-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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
- Thread starter Yew
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I've seen exactly the same process happen over the last year with my mother. At the start of the year she was seriously considering the vaccine, and it seems the only reason she didn't was because she'd decided which of the vaccines she'd prefer to have and didn't like the fact you didn't get to choose. Over the year, that position has changed considerably, and now she is totally against going near any of them and regularly talks about what she'd do if someone tried to force her!
The damage this is doing to public health in general is considerable and will be incredibly difficult to undo. But it is also affecting trust in authority - my mother also often tells me now that she no longer trusts anyone in authority to be telling the truth. Which - to be blunt - I can't disagree with her about, because I don't either.
I do - and precautions (e.g. the level of cabin crew) are taken to mitigate the risks of aviation that many consider disproportionate.
The article does indeed highlight the risk associated with an outlier. However, it also asks an important question - just how lucky do you feel? The relative risk of vaccination against infection is significantly weighted in favour of vaccination, and given the choice, my view is firmly weighted to vaccination.
You also ask about JCVI advice on teenagers. I looked carefully at the advice, and it confirmed my instinctive view that vaccination was to my children's advantage. The advice on 12-15 year olds is oft misquoted as suggesting it was not advantageous - it was actually much more subtle than that, based on JCVI's terms of reference for reviewing vaccines (so couldn't consider factors beyond the balance of vaccination and the recipient's direct risk from the disease, and was weighted against intervention even if an advantage were proven), and found that vaccines did confer a net benefit.
Science and medical practice move quickly in crisis situations, and then much more slowly at other times - I read nothing into the current speed against other time periods. I agree that there are gaps in our understanding, particularly in association with the duration of vaccine efficacy, but none of those alter the basic relationship between vaccination and the danger of Covid - differences that to my mind absolutely support the use of a mass vaccination strategy. Even if the (currently unboosted) AZ vaccine I've had is only providing me with a 44% reduction in risk of infection, that is a material reduction in my risk of being infected, while it also reduces both the risk of my suffering severe illness from the disease and then of passing the disease on (by reducing my probability of catching the disease in the first place, and then limiting the severity if I do fall ill). This is visible in current case figures, where the impact of relatively high numbers of cases on the wider world is massively different to what we experienced a year ago.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
In which case, she (and you) may want to consider the questions of efficacy around the Chinese vaccine - and particularly reflect on why the Chinese government still find very tough lockdown policies necessary despite their vaccination programme.
As for natural immunity, it is discussed and opinions vary on it's efficacy or durability. Personally, and regardless of whether natural immunity is more or less effective than vaccination, I would prefer to use a vaccine to obtain immunity rather than be infected with Covid. The relative risk of the two approaches favours getting vaccinated at most if not all ages, so why wouldn't I choose it?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The alternative(s) being? As far as I can see, the messaging issue is of the government's own making - it is stepping back from vaccination as the primary approach and choosing to put emphasis on alternative measures.
Last edited:
DustyBin
Established Member
I'm not sure I follow but in the event of a serious accident you're dead regardless. The risk however is extremely small so we consider people who worry about it as aerophobic, and therefore in need of help. It's irrational and shouldn't affect their decision making. There would be a lot more aerophobes if Air Crash Investigation was made compulsory viewing for at least an hour every day!
I'd argue the real question is actually how lucky do you need to feel? With the chances of suffering a serious adverse outcome as result of Covid so small I don't think you need to feel particularly lucky to be honest. I think it's down to individual risk threshold, and whilst I may be more accepting of risk than some people I also believe many of them significantly over estimate the level of personal risk as a result of the government's messaging.
Thanks for answering my question it's much appreciated. You've picked up on the salient point, i.e. the JCVI's terms of reference are all that should be considered in this situation (in my opinion). The net benefit you refer to appears to have been calculated on the basis of incorrect assumptions and as a result of political interference.
Which side of the fence you land on depends on a number of factors, some of which we've discussed above. As I see it, being at very low risk from Covid I have the "luxury" of being able to watch and wait. It's obvious that we're making it up as we go along and I'm happy to see how it all plays out before making a final decision. I'd feel differently if I was immunocompromised or over 80 years of age, for example. The (re)imposition of NPIs, the third dose rollout, talk of vaccine escape etc. all leads me to conclude that I've made the right decision. Terrible messaging aside, there are genuine questions to be answered.
I know you weren't responding to me but there are no questions over the efficacy or durability of natural immunity as far as I'm concerned. It's a better (if more risky) option in every conceivable way. The risk needs to be weighted against the benefit of longer lasting wider immunity and again it all comes down to individual circumstances. It's certainly not the "no brainer" you seem to believe it is. As I stated previously this a huge issue for me. I'm being told to disregard everything I know about the human immune system, a system which has evolved over a million plus years, and blindly accept being vaccinated against a virus with a 99.7% survival rate, using relatively untested vaccine technology.... Of all the arguments and all the opinions, this natural immunity denial is the one that doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny, and only further dents my confidence in
As I highlighted earlier there's now ~40,000 cases a day, with 8,000 in hospital and ~ 100 deaths a day, compare this to this time last year it was 15,000 daily cases with 16,000 in hospital and 500 deaths a day all during a significant lockdown which had been ongoing since the start of the month.
There is one main factor which has enabled us to have those numbers. Now whilst natural immunity will have had some impact, the fact that so many of us have had the vaccine is the main variable which has changed.
Unless there's some other factor which is likely to have reduced hospitalisations by a factor of 6 and deaths by a factor of about 15 for any given number of cases.
Whilst we maybe facing more restrictions, without the vaccine these would have been brought in ages ago. If we took case numbers of 25,000 (seen early November 2020), lockdown (like the one from November 2020) "should" happened late June.
6 months later we are now talking about (in comparison to the sort of lockdown seen last year) fairly limited interventions (no rule of six, no working from home, etc.)
Whilst there will be many upset about these new restrictions, can anyone honesty claim that we would have had the level of freedom that we've seen if there had been a significantly lower uptake in the vaccine?
You misread me. JCVI's terms of reference are both based on direct benefit, and with a weighting against intervention. The net benefit I refer to is the net benefit assessed by JCVI which they said was insufficient, under those terms of reference, to allow them to recommend vaccination; not the additional benefits assessed by the CMOs that led to the decision to extend vaccinations to that age group.
In an ideal world, I would agree - but we have clear evidence of the relative costs to society as a whole of the two approaches to acquiring immunity. As a layman, I also incline towards those scientific writers who've suggested that there are differences between natural immunity related to a specific strain of a virus, and vaccine engineered immunity based on dealing with less variant specific characteristics of the virus.
I don't consider myself anti-vaxx and utterly detest that word. I had, with a little reluctance, my first two doses of AZ earlier in the year and although I have now just qualified to have my six month booster, presumably of Pfizer or Moderna, I am in no rush to get it. I am concerned of various things, firstly the policy of mixing vaccine types which seems to have been based on pretty limited studies. I had no reactions to my AZ but know many who had bad effects from their first Pfizer and a booster of that would be effectively a first dose for me. Rather more concerning is the nasty effects documented in the yellow card system with currently around 1800 deaths reported via that but it seems nobody is analysing the data and trying to cover it up. Even more worrying is the reports coming in via various sources of those who have suffered serious heart problems and often death shortly after the shots, and of course the long list of athletes and footballers who have collapsed on pitch. These may well be 'coincidental' but they hardly instil confidence in me. The latest hastily rushed through changes to booster timescales and double shots for kids seems rather foolhardy as if the ultimate goal is to force everybody to be vaccinated and introduce compulsory vaccination and passports. Together with the conflicting data from MHRSA etc which seems to show most people catching it now are fully vaccinated suggesting that the vaccine is not quite the magic bullet it is made out to be.
I get criticised for some of my views and for visiting sites that some would consider anti-covid areas but I am convinced we are not being told the truth. I am not afraid of covid but seriously afraid of the life we are being forced to lead now. At 72 I would hope I have a few more years left to enjoy life as I want it and not one set by politicians.
I get criticised for some of my views and for visiting sites that some would consider anti-covid areas but I am convinced we are not being told the truth. I am not afraid of covid but seriously afraid of the life we are being forced to lead now. At 72 I would hope I have a few more years left to enjoy life as I want it and not one set by politicians.
I strongly suggest that you look more closely at what Yellow Card and similar systems (e.g. VAERS in the US) are, and what they are not. Data is analysed - which is how some of the known side effects of the vaccines were identified - but the correlation between reported incidents and vaccinations is not proof of cause - despite the attempts of some in the pro-Covid/anti-Covid measures camp to allege the contrary.
I hear what you say, but when I keep hearing of perfectly healthy people dying of heart attacks or strokes the day after they have their booster I cannot just dismiss them. I have personally lost a cousin from a heart attack and a couple of church members from stroke and kidney/sepsis - I have no detailed knowledge of their medical history but such things are happening. The known side effects of blood clots leading to heart issues and strokes seem far far higher than is being admitted.
Before coming to any conclusion, I would just ask two questions. First, and for those not known to you, I would ask who is providing the account and what biases they may bring to it. Second, I would ask what that person's underlying risk was, and why their recent vaccination should be specifically relevant to the timing. Early in the vaccination programme, there were reports of people falling ill in (from memory) Norwegian care homes because of the vaccines. On examination, and equally unconnected to the vaccine programme, the actual death rate was below what would have been expected given the base population mortality rates.
DustyBin
Established Member
I think we may both be crossing our wires here.... In simple terms what I'm trying to say is that the additional benefits assessed by the CMOs are questionable and therefore shouldn't have been used to sway the decision (in my opinion).
We've benefitted enormously from vaccinating the vulnerable and the over 50s (possibly the over 40s although I'm not entirely convinced). I'm not sure we've gained much by vaccinating healthy under 40s however, with diminishing returns as you move down the age groups.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying with your second point, however it's widely accepted that it's vaccine induced immunity which targets a specific part of the spike protein that carries the potential for vaccine escape (and possibly other nasties which don't bear thinking about). It's extremely unlikely that a variant could escape natural immunity, the immune system having been exposed to the whole virus. There is only one strain as well remember.
As you can see from my previous posts I'm not entirely convinced by our current vaccine strategy. On balance however, and whilst I think there probably is a certain degree of "playing down" suspected adverse reactions to the vaccines, the risk of side effects is very low. Personally I wouldn't let these concerns alone dictate my decision.
Happy to agree there may be crossed wires, and your clarification is noted. For clarity, my position is that the analysis from JCVI was enough to convince me, as a parent, that there were benefits to my teenage children receiving the vaccination, based solely on the risk/benefit comparison for them as individuals.
I write as a layman, so if there is a difference between "strain" and "variant", I apologise for confusing. My, admittedly limited, understanding is that the vaccines are designed to work on the "spike", but that this is the relatively common feature of the virus between it's variants. In contrast, I understand there to be differences between the different variants that are sufficient to dilute the immune response of an individual with naturally acquired immunity to one variant when exposed to another variant - and that the concern around Omicron is that this may include sufficient change in the virus to undermine the basis on which the vaccines have been developed.
I am aware that there are some who argue that mass vaccination during an epidemic leads to additional risk, but to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence associated with Covid that supports their position.
DustyBin
Established Member
No problem. It's entirely up to you as a parent to try and make sense of the available information and do what you believe is right.... Not always easy I suspect!
I'm a layman myself but yes "strain" and "variant" have very distinct meanings in virology (I wouldn't have known that myself two years ago!).
You're correct in saying that the vaccines target the "spike", however it's actually the "spike" that commonly changes during the course of mutation:
Heavily mutated Omicron variant puts scientists on alert (nature.com)
Particularly pertinent (as it relates to Omicron):
This is less of an issue with infection derived immunity as the immune system has seen and should recognise all parts of the virus.
No so far so good in this regard, although I don't think we'd know until it was too late. Hopefully there are no issues, what concerns me slightly however is the dismissal of genuine concerns without proper discussion. It does create an impression of "groupthink", to me at least.
Have to pull you up on this one sadly, I guess you didn’t see Dr Hilary on GMB calling the yellow card scheme a “hoax” so what difference would it make if he went to the US side?
Just to add this is from our supposedly mainstream media? Oh dear had this been the very same thing on RT hell would break loose - RT be slapped for the act, but since this happened on ITV I haven’t seen anything other than complaints.
https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2021/10/04/how-many-people-have-died-as-a-result-of-a-covid-19-vaccine/ is an article by Sarah Caul, Head of Mortality Analysis at ONS. It says (I added the bold highlighting)
As I don't watch GMB, I hadn't seen that. I'm not sure though that it says what you suggest it does - viewing it, what he actually says is that the leaflets like the one he's holding up are hoaxes because they're nothing to do with the Yellow Card scheme, not that the scheme is a hoax. Assuming that the leaflet is what he says it is, that strikes me as good journalism and the media doing it's job properly and effectively.
Even if we take the raw data of 1,800 deaths, this is about the number of people who die on our roads each year (2020 was lower, but then so was traffic use), very little is said about that outside of road safety settings.
Statically there's a 1:10,000 chance of doing on the roads in the next 12 months which is much smaller than the 0.3% (1:333 chance) which is often cited as the risk of death with/of Covid.
Actually, as a bit of an aside the risk of death from Covid isn't that much lower than your risk of dying on the roads at any point during the average lifetime (1:250), yet few would activity reduce their use of roads to reduce their risk of dying on the roads. Although if I could reduce that risk at limited risk to myself I would (such as having done PassPlus).
However the raw data, as highlighted by others, is massively higher than the actual linked deaths.
But he says the scheme is a hoax so if I were to report an issue I’m lying?
Reported in The Sun supposedly I used Google to find it
GMB gets 1500 Ofcom complaints over Dr Hilary’s warning
The discussion of a coronavirus ‘yellow card reporting system’ was flagged up by Dr Hilary Jones on the ITV show after he claimed the letter was “complete misinformation.”
Media doing its job properly? Oh that’s funny! I never knew breakfast tv was proper journalism most of the time it’s who washing who’s dirty laundry
Last edited:
You should look again - he stated that the leaflets about the scheme are a hoax. It was reported in a number of papers, all of which (from their search entries) say the same thing - that he reported the leaflet as a hoax, and that a number of people complained.
As for the scheme itself, I suggest you look at the scheme website. If you have a symptom that you believe is associated with a vaccination, medicine or medical device, you are free to report it. That can then be investigated, and the possible relationship between symptom and treatment checked out. That may prove an association, or it may purely be coincidence - as @bspahh quoted, of 1645 deaths reported after Covid vaccination in the 9 months from 9 December 2020 to 8 September 2021, 9 were linked to the vaccine.
The yellow card scheme has been around for decades. Here is a 2017 version of the real paper form:
https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/_ass...ofessional-Yellow-Card-form-February-2017.pdf
As I pointed out a week or so ago, it is somewht interesting that around *25%* of all reports to the yellow card scheme about any medicine or vaccine *ever* - in the over 50 years the scheme has been in operation - are about Covid vaccines in the past year. Of course some will be coincidence, yes, but that would apply to all reports made to the yellow card scheme over the last 50-odd years.
RailExplorer
Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 186
Are you trying to say the Chinese vaccine is useless even though in my mother-in-law's country they are happy with just a double dose of said vaccine, whereas over here we are now introducing dose 4 of the Pfizer vaccine. My mother-in-law is a doctor so is pretty clued up.
And your second point is pointless when I've already had COVID.
I am saying that there are at least serious questions to be asked when an apparently well vaccinated country like China is still applying draconian policies rather than rely upon the vaccine that it has developed. As for your mother in law’s country, I don’t know what is driving vaccination policy there, and hence why it may be following the policy that it is following. I suspect, though, that the decision may be constrained by a combination of cost, availability and restrictions imposed by the Chinese government on how it is used by customers.
I also acknowledge that you have had Covid, but made the comment I did because the observation applies to those who have the choice of balancing the risk of infection against vaccination as a way of acquiring immunity.
Interesting, but not surprising. Until recently, relatively few people knew the yellow card scheme existed. If you went to your GP with what looked like it might be an adverse reaction, they would submit a report. Now, many more people have heard of the scheme, and that they can submit reports direct. Combine standard hypochondria with Covid concerns and a surge in reports was probably entirely predictable.
What I am not sure about is whether the scheme was always open for patients to submit reports direct, without going via a medical practitioner. If I remember a training course I went on many years ago correctly, it was introduced in the aftermath of thalidomide.
Taking those statistics at face value, I’m less surprised - especially given the way that some are misrepresenting what the scheme is*. The scale and publicity associated with this vaccination programme will be driving awareness of both symptoms and reporting mechanisms.
* - American anti-vaxxers have apparently mounted concerted campaigns of reporting in VAERS (the US equivalent) to try to create a narrative of vaccine harm, especially of childhood vaccination causing autism. I would be surprised to find that nothing of the sort has happened with Covid.
RailExplorer
Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 186
China does what China does. Let's not look too much into China. They have a zero covid policy and would quite happily throw you in jail for life if you speak negatively of the government. Have you seen what the Chinese wear when they catch a flight? - full on white spacesuits (not saying they all do but the twice I've flown in the last 18 months, the entire flight to China departing from the gate next door to mine was dressed like this).
We in the UK still have Draconian powers too, even though we are on vaccine dose 3 / 4. We clearly have no trust in the vaccines at all. If we did, we wouldn't need boosters every 3 months. And we seem to have ditched our homegrown vaccine - AZ.
Aah but that wasn’t what the media reported though was it? That’s the point I’m making and good old classic blow something out of proportion, as I say if that was RT that pulled this stunt that be classed as misinformation and slapped but because it’s ITV/GMB nothing yet - so again why should I trust anything anyone says regardless be ITV or RT? Short answer all have an agenda
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So what we see then really was someone like Dr Hilary pulling a stunt for shock value?
I’m aware of the scheme as at every jab I have had I been redirected to make an issue if there is any.
It’s precisely what the press reported. He called the flyers a hoax, and they reported that he called those flyers a hoax.
It was a stunt, but a perfectly legitimate one. There’d be no issue with an RT doing the same if they’d reported the same; just like he or RT would deserve criticism if they’d claimed the flyers were genuine.
Yes there would, if RT pulled this you would have said this be misinformation correct? You told me at one point to check my sources - I am just trying to prove a point if you look at another way ITV pull it around of applause RT to do it be slapped. It was indeed a stunt it may have been a genuine one but on the other it has caused complaints - maybe the mainstream media need to make things alot clearer to its audience all I see just now is giving a donkey a carrot scenario but like I say if any of the mainstream do wrong nothing happens but anyone else its a slap.
Who knew though on the other that mainstream media pull stunts just for figures etc but claim that peoples lives matter - peoples live don't matter never have and never will, the media are just as bad as the politicians in all this but I see we are not holding the media to account yet on this - I wonder when this will happen? Soon or possibly never?
Saying that I would rather trust this site as an example: https://fullfact.org/online/MHRA-yellow-card-poster/ (but I guess i'll probably be told this isn't a reasonable source one way or another shan't I?)
Last edited:
Full fact say exactly the same as both me and the programme - this flyer was false, not a true representation of the the Yellow Card scheme, and not issued by the Yellow Card scheme. GMB were entirely justified in highlighting the existence of these hoax flyers, as would any other channel have been - including RT.
That it has provoked complaints is not a measure of whether it was or was not legitimate, but of the reaction it has provoked. In this case, my suspicion is that the complaints are from those who support the hoax, and who are trying to use weight of numbers to put pressure on GMB, but as I haven’t seen the complaints, I can’t be sure.
I stand by my view that this was responsible journalism, done in a tabloid way by a tabloid programme. It was factually correct and served a legitimate public interest.
You say that you want the media to be responsible, yet you then complain about them when they are responsible. That confuses me.
- Status