Generic Virus Thread

[sidcow]

47 minutes ago, snowychap said:

No, they aren't.

Why? Given an opportunity to protect yourself, protect others and bring the world back to a semblance of normality and turning it down seems the very definition of daft to me. 

[Davkaus]

I can continue working from home for months, and there's no chance of things going back to normal until the vaccination roll out has progressed significantly. I'm not eligible to be an early adopter anyway, but I'm going to give it a miss until society starts to reopen and there's a real benefit to me having it.

I don't think the risk is high, but it is a risk.

[snowychap]

29 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Why? Given an opportunity to protect yourself, protect others and bring the world back to a semblance of normality and turning it down seems the very definition of daft to me. 

Given question marks about immunity duration, the effects of the various vaccines upon transmission and the necessary lack of data about any long-term ill effects, I don't think it's daft to make the choice that I might wait a while until more data becomes available especially as I, myself, am likely to be in a much lower risk group (though accepting the prior things that I've said about it not just being about deaths and that it's not just about the most vulnerable).

It's not about 'turning it down'.

Edited December 11, 2020 by snowychap

[villakram]

7 hours ago, sidcow said:

According to an Oxford University poll a quarter of people are reluctant to get the jab. 

It just shows that despite the hugely serious nature of this disease which has brought the world to it's knees, the propaganda of a few nut jobs has filtered through to the general population. 

People thing vaccines are dangerous.. With all that's gone on, why on earth would 25% of people still not want a jab!? Totally shocking. 

Science has worked so hard to rid mankind of so many terrible diseases and gets junked by a couple of hundred idiots. 

There is no reason for the under 16s to get the jab and little reason for those under 40.

I would like to know the exact question. 25% or people asked having an issue is no big deal in this context.

Reads like a clickbait survey feeding on the fear they like to sell.

[choffer]

Yep. Oxford University are the worst. It’s all click bait with them. 

[lapal_fan]

I agree with @snowychap all the way - the vast majority of "reduced risk" people should wait until we have done more testing and have more knowledge on the affects.

AstraZeneca hasn't been tested on people with aliments, pregnant women or (developing) children.  I think only 4% of tested people were older than 55 too. 

So while the 40,000 people tested are all fine (apart from 1 person who had spinal fluid inflammation), it's only a narrow spectrum of people. 

I'm waiting and eager for this to be cleared, but why get it if that picture isn't clear and I'm low risk? 

That said, if someone was in the room now and offered it, I'd probably take it. 

[tomav84]

heard the other day that if asprin was invented today, the regulations are such that it wouldn't be approved based on side effects etc. getting medication through the approvals now is so much tougher than it used to be. so for the vaccine to be approved, it's A-OK for me

my worry is, that it's like when ecstasy was a thing mainly in the 90s...every death made national news it seemed, even though statistically it was highly unlikely and the same will happen with the vaccine. 100%, someone, somewhere in the world, will die after taking the vaccine. it'll happen. i just hope that when that day comes, there isn't a public meltdown about it and the media don't make such a song and dance that it gets put back in the box

[tomav84]

2 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

I agree with @snowychap all the way - the vast majority of "reduced risk" people should wait until we have done more testing and have more knowledge on the affects.

AstraZeneca hasn't been tested on people with aliments, pregnant women or (developing) children.  I think only 4% of tested people were older than 55 too. 

So while the 40,000 people tested are all fine (apart from 1 person who had spinal fluid inflammation), it's only a narrow spectrum of people. 

I'm waiting and eager for this to be cleared, but why get it if that picture isn't clear and I'm low risk? 

That said, if someone was in the room now and offered it, I'd probably take it. 

i don't think we get a choice, i'm under 40 and will be waiting until at least spring i reckon

[lapal_fan]

1 minute ago, tomav84 said:

i don't think we get a choice, i'm under 40 and will be waiting until at least spring i reckon

There is that too, quite rightly. 

[Jonesy7211]

I don't wish to start an argument here, and I understand entirely why those that see themselves as lower risk may wait, but the vaccine isn't just for the high risk.

If you don't have the vaccine and you catch covid and are entirely asymptomatic then you will likely still spread it. As it was explained to me, having the vaccine not only increases immunity from covid, but critically it reduces the risk of you spreading it. Which is why in my opinion it's key everyone has it as soon as possible. And why we all need as much credible information about the vaccines as soon as possible.

Until the information is there and accessible for all I don't think this discussion will end.

Also, regarding it not being tested on certain groups. You'd be surprised at how many vaccines and medicines aren't tested against all groups, but it's just given that the benefits outweigh the risks. Even over the counter paracetamol isn't tested for negative reactions in people taking biologics, is one personal example I'm aware of (As this sounds like my opinion, and not factual, I was told this by Prof Charlie Lees, who's a Gastroenterologist at Edinburgh Western General, and Dr Nick Powell, a consultant at Imperial College. I'm nowhere near clever enough to give out statements like these without facts from the big brains.)

Edited December 11, 2020 by Jonesy7211

[Genie]

1 hour ago, tomav84 said:

heard the other day that if asprin was invented today, the regulations are such that it wouldn't be approved based on side effects etc. getting medication through the approvals now is so much tougher than it used to be. so for the vaccine to be approved, it's A-OK for me

Penicillin is a pretty important medicine yet a lot of people have an allergic reaction to it. 

[sidcow]

2 hours ago, villakram said:

There is no reason for the under 16s to get the jab and little reason for those under 40.

I would like to know the exact question. 25% or people asked having an issue is no big deal in this context.

Reads like a clickbait survey feeding on the fear they like to sell.

It's this kind of shit that encourages the myth that people don't need it. 

Under 16s have died and plenty of under 40s.

And many many more have long covid complications. And plenty more have passed it on to people in a chain who will have died and got very ill. 

Please don't try and pretend this is clickbait fear mongering.  This is deadly serious, literally.  You can't walk round with your eyes closed. 

[villakram]

31 minutes ago, sidcow said:

It's this kind of shit that encourages the myth that people don't need it. 

Under 16s have died and plenty of under 40s.

And many many more have long covid complications. And plenty more have passed it on to people in a chain who will have died and got very ill. 

Please don't try and pretend this is clickbait fear mongering.  This is deadly serious, literally.  You can't walk round with your eyes closed. 

Absolutes and relatives. That old cad hand that people love to play with. Sure every life is valuable, but things must be sensible prioritized as we have limited resources.

Relatively speaking the risk to under 16s is almost zero, and many times less than that from the flu.

Relatively speaking the risk to under 40s is low and on an all cause mortality basis bears comparison to a daily commute.

This is to say nothing of the immuno-compromised who must and are being prioritized.

It is not deadly serious in some sort of panic stricken way. The data is clear now about who gets sick and who is at risk of serious illness. Pretending not to acknowledge problems and reality in an effort to fight myths is no way to institute policy

[sidcow]

Makes me laugh that literally thousands of people are willing to completely unnecessarily fill their lungs up with God knows what Vape chemicals from God knows where without giving it a second thought yet worry about taking a medicine which will stop a deadly disease which has been designed by highly qualified scientists and cleared by medical professionals in multiple countries after being tested on thousands of people with no effects. 

[sidcow]

3 minutes ago, villakram said:

Absolutes and relatives. That old cad hand that people love to play with. Sure every life is valuable, but things must be sensible prioritized as we have limited resources.

Relatively speaking the risk to under 16s is almost zero, and many times less than that from the flu.

Relatively speaking the risk to under 40s is low and on an all cause mortality basis bears comparison to a daily commute.

This is to say nothing of the immuno-compromised who must and are being prioritized.

It is not deadly serious in some sort of panic stricken way. The data is clear now about who gets sick and who is at risk of serious illness. Pretending not to acknowledge problems and reality in an effort to fight myths is no way to institute policy

Jesus effin Christ. 

I'm not going to argue with you any more as with your views on Trump you've bought into the whole right-wing propaganda machine.

Those miniscule statistics you talk about are being applied to absolutely enormous populations, so tiny percentages translates to lots of actual people.  Those are real people living lives, working, having families, playing sports.  Actual real people, not theoretical numbers. Real people unnecessarily dying or becoming long term ill. 

I know you will have a clever come back, so fill your boots. 

[villakram]

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

Jesus effin Christ. 

I'm not going to argue with you any more as with your views on Trump you've bought into the whole right-wing propaganda machine.

Those miniscule statistics you talk about are being applied to absolutely enormous populations, so tiny percentages translates to lots of actual people.  Those are real people living lives, working, having families, playing sports.  Actual real people, not theoretical numbers. Real people unnecessarily dying or becoming long term ill. 

I know you will have a clever come back, so fill your boots. 

The WHO estimated ~750 million infections globally last month. We're at 15.7 million confirmed cases in the US right now. Numbers in the UK/EU are at similar percentages. The statistics are quite robust. Empirical data are thy friend.

[bickster]

 

[Jonesy7211]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

The WHO estimated ~750 million infections globally last month. We're at 15.7 million confirmed cases in the US right now. Numbers in the UK/EU are at similar percentages. The statistics are quite robust. Empirical data are thy friend.

Not trying to pick at you, so please don't take this as a slight, but surely you must see that the vaccine is as much about ensuring that both the number of people dying and the number of people continuing to spread the virus comes down as much as possible?

In my mind I want both numbers to be as low as possible, and the last 9 months have shown, in the UK at least, the only way we're going to do that is with a vaccine that's widely adopted and quickly rolled out. We can't rely on social distancing, bubbles, lockdowns, or even social responsibility.

[snowychap]

4 hours ago, Jonesy7211 said:

As it was explained to me, having the vaccine not only increases immunity from covid, but critically it reduces the risk of you spreading it.

Does it? Which vaccine? From what I have read of the comments of those people involved in developing different vaccines, they have said that they are unsure about how much it may prevent transmission.

Which was one of the points I made earlier.

[Jonesy7211]

15 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Does it? Which vaccine? From what I have read of the comments of those people involved in developing different vaccines, they have said that they are unsure about how much it may prevent transmission.

Which was one of the points I made earlier.

The medical team said the Pfizer one did, and the others likely will as they're all so similar. They also said the moderna one will be be approved next Thursday and we'll get more info on it then. The Oxford one at the end of December. Hopefully more info for everyone then.