Coronavirus Thread

[MonmoreStef]

Why are we all expected to take this vaccine yet when it comes to the flu only the vulnerable themselves are expected to take it?  Surely the flu is close to being, if not being, as deadly to these vulnerable people as what the present Covid is. Yet nobody would dream of enforcing everyone to take the flu vaccine.  My 20 year old nephew who lives with my parents will be a potential carrier of plenty of other viruses but the only one that seems to matter is Covid.  

[CosbehFox]

56 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

 

No, I'm not 'dodging my round'. if I was at risk or worried about the virus, I'd have it without hesitation. 

 

I'm  unlikely to get seriously ill with it and as such, I'm not a burden on the health service...which is the very reason for this whole shebang. 

 

And, yup, i can guess what your comeback is, 'well you'll infect someone who is vulnerable'....and my answer to that is, if you're vulnerable, I'd heartily recommend taking the vaccine. And then it wont matter if I am 'virused up to my arse' 

 

As I said on an earlier post, it's all academic anyway. We will be coerced/bullied/bribed into having to have it. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

 

Yet - when older, circumstances change. 

[CosbehFox]

17 minutes ago, MonmoreStef said:

Why are we all expected to take this vaccine yet when it comes to the flu only the vulnerable themselves are expected to take it?  Surely the flu is close to being, if not being, as deadly to these vulnerable people as what the present Covid is. Yet nobody would dream of enforcing everyone to take the flu vaccine.  My 20 year old nephew who lives with my parents will be a potential carrier of plenty of other viruses but the only one that seems to matter is Covid.  

Covid spreads easier and it’s harder to control the infection. 
 

Covid’s contagious spells are longer and it takes longer from symptoms to form. 
 

Just to say I always envisaged a scenario of the vulnerable just having it. I simply think it’s a case that no one is really aware completely about things like Long Covid and the nature is to be careful, 
 

It’s a decision they need to make on the tactic - give you antibodies whilst you are healthy or do you they delay to a certain age which obviously health changes as we age. 
 

Flu also alters requires an annual booster/slight change - cost implications would be huge to have the entire population vaccines. They envisage here one event of vaccination 

Edited 5 December 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

 

No, I'm not 'dodging my round'. if I was at risk or worried about the virus, I'd have it without hesitation. 

 

I'm  unlikely to get seriously ill with it and as such, I'm not a burden on the health service...which is the very reason for this whole shebang. 

 

And, yup, i can guess what your comeback is, 'well you'll infect someone who is vulnerable'....and my answer to that is, if you're vulnerable, I'd heartily recommend taking the vaccine. And then it wont matter if I am 'virused up to my arse' 

 

As I said on an earlier post, it's all academic anyway. We will be coerced/bullied/bribed into having to have it. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

 

We could have mass vaccination programme that drives the levels of the virus right down, possibly even to a zero COVID stage, if we vaccinate enough people to achieve herd immunity.

 

Coronviruses aren’t the flu, they don’t mutate anywhere near as quickly. Assuming decent temporal efficacy (big assumption, don’t know yet) from the vaccine and effective vaccination programmes across the world, we could really get on top of it.

 

As has been highlighted time and again during this pandemic, people are seemingly only capable of thinking at the individual or small group level, whereas infectious disease requires you to think at the population level, the population is the individual.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

We could have mass vaccination programme that drives the levels of the virus right down, possibly even to a zero COVID stage, if we vaccinate enough people to achieve herd immunity.

 

Coronviruses aren’t the flu, they don’t mutate anywhere near as quickly. Assuming decent temporal efficacy (big assumption, don’t know yet) from the vaccine and effective vaccination programmes across the world, we could really get on top of it.

 

As has been highlighted time and again during this pandemic, people are seemingly only capable of thinking at the individual or small group level, whereas infectious disease requires you to think at the population level, the population is the individual.

Absolutely right.

 

Also not the only problem we face with exactly the same issue clouding it.

[Guest Fktf]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

Eh? I wouldn't dream of asking someone else to take medication on my behalf. 

You are doing. To get back to normal, we need to reach herd immunity by enough people in society taking the vaccine, and you're asking everyone else to do it by deciding not taking the vaccine yourself.

[Paninistickers]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

No it really isn't; it employs a hypothetical question based upon a real case scenario to impress the importance of 'total' protection and the effectiveness of ring vaccination whilst also inviting consideration of a utilitarian ethical stance. 

Ok, ok, you wins. If I was asked to take a vaccine to protect myself and society from an agonising, aggressive, certain death from Ebola, then I'd be the first to roll my sleeve up. 

 

Personally though,  I think comparing the effects of covid with Ebola is absurd

 

 

12 minutes ago, Fktf said:

You are doing. To get back to normal, we need to reach herd immunity by enough people in society taking the vaccine, and you're asking everyone else to do it by deciding not taking the vaccine yourself.

No I'm not. Thanks for trying to think for me and reinterpret my thoughts, but really, no, I wouldn't expect anyone to take a hit for me.

[Guest Fktf]

23 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Ok, ok, you wins. If I was asked to take a vaccine to protect myself and society from an agonising, aggressive, certain death from Ebola, then I'd be the first to roll my sleeve up. 

 

Personally though,  I think comparing the effects of covid with Ebola is absurd

 

 

No I'm not. Thanks for trying to think for me and reinterpret my thoughts, but really, no, I wouldn't expect anyone to take a hit for me.

I'm stating the outcome of your action, and it is to free ride on everyone else in society 

[yorkie1999]

Just be glad you're not living in Russia cos you're having Sputnik V whether you want it or not, and it hasn't even completed all the trials.

  Personally, i think it's a great idea that the vaccine is going to be administered  to people in alphabetical order.

Edited 5 December 2020 by yorkie1999

[CosbehFox]

I had to pop Merry Hill yesterday to pick up a present, click and collect. 
 

I’ll be very surprised if we don’t have another increase in two weeks. To be fair nothing wrong with what the shops or the centre themselves are doing, just human behaviour is head scratching 

Edited 5 December 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[Dahnsouff]

As far as I see, there are 3 good reasons to have the vaccine, and 3 for not having it

Have the vaccine because

1. You are vulnerable and prevention is clearly advisable
2. You believe that achieving some society wide protection is to the benefit of society at large
3. You believe helping to validate the vaccine is also of benefit to society, both near and far

Not having the vaccine because

1. You do not believe it is your role to further validate the vaccine, but the job of Governments
2. You do not feel vulnerable, so it is not your job to take the risk
3. You are part of some wider societal group who discourages its adoption, such as its fiction, conspiracy, etc

Missed a critical reason not too specifically, you are not advised to for medical reasons

Edited 5 December 2020 by Dahnsouff

[Guest Fktf]

34 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

As far as I see, there are 3 good reasons to have the vaccine, and 3 for not having it

Have the vaccine because

1. You are vulnerable and prevention is clearly advisable
2. You believe that achieving some society wide protection is to the benefit of society at large
3. You believe helping to validate the vaccine is also of benefit to society, both near and far

Not having the vaccine because

1. You do not believe it is your role to further validate the vaccine, but the job of Governments
2. You do not feel vulnerable, so it is not your job to take the risk
3. You are part of some wider societal group who discourages its adoption, such as its fiction, conspiracy, etc

Missed a critical reason not too specifically, you are not advised to for medical reasons

Your 3 initial points on the not having the vaccine list seem to rest on someone not wanting to take personal risk, and let others do it instead.

 

1. Govts cant validate the vaccine without people taking it, so someone with that view is shifting the testing burden on to others in society (many of us will have done this, I wouldn't have volunteered for phase 1 trials)

 

2. We can't reach herd immunity without enough non vulnerable people taking the vaccine, so refusing on personal risk is shifting the burden of reaching herd immunity on to others in society. 

 

3. These groups are simply a burden on society full stop.

Edited 5 December 2020 by Fktf

[Dahnsouff]

13 minutes ago, Fktf said:

Your 3 initial points on the not having the vaccine list seem to rest on someone not wanting to take personal risk, and let others do it instead.

 

1. Govts cant validate the vaccine without people taking it, so someone with that view is shifting the testing burden on to others in society (many of us will have done this, I wouldn't have volunteered for phase 1 trials)

 

2. We can't reach herd immunity without enough non vulnerable people taking the vaccine, so refusing on personal risk is shifting the burden of reaching herd immunity on to others in society. 

 

3. These groups are simply a burden on society full stop.

Was purposefully trying not to be provocative to either standpoint (despite my personal opinion), as failure to understand, not accept, opposing opinions is not helpful in this instance  I would suggest

[Crinklyfox]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

As far as I see, there are 3 good reasons to have the vaccine, and 3 for not having it

Have the vaccine because

1. You are vulnerable and prevention is clearly advisable
2. You believe that achieving some society wide protection is to the benefit of society at large
3. You believe helping to validate the vaccine is also of benefit to society, both near and far

Not having the vaccine because

1. You do not believe it is your role to further validate the vaccine, but the job of Governments
2. You do not feel vulnerable, so it is not your job to take the risk
3. You are part of some wider societal group who discourages its adoption, such as its fiction, conspiracy, etc

Missed a critical reason not too specifically, you are not advised to for medical reasons

I'd just like to add another reason to get the vaccine to the three you have stated and which I accept.  That is to prevent me passing on the virus to others; we don't know if the vaccine will achieve that effect yet but it's probable.  Since last March I've had the worry of catching the virus and giving it to my wife, who is both a similar age to me (we're both retired) plus she's a diabetic.  I'm also a member of a bowls club and have avoided going to the club at all in 2020 for the same reason, most of the members are elderly and many have 'underlying conditions'.  I wouldn't want to be responsible for anyone else's illness and potentially death through my actions.  Getting the vaccine will be a weight off my shoulders.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Crinklyfox said:

I'd just like to add another reason to get the vaccine to the three you have stated and which I accept.  That is to prevent me passing on the virus to others; we don't know if the vaccine will achieve that effect yet but it's probable.  Since last March I've had the worry of catching the virus and giving it to my wife, who is both a similar age to me (we're both retired) plus she's a diabetic.  I'm also a member of a bowls club and have avoided going to the club at all in 2020 for the same reason, most of the members are elderly and many have 'underlying conditions'.  I wouldn't want to be responsible for anyone else's illness and potentially death through my actions.  Getting the vaccine will be a weight off my shoulders.

Excellent point, and my bad for missing this obvious reason, one also very important too me as a father and husband.  

[Guest Fktf]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

Was purposefully trying not to be provocative to either standpoint (despite my personal opinion), as failure to understand, not accept, opposing opinions is not helpful in this instance  I would suggest

Take your point. The issue with not being provocative is that sometimes it means not discussing the true issue, which was my aim.

[dsr-burnley]

3 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

As far as I see, there are 3 good reasons to have the vaccine, and 3 for not having it

Have the vaccine because

1. You are vulnerable and prevention is clearly advisable
2. You believe that achieving some society wide protection is to the benefit of society at large
3. You believe helping to validate the vaccine is also of benefit to society, both near and far

Not having the vaccine because

1. You do not believe it is your role to further validate the vaccine, but the job of Governments
2. You do not feel vulnerable, so it is not your job to take the risk
3. You are part of some wider societal group who discourages its adoption, such as its fiction, conspiracy, etc

Missed a critical reason not too specifically, you are not advised to for medical reasons

I think you are being disingenuous there.  Why do you think that reasons 1,2 and 3 for not taking the vaccine are good reasons?  They don't seem to be good reasons to me.

 

There are two good reasons that I can see for not taking the vaccine.  One, you covered in your PS.  The other is that you don't trust it because it has not been tested long term.  I personally don't agree that the second is a valid enough reason - I might have 6 motnhs ago, but now I'll take anything - but I certainly wouldn't decry the right of anyone else to feel that way.  

 

I have a family hiostory.  My mother was told to take thalidomide for morning sickness when she was suffering badly when pregnant with my older brother.  She refused because she didn't trust it.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

How are we supposed to ever get here immunity if the vaccine only lasts for 90 days? That’s really disappointing.

[Paninistickers]

2 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

As far as I see, there are 3 good reasons to have the vaccine, and 3 for not having it

Have the vaccine because

1. You are vulnerable and prevention is clearly advisable
2. You believe that achieving some society wide protection is to the benefit of society at large
3. You believe helping to validate the vaccine is also of benefit to society, both near and far

Not having the vaccine because

1. You do not believe it is your role to further validate the vaccine, but the job of Governments
2. You do not feel vulnerable, so it is not your job to take the risk
3. You are part of some wider societal group who discourages its adoption, such as its fiction, conspiracy, etc

Missed a critical reason not too specifically, you are not advised to for medical reasons

Hardly  very balanced. All three of your points in the 'against' camp are loaded to make that side seem very self centred nor anright wing loony

 

1. Nobody should have to do anything. It should be a choice..like veganism, like not using social media, like voting for a political party, like driving electric cars. Imagine being told you can only travel abroad if you can prove you vote Labour. 

 

2. If covid were allowed to 'rip through' the portion of fit under 50s who chose not to have a vaccine, very few would end up in hospital (students in halls this autumn have proved that) So no overwhelming of the NHS which is the whole point of lockdown. Those poor few vulnerable patients who have been inoculated but caught it anyway will have  room in hospital, like flu season. 

 

3. Maybe, just maybe, unless it's absolutely essential, it's both prudent and understandable to be cautious you pump into your body.  E numbers, plastic toxins, antibiotics, processed meat,  hormones, salt. Again, no individual should be, say, banned from obtaining  a mortgage unless they prove they eat chlorinated  meat. The notion is absurd. 

 

 

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

13 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I think you are being disingenuous there.  Why do you think that reasons 1,2 and 3 for not taking the vaccine are good reasons?  They don't seem to be good reasons to me.

 

There are two good reasons that I can see for not taking the vaccine.  One, you covered in your PS.  The other is that you don't trust it because it has not been tested long term.  I personally don't agree that the second is a valid enough reason - I might have 6 motnhs ago, but now I'll take anything - but I certainly wouldn't decry the right of anyone else to feel that way.  

 

I have a family hiostory.  My mother was told to take thalidomide for morning sickness when she was suffering badly when pregnant with my older brother.  She refused because she didn't trust it.

Perhaps I should have said conceivable reasons and the same for the same for the 3 anti reasons, just that they are reasons you could imagine might be important to an individual. 
You clearly have a reason with the reference to family history and thalidomide, and it is quite impossible to say such a thing could not happen again, so fair enough.

[yorkie1999]

19 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

How are we supposed to ever get here immunity if the vaccine only lasts for 90 days? That’s really disappointing.

To get control over the virus It's important that everyone takes it when there is enough of it, the virus is bound to disappear in this country if no-one can catch it,  the problem will be stopping it coming here again, but maybe we can put measures in place to keep the virus out, this is what the "i'm not taking it cos i'm not at riskers" need to understand. It's not just about protecting the nhs, it's about protecting the country. Besides, as i understand  how it works is that you don't need antibodies to be present in your body forever, it's your immune system that can reproduce antibodies itself as and when they are required through memory of being previously subjected to the vaccine.

Edited 5 December 2020 by yorkie1999

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Paninistickers said:

Hardly  very balanced. All three of your points in the 'against' camp are loaded to make that side seem very self centred nor anright wing loony

 

1. Nobody should have to do anything. It should be a choice..like veganism, like not using social media, like voting for a political party, like driving electric cars. Imagine being told you can only travel abroad if you can prove you vote Labour. 

 

2. If covid were allowed to 'rip through' the portion of fit under 50s who chose not to have a vaccine, very few would end up in hospital (students in halls this autumn have proved that) So no overwhelming of the NHS which is the whole point of lockdown. Those poor few vulnerable patients who have been inoculated but caught it anyway will have  room in hospital, like flu season. 

 

3. Maybe, just maybe, unless it's absolutely essential, it's both prudent and understandable to be cautious you pump into your body.  E numbers, plastic toxins, antibiotics, processed meat,  hormones, salt. Again, no individual should be, say, banned from obtaining  a mortgage unless they prove they eat chlorinated  meat. The notion is absurd. 

 

 

 

 

Before you accuse me of choosing self-entered reasons for my against vaccination items, and then claim not to be so, perhaps your response requires proof reading....as all of your responses boils down to liberty and self autonomy being more important than society as a whole.

[dsr-burnley]

14 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

How are we supposed to ever get here immunity if the vaccine only lasts for 90 days? That’s really disappointing.

If you're reading the report that says the vaccine and/or catching the disease lasts only 90 days, stop worrying.  The scientists concerned have been counting the number of antibodies and deciding theoretically that only those people with lots of antibodies are immune.

 

If they had lifted their heads up from their theoretical desks and looked at what is actually happening in the real world,. they would have noticed that up to the end of June, about 170,000 people had tested positive for coronavirus and survived.  (Obviously many more had had it but weren't tested.)  That's about 1 in 400 of the population.

 

Since the beginning of October, which is more than 90 days after every single one of those people had been found positive, and therefore had given them time to lose their immunity - there have been over a million positive tests.  On the law of averages, that should mean that 2,500 of them would be people who had tested positive before June.  and how many have we had who have tested positive twice, three+ months apart?  So far as I know, nil.  If the theory says there should be 2,500 and the practice says there are nil, then the theory is wrong.

[dsr-burnley]

9 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Before you accuse me of choosing self-entered reasons for my against vaccination items, and then claim not to be so, perhaps your response requires proof reading....as all of your responses boils down to liberty and self autonomy being more important than society as a whole.

If I could chip in, it's more nuanced than that.  Liberty of the individual is important unless you live in Brave New World.  Protection of society is important unless you live in Anarchy.  I doubt that either you or Paninistickers want to live in either place; but you have differing views on how the two should be balanced one with the other.

[Paninistickers]

5 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Before you accuse me of choosing self-entered reasons for my against vaccination items, and then claim not to be so, perhaps your response requires proof reading....as all of your responses boils down to liberty and self autonomy being more important than society as a whole.

No no no..sorry but you are being simplistic and deciding tompigeon hole my comments as some kind of libertarian right wing nut job. 

 

There's room for individual rights and acting for society. It's about fairness.

 

As an aside,  Check out german public opinion right now as an example. A left leaning, socially democratic,  social capitalist nation who are really sceptical with the whole thing. They really do have experience of sacrificing self for the greater good in the old DDR. It's simply  not healthy to have they state making all our individual decisions.