Covid Vaccine Poll

[corsechris]

Why are so many folk scared of flying yet perfectly happy to drive?  It's very much the same mindset as this question I suspect, and not necessarily a conscious thing either - as I said, we are emotion driven animals after all.

 

There's also that great illusion that folk rely on that when driving, you have control of your destiny but when flying (or taking a vaccine) you don't. Control is, I'm afraid to say, a total illusion.

[Blatman]

Shouldn't that be risk of infection divided by risk of serious illness/death?

 

35 minutes ago, Steve (sdh2903) said:

But after a slightly worrying reaction to the second

 

May I ask what the reaction was and did you notify anyone? I appreciate you may not want to say but I am genuinely in what people interpret as a "serious reaction" 'cos from what I am hearing elsewhere, some people are suggesting that having rhino-virus type symptoms for a day or two counts as serious reation, which is exaggerated of course but again, the social media aspect of "facts" has to be included here. I aqm NOT suggesting for one minute that you fall in to this category but I am curious as to what happened.

 

As for my advocacy of jab or not, I'm trying to stay neutral with the data so I put it up to see how we interpret it.

My personal opinion is that many people, myself included on occasion, interpret the results LOOKING FOR confirmation bias. I am trying to get out of that particular rabbit hole and focus purely on the maths. Risk assessment is by definiton a comparative scale and on the numbers presented by the ONS (rather than the .gov sites above) getting the vaccine is safer than eating shellfish.

So yes I am commenting (rather than arguing for) that the vaccine is provably, demonstrably, scientifically safer than LOTS of activities that we take for granted and no amount of flawed reasoning or bad maths will change that.

[Steve (sdh2903)]

16 minutes ago, Blatman said:

May I ask what the reaction was and did you notify anyone? I appreciate you may not want to say but I am genuinely in what people interpret as a "serious reaction"

 

Sure. I experienced a bout of chest pains during the evening after my 2nd Jab. Never before and never since. Would I call it serious? No, I was able to go about my business as normal. I called the number on the paperwork I was given and was advised to rest and call back if it persisted. It didn't. But I probably should have made more of an effort to get it checked out. This was Pfizer jabs.

 

It wasn't severe but enough to make me seriously consider getting any more. Listening to some other folk who have been laid up in bed for a day or 2 I probably got off lightly.

 

Also as I've previously stated in this thread at the time, at that time getting jabbed was being spun as protecting your elderly loved ones. And I believed that and was enough to tip me to get it. Now that's been proven not to be the case as transmisson isn't really reduced I'm not sure I would have. 

 

 

[Blatman]

I had AZ for my main two and a Pfizer booster last Saturday. First AZ jab left me feeling a bit sluggish, like I was coming down with a cold, but one nights rest and it was 100% gone. Second AZ jab and Pfizer booster have gone un-noticed.

My brother is exactly the same and my 92 year old father, with a heart condition that requires a minor surgery shortly, had zero side effects for 3 x Pfizer shots. 

Among my close fiends these are similarly reflected for them personally with very minor or zero side effects from a range of AZ and Pfizer. FWIW my friends range across 3 distinct ethnic groups.

I am not asking anyone to infer anything from these other than to add to the "public record" of verifiable real-life experiences of Covid 19 vaccines and whilst it is a small sample, satisfies the "people I know" metric for standard internet scientific evidence.

 

Does the vaccine help protect others? Don't know and science does not yet have a definitve. I personally like to think that doing something must be better than doing nothing and I add the vaccines to social distancing and hand sanitation. 

[AdamR]

1 hour ago, Kingster said:

Just wondering if the vaccine death rates were higher for your age group. 
 

Either way seems like a minuscule risk compared to some of our chosen pursuits

 

Me too now - I have a feeling it'll be fairly average, though. It seems age is a big factor in all things health, yet there was that 'issue' with them taking the AZ jab off the menu for youngsters. We'll never know.

 

That's a fair point about the risk relative to other pursuits. Another way to look at it is cumulative risk. If we continue with our lives exactly as before but add one more risk (however small), that is still additional risk.

 

The risk - for many groups of people, myself included - of taking the jabs appears to be around the same as not taking them, if the data is to be believed. So that is risk neutral IMO.

 

 

I think humans are more accepting of things they know and understand. Driving a car is a good example, as that lifetime death rate of 1 in 240 is actually quite surprising - but its known thing, and we feel we have a level of control over it. I feel safer driving than I do flying, a lot pf people are probably the same, but the actual numbers are wildly different! Does that make certain people's Covid-related choices illogical? I'm not sure. Arguably. But I come back to the cumulative risk point.

 

 

We had the same discussion about peer-reviewed studies on another forum, where the phrase 'marking ones own homework' was used. It is good that something like a DMC for clinical trials (in the case of the USA / Pfizer) adds an extra level of accountability, but with them being funded by the 'sponsor' of the study (Pfizer) this means no complete separation between those who stand to make billions and those reviewing their studies. For better or worse... I don't trust these numbers.

 

 

I read an article yesterday about how certain areas of society can be targeted for research because the study designers know that these people will 'output' the data they really want to see.

 

An example might be a newspaper, known to be read by Tory supporters having an average readership age of 55, running an opinion poll about Brexit (in or out). It's clear what the result of that poll will be. If they get 5000 participants they only have to list how many people were asked, not WHO they were, and then this can be used as 'marketing' to try and make others follow suit.

 

 

Put it this way... if Coca Cola carried out a study into the effects of drinking a can of their beverage per day, then paid a 3rd party to review that independently, you can bet your ass the results would be different to if Pepsi did exactly the same study (on Coca Cola) 😅

 

 

I cannot imagine how a truly independent review of any such studies could be implemented though - nobody would stump up the cash if they don't have anything to gain from doing so.

[Blatman]

17 minutes ago, AdamR said:

The risk - for many groups of people, myself included - of taking the jabs appears to be around the same as not taking them, if the data is to be believed

 

Isn't the issue here that fundamentally those who are hesitant say that the risk data is definitely NOT to be believed?  The data can't be both right and wrong...

 

17 minutes ago, AdamR said:

I think humans are more accepting of things they know and understand.

How many humans REALLY understand medicine?

Vaccines are well understood with nearly two centuries of study and research.

 

17 minutes ago, AdamR said:

We had the same discussion about peer-reviewed studies on another forum, where the phrase 'marking ones own homework' was used. It is good that something like a DMC for clinical trials (in the case of the USA / Pfizer) adds an extra level of accountability, but with them being funded by the 'sponsor' of the study (Pfizer) this means no complete separation between those who stand to make billions and those reviewing their studies. For better or worse... I don't trust these numbers.

You think only Pfizer sponsored scientists have peer reviewed the Pfizer findings? Biggest piece of flawed thinking I think I have seen so far. If another pharma could find a flaw in ANY rival product they would say so. There is no sentiment in business, and where that business is health its actually good for us that these things are worked over in that way.

 

Peer review by definition means an independent, non partisan review. This is why the reviews happen in public in medical journals. The fact that ordinary peoiple don't read or understand the process doesn't mean it isnt happening correctly:

 

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/281528

 

Quote

The peer review process is usually “blind,” which means that the reviewers do not receive any information about the identity of the authors. In most cases, the authors also do not know who carries out the peer review.

 

Please, for the love of god, use proper search engines for research. scholar.google.com is the starting place to find good proper open research papers from actual scientists and professionals where you can find also find independently peer-reviewed studies. Or The Lancet if the scholar.google.com is a bit weighty... which it really can be. But it's still a fantastic resource for real proper research and information. The Lancet is also an excellent source for help and understanding.

 

[CosKev]

2 hours ago, Steve (sdh2903) said:

, I dont think I'll be getting another booster.

 

And you will then be classed as unvaccinated 🤦‍♂️

 

They told everyone two doses and you are fully vaccinated 🤦‍♂️🤣

 

Didn't take long to go back on that😏🙄

[CosKev]

30 minutes ago, Blatman said:

Vaccines are well understood with nearly two centuries of study and research.

 

Two centuries of study and research on these new MRNA vaccines?

 

What's your thoughts on why the manufacturers of these new vaccines had all liability removed before they started giving them out?

[Steve (sdh2903)]

26 minutes ago, Blatman said:

Isn't the issue here that fundamentally those who are hesitant say that the risk data is definitely NOT to be believed?  The data can't be both right and wrong

 

No I don't think so. Its just that for the younger age groups there's data to support taking the jab and not to.  Like I've said all along it's not about what's right and what's wrong as you say.

 

1800 folk dying because of the vaccine (or strongly linked to) is not a small insignificant number, just by law of average a good chunk of those people would have survived covid.

 

7 minutes ago, CosKev said:

And you will then be classed as unvaccinated 🤦‍♂️

 

They told everyone two doses and you are fully vaccinated 🤦‍♂️🤣

 

Didn't take long to go back on that😏🙄

 

Correct. In fact one of the London papers earlier this week was reporting how many "not fully vaccinated" people were filling up ICU beds. Turns out they were already classing those who hadn't had 3 jabs as not fully vaccinated. Which is the level of reporting we are dealing with.

[Kit Car Electronics]

Does anyone have an idea for how we now escape this seemingly endless lockdown/vaccinate/ease/lockdown/vaccinate/ease cycle unless we either vaccinate everybody or accept the deaths and overwhelmed hospitals? We really do need GP surgeries to return to a state where we can actually book appointments for other medical conditions than Covid vaccinations.

[MR.C]

Yes, just move on.

At some point you are going to get this, or should i say  it's going to get you.

Luckily for most people its not deadly, and if you've had your jabs your immune system has got 

this covered.

[Steve (sdh2903)]

2 hours ago, Kit Car Electronics said:

Does anyone have an idea for how we now escape this seemingly endless lockdown/vaccinate/ease/lockdown/vaccinate/ease cycle unless we either vaccinate everybody or accept the deaths and overwhelmed hospitals? We really do need GP surgeries to return to a state where we can actually book appointments for other medical conditions than Covid vaccinations.

 

If this new variant is heading towards being more contagious and less deadly then I'm of the opinion that yes we need to lean towards getting on with it. Top up the vulnerable with vaccine if its beneficial and let the rest build some natural immunity.

 

I actually thought we had started the "live with it" process but the new variant has reset the hysteria. To do this though there has to be a step change on how covid is covered in the media, and I'm not sure the media will be able to wean themselves off Covid news.

 

As for GP's, wholeheartedly agree. Unless they are all helping out at hospitals then where are they all hiding? 

[MR.C]

Even a Dumb virus understands that if ki!s its hosts it done.

 

 

 

[CosKev]

45 minutes ago, Steve (sdh2903) said:

As for GP's, wholeheartedly agree. Unless they are all helping out at hospitals then where are they all hiding? 

 

My manager had a email yesterday stating staff can now self certify for 28 days goodness me!😳

[Blatman]

5 hours ago, CosKev said:

 

Two centuries of study and research on these new MRNA vaccines?

 

What's your thoughts on why the manufacturers of these new vaccines had all liability removed before they started giving them out?

 

Vaccines in general. As with anything, processes and procedures develop. I was not commenting on the mRNA vaccines specifically which are not new territory just because the vast majority of Facebook contributors and journalists who use Facebook as their source have never heard of them.. The research and science has been around since the 60's. If you'd care to read the page linked to below you'd find the "revelation" that the very succesful Ebola vaccine (>95% effective) is an mRNA vaccine.

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-vaccines

 

Vaccine manufacturers asking to have their liability removed is seen as sinister. As has been said, lets look at the other angle and use arguably an extreme but plausible example. If they hadn't had governments agree to the liability clauses and enough people decided to sue worldwide, all pharma could go bust. This leaves us where exactly?