Is this getting a bit out of hand? - RSV jabs

[mcostello]

Wife got the first ***, no problem.
Got the second *** and was very sick for 2 weeks, said never again.
Me no jabs had covid 2 times. Possibility of RSV once.
I won't get the jabs because I do not trust the people who push it.
Drug testing?
I had an Aunt who had arthritis bad and went for a new drug test for it.
Got the *** and immediately went blind, never recovered sight.

 

[johnb80]

Wife got the first ***, no problem.
Got the second *** and was very sick for 2 weeks, said never again.

Its so hard to say, you cant conclusively say it was the *** though, its possible she was incobation some virus tjhat just coincided with the ***?

Me no jabs had covid 2 times. Possibility of RSV once.

Well thats good and clearly your immune system is building up its strength to fight the virus whilst it passes on from you to others

I won't get the jabs because I do not trust the people who push it.

Well thats a shame really, one day you will need treatment from these professionals that you dont trust

Drug testing?
I had an Aunt who had arthritis bad and went for a new drug test for it.
Got the *** and immediately went blind, never recovered sight.

My mate went for a shingles vaccination and was knocked down and killed by a passing bus on his way home. You really need to consider the side effects carefully and make an educated decision.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Well thats good and clearly your immune system is building up its strength to fight the virus whilst it passes on from you to others

The covid vaccine didn't/doesn't prevent its transmission.

 

[johnb80]

The covid vaccine didn't/doesn't prevent its transmission.

Absolutely correct but it does help to stop it if youre infected therefore reducing the time that you spread the virus.

 

[Jacob]

The covid vaccine didn't/doesn't prevent its transmission.

Of course it does, and very effectively, by reducing the number of infected/infectious people in the community.

 

[John Brown]

mcostello said:
I won't get the jabs because I do not trust the people who push it.


Well thats a shame really, one day you will need treatment from these professionals that you dont trust

Remember, mcostello is in the US, where they do "push" things bit more, IMO.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Of course it does, and very effectively, by reducing the number of infected/infectious people in the community.

The OP was speaking of one person as was I.

 

[Jacob]

...
I won't get the jabs because I do not trust the people who push it.
....

I do not trust the people who argue against the science.
Vaccines have saved millions of lives over the years.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Again, not a climate change sceptic. I fully believe and accept climate changes.

As I believe I have previously said on here Jacob, you are not the man to change my opinion on anything main due to you style of discourse. In fact, I would be surprised if you have ever been able to change anyone's opinion, or are capable of associating for any length of time with people who do not mirror your world view. You appear to be partisan to all the opinions and beliefs you hold and are uninterested to hear or discuss with anyone who thinks differently. Far easier to dismiss and label. All of which is fine, and I wish you luck, but your style of communication doesn't bring about the sort of discussion of differing ideas I look for.

I wonder if you noticed the irony?

For me - any single person can change my view - because for me it is the information/data/data-backed-opinion that is important - not the person delivering that message.

What you've written makes it appear that you deliberately/subconsciously select or ignore info, entirely dependent upon the person delivering it.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

The first post noted that rsv death rates are low in the population, but as I read it this isn't just about death rates, it's about NHS resources and general wellbeing. Severe rsv cases both young and old can occupy hospital beds for weeks and months, by vaccinating we can use those resources to treat other conditions and have better outcomes for everyone. Vaccines are not just about saving lives, and we will see more of this as the science of developing new vaccines gets better and faster. No one is forced to have it

Good man - at last a bit of analysis on the interconnected facets involved. Nothing exists in isolation and there is always a bigger picture involved. I salute you for your valuable input.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

The problem with people who are anti-vax is there actions endanger everyone else by allowing the viruses to survive. Pure coincidence, I just received my invitation for my Covid Booster, Flu and first shingles *** which i have accepted without question. I'm grateful that these drugs are made available to me.

That's but one of the ways by which an anti-vax mindset directly affects the wider population - but there is a second directly linked consequence.

When one person who could have had a vaccination decides not to - and then subsequently develops that illness - they could be hospitalised for a lengthy period - which takes up the resources and funding that may prevent several other people being treated for something slightly less serious or non-life threatening.

It is this interconnectedness that I suspect is behind the suggestion of offering a large cohort a mass vaccination programme. The money and effort in doing so, is weighed up (statistically) against the potential number of *that cohort* who statistically-evidenced might be prevented from developing symptoms or limiting the severity of those symptoms, such that the rest of the healthcare delivery downstream of this vaccine program is potentially both more efficient and more effective. Costs are reduced overall, while treating more patients at the same time.

I also suspect that it is this overarching statistical analysis that might have concluded that offering the *** to 80+ year-olds would not deliver the same overall effects.

 

[NickDReed]

I wonder if you noticed the irony?

For me - any single person can change my view - because for me it is the information/data/data-backed-opinion that is important - not the person delivering that message.

What you've written makes it appear that you deliberately/subconsciously select or ignore info, entirely dependent upon the person delivering it.

Good for you.

For myself the person, is for the most part immaterial.

Unfortunately, for me the manner in which they choose to converse and deliver information has a huge impact on my propensity to pay any attention to them.

I will happily discuss at length with anyone who's views do no marry with mine, I think it's important to do so.

I'd just ask for the other participant not to be a ****.