It's feasible a vaccine could be approved next week so, not crazy at all
The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll
- Thread starter Badunk
- Start date
It's feasible a vaccine could be approved next week so, not crazy at all
My feeling is that this is just preparing for it and it's more likely to be around the middle of December
What’s so insane?actually insane.
You cant indirectly force people to get a vaccine to do certain activities while i get your principal and your idea is in a perfect world for the greater good you just can't do that.
Of course you can. They don't want it to become (eventually) compulsory, fine.
You can force people to do lots of things indirectly, especially in private businesses.
It's my right to walk around naked if I want but it's also my employers right to decline me entry into work if I do so and eventually salary. I can want to drive around without a licence if I want but I won't be allowed onto the road legally unless I have a licence. I can walk around with a knife but a stadium or concert hall can deny me entry.
Some countries already have disease requirements before entry (yellow fever and TB being the most common ones).
There's lots of little nudges already for people to do things within our societies to fulfil their side of the social contract. That is likely to sook include a covid vaccine.
It won't be accepted here.
I don't believe any of the anti-vax crap, but i'd still support a persons choice when it comes to such things. Just as i know smoking is terrible for you and people around you but it should still be your choice.
There will be enough people willing to get it to not have to worry about this situation either way its all hypothetical.
They would still have a choice whether to vaccinate or not.
This is a vaccine and not a drug.
Do you think a universal roll-out would include u12's or pregnant women any more than it would include those with autoimmune issues?
The reason we need as many people as possible, preferably everyone, who can take it to do so is to provide those groups with protection.
If you are talking about waiting a month or two who cares as it is a moot point. If you are talking about longer you are putting us all at risk unnecessarily as well as contributing to further economic damage.
And nothing is risk free but the chances of a vaccine killing 55,000 people, the current number of covid deaths in the UK, is realistically zero. A single death from something like an allergic reaction would be noteworthy. And that doesn't take account of the huge reduction in long covid that will occur nor the health benefits, mental and physical, particularly in places like the UK where the huge load on health services is reducing normal medical treatments.
And we still don't know the long term effects of covid but we can be fairly certain they will be less than those of a vaccine. Since we moved away from live vaccines (e.g. live polio vaccine in the mid 50's) side effects have just about universally appeared within 2 months of administration. So "long term" side effects are really not and are just ones that are so rare that they don't reveal themselves until hundreds of thousands of people or more are given the vaccine. The last one I remember was a decade ago when an attenuated flu vaccine was found to slightly elevate the chances of developing GBS, but as flu elevates the chance of developing GBS far more it wasn't a cause to withdraw the vaccine.
The way out of this is mass vaccination (plus other measures) but it wouldn't surprise me if there was significant resistance given how people in many countries, the UK and US for example, have repeatedly failed to behave in a way that benefits the greater good during covid.
I guess we have people like Thatcher and Reagan to thank for the destruction of much of our traditional social structure where people often did really think we were in it together.
Last edited:
Behind a paywall. The bit I can see seems to be talking about the 1700's
How would it not be accepted? Nobody is forcing anybody, you want to live a lparallel life, that's fine. It is your choice.
But you're not going to be allowed to do certain things. Just as is the case in our current societies.
Smoking is an interesting example, considering we again ban people from smoking on planes, in hospitals, in restaurants, pubs, bars, restaurants. Actually pretty much anywhere inside now. It technically isn't banned on a societal level but there are certain restrictions around it. You want to smoke? That's fine. But it isn't your right to smoke whilst watching a film at the cinema, or on your flight to New York or whilst eating out. You have others to consider.
Excellent post, what many people don’t realise is the almost certain truth of the statement: the long term effects of COVID (of which we already know some extremely severe ones, who knows what other chronic issues might raise their heads) will significantly outweigh the long term effects of a vaccine.
When people say “this has been rushed through”, I like to ask them what process(es) in particular that added rigour to previously released vaccines have been skipped with these ones?
Last edited by a moderator:
So why not release the vaccines with zero testing?
Presumably because a full testing roadmap is required to prove safety.
So if that full testing roadmap has had some corners cut for covid-19, it's a perfectly valid reason to be wary of the result. Those original roadmap corners were designed with a purpose in mind, and the economic motivations of rushing a vaccine ASAP (for both governments and pharmaceutical companies) mean that safety can't be taken for granted in the same way it would be for any previous vaccine that followed the full roadmap.
The Tory government that's loosened regulations for vaccine development is the same Tory government that fecked the pandemic response in a multitude of other ways this year. Blind trust shouldn't be the default response.
I get it if you're a vulnerable, or have family that are, or are in regular contact with the elderly. But for those of us who are happy to continue to self isolate and indefinitely wear masks in public, the cost-benefit of taking a rushed vaccine may not be enough to persuade us to join the queue.
I'll happily take it in a year or so, though, after a bunch of other people have safely had a go.
Obviously, if the pandemic is significantly ruining somebody's life, the cost-benefit analysis will be different for them than it is for me. I'm certainly not going to try and dissuade anyone from taking the vaccine. I probably would do too if I were an old codger.
Presumably because a full testing roadmap is required to prove safety.
So if that full testing roadmap has had some corners cut for covid-19, it's a perfectly valid reason to be wary of the result. Those original roadmap corners were designed with a purpose in mind, and the economic motivations of rushing a vaccine ASAP (for both governments and pharmaceutical companies) mean that safety can't be taken for granted in the same way it would be for any previous vaccine that followed the full roadmap.
The Tory government that's loosened regulations for vaccine development is the same Tory government that fecked the pandemic response in a multitude of other ways this year. Blind trust shouldn't be the default response.
I get it if you're a vulnerable, or have family that are, or are in regular contact with the elderly. But for those of us who are happy to continue to self isolate and indefinitely wear masks in public, the cost-benefit of taking a rushed vaccine may not be enough to persuade us to join the queue.
I'll happily take it in a year or so, though, after a bunch of other people have safely had a go.
Obviously, if the pandemic is significantly ruining somebody's life, the cost-benefit analysis will be different for them than it is for me. I'm certainly not going to try and dissuade anyone from taking the vaccine. I probably would do too if I were an old codger.
Last edited:
The British government has little to do with the worldwide development of vaccines. Corners have not been cut on safety trials; time has been saved in other areas of development. If you are young then you won't be getting a vaccine until even more people have had it, probably hundreds of thousands if not millions.
If you want to know more about how vaccine development has been sped up then this twitter thread is a good place to start reading about it.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310372301314101250.html
To ensure a vaccine is as safe as possible.
There haven't been any shortcuts with safety testing. No parts of safety testing have been skipped.
I hope you change your mind by the time you can get the vaccine.
The cost benefit shouldn't be looked at individually because that doesn't get us out of this shitshow.
Last edited:
Men of science have often committed the cardinal scientific sin of forgetting they don't know what they don't know, and when worried citizens suggested maybe we don't know about all the risk factors of this rapid development, they often resorted to pointing out the ignorance of these non-scientific folks and ridiculing their beliefs. Sometimes it was their own ignorance they couldn't see, and sometimes the actions they took to invalidate the concerns of others backfired in their ultimate goal to make this new technology as widely adopted as possible. The way you want the world to work isn't how it works, and ridiculing people into submission won't achieve what you want. If you don't recognise any validity in people's concerns about vaccination then they won't listen to you, nor will the people on the fence, because there is some validity. You and they might disagree on how much there is, and you might make progress in closing that gap, but dismissing them is entirely counterproductive because, among other things, it is not entirely factual.
The thing is, that all rests on a presumption you've explicitly stated. Given the importance of the decision that follows on from that presumption, don't you have an obligation to assess whether there is any validity to it? It's the main argument from middle class folks who are happy enough working from home, who haven't really suffered that much economically, who aren't at great personal threat from the virus, and who are able to stitch together arguments that feel rational enough and sound convincing enough to justify inaction in the name of caution.
I agree with you that it's a valid instinctive response. It isn't reasonable to expect the average person to know why a vaccine typically develops over the course of a decade, and it is reasonable to assume that it works that way for a reason. But the logical assumption that it works that way because it is a neccessary length of time to produce a safe vaccine is not an unverifiable claim. You can read journals from nature about the development of this process, or the FDA for the guidelines they were required to follow from the outset. You can read analysis from experts on why things worked the way they did before, and assess their opinions on whether it was necessary for safe production.
I personally don't think we have an obligation to fully understand the development of the flu vaccine each year to legitimately decide whether we should or shouldn't get it. This is a bit different though, surely. We should hold ourselves to higher standards. Convenient rationalisations and intuitive beliefs are a legitimate starting point but are they an acceptable end point? Even for someone who lives as close to a hermit as physically possible, they will be making a decision that impacts on other people. And generally speaking we are required to (legally and ethically) to make a more informed decision under those conditions.
I expect that in the next couple of months this presumption will be taken at face value and assessed by medical experts, the media will break that down into palatable form and recycle it in soundbites with familiar faces, and most of these fears will begin to dissipate. But if for whatever reason this isn't served on a platter to us, is it really justifiable to not actively search out that information given the world-stopping impact this virus has had?
Except in this case we know exactly what we do and don't know and of course you have to balance the risks in the knowledge that you never have perfect knowledge. We know we need as close to a universal vaccine roll-out as possible and the risk of not doing it are far far higher than the risks of doing it. It isn't going to happen but if we could vaccinate enough people to get to HIT and only 5,000 people in the UK died as a direct result of the vaccine that is still a very good outcome. Of course it is likely that very few or no people will die from the vaccine and the unknowable long term adverse effects of a vaccine are almost certainly far far less. Not that we could afford not to mass vaccinate anyway.
I realise that people have concerns. People have concerns about lots of things and as a species we are appallingly bad at balancing actual risk. Our concerns rarely match the risk. Largely this is because we assess risk more than one way. The emotive animal way and the (far more recently evolved) analytical way that relies on data and evidence. That is why people fear swimming at a beach in Perth for fear of shark attack but undertake the far riskier drive to the beach without a second through. In this case all sorts of things have contributed to people being vaccine resistant ranging from anti-vax nutters all over the place (Fox news is evidence that repeating rubbish long enough produces results) to the "this vaccine can't be safe because it was so fast" narrative that comes from all sorts of places and motivations. Add social media and feckwads like the Daily Mail plus this somehow getting mixed up with Trump and far right US politics. You don't try to balance that by saying "yes - all opinions are equal".
Sadly we are also largely led by donkeys who should be those showing, well, actual leadership and helping people through this rather than adding to the uncertainty with their clueless responses with added pandering to sections of their own party.
The example of smoking is a bit strange as it literally an example of what you’re saying can’t happen / won’t be accepted.
good post
Don't we hugely discourage smoking in many ways? In the same of a similar way you can encourage vaccine uptake. I'd guess that most countries (and carriers) are going to demand a vaccination certificate before you travel/fly which will be a significant incentive in Europe and surrounds where people are used easy international travel.
Are there any vaccines being developed elsewhere that might be ready in the first semester of 2021? All I hear is Moderna, Pfizer and the Astra Zeneca one. And of course the Sputnik one but I don't think any Western country is buying that one.
I think we could see numerous other vaccines being approved for use by mid-2021. For example the University of Queensland has a vaccine about to go into phase 3 trials with the aim of approval, manufacture and distribution by mid year and there are numerous others.
ffs you're impossible Wibble. I'd rather end the discussion on a point of agreement.I agree with you that media organisations have proven to be spectacularly effective at spreading disinformation in recent years on issues tainted with politics, and they could have a huge impact here. There's one curiosity in the vaccine data so far: about two-thirds of 65-74 year olds in the UK want to get it straight away, and almost all of them want it eventually. While the vast majority of 65-74 year olds in the US also want the vaccine eventually, less than one-third want to get it straight away. A lot of them mention the politicisation of the process and distrust of institutions.
So while there's a lot of young people across the world that are saying they're hesitant, that can be mostly academic: when they're allowed to get it, enough information will have filtered through so that they might well have overcome that hesitancy. But it's entirely plausible that in the next month there will be a lot of older people in the US that will be offered the vaccine, and they're going to come out and say "I want to see Joe Biden take it first live on TV, then I'll take it". And I don't know what Fox News have been saying about the subject recently but they will surely play a significant role in shaping that demographics' perception of vaccine safety, and I really don't know how they're going to wield that responsibility. If they misuse it they will unquestionably be creating the environment for avoidable deaths in the very near future. It could be a warning signal to the world that ends up eroding vaccine hesitancy, but it'd be a particularly grim test case.
Then on social media, we definitely do have reason to believe that it has an impact on vaccine hesitancy - albeit the data's iffy. It's hard to know what role that's playing currently but it is a fact that young people spend more time on social media than older people, and younger people are much more vaccine hesitant at this point in time. Seperating the social media impact from the actual personal risk assessment is basically impossible at this point, but it does seem plausible that social media has already made people more hesitant about this particular vaccine, and could build up enough momentum to prevent enough people from getting the vaccine. It's the first big challenge for vaccines vs. online misinformation. I'm a little worried about that, truth be told.
In any case, I can safely say I don't know what the outcome of any of that will be, nor do I have a deep understanding of what's driving it. I just have a semi-educated opinion.
Last edited:
Even if Joe Biden was vaccinated live on tv I know of people that still wouldn't believe it, they would say it wasn't the vaccine but some kind of placebo. According to them it is all part of the plan to make everyone so scared and fed up of the pandemic that they will allow anything to be injected into them. There are loads of people that have ignored all restrictions and just carried on as normal that don't believe it's that bad cos they don't know anyone that has died.
I agree with you that media organisations have proven to be spectacularly effective at spreading disinformation in recent years on issues tainted with politics, and they could have a huge impact here. There's one curiosity in the vaccine data so far: about two-thirds of 65-74 year olds in the UK want to get it straight away, and almost all of them want it eventually. While the vast majority of 65-74 year olds in the US also want the vaccine eventually, less than one-third want to get it straight away. A lot of them mention the politicisation of the process and distrust of institutions.
So while there's a lot of young people across the world that are saying they're hesitant, that can be mostly academic: when they're allowed to get it, enough information will have filtered through so that they might well have overcome that hesitancy. But it's entirely plausible that in the next month there will be a lot of older people in the US that will be offered the vaccine, and they're going to come out and say "I want to see Joe Biden take it first live on TV, then I'll take it". And I don't know what Fox News have been saying about the subject recently but they will surely play a significant role in shaping that demographics' perception of vaccine safety, and I really don't know how they're going to wield that responsibility. If they misuse it they will unquestionably be creating the environment for avoidable deaths in the very near future. It could be a warning signal to the world that ends up eroding vaccine hesitancy, but it'd be a particularly grim test case.
Then on social media, we definitely do have reason to believe that it has an impact on vaccine hesitancy - albeit the data's iffy. It's hard to know what role that's playing currently but it is a fact that young people spend more time on social media than older people, and younger people are much more vaccine hesitant at this point in time. Seperating the social media impact from the actual personal risk assessment is basically impossible at this point, but it does seem plausible that social media has already made people more hesitant about this particular vaccine, and could build up enough momentum to prevent enough people from getting the vaccine. It's the first big challenge for vaccines vs. online misinformation. I'm a little worried about that, truth be told.
In any case, I can safely say I don't know what the outcome of any of that will be, nor do I have a deep understanding of what's driving it. I just have a semi-educated opinion.
Yes, people cannot be forced into taking a vaccine and it cannot be made illegal to refuse.
Ive seen people, and even suggested myself that oversees travel should be restricted to the refusers.
But there is an even simpler solution..... Those who chose not to be vaccinated pay 300% more national insurance than those who are vaccinated. This way the added strain they are causing to the health services can be compensated easily.
Also, when travelling abroad, insurance companies must up their premiums significantly for those not vaccinated.
For those that dont work and therefore dont pay NI, then they have their benefits cut slightly.
People need to understand that there is only one way out of this mess we are in and we all have a part to play, so just get it done!
Ive seen people, and even suggested myself that oversees travel should be restricted to the refusers.
But there is an even simpler solution..... Those who chose not to be vaccinated pay 300% more national insurance than those who are vaccinated. This way the added strain they are causing to the health services can be compensated easily.
Also, when travelling abroad, insurance companies must up their premiums significantly for those not vaccinated.
For those that dont work and therefore dont pay NI, then they have their benefits cut slightly.
People need to understand that there is only one way out of this mess we are in and we all have a part to play, so just get it done!
I agree with you that media organisations have proven to be spectacularly effective at spreading disinformation in recent years on issues tainted with politics, and they could have a huge impact here. There's one curiosity in the vaccine data so far: about two-thirds of 65-74 year olds in the UK want to get it straight away, and almost all of them want it eventually. While the vast majority of 65-74 year olds in the US also want the vaccine eventually, less than one-third want to get it straight away. A lot of them mention the politicisation of the process and distrust of institutions.
So while there's a lot of young people across the world that are saying they're hesitant, that can be mostly academic: when they're allowed to get it, enough information will have filtered through so that they might well have overcome that hesitancy. But it's entirely plausible that in the next month there will be a lot of older people in the US that will be offered the vaccine, and they're going to come out and say "I want to see Joe Biden take it first live on TV, then I'll take it". And I don't know what Fox News have been saying about the subject recently but they will surely play a significant role in shaping that demographics' perception of vaccine safety, and I really don't know how they're going to wield that responsibility. If they misuse it they will unquestionably be creating the environment for avoidable deaths in the very near future. It could be a warning signal to the world that ends up eroding vaccine hesitancy, but it'd be a particularly grim test case.
Then on social media, we definitely do have reason to believe that it has an impact on vaccine hesitancy - albeit the data's iffy. It's hard to know what role that's playing currently but it is a fact that young people spend more time on social media than older people, and younger people are much more vaccine hesitant at this point in time. Seperating the social media impact from the actual personal risk assessment is basically impossible at this point, but it does seem plausible that social media has already made people more hesitant about this particular vaccine, and could build up enough momentum to prevent enough people from getting the vaccine. It's the first big challenge for vaccines vs. online misinformation. I'm a little worried about that, truth be told.
In any case, I can safely say I don't know what the outcome of any of that will be, nor do I have a deep understanding of what's driving it. I just have a semi-educated opinion.
I wouldn’t worry too much. @Wibble is obsessed with achieving herd immunity, which I don’t think will happen. I also think we’re underestimating the challenge of manufacturing/distributing enough vaccine to inject 70-80% of the world’s population. It just isn’t going to happen. We’ll be doing bloody well to get a needle in the arm of everyone who wants one in the next 12 months or so.
So if anybody doesn’t want a vaccine then there’s more for the rest of us. They’ll likely end up immune anyway, eventually. They also increase their chances of ending up dead but that’s their choice.
So people familiar with the matter..
What is the situation right now? Vaccines all set to get approval for everyone? Or just passing the safety tests and looking good in early data enough to be given to the high risk (older people /heathcare professionals) which would be better than nothing.
What is the situation right now? Vaccines all set to get approval for everyone? Or just passing the safety tests and looking good in early data enough to be given to the high risk (older people /heathcare professionals) which would be better than nothing.
They’ll be looking for a license for everyone. Occupation will be irrelevant. It could be restricted by age but they’ve recruited young and old in the studies so that shouldn’t be problem. Except for kids. Doubt it will be licensed for U18s.
The likely prioritisation of elderly/vulnerable/HCW will be about best use of finite supplies. Nothing to do with the approved license.
Italy has confirmed it will give 1.7 million people the Pfizer vaccine in January when the EU starts distribution. The first delivery will be exclusively for healthcare personnel and care home residents. By September they hope to have the whole population done.
There is talk of making it mandatory for all healthcare workers and the extremely vulnerable, and everybody else can choose. Seems a sensible strategy.
There is talk of making it mandatory for all healthcare workers and the extremely vulnerable, and everybody else can choose. Seems a sensible strategy.
Difficult to say because, despite a lot of clamouring, we don't even have the proper data yet and certainly haven't seen a methodology section and subgroup analysis etc etc.
But if they've passed the tests and are approved by the relevant regulatory bodies, they'd get approval for the majority of the population, depending on the demographics of the study populations. Unlikely to immediately include pregnant women and children, unless they've been included in the study populations imo. Drugs in pregnant women are always a bit of a faff and we sometimes just have to go with prior experience and likely pharmacology, as opposed to proper hard data in studies. Perhaps may exclude others too initially, such as those without a properly functioning immune system.
As Pogue said, the initial problem is going to be logistics, especially with the pfizer vaccine, cos the cold chain required to transport and deliver vaccines at those temperatures are just not present in most places in the world, even in industrialised countries.
Which is why, even though I totally understand some of the apprehension some people have about the vaccine (and don't think shouting down everyone who does as ignorant or a conspiracy nut is helpful), the overwhelming majority of people won't be receiving any vaccine until later on in 2021 anyway I think. They can see a bit how it goes before it comes to their turn.
True! A silver lining, for sure, but not one I'll celebrate. People putting themselves in harms way because they've misunderstood the risks involved doesn't sit well with me. If a mate killed himself because he jumped out of a plane and knew the risk I could live with it, I'd find it difficult to do so in case of just having an irrational fear of vaccines, particularly if that was formed through deliberate misinformation. What's your take on it?
I just think it is what it is. I hope the governments make a real effort to educate and reach out to the vulnerable and less well informed. But ultimately, I value the fact that we live in a free society and that includes the freedom to make bad choices.
Will be interesting (and probably sad) to see what the North American/European/East Asian countries do with regards to helping vaccinate other countries in the next year.
Just read that the majority of the pfizer and moderna vaccine supplies for 2021 have been bought by those aforementioned countries (>75%). I couldn't find the figures for Astrazeneca but I believe they've signed up to the Covax scheme, which has partly funded the development too.
Just read that the majority of the pfizer and moderna vaccine supplies for 2021 have been bought by those aforementioned countries (>75%). I couldn't find the figures for Astrazeneca but I believe they've signed up to the Covax scheme, which has partly funded the development too.
I'm not obsessed, it is just the logical aim if we are to get out of this shitshow ASAP. I doubt places like the US and UK will get there sadly but it should be the aim.
Politicians should be selling it as your civic duty to get vaccinated to save the economy and to save those who can't be vaccinated. Of course BoJo and his Evil Clown Posse will be selling themselves as the Elf on the Shelf who "Saved Christmas".
Last edited:
Nobody is going to be held down and injected so our free societies are pretty safe I'd say.
Those are a strange couple of countries to choose. I can think of a hell of a lot of other countries who would be considerably less likely to successfully vaccinate a high % of their population. Not to mention that the relatively high case numbers in the UK/US will help inflate the numbers of immune citizens. I think the UK/US will get to a higher % of immunity than the vast majority of countries in the world. And they’ll get there quicker. Despite this, I don’t think they’ll reach herd immunity any time soon, if ever.
Great post this.
I'm sure there are worse, Poland and Serbia sound much worse for example, but the UK and US stand out partly because that is the focus on here and partly because they should be the nations who most want to mass immunise due to the sheer incompetence of their response to the pandemic so far, yet seem to have very high levels of vaccine resistance.
Is it true that you'd rather your population not vaccinate if less than the majority (i.e. 50%) refuse vaccination, as the virus will be rife for mutation?