Covid Vaccine Poll

[jeff oakley]

Out of all the medical staff GP's have left themselves wide open for criticism because they stopped seeing people as they did before.

 

It is fine for people like me who can use zoom etc and to be honest I got to see my GP face to face easily, however others who needed to be seen were turned away. Many of these turn up at A&E instead.

 

There will be some who have done everything they could but others have not but all will be tarred with the same brush.

 

CosKev, yes I was told that but for employers we can still refer to occupational health for a second opinion most of these services run by GP's. 

 

I think this thread has been entered into with good intent with all regardless of where you stand on vaccines or not. It also demonstrate how facts and figures are dangerous. There are so many sources out there that actually agreeing on which one to use is a whole subject on it's own. 

The source can range from official, independent sage, worldwide or made up  to look official somewhere.

 

And figures produced with intent are bad. Sage have said that they would never underestimate, fair enough, but to predict 6000 deaths a week from Omnicom to scare people, which the media jump on, is shameful 

 

When Whitty puts up his slides, does anyone actually have enough time to read or understand? Death by powerpoint is what we get.

 

It will end but this in it's various strains will become like flu is, there but we get on with it

 

 

 

 

[Blatman]

4 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?

 

Yeah 'cos there's no other way... or is there? 

The virus is not being spread by the government. It's being spread by people. If people started to actually take some care with social distancing, hand washing and face masks, maybe we'd be better off. Sadly there are enough "free thinkers/rebels/anti-establishment" people who simply refuse to accept a few minor and temporary restrictions which are for the greater good and so keep the virus in greater circulation that it might otherwise be.

 

That said, the Government must of course shoulder the blame for dithering. The very second there was news of a new more infectious variant they should have closed the borders. But they wait a few days.

Then they should have perhaps moved to plan B plus (or whatever) and, like Holland did re-introduce restrictions immediately. It will be interesting to look at how Holland do compared to us with the new variant.

BUT our leaders chickened out. Too much bad press on top of anouncing another lockdown would have been the end of Boris and he knows it. So he chose to let "us" decide. And we all know where that goes...

[jeff oakley]

8 minutes ago, Blatman said:

 

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 fine 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? 

 

The other thing to consider is had they not been given this protection they would have said we need more testing to be 100% sure nothing could go wrong and millions would have died whilst we waited and waited.

 

Having done what they did it appears there probably was no need but it allowed some to see it as sinister  

[Blatman]

Oh, and as for seeing my GP, it's been a minimum 2 week wait for 2 decades or more. Covid hasn't actually changed that at all...

[Steve (sdh2903)]

56 minutes ago, jeff oakley said:

And figures produced with intent are bad. Sage have said that they would never underestimate, fair enough, but to predict 6000 deaths a week from Omnicom to scare people, which the media jump on, is shameful 

 

It was 600 to 6000 deaths a DAY not a week.

 

Agree 100% though. Regardless of anything else this **** has to stop. Even just last week the health minister said there were 200k cases a day and was doubling every 2 days based on the sage models. By now we should be seeing 12m cases a day. I see the modelling was later last week deemed invalid due to "behavioural changes". No they just made wildly innacurate false estimations and pumped them out into the media with no thought of the consequences.

 

Appreciate its all guess work but it seems some of these sage people are enjoying the limelight just a little too much. Or they are drinking way to much wine at their work meetings.

[CosKev]

55 minutes ago, Blatman said:

The very second there was news of a new more infectious variant they should have closed the borders. But they wait a few days.

Then they should have perhaps moved to plan B plus (or whatever) and, like Holland did re-introduce restrictions immediately. It will be interesting to look at how Holland do compared to us with the new variant.

 

Wow,glad you aren't in charge goodness me!🤣😳

 

 

[jim_l]

15 hours ago, AdamR said:

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?

Turn my back for day and there is war and peace to read on here, but didn’t want to ignore this question.

 

Adam, you are right of course, just because it isn’t 80% doesn’t mean a healthy lifestyle isn’t significant in terms of limiting individual risk, and if you add in that many of the other comorbidities can be exacerbated or triggered by being overweight, yes, very significant, in assessing individual risk of death.

 

Your point is that your healthy lifestyle, the consequent low risk of dying from Covid, put alongside the figures for vaccine adverse events, support your decision that the benefits to you seem marginal.   

 

As far as I can see though, that you have made that case purely in ‘live or die’ terms, if you factored in the extent to which a vaccine might lower the severity and prevent you getting long Covid, that might move the risk/benefit slider a little.

 

Having seen the research and reason on here, which is excellent on both sides, it seems that we don’t  really have all of the data to model this. 

We are missing a clear analysis of what “deaths reported as possibly linked to a vaccine” actually means, overall and in age groups, and we are missing a clear analysis of long Covid, 'how many does this affect, and how badly, by age? '

 

The data from Scotland shared by Steve, shows 30% of the cases coming from the unvaccinated, about 5% of the adult population, so clearly many people are getting this decision wrong! which of course doesn’t mean you have.

 

Apart from the results of an individual life or death analysis, who wouldn’t get vaccinated if it did the following:

a)    Free up hospital beds so we can treat more of the non-Covid sick.

b)     Make lockdowns and restrictions less likely, more of our lives to live.

c)    Lower the hit the economy takes, we all suffer a little less.

d)    Lowered the case numbers and severity, and by doing so reduced the opportunities for future variants.

 

 

 

[jim_l]

15 hours ago, AdamR said:

Some of the comments insinuate that people in my position are stupid, or out to try and cause trouble etc,

I would hope nothing I said suggested that, On this side of the fence I have been called some stuff too, nothing too bad on here apart from a particular woolly animal. 

 

Once or twice a week I go out in company that includes unvaccinated people, we made our cases long ago and left it there, they don’t have your defence, they smoke and drink like troopers, but they do test often. I haven’t lost any friends over it.

[Blatman]

1 hour ago, CosKev said:

Wow,glad you aren't in charge goodness me!🤣😳

 

Based on a single policy statement? I'm glad you wouldn't vote for me!

Like I say, lets see how Holland do with case numbers, deaths etc. There's no right answer, but numbers of deaths/hospitalised don't lie as much as some say they do.

The UK will do better or worse than Holland. We can make judgements then on which was the right decision for the health of the nation.

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

If omicron turns out to really be non-lethal and like a really bad cold, only, then letting it run rife might be a course similar to back burning to fight a forest fire. Swamp all more lethal variants with omicron. 

[Steve (sdh2903)]

@jim_l whilst I actually agree with the majority of your posts and their sentiments I do have to add a couple of corrections.

 

15 hours ago, jim_l said:

The data from Scotland shared by Steve, shows 30% of the cases coming from the unvaccinated

 

1. The data I posted earlier indeed could be used to support both views which was entirely the point. However the 40% of cases also includes people who are inelligible and children under 12 who are currently not being offered the vaccine. Which I believe are currently accounting for somewhere around  15% of cases.

 

Also 

15 hours ago, jim_l said:

about 5% of the adult population, so clearly many people are getting this decision wrong! which of course doesn’t mean you have.

 

Not quite right when you see the latest data.

 

 

So 18% of the eligible >12 population are not double jabbed which is the (current) standard to determine if someone is fully vaccinated. This is UK wide though admittedly.

 

So going back to the earlier chart

 

 

Cases. If you remove U12 children from the chart then 25% of cases being caused by 18% of the population.

 

Hospitalisations. 30% caused by 18% which also doesn't cater people who enter hospital for other reasons and contract covid or test positive on admittance.

 

Deaths 15% caused by 18% of the population

 

An incredibly simplistic and not fully accurate way to work out the sums but When you look at it this way its not quite as obvious that the unvaccinated are the key problem that the media are portraying them to be.

[Arm]

Sorry not had chance to look at this but what is the red and green chart saying. We know vaccine isn't a guarantee to save  ill health or unfortunately death. So is the chart leaning onto if everyone is vaccinated and unfortunately still has problems then 100 percent of the vaccinated are the problem. Ie it just gets more red. 

I should spend more time looking at the info

[Blatman]

I agree with ARM. I'd like the links to the source of the data so I can have a look.

 

I was mulling this earlier on. Whenever I post numbers or opinion, I ALWAYS try to add the source so people can, if they want to, see the same data I do and can see if I interpreted correctly or not. I'd like to see more of that, especially from the hesitant, so we can see and review the same information which informs their decisions.

[jim_l]

4 hours ago, Steve (sdh2903) said:

When you look at it this way its not quite as obvious

 

I agree Steve , less obvious, but of course you have included children, mostly unvaccinated, and rarely (thankfully)  feature in admissions, I had intended specifically to refer to the adult population. 

 

This one graphic from the ICNARC reports captures it, in the adult population unvaccinated people represent about 45% of the critically ill, but around 10% of the population. 

 

 

 

[Blatman]

27 minutes ago, jim_l said:

This one graphic from the ICNARC reports captures it, in the adult population unvaccinated people represent about 45% of the critically ill, but around 10% of the population. 

 

Just waiting to see how that gets spun as not what it appears to be...