| Vaccine priority List 10:21 - Dec 2 with 25863 views | itfcpaul |
Just been published and looks like the majority of us won't get it for months, maybe even after Spring at the earliest, looks like a long haul to get this vaccine to everyone, that's even if we can get 120 million that we need.....
And on a football note, please Mr. Lambert will you leave our club
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Vaccine priority List on 11:31 - Dec 3 with 661 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Vaccine priority List on 19:11 - Dec 2 by StokieBlue |
No, your interpretation was correct, I wasn't aware of the dozen or so cases you've highlighted.
Once again though, context is key here. Many millions were vaccinated and the article you've sourced says "around 1000 were affected" which is awful but a tiny proportion and that needs to be highlighted just as much as the bad cases.
For further context it's less people who got narcolepsy than have did in the UK in 2 days with C19. It was another 650 deaths today I believe. Once again, it's horrible for the people who had the side-effects and it's right to mention them but it's also right to quantify the numbers with context.
Your quote also points out that the side-effects are so infrequent (less than 1 in 55,000 at a minimum) that they wouldn't have even been picked up by a stage 3 trial so what should have been done differently with regards to C19 stage 3 trials?
What do you want to happen? Wait one or two years to see any long-term issues that may occur in 1 in 100,000? Covid and long-Covid will have run riot by then. It's not a perfect situation so I would honestly like to hear your thoughts on what should happen.
SB [Post edited 2 Dec 2020 19:12]
|
I wouldn't advocate that we wait 2-3 years however I do think that it is being brought in too quickly and with that could come potential consequences if rolled out to millions of people. The EMA have suggested we have been 'hasty' and not thorough enough. I understand the pressure to return to some form of 'normal' is huge but even so I think the public deserve full and thorough scrutiny before a vaccine is approved then access to the right information when it is to enable an informed choice to be made.
I agree that context is needed and that the overall risk of serious adverse events is small however it is still there and needs to be considered by anybody that takes the vaccine.
What I would like to see is some transparency and openness from the Government ( and media ) regarding the risks rather than shutting down genuine questions and throwing around 'anti-vaxxer' insults at anybody that poses them.
Giving the impression that the vaccine is fully tested and safe when that is not something that can be guaranteed is disingenuous.
I am happy if anybody can prove this to be incorrect but as I understand it Pfizer have not yet released the full study data for peer review or independent scrutiny. I also haven't come across any data from them that confirms that the vaccine is proven to reduce transmission. I'm sure everybody would agree that this is crucial when it is being marketed in such a way that those at low risk should take it to protect those at high risk. Again if this data has been shown and anybody can produce it then great and I will stand corrected.
I would also like to see the vaccine companies and/or Government put their money where their mouths are and take full responsibility and liability if/when any serious adverse reactions occur. It was bad enough that the Narcolepsy issue happened but for me perhaps even worse was the way it was handled. For front line workers to effectively be thrown on the scrap heap with nobody taking responsibility and then to have to fight for a decade to get compensation while at the same time living with a debilitating illness is unforgiveable. £120000 is also an insufficient sum based on the victims losing their ability to earn a living. Vaccine manufacturers will make huge profits from these vaccines especially if it ends up being annual like the flu shot so surely it is only right that they take full financial responsibility if anything goes seriously wrong? If they are so confident in their products then why do they hide behind Government indemnities leaving the taxpayer to cover the cost of any compensation?
As it stands though there is not even this safety net in place for the C19 vaccines as it is not listed on the Governments compensation scheme, maybe this will change, it certainly should do. This just undermines confidence in the vaccine in anybody that does the research and realises this is the case. Why should the public take on all of the risk when those promoting the vaccine don’t take on any? That is not right especially when the risk from covid for the vast majority is very small. It has to work both ways surely?
I would also like to see the Government stop using threats and coercion on the public regarding vaccine uptake. We have previously had a minister warning that people may not be allowed in certain public places if not vaccinated and yesterday we have Van-Tam threatening that if we get low uptake then restrictions will remain indefinitely. This is not the way to go about gaining public confidence in my opinion. I see Van-Tam is taking audience questions on 5-live this morning, it will be interesting to see if any of the issues mentioned here are discussed, knowing the BBC I suspect not and the questions will be tame. I will listen back this evening with interest.
Edit - I have now seen it confirmed that C19 vaccines will be added to the Governments compensation scheme. I still feel personally that the maximum £120k on this scheme is not enough and that the vaccine companies themselves should stand by their products and be liable but only fair to point out that there will be at least some possible recompense if things go wrong. [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 17:08]
|  | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 11:44 - Dec 3 with 657 views | Herbivore |
| Vaccine priority List on 11:31 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
I wouldn't advocate that we wait 2-3 years however I do think that it is being brought in too quickly and with that could come potential consequences if rolled out to millions of people. The EMA have suggested we have been 'hasty' and not thorough enough. I understand the pressure to return to some form of 'normal' is huge but even so I think the public deserve full and thorough scrutiny before a vaccine is approved then access to the right information when it is to enable an informed choice to be made.
I agree that context is needed and that the overall risk of serious adverse events is small however it is still there and needs to be considered by anybody that takes the vaccine.
What I would like to see is some transparency and openness from the Government ( and media ) regarding the risks rather than shutting down genuine questions and throwing around 'anti-vaxxer' insults at anybody that poses them.
Giving the impression that the vaccine is fully tested and safe when that is not something that can be guaranteed is disingenuous.
I am happy if anybody can prove this to be incorrect but as I understand it Pfizer have not yet released the full study data for peer review or independent scrutiny. I also haven't come across any data from them that confirms that the vaccine is proven to reduce transmission. I'm sure everybody would agree that this is crucial when it is being marketed in such a way that those at low risk should take it to protect those at high risk. Again if this data has been shown and anybody can produce it then great and I will stand corrected.
I would also like to see the vaccine companies and/or Government put their money where their mouths are and take full responsibility and liability if/when any serious adverse reactions occur. It was bad enough that the Narcolepsy issue happened but for me perhaps even worse was the way it was handled. For front line workers to effectively be thrown on the scrap heap with nobody taking responsibility and then to have to fight for a decade to get compensation while at the same time living with a debilitating illness is unforgiveable. £120000 is also an insufficient sum based on the victims losing their ability to earn a living. Vaccine manufacturers will make huge profits from these vaccines especially if it ends up being annual like the flu shot so surely it is only right that they take full financial responsibility if anything goes seriously wrong? If they are so confident in their products then why do they hide behind Government indemnities leaving the taxpayer to cover the cost of any compensation?
As it stands though there is not even this safety net in place for the C19 vaccines as it is not listed on the Governments compensation scheme, maybe this will change, it certainly should do. This just undermines confidence in the vaccine in anybody that does the research and realises this is the case. Why should the public take on all of the risk when those promoting the vaccine don’t take on any? That is not right especially when the risk from covid for the vast majority is very small. It has to work both ways surely?
I would also like to see the Government stop using threats and coercion on the public regarding vaccine uptake. We have previously had a minister warning that people may not be allowed in certain public places if not vaccinated and yesterday we have Van-Tam threatening that if we get low uptake then restrictions will remain indefinitely. This is not the way to go about gaining public confidence in my opinion. I see Van-Tam is taking audience questions on 5-live this morning, it will be interesting to see if any of the issues mentioned here are discussed, knowing the BBC I suspect not and the questions will be tame. I will listen back this evening with interest.
Edit - I have now seen it confirmed that C19 vaccines will be added to the Governments compensation scheme. I still feel personally that the maximum £120k on this scheme is not enough and that the vaccine companies themselves should stand by their products and be liable but only fair to point out that there will be at least some possible recompense if things go wrong. [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 17:08]
|
If you choose not to take the vaccine because it carries a very low risk of adverse consequences that is fine, however you are then potentially increasing the risk that you pose to yourself and others. If you choose to do that then it is not a "threat" to say you may not be allowed to access certain places, it is perfectly reasonable that certain industries and venues might wish to restrict access to people who have chosen not to take the vaccine. Why should others have to carry your risk for you? If certain things might be denied you because you don't want to have the vaccine then you need to factor that into your decision making.
All decisions carry a balance of risk and reward, statistically you are much more likely to die or face life changing injuries in an RTA than you are through taking a vaccine, if you choose to not drive because of those odds then you don't get the benefits of being able to drive a car. If you accept the risk then you do. |  |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 11:47 - Dec 3 with 639 views | Ryorry |
| Vaccine priority List on 11:44 - Dec 3 by Herbivore |
If you choose not to take the vaccine because it carries a very low risk of adverse consequences that is fine, however you are then potentially increasing the risk that you pose to yourself and others. If you choose to do that then it is not a "threat" to say you may not be allowed to access certain places, it is perfectly reasonable that certain industries and venues might wish to restrict access to people who have chosen not to take the vaccine. Why should others have to carry your risk for you? If certain things might be denied you because you don't want to have the vaccine then you need to factor that into your decision making.
All decisions carry a balance of risk and reward, statistically you are much more likely to die or face life changing injuries in an RTA than you are through taking a vaccine, if you choose to not drive because of those odds then you don't get the benefits of being able to drive a car. If you accept the risk then you do. |
Quite - not to mention the risks inherent in contracting Covid_19 itself, including 'long Covid', which we're hearing the younger age groups are not immune to. |  |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 11:55 - Dec 3 with 633 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Vaccine priority List on 07:52 - Dec 3 by StokieBlue |
To add some more context to the numbers, 2600 people died in the US of C19 just yesterday.
That's a lot higher than any of the numbers in your sources for the entire vaccination program for swine flu (and those weren't deaths but still obviously life changing).
SB |
I do not wish to downplay the covid deaths but context also needs to be applied when quoting these numbers. What age were the deceased?, What were their existing serious health conditions etc.? Are they part of an overall picture of excess mortality?
Regarding the last question I can't comment on the US but certainly in the UK we are not seeing significant excess deaths either overall or due respiratory illness during the second wave ( we did during the 1st wave )
This suggests that C19 is the dominant seasonal virus at the moment which is sadly taking out those most vulnerable but it is only doing what influenza or other viruses would do in any other year. People won't like this suggestion i'm sure but the data backs it up.
We have been fed a diet of extreme fear ( without context ) by Government and the media since this began which I don't think is helpful. | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:00 - Dec 3 with 621 views | Ryorry |
| Vaccine priority List on 11:55 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
I do not wish to downplay the covid deaths but context also needs to be applied when quoting these numbers. What age were the deceased?, What were their existing serious health conditions etc.? Are they part of an overall picture of excess mortality?
Regarding the last question I can't comment on the US but certainly in the UK we are not seeing significant excess deaths either overall or due respiratory illness during the second wave ( we did during the 1st wave )
This suggests that C19 is the dominant seasonal virus at the moment which is sadly taking out those most vulnerable but it is only doing what influenza or other viruses would do in any other year. People won't like this suggestion i'm sure but the data backs it up.
We have been fed a diet of extreme fear ( without context ) by Government and the media since this began which I don't think is helpful. |
"We have been fed a diet of extreme fear ( without context ) by Government "
Jeez, I'm no fan of this Govt. & slate them morning, noon & night, but that's a ridiculous comment. I thought your long post on this page interesting, but you've undermined your credibility with this one as far as I'm concerned. | |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:04 - Dec 3 with 616 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Vaccine priority List on 08:19 - Dec 3 by Herbivore |
The article also says that Salisbury was responsible for telling everyone the vaccine had been properly and thoroughly tested, so I'd question whether we should believe him when he says that extensive stage 3 trials wouldn't have picked up on the issue. Let's be honest, he has some skin in the game here and a reason to downplay the significance of not going through proper testing.
Anyone suffering ill effects following a vaccine is of course a tragedy, but the risks are very, very small and are incomparable to the number of lives that would be affected if we didn't have mass vaccination. [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 9:47]
|
Its a fair point regarding Salisbury's position however it is logical that what he is saying is correct. The reactions were rare and did take some time after vaccination to develop so it is highly unlikely they would be picked up on the stage 3 trials. This means that any of the C19 vaccines may be vulnerable to something similar happening only this time affecting much greater numbers. I just think authorities need to be honest and transparent about the potential risks, however small. | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:23 - Dec 3 with 613 views | SpruceMoose |
| Vaccine priority List on 11:55 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
I do not wish to downplay the covid deaths but context also needs to be applied when quoting these numbers. What age were the deceased?, What were their existing serious health conditions etc.? Are they part of an overall picture of excess mortality?
Regarding the last question I can't comment on the US but certainly in the UK we are not seeing significant excess deaths either overall or due respiratory illness during the second wave ( we did during the 1st wave )
This suggests that C19 is the dominant seasonal virus at the moment which is sadly taking out those most vulnerable but it is only doing what influenza or other viruses would do in any other year. People won't like this suggestion i'm sure but the data backs it up.
We have been fed a diet of extreme fear ( without context ) by Government and the media since this began which I don't think is helpful. |
Insulting.
Look, we know your default position is anti-vax, but please don't downplay deaths in my country to further your agenda.
Thank you. [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 12:24]
|  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:26 - Dec 3 with 599 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Vaccine priority List on 11:44 - Dec 3 by Herbivore |
If you choose not to take the vaccine because it carries a very low risk of adverse consequences that is fine, however you are then potentially increasing the risk that you pose to yourself and others. If you choose to do that then it is not a "threat" to say you may not be allowed to access certain places, it is perfectly reasonable that certain industries and venues might wish to restrict access to people who have chosen not to take the vaccine. Why should others have to carry your risk for you? If certain things might be denied you because you don't want to have the vaccine then you need to factor that into your decision making.
All decisions carry a balance of risk and reward, statistically you are much more likely to die or face life changing injuries in an RTA than you are through taking a vaccine, if you choose to not drive because of those odds then you don't get the benefits of being able to drive a car. If you accept the risk then you do. |
You may have missed the piece in my post about lack of data from Pfizer showing that their vaccine reduces transmission? To my knowledge they have not released any data around this as yet, that being the case then you are really working on assumption rather than provable fact.
If we get the data that proves this ( preferably independently verified ) then I agree that in principle it becomes a choice for which there may be some consequences. However I think there will need to be pretty strong evidence that un-vaccinated people with no symptoms are a threat to society for this to stand up legally. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Vaccine priority List on 12:26 - Dec 3 with 602 views | lowhouseblue |
| Vaccine priority List on 11:55 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
I do not wish to downplay the covid deaths but context also needs to be applied when quoting these numbers. What age were the deceased?, What were their existing serious health conditions etc.? Are they part of an overall picture of excess mortality?
Regarding the last question I can't comment on the US but certainly in the UK we are not seeing significant excess deaths either overall or due respiratory illness during the second wave ( we did during the 1st wave )
This suggests that C19 is the dominant seasonal virus at the moment which is sadly taking out those most vulnerable but it is only doing what influenza or other viruses would do in any other year. People won't like this suggestion i'm sure but the data backs it up.
We have been fed a diet of extreme fear ( without context ) by Government and the media since this began which I don't think is helpful. |
"we are not seeing significant excess deaths "
but we've needed a national lockdown and very restrictive tiers in order to achieve that. it wouldn't be true without those heavy restrictions. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:28 - Dec 3 with 599 views | StokieBlue |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:04 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
Its a fair point regarding Salisbury's position however it is logical that what he is saying is correct. The reactions were rare and did take some time after vaccination to develop so it is highly unlikely they would be picked up on the stage 3 trials. This means that any of the C19 vaccines may be vulnerable to something similar happening only this time affecting much greater numbers. I just think authorities need to be honest and transparent about the potential risks, however small. |
You can't compare the types of vaccine though, they are totally different and the cause of the issues with the swine flu vaccines isn't present in either the mRNA vaccines or the Oxford vaccine.
Just saying "it's a vaccine" isn't precise enough and creates a false equivalence.
The government and companies should publish there data but I think you also need to be transparent here and acknowledge that you aren't comparing like-for-like and thus making suppositions on a faulty dataset.
SB [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 12:28]
|  | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:31 - Dec 3 with 592 views | itfcpaul |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:26 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
You may have missed the piece in my post about lack of data from Pfizer showing that their vaccine reduces transmission? To my knowledge they have not released any data around this as yet, that being the case then you are really working on assumption rather than provable fact.
If we get the data that proves this ( preferably independently verified ) then I agree that in principle it becomes a choice for which there may be some consequences. However I think there will need to be pretty strong evidence that un-vaccinated people with no symptoms are a threat to society for this to stand up legally. |
They have already said they dont know if it last long or not | |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:33 - Dec 3 with 593 views | StokieBlue |
| Vaccine priority List on 11:55 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
I do not wish to downplay the covid deaths but context also needs to be applied when quoting these numbers. What age were the deceased?, What were their existing serious health conditions etc.? Are they part of an overall picture of excess mortality?
Regarding the last question I can't comment on the US but certainly in the UK we are not seeing significant excess deaths either overall or due respiratory illness during the second wave ( we did during the 1st wave )
This suggests that C19 is the dominant seasonal virus at the moment which is sadly taking out those most vulnerable but it is only doing what influenza or other viruses would do in any other year. People won't like this suggestion i'm sure but the data backs it up.
We have been fed a diet of extreme fear ( without context ) by Government and the media since this began which I don't think is helpful. |
You don't want to downplay 2600 deaths in a single day but want to emphasise 0 deaths and at most 2000 adverse reactions (which everyone acknowledges is horrible for those involved) to a vaccine which isn't equivalent to what is being developed now and which underwent less testing than the C19 vaccines.
You don't see any issues with your position?
We are still seeing excess deaths but not at the level before because we have a national lockdown preventing transmission of all respiratory illness and we have better techniques for treating people who get ill. You've totally ignored context again in your statement. I am sure it's not intentional but it could look hugely disingenuous to many. The data doesn't back it up because it's not equatable to any other year given the restrictions.
"We have been fed a diet of extreme fear ( without context ) by Government and the media since this began which I don't think is helpful."
Yet you seem to think it's helpful to feed a diet of extreme fear when it comes to vaccinations whilst ignoring context.
SB [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 12:36]
| | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:36 - Dec 3 with 573 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:00 - Dec 3 by Ryorry |
"We have been fed a diet of extreme fear ( without context ) by Government "
Jeez, I'm no fan of this Govt. & slate them morning, noon & night, but that's a ridiculous comment. I thought your long post on this page interesting, but you've undermined your credibility with this one as far as I'm concerned. |
I did say Government and media and I think Media are the main proponents which I should perhaps have made clearer.
I don't think there can be any doubt that the media have showered us in death statistics on a daily basis since March without much context can there? Is is also true that Government along with Sage have used vastly inflated projections twice and that they intentionally went about increasing fear in the public to encourage the behaviour they wanted to see.
This is all provable, you may think it was necessary but that is a different argument. I'm sorry if you think that one short post undermines everything else I have said but that is your prerogative of course. | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:38 - Dec 3 with 578 views | jeera |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:23 - Dec 3 by SpruceMoose |
Insulting.
Look, we know your default position is anti-vax, but please don't downplay deaths in my country to further your agenda.
Thank you. [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 12:24]
|
We keep seeing time and again this reference to underlying health conditions as though those people somehow deserve to die and should be discounted.
How many times does it need to be repeated that plenty of people live out normal lives with underlying health conditions but can be seen off by catching this virus on top of them?
Yes, agree it's insulting. Figures get thrown about as though they're not actual lives lost but a mere inconvenience to everyone else. |  |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:40 - Dec 3 with 573 views | Herbivore |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:26 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
You may have missed the piece in my post about lack of data from Pfizer showing that their vaccine reduces transmission? To my knowledge they have not released any data around this as yet, that being the case then you are really working on assumption rather than provable fact.
If we get the data that proves this ( preferably independently verified ) then I agree that in principle it becomes a choice for which there may be some consequences. However I think there will need to be pretty strong evidence that un-vaccinated people with no symptoms are a threat to society for this to stand up legally. |
Given that we already know that asymptomatic transmission of Covid is an issue then I think it is fair to say that unvaccinated individuals with no symptoms do still pose a risk. If the vaccination prevents symptoms and illness but not transmission it would be pretty irresponsible to allow unvaccinated individuals to mix in certain settings with people who have been vaccinated. | |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:41 - Dec 3 with 571 views | SpruceMoose |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:36 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
I did say Government and media and I think Media are the main proponents which I should perhaps have made clearer.
I don't think there can be any doubt that the media have showered us in death statistics on a daily basis since March without much context can there? Is is also true that Government along with Sage have used vastly inflated projections twice and that they intentionally went about increasing fear in the public to encourage the behaviour they wanted to see.
This is all provable, you may think it was necessary but that is a different argument. I'm sorry if you think that one short post undermines everything else I have said but that is your prerogative of course. |
Perhaps you don't intend to come across that way, but you sound like someone extremely privileged and sheltered from the realties of Covid to be honest. You wouldn't say the things you say if you had seen the things I've seen over the last year.
I don't even know why I'm bothering other than to set the record straight. | |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:42 - Dec 3 with 560 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:23 - Dec 3 by SpruceMoose |
Insulting.
Look, we know your default position is anti-vax, but please don't downplay deaths in my country to further your agenda.
Thank you. [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 12:24]
|
What?
I think you need to read the post again. I specifically said I was not downplaying deaths, merely offering context and also that I could not comment on the US.
I also don't have an agenda.
Thank you. | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:43 - Dec 3 with 558 views | SpruceMoose |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:38 - Dec 3 by jeera |
We keep seeing time and again this reference to underlying health conditions as though those people somehow deserve to die and should be discounted.
How many times does it need to be repeated that plenty of people live out normal lives with underlying health conditions but can be seen off by catching this virus on top of them?
Yes, agree it's insulting. Figures get thrown about as though they're not actual lives lost but a mere inconvenience to everyone else. |
All it does is highlight the lack of decency and empathy in the person saying it. | |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:45 - Dec 3 with 552 views | SpruceMoose |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:42 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
What?
I think you need to read the post again. I specifically said I was not downplaying deaths, merely offering context and also that I could not comment on the US.
I also don't have an agenda.
Thank you. |
Sure. It's not as if you've spent years on here undermining vaccination at every opportunity.
We know your game.
"Oh I don't want to downplay X, but here's something that definitely downplays/undermines X"
Give me a break buddy. [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 12:46]
| |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:47 - Dec 3 with 541 views | Herbivore |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:42 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
What?
I think you need to read the post again. I specifically said I was not downplaying deaths, merely offering context and also that I could not comment on the US.
I also don't have an agenda.
Thank you. |
When you specifically say you're not downplaying deaths at the start of a post where you go on to downplay deaths it kind of loses its impact.
It's a bit like me saying I don't mean to insult you, but you're a total feckwit (for clarity I don't think you're a total feckwit, I'm just making a point). [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 12:51]
| |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:49 - Dec 3 with 532 views | SpruceMoose |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:47 - Dec 3 by Herbivore |
When you specifically say you're not downplaying deaths at the start of a post where you go on to downplay deaths it kind of loses its impact.
It's a bit like me saying I don't mean to insult you, but you're a total feckwit (for clarity I don't think you're a total feckwit, I'm just making a point). [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 12:51]
|
At least there would be some truth in your feckwit statement to me! | |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:50 - Dec 3 with 527 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:26 - Dec 3 by lowhouseblue |
"we are not seeing significant excess deaths "
but we've needed a national lockdown and very restrictive tiers in order to achieve that. it wouldn't be true without those heavy restrictions. |
That really is debatable. In the weeks prior to lockdown 2 overall deaths and those from respiratory illness were down on 2019 numbers in the same weeks. There has also been a significantly high number of non covid excess deaths in the home since the summer which were probably caused at least in some part by the restrictions so it is not an exact science. | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:52 - Dec 3 with 524 views | Herbivore |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:50 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
That really is debatable. In the weeks prior to lockdown 2 overall deaths and those from respiratory illness were down on 2019 numbers in the same weeks. There has also been a significantly high number of non covid excess deaths in the home since the summer which were probably caused at least in some part by the restrictions so it is not an exact science. |
So you think with no lockdown it would all have been alright? | |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:52 - Dec 3 with 524 views | StokieBlue |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:50 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
That really is debatable. In the weeks prior to lockdown 2 overall deaths and those from respiratory illness were down on 2019 numbers in the same weeks. There has also been a significantly high number of non covid excess deaths in the home since the summer which were probably caused at least in some part by the restrictions so it is not an exact science. |
Once again though, context.
In those weeks (and all the ones previously) the general public were wearing masks and practicing social distancing. Those things had never happened before so comparison of the data is virtually meaningless.
We do know if they weren't doing that the deaths would be far higher due to exponential growth that C19 exhibits.
There have been in-home excess deaths but it's nowhere near at the level of the C19 deaths - do you have the numbers.
SB | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:54 - Dec 3 with 513 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:28 - Dec 3 by StokieBlue |
You can't compare the types of vaccine though, they are totally different and the cause of the issues with the swine flu vaccines isn't present in either the mRNA vaccines or the Oxford vaccine.
Just saying "it's a vaccine" isn't precise enough and creates a false equivalence.
The government and companies should publish there data but I think you also need to be transparent here and acknowledge that you aren't comparing like-for-like and thus making suppositions on a faulty dataset.
SB [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 12:28]
|
My point is that longer term and rare reactions wont be picked up in the phase 3 trials and there are no longer term trials that have taken place. The longer term trial will effectively be when it is rolled out to the public. I am not talking about any narcolepsy or any specific reaction, there may be other as yet unknown reactions. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
