Covid Vaccine

[chrisjpainter]

In the times today:

More than a quarter of people MIGHT refuse a vaccine even if one passed tests. Broken down it looks like this:

14% say they'd refuse, 13% are unsure

16% of women and 12% of men would refuse

22% of 25-34's would refuse

9% of those aged 65+ would refuse.

Survey carried out by  ORB International, based on 2065 responses.

This anti vaccine thing is really starting to annoy me! It is of course coming from the age group that is least affected by Covid - but the ones who are more likely to be parents of vaccine-aged children. Medicine has won so many battles in the last century with vaccines, yet now too many people are trying to undo them. RAHHHH

Edited July 21, 2020 by chrisjpainter

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Well I hope it is available soon I can have mine along with the yearly flu shot for the vulnerable.

[Mighty Ruler]

I got an email asking me to sign a petition against forcing ethnic minorities to have the vaccine, of course, I signed it immediately. The less people in the queue the sooner I’ll get one.

[strimmer_13]

3 minutes ago, Mighty Ruler said:

I got an email asking me to sign a petition against forcing ethnic minorities to have the vaccine, of course, I signed it immediately. The less people in the queue the sooner I’ll get one.

😂😂😂

[chrisjpainter]

24 minutes ago, Mighty Ruler said:

I got an email asking me to sign a petition against forcing ethnic minorities to have the vaccine, of course, I signed it immediately. The less people in the queue the sooner I’ll get one.

This sort of thing drives me mad. How you could put such a thing on an open forum I don't know. It doesn't reflect well on shooting, you know: It's FEWER people in the queue, not 'less'!

[bluesj]

I think that it should be up to the individual as to weather they have a vaccine or not! but if you don't then you must put up with the consequences weather that is you are denied access to pubs, clubs, shops or no sick pay etc. where my mrs works they have the flue jab every year, you don't have to have it but if you don't and then get the flue you don't get sick pay. If you have the jab and still get the flue you get full pay well off sick.

[WalkedUp]

1 hour ago, chrisjpainter said:

This sort of thing drives me mad. How you could put such a thing on an open forum I don't know. It doesn't reflect well on shooting, you know: It's FEWER people in the queue, not 'less'!

🤣

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, bluesj said:

I think that it should be up to the individual as to weather they have a vaccine or not! but if you don't then you must put up with the consequences weather that is you are denied access to pubs, clubs, shops or no sick pay etc. where my mrs works they have the flue jab every year, you don't have to have it but if you don't and then get the flue you don't get sick pay. If you have the jab and still get the flue you get full pay well off sick.

Never heard of the no sick pay if you don't have a jab, last company I worked at gave out free flu jabs, but everyone knew it was for their benefit(company)  you just got a voucher,  how would the company know who had had it?

My only worry about a vaccine would be the speed it has been produced , side effects are going to be unknown. 

[Guest]

19 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

This sort of thing drives me mad. How you could put such a thing on an open forum I don't know. It doesn't reflect well on shooting, you know: It's FEWER people in the queue, not 'less'!

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, it is up to every individual in the UK to form their own opinion as to whether they wish to have the covid 19 vaccine that is proved successful which maybe years ahead of the trial vaccines, the government has ordered 70 million, do they expect everyone who has not been tested for covid 19 have the vaccine? Will the 3 million with health issues want the vaccine, young people under 21, this is not like winter flu jabs, the covid 19 has proved a virus that is still most unknown but brings on a range of health issues, until the medical scientist work out how to stop this these trial vaccines are our only chance of a covid 19 free UK 

Edited July 23, 2020 by oldypigeonpopper

[Deker]

I'm one of the ones who'll be giving it a miss, with a 99% survival rate I'll take my chances as the last time a vaccine was rushed out with limited testing and aggressive marketing (press scare) brought on the Thalidomide problems.

[Lord v]

Moderna (all DNA conspiracy theories aside) who are currently one of the front runners for the CoVid vaccine have never produced a safe and effective vaccine. And I'm not talking 'ooh vaccines aren't safe - they cause autism' I am talking 'never passed Phase 2 clinical testing'.

I would be extremely sceptical of anything they have produced in a rush.

Any other vaccine I would weigh on its merits. A vaccine doesn't mean we will be covid free - it means there is potential to get it under control on a longterm basis.  

[grrclark]

16 minutes ago, Lord v said:

Moderna (all DNA conspiracy theories aside) who are currently one of the front runners for the CoVid vaccine have never produced a safe and effective vaccine. And I'm not talking 'ooh vaccines aren't safe - they cause autism' I am talking 'never passed Phase 2 clinical testing'.

I would be extremely sceptical of anything they have produced in a rush.

Any other vaccine I would weigh on its merits. A vaccine doesn't mean we will be covid free - it means there is potential to get it under control on a longterm basis.  

Vaccitech/Jenner Institute at Oxford Uni are currently in phase 3 trials with thousands of people in the testing group across Brazil, South Africa, UK and now moving into the USA.

Really interesting article in Bloomberg about it https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-covid-19-vaccine-is-the-coronavirus-front-runner?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Lord v said:

Moderna (all DNA conspiracy theories aside) who are currently one of the front runners for the CoVid vaccine have never produced a safe and effective vaccine. And I'm not talking 'ooh vaccines aren't safe - they cause autism' I am talking 'never passed Phase 2 clinical testing'.

I would be extremely sceptical of anything they have produced in a rush.

Any other vaccine I would weigh on its merits. A vaccine doesn't mean we will be covid free - it means there is potential to get it under control on a longterm basis.  

Taking the flu jab every year also doesn’t mean we will be flu free, If I had underlying health problems I would rather take my chances with the vaccine than with the virus 🦠 

Edited July 23, 2020 by blackbird

[chrisjpainter]

3 hours ago, Deker said:

I'm one of the ones who'll be giving it a miss, with a 99% survival rate I'll take my chances as the last time a vaccine was rushed out with limited testing and aggressive marketing (press scare) brought on the Thalidomide problems.

No it didn't. Thalidomide was never used as a vaccine for anything. It was and is used as an anti-nausea drug and was heralded as a bit of a wonder drug for various things, a lot of which are manifested in early-stage pregnancy. In the mid to late 50's, nothing was really tested for its safety for foetuses, as it was still believed that medication given to the mother wouldn't pass the placental barrier (despite evidence to the contrary with alcohol!). Thalidomide is now used regularly in cancer treatment for certain types of cancers and I have a feeling there's some evidence that it can be useful to treat leprosy too.

[Deker]

2 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

No it didn't. Thalidomide was never used as a vaccine for anything. It was and is used as an anti-nausea drug and was heralded as a bit of a wonder drug for various things, a lot of which are manifested in early-stage pregnancy. In the mid to late 50's, nothing was really tested for its safety for foetuses, as it was still believed that medication given to the mother wouldn't pass the placental barrier (despite evidence to the contrary with alcohol!). Thalidomide is now used regularly in cancer treatment for certain types of cancers and I have a feeling there's some evidence that it can be useful to treat leprosy too.

But still rushed out without the correct testing, as I say I'll pass as the survival rate isn't worth the risk

[chrisjpainter]

8 minutes ago, Deker said:

But still rushed out without the correct testing, as I say I'll pass as the survival rate isn't worth the risk

Fatality rate at 15% in the UK. 45,000 fatalities,  296,377 confirmed cases. There will probably be more cases than have been confirmed, but still that's a high fatality rate. The global average seems around 4%, but then seeing as we're in England, it's worth considering our fatality rate, not the world's. Having the vaccine also makes you far less likely to pass it on to other people. What is the risk with the vaccine? Comparing it to something that happened 60 years ago and using that as justification seems a bit short-sighted. 

[AVB]

41 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Fatality rate at 15% in the UK. 45,000 fatalities,  296,377 confirmed cases. There will probably be more cases than have been confirmed, but still that's a high fatality rate. The global average seems around 4%, but then seeing as we're in England, it's worth considering our fatality rate, not the world's. Having the vaccine also makes you far less likely to pass it on to other people. What is the risk with the vaccine? Comparing it to something that happened 60 years ago and using that as justification seems a bit short-sighted. 

It isn’t 15% or even 4%. Number of deaths is overstated (people dying months after having a positive covid test). Number of people with it is understated as many people have had it and haven’t had a test. Scientists say that the mortality rate is less than 0.1%. 

[chrisjpainter]

16 minutes ago, AVB said:

It isn’t 15% or even 4%. Number of deaths is overstated (people dying months after having a positive covid test). Number of people with it is understated as many people have had it and haven’t had a test. Scientists say that the mortality rate is less than 0.1%. 

Have you a source for that?

[Deker]

1 hour ago, chrisjpainter said:

Fatality rate at 15% in the UK. 45,000 fatalities,  296,377 confirmed cases. There will probably be more cases than have been confirmed, but still that's a high fatality rate. The global average seems around 4%, but then seeing as we're in England, it's worth considering our fatality rate, not the world's. Having the vaccine also makes you far less likely to pass it on to other people. What is the risk with the vaccine? Comparing it to something that happened 60 years ago and using that as justification seems a bit short-sighted. 

The 15% is the number of people who have died after testing positive (not necessarily from it), however if we're to believe that this virus is as contagious as they have said then many more people will have had it without knowing which reduces that number further.

Using current numbers only 0.45% of the UK population (66 million) have been confirmed as having it (others will have had it without knowing), out of that 0.45% 45k people have died, that's 0.07% of the UK population (and that's rounded up).

Quote

Comparing it to something that happened 60 years ago and using that as justification seems a bit short-sighted. 

You can't call a fact rubbish I'm afraid.

If someone is scared and/or vulnerable then it's up to them if they want to take it, but they can't demand that everyone has it just so the 'feel' safer

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by Deker

[chrisjpainter]

Just now, Deker said:

The 15% is the number of people who have died after testing positive (not necessarily from it), however if we're to believe that this virus is as contagious as they have said then many more people will have had it without knowing which reduces that number further).

Using current numbers only 0.45% of the UK population (66 million) have been confirmed as having it (others will have had it without knowing), out of that 0.45% 45k people have died, that's 0.07% of the UK population (and that's rounded up)

Yes I take your point that as a percentage of the total population, then the risk is still low and is probably being blown out of proportion by a society that has become increasingly neurotic and fearful. But such a logic seems to be applicable to avoiding having the vaccine. There is no risk there, yet it is still shunned by millions. Let's say only the 14% of the population don't have a vaccine. So that's 9 million people who refuse it. If you make that a metapopulation, that'd be 6,300 people dying only because they didn't have a vaccination, which seems unnecessary, bordering on the daft when you consider that any vaccine that makes it to production will be safe, just like the shed load of other vaccines now done routinely. You say it's not worth the risk, but what is the risk? what is the danger?

[243deer]

It usually takes around 12 years to bring a drug to market, this allows a reasonable timescale for longer term adverse reactions to come to light via the reporting mechanism. All drugs have some reports of adverse reactions as we do not live in a perfect world (I have worked in the past for Pfizer and Merck so do have direct knowledge). A huge percentage of drugs fail during the testing stages which is why the costs of these are usually borne by successful drugs hence we see drugs initially as expensive. but this does show that nowadays, by and large, only reasonably safe drugs make it to market.

Having a vaccine at this moment in time has a risk element that is going to be impossible to quantify, however the number of doses is going to be so high that years of research will in the most part be condensed into a much shorter timescale. There will never be no risk and folk that have underlying problems might well be advised to wait until initial results are forthcoming if they can remain mostly isolated and keep their risk of infection very low. With a couple of legacy smoking related issues, this is the course of action I intend to take.

The statistics on anything are almost always completely unreliable if you do not know exactly what question was being asked you cannot know the usefulness of the answer and as Deker has shown above, you almost always have to make some assumptions which means the answer is only relevant to those assumptions.

An example is - "what percentage of the apples in the bulk bin did you have to throw away"?

"what percentage of the apples in the bulk bin did you have to throw away that were not already bruised"?

Politicians in particular are extremely adept at answering the first question and not the second one.

 

 

[ordnance]

4 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

Have you a source for that?

Yeah, i would like to see that source. 

[AVB]

8 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

Have you a source for that?

My quote of 0.1% appears to be wrong but this article refers to it being between 0.5 and 1% with the CDC believing it to be 0.65%
 

www.wsj.com/amp/articles/how-deadly-is-covid-19-researchers-are-getting-closer-to-an-answer-11595323801

 

[ordnance]

19 hours ago, AVB said:

My quote of 0.1% appears to be wrong but this article refers to it being between 0.5 and 1% with the CDC believing it to be 0.65%
 

www.wsj.com/amp/articles/how-deadly-is-covid-19-researchers-are-getting-closer-to-an-answer-11595323801

 

Depends, there are different views.  

Quote

 South Korea initially reported a case fatality rate of 0.6% in early March, but it later rose to 1.7% by the beginning of April, according to New Scientist.