A quick poll about taking the vaccine.

[yorkie]

I am very interested how it will protect those who don’t take the vaccine maybe I don’t believe it given I’ve read the virus is out there and I could catch it so it’s confusing. I guess it means nice enough are vaccinated even if I refuse I could be protected but right now not everybody had the vaccine so I have to be extra careful?

This post does not make sense; I don't think you have read the article properly.

The vaccines do reduce transmission to a great extent but, it seems, not sufficiently to eliminate the virus. It is likely that the virus will continue to circulate, in a seasonal endemic equilibrium, with the vast majority of people who are exposed to the virus never getting any symptoms whatsoever. Of those that do get symptoms, symptoms will be generally very mild for almost everyone who has prior immunity.

With very few exceptions, only those who lack prior immunity (for example those who choose not to get vaccinated) will be seriously ill.

The more people who have immunity, the less the virus will spread.

Not sure what you're trying to say. Vaccine or no vaccine not everyone who is exposed will catch it. Had a few people in my department at work get it, we worked with them at close quarters and didn't get it.

Yes this is very true and this has even occurred with people living together. My theory is that the most likely possibility is that the people who were exposed to it, but did not test positive, were able to fight off the virus extremely effectively. It could be due to having T-cells that are able to recognise the Sars-CoV-2 due to the relative similarity with other coronaviruses which they had already encountered.

 

[Gadget88]

Not sure what you're trying to say. Vaccine or no vaccine not everyone who is exposed will catch it. Had a few people in my department at work get it, we worked with them at close quarters and didn't get it.

I had a few people at my work catch it but I never either. I just assumed exposed to virus means catching it or something.

This post does not make sense; I don't think you have read the article properly.

The vaccines do reduce transmission to a great extent but, it seems, not sufficiently to eliminate the virus. It is likely that the virus will continue to circulate, in a seasonal endemic equilibrium, with the vast majority of people who are exposed to the virus never getting any symptoms whatsoever. Of those that do get symptoms, symptoms will be generally very mild for almost everyone who has prior immunity.

With very few exceptions, only those who lack prior immunity (for example those who choose not to get vaccinated) will be seriously ill.

The more people who are vaccinated, the less the virus will spread.


Yes this is very true and this has even occurred with people living together. My theory is that the most likely possibility is that the people who were exposed to it, but did not test positive, were able to fight off the virus extremely effectively. It could be due to having T-cells that are able to recognise the Sars-CoV-2 due to the relative similarity with other coronaviruses which they had already encountered.

Well I think that’s the issue I worry that not having the vaccine means I could catch COVID. I know there is talk once we vaccinate so many people that protects others just a bit confused how that works.

 

[Domh245]

I know there is talk once we vaccinate so many people that protects others just a bit confused how that works.

Covid needs humans* in order to spread - if people have been vaccinated (or have immunity through infection, or pre-existing) then it is much less likely for them to spread it, if not impossible. Once enough people have immunity, then whilst there will be some level of spread, it becomes impossible for it to spread at a large scale as there simply aren't the hosts to infect & spread from and it drops away. If you think about infection in terms of chains (person a infected person b, who infected persons c, d & e, each of whom infect .... etc) then vaccinating enough of the population essentially breaks those chains so that the virus can only ever spread to a small number of people, if at all.


*it can exist in animals as well, but crossing over between humans & animals is very rare as I understand it, basically just the first person in the world to get covid has caught it this way!

 

[yorkie]

I had a few people at my work catch it but I never either. I just assumed exposed to virus means catching it or something.


Well I think that’s the issue I worry that not having the vaccine means I could catch COVID. I know there is talk once we vaccinate so many people that protects others just a bit confused how that works.

People talk about "catching" a virus, or a disease which can be caused by a virus in some cases, but what does that actually mean?

Well in the past it almost exclusively meant becoming ill, but for Sars-CoV-2 this also includes testing positive even if asymptomatic.

Just because someone is exposed to a virus does not necessarily mean that the virus will be able to replicate sufficiently that a person will become ill, infectious, or even test positive for the virus.

But there is no way to find out how your body would react, so the safest thing to do, for yourself and others, is to be vaccinated. But it is your choice of course.

I note a correlation between people who are vaccine hesitant and people who don't understand how the immune system works or how vaccines work. The more research I have done, the more reassured I have felt.

It is clear to me from your posts that you have read some things that are misleading and that if you carry out more research from trusted sources you will get the answers that you seek (as much as it is possible to answer them) and be reassured..

Have you listened to the podcasts/interviews that I have linked to on this forum?

 

[Gadget88]

People talk about "catching" a virus, or a disease which can be caused by a virus in some cases, but what does that actually mean?

Well in the past it almost exclusively meant becoming ill, but for Sars-CoV-2 this also includes testing positive even if asymptomatic.

Just because someone is exposed to a virus does not necessarily mean that the virus will be able to replicate sufficiently that a person will become ill, infectious, or even test positive for the virus.

But there is no way to find out how your body would react, so the safest thing to do, for yourself and others, is to be vaccinated. But it is your choice of course.

I note a correlation between people who are vaccine hesitant and people who don't understand how the immune system works or how vaccines work. The more research I have done, the more reassured I have felt.

It is clear to me from your posts that you have read some things that are misleading and that if you carry out more research from trusted sources you will get the answers that you seek (as much as it is possible to answer them) and be reassured..

Have you listened to the podcasts/interviews that I have linked to on this forum?

Thanks that explains it. No I’ve not seen the podcasts I will have to listen. Well I mean I could have had the virus already I believe you can get a test for that but it involves needles again so not ideal. I am very reluctant but I also missed my TB vaccine at school I have a severe phobia or anxiety about vaccination. I’ve dealt with that by hiding away when offered not ideal I mean I worried for years about TB but not so much today.

 

[Wuffle]

This is not unique to vaccines. The government need subject area experts. They don't train their own. Where else are these experts going to be found ? They should of course declare any commercial interests.

However the conflicts of interests have been dug out and published by independent media

Government used to train it's own specialists once upon a time and Pharmaceutical companies used to be more responsible when conducting clinical trials and monitoring results

I worked for a company in the 80's and 90's that had a pharmaceutical division which did it's own R and D and I know how expensive research was then. If you were developing a drug that looked promising but later had poor clinical trials that's a lot of money down the drain but it seems patients lives were more important back then
A drug had to be withdrawn by the division despite promising trials and it cost the company a lot of money with restructuring at the time to protect the rest of the company - they no longer do R and D

 

[yorkie]

Covid needs humans* in order to spread - if people have been vaccinated (or have immunity through infection, or pre-existing) then it is much less likely for them to spread it, if not impossible. Once enough people have immunity, then whilst there will be some level of spread, it becomes impossible for it to spread at a large scale as there simply aren't the hosts to infect & spread from and it drops away. If you think about infection in terms of chains (person a infected person b, who infected persons c, d & e, each of whom infect .... etc) then vaccinating enough of the population essentially breaks those chains so that the virus can only ever spread to a small number of people, if at all.


*it can exist in animals as well, but crossing over between humans & animals is very rare as I understand it, basically just the first person in the world to get covid has caught it this way!

This is true but there is growing evidence that , as with other Coronaviruses, it will spread - albeit at greatly reduced levels - even among people who have excellent immunity.

People who have immunity will not die or become seriously ill (except on rare occasions, as is already the case with "common cold" Coronaviruses and Rhinoviruses) however some will have mild illness.

There is myth that immunity is a binary thing; this is far from the case. People talk about "herd immunity" and don't understand what the term means and often end up arguing over symantics or talking at cross purposes.

Based on my own research I agree with the experts who believe the virus will become one of the endemic coronaviruses; indeed I recall some forum members predicting this a year ago and it's looking more and more likely as time goes on.

As I have said before this does make it more important to get vaccinated as this is helping us to get back to normal and get to the stage where we can hopefully consider Sars-CoV-2 to be of no more importance than any other Coronavirus.

I am pleased to see 83 per cent will be getting vaccinated without hesitation and less than 4 per cent are ruling it out.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'm in group 9 ( age 50 - 54 ) with no known underlying conditions, so it'll probably be at least another 4 - 6 weeks before I get offered it... so that's not "right away" and that's my reason.

As an update, to my great surprise I had my invite text yesterday and I am now booked in to have the needle maniacs deal with me next Friday 19th...

 

[AlterEgo]

I am very interested how it will protect those who don’t take the vaccine maybe I don’t believe it given I’ve read the virus is out there and I could catch it so it’s confusing. I guess it means nice enough are vaccinated even if I refuse I could be protected but right now not everybody had the vaccine so I have to be extra careful?

What it's saying is that, if enough people take the vaccine or otherwise have prior immunity, the virus will not be a serious problem.

If you decide not to be vaccinated, you are protected by virtue of other people deciding to take it - because far less of it will be circulating and you, as an unvaccinated person, will come into contact with the virus much less often.

 

[Annetts key]

This is true but there is growing evidence that , as with other Coronaviruses, it will spread - albeit at greatly reduced levels - even among people who have excellent immunity.

People who have immunity will not die or become seriously ill (except on rare occasions, as is already the case with "common cold" Coronaviruses and Rhinoviruses) however some will have mild illness.

There is myth that immunity is a binary thing; this is far from the case. People talk about "herd immunity" and don't understand what the term means and often end up arguing over symantics or talking at cross purposes.

Based on my own research I agree with the experts who believe the virus will become one of the endemic coronaviruses; indeed I recall some forum members predicting this a year ago and it's looking more and more likely as time goes on.

As I have said before this does make it more important to get vaccinated as this is helping us to get back to normal and get to the stage where we can hopefully consider Sars-CoV-2 to be of no more importance than any other Coronavirus.

I am pleased to see 83 per cent will be getting vaccinated without hesitation and less than 4 per cent are ruling it out.

Immunity is definitely not a binary thing. There are a lot of variables involved.
Similarly how infectious someone is, having been infected themselves is also variable.
Both depend on how well your particular immune system response is (or not).

This is also part of the reason that people have different symptoms, from no symptoms to extremely bad.

But on the available information, the advantages of having a vaccination do mean that IMHO, it’s the best thing to do if the NHS recommend that you have it. Just today my Doctors surgery telephoned me and asked me if I wanted to book an appointment. I said yes and now have an appointment in ten days time.

 

[johnnychips]

Just to reiterate, if anyone is scared of needles, it really is just a scratch. I didn’t even realise mine had been done. It is nothing like taking a blood sample, or an injection in the gums at the dentist. Most people get a pain in the arm for a day or so after, and a minority get tiredness or flu-like symptoms for forty-eight hours, after which you are fine.

 

[Annetts key]

What it's saying is that, if enough people take the vaccine or otherwise have prior immunity, the virus will not be a serious problem.

If you decide not to be vaccinated, you are protected by virtue of other people deciding to take it - because far less of it will be circulating and you, as an unvaccinated person, will come into contact with the virus much less often.

That’s not quite it.

The average chances of being infected do change depending on how many people have been vaccinated or who have already got some antibodies after their body has already encountered the virus. However, as you will never know who these people are, or who else does not have any antibodies, it’s not possible to say that you will be protected.

It is thought that it only takes a single person to have the virus, near to you, for you to catch it. Or for you to touch something where there is some viable virus (left behind by another infected person), and then for you to touch your mouth, nose, or eyes and for it to get inside you. You will not even know that you have been infected. It takes time for the virus to replicate inside you. Only then is your body likely to start mounting a significant defence against it.

Or to put it another way, if you play the national lottery, there is a small chance that you will win the jackpot. But most weeks someone does, despite the odds. So it’s similar with the virus, the average chance may reduce but there is still a risk.

Of course if 95% of the population have been vaccinated, the benefit is that this should drastically reduce the rate of the spread of the virus. But we currently do not know by how much.

Even vaccination of an individual does not totally remove the risk. But in the vast majority of people, it does significantly reduce the chances of that person becoming seriously ill from the virus.

Combined, these last two points are what the scientists and the medical doctors are hoping will drop the infection rate so that we can go back to a near normal life again.

 

[johntea]

As a NHS worker I had my first dose (Pfizer) on 22nd January, no side effects at all...not even a sore arm! (Oddly the flu jab I had a couple of months prior made my appetite just vanish for several days)

Second appointment 9th April, the vaccination staff really are fantastic 'how has your day been' 'oh not too b...' 'right you're done!'

The only negative is the NHS seem to be in so much financial difficulty these days they've axed the free Kit Kats they used to hand out as bait to have a jab!

 

[Gadget88]

That’s not quite it.

The average chances of being infected do change depending on how many people have been vaccinated or who have already got some antibodies after their body has already encountered the virus. However, as you will never know who these people are, or who else does not have any antibodies, it’s not possible to say that you will be protected.

It is thought that it only takes a single person to have the virus, near to you, for you to catch it. Or for you to touch something where there is some viable virus (left behind by another infected person), and then for you to touch your mouth, nose, or eyes and for it to get inside you. You will not even know that you have been infected. It takes time for the virus to replicate inside you. Only then is your body likely to start mounting a significant defence against it.

Or to put it another way, if you play the national lottery, there is a small chance that you will win the jackpot. But most weeks someone does, despite the odds. So it’s similar with the virus, the average chance may reduce but there is still a risk.

Of course if 95% of the population have been vaccinated, the benefit is that this should drastically reduce the rate of the spread of the virus. But we currently do not know by how much.

Even vaccination of an individual does not totally remove the risk. But in the vast majority of people, it does significantly reduce the chances of that person becoming seriously ill from the virus.

Combined, these last two points are what the scientists and the medical doctors are hoping will drop the infection rate so that we can go back to a near normal life again.

So we have to hope that things can get back to normal again? I remember last summer scotland only recorded about ten cases per day. Will the media still report on small case numbers? Are they still going to test vaccinated people?

 

[yorkie]

So we have to hope that things can get back to normal again? I remember last summer scotland only recorded about ten cases per day. Will the media still report on small case numbers? Are they still going to test vaccinated people?

We will get back to normal because the vast majority will be vaccinated very soon but it's unknown when the media will give up it's obsession nor when masd testing will stop. These factors are beyond the scope of this thread and no one knows when they will end.

 

[takno]

So we have to hope that things can get back to normal again? I remember last summer scotland only recorded about ten cases per day. Will the media still report on small case numbers? Are they still going to test vaccinated people?

Hopefully not. I don't personally get all this grimly-determined altruism about the vaccine - all the evidence is that it's *somewhat* effective in preventing spread, but it's far more effective in preventing serious illness. If you're over 50 then it's likely to take your chances of serious illness down from 1 in a 50 to 1 in 250 or less. That may sound a bit obscure, but it does matter. By comparison, all of the reported serious side effects are effecting maybe 1 in a million people who take the vaccine.

It is and should remain your choice, but for your own sake I think there's good reason that your choice should be to take it.

 

[AlterEgo]

That’s not quite it.

The average chances of being infected do change depending on how many people have been vaccinated or who have already got some antibodies after their body has already encountered the virus. However, as you will never know who these people are, or who else does not have any antibodies, it’s not possible to say that you will be protected.

It is thought that it only takes a single person to have the virus, near to you, for you to catch it. Or for you to touch something where there is some viable virus (left behind by another infected person), and then for you to touch your mouth, nose, or eyes and for it to get inside you. You will not even know that you have been infected. It takes time for the virus to replicate inside you. Only then is your body likely to start mounting a significant defence against it.

Or to put it another way, if you play the national lottery, there is a small chance that you will win the jackpot. But most weeks someone does, despite the odds. So it’s similar with the virus, the average chance may reduce but there is still a risk.

Of course if 95% of the population have been vaccinated, the benefit is that this should drastically reduce the rate of the spread of the virus. But we currently do not know by how much.

Even vaccination of an individual does not totally remove the risk. But in the vast majority of people, it does significantly reduce the chances of that person becoming seriously ill from the virus.

Combined, these last two points are what the scientists and the medical doctors are hoping will drop the infection rate so that we can go back to a near normal life again.

I don’t see how that’s different from what I said. The more people that are vaccinated the less chance you have of coming into contact with an infected person.

 

[Bantamzen]

With very few exceptions, only those who lack prior immunity (for example those who choose not to get vaccinated) will be seriously ill.

I think it is worth remembering that not being vaccinated does not mean that catching covid means getting seriously ill. Even without it the chances of serious illness are still very small, and smaller still as the majority of those most at risk have been vaccinated.

Covid needs humans* in order to spread - if people have been vaccinated (or have immunity through infection, or pre-existing) then it is much less likely for them to spread it, if not impossible. Once enough people have immunity, then whilst there will be some level of spread, it becomes impossible for it to spread at a large scale as there simply aren't the hosts to infect & spread from and it drops away. If you think about infection in terms of chains (person a infected person b, who infected persons c, d & e, each of whom infect .... etc) then vaccinating enough of the population essentially breaks those chains so that the virus can only ever spread to a small number of people, if at all.


*it can exist in animals as well, but crossing over between humans & animals is very rare as I understand it, basically just the first person in the world to get covid has caught it this way!

Is there any evidence that only one person has caught it from a species crossover? Viruses are rather good at jumping species, its not necessarily humans they need just cells capable of reproducing their RNA sequences.

 

[yorksrob]

I think it is worth remembering that not being vaccinated does not mean that catching covid means getting seriously ill. Even without it the chances of serious illness are still very small, and smaller still as the majority of those most at risk have been vaccinated.


Is there any evidence that only one person has caught it from a species crossover? Viruses are rather good at jumping species, its not necessarily humans they need just cells capable of reproducing their RNA sequences.

They were worried about the poor mink for a while.

 

[Bantamzen]

They were worried about the poor mink for a while.

Not just mink, there were suggestions that cats & dogs might get infected. And frankly it is all possible, viruses when put under pressure in a host species are often seen to jump to others. After all they have survived some really quite dramatic extinction events over hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Domh245]

Is there any evidence that only one person has caught it from a species crossover? Viruses are rather good at jumping species, its not necessarily humans they need just cells capable of reproducing their RNA sequences.

I've not seen any other reports of it going from animals to humans, but that doesn't mean it won't have happened of course. Consensus is that it's a low risk and not anything we need to be worried about

I know that in addition to the aforementioned mink, there was also a confirmed infection of a cat amongst other pets.

 

[Bantamzen]

I've not seen any other reports of it going from animals to humans, but that doesn't mean it won't have happened of course. Consensus is that it's a low risk and not anything we need to be worried about

I know that in addition to the aforementioned mink, there was also a confirmed infection of a cat amongst other pets.

In reality we probably aren't even really looking for cross species infection with the usual track & trace methods. So there won't be any data for it, but I'm sure it is a possibility.

 

[Ediswan]

Well I mean I could have had the virus already I believe you can get a test for that but it involves needles again so not ideal.

The only two tests I have seen described are PCR and lateral flow. Both use swabs, no needles involved.

 

[takno]

The only two tests I have seen described are PCR and lateral flow. Both use swabs, no needles involved.

The test to see whether you've already had it is an antibody test. I think they are all needle-based, albeit that some of them are just pin-prick ones.

 

[Wuffle]

Had my jab today - AZ - the centre was quite busy even for 17:00 in the evening
as others have said it's just a small prick (cue jokes) no worse than the flu jabs I've had

 

[AlterEgo]

The only two tests I have seen described are PCR and lateral flow. Both use swabs, no needles involved.

Some PCR tests are spit-tests, with no need for a swab.

 

[Annetts key]

I don’t see how that’s different from what I said. The more people that are vaccinated the less chance you have of coming into contact with an infected person.

What I was trying to say is that the probability of being infected by one person has no relation to how many other people you have already encountered.

Obviously if a very large number of people have been vaccinated and are either free of the infection or their immune system has fought off the virus, then the probability of encountering someone with the virus is indeed significantly lower.

But it is not a given that the distribution of infected vs. non-infected will be even and spread out. So there may be ‘pockets’ where there are larger numbers of infected people and areas where there are none. And you are not likely to be able to tell.

Probability is a strange thing. As demonstrated by this article.

 

[KevinTurvey]

Readers may be interested in the attached information regarding vaccine adverse reactions. This is from the UK governments own website showing their own reported figures. Not all is as fine and dandy as the mainstream media would have us believe. Scrolling through these and to the last page reveals some rather concerning facts.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/968414/COVID-19_AstraZeneca_Vaccine_Analysis_Print.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/968413/COVID-19_mRNA_Pfizer-_BioNTech_Vaccine_Analysis_Print__2_.pdf

 

[yorkie]

Readers may be interested in the attached information regarding vaccine adverse reactions. This is from the UK governments own website showing their own reported figures. Not all is as fine and dandy as the mainstream media would have us believe. Scrolling through these and to the last page reveals some rather concerning facts.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/968414/COVID-19_AstraZeneca_Vaccine_Analysis_Print.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/968413/COVID-19_mRNA_Pfizer-_BioNTech_Vaccine_Analysis_Print__2_.pdf

Can you please elaborate as to what these facts are?

 

[Cdd89]

502 deaths out of 27.5 million? Is that what you are trying to highlight?