Covid Vaccine Poll

[Steve (sdh2903)]

Blatman.

 

The only difference being that all of the traditional vaccines have had years of monitoring and feedback. None of which are operating under emergency approval or with the manufacturers operating with zero liability clauses (as far as I know?)

 

I haven't read on here any of the nutter points you have made, yes on social media its rife, but on here? Not so much so am not sure who you are replying to? But there are facts out there that go against your points. Over a thousand people (in this country alone) have lost their lives linked to taking the vaccine. Yes those people may have succumb to covid but they didn't get the chance to find out either. That's not including people who've suffered long term effects. I guess the true detail won't be seen for some years. If your older in years or have underlying issues it's a complete no brainer. For a fit and healthy under 40? It's not quite as clearcut. If it stopped transmission then yes absolutely.

 

Before everyone piles on yes I am fully aware the fact that the vaccines have saved countless  thousands of lives and without them God knows where we'd be. But there still should be a choice without being labeled as wrong, selfish or stupid. Do we go up to people in the street smoking and call them stupid?

 

Seeing as though we seem to be able to have a reasonable discussion on here. What are peoples thoughts on child vaccination?

[MR.C]

Conspiracy theories......

Lots of people have had the vaccine so they can go on holiday.(vaccine passport)

I'll give you a fact.

Antivaxer is a label given to normal people because they haven't  followed the masses, for whatever perfectly good reason they have chosen not to.

 

[jim_l]

12 hours ago, AdamR said:

So if all the UK population had a BMI of 25 or under, we'd only have ~20% as many hospitalisations and deaths as we do now.

 

Thanks for presenting me with a great example of the ‘Pseudo-science’ that has been propagating since the outbreak.

 

63% of the nation is overweight, obesity does contribute to increased risk, and 80% of the deaths are in people that are overweight.  This simply cannot be interpreted to suggest that slimming down as a nation would have brought deaths down 80%.

 

Confounding factors, I think statisticians call them, for example, the deaths are predominantly in the over 60’s, have you eliminated the impact of their aging immune systems just reacting too slowly or too weakly (wow! Vaccines would really help with that wouldn’t they?)   

 

 

Thanks also for giving me a fine example of ‘confirmation bias ’ 

 

I said – “according to ICNARC ... Between 2 January and 24 September 2021, the age-adjusted risk of deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) was 32 times greater in unvaccinated people than in fully vaccinated individuals.

 

You let that comment slip by (32 times greater risk!) but then quoted the SAME source because you think it gave you an alternative to getting vaccinated.

 

 

The trouble is many have been fooled by this pretend science, and it leaves in its wake a trail of misery, a hundred thousand severe Covid cases that could have been avoided, thousands of deaths that were avoidable. Most of all though, the collateral damage, for example, the cancer patients that will die horrible deaths of perfectly treatable disease, because the unvaccinated are taking up a disproportionate amount of NHS resources, thereby slowing diagnosis and treatment. 

[Blatman]

At no point did I mention long term effects because we just don't know, no argument there. Except that SARS, ZIKA and... er one other (I think) Corona Virus infections have been well studied over the last decade or more and they are well understood. I believe (I'll have to check. i'll be back on that one).

There was a Horizon programme on the Beeb (I can hear the anti-MSM guys rolling their eyes...) I think summer or autumn last year, with a scientist who was asked that very question. He rolled his eyes and said he'd been working on Corona Virus' for more than two decades. They were well understood and had no qualms with the vaccines in developmen because enough of that research is relevant to the current vaccine study and processes. I'll try to find the references.

 

As for saying stupid things, Jim is dealing with that here and earlier. Given that Jim has some serious healthcare game, his words (for me at least) carry weight and deserve more than cursory dismissal because what he says doesn't fit a particular view.

 

Do we (I) go up to people in the street and berate them for smoking? No. I don't go up to people on the street to congratulate them on not smoking either. Do I berate my friends who smoke? Yes. Every time. Do they get annoyed? Yes. But friends are also understanding and MOST importantly they NEVER deny the science.

 

50 minutes ago, MR.C said:

for whatever perfectly good reason they have chosen not to.

 

Not wanting to is a perfectly good reason. I may disagree but I will defend forever ones right to make whatever choices one sees fit to make.

My issue is that when challenged, many appear either defensive and/or are so unsure of themselves that they resort to questionable reasoning to justify it, again ably commented on by Jim.

[jim_l]

14 minutes ago, MR.C said:

Antivaxer is a label given to normal people because they haven't  followed the masses,

 

I am not following the masses, nor the media, nor the government, this 'sheep' idea is a dumb idea.  I am following the advice coming out of universities, 25,000 of them worldwide (they are not arguing amongst themselves!) and the advice coming from all but a handful of the ten or fifteen million doctors in the world. 

The very same people whose guidance took the life expectancy of a working lad in Liverpool from 15 years to 80 years. I have chosen the brightest, best educated and best informed people on the planet as my sources.  Your sources?  

[Blatman]

Anti-vaxxers are just as much a herd as any other group. I think theirs is more bovine in it's outpourings...

[jim_l]

and finally , a quote from one of the journalists receiving the Nobel prize in recent weeks:

 

"Social scientists have shown that, when even knowing what is the truth and what is a lie, 75 percent of people will consider the lie as truth as they like the lie better. This is happening already. We are at the very bottom of the manipulation of the human mind"

 

So, I don't expect to persuade anyone of anything. 

[Blatman]

The other virus I couldn't think of was MERS.

This article is the beginning of a research paper into Human Coronavirus infections from 2003:

https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/1/1/57

Why wasn't there a vaccine for SARS/MERS? Because (assuming I remember correctly) the middle east countries worked fast at informing the rest of the world and it was contained. Both MERS and SARS have R numbers in the 2 - 5 range so they are highly transmissible.

 

I still need to find the Horizon episode with the scientist who has been studying Corona virus' for longer than that.

 

I did find research discussing SARS Coronavirus research from July 2004 using scholar.google.com. It was the top hit. I'm betting there are more  if I dug deeper, so research into a Coronavirus vacccine is not only 18 months old. It's come a LONG way in 18 months, but it's not new.

Quote

This suggests that antibodies against the epitopes represented by these peptides could be responsible for much of the SARS-CoV neutralizing activity. The findings have implications for monitoring humoral responses to SARS-CoV as well as for developing a successful SARS vaccine.

 

Frome here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682204002624

[Steve (sdh2903)]

1 hour ago, jim_l said:

Most of all though, the collateral damage, for example, the cancer patients that will die horrible deaths of perfectly treatable disease, because the unvaccinated are taking up a disproportionate amount of NHS resources, thereby slowing diagnosis and treatment. 

 

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that from pre covid the NHS has less bed capacity, less staff or down to the self isolation rules that are keeping countless healthy non positive people locked away at home?

 

Confirmation bias works both ways. 

 

I'll leave this here just to show the dirty unwashed can't be blamed for it all.

 

 

One thing that I've noticed over the past few years with the 2 heavy hitting emotional events in covid and the B word that people seem to be unable to see both sides of the coin. You can't sit and have a chat and discuss both sides of the coin  anymore without someone calling you provax, antivax or a brexiteer,  sheep or just a plain nutter. It's quite sad really. One side is right and that's that! In my short life experience very little is that black and white. There are countless shades in-between. Yet no one seems to acknowledge them any more.

[Blatman]

Opposition to or support of Brexit and the Covid 19 discussion is not really comparing apples with apples.

 

The 2003 paper I linked to above contains this paragraph:

 

Quote

Numerous strategies have been suggested for producing a SARS vaccine (DeGroot, 2003). One possibility is to use a combination of peptides, such as those listed in Table 2, as a polyvalent antigen. Peptide-based vaccines have heretofore had only limited success but this can be attributed to a lack of knowledge as to which peptides to use. Such uncertainty is reduced by analyzing the antibody pattern in sera from cases that have successfully resolved the infection. Peptides making up the antigen can be screened in advance for homologies to mammalian proteins, reducing the possibility of self-attack. They can also be easily modified to cope with viral mutations that could escape traditional vaccines. Significant mutations have already been identified in SARS-CoV Ruan et al., 2003, Martina et al., 2003, indicating the necessity of developing adaptable vaccines.

 

And this:

 

Quote

Polypeptide vaccines should be safe, highly stable, and easy to administer. Antibodies cloned against particularly sensitive peptides could be used as therapeutic agents. 

 

[Blatman]

30 minutes ago, Steve (sdh2903) said:

I'll leave this here just to show the dirty unwashed can't be blamed for it all.

 

If we had 100% of people vaccinated the chart would be all red. That we have many more people vaccinated than unvaccinated means the chart is not the confirmation hoped for. It's just a nice picture than can be interpreted from both sides...

[AdamR]

9 hours ago, jim_l said:

80% of the deaths are in people that are overweight.  This simply cannot be interpreted to suggest that slimming down as a nation would have brought deaths down 80%.

 

Having reconsidered, I can see how its not as simple as I made out above. Thank you. 

 

However, if 64% are overweight and this group contributes 80% of deaths, there must be some significance in this. I am intrigued to learn - please could you explain, Jim? What is your take on this aspect of the data, in terms of BMI and its relation to the apparent increase in Covid-related health issues?

 

 

I feel some negativity again emerging towards those who are currently sitting on a certain side of the fence in this discussion. My stance on this is something I reconsider frequently, and I am very willing to be called out if someone thinks the following logic is flawed. I would also be appreciate of other information that would help with making a more informed decision.

 

Factors related to the safety of others:

- The jabs don't stop a person from contracting the virus.

- The jabs don't prevent transmission (except for some evidence to suggest this is reduced immediately following a jab).

- The jabs reduce symptoms, meaning an infected person has an increased chance of continuing to live a normal life without knowing they are carrying and spreading the virus (I appreciate this also means that if 100% are vaccinated, it should reduce severity of symptoms for all).

 

Personal factors:

- As an unjabbed under 40 with no known underlying health conditions, my average chance of a health complication (and thus 'burdening' healthcare) is 16.6 in 100,000 (0.017%) and my average chance of death is 1.1 in 100,000 (0.0011%) (UK HSA Covid report week 49).

- With a BMI of 23 this further reduces chances of a health issue by a significant margin compared with the average. I thought I had the maths done correctly on this, but hopefully Jim will offer some guidance. 

- Chance of death within the next year at my age, all factors considered, is 0.12%. Therefore Covid is a very small part - less than one hundredth - of that risk.

- There is evidence to show that the Covid jabs may instigate an unrelated but potentially serious health issue. The data shows that risk is small, perhaps too small to be counted in a numerical sense even with the fractions we are talking about, but still real.

 

Current conclusion: I'll stick to vegetables, exercise (personal risk) and avoiding busy public places (risk to others) as my Covid protection.

 

 

I have mentioned this on another forum - and I am mentioning it again here because there may be others who feel the same - but being in the minority in this case is not a comfortable or fun place to be. Life would be much easier if I'd have had all the jabs!

 

On top of the social aspect, I now have freedoms removed (without additional hassle) because I have been unable to convince myself that taking up these jabs is the right thing to do, and this is going to get worse I am sure.

 

Some of the comments insinuate that people in my position are stupid, or out to try and cause trouble etc, but in reality (I hope at least) most of us are digging for the truth, with the aim of trying to convince ourselves that the jabs are safe and effective in order to make our lives easier.

[Steve (sdh2903)]

Well put Adam.

 

With the data that's appearing from SA and around Europe, those percentages are about to thankfully become even smaller with Omicron.

[AdamR]

Indeed, that is good news. And only 26% vaccination rate in SA, too.

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/south-africa

[corsechris]

1 hour ago, AdamR said:

 

Having reconsidered, I can see how its not as simple as I made out above. Thank you. 

 

However, if 64% are overweight and this group contributes 80% of deaths, there must be some significance in this. I am intrigued to learn - please could you explain, Jim? What is your take on this aspect of the data, in terms of BMI and its relation to the apparent increase in Covid-related health issues?

 

 

I feel some negativity again emerging towards those who are currently sitting on a certain side of the fence in this discussion. My stance on this is something I reconsider frequently, and I am very willing to be called out if someone thinks the following logic is flawed. I would also be appreciate of other information that would help with making a more informed decision.

 

Factors related to the safety of others:

- The jabs don't stop a person from contracting the virus.

- The jabs don't prevent transmission (except for some evidence to suggest this is reduced immediately following a jab).

- The jabs reduce symptoms, meaning an infected person has an increased chance of continuing to live a normal life without knowing they are carrying and spreading the virus (I appreciate this also means that if 100% are vaccinated, it should reduce severity of symptoms for all).

 

Personal factors:

- As an unjabbed under 40 with no known underlying health conditions, my average chance of a health complication (and thus 'burdening' healthcare) is 16.6 in 100,000 (0.017%) and my average chance of death is 1.1 in 100,000 (0.0011%) (UK HSA Covid report week 49).

- With a BMI of 23 this further reduces chances of a health issue by a significant margin compared with the average. I thought I had the maths done correctly on this, but hopefully Jim will offer some guidance. 

- Chance of death within the next year at my age, all factors considered, is 0.12%. Therefore Covid is a very small part - less than one hundredth - of that risk.

- There is evidence to show that the Covid jabs may instigate an unrelated but potentially serious health issue. The data shows that risk is small, perhaps too small to be counted in a numerical sense even with the fractions we are talking about, but still real.

 

Current conclusion: I'll stick to vegetables, exercise (personal risk) and avoiding busy public places (risk to others) as my Covid protection.

 

 

I have mentioned this on another forum - and I am mentioning it again here because there may be others who feel the same - but being in the minority in this case is not a comfortable or fun place to be. Life would be much easier if I'd have had all the jabs!

 

On top of the social aspect, I now have freedoms removed (without additional hassle) because I have been unable to convince myself that taking up these jabs is the right thing to do, and this is going to get worse I am sure.

 

Some of the comments insinuate that people in my position are stupid, or out to try and cause trouble etc, but in reality (I hope at least) most of us are digging for the truth, with the aim of trying to convince ourselves that the jabs are safe and effective in order to make our lives easier.

It’s fascinating, I look at those personal factors and think ‘why not get a jab’ rather than ‘why get a jab’.

 

 

 

 

We are an emotion driven animal despite all our protestations to the contrary, if a certain emotional response gets triggered, we’ll use whatever tool is to hand to back up our belief, whether that tool be science or superstition.  To be absolutely clear, this is a general observation, not targeted at anyone, I just put it here for convenience.