Secondly I think the point about side effects is a good one - Perhaps not so much the more extreme reactions that are thankfully exceptionally rare but even the more common idea of feeling rubbish for a couple of days which when you have a busy life / work etc is not something you may want to volunteer for. I am sure there is stuff that could be done around making sure that employers would never penalize people / offer people the day off just to again remove that element of fear and barrier of potential detriment.
Some unions have managed to get some employers to encourage vaccination by allowing staff who feel unwell after being vaccinated to have up to two days off sick without these being counted towards an employees sick leave record. The employee is paid as normal, but is not recorded as having been sick.
This is advantageous for both the employer and the employee. Less likelihood of the employee getting ill with COVID19 Corona virus, hence less long term disruption to the work.
Yes. But it should be an informed choice. People should be encouraged to ask their doctor if they have concerns.
I feel Boris needs to take a less authoritarian approach to such matters, he’s only feeding The conspiracy theorists, the whole reason why there is even an anti vax movement is because of the government trying to make them Mandatory or using coercion.
Keep in mind that some of the anti-vaxx movement is driven by people with financial interests in selling “medicines” or other products that allegedly help against the virus. But where there are no actual scientifically recognised benefits. They need people to believe their misleading advertising and propaganda, and they have found social media to be an effective way to spread their messages.
Add that to some people spreading rumours and half-truths and it’s easy to see why some people are hesitant.
I'm not sure that's going to turn out to be the case, else why are we discussing booster shots in the next few months? Compare those who had SARS-1 still having immunity to SARS-2 after a couple of decades, which is pretty good immunity.
I don’t know about that, but with the vast majority of infections, it’s the bodies immune system that fights off the infection. And each different virus is err, different. Hence it can be misleading to try to compare the long term immunity of each virus.
Of course you may well argue from a comfort point of view that it is better to have a vaccination than the disease, which is most cases will probably turn out to be true! But I have absolutely no idea from a medical point of view why for example we are insisting on vaccinating people who have already had the disease, it makes zero sense.
I don’t know the official medical answer. But one reason may be to ensure that people who think they have had a COVID19 Corona virus infection, but who actually did not have it, still get vaccinated so that they do get (increased) protection.
Another reason may be, to ensure that the bodies immune system is ‘reminded’ to continue to produce antibodies. I don’t know what the current research has found, but there was previously a suspicion that within three to six months, the natural protection by the immune system may wane.
But we're going to hit 90% of adults with one dose, and only a few % points below that for the second - and significantly higher than that in the groups that are actually in danger from the disease. If this was really just about protecting people from a disease then this seems a very good time to say 'that went surprisingly well, time to get on with getting back to normal now.' Instead we see an ever-more-shrill and ever-more-desperate ramping up of propaganda against the small minority that haven't 'done what they were told to do'. Why?
Maybe because governments are concerned that until nearly everyone has some protection from the COVID19 Corona virus, there could be another wave of infections which if really bad would result in another lockdown being needed…
In case you have not noticed, governments generally don’t like lots more money going out than is coming in…
So raising issues on how lockdowns have played havoc on people’s mental health and financial issues is hysterical is it? Because that’s all the majority of us have done, we’re not Covid deniers, I always suspected that locktavists gave little care about mental health and things aside from Covid.
I’m not at all sure that there is any significant number of people who want more lockdowns.
As a key worker who had to continue travelling to the nearest city where I’m based, it was nice not to have to battle the normal city ‘rush hour’ traffic on the roads. But that was
the only upside. There were, as you know, lots and lots and lots of downsides. And please don’t get the idea that the lack of traffic is a reason for me wanting another lockdown, because I travel by train more than I drive, and lockdown reduced the number of trains that I could travel on. Hence forcing me to drive…
Mental health issues are a very serious matter. And far too often are not treated properly or properly recognised by society. Mental heath treatment is also under funded (even before anyone had even heard of COVID19).
And yes, poverty is also an important issue. The huge rise in the number of people needing help from food banks is shocking. And again, the situation was not very good before COVID19. Although the government did provide some help, I think there may well have been more that could have been done.
I’m sorry but most of us have a right to be frustrated, all you’ve blathered on about are cases, and you’ve always find excuses as to why it’s too soon to open up, as you say if you agree that
@yorkie has a valid point that the vaccination programme is so successful the you should be by now all for opening up, but sure enough you’ll find an excuse as to why Christmas should be cancelled.
I’ve got no problem with opening up. But I do not fully agree with the way that the government implemented the lockdowns, or the way they communicated, or the way they opened up.
I think the lockdowns should have been better policed and with far better and clearer messaging so that the rate of infections would have fallen faster. Then the duration of the lockdowns could have been shorter.
During the lockdowns, there should have been much more and much better educational material available to teach people about viruses and how to learn how to improve how you do things so that you can both protect yourself, your family, friends and other people. The idea being that hopefully this would help limit the infection rate as the restrictions were lifted.
And I think there should have been a better plan for lifting the lockdowns, with the plan well publicised. But without set dates. I would have lifted the restrictions a little each week, with the announcement each Wednesday. If infection rates stayed low, you lift two or more restrictions each week rather than just one.
Regardless of how accurate that figure is, I don't think anyone (sensible) is debating that the vaccines do help to reduce the severity of the disease in many/most for some period of time. The questions are:
- How long does that effect last for? (The continual talk of boosters suggests they're not confident it is very long, and the data from Israel looks to be supporting that).
I don’t think anyone really knows yet. Hence it’s better to be ready with boosters rather than be caught out…
- Is vaccine immunity better than getting immunity naturally for those at low risk from the disease in the first place? (I suspect not, as discussed above)
Again, it’s likely to be far too soon for anyone to really know. We do know with some viruses, that the more that the bodies immune system is required to fight off an infection, the more likely it is to be ready to fight should you be exposed again.
- Do the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the potential issues for those at low risk? That includes potential long-term effects that we don't know about yet.
Do you actually know of any vaccinations where there have been found to be any significant long term effects? The whole point of a vaccine is to trigger the immune system to attack it. So as I understand it, once your immune system has ramped up enough to ‘defeat’ it, the body will break it down and it will be removed just like any other debris in your blood.
The real concern would be if your bodies immune system overreacted and then started attacking your own body. Have you heard about any such reports?
- Do they prevent people catching it? (Obviously not entirely, else that figure would be 100%).
No. Just like some people who have been infected with COVID19 Corona virus may still be able to be reinfected. But if your immune system has already been primed, it should be more ready, and hence if you do ‘catch it’, it should be a lot milder. And your body should be able to fight it off quicker.
- Do they prevent people transmitting it? (Again, the data seems to show the answer to that is 'not much, if at all'. I note that even the NHS adverts now say 'by up to half', which is marketing-speak for 'not much').
I don’t think there is enough data to have a definite answer. But you can only transmit any significant amount of the virus if it can replicate inside your cells. If your immune system is attacking the virus because it was ready for it, the virus will have a hard time replicating quicker than the immune system is killing it.
news.sky.com
I do think there have to be strict boundaries between the state and the individual however, and bodily autonomy is one of the most important to reserve to the individual.
www.medpagetoday.com
