Any others cynical about a vaccine?

[zambezi]

Those with a valid card will return almost to 'normal'.

If true, that is certainly a carrot. But it has been widely discussed that much of the current social restrictions will remain, vaccine or not.

This scare mongering does no-one any good, if you don't want the vaccine that's your choice but please stop trying to put everyone else people off!

I am not an anti-vaxxer. Not am I an agent provocateur. I share in common with all a desire for normal life to return. For the maximum common good for the minimum common impact.

What I find utterly bewildering is that folk remove critical thinking from that challenge: how do we collectively get back to "normal" for least impact.


Mike Yeadon who held the post of Chief Science Officer at Pfizer for 16 years has launched a legal appeal to stop the roll out of mRNA based vaccines for covid. You won't hear about that in the press. Do you just want to ignore the scientific reason for the challenge because it is easier to believe the government actors are operating in our collective best interest? If so, please hit the ignore button so that you do not see my posts.

For those who join with me in looking to the all the experts [not politicians or their poodles] for a steer through this mess, I will continue to evaluate data and share. Complete with scientific source, attribution, data, etc.

Wodarg Yeadon EMA Petition Pfizer Trial FINAL 01DEC2020 en Unsigned With Exhibits | PDF | Real Time Polymerase Chain Reaction | Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction

Wodarg Yeadon EMA Petition Pfizer Trial FINAL 01DEC2020 en Unsigned With Exhibits

www.scribd.com

 

[AGR]

If true, that is certainly a carrot. But it has been widely discussed that much of the current social restrictions will remain, vaccine or not.




I am not an anti-vaxxer. Not am I an agent provocateur. I share in common with all a desire for normal life to return. For the maximum common good for the minimum common impact.

What I find utterly bewildering is that folk remove critical thinking from that challenge: how do we collectively get back to "normal" for least impact.


Mike Yeadon who held the post of Chief Science Officer at Pfizer for 16 years has launched a legal appeal to stop the roll out of mRNA based vaccines for covid. You won't hear about that in the press. Do you just want to ignore the scientific reason for the challenge because it is easier to believe the government actors are operating in our collective best interest? If so, please hit the ignore button so that you do not see my posts.

For those who join with me in looking to the all the experts [not politicians or their poodles] for a steer through this mess, I will continue to evaluate data and share. Complete with scientific source, attribution, data, etc.

View attachment 185305

Wodarg Yeadon EMA Petition Pfizer Trial FINAL 01DEC2020 en Unsigned With Exhibits | PDF | Real Time Polymerase Chain Reaction | Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction

Wodarg Yeadon EMA Petition Pfizer Trial FINAL 01DEC2020 en Unsigned With Exhibits

www.scribd.com

Well done for finding that! There is a call by some for more investigation into the use of Ivermectin to treat covid. Whilst not, as I understand, having gone through extensive peer reviewed research, some hospitals report success in it's use, and I believe it has been used in Egypt and parts of India. Better than bleach anyway!

 

[kes]

AS you keep saying and picking your examples, they are very few and far between and I am excluding mice and rhesus macacques. As has been said by Frenchie, do what you wish but don't imply to others that vaccines are unsafe on the basis of your skewed examples, that is, quite simply, stupid and dangerous.
My daughter is a geneticist and works in Oxford - she has a PhD and is a scientist. I have said this before, if she says have it, I will, since I think she knows a little more relevant science and how to interpret it than all anti-vaxers.
I would prefer the Jenner vaccine but any vaccine would do to get out of this semi-isolation and back to normal.
I'm certainly not afraid of having the pfizer alternative.

 

[zambezi]

I'm certainly not afraid of having the pfizer alternative.

If you are referring to the Oxford-AstraZeneca solution, yes. That may well get my vote. Do I take from the tone of your reply that it is the option your geneticist daughter recommends?

Pfizer's mRNA attempt? No way.

 

[kes]

Her advice is take the first which is available - as with either, any side effects pale into insignificance compared to the potentially terminal damage wrought by a Covid infection. (lungs, liver, etc known so far)
I prefer the UK vaccine simply because I trust it more (just 'our' product - no science involved), my daughter makes no distinction between the two in risk or efficacy - compared to her parents death due to Covid.

 

[FrenchieBoy]

AS you keep saying and picking your examples, they are very few and far between and I am excluding mice and rhesus macacques. As has been said by Frenchie, do what you wish but don't imply to others that vaccines are unsafe on the basis of your skewed examples, that is, quite simply, stupid and dangerous.
My daughter is a geneticist and works in Oxford - she has a PhD and is a scientist. I have said this before, if she says have it, I will, since I think she knows a little more relevant science and how to interpret it than all anti-vaxers.
I would prefer the Jenner vaccine but any vaccine would do to get out of this semi-isolation and back to normal.
I'm certainly not afraid of having the pfizer alternative.

Well spoken Kes, I agree with every word that you have posted in post #423!
I have to go to hospital tomorrow for a Covid test in the run up to day surgery next Tuesday. While I am there having the test I will be asking about the availability of the vaccine and how I could get "the jab". I personally don't care much about the possible allergic reactions that a small few keep blurting on about as the odds of a reaction are so slim compared to the possible/potential protection that the vaccine might offer!

 

[mchughcb]

I agree with Fairhill - just get the jab unless you are highly allergic (not many) those are the people (EXCLUSIVELY) who have exhibited any anaphylactic reaction. There will be a COVID 19, "I've had the jab" card and if you procrastinate like some on here, chances are you will become a social outcast - never mind an SD outcast. Those with a valid card will return almost to 'normal'.

Next step a social score card.

 

[Ade8mm]

(Found on another forum... too good not to share)

 

[Freeforester]

Well done for finding that! There is a call by some for more investigation into the use of Ivermectin to treat covid. Whilst not, as I understand, having gone through extensive peer reviewed research, some hospitals report success in it's use, and I believe it has been used in Egypt and parts of India. Better than bleach anyway!

And a damned sight surer not to engender a non-neutralising antibody response, it simply stops the virus from getting going in the first place, or once it has got going.

Were the authorities able to rubbish the efficacy of a cheap, readily available generic drug such as Iivermectin, I'm sure they would have done so, but the deafening silence is testament to it being something of an embarrassment, so they simply ignore what half the developing world has 'simply skipped the 'foreplay' with, taken the results by others on trust, then got on and deployed it, with impressive results, so impressive in fact that most of our media has also cold shouldered it.

ClinicalTrials.gov

clinicaltrials.gov

Cui buono? Certainly not those who will succumb in the intervening period...

 

[Tazz]

(Found on another forum... too good not to share)
View attachment 185363

Or another way of measuring it for the U.K. might be

Are 400-600 people dying of CV19 everyday
Are hospital admissions for severe CV19 running at 1000-2000 a day

I guess it depends on what you want to measure and what point you are trying to make

 

[BryanDC]

Isn't 0.1% of the worlds population 7.7 million people? That puts it in a different perspective

 

[Ade8mm]

Or another way of measuring it for the U.K. might be

Are 400-600 people dying of CV19 everyday
Are hospital admissions for severe CV19 running at 1000-2000 a day

I guess it depends on what you want to measure and what point you are trying to make

I am not trying to make a point but think the question in the meme is valid.

How will the efficacy of the vaccine(s) be measured?

Given we don't currently have clear/honest data as to such obvious stuff as how many deaths with the virus as opposed to how many deaths because of the virus it is a vital question.

Also, as it is possible that the mrna vaccine stops symptoms in people who have been vaccinated but does not stop them still being contagious, how will its effectiveness be measured?

Or will the data be altered to suit a narrative ?

 

[caorach]

The view of those in the medical field seems to be that it would be a benefit to society if everyone, or as near as possible, were to get the vaccine.

So instead of discussing minor details about your personal position perhaps it is interesting to consider another question. Even assuming that there is some level of risk with the vaccine and that you have concerns about this risk would you be willing to take it for the good of society?

We see people who have gone before us being (rightly) hailed as heros for taking risks for the good of society. It almost goes without saying that the risk of climbing into a Spitfire, or a trench, because the government said it was for the good of society as a whole (and I think history has supported this position) is a much bigger decision than taking a vaccine that science says is safe, but that Karen from Facebook says might cause her to have allergies.

So, leave your person views aside. The government says it is good for society and the war against this virus and on that basis will you take it?

 

[Ade8mm]

Quote ; -"So, leave your person (sic) views aside. The government says it is good for society and the war against this virus and on that basis will you take it?"

Not sure how can leave one's personal views aside and at the same time answer a question which requires a personal response..

That aside, like most things requiring a personal decision/choice I would never base it purely on what the Government says. That is not to say I wouldn't have a vaccination.

 

[Tazz]

I am not trying to make a point but think the question in the meme is valid.

How will the efficacy of the vaccine(s) be measured?

Given we don't currently have clear/honest data as to such obvious stuff as how many deaths with the virus as opposed to how many deaths because of the virus it is a vital question.

Also, as it is possible that the mrna vaccine stops symptoms in people who have been vaccinated but does not stop them still being contagious, how will its effectiveness be measured?

Or will the data be altered to suit a narrative ?

I go back to my initial reply to you, two easy simple measures to see if the vaccine works when we get to volume roll out in the U.K.

How many people are being admitted to hospital with serious CV19 symptoms
How many people are dying of it every day

I think the narrative on those fronts is easy to follow

 

[AGR]

Isn't 0.1% of the worlds population 7.7 million people? That puts it in a different perspective

Did you mean billion?

 

[Warrener]

I had no idea so many scientists were on this board, who would have thought that stalking and a degree plus a masters followed by years of experience would have gone hand in hand for so many of you

 

[caorach]

Quote ; -"So, leave your person (sic) views aside. The government says it is good for society and the war against this virus and on that basis will you take it?"

Not sure how can leave one's personal views aside and at the same time answer a question which requires a personal response..

That aside, like most things requiring a personal decision/choice I would never base it purely on what the Government says. That is not to say I wouldn't have a vaccination.

By leaving your personal views behind I'm considering that many people who were, for example, sent off to fight the Germans were likely to be extremely negative about getting shot it. Their personal opinion was likely to be that you'd have to be completely off your head to go and sit in a muddy hole in the ground for 5 years while the Germans invented increasingly more nasty and efficient ways to kill you. However, the government told them it would be good for society for them to battle the Germans even if there was an extremely high risk to their personal safety and so off they went. Their personal view was that they didn't want to do it, perhaps even some of them had sympathy with the political position of the Nazis for all I know, but they went because the government said they should and it would be a benefit to everyone they were leaving behind and in this emergency situation there is no choice but to trust the government and for the whole country to act in unison.

Now we have an interesting parallel - there is a UK and global emergency with the potential to kill millions and, despite what Karen from Facebook says, the government are telling us that for the good of society we need to take the vaccine. So, in this situation do people say "well I'm not keen on the vaccine and I personally don't want it but for the good of society and because the government are the only organising "force" at a society wide level I need to take it so I'm doing that." Or are people saying "My belief in what Karen from facebook says totally overrides any obligation I have to society so I won't be having the vaccine." I hope you can see that in one of these positions personal opinion overrides any obligation to society while in the other those involved put their personal views aside to try and do the right thing for everyone.

 

[Ade8mm]

You make some solid and valid points Caorach. ( I didn't say I would not be vaccinated.) To work with the parallel . People from the UK volunteered to risk death in both World Wars , a most worthy and admirable thing, before conscription came in.
So far as I know , vaccination is presently not compulsory.

 

[caorach]

You make some solid and valid points Caorach. ( I didn't say I would not be vaccinated.) To work with the parallel . People from the UK volunteered to risk death in both World Wars , a most worthy and admirable thing, before conscription came in.
So far as I know , vaccination is presently not compulsory.

Yes, and I believe that the Sikhs in India organised the biggest ever volunteer army. I'm from Northern Ireland and there was never conscription here but a very many volunteered, indeed a very many from the Republic of Ireland who, in theory, had no part in the war also came forward to help. These people acted for the good of all.

By nature I'm a libertarian so my view is that the normal reaction to government is "go away and leave me alone." but I also accept that there are circumstances where society (lead and represented by government) has to act in unity. So my personal view is that I'm a bit wary of the vaccine, just as I'm a bit wary of version 1.0 of any bit of software, but at the first chance I get I will be taking it.

In asking my question I'm interested in how people view their responsibility to society and their right to personal choice and if they can reconcile the two things in relation to the vaccine. I'm not interested in fighting over minor details of the medical evidence as, frankly, unless you go back and read the primary science (i.e. the published peer reviewed paper) with complete understanding it is impossible to use the science to make an argument. However, I do believe that everyone can have a useful opinion on their position in society, and how that will influence their decisions about the vaccine.