Vaccination

[Rorschach]

Maybe this will reassure you Claim: Vaccines were rushed, and might be unsafe

I am certainly pro-vax as I have said many times and I don't think the rushing through makes it unsafe. That being said there is nothing wrong with having concerns about long term effects as there is simply no data (and no way to get the data) on this. Lets say for example having the C19 vaccine makes your ears fall off in 20 years, we can't predict that now. The same of course could be said for catching C19, it could also make your ears fall off in 20 years. We learn all the time, just look at HPV, it took a long time before we realised that having the infection caused a increased risk of cervical cancer.

On balance the vaccine is almost certainly good, especially for the elderly and those vulnerable to serious illness or death from C19, but for the young and healthy, it is far from clear cut.

 

[Chris152]

We need to get as many people as possible vaccinated as soon as possible, all ages. The higher the case load, the more opportunity for mutation. At the moment, younger people can say they're relatively safe, but it doesn't have to stay that way - it's already mutated into forms that spread more easily and are more deadly, as far as I can tell (a punter who knows nothing) there's nothing to say the virus can't become still more of a threat and that it won't mutate into a form that kills young people efficiently. In which case, the current situation could look like just a beginning, and a missed opportunity.

 

[Rorschach]

We need to get as many people as possible vaccinated as soon as possible, all ages. The higher the case load, the more opportunity for mutation. At the moment, younger people can say they're relatively safe, but it doesn't have to stay that way - it's already mutated into forms that spread more easily and are more deadly, as far as I can tell (a punter who knows nothing) there's nothing to say the virus can't become still more of a threat and that it won't mutate into a form that kills young people efficiently. In which case, the current situation could look like just a beginning, and a missed opportunity.

Highly unlikely, viruses mutate to spread more easily but less deadly, it's not in their interest to be more deadly, especially to the young.

 

[Chris152]

Highly unlikely, viruses mutate to spread more easily but less deadly, it's not in their interest to be more deadly, especially to the young.

Yes, but this one's already mutated to become more deadly, apparently.

 

[Rorschach]

Yes, but this one's already mutated to become more deadly, apparently.

Key word, apparently, and it's been played down by scientists because it's really difficult to say if it is actually more deadly, a lot of it depends on how you measure it. Remember, we don't really know how deadly the "original" virus is, so a comparison is pretty tricky.

 

[RobinBHM]

We need to get as many people as possible vaccinated as soon as possible, all ages. The higher the case load, the more opportunity for mutation. At the moment, younger people can say they're relatively safe, but it doesn't have to stay that way - it's already mutated into forms that spread more easily and are more deadly, as far as I can tell (a punter who knows nothing) there's nothing to say the virus can't become still more of a threat and that it won't mutate into a form that kills young people efficiently. In which case, the current situation could look like just a beginning, and a missed opportunity.

Yes, it's a race against time now.

Scientists do seem to be saying we need to vaccinate pretty much the whole population before any mutations happen and spread into the community.

The particular concern is a mutation comes along that the vaccine is not effective against, then the vaccine programme would be delayed.

I believe the current programme is to vaccinate everybody over 18

 

[RobinBHM]

Yes, but this one's already mutated to become more deadly, apparently.

Certainly the Kent variant is the reason for most of the numbers in this current wave.

It's certainly causing more people and younger people to be hospitalised.

Hospital admissions are the most accurate indicator.....and they do tell us the variant is causing huge pressure on ICU capacity.

 

[Chris152]

The particular concern is a mutation comes along that the vaccine is not effective against, then the vaccine programme would be delayed.

See my post earlier this morning about the FT report on O/AZ efficacy against the SA variant. There, I offer my expert opinion on what we need to do next.

 

[RobinBHM]

See my post earlier this morning about the FT report on O/AZ efficacy against the SA variant. There, I offer my expert opinion on what we need to do next.

The govt have put in mass testing into parts of UKmwhere the African variant has been found.

We don't know whether they are doing this for data to understand more or whether they are desperate to eliminate it, but either way, I would say the scientists are worried.

 

[Chris152]

The govt have put in mass testing into parts of UKmwhere the African variant has been found.

We don't know whether they are doing this for data to understand more or whether they are desperate to eliminate it, but either way, I would say the scientists are worried.

Yep, there's evidence of community transmission and I'd say the current measures are inadequate to stopping its spread. Giving today's news, that should concern us in relation to the effectiveness of the vaccine programme.

 

[Jonm]

Maybe this will reassure you Claim: Vaccines were rushed, and might be unsafe

Thank you for the info, all very re-assuring.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

We are fed lies, distortions, irrelevancies, selective statistics etc by the media and politicians. Unsurprising that the public increasingly question anything they are told.

Sadly this extends to science, thus far largely uncontaminated by political and media behaviours.

A rational examination of risk and consequences would make vaccine an undeniable choice for all ages. But individuals are not rationalists - they make choices based on emotion, suspicion, lack of intellect etc.

Reluctance by some to be vaccinated is understandable, even if irrational.

 

[RobinBHM]

We are fed lies, distortions, irrelevancies, selective statistics etc by the media and politicians. Unsurprising that the public increasingly question anything they are told.

Sadly this extends to science, thus far largely uncontaminated by political and media behaviours.

A rational examination of risk and consequences would make vaccine an undeniable choice for all ages. But individuals are not rationalists - they make choices based on emotion, suspicion, lack of intellect etc.

Reluctance by some to be vaccinated is understandable, even if irrational.

It is difficult.

The media publish stories that grab attention.

That means controversial studies, conspiracists, emotive images get all the attention.

"Vaccines working well, all is going to plan" is not exciting

"Vaccines might kill people says new study" far more exciting.

 

[Rorschach]

A rational examination of risk and consequences would make vaccine an undeniable choice for all ages.

I have to take issue there Terry, that simply isn't the case. Undeniable for some ages/groups, but blanket across the population you just can't say, at least not yet with the data available.

 

[Jonm]

[

Key word, apparently, and it's been played down by scientists because it's really difficult to say if it is actually more deadly, a lot of it depends on how you measure it. Remember, we don't really know how deadly the "original" virus is, so a comparison is pretty tricky.

It is widely reported that the new uk strain spreads more easily and that alone has meant that more people have died. Whether someone is more likely to die once they have caught it Is debatable. More people have died as a result if this variant so to me that makes it more deadly.

 

[Rorschach]

[

It is widely reported that the new uk strain spreads more easily and that alone has meant that more people have died. Whether someone is more likely to die once they have caught it Is debatable. More people have died as a result if this variant so to me that makes it more deadly.

That's fine you can look at it like that but it wasn't what I took from Chris's comment, it seemed to me he meant more deadly in the sense of the IFR which is unknown, indeed we don't even know the real IFR of "original" C19.

 

[Billy_wizz]

The answer to that is to be found in the "Another Joke" thread:

View attachment 102879

Or intentionally ignored because it goes contrary to there theory! Look at the great fat debacle as proof scientists lie and support each other in there lies the scientist that decided that fat was bad for you had data from over 30 countries but only included the data from the 3 or 4 countries that supported his hypothesis and anyone who went against it was ridiculed and no one in the scientific community called him out for picking and choosing which data he used!

 

[Droogs]

Highly unlikely, viruses mutate to spread more easily but less deadly, it's not in their interest to be more deadly, especially to the young.

And you know that they (virus's) know this for a fact and that they make a conscientious effort to make sure they only mutate to be more infectious, how?
Are you secretly a genetic virologist and not telling us so know for sure that this virus is not in any way harmful to the young after all once they hit 50, who give a sh 1 te if they then have major (expencsive/lethal) complications in later life, after all anyone over 50 has a worth of zero to society as far as you are concerned. Rorscharch you come out with such unbelievably naive and proto facist statements, I rally do wonder what they put in your water

 

[Woody2Shoes]

And you know that they (virus's) know this for a fact and that they make a conscientious effort to make sure they only mutate to be more infectious, how?
Are you secretly a genetic virologist and not telling us so know for sure that this virus is not in any way harmful to the young after all once they hit 50, who give a sh 1 te if they then have major (expencsive/lethal) complications in later life, after all anyone over 50 has a worth of zero to society as far as you are concerned. Rorscharch you come out with such unbelievably naive and proto facist statements, I rally do wonder what they put in your water

All things being equal, a very deadly virus doesn't get the chance to spread much - it disables/kills its host before that host has had much of a chance to spread the virus around the community (e.g. Ebola is/was terrifyingly good at knocking people to the ground). In simple mathematical terms there is a trade-off between transmissibility and deadliness - they work against each other. The fly in the ointment is where you have a viral strain which is deadlier, but with a delayed reaction - which still allows spreading of the virus. I suppose epidemiologists therefore have (at least!) three key factors in their models to represent:
1) How likely it is to spread from one person to another;
2) How likely it is to seriously incapacitate/kill/maim an infected person;
3) The way 1 and 2 are modified by a delay between having the virus without symptoms and subsequently developing symptoms.

I think that is has been factor 3 that has been a real problem with Covid - the way the virus can spread between individuals, while both are unaware, is a very difficult thing - almost by definition - to get a grip on.

 

[Blackswanwood]

We are fed lies, distortions, irrelevancies, selective statistics etc by the media and politicians. Unsurprising that the public increasingly question anything they are told.

Good job they can always dip into a woodworking forum to get the facts