Jump to content

The Vaccine


shull
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

MMR was not initially a success, it took years of tweaking before it was seen as a success in the late 60's. 

And it overshadows the fact that during the 1940s and 1950s, researchers chasing vaccines for polio and measles made incremental breakthroughs in lab techniques that ultimately made swift development of the 1960s Mumpsvax possible.

Absolutely, given the time frame involved it would be naive to expect the vaccine to be working perfectly. My issue is with governments not being honest with the people about its limitations and going full on snake oil salesman mode. 

Imagine NHS England promoting the booster as being life saving. You will die if you don't get the booster!!! FFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


28 minutes ago, Hendo said:

The difference between previous vaccinations and this one is that other vaccinations were much more effective.

The MMR has a 99% success rate of stopping infections of measles and rubella, and 88% of stopping infections of mumps. And you only need to get it once, not every three months, fancy that.

And yet…

 

…despite MMR being so effective there was a huge campaign to diss MMR, scare stories to deincentivise parents from having it given to their children… and so, in due course, measles and chickenpox again started to ravage societies.

Adult if norance caused innocent children to die.

Fancy that!?

 

Tell you what…returning to my analogy above….  
Just refuse to take any more jags and trust to your luck to never stumble in front of an oncoming train.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hendo said:

Absolutely, given the time frame involved it would be naive to expect the vaccine to be working perfectly. My issue is with governments not being honest with the people about its limitations and going full on snake oil salesman mode. 

Imagine NHS England promoting the booster as being life saving. You will die if you don't get the booster!!! FFS.

I have always been aware that all vaccinations have their limitations, as explained in my post above.  NHS has always been open and honest about that.  
There is no denying that ANY of the jags does render the impact of the virus to be less catastrophic.  So,  aye, it IS a lifesaver.

And the likelihood of death IS increased if you refuse jag mitigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Just out of interest, given the effectiveness of the vaccine wanes over time, and predictions are that there could be further booster doses in the future, would those who have already been boosted continue to get this if advised to do so? Is there a cut off where you would say that's enough?
I am double vaccinated, and was one of the first to get done as I work in health and social care. Second dose was in early May. However, I have not got the booster, mainly because the concept of "this didn't work very well, please take some more and it'll work better this time" seemed strange to me. I also felt it unfair on those in other parts of the world who hadn't received any vaccines yet, and the WHO appear to agree with me and think mass booster programmes are a mistake and boosters should only be given to those clinically vulnerable.
I know there is a precedent - the flu jab is given every year - but only to those vulnerable, not to everyone. However, given the UK government has bought 7 doses per person in this country, I suspect regular mass booster programmes is the way they'll go. This investment will need protected. I see even on the NHS England website they are urging people to get their "life saving booster jab" - quite the claim.
So, how many will people stop at? 3? 4? 5? Or will you keep going until you are a human pin cushion? 


Let me get this right, I'm a pin cushion cause I give blood 3 or 4 times a year. Can I ask for my blood not to be used on folk with such an attitude or thoughts of others, especially from someone supposedly to be in the health and social care sector.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Hendo said:

Absolutely, given the time frame involved it would be naive to expect the vaccine to be working perfectly. My issue is with governments not being honest with the people about its limitations and going full on snake oil salesman mode. 

Imagine NHS England promoting the booster as being life saving. You will die if you don't get the booster!!! FFS.

Government and scientists have been upfront about the effectivness and limitation of the vaccine all through the pandemic. Its always been obvious to me that it had limitations and what they were and it had been explained ?

Also I don't have a problem if it was full on snake oil salesman, which I don't believe it was because I think anyone who refused the vaccine is a grade one moron.

Nobody has said at government level or scientific level you will die if don't get the booster. What they have said is that your chances are diminished.

Might help for you to be less cynical and get your facts right. Quite pathetic to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cookie Monster said:


 

 


Let me get this right, I'm a pin cushion cause I give blood 3 or 4 times a year. Can I ask for my blood not to be used on folk with such an attitude or thoughts of others, especially from someone supposedly to be in the health and social care sector. emoji848.png

 

And you are happy to take repeated boosters when there is massive vaccine inequality across the world? How very capitalist of you. I don't think I'm the one not displaying a social conscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Absolutely, given the time frame involved it would be naive to expect the vaccine to be working perfectly. My issue is with governments not being honest with the people about its limitations and going full on snake oil salesman mode. 
Imagine NHS England promoting the booster as being life saving. You will die if you don't get the booster!!! FFS.


You've lost the plot now, where has anyone said it is 100%. They've explained the numbers regarding the efficiency of it and the waning of it over time.

Can you show us this NHS England promotion claiming you WILL die if you don't get the booster.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, lenziebud said:

Government and scientists have been upfront about the effectivness and limitation of the vaccine all through the pandemic. Its always been obvious to me that it had limitations and what they were and it had been explained ?

Also I don't have a problem if it was full on snake oil salesman, which I don't believe it was because I think anyone who refused the vaccine is a grade one moron.

Nobody has said at government level or scientific level you will die if don't get the booster. What they have said is that your chances are diminished.

Might help for you to be less cynical and get your facts right. Quite pathetic to be honest.

I agree that people should get the vaccine - the evidence is that it will reduce the risk of serious illness. My issue is with the mass booster programme, which Dr Sarah Gilbert, who was involved in manufacturing one of the vaccines, said was unnecessary and boosters should only be given to the clinically vulnerable, a view supported by the WHO, who have said the pandemic would not end while vaccine inequality is at its current level, and vaccines should be distributed fairly with boosters only for those clinically vulnerable and not until 2022. However, you need to search for these views as they are not covered widely on MSM. Instead, we have hysterical ad campaigns, NHS England claiming the booster is life saving, the Health Secretary in Scotland saying it is your civic duty to get boosted, and those who aren't, as Cookie monsters post above proves, being treated as some sort of irresponsible moron willing to put the health of other people at risk. 

Quite frankly, this view is bollocks; it really is a shame how many people who are normally sane and critical thinkers have jumped on this particular propaganda train.

Edited by Hendo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you are happy to take repeated boosters when there is massive vaccine inequality across the world? How very capitalist of you. I don't think I'm the one not displaying a social conscience.
So you are displaying a social conscience.

I took a bad reaction from my second dose  - I also believe I had covid last year before testing was available  - and the reaction to the vaccine was every bit as bad as the illness. I have therefore decided, on balance, not to have the booster. This is my right, as it is your right to make the decision to have it.


Glad we cleared that up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Hendo said:

 My issue is with the mass booster programme, which Dr Sarah Gilbert, who was involved in manufacturing one of the vaccines, said was unnecessary and boosters should only be given to the clinically vulnerable, a view supported by the WHO, who have said the pandemic would not end while vaccine inequality is at its current level, and vaccines should be distributed fairly with boosters only for those clinically vulnerable and not until 2022. 

Ok.

I “searched”.

and I came up with this…

”Speaking before the emergence of the Omicron variant, Gilbert spoke to the Daily Telegraph about the need to get vaccines to nations with low rates of inoculations instead of everyone getting booster jabs. 

These quotes are from September 2021 and do not act as an excuse to not get boosted in accordance with UK Government guidance.

"As the virus spreads between people, it mutates and adapts and evolves, like the Delta variant," she said. "With these outbreaks, we want to stop that as quickly as possible."

"We will look at each situation; the immunocompromised and elderly will receive boosters. But I don’t think we need to boost everybody. Immunity is lasting well in the majority of people."

(my emboldening and italicisation)

I’d bet that, as a scientist, Sarah would be open to refreshing her opinion with the passage of time and emergence of new variants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the following is her opinion at the start of December.

Speaking about the Omicron variant, Dame Sarah added: “The spike protein of this variant contains mutations already known to increase transmissibility of the virus.

“But there are additional changes that may mean antibodies induced by the vaccines, or by infection with other variants, may be less effective at preventing infection with Omicron.

“Until we know more, we should be cautious, and take steps to slow down the spread of this new variant.

“But as we have seen before, reduced protection against infection and mild disease does not necessarily mean reduced protection against severe disease and death.”

 

She thinks we should be cautious and take what steps are available (such as a booster jag?) to slow the new variant.

Do keep up!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:


 

 


You've lost the plot now, where has anyone said it is 100%. They've explained the numbers regarding the efficiency of it and the waning of it over time.

Can you show us this NHS England promotion claiming you WILL die if you don't get the booster. emoji848.png

 

I don’t know if anyone did claim you’d die without the booster but Sajid Javid did say “we know two vaccines don’t work but three do,” which I think is over playing his hand. I’d find it more honest to say “early signs are  booster will increase the chances you won’t become very ill.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, antrin said:

And the following is her opinion at the start of December.

Speaking about the Omicron variant, Dame Sarah added: “The spike protein of this variant contains mutations already known to increase transmissibility of the virus.

“But there are additional changes that may mean antibodies induced by the vaccines, or by infection with other variants, may be less effective at preventing infection with Omicron.

“Until we know more, we should be cautious, and take steps to slow down the spread of this new variant.

“But as we have seen before, reduced protection against infection and mild disease does not necessarily mean reduced protection against severe disease and death.”

 

She thinks we should be cautious and take what steps are available (such as a booster jag?) to slow the new variant.

Do keep up!  :)

I don't see anywhere her support for a mass booster campaign? Being cautious and taking steps to slow down the spread of the new variant doesn't necessarily mean a mass booster campaign - in fact in her comments she doesn't even reference vaccines or boosters. This is probably because there is no evidence that a mass booster campaign would be effective against omicron, a point even conceded by lockdown breaker and govt chief honcho Dr Neil Ferguson, who said that while boosters would be beneficial it was likely there would need to be an omicron specific vaccine developed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:


 

 


You've lost the plot now, where has anyone said it is 100%. They've explained the numbers regarding the efficiency of it and the waning of it over time.

Can you show us this NHS England promotion claiming you WILL die if you don't get the booster. emoji848.png

 

On 8th December they ran a campaign urging people to get the life saving booster jab. Now it's been taken down from their website, presumably because the lunacy of this claim was pointed out to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8th December they ran a campaign urging people to get the life saving booster jab. Now it's been taken down from their website, presumably because the lunacy of this claim was pointed out to them.
Is it this one that's still there.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/12/people-40-and-over-to-get-their-lifesaving-booster-jab-three-months-on-from-second-dose/

I think we all know who's making the lunacy claims.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re now being deliberately obtuse, ignoring all evidence.  
 

Prof Sarah Gilbert said,  ”Until we know more, we should be cautious, and take steps to slow down the spread of this new variant.”

So….  other than getting everyone vaccinated and given timely booster jags or even keeping everyone locked up, what other cautious yet positive steps might you suggest?

if you know of an otherwise unheard of miracle cure, please share.

 

We’re also now aware that besides helping protect people from catching covid, simply by having antibodies introduced in this safe manner, it appears that people are better able fight it, once infected.  
 

THAT has been seriously life-saving, too.  Gilbert knows this, of course.  She wants more of the same.

I suspected from your initial posts that you were insincere in seeking any kind of truth.  I should have just kept laughing at you.  :(

 

 

ps insufficient vaccines being sent to poorer countries is a distinctly separate argument.  There’s a surplus, logistics are not working…More importantly, our “libertarian” (with regard to exploiting markets and funnelling off profits to their friends) government is an important blocker of relinquishing licensing and protection rights to vaccines, in order to let new vaccine plants be created to make vaccines around the world.

We have vaccines, we’re not sharing enough of them and we’re not sharing the knowledge and skills allowing others to make their own.  Disgustingly selfish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, antrin said:

You’re now being deliberately obtuse, ignoring all evidence.  
 

Prof Sarah Gilbert said,  ”Until we know more, we should be cautious, and take steps to slow down the spread of this new variant.”

So….  other than getting everyone vaccinated and given timely booster jags or even keeping everyone locked up, what other cautious yet positive steps might you suggest?

if you know of an otherwise unheard of miracle cure, please share.

 

We’re also now aware that besides helping protect people from catching covid, simply by having antibodies introduced in this safe manner, it appears that people are better able fight it, once infected.  
 

THAT has been seriously life-saving, too.  Gilbert knows this, of course.  She wants more of the same.

I suspected from your initial posts that you were insincere in seeking any kind of truth.  I should have just kept laughing at you.  :(

 

 

ps insufficient vaccines being sent to poorer countries is a distinctly separate argument.  There’s a surplus, logistics are not working…More importantly, our “libertarian” (with regard to exploiting markets and funnelling off profits to their friends) government is an important blocker of relinquishing licensing and protection rights to vaccines, in order to let new vaccine plants be created to make vaccines around the world.

We have vaccines, we’re not sharing enough of them and we’re not sharing the knowledge and skills allowing others to make their own.  Disgustingly selfish. 

I have not said the vaccines have not helped - of course they have. However, the evidence to support boosting the whole population at such an early point, only three months after the initial jab, was non existent and part of the "just do something" approach of all the four nations. As the early data shows, this approach is not showing any effect in slowing down the spreading of the new variant, with many of those infected already boosted. Whether it does have some effect in terms of reducing hospitalizations and death time will tell, but it is equally possible that any reduction in these numbers is due to the milder strain of the new variant than the booster.

Of course, the self made NHS crisis, underfunded for years compounded with staff numbers depleted due to self isolation measures, makes it ripe for privatisation which is the governments main agenda. The pandemic is merely creating the conditions to make this process easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read it a few times, never mentions what you claimed it did.

That's even after you tried to claim it had been deleted.

Just checking before I go out tonight, is there a possibility I'll fall off the edge of the world.
Don't be silly, the ice wall prevents that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

I've read it a few times, never mentions what you claimed it did.

That's even after you tried to claim it had been deleted.

Just checking before I go out tonight, is there a possibility I'll fall off the edge of the world. emoji1787.png

I think life saving is usually reserved for describing things like heart operations, not a booster jab that may or may not work. On the basis of the evidence so far, would you describe the booster as "life saving" as NHS England did?

You're last point is just daft. If you are on twitter, I would follow a guy called Jamie Jenkins  - he fact checks all claims about the virus or the booster. Recently, he fact checked Hilary Jones, Lorraine Kelly and others in GMB who claimed that 90% of those in hospital with covid were unvaccinated - the true figure was 36%. Yet I'm sure the public still believe Dr Jones et al even though they were talking bollocks.

We are in a strange world right enough, when people just need to repeat something for it to become fact, even if it's untrue. 

Edited by Hendo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, antrin said:

And the following is her opinion at the start of December.

Speaking about the Omicron variant, Dame Sarah added: “The spike protein of this variant contains mutations already known to increase transmissibility of the virus.

“But there are additional changes that may mean antibodies induced by the vaccines, or by infection with other variants, may be less effective at preventing infection with Omicron.

“Until we know more, we should be cautious, and take steps to slow down the spread of this new variant.

“But as we have seen before, reduced protection against infection and mild disease does not necessarily mean reduced protection against severe disease and death.”

 

She thinks we should be cautious and take what steps are available (such as a booster jag?) to slow the new variant.

Do keep up!  :)

Makes sense to me. Have Covid at present and glad that I have had my 3 jabs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I have not said the vaccines have not helped - of course they have. However, the evidence to support boosting the whole population at such an early point, only three months after the initial jab, was non existent and part of the "just do something" approach of all the four nations. As the early data shows, this approach is not showing any effect in slowing down the spreading of the new variant, with many of those infected already boosted. Whether it does have some effect in terms of reducing hospitalizations and death time will tell, but it is equally possible that any reduction in these numbers is due to the milder strain of the new variant than the booster.
Of course, the self made NHS crisis, underfunded for years compounded with staff numbers depleted due to self isolation measures, makes it ripe for privatisation which is the governments main agenda. The pandemic is merely creating the conditions to make this process easier.


How did you work out that it is "equally possible"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think life saving is usually reserved for describing things like heart operations, not a booster jab that may or may not work. On the basis of the evidence so far, would you describe the booster as "life saving" as NHS England did?
You're last point is just daft. If you are on twitter, I would follow a guy called Jamie Jenkins  - he fact checks all claims about the virus or the booster. Recently, he fact checked Hilary Jones, Lorraine Kelly and others in GMB who claimed that 90% of those in hospital with covid were unvaccinated - the true figure was 36%. Yet I'm sure the public still believe Dr Jones et al even though they were talking bollocks.
We are in a strange world right enough, when people just need to repeat something for it to become fact, even if it's untrue. 
Here's a table that was posted by someone commenting on that guys twitter. Shows the calibre of his "followers" when they highlight the least important stat on the table to back up their "point".

532ce92c6cb012d04783e4d728eb2f1d.jpg

So, a person is approximately 3 times more likely to die within 60 days of a positive test if they are unvaccinated. That doesn't necessarily mean that those deaths are directly attributable to covid but if everything else is equal (a reasonable assumption I think), it probably does.

Yes, I know these figures do not include the "boosted" but it is what the person presented so I'm just working with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Slarti said:

Here's a table that was posted by someone commenting on that guys twitter. Shows the calibre of his "followers" when they highlight the least important stat on the table to back up their "point".

532ce92c6cb012d04783e4d728eb2f1d.jpg

So, a person is approximately 3 times more likely to die within 60 days of a positive test if they are unvaccinated. That doesn't necessarily mean that those deaths are directly attributable to covid but if everything else is equal (a reasonable assumption I think), it probably does.

Yes, I know these figures do not include the "boosted" but it is what the person presented so I'm just working with that.

This table appears to show that those vaccinated are more likely to get infected but several times less likely to die - this is what we know and I have never denied that the vaccine has positive outcomes with regard to that - that's why I'm double vaccinated and personally I think  you're nuts not to be vaccinated - while there have been examples of bad reactions to it, generally it's the safer option (however I would defend the rights of anyone not to take it).

However, that is not the debate. The issue I raised was whether boosters would be effective against the new variant - all the evidence at best is the jury is out on this, yet the government present it as an absolute fact that it will work. 

The government messaging has seriously twisted facts and evidence and turned people against each other. I was listening to people being interviewed earlier who had just had the booster - one of the reasons they all gave for getting it was so they would protect others by not passing it on - however, as we know that is bollocks as the vaccine doesn't stop transmission. The only person the vaccine could protect is yourself - it is a choice people should make without feeling guilty about a false narrative that they are endangering others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...