When will this shit end?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Even looking at a cynical point of view, the leadership of countries should probably be in first in line for vaccinations anyway. The disruption caused by them falling ill with Covid...

Yeah, cos we all really missed Spaffer when he was in hospital, and the country fell to shit.  

[Mellotr0n]

Just now, JoeyT said:

Here's an idea, why don't we focus on the other 799,996 doses that will be given out?

I couldn't give a rats arse about people getting it live on tv but to focus on that rather than the overwhelming positive news having an approved vaccine is, it's just utterly bonkers.

Indeed. Today is a GOOD day, news wise.

I feel genuinely sorry for anyone who can't see that.

[Ozanne]

5 minutes ago, st dan said:

 

This man would be ideal for that. 

Exactly, he would be ideal. People don’t trust a politician at the best of times so why would naturally sceptical people trust one now. Using someone DA, would be a much better use as I presume he’s over 80, or at least 70 so in a higher risk group. 

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

Here's an idea, why don't we focus on the other 799,996 doses that will be given out?

I couldn't give a rats arse about people getting it live on tv but to focus on that rather than the overwhelming positive news having an approved vaccine is, it's just utterly bonkers.

People are and have focussed on that. You can discuss and think about 2 different points at once. 

[st dan]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Exactly, he would be ideal. People don’t trust a politician at the best of times so why would naturally sceptical people trust one now. Using someone DA, would be a much better use as I presume he’s over 80, or at least 70 so in a higher risk group. 

Agreed - he’s approaching 95 so certainly very high risk, and I don’t think there is a more widely adored and respected person in this country. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by st dan

[FestivalJamie]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

People are and have focussed on that. You can discuss and think about 2 different points at once. 

I woke up this morning to positive news. I haven’t since before March this year. That’s saying something huge.

But I am who I am and I will always hold that negative edge or reservations and when we have a limited supply of vaccinations coming our way, I want them to be given to the right people, not arsey politicians who don’t actually need immunisation at this point. 

We still can’t take anything for granted. Oxford isn’t approved, our Pfizer order has limitation and we don’t know about any other vaccines yet. I just want this to be done in the right way. I know we need to try and win a lot of people over here. But Matt Hancock taking vaccine on live tv? Pfff.

Edited December 2, 2020 by FestivalJamie

[fraybentos1]

2 minutes ago, Mellotr0n said:

Indeed. Today is a GOOD day, news wise.

I feel genuinely sorry for anyone who can't see that.

Certain individuals on here will see the worst in any situation, no matter how good it is.

We have a safe, approved vaccine with around 90% efficacy. Yes there are logistical challenges but dear god please lighten up, this is an amazing scientific feat we are seeing here!

[duke88]

4 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

Interestingly though, these vaccines have only been tested on healthy candidates, and not those who were previously infected. 

Is that right? I'm on a clinical trial for a vaccine and had a blood test and Covid test before my first jab. I asked if I'd be kicked off the trial if they showed that I had it or had it previously - the doctor said I'd still carry on, as the data would be useful in seeing how it affects people who have already had it.

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Certain individuals on here will see the worst in any situation, no matter how good it is.

We have a safe, approved vaccine with around 90% efficacy. Yes there are logistical challenges but dear god please lighten up, this is an amazing scientific feat we are seeing here!

Yup. Most experts said one wouldnt be approved until middle of next year!

[fatyeti24]

There are people on my timeline who are deeply sceptical about taking a vaccine that has, to them, been rushed and is untested.

To say their opinions have evolved in the last couple of decades is an understatement.  Time was they only needed approval as rigorous as a random person telling them that "these are fucking amazing" before they chucked any number of untested chemicals into themselves.

[duke88]

2 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

I woke up this morning to positive news. I haven’t since before March this year. That’s saying something huge.

But I am who I am and I will always hold that negative edge or reservations and when we have a limited supply of vaccinations coming our way, I want them to be given to the right people, not arsey politicians who don’t actually need immunisation at this point. 

We still can’t take anything for granted. Oxford isn’t approved, our Pfizer order has limitation and we don’t know about any other vaccines yet. I just want this to be done in the right way. I know we need to try and win a lot of people over here. But Matt Hancock taking vaccine on live tv? Pfff.

It's not ideal, but if it helps convince a few thousand people to take a vaccine who wouldn't have otherwise done so, isn't it worth it? It's not wasting a couple of doses, it's investing them.

[Ozanne]

7 minutes ago, st dan said:

Agreed - he’s approaching 95 so certainly very high risk, and I don’t think there is a more widely adored and respected person in this country. 

Is he actually 95!? Blimey. He is adored by nearly everyone and would be an ideal pick if you need someone to take the vaccine on TV. 

I’ll also point out separately that everyone here seems happy and pleased about the news this morning. I’m not seeing anyone being unhappy, just partaking in a discussion. Just enjoy the news and try not to jump on anyone especially this morning 😀

Edited December 2, 2020 by Ozanne

[zahidf]

8 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

People are and have focussed on that. You can discuss and think about 2 different points at once. 

I just think getting upset over how 4 doses is used wont be particularly helpful. Theyll be some doses which will be wasted, so if people are going to focus on that, its going to be super stressful as a vaccine rollout

Edited December 2, 2020 by zahidf

[JoeyT]

There's a vaccine briefing at 10am for those who are interested...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953

[JoeyT]

Just now, zahidf said:

I just think getting upset over how 4 doses is used wont be particlarly helpful. Theyll be some doses which will be wasted, so if youre going to focus on that, its going to be super stressful as a vaccine rollout

Imagine the scenes if someone administering the vaccine accidently drops a dose on the floor!

They'll be tried for murder on here by some.

[zahidf]

 

 

 

[Ozanne]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

I just think getting upset over how 4 doses is used wont be particularly helpful. Theyll be some doses which will be wasted, so if people are going to focus on that, its going to be super stressful as a vaccine rollout

I’m not upset, just discussing the nature of that idea. I’m very happy about the news this morning and enjoying the discussion. We can do both! Enjoy the news regardless of what some people are saying on here!

[DeanoL]

Just now, duke88 said:

It's not ideal, but if it helps convince a few thousand people to take a vaccine who wouldn't have otherwise done so, isn't it worth it? It's not wasting a couple of doses, it's investing them.

I dunno, sort of think that while there's a limited amount of the vaccine available, it should go first to people who want it. First vulnerable people that want it, then everyone else that wants it, then we can start focusing on convincing other people it's fine around March/April when we are approaching the point of having more vaccine than people who want it.

Yes, this means a few vulnerable people will die who otherwise wouldn't have, but that is their choice to make. 

Obviously this would be different if the key point of the vaccine was to prevent transmission or build up a herd immunity like with MMR, but at this point, anti-vaxxers are only hurting themselves, so I feel like they should be allowed to do so!

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I dunno, sort of think that while there's a limited amount of the vaccine available, it should go first to people who want it. First vulnerable people that want it, then everyone else that wants it, then we can start focusing on convincing other people it's fine around March/April when we are approaching the point of having more vaccine than people who want it.

Yes, this means a few vulnerable people will die who otherwise wouldn't have, but that is their choice to make. 

Obviously this would be different if the key point of the vaccine was to prevent transmission or build up a herd immunity like with MMR, but at this point, anti-vaxxers are only hurting themselves, so I feel like they should be allowed to do so!

Would the people who are sceptical really be swayed by a politician taking one? I’m not so sure.

Either way it’s going into care homes first I think which is definitely the right move! My Gran will get one, she’s in her 90s 😃

[duke88]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I dunno, sort of think that while there's a limited amount of the vaccine available, it should go first to people who want it. First vulnerable people that want it, then everyone else that wants it, then we can start focusing on convincing other people it's fine around March/April when we are approaching the point of having more vaccine than people who want it.

Yes, this means a few vulnerable people will die who otherwise wouldn't have, but that is their choice to make. 

Obviously this would be different if the key point of the vaccine was to prevent transmission or build up a herd immunity like with MMR, but at this point, anti-vaxxers are only hurting themselves, so I feel like they should be allowed to do so!

The thing is, the less vulnerable people who die and are hospitalised, the better it is for all of us, as there will be less need for restrictions. So it's not just their choice to take the risk really.

[Crazyfool01]

Just another prick in the wall for me  

[st dan]

Maybe I’m thinking over simplistically here, but just read that ‘In the 2019-20 season, more than 14 million adults and children were vaccinated against flu across the UK.’
Would it be right to assume that the majority of these would also take a Covid vaccine? The majority of these are likely to be vulnerable/front line key workers who are already ok with the principle of taking vaccinations? 
And those that don’t take the flu jab are also very unlikely to take this Covid one?

[Ozanne]

 

[st dan]

1 minute ago, crazyfool1 said:

Just another prick in the wall for me  

[Crazyfool01]

1 hour ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Two questions:

1) Who will be the first Minister / MP filmed getting a vaccine?

2. What date will they be hitting our screens?

Mass vaccination in the House of Lords ?