subsequent covid infection is probably low, but there is negligible clinical evidence for this, only observation.
Talking of which...
The 2020 death rate in the UK was 'average' for the last 20 years and low for the last 80 Office for National Statistics
NHS bed occupancy for 2020/21 is lower than in the four previous years coviddashboard.live/#beds
A sample of Disease Deaths per day worldwide for 2020 TB: 3,014 HIV/AIDS: 2,110 Malaria: 2,002 Whooping Cough: 440 Rabies: 162 Covid 19: 56 CDC; WHO; TheLancet - 9.3.20
Interesting that the Lancet is so good they're able to predict 2020 deaths before the year had even ended. Wow.
Please link me this article/journal/report. Rather than copy and pasting off your weird website.
@McBobbin You have a graph from the BMJ and I have one from the Office of National Statistics which contradict each other, so it would seem we have a reached graphic impasse. My point about an average death rate was concerned with how the current pandemic hasn't drastically affected it; improved sanitation etc from a hundred years go is hardly relevant to this very particular context. The NHS 'caveat' with its real caution should be exercised,in general... and an artistic licence with its language affords it a slight whiff of 'spin', but perhaps that's my default position of scepticism of all Covid related reportage kicking in... I totally agree with your last point, but it wasn't my point. I think you knew that... Must say, as one who is invariably pilloried for having an opposing opinion to the vast majority on here during the current zeitgeist, it's refreshing to have a reasoned and considerate reply that doesn't resort to lazy pejoratives or ad hominem argument.
I don’t think @paulsturgess is worried about the immediate after effects but is weighing up the pros and cons of taking the vaccine or not. My personal opinion is each to their own. I’ve been double jabbed and I’m pleased for it but I wouldn’t hold it against anyone if they choose not to. I think in a case like this the vast majority are going with the flow and opting for the jab but there will always be people who just opt against it. And that is their right.
I do find it weird when people are against it because of conspiracy theories but I have no problem with people being against it if they have a genuine concern for its safety. I prefer to just let it be and focus on the positive.
For vaccine programs to be effective there needs to be a high uptake. If too many people opt out they won't work - if the anti-vax sentiment grows then we will all live with the consequences.
Vaccines are not just about the individual and affect society as a whole especially the most vulnerable.
Why does there need to be a high uptake though? A small, vulnerable fraction of the population have the flu jab every year and that's just how it is. Others don't.
To my mind, everyone over say 45 and those vulnerable for other reasons should be recommended to have the jab. Others shouldn't be recommended to have the jab. In my opinion in a couple of years time that will be how it will be with this vaccine - similar to the flu one; maybe even combined with it by then.
For what it's worth, through gritted teeth and peer / governmental pressure I've just had the jab done this morning. But I am still very much unconvinced and walked away wondering why I did it!
I think you're significantly
underestimating the risk that younger adults not getting vaccinated
poses to vulnerable people. There's a good explanation of how this works
here:
It's
not as simple as saying vulnerable people have been vaccinated,
therefore they are safe if the virus is still circulating among healthy
younger adults. A large proportion of the population need to be
vaccinated if vulnerable people are to be effectively protected. And, as
aliwibble points out, although you're not vulnerable now, you have been
vulnerable to infectious diseases before (as a baby) and will be again
(in old age), at which time you'll be relying on people in the position you're in now being vaccinated.
Also, I'd question how you've determined the risk to you of becoming seriously ill with Covid as being 0.01%. Is there an actual statistical basis for that, or is it just a number you've made up? Similarly, is there any evidential basis for your assertion that you are unlikely to develop Long Covid? The reason I ask is that we're all prone to underestimating risks to ourselves. It's called optimism bias, and you can read about it here:
It may very well mean that you're underestimating the risk to yourself. Plenty of young, previously healthy people have had their lives changed through Long Covid. Given that your confidence that you wouldn't be one such person could be misplaced, would it really be worth the risk of not getting vaccinated?
Finally - and this is perhaps the greatest reason in terms of self-interest for someone in your position - the only way we're going to escape from the cycle of lockdowns we've been stuck in for the past year is if there's mass vaccination of the whole population, not just those who are especially vulnerable.
For what it's worth, I'm a similar age to you, and had no side effects from the vaccine at all, so don't necessarily assume you're in for a rough couple of days. I hope everything goes well with yours.
I don't know the exact figures but I have seen many of the government slide show briefings etc etc like everyone else and I'm sure I've read figures in the region of those low amounts . All things considered, the chances of a healthy individual under 40 becoming seriously ill are very very low. I know there is the long covid factor but again - what's the data on that? We have seen individual stories all the time on the news etc of people with long covid but only in the same way we see figures about people of that demographic getting serious cancers etc etc - but the chances are still extremely low. If this was based purely on individual medical risk, I don't believe for a moment that anyone would be recommended a healthy 25 or 35 year old to have a vaccine again covid.
I do understand and share concern about "other" (i.e. unvaccinatable) vulnerable people but again - overall that comprises a very small proportion of the population and many of those vulnerable people are similarly vulnerable to serious illness from flu every year which we do not mass vaccinate against.
As before above, I still don't see a clear compelling argument for fit healthy young people to be taking the vaccine. But I've done it so...
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.
Now you're being ridiculous. All the vaccines have been tested, and there haven't been a large number of deaths associated with the initial test cohorts, so we know that's not a risk. (There have been one or two in the trials, but I think more in the unvaccinated group than the vaccinated one.) The unusual menstrual bleeding is annoying not life threatening, and the risk of blood clotting is less than that of taking a long haul flight, and several orders of magnitude less than taking certain birth control pills. You really do seem to be clutching at straws here.
Paulsturgess: "ludicrous, not for a moment suggesting that is the case" Aliwibble: "ridiculous"
The point still stands though. There are unknowns about the vaccine, and there is no long term data on it. We KNOW that as much as we know that there haven't been large numbers of deaths associated with the initial tests. I'm not for a comment suggesting death but the point I'm making is that there are unknowns, and the ongoing discoveries about bleeding etc show that; yes not life threatening and yes blood clot risk extremely low too, but could other matters similarly emerge? Again, probably not, but to me it doesn't make sense to be imposing a vaccine on vast numbers of fit and healthy young people with minimal statistical risk from covid given those uncertainties (at this stage) and in order solely to protect a relatively small number of other vulnerable unvaccinated people, the risk to who I think is also minimal statistically.
As a side note, one of my best mates told me today (after I'd had my jab!) that he had his last week and passed out a few minutes later, had 3 hours at the hospital as a result and was then in bed with flu symptoms for the next 3 days. Probably no long term effects but even with that to be honest - why for a fit and healthy 34 year old who also had covid last year and gave him less symptoms than the jab itself!
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.
Now you're being ridiculous. All the vaccines have been tested, and there haven't been a large number of deaths associated with the initial test cohorts, so we know that's not a risk. (There have been one or two in the trials, but I think more in the unvaccinated group than the vaccinated one.) The unusual menstrual bleeding is annoying not life threatening, and the risk of blood clotting is less than that of taking a long haul flight, and several orders of magnitude less than taking certain birth control pills. You really do seem to be clutching at straws here.
Paulsturgess: "ludicrous, not for a moment suggesting that is the case" Aliwibble: "ridiculous"
The point still stands though. There are unknowns about the vaccine, and there is no long term data on it. We KNOW that as much as we know that there haven't been large numbers of deaths associated with the initial tests. I'm not for a comment suggesting death but the point I'm making is that there are unknowns, and the ongoing discoveries about bleeding etc show that; yes not life threatening and yes blood clot risk extremely low too, but could other matters similarly emerge? Again, probably not, but to me it doesn't make sense to be imposing a vaccine on vast numbers of fit and healthy young people with minimal statistical risk from covid given those uncertainties (at this stage) and in order solely to protect a relatively small number of other vulnerable unvaccinated people, the risk to who I think is also minimal statistically.
As a side note, one of my best mates told me today (after I'd had my jab!) that he had his last week and passed out a few minutes later, had 3 hours at the hospital as a result and was then in bed with flu symptoms for the next 3 days. Probably no long term effects but even with that to be honest - why for a fit and healthy 34 year old who also had covid last year and gave him less symptoms than the jab itself!
If he'd already had the virus then a strong immune response isn't totally unexpected
If we look at the scenes from India and are not seeing those scenes here, surely it is obvious the vaccination of so many of our population is a key factor in preventing people needing hospitalisation. That in itself ought to persuade everybody of the importance of being vaccinated.
I don’t think @paulsturgess is worried about the immediate after effects but is weighing up the pros and cons of taking the vaccine or not. My personal opinion is each to their own. I’ve been double jabbed and I’m pleased for it but I wouldn’t hold it against anyone if they choose not to. I think in a case like this the vast majority are going with the flow and opting for the jab but there will always be people who just opt against it. And that is their right.
I do find it weird when people are against it because of conspiracy theories but I have no problem with people being against it if they have a genuine concern for its safety. I prefer to just let it be and focus on the positive.
For vaccine programs to be effective there needs to be a high uptake. If too many people opt out they won't work - if the anti-vax sentiment grows then we will all live with the consequences.
Vaccines are not just about the individual and affect society as a whole especially the most vulnerable.
Why does there need to be a high uptake though? A small, vulnerable fraction of the population have the flu jab every year and that's just how it is. Others don't.
To my mind, everyone over say 45 and those vulnerable for other reasons should be recommended to have the jab. Others shouldn't be recommended to have the jab. In my opinion in a couple of years time that will be how it will be with this vaccine - similar to the flu one; maybe even combined with it by then.
For what it's worth, through gritted teeth and peer / governmental pressure I've just had the jab done this morning. But I am still very much unconvinced and walked away wondering why I did it!
You're showing a fundamental lack of understanding of basic science or even numbers.
Because for flu there is a base level of immunity in the population gained from the Spanish flu pandemic and over 100 subsequent years of flu spreading in the population. With COVID we dont have the benefit of the base level of immunity in the population. The point of the vaccination programme is to get that base level of immunity in the population so that in the future only the vulnerable and over 50s need annual booster vaccines against new variants just like flu. but we are not there yet - not even close. That is why we need a high uptake - its been estimated as somewhere over 90% thats gonna be required to get us to that level of base immunity.
Alternatively we can wait until we get to that point "naturally" with more years of deaths and lockdowns and economic ruin. Either way we are getting to that point.
I don’t think @paulsturgess is worried about the immediate after effects but is weighing up the pros and cons of taking the vaccine or not. My personal opinion is each to their own. I’ve been double jabbed and I’m pleased for it but I wouldn’t hold it against anyone if they choose not to. I think in a case like this the vast majority are going with the flow and opting for the jab but there will always be people who just opt against it. And that is their right.
I do find it weird when people are against it because of conspiracy theories but I have no problem with people being against it if they have a genuine concern for its safety. I prefer to just let it be and focus on the positive.
For vaccine programs to be effective there needs to be a high uptake. If too many people opt out they won't work - if the anti-vax sentiment grows then we will all live with the consequences.
Vaccines are not just about the individual and affect society as a whole especially the most vulnerable.
Why does there need to be a high uptake though? A small, vulnerable fraction of the population have the flu jab every year and that's just how it is. Others don't.
To my mind, everyone over say 45 and those vulnerable for other reasons should be recommended to have the jab. Others shouldn't be recommended to have the jab. In my opinion in a couple of years time that will be how it will be with this vaccine - similar to the flu one; maybe even combined with it by then.
For what it's worth, through gritted teeth and peer / governmental pressure I've just had the jab done this morning. But I am still very much unconvinced and walked away wondering why I did it!
You're showing a fundamental lack of understanding of basic science or even numbers.
Because for flu there is a base level of immunity in the population gained from the Spanish flu pandemic and over 100 subsequent years of flu spreading in the population. With COVID we dont have the benefit of the base level of immunity in the population. The point of the vaccination programme is to get that base level of immunity in the population so that in the future only the vulnerable and over 50s need annual booster vaccines against new variants just like flu. but we are not there yet - not even close. That is why we need a high uptake - its been estimated as somewhere over 90% thats gonna be required to get us to that level of base immunity.
Alternatively we can wait until we get to that point "naturally" with more years of deaths and lockdowns and economic ruin. Either way we are getting to that point.
I wonder why people are so keen on vaccinations?
Don't profess to have anything more than a very layman's understanding of science (or for that matter numbers!). And quite frankly that's why I posted on the first place - as I think I said in my very initial post, trying to see if there is an argument out there that changes my relatively uneducated but nonetheless thought-out opinion that vaccinating older and vulnerable people but not healthy young people should be the approach.
Why should there be substantial (excess) deaths (and I think the word substantial is key here, some excess deaths have to unfortunately be expected), lockdowns and economic ruin if all of the over 50s and vulnerable are vaccinated now? If all the over 50s and vulnerable are vaccinated now - who make up the overwhelming majority of serious illnesses/deaths/hospitalisations - then the theory is that the overwhelming majority of them won't get seriously ill and therefore deaths and hospitalisations through Covid will be very low. Why does it then matter if the rest of the population don't have the "base level" of immunity you refer to and this takes some years to develop?
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.
Now you're being ridiculous. All the vaccines have been tested, and there haven't been a large number of deaths associated with the initial test cohorts, so we know that's not a risk. (There have been one or two in the trials, but I think more in the unvaccinated group than the vaccinated one.) The unusual menstrual bleeding is annoying not life threatening, and the risk of blood clotting is less than that of taking a long haul flight, and several orders of magnitude less than taking certain birth control pills. You really do seem to be clutching at straws here.
Paulsturgess: "ludicrous, not for a moment suggesting that is the case" Aliwibble: "ridiculous"
The point still stands though. There are unknowns about the vaccine, and there is no long term data on it. We KNOW that as much as we know that there haven't been large numbers of deaths associated with the initial tests. I'm not for a comment suggesting death but the point I'm making is that there are unknowns, and the ongoing discoveries about bleeding etc show that; yes not life threatening and yes blood clot risk extremely low too, but could other matters similarly emerge? Again, probably not, but to me it doesn't make sense to be imposing a vaccine on vast numbers of fit and healthy young people with minimal statistical risk from covid given those uncertainties (at this stage) and in order solely to protect a relatively small number of other vulnerable unvaccinated people, the risk to who I think is also minimal statistically.
As a side note, one of my best mates told me today (after I'd had my jab!) that he had his last week and passed out a few minutes later, had 3 hours at the hospital as a result and was then in bed with flu symptoms for the next 3 days. Probably no long term effects but even with that to be honest - why for a fit and healthy 34 year old who also had covid last year and gave him less symptoms than the jab itself!
This line is always spouted by anti-vaxers. It shows once again a complete lack of scientific understanding. The clinical trials for these vaccines have followed the exact same approval process as any other vaccine or medicine. People state the "long term" argument as though normally vaccines are tested over a 10 year period before being approved. Its complete bull. The annual flu vaccine is tested, approved and produced in a matter of months. The numbers of people included in tests if there were any "long term" impacts (no one can ever say what these might be) they would show up in a small subset of people immediately. The testing and approvals in this country are one of the highest bars to meet. There is no doubt that the trials are as complete as they need to be.
Below is part of what I posted on the vaccine poll thread back in December
"As for the claims that "the testing has been rushed". I am assured they are completely untrue. In fact I'm told that due to the timescales these have been made to jump through more hoops not less. Yes Vaccines usually take years to be approved but the delays are not due to testing they are due to factors including; gaining funding, finding sponsors, getting senior academics to support testing, getting testing facilities, getting enough people to volunteer for the trials, getting enough research assistants to analyse the results, by the time that's all done people lose motivation for the write up as its taken years so the writing of the results itself is known to take years, it then has to wait in a queue for the approval process. The global pandemic has focused the minds of the whole world on this, governments, institutions and companies are throwing money at it, all lab space and research expertise have been given to it, every academic wants to sponsor it, more people are willing to volunteer for the trials, all efforts are focused on this and its prioritised for the approval. That is where the time has been saved, the actual testing has been as rigorous as with any other vaccine."
Rushing is a good thing. It means to hurry; to be expedient. I don't know about anyone else, but that's exactly what a want in the middle of a public health crisis. In the case of vaccine roll out though, the perpetually worried as well as the shitty 'news' outlets and other organisations that make their money by keeping people perpetually worried use 'rushing' as a pejorative; insinuating that doing things quickly means cutting corners and being slipshod. And it is bollocks.
What we've seen is not rushing in the sense of being lax, but it is rushing in the sense of pulling together to wards a shared goal. One way we helped develop speedy solutions was through unprecedented information sharing between academic and commercial institutions, and if you're interested in it the general public. This has greatly speeded up our collective understanding of the nature of the virus and how it can be tackled - at no additional risk. This is partly down to the technical capabilities we have through the internet and partly down to the severity of the situation. It's a bloody good thing; those who did it should be applauded.
The scientists have done their bit, they did exactly what was asked of them. It is now the job of the public to do the responsible thing and to help protect us all by taking the vaccine and helping stop the spread. It is also the responsibility of the politicians to ensure that vaccinations are not restricted to those living in rich countries. Viral mutations to not respect national boundaries. We need everyone, and that means the whole planet, vaccinated to stop further mutations.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-57325514
I think you're significantly underestimating the risk that younger adults not getting vaccinated poses to vulnerable people. There's a good explanation of how this works here:
https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/herd-immunity
It's not as simple as saying vulnerable people have been vaccinated, therefore they are safe if the virus is still circulating among healthy younger adults. A large proportion of the population need to be vaccinated if vulnerable people are to be effectively protected. And, as aliwibble points out, although you're not vulnerable now, you have been vulnerable to infectious diseases before (as a baby) and will be again (in old age), at which time you'll be relying on people in the position you're in now being vaccinated.
Also, I'd question how you've determined the risk to you of becoming seriously ill with Covid as being 0.01%. Is there an actual statistical basis for that, or is it just a number you've made up? Similarly, is there any evidential basis for your assertion that you are unlikely to develop Long Covid? The reason I ask is that we're all prone to underestimating risks to ourselves. It's called optimism bias, and you can read about it here:
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-optimism-bias-279503
It may very well mean that you're underestimating the risk to yourself. Plenty of young, previously healthy people have had their lives changed through Long Covid. Given that your confidence that you wouldn't be one such person could be misplaced, would it really be worth the risk of not getting vaccinated?
Finally - and this is perhaps the greatest reason in terms of self-interest for someone in your position - the only way we're going to escape from the cycle of lockdowns we've been stuck in for the past year is if there's mass vaccination of the whole population, not just those who are especially vulnerable.
For what it's worth, I'm a similar age to you, and had no side effects from the vaccine at all, so don't necessarily assume you're in for a rough couple of days. I hope everything goes well with yours.
Source https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n896 I recommend reading the whole paper
Just because 2020 has been "average" for 20 years (which isn't true according to this graph) it shows bucking a trend.
Regarding bed occupancy, this caveat from the NHS website which has the stats: "Note for 2020-21 data
Your other point showing worldwide deaths does of course highlight the scandal of treatable diseases not being eradicated worldwide with affordable medicines and vaccines. As ever, if it effects the rich western countries it gets the funding.
Vaccines are not just about the individual and affect society as a whole especially the most vulnerable.
We have world leaders and politicians who renounce critical thinking. Trump was a supporter of anti-vaxxer Andrew Wakefield who was struck off in the UK yet is now taken seriously across the world.
You have a graph from the BMJ and I have one from the Office of National Statistics which contradict each other, so it would seem we have a reached graphic impasse.
My point about an average death rate was concerned with how the current pandemic hasn't drastically affected it; improved sanitation etc from a hundred years go is hardly relevant to this very particular context.
The NHS 'caveat' with its real caution should be exercised, in general... and an artistic licence with its language affords it a slight whiff of 'spin', but perhaps that's my default position of scepticism of all Covid related reportage kicking in...
I totally agree with your last point, but it wasn't my point. I think you knew that...
Must say, as one who is invariably pilloried for having an opposing opinion to the vast majority on here during the current zeitgeist, it's refreshing to have a reasoned and considerate reply that doesn't resort to lazy pejoratives or ad hominem argument.
Please link me this article/journal/report. Rather than copy and pasting off your weird website.
It would appear I may have been a victim of misinformation in this particular instance.
To my mind, everyone over say 45 and those vulnerable for other reasons should be recommended to have the jab. Others shouldn't be recommended to have the jab. In my opinion in a couple of years time that will be how it will be with this vaccine - similar to the flu one; maybe even combined with it by then.
For what it's worth, through gritted teeth and peer / governmental pressure I've just had the jab done this morning. But I am still very much unconvinced and walked away wondering why I did it!
I do understand and share concern about "other" (i.e. unvaccinatable) vulnerable people but again - overall that comprises a very small proportion of the population and many of those vulnerable people are similarly vulnerable to serious illness from flu every year which we do not mass vaccinate against.
As before above, I still don't see a clear compelling argument for fit healthy young people to be taking the vaccine. But I've done it so...
Aliwibble: "ridiculous"
The point still stands though. There are unknowns about the vaccine, and there is no long term data on it. We KNOW that as much as we know that there haven't been large numbers of deaths associated with the initial tests. I'm not for a comment suggesting death but the point I'm making is that there are unknowns, and the ongoing discoveries about bleeding etc show that; yes not life threatening and yes blood clot risk extremely low too, but could other matters similarly emerge? Again, probably not, but to me it doesn't make sense to be imposing a vaccine on vast numbers of fit and healthy young people with minimal statistical risk from covid given those uncertainties (at this stage) and in order solely to protect a relatively small number of other vulnerable unvaccinated people, the risk to who I think is also minimal statistically.
As a side note, one of my best mates told me today (after I'd had my jab!) that he had his last week and passed out a few minutes later, had 3 hours at the hospital as a result and was then in bed with flu symptoms for the next 3 days. Probably no long term effects but even with that to be honest - why for a fit and healthy 34 year old who also had covid last year and gave him less symptoms than the jab itself!
Because for flu there is a base level of immunity in the population gained from the Spanish flu pandemic and over 100 subsequent years of flu spreading in the population. With COVID we dont have the benefit of the base level of immunity in the population. The point of the vaccination programme is to get that base level of immunity in the population so that in the future only the vulnerable and over 50s need annual booster vaccines against new variants just like flu. but we are not there yet - not even close. That is why we need a high uptake - its been estimated as somewhere over 90% thats gonna be required to get us to that level of base immunity.
Alternatively we can wait until we get to that point "naturally" with more years of deaths and lockdowns and economic ruin. Either way we are getting to that point.
I wonder why people are so keen on vaccinations?
Why should there be substantial (excess) deaths (and I think the word substantial is key here, some excess deaths have to unfortunately be expected), lockdowns and economic ruin if all of the over 50s and vulnerable are vaccinated now? If all the over 50s and vulnerable are vaccinated now - who make up the overwhelming majority of serious illnesses/deaths/hospitalisations - then the theory is that the overwhelming majority of them won't get seriously ill and therefore deaths and hospitalisations through Covid will be very low. Why does it then matter if the rest of the population don't have the "base level" of immunity you refer to and this takes some years to develop?
Below is part of what I posted on the vaccine poll thread back in December
"As for the claims that "the testing has been rushed". I am assured they are completely untrue. In fact I'm told that due to the timescales these have been made to jump through more hoops not less. Yes Vaccines usually take years to be approved but the delays are not due to testing they are due to factors including; gaining funding, finding sponsors, getting senior academics to support testing, getting testing facilities, getting enough people to volunteer for the trials, getting enough research assistants to analyse the results, by the time that's all done people lose motivation for the write up as its taken years so the writing of the results itself is known to take years, it then has to wait in a queue for the approval process. The global pandemic has focused the minds of the whole world on this, governments, institutions and companies are throwing money at it, all lab space and research expertise have been given to it, every academic wants to sponsor it, more people are willing to volunteer for the trials, all efforts are focused on this and its prioritised for the approval. That is where the time has been saved, the actual testing has been as rigorous as with any other vaccine."
What we've seen is not rushing in the sense of being lax, but it is rushing in the sense of pulling together to wards a shared goal. One way we helped develop speedy solutions was through unprecedented information sharing between academic and commercial institutions, and if you're interested in it the general public. This has greatly speeded up our collective understanding of the nature of the virus and how it can be tackled - at no additional risk. This is partly down to the technical capabilities we have through the internet and partly down to the severity of the situation. It's a bloody good thing; those who did it should be applauded.
The scientists have done their bit, they did exactly what was asked of them. It is now the job of the public to do the responsible thing and to help protect us all by taking the vaccine and helping stop the spread. It is also the responsibility of the politicians to ensure that vaccinations are not restricted to those living in rich countries. Viral mutations to not respect national boundaries. We need everyone, and that means the whole planet, vaccinated to stop further mutations.