Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Didn't they not also add for a time frame of a few months? " Study of Healthcare workers , just 44 out of 6614 caught Corona again of those 44 just 15 had any symptoms, the 6614 that had Corona caught early in 2020 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection " Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission." The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission." That the important bit the transmission...even with the vaccine its unknown now if you can still be asymptomatic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine, Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection " And this is probably why so many people don't give a crap about the lockdown. They think they may as well catch the virus and get protected quicker than waiting for the vaccine.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine, Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection And this is probably why so many people don't give a crap about the lockdown. They think they may as well catch the virus and get protected quicker than waiting for the vaccine. "If you are youngish and get Corona seems it is better or least equal to the vaccine to have caught it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine " From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine, Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection And this is probably why so many people don't give a crap about the lockdown. They think they may as well catch the virus and get protected quicker than waiting for the vaccine. If you are youngish and get Corona seems it is better or least equal to the vaccine to have caught it "As far as I in my way how old you are has nothing to do with how immune you become. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus." Don’t look at BBC for news to biased | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine, Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection And this is probably why so many people don't give a crap about the lockdown. They think they may as well catch the virus and get protected quicker than waiting for the vaccine.
If you are youngish and get Corona seems it is better or least equal to the vaccine to have caught it "Which would be lovely if they isolated and didn't pass it on to anyone else who could die or have long term issues. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased " It was a direct quote from the government placed on their website | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased " Where would you rather people looked for news? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased " And your info came from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased And your info came from?" The Mail on line good honest News | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased And your info came from? The Mail on line good honest News " Pmsl  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased And your info came from? The Mail on line good honest News Pmsl "You beat me to it.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased And your info came from? The Mail on line good honest News " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased And your info came from? The Mail on line good honest News "Because they are not biassed at all and known for being balanced! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased And your info came from? The Mail on line good honest News
Because they are not biassed at all and known for being balanced! "Only half a step behind the Sunday Sport for accuracy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All news outlets can be as bad as each other depending on which way you wanna interpret them. I'm not necessarily a fan of the BBC, however, when direct quotes are used then surely you can at least have the sense to understand that it's a direct quote and not just a journalist's interpretation " It was Tongue in cheek so obvious | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased And your info came from? The Mail on line good honest News
Because they are not biassed at all and known for being balanced! "I dont get the BBC thing as if you ask a labour supporter they think they are bias to the Tories...same seems to work the other way around. Then ask a covid doubter and it's a full house | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a very good reason why we only are estimating 5 months of immunity. This virus is only been prevalent in the community in the UK for about 9 to 10 months. The majority of cases that were recorded last Spring are people that were not tested, So either it was assumed they had it or they had a test for antibodies but we have no idea how accurate those are. So its too early to tell how long someone is immune. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a very good reason why we only are estimating 5 months of immunity. This virus is only been prevalent in the community in the UK for about 9 to 10 months. The majority of cases that were recorded last Spring are people that were not tested, So either it was assumed they had it or they had a test for antibodies but we have no idea how accurate those are. So its too early to tell how long someone is immune. " That is not what was reported | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a very good reason why we only are estimating 5 months of immunity. This virus is only been prevalent in the community in the UK for about 9 to 10 months. The majority of cases that were recorded last Spring are people that were not tested, So either it was assumed they had it or they had a test for antibodies but we have no idea how accurate those are. So its too early to tell how long someone is immune. That is not what was reported " Huh? I didn't say it was! The point is they actually have no idea and Chris Whitty said something very much along these lines yesterday. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a very good reason why we only are estimating 5 months of immunity. This virus is only been prevalent in the community in the UK for about 9 to 10 months. The majority of cases that were recorded last Spring are people that were not tested, So either it was assumed they had it or they had a test for antibodies but we have no idea how accurate those are. So its too early to tell how long someone is immune. That is not what was reported Huh? I didn't say it was! The point is they actually have no idea and Chris Whitty said something very much along these lines yesterday. " OH Mr doom himself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a very good reason why we only are estimating 5 months of immunity. This virus is only been prevalent in the community in the UK for about 9 to 10 months. The majority of cases that were recorded last Spring are people that were not tested, So either it was assumed they had it or they had a test for antibodies but we have no idea how accurate those are. So its too early to tell how long someone is immune. That is not what was reported Huh? I didn't say it was! The point is they actually have no idea and Chris Whitty said something very much along these lines yesterday. OH Mr doom himself " So because you don't consider him cheerful he cannot be trusted? I think this is the problem people would rather believe what they want rather than a medical expert. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a very good reason why we only are estimating 5 months of immunity. This virus is only been prevalent in the community in the UK for about 9 to 10 months. The majority of cases that were recorded last Spring are people that were not tested, So either it was assumed they had it or they had a test for antibodies but we have no idea how accurate those are. So its too early to tell how long someone is immune. That is not what was reported " The study says 5 months immunity because they have only been running the study for 5 months. Also they point out that only a third of the reinfections had symptoms. The pfizer study only counted those with symptoms so catching the virus could actually offer three times better protection on a like for like comparison. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a very good reason why we only are estimating 5 months of immunity. This virus is only been prevalent in the community in the UK for about 9 to 10 months. The majority of cases that were recorded last Spring are people that were not tested, So either it was assumed they had it or they had a test for antibodies but we have no idea how accurate those are. So its too early to tell how long someone is immune. That is not what was reported Huh? I didn't say it was! The point is they actually have no idea and Chris Whitty said something very much along these lines yesterday. OH Mr doom himself So because you don't consider him cheerful he cannot be trusted? I think this is the problem people would rather believe what they want rather than a medical expert." I think I'll put my trust in the medical expert that gave up his Christmas Day to help out by doing a full IT ward shift anyday over Tracy from Facebook | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines" No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point." I'll confess to not having read to much on it. Just seen the news reports this morning. We're pretty much at the back of the queue anyway so wouldn't affect us | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point." Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. " On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine." I know all of this but this appears to be new information. I guess we shall wait and see. With the rate that the powers that be change things, I wouldn't be so surprised. Anyway, as I said, it won't affect us. It was just a question out of curiosity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine. I know all of this but this appears to be new information. I guess we shall wait and see. With the rate that the powers that be change things, I wouldn't be so surprised. Anyway, as I said, it won't affect us. It was just a question out of curiosity " Because there are so many false negatives and false positives when it comes to the test they will not say somebody who is clinically vulnerable cannot have the vaccine and should wait ahead of someone who is less Clinically vulnerable. I think it is quite dangerous Even suggesting somebody may not need a vaccine if they have tested positive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a very good reason why we only are estimating 5 months of immunity. This virus is only been prevalent in the community in the UK for about 9 to 10 months. The majority of cases that were recorded last Spring are people that were not tested, So either it was assumed they had it or they had a test for antibodies but we have no idea how accurate those are. So its too early to tell how long someone is immune. That is not what was reported The study says 5 months immunity because they have only been running the study for 5 months. Also they point out that only a third of the reinfections had symptoms. The pfizer study only counted those with symptoms so catching the virus could actually offer three times better protection on a like for like comparison." Scientists using actual study data. 5 months data from a 5 month study. But Karen and Stan from fb know better. 
The reinfection information sounds promising. Possibly similar to the vaccine mode of action.
I'm still in hope that eventually the virus will evolve and become like just a bad cold. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine. I know all of this but this appears to be new information. I guess we shall wait and see. With the rate that the powers that be change things, I wouldn't be so surprised. Anyway, as I said, it won't affect us. It was just a question out of curiosity Because there are so many false negatives and false positives when it comes to the test they will not say somebody who is clinically vulnerable cannot have the vaccine and should wait ahead of someone who is less Clinically vulnerable. I think it is quite dangerous Even suggesting somebody may not need a vaccine if they have tested positive. " I agree on the false results part. I myself believe I've had a false result. Btw, I wasn't suggesting it should be that way. As I said, curiosity because of the sheer amounts of u-turns. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine. I know all of this but this appears to be new information. I guess we shall wait and see. With the rate that the powers that be change things, I wouldn't be so surprised. Anyway, as I said, it won't affect us. It was just a question out of curiosity Because there are so many false negatives and false positives when it comes to the test they will not say somebody who is clinically vulnerable cannot have the vaccine and should wait ahead of someone who is less Clinically vulnerable. I think it is quite dangerous Even suggesting somebody may not need a vaccine if they have tested positive. I agree on the false results part. I myself believe I've had a false result. Btw, I wasn't suggesting it should be that way. As I said, curiosity because of the sheer amounts of u-turns." Oh I agree. But because of the amount of miss information out there about the vaccine and the anti-vaxer's I can't imagine the government are going to do anything that puts people off taking the vaccine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine. I know all of this but this appears to be new information. I guess we shall wait and see. With the rate that the powers that be change things, I wouldn't be so surprised. Anyway, as I said, it won't affect us. It was just a question out of curiosity Because there are so many false negatives and false positives when it comes to the test they will not say somebody who is clinically vulnerable cannot have the vaccine and should wait ahead of someone who is less Clinically vulnerable. I think it is quite dangerous Even suggesting somebody may not need a vaccine if they have tested positive. I agree on the false results part. I myself believe I've had a false result. Btw, I wasn't suggesting it should be that way. As I said, curiosity because of the sheer amounts of u-turns. Oh I agree. But because of the amount of miss information out there about the vaccine and the anti-vaxer's I can't imagine the government are going to do anything that puts people off taking the vaccine." You're probably right actually. Maybe this one would be a step too far. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Didn't they not also add for a time frame of a few months? " Yes 5 months max. Also there was no study looking into what if any protection was provided against the new variant. I guess we just need more time to understand the relative protection in each age group, sex, rave, variant and so on. But it's a start in understanding. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine." Interesting. My mums in hospital fighting with it at the moment. All of her Dr's in hospital and her gp have said she can not have it for a minimum of 4 weeks after a negative covid test. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine. Interesting. My mums in hospital fighting with it at the moment. All of her Dr's in hospital and her gp have said she can not have it for a minimum of 4 weeks after a negative covid test. " That is certainly not true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine, Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection And this is probably why so many people don't give a crap about the lockdown. They think they may as well catch the virus and get protected quicker than waiting for the vaccine. If you are youngish and get Corona seems it is better or least equal to the vaccine to have caught it "Sorry that is dangerous and rubbish. You can't be recommending young people catch the virus (that we don't yet understand long term impacts of) over a vaccine that stiulmulates the immune response without the virus. For shame. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a very good reason why we only are estimating 5 months of immunity. This virus is only been prevalent in the community in the UK for about 9 to 10 months. The majority of cases that were recorded last Spring are people that were not tested, So either it was assumed they had it or they had a test for antibodies but we have no idea how accurate those are. So its too early to tell how long someone is immune. " Well not exactly. Its a study by PHE and I don't think they used the word estimate. They used the words "up to" 5 months. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine. Interesting. My mums in hospital fighting with it at the moment. All of her Dr's in hospital and her gp have said she can not have it for a minimum of 4 weeks after a negative covid test. That is certainly not true." Err... It is true that's what's been said to me. However if you can direct me to a legitimate source that contradicts it I'd use it to argue with her gp. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection " Should add you mean the virus and not the lager otherwise the bog roll hoarders will be hitting the supermarkets | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Didn't they not also add for a time frame of a few months? Yes 5 months max. Also there was no study looking into what if any protection was provided against the new variant. I guess we just need more time to understand the relative protection in each age group, sex, rave, variant and so on. But it's a start in understanding. " You mean 5 months minimum. The study has only run for 5 months. Next month they will be saying six months. Since the new variant produces the majority of cases now, obviously this study shows the immunity works against the new variant as well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Didn't they not also add for a time frame of a few months? Yes 5 months max. Also there was no study looking into what if any protection was provided against the new variant. I guess we just need more time to understand the relative protection in each age group, sex, rave, variant and so on. But it's a start in understanding. You mean 5 months minimum. The study has only run for 5 months. Next month they will be saying six months. Since the new variant produces the majority of cases now, obviously this study shows the immunity works against the new variant as well." Which is all good news. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine. Interesting. My mums in hospital fighting with it at the moment. All of her Dr's in hospital and her gp have said she can not have it for a minimum of 4 weeks after a negative covid test. That is certainly not true. Err... It is true that's what's been said to me. However if you can direct me to a legitimate source that contradicts it I'd use it to argue with her gp. " Both my in laws had negative covid tests shortly before their first vaccine shots. Have both now had both shots. Some people get tested weekly how would they get vaccinated. Would they stop being tested for 4 weeks? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine. Interesting. My mums in hospital fighting with it at the moment. All of her Dr's in hospital and her gp have said she can not have it for a minimum of 4 weeks after a negative covid test. " I have no idea on the advice regarding how soon after a Positive test you should have the vaccine. It has been made very clear though that just because you have tested positive does not mean that you are going to be bumped down the list the issue you have raised is totally different. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine. Interesting. My mums in hospital fighting with it at the moment. All of her Dr's in hospital and her gp have said she can not have it for a minimum of 4 weeks after a negative covid test. I have no idea on the advice regarding how soon after a Positive test you should have the vaccine. It has been made very clear though that just because you have tested positive does not mean that you are going to be bumped down the list the issue you have raised is totally different. " The implication seemed to be it was for clinical reasons more than administrative reasons. Ie its in her interests to have it when she's recovered. But seems there is no regard to positive test / clinical condition and administering the vaccine.? The only one I saw was saying it had to be min 4 weeks post flu vaccine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine. Interesting. My mums in hospital fighting with it at the moment. All of her Dr's in hospital and her gp have said she can not have it for a minimum of 4 weeks after a negative covid test. I have no idea on the advice regarding how soon after a Positive test you should have the vaccine. It has been made very clear though that just because you have tested positive does not mean that you are going to be bumped down the list the issue you have raised is totally different. The implication seemed to be it was for clinical reasons more than administrative reasons. Ie its in her interests to have it when she's recovered. But seems there is no regard to positive test / clinical condition and administering the vaccine.? The only one I saw was saying it had to be min 4 weeks post flu vaccine. " That make sense I am sure there will be some people like you say for clinical reasons better advised otherwise. But on the whole thats not the case. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does the Government publish the number of people who have recovered from having the virus and therefore have some level of immunity. " They don't know everyone who has had it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does the Government publish the number of people who have recovered from having the virus and therefore have some level of immunity. " No but they do publish the number of people that have tested positive so I guess that's the figure minus those who have unfortunately died. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Don’t look at BBC for news to biased " That's a common misconception. They really aren't | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does the Government publish the number of people who have recovered from having the virus and therefore have some level of immunity. " Won't that be 'number of people who have tested positive' minus 'number of people who have died from it'? Obviously some people may have died in the meantime from other causes but it would be a crude figure. UK figures are available online. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does the Government publish the number of people who have recovered from having the virus and therefore have some level of immunity. No but they do publish the number of people that have tested positive so I guess that's the figure minus those who have unfortunately died. " "Recovered" is also a misnomer. "Hasn't died within the stipulated limits" isn't "is back to full health". There's people who die outside of those limits, and those with lingering health issues and disability. And those who die as a result of pandemic disruption. It'll take years to attempt to get real numbers here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased " So you're basically saying if anything contradicts what I've read and I like then it's bias? Surely you need to read more widely and see if there are different interpretations and studies on the subject. Your initial post is very misleading and I'd say irresponsible in the light of the issues of spreading the virus, unless you don't believe how the virus is spread of course. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I tested positive in March 2020 and June 2020, had antibodies in May 2020 in between and have just been for my 1st vaccine. Got told still to go because they don’t know how long it lasts. Also think the positive test in June would have been the same infection just a much much lower viral load not that I was reinfected. Strange times! " Did you have symptoms/ were ill both times? Were you tested due to symptoms or for a different reason? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I tested positive in March 2020 and June 2020, had antibodies in May 2020 in between and have just been for my 1st vaccine. Got told still to go because they don’t know how long it lasts. Also think the positive test in June would have been the same infection just a much much lower viral load not that I was reinfected. Strange times! Did you have symptoms/ were ill both times? Were you tested due to symptoms or for a different reason?" Symptoms in March so tested and positive. Antibody test in may which confirmed I had antibodies Positive swab in June due to an accident and A&E trip and kept in hospital so had to swab for a bed. No symptoms after a cough in March which only lasted 2 weeks x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased And your info came from? The Mail on line good honest News " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I tested positive in March 2020 and June 2020, had antibodies in May 2020 in between and have just been for my 1st vaccine. Got told still to go because they don’t know how long it lasts. Also think the positive test in June would have been the same infection just a much much lower viral load not that I was reinfected. Strange times! " Strong genetics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased So you're basically saying if anything contradicts what I've read and I like then it's bias? Surely you need to read more widely and see if there are different interpretations and studies on the subject. Your initial post is very misleading and I'd say irresponsible in the light of the issues of spreading the virus, unless you don't believe how the virus is spread of course." There is previous.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They say it only lasts 5 months if you have had corona, while with vaccinations, it should last up To 2 years " And that, in a nutshell, is the nonsensical spin that is being put on the science. They say the immunity may only last 5 months because the study has only been running for 5 months. Yet the vaccine study has only been running for 3 months and they try to suggest immunity could last 2 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased So you're basically saying if anything contradicts what I've read and I like then it's bias? Surely you need to read more widely and see if there are different interpretations and studies on the subject. Your initial post is very misleading and I'd say irresponsible in the light of the issues of spreading the virus, unless you don't believe how the virus is spread of course." Have no idea what you are implying it’s not misleading and it’s not irresponsible | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I tested positive in March 2020 and June 2020, had antibodies in May 2020 in between and have just been for my 1st vaccine. Got told still to go because they don’t know how long it lasts. Also think the positive test in June would have been the same infection just a much much lower viral load not that I was reinfected. Strange times! Did you have symptoms/ were ill both times? Were you tested due to symptoms or for a different reason? Symptoms in March so tested and positive. Antibody test in may which confirmed I had antibodies Positive swab in June due to an accident and A&E trip and kept in hospital so had to swab for a bed. No symptoms after a cough in March which only lasted 2 weeks x" Thank you. Just being nosey.
I wonder if like you said, the 2nd test just showed up the viral load from the same infection.
Hope you recovered ok. X | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection " Isn't this conveniently half the story? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Isn't this conveniently half the story?" On here? Nooo  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Isn't this conveniently half the story?" Apparently not as I was told by OP.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine, Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection And this is probably why so many people don't give a crap about the lockdown. They think they may as well catch the virus and get protected quicker than waiting for the vaccine. If you are youngish and get Corona seems it is better or least equal to the vaccine to have caught it "Except the vaccine is safe and the virus can cause long term disability/long Covid. There's 1 smart choice that also doesn't involve you infecting others, potentially leading to deaths down the line. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased And your info came from? The Mail on line good honest News " 
The media that is probably responsible for the highest level of vaccine anxiety, helping to fuel the UK losing its measles herd immunity, amongst other catastrophes. They ran scare stories for years about the MMR vaccine and have never apologised.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine. Interesting. My mums in hospital fighting with it at the moment. All of her Dr's in hospital and her gp have said she can not have it for a minimum of 4 weeks after a negative covid test. That is certainly not true. Err... It is true that's what's been said to me. However if you can direct me to a legitimate source that contradicts it I'd use it to argue with her gp. " You are correct, you cannot have the vaccine for 28 days after a positive covid test, contraindicated | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point if note. With this new study showing herd immunity to actually work in some sense. Does that mean it'll now form part of the strategy? ie. Anyone who has had Covid-19 will somehow go to the back of the queue for vaccines No that has been made very clear that whether you have had covid it or not makes no difference to where you come when it comes to the vaccination. Your Priority for the vaccine is based on clinical need and vulnerability rather than whether you have tested positive at any point. Also, when was it made clear? I haven't seen anything said since this report became available. On the nhs and government website there is absolutely nothing about not being offered a vaccine because you have tested positive when your group is due for a the vaccine. The question is asked regularly on the BBC and other new sources when they are interviewing people involved in the vaccine roll out and they have all made it very clear You still need the vaccine whether you have tested positive or not. Plenty of people that have tested positive have also had the vaccine. Interesting. My mums in hospital fighting with it at the moment. All of her Dr's in hospital and her gp have said she can not have it for a minimum of 4 weeks after a negative covid test. That is certainly not true. Err... It is true that's what's been said to me. However if you can direct me to a legitimate source that contradicts it I'd use it to argue with her gp. You are correct, you cannot have the vaccine for 28 days after a positive covid test, contraindicated" This is where it becomes inconsistent because my friend tested positive for covid 15 days ago and has been offered the vaccine appointment for 3 days time. She was told by her GP surgery who are going to administer her vaccine that it isn't a problem and will go ahead. Others seem to be being told by their medical staff that they cant have it for 28 days. This is where confusion comes in and I think that unless people are told otherwise by a medical professional they should go for their vaccine when called. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection Interesting interpretation, the reports I've listened to have said it 'appears' to give protection 'up to' 5 months, but it's still not confirmed it prevents you from transmission. The study showed it gave 94% protection of passing it on better than oxford vaccine From the BBC website: Most people who have had Covid-19 are protected from catching it again for at least five months, a study led by Public Health England shows. Past infection was linked to an 83% lower risk of getting the virus, compared with those who had never had Covid-19, scientists found. But experts warn some people do catch Covid-19 again - and can infect others. And officials stress people should follow the stay-at-home rules - whether or not they have had the virus. Don’t look at BBC for news to biased And your info came from? The Mail on line good honest News " Ah yes. Can’t every find fault with the good old daily fail. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you have had Corona a study by PHE scientists have found it gives more protection against reinfection than the Oxford Vaccine,Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection " Ive also heard this, and a friend of mine caught covid and now has antibodies, she's been told she dont need a vaccine nor can she catch it again. They didnt give a timeframe though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
