FabSwingers.com mobile

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

A question for the sceptics who have not been yet vaccinated

Jump to newest
 

By *traight_no_ice OP   Man
over a year ago

Stoke

I just read on CNN.

Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine is currently only authorized for emergency use in the United States, but its full approval by the US Food and Drug Administration could happen within weeks.

Should this happen and UK gives also its full approval, would this make you change your stance towards this particular covid vaccine?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackandtheunicornCouple
over a year ago

liverpool

No. Its completely unnecessary.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No. Its completely unnecessary. "

How do you get to that conclusion?

When current evidence regarding cases, hospitalisations and deaths would seem to prove the opposite.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *lym4realCouple
over a year ago

plymouth

Loving the denial of facts !! interesting article in the observer about the whole thing ..very akin to a con or people being a victim of a con ..apparently ..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heNaturistCoupleCouple
over a year ago

crewe

I'm pretty sure the Modena, Merck, AZ, Sputnik ones are no different, no vaccine gets fully approved until final stages are finished, alot of that is simply red tape

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *traight_no_ice OP   Man
over a year ago

Stoke

I am only asking because one of the main arguments of some sceptics is that the vaccine has not get full approval but only emergency approval. Maybe a full approval will be a game changer for some sceptics. Even if it is only for the vaccine of one company.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I doubt that will convince antivaxxers. They don't seem bothered by facts.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heNaturistCoupleCouple
over a year ago

crewe


"I am only asking because one of the main arguments of some sceptics is that the vaccine has not get full approval but only emergency approval. Maybe a full approval will be a game changer for some sceptics. Even if it is only for the vaccine of one company. "

We're not really concerned about full approval or FDA approval(they approve all sorts of stuff which is dodgy to be fair).

Trials and data all day everyday for us.

Pfizer along with all the rest look very reasonable in there side effects and are shown to be highly efficacious.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *traight_no_ice OP   Man
over a year ago

Stoke


"I doubt that will convince antivaxxers. They don't seem bothered by facts."

This is why the question is not meant for the antivaxxers. The antivaxxers are not sceptics. They got a lot of other more vague arguments about New world order etc.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I doubt that will convince antivaxxers. They don't seem bothered by facts.

This is why the question is not meant for the antivaxxers. The antivaxxers are not sceptics. They got a lot of other more vague arguments about New world order etc."

Unfortunately the vaccine hesitant and the people who are just very frightened are lumped in as “antivaxxers”.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"I doubt that will convince antivaxxers. They don't seem bothered by facts.

This is why the question is not meant for the antivaxxers. The antivaxxers are not sceptics. They got a lot of other more vague arguments about New world order etc.

Unfortunately the vaccine hesitant and the people who are just very frightened are lumped in as “antivaxxers”."

Yes, I think similarly. It's lazy thinking in some cases, and deliberate in others.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *traight_no_ice OP   Man
over a year ago

Stoke


"I doubt that will convince antivaxxers. They don't seem bothered by facts.

This is why the question is not meant for the antivaxxers. The antivaxxers are not sceptics. They got a lot of other more vague arguments about New world order etc.

Unfortunately the vaccine hesitant and the people who are just very frightened are lumped in as “antivaxxers”."

Not by me. I have best friends who are vaccine hesitant and not antivaxxers. However, they are falling for some of the rhetoric of antivaxxers. I would not consider them as antivaxxers. The ones though who tried yesterday to break into the BBC offices, I would not consider them as sceptics.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *empsey and hotpieceMan
over a year ago

North west

A true antivaxxer won’t be swayed from their opinions.

I read an interesting article this morning, written in the USA , analysing why the U.K. infection rate is dropping , and more importantly the hospital admissions and deaths are staying low. The conclusion was , school holidays and high vaccine uptake are why. It’s not rocket science but there’s some who just don’t understand.

In the USA the uptake hasn’t been as successful, particularly in some of the southern states which are seeing a worrying increase in infections .

So this is only my conclusion, it’s a sweeping generalisation I know, but,,,southern states, with a large redneck population who were staunch trump supporters , are now antivax, says it all really

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I doubt that will convince antivaxxers. They don't seem bothered by facts.

This is why the question is not meant for the antivaxxers. The antivaxxers are not sceptics. They got a lot of other more vague arguments about New world order etc.

Unfortunately the vaccine hesitant and the people who are just very frightened are lumped in as “antivaxxers”.

Not by me. I have best friends who are vaccine hesitant and not antivaxxers. However, they are falling for some of the rhetoric of antivaxxers. I would not consider them as antivaxxers. The ones though who tried yesterday to break into the BBC offices, I would not consider them as sceptics. "

And the ones targeting the owner of G.A.Y

I think the problem is most people understand why people would be hesitant but often the reasons the hesitant give are along the lines of the anti-vaccine rhetoric.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"A true antivaxxer won’t be swayed from their opinions.

I read an interesting article this morning, written in the USA , analysing why the U.K. infection rate is dropping , and more importantly the hospital admissions and deaths are staying low. The conclusion was , school holidays and high vaccine uptake are why. It’s not rocket science but there’s some who just don’t understand.

In the USA the uptake hasn’t been as successful, particularly in some of the southern states which are seeing a worrying increase in infections .

So this is only my conclusion, it’s a sweeping generalisation I know, but,,,southern states, with a large redneck population who were staunch trump supporters , are now antivax, says it all really "

I think it's unfortunate that disease mitigation, or lack thereof, has become a sign of one's political tribe.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A true antivaxxer won’t be swayed from their opinions.

I read an interesting article this morning, written in the USA , analysing why the U.K. infection rate is dropping , and more importantly the hospital admissions and deaths are staying low. The conclusion was , school holidays and high vaccine uptake are why. It’s not rocket science but there’s some who just don’t understand.

In the USA the uptake hasn’t been as successful, particularly in some of the southern states which are seeing a worrying increase in infections .

So this is only my conclusion, it’s a sweeping generalisation I know, but,,,southern states, with a large redneck population who were staunch trump supporters , are now antivax, says it all really "

It's a little bit different in America anyway because the whole anti-vax movement has been quite big there for several decades.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"A true antivaxxer won’t be swayed from their opinions.

I read an interesting article this morning, written in the USA , analysing why the U.K. infection rate is dropping , and more importantly the hospital admissions and deaths are staying low. The conclusion was , school holidays and high vaccine uptake are why. It’s not rocket science but there’s some who just don’t understand.

In the USA the uptake hasn’t been as successful, particularly in some of the southern states which are seeing a worrying increase in infections .

So this is only my conclusion, it’s a sweeping generalisation I know, but,,,southern states, with a large redneck population who were staunch trump supporters , are now antivax, says it all really

It's a little bit different in America anyway because the whole anti-vax movement has been quite big there for several decades. "

They've been more vocal - but I think the Wakefield MMR thing has lingering effects here. (As noted before, I had to check my measles immunity due to outbreaks, before I arrived in the UK, over ten years after the Wakefield mess. Although I was fully vaccinated according to Australian schedule, one of my titers had waned, so my doctor erred on the side of caution and gave me another MMR)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The whole antivaxxer thing is basically a mad cult. People get sucked into it by being told to believe mad things. Then they're surrouned by others who believe those things, so they're convinced it all has to be true. Anything that threatens those beliefs (such as facts) is ignored, ridiculed or attacked. And, like with any other cult, it's bloody hard to drag somebody out when they've gone all the way in.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"No. Its completely unnecessary. "

The USA authorisation is unnecessary? It's approved in the UK, following all of the standard, required Trials stages.

It's vaccines or restrictions, the only 2 tools that we have to reduce the burden on our lives, those lives that happily remain, our society/economy, allowing the NHS to manage to recover and reduce its huge backlog. No other tools exist to get this to happen.

With autumn approaching, we'll have increases in other respiratory infections increasing their burden on us all, more time indoors and in workplaces, so every one of us vaccinated balances the need for restrictions and resources that the other demands that will exist.

Not everyone can be vaccinated. My aunt was diagnosed with terminal cancer yesterday and is in hospital and people like her need the rest of us to help to make things safer for us all. Her final days are going to be dictated to by us.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eavenscentitCouple
over a year ago

barnstaple


"I doubt that will convince antivaxxers. They don't seem bothered by facts."

I'm not an anti vaxer, I'm genuinely concerned as I do not believe what we are being told. I also know people who have had clots resulting on strokes. I'm worried about having the jabs and worried about my health

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"My aunt was diagnosed with terminal cancer yesterday and is in hospital and people like her need the rest of us to help to make things safer for us all. Her final days are going to be dictated to by us. "

I wish her all the best. And you.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I doubt that will convince antivaxxers. They don't seem bothered by facts.

This is why the question is not meant for the antivaxxers. The antivaxxers are not sceptics. They got a lot of other more vague arguments about New world order etc.

Unfortunately the vaccine hesitant and the people who are just very frightened are lumped in as “antivaxxers”.

Not by me. I have best friends who are vaccine hesitant and not antivaxxers. However, they are falling for some of the rhetoric of antivaxxers. I would not consider them as antivaxxers. The ones though who tried yesterday to break into the BBC offices, I would not consider them as sceptics. "

It shows how up to date with current news they were, because the BBC left that building years ago.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I doubt that will convince antivaxxers. They don't seem bothered by facts.

This is why the question is not meant for the antivaxxers. The antivaxxers are not sceptics. They got a lot of other more vague arguments about New world order etc.

Unfortunately the vaccine hesitant and the people who are just very frightened are lumped in as “antivaxxers”.

Not by me. I have best friends who are vaccine hesitant and not antivaxxers. However, they are falling for some of the rhetoric of antivaxxers. I would not consider them as antivaxxers. The ones though who tried yesterday to break into the BBC offices, I would not consider them as sceptics.

It shows how up to date with current news they were, because the BBC left that building years ago."

It's almost as if they believe things that aren't true. How odd...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *empsey and hotpieceMan
over a year ago

North west


"A true antivaxxer won’t be swayed from their opinions.

I read an interesting article this morning, written in the USA , analysing why the U.K. infection rate is dropping , and more importantly the hospital admissions and deaths are staying low. The conclusion was , school holidays and high vaccine uptake are why. It’s not rocket science but there’s some who just don’t understand.

In the USA the uptake hasn’t been as successful, particularly in some of the southern states which are seeing a worrying increase in infections .

So this is only my conclusion, it’s a sweeping generalisation I know, but,,,southern states, with a large redneck population who were staunch trump supporters , are now antivax, says it all really

I think it's unfortunate that disease mitigation, or lack thereof, has become a sign of one's political tribe. "

Like I said, it’s my own sweeping generalisation, but there has to be a link “the brainwashed gene”?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"My aunt was diagnosed with terminal cancer yesterday and is in hospital and people like her need the rest of us to help to make things safer for us all. Her final days are going to be dictated to by us.

I wish her all the best. And you."

Thanks sweetie

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *elshsunsWoman
over a year ago

Flintshire

No

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"A true antivaxxer won’t be swayed from their opinions.

I read an interesting article this morning, written in the USA , analysing why the U.K. infection rate is dropping , and more importantly the hospital admissions and deaths are staying low. The conclusion was , school holidays and high vaccine uptake are why. It’s not rocket science but there’s some who just don’t understand.

In the USA the uptake hasn’t been as successful, particularly in some of the southern states which are seeing a worrying increase in infections .

So this is only my conclusion, it’s a sweeping generalisation I know, but,,,southern states, with a large redneck population who were staunch trump supporters , are now antivax, says it all really

I think it's unfortunate that disease mitigation, or lack thereof, has become a sign of one's political tribe.

Like I said, it’s my own sweeping generalisation, but there has to be a link “the brainwashed gene”? "

I think people like to follow their tribe.

I know some of my family, who are staunchly right wing but fairly scientifically literate, wrestle with their knowledge versus their tribe. (I stay the fuck out of it)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A true antivaxxer won’t be swayed from their opinions.

I read an interesting article this morning, written in the USA , analysing why the U.K. infection rate is dropping , and more importantly the hospital admissions and deaths are staying low. The conclusion was , school holidays and high vaccine uptake are why. It’s not rocket science but there’s some who just don’t understand.

In the USA the uptake hasn’t been as successful, particularly in some of the southern states which are seeing a worrying increase in infections .

So this is only my conclusion, it’s a sweeping generalisation I know, but,,,southern states, with a large redneck population who were staunch trump supporters , are now antivax, says it all really

I think it's unfortunate that disease mitigation, or lack thereof, has become a sign of one's political tribe.

Like I said, it’s my own sweeping generalisation, but there has to be a link “the brainwashed gene”?

I think people like to follow their tribe.

I know some of my family, who are staunchly right wing but fairly scientifically literate, wrestle with their knowledge versus their tribe. (I stay the fuck out of it)"

My son has so far refused to have the vaccine.

All the rest of my family, most of his friends and work colleagues have had at least 1 jab so far though. So he is definitely not "following the tribe". He does know someone who had bad side effects but he knows a huge amount of people. To be honest I do not know where he is getting the idea that the vaccine is bad, probably off the internet. Hopefully he will change his mind and get jabbed soon.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 10/08/21 12:30:46]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I wish these discussions could be had without the anti vaxxer accusation being thrown about. It is very clear people now fall into a number of different categories when it comes to vaccination:

Vaccinated

Un-vaccinated

Vaccine hesitant

Want to be vaxxed but can’t

Anti-vaxxers

There are often cross overs between the groups. Not everyone who is unvaccinated is an anti vaxxer!!!! Some are waiting for more info. Some cannot have it. Many have had their vaccines. People need to do what they feel is right for themselves. Its seems like regardless of what you do someone will get stick about it or applause i suppose.

To answer the OP i think its good that at least one vaccine is becoming universally recognised and accepted. Surely it makes it easier for international travel as not all vaccines are accepted by certain countries.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It won't change my mind. Because, they have to approve it now even if they weren't going to before. Can you imagine if once all the data is collected & the last clinical trial is completed They turn around & refuse to approve it. The chaos that would erupt.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I doubt that will convince antivaxxers. They don't seem bothered by facts.

This is why the question is not meant for the antivaxxers. The antivaxxers are not sceptics. They got a lot of other more vague arguments about New world order etc.

Unfortunately the vaccine hesitant and the people who are just very frightened are lumped in as “antivaxxers”.

Not by me. I have best friends who are vaccine hesitant and not antivaxxers. However, they are falling for some of the rhetoric of antivaxxers. I would not consider them as antivaxxers. The ones though who tried yesterday to break into the BBC offices, I would not consider them as sceptics. "

Attempting to break into the wrong building. I don’t think much more needs to be understood about that group.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It won't change my mind. Because, they have to approve it now even if they weren't going to before. Can you imagine if once all the data is collected & the last clinical trial is completed They turn around & refuse to approve it. The chaos that would erupt."

That's an interesting perspective. It would cause issues no doubt.

Could anything change your mind now ?

And if the full and non emergency approval was needed, would you have been okay if we were still locked down whilst waiting?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Group entry for the Darwin awards.....

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham

I find it interesting that we are seeing many countries going back into lockdown. The UK isn’t. That’s probably because we have one of the best vaccine uptake rates in the world.

So for all the antivaxxers that are getting their info from Facebook memes and going out to pubs/shops/social events. I just want to say.

Your welcome.

The reason all that stuff is available to you is because the vast majority of us are smart enough to get vaccinated.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I find it interesting that we are seeing many countries going back into lockdown. The UK isn’t. That’s probably because we have one of the best vaccine uptake rates in the world.

So for all the antivaxxers that are getting their info from Facebook memes and going out to pubs/shops/social events. I just want to say.

Your welcome.

The reason all that stuff is available to you is because the vast majority of us are smart enough to get vaccinated. "

Thanks

I honestly do appreciate it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nkforthekinkMan
over a year ago

london/fareham/brighton


"No "

It’s a no again from me

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Group entry for the Darwin awards....."
I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham


"Group entry for the Darwin awards.....I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small. "

I’d say the biggest issue is a very bad level of basic maths which allows them to fall for absolute dribble statistics that anyone with a gcse level of maths could pick apart.

It’s no coincidence that all the people on my Facebook that are vocal about not getting the vaccine are all the worst educated. A good number of them have fallen for MLM schemes in the past. And many of them take drugs.

Doesn’t take much to put that all together.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *andKBCouple
over a year ago

Plymouth


"I find it interesting that we are seeing many countries going back into lockdown. The UK isn’t. That’s probably because we have one of the best vaccine uptake rates in the world.

So for all the antivaxxers that are getting their info from Facebook memes and going out to pubs/shops/social events. I just want to say.

Your welcome.

The reason all that stuff is available to you is because the vast majority of us are smart enough to get vaccinated.

Thanks

I honestly do appreciate it "

Did you have a think on what I, and another said yesterday at all? I did speak to my friend since I thought it was interesting about nut allergy anaphylaxis. He said so far the AZ and Moderna have shown 0 contraindications with it. Pfizer still seems safe, but best avoided due to a possible risk.

I know you're worried about something happening, statistically you are far, far more likely to die from covid than the vaccine.

Obviously do best by yourself, but thought you'd appreciate the info.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hatsthescoreMan
over a year ago

Telford

No

Had covid and smashed it within a week.

This big bad Delta variant has killed 71 (yes 71 scary huh) people under the age of 50 of which only 48 were unvaxxed.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I find it interesting that we are seeing many countries going back into lockdown. The UK isn’t. That’s probably because we have one of the best vaccine uptake rates in the world.

So for all the antivaxxers that are getting their info from Facebook memes and going out to pubs/shops/social events. I just want to say.

Your welcome.

The reason all that stuff is available to you is because the vast majority of us are smart enough to get vaccinated.

Thanks

I honestly do appreciate it

Did you have a think on what I, and another said yesterday at all? I did speak to my friend since I thought it was interesting about nut allergy anaphylaxis. He said so far the AZ and Moderna have shown 0 contraindications with it. Pfizer still seems safe, but best avoided due to a possible risk.

I know you're worried about something happening, statistically you are far, far more likely to die from covid than the vaccine.

Obviously do best by yourself, but thought you'd appreciate the info. "

Thankyou, I really appreciate it. I think the thing that worried me and initially worried the medics that I’d spoken to is that I suffer anaphylaxis and allergy responses to unknown sources. The last time I was hospitalised was from an unknown source and that’s scary!

I appreciate your input and Thankyou

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"A true antivaxxer won’t be swayed from their opinions.

I read an interesting article this morning, written in the USA , analysing why the U.K. infection rate is dropping , and more importantly the hospital admissions and deaths are staying low. The conclusion was , school holidays and high vaccine uptake are why. It’s not rocket science but there’s some who just don’t understand.

In the USA the uptake hasn’t been as successful, particularly in some of the southern states which are seeing a worrying increase in infections .

So this is only my conclusion, it’s a sweeping generalisation I know, but,,,southern states, with a large redneck population who were staunch trump supporters , are now antivax, says it all really

I think it's unfortunate that disease mitigation, or lack thereof, has become a sign of one's political tribe.

Like I said, it’s my own sweeping generalisation, but there has to be a link “the brainwashed gene”?

I think people like to follow their tribe.

I know some of my family, who are staunchly right wing but fairly scientifically literate, wrestle with their knowledge versus their tribe. (I stay the fuck out of it)

My son has so far refused to have the vaccine.

All the rest of my family, most of his friends and work colleagues have had at least 1 jab so far though. So he is definitely not "following the tribe". He does know someone who had bad side effects but he knows a huge amount of people. To be honest I do not know where he is getting the idea that the vaccine is bad, probably off the internet. Hopefully he will change his mind and get jabbed soon."

Political tribe rather than personal tribe. We all have several tribes which may conflict.

I'll use a relative of mine as an example. Rabidly right wing, which is not a slam on anyone who's right wing, just, trust me they're extreme. Been biting my tongue for over 20 years and not even bothering. Their political tribe says masks are a tool of oppression.

But they're scientifically literate and they get the principle of mask wearing. They're clinically vulnerable. So that tribe is pro mask.

Their family is pro mask.

So they're conflicted. They wear the mask - and complain mightily

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My view is let them I'm past caring about people like that just annoyed that they are selfish

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hagTonightMan
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"No"
This .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If it had the live vaccine in it like the normal flu jab, had completed the clinical trials & had more information about the DNA part before being released then I probably would've had it. I'm not anti vax, I'm usually extremely pro vaccine, but there's just something about this thatdoesn't sit right with me, I'm high risk & have spent lockdown shielding for the most part.

Most people with my condition have had the vaxx but when it was first released we were told not too have it. They very quickly changed their minds & said to get it even though it can cause blood clots in some ppl. My body goes through so much naturally, I'm not going to put something in my body that no one is sure what it will long term do to me without the research being there. TBH before the vaccine was released I said I wasn't going to get it, as soon as they said immunity had been given to all the companies involved in the development of it.

They hadn't finished it yet they were protected from being sued that's very dodgy in my opinion.

I'm not one of those "its a fake virus made up" conspiracy ppl. I keep 3 masks on me at all times, just incase. This virus has ruined enough in my life, I have more then enough health issues to worry about. Without this vaccine making things even worse in the future. My nan hasn't been the same since she got the 2nd dose & if the same thing happened to me I'd be housebound forever. I am extremely careful/cautious about who I'm around since the virus came out,I barely leave the house. & tbh if I catch it, I'll most likely die but it will be because of my choice & not because I've been forced into something.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I am only asking because one of the main arguments of some sceptics is that the vaccine has not get full approval but only emergency approval. Maybe a full approval will be a game changer for some sceptics. Even if it is only for the vaccine of one company. "

Have some not been approved?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *traight_no_ice OP   Man
over a year ago

Stoke


"I am only asking because one of the main arguments of some sceptics is that the vaccine has not get full approval but only emergency approval. Maybe a full approval will be a game changer for some sceptics. Even if it is only for the vaccine of one company.

Have some not been approved? "

They have been approved but for emergency use. And this does not sit well with some people, hence the question.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"I am only asking because one of the main arguments of some sceptics is that the vaccine has not get full approval but only emergency approval. Maybe a full approval will be a game changer for some sceptics. Even if it is only for the vaccine of one company.

Have some not been approved?

They have been approved but for emergency use. And this does not sit well with some people, hence the question."

People still quoting american FDA as if that has any relevance to the MHRA. The regs are different over there - the term emergency use doesnt mean what anti vaxxers want it to mean - it is a procedural thing and nothing to do with safety data.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I am only asking because one of the main arguments of some sceptics is that the vaccine has not get full approval but only emergency approval. Maybe a full approval will be a game changer for some sceptics. Even if it is only for the vaccine of one company.

Have some not been approved?

They have been approved but for emergency use. And this does not sit well with some people, hence the question.

People still quoting american FDA as if that has any relevance to the MHRA. The regs are different over there - the term emergency use doesnt mean what anti vaxxers want it to mean - it is a procedural thing and nothing to do with safety data."

To add: at the time we were still in the EU, and so medicines has to be authorised by the EMA however in emergencies local regulatord can grant temporary approval.

That is where we are now.

Ironically, had this been a few months later, we would be out of the EU, and MHRA would have been *the* authority in this.

I do wonder for those who are worried, if they have looked at what has been missed versus any other medicine they take. Or if the words emergency have just raised alarm bells.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ty31Man
over a year ago

NW London

For me it wouldn't. I'm hesitant to ge the jab because I feel that there is the potential for unintentional side effects in the long term and also I'm a little concerned about messing a out with my immune system when it's working perfectly right now (I've not had a day off sick since 2015). Then there is also the real prospect of needing annual boosters plus the government constant moving of goal posts does not inspire confidence.

I am not an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. I think that the development of a working vaccine is a great achievement and I hope that it proves to be a success in allowing us to return to normality and protect the vulnerable etc.

I do also understand that I will probably need to have it sooner rather than later otherwise I will be excluded from certain things I value (mainly foreign travel). I just haven't come to the point of being comfortable using a drug which is very much in its infancy/trial stages.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"For me it wouldn't. I'm hesitant to ge the jab because I feel that there is the potential for unintentional side effects in the long term and also I'm a little concerned about messing a out with my immune system when it's working perfectly right now (I've not had a day off sick since 2015). Then there is also the real prospect of needing annual boosters plus the government constant moving of goal posts does not inspire confidence.

I am not an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. I think that the development of a working vaccine is a great achievement and I hope that it proves to be a success in allowing us to return to normality and protect the vulnerable etc.

I do also understand that I will probably need to have it sooner rather than later otherwise I will be excluded from certain things I value (mainly foreign travel). I just haven't come to the point of being comfortable using a drug which is very much in its infancy/trial stages."

You're much more likely to suffer long term harm from getting Covid than from getting a vaccine.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"For me it wouldn't. I'm hesitant to ge the jab because I feel that there is the potential for unintentional side effects in the long term and also I'm a little concerned about messing a out with my immune system when it's working perfectly right now (I've not had a day off sick since 2015). Then there is also the real prospect of needing annual boosters plus the government constant moving of goal posts does not inspire confidence.

I am not an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. I think that the development of a working vaccine is a great achievement and I hope that it proves to be a success in allowing us to return to normality and protect the vulnerable etc.

I do also understand that I will probably need to have it sooner rather than later otherwise I will be excluded from certain things I value (mainly foreign travel). I just haven't come to the point of being comfortable using a drug which is very much in its infancy/trial stages.

You're much more likely to suffer long term harm from getting Covid than from getting a vaccine."

It isn't in its infancy

It passed stage 3 trials

Stage 4 trials are post-distribution close monitoring

The vaccines are safe in every meaningful sense of the word

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *LIRTWITHUSCouple
over a year ago

Chester

We've double jabbed in icu in our local hospitals which is concerning

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"We've double jabbed in icu in our local hospitals which is concerning "
you will do. The jab isn't perfect. However, one can only hypothesise wherw they'd have been without a jab ...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ty31Man
over a year ago

NW London


"For me it wouldn't. I'm hesitant to ge the jab because I feel that there is the potential for unintentional side effects in the long term and also I'm a little concerned about messing a out with my immune system when it's working perfectly right now (I've not had a day off sick since 2015). Then there is also the real prospect of needing annual boosters plus the government constant moving of goal posts does not inspire confidence.

I am not an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. I think that the development of a working vaccine is a great achievement and I hope that it proves to be a success in allowing us to return to normality and protect the vulnerable etc.

I do also understand that I will probably need to have it sooner rather than later otherwise I will be excluded from certain things I value (mainly foreign travel). I just haven't come to the point of being comfortable using a drug which is very much in its infancy/trial stages.

You're much more likely to suffer long term harm from getting Covid than from getting a vaccine.

It isn't in its infancy

It passed stage 3 trials

Stage 4 trials are post-distribution close monitoring

The vaccines are safe in every meaningful sense of the word "

Except they haven't had time to prove themselves 100% safe yet, they are still very very new and Covid is a very recent illness.

I'm aware that over time the vaccines will likely prove to be incredibly safe it's just right now I don't feel particularly comfortable having my arm twisted into having them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"For me it wouldn't. I'm hesitant to ge the jab because I feel that there is the potential for unintentional side effects in the long term and also I'm a little concerned about messing a out with my immune system when it's working perfectly right now (I've not had a day off sick since 2015). Then there is also the real prospect of needing annual boosters plus the government constant moving of goal posts does not inspire confidence.

I am not an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. I think that the development of a working vaccine is a great achievement and I hope that it proves to be a success in allowing us to return to normality and protect the vulnerable etc.

I do also understand that I will probably need to have it sooner rather than later otherwise I will be excluded from certain things I value (mainly foreign travel). I just haven't come to the point of being comfortable using a drug which is very much in its infancy/trial stages.

You're much more likely to suffer long term harm from getting Covid than from getting a vaccine.

It isn't in its infancy

It passed stage 3 trials

Stage 4 trials are post-distribution close monitoring

The vaccines are safe in every meaningful sense of the word

Except they haven't had time to prove themselves 100% safe yet, they are still very very new and Covid is a very recent illness.

I'm aware that over time the vaccines will likely prove to be incredibly safe it's just right now I don't feel particularly comfortable having my arm twisted into having them."

They have been proven safe. There is almost endless data to support this. Longitudinally we know they are safe because vaccine side effects dont occur 10 years later on - they occur within a few months of receiving the vaccine

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"We've double jabbed in icu in our local hospitals which is concerning "

Its statistically likely - certain to have some double jabbed people in hospital and who will die from covid. That doesnt mean the vaccines arent massively effective and safe

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"For me it wouldn't. I'm hesitant to ge the jab because I feel that there is the potential for unintentional side effects in the long term and also I'm a little concerned about messing a out with my immune system when it's working perfectly right now (I've not had a day off sick since 2015). Then there is also the real prospect of needing annual boosters plus the government constant moving of goal posts does not inspire confidence.

I am not an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. I think that the development of a working vaccine is a great achievement and I hope that it proves to be a success in allowing us to return to normality and protect the vulnerable etc.

I do also understand that I will probably need to have it sooner rather than later otherwise I will be excluded from certain things I value (mainly foreign travel). I just haven't come to the point of being comfortable using a drug which is very much in its infancy/trial stages.

You're much more likely to suffer long term harm from getting Covid than from getting a vaccine.

It isn't in its infancy

It passed stage 3 trials

Stage 4 trials are post-distribution close monitoring

The vaccines are safe in every meaningful sense of the word

Except they haven't had time to prove themselves 100% safe yet, they are still very very new and Covid is a very recent illness.

I'm aware that over time the vaccines will likely prove to be incredibly safe it's just right now I don't feel particularly comfortable having my arm twisted into having them."

For me, there's a genuine concern and a hook for disturbance in here. I wonder how many people understand what long term testing is done on any medicine, and how they get comfortable with any medicine passing the test they are holding for the covid vaccine. I sense many feel worried because of all the wiser noise and will use this as the reason. How long will they need to wait to get comfortable ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *elshsunsWoman
over a year ago

Flintshire


"Group entry for the Darwin awards.....I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small. "

Nope I’m 61 ... I’ve worked out in the community through all this with drug and alcohol users and not a sniffle .. maybe it’s because I’m healthy and look after my immune system who knows ... but I won’t be having it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Group entry for the Darwin awards.....I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small.

Nope I’m 61 ... I’ve worked out in the community through all this with drug and alcohol users and not a sniffle .. maybe it’s because I’m healthy and look after my immune system who knows ... but I won’t be having it "

You might have to like you have had to have the Hep vaccines.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *elshsunsWoman
over a year ago

Flintshire


"Group entry for the Darwin awards.....I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small.

Nope I’m 61 ... I’ve worked out in the community through all this with drug and alcohol users and not a sniffle .. maybe it’s because I’m healthy and look after my immune system who knows ... but I won’t be having it

You might have to like you have had to have the Hep vaccines. "

Nope hepatitis is not mandatory

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Group entry for the Darwin awards.....I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small.

Nope I’m 61 ... I’ve worked out in the community through all this with drug and alcohol users and not a sniffle .. maybe it’s because I’m healthy and look after my immune system who knows ... but I won’t be having it

You might have to like you have had to have the Hep vaccines.

Nope hepatitis is not mandatory "

No it's not but the vaccine is in almost all health authorities in the country.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Group entry for the Darwin awards.....I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small.

Nope I’m 61 ... I’ve worked out in the community through all this with drug and alcohol users and not a sniffle .. maybe it’s because I’m healthy and look after my immune system who knows ... but I won’t be having it

You might have to like you have had to have the Hep vaccines.

Nope hepatitis is not mandatory

No it's not but the vaccine is in almost all health authorities in the country. "

For working with certain groups and the ones you say you work with is one of them but then you should know that already.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *elshsunsWoman
over a year ago

Flintshire


"Group entry for the Darwin awards.....I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small.

Nope I’m 61 ... I’ve worked out in the community through all this with drug and alcohol users and not a sniffle .. maybe it’s because I’m healthy and look after my immune system who knows ... but I won’t be having it

You might have to like you have had to have the Hep vaccines.

Nope hepatitis is not mandatory

No it's not but the vaccine is in almost all health authorities in the country.

For working with certain groups and the ones you say you work with is one of them but then you should know that already. "

Know what????! It’s not mandatory I’m not jabbed

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ed wineMan
over a year ago

Where the streets have no name


"I just read on CNN.

Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine is currently only authorized for emergency use in the United States, but its full approval by the US Food and Drug Administration could happen within weeks.

Should this happen and UK gives also its full approval, would this make you change your stance towards this particular covid vaccine? "

Well, I am not fully aware of the legal terms concerning the full approval but already a month ago I received a Pfizer jab in my GP. I had the possibility to choose between this one and the A-Z

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Group entry for the Darwin awards.....I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small.

Nope I’m 61 ... I’ve worked out in the community through all this with drug and alcohol users and not a sniffle .. maybe it’s because I’m healthy and look after my immune system who knows ... but I won’t be having it

You might have to like you have had to have the Hep vaccines.

Nope hepatitis is not mandatory

No it's not but the vaccine is in almost all health authorities in the country.

For working with certain groups and the ones you say you work with is one of them but then you should know that already.

Know what????! It’s not mandatory I’m not jabbed "

OK then!

That's a health risk to you and the people you work with. Again you should know that.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *elshsunsWoman
over a year ago

Flintshire


"Group entry for the Darwin awards.....I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small.

Nope I’m 61 ... I’ve worked out in the community through all this with drug and alcohol users and not a sniffle .. maybe it’s because I’m healthy and look after my immune system who knows ... but I won’t be having it

You might have to like you have had to have the Hep vaccines.

Nope hepatitis is not mandatory

No it's not but the vaccine is in almost all health authorities in the country.

For working with certain groups and the ones you say you work with is one of them but then you should know that already.

Know what????! It’s not mandatory I’m not jabbed

OK then!

That's a health risk to you and the people you work with. Again you should know that. "

Not at all ... your safe if your jabbed aren’t you??? From me the unjabbed ??? Well I’ve been safe for 18 months I’m sure that will continue ...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I just read on CNN.

Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine is currently only authorized for emergency use in the United States, but its full approval by the US Food and Drug Administration could happen within weeks.

Should this happen and UK gives also its full approval, would this make you change your stance towards this particular covid vaccine? "

I would not apply any personal opinion on anything quoted on CNN until AFTER I'd had chance to research the facts for myself. Same for Times, Newsgroup, Daily Fail or any other "news" network.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Group entry for the Darwin awards.....I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small.

Nope I’m 61 ... I’ve worked out in the community through all this with drug and alcohol users and not a sniffle .. maybe it’s because I’m healthy and look after my immune system who knows ... but I won’t be having it

You might have to like you have had to have the Hep vaccines.

Nope hepatitis is not mandatory

No it's not but the vaccine is in almost all health authorities in the country.

For working with certain groups and the ones you say you work with is one of them but then you should know that already.

Know what????! It’s not mandatory I’m not jabbed

OK then!

That's a health risk to you and the people you work with. Again you should know that.

Not at all ... your safe if your jabbed aren’t you??? From me the unjabbed ??? Well I’ve been safe for 18 months I’m sure that will continue ... "

What are you talking about! I very clearly said about we hepatitis vaccine not covid!

You also seem to be missing the point and it is rather concerning that you have the attitude of well I'm OK but you work was really valuable people. Of course you have a choice as to whether or not you take the back soon but you don't really seem that bothered if your actions have problems or consequences for others.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ubal1Man
over a year ago

Newry Down

Bill Gates, George Soros, The Davis Group, The Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, with their Chief UK Advisor, David Icke have arranged this pandemic for the sheeple; vaccines contain microchips that are activated by 5G mast transmissions, which determine the date of death of preselected vaccinated groups in order to depopulate the planet, for The Illuminati.

Bill Gates's wife objected to her relatives being selected from the sheeple and that is why they are getting divorced. She is due to be assassinated in a Paris tunnel whilst in a Mercedes car that is being driven by a d*unk bodyguard whose family will survive if he drives the car that is being followed by photographers whom David Icke has selected from a specially trained lizard group.

This is the type of garbage that some people believe; I have spoken to them.

Take the damned vaccine and protect yourself and others; it is for the greater good!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Group entry for the Darwin awards.....I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small.

Nope I’m 61 ... I’ve worked out in the community through all this with drug and alcohol users and not a sniffle .. maybe it’s because I’m healthy and look after my immune system who knows ... but I won’t be having it

You might have to like you have had to have the Hep vaccines.

Nope hepatitis is not mandatory

No it's not but the vaccine is in almost all health authorities in the country.

For working with certain groups and the ones you say you work with is one of them but then you should know that already.

Know what????! It’s not mandatory I’m not jabbed

OK then!

That's a health risk to you and the people you work with. Again you should know that.

Not at all ... your safe if your jabbed aren’t you??? From me the unjabbed ??? Well I’ve been safe for 18 months I’m sure that will continue ... "

The jab isn't 100pc effective, so no. And who knows if you've been asymptomatic? Although I assume you test regularly for your job, and have the NHS app ?

I'm not knocking ur choice btw. But am worried youre being a bit blasé of the risks.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uddy laneMan
over a year ago

dudley

Yes take the pill

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eamteamCouple
over a year ago

Toen

[Removed by poster at 10/08/21 22:09:14]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ir-spunk-alotMan
over a year ago

Southern England

Conspiracy theorists is how stupid people get to feel like intellectuals.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham


"[Removed by poster at 10/08/21 22:09:14]"

Spot on… (read it before you deleted )

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"[Removed by poster at 10/08/21 22:09:14]

Spot on… (read it before you deleted ) "
I'm intrigued now !!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eamteamCouple
over a year ago

Toen

I was thinking about taking the vaccine but reading this thread it appears that one of the main side effects is extreme smug self righteousness.

If some of the new vaccines due to come out can eliminate that I might be tempted.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *iss SinWoman
over a year ago

portchester

I’ve been advised not to have it and I must say I am in the most part very glad

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"Group entry for the Darwin awards.....I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small.

Nope I’m 61 ... I’ve worked out in the community through all this with drug and alcohol users and not a sniffle .. maybe it’s because I’m healthy and look after my immune system who knows ... but I won’t be having it "

You do realise that the danger with covid is the over response of the immune system creating cytokine storms? A strong immune system can be massive problem!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"I’ve been advised not to have it and I must say I am in the most part very glad "

Im sorry to hear that - must mean you have a serious condition. You are someone i got the jab to help protect

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *an JuniperoCouple
over a year ago

North East

Based on some of comments on this thread, I can’t imagine they will have had the desired effect on some of the vaccine hesitant readers. Belittling people and insulting them for not following your way of thinking will rarely get the response you want. Having a go at people who’ve had the vaccine is even more pointless because even a change in their minds won’t undo the decision. Although the post started innocently enough it wasn’t long before it descended into sanctimonious playground nonsense. Much like most threads these days

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"I was thinking about taking the vaccine but reading this thread it appears that one of the main side effects is extreme smug self righteousness.

If some of the new vaccines due to come out can eliminate that I might be tempted. "

I find it hard to believe you have thought about this at all tbh

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *iss SinWoman
over a year ago

portchester


"I’ve been advised not to have it and I must say I am in the most part very glad

Im sorry to hear that - must mean you have a serious condition. You are someone i got the jab to help protect "

It took me weeks to be able to talk to my doctor about whether to have it or not. He said definitely no

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"Based on some of comments on this thread, I can’t imagine they will have had the desired effect on some of the vaccine hesitant readers. Belittling people and insulting them for not following your way of thinking will rarely get the response you want. Having a go at people who’ve had the vaccine is even more pointless because even a change in their minds won’t undo the decision. Although the post started innocently enough it wasn’t long before it descended into sanctimonious playground nonsense. Much like most threads these days "

I know it will just make them dig their heels in but they are already lost to their fears and vanity. I think it is only right that they are shamed for their selfishness and wilfull ignorance

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *an JuniperoCouple
over a year ago

North East


"Based on some of comments on this thread, I can’t imagine they will have had the desired effect on some of the vaccine hesitant readers. Belittling people and insulting them for not following your way of thinking will rarely get the response you want. Having a go at people who’ve had the vaccine is even more pointless because even a change in their minds won’t undo the decision. Although the post started innocently enough it wasn’t long before it descended into sanctimonious playground nonsense. Much like most threads these days

I know it will just make them dig their heels in but they are already lost to their fears and vanity. I think it is only right that they are shamed for their selfishness and wilfull ignorance"

Shame really. If you were genuinely that concerned about convincing people to get the jab you’d probably avoid doing it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I thought from day one it was a choice to vax or not.

what I clearly see and read through most social media or even this site is divide and conquer.

I'm no conspiracy guy I just do my thing as a self employed worker and I've worked all way through so far including the knightingales at the start.

people will say different but you know what its life....live yours.

but I do have to admit that most of the vile comments I've seen here and elsewhere have come from the vaxxed.

but let's be clear although you're jabbed vaxxed of whatever you contract and pass on still albeit less side effects or whatever but you're still part of the problem were all in together.

so just be respectful of anyone's choices.

long winded but hey ho keep smiling and stay safe best you can for your wishes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uddy laneMan
over a year ago

dudley

Hey teacher leave those kids alone

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *igNick1381Man
over a year ago

BRIDGEND

Once a long term plan is set I'll have all the information I need to make an informed decision

But until someone can definitively point to guidance stating what the long term booster protocol will be I'm not going into something that's so half assed

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"Based on some of comments on this thread, I can’t imagine they will have had the desired effect on some of the vaccine hesitant readers. Belittling people and insulting them for not following your way of thinking will rarely get the response you want. Having a go at people who’ve had the vaccine is even more pointless because even a change in their minds won’t undo the decision. Although the post started innocently enough it wasn’t long before it descended into sanctimonious playground nonsense. Much like most threads these days

I know it will just make them dig their heels in but they are already lost to their fears and vanity. I think it is only right that they are shamed for their selfishness and wilfull ignorance

Shame really. If you were genuinely that concerned about convincing people to get the jab you’d probably avoid doing it. "

You cant convince them

No amount of evidence will work

..

No amount of socratic questioning phases them

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"Once a long term plan is set I'll have all the information I need to make an informed decision

But until someone can definitively point to guidance stating what the long term booster protocol will be I'm not going into something that's so half assed"

Why are you waiting for booster plans when getting first dose now helps now? The booster possibilities dont have an impact on the benefits of the initial dose

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ty31Man
over a year ago

NW London


"Based on some of comments on this thread, I can’t imagine they will have had the desired effect on some of the vaccine hesitant readers. Belittling people and insulting them for not following your way of thinking will rarely get the response you want. Having a go at people who’ve had the vaccine is even more pointless because even a change in their minds won’t undo the decision. Although the post started innocently enough it wasn’t long before it descended into sanctimonious playground nonsense. Much like most threads these days

I know it will just make them dig their heels in but they are already lost to their fears and vanity. I think it is only right that they are shamed for their selfishness and wilfull ignorance

Shame really. If you were genuinely that concerned about convincing people to get the jab you’d probably avoid doing it.

You cant convince them

No amount of evidence will work

..

No amount of socratic questioning phases them"

It's a brand new illness and a brand new vaccine. Its inevitable that some.people will take longer to feel comfortable with it or to trust it. Right now the social stigma of being "unvaxxed" or attaching the "antivax" label to anybody with a genuine concern isn't helpful or productive.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

only thing I want to ask anyone is before covid did anyone on here trust the government who now are claiming to be saviours because I didn't.

I can't find it myself to trust a group of people who have and let's be honest with each other here still have a proven track record of lies and deceit from the word go......

so why does everyone now believe they are the one to follow as an example when all along this journey it has been proven for lies and deciet .

keep smiling

stay safe

and enjoy yourself

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hristopherd999Man
over a year ago

Brentwood


"only thing I want to ask anyone is before covid did anyone on here trust the government who now are claiming to be saviours because I didn't.

I can't find it myself to trust a group of people who have and let's be honest with each other here still have a proven track record of lies and deceit from the word go......

so why does everyone now believe they are the one to follow as an example when all along this journey it has been proven for lies and deciet .

keep smiling

stay safe

and enjoy yourself "

So are you saying every government around the world are lying and they've all made covid up?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ob198XaMan
over a year ago

teleford


"only thing I want to ask anyone is before covid did anyone on here trust the government who now are claiming to be saviours because I didn't.

I can't find it myself to trust a group of people who have and let's be honest with each other here still have a proven track record of lies and deceit from the word go......

so why does everyone now believe they are the one to follow as an example when all along this journey it has been proven for lies and deciet .

keep smiling

stay safe

and enjoy yourself "

There is far far more weight to the pro vaccination argument than just the word of the government which you are understandably sceptical of.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *tevied1976Man
over a year ago

gloucester


"Group entry for the Darwin awards.....I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small.

Nope I’m 61 ... I’ve worked out in the community through all this with drug and alcohol users and not a sniffle ..

maybe it’s because I’m healthy and look after my immune system who knows ... but I won’t be having it "

Mother Nature is the best scientist, she's been doing it for a long time.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago

Bristol

[Removed by poster at 11/08/21 11:14:08]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago

Bristol


"Group entry for the Darwin awards.....I'd imagine most ppl who choose not to get vaccinated either have kids, or are young enough that the risk of dying is small.

Nope I’m 61 ... I’ve worked out in the community through all this with drug and alcohol users and not a sniffle ..

maybe it’s because I’m healthy and look after my immune system who knows ... but I won’t be having it

Mother Nature is the best scientist, she's been doing it for a long time."

Yup kill off the weak!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rivateyesCouple
over a year ago

Leighton Buzzard

I’m sure that I’ll get slaughtered for posting this but be warned It’s highly unlikely that I’ll respond to those that disagree and don’t respect my opinion.

For the record I am in the vulnerable category having had cancer (in remission) and also have immune suppression infusions every 8 weeks.

I made my mind to not be vaccinated based on my own research in Jan 2021 using the official figures from the ONS.

0.006% of the UK population had died “from” COVID at Jan 2021. You don’t inoculate an entire population because 0.006% will have a bad reaction.

Of that 0.006% how many actually died because of COVID? most of these people had underlying health conditions (much like myself) and a common cold could easily have finished them off.

Next came the consistent radio campaigns which told us that 1 in 3 people have it, don’t know it, and are spreading it!

Therefore another 1 in 3 know they have it, and another 1 in 3 (or more) have been vaccinated

If you get it, you’re told to stay inside for 2 weeks. 6 weeks and we’ve all been subjected to in in one way or another!

How is it even possible that after 18 months we haven’t all had it? In which case we have achieved herd immunity.

Now the latest campaign is to tell us all (once 70% of the adult population has been vaccinated) that even those that have been double vaccinated can still catch it and spread it! So what on Earth is the point of it then?

Would you have still had 2 doses if they told you that beforehand, I doubt very much that all of you would have.

The clear way forward would be to find out for sure where the country stands, that would involve finding out how many people have natural immunity because they’ve been infected, but the one test you can’t get unless you work in certain jobs or if you pay privately is an AntiBody test.

Before you slate me about my belief and label me as an AV or worse, ask yourself why they won’t provide AntiBody tests, unless of course they wouldn’t want anybody to know we’d all had it by Jan 2021 and that was as bad as it was ever going to get. How would that help them to hail the vaccine as the super hero that saved us all.

It’s my choice and opinion which I ask to be respected, just the same as I will respect yours even if you believe it’s because of 5G masts.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I’m sure that I’ll get slaughtered for posting this but be warned It’s highly unlikely that I’ll respond to those that disagree and don’t respect my opinion.

For the record I am in the vulnerable category having had cancer (in remission) and also have immune suppression infusions every 8 weeks.

I made my mind to not be vaccinated based on my own research in Jan 2021 using the official figures from the ONS.

0.006% of the UK population had died “from” COVID at Jan 2021. You don’t inoculate an entire population because 0.006% will have a bad reaction.

Of that 0.006% how many actually died because of COVID? most of these people had underlying health conditions (much like myself) and a common cold could easily have finished them off.

Next came the consistent radio campaigns which told us that 1 in 3 people have it, don’t know it, and are spreading it!

Therefore another 1 in 3 know they have it, and another 1 in 3 (or more) have been vaccinated

If you get it, you’re told to stay inside for 2 weeks. 6 weeks and we’ve all been subjected to in in one way or another!

How is it even possible that after 18 months we haven’t all had it? In which case we have achieved herd immunity.

Now the latest campaign is to tell us all (once 70% of the adult population has been vaccinated) that even those that have been double vaccinated can still catch it and spread it! So what on Earth is the point of it then?

Would you have still had 2 doses if they told you that beforehand, I doubt very much that all of you would have.

The clear way forward would be to find out for sure where the country stands, that would involve finding out how many people have natural immunity because they’ve been infected, but the one test you can’t get unless you work in certain jobs or if you pay privately is an AntiBody test.

Before you slate me about my belief and label me as an AV or worse, ask yourself why they won’t provide AntiBody tests, unless of course they wouldn’t want anybody to know we’d all had it by Jan 2021 and that was as bad as it was ever going to get. How would that help them to hail the vaccine as the super hero that saved us all.

It’s my choice and opinion which I ask to be respected, just the same as I will respect yours even if you believe it’s because of 5G masts.

"

Thank you for sharing your own personal story. Very well worded, clearly based on evidence available to you, and your choice. I fear you may be labelled because of your view, but its nice to read a balanced comment.

I wish you all the very best on your journey to recovery

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I read an interesting article this morning, written in the USA , analysing why the U.K. infection rate is dropping "

It isn’t.

A look at the covid dashboard shows that it is rising, along with hospitalisations and (slowly) deaths

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eptimiusMan
over a year ago

East

[Removed by poster at 11/08/21 12:07:17]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eptimiusMan
over a year ago

East

No. There isnt anything they could do to change my mind on this

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I’m sure that I’ll get slaughtered for posting this but be warned It’s highly unlikely that I’ll respond to those that disagree and don’t respect my opinion.

For the record I am in the vulnerable category having had cancer (in remission) and also have immune suppression infusions every 8 weeks.

I made my mind to not be vaccinated based on my own research in Jan 2021 using the official figures from the ONS.

0.006% of the UK population had died “from” COVID at Jan 2021. You don’t inoculate an entire population because 0.006% will have a bad reaction.

Of that 0.006% how many actually died because of COVID? most of these people had underlying health conditions (much like myself) and a common cold could easily have finished them off.

Next came the consistent radio campaigns which told us that 1 in 3 people have it, don’t know it, and are spreading it!

Therefore another 1 in 3 know they have it, and another 1 in 3 (or more) have been vaccinated

If you get it, you’re told to stay inside for 2 weeks. 6 weeks and we’ve all been subjected to in in one way or another!

How is it even possible that after 18 months we haven’t all had it? In which case we have achieved herd immunity.

Now the latest campaign is to tell us all (once 70% of the adult population has been vaccinated) that even those that have been double vaccinated can still catch it and spread it! So what on Earth is the point of it then?

Would you have still had 2 doses if they told you that beforehand, I doubt very much that all of you would have.

The clear way forward would be to find out for sure where the country stands, that would involve finding out how many people have natural immunity because they’ve been infected, but the one test you can’t get unless you work in certain jobs or if you pay privately is an AntiBody test.

Before you slate me about my belief and label me as an AV or worse, ask yourself why they won’t provide AntiBody tests, unless of course they wouldn’t want anybody to know we’d all had it by Jan 2021 and that was as bad as it was ever going to get. How would that help them to hail the vaccine as the super hero that saved us all.

It’s my choice and opinion which I ask to be respected, just the same as I will respect yours even if you believe it’s because of 5G masts.

"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *urplechesterCouple
over a year ago

chester


"The whole antivaxxer thing is basically a mad cult. People get sucked into it by being told to believe mad things. Then they're surrouned by others who believe those things, so they're convinced it all has to be true. Anything that threatens those beliefs (such as facts) is ignored, ridiculed or attacked. And, like with any other cult, it's bloody hard to drag somebody out when they've gone all the way in. "

This is an interesting one! Anti Vaxers are seen as a cult, but those for it are not part of a cult themselves? A cult has to have a leader that all follow, listen too and abide by the rules they are told to follow! Miss pc

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uv2kissMan
over a year ago

fenland

My attitude towards anti vaxxers is similar to my attitude towards the flat earth believers and the Loch Ness monster.

( shakes head slowly and walks away )

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Has anyone els noticed that it's all you oldys who seem to have a problem with those who don't want to be "vaccinated" you have all had your jabs now leave the rest of us with more sense to it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *traight_no_ice OP   Man
over a year ago

Stoke


"The whole antivaxxer thing is basically a mad cult. People get sucked into it by being told to believe mad things. Then they're surrouned by others who believe those things, so they're convinced it all has to be true. Anything that threatens those beliefs (such as facts) is ignored, ridiculed or attacked. And, like with any other cult, it's bloody hard to drag somebody out when they've gone all the way in.

This is an interesting one! Anti Vaxers are seen as a cult, but those for it are not part of a cult themselves? A cult has to have a leader that all follow, listen too and abide by the rules they are told to follow! Miss pc "

Not necessarily. QAnon is a cult. Nobody knows who is the real leader. And there are no specific rules that everyone follows. There are some shared beliefs but they do not all share the same beliefs.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I’m sure that I’ll get slaughtered for posting this but be warned It’s highly unlikely that I’ll respond to those that disagree and don’t respect my opinion.

For the record I am in the vulnerable category having had cancer (in remission) and also have immune suppression infusions every 8 weeks.

I made my mind to not be vaccinated based on my own research in Jan 2021 using the official figures from the ONS.

0.006% of the UK population had died “from” COVID at Jan 2021. You don’t inoculate an entire population because 0.006% will have a bad reaction.

Of that 0.006% how many actually died because of COVID? most of these people had underlying health conditions (much like myself) and a common cold could easily have finished them off.

Next came the consistent radio campaigns which told us that 1 in 3 people have it, don’t know it, and are spreading it!

Therefore another 1 in 3 know they have it, and another 1 in 3 (or more) have been vaccinated

If you get it, you’re told to stay inside for 2 weeks. 6 weeks and we’ve all been subjected to in in one way or another!

How is it even possible that after 18 months we haven’t all had it? In which case we have achieved herd immunity.

Now the latest campaign is to tell us all (once 70% of the adult population has been vaccinated) that even those that have been double vaccinated can still catch it and spread it! So what on Earth is the point of it then?

Would you have still had 2 doses if they told you that beforehand, I doubt very much that all of you would have.

The clear way forward would be to find out for sure where the country stands, that would involve finding out how many people have natural immunity because they’ve been infected, but the one test you can’t get unless you work in certain jobs or if you pay privately is an AntiBody test.

Before you slate me about my belief and label me as an AV or worse, ask yourself why they won’t provide AntiBody tests, unless of course they wouldn’t want anybody to know we’d all had it by Jan 2021 and that was as bad as it was ever going to get. How would that help them to hail the vaccine as the super hero that saved us all.

It’s my choice and opinion which I ask to be respected, just the same as I will respect yours even if you believe it’s because of 5G masts.

"

Thabks for sharing and realise that this is a much more real topic for you than others.

I just want to clarify: my understanding was that 1 in 3 cases were aysmptomatic rather than 1 in 3 people ahev covid and don't know it. Interested if you have heard some thing different.

I also understand that the vaccine helps reduce the impact of catching it. For a healthy person that may mean needing bed rest versus hospitalisations, and for others it may be life saving (but still serious). It's a well trodden anoligy, but belts can't prevent all injuries.... But can be lifesaving nonetheless.

Stay safe x

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *urplechesterCouple
over a year ago

chester


"The whole antivaxxer thing is basically a mad cult. People get sucked into it by being told to believe mad things. Then they're surrouned by others who believe those things, so they're convinced it all has to be true. Anything that threatens those beliefs (such as facts) is ignored, ridiculed or attacked. And, like with any other cult, it's bloody hard to drag somebody out when they've gone all the way in.

This is an interesting one! Anti Vaxers are seen as a cult, but those for it are not part of a cult themselves? A cult has to have a leader that all follow, listen too and abide by the rules they are told to follow! Miss pc

Not necessarily. QAnon is a cult. Nobody knows who is the real leader. And there are no specific rules that everyone follows. There are some shared beliefs but they do not all share the same beliefs."

I hear what your saying, and yes they are described as a cult. The point I was trying to make really, was that anti vaxers are labelled as mad cult members, and that I don’t understand! Are they not just people who have formed their own opinion on something, not all shout loud, protest etc. They’re just people with a personal view on a topic, and many keep quiet because they will be verbally jumped on by those for the vaccine! So if we’re labeling people then doesn’t that make those slating the anti vaxer the cult member? Like I said I find it interesting, always good to hear other people’s opinions!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham


"The whole antivaxxer thing is basically a mad cult. People get sucked into it by being told to believe mad things. Then they're surrouned by others who believe those things, so they're convinced it all has to be true. Anything that threatens those beliefs (such as facts) is ignored, ridiculed or attacked. And, like with any other cult, it's bloody hard to drag somebody out when they've gone all the way in.

This is an interesting one! Anti Vaxers are seen as a cult, but those for it are not part of a cult themselves? A cult has to have a leader that all follow, listen too and abide by the rules they are told to follow! Miss pc

Not necessarily. QAnon is a cult. Nobody knows who is the real leader. And there are no specific rules that everyone follows. There are some shared beliefs but they do not all share the same beliefs.

I hear what your saying, and yes they are described as a cult. The point I was trying to make really, was that anti vaxers are labelled as mad cult members, and that I don’t understand! Are they not just people who have formed their own opinion on something, not all shout loud, protest etc. They’re just people with a personal view on a topic, and many keep quiet because they will be verbally jumped on by those for the vaccine! So if we’re labeling people then doesn’t that make those slating the anti vaxer the cult member? Like I said I find it interesting, always good to hear other people’s opinions! "

I think th reason we label them a cult is because of how harmful they are to their members

The science is pretty clear cut on vaccines. Antivaxxers tend to use tonnes of logical and statistical fallacies, along with confirmation bias to push their agenda

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ob198XaMan
over a year ago

teleford


"Has anyone els noticed that it's all you oldys who seem to have a problem with those who don't want to be "vaccinated" you have all had your jabs now leave the rest of us with more sense to it "

Sense.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ucka39Man
over a year ago

Newcastle

Some People forget, that people are able to produce antibodies. some not well as others the body continues to learn it's how the immune system develops.and a lot depends on lifestyle and a healthy body.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *traight_no_ice OP   Man
over a year ago

Stoke


"The whole antivaxxer thing is basically a mad cult. People get sucked into it by being told to believe mad things. Then they're surrouned by others who believe those things, so they're convinced it all has to be true. Anything that threatens those beliefs (such as facts) is ignored, ridiculed or attacked. And, like with any other cult, it's bloody hard to drag somebody out when they've gone all the way in.

This is an interesting one! Anti Vaxers are seen as a cult, but those for it are not part of a cult themselves? A cult has to have a leader that all follow, listen too and abide by the rules they are told to follow! Miss pc

Not necessarily. QAnon is a cult. Nobody knows who is the real leader. And there are no specific rules that everyone follows. There are some shared beliefs but they do not all share the same beliefs.

I hear what your saying, and yes they are described as a cult. The point I was trying to make really, was that anti vaxers are labelled as mad cult members, and that I don’t understand! Are they not just people who have formed their own opinion on something, not all shout loud, protest etc. They’re just people with a personal view on a topic, and many keep quiet because they will be verbally jumped on by those for the vaccine! So if we’re labeling people then doesn’t that make those slating the anti vaxer the cult member? Like I said I find it interesting, always good to hear other people’s opinions! "

I believe this is a very complex issue. Everyone (almost) has formed an opinion whether is pro or against vaccines or somewhere in between. I was looking forward to getting vaccinated since the beginning. Primarily for myself and not so much to contribute to the society. Seeing that other people were not taking covid seriously and behaving irresponsibly forced me in a way to have the vaccine (AZ) even though there were already cases of people having adverse reactions. Even though I feel safer, I am still concerned when I see people not taking precautions, whether they are vaccinated or not. If the sceptics or the antivaxxers were taking precautions then it would not really bother me if they had the vaccine or not. But it seems that they do not and some of their arguments are very simplistic. New world order, bill gates, 5G etc. Yesterday I heard a new preposterous argument, that the 5G frequencies are so tough for the human body that the covid vaccine is given to us so that we can sustain the 5G frequencies. It is rhetoric like this that makes (some) antivaxxers dangerous. Because if they believe such lunacies, they do not believe that covid19 is a risk for them and the people around them. Thus, in my opinion, the antivaxxers who just do not want the vaccine for whatever reason but they are careful towards others are not a problem. It is the antivaxxers who do not believe there is a covid problem, that pose a problem.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago

Bristol


"Has anyone els noticed that it's all you oldys who seem to have a problem with those who don't want to be "vaccinated" you have all had your jabs now leave the rest of us with more sense to it

Sense. "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *azylivingMan
over a year ago

random location

Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *urplechesterCouple
over a year ago

chester


"The whole antivaxxer thing is basically a mad cult. People get sucked into it by being told to believe mad things. Then they're surrouned by others who believe those things, so they're convinced it all has to be true. Anything that threatens those beliefs (such as facts) is ignored, ridiculed or attacked. And, like with any other cult, it's bloody hard to drag somebody out when they've gone all the way in.

This is an interesting one! Anti Vaxers are seen as a cult, but those for it are not part of a cult themselves? A cult has to have a leader that all follow, listen too and abide by the rules they are told to follow! Miss pc

Not necessarily. QAnon is a cult. Nobody knows who is the real leader. And there are no specific rules that everyone follows. There are some shared beliefs but they do not all share the same beliefs.

I hear what your saying, and yes they are described as a cult. The point I was trying to make really, was that anti vaxers are labelled as mad cult members, and that I don’t understand! Are they not just people who have formed their own opinion on something, not all shout loud, protest etc. They’re just people with a personal view on a topic, and many keep quiet because they will be verbally jumped on by those for the vaccine! So if we’re labeling people then doesn’t that make those slating the anti vaxer the cult member? Like I said I find it interesting, always good to hear other people’s opinions!

I believe this is a very complex issue. Everyone (almost) has formed an opinion whether is pro or against vaccines or somewhere in between. I was looking forward to getting vaccinated since the beginning. Primarily for myself and not so much to contribute to the society. Seeing that other people were not taking covid seriously and behaving irresponsibly forced me in a way to have the vaccine (AZ) even though there were already cases of people having adverse reactions. Even though I feel safer, I am still concerned when I see people not taking precautions, whether they are vaccinated or not. If the sceptics or the antivaxxers were taking precautions then it would not really bother me if they had the vaccine or not. But it seems that they do not and some of their arguments are very simplistic. New world order, bill gates, 5G etc. Yesterday I heard a new preposterous argument, that the 5G frequencies are so tough for the human body that the covid vaccine is given to us so that we can sustain the 5G frequencies. It is rhetoric like this that makes (some) antivaxxers dangerous. Because if they believe such lunacies, they do not believe that covid19 is a risk for them and the people around them. Thus, in my opinion, the antivaxxers who just do not want the vaccine for whatever reason but they are careful towards others are not a problem. It is the antivaxxers who do not believe there is a covid problem, that pose a problem."

Thanks so much for sharing your experience, I appreciate that! Miss pc

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *traight_no_ice OP   Man
over a year ago

Stoke


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk "

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I find it interesting that we are seeing many countries going back into lockdown. The UK isn’t. That’s probably because we have one of the best vaccine uptake rates in the world.

So for all the antivaxxers that are getting their info from Facebook memes and going out to pubs/shops/social events. I just want to say.

Your welcome.

The reason all that stuff is available to you is because the vast majority of us are smart enough to get vaccinated.

Thanks

I honestly do appreciate it

Did you have a think on what I, and another said yesterday at all? I did speak to my friend since I thought it was interesting about nut allergy anaphylaxis. He said so far the AZ and Moderna have shown 0 contraindications with it. Pfizer still seems safe, but best avoided due to a possible risk.

I know you're worried about something happening, statistically you are far, far more likely to die from covid than the vaccine.

Obviously do best by yourself, but thought you'd appreciate the info. "

OMG...Pfizer is made of peanuts??

Statistics are great tho....it could be said you are more likely to be struck by lightning that to die from a covid vaccinaion....

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think this is a good discussion, and that a balanced discussion should always be welcome. As well as critical and logical thinking.

I don’t think that any official approval automatically makes a drug safer or necessary. Please look up the devastation and horror that Thalidomide caused. An FDA approved (for testing purposes) over the counter drug recommended to pregnant women for morning sickness, which caused deaths (40% of the 10,000 affected) and deformities in fetus’s. This happened in the late 1950s, and the company who produced it, Grunenthal, only publicly apologised in 2012.

Of course, lessons were learned, and approval has become more stringent. It’s also easy to look back in hindsight and say “of course, it was a stupid idea to give pregnant women this new and untrialled drug for morning sick”, but, the truth is, most people don’t have time or don’t want to think critically.

Another consideration. Is the vaccine necessary and is COVID a deadly virus? Is it proportional to other causes of death. I looked into it myself, and referenced data from official government sources.

Data from 2020 (UK):

COVID mentioned on death certificates = 79,771

Deaths caused by smoking = 74,600 (the annual average is around 79,000)

Deaths related to obesity = 31,000

Fatal road accidents = 24,470

Deaths caused by alcohol = 7,423

Death by suicide = 6524 (2019)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"For me it wouldn't. I'm hesitant to ge the jab because I feel that there is the potential for unintentional side effects in the long term and also I'm a little concerned about messing a out with my immune system when it's working perfectly right now (I've not had a day off sick since 2015). Then there is also the real prospect of needing annual boosters plus the government constant moving of goal posts does not inspire confidence.

I am not an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. I think that the development of a working vaccine is a great achievement and I hope that it proves to be a success in allowing us to return to normality and protect the vulnerable etc.

I do also understand that I will probably need to have it sooner rather than later otherwise I will be excluded from certain things I value (mainly foreign travel). I just haven't come to the point of being comfortable using a drug which is very much in its infancy/trial stages.

You're much more likely to suffer long term harm from getting Covid than from getting a vaccine.

It isn't in its infancy

It passed stage 3 trials

Stage 4 trials are post-distribution close monitoring

The vaccines are safe in every meaningful sense of the word

Except they haven't had time to prove themselves 100% safe yet, they are still very very new and Covid is a very recent illness.

I'm aware that over time the vaccines will likely prove to be incredibly safe it's just right now I don't feel particularly comfortable having my arm twisted into having them."

No-one is twisting your arm. You have a choice.

Choices however, have consequences. Thankfully with 75%+ of adults double jabbed the consequences of such a choice no longer seems to be rising cases and deaths. Just inability to travel abroad or to go clubbing etc. Your choice...your consequences.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk "

Ah, missed reading this before I posted.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Anti-vaxxers are irrational. They don't critically review the evidence. They pretend to or they think they do but they don't. Here is the big fallacy with all conspiracists.

Meanwhile millions got the jab to no ill effect. But they don't demonstrate in the street or bombard facebook with fake info.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *azylivingMan
over a year ago

random location


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it."

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *traight_no_ice OP   Man
over a year ago

Stoke


"I think this is a good discussion, and that a balanced discussion should always be welcome. As well as critical and logical thinking.

I don’t think that any official approval automatically makes a drug safer or necessary. Please look up the devastation and horror that Thalidomide caused. An FDA approved (for testing purposes) over the counter drug recommended to pregnant women for morning sickness, which caused deaths (40% of the 10,000 affected) and deformities in fetus’s. This happened in the late 1950s, and the company who produced it, Grunenthal, only publicly apologised in 2012.

Of course, lessons were learned, and approval has become more stringent. It’s also easy to look back in hindsight and say “of course, it was a stupid idea to give pregnant women this new and untrialled drug for morning sick”, but, the truth is, most people don’t have time or don’t want to think critically.

Another consideration. Is the vaccine necessary and is COVID a deadly virus? Is it proportional to other causes of death. I looked into it myself, and referenced data from official government sources.

Data from 2020 (UK):

COVID mentioned on death certificates = 79,771

Deaths caused by smoking = 74,600 (the annual average is around 79,000)

Deaths related to obesity = 31,000

Fatal road accidents = 24,470

Deaths caused by alcohol = 7,423

Death by suicide = 6524 (2019)

"

In pure 2020 numbers, you could compare number of deaths due to covid to deaths from other causes. But you have to take into consideration that some extreme measures were put in place. Nationwide lockdowns, social distancing, restrictions on flights etc. This probably kept the numbers of deaths lower and the hospitalisations manageable. Without any measures in place, the number of covid deaths in 2020 could be very different.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *traight_no_ice OP   Man
over a year ago

Stoke


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging "

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think this is a good discussion, and that a balanced discussion should always be welcome. As well as critical and logical thinking.

I don’t think that any official approval automatically makes a drug safer or necessary. Please look up the devastation and horror that Thalidomide caused. An FDA approved (for testing purposes) over the counter drug recommended to pregnant women for morning sickness, which caused deaths (40% of the 10,000 affected) and deformities in fetus’s. This happened in the late 1950s, and the company who produced it, Grunenthal, only publicly apologised in 2012.

Of course, lessons were learned, and approval has become more stringent. It’s also easy to look back in hindsight and say “of course, it was a stupid idea to give pregnant women this new and untrialled drug for morning sick”, but, the truth is, most people don’t have time or don’t want to think critically.

Another consideration. Is the vaccine necessary and is COVID a deadly virus? Is it proportional to other causes of death. I looked into it myself, and referenced data from official government sources.

Data from 2020 (UK):

COVID mentioned on death certificates = 79,771

Deaths caused by smoking = 74,600 (the annual average is around 79,000)

Deaths related to obesity = 31,000

Fatal road accidents = 24,470

Deaths caused by alcohol = 7,423

Death by suicide = 6524 (2019)

In pure 2020 numbers, you could compare number of deaths due to covid to deaths from other causes. But you have to take into consideration that some extreme measures were put in place. Nationwide lockdowns, social distancing, restrictions on flights etc. This probably kept the numbers of deaths lower and the hospitalisations manageable. Without any measures in place, the number of covid deaths in 2020 could be very different."

Agreed. I think it is worth considering as it does put it into perspective. When a lot of discussion around this takes place, arbitrary terms like “deadly virus” are used. It’s good to have a grasp on what the proportion is. What do we define as deadly? Deaths caused due to smoking is comparable, although, agreed, under lockdown measures, yet, tobacco can be legally bought.

I’d also like to hear a discussion on what individuals can do to reduce the risks of COVID. Or in general, what can we do improve our health?

If as a society we can become more healthy, and reduce the main causes of death due to smoking, obesity, alcohol and suicide. All due to lifestyle choices, which we can change today if we wanted to. Would we be in a better place to face COVID? Both from a logistical point of view (not over burdening the NHS system) and from a cultural perspective? Is this an extreme measure worth considering?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago."

Also agree with this too. Different times. And with hindsight we can look back and say “those were just different times, lessons learned”. As a hypothetical question, how will the future generations to come look back on this time and what would they say?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *azylivingMan
over a year ago

random location


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago."

I’m not discussing nuclear tests. I’m discussing similar incidents in medications.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *azylivingMan
over a year ago

random location


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

Also agree with this too. Different times. And with hindsight we can look back and say “those were just different times, lessons learned”. As a hypothetical question, how will the future generations to come look back on this time and what would they say?"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *traight_no_ice OP   Man
over a year ago

Stoke


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

I’m not discussing nuclear tests. I’m discussing similar incidents in medications. "

I know. But still different times. What we know now is different from what we knew then. And the covid vaccine of now is due to a global emergency.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"I’m sure that I’ll get slaughtered for posting this but be warned It’s highly unlikely that I’ll respond to those that disagree and don’t respect my opinion.

For the record I am in the vulnerable category having had cancer (in remission) and also have immune suppression infusions every 8 weeks.

I made my mind to not be vaccinated based on my own research in Jan 2021 using the official figures from the ONS.

0.006% of the UK population had died “from” COVID at Jan 2021. You don’t inoculate an entire population because 0.006% will have a bad reaction.

Of that 0.006% how many actually died because of COVID? most of these people had underlying health conditions (much like myself) and a common cold could easily have finished them off.

Next came the consistent radio campaigns which told us that 1 in 3 people have it, don’t know it, and are spreading it!

Therefore another 1 in 3 know they have it, and another 1 in 3 (or more) have been vaccinated

If you get it, you’re told to stay inside for 2 weeks. 6 weeks and we’ve all been subjected to in in one way or another!

How is it even possible that after 18 months we haven’t all had it? In which case we have achieved herd immunity.

Now the latest campaign is to tell us all (once 70% of the adult population has been vaccinated) that even those that have been double vaccinated can still catch it and spread it! So what on Earth is the point of it then?

Would you have still had 2 doses if they told you that beforehand, I doubt very much that all of you would have.

The clear way forward would be to find out for sure where the country stands, that would involve finding out how many people have natural immunity because they’ve been infected, but the one test you can’t get unless you work in certain jobs or if you pay privately is an AntiBody test.

Before you slate me about my belief and label me as an AV or worse, ask yourself why they won’t provide AntiBody tests, unless of course they wouldn’t want anybody to know we’d all had it by Jan 2021 and that was as bad as it was ever going to get. How would that help them to hail the vaccine as the super hero that saved us all.

It’s my choice and opinion which I ask to be respected, just the same as I will respect yours even if you believe it’s because of 5G masts.

"

Im sorry to say that you have misunderstood the purpose of vaccination, the relative safety of vaccination v covid infection, and you seem unaware of the reason antibody tests would not be a good way forward. This leads me to conclude you are not reading the serious data. You are a vulnerable person and of you cant have the jab then be grateful 90% of the country are choosing to have it. If you are vulnerable but have been advised to get it then please get it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irty_DeedsMan
over a year ago

Teesside


"I think this is a good discussion, and that a balanced discussion should always be welcome. As well as critical and logical thinking.

I don’t think that any official approval automatically makes a drug safer or necessary. Please look up the devastation and horror that Thalidomide caused. An FDA approved (for testing purposes) over the counter drug recommended to pregnant women for morning sickness, which caused deaths (40% of the 10,000 affected) and deformities in fetus’s. This happened in the late 1950s, and the company who produced it, Grunenthal, only publicly apologised in 2012.

Of course, lessons were learned, and approval has become more stringent. It’s also easy to look back in hindsight and say “of course, it was a stupid idea to give pregnant women this new and untrialled drug for morning sick”, but, the truth is, most people don’t have time or don’t want to think critically.

Another consideration. Is the vaccine necessary and is COVID a deadly virus? Is it proportional to other causes of death. I looked into it myself, and referenced data from official government sources.

Data from 2020 (UK):

COVID mentioned on death certificates = 79,771

Deaths caused by smoking = 74,600 (the annual average is around 79,000)

Deaths related to obesity = 31,000

Fatal road accidents = 24,470

Deaths caused by alcohol = 7,423

Death by suicide = 6524 (2019)

In pure 2020 numbers, you could compare number of deaths due to covid to deaths from other causes. But you have to take into consideration that some extreme measures were put in place. Nationwide lockdowns, social distancing, restrictions on flights etc. This probably kept the numbers of deaths lower and the hospitalisations manageable. Without any measures in place, the number of covid deaths in 2020 could be very different.

Agreed. I think it is worth considering as it does put it into perspective. When a lot of discussion around this takes place, arbitrary terms like “deadly virus” are used. It’s good to have a grasp on what the proportion is. What do we define as deadly? Deaths caused due to smoking is comparable, although, agreed, under lockdown measures, yet, tobacco can be legally bought.

I’d also like to hear a discussion on what individuals can do to reduce the risks of COVID. Or in general, what can we do improve our health?

If as a society we can become more healthy, and reduce the main causes of death due to smoking, obesity, alcohol and suicide. All due to lifestyle choices, which we can change today if we wanted to. Would we be in a better place to face COVID? Both from a logistical point of view (not over burdening the NHS system) and from a cultural perspective? Is this an extreme measure worth considering?"
Its definitely not an extreme measure IMO. Its a measure that will never have any backing though. The government would rather give you a massive discount on junk food than cut price gym memberships.

Gyms, despite not being a risk for transmission(very few overall cases tracked to gyms), were one of the last places opened. Which in itself tells you everything you need to know considering obesity is a leading factor in your chances of surviving covid.

Its not all on the government either though, people should take more personal responsibility for their health. One of the good things to come out of covid for me, was a good look at my diet, my vitamin levels and a lot of other factor's that contribute to a healthy immune system. Whilst I've never been particularly unhealthy, its defo prompted me to take more of an interest in staying healthy.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *azylivingMan
over a year ago

random location


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

I’m not discussing nuclear tests. I’m discussing similar incidents in medications.

I know. But still different times. What we know now is different from what we knew then. And the covid vaccine of now is due to a global emergency. "

I wonder what the kids today will say in 20/30 years

Do you remember when……………

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *traight_no_ice OP   Man
over a year ago

Stoke


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

Also agree with this too. Different times. And with hindsight we can look back and say “those were just different times, lessons learned”. As a hypothetical question, how will the future generations to come look back on this time and what would they say?"

I do not know. So far, it seems that the vaccines have done their job. They have drastically cut down the number of hospitalisations and deaths. Whether the antivaxxers will be proven right, in 10 or 15 years from now and most of us vaccinated will die or get all kinds of deceases, I do not know. But I was also reading about the H1N1 vaccine. Even for this one, there were people including scientists who were talking about long term negative health effects. 12 years down the road, how many people who got that vaccine got problems?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think this is a good discussion, and that a balanced discussion should always be welcome. As well as critical and logical thinking.

I don’t think that any official approval automatically makes a drug safer or necessary. Please look up the devastation and horror that Thalidomide caused. An FDA approved (for testing purposes) over the counter drug recommended to pregnant women for morning sickness, which caused deaths (40% of the 10,000 affected) and deformities in fetus’s. This happened in the late 1950s, and the company who produced it, Grunenthal, only publicly apologised in 2012.

Of course, lessons were learned, and approval has become more stringent. It’s also easy to look back in hindsight and say “of course, it was a stupid idea to give pregnant women this new and untrialled drug for morning sick”, but, the truth is, most people don’t have time or don’t want to think critically.

Another consideration. Is the vaccine necessary and is COVID a deadly virus? Is it proportional to other causes of death. I looked into it myself, and referenced data from official government sources.

Data from 2020 (UK):

COVID mentioned on death certificates = 79,771

Deaths caused by smoking = 74,600 (the annual average is around 79,000)

Deaths related to obesity = 31,000

Fatal road accidents = 24,470

Deaths caused by alcohol = 7,423

Death by suicide = 6524 (2019)

In pure 2020 numbers, you could compare number of deaths due to covid to deaths from other causes. But you have to take into consideration that some extreme measures were put in place. Nationwide lockdowns, social distancing, restrictions on flights etc. This probably kept the numbers of deaths lower and the hospitalisations manageable. Without any measures in place, the number of covid deaths in 2020 could be very different.

Agreed. I think it is worth considering as it does put it into perspective. When a lot of discussion around this takes place, arbitrary terms like “deadly virus” are used. It’s good to have a grasp on what the proportion is. What do we define as deadly? Deaths caused due to smoking is comparable, although, agreed, under lockdown measures, yet, tobacco can be legally bought.

I’d also like to hear a discussion on what individuals can do to reduce the risks of COVID. Or in general, what can we do improve our health?

If as a society we can become more healthy, and reduce the main causes of death due to smoking, obesity, alcohol and suicide. All due to lifestyle choices, which we can change today if we wanted to. Would we be in a better place to face COVID? Both from a logistical point of view (not over burdening the NHS system) and from a cultural perspective? Is this an extreme measure worth considering?Its definitely not an extreme measure IMO. Its a measure that will never have any backing though. The government would rather give you a massive discount on junk food than cut price gym memberships.

Gyms, despite not being a risk for transmission(very few overall cases tracked to gyms), were one of the last places opened. Which in itself tells you everything you need to know considering obesity is a leading factor in your chances of surviving covid.

Its not all on the government either though, people should take more personal responsibility for their health. One of the good things to come out of covid for me, was a good look at my diet, my vitamin levels and a lot of other factor's that contribute to a healthy immune system. Whilst I've never been particularly unhealthy, its defo prompted me to take more of an interest in staying healthy."

I agree with this. But, I am also wary of attributing the cause, although, you rightly say that we can’t just blame the governments. I prefer to concentrate on what we have personal control over, and also I prefer trying to have a critical discussion without attributing blame, i.e not falling into the camp of “conspiracy theories” or “anti-vaxxers”, as it is too easy to fall into those camps and become labels.

I’m glad you found the positives and are looking at your own diet and improving that.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

Also agree with this too. Different times. And with hindsight we can look back and say “those were just different times, lessons learned”. As a hypothetical question, how will the future generations to come look back on this time and what would they say?

I do not know. So far, it seems that the vaccines have done their job. They have drastically cut down the number of hospitalisations and deaths. Whether the antivaxxers will be proven right, in 10 or 15 years from now and most of us vaccinated will die or get all kinds of deceases, I do not know. But I was also reading about the H1N1 vaccine. Even for this one, there were people including scientists who were talking about long term negative health effects. 12 years down the road, how many people who got that vaccine got problems? "

I think if we are to have these critical discussions, then we need to be able to point to quality data. I don’t doubt that the vaccines seem to be working. But, this is a very loose term. I don’t have that data, but I would like to see it.

Whether we will be able to “prove” one side is right or wrong, in time, or even now, is irrelevant. And the idea that we can be right or wrong drives this division between pro vaccine and anti-vaccine. It’s a discussion that is worth having, and is ongoing. And as such, new data will be made available and considered. An openness to consider all data is the foundation for a real discussion.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *onyDunnMan
over a year ago

Sevenoaks

I read an article that high lighted the high number of children getting covid and in hospital. Again clustered around the Southern states eg Alabama, Louisiana, Florida etc.

Linked to low vaccine take up and low income, high density family units.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

Also agree with this too. Different times. And with hindsight we can look back and say “those were just different times, lessons learned”. As a hypothetical question, how will the future generations to come look back on this time and what would they say?

I do not know. So far, it seems that the vaccines have done their job. They have drastically cut down the number of hospitalisations and deaths. Whether the antivaxxers will be proven right, in 10 or 15 years from now and most of us vaccinated will die or get all kinds of deceases, I do not know. But I was also reading about the H1N1 vaccine. Even for this one, there were people including scientists who were talking about long term negative health effects. 12 years down the road, how many people who got that vaccine got problems?

I think if we are to have these critical discussions, then we need to be able to point to quality data. I don’t doubt that the vaccines seem to be working. But, this is a very loose term. I don’t have that data, but I would like to see it.

Whether we will be able to “prove” one side is right or wrong, in time, or even now, is irrelevant. And the idea that we can be right or wrong drives this division between pro vaccine and anti-vaccine. It’s a discussion that is worth having, and is ongoing. And as such, new data will be made available and considered. An openness to consider all data is the foundation for a real discussion."

There is no debate.

There are facts.

Vaccines work.

Vaccines drive down symptoms and spread.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *azylivingMan
over a year ago

random location


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

Also agree with this too. Different times. And with hindsight we can look back and say “those were just different times, lessons learned”. As a hypothetical question, how will the future generations to come look back on this time and what would they say?

I do not know. So far, it seems that the vaccines have done their job. They have drastically cut down the number of hospitalisations and deaths. Whether the antivaxxers will be proven right, in 10 or 15 years from now and most of us vaccinated will die or get all kinds of deceases, I do not know. But I was also reading about the H1N1 vaccine. Even for this one, there were people including scientists who were talking about long term negative health effects. 12 years down the road, how many people who got that vaccine got problems?

I think if we are to have these critical discussions, then we need to be able to point to quality data. I don’t doubt that the vaccines seem to be working. But, this is a very loose term. I don’t have that data, but I would like to see it.

Whether we will be able to “prove” one side is right or wrong, in time, or even now, is irrelevant. And the idea that we can be right or wrong drives this division between pro vaccine and anti-vaccine. It’s a discussion that is worth having, and is ongoing. And as such, new data will be made available and considered. An openness to consider all data is the foundation for a real discussion.

There is no debate.

There are facts.

Vaccines work.

Vaccines drive down symptoms and spread."

In your opinion

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

Also agree with this too. Different times. And with hindsight we can look back and say “those were just different times, lessons learned”. As a hypothetical question, how will the future generations to come look back on this time and what would they say?

I do not know. So far, it seems that the vaccines have done their job. They have drastically cut down the number of hospitalisations and deaths. Whether the antivaxxers will be proven right, in 10 or 15 years from now and most of us vaccinated will die or get all kinds of deceases, I do not know. But I was also reading about the H1N1 vaccine. Even for this one, there were people including scientists who were talking about long term negative health effects. 12 years down the road, how many people who got that vaccine got problems?

I think if we are to have these critical discussions, then we need to be able to point to quality data. I don’t doubt that the vaccines seem to be working. But, this is a very loose term. I don’t have that data, but I would like to see it.

Whether we will be able to “prove” one side is right or wrong, in time, or even now, is irrelevant. And the idea that we can be right or wrong drives this division between pro vaccine and anti-vaccine. It’s a discussion that is worth having, and is ongoing. And as such, new data will be made available and considered. An openness to consider all data is the foundation for a real discussion.

There is no debate.

There are facts.

Vaccines work.

Vaccines drive down symptoms and spread."

I think your statement is the opposite of discussion. I don’t necessarily doubt that vaccines work. But, I am discussing the proportional risks and whether the COVID numbers point to a vaccine being the optimum solution.

I’d also like to see an in depth analysis of the facts and figures of the effect of the vaccine before discussing the specifics.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irtyold manMan
over a year ago

barnsley

To anser the op

Lets say any experimental drug given to the population that can kill one in every million and the gov say thats an acseptibal risk isent safe .especialy when it had only six month testing before been deliverd to the population and acsepting that before covid all drugs had two years testing.this is asking for trouble.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ob198XaMan
over a year ago

teleford


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

Also agree with this too. Different times. And with hindsight we can look back and say “those were just different times, lessons learned”. As a hypothetical question, how will the future generations to come look back on this time and what would they say?

I do not know. So far, it seems that the vaccines have done their job. They have drastically cut down the number of hospitalisations and deaths. Whether the antivaxxers will be proven right, in 10 or 15 years from now and most of us vaccinated will die or get all kinds of deceases, I do not know. But I was also reading about the H1N1 vaccine. Even for this one, there were people including scientists who were talking about long term negative health effects. 12 years down the road, how many people who got that vaccine got problems?

I think if we are to have these critical discussions, then we need to be able to point to quality data. I don’t doubt that the vaccines seem to be working. But, this is a very loose term. I don’t have that data, but I would like to see it.

Whether we will be able to “prove” one side is right or wrong, in time, or even now, is irrelevant. And the idea that we can be right or wrong drives this division between pro vaccine and anti-vaccine. It’s a discussion that is worth having, and is ongoing. And as such, new data will be made available and considered. An openness to consider all data is the foundation for a real discussion.

There is no debate.

There are facts.

Vaccines work.

Vaccines drive down symptoms and spread.

In your opinion "

I suppose the world is flat, in your opinion

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol

Most drugs are not developed during a pandemic, so are not tested as widely, which can mean a reduction in time required to test equivalently.

Also, most drugs are not required to be made available as soon as is safely possible to help preserve the health of the population facing the potential for severe and/or fatal illnesses as a result of a novel virus.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rivateyesCouple
over a year ago

Leighton Buzzard


"I’m sure that I’ll get slaughtered for posting this but be warned It’s highly unlikely that I’ll respond to those that disagree and don’t respect my opinion.

For the record I am in the vulnerable category having had cancer (in remission) and also have immune suppression infusions every 8 weeks.

I made my mind to not be vaccinated based on my own research in Jan 2021 using the official figures from the ONS.

0.006% of the UK population had died “from” COVID at Jan 2021. You don’t inoculate an entire population because 0.006% will have a bad reaction.

Of that 0.006% how many actually died because of COVID? most of these people had underlying health conditions (much like myself) and a common cold could easily have finished them off.

Next came the consistent radio campaigns which told us that 1 in 3 people have it, don’t know it, and are spreading it!

Therefore another 1 in 3 know they have it, and another 1 in 3 (or more) have been vaccinated

If you get it, you’re told to stay inside for 2 weeks. 6 weeks and we’ve all been subjected to in in one way or another!

How is it even possible that after 18 months we haven’t all had it? In which case we have achieved herd immunity.

Now the latest campaign is to tell us all (once 70% of the adult population has been vaccinated) that even those that have been double vaccinated can still catch it and spread it! So what on Earth is the point of it then?

Would you have still had 2 doses if they told you that beforehand, I doubt very much that all of you would have.

The clear way forward would be to find out for sure where the country stands, that would involve finding out how many people have natural immunity because they’ve been infected, but the one test you can’t get unless you work in certain jobs or if you pay privately is an AntiBody test.

Before you slate me about my belief and label me as an AV or worse, ask yourself why they won’t provide AntiBody tests, unless of course they wouldn’t want anybody to know we’d all had it by Jan 2021 and that was as bad as it was ever going to get. How would that help them to hail the vaccine as the super hero that saved us all.

It’s my choice and opinion which I ask to be respected, just the same as I will respect yours even if you believe it’s because of 5G masts.

Im sorry to say that you have misunderstood the purpose of vaccination, the relative safety of vaccination v covid infection, and you seem unaware of the reason antibody tests would not be a good way forward. This leads me to conclude you are not reading the serious data. You are a vulnerable person and of you cant have the jab then be grateful 90% of the country are choosing to have it. If you are vulnerable but have been advised to get it then please get it."

I don’t think I’ve misunderstood the purpose of the vaccine at all.

I’ve made use of the data collected by the ONS over a 10 month period and I don’t think the risk of dying or becoming seriously ill (not being infected) is great enough to warrant a worldwide vaccination program.

Incidentally at the same time I looked at the ONS predictive measuring of the select few that had AntiBody tests which predicted at that time 95% of the population would be immune.

1% of the population dies each year, that’s fact and backed up, the additional reported deaths due to “COVID” was 0.006% which incidentally was actually 72,000, not the 129.000 reported I. The briefings.

Remember too that when the numbers are big they tell you the number.

When the numbers are small they’ll give you a percentage. 0.006% was never going to get you panicking, whereas telling you it’s 129,000 does.

Whatever you say, and I respect your opinion I’m not having it because there’s more to it than any of us will ever know.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

Also agree with this too. Different times. And with hindsight we can look back and say “those were just different times, lessons learned”. As a hypothetical question, how will the future generations to come look back on this time and what would they say?

I do not know. So far, it seems that the vaccines have done their job. They have drastically cut down the number of hospitalisations and deaths. Whether the antivaxxers will be proven right, in 10 or 15 years from now and most of us vaccinated will die or get all kinds of deceases, I do not know. But I was also reading about the H1N1 vaccine. Even for this one, there were people including scientists who were talking about long term negative health effects. 12 years down the road, how many people who got that vaccine got problems?

I think if we are to have these critical discussions, then we need to be able to point to quality data. I don’t doubt that the vaccines seem to be working. But, this is a very loose term. I don’t have that data, but I would like to see it.

Whether we will be able to “prove” one side is right or wrong, in time, or even now, is irrelevant. And the idea that we can be right or wrong drives this division between pro vaccine and anti-vaccine. It’s a discussion that is worth having, and is ongoing. And as such, new data will be made available and considered. An openness to consider all data is the foundation for a real discussion.

There is no debate.

There are facts.

Vaccines work.

Vaccines drive down symptoms and spread.

I think your statement is the opposite of discussion. I don’t necessarily doubt that vaccines work. But, I am discussing the proportional risks and whether the COVID numbers point to a vaccine being the optimum solution.

I’d also like to see an in depth analysis of the facts and figures of the effect of the vaccine before discussing the specifics."

Absolutely agree that open discussion is needed. How much investigation have you done to find the data? Outside of controlled experiments (eg the approvals) it's hard to get proper data as it could always be argued that other conditions are confounding. Has cases numbers dipped since freedom Day because of the extra freedom, the weather or because teh euros are over.

What we do have is a huge meta study, where afaik no country has seen worse results from the vaccines. At some point the sheer numbers make results significant.

Abe while noone can guarantee thalidomide type results won't happen, there have been a number of steps, including yellow flags, to help minimise the risk. People worry because of the blood clots. But this was identified despite it being such a small risk shows how much teh data is being looked at.

So while I agree scepticism is good (indeed it's science) I do wonder if teh vaccine is being held acait a higher bar? Do vaccine sceptics look at the data for every medicine they take ? Every ingredient they eat? Or any other risk they take? Not convinced.

I suspect this higher bar is because 1) it's news so we are forced to have an opinion. 2) the news flagged risks. Even if they are small and shows the level of analysis being done. We simply see "side effects". 3) lack of context of stats. What is the risk of dying from Covid at given ages versus risk of dying from vaccine? 4) it's being used by some to whip up a storm because some people like whipping up a storm.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *azylivingMan
over a year ago

random location


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

Also agree with this too. Different times. And with hindsight we can look back and say “those were just different times, lessons learned”. As a hypothetical question, how will the future generations to come look back on this time and what would they say?

I do not know. So far, it seems that the vaccines have done their job. They have drastically cut down the number of hospitalisations and deaths. Whether the antivaxxers will be proven right, in 10 or 15 years from now and most of us vaccinated will die or get all kinds of deceases, I do not know. But I was also reading about the H1N1 vaccine. Even for this one, there were people including scientists who were talking about long term negative health effects. 12 years down the road, how many people who got that vaccine got problems?

I think if we are to have these critical discussions, then we need to be able to point to quality data. I don’t doubt that the vaccines seem to be working. But, this is a very loose term. I don’t have that data, but I would like to see it.

Whether we will be able to “prove” one side is right or wrong, in time, or even now, is irrelevant. And the idea that we can be right or wrong drives this division between pro vaccine and anti-vaccine. It’s a discussion that is worth having, and is ongoing. And as such, new data will be made available and considered. An openness to consider all data is the foundation for a real discussion.

There is no debate.

There are facts.

Vaccines work.

Vaccines drive down symptoms and spread.

In your opinion

I suppose the world is flat, in your opinion"

It’s a bit disheartening that all you can post is snide comments in a thread that’s otherwise both interesting and informative on individual views & opinions on emergency vaccines

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *azylivingMan
over a year ago

random location


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

Also agree with this too. Different times. And with hindsight we can look back and say “those were just different times, lessons learned”. As a hypothetical question, how will the future generations to come look back on this time and what would they say?

I do not know. So far, it seems that the vaccines have done their job. They have drastically cut down the number of hospitalisations and deaths. Whether the antivaxxers will be proven right, in 10 or 15 years from now and most of us vaccinated will die or get all kinds of deceases, I do not know. But I was also reading about the H1N1 vaccine. Even for this one, there were people including scientists who were talking about long term negative health effects. 12 years down the road, how many people who got that vaccine got problems?

I think if we are to have these critical discussions, then we need to be able to point to quality data. I don’t doubt that the vaccines seem to be working. But, this is a very loose term. I don’t have that data, but I would like to see it.

Whether we will be able to “prove” one side is right or wrong, in time, or even now, is irrelevant. And the idea that we can be right or wrong drives this division between pro vaccine and anti-vaccine. It’s a discussion that is worth having, and is ongoing. And as such, new data will be made available and considered. An openness to consider all data is the foundation for a real discussion.

There is no debate.

There are facts.

Vaccines work.

Vaccines drive down symptoms and spread.

I think your statement is the opposite of discussion. I don’t necessarily doubt that vaccines work. But, I am discussing the proportional risks and whether the COVID numbers point to a vaccine being the optimum solution.

I’d also like to see an in depth analysis of the facts and figures of the effect of the vaccine before discussing the specifics.

Absolutely agree that open discussion is needed. How much investigation have you done to find the data? Outside of controlled experiments (eg the approvals) it's hard to get proper data as it could always be argued that other conditions are confounding. Has cases numbers dipped since freedom Day because of the extra freedom, the weather or because teh euros are over.

What we do have is a huge meta study, where afaik no country has seen worse results from the vaccines. At some point the sheer numbers make results significant.

Abe while noone can guarantee thalidomide type results won't happen, there have been a number of steps, including yellow flags, to help minimise the risk. People worry because of the blood clots. But this was identified despite it being such a small risk shows how much teh data is being looked at.

So while I agree scepticism is good (indeed it's science) I do wonder if teh vaccine is being held acait a higher bar? Do vaccine sceptics look at the data for every medicine they take ? Every ingredient they eat? Or any other risk they take? Not convinced.

I suspect this higher bar is because 1) it's news so we are forced to have an opinion. 2) the news flagged risks. Even if they are small and shows the level of analysis being done. We simply see "side effects". 3) lack of context of stats. What is the risk of dying from Covid at given ages versus risk of dying from vaccine? 4) it's being used by some to whip up a storm because some people like whipping up a storm. "

Great outlook. You’ve given me some things to look at from a different prospective.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *LACKALPHABULL2.0Man
over a year ago

international

Why do we never give experimenral drugs to pregnant women .a look at vaccine infertility in women of child bearing age .

Recent studies on the gene therapy vaccine experiment .

Vaccine in a womans ovaries induce an autoimmune attack on the placenta. It is known that biochemicals in critical stage development if interfered with.

So here we are theres been probably hundreds of million of qomen of child bearing age potentially injected with products which are untested inbterms of impacy on fertilisation and development of there babies.

When the human subject becomes the lab ratseven the rats are sceptical so if there is a 20 fold vaccine concentration in the ovaries of the vacinated no authority has defined a safe level of jabsso if the spike protien is very similar to an esential protien in the placenta whuch is required for both fertilisation and formation.

Which means you cant get pregnant and have a succesful pregnancy if this protien is damaged in any way.the idea here being the covid spike protien creates a real possibility that this gene modification synthetic protien will bind to the protien in the placenta crrating irivocable damages.of all the studies done there is a 300%increase inbthe antibodies against there own placenta which is happening to every woman of child bearing age .a vaccine induced autoimmune attack which is generating antibodies against this critical protien required in the womb placenta for fertilisation and a successful pregnancy .which explaims why tge authorities dont want a sample population to be un vaxxed as any further studies conducted after the PR hysteria will have 2 subjects to test as oppose to the narrative that will come from the real experiences of the test populus.

Brings to mind a clive owen movie children of men.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ylonSlutTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham


"Why do we never give experimenral drugs to pregnant women .a look at vaccine infertility in women of child bearing age .

Recent studies on the gene therapy vaccine experiment .

Vaccine in a womans ovaries induce an autoimmune attack on the placenta. It is known that biochemicals in critical stage development if interfered with.

So here we are theres been probably hundreds of million of qomen of child bearing age potentially injected with products which are untested inbterms of impacy on fertilisation and development of there babies.

When the human subject becomes the lab ratseven the rats are sceptical so if there is a 20 fold vaccine concentration in the ovaries of the vacinated no authority has defined a safe level of jabsso if the spike protien is very similar to an esential protien in the placenta whuch is required for both fertilisation and formation.

Which means you cant get pregnant and have a succesful pregnancy if this protien is damaged in any way.the idea here being the covid spike protien creates a real possibility that this gene modification synthetic protien will bind to the protien in the placenta crrating irivocable damages.of all the studies done there is a 300%increase inbthe antibodies against there own placenta which is happening to every woman of child bearing age .a vaccine induced autoimmune attack which is generating antibodies against this critical protien required in the womb placenta for fertilisation and a successful pregnancy .which explaims why tge authorities dont want a sample population to be un vaxxed as any further studies conducted after the PR hysteria will have 2 subjects to test as oppose to the narrative that will come from the real experiences of the test populus.

Brings to mind a clive owen movie children of men.

"

You have copied and pasted that from the internet. It's like a covid pregnancy bingo of falsehoods. I am pretty certain you have no idea what pretty much all of it means.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *traight_no_ice OP   Man
over a year ago

Stoke


"Why do we never give experimenral drugs to pregnant women .a look at vaccine infertility in women of child bearing age .

Recent studies on the gene therapy vaccine experiment .

Vaccine in a womans ovaries induce an autoimmune attack on the placenta. It is known that biochemicals in critical stage development if interfered with.

So here we are theres been probably hundreds of million of qomen of child bearing age potentially injected with products which are untested inbterms of impacy on fertilisation and development of there babies.

When the human subject becomes the lab ratseven the rats are sceptical so if there is a 20 fold vaccine concentration in the ovaries of the vacinated no authority has defined a safe level of jabsso if the spike protien is very similar to an esential protien in the placenta whuch is required for both fertilisation and formation.

Which means you cant get pregnant and have a succesful pregnancy if this protien is damaged in any way.the idea here being the covid spike protien creates a real possibility that this gene modification synthetic protien will bind to the protien in the placenta crrating irivocable damages.of all the studies done there is a 300%increase inbthe antibodies against there own placenta which is happening to every woman of child bearing age .a vaccine induced autoimmune attack which is generating antibodies against this critical protien required in the womb placenta for fertilisation and a successful pregnancy .which explaims why tge authorities dont want a sample population to be un vaxxed as any further studies conducted after the PR hysteria will have 2 subjects to test as oppose to the narrative that will come from the real experiences of the test populus.

Brings to mind a clive owen movie children of men.

"

During the Pfizer vaccine tests, 23 women volunteers involved in the study became pregnant, and the only one in the trial who suffered a pregnancy loss had not received the actual vaccine, but a placebo.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/the-covid19-vaccine-and-pregnancy-what-you-need-to-know

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ylonSlutTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham


"Why do we never give experimenral drugs to pregnant women .a look at vaccine infertility in women of child bearing age .

Recent studies on the gene therapy vaccine experiment .

Vaccine in a womans ovaries induce an autoimmune attack on the placenta. It is known that biochemicals in critical stage development if interfered with.

So here we are theres been probably hundreds of million of qomen of child bearing age potentially injected with products which are untested inbterms of impacy on fertilisation and development of there babies.

When the human subject becomes the lab ratseven the rats are sceptical so if there is a 20 fold vaccine concentration in the ovaries of the vacinated no authority has defined a safe level of jabsso if the spike protien is very similar to an esential protien in the placenta whuch is required for both fertilisation and formation.

Which means you cant get pregnant and have a succesful pregnancy if this protien is damaged in any way.the idea here being the covid spike protien creates a real possibility that this gene modification synthetic protien will bind to the protien in the placenta crrating irivocable damages.of all the studies done there is a 300%increase inbthe antibodies against there own placenta which is happening to every woman of child bearing age .a vaccine induced autoimmune attack which is generating antibodies against this critical protien required in the womb placenta for fertilisation and a successful pregnancy .which explaims why tge authorities dont want a sample population to be un vaxxed as any further studies conducted after the PR hysteria will have 2 subjects to test as oppose to the narrative that will come from the real experiences of the test populus.

Brings to mind a clive owen movie children of men.

"

Think most of that claptrap is dealt with here.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57552527.amp

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why do we never give experimenral drugs to pregnant women .a look at vaccine infertility in women of child bearing age .

Recent studies on the gene therapy vaccine experiment .

Vaccine in a womans ovaries induce an autoimmune attack on the placenta. It is known that biochemicals in critical stage development if interfered with.

So here we are theres been probably hundreds of million of qomen of child bearing age potentially injected with products which are untested inbterms of impacy on fertilisation and development of there babies.

When the human subject becomes the lab ratseven the rats are sceptical so if there is a 20 fold vaccine concentration in the ovaries of the vacinated no authority has defined a safe level of jabsso if the spike protien is very similar to an esential protien in the placenta whuch is required for both fertilisation and formation.

Which means you cant get pregnant and have a succesful pregnancy if this protien is damaged in any way.the idea here being the covid spike protien creates a real possibility that this gene modification synthetic protien will bind to the protien in the placenta crrating irivocable damages.of all the studies done there is a 300%increase inbthe antibodies against there own placenta which is happening to every woman of child bearing age .a vaccine induced autoimmune attack which is generating antibodies against this critical protien required in the womb placenta for fertilisation and a successful pregnancy .which explaims why tge authorities dont want a sample population to be un vaxxed as any further studies conducted after the PR hysteria will have 2 subjects to test as oppose to the narrative that will come from the real experiences of the test populus.

Brings to mind a clive owen movie children of men.

"
source please? Happy to Google the paper name if fab band the link.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"It won't change my mind. Because, they have to approve it now even if they weren't going to before. Can you imagine if once all the data is collected & the last clinical trial is completed They turn around & refuse to approve it. The chaos that would erupt."

For the majority of the vaccines, the full, standard clinical trials stages have been completed and the UK medicines regulator MHRA has approved them. They've had further approvals for younger age groups, following further trials. The data is fully available and scrutinised by peer review and the regulator here and in other countries.

The regulator has done the right thing, granting approval based on the available data at the time. They may change things as new data is acquired, which is standard for both the scientific and regulatory processes. These vaccines have saved tens of thousands of lives, just here in the UK, as well as allow millions of people to return to their fuller unrestricted lives, as so many pushed for. We should all be grateful for what the vaccines and the people willing to have them, have done for us. There are some naysayers and negative people but there is typically a segment of that, who cast their shadows wherever they pick to darken.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ob198XaMan
over a year ago

teleford


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

Also agree with this too. Different times. And with hindsight we can look back and say “those were just different times, lessons learned”. As a hypothetical question, how will the future generations to come look back on this time and what would they say?

I do not know. So far, it seems that the vaccines have done their job. They have drastically cut down the number of hospitalisations and deaths. Whether the antivaxxers will be proven right, in 10 or 15 years from now and most of us vaccinated will die or get all kinds of deceases, I do not know. But I was also reading about the H1N1 vaccine. Even for this one, there were people including scientists who were talking about long term negative health effects. 12 years down the road, how many people who got that vaccine got problems?

I think if we are to have these critical discussions, then we need to be able to point to quality data. I don’t doubt that the vaccines seem to be working. But, this is a very loose term. I don’t have that data, but I would like to see it.

Whether we will be able to “prove” one side is right or wrong, in time, or even now, is irrelevant. And the idea that we can be right or wrong drives this division between pro vaccine and anti-vaccine. It’s a discussion that is worth having, and is ongoing. And as such, new data will be made available and considered. An openness to consider all data is the foundation for a real discussion.

There is no debate.

There are facts.

Vaccines work.

Vaccines drive down symptoms and spread.

In your opinion

I suppose the world is flat, in your opinion

It’s a bit disheartening that all you can post is snide comments in a thread that’s otherwise both interesting and informative on individual views & opinions on emergency vaccines "

. I am merely addressing the snide attempt to discredit fact. Vaccinations against diseases work and often they work very well, that is no opinion it is well proven fact. The effectiveness of the Covid vaccinations may not yet be proven to the same degree but the indications all point the right way.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"I’m sure that I’ll get slaughtered for posting this but be warned It’s highly unlikely that I’ll respond to those that disagree and don’t respect my opinion.

For the record I am in the vulnerable category having had cancer (in remission) and also have immune suppression infusions every 8 weeks.

I made my mind to not be vaccinated based on my own research in Jan 2021 using the official figures from the ONS.

0.006% of the UK population had died “from” COVID at Jan 2021. You don’t inoculate an entire population because 0.006% will have a bad reaction.

Of that 0.006% how many actually died because of COVID? most of these people had underlying health conditions (much like myself) and a common cold could easily have finished them off.

Next came the consistent radio campaigns which told us that 1 in 3 people have it, don’t know it, and are spreading it!

Therefore another 1 in 3 know they have it, and another 1 in 3 (or more) have been vaccinated

If you get it, you’re told to stay inside for 2 weeks. 6 weeks and we’ve all been subjected to in in one way or another!

How is it even possible that after 18 months we haven’t all had it? In which case we have achieved herd immunity.

Now the latest campaign is to tell us all (once 70% of the adult population has been vaccinated) that even those that have been double vaccinated can still catch it and spread it! So what on Earth is the point of it then?

Would you have still had 2 doses if they told you that beforehand, I doubt very much that all of you would have.

The clear way forward would be to find out for sure where the country stands, that would involve finding out how many people have natural immunity because they’ve been infected, but the one test you can’t get unless you work in certain jobs or if you pay privately is an AntiBody test.

Before you slate me about my belief and label me as an AV or worse, ask yourself why they won’t provide AntiBody tests, unless of course they wouldn’t want anybody to know we’d all had it by Jan 2021 and that was as bad as it was ever going to get. How would that help them to hail the vaccine as the super hero that saved us all.

It’s my choice and opinion which I ask to be respected, just the same as I will respect yours even if you believe it’s because of 5G masts.

"

Interesting points.

1. Antibody tests wanted, to evaluate immunity.

Antibodies are just 1 element of our immune system. The levels diminish over time, unless in contact with the virus or being vaccinated. You may still be extremely well protected, whilst having low antibody levels.

Antibody tests would be expensive, using resources better put to other uses and wouldn't tell you what you think they'd mean.

There are official sampling processes underway, to reveal the levels of infection and recovery. The ONS publishes this data, amongst others.

2. The majority of the population hadn't immunity without vaccination. The dosing schedule optimised the levels of immunity, better protecting individuals and the country.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *azylivingMan
over a year ago

random location


"Why do we never give experimenral drugs to pregnant women .a look at vaccine infertility in women of child bearing age .

Recent studies on the gene therapy vaccine experiment .

Vaccine in a womans ovaries induce an autoimmune attack on the placenta. It is known that biochemicals in critical stage development if interfered with.

So here we are theres been probably hundreds of million of qomen of child bearing age potentially injected with products which are untested inbterms of impacy on fertilisation and development of there babies.

When the human subject becomes the lab ratseven the rats are sceptical so if there is a 20 fold vaccine concentration in the ovaries of the vacinated no authority has defined a safe level of jabsso if the spike protien is very similar to an esential protien in the placenta whuch is required for both fertilisation and formation.

Which means you cant get pregnant and have a succesful pregnancy if this protien is damaged in any way.the idea here being the covid spike protien creates a real possibility that this gene modification synthetic protien will bind to the protien in the placenta crrating irivocable damages.of all the studies done there is a 300%increase inbthe antibodies against there own placenta which is happening to every woman of child bearing age .a vaccine induced autoimmune attack which is generating antibodies against this critical protien required in the womb placenta for fertilisation and a successful pregnancy .which explaims why tge authorities dont want a sample population to be un vaxxed as any further studies conducted after the PR hysteria will have 2 subjects to test as oppose to the narrative that will come from the real experiences of the test populus.

Brings to mind a clive owen movie children of men.

During the Pfizer vaccine tests, 23 women volunteers involved in the study became pregnant, and the only one in the trial who suffered a pregnancy loss had not received the actual vaccine, but a placebo.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/the-covid19-vaccine-and-pregnancy-what-you-need-to-know"

Congrats to them all.

While at band camp………

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"Thalidomide

It was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It became apparent in the 1960s that thalidomide treatment resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children. Though the use of thalidomide was banned in most countries at that time, thalidomide proved to be a useful treatment for leprosy and later, multiple myeloma. In rural areas of the world that lack extensive medical surveillance initiatives, thalidomide treatment of pregnant women with leprosy has continued to cause malformations. Research on thalidomide mechanisms of action is leading to a better understanding of molecular targets. With an improved understanding of these molecular targets, safer drugs may be designed. The thalidomide tragedy marked a turning point in toxicity testing, as it prompted United States and international regulatory agencies to develop systematic toxicity testing protocols; the use of thalidomide as a tool in developmental biology led to important discoveries in the biochemical pathways of limb development. In celebration of the Society of Toxicology's 50th Anniversary, which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of thalidomide from the market, it is appropriate to revisit the lessons learned from the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s.

This was also approved in the uk

Yes, but you are talking about 60-70 years before. Now I would expect that there are more safety systems in place?

A few years ago there was an FDA approved vaccine for Dengue. Dengue fever is a serious problem in many countries. But due to adverse reactions in children, they stopped it.

I’m sure in the 60’s they said it was ok as they had learned a lot more safety systems from the 30’s 40’s these things do happen fairly often in medicine & hopefully this round of emergency vaccines are not as damaging

During the 50s, they were conducting nuclear tests in Nevada and spectators were allowed. We are talking about different times, long time ago.

Also agree with this too. Different times. And with hindsight we can look back and say “those were just different times, lessons learned”. As a hypothetical question, how will the future generations to come look back on this time and what would they say?"

Just as we've done with aviation, after incidents such as Kegworth, the whole system has undergone substantial reorganisation and improvements, since the long ago era of Thalidomide and birth affects.

With our vaccines' developments being the most highly scrutinised in world history, it's likely that there will be just fantastic relief that the world worked together so well and achieved so much, to save hundreds of thousands of lives, so quickly.

Next generation Covid vaccines will be better. The scientific process will govern the improvements to the development of medicines, including vaccines that will definitely continue to contribute so much for the quality of our lives.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ilver Fox 60Man
over a year ago

Southport

How many anti-vaxers have to die before common sense prevails?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ssexSwitchMan
over a year ago

hornchurch

As someone who has had both jabs and had quite bad side effects to the point of hospital trips, X-rays ultrasounds etc. I think a few things would help.

1. What is the benefit if having to be vaccinated if you have already had covid. I was told that the effects that I had was likely caused by the fact that I had already had covid.

2. Allow some liability as currently the drug companies are exempt for liability for any effects caused by the vaccine.

So I had mine not because I needed it or for any benefit to me or others I already had antibodies. But I can’t go on holiday ect without. This is probably the case for a lot of people. If you want to tell people you have to have the jab to go on holiday or to a nightclub etc then then the drug companies or the government should be responsible for any effects caused by the vaccine as it is is reality not a free choice if freedoms are removed unless you have it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ustinCredible.Man
over a year ago

whitecross/sankey valley

Are we using anti vax as a catch all?

I'm not anti vax but I personally won't be taking any covid vaccines unless they can prove i will wake up as spiderman.

I've had covid and had an antibody test, I'm good without the experimental drugs that "may" cause blood clots etc

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"As someone who has had both jabs and had quite bad side effects to the point of hospital trips, X-rays ultrasounds etc. I think a few things would help.

1. What is the benefit if having to be vaccinated if you have already had covid. I was told that the effects that I had was likely caused by the fact that I had already had covid.

2. Allow some liability as currently the drug companies are exempt for liability for any effects caused by the vaccine.

So I had mine not because I needed it or for any benefit to me or others I already had antibodies. But I can’t go on holiday ect without. This is probably the case for a lot of people. If you want to tell people you have to have the jab to go on holiday or to a nightclub etc then then the drug companies or the government should be responsible for any effects caused by the vaccine as it is is reality not a free choice if freedoms are removed unless you have it. "

1) DATA SUGGESTS VACCINE IMMUNITY IS BETTER THAN COVID ACQUIRED IMMUNITY FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS

2) ALL VACCINES ONCE APPROVED BY THE REGULATOR BECOME THE REGULATORS LIABILITY - THIS IS STANDARD PRACTICE.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"Are we using anti vax as a catch all?

I'm not anti vax but I personally won't be taking any covid vaccines unless they can prove i will wake up as spiderman.

I've had covid and had an antibody test, I'm good without the experimental drugs that "may" cause blood clots etc"

Which variant did you have? Because delta and other variants that are emerging are more likely to cause serious illness in previously infected than those with vaccine protection

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *udistcpl1Couple
over a year ago

Wirral

Reading a thread like this helps with the block list. There are some right knobs out there.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Are we using anti vax as a catch all?

I'm not anti vax but I personally won't be taking any covid vaccines unless they can prove i will wake up as spiderman.

I've had covid and had an antibody test, I'm good without the experimental drugs that "may" cause blood clots etc

Which variant did you have? Because delta and other variants that are emerging are more likely to cause serious illness in previously infected than those with vaccine protection"

Where did you read this? I can’t find that info anywhere.

I need to stay out of this section, the whole thing petrifies me.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"I just read on CNN.

Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine is currently only authorized for emergency use in the United States, but its full approval by the US Food and Drug Administration could happen within weeks.

Should this happen and UK gives also its full approval, would this make you change your stance towards this particular covid vaccine? "

The difference in the US between emergency use authorisation and full approval is actually a procedural one….

In the US for a drug to be given emergency use authorisation a drug has to meet testing and research numbers …. For it to then be given full authorisation it needs to have at least 9 months of emergency use authorisation

So if the first use of Pfizer was at the beginning of the year… the earliest it could be given full authorisation would be in September

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I find it interesting that we are seeing many countries going back into lockdown. The UK isn’t. That’s probably because we have one of the best vaccine uptake rates in the world.

So for all the antivaxxers that are getting their info from Facebook memes and going out to pubs/shops/social events. I just want to say.

Your welcome.

The reason all that stuff is available to you is because the vast majority of us are smart enough to get vaccinated.

Thanks

I honestly do appreciate it "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Are we using anti vax as a catch all?

I'm not anti vax but I personally won't be taking any covid vaccines unless they can prove i will wake up as spiderman.

I've had covid and had an antibody test, I'm good without the experimental drugs that "may" cause blood clots etc

Which variant did you have? Because delta and other variants that are emerging are more likely to cause serious illness in previously infected than those with vaccine protection

Where did you read this? I can’t find that info anywhere.

I need to stay out of this section, the whole thing petrifies me."

There is a complex article in Nature. Don't pretend to understand most of it but saw...

"These results strongly suggest that vaccination of previously infected individuals is likely to be protective against a large array of circulating viral strains, including the Delta variant."

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *issusWoman
over a year ago

Belfast


"I was thinking about taking the vaccine but reading this thread it appears that one of the main side effects is extreme smug self righteousness.

If some of the new vaccines due to come out can eliminate that I might be tempted. "

Spot on

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I find it interesting that we are seeing many countries going back into lockdown. The UK isn’t. That’s probably because we have one of the best vaccine uptake rates in the world.

So for all the antivaxxers that are getting their info from Facebook memes and going out to pubs/shops/social events. I just want to say.

Your welcome.

The reason all that stuff is available to you is because the vast majority of us are smart enough to get vaccinated. "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ustinCredible.Man
over a year ago

whitecross/sankey valley


"Are we using anti vax as a catch all?

I'm not anti vax but I personally won't be taking any covid vaccines unless they can prove i will wake up as spiderman.

I've had covid and had an antibody test, I'm good without the experimental drugs that "may" cause blood clots etc

Which variant did you have? Because delta and other variants that are emerging are more likely to cause serious illness in previously infected than those with vaccine protection"

I had the OG and delta. And delta was manflu I was doing yoga on day 2 and pulling my hair out by day 10 of iso

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Are we using anti vax as a catch all?

I'm not anti vax but I personally won't be taking any covid vaccines unless they can prove i will wake up as spiderman.

I've had covid and had an antibody test, I'm good without the experimental drugs that "may" cause blood clots etc"

When did you have teh antibody test? Intrigued to see you've had it twice... ^^^

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aptain orgazmoMan
over a year ago

derby

The very fact vaccine hesitancy threads appear on swinging websites nowadays shows why the bat and wet market story disappeared and anyone who took it on no matter your political views you know one way or another your being lied too change hurts and changing a world certainly does depends how much you want to feel the pain and suffer for it or even agree with the objective

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ustinCredible.Man
over a year ago

whitecross/sankey valley

Antibody test was during the 1st go round, was in hospital for a few days they confirmed my antibodies. 2nd (delta) I was in work and got a seriously bad headache and sweats like I had been swimming so did 3 lat tests all 3 confirmed and the test center lost my pcr result for 5 days so I lost 10 days wages

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Antibody test was during the 1st go round, was in hospital for a few days they confirmed my antibodies. 2nd (delta) I was in work and got a seriously bad headache and sweats like I had been swimming so did 3 lat tests all 3 confirmed and the test center lost my pcr result for 5 days so I lost 10 days wages"
that sucks mate. Am suprised you'd reject the vaccine after all that to avoid a small risk, but at least you're eyes wide open on what civid can do .. even if it just the light kind.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
back to top