| Vaccine priority List 10:21 - Dec 2 with 25859 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 12:58 - Dec 3 with 1778 views | Herbivore |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:54 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
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. |
How long term would the trials need to be for you to be satisfied would you say? One problem with very long term trials is establishing causality. After a year someone in the trial might develop symptoms of chronic fatigue, but how would you know that was because of the vaccine? You can get chronic fatigue post-virally or because of stress. You seem to want perfection and 100% safety, which is not possible. |  |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 13:05 - Dec 3 with 1760 views | StokieBlue |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:54 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
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. |
But that is no different to any other vaccine roll-out is it?
I'm not sure what you want to happen. You've said you don't want to wait 2 or 3 years so how long do you want to wait? Any length of time you specify is going to be entirely arbitrary since we don't know if any adverse effects are possible with this vaccine.
Given this it's a choice between preventing people from spreading and dying from C19 now in large numbers (650 in the UK yesterday alone) or let them die to prevent a possible and likely tiny number of side-affects over the longer term.
I understand caution but your position seems to me to be far more than caution and seems to be heavily skewed. You seem to be given more weight to theoretical adverse reactions to vaccines than you do to actual deaths from a disease.
Can you outline what should happen in your view?
SB |  | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 13:06 - Dec 3 with 1758 views | bluelagos |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:54 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
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. |
Harry,
On that point you are absolutely correct, they have not, and could not have in the timescale, assessed what long term side effects / dangers may be associated with the vaccines. That is clear and anyone arguing differently is arguing a losing point.
However, as others have said, life is about taking risks in pretty much everything we do, including leaving the house, walking across a road, driving a car etc.
Many of us are very happy to accept there is a risk from a vaccine but believe the risks to us from catching CV are far far higher and the outcomes far far worse if we do catch CV. You are of course welcome not to take it, just as you are welcome to not leave your house and hide under the bed on a daily basis.
Not sure what there is to argue about on that point. If you don't wish to take the vaccine then don't. The rest of us who chose to take it will then get on with our lives as best as we can, knowing we are vaccinated from CV and are far less likely to catch it or indeed less likely to pass it on to others. [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 13:08]
|  |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 13:14 - Dec 3 with 1745 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:41 - Dec 3 by SpruceMoose |
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. |
I assure you I am not in any way privileged and I have been affected by Covid. I simply try to look at the situation the best I can in a balanced way and give my take on it.
We would all do things differently if we had walked in other shoes, I suspect you might view vaccines in a different light if you had walked in mine for example. If I have offended you that was really not my intention but again I did specifically say I was not commenting on the US. [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 13:32]
|  | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 13:29 - Dec 3 with 1727 views | Harry_Palmer |
| 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. |
Jeera , with respect you are seeing something different to what I have actually said.
I have not once said that those deaths don't matter, I simply said that they need to be taken in context with the overall picture. The average age of Covid deaths in the UK is around 84 I believe, it is very likely that people of this age with other conditions would have been vulnerable to Flu or other viruses if Covid-19 was not the dominant virus this winter. That is the unfortunate reality.
That is all I have said and there are people brighter than both of us who share this perspective. I really don't see how it is insulting. | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 13:45 - Dec 3 with 1714 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Vaccine priority List on 12:33 - Dec 3 by StokieBlue |
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]
|
I'm not promoting a diet of fear regarding vaccines though. I am highlighting the risks which are very much downplayed overall in my opinion. I have acknowledged that the risks of major adverse events are very small, nonetheless much of which I have highlighted ( such as lack of liability when things go wrong ) will not be declared by the people that are promoting the vaccine.
I don't really see why highlighting this and helping people who may not be aware is such a problem. It's all about informed choice after all, or at least it should be. | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 13:48 - Dec 3 with 1708 views | Herbivore |
| Vaccine priority List on 13:45 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
I'm not promoting a diet of fear regarding vaccines though. I am highlighting the risks which are very much downplayed overall in my opinion. I have acknowledged that the risks of major adverse events are very small, nonetheless much of which I have highlighted ( such as lack of liability when things go wrong ) will not be declared by the people that are promoting the vaccine.
I don't really see why highlighting this and helping people who may not be aware is such a problem. It's all about informed choice after all, or at least it should be. |
I would say the risks from vaccines are, sadly, currently very much overplayed. That's why we're seeing drop offs in uptake of vaccinations in recent years. | |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 13:53 - Dec 3 with 1694 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Vaccine priority List on 13:48 - Dec 3 by Herbivore |
I would say the risks from vaccines are, sadly, currently very much overplayed. That's why we're seeing drop offs in uptake of vaccinations in recent years. |
Overplayed by certain online groups yes, but underplayed by vaccine companies and Government in my opinion. If there was more transparency from the latter then there would probably be a whole lot less of the former. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Vaccine priority List on 13:56 - Dec 3 with 1687 views | StokieBlue |
| Vaccine priority List on 13:45 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
I'm not promoting a diet of fear regarding vaccines though. I am highlighting the risks which are very much downplayed overall in my opinion. I have acknowledged that the risks of major adverse events are very small, nonetheless much of which I have highlighted ( such as lack of liability when things go wrong ) will not be declared by the people that are promoting the vaccine.
I don't really see why highlighting this and helping people who may not be aware is such a problem. It's all about informed choice after all, or at least it should be. |
"I don't really see why highlighting this and helping people who may not be aware is such a problem. It's all about informed choice after all, or at least it should be."
This is where we disagree. I don't think you've been doing this because you've ignored context in many of your points and you've actually said the C19 is exaggerated by the government, the implication being that a vaccine isn't really needed that much. Your point on excess deaths seems to be to show that a vaccine isn't needed yet it involves the context of 8 months social distancing rules.
All your posts are about the downsides of vaccines and never mention the upsides at all. It's all about highlighting the risk without highlighting the benefits. I do understand that is due to personal circumstance but it's not the reality of the subject as a whole.
You highlight the outlier events to people without telling them there is a huge section in the middle of the graph where everyone is fine, don't die of the disease and don't have any reactions.
How is only highlighting one side of the story helping them make and informed choice?
SB | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 14:20 - Dec 3 with 1667 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Vaccine priority List on 13:05 - Dec 3 by StokieBlue |
But that is no different to any other vaccine roll-out is it?
I'm not sure what you want to happen. You've said you don't want to wait 2 or 3 years so how long do you want to wait? Any length of time you specify is going to be entirely arbitrary since we don't know if any adverse effects are possible with this vaccine.
Given this it's a choice between preventing people from spreading and dying from C19 now in large numbers (650 in the UK yesterday alone) or let them die to prevent a possible and likely tiny number of side-affects over the longer term.
I understand caution but your position seems to me to be far more than caution and seems to be heavily skewed. You seem to be given more weight to theoretical adverse reactions to vaccines than you do to actual deaths from a disease.
Can you outline what should happen in your view?
SB |
Of course it is different. We have emergency legislation for these vaccines which are allowing them to be released unlicensed. We also have new technology ( mRNA ) which has never been used before. We don't know what the long term effects will be and we are about to undergo what is effectively a very large human experiment. Hopefully it will be safe but this is the reality and I don't see how it can really be denied.
I appreciate that we don't have the luxury of waiting the usual timeframe's however I would still like for a more cautious approach than what we are seeing. I also think It is worth exploring further how much natural immunity there is in the population. A study carried out by PHE showed that as much as 25% of the population may have t-cell immunity, this is a not insignificant amount and should really be explored further with follow up studies.
Look, we are not going to agree here so I will leave it for now as I appear to have once again upset people although that was not my intention and I am scratching my head as to how exactly. Such is life, enjoy the rest of your day... | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 14:25 - Dec 3 with 1661 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Vaccine priority List on 13:56 - Dec 3 by StokieBlue |
"I don't really see why highlighting this and helping people who may not be aware is such a problem. It's all about informed choice after all, or at least it should be."
This is where we disagree. I don't think you've been doing this because you've ignored context in many of your points and you've actually said the C19 is exaggerated by the government, the implication being that a vaccine isn't really needed that much. Your point on excess deaths seems to be to show that a vaccine isn't needed yet it involves the context of 8 months social distancing rules.
All your posts are about the downsides of vaccines and never mention the upsides at all. It's all about highlighting the risk without highlighting the benefits. I do understand that is due to personal circumstance but it's not the reality of the subject as a whole.
You highlight the outlier events to people without telling them there is a huge section in the middle of the graph where everyone is fine, don't die of the disease and don't have any reactions.
How is only highlighting one side of the story helping them make and informed choice?
SB |
Very briefly because that is the side of the story that is often not told. There are already more than enough people promoting the benefits of vaccines.
You also do the complete opposite to me, as in you promote the benefits but rarely ever mention the risks or lack of liability for when things go wrong. | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 14:32 - Dec 3 with 1659 views | StokieBlue |
| Vaccine priority List on 14:25 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
Very briefly because that is the side of the story that is often not told. There are already more than enough people promoting the benefits of vaccines.
You also do the complete opposite to me, as in you promote the benefits but rarely ever mention the risks or lack of liability for when things go wrong. |
I've acknowledged the risks in many of my posts in just this thread. However I acknowledge the risks for what they are - a huge outlier event which is incredibly unlikely. You don't do that and your posts, intentionally or not, make it seem much more likely than the reality of the situation.
SB | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 16:13 - Dec 3 with 1631 views | BlueBadger |
| Vaccine priority List on 13:53 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
Overplayed by certain online groups yes, but underplayed by vaccine companies and Government in my opinion. If there was more transparency from the latter then there would probably be a whole lot less of the former. |
'Certain groups' being a synonym for 'deliberately obtuse fools posting misleading, disingenuous and outright made up stuff' on football news sites, for example? |  |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 16:15 - Dec 3 with 1631 views | BlueBadger |
| 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. |
Look everyone! Here's Harry, claiming the government are 'peddling fear' whilst also misrepresenting, muddling and plain making sh1t up, in order to spread fear.
Harry is not at all having a self-awareness failure here. [Post edited 3 Dec 2020 16:19]
| |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 17:06 - Dec 3 with 1607 views | BlueBadger |
| Vaccine priority List on 13:29 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
Jeera , with respect you are seeing something different to what I have actually said.
I have not once said that those deaths don't matter, I simply said that they need to be taken in context with the overall picture. The average age of Covid deaths in the UK is around 84 I believe, it is very likely that people of this age with other conditions would have been vulnerable to Flu or other viruses if Covid-19 was not the dominant virus this winter. That is the unfortunate reality.
That is all I have said and there are people brighter than both of us who share this perspective. I really don't see how it is insulting. |
The context in the wider picture is that they quite possibly wouldn't have died id we'd be able to effectively vaccinate against it. You're effectively writing off a whole swathe of people to try and push your irresponsible, selfish and f*ckwitted agenda. | |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 18:25 - Dec 3 with 1569 views | JDB23 |
One thing I’m interested in is at what point will we know how long the vaccine lasts? If it wears off in a years time but we are all back to normal by then, is there not a risk we see a huge spike in cases again? Especially if there is a large amount of the “healthy” population that haven’t been vaccinated but could still be carrying it.
Do we take a cautionary approach and have say annual top ups until more data is gathered? Obviously everything comes with a risk and we need to get out of where we are now, just curious as to what the strategies could be to guard against things like this.
Sorry if it’s been already mentioned, haven’t gone through every reply. | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 07:31 - Dec 4 with 1496 views | 26_Paz |
| Vaccine priority List on 18:25 - Dec 3 by JDB23 |
One thing I’m interested in is at what point will we know how long the vaccine lasts? If it wears off in a years time but we are all back to normal by then, is there not a risk we see a huge spike in cases again? Especially if there is a large amount of the “healthy” population that haven’t been vaccinated but could still be carrying it.
Do we take a cautionary approach and have say annual top ups until more data is gathered? Obviously everything comes with a risk and we need to get out of where we are now, just curious as to what the strategies could be to guard against things like this.
Sorry if it’s been already mentioned, haven’t gone through every reply. |
It wouldn’t work as well in a year’s time. It’s like the flu vaccine that needs to be changed every year to account for slightly different strains. I’m no expert but from what I can gather viruses change a little bit over that length of time and the vaccine would need to be modified accordingly. Guessing this doesn’t take as long as making a whole new vaccine so if we were to take another one in a year’s time it would need to be modified |  |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 07:33 - Dec 4 with 1491 views | 26_Paz |
| Vaccine priority List on 14:25 - Dec 3 by Harry_Palmer |
Very briefly because that is the side of the story that is often not told. There are already more than enough people promoting the benefits of vaccines.
You also do the complete opposite to me, as in you promote the benefits but rarely ever mention the risks or lack of liability for when things go wrong. |
I agree with a lot of what you’ve said on here about deaths being exaggerated etc but I don’t agree on your vaccine stance. If taking the damned thing gets us back to normal I will be first in line! | |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 07:42 - Dec 4 with 1491 views | Herbivore |
| Vaccine priority List on 07:31 - Dec 4 by 26_Paz |
It wouldn’t work as well in a year’s time. It’s like the flu vaccine that needs to be changed every year to account for slightly different strains. I’m no expert but from what I can gather viruses change a little bit over that length of time and the vaccine would need to be modified accordingly. Guessing this doesn’t take as long as making a whole new vaccine so if we were to take another one in a year’s time it would need to be modified |
That's not really accurate. Covid is a very different type of virus to the flu. | |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 07:50 - Dec 4 with 1484 views | StokieBlue |
| Vaccine priority List on 07:31 - Dec 4 by 26_Paz |
It wouldn’t work as well in a year’s time. It’s like the flu vaccine that needs to be changed every year to account for slightly different strains. I’m no expert but from what I can gather viruses change a little bit over that length of time and the vaccine would need to be modified accordingly. Guessing this doesn’t take as long as making a whole new vaccine so if we were to take another one in a year’s time it would need to be modified |
As Herbs has said, that's not the reason.
The reason for a booster is due to fading antibodies within ones body, not because the strains have mutated or the vaccine doesn't work as well in a years time. It is of course possible to have a mutation which renders the vaccine ineffective but that is the same for virtually any virus, especially RNA ones.
The flu vaccine is also pretty poor in general - for 2018 to 2019 the overall efficacy was 29%. I think once C19 is under control there will be a big push to develop an mRNA vaccine for flu.
SB | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 07:52 - Dec 4 with 1476 views | StokieBlue |
| Vaccine priority List on 07:33 - Dec 4 by 26_Paz |
I agree with a lot of what you’ve said on here about deaths being exaggerated etc but I don’t agree on your vaccine stance. If taking the damned thing gets us back to normal I will be first in line! |
993 people died in Italy yesterday, the most of any day including the first wave. 2600 people died in the US which is the second highest single day in the whole pandemic for any country. So that's 3500 people in just two countries on one day.
Interested to see how it's exaggerated. Can you elaborate?
SB | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 08:00 - Dec 4 with 1472 views | 26_Paz |
| Vaccine priority List on 07:50 - Dec 4 by StokieBlue |
As Herbs has said, that's not the reason.
The reason for a booster is due to fading antibodies within ones body, not because the strains have mutated or the vaccine doesn't work as well in a years time. It is of course possible to have a mutation which renders the vaccine ineffective but that is the same for virtually any virus, especially RNA ones.
The flu vaccine is also pretty poor in general - for 2018 to 2019 the overall efficacy was 29%. I think once C19 is under control there will be a big push to develop an mRNA vaccine for flu.
SB |
Will bow to your better knowledge on this, as I said I’m far from an expert. Thanks for the info. | |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 08:02 - Dec 4 with 1466 views | 26_Paz |
| Vaccine priority List on 07:52 - Dec 4 by StokieBlue |
993 people died in Italy yesterday, the most of any day including the first wave. 2600 people died in the US which is the second highest single day in the whole pandemic for any country. So that's 3500 people in just two countries on one day.
Interested to see how it's exaggerated. Can you elaborate?
SB |
How many of those had serious underlying health problems? How many happened to die of something else within 28 days of catching the rona? I would be keen to know the number of people who died solely due to Covid. | |
| |
| Vaccine priority List on 08:10 - Dec 4 with 1456 views | StokieBlue |
| Vaccine priority List on 08:02 - Dec 4 by 26_Paz |
How many of those had serious underlying health problems? How many happened to die of something else within 28 days of catching the rona? I would be keen to know the number of people who died solely due to Covid. |
"How many happened to die of something else within 28 days of catching the rona?"
So the 28 day thing has been debunked and it should probably be a longer timescale than that. As for the cause of death, it's virtually always complications due to C19. Of course there will be some incorrect categorisation but it's not going to be a bigger enough percentage to make a difference. You seem to think it's 50% incorrect or something - you need to show your working for that.
"How many of those had serious underlying health problems?"
What difference does that make? People with underlying problems go on to lead long lives in most cases (take diabetes or HIV for instance). Not sure it's a good look to be dismissing these peoples otherwise longer lives that have been taken from them.
Further to that what about all the people your age living with long covid now?
" I would be keen to know the number of people who died solely due to Covid."
Sorry but this is a total misconception. Virtually nobody dies of a disease or virus but complications caused by the virus, it's hardly specific to C19. Nobody dies of flu for instance or many other things but usually pneumonia or heart attack brought on by whatever virus they are suffering from. It's never been an issue to categorise in this fashion before but now apparently it is because some people have an agenda.
SB | | | |
| Vaccine priority List on 08:39 - Dec 4 with 1436 views | 26_Paz |
| Vaccine priority List on 08:10 - Dec 4 by StokieBlue |
"How many happened to die of something else within 28 days of catching the rona?"
So the 28 day thing has been debunked and it should probably be a longer timescale than that. As for the cause of death, it's virtually always complications due to C19. Of course there will be some incorrect categorisation but it's not going to be a bigger enough percentage to make a difference. You seem to think it's 50% incorrect or something - you need to show your working for that.
"How many of those had serious underlying health problems?"
What difference does that make? People with underlying problems go on to lead long lives in most cases (take diabetes or HIV for instance). Not sure it's a good look to be dismissing these peoples otherwise longer lives that have been taken from them.
Further to that what about all the people your age living with long covid now?
" I would be keen to know the number of people who died solely due to Covid."
Sorry but this is a total misconception. Virtually nobody dies of a disease or virus but complications caused by the virus, it's hardly specific to C19. Nobody dies of flu for instance or many other things but usually pneumonia or heart attack brought on by whatever virus they are suffering from. It's never been an issue to categorise in this fashion before but now apparently it is because some people have an agenda.
SB |
Much of that has been discussed at length in here so I will just respond to the underlying health conditions point. When I say serious underlying health conditions, I mean very serious ones that would have killed a person anyway. Just to use an example a relative of a work colleague was in hospital, very seriously ill, she caught corona in there and unfortunately died, her prognosis was not good anyway, she would have died within a few weeks regardless of corona. I would like to know how many cases like that there are.
When I say people with serious underlying health conditions I don’t mean a bit of asthma or a bit of diabetes, I mean people who know they have very limited time left before they catch the virus. Whilst these, of course, are extremely sad and should be accounted for I think it is somewhat misleading to categorise them as corona deaths, publish the numbers and stoke the fear. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
