Vaccination

[Deadeye]

I promised myself not to look at these threads - because they just leave me cross and despairing in about equal measure.

Nevertheless, in the faint hope that it may help somebody who is wavering to take up the vaccination, a few comments:

Firstly, side effects. If you take sterile fine needles and gave 1,000,000 a mock *** the statistics are that around 10 would have some degree of anaphylactic response and 1 of them might die; those are severe events. If you include material in your million jabs that either is, or produces, something the body recognises as foreign, the frequency of some after effect (mild to moderate) is 10%-20%. If you include "a bit achy in the arm and rather tired", it might even be half. None of those are of concern.
Set against that risk are two benefits:
1. You are very very much less likely to suffer severe disease; some vaccines provide almost complete protection. In the case of Covid, the vaccines do a phenomenal job of preventing disease serious enough for hospitalisation. It's important to remember that avoiding severe disease is not only about surviving; it also avoids much of the long-term damage. You only have one set of lungs; best not to wreck them. Woodworkers of all people should get that.
2. You make an essential contribution to protecting others, but reducing transmission.
The risk-cost-benefit of vaccines is a closed scientific issue. It's done. A long time ago. The benefits so hugely outweigh the costs/problems that I struggle to think of a single other medical intervention that would rate more highly. The Covid vaccine is no exception.

Secondly, safety of the development process. No stages of the asseeement have been excluded; they simply have been pushed 24/7 with extraordinary purposefulness. I stopped counting a while back, but several tens of thousands of people were involved in the trials of the current set of vaccines. These were properly blinded and controlled trials. Promulgating unfounded misinformation is a huge disservice to the volunteers in those trials and the clinicians and scientists conducting them.

If you are offered the vaccine, I'd implore you to take it up. I had it last Wednesday (Pfizer). My arm was a little bruised ; next day I was completely back to normal.

 

[Lignafera]

Thanks Garno for your kind words.
Perhaps I was a bit hasty with my refusal of the second ***, but at the time of writing I was feeling unwell. I do realise the importance of full vaccination, my GP is going to phone me Monday to discuss the matter.

 

[Jonm]

I am not anti vax in general. However I worry that in this case its s bit of a rushed job in many ways.
People being more qualified to know does not necessarily mean they really know. At this point I don't think anyone knows
There is far from universal agreement about the strategy being employed.

I also have reservations about the vaccine, we are giving it to a huge number of people and there may be long term consequences. There are examples like thalidomide.

We have to consider what happens when the vulnerable (older) people have been vaccinated and the economy opens up. The criteria will be not to overload the nhs. The pressure on the government to get back to normal will be massive, most of us do not like being hermits. There will be a rise in coronavirus cases but hopefully without the associated deaths. Unvaccinated vulnerable people will be at risk unless they self isolate but that will be their choice if they have been offered the vaccine.

I am in the vulnerable age group and was delighted to get the vaccine, my logic is that long term problems with the vaccine will probably be too long term to affect me. The balance between an imminent real deadly threat and a remotely possible long term unknown problem was a no brainier for me.

If I were younger, say in my thirties then I am not sure what my attitude would be to having the vaccine. I suppose that by the time it is offered to those age groups the risks of the disease will be better understood. Also there is the issue of the overall good, reducing the risk of more deadly mutations, protecting those who are vulnerable but cannot have the vaccine etc.

Having the vaccine is not compulsory but there will be little help or sympathy for those who refuse the vaccine and have consequences like long Covid.

 

[RobinBHM]

I believe UK feedback of side effects from the vaccine is currently 22,000 reported side effects from approx 7 million vaccinated.

The vast vast majority of those were mild side effects.


I would choose the vaccine over the virus.

 

[RobinBHM]

Thanks Garno for your kind words.
Perhaps I was a bit hasty with my refusal of the second ***, but at the time of writing I was feeling unwell. I do realise the importance of full vaccination, my GP is going to phone me Monday to discuss the matter.

A nasty reaction can be quite frightening, you have good reason to be concerned.

The good news is, you've recovered from the *** and you will get a high level of antibodies within a month, so you don't have to rush into making a decision urgently to protect yourself in the next few months.

 

[Jonm]

Thanks Garno for your kind words.
Perhaps I was a bit hasty with my refusal of the second ***, but at the time of writing I was feeling unwell. I do realise the importance of full vaccination, my GP is going to phone me Monday to discuss the matter.

Lignafera, I commented on your post and looking at it now I was not very considerate and apologise. Clearly any reaction which is similar to your heart problem would be worrying. I hope everything goes well and you can sort out what is best for you.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Firstly, the best possible situation for you is if everyone else has the vaccine, and you don't. It doesn't work if everyone thinks the same way, unfortunately.

Giving out a new, untested (in the traditional sense) vaccine indiscriminately will probably be fine. It's just a vaccine, after all. Nothing to worry about. Vaccines have been after round for 100 years or more. There have never been any major medical disasters relating to unexpected adverse outcomes, so why worry? What could possibly go wrong? ;-)

Everyone needs to do their own risk/benefit analysis: is fear of Covid19 greater than fear of a vaccine? That's the emotional decision to be made. Can you get any facts to help take the emotion out of the equation? I'd love to help, but there are so many facts kicking around that I don't know what is true and what isn't. Normal rules do not apply to this new disease.

For example, Robbin's pet lockdown works. We know it works, because there is zero influenza this year. Completely eradicated. Good work everyone. So why is the Coronavirus still charging around infecting everyone? Must be because they are failing to comply with the rules, obviously. But if they are not complying, why are they not catching the 'flu?

Baffling.

(3)

I think that there are two or three reasons why we have seen so little flu this season so far (sufficient to trouble the healthcare system at least):
1) More people in the 'at risk' groups have had a flu *** this year than in earlier years;
2) There has been less social interaction and a lot less international travel;
3) We've been lucky that the currently dominant strains out there are not unusually transmissible and/or dangerous.

It's either some combination of the above or some kind of trick by the lizard people controlled by Bill Gates.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Funnily enough, I thought the same. Until my lad, (20), tested positive. Slight cough, lost sense of smell, otherwise fine. When attended blood centre later, offering plasma(? I think) for therapeutic reasons, they tested and said thanks, but insufficient antibodies. Plus told him he should still socially distance and when vaccine ready, he will still need it for long term protection.

Don't ask me - just reporting what he was told.

I think that the standard guidance is that one can have the *** after four weeks of covid infection, and that (other health considerations aside) it's worth having the *** then.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

I promised myself not to look at these threads - because they just leave me cross and despairing in about equal measure.

Nevertheless, in the faint hope that it may help somebody who is wavering to take up the vaccination, a few comments:

Firstly, side effects. If you take sterile fine needles and gave 1,000,000 a mock *** the statistics are that around 10 would have some degree of anaphylactic response and 1 of them might die; those are severe events. If you include material in your million jabs that either is, or produces, something the body recognises as foreign, the frequency of some after effect (mild to moderate) is 10%-20%. If you include "a bit achy in the arm and rather tired", it might even be half. None of those are of concern.
Set against that risk are two benefits:
1. You are very very much less likely to suffer severe disease; some vaccines provide almost complete protection. In the case of Covid, the vaccines do a phenomenal job of preventing disease serious enough for hospitalisation. It's important to remember that avoiding severe disease is not only about surviving; it also avoids much of the long-term damage. You only have one set of lungs; best not to wreck them. Woodworkers of all people should get that.
2. You make an essential contribution to protecting others, but reducing transmission.
The risk-cost-benefit of vaccines is a closed scientific issue. It's done. A long time ago. The benefits so hugely outweigh the costs/problems that I struggle to think of a single other medical intervention that would rate more highly. The Covid vaccine is no exception.

Secondly, safety of the development process. No stages of the asseeement have been excluded; they simply have been pushed 24/7 with extraordinary purposefulness. I stopped counting a while back, but several tens of thousands of people were involved in the trials of the current set of vaccines. These were properly blinded and controlled trials. Promulgating unfounded misinformation is a huge disservice to the volunteers in those trials and the clinicians and scientists conducting them.

If you are offered the vaccine, I'd implore you to take it up. I had it last Wednesday (Pfizer). My arm was a little bruised ; next day I was completely back to normal.

Here speaks the voice of reason...

 

[Woody2Shoes]

I am not anti vax in general. However I worry that in this case its s bit of a rushed job in many ways.
People being more qualified to know does not necessarily mean they really know. At this point I don't think anyone knows
There is far from universal agreement about the strategy being employed.

The fact is that people who know DO know more - of course nobody has a monopoly on the truth, but there is all sorts of rigorous scientific evidence that these vaccines are safe and effective.
Anyone who suggests otherwise (edit: without offering suitable scientific evidence of course!) is at best ignorant, possibly arrogant, and at worst malicious. It really is that simple.

 

[RobinBHM]

Yep

In that case you are wrong.

 

[Rorschach]

In that case you are wrong.

Only in your opinion, and I don't care about your opinion

 

[RobinBHM]

the vaccine creates far higher antibodies than a person will acquire naturally following infection.

Anybody who has had Covid should still have the vaccine.

 

[Droogs]

the usual mind over matter. you don't mind and other people don't matter

 

[Noel]

Rorschach and Robin and one or two others, much as I, ah, enjoy your interactions please do not make this a replay of the last thread. Never the twain shall meet and that is obvious to you both and any dog you find in the street.
@Garno started the thread and it's been informative and perhaps even helpful for those getting/had/considering a *** or two so let's keep it that way.

 

[Jake]

The evidence on asymptomatic transmission of C19 is pretty sketchy.

No it is not.

 

[Deadeye]

I also have reservations about the vaccine, we are giving it to a huge number of people and there may be long term consequences. There are examples like thalidomide.

Jon

I expect you mean well - but please don't suggest that the tragedy of thalidomide is comparable in any way.

Small molecule therapeutics (like thalidomide and most "medicines") are designed to alter the balance of chemical pathways. Because of the complexity and interconnectedness of mammalian biochemistry, it's extremely rare to find a chemical agent with a single effect on a single target receptor that modulates a single pathway and outcome.

Vaccines on the other hand are, or produce by direct translation, an antigenic protein fragment. The fragment itself is not medicinally active; it is just recognised as "foreign". The proces sby which it is recognised as foreign, and a response is raised against it is exactly the same as if you graze your knee and get dirt, viruses, mouold, bacteria or anything else in it. That process is not modified in any way by the vaccination process. The main difference to you grazing your knee, is that a larger quantity of one particular foreign material is being seen, but the mechanism underlying is the same.

Vaccination is probably the safest, most cost-effective and beneficial intervention that medicine can provide. It's up there with clean water, good diet, sufficient sunlight, and exercise. Small molecule therapeutics of course also have their place, but are a different league of risk benefit.

Anyway, glad you are vaccinated; just wanted to correct the false comparison.

 

[RobinBHM]

Rorschach and Robin and one or two others, much as I, ah, enjoy your interactions please do not make this a replay of the last thread. Never the twain shall meet and that is obvious to you both and any dog you find in the street.
@Garno started the thread and it's been informative and perhaps even helpful for those getting/had/considering a *** or two so let's keep it that way.

Good point, understood

 

[Terry - Somerset]

To vaccinate or not - there is just 9 months evidence related to long term impacts of vaccination. There are no certainties - but:

• for those 60+ the risks of vaccination are almost certainly far exceeded by the risks of contracting covid.
• for those below 30, the concern for longer term impacts makes a reluctance to be vaccinated more understandable.

Without forced vaccination individuals will do whatever they choose. The consequences fall mainly upon them. It can be turned into a social responsibility issue, but in reality this is a pointless waste of effort.

The real need is to be explicit about vaccination and what the goals are:

1. to reduce deaths related to covid to socially acceptable levels. We accept this almost without question for (say) flu.
2. to limit the impact on NHS to manageable levels will take longer than deaths as younger people also get ill although may not die.
3. to protect all from the long term effects of covid other than death
4. to reduce levels of infection to (a) limit the probability of further virus mutation, and (b) allow track and trace to work effectively.

Without goal clarity, the end of lockdown is just a mirage. Tolerance for delay will evaporate soon after (1) above comes in sight by about early March.

The rationale must be convincingly communicated or restrictions will be unenforceable due to increasingly widespread non-compliance.

 

[Rorschach]

To vaccinate or not - there is just 9 months evidence related to long term impacts of vaccination. There are no certainties - but:

• for those 60+ the risks of vaccination are almost certainly far exceeded by the risks of contracting covid.
• for those below 30, the concern for longer term impacts makes a reluctance to be vaccinated more understandable.

Without forced vaccination individuals will do whatever they choose. The consequences fall mainly upon them. It can be turned into a social responsibility issue, but in reality this is a pointless waste of effort.

The real need is to be explicit about vaccination and what the goals are:

1. to reduce deaths related to covid to socially acceptable levels. We accept this almost without question for (say) flu.
2. to limit the impact on NHS to manageable levels will take longer than deaths as younger people also get ill although may not die.
3. to protect all from the long term effects of covid other than death
4. to reduce levels of infection to (a) limit the probability of further virus mutation, and (b) allow track and trace to work effectively.

Without goal clarity, the end of lockdown is just a mirage. Tolerance for delay will evaporate soon after (1) above comes in sight by about early March.

The rationale must be convincingly communicated or restrictions will be unenforceable due to increasingly widespread non-compliance.

Very sensible stuff as usual Terry.