FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Covid vaccine allergic reactions
Covid vaccine allergic reactions
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! " Too late, they're already crowing about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires "You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo ."How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires "Yes I heard about this too on sky news, lets hope that they are ok  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue. "Clarify what exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
Clarify what exactly? "That they already had a pre-existing vaccine allergy... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
Clarify what exactly?
That they already had a pre-existing vaccine allergy... "They had an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Could be for numerous reasons. You said "not really sure what was going through their head " what do you mean by that ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
Clarify what exactly?
That they already had a pre-existing vaccine allergy...
They had an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Could be for numerous reasons.
You said "not really sure what was going through their head " what do you mean by that ?
"That they already knew they had a history of allergic reactions and yet still decided to have the vaccine. That's like being allergic to shellfish and thinking "maybe this time if I eat it I'll be okay". As much as I would encourage as many people as possible to have it, if it's already guaranteed to put you in danger it's probably better to refrain. I would have thought this was just basic common sense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
Clarify what exactly?
That they already had a pre-existing vaccine allergy...
They had an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Could be for numerous reasons.
You said "not really sure what was going through their head " what do you mean by that ?
That they already knew they had a history of allergic reactions and yet still decided to have the vaccine. That's like being allergic to shellfish and thinking "maybe this time if I eat it I'll be okay". As much as I would encourage as many people as possible to have it, if it's already guaranteed to put you in danger it's probably better to refrain. I would have thought this was just basic common sense. "It wasnt guaranteed that it would put them in danger though was it? No one would take a vaccine knowing that. We can be allergic to things without knowing. They now know that something in the Pfizer vaccine isnt suitable for them but that doesnt mean that everyone who is allergic to certain medications shouldn't take this. Your advice to refrain from it, unless based on medical knowledge could be dangerous to some who listen to fab advice which is usually just opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
Clarify what exactly?
That they already had a pre-existing vaccine allergy...
They had an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Could be for numerous reasons.
You said "not really sure what was going through their head " what do you mean by that ?
That they already knew they had a history of allergic reactions and yet still decided to have the vaccine. That's like being allergic to shellfish and thinking "maybe this time if I eat it I'll be okay". As much as I would encourage as many people as possible to have it, if it's already guaranteed to put you in danger it's probably better to refrain. I would have thought this was just basic common sense.
It wasnt guaranteed that it would put them in danger though was it? No one would take a vaccine knowing that.
We can be allergic to things without knowing.
They now know that something in the Pfizer vaccine isnt suitable for them but that doesnt mean that everyone who is allergic to certain medications shouldn't take this.
Your advice to refrain from it, unless based on medical knowledge could be dangerous to some who listen to fab advice which is usually just opinion.
"That's clearly not what she said. The people had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines. They did take the vaccine knowing their own history. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
Clarify what exactly?
That they already had a pre-existing vaccine allergy...
They had an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Could be for numerous reasons.
You said "not really sure what was going through their head " what do you mean by that ?
That they already knew they had a history of allergic reactions and yet still decided to have the vaccine. That's like being allergic to shellfish and thinking "maybe this time if I eat it I'll be okay". As much as I would encourage as many people as possible to have it, if it's already guaranteed to put you in danger it's probably better to refrain. I would have thought this was just basic common sense.
It wasnt guaranteed that it would put them in danger though was it? No one would take a vaccine knowing that.
We can be allergic to things without knowing.
They now know that something in the Pfizer vaccine isnt suitable for them but that doesnt mean that everyone who is allergic to certain medications shouldn't take this.
Your advice to refrain from it, unless based on medical knowledge could be dangerous to some who listen to fab advice which is usually just opinion.
That's clearly not what she said.
The people had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines.
They did take the vaccine knowing their own history.
"I havent read or heard they had a "severe" reaction. They had a significant history but nothing mentions it was against vaccinations. FACT . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
Clarify what exactly?
That they already had a pre-existing vaccine allergy...
They had an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Could be for numerous reasons.
You said "not really sure what was going through their head " what do you mean by that ?
That they already knew they had a history of allergic reactions and yet still decided to have the vaccine. That's like being allergic to shellfish and thinking "maybe this time if I eat it I'll be okay". As much as I would encourage as many people as possible to have it, if it's already guaranteed to put you in danger it's probably better to refrain. I would have thought this was just basic common sense.
It wasnt guaranteed that it would put them in danger though was it? No one would take a vaccine knowing that.
We can be allergic to things without knowing.
They now know that something in the Pfizer vaccine isnt suitable for them but that doesnt mean that everyone who is allergic to certain medications shouldn't take this.
Your advice to refrain from it, unless based on medical knowledge could be dangerous to some who listen to fab advice which is usually just opinion.
"OK cool, you take what you want from it. I can't really be arsed to debate with someone who wants to be difficult for the sake of it. The facts are there and tbh I think what I said was very clear to understand. You seem to be misconstrueing my words on purpose. I'm not engaging in this nonsense any further | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
Clarify what exactly?
That they already had a pre-existing vaccine allergy...
They had an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Could be for numerous reasons.
You said "not really sure what was going through their head " what do you mean by that ?
That they already knew they had a history of allergic reactions and yet still decided to have the vaccine. That's like being allergic to shellfish and thinking "maybe this time if I eat it I'll be okay". As much as I would encourage as many people as possible to have it, if it's already guaranteed to put you in danger it's probably better to refrain. I would have thought this was just basic common sense.
It wasnt guaranteed that it would put them in danger though was it? No one would take a vaccine knowing that.
We can be allergic to things without knowing.
They now know that something in the Pfizer vaccine isnt suitable for them but that doesnt mean that everyone who is allergic to certain medications shouldn't take this.
Your advice to refrain from it, unless based on medical knowledge could be dangerous to some who listen to fab advice which is usually just opinion.
That's clearly not what she said.
The people had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines.
They did take the vaccine knowing their own history.
I havent read or heard they had a "severe" reaction.
They had a significant history but nothing mentions it was against vaccinations.
FACT .
"Haha somone just looking for an argument  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. " I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
Clarify what exactly?
That they already had a pre-existing vaccine allergy...
They had an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Could be for numerous reasons.
You said "not really sure what was going through their head " what do you mean by that ?
That they already knew they had a history of allergic reactions and yet still decided to have the vaccine. That's like being allergic to shellfish and thinking "maybe this time if I eat it I'll be okay". As much as I would encourage as many people as possible to have it, if it's already guaranteed to put you in danger it's probably better to refrain. I would have thought this was just basic common sense.
It wasnt guaranteed that it would put them in danger though was it? No one would take a vaccine knowing that.
We can be allergic to things without knowing.
They now know that something in the Pfizer vaccine isnt suitable for them but that doesnt mean that everyone who is allergic to certain medications shouldn't take this.
Your advice to refrain from it, unless based on medical knowledge could be dangerous to some who listen to fab advice which is usually just opinion.
OK cool, you take what you want from it. I can't really be arsed to debate with someone who wants to be difficult for the sake of it. The facts are there and tbh I think what I said was very clear to understand. You seem to be misconstrueing my words on purpose. I'm not engaging in this nonsense any further "I thought your intention was crystal clear. I really can't see what the argument is. The two individuals have a history of allergic reactions and both carry epi pens. Both have made a full recovery and are doing fine, with no adverse reactions or conditions. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
Clarify what exactly?
That they already had a pre-existing vaccine allergy...
They had an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Could be for numerous reasons.
You said "not really sure what was going through their head " what do you mean by that ?
That they already knew they had a history of allergic reactions and yet still decided to have the vaccine. That's like being allergic to shellfish and thinking "maybe this time if I eat it I'll be okay". As much as I would encourage as many people as possible to have it, if it's already guaranteed to put you in danger it's probably better to refrain. I would have thought this was just basic common sense.
It wasnt guaranteed that it would put them in danger though was it? No one would take a vaccine knowing that.
We can be allergic to things without knowing.
They now know that something in the Pfizer vaccine isnt suitable for them but that doesnt mean that everyone who is allergic to certain medications shouldn't take this.
Your advice to refrain from it, unless based on medical knowledge could be dangerous to some who listen to fab advice which is usually just opinion.
That's clearly not what she said.
The people had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines.
They did take the vaccine knowing their own history.
I havent read or heard they had a "severe" reaction.
They had a significant history but nothing mentions it was against vaccinations.
FACT .
Haha somone just looking for an argument "Innit, literally every article mentions their history of allergic reactions to VACCINES specifically but okay, let's just pretend the facts aren't there  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble "It’s nothing about being noble, it’s about doing right by yourself and taking the medicine that works best for you to make you better, in this case the hope of the body creating a reaction if they catch the virus It’s a choice I’ve had to make in the past with medicine and something I’ll have to choose again in the future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
Clarify what exactly?
That they already had a pre-existing vaccine allergy...
They had an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Could be for numerous reasons.
You said "not really sure what was going through their head " what do you mean by that ?
That they already knew they had a history of allergic reactions and yet still decided to have the vaccine. That's like being allergic to shellfish and thinking "maybe this time if I eat it I'll be okay". As much as I would encourage as many people as possible to have it, if it's already guaranteed to put you in danger it's probably better to refrain. I would have thought this was just basic common sense.
It wasnt guaranteed that it would put them in danger though was it? No one would take a vaccine knowing that.
We can be allergic to things without knowing.
They now know that something in the Pfizer vaccine isnt suitable for them but that doesnt mean that everyone who is allergic to certain medications shouldn't take this.
Your advice to refrain from it, unless based on medical knowledge could be dangerous to some who listen to fab advice which is usually just opinion.
That's clearly not what she said.
The people had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines.
They did take the vaccine knowing their own history.
I havent read or heard they had a "severe" reaction.
They had a significant history but nothing mentions it was against vaccinations.
FACT .
Haha somone just looking for an argument "I'm not looking for an argument. I dont think she should be advising anyone on whether they should have the vaccine or not based on her own opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
Clarify what exactly?
That they already had a pre-existing vaccine allergy...
They had an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Could be for numerous reasons.
You said "not really sure what was going through their head " what do you mean by that ?
That they already knew they had a history of allergic reactions and yet still decided to have the vaccine. That's like being allergic to shellfish and thinking "maybe this time if I eat it I'll be okay". As much as I would encourage as many people as possible to have it, if it's already guaranteed to put you in danger it's probably better to refrain. I would have thought this was just basic common sense.
It wasnt guaranteed that it would put them in danger though was it? No one would take a vaccine knowing that.
We can be allergic to things without knowing.
They now know that something in the Pfizer vaccine isnt suitable for them but that doesnt mean that everyone who is allergic to certain medications shouldn't take this.
Your advice to refrain from it, unless based on medical knowledge could be dangerous to some who listen to fab advice which is usually just opinion.
That's clearly not what she said.
The people had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines.
They did take the vaccine knowing their own history.
I havent read or heard they had a "severe" reaction.
They had a significant history but nothing mentions it was against vaccinations.
FACT .
Haha somone just looking for an argument
Innit, literally every article mentions their history of allergic reactions to VACCINES specifically but okay, let's just pretend the facts aren't there "They have allergies, not specifically to vaccinations . Could be food, medicines or vaccinations... if you are going to post please ensure your information is correct and factual. Misinformation is dangerous . Am i wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m no doctor and don’t pretend to be but if I had suffered allergic reactions to vaccines before it would at least concern me as to whether I could get one from this vaccine as to if you should go ahead and take it that is personal preference but I do think it’s a valid point to accept there is a stronger chance that you may get a reaction if you have before. And I think the point the OP was trying to make was that there was at least a possible reason as to why they got a reaction and to not install negative opinion of the vaccine itself from this" Please send me a link that states they had allergic reactions to a vaccine in the past . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
Clarify what exactly?
That they already had a pre-existing vaccine allergy...
They had an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Could be for numerous reasons.
You said "not really sure what was going through their head " what do you mean by that ?
That they already knew they had a history of allergic reactions and yet still decided to have the vaccine. That's like being allergic to shellfish and thinking "maybe this time if I eat it I'll be okay". As much as I would encourage as many people as possible to have it, if it's already guaranteed to put you in danger it's probably better to refrain. I would have thought this was just basic common sense.
It wasnt guaranteed that it would put them in danger though was it? No one would take a vaccine knowing that.
We can be allergic to things without knowing.
They now know that something in the Pfizer vaccine isnt suitable for them but that doesnt mean that everyone who is allergic to certain medications shouldn't take this.
Your advice to refrain from it, unless based on medical knowledge could be dangerous to some who listen to fab advice which is usually just opinion.
OK cool, you take what you want from it. I can't really be arsed to debate with someone who wants to be difficult for the sake of it. The facts are there and tbh I think what I said was very clear to understand. You seem to be misconstrueing my words on purpose. I'm not engaging in this nonsense any further
I thought your intention was crystal clear. I really can't see what the argument is.
The two individuals have a history of allergic reactions and both carry epi pens.
Both have made a full recovery and are doing fine, with no adverse reactions or conditions.
E"So in the space of a few hours,2 people who are prone to allergies, they had a jab,had a reaction and are now OK.? Is that even newsworthy? Doesn't it just tell us if you are prone to allergy you may have a reaction? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haha I don’t have a link and never said I did I Havnt even heard about thus anywhere but here I’m just working on what’s been said. Down girl "Exactly...working on what's been said ..i was doing the same but nowhere can i find a report that says the 2 Nhs workers had a reaction to previous vaccinations as the OP'S original post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It has just brought it to our attention,that people who carry EpiPens and have got allergic reactions from medication in the past, to seek medical advice,before they consider taking the vaccine I'm sure now that people will be asked this question,before receiving it in future I'm not an antivaxer,I haven't been put off by this happening,All I know is my body does not like the hep B vaccination,that's only because there is a blood test to check this,I have the annual flu jab haven't a clue if that works,I won't have a clue if the covid vaccine works "Those that have had reactions to medicine/vaccines before will/should be having those conversations with their GP prior to having it, just as you’d do if you were to consider taking any new medication | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble "Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
Clarify what exactly?
That they already had a pre-existing vaccine allergy...
They had an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Could be for numerous reasons.
You said "not really sure what was going through their head " what do you mean by that ?
That they already knew they had a history of allergic reactions and yet still decided to have the vaccine. That's like being allergic to shellfish and thinking "maybe this time if I eat it I'll be okay". As much as I would encourage as many people as possible to have it, if it's already guaranteed to put you in danger it's probably better to refrain. I would have thought this was just basic common sense.
It wasnt guaranteed that it would put them in danger though was it? No one would take a vaccine knowing that.
We can be allergic to things without knowing.
They now know that something in the Pfizer vaccine isnt suitable for them but that doesnt mean that everyone who is allergic to certain medications shouldn't take this.
Your advice to refrain from it, unless based on medical knowledge could be dangerous to some who listen to fab advice which is usually just opinion.
OK cool, you take what you want from it. I can't really be arsed to debate with someone who wants to be difficult for the sake of it. The facts are there and tbh I think what I said was very clear to understand. You seem to be misconstrueing my words on purpose. I'm not engaging in this nonsense any further
I thought your intention was crystal clear. I really can't see what the argument is.
The two individuals have a history of allergic reactions and both carry epi pens.
Both have made a full recovery and are doing fine, with no adverse reactions or conditions.
E
So in the space of a few hours,2 people who are prone to allergies, they had a jab,had a reaction and are now OK.? Is that even newsworthy? Doesn't it just tell us if you are prone to allergy you may have a reaction? "Must be a slow news day at the Daily Fail. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Currently they’re recommending anyone with pre ious vaccine allergy not to have and anyone that has been hospitalised due to allergies. You’re not standard ones such as hay fever penicillin don’t count but I would hope no one would make decisions on whether to have it based on allergy from an Internet forum full of strangers .... or Karen on Facebook. " We don't need every person to get vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. We just need everyone who can get vaccinated to be vaccinated. Sadly the only that stops the vaccination from being extinct by summer is the people who pick from a bouquet of conspiracy theories why they won't get vaccinated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Let's all calm down please.
I'm sure it'll become clear in time whether they mean anyone carrying an epi pen or just those known to react to vaccines. Not much point arguing about something that is simply unknown | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK regulator have now updated their advice
Let's all calm down please.
I'm sure it'll become clear in time whether they mean anyone carrying an epi pen or just those known to react to vaccines. Not much point arguing about something that is simply unknown "The MHRA advice states: “Any person with a history of a significant allergic reaction to a vaccine, medicine or food (such as previous history of anaphylactoid reaction or those who have been advised to carry an adrenaline autoinjector) should not receive the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine. Just waiting for NHS / gov websites to update | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone else find it tedious scrolling down through loads of quoted repeated text? Why not ‘Reply and quote’ just the bit you’re referring to? " That's easy to do on a large screen or with a keyboard but on a mobile it can be near on impossible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Currently they’re recommending anyone with pre ious vaccine allergy not to have and anyone that has been hospitalised due to allergies. You’re not standard ones such as hay fever penicillin don’t count but I would hope no one would make decisions on whether to have it based on allergy from an Internet forum full of strangers .... or Karen on Facebook. " Errrrrrr medicine it states so penicillin is a reason not to get it !!!! Karen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone else find it tedious scrolling down through loads of quoted repeated text? Why not ‘Reply and quote’ just the bit you’re referring to? " yeh makes sense and is easy to do on a mobile phone too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK regulator have now updated their advice
Let's all calm down please.
I'm sure it'll become clear in time whether they mean anyone carrying an epi pen or just those known to react to vaccines. Not much point arguing about something that is simply unknown
The MHRA advice states: “Any person with a history of a significant allergic reaction to a vaccine, medicine or food (such as previous history of anaphylactoid reaction or those who have been advised to carry an adrenaline autoinjector) should not receive the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine.
Just waiting for NHS / gov websites to update "Thanks. I carry my epi pen but I wouldn't take anything unless under direct medical advice of someone who knows my medical details. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone else find it tedious scrolling down through loads of quoted repeated text? Why not ‘Reply and quote’ just the bit you’re referring to? " No. Don't find it tedious at all. The added bit is a different color and it works well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not ‘Reply and quote’ just the bit you’re referring to? That's easy to do on a large screen or with a keyboard but on a mobile it can be near on impossible " I just did it in 5seconds on my phone screen... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not ‘Reply and quote’ just the bit you’re referring to? That's easy to do on a large screen or with a keyboard but on a mobile it can be near on impossible I just did it in 5seconds on my phone screen..." This would be a great topic on another thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone else find it tedious scrolling down through loads of quoted repeated text? Why not ‘Reply and quote’ just the bit you’re referring to? That's easy to do on a large screen or with a keyboard but on a mobile it can be near on impossible " It's easy to do reply, quote and edit what's not needed on mobile. I've never used a forum on anything bigger than a mobile | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you are knowingly allergic to anything surely you should be asking if this will affect you if you take the covid vaccine , I'm allergic to mussels and Jill to penicillin so we would ask questions. We always read any leaflets for any new medication we are prescribed " Before being prescribed penicillin containing medication Jill would be asked ...no? Though when purchasing a plat de fruits de mer the onus would be on you to ask? The vaccine will be administered not given in a box with an information sheet so the person with their thumb on a plunger should have an idea? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haha I don’t have a link and never said I did I Havnt even heard about thus anywhere but here I’m just working on what’s been said. Down girl
Exactly...working on what's been said ..i was doing the same but nowhere can i find a report that says the 2 Nhs workers had a reaction to previous vaccinations as the OP'S original post."In danger of loosing this as a forum for sensible discussions if certain individuals constantly chose to deliberately misconstrue obvious statements. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
The sentiment does remain though that I am worried about people using this for their own anti-vaxx agendas, and that this will lead to more scaremongering and a decrease in uptake. My intention here was firstly to put people's minds at rest and secondly to stop people exaggerating and twisting the story (which, coincidentally, is what I ended up doing). So a bit of a warped thread but honestly made with good intentions.
As for me advising people not to have it, the official advice from the MHRA now says this too. So I don't regret saying that, mostly because I don't want anyone to unnecessarily put themselves at risk. I've witnessed anaphylaxis and it is fucking scary. But obviously the choice is down to the individual | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo ."Totally agree. It's just aggravating an already emotive subject and causing further division. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue. "By the way you are referring to 'anti vaxxers', please remember not to tar everyone with the same brush, some just don't want this particular vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are starting to advise that anyone who carries an auto injector epi pen should not have the vaccine, which adds to the pregnant women and children who should not have it." Or those planning to get pregnant within a few months. It hasn't been tested thoroughly with regards to whether it affects fertility yet either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers "Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns "See that were I disagree. As would most informed people. Anti vaxxers are people who won't have any vaccines for different reasons, some might be moral, religious, fear etc. Sadly many uniformed/misinformed or deliberately ignorant people are twisting things to either force their opinions onto other or deliberately trying to cause division. These people are often just twisters and manipulators if the truth and are no different to many news headline editors. Your green arrow demonstrates this too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
By the way you are referring to 'anti vaxxers', please remember not to tar everyone with the same brush, some just don't want this particular vaccine. "Sadly there are a few here who deliberately do so in order to cause division. Not to be taken seriously if they can't understand that simple difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
By the way you are referring to 'anti vaxxers', please remember not to tar everyone with the same brush, some just don't want this particular vaccine.
Sadly there are a few here who deliberately do so in order to cause division.
Not to be taken seriously if they can't understand that simple difference."When I use the term anti-vaxxer I mean people who make non-logical decisions and then try to get others to conform to their baseless views by twisting the facts to fit their agenda. I am fully aware that there are a myriad of legitimate reasons why people wouldn't be able to vaccinate and have always tried to make that view clear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
See that were I disagree. As would most informed people.
Anti vaxxers are people who won't have any vaccines for different reasons, some might be moral, religious, fear etc.
Sadly many uniformed/misinformed or deliberately ignorant people are twisting things to either force their opinions onto other or deliberately trying to cause division.
These people are often just twisters and manipulators if the truth and are no different to many news headline editors.
Your green arrow demonstrates this too."You are quite correct. I'm a pro vaxxer! Did you really need to "green arrow" to see that. I'm also pro choice. I wouldn't push anyone to have the vax, for any reason tho. But like I keep saying, All choices come with consequences. This seems to upset the anti-vaxxers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
See that were I disagree. As would most informed people.
Anti vaxxers are people who won't have any vaccines for different reasons, some might be moral, religious, fear etc.
Sadly many uniformed/misinformed or deliberately ignorant people are twisting things to either force their opinions onto other or deliberately trying to cause division.
These people are often just twisters and manipulators if the truth and are no different to many news headline editors.
Your green arrow demonstrates this too.
You are quite correct. I'm a pro vaxxer! Did you really need to "green arrow" to see that. I'm also pro choice. I wouldn't push anyone to have the vax, for any reason tho. But like I keep saying, All choices come with consequences. This seems to upset the anti-vaxxers. "You are a pro vaxxer who doesn't understand what an anti vaxxer is as you tar everyone who choose not to take this vaccine ATM as an anti vaxxer. Simple an naive understanding of the difference. So as I said not to be taken seriously as you continue to deliberately tar everyone the same even in your last response. Learn the difference, apply the difference and maybe people will listen more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
See that were I disagree. As would most informed people.
Anti vaxxers are people who won't have any vaccines for different reasons, some might be moral, religious, fear etc.
Sadly many uniformed/misinformed or deliberately ignorant people are twisting things to either force their opinions onto other or deliberately trying to cause division.
These people are often just twisters and manipulators if the truth and are no different to many news headline editors.
Your green arrow demonstrates this too.
You are quite correct. I'm a pro vaxxer! Did you really need to "green arrow" to see that. I'm also pro choice. I wouldn't push anyone to have the vax, for any reason tho. But like I keep saying, All choices come with consequences. This seems to upset the anti-vaxxers.
You are a pro vaxxer who doesn't understand what an anti vaxxer is as you tar everyone who choose not to take this vaccine ATM as an anti vaxxer. Simple an naive understanding of the difference. So as I said not to be taken seriously as you continue to deliberately tar everyone the same even in your last response.
Learn the difference, apply the difference and maybe people will listen more."I think I perfectly understand what a anti - vaxxer is, but obviously you know better. Please enlighten me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns "I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
By the way you are referring to 'anti vaxxers', please remember not to tar everyone with the same brush, some just don't want this particular vaccine.
Sadly there are a few here who deliberately do so in order to cause division.
Not to be taken seriously if they can't understand that simple difference.
When I use the term anti-vaxxer I mean people who make non-logical decisions and then try to get others to conform to their baseless views by twisting the facts to fit their agenda. I am fully aware that there are a myriad of legitimate reasons why people wouldn't be able to vaccinate and have always tried to make that view clear. "And how about the pro vaxxers with their extreme views on allowing travel, entry to venues etc to only those who are vaccinated?? It works both ways. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
See that were I disagree. As would most informed people.
Anti vaxxers are people who won't have any vaccines for different reasons, some might be moral, religious, fear etc.
Sadly many uniformed/misinformed or deliberately ignorant people are twisting things to either force their opinions onto other or deliberately trying to cause division.
These people are often just twisters and manipulators if the truth and are no different to many news headline editors.
Your green arrow demonstrates this too.
You are quite correct. I'm a pro vaxxer! Did you really need to "green arrow" to see that. I'm also pro choice. I wouldn't push anyone to have the vax, for any reason tho. But like I keep saying, All choices come with consequences. This seems to upset the anti-vaxxers.
You are a pro vaxxer who doesn't understand what an anti vaxxer is as you tar everyone who choose not to take this vaccine ATM as an anti vaxxer. Simple an naive understanding of the difference. So as I said not to be taken seriously as you continue to deliberately tar everyone the same even in your last response.
Learn the difference, apply the difference and maybe people will listen more." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations. "Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
By the way you are referring to 'anti vaxxers', please remember not to tar everyone with the same brush, some just don't want this particular vaccine.
Sadly there are a few here who deliberately do so in order to cause division.
Not to be taken seriously if they can't understand that simple difference.
When I use the term anti-vaxxer I mean people who make non-logical decisions and then try to get others to conform to their baseless views by twisting the facts to fit their agenda. I am fully aware that there are a myriad of legitimate reasons why people wouldn't be able to vaccinate and have always tried to make that view clear.
And how about the pro vaxxers with their extreme views on allowing travel, entry to venues etc to only those who are vaccinated?? It works both ways. "I don't think it's extreme to not want to sit shoulder to shoulder on a plane for hours, next to a conspiracy theorist, who could make me ill. Does this really make me an extremist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons "Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
By the way you are referring to 'anti vaxxers', please remember not to tar everyone with the same brush, some just don't want this particular vaccine.
Sadly there are a few here who deliberately do so in order to cause division.
Not to be taken seriously if they can't understand that simple difference.
When I use the term anti-vaxxer I mean people who make non-logical decisions and then try to get others to conform to their baseless views by twisting the facts to fit their agenda. I am fully aware that there are a myriad of legitimate reasons why people wouldn't be able to vaccinate and have always tried to make that view clear.
And how about the pro vaxxers with their extreme views on allowing travel, entry to venues etc to only those who are vaccinated?? It works both ways. "I've posted on multiple threads saying I disagree with the more extreme measures people are proposing. I even started thread questioning why we would ever need to go to the lengths of barring people from certain venues. Green arrow me if you want
Looks like you're tarring me with the "militant Pro-vaxxer" brush. That works both ways too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
By the way you are referring to 'anti vaxxers', please remember not to tar everyone with the same brush, some just don't want this particular vaccine.
Sadly there are a few here who deliberately do so in order to cause division.
Not to be taken seriously if they can't understand that simple difference.
When I use the term anti-vaxxer I mean people who make non-logical decisions and then try to get others to conform to their baseless views by twisting the facts to fit their agenda. I am fully aware that there are a myriad of legitimate reasons why people wouldn't be able to vaccinate and have always tried to make that view clear.
And how about the pro vaxxers with their extreme views on allowing travel, entry to venues etc to only those who are vaccinated?? It works both ways.
I've posted on multiple threads saying I disagree with the more extreme measures people are proposing. I even started thread questioning why we would ever need to go to the lengths of barring people from certain venues. Green arrow me if you want
Looks like you're tarring me with the "militant Pro-vaxxer" brush. That works both ways too. "I totally agree. Have you noticed how anti-vaxxers, can't give a sensible answer, to say why, and just repeat "I'm not an anti-vaxxer" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers. "Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route. Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't think it's extreme to not want to sit shoulder to shoulder on a plane for hours, next to a conspiracy theorist, who could make me ill. Does this really make me an extremist? "I wouldn't want to do that even if they weren't likely to make me ill...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
By the way you are referring to 'anti vaxxers', please remember not to tar everyone with the same brush, some just don't want this particular vaccine.
Sadly there are a few here who deliberately do so in order to cause division.
Not to be taken seriously if they can't understand that simple difference.
When I use the term anti-vaxxer I mean people who make non-logical decisions and then try to get others to conform to their baseless views by twisting the facts to fit their agenda. I am fully aware that there are a myriad of legitimate reasons why people wouldn't be able to vaccinate and have always tried to make that view clear.
And how about the pro vaxxers with their extreme views on allowing travel, entry to venues etc to only those who are vaccinated?? It works both ways.
I've posted on multiple threads saying I disagree with the more extreme measures people are proposing. I even started thread questioning why we would ever need to go to the lengths of barring people from certain venues. Green arrow me if you want
Looks like you're tarring me with the "militant Pro-vaxxer" brush. That works both ways too. "Some will only read what they want to see and ignore any counter debate even if very reasonable and then say later but you can't give any reasons 
You can't and shouldn't debate with stupidity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new."Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people. "Not lumping everyone together just pointing out that there are 3 vaccines excluding the Russian, Chinese and South American ones Two of them use mRNA technology that has been in development since the 1950’s How old does something need to be to not make it new ??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure that before you have a needle stuck in you by a medical professional, they ask if you have any allergies. It would seem the recipient was unaware that anything in the vaccine would cause a reaction as I sure they would not have agreed to be injected. News has been really thin on the ground lately so anything that news agencies can blow out of proportion, they are gonna run it to death. " This is what the investigation will be for as an over immune response is one of the possible side effects listed by pfizer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people. "At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at. I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason "OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason "
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know. "You say you're "pro choice" What about my choice to not catch something off you, if I was to sit next to you? You aren't really into pro choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
You say you're "pro choice"
What about my choice to not catch something off you, if I was to sit next to you? You aren't really into pro choice. "James can you answer my question I posed to you earlier? What makes you safer to sit next to ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
You say you're "pro choice"
What about my choice to not catch something off you, if I was to sit next to you? You aren't really into pro choice.
James can you answer my question I posed to you earlier?
What makes you safer to sit next to ?"I'll answer it again for the last time. The vaccine reduces, not eliminates that risk, so I could possibly give a vax dodger covid. Just like they could still infect me. I don't want to be ill nor do I want to make anyone else ill. What's so difficult to understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know. "OK but you just lumped me in with the rest of the pro-vaxxers even though I've made it clear on a couple of occasions that my stance was pretty much pro-choice... Like I said, it goes both ways. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
You say you're "pro choice"
What about my choice to not catch something off you, if I was to sit next to you? You aren't really into pro choice.
James can you answer my question I posed to you earlier?
What makes you safer to sit next to ?
I'll answer it again for the last time. The vaccine reduces, not eliminates that risk, so I could possibly give a vax dodger covid. Just like they could still infect me. I don't want to be ill nor do I want to make anyone else ill. What's so difficult to understand. "Send me a link where it reduces your risk to spreading it? Even the manufacturers have said it doesn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the big take away from this story is the weaponisation of selective facts. This will be used by anti vax promoters and will also make some more reluctant to get the vaccine. It's shameful on the part of the press but I do wish that people had the nous to read more than a headline. A headline intended to play on existing worries." Unfortunately there are too many that just read headlines, rather than seeking out and reading the facts themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the big take away from this story is the weaponisation of selective facts. This will be used by anti vax promoters and will also make some more reluctant to get the vaccine. It's shameful on the part of the press but I do wish that people had the nous to read more than a headline. A headline intended to play on existing worries." Don't be selective and overlook the way pro vaxxer do as well. There are as many from both sides that are doing this. If pro vaxxers are giving false information or basing their arguments on false information how do you think anyone who is hesitant will respond to further pro vaxxers responses. It works both ways and people need to get their fact and understand them a bit more before telling or advising others what to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
You say you're "pro choice"
What about my choice to not catch something off you, if I was to sit next to you? You aren't really into pro choice.
James can you answer my question I posed to you earlier?
What makes you safer to sit next to ?
I'll answer it again for the last time. The vaccine reduces, not eliminates that risk, so I could possibly give a vax dodger covid. Just like they could still infect me. I don't want to be ill nor do I want to make anyone else ill. What's so difficult to understand.
Send me a link where it reduces your risk to spreading it?
Even the manufacturers have said it doesn't."They haven't said it *doesn't* but unfortunately they just don't know. The trials weren't focused on rate of transmission but rather how effective the vaccine was at shielding individuals from developing symptoms. Ugur Sahin, the scientist behind the vaccine, reckons it could potentially reduce transmissions by up to 50% but we won't know for sure until some time next year. At the moment they are prioritising reducing the death rate, reducing hospital admissions and preventing the effects of long covid, and to be honest thats good enough for me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
You say you're "pro choice"
What about my choice to not catch something off you, if I was to sit next to you? You aren't really into pro choice.
James can you answer my question I posed to you earlier?
What makes you safer to sit next to ?
I'll answer it again for the last time. The vaccine reduces, not eliminates that risk, so I could possibly give a vax dodger covid. Just like they could still infect me. I don't want to be ill nor do I want to make anyone else ill. What's so difficult to understand.
Send me a link where it reduces your risk to spreading it?
Even the manufacturers have said it doesn't."I don't think that's true. The manufacturers know, no vaccine is 100% perfect. I've seen them say 90% tho Which manufacturers say it isn't possible to infect someone, when the jab has been had. Nothing is perfect, it's all about risk reduction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'll answer it again for the last time. The vaccine reduces, not eliminates that risk, so I could possibly give a vax dodger covid. Just like they could still infect me. I don't want to be ill nor do I want to make anyone else ill. What's so difficult to understand.
Send me a link where it reduces your risk to spreading it?
Even the manufacturers have said it doesn't.
I don't think that's true. The manufacturers know, no vaccine is 100% perfect. I've seen them say 90% tho
Which manufacturers say it isn't possible to infect someone, when the jab has been had. Nothing is perfect, it's all about risk reduction. "As the only one being used at the moment is Pfizer, type into the web ‘ pfzier covid vaccine does it stop you infecting others’ and you’ll find your answer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the big take away from this story is the weaponisation of selective facts. This will be used by anti vax promoters and will also make some more reluctant to get the vaccine. It's shameful on the part of the press but I do wish that people had the nous to read more than a headline. A headline intended to play on existing worries. Don't be selective and overlook the way pro vaxxer do as well. There are as many from both sides that are doing this. If pro vaxxers are giving false information or basing their arguments on false information how do you think anyone who is hesitant will respond to further pro vaxxers responses. It works both ways and people need to get their fact and understand them a bit more before telling or advising others what to do." I disagree, I have encountered much much more intentional dis and misinformed from the covid supporters from the outset. There's no 'both sides' argument here. The media is a seperate issue here. From the outset, the same people have being disputing the benefits of lockdowns, whether the virus was real, the death rate, if masks work and now is the vaccine safe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the big take away from this story is the weaponisation of selective facts. This will be used by anti vax promoters and will also make some more reluctant to get the vaccine. It's shameful on the part of the press but I do wish that people had the nous to read more than a headline. A headline intended to play on existing worries. Don't be selective and overlook the way pro vaxxer do as well. There are as many from both sides that are doing this. If pro vaxxers are giving false information or basing their arguments on false information how do you think anyone who is hesitant will respond to further pro vaxxers responses. It works both ways and people need to get their fact and understand them a bit more before telling or advising others what to do. I disagree, I have encountered much much more intentional dis and misinformed from the covid supporters from the outset. There's no 'both sides' argument here. The media is a seperate issue here. From the outset, the same people have being disputing the benefits of lockdowns, whether the virus was real, the death rate, if masks work and now is the vaccine safe." Exactly. It's the same folk moaning about everything. I'll bet a few of them are flat earthers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
OK but you just lumped me in with the rest of the pro-vaxxers even though I've made it clear on a couple of occasions that my stance was pretty much pro-choice... Like I said, it goes both ways. "Seems some people only like to reply when they want to attack or disagree with you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know. "Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
You say you're "pro choice"
What about my choice to not catch something off you, if I was to sit next to you? You aren't really into pro choice. "It's your choice not to sit next to me, same as its now my choice to ignore your replies to my posts. I can't be bothered to argue with stupidity any more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’. "I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one. "I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you are knowingly allergic to anything surely you should be asking if this will affect you if you take the covid vaccine , I'm allergic to mussels and Jill to penicillin so we would ask questions. We always read any leaflets for any new medication we are prescribed Before being prescribed penicillin containing medication Jill would be asked ...no? Though when purchasing a plat de fruits de mer the onus would be on you to ask? The vaccine will be administered not given in a box with an information sheet so the person with their thumb on a plunger should have an idea? " That is why if you know you have allergies then you need to state them before allowing the vaccine to be pumped into your body | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
OK but you just lumped me in with the rest of the pro-vaxxers even though I've made it clear on a couple of occasions that my stance was pretty much pro-choice... Like I said, it goes both ways.
Seems some people only like to reply when they want to attack or disagree with you "Lmao am I invisible?!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?"It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is oing to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires "NHS website ... The ingredients in the vaccine. “Dose not contain eggs or animal products” Is a ingredient not something in it ? not what’s not in it ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is oing to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
NHS website ...
The ingredients in the vaccine.
“Dose not contain eggs or animal products”
Is a ingredient not something in it ? not what’s not in it ?
"Vaccines usually contain egg proteins so the fact this one doesn't is probably why they've stated that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is oing to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
NHS website ...
The ingredients in the vaccine.
“Dose not contain eggs or animal products”
Is a ingredient not something in it ? not what’s not in it ?
Vaccines usually contain egg proteins so the fact this one doesn't is probably why they've stated that. "Questions surrounding the coronavirus vaccine and allergic reactions have heightened this week after these cases from it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is oing to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
NHS website ...
The ingredients in the vaccine.
“Dose not contain eggs or animal products”
Is a ingredient not something in it ? not what’s not in it ?
Vaccines usually contain egg proteins so the fact this one doesn't is probably why they've stated that. "For all those who are concerned they might have a allergic reaction to it, animal products for another group of people concerned. They have put 2 ingredients that are not in it to open it up to more of the population. Should the ingredients not be a list of what is in it and let the people know and choose then ? Instead of cover 2 that ain’t ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is oing to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
NHS website ...
The ingredients in the vaccine.
“Dose not contain eggs or animal products”
Is a ingredient not something in it ? not what’s not in it ?
Vaccines usually contain egg proteins so the fact this one doesn't is probably why they've stated that.
For all those who are concerned they might have a allergic reaction to it, animal products for another group of people concerned. They have put 2 ingredients that are not in it to open it up to more of the population.
Should the ingredients not be a list of what is in it and let the people know and choose then ? Instead of cover 2 that ain’t ?
"Yes, it should say the ingredients too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet. "Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is oing to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
NHS website ...
The ingredients in the vaccine.
“Dose not contain eggs or animal products”
Is a ingredient not something in it ? not what’s not in it ?
Vaccines usually contain egg proteins so the fact this one doesn't is probably why they've stated that.
For all those who are concerned they might have a allergic reaction to it, animal products for another group of people concerned. They have put 2 ingredients that are not in it to open it up to more of the population.
Should the ingredients not be a list of what is in it and let the people know and choose then ? Instead of cover 2 that ain’t ?
Yes, it should say the ingredients too."I would have thought the ingredients and processes would firstly be a trade secret and secondly be completely incomprehensible to most people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is oing to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
NHS website ...
The ingredients in the vaccine.
“Dose not contain eggs or animal products”
Is a ingredient not something in it ? not what’s not in it ?
Vaccines usually contain egg proteins so the fact this one doesn't is probably why they've stated that.
For all those who are concerned they might have a allergic reaction to it, animal products for another group of people concerned. They have put 2 ingredients that are not in it to open it up to more of the population.
Should the ingredients not be a list of what is in it and let the people know and choose then ? Instead of cover 2 that ain’t ?
Yes, it should say the ingredients too. I would have thought the ingredients and processes would firstly be a trade secret and secondly be completely incomprehensible to most people. "Google 'Pfizer vaccine ingredients, a fact sheet should come up in the search and the ingredients are listed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is oing to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
NHS website ...
The ingredients in the vaccine.
“Dose not contain eggs or animal products”
Is a ingredient not something in it ? not what’s not in it ?
Vaccines usually contain egg proteins so the fact this one doesn't is probably why they've stated that.
For all those who are concerned they might have a allergic reaction to it, animal products for another group of people concerned. They have put 2 ingredients that are not in it to open it up to more of the population.
Should the ingredients not be a list of what is in it and let the people know and choose then ? Instead of cover 2 that ain’t ?
Yes, it should say the ingredients too."If I said the ingredients, maize starch, potassium sorbate, purified talc, stearic acid, povidone, and soluble starch, would you be any the wiser? Do you know what any or all of them are? What's stearic acid and povidene? And how do they affect the body? If your answer is no idea, how does knowing the contents help you make an educated decision? Does stearic acid and povidene sound a bit scary? Maize starch, potassium sorbate, purified talc, stearic acid, povidone, and soluble starch ate the key components of Paracetamol. And very few people bat an eyelid taking them. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is oing to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
NHS website ...
The ingredients in the vaccine.
“Dose not contain eggs or animal products”
Is a ingredient not something in it ? not what’s not in it ?
Vaccines usually contain egg proteins so the fact this one doesn't is probably why they've stated that.
For all those who are concerned they might have a allergic reaction to it, animal products for another group of people concerned. They have put 2 ingredients that are not in it to open it up to more of the population.
Should the ingredients not be a list of what is in it and let the people know and choose then ? Instead of cover 2 that ain’t ?
Yes, it should say the ingredients too.
If I said the ingredients, maize starch, potassium sorbate, purified talc, stearic acid, povidone, and soluble starch, would you be any the wiser?
Do you know what any or all of them are?
What's stearic acid and povidene?
And how do they affect the body?
If your answer is no idea, how does knowing the contents help you make an educated decision?
Does stearic acid and povidene sound a bit scary?
Maize starch, potassium sorbate, purified talc, stearic acid, povidone, and soluble starch ate the key components of Paracetamol.
And very few people bat an eyelid taking them.
E
"Don't know about you but personally I always make sure my medications contain stearic acid. It's the best of all the acids. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Should the ingredients not be a list of what is in it and let the people know and choose then ? Instead of cover 2 that ain’t ? " Took me less than a minute to find a full list of ingredients on the Web. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Should the ingredients not be a list of what is in it and let the people know and choose then ? Instead of cover 2 that ain’t ? Took me less than a minute to find a full list of ingredients on the Web." Well done ! I was referring to the NHS website. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Should the ingredients not be a list of what is in it and let the people know and choose then ? Instead of cover 2 that ain’t ? Took me less than a minute to find a full list of ingredients on the Web. Well done ! I was referring to the NHS website. " Why's that a big deal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Should the ingredients not be a list of what is in it and let the people know and choose then ? Instead of cover 2 that ain’t ? Took me less than a minute to find a full list of ingredients on the Web. Well done ! I was referring to the NHS website. Why's that a big deal?" I posted on the back of allergic reactions which I had read, I’m sure there is many people who this would effect... Sure there is many out there that would need to know what is in it ? I made my comment on the lack of that information on the NHS website. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Should the ingredients not be a list of what is in it and let the people know and choose then ? Instead of cover 2 that ain’t ? Took me less than a minute to find a full list of ingredients on the Web. Well done ! I was referring to the NHS website. Why's that a big deal? I posted on the back of allergic reactions which I had read, I’m sure there is many people who this would effect... Sure there is many out there that would need to know what is in it ? I made my comment on the lack of that information on the NHS website. " The information about the ingredients is freely available, so not having it on the NHS website isn't exactly a showstopper for anyone who feels the need to know more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Should the ingredients not be a list of what is in it and let the people know and choose then ? Instead of cover 2 that ain’t ? Took me less than a minute to find a full list of ingredients on the Web. Well done ! I was referring to the NHS website. Why's that a big deal? I posted on the back of allergic reactions which I had read, I’m sure there is many people who this would effect... Sure there is many out there that would need to know what is in it ? I made my comment on the lack of that information on the NHS website. " GPs will generally know who has severe allergic reactions, as will the patients typically, requiring Epipens, to alleviate symptoms. People given the vaccines are observed for 15 minutes at least. The 2 NHS staff who had a reaction, had known conditions and were given remedial treatment within minutes, which they both had with then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeahhhhhhhh hallulejah wasn’t having it anyway .... but I’m allergic to penicillin so that’s me exempt "So is my younger son. He’s 22 but I certainly won’t be risking it by letting him get this vaccine. Ended up at emergency GP on Christmas Day when he was 10 months old. Covered in a rash. Never had penicillin since. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sheep having the vaccine oh dear. " Why would anyone not have the vaccine? I'm willing to bet you've had several vaccinations in the past. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet.
Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know "From the government website, for health care professionals: "4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction No interaction studies have been performed. Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1). Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe. 4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation Pregnancy There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy. For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose. Breast-feeding It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding. Fertility It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility" Please note the terms "studies have not been completed" and the words like "unknown". You can look this up for yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet.
Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know
From the government website, for health care professionals:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed.
Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).
Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe.
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility"
Please note the terms "studies have not been completed" and the words like "unknown". You can look this up for yourself. "All of this true but you apply all of it to covid 19 we have idea of the long term effects of covid, symptomatic or not, on fertility. We do know that it can be past on in the womb, and thankfully so far no baby born with covid has come to any harm. Its all about risk and every person has to judge that for themselves, but they should do it with proper science and facts not stuff a random has posted on facebook or a guy in his pants has said on youtube. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet.
Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know
From the government website, for health care professionals:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed.
Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).
Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe.
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility"
Please note the terms "studies have not been completed" and the words like "unknown". You can look this up for yourself.
All of this true but you apply all of it to covid 19 we have idea of the long term effects of covid, symptomatic or not, on fertility. We do know that it can be past on in the womb, and thankfully so far no baby born with covid has come to any harm. Its all about risk and every person has to judge that for themselves, but they should do it with proper science and facts not stuff a random has posted on facebook or a guy in his pants has said on youtube."This is true, and I agree with you. The section I posted was copied directly from the government's own .Gov website, not from Dave from fb or YouTube, therefore was done with proper science and facts. I was told by my gp to assume I have had covid as I was ill a few months ago and couldn't get tested, I am still suffering from fatigue, nausea, joint/muscle pain and headaches now which I didn't have before. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2 NHS workers have reported allergic reactions to the new vaccine. Before anyone starts making a big anti-vaccine case using this story: they both already had a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines!!! It should go without saying that if you know you are allergic, maybe it might not be the best idea to have the vaccine! Not really sure what was going through their heads tbh. The annoying thing is that this is going to fuel so many anti-vaxx fires
You are adding fuel to the fire by posting this imo .
How so? I'm trying to clarify something before it becomes an issue.
By the way you are referring to 'anti vaxxers', please remember not to tar everyone with the same brush, some just don't want this particular vaccine.
Sadly there are a few here who deliberately do so in order to cause division.
Not to be taken seriously if they can't understand that simple difference.
When I use the term anti-vaxxer I mean people who make non-logical decisions and then try to get others to conform to their baseless views by twisting the facts to fit their agenda. I am fully aware that there are a myriad of legitimate reasons why people wouldn't be able to vaccinate and have always tried to make that view clear.
And how about the pro vaxxers with their extreme views on allowing travel, entry to venues etc to only those who are vaccinated?? It works both ways.
I've posted on multiple threads saying I disagree with the more extreme measures people are proposing. I even started thread questioning why we would ever need to go to the lengths of barring people from certain venues. Green arrow me if you want
Looks like you're tarring me with the "militant Pro-vaxxer" brush. That works both ways too.
I totally agree. Have you noticed how anti-vaxxers, can't give a sensible answer, to say why, and just repeat "I'm not an anti-vaxxer"
"You've had plenty of sensible answers. Read them and stop stirring up trouble for the sake of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sheep having the vaccine oh dear. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet.
Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know
From the government website, for health care professionals:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed.
Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).
Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe.
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility"
Please note the terms "studies have not been completed" and the words like "unknown". You can look this up for yourself. "Ah thank you. So basically vaccines shouldn't be mixed in the same syringe. That's never going to happen. And the other area is in being pregnant, breast feeding and fertility. You are not going to have the vaccine because at 52 you could fall into one of those categories!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sheep having the vaccine oh dear. " Thing is at your age you would not even be offered the vaccine unless you have underlying health conditions! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet.
Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know
From the government website, for health care professionals:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed.
Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).
Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe.
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility"
Please note the terms "studies have not been completed" and the words like "unknown". You can look this up for yourself.
Ah thank you. So basically vaccines shouldn't be mixed in the same syringe. That's never going to happen. And the other area is in being pregnant, breast feeding and fertility. You are not going to have the vaccine because at 52 you could fall into one of those categories!!"Isn't it a fact that the person you're arguing with has the choice not to take this particular vaccine. Your last comment was facetious to say the least. Do you think you're going to persuade anyone by pointing out what they've written might not be applicable. At any point, if some testing or effects are not advised or recommended then that means it's not fully tested. From reading some of that, it appears that fertility might be an issue at some point. Now, it could well be that research hasn't been completed into the effects or make reproduction if they take the vaccine. I understand both sides of your arguments but you're getting personal. As they said, just because they don't want this particular vaccine, doesn't make them an anti vaxxer. Maybe yiu could say they are an anti Pfizer or those who prefer that one, are they anti Oxfords? People have a choice and why can't that be acceptable to everyone | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet.
Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know
From the government website, for health care professionals:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed.
Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).
Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe.
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility"
Please note the terms "studies have not been completed" and the words like "unknown". You can look this up for yourself.
Ah thank you. So basically vaccines shouldn't be mixed in the same syringe. That's never going to happen. And the other area is in being pregnant, breast feeding and fertility. You are not going to have the vaccine because at 52 you could fall into one of those categories!!"I just want to point out that I don't want to be ageist. Of course women can have babies in their 50s (very rarely naturally) but there are greater risks to the mother and the baby. Look up risks to going birth in your 50s. You can do this yourself and it is quite simple. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet.
Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know
From the government website, for health care professionals:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed.
Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).
Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe.
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility"
Please note the terms "studies have not been completed" and the words like "unknown". You can look this up for yourself.
Ah thank you. So basically vaccines shouldn't be mixed in the same syringe. That's never going to happen. And the other area is in being pregnant, breast feeding and fertility. You are not going to have the vaccine because at 52 you could fall into one of those categories!!"I'm not having it because it's my choice, not for the reasons you have assumed. I gave you facts which you had asked for. No need for personal comments about my age and choices. You choose to have, I have no problem, those who choose not to have it, I also have no problem with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet.
Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know
From the government website, for health care professionals:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed.
Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).
Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe.
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility"
Please note the terms "studies have not been completed" and the words like "unknown". You can look this up for yourself.
Ah thank you. So basically vaccines shouldn't be mixed in the same syringe. That's never going to happen. And the other area is in being pregnant, breast feeding and fertility. You are not going to have the vaccine because at 52 you could fall into one of those categories!!
I just want to point out that I don't want to be ageist. Of course women can have babies in their 50s (very rarely naturally) but there are greater risks to the mother and the baby. Look up risks to going birth in your 50s. You can do this yourself and it is quite simple."I wasn't planning on having more kids, I was using this particular part from the government website as one of the examples where it hasn't been tested properly, but clearly some are choosing to take things very literally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet.
Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know
From the government website, for health care professionals:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed.
Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).
Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe.
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility"
Please note the terms "studies have not been completed" and the words like "unknown". You can look this up for yourself.
Ah thank you. So basically vaccines shouldn't be mixed in the same syringe. That's never going to happen. And the other area is in being pregnant, breast feeding and fertility. You are not going to have the vaccine because at 52 you could fall into one of those categories!!
Isn't it a fact that the person you're arguing with has the choice not to take this particular vaccine. Your last comment was facetious to say the least. Do you think you're going to persuade anyone by pointing out what they've written might not be applicable. At any point, if some testing or effects are not advised or recommended then that means it's not fully tested.
From reading some of that, it appears that fertility might be an issue at some point. Now, it could well be that research hasn't been completed into the effects or make reproduction if they take the vaccine.
I understand both sides of your arguments but you're getting personal.
As they said, just because they don't want this particular vaccine, doesn't make them an anti vaxxer.
Maybe yiu could say they are an anti Pfizer or those who prefer that one, are they anti Oxfords?
People have a choice and why can't that be acceptable to everyone "Thankyou for clarifying on my behalf. Xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet.
Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know
From the government website, for health care professionals:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed.
Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).
Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe.
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility"
Please note the terms "studies have not been completed" and the words like "unknown". You can look this up for yourself.
Ah thank you. So basically vaccines shouldn't be mixed in the same syringe. That's never going to happen. And the other area is in being pregnant, breast feeding and fertility. You are not going to have the vaccine because at 52 you could fall into one of those categories!!
I just want to point out that I don't want to be ageist. Of course women can have babies in their 50s (very rarely naturally) but there are greater risks to the mother and the baby. Look up risks to going birth in your 50s. You can do this yourself and it is quite simple."What has the problems of giving birth over 50 anything whatsoever to do with the CHOICE of having a particular vaccine or not. You're diverting the issue | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet.
Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know
From the government website, for health care professionals:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed.
Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).
Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe.
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility"
Please note the terms "studies have not been completed" and the words like "unknown". You can look this up for yourself.
Ah thank you. So basically vaccines shouldn't be mixed in the same syringe. That's never going to happen. And the other area is in being pregnant, breast feeding and fertility. You are not going to have the vaccine because at 52 you could fall into one of those categories!!
I just want to point out that I don't want to be ageist. Of course women can have babies in their 50s (very rarely naturally) but there are greater risks to the mother and the baby. Look up risks to going birth in your 50s. You can do this yourself and it is quite simple.
I wasn't planning on having more kids, I was using this particular part from the government website as one of the examples where it hasn't been tested properly, but clearly some are choosing to take things very literally. "That's how I see it and as every person, we have a choice. It may not be the choice of others but that's absolutely irrelevant. It's your body, your choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Plus I’m someone who was vaccinated as a child but still caught measles and mumps | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet.
Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know
From the government website, for health care professionals:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed.
Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).
Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe.
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility"
Please note the terms "studies have not been completed" and the words like "unknown". You can look this up for yourself.
Ah thank you. So basically vaccines shouldn't be mixed in the same syringe. That's never going to happen. And the other area is in being pregnant, breast feeding and fertility. You are not going to have the vaccine because at 52 you could fall into one of those categories!!
I just want to point out that I don't want to be ageist. Of course women can have babies in their 50s (very rarely naturally) but there are greater risks to the mother and the baby. Look up risks to going birth in your 50s. You can do this yourself and it is quite simple.
I wasn't planning on having more kids, I was using this particular part from the government website as one of the examples where it hasn't been tested properly, but clearly some are choosing to take things very literally.
That's how I see it and as every person, we have a choice. It may not be the choice of others but that's absolutely irrelevant. It's your body, your choice. "This is exactly where I stand. Have it or don't, it's not for me to judge, neither should it be for everyone else to do so. I posted an excerpt from a document posted for the government's own website. Here's the very first paragraph, proof that it hasn't been fully tested fully for side effects, but it has been tested on the virus. To test for side effects it is a 5 year programme. It is on temporary license because of this. "Regulation 174 Information for UK healthcare professionals This medicinal product does not have a UK marketing authorisation but has been given authorisation for temporary supply by the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus in individuals aged 16 years of age and over. As with any new medicine in the UK, this product will be closely monitored to allow quick identification of new safety information. Healthcare professionals are asked to report any suspected adverse reactions. See section 4.8 for how to report adverse reactions." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet.
Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know
From the government website, for health care professionals:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed.
Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).
Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe.
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility"
Please note the terms "studies have not been completed" and the words like "unknown". You can look this up for yourself.
Ah thank you. So basically vaccines shouldn't be mixed in the same syringe. That's never going to happen. And the other area is in being pregnant, breast feeding and fertility. You are not going to have the vaccine because at 52 you could fall into one of those categories!!
I just want to point out that I don't want to be ageist. Of course women can have babies in their 50s (very rarely naturally) but there are greater risks to the mother and the baby. Look up risks to going birth in your 50s. You can do this yourself and it is quite simple.
I wasn't planning on having more kids, I was using this particular part from the government website as one of the examples where it hasn't been tested properly, but clearly some are choosing to take things very literally.
That's how I see it and as every person, we have a choice. It may not be the choice of others but that's absolutely irrelevant. It's your body, your choice.
This is exactly where I stand. Have it or don't, it's not for me to judge, neither should it be for everyone else to do so. I posted an excerpt from a document posted for the government's own website. Here's the very first paragraph, proof that it hasn't been fully tested fully for side effects, but it has been tested on the virus. To test for side effects it is a 5 year programme. It is on temporary license because of this.
"Regulation 174 Information for UK healthcare professionals
This medicinal product does not have a UK marketing authorisation but has been given authorisation for temporary supply by the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus in individuals aged 16 years of age and over.
As with any new medicine in the UK, this product will be closely monitored to allow quick identification of new safety information. Healthcare professionals are asked to report any suspected adverse reactions. See section 4.8 for how to report adverse reactions.""Interesting, where does it state that it has not been tested for side effects? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
Polite question; could I ask why you don’t want the vaccine, which incidentally I agree would be down to a persons choice. That said, if you do not want it you have to accept that you are ‘anti’ the simple definition of which is ‘a person opposed to a particular policy, activity or idea’.
I do not have to justify my reasons for not wanting it. Please read my previous posts, I am not anti vax, I just do not want this particular one.
I did not ask you to justify your reasons, If not this vaccine would you consider one of the others if they get approved?
It's quite possible I would, if I had all the facts and it had been thoroughly tested. The Pfizer one hasn't been yet.
Oh I didn't realise the Pfizer vaccine hadn't been properly tested yet. I'm interested to know. Could you tell me which toxico regulatory acute and/or chronic tests haven't been carried out? Only asking as you seem to know
From the government website, for health care professionals:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed.
Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).
Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe.
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility"
Please note the terms "studies have not been completed" and the words like "unknown". You can look this up for yourself.
Ah thank you. So basically vaccines shouldn't be mixed in the same syringe. That's never going to happen. And the other area is in being pregnant, breast feeding and fertility. You are not going to have the vaccine because at 52 you could fall into one of those categories!!
I just want to point out that I don't want to be ageist. Of course women can have babies in their 50s (very rarely naturally) but there are greater risks to the mother and the baby. Look up risks to going birth in your 50s. You can do this yourself and it is quite simple.
I wasn't planning on having more kids, I was using this particular part from the government website as one of the examples where it hasn't been tested properly, but clearly some are choosing to take things very literally.
That's how I see it and as every person, we have a choice. It may not be the choice of others but that's absolutely irrelevant. It's your body, your choice.
This is exactly where I stand. Have it or don't, it's not for me to judge, neither should it be for everyone else to do so. I posted an excerpt from a document posted for the government's own website. Here's the very first paragraph, proof that it hasn't been fully tested fully for side effects, but it has been tested on the virus. To test for side effects it is a 5 year programme. It is on temporary license because of this.
"Regulation 174 Information for UK healthcare professionals
This medicinal product does not have a UK marketing authorisation but has been given authorisation for temporary supply by the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus in individuals aged 16 years of age and over.
As with any new medicine in the UK, this product will be closely monitored to allow quick identification of new safety information. Healthcare professionals are asked to report any suspected adverse reactions. See section 4.8 for how to report adverse reactions."
Interesting, where does it state that it has not been tested for side effects? "Go and read the article yourself. I posted that under the fertility section. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it may be prudent for the anti-vaxxers, to speak to their own gp, and take their advice. Not off social media. Or would they not even trust them? "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it may be prudent for the anti-vaxxers, to speak to their own gp, and take their advice. Not off social media. Or would they not even trust them? "Challenging and questioning the vaccine, Government, lock down should be encouraged. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it may be prudent for the anti-vaxxers, to speak to their own gp, and take their advice. Not off social media. Or would they not even trust them?
Challenging and questioning the vaccine, Government, lock down should be encouraged."Nobody is challenging the vaccines. Do you "challenge" your gp, (if you have one) every time he prescribes any thing? Or do you know better? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it may be prudent for the anti-vaxxers, to speak to their own gp, and take their advice. Not off social media. Or would they not even trust them?
Challenging and questioning the vaccine, Government, lock down should be encouraged."I'm challenging those who think I shouldn't have the right to choose what goes into my body by using the government's own information which is freely available to those who choose to find it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it may be prudent for the anti-vaxxers, to speak to their own gp, and take their advice. Not off social media. Or would they not even trust them?
Challenging and questioning the vaccine, Government, lock down should be encouraged.
I'm challenging those who think I shouldn't have the right to choose what goes into my body by using the government's own information which is freely available to those who choose to find it. "I don't think many folk would encourage forced medical care at all. As a pro choice advocate, I believe all should be offered it, but it's entirely down to the individual to decide. I just worry some people really don't understand the choice, that's why I think they should discuss it the their gp. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it may be prudent for the anti-vaxxers, to speak to their own gp, and take their advice. Not off social media. Or would they not even trust them? "Ever heard of a second opinion, happens a lot in the medical industry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just worry some people really don't understand the choice, that's why I think they should discuss it the their gp. " Their GP will recommend having the innoculation unless they have certain medical conditions or are trying to get pregnant. Why waste the GPs time ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it may be prudent for the anti-vaxxers, to speak to their own gp, and take their advice. Not off social media. Or would they not even trust them?
Ever heard of a second opinion, happens a lot in the medical industry "I think I might have heard about it. Of course, if you don't trust your gp, ask for a second opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just worry some people really don't understand the choice, that's why I think they should discuss it the their gp. Their GP will recommend having the innoculation unless they have certain medical conditions or are trying to get pregnant. Why waste the GPs time ?" Good point. How about a tv debate? Medics versus anti-vaxxers? It could well be interesting and informative to many | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it may be prudent for the anti-vaxxers, to speak to their own gp, and take their advice. Not off social media. Or would they not even trust them?
Challenging and questioning the vaccine, Government, lock down should be encouraged.
Nobody is challenging the vaccines. Do you "challenge" your gp, (if you have one) every time he prescribes any thing? Or do you know better? "challenge a, GP? It's, virtually impossible now to get to see one never mind challenge one Half the time you ring up our surgery, you talk to the receptionist and she then determines whether your call merits a phone consultation with a doctor. That's the challenge | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it may be prudent for the anti-vaxxers, to speak to their own gp, and take their advice. Not off social media. Or would they not even trust them?
Challenging and questioning the vaccine, Government, lock down should be encouraged.
Nobody is challenging the vaccines. Do you "challenge" your gp, (if you have one) every time he prescribes any thing? Or do you know better? challenge a, GP? It's, virtually impossible now to get to see one never mind challenge one
Half the time you ring up our surgery, you talk to the receptionist and she then determines whether your call merits a phone consultation with a doctor. That's the challenge
"indeed it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it may be prudent for the anti-vaxxers, to speak to their own gp, and take their advice. Not off social media. Or would they not even trust them?
Challenging and questioning the vaccine, Government, lock down should be encouraged.
Nobody is challenging the vaccines. Do you "challenge" your gp, (if you have one) every time he prescribes any thing? Or do you know better? challenge a, GP? It's, virtually impossible now to get to see one never mind challenge one
Half the time you ring up our surgery, you talk to the receptionist and she then determines whether your call merits a phone consultation with a doctor. That's the challenge
indeed it is. "Perhaps try 111,then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just worry some people really don't understand the choice, that's why I think they should discuss it the their gp. Their GP will recommend having the innoculation unless they have certain medical conditions or are trying to get pregnant. Why waste the GPs time ? Good point. How about a tv debate? Medics versus anti-vaxxers? It could well be interesting and informative to many" I wouldn't legitimise them. It's not an equal and opposite view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it may be prudent for the anti-vaxxers, to speak to their own gp, and take their advice. Not off social media. Or would they not even trust them?
Challenging and questioning the vaccine, Government, lock down should be encouraged.
Nobody is challenging the vaccines. Do you "challenge" your gp, (if you have one) every time he prescribes any thing? Or do you know better? challenge a, GP? It's, virtually impossible now to get to see one never mind challenge one
Half the time you ring up our surgery, you talk to the receptionist and she then determines whether your call merits a phone consultation with a doctor. That's the challenge
indeed it is.
Perhaps try 111,then?"Thanks for the tip, although I am, as are most others, fully aware that this service is also available. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just worry some people really don't understand the choice, that's why I think they should discuss it the their gp. Their GP will recommend having the innoculation unless they have certain medical conditions or are trying to get pregnant. Why waste the GPs time ? Good point. How about a tv debate? Medics versus anti-vaxxers? It could well be interesting and informative to many I wouldn't legitimise them. It's not an equal and opposite view. " Perhaps you need a private doc, that way you can choose your own, whom you trust. How come as soon as I try to provide solutions, certain people refuse to listen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it may be prudent for the anti-vaxxers, to speak to their own gp, and take their advice. Not off social media. Or would they not even trust them?
Challenging and questioning the vaccine, Government, lock down should be encouraged.
Nobody is challenging the vaccines. Do you "challenge" your gp, (if you have one) every time he prescribes any thing? Or do you know better? challenge a, GP? It's, virtually impossible now to get to see one never mind challenge one
Half the time you ring up our surgery, you talk to the receptionist and she then determines whether your call merits a phone consultation with a doctor. That's the challenge
indeed it is.
Perhaps try 111,then?
Thanks for the tip, although I am, as are most others, fully aware that this service is also available. "Good, I presume you've tried it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just worry some people really don't understand the choice, that's why I think they should discuss it the their gp. Their GP will recommend having the innoculation unless they have certain medical conditions or are trying to get pregnant. Why waste the GPs time ? Good point. How about a tv debate? Medics versus anti-vaxxers? It could well be interesting and informative to many I wouldn't legitimise them. It's not an equal and opposite view. Perhaps you need a private doc, that way you can choose your own, whom you trust. How come as soon as I try to provide solutions, certain people refuse to listen? "You cannot use reason to change a belief that wasn't arrived at by reason. They will ignore facts and evidence and insist their opinion holds as much value as evidence and fact. Such a debate would only allow them to present their opinions as being as valid as the evidence presented by a qualified professional. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it may be prudent for the anti-vaxxers, to speak to their own gp, and take their advice. Not off social media. Or would they not even trust them?
Challenging and questioning the vaccine, Government, lock down should be encouraged.
Nobody is challenging the vaccines. Do you "challenge" your gp, (if you have one) every time he prescribes any thing? Or do you know better? "I don’t rely on a GP solely for my health care not seen one one in20yrs..... and yes if I was on prescribed medication I would question that but I’m not .... I’m 60yrsof age no underlying health co dictions no prescribed medication | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it may be prudent for the anti-vaxxers, to speak to their own gp, and take their advice. Not off social media. Or would they not even trust them?
Challenging and questioning the vaccine, Government, lock down should be encouraged.
Nobody is challenging the vaccines. Do you "challenge" your gp, (if you have one) every time he prescribes any thing? Or do you know better? challenge a, GP? It's, virtually impossible now to get to see one never mind challenge one
Half the time you ring up our surgery, you talk to the receptionist and she then determines whether your call merits a phone consultation with a doctor. That's the challenge
indeed it is.
Perhaps try 111,then?
Thanks for the tip, although I am, as are most others, fully aware that this service is also available.
Good, I presume you've tried it? "Yes I have, and a great service it is too. Have you? If not, why not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just worry some people really don't understand the choice, that's why I think they should discuss it the their gp. Their GP will recommend having the innoculation unless they have certain medical conditions or are trying to get pregnant. Why waste the GPs time ?" I totally agree with you. They have far more important things to do than give facts to people that are easily capable of finding them for themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe those two individuals knowing their allergic reaction condition, ie not all are severe, did so as they guessed it was the lesser of two evils. Hoping their body will be able to fight the allergic reaction and at the same time create the sparks needed to help them if they catch the virus... comes back to everyone has the right to make that choice. I do hope it is the lesser of two evils for anyone else who has a history of allergies making this same choice. I dread to think that people are potentially purposefully putting themselves in danger due to fear or trying to be noble
Or even worse have people on the internet calling them anti vaxers
Anti-vaxxers are only people who choose not to have it. Not people who have genuine medical concerns
I'm choosing not to have it and I'm not anti vax at all. Perhaps you need to stop with the sweeping generalisations.
Let's be clear. When I say anti-vaxxers, I mean the 5g/anti lockdown /bill Gates /10 years crew. Not people who can't take it for medical reasons
Or the people who choose not to have this particular vaccine but have had the other ones. Let's not forget they aren't anti vaxxers.
Only the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine has been developed along the traditional vaccine route.
Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA technology which has been in development since the 1950’s
I guess over 50 years of research and development does not qualify for some people. As there is always fear of the new.
Again, you are lumping everyone in the same group together. This is a new vaccine, some are choosing not to have it and aren't rabid ani vaxxers. And yes, there is fear of the new for some people.
At the risk of appearing rude, I'm not lumping everyone together. I'll say this yet again, Anybody who has genuine medical reasons, shouldn't be laughed at.
I've been called a "pro-vaxxer. I don't mind. Afterall it's true. I just don't see why the anti-vaxxers don't like being called anti-vaxxers. I think they should wear this label with pride. If they really have a good reason
OK, so I don't want the vaccine, my choice, I have no medical conditions preventing me from having it, I am up to date with the rest of my vaccinations, so that does in no way make me an anti vaxxer. You are lumping some of us in with the same group however you dress it up. I'm pro choice, which is a whole different label, it's not anti anything. When you can understand the difference, please let me know.
You say you're "pro choice"
What about my choice to not catch something off you, if I was to sit next to you? You aren't really into pro choice.
James can you answer my question I posed to you earlier?
What makes you safer to sit next to ?
I'll answer it again for the last time. The vaccine reduces, not eliminates that risk, so I could possibly give a vax dodger covid. Just like they could still infect me. I don't want to be ill nor do I want to make anyone else ill. What's so difficult to understand.
Send me a link where it reduces your risk to spreading it?
Even the manufacturers have said it doesn't." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
