A quick poll about taking the vaccine.

[bramling]

Do you mean that some police tested positive for the virus at some point (hopefully) after the gathering of Rangers fans, and that they are implying the two are related? The police are out and about, and are probably getting tested quite a lot, so it's statistically very likely for some of them to test positive. In order to attribute it to the Rangers fans you'd really need to show that the numbers of police infected was higher by a statistically-significant amount amongst police who were at the demo, and at least go to a little bit off effort to rule out other explanations.

It’s like the big headline in my local paper a little while back, implying that supermarkets were the major place of spread. When one actually read the article, it was far more nuanced - in fact it was only the case that many people who tested positive had been in a supermarket. It certainly doesn’t follow that one leads to the other, as lots of people visit the supermarket on a regular basis, so of course there’s a likelihood that a disproportionate number of positive cases will have been in a supermarket at some point.

And of course the local Facebook was then full of moans about people not wearing masks in supermarkets.

 

[ungreat]

I had my 1st dose Saturday and started feeling rough Sunday..I still feel grim today and have taken the day off work!

 

[PTSNEEDED2021]

Unless you've got medical conditions that prevent you having a jab then why not? I don't see any benefit to not having it. I want to this to end sooner rather than later more protection for everyone, the more confident the government will be to easing restrictions.
If you work in a Care Home/ Hospital, If you refuse to wear a mask and work in a public facing role and have turned down the opportunity to have a jab, you then need to pay and be tested twice a week at your expense.
There will be people who cannot have the vaccine and generally they will be in a vulnerable group. It's selfish to expose them to you possibly carrying and passing it onto them.
If any of the quarter of care home workers who've refused the jab pass it onto a vulnerable resident will they be held responsible for doing so? Track and trace might point you out as the cause.

 

[Yew]

Unless you've got medical conditions that prevent you having a jab then why not? I don't see any benefit to not having it. I want to this to end sooner rather than later more protection for everyone, the more confident the government will be to easing restrictions.
If you work in a Care Home/ Hospital, If you refuse to wear a mask and work in a public facing role and have turned down the opportunity to have a jab, you then need to pay and be tested twice a week at your expense.
There will be people who cannot have the vaccine and generally they will be in a vulnerable group. It's selfish to expose them to you possibly carrying and passing it onto them.
If any of the quarter of care home workers who've refused the jab pass it onto a vulnerable resident will they be held responsible for doing so? Track and trace might point you out as the cause.

So you're the one calling others selfish, whilst trying to coerce them into medical treatment against their will?

 

[PTSNEEDED2021]

So you're the one calling others selfish, whilst trying to coerce them into medical treatment against their will?

If they don't want it, don't complain when you are restricted by refusing it. You will almost certainly be refused medical insurance for travel abroad, you may even be refused travel. You prove your not carrying covid, you test at your expense twice weekly. Alternative have a jab.

 

[Yew]

deleted

 

[takno]

Unless you've got medical conditions that prevent you having a jab then why not? I don't see any benefit to not having it. I want to this to end sooner rather than later more protection for everyone, the more confident the government will be to easing restrictions.
If you work in a Care Home/ Hospital, If you refuse to wear a mask and work in a public facing role and have turned down the opportunity to have a jab, you then need to pay and be tested twice a week at your expense.
There will be people who cannot have the vaccine and generally they will be in a vulnerable group. It's selfish to expose them to you possibly carrying and passing it onto them.
If any of the quarter of care home workers who've refused the jab pass it onto a vulnerable resident will they be held responsible for doing so? Track and trace might point you out as the cause.

That might make sense for more successful jabs, but none of the current Coronavirus ones provide particularly high levels of immunity - they are hugely effective at stopping people getting ill, and almost perfect at stopping dying, but closer to 60% effective at stopping people from passing it on. In fact, because they make vaccinated people more likely to be asymptomatic carriers, they may only lead to a fall of maybe 40% in transmission.

This isn't like measles, and it certainly isn't like smallpox. We aren't going to exit this be eliminating the disease. We are going to exit it with Coronavirus in general circulation, but with minimal risk of serious illness or death, like the common cold. In that context, people who decline the vaccine are making essentially no difference to circulation of the virus, they are just taking a (generally very small) personal risk.

 

[kez19]

Unless you've got medical conditions that prevent you having a jab then why not? I don't see any benefit to not having it. I want to this to end sooner rather than later more protection for everyone, the more confident the government will be to easing restrictions.
If you work in a Care Home/ Hospital, If you refuse to wear a mask and work in a public facing role and have turned down the opportunity to have a jab, you then need to pay and be tested twice a week at your expense.
There will be people who cannot have the vaccine and generally they will be in a vulnerable group. It's selfish to expose them to you possibly carrying and passing it onto them.
If any of the quarter of care home workers who've refused the jab pass it onto a vulnerable resident will they be held responsible for doing so? Track and trace might point you out as the cause.

Correction: regardless being vaccinated or not I still have to be tested twice a week as well as the PCR test I have to do once a week.

I already had COVID and had the jab, this whole selfishness is wearing thin on me but since it’s COVID it seems to be that’s all we care about, no one battened an eyelid to someone not taking a flu jab but here we are, people dictating what others do in all of “hope for the best”

If they don't want it, don't complain when you are restricted by refusing it. You will almost certainly be refused medical insurance for travel abroad, you may even be refused travel. You prove your not carrying covid, you test at your expense twice weekly. Alternative have a jab.

Yet it won’t make a difference will it? It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack

If they don't want it, don't complain when you are restricted by refusing it. You will almost certainly be refused medical insurance for travel abroad, you may even be refused travel. You prove your not carrying covid, you test at your expense twice weekly. Alternative have a jab.

Can see the future now and by you’re standards it’s grim:

No jab - no food, no home, no phone, no internet etc. It’s very well I’ll leave that to you but my god I wouldn’t wish this on anyone but heck most of this mentioned is already here but by refusing a jab is going to make a lot worse, oh dear.

Why should people pay for testing isn’t that another pyramid scheme? More money for the politicians cronies (no matter the political party), whilst everything else goes down the pan?

 

[Busaholic]

Almost all care homes (certainly those for the elderly and infirm) in England at least are run by private companies, which both require to be profitable and to compete with others for sufficient residents to survive.

One of the ways in which they compete, apart from on charges which by necessity cannot vary too much for two homes in the same area offering comparable facilities, is their image to the people who need to assess them for placing family members and loved ones, or even for some considering self-referring.

In the absence of progeny, given my age and medical condition, it is conceivable that the latter option might befall me, or, alternatively, the placing of my wife: there is no doubt that, for the conceivable future, the matter of whether all staff in a care home with 'customer facing' roles have had, and been required to prove they've had, a vaccination course against Covid-19 would be a matter of supreme importance in selecting an appropriate home for, possibly, the rest of one's life.

A home that GUARANTEED all such staff members were up-to-date with their vaccinations would be a minimum requirement for me, either for myself or another, and I believe that it is entirely reasonable that a care home be required this validation as part of their 'duty of care' to be registered.

If there are staff who cannot or refuse to comply with this basic requirement, then they should be removed from frontline duty, and all new staff should have it written into their contract of employment.

If this is considered 'illiberal', so be it, go find another job. You have no more 'right' to your potentially lethal ways than the drunk driver on the roads, with whom I would equate a refusenik, as opposed to someone with a valid reason to decline vaccination.

To reiterate, for the purpose of non-confusion, I'm not suggesting compulsory vaccination for all, just those in frontline medical/care roles.

 

[kez19]

Almost all care homes (certainly those for the elderly and infirm) in England at least are run by private companies, which both require to be profitable and to compete with others for sufficient residents to survive. One of the ways in which they compete, apart from on charges which by necessity cannot vary too much for two homes in the same area offering comparable facilities, is their image to the people who need to assess them for placing family members and loved ones, or even for some considering self-referring. In the absence of progeny, given my age and medical condition, it is conceivable that the latter option might befall me, or, alternatively, the placing of my wife: there is no doubt that, for the conceivable future, the matter of whether all staff in a care home with 'customer facing' roles have had, and been required to prove they've had, a vaccination course against Covid-19 would be a matter of supreme importance in selecting an appropriate home for, possibly, the rest of one's life. A home that GUARANTEED all such staff members were up-to-date with their vaccinations would be a minimum requirement for me, either for myself or another, and I believe that it is entirely reasonable that a care home be required this validation as part of their 'duty of care' to be registered. If there are staff who cannot or refuse to comply with this basic requirement, then they should be removed from frontline duty, and all new staff should have it written into their contract of employment. If this is considered 'illiberal', so be it, go find another job. You have no more 'right' to your potentially lethal ways than the drunk driver on the roads, with whom I would equate a refusenik, as opposed to someone with a valid reason to decline vaccination. To reiterate, for the purpose of non-confusion, I'm not suggesting compulsory vaccination for all, just those in frontline medical/care roles.

Curiousity here, you claim that people who refuse or comply lose their job - turn the tables how would you feel if that was you in that position? So if politicians and the makers of the vaccine don’t comply either will we fire them out the cannon or would we just let them have a free pass?

Yet I could ask why is it any of your business if staff did or didn’t take the vaccine?


Yet isn’t rumours going about that even some NHS staff refusing the vaccine so would you be saying this to them even if you had been saved by someone who hadn’t or would you refuse treatment? These thoughts people have including yourself is causing more misery than anything positive out of it but do tell what you would have said and done back in 2017/8 I guess your thoughts would have been you wouldn’t have given a toss regardless someone being in the NHS or care home being vaccinated

 

[Yew]

You have no more 'right' to your potentially lethal ways than the drunk driver on the roads, with whom I would equate a refusenik, as opposed to someone with a valid reason to decline vaccination. To reiterate, for the purpose of non-confusion, I'm not suggesting compulsory vaccination for all, just those in frontline medical/care roles.

The right to decline medical treatment without repercussions is a founding principle of post-war western society.

 

[kez19]

How do people feel if you had to be given a third dose after having the original 2? - article says at risk groups including care workers...

At-risk UK groups could get Covid booster shots from September

Vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi says jabs would protect the most vulnerable people from new variants

www.theguardian.com

Over-70s, health and social care workers, and those who are clinically extremely vulnerable could begin to get booster shots against new coronavirus variants as early as September, the vaccine minister has said.Nadhim Zahawi said the first booster jabs would be given to those in the top four priority groups; those over 70, NHS workers and care home staff, and the clinically extremely vulnerable.In an interview with the Telegraph, Zahawi also revealed that ministers were expecting up to eight different vaccines to be available in the UK by the autumn, including one jab which has the potential to protect from three different strains of coronavirus with a single dose.A number of the hoped-for vaccines will reportedly be manufactured in the UK, a move that could relax pressure on supplies as tensions escalate with the European Union, which faces a shortage of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...h-covid-in-uk-since-december-have-had-vaccine

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...h-covid-in-uk-since-december-have-had-vaccine

Asked when the public could expect booster shots to begin, Zahawi said the most likely date would be September.

“Jonathan Van-Tam [the deputy chief medical officer] thinks that if we are going to see a requirement for a booster jab to protect the most vulnerable, [it] would be around September,” he said.

Dr Mike Tildesley, part of the Spi-M modelling group which advises the government, welcomed the news that boosters could be available in September, but warned preventing new variants of the virus from reaching the UK was a more immediate challenge.

“In the shorter term, we are worried about new variants, but if we can keep these out for a longer period of time, enough time for these boosters to be developed, then that should hopefully protect us as we go into the winter,” he told Times Radio.

It comes as officials consider expanding the travel “red list”, over fears that imported variants could undermine the vaccine rollout. The Guardian understands that officials met in Whitehall on Friday to consider taking a tougher approach.

At present, British residents and nationals returning from countries on the red list are required to quarantine in an airport hotel for 10 days, at their own expense of £1,750. Other arrivals are banned, and it is still illegal to go on holiday.

The shadow home secretary, Nick Thomas-Symonds, said the government needed to do everything possible to stop new variants reaching the UK, including introducing a more comprehensive hotel quarantine system.

“The UK government are yet again doing too little, too late to secure our borders against Covid – and it’s the British people that will pay the price,” he said.

The government has also been accused of letting down black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and young women in the vaccine rollout, with hesitancy still higher among those groups.

Caroline Nokes, the chairwoman of the women and equalities committee, wrote to Zahawi to address the issue, and warned that failing to tackle the issue could be “devastating” for vaccine-hesitant groups as well as wider society.

 

[yorkie]

...A home that GUARANTEED all such staff members were up-to-date with their vaccinations would be a minimum requirement for me, either for myself or another, and I believe that it is entirely reasonable that a care home be required this validation as part of their 'duty of care' to be registered.

Providing you have been vaccinated, the risk is minimal.

The main purpose of vaccination is to protect yourself; admittedly vaccination can protect others (by inducing a level of population immunity in which the virus finds it difficult to spread) but if you have been vaccinated that's not really a concern to you.

Do you include the annual influenza booster vaccine as one which you believe it would be a failing of the duty of care for a care provider not to have?

If there are staff who cannot or refuse to comply with this basic requirement, then they should be removed from frontline duty, and all new staff should have it written into their contract of employment. If this is considered 'illiberal', so be it, go find another job. You have no more 'right' to your potentially lethal ways than the drunk driver on the roads,....

Are there so many people queuing up to be care workers that the profession can afford to be so picky? (Genuine question; I don't know)

For some jobs, an employer may be inundated with applicants, while for others the employer can struggle to fill posts (this can apply even if there are millions of people in the country seeking employment as not everyone is suitable for every job, obviously)

How do people feel if you had to be given a third dose after having the original 2? - article says at risk groups including care workers...

I am far from convinced it will be necessary, unless there is evidence that variants can either completely evade the antibody response (thus far the "South Africa" variant can evade some of the antibody response) and/or evade the T-cell response (there is no evidence of any of the variants doing this)

 

[kez19]

I am far from convinced it will be necessary, unless there is evidence that variants can either completely evade the antibody response (thus far the "South Africa" variant can evade some of the antibody response) and/or evade the T-cell response (there is no evidence of any of the variants doing this)

For me it does seem to be pushing it already had 2 within 3 months and another if suspected in September, so after September does it become a yeary thing or what?

Yet if I remember correctly I did see something in terms of 3 dose covid: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...vaccine-maker-studying-booster-shots-n1258775

The new study will monitor the safety and efficacy of a third dose in two age groups: those 18 to 55 and those 65 to 85. The participants come from a group of people who were among the first to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine: people who volunteered for Pfizer's initial Phase 1/2 clinical trial, which began in May.

During that trial, participants received two doses of the vaccine three weeks apart. The same dose interval is what's currently recommended.

The third shot will be exactly the same as what participants got a year ago.

 

[yorkie]

For me it does seem to be pushing it already had 2 within 3 months and another if suspected in September, so after September does it become a yeary thing or what?

Short answer: Far too early to tell.

Long answer:

Sars-CoV-2 mutates at a much slower rate than Influenza (especially the type 'A' strain).

However Sars-CoV-2 is still a novel virus in a population that is relatively immunologically naive but is starting to come under immense selection pressure in some areas of the world, and is still adapting for humans.

What this means is that there is going to be massively increased chance of significant mutations for a relatively limited period of time (though this could still be measured in years rather than months) before it settles down. Also, there are only so many mutations that are advantageous to the virus; most potential mutations would be deleterious.

Mutations such as E484K, N5091Y and K417N, have appeared in multiple variants, representing convergent evolution. Some people have this ludicrous idea that if you close all borders you avoid these mutations occurring. But this is demonstrably false, given many of the most significant mutations common to variants of concern are occurring completely independent of each other. Some people think that such major mutations will continue for a while yet, while others think that the virus has already undergone the most significant changes and that any further changes will be more limited in impact. There is no way to know for sure.

But the mutations are not anywhere near as concerning as some people like to claim; it is true that some mutations improve the fitness of the virus (often referred to as being "more transmissible") while others will enable the virus to evade some of the antibody response, but not all of the antibody response! There is no evidence that the T-cell response is adversely affected. This means that a vaccinated person can be infected by a new variant and may potentially be infectious for a short period of time; they may even have mild symptoms. But they do remain protected against becoming seriously ill. So, at this stage, any third "booster" for variants is unlikely to prevent much in the way of serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths, and is more to reduce mild symptoms and transmission. This may change in due course; time will tell.

In the long term, I believe an annual booster is incredibly unlikely. But in the short term I believe at least one booster is required, though if it's done this Autumn it may well be before further significant mutations and so another may be required within a year or two after that.

A lot depends on what we are trying to achieve; for example are we happy with people simply being a bit ill, as happens now with "common cold" coronaviruses and rhinoviruses and mild influenza infections, or are wanting to drive down the effects of this particular virus even further. And that may need to be balanced against the need to provide vaccines throughout the world.

By the way, this time last year I had no idea about his subject; I don't claim to be an expert but I read and listen to experts. This has helped me come to a much better understanding about this virus. And the more I learn, the more reassured I feel.

 

[Cdd89]

I heard the story today of the parents of a friend of mine, who both refused the vaccine when it was offered to them a couple of months ago (the father being more vocal than the mother about not taking it). They then both caught Covid, one of them (the father) survived, while the mother died. Late 70s.

Even at their age they were very unlucky to have such an outcome; for every instance like that there will be thousands who have no cause to regret their decision. But I thought the sad story might make some consider their choice — especially if their choice influences others to reject the vaccine.

 

[westv]

Done today - AZ.
I booked it several weeks ago but wanted a weekend appointment.