SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

So...

I ask the caf.

I it not time the UK Government update their symptoms list

Should not anyone who has a cough/cold/snotty nose/gastric issue have to stay home and book a test now?

It seems ridiculous that they are only looking for a "new continuous cough," a "loss of taste and smell," or a high temperature.

Someone at work had a "head cold" and tested positive on an asymptomatic test
I do think the symptoms list needs updating. The number of people who now report - headache, and then headcold, loss of appetite/gastric upset as their main symptoms is increasing.

I do wonder how much of this new mutation's extra spreading capability might come down to the symptoms changing rather than its transmissibility as such.

That said - the testing system is already under massive strain so I doubt it can handle everyone who has a cold as well.
 
I do think the symptoms list needs updating. The number of people who now report - headache, and then headcold, loss of appetite/gastric upset as their main symptoms is increasing.

I do wonder how much of this new mutation's extra spreading capability might come down to the symptoms changing rather than its transmissibility as such.

That said - the testing system is already under massive strain so I doubt it can handle everyone who has a cold as well.
But we have these rapid tests! Rapid tests that work on people with symptoms but basically do not work on the asymptomatic

One can come up with one's own system of using PCR and lateral flow but I don't think there is anyway we should be letting people with symptoms other than the"three" walk about at this point
 
But we have these rapid tests! Rapid tests that work on people with symptoms but basically do not work on the asymptomatic

One can come up with one's own system of using PCR and lateral flow but I don't think there is anyway we should be letting people with symptoms other than the"three" walk about at this point
Arguably though - that's the point of a lockdown. You're not just walking about.

Testing people with the rapid tests who are going into work - with/without symptoms is maybe viable. I don't know how many of those tests they have - but if they can get them into factories, warehouses etc then most larger employers (even if they just have a qualified first aider, or safety officer on site) could be instructed to use them.
 
Has anyone got any statistics on how many total fatalities per age group in the UK.
 
The question is to what level you're willing to impinge of people's liberties and how much safer would that make them. On the one extreme you have people that would be happy for the government to pass laws preventing people from leaving their house, enforcing it with the military and imprisoning people for failing to comply (China effectively). On the other extreme you have people who don't believe the virus exists at all. As is often the case both extremes scare the shit out of me.

It would be interesting to see what level of safety differing people would be willing to give up their freedoms to achieve. Would some people accept annual restrictions to reduce the yearly NHS crises? Whilst not comparable to covid excess deaths in England/Wales in the Winter of 2017/2018 were estimated at 50,100. Should we have locked down back then in hindsight? Should we have to wear masks every Winter?

My view in that scenario would be no. I would not "give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety". Although my response was the same to the swath of restrictions brought under the guise of protecting us from terrorism.

In terms of the Covid response I think it's been all over the place. I think restrictions have been made based on zero data that are likely to have actually worsened the problem (e.g. 10pm curfew). I think that restrictions have been brought in without thought as to compliance which again would have worsened the problem, meaning a lighter restriction would counter-intuitively see greater compliance and reduced spread (e.g. plunging London into tier four on 19th, causing thousands of people to flee, spreading the new strain across the country). I think that some restrictions have been placed where the social/economic cost is far worse than the benefit (e.g. closing Covid secure hospitality venues and forcing people to drink together in their homes). We're also applying the same rules to differing categories of risk which to me is inane. My risk profile (having not been within 2 metres of anyone 70+ since March) is completely different to a care home worker and yet we're treated equally. For me that means cracking a pistachio with a sledge hammer; for them the rules may well have been too lax throughout.

Your reasoning may be confusing for some because you raise two very different points:
- The first one is about the level of individual liberties that should be sacrificed
- The other one is about the consistency of public policies

Covid 19 could have been managed and solved in different ways and, the worst way has been adopted.
Its the transparency of the whole saga which has been most worrying for me. People with legitimate concerns over the the flaws in the PCR test, the constant lockdowns or the efficacy of the vaccine seemed to be have been grouped into the "Covidiots" total hoax/anti vax group without a fair hearing. The government response to the crisis has been shameful and their lack of communication to people with valid questions is pathetic. The media doesn't seem to be much better with a constant focus on creating the "scariest/most fear mongering" headline they can devise.
I have been grouped here into the "people who don't respect the healthcare system and the deaths". :rolleyes:
Yeah I don’t think there has been much fearmongering. People seem to think that actually reporting news and estimates is fearmongering when it’s actually... news.
If anything people aren't scared enough. There's so little respect or worry, more annoyance that we're in the situation.

The population can be divided into different categories in terms of the way they absorb information about Covid.

It is true that an important section of the population don't care. However, it is also true that some are overly petrified, stressed and concerned about news and future. I know some relatively young people whose only one interactions - in the real life - are cashiers since several months. They go out only to go to the supermarkets once a week as they are working from home, retired or unemployed.

Impact of media news on mental health is huge for some vulnerable people.

1. What’s the concern about false positives?Who gives a shit? Seriously. Conspiracy muppets have been banging this drum for ages. Trying to pretend this epidemic isn’t as serious as it seems. Now we have hospitals literally on their knees and it still worries you that some people might have been inconvenienced by being asked to restrict their movements when it might not have been necessary. That’s what worries you?!

Democracy is based on the trust citizens place on politicians and the political system. Individuals are free to distrust politicians or be sceptical about some topics for good or bad reasons, and they are not always "Conspiracy theorists".

The vast majority of those who disagree with political measures are not "Conspiracy muppets". The vast majority of Republicans/supporters of Trump do not agree with the US Capitol attacks.

In theory, one can agree with BBC/Westminster on the assessment of the covid situation at 75% and strongly disagree about the remaining 25%

The two extremes I can identify are:
- The Conspiracy muppets who are generally repetitive, boring, paranoids and who confuse causality with coincidence. *Depressing*
- The Parrots who repeat what they hear from mainstream media and who take everything for granted. No critical thinking. *Appalling*

The Truth is in the middle.

1. I was just giving my general view of the whole thing so far. I suppose concern was the wrong word. I was interested in the effectiveness and accuracy of the PCR test during 2020. I wasn't trying to link the issues of PCR test to the situation we have now. I was just skeptical over the PCR test numbers that occurred throughout 2020. I just wanted to make sure that the data was correct and hear other opinions on it. Obviously the position we are in now shows that Covid is once again rising.
Your question is legitimate about the efficiency of a test but more critical aspects are:
  1. Number of people hospitalized i.e. NHS overwhelmed?
  2. Death toll i.e. the direct impact of Covid on life expectancy
  3. Number of people who suffer from the consequences of Covid i.e. the long-term impact of Covid on the well-being of people tested positive at some point
I think you are worrying over nothing Wilford.you are only meant to take a test *when you have symptoms* (or in other specific situations).
Not when you come into contact with someone with the virus.

Not when a family member gets the virus. Not when you want to go back to work. If you have symptoms and you test positive that's two pieces of evidence you have the virus, not just one. The far far far bigger problem is no one understands the rules

In France, a test is mandatory for somebody identified as a contact of person tested positive.
 
In France, a test is mandatory for somebody identified as a contact of person tested positive.
When?

I read that before 4-5 days of contact/infection the virus may not show up, even using PCR
 
Germany has hit 40k deaths today...their population is roughly 25% larger than ours.

We have double the death count.

Todays figures:

508 deaths
55k new cases
 
Germany has hit 40k deaths today...their population is roughly 25% larger than ours.

We have double the death count.

Todays figures:

508 deaths
55k new cases
How does Berlin look in comparison to say London?

Genuine question.
 
The question is to what level you're willing to impinge of people's liberties and how much safer would that make them.

On the one extreme you have people that would be happy for the government to pass laws preventing people from leaving their house, enforcing it with the military and imprisoning people for failing to comply (China effectively).

On the other extreme you have people who don't believe the virus exists at all.

As is often the case both extremes scare the shit out of me.

No.

The underlined is happening.
The bold is not.

The vast overwhelming majority want clear and sensible restrictions that tighten and loosen as necessary, with all following them.

The two extremes you speak of are not even vaguely equal. The underlined has become a threat to public health. The bold has received zero traction or support from any meaningful number of people. Nobody wants it.

If you believe what you wrote, change your news sources immediately because you’re wrong. No if’s, buts or coconuts.
 
UK has two million vaccinated so far with 13 million planned by mid Feb. AstraZeneca have said they will supply 2 million a week soon.

Should make a real dent in the death toll but it's a tragedy many will die becasue we couldn't hold out over chrimbo. People may have lived to see many more will have seen their last.
 
UK has two million vaccinated so far with 13 million planned by mid Feb. AstraZeneca have said they will supply 2 million a week soon.

Should make a real dent in the death toll but it's a tragedy many will die becasue we couldn't hold out over chrimbo. People may have lived to see many more will have seen their last.
Many will die because the R number has been> 1.0 since June. What's Christmas for to do with it. Christmas is a scapegoat for the government
 
Just saw reports where some people reacted badly days after taking the shot. Are they false reports?
A lot of people are reacting badly to it. Apparently the NHS is struggling with doctors and nurses out of action after taking it.. it's thought that if you've had COVID already You'll get a worse reaction ( according to my doctor friend)

Don't think anyone has died from it. It's safe for nearly everyone
 
Just saw reports where some people reacted badly days after taking the shot. Are they false reports?

Don't think those reports are false, sure I seen them after the first round where people who had the jab shouldn't have had it. There are always certain people who will react badly to some vaccines depending on what's in them. Can't remember what the patient's actually had now which caused them to react. It was a small number and I think it was well reported around doctors/hospitals that certain types of patients should not be given certain vaccines? Not 100% sure if that's all correct but just trying to remember now.
 
A lot of people are reacting badly to it. Apparently the NHS is struggling with doctors and nurses out of action after taking it.. it's thought that if you've had COVID already You'll get a worse reaction ( according to my doctor friend)

Don't think anyone has died from it. It's safe for nearly everyone

You’re going to have to attach numbers and proof to claims like this. Especially for the bold.

Everyone should have to. Without statistics and evidence your comments will be parroted everywhere and idiots will quote them as fact

2 Million vaccines. There will be some allergic reactions.

Be more responsible.

Edit : Quickly sourced link.Here
 
You’re going to have to attach numbers and proof to claims like this. Especially for the bold.

Everyone should have to. Without statistics and evidence your comments will be parroted everywhere and idiots will quote them as fact

2 Million vaccines. There will be some allergic reactions.

Be more responsible.

Based on the clinical trials you can expect a substantial number of people to have fairly significant side effects. Especially after the second dose (or if you’ve already had covid). Fever, fatigue, headache etc. Basically like a mild flu. Can last a day or two and might make you too sick to work.

To be honest, that’s the sort of information which should be shared. So you don’t get idiots pretending there’s a conspiracy to hide this from them. Everyone who actually gets the vaccine will have this all explained before their first jab.
 
You’re going to have to attach numbers and proof to claims like this. Especially for the bold.

Everyone should have to. Without statistics and evidence your comments will be parroted everywhere and idiots will quote them as fact

2 Million vaccines. There will be some allergic reactions.

Be more responsible.
I cannot do that because no figures exist. As I said, this is all I have been told from my doctor friend. It's second hand evidence. Take it with a pinch of salt, etc. But, paraphrasing what my mate said:

The NHS are struggling. They are at a critical mass of COVID patients and cannot broadly take an increase from that.

At the same time, the NHS staff are being vaccinated but now some are off because of the vaccination or at least are unwell. The vaccine seems to have a stronger reaction if you've already had the virus before, which of course huge numbers of NHS staff have. (He didn't say which vaccine he was talking about)

Sorry I can't give you more than my doctor mate told me.

But we have a NHS doctor who posts on here who said he "had COVID twice and the vaccine had hit him harder than COVID"
 
Had my vaccine on Thursday. I always react badly to vaccines, but it felt as if the peak of my COVID hit me in one evening. I felt terrible. I’m back to normal now though. I’ve had COVID twice already and I’d say my reaction was the worst I’ve felt.

Nevertheless, take the vaccine when it’s offered to you.

My thoughts over the last few weeks [more in quote]
..
 
Based on the clinical trials you can expect a substantial number of people to have fairly significant side effects. Especially after the second dose (or if you’ve already had covid). Fever, fatigue, headache etc. Basically like a mild flu. Can last a day or two and might make you too sick to work.

To be honest, that’s the sort of information which should be shared. So you don’t get idiots pretending there’s a conspiracy to hide this from them. Everyone who actually gets the vaccine will have this all explained before their first jab.

Aye. I’m not suggesting that facts should not be shared. Or that there won’t be some experiencing some side effects

But trotting out “The NHS is struggling with it taking out doctors and nurses” is almost certainly alarmist bollocks.

If it’s not, at the very least, anyone posting should have to provide a source.

We all need to be better. Especially when it’s easy to be better.
 
I cannot do that because no figures exist. As I said, this is all I have been told from my doctor friend. It's second hand evidence. Take it with a pinch of salt, etc. But, paraphrasing what my mate said:

The NHS are struggling. They are at a critical mass of COVID patients and cannot broadly take an increase from that.

At the same time, the NHS staff are being vaccinated but now some are off because of the vaccination or at least are unwell. The vaccine seems to have a stronger reaction if you've already had the virus before, which of course huge numbers of NHS staff have. (He didn't say which vaccine he was talking about)

Sorry I can't give you more than my doctor mate told me.

But we have a NHS doctor who posts on here who said he "had COVID twice and the vaccine had hit him harder than COVID"

This forum will turn into a Covidiot YouTube video comment section if all the evidence you need to post “The vaccine is taking out nurses and doctors” is ‘My mate and a poster here’. You haven’t qualified anything. Type of vaccine. Age. No proof of any kind.

Others may enjoy wild speculation. I guess I can just put a shit load of people on ignore but that feels daft.
 
This forum will turn into a Covidiot YouTube video comment section if all the evidence you need to post “The vaccine is taking out nurses and doctors” is ‘My mate and a poster here’. You haven’t qualified anything. Type of vaccine. Age. No proof of any kind.

Others may enjoy wild speculation. I guess I can just put a shit load of people on ignore but that feels daft.
“I ALWAYS REACT BAD TO VACCINES” = Is your evidence? Jesus wept.

Quit. It’s irresponsible mate.
I understand your reaction . When BFA Hernandez posted that I initially thought he must be a hypochondriac.

It's a gutteral reaction, if someone goes against the prevailing wind of public opinion, they must be conspiracists or idiots.

Ive said it's second hand evidence, worse than circumstantial. I provided my source (my friend who is an NHS doctor).

For what it's worth the 3 people I know of who have had the vaccine so far didn't have major issues. One said she feels like her body was doing "something", and felt hot.

I'm not going to apologise for passing on information from my NHS doctor mate. If it was "my mate down the pub" sure.

In fact I've just written all that and I think that there is already studies showing people having worse reactions of they've had the viruses (of other vaccines). Let me see
 
Many will die because the R number has been> 1.0 since June. What's Christmas for to do with it. Christmas is a scapegoat for the government

Erm, I've already highlighted that.

In case you didn't know there's a new strain as well. A hard lockdown should've happend early to mid December soon as it was clear and to not let things go until on early Jan. The earlier you lockdown properly the better and quicker the cases come down, those weeks have seen the virus grow out of control. Feel free if you disagree and don't want to take that onboard. I'm talking about many more extra deaths being added so close to getting vaccinated.
 
It’s irresponsible to spread rumours about people reacting badly to the vaccines. We need as many people as possible to buy in fully and take them or we will continue in this feckin circle for years!

my father in law got his. First shot, no reaction. 2nd shot he felt fluey for a couple of days. That’s a small price to pay.

a small % may react badly but compared to the high percentage who have no side effects that’s the price to pay. Otherwise do we take no vaccines and let this thing continue to kill by the thousands and continue to mutate? Come on; grow up! Do the right thing; take the feckin shot and we can argue semantics afterwards
 
This isn't what you want @UnrelatedPsuedo

But it will have to do for now

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6520/1022

Most people will escape “severe” side effects, defined as those that prevent daily activity. Fewer than 2% of recipients of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines developed severe fevers of 39°C to 40°C. ...


Other transient side effects would likely affect even more people. The independent board that conducted the interim analysis of Moderna's huge trial found that severe side effects included fatigue in 9.7% of participants, muscle pain in 8.9%, joint pain in 5.2%, and headache in 4.5%. In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, the numbers were lower: Severe side effects included fatigue (3.8%) and headache (2%).

But that's a higher rate of severe reactions than people may be accustomed to. “This is higher reactogenicity than is ordinarily seen with most flu vaccines, even the high-dose ones,” says Arnold Monto, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

Bear in mind side affects can be due to a strong immune response. NHS staff will likely already have had the virus...

But let's pretend I'm anti-vax
 
So...

I ask the caf.

I it not time the UK Government update their symptoms list

Should not anyone who has a cough/cold/snotty nose/gastric issue have to stay home and book a test now?

It seems ridiculous that they are only looking for a "new continuous cough," a "loss of taste and smell," or a high temperature.

Someone at work had a "head cold" and tested positive on an asymptomatic test
Actually, in some countries, they have made it mandatory for anyone who reports to a clinic with any of the symptoms of a respiratory infection to immediately either
a) Self isolate and take a test. You can step out after a negative test
b) Self isolate for at least x number of days and skip the test

As you can imagine, this has a huge burden on the testing capacity as it will inundate it with a lot of negative results. So, the answer is, it depends on the situation. How many cases vs how much capacity you have left. Forcing a mandatory stay at home order may be easier on the system for anyone who presents symptoms to a doctor may be more practical when the system is overwhelmed.

Just saw reports where some people reacted badly days after taking the shot. Are they false reports?
This is rather sensitive. There are a few things to consider.
1) From a rough google search, there is literally hardly any news about people reacting badly. It's all mostly repeating the same few cases in early to mid Dec. Considering millions more people have been vaccinated now than during Dec, if it were really a problem, we would be seeing repeated reports up until now.

2) It is very common when taking a vaccine, for people to have immune responses. For example, a fever. Feeling unwell. Feeling the chills. Etc. That is your immune system building antibodies. Some frontliners may just be experiencing a stronger response and needed to take a day off. There is nothing dangerous about that and they represent only a small percentage of cases. This must be emphasised.

3) Known potential problems, like history of allergic reaction, have already been documented and are being communicated and checked up front before anyone takes a vaccine.

4) While it is important to ensure we address everything transparently, considering the sensitive times we are living in, we must also not allow hearsay to become fact. Everything should be fact checked. If you cannot find anything, in all likelihood, there is nothing.
 
Last edited:
No.

The underlined is happening.
The bold is not.

The vast overwhelming majority want clear and sensible restrictions that tighten and loosen as necessary, with all following them.

The two extremes you speak of are not even vaguely equal. The underlined has become a threat to public health. The bold has received zero traction or support from any meaningful number of people. Nobody wants it.

If you believe what you wrote, change your news sources immediately because you’re wrong. No if’s, buts or coconuts.

Do you believe that achieving "Covid Zero" as many groups advocated despite widespread community transmission could be achieved in a more libertarian manner? If so I'd file that under disingenuous.

In this thread alone there's been numerous posts praising China's reaction and lamenting the fact that we didn't adopt a far more authoritarian approach.
 
Here you go @UnrelatedPsuedo . Not from a scientific paper, but hope it will do

For a fraction of people, getting these first COVID-19 vaccines could be unpleasant—more than the usual unpleasantness of getting a shot. They might make you feel sick for a day or two, even though they contain no whole viruses to actually infect you. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are quite “reactogenic”—meaning they stimulate a strong immune response that can cause temporary but uncomfortable sore arms, fevers, chills, and headaches. In other words, getting them might suck a little, but it’s nowhere near as bad as COVID-19 itself.

Reactogenicity happens to some degree with all vaccines and is not in itself a safety concern. Vaccines, after all, work by tricking the body into thinking it has been infected, and these “symptoms” are an indication it has successfully done so. The fever, fatigue, and other signs we associate with colds or flu or even COVID-19 are typically caused by our immune responses, not the virus itself. “A reactogenic vaccine is not the same thing as an unsafe vaccine,” says Saad Omer, a vaccinologist and the director of the Yale Institute for Global Health.

Compared with existing vaccines, the two COVID-19 ones from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are a little more reactogenic than flu vaccines but are roughly on par with the shingles vaccine, which can interfere with daily life for a couple of days in some people. (Moderna’s also seems to be a little more reactogenic than Pfizer’s, possibly because it’s a larger dose.) These vaccines have enough of a kick that the CDC suggested hospitals stagger vaccinations among staff, so an entire unit isn’t out on a given day. Nursing homes as well are concerned about vaccinating all staff and residents at once, which could reduce staff availability at the same time residents need more care.

As the United States embarks on its largest, most complex vaccination campaign in history, experts say vaccine providers need to set expectations for people getting the shots. If someone who gets a vaccine is unpleasantly surprised, they might not come back for a second dose or their experience might sway their friends and family against it. Managing expectations is about making sure that Americans are willing to get the vaccine. “There has to be pretty good transparency about what you’re going to experience,” says Deborah Fuller, a microbiologist and vaccine researcher at the University of Washington.

The sore arms, fevers, and headaches are a result of innate immunity, the first of the immune system’s two main branches. Innate immunity is a blunt tool; it wants to fight anything foreign. When you get a COVID-19 vaccine, the cells in your arm take up mRNA that encodes a version of the coronavirus’s spike protein. The virus uses spike protein as a key to get into our cells, but unattached from the rest of the virus, the spike protein can’t infect anything. Still, the innate immune system recognizes the vaccine materials and the resulting spike protein as foreign.

This signal sets off a reaction that can feel a lot like getting sick. More immune cells get recruited to your arm, which may become inflamed and sore, activating even more immune cells that might cause whole-body symptoms such as fever and fatigue.
Some of those immune cells will belong to the second branch of the immune system, adaptive immunity. These are the targeted assassins of the immune system. They include B cells, which make antibodies that can bind to the spike protein and T cells that can recognize infected cells. Adaptive immunity is what will specifically protect you from COVID-19. And to get there, you first need the innate immune system to recognize the foreign protein and turn on the adaptive immune system. A reactogenic vaccine isn’t necessarily a more effective vaccine, but it is a sign that the first step is working.
Reactogenicity is also distinct from anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction that has occurred in a handful of people getting the Pfizer vaccine in the U.S. and the U.K. Anaphylaxis is an immune reaction as well, but it begins within minutes after exposure, with dramatic drops in blood pressure and difficulty breathing. It’s still unclear what in the shots triggered an allergic reaction, though the vaccines contain sugar as a cryoprotectant and salts to get the right acidity, in addition to the active ingredients. The CDC recommends 30 minutes of observation after COVID-19 vaccination for anyone with a history of anaphylaxis and 15 minutes for everyone else. Anaphylaxis is very treatable with epinephrine (a.k.a. an EpiPen) and antihistamines, and the vaccine recipients who experienced it have all recovered. The CDC and FDA have a vaccine adverse-events monitoring network that will scrutinize anaphylaxis as well other possible serious and longer-term side effects. These side effects are all different from normal and common reactogenicity, which should last only a couple of days.

The reactogenicity of the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna is likely largely due to the bubble of fat used to package the mRNA. These bubbles, called lipid nanoparticles, seem to stimulate the immune system in animals even when empty. In the past, vaccine makers sometimes have added a second ingredient to a vaccine, called an adjuvant, to enhance the immune response. The lipid nanoparticle, originally designed to protect the mRNA and smuggle it inside cells, just happened to act as an adjuvant as well. “It’s like a three-in-one package,” Fuller says.
Lipid nanoparticles are an active area of innovation for designing future mRNA vaccines, of which Pfizer/BioNTech’s and Moderna’s are the first two. The COVID-19 pandemic finally validated the years of expectations about the technology. When I spoke with Drew Weissman, a mRNA vaccine pioneer at the University of Pennsylvania, not long after the first clinical trial results that proved how well these vaccines worked, he was optimistic about the future of mRNA vaccines. The technology could be applied to improve existing vaccines, such as for the flu, and make new ones against other diseases or even cancer. His one note of caution was on reactogenicity. “We’re working on ways of reducing that,” he told me. “I’m not sure people will tolerate it for influenza vaccines or other vaccines.” For context, less than half of adults in the U.S. got the flu vaccine last year.

But COVID-19 on the whole is much worse than the flu. It’s already killed more than 300,000 Americans this year, compared with the 60,000 who die from the flu in a very bad year. And even for people who recover, illness from the coronavirus can last much longer and feel much worse. A sore arm or fever for a day, in contrast, might not be so bad.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/12/what-expect-when-you-get-covid-19-vaccine/617428/

Last I will say on the subject.
 
Actually, in some countries, they have made it mandatory for anyone who reports to a clinic with any of the symptoms of a respiratory infection to immediately either
a) Self isolate and take a test. You can step out after a negative test
b) Self isolate for at least x number of days and skip the test

As you can imagine, this has a huge burden on the testing capacity as it will inundate it with a lot of negative results. So, the answer is, it depends on the situation. How many cases vs how much capacity you have left. Forcing a mandatory stay at home order may be easier on the system for anyone who presents symptoms to a doctor may be more practical when the system is overwhelmed.
Bear in mind we've got to the point (here in the UK) where we have literally shut down nearly everything we can because "the NHS could become overwhelmed"

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19...l-to-be-raised-to-5-highest-possible-12179280

I think that asking everyone with any and all possible symptoms cold/flu/respiratory/guttural/etc to stay at home might be better than shutting down the country?

Just a thought.
 
I understand your reaction . When BFA Hernandez posted that I initially thought he must be a hypochondriac.

It's a gutteral reaction, if someone goes against the prevailing wind of public opinion, they must be conspiracists or idiots.

Ive said it's second hand evidence, worse than circumstantial. I provided my source (my friend who is an NHS doctor).

For what it's worth the 3 people I know of who have had the vaccine so far didn't have major issues. One said she feels like her body was doing "something", and felt hot.

I'm not going to apologise for passing on information from my NHS doctor mate. If it was "my mate down the pub" sure.

In fact I've just written all that and I think that there is already studies showing people having worse reactions of they've had the viruses (of other vaccines). Let me see

You aren’t going against the prevailing wind. The trials showed both Moderna and Pfizer produced significant side effects that would make it hard to work for many people, and too hard to work in a physically and mentally exhausting job for some. That doesn’t include allergic reactions. All for a short period of time. Oxford’s vaccine creates a weaker immune response but brings similar side effects. It was slightly worse in younger people and slightly better in older people I think. Might be the case for all of them actually.
 
Last edited:
You aren’t going against the prevailing wind. The trials showed both Moderna and Pfizer produced significant side effects that would make it hard to work for many people, and too hard to work in a physically and mentally exhausting job for some. That doesn’t include allergic reactions. All for a short period of time. Oxford’s vaccine creates a weaker immune response but brings similar side effects. It was slightly worse in younger people and slightly better in older people I think.
Thank you @Brwned