A quick poll about taking the vaccine.

[bramling]

If limited takeup slows the lifting of restrictions, I have a right to an opinion on the subject.

I find that a rather false dichotomy. Any link between vaccine takeup and presence of restrictions is an entirely political concept.

Having weighed up the pros and cons, I'm still more persuaded that I don't really want the vaccine at the present time. The scales would probably tip if I was 20 years older.

Will I take it if offered? Still quite possibly not. I wouldn't dismiss it on principle though.

 

[Journeyman]

I find that a rather false dichotomy. Any link between vaccine takeup and presence of restrictions is an entirely political concept.

But given that politicians are in charge, it's a concept we're stuck with.

 

[kez19]

But given that politicians are in charge, it's a concept we're stuck with.

I wonder when the politicians are going to get theirs or will they back out? Unless I have missed something.

Just to add in terms of politicians in charge, they haven't done much have they other than either exaggerate claims or mislead the public (pending on government(s) you wish to follow), my trust in them have gone down in my estimation during this, should I trust them still? No.

 

[bramling]

But given that politicians are in charge, it's a concept we're stuck with.

The way I feel at the moment, I am going to find it extremely difficult to bring myself to vote for any of the current political parties for a very long time to come. Spoiled ballot paper or monster raving loony party for the foreseeable future, I'm sad to say.

 

[Tomp94]

I'm healthy as well, but I can assure you that COVID is significantly worse than flu in some cases, and is somewhat more capable of killing you or leaving you with lasting symptoms. It knocked me absolutely sideways for a month and was a genuinely terrifying experience.

Your decision, of course, but I think you're being somewhat naive, and I suspect you don't know anyone who has had a brush with a bad case.

The same could be said for flu. You could get a bad case of the flu which could "knocks you for six"
I don't know anyone personally who has had covid, but I know of one person who has had it, and they had it mildly.
I know people who have suffered from flu though!

 

[Journeyman]

I don't know anyone personally who has had covid

Then I politely suggest you may not know what you're talking about. After barely being able to move for a month, and spending a lot of that time really struggling to breathe, my opinion changed somewhat. Flu has never done that to me. We need to stop with the comparisons with flu. This is a much bigger deal.

 

[Deltic1]

I hate having injections, and I'll curse everyone and everything which had led me to have to have one, but I'll still get it, because how else are we going to get out of this?

 

[Journeyman]

I hate having injections, and I'll curse everyone and everything which had led me to have to have one, but I'll still get it, because how else are we going to get out of this?

Exactly.

 

[221101 Voyager]

I’d personally never take the COVID vaccine as I couldn’t trust it as I feel like it was rushed out.

If it had been through the normal testing phase before public release I might of had it but of course due to time constraints, they rushed it out anyways.

And after hearing the issues some people I know have had after having it, it has really put me off even more.

 

[Tomp94]

Then I politely suggest you may not know what you're talking about. After barely being able to move for a month, and spending a lot of that time really struggling to breathe, my opinion changed somewhat. Flu has never done that to me. We need to stop with the comparisons with flu. This is a much bigger deal.

Very serious cases such as yours are outliers and are a minority.
Covid and the flu give off similar symptoms.
For me and healthy people in my age bracket covid poses about the same risk as the flu. Yes there will be some very serious cases or both flu and covid and a very very tiny percentage will sadly die

 

[AlterEgo]

Fortunately the number of people who say they’ll have the vaccine will ensure herd immunity.

It’s rather like a Union - those in it are contributing to winning benefits for all, even those not in the Union.

The people outside the Union but still wishing to derive the benefits are welcome to that, and their opinions on refusing the vaccine should still be respected. Everyone is perfectly entitled to make decisions about their own healthcare interventions.

But I still don’t think I’d like to hear too much about what they think “should be done about the virus”, if they are refusing the easier path. Vaccination is the exit strategy, and fortunately we have enough people volunteering themselves for it to drag us out of the mud.

 

[yorkie]

If limited takeup slows the lifting of restrictions, I have a right to an opinion on the subject.

Given the takeup so far, and looking at the results of this poll, and based on conversations I have had with people, I do not think takeup will be limited.

But I agree with you that there is a risk that if takeup was limited, it could slow the lifting of restrictions; that alone is probably my biggest motivator for getting vaccinated and encouraging others to do so.

I think that the biggest danger to vaccine takeup is poor Government messaging and an obsession with continuing restrictions for longer than necessary but that's arguably a whole new topic.

I'm healthy as well, but I can assure you that COVID is significantly worse than flu in some cases...

There are key differences and there is a lot of misunderstanding among many people about these differences.

Coronaviruses are easier to gain good immunity to, than influenza, which mutates much faster and has multiple strains (there is only one strain of Sars-CoV-2); this explains why people who are infected with coronaviruses in adulthood are so much more likely to have mild symptoms (if any) compared to influenza infections.

This also explains why the Sars-CoV-2 vaccines are so much more efficacious than influenza vaccines.

How successfully a person can fend off influenza depends on how the relevant strain encountered compares with the strain first encountered during childhood.

For younger people, influenza is far more likely to be dangerous than Sars-CoV-2. I strongly suspect the only reason the reverse is true for older people is purely down to pre-existing immunity. Indeed it was pre-existing immunity that meant it was almost exclusively younger people who were affected by the 2009 pandemic.

A lot of comparisons between the two viruses that people make in terms of severity of infection are fundamentally flawed; as a population we are immunologically naive to Sars-CoV-2 whereas in contrast we have very good population immunity against influenza. This doesn't make for a fair or valid comparison between the actual viruses.

In my opinion, all this makes the case for vaccination against Sars-CoV-2 very strong indeed.

I can understand why someone may not want to bother with an influenza vaccine; they are not very effective and are not very long lasting and may offer relatively little protection against substantially different strains than what the latest vaccine is optimised for. But no such drawbacks exist with the Sars-CoV-2 vaccine.

Even if someone feels there is very little benefit to them in terms of the immunity they would gain (which I'd disagree with but...), there are clear advantages in terms of greatly reducing the likelihood of having to quarantine. Also for as long as some people are unable to be vaccinated, the more people who are able to be vaccinated do receive it, the greater the protection for unvaccinated people as the more immunity we have in the population, the less it will spread.

 

[Annetts key]

If it helps any, some companies (including some railway companies) offer the annual flu jab to their staff for free.

Now why do you think they do that?

I therefore take advantage of the free flu jab, because why wouldn’t you want to reduce your chances of becoming ill? You just book a time and date with a pharmacy that is part of the scheme, then take the voucher, within a minute it’s all done. It takes longer answering the questions.

Hence once I’m offered a COVID-19 jab, I will take it up. My mum and my sister have already had it.

I’m amused by the comments about it still being a trial. Have you seen the figures for how many people have had it? If you think it’s still in a trial state, then it has to be the biggest ever trial of any medicine in the history of human kind. Both the vaccines available in the U.K. are available elsewhere in the world. So it’s not just one medical organisation that says it’s safe, it’s many.

I’m also saddened by the news that some who feel they don’t need to have it. I think you are missing the point. Everyone who is invited to have it, unless there are other medical reasons, is strongly recommended to have it. Why, because in order to reduce the chances of the virus mutating, we need to prevent it from spreading. The biggest risk of people spreading it, is people aged below 50 who have not had a jab. Because if they get the virus and don’t get symptoms, or get mild symptoms and think it’s just a cold or flu, they will spread it. Every time it finds a new host (you maybe) there is a chance (although small, still a chance) that it will mutate. That’s what virus do to try to survive.

And if a mutated version of the virus manages to outflank the current vaccines, the whole country and possibly the world will be back to lockdowns while we wait for a new version of the vaccine that can fight the new strain of the virus to be developed.

 

[yorkie]

Now why do you think they do that?

I therefore take advantage of the free flu jab, because why wouldn’t you want to reduce your chances of becoming ill? You just book a time and date with a pharmacy that is part of the scheme, then take the voucher, within a minute it’s all done. It takes longer answering the questions.

Hence once I’m offered a COVID-19 jab, I will take it up. My mum and my sister have already had it.

I’m amused by the comments about it still being a trial. Have you seen the figures for how many people have had it? If you think it’s still in a trial state, then it has to be the biggest ever trial of any medicine in the history of human kind. Both the vaccines available in the U.K. are available elsewhere in the world. So it’s not just one medical organisation that says it’s safe, it’s many.

I’m also saddened by the news that some who feel they don’t need to have it. I think you are missing the point. Everyone who is invited to have it, unless there are other medical reasons, is strongly recommended to have it. Why, because in order to reduce the chances of the virus mutating, we need to prevent it from spreading. The biggest risk of people spreading it, is people aged below 50 who have not had a jab. Because if they get the virus and don’t get symptoms, or get mild symptoms and think it’s just a cold or flu, they will spread it. Every time it finds a new host (you maybe) there is a chance (although small, still a chance) that it will mutate. That’s what virus do to try to survive.

And if a mutated version of the virus manages to outflank the current vaccines, the whole country and possibly the world will be back to lockdowns while we wait for a new version of the vaccine that can fight the new strain of the virus to be developed.

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment here regarding getting the vaccine but I disagree with your belief about mutations.

There are no new strains of Sars-CoV-2 and there is no evidence (yet) that there will be.

The vaccines are highly efficacious against the Brazil and South African variants (which have the same "antibody escape" mutation) when measured against severe disease and death.

There is no sign that any mutations are going to completely escape the antibody response and I have not seen any evidence that the effectiveness of the T cell response is reduced (it appears to be the T cell response that is most important in fighting Sars-CoV-2)

For more discussion on the subject of vaccine effectiveness against variants, take a look at this thread:

Media misreporting of Sars-CoV-2 variants (are they variants or scariants?)

I note the BBC has been misleading people with disingenuous headlines, such as this, which was published just 11 hours before I type this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56252779 Covid Brazil variant 'may spread more easily' The Brazil coronavirus variant now found in the UK appears more...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[DB]

I’m amused by the comments about it still being a trial. Have you seen the figures for how many people have had it? If you think it’s still in a trial state, then it has to be the biggest ever trial of any medicine in the history of human kind. Both the vaccines available in the U.K. are available elsewhere in the world. So it’s not just one medical organisation that says it’s safe, it’s many.

When you've finished being amused, you might want to look at the actual situation - which is that the vaccines are still in the final clinical trial stage and only authorised for emergency use. It's not a question of whether anyone 'thinks' it's still in a trial state - that is absolutely how it is.

No medical organisation can say it's 'safe' for sure as none of the vaccines have been around long enough for potential long-term effects to show yet - and while these are probably unlikely they are not impossible, hence the length of clinical trial procedures which are normally required.

And yes, it probably is the largest ever trial of any medicine - which means that if there are any unexpected long-term effects those could be the most widespread ever, too...

 

[35B]

We've been discussing alternatives on here in great depth for months. Protect the vulnerable while letting the healthy reach herd immunity naturally, better use of theraputics, increase NHS capacity, etc. etc.

If we accept 'lockdown until a vaccine' as the accepted public health response to a pandemic going forwards - even though it has never been before - then we're going to have an awful lot of unnecessary problems in the future.

On herd immunity, this BMJ article is interesting on the implications of the second wave in Manaus for relying on natural herd immunity - https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n394

Edit. To clarify the content in the quoted passage, it discusses estimates of seroprevalence based on testing of blood donors, and the surprise at the higher level level of cases and deaths than in the first wave following the belief that Manaus was at or near herd immunity levels. In particular, it observes:

It has alarmed researchers across the world too. Many thought a second wave impossible because of the scale of the previous outbreak. “The academic community thought they were close to herd immunity,” says Diego Rosselli, an epidemiologist at Bogotá’s La Javeriana University. “Once again, we had it wrong.”

Applying the expected fatality rate of covid-19 in Manaus with the study’s estimated 76% seroprevalence rate would also result in around the same amount of deaths that have been reported there, Hanage and others point out. “It’s likely that a large proportion of the population has been infected,” concludes Deepti Gurdasani, an epidemiologist at Queen Mary University of London.

Without comment on the articles support for social distancing and masks, this reinforces my existing view that vaccination of everyone who can receive the vaccine is essential for dealing with the disease, and that comparisons with flu are misplaced given the relative severity of the disease.

 

[yorkie]

On herd immunity, this BMJ article is interesting on the implications of the second wave in Manaus for relying on natural herd immunity - https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n394

How do you define herd immunity?

I think the virus will reach endemic equilibrium* which arguably does not fit the proper definition of herd immunity, but it ends the pandemic

Secondly the study you link to is deeply flawed and has been debunked.

I was already aware of this study and the fact the people who overstimulated seroprevalance had to backtrack but I note the article you linked to even admits this possibility.

The root cause of the misunderstanding was relyig on antibodies detected in blood donors and assuming the whole population had the same exposure to the virus.

This flawed conclusion resulted in a false claim that the herd immunity threshold was reached. It wasn't.

People who believed it had been reached then claimed mass reinfection must have been to blame. But there are very few cases of infections of people with immunity resulting in severe disease.

Please be careful when posting links as we don't want to mislead people.

* Not just my opinion; see: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00396-2

This is one scenario that scientists foresee for SARS-CoV-2. The virus sticks around, but once people develop some immunity to it — either through natural infection or vaccination — they won’t come down with severe symptoms.

 

[35B]

I don't get why people are so bothered by what other people might choose in respect of taking the vaccine.

"I don't want it" should be perfectly respectable.

I disagree, because the benefits of vaccines are collective rather than just individual.

I respect the right of someone to refuse a vaccine, but I do not respect the opinion underlying that choice where it is based on personal preference.

I wonder when the politicians are going to get theirs or will they back out? Unless I have missed something.

Just to add in terms of politicians in charge, they haven't done much have they other than either exaggerate claims or mislead the public (pending on government(s) you wish to follow), my trust in them have gone down in my estimation during this, should I trust them still? No.

Plenty have had it, and worldwide far more are pushing forward than refusing.

 

[Spamcan81]

Had my first jab three weeks ago. Completely painless and only minor side effects later the same day.

The same could be said for flu. You could get a bad case of the flu which could "knocks you for six"
I don't know anyone personally who has had covid, but I know of one person who has had it, and they had it mildly.
I know people who have suffered from flu though!

I know a number of people who have had it in varying degrees of severity and sadly one passed away due to it. Just days before he would have got his first jab too so doubly tragic.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I actually think it’s really important that we thank and congratulate those who have been jabbed on here. It’s great to see so many people taking it. I absolutely think it’s selfish not to - the Queen said it herself allegedly, so I can too - and cannot wait to gladly accept mine when it is offered in the summer.

 

[DB]

I actually think it’s really important that we thank and congratulate those who have been jabbed on here. It’s great to see so many people taking it. I absolutely think it’s selfish not to - the Queen said it herself allegedly, so I can too - and cannot wait to gladly accept mine when it is offered in the summer.

Another one who clearly has no respect for any viewpoint other than their own...

 

[35B]

When you've finished being amused, you might want to look at the actual situation - which is that the vaccines are still in the final clinical trial stage and only authorised for emergency use. It's not a question of whether anyone 'thinks' it's still in a trial state - that is absolutely how it is.

No medical organisation can say it's 'safe' for sure as none of the vaccines have been around long enough for potential long-term effects to show yet - and while these are probably unlikely they are not impossible, hence the length of clinical trial procedures which are normally required.

And yes, it probably is the largest ever trial of any medicine - which means that if there are any unexpected long-term effects those could be the most widespread ever, too...

Just on a point of pedantry, emergency use authorisation is not an experimental stage, but a lowered threshold for approval due to the existence of an emergency.

Given the nature of vaccines in comparison to other types of medicine, the duration of trials is not a critical factor in the way it would be for a drug, whereas the numbers of recipients and their reactions are critical.

To the extent that the authorisation was given before full evidence was available, all reports suggest that the trials were if anything understated in their reports of efficacy and minimal side effects.

 

[DB]

Just on a point of pedantry, emergency use authorisation is not an experimental stage, but a lowered threshold for approval due to the existence of an emergency.

But it is only used when there is a perceived need to use the treatment before it has completed all stages required for full approval - and is therefore still inthe trial stage...

 

[yorkie]

Also on the herd immunity theme, I think it's generally unhelpful to use the term in many contexts, because there is do much confusion over what it means; people often argue at cross purposes and numerous people seem to misunderstand or misrepresent the concept.

In fact there is an assumption by many people that the virus can either be eliminated through harsh lockdowns (this is absurd) or through reaching herd immunity and yet these scenarios are increasingly unlikely.

If we are heading for seasonal endemic equilibrium, rather than elimination, which it seems many experts believe is likely, this makes vaccinations even more important.

 

[Annetts key]

When you've finished being amused, you might want to look at the actual situation - which is that the vaccines are still in the final clinical trial stage and only authorised for emergency use. It's not a question of whether anyone 'thinks' it's still in a trial state - that is absolutely how it is.

No medical organisation can say it's 'safe' for sure as none of the vaccines have been around long enough for potential long-term effects to show yet - and while these are probably unlikely they are not impossible, hence the length of clinical trial procedures which are normally required.

And yes, it probably is the largest ever trial of any medicine - which means that if there are any unexpected long-term effects those could be the most widespread ever, too...

So Network Rail has various changes to systems that they either have on trial, or are preparing to put on trial. Does this mean that because a part of the operational railway will have a system that is on trial, people should not travel on the trains?

As with everything in life, it’s a balance of risk. With the COVID-19 virus vaccines, the medical profession and the scientific professionals have done enough testing to come to a reasonable conclusion that the risk of any unexpected side effects is sufficiently small compared to the much, much larger risk that the virus may cause either a hospital stay with medical intervention being needed, long-COVID, or death. Nothing in life is totally risk free, every year a surprising number of people die when trying to put their socks on.

Some people may feel fit and young. But that does not mean that they don’t have an unknown and undiagnosed medical problem. And although the fit and young in general are far less likely to suffer bad symptoms from the virus, and are therefore less likely to be hospitalised, some young and fit people have been hospitalised. So there is still a risk to the fit and young.

 

[DB]

So Network Rail has various changes to systems that they either have on trial, or are preparing to put on trial. Does this mean that because a part of the operational railway will have a system that is on trial, people should not travel on the trains?

You'll need to give a specific example, but it's not likely to be comparable.

However, you word it, the fact is that medical treatments are still in the trial stage until they receive full approval - and until that time they are not normally widely deployed. I am not aware of any treatement authorised for emergency use ever having been deployed on a large scale before.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

What I hate is seeing people, famous or otherwise, saying that they will certainly not have the vaccine - but they still call for lockdown measures to be ended. I respect all viewpoints but I also believe that you cannot have your cake and eat it.

 

[dan5324]

Maybe in ten years time or so. I’m sorry but nothing and I mean NOTHING beats the test of time for seeing a vaccines potential side affects both medium and long term. This vaccine hasn’t been tested and is still technically in testing stages.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Maybe in ten years time or so. I’m sorry but nothing and I mean NOTHING beats the test of time for seeing a vaccines potential side affects both medium and long term. This vaccine hasn’t been tested and is still technically in testing stages.

Over twenty million have taken it and I haven’t heard of a single COVID vaccine-caused death yet.

 

[kez19]

I disagree, because the benefits of vaccines are collective rather than just individual.

I respect the right of someone to refuse a vaccine, but I do not respect the opinion underlying that choice where it is based on personal preference.


Plenty have had it, and worldwide far more are pushing forward than refusing.

I meant uk based not worldwide but yes I know of a few but still have had it but oddly never speak of side effects but I guess that’ll create a panic? As I have had it but edited my post earlier in thread to make people aware.


Regarding this whole personal choice, I didn’t feel I had a choice, but because job I am in but it doesn’t help when rumours are circulated about not having it you may lose job etc, but yet one of the conspiracies you hear about ie passports though denied for now seems to becoming to fruition. Again wish to point out I look at things with an open mind isn’t it scary what is denied becoming truth or do we all stick our heads in the sand?

Just to add I like the fact that I agree with some on here who wish not too but that is their own choice and to go one step further I do not find it selfish at all however the attitude of some on here in terms of calling some selfish seems to me you all judging regardless of their own situation, why not some of you look at yourselves in the mirror and think for yourselves than always being told what to think for a change?