• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

Status
Not open for further replies.

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
I do think we have to worry a little about fake science, anyone remember the 'masks are 95% effective infographics circulating on Facebook? Or the 'herd immunity is eugenics' drivel?
Or the "masks give you covid", or "covid doesn't exist", or "covid is no worse than the normal flu", or "flu is being purposefully misdiagnosed as covid to boost the numbers", or "mass testing is being increased specifically so that the government can rely on the false positive rate to justify more restrictions" or the previously mentioned "5g causes covid". See both of us can do that.

The right way to deal with this is to demonstrate with evidence that these claims are false. Arbitrarily violating people's democratic right to question things is not a civilised way to behave.
Again - if the person is questioning in good faith then fine.

But many are questioning in bad faith, and no amount of evidence is going to convince them otherwise (and interacting with them just means the social media algorithms spread that content even further as they see it as content that lots of people interact with).

As for it being a "democratic right" - in person via a protest you are absolutely right.
But on an online platform that a private company runs and manages? I'm not so in agreement.
Moderation of content on online platforms is as old as the internet itself, and indeed is something that happens on this forum too. To suggest that practice is anti democratic is just not true at all.

I've asked this before, but few people give a direct answer. If you are so against online platforms moderating content, would you support the likes of Anjem Choudary and ISIS being allowed to freely spread their bile on social media? Or do you agree with most of the country that in some cases, banning certain people or moderating certain content is acceptable?
Because if the hysteria continues as it has been, if vaccines are reformulated to be more effective against the latest set of common mutations, there will be calls from some to distribute such more effective vaccine to the entire population in priority order, from most to least vulnerable; and an argument will be made that “saving lives” is more important than “enabling travel”.

Hopefully I’m wrong there, and I’m glad to see you don’t think it’s likely!
I think we have to remember we are still in a pandemic and there is still a rush to get the vaccine to as many people as possible, especially those who are at a higher risk of dying (which has mostly been complete now, but still a few left, generally those younger but with conditions that make them vulnerable) and those who at a higher risk of needing serious hospital treatment (of which we are now starting to get through). Once all of that is complete and it calms down a bit, I don't see any reason why it won't be able to be treated more like any other vaccine where it is available on the NHS for some people and privately for others.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Or the "masks give you covid", or "covid doesn't exist", or "covid is no worse than the normal flu", or "flu is being purposefully misdiagnosed as covid to boost the numbers", or "mass testing is being increased specifically so that the government can rely on the false positive rate to justify more restrictions" or the previously mentioned "5g causes covid". See both of us can do that.

The problem is that people making those arguments have often been reprimanded and indeed banned by the 'social media' companies. People making untrue and exaggerated arguments on the other side about masks or herd immunity or variants have not been, as far as I'm aware.

If you are going to censor to enforce 'accurate information', you need to do so even-handedly. You can't censor rubbish you don't agree with, while letting rubbish you have sympathy with get a free pass.

That's before we get to the fact that people making good arguments about use of ivermectin or HCQ as theraputics have been reprimanded and/or banned for 'false information' that actually hasn't been anything of the sort.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
Or the "masks give you covid", or "covid doesn't exist", or "covid is no worse than the normal flu", or "flu is being purposefully misdiagnosed as covid to boost the numbers", or "mass testing is being increased specifically so that the government can rely on the false positive rate to justify more restrictions" or the previously mentioned "5g causes covid". See both of us can do that.


5G is obviously bovine feral matter, however there are other things that seem plausible, but are untrue, or misrepresentations of the facts. For example 'the government is doing more testing to justify keeping restrictions for longer' and 'the government doesn't seem to be accounting for the false positive ratio in tests when determining their thresholds, they should use xxx measurement instead of absolute numbers' seem very similar at first glance, but one is a much more reasonable question than the other.

That's before we get to the fact that people making good arguments about use of ivermectin or HCQ as theraputics have been reprimanded and/or banned for 'false information' that actually hasn't been anything of the sort.
I think this goes into a slightly different thing, we have well established standards for medical interventions, I feel we need similar rigour for our NPI's.

Similarly, as a society we need to discuss emergency utilisation of drugs in high risk groups. If a treatment can be proven to be save in medical trials, is it worth attempting vaccinations in high-risk groups as a gamble? I don't know the answer unfortunately.
 
Last edited:

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Similarly, as a society we need to discuss emergency utilisation of drugs in high risk groups. If a treatment can be proven to be save in medical trials, is it worth attempting vaccinations in high-risk groups as a gamble? I don't know the answer unfortunately.

It isn't an easy topic, but I'd say there is some role for the patient to make a decision here. Having read the studies and being pretty convinced it is very helpful, I'd have liked the option to have taken ivermectin if I started having covid symptoms, for example, and I'm actually quite irritated that in this country I've not been given that option.

As I've mentioned in other threads, for some reason we've gone down the path of 'vaccine or nothing', when there is very good evidence for therapeutics, even down to the simple level of vitamin D. The 'conspiracy theorists' oft-mentioned in the last few pages have their explanations as to why - personally I'm not sure, but the censorship, outright fraud (the fake paper that was published on HCQ and had to be withdrawn), and total lack of interest by those in charge in investigating this route as an alternative to or supplement to vaccination, should raise serious questions.
 

Dent

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2015
Messages
1,106
As for it being a "democratic right" - in person via a protest you are absolutely right.
But on an online platform that a private company runs and manages? I'm not so in agreement.
Moderation of content on online platforms is as old as the internet itself, and indeed is something that happens on this forum too. To suggest that practice is anti democratic is just not true at all.

Being "as old as the internet itself" and being undemocratic are not mutually exclusive, online censorship is both.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
The problem is that people making those arguments have often been reprimanded and indeed banned by the 'social media' companies. People making untrue and exaggerated arguments on the other side about masks or herd immunity or variants have not been, as far as I'm aware.

If you are going to censor to enforce 'accurate information', you need to do so even-handedly. You can't censor rubbish you don't agree with, while letting rubbish you have sympathy with get a free pass.

That's before we get to the fact that people making good arguments about use of ivermectin or HCQ as theraputics have been reprimanded and/or banned for 'false information' that actually hasn't been anything of the sort.
Already mentioned above by Yew, but we have a high barrier for actual medical intervention in this country, and I think that is right.
One side effect of that (which I also think is a good thing) is that we also have a high barrier for people who are seeing to be giving advice of a medical nature.
Basically you can't go telling people that x drug can be used to treat y illness unless there is peer reviewed evidence that has been accepted by various bodies within the UK. My understanding is that in those cases you mention, those treatments haven't been accepted by the bodies involved so going around suggesting that they can treat covid is very much hovering in that area.

My own opinion is that in terms of Facebook / Twitter etc moderating content, and it roughly matches what they try to do (or at least what they say they try to do), is that it isn't just about something being true vs something being false. It should also be about the harm caused. Someone trying to convince others that covid isn't real, or that some drug (that has had some initial good signs but isn't accepted by the medical bodies yet) can help with a certain illness - those things do have the real risk of causing harm. It is the same reason why I am ok with Trump and some of his supporters being banned for inciting and planning violence on these platforms. I am not so convinced that encouraging people to say wear a mask is going to cause the same harm, as for the vast majority of people, wearing a mask is just an inconvenience rather than something that causes actual harm.

5G is obviously bovine feral matter, however there are other things that seem plausible, but are untrue, or misrepresentations of the facts. For example 'the government is doing more testing to justify keeping restrictions for longer' and 'the government doesn't seem to be accounting for the false positive ratio in tests when determining their thresholds, they should use xxx measurement instead of absolute numbers' seem very similar at first glance, but one is a much more reasonable question than the other.
By all means, I'm not going to disagree that there is a element of truth in some of what is being mentioned.
The problem is when people conflate some of those issues, and come up with something that whilst initially based in some kind of truth, has drifted into conspiracy land, which is happening quite a lot at the moment.

It isn't an easy topic, but I'd say there is some role for the patient to make a decision here.
What percentage of patients do you honestly think have the adequate knowledge and understanding, have done the relevant research and have the ability to make an informed decision based on all of that? That percentage will be a very small number, and will be dwarfed by the number of people who will make poor and uninformed decisions. This is why doctors have training that takes so long and is so demanding and to suggest that the average person can make just an informed decision is naïve to say the least!

Being "as old as the internet itself" and being undemocratic are not mutually exclusive, online censorship is both.
So do you believe that this forum shouldn't be allowed to moderate content and ban accounts?
And do you believe that Facebook should be compelled by law to give groups like ISIS or people like Choudary a platform?
Because unless you absolutely believe those two things, then by very definition you are also in favour of the "online censorship" and "undemocratic" practices you are complaining about.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Already mentioned above by Yew, but we have a high barrier for actual medical intervention in this country, and I think that is right.

I'd take that argument a little more seriously if we weren't in the middle of trying to vaccinate everyone in the country with medicines that are still in the clinical trial stage.

If the supposed emergency supposedly justifies that, I fail to see why it can't do the same for established, well-understood medicines that have been available for decades.

My own opinion is that in terms of Facebook / Twitter etc moderating content, and it roughly matches what they try to do (or at least what they say they try to do), is that it isn't just about something being true vs something being false. It should also be about the harm caused. Someone trying to convince others that covid isn't real, or that some drug (that has had some initial good signs but isn't accepted by the medical bodies yet) can help with a certain illness - those things do have the real risk of causing harm.

I don't agree with the latter case. If someone was saying to go eat poisonous mushrooms to cure Covid, then perhaps so, but we're talking about medicines that are safe and established, so even if they're not effective, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to advocate them. And in any event, you can't just go to Tesco and buy them even if you wanted to.

Plus that argument would appear to ban someone who said 'go out and get drunk tonight'. That's a harm both to them and potentially to others (drink driving, drunk violence, etc. etc.). How far do you take it? Avoiding 'harm' sounds good but is sufficiently nebulous that it seems to end up being used to just do what people wanted to do anyway.

What percentage of patients do you honestly think have the adequate knowledge and understanding, have done the relevant research and have the ability to make an informed decision based on all of that? That percentage will be a very small number, and will be dwarfed by the number of people who will make poor and uninformed decisions. This is why doctors have training that takes so long and is so demanding and to suggest that the average person can make just an informed decision is naïve to say the least!

Which brings us back to vaccines. Do you think the majority of people are taking an 'informed decision' as to whether to take these vaccines or not? Remember we're mostly talking about people who are healthy to begin with, so the bar for taking medical treatment at all is higher.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Or the world puts it's collective sensible head on, stops chasing 99% efficacy against each and every variant, and accepts that anyone who's been given any of the thus-far approved covid vaccines is highly unlikely to die or be hospitalised of covid on their watch, and similarly unlikely to spread covid in their communities
Please copy this to every leader of every country! This is what is needed now, focus on vaccinating those that most need it wherever they are in the world, and let's deal with the remaining, and very minimal risk sensibly.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
I'd take that argument a little more seriously if we weren't in the middle of trying to vaccinate everyone in the country with medicines that are still in the clinical trial stage.

If the supposed emergency supposedly justifies that, I fail to see why it can't do the same for established, well-understood medicines that have been available for decades.
There is an absolute massive difference between a vaccine that has been approved for use by the medical bodies in the country (even on an emergency basis) compared to some random person suggesting that a drug that has had some good trials but hasn't been approved for use by the medical bodies should be used to treat covid.

I don't agree with the latter case. If someone was saying to go eat poisonous mushrooms to cure Covid, then perhaps so, but we're talking about medicines that are safe and established, so even if they're not effective, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to advocate them. And in any event, you can't just go to Tesco and buy them even if you wanted to.
We are talking about medicines that are safe and established for use in particular circumstances and are usually pretty tightly controlled (even regular painkillers like paracetamol have legal restrictions around what can and can't be sold and what can and can't be advertised). There is absolutely an argument to be made that suggesting people take medications for purposes of which they aren't licensed for is naive at best and potentially dangerous at worst.

Plus that argument would appear to ban someone who said 'go out and get drunk tonight'. That's a harm both to them and potentially to others (drink driving, drunk violence, etc. etc.). How far do you take it? Avoiding 'harm' sounds good but is sufficiently nebulous that it seems to end up being used to just do what people wanted to do anyway.
Which goes back to some of the other conversations we have had - most people will agree that social media platforms reserve the right to determine what is deleted or banned from their platform at some level. The real question is where is that line, and most people will have a different opinion of where that line fits. Whilst opinions are great, the ones that reality matter are those of law enforcement and those of the people in those companies who decide their policies.

Which brings us back to vaccines. Do you think the majority of people are taking an 'informed decision' as to whether to take these vaccines or not? Remember we're mostly talking about people who are healthy to begin with, so the bar for taking medical treatment at all is higher.
In terms of medical decisions, people delegate to the relevant experts and medical bodies (given that most people are no where near medical experts).
Those experts and medical bodies have said they are happy that the vaccines are safe and people should have them.
Sure in a minority of cases the medical experts may be wrong (I'm sure one of the replies to these comments will be tabloid headlines about mistakes made by doctors), but in the vast majority of cases a doctor is more able to determine the best course of medical intervention than the general public is able to.

Sadly we don't know that.
I think it is pretty much assured that we will be able to have some kind of holidays this year. Hell we did last year and that was without any vaccine.
whilst their elders have been sitting at home pretending to work whilst watching Netflix ...
Oh they get to sit in a soggy field, or a crappy B&B in good old Blighty
Whilst I agree with the general idea of your comments, I'm not sure the hyperbole really helps. Most people working from home have not been "pretending to work whilst watching netflix", and holidays in the UK can absolutely be just as fun and exciting as holidays abroad (it doesn't have to be "sitting in a soggy field" or in a "Crappy B&B" - we do have some amazing places to visit in this country too!). If anything most people I know cannot wait for any kind of holiday and some are specifically planning trips to "sit in a soggy field" for the summer!
 

packermac

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2019
Messages
543
Location
Swanage
That's not how the NHS works. If someone climbs a mountain and falls off, would you tell them tough too? Or if someone crosses the road and doesn't look properly? Or if someone doesn't have a perfectly balanced diet?

Quite honestly I am getting sick and tired of the nastiness that covid-mania is creating. And it needs to stop.
No I fully agree but there have been a number of postings on here that suggested that "old people" with Covid should just be allowed to die rather than be treated at the expense of other health conditions amongst the population, so it is all as you say, or it does become lets pick and choose which illness or disease we are prepared to have the NHS treat.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
Can we try to stick to Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment in this thread please?

Thanks!
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
Over 56s, clinically vulnerable (not just clinically extremely vulnerable), and those with the learning disabilities, can now book via the NHS portal, in addition to those previously eligible to book.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I know a number of people in the age range 50-53, without any existing health conditions, who have now been ‘called up’ and taken the vaccine. This is in various parts of the country. I would have thought this would have been towards the end of this current phase that ends mid April, so surprised me.

Also, it’s clearly the case that first dose vaccination has slowed to about 2m/week, and will probably slow a little more yet: understandable as the second dose starts to pick up - it’s doubled in each of the past two weeks, and needs to quadruple again By Easter.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
Also, it’s clearly the case that first dose vaccination has slowed to about 2m/week, and will probably slow a little more yet: understandable as the second dose starts to pick up - it’s doubled in each of the past two weeks, and needs to quadruple again By Easter.
It was said in the week that over the next two weeks the supply will be coming through thick and fast, with the limitation being capacity at vaccination centres rather than supply being the constraining factor.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I know a number of people in the age range 50-53, without any existing health conditions, who have now been ‘called up’ and taken the vaccine. This is in various parts of the country. I would have thought this would have been towards the end of this current phase that ends mid April, so surprised me.

Also, it’s clearly the case that first dose vaccination has slowed to about 2m/week, and will probably slow a little more yet: understandable as the second dose starts to pick up - it’s doubled in each of the past two weeks, and needs to quadruple again By Easter.
Different areas are at different stages, the government estimates were exactly that, just estimates. There could be a variety of reasons why some are ahead of others from take-up rates through to planning & rollout.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,021
Location
West Wiltshire
I know a number of people in the age range 50-53, without any existing health conditions, who have now been ‘called up’ and taken the vaccine. This is in various parts of the country. I would have thought this would have been towards the end of this current phase that ends mid April, so surprised me.

Also, it’s clearly the case that first dose vaccination has slowed to about 2m/week, and will probably slow a little more yet: understandable as the second dose starts to pick up - it’s doubled in each of the past two weeks, and needs to quadruple again By Easter.

Seems NHS vaccination website is now open for age 56 and over bookings

My wife got invitation to book letter today, I haven’t received yet, but when we booked hers, decided to book mine (I am 56) at same time and place, as it said anyone in the age group can book, and driving there together is easier (it only offered one location within 15 miles though, at Bath racecourse)
 
Last edited:

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
2,842
Location
Stevenage
Seems NHS vaccination website is now open for age 56 and over bookings
Which includes me. A letter arrived today shortly before I saw that change mentioned here. Duly booked.

One irritation, even if you don't dither filling out the online form, you may click the final confirm button only to be told that one of the selected slots is no longer available. You then have to go through the whole process again. Second time round it worked.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,021
Location
West Wiltshire
Which includes me. A letter arrived today shortly before I saw that change mentioned here. Duly booked.

One irritation, even if you don't dither filling out the online form, you may click the final confirm button only to be told that one of the selected slots is no longer available. You then have to go through the whole process again. Second time round it worked.

Same problem here when trying to book earliest slots, then tried again picking slots on second available day, which enabled both of us to to get same time, even though booked couple of minutes apart
 

SouthEastBuses

On Moderation
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
1,800
Location
uk
I know a number of people in the age range 50-53, without any existing health conditions, who have now been ‘called up’ and taken the vaccine. This is in various parts of the country. I would have thought this would have been towards the end of this current phase that ends mid April, so surprised me.

Also, it’s clearly the case that first dose vaccination has slowed to about 2m/week, and will probably slow a little more yet: understandable as the second dose starts to pick up - it’s doubled in each of the past two weeks, and needs to quadruple again By Easter.

Doesn't apply to us - both of my parents are over 50s and they haven't been called up yet to be vaccinated.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,042
Location
Birmingham
I know a number of people in the age range 50-53, without any existing health conditions, who have now been ‘called up’ and taken the vaccine. This is in various parts of the country. I would have thought this would have been towards the end of this current phase that ends mid April, so surprised me.
Yes my wife (51) got a text from her GP yesterday and will get her jab in a couple of days. We were both surprised it would be so soon. Alas I am merely 49 so will have to wait longer...
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
5,996
Location
Surrey
Yes my wife (51) got a text from her GP yesterday and will get her jab in a couple of days. We were both surprised it would be so soon. Alas I am merely 49 so will have to wait longer...
Well they only offered it to 60 years and above a week ago then dropped it down to 56 now your saying 51 year olds being contacted so on that basis shouldn't have to wait too long.

Also its been suggested that take up of the vaccine may decline in lower age groups and also they have now got plenty of it as we go into March so they need to shift it as it has use it or throw it away date on each batch.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,021
Location
West Wiltshire
I know some people just keep trying the website every few days instead of waiting for a letter. Might be worth a try.
You don’t need to wait for the letter if you are 56 or over, can book it anyway on NHS vaccine website.

Or you can wait for your Doctor to offer it. Where they are upto varies a bit from release dates of central booking system as will depend on how many in each group locally.
 

SJN

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
388
Location
Birmingham
You don’t need to wait for the letter if you are 56 or over, can book it anyway on NHS vaccine website.

Or you can wait for your Doctor to offer it. Where they are upto varies a bit from release dates of central booking system as will depend on how many in each group locally.
I know. That’s what I was telling someone else. I’m just 50 so not my turn yet but I’ll keep checking the online booking over the next week or so and book in as soon as I can.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
With 22.21 million having received at least one dose, we've given first doses to around 1/3 (33.3%) of the whole UK population, and around 42% of the adult population, 2% of which have also had their second (1.1m).
 

Crossover

Established Member
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Messages
9,246
Location
Yorkshire
With 22.21 million having received at least one dose, we've given first doses to around 1/3 (33.3%) of the whole UK population, and around 42% of the adult population, 2% of which have also had their second (1.1m).
I am expecting to hit the 50% of adults with their first dose within the next week to week and a half. Should put us in a good position for the end of March expected relaxations
 

Silver Cobra

Member
Joined
4 Jun 2015
Messages
866
Location
Bedfordshire
Just had an interesting conversation with my brother today. He has been offered a vaccination for tomorrow at his local doctor's practice, despite the fact he is only 43 years old and not registered as vulnerable. Considering that the under-50s were not supposed to be even considered until much nearer to mid-April, I can only imagine this means that the part of Central Bedfordshire we live in is so far ahead on the vaccination rollout that it can already start offering vaccines to the under-50s.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
Just had an interesting conversation with my brother today. He has been offered a vaccination for tomorrow at his local doctor's practice, despite the fact he is only 43 years old and not registered as vulnerable. Considering that the under-50s were not supposed to be even considered until much nearer to mid-April, I can only imagine this means that the part of Central Bedfordshire we live in is so far ahead on the vaccination rollout that it can already start offering vaccines to the under-50s.
Or it's an error and he'll be turned away, as has happened!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top