The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll

[Brwned]

BAME covid19 issues in UK are sociological and not biological or genetic? So surely this isn't really an issue?

That is more of a political point than a medical one. We don't know - in a scientific sense - what the causes of these differences are. There's still a lot we don't know know about the virus. We just know those differences are so large that it would be very dangerous to not account for. We know there are some socioeconomic influences but we also have reason to belief there are biological (not necessarily genetic) influences too. Which is why the FDA specifically mentioned ethnic minorities as a group to pay special attention to, much like elderly individuals and pregnant women, in their guidelines for vaccine development.

FDA encourages the inclusion of diverse populations in all phases of vaccine clinical development. This inclusion helps to ensure that vaccines are safe and effective for everyone in the indicated populations.

- FDA strongly encourages the enrollment of populations most affected by COVID-19, specifically racial and ethnic minorities.
- Evaluation of vaccine safety and efficacy in late phase clinical development in adults should include adequate representation of elderly individuals and individuals with medical comorbidities.
- FDA encourages vaccine developers to consider early in their development programs data that might support inclusion of pregnant women and women of childbearing potential who are not actively avoiding pregnancy in prelicensure clinical trials

That is why the surgeon general (a black man, for the record) and others mentioned it before, why the companies had to invest additional resources to address the issue in vaccine trials, and why it has historically been recognised as one of the challenges in vaccine trials. Minorities are by definition less present in the population, and if you add on top their additional vaccine hesitancy and their acute distrust of being a guinea pig, there have been occasions when that section of the population wasn't properly studied, and there are reasons to believe that leads to worse health outcomes. If you accept the principle that not all treatments respond equally to all sections of society, then you accept the premise that certain sections of society should be given particular attention to. And the medical community don't care about the ongoing political movement to disregard race as a relevant characteristic, they just look at the data and act accordingly.

 

[Wibble]

You can't prove that. There is NO Certainty to anything. Some people have never got Flu vaccine and many other vaccines, so how can you say that, when there is NO Proof.

There is a statistical certainty.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make and I'm not sure you do.

 

[Wibble]

So they are IGNORANT if they refuse to take the vaccine until what they feel is right, and wait for a year. Man you need to take a close look at yourself.

Don't forget selfish.

And feelings are rarely a good basis for decisions especially if the data is ignored.

 

[Bestietom]

There is a statistical certainty.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make and I'm not sure you do.

Peoples Rights. Some people have died from reaction of tablets and vaccines so others are wary of them. Do they not have the right to refuse it, or would you rather put them up against a wall, and just shoot them. AND Yes I do know what I am talking about, and have witnessed it.

 

[Brwned]

I am not disputing this, and no need to type all of your knowledge down here. I am only disputing that people have their rights and others are scared of vaccines UNTIL they are proven. WHY are people trying to shove it down my throat that they will die. Everyone dies sometime, but you can't get away from the FACT that people have the right to be WARY of Vaccines.

People will die because they don't take an effective vaccine. That's just a fact. We have an absolute mountain of evidence about the effectivess of vaccines. And the downsides of people not taking vaccines. And the dangers of this virus. Because those consequences are literally lethal, people feel very strongly about it. Essentially, you don't have the right to go around killing someone else, even if you didn't mean to. And there's a point where rejecting a vaccine for this disease borders on that territory. It's only really defensible if you believe that "I'm not going to get covid anyway so I'm not harming myself or others" or "vaccines don't work". Anything else is people believing they are being cautious despite the contrary evidence, and in turn increasing the risk of exposing other people to their lack of caution. And those two views are not factual, at the end of the day.

The way we determine if the vaccines are effective is based on the trials that they have underwent looking at hundreds of thousands of people across the globe, and rigorous scientific assessment. It makes people feel more comfortable that their neighbour got it and they didn't get sick, but it isn't how we determine if they are proven. We know they are safe and effective, and we are just waiting for regulators to approve certain aspects of them. So if you claim that they are not proven, and you encourage other people through your words and acts not to get it, then you are indirectly endangering other people based on misinformation.

It's difficult to know what to do about that. I don't want to tell you how to live your life but there are certain things that you can't just look at and say "hey, it's his choice right". If someone decides to drive at 200mph down my street it is sort of a good thing that he has the freedom to do so, but it's mostly a bad thing because it greatly increases the risk of killing someone else exclusively due to his choice, and so I would actively try to prevent that from happening. His freedom is not limitless, not in law and not in accepted social norms.

 

[Kaos]

So they are IGNORANT if they refuse to take the vaccine until what they feel is right, and wait for a year. Man you need to take a close look at yourself.

Like I said, it would be a years worth of data by the time its available for most people. And no one is forcing anyone to take a vaccine, if you want to be selfish that's your prerogative, but I trust the science, the data that almost dates back a year, and I'd rather do my bit to help the vulnerable around me.

 

[Bestietom]

People will die because they don't take an effective vaccine. That's just a fact. We have an absolute mountain of evidence about the effectivess of vaccines. And the downsides of people not taking vaccines. And the dangers of this virus. Because those consequences are literally lethal, people feel very strongly about it. Essentially, you don't have the right to go around killing someone else, even if you didn't mean to. And there's a point where rejecting a vaccine for this disease borders on that territory. It's only really defensible if you believe that "I'm not going to get covid anyway so I'm not harming myself or others" or "vaccines don't work". Anything else is people believing they are being cautious despite the contrary evidence, and in turn increasing the risk of exposing other people to their lack of caution. And those two views are not factual, at the end of the day.

The way we determine if the vaccines are effective is based on the trials that they have underwent looking at hundreds of thousands of people across the globe, and rigorous scientific assessment. It makes people feel more comfortable that their neighbour got it and they didn't get sick, but it isn't how we determine if they are proven. We know they are safe and effective, and we are just waiting for regulators to approve certain aspects of them. So if you claim that they are not proven, and you encourage other people through your words and acts not to get it, then you are indirectly endangering other people based on misinformation.

It's difficult to know what to do about that. I don't want to tell you how to live your life but there are certain things that you can't just look at and say "hey, it's his choice right". If someone decides to drive at 200mph down my street it is sort of a good thing that he has the freedom to do so, but it's mostly a bad thing because it greatly increases the risk of killing someone else exclusively due to his choice, and so I would actively try to prevent that from happening. His freedom is not limitless, not in law and not in accepted social norms.

You surely have something you don't trust in your life. If someone handed you a drug, would you just swallow it. Yes, there has been tests on people but when it comes to these vaccines being rushed through in mass production, it could be a different proposition. This is why I am saying WARY. They have that right.

 

[SoCross]

Getting the vaccine to all countries is one thing but the process of getting them vaccinated is going to be a hell of a challenge. Fingers crossed.

 

[Brwned]

Don't forget selfish.

And feelings are rarely a good basis for decisions especially if the data is ignored.

There is also an argument that berating someone for being vaccine hesitant is also selfish, as it doesn't actually reduce vaccine hesitancy and sometimes it increases it. Source: ECDC

So if you believe that the world would be a better place if less people were hesitant about a vaccine, and you're directly working against that primarily because it feels good and right, then perhaps that's a selfish choice.

People see the world differently Wibble. Chastising them for it isn't always a good thing. There are other ways to win an argument after all.

 

[Brwned]

You surely have something you don't trust in your life. If someone handed you a drug, would you just swallow it. Yes, there has been tests on people but when it comes to these vaccines being rushed through in mass production, it could be a different proposition. This is why I am saying WARY. They have that right.

Absolutely there are lots of things I'm distrustful of in this world. Big pharma, the government, the media - there's plenty of ways in which I distrust institutions involved even in this. Some of them are based on empirical evidence and some are just a feeling or intuition. I think both are totally justifiable.

But at the end of the day I'm very trusting of the scientific process, and the regulations and incentives in place that have guided this particular process. I think if you take a bit of time out to read the guidelines for producing the vaccine from the FDA, you would get a very strong feeling that these people are exceptionally cautious and professional. And once the data comes out on the vaccines I'm very sure you'll feel that the procedures were followed properly. And when your doctor says it's the right thing to do, you should listen. I understand being hesitant now because some normal steps are still to be followed, but waiting for a year is a very different proposition.

To me the issue here is that you don't trust science, you don't really believe the claims they're making could really be proven through the methods they've used. You trust people and things you can see with your own eyes, not studies and numbers.

But I honestly think if you took a few hours a week out of every week until the vaccine is made available to you just looking at the scientific achievements that made the world what it is today, and understanding the principles that underpinned this particular work, you would absolutely be confident on this. And it's totally worth doing that because the risk of rejecting this vaccine for the wrong reason is very serious. There isn't an alternative method to save the most lives than to follow the exact procedure they've followed, and they need our cooperation to make that all worthwhile.

 

[Bestietom]

There is also an argument that berating someone for being vaccine hesitant is also selfish, as it doesn't actually reduce vaccine hesitancy and sometimes it increases it. Source: ECDC

So if you believe that the world would be a better place if less people were hesitant about a vaccine, and you're directly working against that primarily because it feels good and right, then perhaps that's a selfish choice.

People see the world differently Wibble. Chastising them for it isn't always a good thing. There are other ways to win an argument after all.

I really hope a vaccine comes sooner rather than later, but if people want to wait for theirs until they feel ready, then it is their RIGHT. People jumping on me, won't stop THEM.

 

[Brwned]

I really hope a vaccine comes sooner rather than later, but if people want to wait for theirs until they feel ready, then it is their RIGHT. People jumping on me, won't stop THEM.

Yes I agree it is your right. And if you accept the restrictions that come with it (e.g. you can't fly) then presumably you will be exercising your legal right. But some people can't get vaccinated - people with particular health conditions, kids for now and potentially long term, other people behind you in the timeline - so then you are exposing them to the risk of contracting covid. It is your right to do so but you're infringing on other people's rights not to get infected by you,and potentially to suffer serious health consequences.

And so when you choose to exercise your rights in a way that can cause others harm, they have a right to say you aren't entitled to do that. In some cases there are laws that prevent you from making that choice, in this there is no law but there is freedom of speech. We're all free to say most things we want. If you want to say what you feel then you expect (and celebrate) others doing the same.

 

[Bestietom]

Absolutely there are lots of things I'm distrustful of in this world. Big pharma, the government, the media - there's plenty of ways in which I distrust institutions involved even in this. Some of them are based on empirical evidence and some are just a feeling or intuition. I think both are totally justifiable.

But at the end of the day I'm very trusting of the scientific process, and the regulations and incentives in place that have guided this particular process. I think if you take a bit of time out to read the guidelines for producing the vaccine from the FDA, you would get a very strong feeling that these people are exceptionally cautious and professional. And once the data comes out on the vaccines I'm very sure you'll feel that the procedures were followed properly. And when your doctor says it's the right thing to do, you should listen. I understand being hesitant now because some normal steps are still to be followed, but waiting for a year is a very different proposition.

To me the issue here is that you don't trust science, you don't really believe the claims they're making could really be proven through the methods they've used. You trust people and things you can see with your own eyes, not studies and numbers.

But I honestly think if you took a few hours a week out of every week until the vaccine is made available to you just looking at the scientific achievements that made the world what it is today, and understanding the principles that underpinned this particular work, you would absolutely be confident on this. And it's totally worth doing that because the risk of rejecting this vaccine for the wrong reason is very serious. There isn't an alternative method to save the most lives than to follow the exact procedure they've followed, and they need our cooperation to make that all worthwhile.

I understand everything you have pointed out and I respect you for this. But having witnessed deaths close to me, because of tablets/vaccines I will continue to fight my corner and take my chances, and to those of you who think this is IGNORANT or SELFISH, I hope you never have to witness the same. People in this world should never point a finger at anyone as it always points back at them

 

[sglowrider]

Experts have questions about AstraZeneca's vaccine data
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/23/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-data-questions/index.html

tl:dr

1) AZ did NOT provide the underlying data that validated the efficacy, whereas the prior two mRNA vaccine trials did.

In a press release Monday, the pharmaceutical giant announced that its vaccine is on average 70% effective. However, the company did not state the data that led them to that conclusion.

"Absent knowing this, it's hard to know the significance of their findings," said Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which will review Covid-19 vaccines before they are put on the market.

When two other pharmaceutical companies, Pfizer and Moderna, released their efficacy results earlier this month, they did include the data that led to their results.

.....

2) AZ did not provide a breakdown of those that contracted COVID between vaccinated and placebo - that seems like obvious info to disclose.

In its press release, AstraZeneca said a total of 131 study participants developed Covid-19 but did not say how many of those people had received the Covid-19 vaccine and how many did not.

....

3) It was previously put on hold twice because of safety issues and yet, no safety data was provided.

The AstraZeneca trial was put on hold twice because government regulators were concerned about two study participants who became seriously ill. Regulators later allowed the trial to resume.

"I'd like to know the data specifically about those serious adverse reactions that caused the trial to go on pause," said Dr. William Schaffner, a member of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which will also be reviewing the vaccines before they're allowed on the market.

...

4) Even the own team doesn't know why there was efficacy divergence, but it will take weeks and months to figure out

The group that received the half-dose initially was 90% protected against Covid-19, and the group that received two full doses was only 62% protected.

One of the lead Oxford researchers, Dr. Adrian Hill, said it would take "probably weeks and months" to understand why the lower dose yielded much better results.

5) the sample size for the 90% was far smaller than the other vaccines

Dr. Saad Omer, a vaccine specialist at the Yale School of Medicine, noted that the group with the 90% efficacy rate was relatively small -- just 2,741 study participants -- and those results might not hold up when more people are given this regimen.

He noted a lack of clarity about several aspects of AstraZeneca's data.
"I hate to criticize fellow academics, or anyone for that matter, but releasing information like this is like asking us to try and read the tea leaves," Omer said.

 

[SiRed]

Personally i cannot wait to get vaccinated and get our lives moving once again.
How-ever, to label someone ignorant or selfish for being hesitant is wrong in my opinion and to compare that choice to a car speeding down a street is ludicrous.
If someone chooses not to be vaccinated they should, in no way shape or form, be put in the category of murderous. I can see this argument if a positive case chooses not to isolate but not for refusing vaccination.

People have a right to be cautious, and to not trust the information being given and there may be good reason for an individual not trusting the 'higher ups' but as long as the majority buy into the vaccination programme, then we will be laughing.

 

[jojojo]

xperts have questions about AstraZeneca's vaccine data
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/23/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-data-questions/index.html

Yep, I had a similar reaction when I read the press release. Then I remembered that it is just a press release, very much like the one Pfizer did a couple of weeks ago where they announced their first batch of 90%+ headlines.

It is frustrating because I would like to see what numbers they are really talking about and I want to see how big that sub-study was that seemed to suggest that they were having an effect on infection rates as well as disease rates. I'd also like to know what covid test they were using for it, as they seem to talk about PCR separately. He's right about the no serious side-effects thing as well - do they know that because the people who fell ill had symptoms prior to the trial, or had the placebo, or something else.

And then I remember it's a press release and that they'll have to produce their real data as an actual scientific report, so that it can be reviewed - so I'm just being impatient really.

 

[SiRed]

Yes I agree it is your right. And if you accept the restrictions that come with it (e.g. you can't fly) then presumably you will be exercising your legal right. But some people can't get vaccinated - people with particular health conditions, kids for now and potentially long term, other people behind you in the timeline - so then you are exposing them to the risk of contracting covid. It is your right to do so but you're infringing on other people's rights not to get infected by you,and potentially to suffer serious health consequences.

And so when you choose to exercise your rights in a way that can cause others harm, they have a right to say you aren't entitled to do that. In some cases there are laws that prevent you from making that choice, in this there is no law but there is freedom of speech. We're all free to say most things we want. If you want to say what you feel then you expect (and celebrate) others doing the same.

You would hope by then a robust and efficient track and trace system will be in place to prevent 'non vaccinated' humans from spreading the virus, should they be unfortunate enough to catch it!

 

[Brwned]

Personally i cannot wait to get vaccinated and get our lives moving once again.
How-ever, to label someone ignorant or selfish for being hesitant is wrong in my opinion and to compare that choice to a car speeding down a street is ludicrous.
If someone chooses not to be vaccinated they should, in no way shape or form, be put in the category of murderous. I can see this argument if a positive case chooses not to isolate but not for refusing vaccination.

People have a right to be cautious, and to not trust the information being given and there may be good reason for an individual not trusting the 'higher ups' but as long as the majority buy into the vaccination programme, then we will be laughing.

If you choose not to get the vaccine, get infected, pass on that virus to someone who is immunosuppressed (and so could not get the vaccine), are you partially responsible if they die?

You would hope by then a robust and efficient track and trace system will be in place to prevent 'non vaccinated' humans from spreading the virus, should they be unfortunate enough to catch it!

Many people go undetected because they are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic, and others brush off a measly cough as nothing. It's not theoretically possible for us to catch every case. Just look at what happens every now and then in Australia. They track it after a number of people have been infected after the the first. Choosing not to get a vaccine is exposing others to risks that you could avoid, because of a personal choice. That is something we take seriously morally and legally.

 

[Bestietom]

Personally i cannot wait to get vaccinated and get our lives moving once again.
How-ever, to label someone ignorant or selfish for being hesitant is wrong in my opinion and to compare that choice to a car speeding down a street is ludicrous.
If someone chooses not to be vaccinated they should, in no way shape or form, be put in the category of murderous. I can see this argument if a positive case chooses not to isolate but not for refusing vaccination.

People have a right to be cautious, and to not trust the information being given and there may be good reason for an individual not trusting the 'higher ups' but as long as the majority buy into the vaccination programme, then we will be laughing.

Thank you for being understanding, and I really hope and trust that the Vaccine works for everyone.

 

[SiRed]

If you choose not to get the vaccine, get infected, pass on that virus to someone who is immunosuppressed (and so could not get the vaccine), are you partially responsible if they die?

Well obviously yes, but you can say that about going to work with the regular flu (though not quite as deadly) or many other illnesses. The whole point is the person develops symptoms, gets tested, gets confirmed and then isolates. If this process is fixed and made 100% more efficient then your argument above should be irrelevant, as a person cannot infect anybody, at risk or otherwise whilst isolating.
Don't get me wrong Brwned, i am all for vaccinating, and i think i have mentioned before that your posts on this Covid matter have always been informative for me personally. I just think its not the end of the world if someone doesnt vaccinate if the correct process is followed. Also there will be less possible hosts as the vaccines are rolled out so the chances of passing it should be a lot slimmer than they are today!

 

[Bestietom]

Yes I agree it is your right. And if you accept the restrictions that come with it (e.g. you can't fly) then presumably you will be exercising your legal right. But some people can't get vaccinated - people with particular health conditions, kids for now and potentially long term, other people behind you in the timeline - so then you are exposing them to the risk of contracting covid. It is your right to do so but you're infringing on other people's rights not to get infected by you,and potentially to suffer serious health consequences.

And so when you choose to exercise your rights in a way that can cause others harm, they have a right to say you aren't entitled to do that. In some cases there are laws that prevent you from making that choice, in this there is no law but there is freedom of speech. We're all free to say most things we want. If you want to say what you feel then you expect (and celebrate) others doing the same.

How many people are going around every day with this disease now. Some not even wearing a mask. Come off it, If it is my wish to wait for the vaccine I will be cautious as I am now. Do the right things and follow all the rules UNTIL I am ready for vaccine. That's it I've had enough of this nonsense, I will be condemmed to death next.

 

[Brwned]

Well obviously yes, but you can say that about going to work with the regular flu (though not quite as deadly) or many other illnesses. The whole point is the person develops symptoms, gets tested, gets confirmed and then isolates. If this process is fixed and made 100% more efficient then your argument above should be irrelevant, as a person cannot infect anybody, at risk or otherwise whilst isolating.
Don't get me wrong Brwned, i am all for vaccinating, and i think i have mentioned before that your posts on this Covid matter have always been informative for me personally. I just think its not the end of the world if someone doesnt vaccinate if the correct process is followed. Also there will be less possible hosts as the vaccines are rolled out so the chances of passing it should be a lot slimmer than they are today!

Oh yeah totally agree that even with 20% of the population not getting vaccinated we'll still be in a far, far better place, and the health impacts will be much less dangerous than many other health concerns we can't just vaccinate away. And generally I think it's a good thing that people are free to choose.

But your premise just isnt plausible - we can't contact trace away all of the cases, you can see in Australia that even with exceptional work they see it spread to a few other people each time. We have to assume some other people will be unwittingly infecting others if they don't get vaccinated, and it's not at all unlikely that it will cause severe consequences for people who can't get vaccinated. That has happened with e.g. measles and any other vaccines. The people who couldn't get vaccinated that get infected by that suffer a lot. Do they suffer less than people who would be obligated to get a vaccination? I don't think so. So it's a complicated question of rights because your rights infringe on others.

In the case where someone says they don't want the vaccine, then get infected and die, do we just say "that's their problem"? I don't think so. Look at the places where polio still exists. If you look at the actual outcomes of that, I don't think you can just say "they deserved it". It's a devastating thing. After it happens sometimes mothers say "I wish I hadn't done that to my children, I believed x and it wasn't true, and now look what has happened".

Sometimes we make errors in judgement and it helps to have society try to convince you not to do that. Save ourselves from our worst instincts. I expect others to do that for me - I'll absolutely make mistakes that potentially harm me and others, and while I won't always like people pointing that out, generally I will find it helpful - so I don't think it's such a bad thing if we try to discourage others from dangerous decisions, provided the argument has merit and it doesn't unduly infringe on their rights.

 

[SiRed]

Oh yeah totally agree that even with 20% of the population not getting vaccinated we'll still be in a far, far better place, and the health impacts will be much less dangerous than many other health concerns we can't just vaccinate away. And generally I think it's a good thing that people are free to choose.

But your premise just isnt plausible - we can't contact trace away all of the cases, you can see in Australia that even with exceptional work they see it spread to a few other people each time. We have to assume some other people will be unwittingly infecting others if they don't get vaccinated, and it's not at all unlikely that it will cause severe consequences for people who can't get vaccinated. That has happened with e.g. measles and any other vaccines. The people who couldn't get vaccinated that get infected by that suffer a lot. Do they suffer less than people who would be obligated to get a vaccination? I don't think so. So it's a complicated question of rights because your rights infringe on others.

In the case where someone says they don't want the vaccine, then get infected and die, do we just say "that's their problem"? I don't think so. Look at the places where polio still exists. If you look at the actual outcomes of that, I don't think you can just say "they deserved it". It's a devastating thing. After it happens sometimes mothers say "I wish I hadn't done that to my children, I believed x and it wasn't true, and now look what has happened".

Sometimes we make errors in judgement and it helps to have society try to convince you not to do that. Save ourselves from our worst instincts. I expect others to do that for me - I'll absolutely make mistakes that potentially harm me and others, and while I won't always like people pointing that out, generally I will find it helpful - so I don't think it's such a bad thing if we try to discourage others from dangerous decisions, provided the argument has merit and it doesn't unduly infringe on their rights.

Yes I agree.
whilst people are free to choose I think there needs to be a massive 'sell' to convince those less willing.
From a personal perspective, initially I was against being vaccinated (I'm by no means an anti-vaxer, just airing on the side of caution) however, i would give anything to get our 'normal' back so I would be willingly first in line for the vaccine.
You are a lot more educated than me on this type of thing judging by your posts, would you happen to know of any data that shows percentages of brits that would be willing / unwilling. Or know where i could find it? A friend mentioned that the UK has one of the highest compliance percentages in the world. Just wondered if you knew?

 

[Brwned]

How many people are going around every day with this disease now. Some not even wearing a mask. Come off it, If it is my wish to wait for the vaccine I will be cautious as I am now. Do the right things and follow all the rules UNTIL I am ready for vaccine. That's it I've had enough of this nonsense, I will be condemmed to death next.

Yes I think most people would agree that those who know they have covid and knowingly expose others to the risk of contracting covid are consciously endangering other people and should be held accountable for that.

Unfortunately there are perverse incentives that encourage them to do so. The only way not to do that is to completely self isolate, which is difficult to do if your livelihood depends on showing up every day, if you have caregiving responsibilities and many other things. There isnt enough support provided to people to make up for that income loss or cover for those caregiving responsibilities, and the government is directly responsible for facilitating that. Unfortunately going out with masks and social distancing is only a semi-effective preventative measure, it doesn't prevent infection infections 95% of cases. It also comes with severe social costs, particularly for those already suffering mentally. In spite of that, most people do not think they should do so. It is socially unacceptable.

In this case, those incentives and limitations don't exist. The vaccine is much more effective at preventing infection than a mask or social distancing, it comes without the economic and social costs, and it is based on much better evidence. Choosing not to do that is likely more dangerous and for less reason. That's just the facts as we understand them. You are free to choose how to respond to those facts but dismissing them is dangerous.

 

[Brwned]

Yes I agree.
whilst people are free to choose I think there needs to be a massive 'sell' to convince those less willing.
From a personal perspective, initially I was against being vaccinated (I'm by no means an anti-vaxer, just airing on the side of caution) however, i would give anything to get our 'normal' back so I would be willingly first in line for the vaccine.
You are a lot more educated than me on this type of thing judging by your posts, would you happen to know of any data that shows percentages of brits that would be willing / unwilling. Or know where i could find it? A friend mentioned that the UK has one of the highest compliance percentages in the world. Just wondered if you knew?

Yeah generally speaking the UK is good on vaccinations, but our involvement in the autism scandal kind of knocked us down from being among the very best to just one of the better ones. In this case we're more likely than the average country to get vaccinated and the majority of the population say they want to, but many are still cautious. There was some data on that a couple of pages back. I think that's mostly because we're just waiting for things to go through the normal stages and this hesitancy is normal, but we don't really know yet. It's possible we won't vaccinate as many people as we expect to because more people are scared of this vaccine than normal, just due to the speed of the process.

 

[Wibble]

Peoples Rights. Some people have died from reaction of tablets and vaccines so others are wary of them. Do they not have the right to refuse it, or would you rather put them up against a wall, and just shoot them. AND Yes I do know what I am talking about, and have witnessed it.

One or two people have died by being trapped in a burning vehicle by seatbelts. Millions have been saved from death and injury.

And don't confuse drugs with vaccines. I seriously doubt you have experience of anyone who had a very serious reaction to a vaccine. Even if you do the risk of taking one is far far less than the risk of getting covid and having a serious adverse symptom or death.

 

[SiRed]

Yeah generally speaking the UK is good on vaccinations, but our involvement in the autism scandal kind of knocked us down from being among the very best to just one of the better ones. In this case we're more likely than the average country to get vaccinated and the majority of the population say they want to, but many are still cautious. There was some data on that a couple of pages back. I think that's mostly because we're just waiting for things to go through the normal stages and this hesitancy is normal, but we don't really know yet. It's possible we won't vaccinate as many people as we expect to because more people are scared of this vaccine than normal, just due to the speed of the process.

Arrr yes, i found it. Seems we have the 3rd highest % of people who would get vaccinated.
I wonder what percentage of people vaccinated the Government would consider a success!

 

[Bestietom]

One or two people have died by being trapped in a burning vehicle by seatbelts. Millions have been saved from death and injury.

And don't confuse drugs with vaccines. I seriously doubt you have experience of anyone who had a very serious reaction to a vaccine. Even if you do the risk of taking one is far far less than the risk of getting covid and having a serious adverse symptom or death.

Mister, I am not asking you or anyone else NOT to take Vaccine, and I really hope it works 100%. I am not confusing anything, and this is my right. What is it with you people, if things are not your way. Your right all the time then. I have heard enough from you on this. Let's talk football.

 

[cyberman]

Arrr yes, i found it. Seems we have the 3rd highest % of people who would get vaccinated.
I wonder what percentage of people vaccinated the Government would consider a success!

Well I would get vaccinated but I have a child due in April and I dont know if i would let her get it as part of some inoculation add on. I wouldn't want to put the risk on her until we know more

 

[Bestietom]

Yes I think most people would agree that those who know they have covid and knowingly expose others to the risk of contracting covid are consciously endangering other people and should be held accountable for that.

Unfortunately there are perverse incentives that encourage them to do so. The only way not to do that is to completely self isolate, which is difficult to do if your livelihood depends on showing up every day, if you have caregiving responsibilities and many other things. There isnt enough support provided to people to make up for that income loss or cover for those caregiving responsibilities, and the government is directly responsible for facilitating that. Unfortunately going out with masks and social distancing is only a semi-effective preventative measure, it doesn't prevent infection infections 95% of cases. It also comes with severe social costs, particularly for those already suffering mentally. In spite of that, most people do not think they should do so. It is socially unacceptable.

In this case, those incentives and limitations don't exist. The vaccine is much more effective at preventing infection than a mask or social distancing, it comes without the economic and social costs, and it is based on much better evidence. Choosing not to do that is likely more dangerous and for less reason. That's just the facts as we understand them. You are free to choose how to respond to those facts but dismissing them is dangerous.

Enough.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Well I would get vaccinated but I have a child due in April and I dont know if i would let her get it as part of some inoculation add on. I wouldn't want to put the risk on her until we know more

They won’t be vaccinating kids for a very long time, if at all. Can’t see any rationale for doing it, personally.

 

[jojojo]

Well I would get vaccinated but I have a child due in April and I dont know if i would let her get it as part of some inoculation add on. I wouldn't want to put the risk on her until we know more

I must admit I read this as you yourself are pregnant. In which case, congrats and probably best not to take the vaccine at the moment! Pregnant women aren't yet part of the trials, and I think doctors will be cautious about recommending it right now.

But I think you're talking about the baby once born. In which case, I don't think anyone is looking at vaccinating kids for now. In fact, vaccinating kids probably only becomes a factor at all if we find that transmission (by kids) is stopped by some vaccines. Even then it'll take time to formulate something in the best way for kids - maybe as a nasal spray or similar.

 

[Wibble]

There is also an argument that berating someone for being vaccine hesitant is also selfish, as it doesn't actually reduce vaccine hesitancy and sometimes it increases it. Source: ECDC

So if you believe that the world would be a better place if less people were hesitant about a vaccine, and you're directly working against that primarily because it feels good and right, then perhaps that's a selfish choice.

People see the world differently Wibble. Chastising them for it isn't always a good thing. There are other ways to win an argument after all.

I totally disagree. Vaccine hesitancy and outright anti-vaxers only exist because such idiotic views haven't been sufficiently challenged with actual evidence.

That you might persuade a few by more gentle methods is irrelevant imo because it comes at the price of buying in to the bullshit of opinion equivalence that has allowed us as a society to ignore scientific evidence.

 

[Bestietom]

Do you know what it is like when your ready to go out and meet the lads for a drink.
Suddenly your phone rings and at the other end is a salesman trying to sell you something you don't want.
He just won't take NO for an answer and tries and tries to shove it down your throat.
He goes on for ages and ages until your late for your lift, and have to walk the mile plus to the pub.
Some people on here, remind me of these type of salespersons. Annoyance.

 

[Wibble]

I understand everything you have pointed out and I respect you for this. But having witnessed deaths close to me, because of tablets/vaccines I will continue to fight my corner and take my chances, and to those of you who think this is IGNORANT or SELFISH, I hope you never have to witness the same. People in this world should never point a finger at anyone as it always points back at them

Deaths due to vaccines?

 

[Snowjoe]

Do you know what it is like when your ready to go out and meet the lads for a drink.
Suddenly your phone rings and at the other end is a salesman trying to sell you something you don't want.
He just won't take NO for an answer and tries and tries to shove it down your throat.
He goes on for ages and ages until your late for your lift, and have to walk the mile plus to the pub.
Some people on here, remind me of these type of salespersons. Annoyance.

youre on a discussion forum engaging in a discussion, of course people will keep replying

 

[jojojo]

I totally disagree. Vaccine hesitancy and outright anti-vaxers only exist because such idiotic views haven't been sufficiently challenged with actual evidence.

That you might persuade a few by more gentle methods is irrelevant imo because it comes at the price of buying in to the bullshit of opinion equivalence that has allowed us as a society to ignore scientific evidence.

Historically he's right though. Talking in absolutist terms and about enforcement tends to reinforce conspiracy theories and panic. Take a look at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-50713991
for an historic examples of a mass anti vaccine movement in the 19c UK. That movement didn't actually collapse until compulsion was removed.

You might think we can do better in 2020, but that's missing the point - we haven't been doing better with a significant minority of the population in some countries. In any case, placing demands on people for the social good actually require evidence that viral transmission is reduced by the covid vaccines, which remains unproven.

 

[Wibble]

Mister, I am not asking you or anyone else NOT to take Vaccine, and I really hope it works 100%. I am not confusing anything, and this is my right. What is it with you people, if things are not your way. Your right all the time then. I have heard enough from you on this. Let's talk football.

I think society's right to get back to normal trumps your right to be illogical. Of course nobody is going to hold you down and inject you so you can revel in your right to ignore the social contract.

 

[11101]

One or two people have died by being trapped in a burning vehicle by seatbelts. Millions have been saved from death and injury.

And don't confuse drugs with vaccines. I seriously doubt you have experience of anyone who had a very serious reaction to a vaccine. Even if you do the risk of taking one is far far less than the risk of getting covid and having a serious adverse symptom or death.

This you do not yet know for certain, for some demographic groups.

 

[Wibble]

Historically he's right though. Talking in absolutist terms and about enforcement tends to reinforce conspiracy theories and panic. Take a look at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-50713991
for an historic examples of a mass anti vaccine movement in the 19c UK. That movement didn't actually collapse until compulsion was removed.

You might think we can do better in 2020, but that's missing the point - we haven't been doing better with a significant minority of the population in some countries. In any case, placing demands on people for the social good actually require evidence that viral transmission is reduced by the covid vaccines, which remains unproven.

Historically we have been illogical and muddle-minded as well. Evidence isn't the issue. If it were we wouldn't be the mess we are e.g. global warming. Ignoring scientific evidence is otentially going to be the death of our planet and species.