A quick poll about taking the vaccine.

[Annetts key]

Because sage says so? The virus isn’t locking us down. Nor should it cause us to be locked down. It’s f*cking politicians and bat **** crazy scientists that are doing the locking down! They are even contemplating locking down for bad flu seasons next winter ffs!

You vaccinate the elderly and vulnerable. And OFFER it to any bedwetter that may want it. Coercing young healthy people into having it is utter madness

If you don’t have a vaccination programme and don’t have a lockdown or other effective controls, then you will have to spend millions (maybe billions) more on the NHS. And until the NHS gets to a fit state to cope with the increased demand, a whole lot of other people with other medical conditions will have to wait even longer for treatment/operations.

And all of that assumes that people will actually venture out in what they may perceive as a dangerous environment.

 

[Bantamzen]

I have to say there's really some right old tosh being spouted about choosing, or more accurately not choosing to have the vaccine. Does anyone remember when we were all told that the road out was to vaccinate the vulnerable? Anybody? Because it wasn't long ago at all, only a few months ago. Now people are saying that people have the right to choose, when what they really mean they expect everyone to take it or else.

I do believe that it is a fundamental right in an intelligent society to make our own decisions, assess our own risks. And before anyone starts on with the social responsibility angle, that one is already covered. Its why we started the vaccinations for the most vulnerable, this meant that as they came to be vaccinated so the risk to the rest of society decreases. Even the daft-arsed politicians are starting to understand that we are breaking / have broken the link between infections, serious illness & deaths. In other words infections are rapidly becoming less likely to result in people ending up in hospital or worse. If folk want zero risk of feeling a bit grotty, forget it. That boat sailed 14+ months ago.

Of course this is not to say don't bother. If you want the vaccine, get it. I probably will, although having not used the NHS for 30 some years I will need to re-register. But at the same time this emotional blackmail about people who choosing not to go for it "risking" other people's lives is just hot air, and frankly bloody tedious.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Because sage says so? The virus isn’t locking us down. Nor should it cause us to be locked down. It’s f*cking politicians and bat **** crazy scientists that are doing the locking down! They are even contemplating locking down for bad flu seasons next winter ffs!

You vaccinate the elderly and vulnerable. And OFFER it to any bedwetter that may want it. Coercing young healthy people into having it is utter madness

Your use of the term "bedwetter" speaks volumes there. I always feared that the destructive "freedom at all costs" attitude prevalent in the US would bleed into the UK but I didn't think it would happen so quickly.

I do agree that now that the public have become used to lockdowns, they're more likely to be imposed on a whim in future... and we should indeed resist such things if and when they happen. But to describe those who disagree with you in such terms is unhelpful in the extreme.

 

[dan5324]

I have to say there's really some right old tosh being spouted about choosing, or more accurately not choosing to have the vaccine. Does anyone remember when we were all told that the road out was to vaccinate the vulnerable? Anybody? Because it wasn't long ago at all, only a few months ago. Now people are saying that people have the right to choose, when what they really mean they expect everyone to take it or else.

I do believe that it is a fundamental right in an intelligent society to make our own decisions, assess our own risks. And before anyone starts on with the social responsibility angle, that one is already covered. Its why we started the vaccinations for the most vulnerable, this meant that as they came to be vaccinated so the risk to the rest of society decreases. Even the daft-arsed politicians are starting to understand that we are breaking / have broken the link between infections, serious illness & deaths. In other words infections are rapidly becoming less likely to result in people ending up in hospital or worse. If folk want zero risk of feeling a bit grotty, forget it. That boat sailed 14+ months ago.

Of course this is not to say don't bother. If you want the vaccine, get it. I probably will, although having not used the NHS for 30 some years I will need to re-register. But at the same time this emotional blackmail about people who choosing not to go for it "risking" other people's lives is just hot air, and frankly bloody tedious.

Very well put! I still remember when it was three weeks to protect the NHS. We can’t be far away now from being on the 52nd week.

 

[35B]

And how many people on average suffer long term from COVID? Post viral syndrome is nothing new whether it’s flu, norovirus or Covid. Again, it’s still a small risk.

A small risk that has seen a disease that was unknown just over a year ago kill over 100,000 people in the last year?

You are entitled to your decision and choice based on your view of risk, but not to that decision and choice being left unquestioned, or for those who disagree with you to be obliged to accept your point of view. And, looking at the dictionary meaning of selfish, I support those who describe those who choose not to be vaccinated as selfish - because the calculation of risk is entirely about their personal risk, not the role of vaccination in helping protect the population at large

Eh? You’re talking like the vaccine stops transmission. It doesn’t....

But it does limit transmission as it limits the scale and degree of transmission.

 

[dan5324]

Your use of the term "bedwetter" speaks volumes there. I always feared that the destructive "freedom at all costs" attitude prevalent in the US would bleed into the UK but I didn't think it would happen so quickly.

I do agree that now that the public have become used to lockdowns, they're more likely to be imposed on a whim in future... and we should indeed resist such things if and when they happen. But to describe those who disagree with you in such terms is unhelpful in the extreme.

People are “used” to lockdowns because of bloody furlough! It’s the only thing stopping mass civil unrest. You know it. I know and more importantly, the gov know it.

If furlough ended next week I have a sneaky suspicion people would suddenly become very “allergic” to lockdown.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Eh? You’re talking like the vaccine stops transmission. It doesn’t....

It significantly reduces the chances of it though. Some vaccines give 100% protection, others maybe 95% or 80%. To act like it's pointless because it isn't a "magic bullet" is (hyperbole alert) akin to riding a motorcycle without a crash helmet because it doesn't give 100% protection.

Some of the sentiments on this thread are utterly baffling. I'm out.

 

[dan5324]

Except the crash helmet isn’t a medical procedure with unknown future side affects. Nor are we coerced into riding a motorcycle. Also stats show you’re at risk from a motorcycling fatality than you are from Covid.

You're right about one thing though. Baffling indeed...

 

[kez19]

Come on. This overly skeptical almost conspiracy theory like thinking does nobody any good and we all know that we will actually return to normal, its just a matter of time. Any claim that we won't is just silly and is verging on conspiracy theory thought.

So how can we be sure? No one knows what the future holds do they?

I be surprised if we get normal then out of the blue expect to be thrown back into lockdown due to variants etc

I don’t follow any conspiracies at all but I do question everything.

As far as I read on here is you are not allowed to think outside the box to be labelled a theorist really? I didn’t realise society was as judgmental but it’s opened my eyes

A return to normal does that include an app or a pass to say I have been vaccinated? Why do we need something like that? You don’t need this if you had a cold or flu so why do we need it for Covid? (look at it another way and question everything than what the media say). I understand you need vaccinated for going to certain countries (that’s fine) but why would I need something like this if I am travelling within the UK to then entitle me to go to places or not? See how it’s not far fetched but yet it’s something out of China but heck let’s see what happens next and then see who needs to apologise (this is not aimed at you in case) but I do believe there is some truth in all this but for me I’ll let people believe what they want I judge no one here (past that).

 

[Bantamzen]

Very well put! I still remember when it was three weeks to protect the NHS. We can’t be far away now from being on the 52nd week.

Indeed, something along the line of a short, sharp lockdown right? Because it worked in New Zealand....

As I say I am not against the vaccine, quite the opposite in fact. But it is, and should remain voluntary wherever it is offered in the world, and it should be prioritised for those that need it most. Do we all remember al that altruism last year, clapping and banging pots, staying at home to "save lives"? Then the vaccine comes out and there's a mad scramble amongst various public-facing professions (and many not public facing) all demanding priority. Uh huh! Quite honestly what we (as in the UK) should be doing is completing the priority groups, which we are probably just about at, then looking around the world at countries where the most vulnerable have yet to have an offer of a vaccine. Then, and only then make it available to the rest of our population through our GP network and get the money currently being used for rapid vaccinations back into the mainstream NHS where it is desperately needed.

 

[yorkie]

No-one can be forced to get a vaccine, though doing so is likely to mean they are not able to do certain things, such as travel internationally (even if we allowed it, I am sure many countries will not grant entry).

I believe the virus is going to be come endemic, circulating a low levels, so anyone who does not get the vaccine is likely to be infected at some point. While many people are asymptomatic some will be ill, and I'd rather have a sore arm and perhaps a day of a cough and a headache than a few days of being ill enough that I cannot work, as well as having to quarantine. While the chances of me being severely ill with the virus are miniscule, it's still far better for me to get the vaccine, on balance. Obviously for an older person they are pretty much infinitely better off getting the vaccine!

So how can we be sure? No one knows what the future holds do they?

But if you take that to its logical conclusion no-one would be vaccinated against anything?

I be surprised if we get normal then out of the blue expect to be thrown back into lockdown due to variants etc

There is no way we are going to be locked down again, but if too many people refused the vaccine, you can be sure that lockdown enthusiasts would be calling for lockdowns. We can argue forever about whether or not such people should be listened to, but it's surely best that we build up as much immunity among the population as rapidly as possible for many reasons.

I don’t follow any conspiracies at all but I do question everything.

So do I, which is why I did my research on the subject. After listening to what experts had to say, it was easy to conclude that it is better for as many people to get vaccinated as possible.

As far as I read on here is you are not allowed to think outside the box to be labelled a theorist really? I didn’t realise society was as judgmental but it’s opened my eyes

People shouldn't be labelling vaccine hesitant people as conspiracy theorists.

Indeed, something along the line of a short, sharp lockdown right? Because it worked in New Zealand....

As I say I am not against the vaccine, quite the opposite in fact. But it is, and should remain voluntary wherever it is offered in the world, and it should be prioritised for those that need it most. Do we all remember al that altruism last year, clapping and banging pots, staying at home to "save lives"? Then the vaccine comes out and there's a mad scramble amongst various public-facing professions (and many not public facing) all demanding priority. Uh huh! Quite honestly what we (as in the UK) should be doing is completing the priority groups, which we are probably just about at, then looking around the world at countries where the most vulnerable have yet to have an offer of a vaccine. Then, and only then make it available to the rest of our population through our GP network and get the money currently being used for rapid vaccinations back into the mainstream NHS where it is desperately needed.

See my answer to that in post #3:

A quick poll about taking the vaccine.

This is just a poll to find out what opinion you have on all of this and the results are confidential so that you can state how you feel with impunity... I’m neutral in all of this but I’m interested in seeing what your opinions are. Feel free to think of more options if I’ve missed any and I’ll...

www.railforums.co.uk

If you can get lockdown enthusiasts to agree to this, or get Governments to agree to ignore lockdown enthusiasts, I will happily give up my vaccine in order to enable your proposal to happen.

But in the absence of that, there is no way anyone should be giving up their offer of a vaccine, in my opinion.

 

[DB]

I totally believe the vaccine should be voluntary but I also believe that people who don’t have it have a duty to accept the consequences of their decision. Vaccine passports being required in certain situations look like a real possibility so if people decide to decline it then they have to live with the chance they might be excluded from certain activities. Empathy goes both ways. You can’t say people should show empathy towards you and then ignore the concerns of people who think you pose a risk to them, their customers or their business and exclude you. To do so smacks of someone who believes in personal rights but not responsibilities.

You completely contradict yourself there - if people are being excluded from aspects of society for not having it it's not 'voluntary' is it? What you are describing is significant coercion.

What should I have empathy for? People who do not want to subject themselves to the awful and horrendous risks of taking the vaccine? Except - there is no risk. It has been tested vigorously and approved by the UK, and twenty million have already taken it.

It has emergency approval, which is not the same thing as full approval.

I have to say there's really some right old tosh being spouted about choosing, or more accurately not choosing to have the vaccine. Does anyone remember when we were all told that the road out was to vaccinate the vulnerable? Anybody? Because it wasn't long ago at all, only a few months ago.

Indeed - remarkable how quickly the propaganda machine has instilled the idea that everyone 'must' have the vaccine and that anyone who refuses it is selfish scum who deserves to be excluded from society...

 

[LAX54]

Except the crash helmet isn’t a medical procedure with unknown future side affects. Nor are we coerced into riding a motorcycle. Also stats show you’re at risk from a motorcycling fatality than you are from Covid.

You're right about one thing though. Baffling indeed...

Side effects, you can say that about any vaccine, it is not unknown for someone to have a flu jab every year, then one year a bad adverse reaction (we had one here about 3 years ago, he was off for about 2 months !)
You dont know for certain that when you go to TESCO, that you will actually go home that day, we all assume we will be OK, but it's not guaranteed, nothing is guaranteed, no vaccine or in fact any drug you take is guaranteed not to have side effetcs, beit mild or life threatening !

 

[yorkie]

Eh? You’re talking like the vaccine stops transmission. It doesn’t....

The vaccines massively reduce transmission.

It is likely that they will not reduce transmission sufficiently to eliminate the virus, though. New mutations are likely to mean the virus continues to cause mild and asymptomatic infections, like the four existing endemic coronaviruses.

As for vaccine safety, here are a few videos which should provide reassurance (the first one I have linked to before):

Professor Shane Crotty, PhD answers a series of COVID 19 vaccine questions including what are the chances of long-term side effects? How safe is RNA vaccine (i.e. Pfizer / BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines) technology? How long does mRNA from a vaccine stay in our cells? What else goes in vaccines? How long does immunity last? Why are T-Cells so important? Why does Pfizer's vaccine need to stay SO cold? Shane Crotty, PhD is a Professor at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, Center for Infectious Disease and Vaccine Research, Crotty Lab. Professor Crotty also has an academic appointment with the University of California San Diago. See his full bio here: https://www.lji.org/labs/crotty/#over...

An internist addresses common safety concerns regarding the mRNA COVID vaccines, and discusses his own experience receiving it. Discussion of the phase III trial of Pfizer's mRNA vaccine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1J-O... Honest questions and respectful debate are most welcome! But comments which invoke overt pseudoscience and conspiracy theories will be removed, as will those which are profane, insulting, or otherwise inflammatory.

In this #TalkingPoint episode, co-chair of the COVID-19 multi-ministry task force Lawrence Wong, director of communicable diseases at the Ministry of Health (MOH) Vernon Lee and senior vice president (Health Education & Resources) at the National University of Singapore (NUS), Benjamin Ong answer questions on the upcoming COVID-19 vaccination programme in Singapore.

Side effects, you can say that about any vaccine, it is not unknown for someone to have a flu jab every year...

I wonder if anyone decides to wait a year before getting the previous year's flu vaccine on the basis of seeing if there are long term effects? If everyone did that, many more people would die of 'flu each year!

(Fortunately, Sars-CoV-2 is unlikely to require annual boosters)

 

[FrodshamJnct]

I’ve had both of my doses (AstraZeneca). The first in mid-January and the second a month later. I felt a bit tired and achey for 24 hours after the first dose, but fine after the second.

 

[AlterEgo]

With all due respect but fairly certain isn’t really good enough for a irreversible medical procedure for a virus that barely affects the vast majority of the populace.

How do you feel about the long term effects of COVID, should you contract that?

 

[Bantamzen]

How do you feel about the long term effects of COVID, should you contract that?

You mean Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome? Its a well known potential effect with any viral infection.

 

[yorkie]

You mean Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome? Its a well known potential effect with any viral infection.

Absolutely correct, but does anyone get that from a vaccine?

The chances of long term effects from an infection, no matter how small, will undoubtedly be higher than the chances of long term effects from a vaccine (which will be miniscule).

 

[dan5324]

Side effects, you can say that about any vaccine, it is not unknown for someone to have a flu jab every year, then one year a bad adverse reaction (we had one here about 3 years ago, he was off for about 2 months !)
You dont know for certain that when you go to TESCO, that you will actually go home that day, we all assume we will be OK, but it's not guaranteed, nothing is guaranteed, no vaccine or in fact any drug you take is guaranteed not to have side effetcs, beit mild or life threatening !

Funny you said about going Tesco and no guarantee I’ll be home that day. Probably about the same odds for most people being seriously ill with Covid. The whole reason as to why this has got out of hand is people have become completely ignorant that literally everything we do on a daily basis poses some risk.

People won’t go somewhere where filthy unvaccinated people may go because they are afraid of Covid yet probably won’t think twice about driving across the country, completely oblivious that they could be involved in a fatal RTC from which is caused by means completely out of their control. (Other than staying at home behind the sofa, of course).

 

[Bantamzen]

Absolutely correct, but does anyone get that from a vaccine?

The chances of long term effects from an infection, no matter how small, will undoubtedly be higher than the chances of long term effects from a vaccine (which will be miniscule).

Not from the vaccine, although reading the leaflet my wife has just brought home having had her first jab there is still a very, very small risk of longer term effects. Which is probably to be expected, it is designed to trigger the immune system into a response after all & that can occasionally go wrong. As for PVFS, this is something that people can mostly manage along with their GPs, so long as they are aware to discuss such matters if finding long term effects post-infection & illness, so for the most part can be handled and offer recovery for the few that will get it.

 

[AlterEgo]

You mean Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome? Its a well known potential effect with any viral infection.

It’s almost like that’s a bad thing, and probably worse than getting a vaccine, no? I don’t see how people can believe they’re at substantially higher risk of having vaccine side effects than having PVS from contracting COVID.

I have a lot of sympathy and respect for people who Have Their Reasons for not accepting vaccines, many of which are irrational (based around anxieties, fear of medical intervention or lack of faith in the medical community thanks to previous experiences), but I cannot see a rational or logical reason not to have it.

It’s like flying - I totally understand people’s fears or anxieties around flying and we should all be respectful and understanding of people like that. The numbers tell us it’s very safe, and that your risk of dying in a plane crash is substantially lower than dying in the taxi on the way to Heathrow.

 

[dan5324]

It’s almost like that’s a bad thing, and probably worse than getting a vaccine, no? I don’t see how people can believe they’re at substantially higher risk of having vaccine side effects than having PVS from contracting COVID.

I have a lot of sympathy and respect for people who Have Their Reasons for not accepting vaccines, many of which are irrational (based around anxieties, fear of medical intervention or lack of faith in the medical community thanks to previous experiences), but I cannot see a rational or logical reason not to have it.

It’s like flying - I totally understand people’s fears or anxieties around flying and we should all be respectful and understanding of people like that. The numbers tell us it’s very safe, and that your risk of dying in a plane crash is substantially lower than dying in the taxi on the way to Heathrow.

I bet the poor sods that had the swine flu vaccine thought the same thing.

A bout of flu or narcolepsy. Tough choice.

 

[nlogax]

I bet the poor sods that had the swine flu vaccine thought the same thing.

A bout of flu or narcolepsy. Tough choice.

So many are keen to hang onto outdated and panicky media headlines without doing a little more research to actually understand what followed. Bold and underlined emphasis is mine.


https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html#:~:text=An increased risk of narcolepsy,countries also detected an association.

In response to the events in Europe, CDC reviewed data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and found no indication of any association between U.S.-licensed H1N1 or seasonal influenza vaccine and narcolepsy.

In 2014, CDC published a study to assess the occurrence of narcolepsy following vaccination with 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine or 2010-2011 seasonal influenza vaccine, both of which contained the 2009 H1N1 virus strain (more about types of influenza viruses). The analysis included more than 650,000 people who received the 2009 pandemic flu vaccine and over 870,000 people who received the 2010-2011 seasonal flu vaccine. The study found that vaccination with influenza vaccines containing the 2009 H1N1 virus strain used in the United States was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy.

"In 2018, a study team including CDC scientists analyzed and published vaccine safety data on adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines (arenaprix-AS03, Focetria-MF59, and Pandemrix-AS03) from 10 global study sites. Researchers did not detect any associations between the vaccines and narcolepsy.

• Incidence rate study data did not show a rise in the rate of narcolepsy following vaccination except in the one signaling country included (Sweden, which used Pandemrix).
• Case-control analyses for Arepanrix-AS03 did not show evidence of an increased risk of narcolepsy.
• Case-coverage analysis for Pandemrix-ASO3 in children in the Netherlands did not show evidence of an increased risk of narcolepsy, but the number of exposed cases was small (N=7).
• Cases-control analysis for Focetria-MF59 did not show evidence of an increased risk of narcolepsy."

 

[Bantamzen]

It’s almost like that’s a bad thing, and probably worse than getting a vaccine, no? I don’t see how people can believe they’re at substantially higher risk of having vaccine side effects than having PVS from contracting COVID.

I have a lot of sympathy and respect for people who Have Their Reasons for not accepting vaccines, many of which are irrational (based around anxieties, fear of medical intervention or lack of faith in the medical community thanks to previous experiences), but I cannot see a rational or logical reason not to have it.

It’s like flying - I totally understand people’s fears or anxieties around flying and we should all be respectful and understanding of people like that. The numbers tell us it’s very safe, and that your risk of dying in a plane crash is substantially lower than dying in the taxi on the way to Heathrow.

I'm not sure I said that people were more concerned by the vaccine than PVFS, and frankly I wouldn't say it was a rational reason even if there were. Conversely the risk of PVFS is incredibly small, and as such isn't a particularly compelling reason to have the vaccine. As I have said before, people should be left to make their own judgements. And so far most people are choosing to have it, so I'm not sure why people are even getting angry at those who choose not to. I feel pretty certain that by the summer at least three quarters of the adult population will have had it, with a substantial percentage of those who have not with some pre-existing immunity or immunity through infection to leave only a very small proportion of people with a higher risk of spreading it if they came into contact with it.

However, and I cannot emphasise this enough, it should be a choice. If all future "risks" result in our lives being dictated on the basis of whatever treatments future governments demand, we might be setting a precedent that will not be to our good.

 

[dan5324]

So many are keen to hang onto outdated and panicky media headlines without doing a little more research to actually understand what followed. Bold and underlined emphasis is mine.


https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html#:~:text=An increased risk of narcolepsy,countries also detected an association.

So all those that developed narcolepsy after having the jab then are lying then, I presume?

Ministers lose fight to stop payouts over swine flu jab narcolepsy cases

Dozens of children who developed sleep disorder after getting vaccine could get compensation after high court ruling

www.google.co.uk

These NHS Staff Were Told The Swine Flu Vaccine Was Safe, And Now They're Suffering The Consequences

Dozens of NHS workers are fighting for compensation after developing narcolepsy from a swine flu vaccine that was rushed into service without the usual testing when the disease spread across the globe in 2009. They say it has destroyed their careers and their health.

www.google.co.uk

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not sure I said that people were more concerned by the vaccine than PVFS, and frankly I wouldn't say it was a rational reason even if there were. Conversely the risk of PVFS is incredibly small, and as such isn't a particularly compelling reason to have the vaccine. As I have said before, people should be left to make their own judgements. And so far most people are choosing to have it, so I'm not sure why people are even getting angry at those who choose not to. I feel pretty certain that by the summer at least three quarters of the adult population will have had it, with a substantial percentage of those who have not with some pre-existing immunity or immunity through infection to leave only a very small proportion of people with a higher risk of spreading it if they came into contact with it.

However, and I cannot emphasise this enough, it should be a choice. If all future "risks" result in our lives being dictated on the basis of whatever treatments future governments demand, we might be setting a precedent that will not be to our good.

I think a lot of the anger stems from the pent-up frustration with endless lockdown, and that vaccines are the way out (I know you don’t agree with lockdown as a tactic and I must say I am not a fan either!).

 

[LAX54]

Funny you said about going Tesco and no guarantee I’ll be home that day. Probably about the same odds for most people being seriously ill with Covid. The whole reason as to why this has got out of hand is people have become completely ignorant that literally everything we do on a daily basis poses some risk.

People won’t go somewhere where filthy unvaccinated people may go because they are afraid of Covid yet probably won’t think twice about driving across the country, completely oblivious that they could be involved in a fatal RTC from which is caused by means completely out of their control. (Other than staying at home behind the sofa, of course).

Indeed, now if we had the American TV adverts for drugs and medicines..........we'd all be dead by now when you listen to the 'possible side effects' !

 

[kez19]

No-one can be forced to get a vaccine, though doing so is likely to mean they are not able to do certain things, such as travel internationally (even if we allowed it, I am sure many countries will not grant entry).

I believe the virus is going to be come endemic, circulating a low levels, so anyone who does not get the vaccine is likely to be infected at some point. While many people are asymptomatic some will be ill, and I'd rather have a sore arm and perhaps a day of a cough and a headache than a few days of being ill enough that I cannot work, as well as having to quarantine. While the chances of me being severely ill with the virus are miniscule, it's still far better for me to get the vaccine, on balance. Obviously for an older person they are pretty much infinitely better off getting the vaccine!


But if you take that to its logical conclusion no-one would be vaccinated against anything?


There is no way we are going to be locked down again, but if too many people refused the vaccine, you can be sure that lockdown enthusiasts would be calling for lockdowns. We can argue forever about whether or not such people should be listened to, but it's surely best that we build up as much immunity among the population as rapidly as possible for many reasons.


So do I, which is why I did my research on the subject. After listening to what experts had to say, it was easy to conclude that it is better for as many people to get vaccinated as possible.


People shouldn't be labelling vaccine hesitant people as conspiracy theorists.


See my answer to that in post #3:

A quick poll about taking the vaccine.

This is just a poll to find out what opinion you have on all of this and the results are confidential so that you can state how you feel with impunity... I’m neutral in all of this but I’m interested in seeing what your opinions are. Feel free to think of more options if I’ve missed any and I’ll...

www.railforums.co.uk

If you can get lockdown enthusiasts to agree to this, or get Governments to agree to ignore lockdown enthusiasts, I will happily give up my vaccine in order to enable your proposal to happen.

But in the absence of that, there is no way anyone should be giving up their offer of a vaccine, in my opinion.

Regards in taking the vaccine, I think however that those in charge should have done a better approach to it all, for me for the work I am in there was nothing and it seems we all to go with out gut instinct and do it, however it hasn't helped in terms of if you don't get vaccinated you may lose your job (how does that reassure anyone? - that seems to me that you are being told take it or leave).

I don't mind if people choose to get vaccinated - its their choice, I took the flu jab a few years back but I noted it had some effects on me the following week, I also have Raynauds Disease which was another reason why I wasn't keen on it (but looking up info online it seemed to give me the OK to go ahead with it), as I say there is other factors for myself I put into it before even being vaccinated (yes I have had 1 of 2 doses).

As for lockdowns and vaccine take up - so why repeat the cycle?, people don't go up in arms if some don't take the flu jab but with this people are?, there is no need for it but because media says so (or politicians/sage) we all must kick off at those people and "shame" them for not doing so.

I research too but how many on this forum that people want to call "theorists" actually aren't but do their research but be called out? I thought that their was two sides to everything? Seems more as if you question things thats what the first thought people say but yet going back to above you must take the vaccine for the greater good.

I found this as supposedly a third dose or a booster:

3-shot combo? Pfizer, BioNTech roll COVID-19 booster trial as real-world data back first vaccine

As Pfizer and BioNTech start testing whether a third dose of their COVID-19 shot can help fend off new coronavirus variants, a massive real-world study has confirmed that | Pfizer and BioNTech are rolling out a study to test a third dose of its Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine against coronavirus...

www.fiercepharma.com

The trial will study two groups, ages 18-55 and 65-85, from its Phase 1 trial begun last May. Participants will receive a third dose of the vaccine, now called Comirnaty, exactly the same as the first two they received six to 12 months ago.


The FDA earlier this week signaled its willingness to work with vaccine makers to speed up booster development. The agency is working on expedited review rules for the follow-up shots.


There’s no need “to start at square one with any of these products—we recognize we are in a pandemic and we need to arm healthcare providers with the most appropriate tools to fight this pandemic on the front lines,” acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, M.D., said in an early February statement.


While the variant studies ramp up, a real-world study out of Israel confirms Comirnaty’s effectiveness.


Researchers found 46% effective at preventing infection 14 to 20 days after the first dose, and 92% effectiveness seven days after the second dose. The vaccine proved even better at preventing symptomatic infection at 57% and 94% for the same time periods.

opinion: after I have had my 2 I don't think i'll do a third (if this was the case) and pending on timeframe but saying that it seems to be another push, we go from 2 shots to now 3, I am sure there is only so much a body can take.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think a lot of the anger stems from the pent-up frustration with endless lockdown, and that vaccines are the way out (I know you don’t agree with lockdown as a tactic and I must say I am not a fan either!).

Oh I understand the reasons for the anger, I feel exactly the same way. But the way out doesn't need to be 100% compliance through coercion, which if I were being cynical is what the government appears to be encouraging if not actually outright stating it. We have the most vulnerable protected now, so unless there is some wild turn of events we can say with some certainty that the risk of hospitalisations is going to be at least 80% less than it was in 2020 even with the main parts of groups 1-4 & those in the remaining priority groups who have taken it up. So we don't need to bang on at people to get it, just let it happen organically. But more importantly we mustn't allow vaccination to become politically the only route out of this or any future pandemic.

 

[nlogax]

So all those that developed narcolepsy after having the jab then are lying then, I presume?

Where on earth did anyone suggest they were lying?

CDC data suggests that the vaccine's impact on narcolepsy cases was less than stated during the original 2009-2010 vaccination period. That's not to say there wasn't an uptick in cases but it was probably overstated at the time. There's nothing wrong with going with the numbers from evidence-based research.