Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[takno]

Me too, might not fly...drive over and fill arm up with vaccine...... and then fill up with duty free on the way back.....double worthwhile trip !

You couldn't fill a carrier bag with the amount of duty-free you're allowed to bring back now.

 

[LAX54]

You couldn't fill a carrier bag with the amount of duty-free you're allowed to bring back now.

42 litres beer, 18 litres wine plus 4 litres spirits or 9 lires fortified wine. and £390 other goods.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

42 litres beer, 18 litres wine plus 4 litres spirits or 9 lires fortified wine. and £390 other goods.

And the tobacco! 200 fags, 50 cigars etc

 

[LAX54]

And the tobacco! 200 fags, 50 cigars etc

Whilst going off topic a bit...P&O currently pre booking day trips, free upgrade to flexi and a £20 voucher to spend in the duty free shop on board

 

[MikeWM]

It's looking increasingly like everyone will be bullied into having it, whether they want it or not. The news in the past few days that what's effectively a vaccine passport is being added to the NHS app makes that pretty clear.

I do not intend to have it if at all possible. Yes, I'm sure I will be treated like I am filthy scum and as an enemy of society, but I've had that with masks since last summer so getting used to it now. If the government wants to make people feel that they are not welcome in society it shouldn't surprised if they then become increasingly opposed to doing what society wants.

I entirely agree with all this. I got a text (no doubt the first of many) to invite me to book an appointment last Friday evening, but I certainly won't be doing so, at least not any time soon.

I had an interesting conversation with my mother (in her mid-60s) over the weekend and she feels exactly the same as me - she won't be having it any time soon either. She was deeply unimpressed and concerned by the apparent 'coersion' that is now going on - in particular the astonishing intervention from the Queen last week where she called people 'selfish'.

 

[greyman42]

I had an interesting conversation with my mother (in her mid-60s) over the weekend and she feels exactly the same as me - she won't be having it any time soon either. She was deeply unimpressed and concerned by the apparent 'coersion' that is now going on - in particular the astonishing intervention from the Queen last week where she called people 'selfish'.

The Queen never said any such thing.

 

[Darandio]

The Queen never said any such thing.

"think about other people rather than themselves"

Is pretty much the same, is it not?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I do not intend to have it if at all possible.

but I certainly won't be doing so, at least not any time soon.

I had an interesting conversation with my mother (in her mid-60s) over the weekend and she feels exactly the same as me - she won't be having it any time soon either.

Can I ask you both why?

Not having it seems like a pretty silly thing to do, especially if its just some kind of protest. It is basically just shooting yourself in the foot. Especially for anyone who is more at risk from getting seriously ill from COVID.

This isn't like masks where you could argue about the benefit, and any benefit would be for other people and not you.
The numbers are pretty clear that the various vaccines massively reduces the chance of getting seriously ill and worse because of COVID-19, and indeed other research has shown they also are pretty effective at minimising the spread.
So unless you are one of the "they are putting microchips / dead babies / whatever else in you as part of the vaccine" groups, I really don't get why you wouldn't get it (assuming there isn't a medical reason why you can't have it - in which case that is an argument for as many other people as possible to get it!). If nothing else to protect yourself (sure it may not be a deadly illness to 99% of people, but neither is flu and that doesn't stop many people getting the flu jab each year - I do as my work pays for it for example).

 

[ainsworth74]

in particular the astonishing intervention from the Queen last week where she called people 'selfish'

I was quite pleased with her intervention personally. Hopefully it'll help get some more people out and vaccinated. I have very little time for those who, other than by reason of disability, allergy or similar, won't get vaccinated (whether that be for Covid or in general for other recommended vaccines).

 

[TPO]

Generally not one to agree with the "just be thankful with what you have" attitude - there is a stark contrast between the experience of those who were put on furlough, or were able to retreat to their home office, vs. those working in supermarkets, transport, policing etc. who have been put at a high risk of getting COVID. It's exposed some sharp divides between the middle-classes who work in offices and those who are "essential workers" and I don't think the obviousness of those divides is going to disappear. We were sold this lockdown on the basis that "COVID is deadly to everyone, of all ages, and all health conditions" but were then arbitrarily split into "essential workers" and not, with a stark benefit to being on the non-essential side.

I think vaccination for certain groups working with the public would make sense if there wasn't an obvious logistical disadvantage to trying to do so - I get the feeling the issue is primarily that it's very hard to define an essential worker, who is and isn't one and to try and invite people for vaccinations on that basis. Healthcare workers are an easy thing to define, but what happens when you start trying to decide who works in essential retail, transport, distribution, etc. I definitely think 50+ / people with underlying health conditions makes sense, but the risk to under 50s from COVID is low anyway and therefore priority ordering that group would make sense if it was reasonable to do so.

I do agree about this whole idea of "spreaders" and treating everyone like they're a risk that constantly has to prove they aren't. Nobody should be made to feel guilty about the fact they've picked up a virus and are carrying about without knowing. Yet we're constantly warned about how we could be asymptomatic and at risk of killing someone, thus we should be tested constantly to prove we aren't.

Those WFH/furloughed aside, there's still a massive difference though in being in a front line role where you have paid time off to self-isolate and a decent wage coming in, and being in a front-line role on minimum wage and if you don't work you don't eat. That's the biggest divide actually- between those salaried employees with decent T&C and others.

There's also a difference between the "just be thankful" vs recognising that others are in a more difficult position than onesself so may have a higher priority.

TPO

 

[MikeWM]

Can I ask you both why?

In my case, mostly because we can't yet know what the potential medium or long-term effects may be. Perhaps there will be none (hence why I said 'any time soon') but we shall have to wait for that, it isn't something that can just be accelerated in a lab.

Taking any medical treatment carries risk. I believe you have to do an analysis of whether on balance something is right for you to do, or not. It is rather difficult to do so on such incomplete information. But my risk from the disease is fairly small, and the risk from vaccination unknown, so for me the decision - if left up to me - is clear.

With existing vaccines the risks can at least be known, and a sensible analysis undertaken. I wrote about this in a post here back in July, and looking back that all still applies.

Not having it seems like a pretty silly thing to do, especially if its just some kind of protest.

It isn't why I'm doing it (yet), but I think it would be an extremely valid protest. Forced or coerced medical treatment on the healthy was expressly prohibited after the second world war, by people who saw first-hand what horrors going down that road can unleash. Some lessons from history are well worth learning.

It is basically just shooting yourself in the foot. Especially for anyone who is more at risk from getting seriously ill from COVID.

Perhaps so, but that should be my choice to make.

 

[DB]

Can I ask you both why?

I am in a low risk group and I really don't see the need for it - I wouldn't get (or be offered) a flu vaccine - and flu is less age-specific so probably actually poses more of a risk than Covid.

I am also not a great fan of the medical profession generally due to previous experiences, and would need a very strong reason before I would consider even going to see the GP.

 

[Bantamzen]

I was quite pleased with her intervention personally. Hopefully it'll help get some more people out and vaccinated. I have very little time for those who, other than by reason of disability, allergy or similar, won't get vaccinated (whether that be for Covid or in general for other recommended vaccines).

I don't agree, the vaccine is voluntary and must stay as such. Any form of coercion, guilting or calling out of people who choose not to take up the offer is unacceptable in my eyes. Those people most at risk have either been vaccinated, or have been offered it. For the rest of the population it should always be a choice, not a duty. Vaccinations, indeed any medical interventions are a personal choice, not something that should be mandated by the government. We do not want to go down that rabbit hole.

 

[takno]

I was quite pleased with her intervention personally. Hopefully it'll help get some more people out and vaccinated. I have very little time for those who, other than by reason of disability, allergy or similar, won't get vaccinated (whether that be for Covid or in general for other recommended vaccines).

I'm far more critical of people who won't get other vaccines for their children than I am of the under 40s or healthy under-60s not wanting to take a Covid vaccine. There really isn't a huge amount of risk to them, they aren't particularly likely to cause the NHS to struggle, and the vaccine doesn't prevent infection well enough for arguments about herd immunity to apply.

Realistically my only reason for wanting those people to take a vaccine, or for me to take it myself, is because until we've hit a high level of uptake I don't think the government is going to let us out. In many ways I'm past caring about that, but it's fairly clearly coercion, and frankly without very much in the way of good reasons.

 

[35B]

In my case, mostly because we can't yet know what the potential medium or long-term effects may be. Perhaps there will be none (hence why I said 'any time soon') but we shall have to wait for that, it isn't something that can just be accelerated in a lab.

Taking any medical treatment carries risk. I believe you have to do an analysis of whether on balance something is right for you to do, or not. It is rather difficult to do so on such incomplete information. But my risk from the disease is fairly small, and the risk from vaccination unknown, so for me the decision - if left up to me - is clear.

With existing vaccines the risks can at least be known, and a sensible analysis undertaken. I wrote about this in a post here back in July, and looking back that all still applies.



It isn't why I'm doing it (yet), but I think it would be an extremely valid protest. Forced or coerced medical treatment on the healthy was expressly prohibited after the second world war, by people who saw first-hand what horrors going down that road can unleash. Some lessons from history are well worth learning.



Perhaps so, but that should be my choice to make.

I suggest that you look more widely; all of the major arguments you've raised on vaccine safety have been discussed at length and either dismissed (e.g. ingredients), or shown as disproportionately concerning (testing). As for the source of some material in vaccines, the Roman Catholic church explicitly supports the use of vaccines despite the role of foetal cells in some stem lines.

I am also low risk (mid 40s, reasonable health, etc.), but regard the risk of the vaccine based on what is published as infinitesimally low, while the benefit is significantly higher even at my risk level even if I only consider my personal risk - a colleague who had Covid recently had an experience with Covid that was plenty bad enough that I'd be glad to be vaccinated against it, even if not life saving.

I am in a low risk group and I really don't see the need for it - I wouldn't get (or be offered) a flu vaccine - and flu is less age-specific so probably actually poses more of a risk than Covid.

I am also not a great fan of the medical profession generally due to previous experiences, and would need a very strong reason before I would consider even going to see the GP.

With respect, that position sounds rather more contrarian than considered, though my wife's experience of "white coat syndrome" means that I'd never under-estimate the role of distrust of doctors.

I don't agree, the vaccine is voluntary and must stay as such. Any form of coercion, guilting or calling out of people who choose not to take up the offer is unacceptable in my eyes. Those people most at risk have either been vaccinated, or have been offered it. For the rest of the population it should always be a choice, not a duty. Vaccinations, indeed any medical interventions are a personal choice, not something that should be mandated by the government. We do not want to go down that rabbit hole.

I agree that coercion is wrong, but disagree with the emphasis on specifically personal choice. The benefits of vaccination goes to the population as a whole, not just the individual, and therefore the role of a sense of duty is entirely legitimate. That means that I don't have a problem with the idea that there may be proportionate constraints on an individual if they refuse vaccination - California, for example, requires a medical exemption certificate for a child to be able to attend a school if unvaccinated, following a measles outbreak a few years ago. That means I don't have a problem in principle with vaccine passports, though am open to persuasion on the practicalities.

 

[greyman42]

Is pretty much the same, is it not?

My point was that she never used the word "selfish".

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree that coercion is wrong, but disagree with the emphasis on specifically personal choice. The benefits of vaccination goes to the population as a whole, not just the individual, and therefore the role of a sense of duty is entirely legitimate. That means that I don't have a problem with the idea that there may be proportionate constraints on an individual if they refuse vaccination - California, for example, requires a medical exemption certificate for a child to be able to attend a school if unvaccinated, following a measles outbreak a few years ago. That means I don't have a problem in principle with vaccine passports, though am open to persuasion on the practicalities.

How does it? Once the vulnerable have been protected, which they largely have, the risk to the rest of the population is very, very small. All this "for the greater good" is just a form of virtue signalling. In reality the NHS is going to be spending hundreds of millions, maybe more vaccinating people who don't and may never need it. Money that could be purposed into greater long term capacity.

 

[DB]

With respect, that position sounds rather more contrarian than considered, though my wife's experience of "white coat syndrome" means that I'd never under-estimate the role of distrust of doctors.

You can regard it however you like. Fact remains that I don't want the vaccine, and having been treated as a pariah by society in general over the mask issue since last summer means that I now am not willing to just go along with expectations - I've been treated as an enemy of society so I don't feel any obligation to do what society wants.

I agree that coercion is wrong, but disagree with the emphasis on specifically personal choice. The benefits of vaccination goes to the population as a whole, not just the individual, and therefore the role of a sense of duty is entirely legitimate. That means that I don't have a problem with the idea that there may be proportionate constraints on an individual if they refuse vaccination - California, for example, requires a medical exemption certificate for a child to be able to attend a school if unvaccinated, following a measles outbreak a few years ago. That means I don't have a problem in principle with vaccine passports, though am open to persuasion on the practicalities.

Something like measles presents a risk to everyone (and is very infectious). Covid does not and the emphasis should be on offering the vaccine to those particularly at risk from it - as indeed does happen with flu (and that is actually less age specific in who it affects most badly).

 

[MikeWM]

I was quite pleased with her intervention personally. Hopefully it'll help get some more people out and vaccinated. I have very little time for those who, other than by reason of disability, allergy or similar, won't get vaccinated (whether that be for Covid or in general for other recommended vaccines).

Out of interest, do you think the same about people who don't give blood regularly - something that, unlike vaccines, is totally zero risk?

Would you support the Queen telling us to do so?

Do you think people should be *required* to do so?

 

[yorkie]

Interesting that in the UK data is following such a similar pattern to Isreal!

After the first 9 or so days there is actually an increase in people testing positive, but this is believed to be a behavioural/psycological thing as people mistakenly think the vaccine has an immediate effect and have a false sense of confidence.

After 14 days or so immunity starts to build up, after 21 days it is strong and usually reaching a maximum after around 34 days and then plateauing.

There is a good update video here:

Early effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination with BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine and ChAdOx1 adenovirus vector vaccine on symptomatic disease, hospitalisations and mortality in older adults in the UK: a test negative case control study https://khub.net/documents/135939561/... Objectives Real-world effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine and … Astrazeneca ChAdOx1 vaccine against…. Confirmed COVID-19, hospitalisations and deaths To estimate effectiveness on the UK variant of concern. Setting Community COVID-19 PCR testing in England 8th December 2020 and 19th February 2021 All adults in England aged 70 years and older (over 7.5 million) All symptomatic COVID-19 testing in the community in over 70s Test negative case control design 174,731 PCR tests 156,930 of these (89.8%) linked to vaccination data 44,590 (28.4%) were positive tests 112,340 (71.6%) were negative Interventions One and two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine One dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine Main outcome measures Symptomatic PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection Hospitalisations and deaths with COVID-19. Symptomatic disease infection risk Results Individuals aged more than 80 years vaccinated with Pfizer BNT162b2 Higher odds of testing positive in the first 9 days after vaccination (odds ratio up to 1.48) Vaccine effects were noted from 10-13 days after vaccination Reaching an effectiveness of 70% from 28-34 days, then plateauing From 14 days after the second dose, vaccine effectiveness was 89% (Fewer than 10 over 80 sent to ITU every day in UK) Individuals aged more than70 years Pfizer BNT162b2 Vaccine effectiveness reached 61% from 28-34 days then plateaued AZ ChAdOx1 Vaccine effects, were seen from 14-20 days Reaching an effectiveness of 60% from 28-34 days Further increasing to 73% from day 35 onwards Risk of emergency hospitalisation and death results One dose of BNT162b2 Additional 43% lower risk of emergency hospitalisation Additional 51% lower risk of death One dose of ChAdOx1 Additional 37% lower risk of emergency hospitalisation Insufficient follow-up to assess the effect of ChAdOx1 on mortality Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease Single dose of either vaccine is approximately 80% effective at preventing hospitalisation Single dose of BNT162b2 is 85% effective at preventing death Single dose of ChAdOx1 unknown protective effect against death Conclusion Significant reduction in symptomatic SARS-CoV2 positive cases in older adults Even greater protection against severe disease Both vaccines show similar effects Protection was maintained for more than 6 weeks A second dose of BNT162b2 provides further protection against symptomatic disease Second doses of ChAdOx1 have not yet been rolled out in England There is a clear effect of the vaccines against the UK variant of concern Professor Jonathan Van-Tam Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation not immunologically plausible the vaccine would work in younger age groups and not older ones. Dr Mary Ramsay, PHE's head of immunisation, said it could. If anything we would expect it to be a stronger protection from the vaccine Lower down in the age range is that people's chances of being hospitalised and dying are much lower France Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, can be given to people with underlying health conditions in the 65-74 age group 1.1m doses in country Germany Still not giving the AstraZeneca to the over-65s Now under discussion Large stocks of that vaccine waiting to be used (Belgium, Poland, Italy, Sweden) Professor Andrew Pollard, Oxford Vaccine group Findings were stunning 5,000 people dying every day in Europe, important to increase confidence in vaccines disappointing in some senses really high levels of protection support their decision making Oxford vaccine distributed to low-income countries, Covax scheme

Do you think people should be *required* to do so?

I doubt anyone here believes in forced vaccination, but it is going to become more and more inconvenient to refuse it, as time goes on.

I am not going to get into the specific argument about whether people should or should not get it other than to say that I will get the vaccine as soon as I can, for the following reasons:

1) I meet a lot of people, I do a lot of travelling, I work in an environment where I will clearly be exposed to viruses a lot (edit: and have the potential to pass on any viruses to others!)
2) I want the restrictions to be removed as soon as possible
3) I have listened to many experts including virologists and vaccine experts and am assured they are safe
4) although the chances of this virus having an ill effect on me is absolutely miniscule, I can see the greater good that is gained by having the vaccine and massively reducing the possibility of passing the virus on
5) I am going to want to travel abroad and it will likely be necessary for that
6) I do not ever want to have to self-isolate! I have avoided it so far and intend to keep it that way. I am an active person
7) I can aim to book the vaccine at a time when I am not doing much in the couple of days after, so if I feel a bit rough it won't matter. In contrast, if I got infected myself, while there is a good chance I will be asymptomatic, there is also a reasonable chance I may feel quite ill for a few days which would stop me doing things like playing football etc, even if isolation was no longer a 'thing' by that stage

Is that enough reasons?!

But if others take a different view, I would respect that, though I might try to convince them I do not think anyone should be forced.

 

[MikeWM]

I suggest that you look more widely; all of the major arguments you've raised on vaccine safety have been discussed at length and either dismissed (e.g. ingredients), or shown as disproportionately concerning (testing).

I don't see how you can avoid the fact it is too early to tell what will happen over time, as we haven't had that time yet. Given the number of people having these vaccines we have to hope nothing at all and these are the safest vaccines ever made, but only time will tell.

Narcolepsy caused by the swine flu vaccine was a real issue, for example. Only in about 1 in 55,000 people - so a small minority - but in retrospect were people better off risking catching swine flu, or taking that small but serious risk of life-changing side-effects? That needs to be up to the individual to decide.

As for the source of some material in vaccines, the Roman Catholic church explicitly supports the use of vaccines despite the role of foetal cells in some stem lines.

And to be blunt, having been raised Catholic and being very familiar with Catholic theology and apologetics (though for many years no longer a practicing Catholic, and in disagreement with the Church position on many other matters), their reasoning on this matter given the otherwise very hardline position they have on abortion is, in my opinion, utter nonsense and very poorly argued.

I am also low risk (mid 40s, reasonable health, etc.), but regard the risk of the vaccine based on what is published as infinitesimally low,

What exactly has been published on the medium or long-term potential risks? Zero, since that haven't been in existence for long enough yet.

while the benefit is significantly higher even at my risk level even if I only consider my personal risk - a colleague who had Covid recently had an experience with Covid that was plenty bad enough that I'd be glad to be vaccinated against it, even if not life saving.

Which is fine. If you believe you've analysed the situation as best you can at this point, and decided on balance you want to have it, obviously you should, that's your business.

 

[LowLevel]

Interesting that in the UK data is following such a similar pattern to Isreal!

After the first 9 or so days there is actually an increase in people testing positive, but this is believed to be a behavioural/psycological thing as people mistakenly think the vaccine has an immediate effect and have a false sense of confidence.

After 14 days or so immunity starts to build up, after 21 days it is strong and usually reaching a maximum after around 34 days and then plateauing.

There is a good update video here:

I doubt anyone here believes in forced vaccination, but it is going to become more and more inconvenient to refuse it, as time goes on.

I am not going to get into the specific argument about whether people should or should not get it other than to say that I will get the vaccine as soon as I can, for the following reasons:

1) I meet a lot of people, I do a lot of travelling, I work in an environment where I will clearly be exposed to viruses a lot
2) I want the restrictions to be removed as soon as possible
3) I have listened to many experts including virologists and vaccine experts and am assured they are safe
4) although the chances of this virus having an ill effect on me is absolutely miniscule, I can see the greater good that is gained by having the vaccine and massively reducing the possibility of passing the virus on
5) I am going to want to travel abroad and it will likely be necessary for that
6) I do not ever want to have to self-isolate! I have avoided it so far and intend to keep it that way. I am an active person
7) I can aim to book the vaccine at a time when I am not doing much in the couple of days after, so if I feel a bit rough it won't matter. In contrast, if I got infected myself, while there is a good chance I will be asymptomatic, there is also a reasonable chance I may feel quite ill for a few days which would stop me doing things like playing football etc, even if isolation was no longer a 'thing' by that stage

Is that enough reasons?!

But if others take a different view, I would respect that, though I might try to convince them I do not think anyone should be forced.

I think your post is pretty much spot on.

 

[packermac]

In my case, mostly because we can't yet know what the potential medium or long-term effects may be. Perhaps there will be none (hence why I said 'any time soon') but we shall have to wait for that, it isn't something that can just be accelerated in a lab.

Taking any medical treatment carries risk. I believe you have to do an analysis of whether on balance something is right for you to do, or not. It is rather difficult to do so on such incomplete information. But my risk from the disease is fairly small, and the risk from vaccination unknown, so for me the decision - if left up to me - is clear.

With existing vaccines the risks can at least be known, and a sensible analysis undertaken. I wrote about this in a post here back in July, and looking back that all still applies.



It isn't why I'm doing it (yet), but I think it would be an extremely valid protest. Forced or coerced medical treatment on the healthy was expressly prohibited after the second world war, by people who saw first-hand what horrors going down that road can unleash. Some lessons from history are well worth learning.



Perhaps so, but that should be my choice to make.

So how long would you wait for this (or any other new medical treatment) under medium and long term effects. 5 years? 10 years?

I also fail to see how receiving a text from your GP and also maybe a letter from the NHS is any from of coercion to be vaccinated. It is an offer to attend, your choice. As long as you are aware it is highly likely to impact on your ability to travel overseas if you want to then fine wait for whatever period you want.

 

[DB]

I also fail to see how receiving a text from your GP and also maybe a letter from the NHS is any from of coercion to be vaccinated. It is an offer to attend, your choice. As long as you are aware it is highly likely to impact on your ability to travel overseas if you want to then fine wait for whatever period you want.

That's not coercion, but the signs are that coercion will be used to try to force people in due course - the suggestion of vaccine passports being the most obvious one.

 

[MikeWM]

So how long would you wait for this (or any other new medical treatment) under medium and long term effects. 5 years? 10 years?

Probably depends on the severity of the disease to some degree. If airborne ebola was going around, I wouldn't wait at all, for example. But for this not-particularly-remarkable disease, I'd like to see what happens over the next couple of winters first, the interaction with flu, and whether there is a possibility of ADE in some people.

I also fail to see how receiving a text from your GP and also maybe a letter from the NHS is any from of coercion to be vaccinated. It is an offer to attend, your choice.

It is not of course - that's not the coercion I'm talking about. I get the same every year for the flu vaccine.

The difference is that it has never been suggested I may not be able to go and buy a loaf of bread from Tesco if I don't have the flu vaccine.

As long as you are aware it is highly likely to impact on your ability to travel overseas if you want to then fine wait for whatever period you want.

Indeed. I have (reluctantly) resigned myself to the likelihood of being stuck in the UK for the near future at least. I can have no effect on the decisions of other countries, and our scaremongering over 'variants' has marked the UK out as a particular pariah state in the eyes of the world.

 

[yorkie]

That's not coercion, but the signs are that coercion will be used to try to force people in due course - the suggestion of vaccine passports being the most obvious one.

Let's discuss that here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nent-restrictions.213501/page-12#post-5015471

 

[ainsworth74]

Out of interest, do you think the same about people who don't give blood regularly - something that, unlike vaccines, is totally zero risk?

Would you support the Queen telling us to do so?

Do you think people should be *required* to do so?

I absolutely think that anyone who can give blood should give blood. I also would have absolutely no problem with the Queen encouraging people to donate blood. But I would absolutely oppose anyone being required to do so just as I would oppose anyone being required to be vaccinated for this or any other disease.

 

[35B]

I don't see how you can avoid the fact it is too early to tell what will happen over time, as we haven't had that time yet. Given the number of people having these vaccines we have to hope nothing at all and these are the safest vaccines ever made, but only time will tell.

Narcolepsy caused by the swine flu vaccine was a real issue, for example. Only in about 1 in 55,000 people - so a small minority - but in retrospect were people better off risking catching swine flu, or taking that small but serious risk of life-changing side-effects? That needs to be up to the individual to decide.



And to be blunt, having been raised Catholic and being very familiar with Catholic theology and apologetics (though for many years no longer a practicing Catholic, and in disagreement with the Church position on many other matters), their reasoning on this matter given the otherwise very hardline position they have on abortion is, in my opinion, utter nonsense and very poorly argued.



What exactly has been published on the medium or long-term potential risks? Zero, since that haven't been in existence for long enough yet.



Which is fine. If you believe you've analysed the situation as best you can at this point, and decided on balance you want to have it, obviously you should, that's your business.

Thank you for your answer, and I fully appreciate that your ethical view is your own, and you are entitled to it.

What puzzles me is your view about vaccine safety over time. I wasn't aware of the Swine Flu vaccine related narcolepsy, but some quick googling suggests that incidents arose in a narrow group of the population within a short window of vaccination. That fits with my understanding of how vaccination works to provoke an immune response, and that where vaccination has side effects, they occur relatively quickly. If I contrast that with medicines, where side effects may be due to either the dose when it is taken or to a build up of dosage over time, I'm much more relaxed about vaccine on a risk basis.

I also regard my vaccination as being both a private good (it helps protect me) and a public good by helping protect others. Therefore, my taking the vaccine once the offer reaches me, if only because it reduces the severity of disease (and therefore my production of virus), helps protect others. While I accept it's less transmissible, that transmissibility is far from zero, as we've seen in the last year.

You can regard it however you like. Fact remains that I don't want the vaccine, and having been treated as a pariah by society in general over the mask issue since last summer means that I now am not willing to just go along with expectations - I've been treated as an enemy of society so I don't feel any obligation to do what society wants.

Something like measles presents a risk to everyone (and is very infectious). Covid does not and the emphasis should be on offering the vaccine to those particularly at risk from it - as indeed does happen with flu (and that is actually less age specific in who it affects most badly).

I find that if I rub along with society, it tends to treat me better too. More generally, while I agree that the focus of vaccination needs to be on those at greatest risk, the value of vaccination lies in it's enhancement of herd immunity - which protects us all.

That's not coercion, but the signs are that coercion will be used to try to force people in due course - the suggestion of vaccine passports being the most obvious one.

Isn't a society entitled to take a society-wide view, rather than just being the sum of individual decisions? Social pressure is a neutral force; it is how it is directed that may be good or bad.

 

[MikeWM]

I absolutely think that anyone who can give blood should give blood.

But apparently only 4% of people regularly do give blood (source : here). Do you have 'very little time' for all the other healthy people who choose not to?

(For what it is worth, I would like to do so, but I'm not allowed to as I had transfusions in hospital 15+ years ago - which seems a bit silly, but that's the rules).

I also would have absolutely no problem with the Queen encouraging people to donate blood.

I wouldn't object if eg. she was patron of a charity that supported blood donation. I would very much have an issue with her implying those who do not do so are being selfish - part of the role is that she is meant to be above politics. (Part of the reason Charles may prove to be rather problematic, once we get to that point).

But I would absolutely oppose anyone being required to do so just as I would oppose anyone being required to be vaccinated for this or any other disease.

Good, I would hope most would agree on that.

 

[Bikeman78]

I am in a low risk group and I really don't see the need for it - I wouldn't get (or be offered) a flu vaccine - and flu is less age-specific so probably actually poses more of a risk than Covid.

Who is eligible for the flu vaccine? It's never occurred to me to try and have it. I had flu at school and possibly once since.