Jump to content RIP Sheffield Admin Mort


Coronavirus - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Thirsty Relic said:

great post!

exactly what they said.

 

Emma Kenny was called antivax for questioning it's use on children.   Anyone who has questions is called "antivax".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

As always, many of the people being labelled as antivaxers are not at all antivax, but question or oppose a particular aspect of a vaccination, or oppose a particular vaccination- in this case there is a lot of opposition to the covid vaccination being made compulsory, either in the sense of 'everyone has to, by law, have it', or, 'you don't have to have it, but if you don't, you can't go to concerts/restaraunts/travel etc, etc.'

 

Many of those who object to the vaccine being compulsory, or who question the safety of this particular vaccine, will not be remotely 'antivaxxer', in that they happily use other vaccines, nevertheless, they will be labelled as such.

It won't be the government who say "you can't do xyz without a vaccine" it will be private enterprise under threat of higher insurance premiums. You are free of course to spend your money elsewhere.

 

That said you aren't allowed to travel to certain countries already if you haven't a jab against yellow fever for example. Does that worry you?

2 minutes ago, MuteWitness said:

exactly what they said.

 

Emma Kenny was called antivax for questioning it's use on children.   Anyone who has questions is called "antivax".

Emma Kenny is a nut bag.

 

Children are vaccinated against other diseases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anna B said:

So, a vaccine is close.

What is the reason antivaxers are against it? Serious question, there seem to be a lot of them out there, but I can't find a cohesive reason for their objections. Is it something I should worry about? 

 

I wouldn't necessarily say it's anti-vaxers, I think there are probably a few reasons why people are hesitant. These possibly include (off the top of my head) :

 

Apprehension  - possibly the most understandable of all the reasons, it's something new *shrug*

 

Misinformation - a lot of this on social media, Fake news I guess it's called these days but the amount I see daily is phenomenal.

 

Trust - I, personally, wouldn't trust this government to run a **** up in a brewery. Can I trust them with a potential vaccine? And unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, politics and science have become intertwined in a global pandemic.

 

I will take the vaccine when it is offered to me, but I can appreciate other peoples reluctance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, whiteowl said:

I wouldn't necessarily say it's anti-vaxers, I think there are probably a few reasons why people are hesitant. These possibly include (off the top of my head) :

 

Apprehension  - possibly the most understandable of all the reasons, it's something new *shrug*

 

Misinformation - a lot of this on social media, Fake news I guess it's called these days but the amount I see daily is phenomenal.

 

Trust - I, personally, wouldn't trust this government to run a **** up in a brewery. Can I trust them with a potential vaccine? And unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, politics and science have become intertwined in a global pandemic.

 

I will take the vaccine when it is offered to me, but I can appreciate other peoples reluctance.

I do understand apprehension and reluctance too, even though I know way more about the testing and approval procedure than most people and am happy to report that the approval (or lack thereof) for any new vaccination is not in the remit of the government but of scientists who actually do know what they're doing in reading the available data and questioning all potential niggles or safety issues.  Yes, the government put the final stamp on approval, but they do so after the scientists have put it all through their rigorous attention developed over many years to reduce the chances of catastrophic mistakes of the type of which the reluctant people are scared. 

If it genuinely was down to whether Boris or Matt Hancock thought it was a good idea I'd give it the widest berth possible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anna B.

The link I've provided gives an insight into the forces playing out  around vaccination.

Just for the record, I'm personally not in favour of compulsory Cov-19 vaccination ..

The Vaccine Confidence Project site is well worth a read.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2281-1

 

 

https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/

(This in particular from the Vaccine Confidence Project:

Covid-19 vaccines face a varied and powerful misinformation movement online)

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-19/most-notorious-anti-vax-groups-use-facebook-lay-groundwork-against-novel

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An acquaintance in the US is scheduled to have the first of his Pfizer variant jabs on January 5, confirmed by his specialist.

Apart from the fact that he was informed of this date even before the UK got the 'all clear' to go ahead, he's also been told that the vaccine will be - has to be? - diluted with saline as well.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend that is a cleaner in the NHS, she is adamant that she will not have the vaccine.  But I guess if Hancock and others that have it first are ok, others less intelligent will fall in line.

Edited by El Cid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

As always, many of the people being labelled as antivaxers are not at all antivax, but question or oppose a particular aspect of a vaccination, or oppose a particular vaccination- in this case there is a lot of opposition to the covid vaccination being made compulsory, either in the sense of 'everyone has to, by law, have it', or, 'you don't have to have it, but if you don't, you can't go to concerts/restaraunts/travel etc, etc.'

 

 

I’m very pro-vaccine, but I really don’t think that making them compulsory is desirable. 
 

Encouragement is the correct thing to do. I’m hoping we get a huge, well aimed public information programme, to counter the craziness that you can find on social media.

 

We need opportunities for questions too. I’m currently watching a Q and A session on BBC1, there needs to be much more of the same.

 

If we do get to the point where uptake is insufficient to protect public health, then maybe a vaccine passport might become necessary. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Anna B said:

So, a vaccine is close.

What is the reason antivaxers are against it? Serious question, there seem to be a lot of them out there, but I can't find a cohesive reason for their objections. Is it something I should worry about? 

 

Amazing that they can knock out multiple vaccines in a few months for Covid but other treatments take years of torturing animals, endless peer reviews, medical panels etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, taxman said:

Amazing that they can knock out multiple vaccines in a few months for Covid but other treatments take years of torturing animals, endless peer reviews, medical panels etc etc

This is a good, short, article explaining why they normally take so long - written by a doctor at Cambridge University :

 

https://theconversation.com/less-than-a-year-to-develop-a-covid-vaccine-heres-why-you-shouldnt-be-alarmed-150414

 

"So next time somebody expresses concern at the astonishing speed the vaccine trials have happened at, point out to them that ten years isn’t a good thing, it’s a bad thing. It’s not ten years because that is safe, it’s ten hard years of battling indifference, commercial imperatives, luck and red tape. It represents barriers in the process that we have now proved are “easy” to overcome. You just need unlimited cash, some clever and highly motivated people, all the world’s trial infrastructure, an almost unlimited pool of altruistic, wonderful trial volunteers and some sensible regulators."

Edited by whiteowl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, whiteowl said:

This is a good, short, article explaining why they normally take so long - written by a doctor at Cambridge University :

 

https://theconversation.com/less-than-a-year-to-develop-a-covid-vaccine-heres-why-you-shouldnt-be-alarmed-150414

 

"So next time somebody expresses concern at the astonishing speed the vaccine trials have happened at, point out to them that ten years isn’t a good thing, it’s a bad thing. It’s not ten years because that is safe, it’s ten hard years of battling indifference, commercial imperatives, luck and red tape. It represents barriers in the process that we have now proved are “easy” to overcome. You just need unlimited cash, some clever and highly motivated people, all the world’s trial infrastructure, an almost unlimited pool of altruistic, wonderful trial volunteers and some sensible regulators."

Its also 10 years so they can see if people have any long term effects I believe. We are shortcutting that for good reason, but when people can find this out for themselves and hear the government claiming its "100% safe" (as they have done in recent days) its more likely to stop people taking it. On the other hand if they were more honest and said yes there is a small risk some people will have an issue in the long term (or even in the short term - after all not even 100k have taken it yet, so presumably we cannot know about a 1 in 10 million very nasty reaction), but that is outweighed by the need to end the pandemic people may be more likely to listen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for answers. Very interesting.

 

One thing that does worry me a bit is that I believe they are starting with Care homes, and somebody said yesterday, the disabled and people with learning difficulties. 

Wouldn't it be wiser and easier to start with health care professionals who are already in situ and in most danger of infection?

Care homes and people who are too ill to attend surgeries etc present particular logistical problems that will be difficult to overcome, and of course the thought occurs that they are being used as the guinea pigs, but maybe that's just me being paranoid.

Personally, I'd like to see some public figure - say Prince Charles and Camilla, or Prince William and Kate, publicly have the jab first to reassure people.

 

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.