Jump to content

When will this shit end?

Chrisp1986

By Chrisp1986,
in Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • steviewevie

    10647

  • zahidf

    6871

  • Crazyfool01

    6413

  • Ozanne

    7531

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

jparx
jparx

I think on a music festival message board it’s a legitimate question to ask. It doesn’t suggest the OP doesn’t give a shit about anything else. Of course there are much bigger things to be worrie

Toilet Duck
Toilet Duck

So...OX/AZ, blood clots, suspension of vaccinations, politics, vaccine hesitancy, convoluted data, PR problems, Brexit, EU procurement naivety, poor logistics, national identity...there’s an awful lot

Lycra
Lycra

A while since I/we posted because just like everyone else we get fed up of this shit. So just like to say..... For the first time since last March we are free of covid patients 😊

Posted Images

Cream Soda Collaborator

Cream Soda

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Homer said:

Just on radio 2 Jeremy vine - 1/3 in UK and 1/2 in us would refuse to take a corona vaccine. Debating whether it should be compulsory 

With the most likely vaccine looking to be the one that diminishes symptoms rather then reduces infection I don't think there would be any argument for making that compulsory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matt42 Grand Master

Matt42

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Simple answer is to ask would they then also refuse medical treatment if they got the virus? 

Not at all. Remember we are talking about the bottom of the pile thick here. They don’t see hypocrisy or flaws in their “wake up sheeple” beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
efcfanwirral Veteran

efcfanwirral

Posted
Posted

IF there were enough doses, and it is proven to stop the long term effects in those infected, does it need to be compulsory? As long as it gets given to those willing to take it (as in its free, accessible and an effort is made to go into communities that are a bit shut off from the rest of the country), can't we just let those anti vaxxers just share the risk around themselves? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dotdash79 Veteran

dotdash79

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

IF there were enough doses, and it is proven to stop the long term effects in those infected, does it need to be compulsory? As long as it gets given to those willing to take it (as in its free, accessible and an effort is made to go into communities that are a bit shut off from the rest of the country), can't we just let those anti vaxxers just share the risk around themselves? 

Because some people won’t be able to have it due to very good reasons, so should they be at grater risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cream Soda Collaborator

Cream Soda

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, dotdash79 said:

Because some people won’t be able to have it due to very good reasons, so should they be at grater risk.

The frontrunner only reduces the symptoms, it doesn't reduce infection I don't think.  So it wouldn't make a difference to their risk, the vaccine would only reduce your own personal risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DarthSaul Enthusiast

DarthSaul

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

These are the same morons who refuse to wear a mask.

I'm pretty sure the fear of needles is quite high, like 1 in 5 people so may be some way to explain a reluctance to vaccinate. 

Edited by DarthSaul
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tigger123 Rising Star

tigger123

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

These are the same morons who refuse to wear a mask.

Not necessarily, you don't have to be an anti-vaxxer to be apprehensive to taking a vaccine that could only have been in human trials a few months. Some vaccine side effects could take years to come to the surface, and no matter how much money we throw at a vaccine, we can't speed up time, so I can understand why some may be apprehensive to take a vaccine. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
st dan Proficient

st dan

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Matt42 said:

Not at all. Remember we are talking about the bottom of the pile thick here. They don’t see hypocrisy or flaws in their “wake up sheeple” beliefs.

I’m not an anti-vaxer in any way shape or form and have recently just taken my son for his one year MMR jabs without the thought of not doing so not even crossing my mind for a second.
That being said I do think I would be slightly cautious about getting a vaccine for COVID-19 and being ‘young, fit and healthy’ I would probably prefer to take my chances of my body fighting this alone, without the risks of any potential side effects down the line, especially from a ‘rushed out’ vaccine. 
Although at the same time I don’t think I’d have any major issues with being ‘forced’ to have it if I had to. 

Edited by st dan
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
efcfanwirral Veteran

efcfanwirral

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, dotdash79 said:

Because some people won’t be able to have it due to very good reasons, so should they be at grater risk.

Didn't think of that...

It's a tough one then - I'm really not sure this government is going to try to make anything at all compulsory that involves physically making people do something beyond putting cloth over their faces - they weren't (and still aren't) even willing to implement proper quarantine procedures and check that people are sticking to it. The tried and tested way that infectious diseases have been dealt with for thousands of years. 

"The Markets" don't get to decide this one either so they might actually have to govern!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Simsy Proficient

Simsy

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, DarthSaul said:

I'm pretty sure the fear of needles is quite high, like 1 in 5 people so may be some way to explain a reluctance to vaccinate. 

I'm terrified of needles (have to have my jabs lying down so I don't faint!), but I'd still have it if I needed to. The problem with people choosing not to be vaccinated is it impacts the people who can't get vaccinated (too young, allergic to the vaccine or have other health issues that mean they can't have it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zeppelin Proficient

zeppelin

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Simsy said:

I'm terrified of needles (have to have my jabs lying down so I don't faint!), but I'd still have it if I needed to. The problem with people choosing not to be vaccinated is it impacts the people who can't get vaccinated (too young, allergic to the vaccine or have other health issues that mean they can't have it).

I'll most likely faint if I have an injection. Don't ask me why, I can't fathom it either; I'm totally fine until its happening and then I get really apprehensive. 

Either way I'll still be getting a vaccination if it's available. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
squirrelarmy Veteran

squirrelarmy

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

I wasn’t keen on needles ... a diabetes diagnosis saw to that ending ... it’s amazing what fear you can overcome when it is life saving .... 

I completely agree. Also once you’ve been jabbed a few hundred times and had canulars sticking out of your limbs you do tend to stop caring about a little needle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toilet Duck Proficient

Toilet Duck

Posted
Posted

So, on the should it be compulsory, would it make any difference debate, there's a lot of assumptions being made on the basis of the pre-clinical data from Oxford....which remains a guessing game (albeit one with some facts to help steer it). 

There's three possible outcomes (and probably more)...either the vaccine has no impact on transmission, but reduces the severity of disease, or it does both, or it doesn't work and does neither!. Let's leave the final option out of the discussion as it makes all further points redundant (and we all hope that it's not the case!). 

If the vaccine only reduces the severity of disease, then unvaccinated individuals should not increase the risk of those who cannot take the vaccine due to valid reasons. In fact, if transmission is not reduced, then vaccinated individuals would just as likely to increase the risk of unvaccinated individuals contracting the virus since rolling out the vaccine would be the basis for opening up more and greater numbers will most likely be infected but at low risk of developing severe disease. This scenario is more or less an extrapolation from the pre-clinical data.

However, we really have no idea how the pre-clinical data translates into real world scenarios. The dose of virus used to challenge the animals was massive. Far greater than you would be likely to encounter by close contact and still greater than expected in those exposed to high levels of virus in healthcare settings. Viral load appears to have a significant role in disease progression with this virus, hence the vaccine is considered useful (and pre-clinically, this translated into lower levels of pneumonia in vaccinated animals). However, we really have no data on how the vaccine protects against more normal environmental exposures, nor how infectious vaccinated individuals are if their viral load is lower (the vaccinated monkeys in the Oxford pre-clinical study weren't housed with unvaccinated and uninfected monkeys to see whether they passed the virus on at the same rate as unvaccinated & infected monkeys...so nobody can answer this question yet...to be honest, you would only think of asking this question after seeing the data, it's not something you would naturally design in a pre-clinical study of a vaccine that you hoped would be protective..at least, I don't remember this from the paper describing the study, but I read it ages ago!). So, it's entirely possible that vaccinated individuals, with lower viral load and fewer symptoms won't pass on the virus as much and this will contribute to the suppression of transmission (while at the same time protecting vaccinated individuals from severe disease). If this scenario plays out, then it does make a difference if we have large amounts of unvaccinated individuals and, again, since there will be more virus circulating due to vaccine-dependent loosening of restrictions, they would increase the risk of those who could not take the vaccine for medical reasons (as more unvaccinated individuals would be infected and would be more infectious). 

It's far too early to say, nobody has any data for either of the scenarios above, both are purely speculation, but both are entirely possible. We'll have to just wait and see! 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...