FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > vaccine is six months
vaccine is six months
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"would anyone be happy to take a vaccine prepared and made available in six months time?"
If the reason why the development and approval is quick is that they did human and animal trials in parallel instead of doing them sequencially... why not? That approach make it more dangerous for people who get part in the trial, not for the end user |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If it's followed standard protocols for research evaluation, evidence and safety, then I probably would, though would prefer someone more vulnerable to have it, if it's in short supply.
I'd also evaluate it in the context of alternatives, if there were any. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *estivalMan
over a year ago
borehamwood |
not straight away i wouldnt have it no.think id wait a bit first just to see that its safe rather than just taking someones word for it..most of those in power cant be trusted further than you can spit so id be a bit dubious just taking the word for it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There isn't a vaccine for the SARS virus that happened in 2003, what makes you think we will get one for this virus.
That one started in China as well...."
I would be surprised if a viable vaccine is found as well. I was reading the other day that Coronaviruses are nearly impossible to develop vaccines for. If they were easy to develop, we would have had a vaccine for the common cold years ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Lets get realistic, there are I think maybe seven vaccines available diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles,mumps, rubella and polio, these were developed in the 80s.
That's it, vaccines within 6 months, not possible, and without clinical trials etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Lets get realistic, there are I think maybe seven vaccines available diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles,mumps, rubella and polio, these were developed in the 80s."
This is not true. Like, not even very close to true. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There isn't a vaccine for the SARS virus that happened in 2003, what makes you think we will get one for this virus.
That one started in China as well....
I would be surprised if a viable vaccine is found as well. I was reading the other day that Coronaviruses are nearly impossible to develop vaccines for. If they were easy to develop, we would have had a vaccine for the common cold years ago."
The "common cold" isn't one virus |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Lets get realistic, there are I think maybe seven vaccines available diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles,mumps, rubella and polio, these were developed in the 80s.
That's it, vaccines within 6 months, not possible, and without clinical trials etc."
Oh it's quite possible. Unsafe maybe but any worse than the current situation ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There is a vaccine AND treatment for TB....but in 2018 it claimed 1.5 million lives (WHO figures). Also missed out Ebola and literally dozens of others... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *umpkinMan
over a year ago
near the sounds of the wimborne quarter jack! |
"Lets get realistic, there are I think maybe seven vaccines available diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles,mumps, rubella and polio, these were developed in the 80s.
This is not true. Like, not even very close to true."
TB jab here 1968, polio vaccine on a sugar lump ? in primary school a couple of years earlier? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"would anyone be happy to take a vaccine prepared and made available in six months time?
No chance, prefer to have Covid and take my chances with that."
What? How does that make sense? You understand what a vaccine is, right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"would anyone be happy to take a vaccine prepared and made available in six months time?
No chance, prefer to have Covid and take my chances with that.
What? How does that make sense? You understand what a vaccine is, right? "
I assume they are saying get C19 and become naturally immune rather than risking a rushed thru vaccine, which I understand |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Human trials have already started but it's still a long way off from finding the vaccine, mass production and mass immunisation . In answer to the question though, absolutely I would have it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"would anyone be happy to take a vaccine prepared and made available in six months time?
No chance, prefer to have Covid and take my chances with that.
What? How does that make sense? You understand what a vaccine is, right?
I assume they are saying get C19 and become naturally immune rather than risking a rushed thru vaccine, which I understand "
But the worst that could happen with a rushed through vaccine is that the antigens are not fully inactive and you become infected with the virus, which is the same result as becoming infected with COVID in another way. So that post makes no sense as both situations would have the same outcome. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"would anyone be happy to take a vaccine prepared and made available in six months time?
No chance, prefer to have Covid and take my chances with that.
What? How does that make sense? You understand what a vaccine is, right?
I assume they are saying get C19 and become naturally immune rather than risking a rushed thru vaccine, which I understand "
So the bulk of messages i see in the virus forum are of people wanting a return to a normal life so if a vaccine provides this isn't that the idea    |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"would anyone be happy to take a vaccine prepared and made available in six months time?
No chance, prefer to have Covid and take my chances with that.
What? How does that make sense? You understand what a vaccine is, right?
I assume they are saying get C19 and become naturally immune rather than risking a rushed thru vaccine, which I understand
So the bulk of messages i see in the virus forum are of people wanting a return to a normal life so if a vaccine provides this isn't that the idea "
I think the concern is about rushing thru a vaccine without knowing the long term affects of it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There isn't a vaccine for the SARS virus that happened in 2003, what makes you think we will get one for this virus.
That one started in China as well....
I would be surprised if a viable vaccine is found as well. I was reading the other day that Coronaviruses are nearly impossible to develop vaccines for. If they were easy to develop, we would have had a vaccine for the common cold years ago."
It was explained to me during the Ebola outbreak. The virus mutates as it passes from each person, so you won't be able to make a vaccine for it. You might make one that will work for some strains, but not all of them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"would anyone be happy to take a vaccine prepared and made available in six months time?
No chance, prefer to have Covid and take my chances with that.
What? How does that make sense? You understand what a vaccine is, right?
I assume they are saying get C19 and become naturally immune rather than risking a rushed thru vaccine, which I understand
So the bulk of messages i see in the virus forum are of people wanting a return to a normal life so if a vaccine provides this isn't that the idea
I think the concern is about rushing thru a vaccine without knowing the long term affects of it"
Long term effects? Like what? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There isn't a vaccine for the SARS virus that happened in 2003, what makes you think we will get one for this virus.
That one started in China as well....
I would be surprised if a viable vaccine is found as well. I was reading the other day that Coronaviruses are nearly impossible to develop vaccines for. If they were easy to develop, we would have had a vaccine for the common cold years ago.
It was explained to me during the Ebola outbreak. The virus mutates as it passes from each person, so you won't be able to make a vaccine for it. You might make one that will work for some strains, but not all of them."
Covid has already mutated a few times.
I think they should work on cures/ treatments. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Love this thread find it so funny ha ha can't stop laughing. We have been fighting viruses for 10 million years never won yet, but we are who we are because of them. What's funny now is we have been brainwashed to believe we are gods and can do anything, news flash folks we are only playing at being god.This virus we win and change mankind again for the better that what the last million viruses have done deal with it. You can't cure what's natural. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Covid has already mutated a few times.
I think they should work on cures/ treatments. "
This doesn't really follow. COVID-19 has been remarkably stable, and most mutations don't render vaccines ineffective.
Further, you're basically asking for a pneumonia cure/treatment, a much taller order than developing a vaccine. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The end game is for an individual to obtain a degree of immunity to the virus. This occurs by the body being given a "taste" of the "shape" of proteins within the virus, so that it can recognise them faster when infection does occur and have a closer starting point in manufacturing neutralising proteins.
There's two ways of getting this "taste". One is to get infected with the actual virus. We know what happens for this method. Because the virus is totally unknown to the body, it gets multiplied incredibly quickly, the immune system is slow to act (because duh, it's a new virus), about 10% of people get seriously ill and need medical treatment, and somewhere between 1 and 4% die even with the best medical care available. Also, as of yet we have no idea whether there may be long term effects from covid-19, eg. reduced life span, fertility damage, increased susceptibility to other diseases etc.
The other way is through taking a vaccine, which contains some of the proteins like the virus, but does not have the active element that allows the virus to multiply. Even with reduced levels of testing, the one thing that can be certain about a vaccine is that it will be less harmful than the disease it gives protection against. Yes, it might have bad side effects with some small proportion of people - but it will be a much smaller proportion than what we know for a fact are harmed by the virus. Yes, it might not give 100% long term immunity - but then getting the virus does not seem to give 100% certainty of long term immunity.
If i give you a choice of two bottles to drink, and i tell you that one contains a live virus that kills 3 out of every 100 people; and the other contains a substance that has been formulated to have the minimum possible side effects, has been checked on tissue samples before it was given to humans, then checked with a large number of humans before you, and although it's impossible to say is going to be absolutely safe for everybody, certainly will hurt less than 1 in 100,000.
Which bottle are you going to drink? Virus - kills 3 in 100. Or vaccine - hurts less than 1 in 100,000. The one that has been designed by evolution to kill people. Or the one that has been designed by science to avoid killing people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The end game is for an individual to obtain a degree of immunity to the virus. This occurs by the body being given a "taste" of the "shape" of proteins within the virus, so that it can recognise them faster when infection does occur and have a closer starting point in manufacturing neutralising proteins.
There's two ways of getting this "taste". One is to get infected with the actual virus. We know what happens for this method. Because the virus is totally unknown to the body, it gets multiplied incredibly quickly, the immune system is slow to act (because duh, it's a new virus), about 10% of people get seriously ill and need medical treatment, and somewhere between 1 and 4% die even with the best medical care available. Also, as of yet we have no idea whether there may be long term effects from covid-19, eg. reduced life span, fertility damage, increased susceptibility to other diseases etc.
The other way is through taking a vaccine, which contains some of the proteins like the virus, but does not have the active element that allows the virus to multiply. Even with reduced levels of testing, the one thing that can be certain about a vaccine is that it will be less harmful than the disease it gives protection against. Yes, it might have bad side effects with some small proportion of people - but it will be a much smaller proportion than what we know for a fact are harmed by the virus. Yes, it might not give 100% long term immunity - but then getting the virus does not seem to give 100% certainty of long term immunity.
If i give you a choice of two bottles to drink, and i tell you that one contains a live virus that kills 3 out of every 100 people; and the other contains a substance that has been formulated to have the minimum possible side effects, has been checked on tissue samples before it was given to humans, then checked with a large number of humans before you, and although it's impossible to say is going to be absolutely safe for everybody, certainly will hurt less than 1 in 100,000.
Which bottle are you going to drink? Virus - kills 3 in 100. Or vaccine - hurts less than 1 in 100,000. The one that has been designed by evolution to kill people. Or the one that has been designed by science to avoid killing people?"
Exactly. Some people seem to not be aware how a vaccine works and what it's made up of. They just hear "6 months" or "rushed through" and instantly think that means it's dangerous. This is GCSE Biology... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nope, I'm 99% sure i'm an asymptomatic carrier and 99% sure that vaccine doesn't meet normal standards of safety "
Can you not be asymptomatic and still spread it?
What makes you think it will be unsafe? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"Ok I have a question.
If they create a vaccine will it only work to prevent you getting it .
If you have it already the vaccine isn't going to work???"
This may help. When you get a flu injection my Doctor always says - it won't stop a flu you have now and it will take 15 days to kick-in to stop a flu you might get. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok I have a question.
If they create a vaccine will it only work to prevent you getting it .
If you have it already the vaccine isn't going to work???"
A vaccine is preventative and not a cure. It trains your body to resist the virus but if you aready have it then your body is learning from the live virus anyway |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The end game is for an individual to obtain a degree of immunity to the virus. This occurs by the body being given a "taste" of the "shape" of proteins within the virus, so that it can recognise them faster when infection does occur and have a closer starting point in manufacturing neutralising proteins.
There's two ways of getting this "taste". One is to get infected with the actual virus. We know what happens for this method. Because the virus is totally unknown to the body, it gets multiplied incredibly quickly, the immune system is slow to act (because duh, it's a new virus), about 10% of people get seriously ill and need medical treatment, and somewhere between 1 and 4% die even with the best medical care available. Also, as of yet we have no idea whether there may be long term effects from covid-19, eg. reduced life span, fertility damage, increased susceptibility to other diseases etc.
The other way is through taking a vaccine, which contains some of the proteins like the virus, but does not have the active element that allows the virus to multiply. Even with reduced levels of testing, the one thing that can be certain about a vaccine is that it will be less harmful than the disease it gives protection against. Yes, it might have bad side effects with some small proportion of people - but it will be a much smaller proportion than what we know for a fact are harmed by the virus. Yes, it might not give 100% long term immunity - but then getting the virus does not seem to give 100% certainty of long term immunity.
If i give you a choice of two bottles to drink, and i tell you that one contains a live virus that kills 3 out of every 100 people; and the other contains a substance that has been formulated to have the minimum possible side effects, has been checked on tissue samples before it was given to humans, then checked with a large number of humans before you, and although it's impossible to say is going to be absolutely safe for everybody, certainly will hurt less than 1 in 100,000.
Which bottle are you going to drink? Virus - kills 3 in 100. Or vaccine - hurts less than 1 in 100,000. The one that has been designed by evolution to kill people. Or the one that has been designed by science to avoid killing people?"
This
The most sensible thing ive read in days |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
'Virus - kills 3 in 100'
Any links to the research for this?
You would need to test a large sample of the population to get this figure and not just people go to hospital
USA tested 3700000
Deaths 39000
Which is 1%
Assuming they are mostly testing people with symptoms or high risk then I assume the % will come down when testing is opened up to everyone
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nope, I'm 99% sure i'm an asymptomatic carrier and 99% sure that vaccine doesn't meet normal standards of safety
Can you not be asymptomatic and still spread it?
What makes you think it will be unsafe?"
Yeah I can spread it to others and those people are welcome to have the vaccine. I'm not telling anyone else they can't have it. At the moment the government and senior civil servants are telling bare faced lies on the news daily. Speaking absolute gibberish because they think the public are too stupid to hear the truth and don't want to worry us. So I have entirely lost trust in them and since I am 99% sure i don't need it, I shall not be joining. For the record, I have every other vaccine including BCG. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"'Virus - kills 3 in 100'
Any links to the research for this?
You would need to test a large sample of the population to get this figure and not just people go to hospital
USA tested 3700000
Deaths 39000
Which is 1%
Assuming they are mostly testing people with symptoms or high risk then I assume the % will come down when testing is opened up to everyone
"
Estimates of fatality rate vary according to every study done. I'm not precious. Say it's 1%. Would you rather take the virus that kills 1 in a hundred, or the vaccine which hurts less than 1 in 100,000? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"'Virus - kills 3 in 100'
Any links to the research for this?
You would need to test a large sample of the population to get this figure and not just people go to hospital
USA tested 3700000
Deaths 39000
Which is 1%
Assuming they are mostly testing people with symptoms or high risk then I assume the % will come down when testing is opened up to everyone
Estimates of fatality rate vary according to every study done. I'm not precious. Say it's 1%. Would you rather take the virus that kills 1 in a hundred, or the vaccine which hurts less than 1 in 100,000?"
1. Your 1 in 100,000 is not a fact
2. You haven't factored in the probability of infection
3. You haven't factored in the probability the vaccine doesn't work and is required multiple times
4. You haven't factored in the age or health status of the person making the choice |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"'Virus - kills 3 in 100'
Any links to the research for this?
You would need to test a large sample of the population to get this figure and not just people go to hospital
USA tested 3700000
Deaths 39000
Which is 1%
Assuming they are mostly testing people with symptoms or high risk then I assume the % will come down when testing is opened up to everyone
Estimates of fatality rate vary according to every study done. I'm not precious. Say it's 1%. Would you rather take the virus that kills 1 in a hundred, or the vaccine which hurts less than 1 in 100,000?
1. Your 1 in 100,000 is not a fact
2. You haven't factored in the probability of infection
"
As I said, I'm not precious about exact figures. Let's say 1 in 50,000. Or 1 in 10,000. It's still far better odds than getting the actual virus.
And probability of infection? The one thing we know for absolute certainty is that the virus has very high probability of infection - proved by the very fact that we're living in a pandemic. Whatever else, vaccines are developed with the aim of being less lethal than the thing they are supposed to protect against. No vaccine is going out with zero testing!
Unlike say President Trump spouting off about some random drug that has never been tested for use against covid, is known to have very severe side effects even when used under clinical supervision against the specific illnesses that it does have some value for, and then loads of people are happy to just buy the stuff off the black market and swallow it... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nkidutuMan
over a year ago
Edinburgh |
Vaccines are big $$$$$$£££££££££.....that's what they want .....Gates and the 'crew'...teh big corporate drug companies are ...believe it or not...'not making enough money'....but it's unlikely they will get one before St. Corona-Covid become its first cousin again!...but then the £$ gang will make something up for the human guinea pigs...again.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"'Virus - kills 3 in 100'
Any links to the research for this?
You would need to test a large sample of the population to get this figure and not just people go to hospital
USA tested 3700000
Deaths 39000
Which is 1%
Assuming they are mostly testing people with symptoms or high risk then I assume the % will come down when testing is opened up to everyone
Estimates of fatality rate vary according to every study done. I'm not precious. Say it's 1%. Would you rather take the virus that kills 1 in a hundred, or the vaccine which hurts less than 1 in 100,000?
1. Your 1 in 100,000 is not a fact
2. You haven't factored in the probability of infection
As I said, I'm not precious about exact figures. Let's say 1 in 50,000. Or 1 in 10,000. It's still far better odds than getting the actual virus.
And probability of infection? The one thing we know for absolute certainty is that the virus has very high probability of infection - proved by the very fact that we're living in a pandemic. Whatever else, vaccines are developed with the aim of being less lethal than the thing they are supposed to protect against. No vaccine is going out with zero testing!
Unlike say President Trump spouting off about some random drug that has never been tested for use against covid, is known to have very severe side effects even when used under clinical supervision against the specific illnesses that it does have some value for, and then loads of people are happy to just buy the stuff off the black market and swallow it..."
Actually it doesn't have a high probability of infection under the real world conditions we live in. A badly infected, reasonably sized country is seeing 1% of its population infected. If you're under 45 with no underlying health conditions then your risk of dying is so fucking tiny I don't know how many decimal places to use. So do 1% times fuck all. You're working to the assumption that if we lift lockdown then the virus could re-emerge but there's no actual evidence of that in the countries that had it before us. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I'll go with evidence and probability. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Lets get realistic, there are I think maybe seven vaccines available diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles,mumps, rubella and polio, these were developed in the 80s.
That's it, vaccines within 6 months, not possible, and without
clinical trials etc."
You are correct but hopefully somthing will be done.
Miss slow message me please x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"'Virus - kills 3 in 100'
Any links to the research for this?
You would need to test a large sample of the population to get this figure and not just people go to hospital
USA tested 3700000
Deaths 39000
Which is 1%
Assuming they are mostly testing people with symptoms or high risk then I assume the % will come down when testing is opened up to everyone
Estimates of fatality rate vary according to every study done. I'm not precious. Say it's 1%. Would you rather take the virus that kills 1 in a hundred, or the vaccine which hurts less than 1 in 100,000?
1. Your 1 in 100,000 is not a fact
2. You haven't factored in the probability of infection
As I said, I'm not precious about exact figures. Let's say 1 in 50,000. Or 1 in 10,000. It's still far better odds than getting the actual virus.
And probability of infection? The one thing we know for absolute certainty is that the virus has very high probability of infection - proved by the very fact that we're living in a pandemic. Whatever else, vaccines are developed with the aim of being less lethal than the thing they are supposed to protect against. No vaccine is going out with zero testing!
Unlike say President Trump spouting off about some random drug that has never been tested for use against covid, is known to have very severe side effects even when used under clinical supervision against the specific illnesses that it does have some value for, and then loads of people are happy to just buy the stuff off the black market and swallow it...
Actually it doesn't have a high probability of infection under the real world conditions we live in. A badly infected, reasonably sized country is seeing 1% of its population infected. If you're under 45 with no underlying health conditions then your risk of dying is so fucking tiny I don't know how many decimal places to use. So do 1% times fuck all. You're working to the assumption that if we lift lockdown then the virus could re-emerge but there's no actual evidence of that in the countries that had it before us. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I'll go with evidence and probability. "
There is every evidence of the virus spreading incredibly rapidly through everyone that is exposed to it. There's only one reason for there currently being only a small proportion of the population infected - most of the population just haven't been exposed to it yet! It doesn't just pop up out of nowhere and get people that have never been near a carrier. The whole point of the lockdown is to stop the ones that are carriers from passing it on to anybody else. If there was any way of knowing for definite who is carrying it, the lockdown could be lifted tomorrow, and just the affected comparative few be kept in quarantine.
But in the real world conditions we do live in, from an initial half dozen infected people coming into the country in early march, it has spread to (checks today's figures) at least 120,000 people. In about 6 weeks maximum. If that is not a high probability of infection, I'm buggered if I know what is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"'Virus - kills 3 in 100'
Any links to the research for this?
You would need to test a large sample of the population to get this figure and not just people go to hospital
USA tested 3700000
Deaths 39000
Which is 1%
Assuming they are mostly testing people with symptoms or high risk then I assume the % will come down when testing is opened up to everyone
Estimates of fatality rate vary according to every study done. I'm not precious. Say it's 1%. Would you rather take the virus that kills 1 in a hundred, or the vaccine which hurts less than 1 in 100,000?
1. Your 1 in 100,000 is not a fact
2. You haven't factored in the probability of infection
As I said, I'm not precious about exact figures. Let's say 1 in 50,000. Or 1 in 10,000. It's still far better odds than getting the actual virus.
And probability of infection? The one thing we know for absolute certainty is that the virus has very high probability of infection - proved by the very fact that we're living in a pandemic. Whatever else, vaccines are developed with the aim of being less lethal than the thing they are supposed to protect against. No vaccine is going out with zero testing!
Unlike say President Trump spouting off about some random drug that has never been tested for use against covid, is known to have very severe side effects even when used under clinical supervision against the specific illnesses that it does have some value for, and then loads of people are happy to just buy the stuff off the black market and swallow it...
Actually it doesn't have a high probability of infection under the real world conditions we live in. A badly infected, reasonably sized country is seeing 1% of its population infected. If you're under 45 with no underlying health conditions then your risk of dying is so fucking tiny I don't know how many decimal places to use. So do 1% times fuck all. You're working to the assumption that if we lift lockdown then the virus could re-emerge but there's no actual evidence of that in the countries that had it before us. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I'll go with evidence and probability.
There is every evidence of the virus spreading incredibly rapidly through everyone that is exposed to it. There's only one reason for there currently being only a small proportion of the population infected - most of the population just haven't been exposed to it yet! It doesn't just pop up out of nowhere and get people that have never been near a carrier. The whole point of the lockdown is to stop the ones that are carriers from passing it on to anybody else. If there was any way of knowing for definite who is carrying it, the lockdown could be lifted tomorrow, and just the affected comparative few be kept in quarantine.
But in the real world conditions we do live in, from an initial half dozen infected people coming into the country in early march, it has spread to (checks today's figures) at least 120,000 people. In about 6 weeks maximum. If that is not a high probability of infection, I'm buggered if I know what is. "
Sign. The real world conditions we are living in are lockdown conditions. Then, in countries that are getting back to normal (i.e. removing lockdown), 99% of their population were not infected and they aren't getting second waves either. That's taking their actual case numbers and multiplying by 5 and it's still not 1%.
The whole point is that you present a false case. Let's say it's not 1%, it's 20%, it's still a 20% chance of your mortality rate which is probably something like 0.04% for a healthy, under 45 year old. So a 0.008% risk of death.
Now vaccines can go wrong like the polio vaccine that killed 10 from a batch of 200,000 before they realised there was a problem (there's that 0.005%) and paralyzed 164 (0.08%) so 0.087% risk. Now admittedly many vaccines don't have any problems and I could have factored that in, but this is a new one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"would anyone be happy to take a vaccine prepared and made available in six months time?
No chance, prefer to have Covid and take my chances with that.
What? How does that make sense? You understand what a vaccine is, right? "
Yes, means I wouldn't have a vaccine, especially an unvalidated one. Likely short term and long term side effects far riskier than Covid in my opinion |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"would anyone be happy to take a vaccine prepared and made available in six months time?
No chance, prefer to have Covid and take my chances with that.
What? How does that make sense? You understand what a vaccine is, right?
I assume they are saying get C19 and become naturally immune rather than risking a rushed thru vaccine, which I understand
But the worst that could happen with a rushed through vaccine is that the antigens are not fully inactive and you become infected with the virus, which is the same result as becoming infected with COVID in another way. So that post makes no sense as both situations would have the same outcome. "
Do you know the full ingredients list of your average vaccine? If not, you're probably best off not knowing but it's a NO from me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"would anyone be happy to take a vaccine prepared and made available in six months time?
No chance, prefer to have Covid and take my chances with that.
What? How does that make sense? You understand what a vaccine is, right?
I assume they are saying get C19 and become naturally immune rather than risking a rushed thru vaccine, which I understand
But the worst that could happen with a rushed through vaccine is that the antigens are not fully inactive and you become infected with the virus, which is the same result as becoming infected with COVID in another way. So that post makes no sense as both situations would have the same outcome.
Do you know the full ingredients list of your average vaccine? If not, you're probably best off not knowing but it's a NO from me"
Well mainly antigens, adjuvants and antibiotics but there's also mercury, aluminium and MSG, all in harmless quantities and used as preservatives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Many also contain fetal cells and or other animal cells. Thought to be a significant source of transfer of virus' from other species to humans. Mercury linked to lots of autoimmune diseases. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Many also contain fetal cells and or other animal cells. Thought to be a significant source of transfer of virus' from other species to humans. Mercury linked to lots of autoimmune diseases. "
You forget Autism! That is the main ingredient of most vaccines!
Please... why do you think you know better than all the scientists that work on vaccines?
Also I suppose you don't eat fish. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Injecting into the bloodstream is somewhat different to eating food. And yes, I do try to avoid fish from high in the food chain where mercury levels are highest.
Back on topic, happy for you to be the Guinea pig. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
So many medical professionals on here!
Oxford Uni have Said they will have 1,000,000 vaccines ready for September.
Now I know that 90% of fab know better than Sir Tom Bell, but I’ll listen to a real life Professor. Way before one of them many, many fab swingers professors |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Injecting into the bloodstream is somewhat different to eating food. And yes, I do try to avoid fish from high in the food chain where mercury levels are highest.
Back on topic, happy for you to be the Guinea pig."
I hope for you that you will not end up in a situation that makes you regret your choices. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
From what I have read... Even if a vaccine is possible, it may not be.
High production of any possible vaccine is 2 yrs away.
Europe/USA will be bankrupt way before any vaccine comes along.
It is inevitable that herd immunity is the only option available.
I think we all know what that means. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So many medical professionals on here!
Oxford Uni have Said they will have 1,000,000 vaccines ready for September.
Now I know that 90% of fab know better than Sir Tom Bell, but I’ll listen to a real life Professor. Way before one of them many, many fab swingers professors "
Listen to him what? Talk about something that doesn't and may never exist. Vaccines can and do go wrong. I don't need an expert to tell me that or lie to me about it and tell me there's no risk, even if it is a very small one. In some cases, the issue is the manufacturing process of a particular batch, not the formula itself. Is this expert going to sit there and tell me that he knows in advance of time that it's impossible to have a manufacturing issue? I'm fine with vaccines in general, I just prefer ones that have an actual track record of long term safety. You fill your boots though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More experts I see,
You should call up number 10 Downing Street. Tell them you know more than people he has working for him
Unreal "
Because only thick people become swingers 
If you think a team of "experts" get you the 5th worst death toll in a pandemic then you need to think about your use of the English language. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More experts I see,
You should call up number 10 Downing Street. Tell them you know more than people he has working for him
Unreal
Because only thick people become swingers
If you think a team of "experts" get you the 5th worst death toll in a pandemic then you need to think about your use of the English language. "
So you know more than all the professors then...
Okay... You win... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More experts I see,
You should call up number 10 Downing Street. Tell them you know more than people he has working for him
Unreal
Because only thick people become swingers
If you think a team of "experts" get you the 5th worst death toll in a pandemic then you need to think about your use of the English language.
So you know more than all the professors then...
Okay... You win... "
You really think the civil service and universities are where the most skilled people end up? You clearly haven't looked at the model the government is basing its policy on, because if you had then no reasonably intelligent, unbiased person who think an "expert" made that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Personally would prefer an anti bodies test first. Only because I'm sure weve had symptoms.
So would prefer natural immunity (if that's possible) to a vaccine. "
Facts are still scarce on this topic.
South Korea has had over 100 people become infected twice.
It is unclear for what reason they didn't produce or retain enough anti bodies to give them long term immunity.
This could be very relevant and very worrying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"would anyone be happy to take a vaccine prepared and made available in six months time?"
no i dont have flu jab and wont have what ever they bring out for this specially if gates is behind it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Injecting into the bloodstream is somewhat different to eating food. And yes, I do try to avoid fish from high in the food chain where mercury levels are highest.
Back on topic, happy for you to be the Guinea pig."
The type of mercury found in vaccines (ethylmercury) is different to that found in fish (methylmercury) and is actually broken down quicker by the human body. The last time mercury was linked to autism was in 1997 when children were receiving 3 different vaccines at one time which together exceeded the recommended limit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No, I want to have an antibody test first before I would consider a vaccine, I very reluctantly have a flu jab each year (as I’m a carer, not for medical reasons) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If you think a team of "experts" get you the 5th worst death toll in a pandemic then you need to think about your use of the English language. "
It's far from over and it's not a competition
Judgement should be reserved for when the crisis is behind us
No idea what the English language has to do with it tho
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If you think a team of "experts" get you the 5th worst death toll in a pandemic then you need to think about your use of the English language.
It's far from over and it's not a competition
Judgement should be reserved for when the crisis is behind us
No idea what the English language has to do with it tho
"
Well unless thousands of people are coming back to life then I'd say judgement is quite appropriate. You can't call someone an expert whilst they are doing a shit job and making catastrophic mistakes. That would be a contradiction in terms. If that's how "experts" handle a crisis then perhaps we should try putting David Beckham and the Spice Girls in charge. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If you think a team of "experts" get you the 5th worst death toll in a pandemic then you need to think about your use of the English language.
It's far from over and it's not a competition
Judgement should be reserved for when the crisis is behind us
No idea what the English language has to do with it tho
Well unless thousands of people are coming back to life then I'd say judgement is quite appropriate. You can't call someone an expert whilst they are doing a shit job and making catastrophic mistakes. That would be a contradiction in terms. If that's how "experts" handle a crisis then perhaps we should try putting David Beckham and the Spice Girls in charge. "
How irrational |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Facts are still scarce on this topic.
South Korea has had over 100 people become infected twice.
It is unclear for what reason they didn't produce or retain enough anti bodies to give them long term immunity.
This could be very relevant and very worrying. "
Or lack of test specificity and those people were actually only infected once |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There really are some arrogant people in the world, that's something that is a certainty.
Here's an idea for those who don't want any potential vaccine: stop whinging and moaning and telling everyone how clever you are, and simply don't have it. All the more for those that do want to take advantage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There really are some arrogant people in the world, that's something that is a certainty.
Here's an idea for those who don't want any potential vaccine: stop whinging and moaning and telling everyone how clever you are, and simply don't have it. All the more for those that do want to take advantage. "
Before you have a pop at everyone. My friend had the swine flu vaccine and fell pregnant soon after with her 2nd child, the 2nd child is off the scale with autism and nothing previously in the family. So most people aren't arrogant, it's called being cautious. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There really are some arrogant people in the world, that's something that is a certainty.
Here's an idea for those who don't want any potential vaccine: stop whinging and moaning and telling everyone how clever you are, and simply don't have it. All the more for those that do want to take advantage.
Before you have a pop at everyone. My friend had the swine flu vaccine and fell pregnant soon after with her 2nd child, the 2nd child is off the scale with autism and nothing previously in the family. So most people aren't arrogant, it's called being cautious. "
So anything bad that happend to that person after the swine flu vaccine is because of the vaccine? Just because it happened after? I'm sorry but this is completely nonsensical. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" So anything bad that happend to that person after the swine flu vaccine is because of the vaccine? Just because it happened after? I'm sorry but this is completely nonsensical."
You have no proof it wasn't the vaccination? So when people hear stories like this (and there are many similar to this) then yes, it makes you cautious. Only time I'd have it is if the virus was beating my immune system, nothing to lose then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" So anything bad that happend to that person after the swine flu vaccine is because of the vaccine? Just because it happened after? I'm sorry but this is completely nonsensical.
You have no proof it wasn't the vaccination? So when people hear stories like this (and there are many similar to this) then yes, it makes you cautious. Only time I'd have it is if the virus was beating my immune system, nothing to lose then. "
Also, she fell pregnant within 4 weeks of the vaccine, so wasn't like it was a long while after. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"At an estimated death rate of less than 4 per million, think I'll pass for now "
I'd be very interested to know how you arrived at that figure.
Could you show your workings please? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" So anything bad that happend to that person after the swine flu vaccine is because of the vaccine? Just because it happened after? I'm sorry but this is completely nonsensical.
You have no proof it wasn't the vaccination? So when people hear stories like this (and there are many similar to this) then yes, it makes you cautious. Only time I'd have it is if the virus was beating my immune system, nothing to lose then. "
Ah so you want them to developed a second vaccine also as at that point a normal vaccine will not work for you.
They will be working thier arses off to get that one for you! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
For a death rate of 4 per million, the UK would only have around 260 deaths. We have 16,000 dead so far. 1 in 8 positive tests have resulted in death, although only those in hospital have been tested. 4 per million? It's currently 250 per million in our total population and rising. That's 1 in 4,000. And the vast majority of people haven't caught it yet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For a death rate of 4 per million, the UK would only have around 260 deaths. We have 16,000 dead so far. 1 in 8 positive tests have resulted in death, although only those in hospital have been tested. 4 per million? It's currently 250 per million in our total population and rising. That's 1 in 4,000. And the vast majority of people haven't caught it yet. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"At an estimated death rate of less than 4 per million, think I'll pass for now
I'd be very interested to know how you arrived at that figure.
Could you show your workings please?"
Sorry proper typo there, that was less than 240 per million |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I know it wasnt a vaccine but from what I saw of those given the anti nerve agent in the Gulf War would be very nervous about putting anything "preventative" into their system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"would anyone be happy to take a vaccine prepared and made available in six months time?"
I'd be happy to take a trial vaccine now, I am strong and healthy so I think I could survive the virus, so I would happily take part in trials to help the cause.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No I wouldnt. I am with djokovic on this and agree with what he is saying "Personally I am opposed to vaccination and I wouldnt want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine in order to be able to travel" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arry247Couple
over a year ago
Wakefield |
"would anyone be happy to take a vaccine prepared and made available in six months time?"
Yes the one starting human testing tomorrow is based on an existing vaccine which has been adapted for the covid-19 RNA, this allow a vaccine to be produced quicker then normal.
I have volunteered for other drug trails etc. in the past and happy to volunteer for this, some people have to so why not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *etsome OP Man
over a year ago
birmingham |
"would anyone be happy to take a vaccine prepared and made available in six months time?
Yes the one starting human testing tomorrow is based on an existing vaccine which has been adapted for the covid-19 RNA, this allow a vaccine to be produced quicker then normal.
I have volunteered for other drug trails etc. in the past and happy to volunteer for this, some people have to so why not."
Does this existing vaccine work on the thing it was developed for? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The amount of absolute nonsense on this thread is alarming. Uneducated people trying to pass their opinion off as valid against people with actual expertise. Its scary. At a certain level of education you dont know enough to understand how little you know and how useless your opinion on a subject is. If you are an antivaxxer this is you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The amount of absolute nonsense on this thread is alarming. Uneducated people trying to pass their opinion off as valid against people with actual expertise. Its scary. At a certain level of education you dont know enough to understand how little you know and how useless your opinion on a subject is. If you are an antivaxxer this is you."
It's not only this thread either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The amount of absolute nonsense on this thread is alarming. Uneducated people trying to pass their opinion off as valid against people with actual expertise. Its scary. At a certain level of education you dont know enough to understand how little you know and how useless your opinion on a subject is. If you are an antivaxxer this is you."
For every link you can find advocating vaccines you can find one against vaccines.
Heres an interesting article from the british medical journal.
Ill post a small snippet.
"We hear so much about the vital importance of flu shots that it will come as a nasty surprise to learn that they increase the risk of illness from noninfluenza virus infections such as rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, RS viruses, parainfluenza viruses, adenoviruses, HMP viruses and enteroviruses. This has been shown in at least two studies that have received little attention from public health authorities: A prospective case-control study in healthy young Australian children found that seasonal flu shots doubled their risk of illness from noninfluenza virus infections (unadjusted OR 2.13, CI 1.20—3.79). Overall, the vaccine increased the risk of virus-associated acute respiratory illness, including influenza, by 73% (OR 1.73, CI 0.99—3.03). (Table 2 in Kelly et al, Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011;30:107)….A randomized placebo-controlled trial in Hong Kong children found that flu shots increased the risk of noninfluenza viral ARIs fivefold (OR 4.91,CI 1.04—8.14) and, including influenza, tripled the overall viral ARI risk (OR 3.17, CI 1.04—9.83). (Table 3 in Cowling et al, Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:1778)…..To my knowledge, the foregoing risk figures have not been explicitly published anywhere. They will not be found in the abstracts of the articles, so you have to go to the tables and look at the numbers themselves "
Its just a case of respecting one anothers opinions.
Theres as much info on internet against vaccines than there is for them.
Let people make their own choices without the need to insult them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The main point of most vaccines isn't to stop you catching a virus it stop or slow the spread. Enough people need to take the vaccine to develop herd immunity. 2 ways to do this one just let spread until the human race develops immunity or it be endemic like the common cold, this will take years and probably generations. Or you vaccinate to accelerate development of herd immunity, so the virus has nowhere to spread to. Measles was virtually wiped out in a lot of countries until the amount of anti vaccers reach a number where the virus can spread and spread rapidly. A vaccination will only work if enough people have it, the herd immunity can withstand a certain number of free riders, people who don't have the shot, but we need enough people to be vaccinated for it to work. I think forcing people to take a vaccination is wrong but maybe penalising them in someway. Maybe not allowing foreign travel maybe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *69BANMan
over a year ago
Reading |
"Vaccines are big $$$$$$£££££££££.....that's what they want .....Gates and the 'crew'...teh big corporate drug companies are ...believe it or not...'not making enough money'....but it's unlikely they will get one before St. Corona-Covid become its first cousin again!...but then the £$ gang will make something up for the human guinea pigs...again...."
No, no, no! Vaccines are the poor boy of pharmaceutical research. It shows a complete lack of critical thinking if you are of the opinion vaccines are a money maker. Take a step back and consider how many times a vaccine is given over a lifetime, a handful right. Then think how many times does someone with cardiovascular problems or rheumatoid arthritis take medication? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Vaccines are big $$$$$$£££££££££.....that's what they want .....Gates and the 'crew'...teh big corporate drug companies are ...believe it or not...'not making enough money'....but it's unlikely they will get one before St. Corona-Covid become its first cousin again!...but then the £$ gang will make something up for the human guinea pigs...again....
No, no, no! Vaccines are the poor boy of pharmaceutical research. It shows a complete lack of critical thinking if you are of the opinion vaccines are a money maker. Take a step back and consider how many times a vaccine is given over a lifetime, a handful right. Then think how many times does someone with cardiovascular problems or rheumatoid arthritis take medication? "
Absolutely spot on. Antivirals that work will make a lot more Money than a vaccination. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *69BANMan
over a year ago
Reading |
"The amount of absolute nonsense on this thread is alarming. Uneducated people trying to pass their opinion off as valid against people with actual expertise. Its scary. At a certain level of education you dont know enough to understand how little you know and how useless your opinion on a subject is. If you are an antivaxxer this is you.
For every link you can find advocating vaccines you can find one against vaccines.
Heres an interesting article from the british medical journal.
Ill post a small snippet.
"We hear so much about the vital importance of flu shots that it will come as a nasty surprise to learn that they increase the risk of illness from noninfluenza virus infections such as rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, RS viruses, parainfluenza viruses, adenoviruses, HMP viruses and enteroviruses. This has been shown in at least two studies that have received little attention from public health authorities: A prospective case-control study in healthy young Australian children found that seasonal flu shots doubled their risk of illness from noninfluenza virus infections (unadjusted OR 2.13, CI 1.20—3.79). Overall, the vaccine increased the risk of virus-associated acute respiratory illness, including influenza, by 73% (OR 1.73, CI 0.99—3.03). (Table 2 in Kelly et al, Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011;30:107)….A randomized placebo-controlled trial in Hong Kong children found that flu shots increased the risk of noninfluenza viral ARIs fivefold (OR 4.91,CI 1.04—8.14) and, including influenza, tripled the overall viral ARI risk (OR 3.17, CI 1.04—9.83). (Table 3 in Cowling et al, Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:1778)…..To my knowledge, the foregoing risk figures have not been explicitly published anywhere. They will not be found in the abstracts of the articles, so you have to go to the tables and look at the numbers themselves "
Its just a case of respecting one anothers opinions.
Theres as much info on internet against vaccines than there is for them.
Let people make their own choices without the need to insult them."
Do you understand what you copied and pasted there or is it fitting your confirmation bias? You didn't even link to what you thought met your own beliefs.
I agree that insulting people is not beneficial (ad hominem) but if the opinion itself is not founded in evidence or agree with scientific consensus then it can be ridiculed. Having a position against vaccines is a conspiracy theory and should be treated as such. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Also never understand people's issue with anti-vaxxers. If you have the magic jab you have immunity, why is it a problem to you if someone chooses not to have it.
In recent measles outbreaks that have been properly investigated, it turns out most of those infected have been vaccinated!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Flu jab every year taken by approx 75% of those eligible. Pretty big £££££ I'd say."
But it cuts the number of people who get ill. So less cost to the nhs and the amount of time people are off work. The flu jab is a generic anyone can make it. No big profit in generics. You need patented medicine that people have to take daily for the rest of their lives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Also never understand people's issue with anti-vaxxers. If you have the magic jab you have immunity, why is it a problem to you if someone chooses not to have it.
In recent measles outbreaks that have been properly investigated, it turns out most of those infected have been vaccinated!
"
Read above you take the measles jab to provide herd immunity. Protection a single person who has it is secondary. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think every member of the Cabinet should be vaccinated first to see if it works. Can't trust a word they say
Remember 2001 and one Tony Blair on vaccinations? "
Do you mean when tony blair refused to say if his youngest son had the mmr jab on privacy grounds. Cherie blair reveal leo blair had had the mmr jab. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think every member of the Cabinet should be vaccinated first to see if it works. Can't trust a word they say
Remember 2001 and one Tony Blair on vaccinations?
Do you mean when tony blair refused to say if his youngest son had the mmr jab on privacy grounds. Cherie blair reveal leo blair had had the mmr jab."
Yup, bit silly to try and dodge the question. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think every member of the Cabinet should be vaccinated first to see if it works. Can't trust a word they say
Remember 2001 and one Tony Blair on vaccinations?
Do you mean when tony blair refused to say if his youngest son had the mmr jab on privacy grounds. Cherie blair reveal leo blair had had the mmr jab.
Yup, bit silly to try and dodge the question. "
I agree silly. But not as silly as people believing disproved anti vax propaganda. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think every member of the Cabinet should be vaccinated first to see if it works. Can't trust a word they say
Remember 2001 and one Tony Blair on vaccinations?
Do you mean when tony blair refused to say if his youngest son had the mmr jab on privacy grounds. Cherie blair reveal leo blair had had the mmr jab.
Yup, bit silly to try and dodge the question.
I agree silly. But not as silly as people believing disproved anti vax propaganda. "
I'm not anti-vax. I'm just giving an example of when a politician didn't help themselves. The point was that if the government want us to have it, they can do themselves a favour and get the front of the line. I agree with that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think every member of the Cabinet should be vaccinated first to see if it works. Can't trust a word they say
Remember 2001 and one Tony Blair on vaccinations?
Do you mean when tony blair refused to say if his youngest son had the mmr jab on privacy grounds. Cherie blair reveal leo blair had had the mmr jab.
Yup, bit silly to try and dodge the question.
I agree silly. But not as silly as people believing disproved anti vax propaganda.
I'm not anti-vax. I'm just giving an example of when a politician didn't help themselves. The point was that if the government want us to have it, they can do themselves a favour and get the front of the line. I agree with that. "
I didn't mean you at all. Not even directed at anyone in particular on this thread. My social media has been full of people believing all sorts of stuff. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Also never understand people's issue with anti-vaxxers. If you have the magic jab you have immunity, why is it a problem to you if someone chooses not to have it.
In recent measles outbreaks that have been properly investigated, it turns out most of those infected have been vaccinated!
"
You answered yourself. The vaccine is not effective for everyone and some people can't get it even if they want it. The only way to protect these people is to make everyone else immune. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
