The compelling argument for everyone taking the vaccine is because every virologist, epidemiologist, physician and scientist and health statistician involved in this pandemic is saying we should. Despite what Michael Gove might believe, we haven’t had enough of experts. It’s these experts that got us out of trouble and I think taking their advice is quite a good idea. Of course if you can’t see that as a compelling reason then nothing will.
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!
The 'small vulnerable fraction' is absolutely the targeted sector of the population for whom influenza is likely to be life-changing/limiting. The elderly and the respiratory weakened being chief among them. There is not a national all ages influenza vaccination program because most influenza infections are unpleasant but rarely serious or fatal. It's simply not cost or time effective. We haven't seen an infection transmit so rapidly through populations since 1918. With the lockdowns in 2020 having decimated the transmission of influenza infections through the wider population we are sitting on a flu timebomb for this or next year. The numbers with infection acquired immunity will be tiny when the next flu outbreak hits. There was a bigger and more widely implemented flu jab campaign last year partly to keep hospital admissions of flu patients as low as possible because the beds were full of Covid sufferers and because there had been a review of 'susceptible' adults and the same logic applied to flu as saw younger people with vulnerabilities/co-morbidities vaccinated early against Covid. If it escaped you: last year covid killed 5 or 6 times as many people as flu does in even a bad year and the demographic of the deceased was much much wider than flu ever is. Our hospitals were practically full. We complain bitterly about 4 and 5 hour waits at A&E for walk up cases - last year my paramedic mate was lucky to admit 2 'blue-light' patients per 12 hour shift cos she spent most of every day queuing with them in her ambulance at hospitals. But y'know the evidence for vaccinating the under 45's is "unconvincing".
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...
How many avoidable deaths are required for a 'compelling argument'. I'll stake 10 to 1 you know nobody who's required treatment for Covid.
This sort of "argument" was touted by some against compulsory seat belts in cars and helmets for motor-cycle drivers, but you're too young to have known a time when there was a choice.
@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’d say it sort of is clear cut, unless you're looking for absolute 100% certainty, and as they say, nothing is certain except death and taxes. There are people refusing the vaccine because of a one in a million chance they’ll have a serious adverse reaction, which is a bit daft, and not in the interest of the creating a society/world that can stamp out viruses if and when they arise. Of course ‘we’ (society) need to be vigilant, but at the end of the day I’m more than happy to leave it to the experts to advise me what to do. And if I turn out to be the unlucky one in a million, so be it.
But it certainly isn’t what I would call ‘an unknown gamble’. Vaccines have made the world a much better place for long enough for that not to be the case.
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...
How many avoidable deaths are required for a 'compelling argument'. I'll stake 10 to 1 you know nobody who's required treatment for Covid.
This sort of "argument" was touted by some against compulsory seat belts in cars and helmets for motor-cycle drivers, but you're too young to have known a time when there was a choice.
Wrong. I know somebody I’m relatively close to who was in Basildon hospital on a ventilator in intensive care cos he was struggling with it, and he was from north london but there was no hospital capacity near him so he got shipped over there, and now has long covid.
he is 58, obese and has diabetes.
I’ll take the tenner off ya when we’re back at the valley.
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?
The compelling argument for everyone taking the vaccine is because every virologist, epidemiologist, physician and scientist and health statistician involved in this pandemic is saying we should. Despite what Michael Gove might believe, we haven’t had enough of experts. It’s these experts that got us out of trouble and I think taking their advice is quite a good idea. Of course if you can’t see that as a compelling reason then nothing will.
Well fair enough. And I guess that’s why I cracked on with it. And ultimately I have no expectation of adverse impacts but ya know, I’ve explained my thought process
@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’d say it sort of is clear cut, unless you're looking for absolute 100% certainty, and as they say, nothing is certain except death and taxes. There are people refusing the vaccine because of a one in a million chance they’ll have a serious adverse reaction, which is a bit daft, and not in the interest of the creating a society/world that can stamp out viruses if and when they arise. Of course ‘we’ (society) need to be vigilant, but at the end of the day I’m more than happy to leave it to the experts to advise me what to do. And if I turn out to be the unlucky one in a million, so be it.
But it certainly isn’t what I would call ‘an unknown gamble’. Vaccines have made the world a much better place for long enough for that not to be the case.
Only thing I’d say here which is an absolutely fundamental flaw , in my view, with the above, is the suggestion of a society stamping out a virus when it arises. If that was going to occur by everyone being vaccinated my mindset would be very, very different. But to quote the same trusted sources as SHG, there is no virologist, epidemiologist, physician or health statistician who is suggesting that is even a remote possibility with covid.
@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’d say it sort of is clear cut, unless you're looking for absolute 100% certainty, and as they say, nothing is certain except death and taxes. There are people refusing the vaccine because of a one in a million chance they’ll have a serious adverse reaction, which is a bit daft, and not in the interest of the creating a society/world that can stamp out viruses if and when they arise. Of course ‘we’ (society) need to be vigilant, but at the end of the day I’m more than happy to leave it to the experts to advise me what to do. And if I turn out to be the unlucky one in a million, so be it.
But it certainly isn’t what I would call ‘an unknown gamble’. Vaccines have made the world a much better place for long enough for that not to be the case.
Only thing I’d say here which is an absolutely fundamental flaw , in my view, with the above, is the suggestion of a society stamping out a virus when it arises. If that was going to occur by everyone being vaccinated my mindset would be very, very different. But to quote the same trusted sources as SHG, there is no virologist, epidemiologist, physician or health statistician who is suggesting that is even a remote possibility with covid.
It will never be stamped out - I agree. But vaccines, repeated as necessary, will hold it at bay until human physiology (immune system) evolves to deal with it as a mild condition rather than a killer. Exactly the same way humanity has evolved to deal with the Spanish Flu that is still in circulation today, although obviously it was tougher to deal with that pandemic 100 years ago as there were no vaccines.
India has ordered 300 million doses of an unapproved coronavirus vaccine amid a devastating second wave.
The unnamed vaccine from Indian firm Biological E is in Phase 3 trials, and had showed "promising results" in the first two phases, the federal government said in a statement.
@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’d say it sort of is clear cut, unless you're looking for absolute 100% certainty, and as they say, nothing is certain except death and taxes. There are people refusing the vaccine because of a one in a million chance they’ll have a serious adverse reaction, which is a bit daft, and not in the interest of the creating a society/world that can stamp out viruses if and when they arise. Of course ‘we’ (society) need to be vigilant, but at the end of the day I’m more than happy to leave it to the experts to advise me what to do. And if I turn out to be the unlucky one in a million, so be it.
But it certainly isn’t what I would call ‘an unknown gamble’. Vaccines have made the world a much better place for long enough for that not to be the case.
Only thing I’d say here which is an absolutely fundamental flaw , in my view, with the above, is the suggestion of a society stamping out a virus when it arises. If that was going to occur by everyone being vaccinated my mindset would be very, very different. But to quote the same trusted sources as SHG, there is no virologist, epidemiologist, physician or health statistician who is suggesting that is even a remote possibility with covid.
It will never be stamped out - I agree. But vaccines, repeated as necessary, will hold it at bay until human physiology (immune system) evolves to deal with it as a mild condition rather than a killer. Exactly the same way humanity has evolved to deal with the Spanish Flu that is still in circulation today, although obviously it was tougher to deal with that pandemic 100 years ago as there were no vaccines.
And I suppose there may also be the possibility it evolves into a harmless variant at some point in the future. We can but hope!
@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’d say it sort of is clear cut, unless you're looking for absolute 100% certainty, and as they say, nothing is certain except death and taxes. There are people refusing the vaccine because of a one in a million chance they’ll have a serious adverse reaction, which is a bit daft, and not in the interest of the creating a society/world that can stamp out viruses if and when they arise. Of course ‘we’ (society) need to be vigilant, but at the end of the day I’m more than happy to leave it to the experts to advise me what to do. And if I turn out to be the unlucky one in a million, so be it.
But it certainly isn’t what I would call ‘an unknown gamble’. Vaccines have made the world a much better place for long enough for that not to be the case.
Only thing I’d say here which is an absolutely fundamental flaw , in my view, with the above, is the suggestion of a society stamping out a virus when it arises. If that was going to occur by everyone being vaccinated my mindset would be very, very different. But to quote the same trusted sources as SHG, there is no virologist, epidemiologist, physician or health statistician who is suggesting that is even a remote possibility with covid.
It will never be stamped out - I agree. But vaccines, repeated as necessary, will hold it at bay until human physiology (immune system) evolves to deal with it as a mild condition rather than a killer. Exactly the same way humanity has evolved to deal with the Spanish Flu that is still in circulation today, although obviously it was tougher to deal with that pandemic 100 years ago as there were no vaccines.
And I suppose there may also be the possibility it evolves into a harmless variant at some point in the future. We can but hope!
Very, very likely, Mutts - if it follows the life cycle of pretty much every other virus known to man.
The UK has approved the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in children aged 12-15, saying it is safe and effective in this age group and the benefits outweigh the risks.
The MHRA said it had carried out a "rigorous review" of the vaccine in adolescents.
The UK's vaccines committee will now decide whether children should get the jab.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has approved a second Chinese vaccine for emergency use. CoronaVac was found to be 51% effective at preventing COVID-19 in late-stage trials, and researchers say it will be key to curbing the pandemic.
This overall protection is lower than that provided by the seven other vaccines already listed by the WHO. But, importantly, trials suggest that CoronaVac — an inactivated-virus vaccine produced by Beijing-based company Sinovac — is 100% effective at preventing severe disease and death.
(@Jessie, Nature is a well-regarded peer-reviewed periodical)
I noticed a few days ago that CoronaVac has been used extensively in Chile, to good effect. Perhaps that was the additional data the WHO had been waiting for?
This may have already been mentioned on here, but my wife (who is pretty in the know on these things) pointed out that one of the main reasons to have the jab is that you do not know (and nobody can, as yet, know) whether having a serious bout of the disease might have serious implications for your future health, even if you are young and healthy.
Significant elements of your body can only regenerate themselves a certain number of times (this will vary between people), and significant illness can essentially use up these regenerations.
She explained it by saying to think of the adage of a cat having nine lives. If the illness takes away takes away two, then if you were not previously 'on your eighth or ninth life' then you will not die, which is clearly good; but you have still lose those two lives. So if you were a healthy 40-year-old you might have been on 'life' number four and get Covid - well now you are on number six, or maybe it is seven or eight.
It is all so new that nobody knows what is going on for sure, but as a general principle it is not wise to catch a serious illness if you can avoid it.
Booked my second jab for next Friday, 8 weeks after my first which I got from leftovers at a pharmacy. Very impressed that the booking system recognised it was my second jab, and presumably limited my choice of venue to those using AZ.
(Wish I hadn't taken up the leftover as I'm under 40, but no clots so must be safe by now).
The vaccine roll out has really been a shining light in a pretty dark 18ish months, credit where it's due.
Comments
The elderly and the respiratory weakened being chief among them.
There is not a national all ages influenza vaccination program because most influenza infections are unpleasant but rarely serious or fatal. It's simply not cost or time effective. We haven't seen an infection transmit so rapidly through populations since 1918.
With the lockdowns in 2020 having decimated the transmission of influenza infections through the wider population we are sitting on a flu timebomb for this or next year. The numbers with infection acquired immunity will be tiny when the next flu outbreak hits.
There was a bigger and more widely implemented flu jab campaign last year partly to keep hospital admissions of flu patients as low as possible because the beds were full of Covid sufferers and because there had been a review of 'susceptible' adults and the same logic applied to flu as saw younger people with vulnerabilities/co-morbidities vaccinated early against Covid.
If it escaped you: last year covid killed 5 or 6 times as many people as flu does in even a bad year and the demographic of the deceased was much much wider than flu ever is. Our hospitals were practically full. We complain bitterly about 4 and 5 hour waits at A&E for walk up cases - last year my paramedic mate was lucky to admit 2 'blue-light' patients per 12 hour shift cos she spent most of every day queuing with them in her ambulance at hospitals.
But y'know the evidence for vaccinating the under 45's is "unconvincing".
I'll stake 10 to 1 you know nobody who's required treatment for Covid.
This sort of "argument" was touted by some against compulsory seat belts in cars and helmets for motor-cycle drivers, but you're too young to have known a time when there was a choice.
he is 58, obese and has diabetes.
It will never be stamped out - I agree. But vaccines, repeated as necessary, will hold it at bay until human physiology (immune system) evolves to deal with it as a mild condition rather than a killer. Exactly the same way humanity has evolved to deal with the Spanish Flu that is still in circulation today, although obviously it was tougher to deal with that pandemic 100 years ago as there were no vaccines.
India has ordered 300 million doses of an unapproved coronavirus vaccine amid a devastating second wave.
The unnamed vaccine from Indian firm Biological E is in Phase 3 trials, and had showed "promising results" in the first two phases, the federal government said in a statement.
To an extent we have to rely on a degree of educated guesswork. Human beings crave certainty which is simply not there at present.
The UK has approved the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in children aged 12-15, saying it is safe and effective in this age group and the benefits outweigh the risks.
The MHRA said it had carried out a "rigorous review" of the vaccine in adolescents.
The UK's vaccines committee will now decide whether children should get the jab.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has approved a second Chinese vaccine for emergency use. CoronaVac was found to be 51% effective at preventing COVID-19 in late-stage trials, and researchers say it will be key to curbing the pandemic.
This overall protection is lower than that provided by the seven other vaccines already listed by the WHO. But, importantly, trials suggest that CoronaVac — an inactivated-virus vaccine produced by Beijing-based company Sinovac — is 100% effective at preventing severe disease and death.
More details here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01497-8
(@Jessie, Nature is a well-regarded peer-reviewed periodical)
I noticed a few days ago that CoronaVac has been used extensively in Chile, to good effect. Perhaps that was the additional data the WHO had been waiting for?
My arm feels like its been punched repeatedly and I feel pretty run down today.
15,000 fans in the Metropolitano tonight for Spain v Portugal. Should be getting my second dose there in next few weeks ☺️
Only side effect - I can no longer walk past the pub on the way home, it seems.
(Wish I hadn't taken up the leftover as I'm under 40, but no clots so must be safe by now).
The vaccine roll out has really been a shining light in a pretty dark 18ish months, credit where it's due.
If I feel like I did after the first, I won't be going.