FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Pfizer approved for 12 year olds
Pfizer approved for 12 year olds
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
  ...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above." Only if they've serious health conditions. That's been in effect for a while. It's 16 and 17 year olds who are the new group. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above." https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use Words taken from the FDA website: The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15. Emergency Use Only | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above." Absolutely fkn insane | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. Absolutely fkn insane " Why? They have been vaccinating the over 12 in tens of countries for months now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use Words taken from the FDA website: The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15. Emergency Use Only" You do know that the FDA isn't anything to do with the UK, don't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use Words taken from the FDA website: The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15. Emergency Use Only You do know that the FDA isn't anything to do with the UK, don't you?" It's not but Ive just listened to the press conference on the news and it very clearly said that it will only be used in very vaunable under 16's in the UK and that's been the case for a while now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials." *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use Words taken from the FDA website: The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15. Emergency Use Only" Does the fda authorise medication in the UK now then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. Absolutely fkn insane " dont you think they need a vaccine ? After all, the survival rate for this age group is only 99.9998% ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. Absolutely fkn insane dont you think they need a vaccine ? After all, the survival rate for this age group is only 99.9998% ! " It's not just about survival I dont understand why people aren't getting this by now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. Absolutely fkn insane dont you think they need a vaccine ? After all, the survival rate for this age group is only 99.9998% ! " Yeah, I do think that giving children the option to be vaccinated is warranted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. Absolutely fkn insane dont you think they need a vaccine ? After all, the survival rate for this age group is only 99.9998% ! Yeah, I do think that giving children the option to be vaccinated is warranted." I agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use Words taken from the FDA website: The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15. Emergency Use Only" Please study appropriate data! The UK MHRA approved the vaccine June 4th, for use in 12 - 15 years old children. The MHRA is the government approvals body for medicines here. The FDA is a body for the USA and has no relevance here.  . Please stop scaremongering and misusing inappropriate quotes to support your agenda. If you don't want to take a vaccine, you are perfectly free to do so. The constant drip feeding of untruthful stories is alarming and against everyone's well-being.
The safety and efficacy of our vaccines has been studied very thoroughly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use Words taken from the FDA website: The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15. Emergency Use Only Please study appropriate data! The UK MHRA approved the vaccine June 4th, for use in 12 - 15 years old children. The MHRA is the government approvals body for medicines here. The FDA is a body for the USA and has no relevance here. . Please stop scaremongering and misusing inappropriate quotes to support your agenda. If you don't want to take a vaccine, you are perfectly free to do so. The constant drip feeding of untruthful stories is alarming and against everyone's well-being.
The safety and efficacy of our vaccines has been studied very thoroughly. "i have to disagree; the person was merely quoting a valid source with respect to the Pfizer vaccine for 12 - 15 year olds. Of course different countries have different agencies but it’s the same Pfizer vaccine at the end of the day. To suggest this is “untruthful “ , “inappropriate “ and “scaremongering “ is way over the top. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use Words taken from the FDA website: The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15. Emergency Use Only Please study appropriate data! The UK MHRA approved the vaccine June 4th, for use in 12 - 15 years old children. The MHRA is the government approvals body for medicines here. The FDA is a body for the USA and has no relevance here. . Please stop scaremongering and misusing inappropriate quotes to support your agenda. If you don't want to take a vaccine, you are perfectly free to do so. The constant drip feeding of untruthful stories is alarming and against everyone's well-being.
The safety and efficacy of our vaccines has been studied very thoroughly. "The MHRA and the FDA co-operate widely and exchange information with each other, even information not generally available to the public. This pandemic has caused most countries to exchange information very widely. Even China. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So essentially we’re saying it’s totally acceptable to vaccinate the young against something that almost certainly won’t hurt them, with a vaccine that may hurt them, in order to protect the very old and very vulnerable. When you are prepared to sacrifice the health of the young to save the old, society is fucked." It is absolute madness in my opinion. Taking a risk with children where we have no idea what the long term side effects of the vaccine could be, against a virus that poses essentialy no risk to the children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that." There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal." Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong ". That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death. This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine."The most recent figure I heard was 1 in 25 risk of long Covid, and 1 in 100k risk of myocarditis lasting up to two days. Apparently no vaccine has ever had a side effect emerge post 8 weeks (Paul Offit). Hopefully other options emerge for those who are hesitant about the newer technology, and hopefully children are protected - because viruses do linger for decades before showing up later in life, in a way that's never been seen in vaccines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine."What, specifically, is the issue with an mRNA vaccine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
The most recent figure I heard was 1 in 25 risk of long Covid, and 1 in 100k risk of myocarditis lasting up to two days.
Apparently no vaccine has ever had a side effect emerge post 8 weeks (Paul Offit).
Hopefully other options emerge for those who are hesitant about the newer technology, and hopefully children are protected - because viruses do linger for decades before showing up later in life, in a way that's never been seen in vaccines."Your quoting short term safety data and I'm well aware it's excellent. But we have zero long term safety data and children have the longest span to worry about, frankly at my age 25 year risks don't worry me, for a 10 year old they do. The unknowns have to be balanced with the knowns. It's a personal choice that everybody should be free to make | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
The most recent figure I heard was 1 in 25 risk of long Covid, and 1 in 100k risk of myocarditis lasting up to two days.
Apparently no vaccine has ever had a side effect emerge post 8 weeks (Paul Offit).
Hopefully other options emerge for those who are hesitant about the newer technology, and hopefully children are protected - because viruses do linger for decades before showing up later in life, in a way that's never been seen in vaccines.
Your quoting short term safety data and I'm well aware it's excellent.
But we have zero long term safety data and children have the longest span to worry about, frankly at my age 25 year risks don't worry me, for a 10 year old they do.
The unknowns have to be balanced with the knowns.
It's a personal choice that everybody should be free to make "I'm not saying anything about choice. I'm quoting the data. No vaccine ever has been shown to reveal side effects after 8 weeks. Is "all vaccine data from 1796" long term enough for you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
What, specifically, is the issue with an mRNA vaccine?"It's not behaving as it was designed to do and theres enough data to be worrisome about that. I'm not saying it's unsafe I'm just saying we don't know the ten or twenty year down the line problems that may occur. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
The most recent figure I heard was 1 in 25 risk of long Covid, and 1 in 100k risk of myocarditis lasting up to two days.
Apparently no vaccine has ever had a side effect emerge post 8 weeks (Paul Offit).
Hopefully other options emerge for those who are hesitant about the newer technology, and hopefully children are protected - because viruses do linger for decades before showing up later in life, in a way that's never been seen in vaccines.
Your quoting short term safety data and I'm well aware it's excellent.
But we have zero long term safety data and children have the longest span to worry about, frankly at my age 25 year risks don't worry me, for a 10 year old they do.
The unknowns have to be balanced with the knowns.
It's a personal choice that everybody should be free to make
I'm not saying anything about choice. I'm quoting the data.
No vaccine ever has been shown to reveal side effects after 8 weeks. Is "all vaccine data from 1796" long term enough for you?"mRNA vaccines are not really vaccines as we know them. I would have my child vaccinated with an older type vaccine for sars-cov2. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you say it's not working in the way it was designed to, what do you mean?" Specifically the lipid nanoparticles which are showing up in great numbers in places they were designed not to be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
The most recent figure I heard was 1 in 25 risk of long Covid, and 1 in 100k risk of myocarditis lasting up to two days.
Apparently no vaccine has ever had a side effect emerge post 8 weeks (Paul Offit).
Hopefully other options emerge for those who are hesitant about the newer technology, and hopefully children are protected - because viruses do linger for decades before showing up later in life, in a way that's never been seen in vaccines.
Your quoting short term safety data and I'm well aware it's excellent.
But we have zero long term safety data and children have the longest span to worry about, frankly at my age 25 year risks don't worry me, for a 10 year old they do.
The unknowns have to be balanced with the knowns.
It's a personal choice that everybody should be free to make
I'm not saying anything about choice. I'm quoting the data.
No vaccine ever has been shown to reveal side effects after 8 weeks. Is "all vaccine data from 1796" long term enough for you?
mRNA vaccines are not really vaccines as we know them.
I would have my child vaccinated with an older type vaccine for sars-cov2.
"I'm not sure why you don't think they're vaccines. But fine. The Oxford AZ and J&J vaccines (only approved in adults so far) are not mRNA vaccines (adenovirus vectors), and hopefully that will advance in kids. Novavax is the same kind as used in at least one of the shingles vaccines. I'm on a clinical trial for a traditional style Covid vaccine at the moment (although the Russian and Chinese vaccines are also this type, and they seem to be demonstrating lower efficacy than the others). I'm sure aggregated data from the US is available to watch the effect of Pfizer on adolescents, if you so choose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you say it's not working in the way it was designed to, what do you mean? Specifically the lipid nanoparticles which are showing up in great numbers in places they were designed not to be." Is that dangerous? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
The most recent figure I heard was 1 in 25 risk of long Covid, and 1 in 100k risk of myocarditis lasting up to two days.
Apparently no vaccine has ever had a side effect emerge post 8 weeks (Paul Offit).
Hopefully other options emerge for those who are hesitant about the newer technology, and hopefully children are protected - because viruses do linger for decades before showing up later in life, in a way that's never been seen in vaccines.
Your quoting short term safety data and I'm well aware it's excellent.
But we have zero long term safety data and children have the longest span to worry about, frankly at my age 25 year risks don't worry me, for a 10 year old they do.
The unknowns have to be balanced with the knowns.
It's a personal choice that everybody should be free to make
I'm not saying anything about choice. I'm quoting the data.
No vaccine ever has been shown to reveal side effects after 8 weeks. Is "all vaccine data from 1796" long term enough for you?
mRNA vaccines are not really vaccines as we know them.
I would have my child vaccinated with an older type vaccine for sars-cov2.
I'm not sure why you don't think they're vaccines. But fine.
The Oxford AZ and J&J vaccines (only approved in adults so far) are not mRNA vaccines (adenovirus vectors), and hopefully that will advance in kids. Novavax is the same kind as used in at least one of the shingles vaccines. I'm on a clinical trial for a traditional style Covid vaccine at the moment (although the Russian and Chinese vaccines are also this type, and they seem to be demonstrating lower efficacy than the others).
I'm sure aggregated data from the US is available to watch the effect of Pfizer on adolescents, if you so choose."I would so choose if given the choice and no mRNA technology is very promising but has zero long term data safety, I'm not anti vaccine my children have all been vaccinated with traditional vaccines with very good short and long term safety data. I personally hold great hope for gene therapies but due to current circumstances I have reservations that corners may be cut in its trialling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you say it's not working in the way it was designed to, what do you mean? Specifically the lipid nanoparticles which are showing up in great numbers in places they were designed not to be. Is that dangerous?" I recall a study that found some evidence of the lipid nanoparticles around the body. I think it was in the order of picograms. (A picogram is 0.000000000001g) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you say it's not working in the way it was designed to, what do you mean? Specifically the lipid nanoparticles which are showing up in great numbers in places they were designed not to be. Is that dangerous?" We don't know is the answer, that's why I used the word worrisome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you say it's not working in the way it was designed to, what do you mean? Specifically the lipid nanoparticles which are showing up in great numbers in places they were designed not to be. Is that dangerous? I recall a study that found some evidence of the lipid nanoparticles around the body. I think it was in the order of picograms. (A picogram is 0.000000000001g)" The clue is in the wording "nano". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
The most recent figure I heard was 1 in 25 risk of long Covid, and 1 in 100k risk of myocarditis lasting up to two days.
Apparently no vaccine has ever had a side effect emerge post 8 weeks (Paul Offit).
Hopefully other options emerge for those who are hesitant about the newer technology, and hopefully children are protected - because viruses do linger for decades before showing up later in life, in a way that's never been seen in vaccines.
Your quoting short term safety data and I'm well aware it's excellent.
But we have zero long term safety data and children have the longest span to worry about, frankly at my age 25 year risks don't worry me, for a 10 year old they do.
The unknowns have to be balanced with the knowns.
It's a personal choice that everybody should be free to make
I'm not saying anything about choice. I'm quoting the data.
No vaccine ever has been shown to reveal side effects after 8 weeks. Is "all vaccine data from 1796" long term enough for you?
mRNA vaccines are not really vaccines as we know them.
I would have my child vaccinated with an older type vaccine for sars-cov2.
I'm not sure why you don't think they're vaccines. But fine.
The Oxford AZ and J&J vaccines (only approved in adults so far) are not mRNA vaccines (adenovirus vectors), and hopefully that will advance in kids. Novavax is the same kind as used in at least one of the shingles vaccines. I'm on a clinical trial for a traditional style Covid vaccine at the moment (although the Russian and Chinese vaccines are also this type, and they seem to be demonstrating lower efficacy than the others).
I'm sure aggregated data from the US is available to watch the effect of Pfizer on adolescents, if you so choose.
I would so choose if given the choice and no mRNA technology is very promising but has zero long term data safety, I'm not anti vaccine my children have all been vaccinated with traditional vaccines with very good short and long term safety data.
I personally hold great hope for gene therapies but due to current circumstances I have reservations that corners may be cut in its trialling."I see no evidence that they are gene therapy (I have seen the argument made, but it involves some wild misinterpretation of American law, also remembering that legislators tend not to be scientists or doctors). The virologists I listen to most often said before the trials were completed that there was no way it could be done that fast - but they and others have pored over the data and found no reason for concern. Again, I am not arguing about choice - merely reflecting upon my understanding of the evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People still don't get it and it's unbelievable to watch normally sane people accept what is going on in this whole situation. From the eighties to seventy year old, to sixties to the fifties, forties to thirties all the way down to now 16 year olds (without parental permission!!!) and some are still not questioning why. I'm now convinced that when newborn babies are being given this injection (and it's coming soon) these same people will just shrug their shoulders and still justify it. My hope for human kind and rational thinking has taken a real knock this year, the power of fear has reigned supreme once again as people can be controlled with ease. " What don't we understand? Please do explain why you have superior knowledge to the rest of us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine."Absolutely.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
The most recent figure I heard was 1 in 25 risk of long Covid, and 1 in 100k risk of myocarditis lasting up to two days.
Apparently no vaccine has ever had a side effect emerge post 8 weeks (Paul Offit).
Hopefully other options emerge for those who are hesitant about the newer technology, and hopefully children are protected - because viruses do linger for decades before showing up later in life, in a way that's never been seen in vaccines.
Your quoting short term safety data and I'm well aware it's excellent.
But we have zero long term safety data and children have the longest span to worry about, frankly at my age 25 year risks don't worry me, for a 10 year old they do.
The unknowns have to be balanced with the knowns.
It's a personal choice that everybody should be free to make
I'm not saying anything about choice. I'm quoting the data.
No vaccine ever has been shown to reveal side effects after 8 weeks. Is "all vaccine data from 1796" long term enough for you?
mRNA vaccines are not really vaccines as we know them.
I would have my child vaccinated with an older type vaccine for sars-cov2.
I'm not sure why you don't think they're vaccines. But fine.
The Oxford AZ and J&J vaccines (only approved in adults so far) are not mRNA vaccines (adenovirus vectors), and hopefully that will advance in kids. Novavax is the same kind as used in at least one of the shingles vaccines. I'm on a clinical trial for a traditional style Covid vaccine at the moment (although the Russian and Chinese vaccines are also this type, and they seem to be demonstrating lower efficacy than the others).
I'm sure aggregated data from the US is available to watch the effect of Pfizer on adolescents, if you so choose.
I would so choose if given the choice and no mRNA technology is very promising but has zero long term data safety, I'm not anti vaccine my children have all been vaccinated with traditional vaccines with very good short and long term safety data.
I personally hold great hope for gene therapies but due to current circumstances I have reservations that corners may be cut in its trialling.
I see no evidence that they are gene therapy (I have seen the argument made, but it involves some wild misinterpretation of American law, also remembering that legislators tend not to be scientists or doctors).
The virologists I listen to most often said before the trials were completed that there was no way it could be done that fast - but they and others have pored over the data and found no reason for concern.
Again, I am not arguing about choice - merely reflecting upon my understanding of the evidence."Let's call it Instructing bodily responses via mRNA code if it makes you happier. I have great hopes for its future use, I'm not a sceptic but at this point I do not wish my children to be part of its long term trials. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
The most recent figure I heard was 1 in 25 risk of long Covid, and 1 in 100k risk of myocarditis lasting up to two days.
Apparently no vaccine has ever had a side effect emerge post 8 weeks (Paul Offit).
Hopefully other options emerge for those who are hesitant about the newer technology, and hopefully children are protected - because viruses do linger for decades before showing up later in life, in a way that's never been seen in vaccines.
Your quoting short term safety data and I'm well aware it's excellent.
But we have zero long term safety data and children have the longest span to worry about, frankly at my age 25 year risks don't worry me, for a 10 year old they do.
The unknowns have to be balanced with the knowns.
It's a personal choice that everybody should be free to make
I'm not saying anything about choice. I'm quoting the data.
No vaccine ever has been shown to reveal side effects after 8 weeks. Is "all vaccine data from 1796" long term enough for you?
mRNA vaccines are not really vaccines as we know them.
I would have my child vaccinated with an older type vaccine for sars-cov2.
I'm not sure why you don't think they're vaccines. But fine.
The Oxford AZ and J&J vaccines (only approved in adults so far) are not mRNA vaccines (adenovirus vectors), and hopefully that will advance in kids. Novavax is the same kind as used in at least one of the shingles vaccines. I'm on a clinical trial for a traditional style Covid vaccine at the moment (although the Russian and Chinese vaccines are also this type, and they seem to be demonstrating lower efficacy than the others).
I'm sure aggregated data from the US is available to watch the effect of Pfizer on adolescents, if you so choose.
I would so choose if given the choice and no mRNA technology is very promising but has zero long term data safety, I'm not anti vaccine my children have all been vaccinated with traditional vaccines with very good short and long term safety data.
I personally hold great hope for gene therapies but due to current circumstances I have reservations that corners may be cut in its trialling.
I see no evidence that they are gene therapy (I have seen the argument made, but it involves some wild misinterpretation of American law, also remembering that legislators tend not to be scientists or doctors).
The virologists I listen to most often said before the trials were completed that there was no way it could be done that fast - but they and others have pored over the data and found no reason for concern.
Again, I am not arguing about choice - merely reflecting upon my understanding of the evidence.
Let's call it Instructing bodily responses via mRNA code if it makes you happier.
I have great hopes for its future use, I'm not a sceptic but at this point I do not wish my children to be part of its long term trials."Ok. I am confident that the trials have been done for mRNA vaccines. If I had children I would (subject to age/ability to reason - a 16 year old definitely, a 6 year old definitely not) allow them to make their own choices, while explaining what I understand about the field. I would also educate them early and often about critical thinking and source analysis, because - as we see in real time - the inability to do so gets people into trouble. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
What, specifically, is the issue with an mRNA vaccine?"I would watch pro vaccination expert Dr Robert Malone co-inventor of mRNA vaccines and see what he has to say. Very interesting views on the subject. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you say it's not working in the way it was designed to, what do you mean? Specifically the lipid nanoparticles which are showing up in great numbers in places they were designed not to be. Is that dangerous? We don't know is the answer, that's why I used the word worrisome." Given that pretty much all medicine is about balancing risks I'm not sure that it is pootentially not a good thing, maybe, is enough for me to be more concerned by that than by Covid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
What, specifically, is the issue with an mRNA vaccine?
I would watch pro vaccination expert Dr Robert Malone co-inventor of mRNA vaccines and see what he has to say. Very interesting views on the subject. "I have, and I've also read the papers debunking what he says. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
What, specifically, is the issue with an mRNA vaccine?
I would watch pro vaccination expert Dr Robert Malone co-inventor of mRNA vaccines and see what he has to say. Very interesting views on the subject. "He was involved in the early mRNA technology, not the vaccines, if memory serves has nothing published since at least the early 90s, and appears to be making a living at the moment screaming about how vaccines are icky to unhinged talk show hosts. Follow the money, as they say. He seems to be doing very well out of exploiting his peripheral connection to this stuff. Grifter charlatans are gonna grift. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
The most recent figure I heard was 1 in 25 risk of long Covid, and 1 in 100k risk of myocarditis lasting up to two days.
Apparently no vaccine has ever had a side effect emerge post 8 weeks (Paul Offit).
Hopefully other options emerge for those who are hesitant about the newer technology, and hopefully children are protected - because viruses do linger for decades before showing up later in life, in a way that's never been seen in vaccines.
Your quoting short term safety data and I'm well aware it's excellent.
But we have zero long term safety data and children have the longest span to worry about, frankly at my age 25 year risks don't worry me, for a 10 year old they do.
The unknowns have to be balanced with the knowns.
It's a personal choice that everybody should be free to make
I'm not saying anything about choice. I'm quoting the data.
No vaccine ever has been shown to reveal side effects after 8 weeks. Is "all vaccine data from 1796" long term enough for you?
mRNA vaccines are not really vaccines as we know them.
I would have my child vaccinated with an older type vaccine for sars-cov2.
I'm not sure why you don't think they're vaccines. But fine.
The Oxford AZ and J&J vaccines (only approved in adults so far) are not mRNA vaccines (adenovirus vectors), and hopefully that will advance in kids. Novavax is the same kind as used in at least one of the shingles vaccines. I'm on a clinical trial for a traditional style Covid vaccine at the moment (although the Russian and Chinese vaccines are also this type, and they seem to be demonstrating lower efficacy than the others).
I'm sure aggregated data from the US is available to watch the effect of Pfizer on adolescents, if you so choose.
I would so choose if given the choice and no mRNA technology is very promising but has zero long term data safety, I'm not anti vaccine my children have all been vaccinated with traditional vaccines with very good short and long term safety data.
I personally hold great hope for gene therapies but due to current circumstances I have reservations that corners may be cut in its trialling.
I see no evidence that they are gene therapy (I have seen the argument made, but it involves some wild misinterpretation of American law, also remembering that legislators tend not to be scientists or doctors).
The virologists I listen to most often said before the trials were completed that there was no way it could be done that fast - but they and others have pored over the data and found no reason for concern.
Again, I am not arguing about choice - merely reflecting upon my understanding of the evidence.
Let's call it Instructing bodily responses via mRNA code if it makes you happier.
I have great hopes for its future use, I'm not a sceptic but at this point I do not wish my children to be part of its long term trials.
Ok. I am confident that the trials have been done for mRNA vaccines.
If I had children I would (subject to age/ability to reason - a 16 year old definitely, a 6 year old definitely not) allow them to make their own choices, while explaining what I understand about the field. I would also educate them early and often about critical thinking and source analysis, because - as we see in real time - the inability to do so gets people into trouble."I agree there short term safety data is reasonable and during a crises like this I would not object to older and middle aged people being encouraged to take it as part of an excellent RR in covid, your point on teaching children critical thinking is excellent and sorely missed in society. I would not think bad of you for seeking your best beliefs for your children and vaccinating them with an mRNA vaccine, unfortunately there's a lack of choice at the moment between mRNA or nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
The most recent figure I heard was 1 in 25 risk of long Covid, and 1 in 100k risk of myocarditis lasting up to two days.
Apparently no vaccine has ever had a side effect emerge post 8 weeks (Paul Offit).
Hopefully other options emerge for those who are hesitant about the newer technology, and hopefully children are protected - because viruses do linger for decades before showing up later in life, in a way that's never been seen in vaccines.
Your quoting short term safety data and I'm well aware it's excellent.
But we have zero long term safety data and children have the longest span to worry about, frankly at my age 25 year risks don't worry me, for a 10 year old they do.
The unknowns have to be balanced with the knowns.
It's a personal choice that everybody should be free to make
I'm not saying anything about choice. I'm quoting the data.
No vaccine ever has been shown to reveal side effects after 8 weeks. Is "all vaccine data from 1796" long term enough for you?
mRNA vaccines are not really vaccines as we know them.
I would have my child vaccinated with an older type vaccine for sars-cov2.
I'm not sure why you don't think they're vaccines. But fine.
The Oxford AZ and J&J vaccines (only approved in adults so far) are not mRNA vaccines (adenovirus vectors), and hopefully that will advance in kids. Novavax is the same kind as used in at least one of the shingles vaccines. I'm on a clinical trial for a traditional style Covid vaccine at the moment (although the Russian and Chinese vaccines are also this type, and they seem to be demonstrating lower efficacy than the others).
I'm sure aggregated data from the US is available to watch the effect of Pfizer on adolescents, if you so choose.
I would so choose if given the choice and no mRNA technology is very promising but has zero long term data safety, I'm not anti vaccine my children have all been vaccinated with traditional vaccines with very good short and long term safety data.
I personally hold great hope for gene therapies but due to current circumstances I have reservations that corners may be cut in its trialling.
I see no evidence that they are gene therapy (I have seen the argument made, but it involves some wild misinterpretation of American law, also remembering that legislators tend not to be scientists or doctors).
The virologists I listen to most often said before the trials were completed that there was no way it could be done that fast - but they and others have pored over the data and found no reason for concern.
Again, I am not arguing about choice - merely reflecting upon my understanding of the evidence.
Let's call it Instructing bodily responses via mRNA code if it makes you happier.
I have great hopes for its future use, I'm not a sceptic but at this point I do not wish my children to be part of its long term trials.
Ok. I am confident that the trials have been done for mRNA vaccines.
If I had children I would (subject to age/ability to reason - a 16 year old definitely, a 6 year old definitely not) allow them to make their own choices, while explaining what I understand about the field. I would also educate them early and often about critical thinking and source analysis, because - as we see in real time - the inability to do so gets people into trouble.
I agree there short term safety data is reasonable and during a crises like this I would not object to older and middle aged people being encouraged to take it as part of an excellent RR in covid, your point on teaching children critical thinking is excellent and sorely missed in society.
I would not think bad of you for seeking your best beliefs for your children and vaccinating them with an mRNA vaccine, unfortunately there's a lack of choice at the moment between mRNA or nothing."I would allow my children to decide for themselves (if they are old enough to reasonably do so - there's a concept in UK law called Gillick competency which I'd loosely apply). Once old enough to reason, it is their decision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
The most recent figure I heard was 1 in 25 risk of long Covid, and 1 in 100k risk of myocarditis lasting up to two days.
Apparently no vaccine has ever had a side effect emerge post 8 weeks (Paul Offit).
Hopefully other options emerge for those who are hesitant about the newer technology, and hopefully children are protected - because viruses do linger for decades before showing up later in life, in a way that's never been seen in vaccines.
Your quoting short term safety data and I'm well aware it's excellent.
But we have zero long term safety data and children have the longest span to worry about, frankly at my age 25 year risks don't worry me, for a 10 year old they do.
The unknowns have to be balanced with the knowns.
It's a personal choice that everybody should be free to make
I'm not saying anything about choice. I'm quoting the data.
No vaccine ever has been shown to reveal side effects after 8 weeks. Is "all vaccine data from 1796" long term enough for you?
mRNA vaccines are not really vaccines as we know them.
I would have my child vaccinated with an older type vaccine for sars-cov2.
I'm not sure why you don't think they're vaccines. But fine.
The Oxford AZ and J&J vaccines (only approved in adults so far) are not mRNA vaccines (adenovirus vectors), and hopefully that will advance in kids. Novavax is the same kind as used in at least one of the shingles vaccines. I'm on a clinical trial for a traditional style Covid vaccine at the moment (although the Russian and Chinese vaccines are also this type, and they seem to be demonstrating lower efficacy than the others).
I'm sure aggregated data from the US is available to watch the effect of Pfizer on adolescents, if you so choose.
I would so choose if given the choice and no mRNA technology is very promising but has zero long term data safety, I'm not anti vaccine my children have all been vaccinated with traditional vaccines with very good short and long term safety data.
I personally hold great hope for gene therapies but due to current circumstances I have reservations that corners may be cut in its trialling.
I see no evidence that they are gene therapy (I have seen the argument made, but it involves some wild misinterpretation of American law, also remembering that legislators tend not to be scientists or doctors).
The virologists I listen to most often said before the trials were completed that there was no way it could be done that fast - but they and others have pored over the data and found no reason for concern.
Again, I am not arguing about choice - merely reflecting upon my understanding of the evidence.
Let's call it Instructing bodily responses via mRNA code if it makes you happier.
I have great hopes for its future use, I'm not a sceptic but at this point I do not wish my children to be part of its long term trials.
Ok. I am confident that the trials have been done for mRNA vaccines.
If I had children I would (subject to age/ability to reason - a 16 year old definitely, a 6 year old definitely not) allow them to make their own choices, while explaining what I understand about the field. I would also educate them early and often about critical thinking and source analysis, because - as we see in real time - the inability to do so gets people into trouble.
I agree there short term safety data is reasonable and during a crises like this I would not object to older and middle aged people being encouraged to take it as part of an excellent RR in covid, your point on teaching children critical thinking is excellent and sorely missed in society.
I would not think bad of you for seeking your best beliefs for your children and vaccinating them with an mRNA vaccine, unfortunately there's a lack of choice at the moment between mRNA or nothing.
I would allow my children to decide for themselves (if they are old enough to reasonably do so - there's a concept in UK law called Gillick competency which I'd loosely apply).
Once old enough to reason, it is their decision.". I disagree, I think life is a learning curve which gives you the ability to reason a little more nuanced than a 16 year old can hence why every tribe in history was run by elders. But let's not digress. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
What, specifically, is the issue with an mRNA vaccine?
I would watch pro vaccination expert Dr Robert Malone co-inventor of mRNA vaccines and see what he has to say. Very interesting views on the subject.
He was involved in the early mRNA technology, not the vaccines, if memory serves has nothing published since at least the early 90s, and appears to be making a living at the moment screaming about how vaccines are icky to unhinged talk show hosts.
Follow the money, as they say. He seems to be doing very well out of exploiting his peripheral connection to this stuff. Grifter charlatans are gonna grift."People are so keen to block any alternative view or even merely question the current view. I said to just watch his videos and listen to what he as a pro-vaccine specialist doctor has to say on mRNA injections which he along with others created. Some people for whatever reason would like to prevent all forms of critical thinking at any cost. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
What, specifically, is the issue with an mRNA vaccine?
I would watch pro vaccination expert Dr Robert Malone co-inventor of mRNA vaccines and see what he has to say. Very interesting views on the subject.
He was involved in the early mRNA technology, not the vaccines, if memory serves has nothing published since at least the early 90s, and appears to be making a living at the moment screaming about how vaccines are icky to unhinged talk show hosts.
Follow the money, as they say. He seems to be doing very well out of exploiting his peripheral connection to this stuff. Grifter charlatans are gonna grift."You know the guy personally enough to libel him on a website?. Which bit of what he's said has been shown false and be specific please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
The most recent figure I heard was 1 in 25 risk of long Covid, and 1 in 100k risk of myocarditis lasting up to two days.
Apparently no vaccine has ever had a side effect emerge post 8 weeks (Paul Offit).
Hopefully other options emerge for those who are hesitant about the newer technology, and hopefully children are protected - because viruses do linger for decades before showing up later in life, in a way that's never been seen in vaccines.
Your quoting short term safety data and I'm well aware it's excellent.
But we have zero long term safety data and children have the longest span to worry about, frankly at my age 25 year risks don't worry me, for a 10 year old they do.
The unknowns have to be balanced with the knowns.
It's a personal choice that everybody should be free to make
I'm not saying anything about choice. I'm quoting the data.
No vaccine ever has been shown to reveal side effects after 8 weeks. Is "all vaccine data from 1796" long term enough for you?
mRNA vaccines are not really vaccines as we know them.
I would have my child vaccinated with an older type vaccine for sars-cov2.
I'm not sure why you don't think they're vaccines. But fine.
The Oxford AZ and J&J vaccines (only approved in adults so far) are not mRNA vaccines (adenovirus vectors), and hopefully that will advance in kids. Novavax is the same kind as used in at least one of the shingles vaccines. I'm on a clinical trial for a traditional style Covid vaccine at the moment (although the Russian and Chinese vaccines are also this type, and they seem to be demonstrating lower efficacy than the others).
I'm sure aggregated data from the US is available to watch the effect of Pfizer on adolescents, if you so choose.
I would so choose if given the choice and no mRNA technology is very promising but has zero long term data safety, I'm not anti vaccine my children have all been vaccinated with traditional vaccines with very good short and long term safety data.
I personally hold great hope for gene therapies but due to current circumstances I have reservations that corners may be cut in its trialling.
I see no evidence that they are gene therapy (I have seen the argument made, but it involves some wild misinterpretation of American law, also remembering that legislators tend not to be scientists or doctors).
The virologists I listen to most often said before the trials were completed that there was no way it could be done that fast - but they and others have pored over the data and found no reason for concern.
Again, I am not arguing about choice - merely reflecting upon my understanding of the evidence.
Let's call it Instructing bodily responses via mRNA code if it makes you happier.
I have great hopes for its future use, I'm not a sceptic but at this point I do not wish my children to be part of its long term trials.
Ok. I am confident that the trials have been done for mRNA vaccines.
If I had children I would (subject to age/ability to reason - a 16 year old definitely, a 6 year old definitely not) allow them to make their own choices, while explaining what I understand about the field. I would also educate them early and often about critical thinking and source analysis, because - as we see in real time - the inability to do so gets people into trouble.
I agree there short term safety data is reasonable and during a crises like this I would not object to older and middle aged people being encouraged to take it as part of an excellent RR in covid, your point on teaching children critical thinking is excellent and sorely missed in society.
I would not think bad of you for seeking your best beliefs for your children and vaccinating them with an mRNA vaccine, unfortunately there's a lack of choice at the moment between mRNA or nothing.
I would allow my children to decide for themselves (if they are old enough to reasonably do so - there's a concept in UK law called Gillick competency which I'd loosely apply).
Once old enough to reason, it is their decision..
I disagree, I think life is a learning curve which gives you the ability to reason a little more nuanced than a 16 year old can hence why every tribe in history was run by elders.
But let's not digress.
"Ok. I would try to allow my child to develop their own decision making skills in preparation for adulthood. Respect their autonomy, even if it was partial. They don't have the decision making skills of a newborn at 17 and an elder at 18, it's a process (recognised in UK law). A 6 year old can probably not make rational decisions, a 12 year old sometimes can, and so on. I'd respect that process. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you say it's not working in the way it was designed to, what do you mean? Specifically the lipid nanoparticles which are showing up in great numbers in places they were designed not to be. Is that dangerous? We don't know is the answer, that's why I used the word worrisome. Given that pretty much all medicine is about balancing risks I'm not sure that it is pootentially not a good thing, maybe, is enough for me to be more concerned by that than by Covid." I think if Pfizer has gone to the effort of specifically designing something to be anchored in the deltoid because they didn't want it accumulating in various parts of the body like it now is found to be in the bone marrow and womb then I would call that worrisome, we don't know if it's a problem or a benefit and we probably won't for some years yet?. So yes I'm balancing knowns against unknowns. Does the pros mitigate cons, yes in older people maybe in younger people, children hmmm I'm not sure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you say it's not working in the way it was designed to, what do you mean? Specifically the lipid nanoparticles which are showing up in great numbers in places they were designed not to be. Is that dangerous? I recall a study that found some evidence of the lipid nanoparticles around the body. I think it was in the order of picograms. (A picogram is 0.000000000001g) The clue is in the wording "nano"." There is also evidence for nanoparticles of plastic being found everywhere in the body from the use of skin washing products, but I imagine that you don't worry too much about washing your face? Not everything that is a nanoparticle is automatically harmful, just because of it being nano. All that nano means is "very small". And lipid is just fat or oil. So in the case of these supposedly dangerous lipid nanoparticles, all that is really being talked about is a very tiny number of really small droplets of oil. Which at least will dissipate unlike those plastic particles which are there forever. Personally I would be far more concerned about the massive number of smoke and dust particles that enter my lungs every day and get stuck right down in the bottom of the alvioli. Mind you, the amount of that crap getting into my body has been much reduced since I started wearing a bit of cloth over my face 18 months ago... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you say it's not working in the way it was designed to, what do you mean? Specifically the lipid nanoparticles which are showing up in great numbers in places they were designed not to be. Is that dangerous? I recall a study that found some evidence of the lipid nanoparticles around the body. I think it was in the order of picograms. (A picogram is 0.000000000001g) The clue is in the wording "nano". There is also evidence for nanoparticles of plastic being found everywhere in the body from the use of skin washing products, but I imagine that you don't worry too much about washing your face? Not everything that is a nanoparticle is automatically harmful, just because of it being nano. All that nano means is "very small". And lipid is just fat or oil. So in the case of these supposedly dangerous lipid nanoparticles, all that is really being talked about is a very tiny number of really small droplets of oil. Which at least will dissipate unlike those plastic particles which are there forever. Personally I would be far more concerned about the massive number of smoke and dust particles that enter my lungs every day and get stuck right down in the bottom of the alvioli. Mind you, the amount of that crap getting into my body has been much reduced since I started wearing a bit of cloth over my face 18 months ago..." . I fully agree you don't want plastic nano particles in your water and I disagree that there the same thing, I disagree it's just droplets of fatty oil,I also agree you wouldn't want droplets of fatty oil accumulating in your bone marrow and womb whether or not that fatty oil contains genetic coding or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you say it's not working in the way it was designed to, what do you mean? Specifically the lipid nanoparticles which are showing up in great numbers in places they were designed not to be. Is that dangerous? I recall a study that found some evidence of the lipid nanoparticles around the body. I think it was in the order of picograms. (A picogram is 0.000000000001g) The clue is in the wording "nano". There is also evidence for nanoparticles of plastic being found everywhere in the body from the use of skin washing products, but I imagine that you don't worry too much about washing your face? Not everything that is a nanoparticle is automatically harmful, just because of it being nano. All that nano means is "very small". And lipid is just fat or oil. So in the case of these supposedly dangerous lipid nanoparticles, all that is really being talked about is a very tiny number of really small droplets of oil. Which at least will dissipate unlike those plastic particles which are there forever. Personally I would be far more concerned about the massive number of smoke and dust particles that enter my lungs every day and get stuck right down in the bottom of the alvioli. Mind you, the amount of that crap getting into my body has been much reduced since I started wearing a bit of cloth over my face 18 months ago.... I fully agree you don't want plastic nano particles in your water and I disagree that there the same thing, I disagree it's just droplets of fatty oil,I also agree you wouldn't want droplets of fatty oil accumulating in your bone marrow and womb whether or not that fatty oil contains genetic coding or not." Lipid means fat. Nano means small. Words actually have meanings, whether you agree or not. I'm not concerned about picograms of anything. If I were, I'd be way more concerned about lead from leaded petrol in my childhood (lead exposure is strongly correlated with neurological disorders and even a rise in criminal activity), radiation from my electronics, poison in my water supply or contaminants in my food (acceptable levels of contaminants exist), or other lifelong ongoing sources of poisoning. Not a two time exposure of something so teeny tiny eenie weenie that the vast majority of laboratories don't have the technology to detect it, even in this day and age. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you say it's not working in the way it was designed to, what do you mean? Specifically the lipid nanoparticles which are showing up in great numbers in places they were designed not to be. Is that dangerous? I recall a study that found some evidence of the lipid nanoparticles around the body. I think it was in the order of picograms. (A picogram is 0.000000000001g) The clue is in the wording "nano". There is also evidence for nanoparticles of plastic being found everywhere in the body from the use of skin washing products, but I imagine that you don't worry too much about washing your face? Not everything that is a nanoparticle is automatically harmful, just because of it being nano. All that nano means is "very small". And lipid is just fat or oil. So in the case of these supposedly dangerous lipid nanoparticles, all that is really being talked about is a very tiny number of really small droplets of oil. Which at least will dissipate unlike those plastic particles which are there forever. Personally I would be far more concerned about the massive number of smoke and dust particles that enter my lungs every day and get stuck right down in the bottom of the alvioli. Mind you, the amount of that crap getting into my body has been much reduced since I started wearing a bit of cloth over my face 18 months ago.... I fully agree you don't want plastic nano particles in your water and I disagree that there the same thing, I disagree it's just droplets of fatty oil,I also agree you wouldn't want droplets of fatty oil accumulating in your bone marrow and womb whether or not that fatty oil contains genetic coding or not. Lipid means fat. Nano means small. Words actually have meanings, whether you agree or not. I'm not concerned about picograms of anything. If I were, I'd be way more concerned about lead from leaded petrol in my childhood (lead exposure is strongly correlated with neurological disorders and even a rise in criminal activity), radiation from my electronics, poison in my water supply or contaminants in my food (acceptable levels of contaminants exist), or other lifelong ongoing sources of poisoning. Not a two time exposure of something so teeny tiny eenie weenie that the vast majority of laboratories don't have the technology to detect it, even in this day and age." This is not critical thinking, your not concerned because it's a tiny amount of something and if you were concerned about tiny amounts of stuff you'd be more worried about lead, plastics and radiation?. This is all stuff that everybody else is concerned about even in small traces. Then you say we haven't got labs that can detect it so that's fine as well?. And what is the ramblings about wording about? I was quoting the person before me who described it as essentially oil. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you say it's not working in the way it was designed to, what do you mean? Specifically the lipid nanoparticles which are showing up in great numbers in places they were designed not to be. Is that dangerous? I recall a study that found some evidence of the lipid nanoparticles around the body. I think it was in the order of picograms. (A picogram is 0.000000000001g) The clue is in the wording "nano". There is also evidence for nanoparticles of plastic being found everywhere in the body from the use of skin washing products, but I imagine that you don't worry too much about washing your face? Not everything that is a nanoparticle is automatically harmful, just because of it being nano. All that nano means is "very small". And lipid is just fat or oil. So in the case of these supposedly dangerous lipid nanoparticles, all that is really being talked about is a very tiny number of really small droplets of oil. Which at least will dissipate unlike those plastic particles which are there forever. Personally I would be far more concerned about the massive number of smoke and dust particles that enter my lungs every day and get stuck right down in the bottom of the alvioli. Mind you, the amount of that crap getting into my body has been much reduced since I started wearing a bit of cloth over my face 18 months ago.... I fully agree you don't want plastic nano particles in your water and I disagree that there the same thing, I disagree it's just droplets of fatty oil,I also agree you wouldn't want droplets of fatty oil accumulating in your bone marrow and womb whether or not that fatty oil contains genetic coding or not. Lipid means fat. Nano means small. Words actually have meanings, whether you agree or not. I'm not concerned about picograms of anything. If I were, I'd be way more concerned about lead from leaded petrol in my childhood (lead exposure is strongly correlated with neurological disorders and even a rise in criminal activity), radiation from my electronics, poison in my water supply or contaminants in my food (acceptable levels of contaminants exist), or other lifelong ongoing sources of poisoning. Not a two time exposure of something so teeny tiny eenie weenie that the vast majority of laboratories don't have the technology to detect it, even in this day and age. This is not critical thinking, your not concerned because it's a tiny amount of something and if you were concerned about tiny amounts of stuff you'd be more worried about lead, plastics and radiation?. This is all stuff that everybody else is concerned about even in small traces. Then you say we haven't got labs that can detect it so that's fine as well?. And what is the ramblings about wording about? I was quoting the person before me who described it as essentially oil. " I'm not sure we have the same understanding of what critical thinking is. I've made my assessment for my purposes. You do you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. Absolutely fkn insane Why? They have been vaccinating the over 12 in tens of countries for months now. " As you say, the only insane thing is the stupid anti vaccine type comment Even if it’s the lesser of two evils, it’s still the lesser | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I guess we don't but a good place to start is not trying to win an argument. We can just agree to disagree." I'm pretty sure I've been there all along. Here's my position, take it or leave it. I know I'm not going to convince you, I'm just having a discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I guess we don't but a good place to start is not trying to win an argument. We can just agree to disagree. I'm pretty sure I've been there all along. Here's my position, take it or leave it. I know I'm not going to convince you, I'm just having a discussion." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use Words taken from the FDA website: The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15. Emergency Use Only" Approved means approved. I believe we're in an emergency.
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
The most recent figure I heard was 1 in 25 risk of long Covid, and 1 in 100k risk of myocarditis lasting up to two days.
Apparently no vaccine has ever had a side effect emerge post 8 weeks (Paul Offit).
Hopefully other options emerge for those who are hesitant about the newer technology, and hopefully children are protected - because viruses do linger for decades before showing up later in life, in a way that's never been seen in vaccines.
Your quoting short term safety data and I'm well aware it's excellent.
But we have zero long term safety data and children have the longest span to worry about, frankly at my age 25 year risks don't worry me, for a 10 year old they do.
The unknowns have to be balanced with the knowns.
It's a personal choice that everybody should be free to make
I'm not saying anything about choice. I'm quoting the data.
No vaccine ever has been shown to reveal side effects after 8 weeks. Is "all vaccine data from 1796" long term enough for you?
mRNA vaccines are not really vaccines as we know them.
I would have my child vaccinated with an older type vaccine for sars-cov2.
I'm not sure why you don't think they're vaccines. But fine.
The Oxford AZ and J&J vaccines (only approved in adults so far) are not mRNA vaccines (adenovirus vectors), and hopefully that will advance in kids. Novavax is the same kind as used in at least one of the shingles vaccines. I'm on a clinical trial for a traditional style Covid vaccine at the moment (although the Russian and Chinese vaccines are also this type, and they seem to be demonstrating lower efficacy than the others).
I'm sure aggregated data from the US is available to watch the effect of Pfizer on adolescents, if you so choose.
I would so choose if given the choice and no mRNA technology is very promising but has zero long term data safety, I'm not anti vaccine my children have all been vaccinated with traditional vaccines with very good short and long term safety data.
I personally hold great hope for gene therapies but due to current circumstances I have reservations that corners may be cut in its trialling.
I see no evidence that they are gene therapy (I have seen the argument made, but it involves some wild misinterpretation of American law, also remembering that legislators tend not to be scientists or doctors).
The virologists I listen to most often said before the trials were completed that there was no way it could be done that fast - but they and others have pored over the data and found no reason for concern.
Again, I am not arguing about choice - merely reflecting upon my understanding of the evidence.
Let's call it Instructing bodily responses via mRNA code if it makes you happier.
I have great hopes for its future use, I'm not a sceptic but at this point I do not wish my children to be part of its long term trials.
Ok. I am confident that the trials have been done for mRNA vaccines.
If I had children I would (subject to age/ability to reason - a 16 year old definitely, a 6 year old definitely not) allow them to make their own choices, while explaining what I understand about the field. I would also educate them early and often about critical thinking and source analysis, because - as we see in real time - the inability to do so gets people into trouble.
I agree there short term safety data is reasonable and during a crises like this I would not object to older and middle aged people being encouraged to take it as part of an excellent RR in covid, your point on teaching children critical thinking is excellent and sorely missed in society.
I would not think bad of you for seeking your best beliefs for your children and vaccinating them with an mRNA vaccine, unfortunately there's a lack of choice at the moment between mRNA or nothing.
I would allow my children to decide for themselves (if they are old enough to reasonably do so - there's a concept in UK law called Gillick competency which I'd loosely apply).
Once old enough to reason, it is their decision..
I disagree, I think life is a learning curve which gives you the ability to reason a little more nuanced than a 16 year old can hence why every tribe in history was run by elders.
But let's not digress.
Ok. I would try to allow my child to develop their own decision making skills in preparation for adulthood. Respect their autonomy, even if it was partial. They don't have the decision making skills of a newborn at 17 and an elder at 18, it's a process (recognised in UK law). A 6 year old can probably not make rational decisions, a 12 year old sometimes can, and so on. I'd respect that process."Yet you seem to take a huge portion of time out of your own day to publicly criticise complete strangers online for their own ability of critical thinking and desicion making, mocking them along the way. Only because they might disagree with you on certain topics  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"DNA is in every one of your cells telling your body what to do. mRNA is the messenger that delivers instructions from your DNA to the rest of your body. The covid-19 injection pumps a synthetic mRNA (and not the actual COVID-19 virus) which are tiny nano particles will punch holes into your cells and carry into your body the synthetic mRNA that was made in the lab by scientist at AZ, Pfizer. Once in your cells these nano particles will instruct your body to make parts of the COVID-19 virus! This is not how a vaccine works!" A virus enters your cells and uses a similar process to instruct your cell to make more virus. In doing that, a protein is displayed on the cell outer surface, which attracts antibodies. mRNA vaccines enter your cells and are taken into the cells ribosome, which then produces the protein the mRNA encodes for, which happens to be the same protein that is displayed on a cell surface during a virus attack. mRNA lasts an extremely short time before if disintegrates. Vaccine: any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing an innocuous form of the disease agent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production. We can argue semantics if you like.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"DNA is in every one of your cells telling your body what to do. mRNA is the messenger that delivers instructions from your DNA to the rest of your body. The covid-19 injection pumps a synthetic mRNA (and not the actual COVID-19 virus) which are tiny nano particles will punch holes into your cells and carry into your body the synthetic mRNA that was made in the lab by scientist at AZ, Pfizer. Once in your cells these nano particles will instruct your body to make parts of the COVID-19 virus! This is not how a vaccine works! A virus enters your cells and uses a similar process to instruct your cell to make more virus. In doing that, a protein is displayed on the cell outer surface, which attracts antibodies. mRNA vaccines enter your cells and are taken into the cells ribosome, which then produces the protein the mRNA encodes for, which happens to be the same protein that is displayed on a cell surface during a virus attack. mRNA lasts an extremely short time before if disintegrates. Vaccine: any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing an innocuous form of the disease agent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production. We can argue semantics if you like.." very technical descriptions; quiet enjoying it ; but still not convinced on who is actually correct ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal." I suppose that depends on what YOU THINK that long term data is. The first mRNA based trials started in the late 1980's. Even the Covid vaccines have been in testing for around 17 months now. It is also worth considering that there are also other vaccine types, not all of the Covid vaccines are mRNA based. Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above." The propaganda to inject 12 year olds and now I'm seeing the push for 5 yrs plus. Insane, absolutely insane An experimental drug forced into a 5yr old that won't even know if had covid , because it does not effect kids People are truly insane | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They'll be vaccinating babies in the womb soon "Pregnant women are already lining up for it , they can't wait | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use Words taken from the FDA website: The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15. Emergency Use Only Approved means approved. I believe we're in an emergency.
E"We are not in an emergency and never was | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. The propaganda to inject 12 year olds and now I'm seeing the push for 5 yrs plus. Insane, absolutely insane An experimental drug forced into a 5yr old that won't even know if had covid , because it does not effect kids People are truly insane" Yes they are. Easily led by fear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use Words taken from the FDA website: The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15. Emergency Use Only Approved means approved. I believe we're in an emergency.
E
We are not in an emergency and never was "You are joking? That's a funny, yes? Seriously, you don't think the spread of the Covid virus constitutes an emergency? A pandemic that affects every country in the world, that spreads exponentially and mutates at will, isn't something that can be classed as an emergency? E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. I suppose that depends on what YOU THINK that long term data is. The first mRNA based trials started in the late 1980's. Even the Covid vaccines have been in testing for around 17 months now. It is also worth considering that there are also other vaccine types, not all of the Covid vaccines are mRNA based. Cal" I was specifically talking about mRNA vaccines and yes nobody, not me, nor you, nor Pfizer know the long term complications because there are no data for it and yes the technology is oldish but nobody has ever been injected with one until 17 months ago, there's not even been long term animal trials so yes in my opinion it's long term is unknown and yes I said above I'd be more than happy to have my child vaccinated with a traditional vaccine, in fact most research which has been out over a year shows children have good immunity from sars-cov2 via there MMR vaccine hence why you see a disproportionate amount of third world children being affected due to the lack of MMR vaccination in world regions, in fact if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the jvb already know this and that's why they've selected over 12 year olds(a wearing down of the MMR from aged 2). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. " And that makes it okay  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use Words taken from the FDA website: The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15. Emergency Use Only Approved means approved. I believe we're in an emergency.
E
We are not in an emergency and never was
You are joking? That's a funny, yes? Seriously, you don't think the spread of the Covid virus constitutes an emergency?
A pandemic that affects every country in the world, that spreads exponentially and mutates at will, isn't something that can be classed as an emergency?
no critical thinking here...sorry cannot help you if you believe a PCR test that cannot differentiate between common flu and Sarscov2 because its Sarscov2 that is the virus btw and not covid 19 which is the disease lol
or you could try and go on holiday and ask yourself hy no country accepts the free nhs pcr test
E" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay "What? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?"I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue? All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no"Absolutely fine with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no"Just for clarity the chances of dying from a lightning strike in the uk is 1 in 19 million. Chances of a 14 to 18 year old dying of covid is around 3 in a million and rising. 16 to 17 year Olds should be free to make their own choice whether they are influenced by celebrities scientists or anti Vax grifters on YouTube or Facebook etc. It should be their choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no
Just for clarity the chances of dying from a lightning strike in the uk is 1 in 19 million. Chances of a 14 to 18 year old dying of covid is around 3 in a million and rising. 16 to 17 year Olds should be free to make their own choice whether they are influenced by celebrities scientists or anti Vax grifters on YouTube or Facebook etc. It should be their choice." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. I suppose that depends on what YOU THINK that long term data is. The first mRNA based trials started in the late 1980's. Even the Covid vaccines have been in testing for around 17 months now. It is also worth considering that there are also other vaccine types, not all of the Covid vaccines are mRNA based. Cal I was specifically talking about mRNA vaccines and yes nobody, not me, nor you, nor Pfizer know the long term complications because there are no data for it and yes the technology is oldish but nobody has ever been injected with one until 17 months ago, there's not even been long term animal trials so yes in my opinion it's long term is unknown and yes I said above I'd be more than happy to have my child vaccinated with a traditional vaccine, in fact most research which has been out over a year shows children have good immunity from sars-cov2 via there MMR vaccine hence why you see a disproportionate amount of third world children being affected due to the lack of MMR vaccination in world regions, in fact if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the jvb already know this and that's why they've selected over 12 year olds(a wearing down of the MMR from aged 2)." Again... that's not right. There have been many previous mRNA vaccine/therapy trials dating back decades, mainly aimed at treatment of cancers. These have included stage 1,2, and 3 trials so yes the have been trialed on humans. There are even still many ongoing trials now that are benefitting from the funding & research that developing the covid vaccines have provided. Several of the ongoing trials are suggesting that mRNA vaccines are providing positive results against certain types of cancers... Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no
Just for clarity the chances of dying from a lightning strike in the uk is 1 in 19 million. Chances of a 14 to 18 year old dying of covid is around 3 in a million and rising. 16 to 17 year Olds should be free to make their own choice whether they are influenced by celebrities scientists or anti Vax grifters on YouTube or Facebook etc. It should be their choice."And there are approx 1.4 million 16 to 17 year olds in the UK. Source ons. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/jn5p/lms | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no"If there was a maritime disaster today the amount of adults who’d trample over children on their way to the life rafts would be astounding | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no
Just for clarity the chances of dying from a lightning strike in the uk is 1 in 19 million. Chances of a 14 to 18 year old dying of covid is around 3 in a million and rising. 16 to 17 year Olds should be free to make their own choice whether they are influenced by celebrities scientists or anti Vax grifters on YouTube or Facebook etc. It should be their choice."*I said 16/17 yr olds not 14-18 *Influenced by paid celeb to take a vaccine suggests that aint a choice  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
What, specifically, is the issue with an mRNA vaccine?"Just look at the comments on forums from the double vaxxed...no empathy, rude, lack of critical thought i personally think its the spike proteins wreaking havoc lol clouding their train of thought | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no
Just for clarity the chances of dying from a lightning strike in the uk is 1 in 19 million. Chances of a 14 to 18 year old dying of covid is around 3 in a million and rising. 16 to 17 year Olds should be free to make their own choice whether they are influenced by celebrities scientists or anti Vax grifters on YouTube or Facebook etc. It should be their choice.
*I said 16/17 yr olds not 14-18
*Influenced by paid celeb to take a vaccine suggests that aint a choice
"“Influenced by paid celebrity to take a vaccine suggests that ain’t a choice.” So, if the govt wants to depopulate, why don’t they pay celebrities to suggest suicide. By your reasoning the youngsters will have no option but to take their own lives . Critical thinker, my arse. If critical thinking was shit, some on here would be permanently constipated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. I suppose that depends on what YOU THINK that long term data is. The first mRNA based trials started in the late 1980's. Even the Covid vaccines have been in testing for around 17 months now. It is also worth considering that there are also other vaccine types, not all of the Covid vaccines are mRNA based. Cal I was specifically talking about mRNA vaccines and yes nobody, not me, nor you, nor Pfizer know the long term complications because there are no data for it and yes the technology is oldish but nobody has ever been injected with one until 17 months ago, there's not even been long term animal trials so yes in my opinion it's long term is unknown and yes I said above I'd be more than happy to have my child vaccinated with a traditional vaccine, in fact most research which has been out over a year shows children have good immunity from sars-cov2 via there MMR vaccine hence why you see a disproportionate amount of third world children being affected due to the lack of MMR vaccination in world regions, in fact if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the jvb already know this and that's why they've selected over 12 year olds(a wearing down of the MMR from aged 2). Again... that's not right. There have been many previous mRNA vaccine/therapy trials dating back decades, mainly aimed at treatment of cancers. These have included stage 1,2, and 3 trials so yes the have been trialed on humans. There are even still many ongoing trials now that are benefitting from the funding & research that developing the covid vaccines have provided. Several of the ongoing trials are suggesting that mRNA vaccines are providing positive results against certain types of cancers... Cal" Would it be free if it protected you from dying of cancer?    | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no
If there was a maritime disaster today the amount of adults who’d trample over children on their way to the life rafts would be astounding"I think you make a fair point. The attitudes to our youth has been very surprising. But none the less very informative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no
Just for clarity the chances of dying from a lightning strike in the uk is 1 in 19 million. Chances of a 14 to 18 year old dying of covid is around 3 in a million and rising. 16 to 17 year Olds should be free to make their own choice whether they are influenced by celebrities scientists or anti Vax grifters on YouTube or Facebook etc. It should be their choice.
*I said 16/17 yr olds not 14-18
*Influenced by paid celeb to take a vaccine suggests that aint a choice
“Influenced by paid celebrity to take a vaccine suggests that ain’t a choice.” So, if the govt wants to depopulate, why don’t they pay celebrities to suggest suicide. By your reasoning the youngsters will have no option but to take their own lives . Critical thinker, my arse. If critical thinking was shit, some on here would be permanently constipated."Plenty of musicians etc have already been paid to promote all types of drugs and suicide in their songs...i.e. Lil Uzi vert all my friends are dead...his fan base is mainly teens | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no
Just for clarity the chances of dying from a lightning strike in the uk is 1 in 19 million. Chances of a 14 to 18 year old dying of covid is around 3 in a million and rising. 16 to 17 year Olds should be free to make their own choice whether they are influenced by celebrities scientists or anti Vax grifters on YouTube or Facebook etc. It should be their choice.
*I said 16/17 yr olds not 14-18
*Influenced by paid celeb to take a vaccine suggests that aint a choice
“Influenced by paid celebrity to take a vaccine suggests that ain’t a choice.” So, if the govt wants to depopulate, why don’t they pay celebrities to suggest suicide. By your reasoning the youngsters will have no option but to take their own lives . Critical thinker, my arse. If critical thinking was shit, some on here would be permanently constipated.
Plenty of musicians etc have already been paid to promote all types of drugs and suicide in their songs...i.e. Lil Uzi vert all my friends are dead...his fan base is mainly teens"Time to take those laxatives | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Several of the ongoing trials are suggesting that mRNA vaccines are providing positive results against certain types of cancers... Cal ----------- Would it be free if it protected you from dying of cancer? "The covid vaccines aren't free! they were paid for by the government (our taxes) a bit like every treatment that is available on the NHS | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
What, specifically, is the issue with an mRNA vaccine?
Just look at the comments on forums from the double vaxxed...no empathy, rude, lack of critical thought i personally think its the spike proteins wreaking havoc lol clouding their train of thought "No, they're just pompous and narcissistic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. I suppose that depends on what YOU THINK that long term data is. The first mRNA based trials started in the late 1980's. Even the Covid vaccines have been in testing for around 17 months now. It is also worth considering that there are also other vaccine types, not all of the Covid vaccines are mRNA based. Cal I was specifically talking about mRNA vaccines and yes nobody, not me, nor you, nor Pfizer know the long term complications because there are no data for it and yes the technology is oldish but nobody has ever been injected with one until 17 months ago, there's not even been long term animal trials so yes in my opinion it's long term is unknown and yes I said above I'd be more than happy to have my child vaccinated with a traditional vaccine, in fact most research which has been out over a year shows children have good immunity from sars-cov2 via there MMR vaccine hence why you see a disproportionate amount of third world children being affected due to the lack of MMR vaccination in world regions, in fact if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the jvb already know this and that's why they've selected over 12 year olds(a wearing down of the MMR from aged 2). Again... that's not right. There have been many previous mRNA vaccine/therapy trials dating back decades, mainly aimed at treatment of cancers. These have included stage 1,2, and 3 trials so yes the have been trialed on humans. There are even still many ongoing trials now that are benefitting from the funding & research that developing the covid vaccines have provided. Several of the ongoing trials are suggesting that mRNA vaccines are providing positive results against certain types of cancers... Cal Would it be free if it protected you from dying of cancer? "You mean like the HPV vaccine that is given free of charge to adolescents in this country, that protects women against cervical cancer? The answer is that any vaccine that is shown to have a net economic benefit will be offered free of charge to whatever demographic group. Note that net economic benefit accrues both from consideration of the savings in health care costs, and from the better economic contribution that a healthy individual makes. I would like to think that there is also some consideration that it is a "good" thing to save lives, but as this has no quantifiable value that can be written on a profit/loss account, I suspect that it actually pays no part in the decision making. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. I suppose that depends on what YOU THINK that long term data is. The first mRNA based trials started in the late 1980's. Even the Covid vaccines have been in testing for around 17 months now. It is also worth considering that there are also other vaccine types, not all of the Covid vaccines are mRNA based. Cal I was specifically talking about mRNA vaccines and yes nobody, not me, nor you, nor Pfizer know the long term complications because there are no data for it and yes the technology is oldish but nobody has ever been injected with one until 17 months ago, there's not even been long term animal trials so yes in my opinion it's long term is unknown and yes I said above I'd be more than happy to have my child vaccinated with a traditional vaccine, in fact most research which has been out over a year shows children have good immunity from sars-cov2 via there MMR vaccine hence why you see a disproportionate amount of third world children being affected due to the lack of MMR vaccination in world regions, in fact if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the jvb already know this and that's why they've selected over 12 year olds(a wearing down of the MMR from aged 2). Again... that's not right. There have been many previous mRNA vaccine/therapy trials dating back decades, mainly aimed at treatment of cancers. These have included stage 1,2, and 3 trials so yes the have been trialed on humans. There are even still many ongoing trials now that are benefitting from the funding & research that developing the covid vaccines have provided. Several of the ongoing trials are suggesting that mRNA vaccines are providing positive results against certain types of cancers... Cal" I think you've read your information wrong, they've modelled mRNA vaccines in animals and humans none have actually been used until 17 months ago, the first mRNA drugs developed for cancers and various other disease were used in about 2013 and were stopped from unforeseen side effects. I read this in a nature article a few months back and I'm pretty sure that's how I remember it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no
Just for clarity the chances of dying from a lightning strike in the uk is 1 in 19 million. Chances of a 14 to 18 year old dying of covid is around 3 in a million and rising. 16 to 17 year Olds should be free to make their own choice whether they are influenced by celebrities scientists or anti Vax grifters on YouTube or Facebook etc. It should be their choice.
*I said 16/17 yr olds not 14-18
*Influenced by paid celeb to take a vaccine suggests that aint a choice
“Influenced by paid celebrity to take a vaccine suggests that ain’t a choice.” So, if the govt wants to depopulate, why don’t they pay celebrities to suggest suicide. By your reasoning the youngsters will have no option but to take their own lives . Critical thinker, my arse. If critical thinking was shit, some on here would be permanently constipated.
Plenty of musicians etc have already been paid to promote all types of drugs and suicide in their songs...i.e. Lil Uzi vert all my friends are dead...his fan base is mainly teens
Time to take those laxatives "make sure you close the bathroom door you dirty bugger lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no
Just for clarity the chances of dying from a lightning strike in the uk is 1 in 19 million. Chances of a 14 to 18 year old dying of covid is around 3 in a million and rising. 16 to 17 year Olds should be free to make their own choice whether they are influenced by celebrities scientists or anti Vax grifters on YouTube or Facebook etc. It should be their choice.
*I said 16/17 yr olds not 14-18
*Influenced by paid celeb to take a vaccine suggests that aint a choice
“Influenced by paid celebrity to take a vaccine suggests that ain’t a choice.” So, if the govt wants to depopulate, why don’t they pay celebrities to suggest suicide. By your reasoning the youngsters will have no option but to take their own lives . Critical thinker, my arse. If critical thinking was shit, some on here would be permanently constipated.
Plenty of musicians etc have already been paid to promote all types of drugs and suicide in their songs...i.e. Lil Uzi vert all my friends are dead...his fan base is mainly teens
Time to take those laxatives
make sure you close the bathroom door you dirty bugger lol"Lol you have some wit. While you are here, I will have fries with that Big Mac | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-bnt162b2--conditions-of-authorisation-under-regulation-174--2-december-2020-amended-on-30-december-2020-28-january-2021-30-march-2021-19-may-2021-04-june-2021-29-july-2021 It states the same thing on the government website. Only 2000 children have been involved in the clinical trials. *shrug* imagine having an expedited process during an emergency, used in an emergency. The horror and outrage. The scandal. Also, other countries have been vaccinating teenagers for awhile, and safety data can be extrapolated from that. There's no long term safety data on mRNA vaccines, I think this needs to be balanced with the risks that 12 year olds are at from sars-cov2 which at the moment seems very minimal. Ok. There's also no long term safety data for the virus, and the medium to long term suffering of children (that we do know about) has been elided in a lot of conversation. If they're not dead there's nothing wrong .
That's why I wrote at the moment and yes at the moment there's a minimal risk to children even from long covid or death.
This may change in the future but at this moment I personally would not get my child vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine.
What, specifically, is the issue with an mRNA vaccine?
Just look at the comments on forums from the double vaxxed...no empathy, rude, lack of critical thought i personally think its the spike proteins wreaking havoc lol clouding their train of thought
No, they're just pompous and narcissistic"not to mention brave and "doing their duty" often quoted blurting the words "just take the bloody thing" or "lets get more jabs in arms" following the script | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no
Just for clarity the chances of dying from a lightning strike in the uk is 1 in 19 million. Chances of a 14 to 18 year old dying of covid is around 3 in a million and rising. 16 to 17 year Olds should be free to make their own choice whether they are influenced by celebrities scientists or anti Vax grifters on YouTube or Facebook etc. It should be their choice.
*I said 16/17 yr olds not 14-18
*Influenced by paid celeb to take a vaccine suggests that aint a choice
“Influenced by paid celebrity to take a vaccine suggests that ain’t a choice.” So, if the govt wants to depopulate, why don’t they pay celebrities to suggest suicide. By your reasoning the youngsters will have no option but to take their own lives . Critical thinker, my arse. If critical thinking was shit, some on here would be permanently constipated.
Plenty of musicians etc have already been paid to promote all types of drugs and suicide in their songs...i.e. Lil Uzi vert all my friends are dead...his fan base is mainly teens
Time to take those laxatives
make sure you close the bathroom door you dirty bugger lol
Lol you have some wit. While you are here, I will have fries with that Big Mac "If you are sure you don't mind my staff spitting in the burger lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. insane " This . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no
Just for clarity the chances of dying from a lightning strike in the uk is 1 in 19 million. Chances of a 14 to 18 year old dying of covid is around 3 in a million and rising. 16 to 17 year Olds should be free to make their own choice whether they are influenced by celebrities scientists or anti Vax grifters on YouTube or Facebook etc. It should be their choice.
*I said 16/17 yr olds not 14-18
*Influenced by paid celeb to take a vaccine suggests that aint a choice
“Influenced by paid celebrity to take a vaccine suggests that ain’t a choice.” So, if the govt wants to depopulate, why don’t they pay celebrities to suggest suicide. By your reasoning the youngsters will have no option but to take their own lives . Critical thinker, my arse. If critical thinking was shit, some on here would be permanently constipated.
Plenty of musicians etc have already been paid to promote all types of drugs and suicide in their songs...i.e. Lil Uzi vert all my friends are dead...his fan base is mainly teens
Time to take those laxatives
make sure you close the bathroom door you dirty bugger lol
Lol you have some wit. While you are here, I will have fries with that Big Mac
If you are sure you don't mind my staff spitting in the burger lol"Is that the house special.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. And that makes it okay
What?
I take it you are okay with vaccinating all 16/17 yr olds giving them the illusion of choice by paying their favourite celeb to push it on to them or bribing them with freebies and threats of not being able to have a 18th birthday at a club/venue?
All this when you know they have about the same chance of dying from a lightning strike...as well as the fact that it is still an experimental drug auth for use in an emergency
So are you okay with this ..simple yes or no
Just for clarity the chances of dying from a lightning strike in the uk is 1 in 19 million. Chances of a 14 to 18 year old dying of covid is around 3 in a million and rising. 16 to 17 year Olds should be free to make their own choice whether they are influenced by celebrities scientists or anti Vax grifters on YouTube or Facebook etc. It should be their choice.
*I said 16/17 yr olds not 14-18
*Influenced by paid celeb to take a vaccine suggests that aint a choice
“Influenced by paid celebrity to take a vaccine suggests that ain’t a choice.” So, if the govt wants to depopulate, why don’t they pay celebrities to suggest suicide. By your reasoning the youngsters will have no option but to take their own lives . Critical thinker, my arse. If critical thinking was shit, some on here would be permanently constipated.
Plenty of musicians etc have already been paid to promote all types of drugs and suicide in their songs...i.e. Lil Uzi vert all my friends are dead...his fan base is mainly teens
Time to take those laxatives
make sure you close the bathroom door you dirty bugger lol
Lol you have some wit. While you are here, I will have fries with that Big Mac
If you are sure you don't mind my staff spitting in the burger lol
Is that the house special.? "No. Just the manager lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There has been more deaths from these covid19 jabs than there has been for all vaccinations for the last 20 years. Any vaccine that got rolled out got halted once a certain number of people died. Not with these jabs. Why?" Where did you read that bollox? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use Words taken from the FDA website: The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15. Emergency Use Only Approved means approved. I believe we're in an emergency.
E
We are not in an emergency and never was
You are joking? That's a funny, yes? Seriously, you don't think the spread of the Covid virus constitutes an emergency?
A pandemic that affects every country in the world, that spreads exponentially and mutates at will, isn't something that can be classed as an emergency?
no critical thinking here...sorry cannot help you if you believe a PCR test that cannot differentiate between common flu and Sarscov2 because its Sarscov2 that is the virus btw and not covid 19 which is the disease lol
or you could try and go on holiday and ask yourself hy no country accepts the free nhs pcr test
E "I see you're still hiding your comments inside people's quote marks to make it look like your words are their words. Bit silly really. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its in their own documents off the gov website that during the third wave (that they predicted months ago) the majority of deaths is gonna be of double jabbed people. Id be scared about this winter if I were double jabbed ??" Urm of course they will be seeing as the majority of people have been double jabbed! What a lot of people fail to understand is we were never told that the vaccine will stop people dying, we have been told and as seems to be proven it reduces the risk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its in their own documents off the gov website that during the third wave (that they predicted months ago) the majority of deaths is gonna be of double jabbed people. Id be scared about this winter if I were double jabbed ??" If the majority of people are double vaccinated it stands to reason the majority of deaths will be in the double vaccinated. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its in their own documents off the gov website that during the third wave (that they predicted months ago) the majority of deaths is gonna be of double jabbed people. Id be scared about this winter if I were double jabbed ?? If the majority of people are double vaccinated it stands to reason the majority of deaths will be in the double vaccinated. E" It does of course make sense..... there's another thread running with someone saying the majority of infections are with unvaccinated people and that it's "incredibly" unlikely that if your vaccinated you can spread the infection... Hmmm. There's a lot of people wedded to pushing their dogma still | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its in their own documents off the gov website that during the third wave (that they predicted months ago) the majority of deaths is gonna be of double jabbed people. Id be scared about this winter if I were double jabbed ?? If the majority of people are double vaccinated it stands to reason the majority of deaths will be in the double vaccinated. E It does of course make sense..... there's another thread running with someone saying the majority of infections are with unvaccinated people and that it's "incredibly" unlikely that if your vaccinated you can spread the infection... Hmmm. There's a lot of people wedded to pushing their dogma still" I see people talking about critical thinking a lot. Unfortunately I feel a lot of people aren't equipped with those skills. I'd hope they at least had some common sense, but that seems to have left the building too. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its in their own documents off the gov website that during the third wave (that they predicted months ago) the majority of deaths is gonna be of double jabbed people. Id be scared about this winter if I were double jabbed ?? If the majority of people are double vaccinated it stands to reason the majority of deaths will be in the double vaccinated. E It does of course make sense..... there's another thread running with someone saying the majority of infections are with unvaccinated people and that it's "incredibly" unlikely that if your vaccinated you can spread the infection... Hmmm. There's a lot of people wedded to pushing their dogma still" The claims for the effect of the vaccines have always been the same: (a) Given two identical sized groups of people, with the same demographic spread, if all of one group are vaccinated and all the other group are unvaccinated, then an individual from the vaccinated group is less likely to have a severe reaction if infected than an individual from the unvaccinated group. (b) Given the same two groups of people, an infected person from the vaccinated group is likely to have a lower viral load than an infected person from the unvaccinated group (this kind of goes part and parcel with (a)), and hence on average is likely to pass the infection to a lower number of people than will the person from the unvaccinated group. The 24 million dollar question is how much is "less likely" and "more likely"? Analysis of results from the vaccine trials appeared to show that Pfizer vaccine gave about a times 9 advantage to a vaccinated person, the AZ vaccine gave about a times 5 advantage. Analysis of current hospitalisation numbers seems to show that the value on average across the UK vaccinated population could be as high as a times 11 advantage to a vaccinated person. These numbers obviously are also dependent upon the strain of the virus, the demographic mix of the population, behavioural trends and a number of other variables, hence cannot be exactly determined. It is very clear though that given any two individuals of similar age and similar underlying health, the one who is vaccinated prior to virus exposure is going to be much better off than the one that is unvaccinated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People still don't get it and it's unbelievable to watch normally sane people accept what is going on in this whole situation. From the eighties to seventy year old, to sixties to the fifties, forties to thirties all the way down to now 16 year olds (without parental permission!!!) and some are still not questioning why. I'm now convinced that when newborn babies are being given this injection (and it's coming soon) these same people will just shrug their shoulders and still justify it. My hope for human kind and rational thinking has taken a real knock this year, the power of fear has reigned supreme once again as people can be controlled with ease. " Fear will do that to people. How many people know that 17,000,000 people die every year around the world from infectious diseases? And how many people have actually ever worried how much harm they've caused when they've had a mild flu but still gone out to the shops for a loaf of bread? Not many I'd wager but the clever people on TV have had their say now and struck fear 8nto the masses. There are a few NHS UK doctors coming forward now saying that children should not and do not need to be vaccinated but I'm afraid it's just a trickle. It's utter madness to be vaccinating a group of people who for months we've been told are at a minute risk. People that shout and scream well it's not just to protect them seem to forget the most vulnerable groups are already jabbed so it's not to protect them neither. The ONS now say that 94% of the population have antibodies so to start jabbing kids against a disease that poses virtually no risk to them in my eyes is wrong. Kids are statistically more likely to die in a traffic accident or going for a swim in a lake. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People still don't get it and it's unbelievable to watch normally sane people accept what is going on in this whole situation. From the eighties to seventy year old, to sixties to the fifties, forties to thirties all the way down to now 16 year olds (without parental permission!!!) and some are still not questioning why. I'm now convinced that when newborn babies are being given this injection (and it's coming soon) these same people will just shrug their shoulders and still justify it. My hope for human kind and rational thinking has taken a real knock this year, the power of fear has reigned supreme once again as people can be controlled with ease. Fear will do that to people. How many people know that 17,000,000 people die every year around the world from infectious diseases? And how many people have actually ever worried how much harm they've caused when they've had a mild flu but still gone out to the shops for a loaf of bread? Not many I'd wager but the clever people on TV have had their say now and struck fear 8nto the masses. There are a few NHS UK doctors coming forward now saying that children should not and do not need to be vaccinated but I'm afraid it's just a trickle. It's utter madness to be vaccinating a group of people who for months we've been told are at a minute risk. People that shout and scream well it's not just to protect them seem to forget the most vulnerable groups are already jabbed so it's not to protect them neither. The ONS now say that 94% of the population have antibodies so to start jabbing kids against a disease that poses virtually no risk to them in my eyes is wrong. Kids are statistically more likely to die in a traffic accident or going for a swim in a lake. " It does feel very much like it's easier to just to keep telling people to jab kids than to make a compelling, medical benefit, risk based case for jabbing them. If in doubt... Shout louder. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. Absolutely fkn insane dont you think they need a vaccine ? After all, the survival rate for this age group is only 99.9998% ! Yeah, I do think that giving children the option to be vaccinated is warranted. I agree. " Me too, been vaccinating the at risk over 12s for a while, expect to start the 16-17 yr olds next week, paediatric vaccination hurdles allowing, never imagine we vaccinate babies on our own | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its in their own documents off the gov website that during the third wave (that they predicted months ago) the majority of deaths is gonna be of double jabbed people. Id be scared about this winter if I were double jabbed ??[/quote agree , looks like the effectiveness of the vaccines have wained; the wheels are coming off the vaccine bandwagon ! But let’s hope the boosters do the job and get things back on track ready for the winter . " We're both double vaccinated and not at all concerned. We also understand that when the majority of people are double vaccinated it's obvious the majority of deaths will be in the double vaccinated. I don't understand what people don't understand about it, it's blindingly obvious, surely. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its in their own documents off the gov website that during the third wave (that they predicted months ago) the majority of deaths is gonna be of double jabbed people. Id be scared about this winter if I were double jabbed ??[/quote agree , looks like the effectiveness of the vaccines have wained; the wheels are coming off the vaccine bandwagon ! But let’s hope the boosters do the job and get things back on track ready for the winter . We're both double vaccinated and not at all concerned. We also understand that when the majority of people are double vaccinated it's obvious the majority of deaths will be in the double vaccinated. I don't understand what people don't understand about it, it's blindingly obvious, surely. E" it brings the efficacy of the vaccines that we were led to believe , ranging between 80% to 95% (as Pfizer claimed) into serious doubt. This means the actual risk reduction that the vaccines have is considerably reduced, regardless of the vast majority of population have been double jabbed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its in their own documents off the gov website that during the third wave (that they predicted months ago) the majority of deaths is gonna be of double jabbed people. Id be scared about this winter if I were double jabbed ??[/quote agree , looks like the effectiveness of the vaccines have wained; the wheels are coming off the vaccine bandwagon ! But let’s hope the boosters do the job and get things back on track ready for the winter . We're both double vaccinated and not at all concerned. We also understand that when the majority of people are double vaccinated it's obvious the majority of deaths will be in the double vaccinated. I don't understand what people don't understand about it, it's blindingly obvious, surely. Eit brings the efficacy of the vaccines that we were led to believe , ranging between 80% to 95% (as Pfizer claimed) into serious doubt. This means the actual risk reduction that the vaccines have is considerably reduced, regardless of the vast majority of population have been double jabbed. " Why, what's your rationale for that thought? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its in their own documents off the gov website that during the third wave (that they predicted months ago) the majority of deaths is gonna be of double jabbed people. Id be scared about this winter if I were double jabbed ??[/quote agree , looks like the effectiveness of the vaccines have wained; the wheels are coming off the vaccine bandwagon ! But let’s hope the boosters do the job and get things back on track ready for the winter . We're both double vaccinated and not at all concerned. We also understand that when the majority of people are double vaccinated it's obvious the majority of deaths will be in the double vaccinated. I don't understand what people don't understand about it, it's blindingly obvious, surely. Eit brings the efficacy of the vaccines that we were led to believe , ranging between 80% to 95% (as Pfizer claimed) into serious doubt. This means the actual risk reduction that the vaccines have is considerably reduced, regardless of the vast majority of population have been double jabbed. Why, what's your rationale for that thought?" let’s say for example 100 had the jab and 100 didn’t. Let’s say 1 person from the 100 in the vaccinated group got infected and ended up in hospital. And let’s say 20 persons from a 100 in the unvaccinated group got infected and ended up in hospital. So 1/100 (vaccinated) = 1% 20/100 (anti vaxers !) = 20% 20% - 1% = 19% So that’s 19% risk reduction that the vaccine has. But based on the numbers Iv seen from various countries the risk reduction rate is below 1% - no where near the 80 to 95% that they claim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its in their own documents off the gov website that during the third wave (that they predicted months ago) the majority of deaths is gonna be of double jabbed people. Id be scared about this winter if I were double jabbed ??[/quote agree , looks like the effectiveness of the vaccines have wained; the wheels are coming off the vaccine bandwagon ! But let’s hope the boosters do the job and get things back on track ready for the winter . We're both double vaccinated and not at all concerned. We also understand that when the majority of people are double vaccinated it's obvious the majority of deaths will be in the double vaccinated. I don't understand what people don't understand about it, it's blindingly obvious, surely. Eit brings the efficacy of the vaccines that we were led to believe , ranging between 80% to 95% (as Pfizer claimed) into serious doubt. This means the actual risk reduction that the vaccines have is considerably reduced, regardless of the vast majority of population have been double jabbed. Why, what's your rationale for that thought? let’s say for example 100 had the jab and 100 didn’t. Let’s say 1 person from the 100 in the vaccinated group got infected and ended up in hospital. And let’s say 20 persons from a 100 in the unvaccinated group got infected and ended up in hospital. So 1/100 (vaccinated) = 1% 20/100 (anti vaxers !) = 20% 20% - 1% = 19% So that’s 19% risk reduction that the vaccine has. But based on the numbers Iv seen from various countries the risk reduction rate is below 1% - no where near the 80 to 95% that they claim. " Arithmetic on percentages does not work like that. You don't subtract the percentages. Risk_vaccinated = 1 in 100 Risk_unvaccinated = 20 in 100 Risk_unvaccinated = 20 x Risk_vaccinated or the other way round, Risk_vaccinated = Risk_unvaccinated / 20 Getting vaccinated does indeed give a 95% reduction in the risk of being seriously ill from covid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its in their own documents off the gov website that during the third wave (that they predicted months ago) the majority of deaths is gonna be of double jabbed people. Id be scared about this winter if I were double jabbed ??[/quote agree , looks like the effectiveness of the vaccines have wained; the wheels are coming off the vaccine bandwagon ! But let’s hope the boosters do the job and get things back on track ready for the winter . We're both double vaccinated and not at all concerned. We also understand that when the majority of people are double vaccinated it's obvious the majority of deaths will be in the double vaccinated. I don't understand what people don't understand about it, it's blindingly obvious, surely. Eit brings the efficacy of the vaccines that we were led to believe , ranging between 80% to 95% (as Pfizer claimed) into serious doubt. This means the actual risk reduction that the vaccines have is considerably reduced, regardless of the vast majority of population have been double jabbed. Why, what's your rationale for that thought? let’s say for example 100 had the jab and 100 didn’t. Let’s say 1 person from the 100 in the vaccinated group got infected and ended up in hospital. And let’s say 20 persons from a 100 in the unvaccinated group got infected and ended up in hospital. So 1/100 (vaccinated) = 1% 20/100 (anti vaxers !) = 20% 20% - 1% = 19% So that’s 19% risk reduction that the vaccine has. But based on the numbers Iv seen from various countries the risk reduction rate is below 1% - no where near the 80 to 95% that they claim. Arithmetic on percentages does not work like that. You don't subtract the percentages. Risk_vaccinated = 1 in 100 Risk_unvaccinated = 20 in 100 Risk_unvaccinated = 20 x Risk_vaccinated or the other way round, Risk_vaccinated = Risk_unvaccinated / 20 Getting vaccinated does indeed give a 95% reduction in the risk of being seriously ill from covid. " you work for Pfizer ? Just take a look at the weekly statistics from the governments ; it’s actually about 0.8% ; we need to vaccinate about 120 persons to protect 1 - no where near your 95% I’m afraid but still 0.8% is better than zero I suppose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People still don't get it and it's unbelievable to watch normally sane people accept what is going on in this whole situation. From the eighties to seventy year old, to sixties to the fifties, forties to thirties all the way down to now 16 year olds (without parental permission!!!) and some are still not questioning why. I'm now convinced that when newborn babies are being given this injection (and it's coming soon) these same people will just shrug their shoulders and still justify it. My hope for human kind and rational thinking has taken a real knock this year, the power of fear has reigned supreme once again as people can be controlled with ease. Fear will do that to people. How many people know that 17,000,000 people die every year around the world from infectious diseases? And how many people have actually ever worried how much harm they've caused when they've had a mild flu but still gone out to the shops for a loaf of bread? Not many I'd wager but the clever people on TV have had their say now and struck fear 8nto the masses. There are a few NHS UK doctors coming forward now saying that children should not and do not need to be vaccinated but I'm afraid it's just a trickle. It's utter madness to be vaccinating a group of people who for months we've been told are at a minute risk. People that shout and scream well it's not just to protect them seem to forget the most vulnerable groups are already jabbed so it's not to protect them neither. The ONS now say that 94% of the population have antibodies so to start jabbing kids against a disease that poses virtually no risk to them in my eyes is wrong. Kids are statistically more likely to die in a traffic accident or going for a swim in a lake. It does feel very much like it's easier to just to keep telling people to jab kids than to make a compelling, medical benefit, risk based case for jabbing them. If in doubt... Shout louder. " We went through all the sums on this yesterday. I forget which thread, there have been so many covering much the same ground over and over, however if I remember the outcome: (a) The stats on long covid for the number of 16 year olds that have already had covid mean that across the entire population, without vaccination, 15 thousand 16 year olds will develop long covid and be seriously ill for a period of weeks, some of them will become long term affected. (b) The stats on vaccination complications for the number of 16 year olds that have already been vaccinated across the world, indicate that for the UK population of 16 year olds, vaccination will cause just 15 of them to develop adverse symptoms, all 15 will recover within two days, none of them will be long term affected. (c) Based on currently known vaccine efficiencies, the chance of hospitalisation after becoming infected with covid is reduced by a factor of 11 when vaccinated. So for the 16 to 17 year old group, no vaccination = 15000 with serious illness longer than two weeks Full vaccination = 1364 with serious illness longer than two weeks (but high probability of it being lesser than it would be if unvaccinated), plus 15 with serious vaccination symptoms for max two days. Full vaccination of 16 year olds will save approximately 13621 of them from serious illness, and whatever proportion of the remaining 1364 might have actually died we can expect that number will be reduced by up to a factor of 11. A similar result can be expected across the lower age groups as well. Whatever number would have become seriously ill with covid without vaccination, only one eleventh of them will be seriously ill with covid after vaccination. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its in their own documents off the gov website that during the third wave (that they predicted months ago) the majority of deaths is gonna be of double jabbed people. Id be scared about this winter if I were double jabbed ??[/quote agree , looks like the effectiveness of the vaccines have wained; the wheels are coming off the vaccine bandwagon ! But let’s hope the boosters do the job and get things back on track ready for the winter . We're both double vaccinated and not at all concerned. We also understand that when the majority of people are double vaccinated it's obvious the majority of deaths will be in the double vaccinated. I don't understand what people don't understand about it, it's blindingly obvious, surely. Eit brings the efficacy of the vaccines that we were led to believe , ranging between 80% to 95% (as Pfizer claimed) into serious doubt. This means the actual risk reduction that the vaccines have is considerably reduced, regardless of the vast majority of population have been double jabbed. Why, what's your rationale for that thought? let’s say for example 100 had the jab and 100 didn’t. Let’s say 1 person from the 100 in the vaccinated group got infected and ended up in hospital. And let’s say 20 persons from a 100 in the unvaccinated group got infected and ended up in hospital. So 1/100 (vaccinated) = 1% 20/100 (anti vaxers !) = 20% 20% - 1% = 19% So that’s 19% risk reduction that the vaccine has. But based on the numbers Iv seen from various countries the risk reduction rate is below 1% - no where near the 80 to 95% that they claim. Arithmetic on percentages does not work like that. You don't subtract the percentages. Risk_vaccinated = 1 in 100 Risk_unvaccinated = 20 in 100 Risk_unvaccinated = 20 x Risk_vaccinated or the other way round, Risk_vaccinated = Risk_unvaccinated / 20 Getting vaccinated does indeed give a 95% reduction in the risk of being seriously ill from covid. you work for Pfizer ? Just take a look at the weekly statistics from the governments ; it’s actually about 0.8% ; we need to vaccinate about 120 persons to protect 1 - no where near your 95% I’m afraid but still 0.8% is better than zero I suppose. " I am afraid that you do not understand the presentation of the information or the arithmetic that is performed. I have attempted to explain how this works to the best of my ability on a number of occasions since the virus forum was started. The mathematics is not terribly complex, however I can understand that for some people it can be quite a few years since learning this stuff in school. Also the statements being repeated ad nauseum from the anti-vaxx misinformation groups are deliberately confusing and misleading. What is becoming very clearly visible though, without doing any number wrangling whatsoever, is that with the high levels of vaccination we now have there is a very small proportion of vaccinated people ending up in hospital (but because there are a lot of vaccinated people, this small proportion can add up to quite a few individuals). There is a much larger proportion of the unvaccinated people ending up in hospital (and even though there are now few unvaccinated people, this large proportion adds up to more than the number of vaccinated). Moral of the story: Getting vaccinated gives your immune system a times 11 boost against covid. This is a damn sight more than you will ever achieve with a bit of exercise and eating an apple a day. Take the jab, it will probably save your life when somebody coughs on you. PS. No I don't work for Pfizer or any other vaccine manufacturer, I don't work for or receive money from any company in the pharmaceuticals industry, I don't work for or receive money from the UK government (or any other government for that matter), I don't work for or receive money from any body connected in any way with virus, vaccines or alternative treatments. I am just an individual with a certain level of mathematical skill and the critical ability to sift through the evidence, who is genuinely concerned that unless more stringent actions are taken to reduce the infection rates, the final outcome for the UK could be not good. (I say UK because living here makes it my primary concern, however the same goes in fact for the rest of the world). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People still don't get it and it's unbelievable to watch normally sane people accept what is going on in this whole situation. From the eighties to seventy year old, to sixties to the fifties, forties to thirties all the way down to now 16 year olds (without parental permission!!!) and some are still not questioning why. I'm now convinced that when newborn babies are being given this injection (and it's coming soon) these same people will just shrug their shoulders and still justify it. My hope for human kind and rational thinking has taken a real knock this year, the power of fear has reigned supreme once again as people can be controlled with ease. Fear will do that to people. How many people know that 17,000,000 people die every year around the world from infectious diseases? And how many people have actually ever worried how much harm they've caused when they've had a mild flu but still gone out to the shops for a loaf of bread? Not many I'd wager but the clever people on TV have had their say now and struck fear 8nto the masses. There are a few NHS UK doctors coming forward now saying that children should not and do not need to be vaccinated but I'm afraid it's just a trickle. It's utter madness to be vaccinating a group of people who for months we've been told are at a minute risk. People that shout and scream well it's not just to protect them seem to forget the most vulnerable groups are already jabbed so it's not to protect them neither. The ONS now say that 94% of the population have antibodies so to start jabbing kids against a disease that poses virtually no risk to them in my eyes is wrong. Kids are statistically more likely to die in a traffic accident or going for a swim in a lake. It does feel very much like it's easier to just to keep telling people to jab kids than to make a compelling, medical benefit, risk based case for jabbing them. If in doubt... Shout louder. We went through all the sums on this yesterday. I forget which thread, there have been so many covering much the same ground over and over, however if I remember the outcome: (a) The stats on long covid for the number of 16 year olds that have already had covid mean that across the entire population, without vaccination, 15 thousand 16 year olds will develop long covid and be seriously ill for a period of weeks, some of them will become long term affected. (b) The stats on vaccination complications for the number of 16 year olds that have already been vaccinated across the world, indicate that for the UK population of 16 year olds, vaccination will cause just 15 of them to develop adverse symptoms, all 15 will recover within two days, none of them will be long term affected. (c) Based on currently known vaccine efficiencies, the chance of hospitalisation after becoming infected with covid is reduced by a factor of 11 when vaccinated. So for the 16 to 17 year old group, no vaccination = 15000 with serious illness longer than two weeks Full vaccination = 1364 with serious illness longer than two weeks (but high probability of it being lesser than it would be if unvaccinated), plus 15 with serious vaccination symptoms for max two days. Full vaccination of 16 year olds will save approximately 13621 of them from serious illness, and whatever proportion of the remaining 1364 might have actually died we can expect that number will be reduced by up to a factor of 11. A similar result can be expected across the lower age groups as well. Whatever number would have become seriously ill with covid without vaccination, only one eleventh of them will be seriously ill with covid after vaccination." thats a totally different calculation; you have jumped straight into those infected numbers and then started to compare various figures; not sure where you got all those statistics for that age group but that’s a different story. However , benefit of the doubt you say a factor of 11 so let’s use that factor; So 100 persons vaccinated and 1 person gets long covid And in the unvaccinated group of 100 persons , 11 get long covid. Very simply this means ; 1/100 = 1% vaccinated group 11/100 = 11% unvaccinated group 11% - 1% = 10% So that’s 10% efficacy ; a risk reduction of 10% for those vaccinated (no where near 95%). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People still don't get it and it's unbelievable to watch normally sane people accept what is going on in this whole situation. From the eighties to seventy year old, to sixties to the fifties, forties to thirties all the way down to now 16 year olds (without parental permission!!!) and some are still not questioning why. I'm now convinced that when newborn babies are being given this injection (and it's coming soon) these same people will just shrug their shoulders and still justify it. My hope for human kind and rational thinking has taken a real knock this year, the power of fear has reigned supreme once again as people can be controlled with ease. Fear will do that to people. How many people know that 17,000,000 people die every year around the world from infectious diseases? And how many people have actually ever worried how much harm they've caused when they've had a mild flu but still gone out to the shops for a loaf of bread? Not many I'd wager but the clever people on TV have had their say now and struck fear 8nto the masses. There are a few NHS UK doctors coming forward now saying that children should not and do not need to be vaccinated but I'm afraid it's just a trickle. It's utter madness to be vaccinating a group of people who for months we've been told are at a minute risk. People that shout and scream well it's not just to protect them seem to forget the most vulnerable groups are already jabbed so it's not to protect them neither. The ONS now say that 94% of the population have antibodies so to start jabbing kids against a disease that poses virtually no risk to them in my eyes is wrong. Kids are statistically more likely to die in a traffic accident or going for a swim in a lake. It does feel very much like it's easier to just to keep telling people to jab kids than to make a compelling, medical benefit, risk based case for jabbing them. If in doubt... Shout louder. We went through all the sums on this yesterday. I forget which thread, there have been so many covering much the same ground over and over, however if I remember the outcome: (a) The stats on long covid for the number of 16 year olds that have already had covid mean that across the entire population, without vaccination, 15 thousand 16 year olds will develop long covid and be seriously ill for a period of weeks, some of them will become long term affected. (b) The stats on vaccination complications for the number of 16 year olds that have already been vaccinated across the world, indicate that for the UK population of 16 year olds, vaccination will cause just 15 of them to develop adverse symptoms, all 15 will recover within two days, none of them will be long term affected. (c) Based on currently known vaccine efficiencies, the chance of hospitalisation after becoming infected with covid is reduced by a factor of 11 when vaccinated. So for the 16 to 17 year old group, no vaccination = 15000 with serious illness longer than two weeks Full vaccination = 1364 with serious illness longer than two weeks (but high probability of it being lesser than it would be if unvaccinated), plus 15 with serious vaccination symptoms for max two days. Full vaccination of 16 year olds will save approximately 13621 of them from serious illness, and whatever proportion of the remaining 1364 might have actually died we can expect that number will be reduced by up to a factor of 11. A similar result can be expected across the lower age groups as well. Whatever number would have become seriously ill with covid without vaccination, only one eleventh of them will be seriously ill with covid after vaccination.thats a totally different calculation; you have jumped straight into those infected numbers and then started to compare various figures; not sure where you got all those statistics for that age group but that’s a different story. However , benefit of the doubt you say a factor of 11 so let’s use that factor; So 100 persons vaccinated and 1 person gets long covid And in the unvaccinated group of 100 persons , 11 get long covid. Very simply this means ; 1/100 = 1% vaccinated group 11/100 = 11% unvaccinated group 11% - 1% = 10% So that’s 10% efficacy ; a risk reduction of 10% for those vaccinated (no where near 95%). " As stated before, arithmetic on percentages does not work like that. I'm not being awkward here, it's just literally about how numbers work. One thing that the last 18 months has taught me is that the standard of maths teaching in this country is bad going on for abysmal. When adults get stuck at the literacy level of "Janet and John" books (or whatever is used in infant schools now) they usually realise that they have reading problems and seek help. When adults get stuck at the similar level regarding numeracy, they often seem to be quite pleased that they really do not know how to do simple calculations. We are fast becoming a country where the secrets of doing even simple sums will be known only to the lucky few. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People still don't get it and it's unbelievable to watch normally sane people accept what is going on in this whole situation. From the eighties to seventy year old, to sixties to the fifties, forties to thirties all the way down to now 16 year olds (without parental permission!!!) and some are still not questioning why. I'm now convinced that when newborn babies are being given this injection (and it's coming soon) these same people will just shrug their shoulders and still justify it. My hope for human kind and rational thinking has taken a real knock this year, the power of fear has reigned supreme once again as people can be controlled with ease. Fear will do that to people. How many people know that 17,000,000 people die every year around the world from infectious diseases? And how many people have actually ever worried how much harm they've caused when they've had a mild flu but still gone out to the shops for a loaf of bread? Not many I'd wager but the clever people on TV have had their say now and struck fear 8nto the masses. There are a few NHS UK doctors coming forward now saying that children should not and do not need to be vaccinated but I'm afraid it's just a trickle. It's utter madness to be vaccinating a group of people who for months we've been told are at a minute risk. People that shout and scream well it's not just to protect them seem to forget the most vulnerable groups are already jabbed so it's not to protect them neither. The ONS now say that 94% of the population have antibodies so to start jabbing kids against a disease that poses virtually no risk to them in my eyes is wrong. Kids are statistically more likely to die in a traffic accident or going for a swim in a lake. It does feel very much like it's easier to just to keep telling people to jab kids than to make a compelling, medical benefit, risk based case for jabbing them. If in doubt... Shout louder. We went through all the sums on this yesterday. I forget which thread, there have been so many covering much the same ground over and over, however if I remember the outcome: (a) The stats on long covid for the number of 16 year olds that have already had covid mean that across the entire population, without vaccination, 15 thousand 16 year olds will develop long covid and be seriously ill for a period of weeks, some of them will become long term affected. (b) The stats on vaccination complications for the number of 16 year olds that have already been vaccinated across the world, indicate that for the UK population of 16 year olds, vaccination will cause just 15 of them to develop adverse symptoms, all 15 will recover within two days, none of them will be long term affected. (c) Based on currently known vaccine efficiencies, the chance of hospitalisation after becoming infected with covid is reduced by a factor of 11 when vaccinated. So for the 16 to 17 year old group, no vaccination = 15000 with serious illness longer than two weeks Full vaccination = 1364 with serious illness longer than two weeks (but high probability of it being lesser than it would be if unvaccinated), plus 15 with serious vaccination symptoms for max two days. Full vaccination of 16 year olds will save approximately 13621 of them from serious illness, and whatever proportion of the remaining 1364 might have actually died we can expect that number will be reduced by up to a factor of 11. A similar result can be expected across the lower age groups as well. Whatever number would have become seriously ill with covid without vaccination, only one eleventh of them will be seriously ill with covid after vaccination.thats a totally different calculation; you have jumped straight into those infected numbers and then started to compare various figures; not sure where you got all those statistics for that age group but that’s a different story. However , benefit of the doubt you say a factor of 11 so let’s use that factor; So 100 persons vaccinated and 1 person gets long covid And in the unvaccinated group of 100 persons , 11 get long covid. Very simply this means ; 1/100 = 1% vaccinated group 11/100 = 11% unvaccinated group 11% - 1% = 10% So that’s 10% efficacy ; a risk reduction of 10% for those vaccinated (no where near 95%). As stated before, arithmetic on percentages does not work like that. I'm not being awkward here, it's just literally about how numbers work. One thing that the last 18 months has taught me is that the standard of maths teaching in this country is bad going on for abysmal. When adults get stuck at the literacy level of "Janet and John" books (or whatever is used in infant schools now) they usually realise that they have reading problems and seek help. When adults get stuck at the similar level regarding numeracy, they often seem to be quite pleased that they really do not know how to do simple calculations. We are fast becoming a country where the secrets of doing even simple sums will be known only to the lucky few." they have also lost the ability to think and apply common sense but that’s a different story. So what’s the efficacy by your calculation ? Your still sticking to 90% plus I guess ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People still don't get it and it's unbelievable to watch normally sane people accept what is going on in this whole situation. From the eighties to seventy year old, to sixties to the fifties, forties to thirties all the way down to now 16 year olds (without parental permission!!!) and some are still not questioning why. I'm now convinced that when newborn babies are being given this injection (and it's coming soon) these same people will just shrug their shoulders and still justify it. My hope for human kind and rational thinking has taken a real knock this year, the power of fear has reigned supreme once again as people can be controlled with ease. Fear will do that to people. How many people know that 17,000,000 people die every year around the world from infectious diseases? And how many people have actually ever worried how much harm they've caused when they've had a mild flu but still gone out to the shops for a loaf of bread? Not many I'd wager but the clever people on TV have had their say now and struck fear 8nto the masses. There are a few NHS UK doctors coming forward now saying that children should not and do not need to be vaccinated but I'm afraid it's just a trickle. It's utter madness to be vaccinating a group of people who for months we've been told are at a minute risk. People that shout and scream well it's not just to protect them seem to forget the most vulnerable groups are already jabbed so it's not to protect them neither. The ONS now say that 94% of the population have antibodies so to start jabbing kids against a disease that poses virtually no risk to them in my eyes is wrong. Kids are statistically more likely to die in a traffic accident or going for a swim in a lake. It does feel very much like it's easier to just to keep telling people to jab kids than to make a compelling, medical benefit, risk based case for jabbing them. If in doubt... Shout louder. We went through all the sums on this yesterday. I forget which thread, there have been so many covering much the same ground over and over, however if I remember the outcome: (a) The stats on long covid for the number of 16 year olds that have already had covid mean that across the entire population, without vaccination, 15 thousand 16 year olds will develop long covid and be seriously ill for a period of weeks, some of them will become long term affected. (b) The stats on vaccination complications for the number of 16 year olds that have already been vaccinated across the world, indicate that for the UK population of 16 year olds, vaccination will cause just 15 of them to develop adverse symptoms, all 15 will recover within two days, none of them will be long term affected. (c) Based on currently known vaccine efficiencies, the chance of hospitalisation after becoming infected with covid is reduced by a factor of 11 when vaccinated. So for the 16 to 17 year old group, no vaccination = 15000 with serious illness longer than two weeks Full vaccination = 1364 with serious illness longer than two weeks (but high probability of it being lesser than it would be if unvaccinated), plus 15 with serious vaccination symptoms for max two days. Full vaccination of 16 year olds will save approximately 13621 of them from serious illness, and whatever proportion of the remaining 1364 might have actually died we can expect that number will be reduced by up to a factor of 11. A similar result can be expected across the lower age groups as well. Whatever number would have become seriously ill with covid without vaccination, only one eleventh of them will be seriously ill with covid after vaccination.thats a totally different calculation; you have jumped straight into those infected numbers and then started to compare various figures; not sure where you got all those statistics for that age group but that’s a different story. However , benefit of the doubt you say a factor of 11 so let’s use that factor; So 100 persons vaccinated and 1 person gets long covid And in the unvaccinated group of 100 persons , 11 get long covid. Very simply this means ; 1/100 = 1% vaccinated group 11/100 = 11% unvaccinated group 11% - 1% = 10% So that’s 10% efficacy ; a risk reduction of 10% for those vaccinated (no where near 95%). As stated before, arithmetic on percentages does not work like that. I'm not being awkward here, it's just literally about how numbers work. One thing that the last 18 months has taught me is that the standard of maths teaching in this country is bad going on for abysmal. When adults get stuck at the literacy level of "Janet and John" books (or whatever is used in infant schools now) they usually realise that they have reading problems and seek help. When adults get stuck at the similar level regarding numeracy, they often seem to be quite pleased that they really do not know how to do simple calculations. We are fast becoming a country where the secrets of doing even simple sums will be known only to the lucky few. they have also lost the ability to think and apply common sense but that’s a different story. So what’s the efficacy by your calculation ? Your still sticking to 90% plus I guess ?" According to the current figures, with the current dominant variant of the virus, and the current demographic of vaccinated people, the average efficiency of the vaccines is in the range 90 to 95%. That is, if you are vaccinated and get exposed to the virus, you are on average between 10 and 20 times less likely to end up in hospital than a person of the same age and health condition who is not vaccinated. If another variant comes along that is even more transmissible, or a variant emerges that is less affected by the current vaccines, the effectiveness will change. New formulations for the vaccines may allow us to keep pace with new variants of the virus, but are unlikely to ever get above the 90 to 95% efficient range. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People still don't get it and it's unbelievable to watch normally sane people accept what is going on in this whole situation. From the eighties to seventy year old, to sixties to the fifties, forties to thirties all the way down to now 16 year olds (without parental permission!!!) and some are still not questioning why. I'm now convinced that when newborn babies are being given this injection (and it's coming soon) these same people will just shrug their shoulders and still justify it. My hope for human kind and rational thinking has taken a real knock this year, the power of fear has reigned supreme once again as people can be controlled with ease. Fear will do that to people. How many people know that 17,000,000 people die every year around the world from infectious diseases? And how many people have actually ever worried how much harm they've caused when they've had a mild flu but still gone out to the shops for a loaf of bread? Not many I'd wager but the clever people on TV have had their say now and struck fear 8nto the masses. There are a few NHS UK doctors coming forward now saying that children should not and do not need to be vaccinated but I'm afraid it's just a trickle. It's utter madness to be vaccinating a group of people who for months we've been told are at a minute risk. People that shout and scream well it's not just to protect them seem to forget the most vulnerable groups are already jabbed so it's not to protect them neither. The ONS now say that 94% of the population have antibodies so to start jabbing kids against a disease that poses virtually no risk to them in my eyes is wrong. Kids are statistically more likely to die in a traffic accident or going for a swim in a lake. It does feel very much like it's easier to just to keep telling people to jab kids than to make a compelling, medical benefit, risk based case for jabbing them. If in doubt... Shout louder. We went through all the sums on this yesterday. I forget which thread, there have been so many covering much the same ground over and over, however if I remember the outcome: (a) The stats on long covid for the number of 16 year olds that have already had covid mean that across the entire population, without vaccination, 15 thousand 16 year olds will develop long covid and be seriously ill for a period of weeks, some of them will become long term affected. (b) The stats on vaccination complications for the number of 16 year olds that have already been vaccinated across the world, indicate that for the UK population of 16 year olds, vaccination will cause just 15 of them to develop adverse symptoms, all 15 will recover within two days, none of them will be long term affected. (c) Based on currently known vaccine efficiencies, the chance of hospitalisation after becoming infected with covid is reduced by a factor of 11 when vaccinated. So for the 16 to 17 year old group, no vaccination = 15000 with serious illness longer than two weeks Full vaccination = 1364 with serious illness longer than two weeks (but high probability of it being lesser than it would be if unvaccinated), plus 15 with serious vaccination symptoms for max two days. Full vaccination of 16 year olds will save approximately 13621 of them from serious illness, and whatever proportion of the remaining 1364 might have actually died we can expect that number will be reduced by up to a factor of 11. A similar result can be expected across the lower age groups as well. Whatever number would have become seriously ill with covid without vaccination, only one eleventh of them will be seriously ill with covid after vaccination.thats a totally different calculation; you have jumped straight into those infected numbers and then started to compare various figures; not sure where you got all those statistics for that age group but that’s a different story. However , benefit of the doubt you say a factor of 11 so let’s use that factor; So 100 persons vaccinated and 1 person gets long covid And in the unvaccinated group of 100 persons , 11 get long covid. Very simply this means ; 1/100 = 1% vaccinated group 11/100 = 11% unvaccinated group 11% - 1% = 10% So that’s 10% efficacy ; a risk reduction of 10% for those vaccinated (no where near 95%). As stated before, arithmetic on percentages does not work like that. I'm not being awkward here, it's just literally about how numbers work. One thing that the last 18 months has taught me is that the standard of maths teaching in this country is bad going on for abysmal. When adults get stuck at the literacy level of "Janet and John" books (or whatever is used in infant schools now) they usually realise that they have reading problems and seek help. When adults get stuck at the similar level regarding numeracy, they often seem to be quite pleased that they really do not know how to do simple calculations. We are fast becoming a country where the secrets of doing even simple sums will be known only to the lucky few." These days we have calculators, computers, spreadsheets, even Google will answer a maths problem. Gone are the days of working things out with a pencil and paper. It's getting to the point where if you can do mental arithmetic you're likely to be burnt as a witch.
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People still don't get it and it's unbelievable to watch normally sane people accept what is going on in this whole situation. From the eighties to seventy year old, to sixties to the fifties, forties to thirties all the way down to now 16 year olds (without parental permission!!!) and some are still not questioning why. I'm now convinced that when newborn babies are being given this injection (and it's coming soon) these same people will just shrug their shoulders and still justify it. My hope for human kind and rational thinking has taken a real knock this year, the power of fear has reigned supreme once again as people can be controlled with ease. Fear will do that to people. How many people know that 17,000,000 people die every year around the world from infectious diseases? And how many people have actually ever worried how much harm they've caused when they've had a mild flu but still gone out to the shops for a loaf of bread? Not many I'd wager but the clever people on TV have had their say now and struck fear 8nto the masses. There are a few NHS UK doctors coming forward now saying that children should not and do not need to be vaccinated but I'm afraid it's just a trickle. It's utter madness to be vaccinating a group of people who for months we've been told are at a minute risk. People that shout and scream well it's not just to protect them seem to forget the most vulnerable groups are already jabbed so it's not to protect them neither. The ONS now say that 94% of the population have antibodies so to start jabbing kids against a disease that poses virtually no risk to them in my eyes is wrong. Kids are statistically more likely to die in a traffic accident or going for a swim in a lake. It does feel very much like it's easier to just to keep telling people to jab kids than to make a compelling, medical benefit, risk based case for jabbing them. If in doubt... Shout louder. We went through all the sums on this yesterday. I forget which thread, there have been so many covering much the same ground over and over, however if I remember the outcome: (a) The stats on long covid for the number of 16 year olds that have already had covid mean that across the entire population, without vaccination, 15 thousand 16 year olds will develop long covid and be seriously ill for a period of weeks, some of them will become long term affected. (b) The stats on vaccination complications for the number of 16 year olds that have already been vaccinated across the world, indicate that for the UK population of 16 year olds, vaccination will cause just 15 of them to develop adverse symptoms, all 15 will recover within two days, none of them will be long term affected. (c) Based on currently known vaccine efficiencies, the chance of hospitalisation after becoming infected with covid is reduced by a factor of 11 when vaccinated. So for the 16 to 17 year old group, no vaccination = 15000 with serious illness longer than two weeks Full vaccination = 1364 with serious illness longer than two weeks (but high probability of it being lesser than it would be if unvaccinated), plus 15 with serious vaccination symptoms for max two days. Full vaccination of 16 year olds will save approximately 13621 of them from serious illness, and whatever proportion of the remaining 1364 might have actually died we can expect that number will be reduced by up to a factor of 11. A similar result can be expected across the lower age groups as well. Whatever number would have become seriously ill with covid without vaccination, only one eleventh of them will be seriously ill with covid after vaccination.thats a totally different calculation; you have jumped straight into those infected numbers and then started to compare various figures; not sure where you got all those statistics for that age group but that’s a different story. However , benefit of the doubt you say a factor of 11 so let’s use that factor; So 100 persons vaccinated and 1 person gets long covid And in the unvaccinated group of 100 persons , 11 get long covid. Very simply this means ; 1/100 = 1% vaccinated group 11/100 = 11% unvaccinated group 11% - 1% = 10% So that’s 10% efficacy ; a risk reduction of 10% for those vaccinated (no where near 95%). As stated before, arithmetic on percentages does not work like that. I'm not being awkward here, it's just literally about how numbers work. One thing that the last 18 months has taught me is that the standard of maths teaching in this country is bad going on for abysmal. When adults get stuck at the literacy level of "Janet and John" books (or whatever is used in infant schools now) they usually realise that they have reading problems and seek help. When adults get stuck at the similar level regarding numeracy, they often seem to be quite pleased that they really do not know how to do simple calculations. We are fast becoming a country where the secrets of doing even simple sums will be known only to the lucky few. they have also lost the ability to think and apply common sense but that’s a different story. So what’s the efficacy by your calculation ? Your still sticking to 90% plus I guess ? According to the current figures, with the current dominant variant of the virus, and the current demographic of vaccinated people, the average efficiency of the vaccines is in the range 90 to 95%. That is, if you are vaccinated and get exposed to the virus, you are on average between 10 and 20 times less likely to end up in hospital than a person of the same age and health condition who is not vaccinated. If another variant comes along that is even more transmissible, or a variant emerges that is less affected by the current vaccines, the effectiveness will change. New formulations for the vaccines may allow us to keep pace with new variants of the virus, but are unlikely to ever get above the 90 to 95% efficient range." the original message communicated to the public when the vaccines came out were that the trials showed 90% to 95% efficacy - which most people took as pretty near on bullet proof prevention to catching the virus. Now the goal posts have considerably moved again, whereby your saying (and the government) that this 90 to 95% relates to effectiveness of serious illness; in that the vaccines offer little in terms of prevention but are effective against serious illness only. This, together with the variants are excuses for the poor efficacy rates of these vaccines which are no where near 95% . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People still don't get it and it's unbelievable to watch normally sane people accept what is going on in this whole situation. From the eighties to seventy year old, to sixties to the fifties, forties to thirties all the way down to now 16 year olds (without parental permission!!!) and some are still not questioning why. I'm now convinced that when newborn babies are being given this injection (and it's coming soon) these same people will just shrug their shoulders and still justify it. My hope for human kind and rational thinking has taken a real knock this year, the power of fear has reigned supreme once again as people can be controlled with ease. Fear will do that to people. How many people know that 17,000,000 people die every year around the world from infectious diseases? And how many people have actually ever worried how much harm they've caused when they've had a mild flu but still gone out to the shops for a loaf of bread? Not many I'd wager but the clever people on TV have had their say now and struck fear 8nto the masses. There are a few NHS UK doctors coming forward now saying that children should not and do not need to be vaccinated but I'm afraid it's just a trickle. It's utter madness to be vaccinating a group of people who for months we've been told are at a minute risk. People that shout and scream well it's not just to protect them seem to forget the most vulnerable groups are already jabbed so it's not to protect them neither. The ONS now say that 94% of the population have antibodies so to start jabbing kids against a disease that poses virtually no risk to them in my eyes is wrong. Kids are statistically more likely to die in a traffic accident or going for a swim in a lake. It does feel very much like it's easier to just to keep telling people to jab kids than to make a compelling, medical benefit, risk based case for jabbing them. If in doubt... Shout louder. We went through all the sums on this yesterday. I forget which thread, there have been so many covering much the same ground over and over, however if I remember the outcome: (a) The stats on long covid for the number of 16 year olds that have already had covid mean that across the entire population, without vaccination, 15 thousand 16 year olds will develop long covid and be seriously ill for a period of weeks, some of them will become long term affected. (b) The stats on vaccination complications for the number of 16 year olds that have already been vaccinated across the world, indicate that for the UK population of 16 year olds, vaccination will cause just 15 of them to develop adverse symptoms, all 15 will recover within two days, none of them will be long term affected. (c) Based on currently known vaccine efficiencies, the chance of hospitalisation after becoming infected with covid is reduced by a factor of 11 when vaccinated. So for the 16 to 17 year old group, no vaccination = 15000 with serious illness longer than two weeks Full vaccination = 1364 with serious illness longer than two weeks (but high probability of it being lesser than it would be if unvaccinated), plus 15 with serious vaccination symptoms for max two days. Full vaccination of 16 year olds will save approximately 13621 of them from serious illness, and whatever proportion of the remaining 1364 might have actually died we can expect that number will be reduced by up to a factor of 11. A similar result can be expected across the lower age groups as well. Whatever number would have become seriously ill with covid without vaccination, only one eleventh of them will be seriously ill with covid after vaccination.thats a totally different calculation; you have jumped straight into those infected numbers and then started to compare various figures; not sure where you got all those statistics for that age group but that’s a different story. However , benefit of the doubt you say a factor of 11 so let’s use that factor; So 100 persons vaccinated and 1 person gets long covid And in the unvaccinated group of 100 persons , 11 get long covid. Very simply this means ; 1/100 = 1% vaccinated group 11/100 = 11% unvaccinated group 11% - 1% = 10% So that’s 10% efficacy ; a risk reduction of 10% for those vaccinated (no where near 95%). As stated before, arithmetic on percentages does not work like that. I'm not being awkward here, it's just literally about how numbers work. One thing that the last 18 months has taught me is that the standard of maths teaching in this country is bad going on for abysmal. When adults get stuck at the literacy level of "Janet and John" books (or whatever is used in infant schools now) they usually realise that they have reading problems and seek help. When adults get stuck at the similar level regarding numeracy, they often seem to be quite pleased that they really do not know how to do simple calculations. We are fast becoming a country where the secrets of doing even simple sums will be known only to the lucky few. they have also lost the ability to think and apply common sense but that’s a different story. So what’s the efficacy by your calculation ? Your still sticking to 90% plus I guess ? According to the current figures, with the current dominant variant of the virus, and the current demographic of vaccinated people, the average efficiency of the vaccines is in the range 90 to 95%. That is, if you are vaccinated and get exposed to the virus, you are on average between 10 and 20 times less likely to end up in hospital than a person of the same age and health condition who is not vaccinated. If another variant comes along that is even more transmissible, or a variant emerges that is less affected by the current vaccines, the effectiveness will change. New formulations for the vaccines may allow us to keep pace with new variants of the virus, but are unlikely to ever get above the 90 to 95% efficient range.the original message communicated to the public when the vaccines came out were that the trials showed 90% to 95% efficacy - which most people took as pretty near on bullet proof prevention to catching the virus. Now the goal posts have considerably moved again, whereby your saying (and the government) that this 90 to 95% relates to effectiveness of serious illness; in that the vaccines offer little in terms of prevention but are effective against serious illness only. This, together with the variants are excuses for the poor efficacy rates of these vaccines which are no where near 95% ." Nope, as usual, you have got this totally wrong. The efficacy rates for prevention against infection are 90 to 95%, with protection against hospitalisation being 97% and protection against death being 96% (source = BMJ). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People still don't get it and it's unbelievable to watch normally sane people accept what is going on in this whole situation. From the eighties to seventy year old, to sixties to the fifties, forties to thirties all the way down to now 16 year olds (without parental permission!!!) and some are still not questioning why. I'm now convinced that when newborn babies are being given this injection (and it's coming soon) these same people will just shrug their shoulders and still justify it. My hope for human kind and rational thinking has taken a real knock this year, the power of fear has reigned supreme once again as people can be controlled with ease. Fear will do that to people. How many people know that 17,000,000 people die every year around the world from infectious diseases? And how many people have actually ever worried how much harm they've caused when they've had a mild flu but still gone out to the shops for a loaf of bread? Not many I'd wager but the clever people on TV have had their say now and struck fear 8nto the masses. There are a few NHS UK doctors coming forward now saying that children should not and do not need to be vaccinated but I'm afraid it's just a trickle. It's utter madness to be vaccinating a group of people who for months we've been told are at a minute risk. People that shout and scream well it's not just to protect them seem to forget the most vulnerable groups are already jabbed so it's not to protect them neither. The ONS now say that 94% of the population have antibodies so to start jabbing kids against a disease that poses virtually no risk to them in my eyes is wrong. Kids are statistically more likely to die in a traffic accident or going for a swim in a lake. It does feel very much like it's easier to just to keep telling people to jab kids than to make a compelling, medical benefit, risk based case for jabbing them. If in doubt... Shout louder. We went through all the sums on this yesterday. I forget which thread, there have been so many covering much the same ground over and over, however if I remember the outcome: (a) The stats on long covid for the number of 16 year olds that have already had covid mean that across the entire population, without vaccination, 15 thousand 16 year olds will develop long covid and be seriously ill for a period of weeks, some of them will become long term affected. (b) The stats on vaccination complications for the number of 16 year olds that have already been vaccinated across the world, indicate that for the UK population of 16 year olds, vaccination will cause just 15 of them to develop adverse symptoms, all 15 will recover within two days, none of them will be long term affected. (c) Based on currently known vaccine efficiencies, the chance of hospitalisation after becoming infected with covid is reduced by a factor of 11 when vaccinated. So for the 16 to 17 year old group, no vaccination = 15000 with serious illness longer than two weeks Full vaccination = 1364 with serious illness longer than two weeks (but high probability of it being lesser than it would be if unvaccinated), plus 15 with serious vaccination symptoms for max two days. Full vaccination of 16 year olds will save approximately 13621 of them from serious illness, and whatever proportion of the remaining 1364 might have actually died we can expect that number will be reduced by up to a factor of 11. A similar result can be expected across the lower age groups as well. Whatever number would have become seriously ill with covid without vaccination, only one eleventh of them will be seriously ill with covid after vaccination.thats a totally different calculation; you have jumped straight into those infected numbers and then started to compare various figures; not sure where you got all those statistics for that age group but that’s a different story. However , benefit of the doubt you say a factor of 11 so let’s use that factor; So 100 persons vaccinated and 1 person gets long covid And in the unvaccinated group of 100 persons , 11 get long covid. Very simply this means ; 1/100 = 1% vaccinated group 11/100 = 11% unvaccinated group 11% - 1% = 10% So that’s 10% efficacy ; a risk reduction of 10% for those vaccinated (no where near 95%). As stated before, arithmetic on percentages does not work like that. I'm not being awkward here, it's just literally about how numbers work. One thing that the last 18 months has taught me is that the standard of maths teaching in this country is bad going on for abysmal. When adults get stuck at the literacy level of "Janet and John" books (or whatever is used in infant schools now) they usually realise that they have reading problems and seek help. When adults get stuck at the similar level regarding numeracy, they often seem to be quite pleased that they really do not know how to do simple calculations. We are fast becoming a country where the secrets of doing even simple sums will be known only to the lucky few. they have also lost the ability to think and apply common sense but that’s a different story. So what’s the efficacy by your calculation ? Your still sticking to 90% plus I guess ? According to the current figures, with the current dominant variant of the virus, and the current demographic of vaccinated people, the average efficiency of the vaccines is in the range 90 to 95%. That is, if you are vaccinated and get exposed to the virus, you are on average between 10 and 20 times less likely to end up in hospital than a person of the same age and health condition who is not vaccinated. If another variant comes along that is even more transmissible, or a variant emerges that is less affected by the current vaccines, the effectiveness will change. New formulations for the vaccines may allow us to keep pace with new variants of the virus, but are unlikely to ever get above the 90 to 95% efficient range.the original message communicated to the public when the vaccines came out were that the trials showed 90% to 95% efficacy - which most people took as pretty near on bullet proof prevention to catching the virus. Now the goal posts have considerably moved again, whereby your saying (and the government) that this 90 to 95% relates to effectiveness of serious illness; in that the vaccines offer little in terms of prevention but are effective against serious illness only. This, together with the variants are excuses for the poor efficacy rates of these vaccines which are no where near 95% . Nope, as usual, you have got this totally wrong. The efficacy rates for prevention against infection are 90 to 95%, with protection against hospitalisation being 97% and protection against death being 96% (source = BMJ)." so the BMJ has it published ? Well that’s then; looks like you have the whole debate wrapped up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use Words taken from the FDA website: The FDA’s expansion of the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to include adolescents 12 through 15. Emergency Use Only Please study appropriate data! The UK MHRA approved the vaccine June 4th, for use in 12 - 15 years old children. The MHRA is the government approvals body for medicines here. The FDA is a body for the USA and has no relevance here. . Please stop scaremongering and misusing inappropriate quotes to support your agenda. If you don't want to take a vaccine, you are perfectly free to do so. The constant drip feeding of untruthful stories is alarming and against everyone's well-being.
The safety and efficacy of our vaccines has been studied very thoroughly. i have to disagree; the person was merely quoting a valid source with respect to the Pfizer vaccine for 12 - 15 year olds. Of course different countries have different agencies but it’s the same Pfizer vaccine at the end of the day. To suggest this is “untruthful “ , “inappropriate “ and “scaremongering “ is way over the top. "The constant drip feeding of untruthful stories, typically fuelled by social media and networks against vaccine uptake, is highly dangerous. Every life harmed or lost, that was preventable, is obscene, following the publication of lies and harmful pressure, getting people to become fearful and doubtful. Those same people should have been fearful and doubtful of the propaganda against vaccines and measures to restore public health. | |||
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) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You do realise the Trials for this new mrna technology has never been used on humans. Why oh Why is everyone so confident for these jabs when they are brand new to the human race and the trials dont end until sometime in 2023???? The inventor of mrna is Dr Robert Malone, even he is saying.. quote "[O]ne of my concerns are that the government is not being transparent with us about what those risks are. And so, I'm of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept a vaccine or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines," said Dr. Robert Malone during a Wednesday segment on Fox News's Tucker Carlson Tonight, saying YouTube deleted a video of him speaking about the associated risks. The company who fund fact checkers on Instagram have billions of jab stock in The vaccine fact checkers at factcheckdotorg, who claim to be independent, are funded by an organization that holds over $1.8 billion of stock in a vaccine company, and is run by a former director of CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), Also the ex Pfizer President/Executive Dr Michael Yeadon is saying bad stuff about the jab." Well I wonder why he is the ex ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government announcement on tv, pfizer vaccine is now approved for 12 year olds and above." Going back to the OP. I think that vaccines having undergone sufficient testing to be approved for children, is great. It will probably be a relief for many parents of vulnerable children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You do realise the Trials for this new mrna technology has never been used on humans. Why oh Why is everyone so confident for these jabs when they are brand new to the human race and the trials dont end until sometime in 2023????" You do realise that almost everything you're posting is utter nonsense, don't you? You're obviously very susceptible to false information. Also, Yeadon is a nutter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The inventor of mrna is Dr Robert Malone, ." This really tickled me. Muppets copypasta stuff they don't understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You do realise the Trials for this new mrna technology has never been used on humans. Why oh Why is everyone so confident for these jabs when they are brand new to the human race and the trials dont end until sometime in 2023???? The inventor of mrna is Dr Robert Malone, even he is saying.. quote "[O]ne of my concerns are that the government is not being transparent with us about what those risks are. And so, I'm of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept a vaccine or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines," said Dr. Robert Malone during a Wednesday segment on Fox News's Tucker Carlson Tonight, saying YouTube deleted a video of him speaking about the associated risks. The company who fund fact checkers on Instagram have billions of jab stock in The vaccine fact checkers at @factcheckdotorg, who claim to be independent, are funded by an organization that holds over $1.8 billion of stock in a vaccine company, and is run by a former director of @CDCgov (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), Also the ex Pfizer President/Executive Dr Michael Yeadon is saying bad stuff about the jab." Confirmation bias 101. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You do realise the Trials for this new mrna technology has never been used on humans. Why oh Why is everyone so confident for these jabs when they are brand new to the human race and the trials dont end until sometime in 2023???? The inventor of mrna is Dr Robert Malone, even he is saying.. quote "[O]ne of my concerns are that the government is not being transparent with us about what those risks are. And so, I'm of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept a vaccine or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines," said Dr. Robert Malone during a Wednesday segment on Fox News's Tucker Carlson Tonight, saying YouTube deleted a video of him speaking about the associated risks. The company who fund fact checkers on Instagram have billions of jab stock in The vaccine fact checkers at factcheckdotorg, who claim to be independent, are funded by an organization that holds over $1.8 billion of stock in a vaccine company, and is run by a former director of CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), Also the ex Pfizer President/Executive Dr Michael Yeadon is saying bad stuff about the jab." I'd love a few sources around protein spikes being harmful, and who this organisation is finding fact check. Because this is a great status post with just enough hint at fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You do realise the Trials for this new mrna technology has never been used on humans. Why oh Why is everyone so confident for these jabs when they are brand new to the human race and the trials dont end until sometime in 2023???? The inventor of mrna is Dr Robert Malone, even he is saying.. quote "[O]ne of my concerns are that the government is not being transparent with us about what those risks are. And so, I'm of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept a vaccine or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines," said Dr. Robert Malone during a Wednesday segment on Fox News's Tucker Carlson Tonight, saying YouTube deleted a video of him speaking about the associated risks. The company who fund fact checkers on Instagram have billions of jab stock in The vaccine fact checkers at @factcheckdotorg, who claim to be independent, are funded by an organization that holds over $1.8 billion of stock in a vaccine company, and is run by a former director of @CDCgov (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), Also the ex Pfizer President/Executive Dr Michael Yeadon is saying bad stuff about the jab." Terrible nonsense.
Research better, via credible scientific journals ans certainly not via extreme media outlets and extremist fanatics, such as Fox News Tucker Carlsson. He is 1 of the worst in the world for discredited propaganda. By posting views like this, it is making people potentially miss the vaccine that could save their life. Any day missed, is a day that could kill them. Shame on those influential hate mongers in the media and via social media propaganda pages that are pushing to stop people being safe and healthy.
It's restrictions or vaccines that we have as the 2 tools to rebuild our society to be stronger and safer. Take your pick. Which is it? Both work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You do realise the Trials for this new mrna technology has never been used on humans. Why oh Why is everyone so confident for these jabs when they are brand new to the human race and the trials dont end until sometime in 2023????" That old chestnut again
It's been posted ad nausea just this week, with clear explanations repudiating the fear element.
Phase 3 trials of the UK approved vaccines have completed satisfactorily. It's standard for many approved medicines to undergo further evaluation and the date you offered related to the American system. We have several vaccines and more will probably be UK approved too.. Additionally we have had more research and approvals for broader age groups, including children, with some vaccines. They're all different and have separate research and approvals. The scientific process just keeps on giving | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You do realise the Trials for this new mrna technology has never been used on humans. Why oh Why is everyone so confident for these jabs when they are brand new to the human race and the trials dont end until sometime in 2023???? That old chestnut again
It's been posted ad nausea just this week, with clear explanations repudiating the fear element.
Phase 3 trials of the UK approved vaccines have completed satisfactorily. It's standard for many approved medicines to undergo further evaluation and the date you offered related to the American system. We have several vaccines and more will probably be UK approved too.. Additionally we have had more research and approvals for broader age groups, including children, with some vaccines. They're all different and have separate research and approvals. The scientific process just keeps on giving "100% this. We're living at the cutting edge of science and medicine and some folk are really invoking the argument from incredulity fallacy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. " actually they don't. If medical practitioner assess that child is capable of making informed decision, then they can use it as a lawful consent. Scary... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 16/17 don't need parental consent but the under 16's do and it has be advised by a medical practitioner. actually they don't. If medical practitioner assess that child is capable of making informed decision, then they can use it as a lawful consent. Scary... " Gillick competency is a good thing. It allows a route by which intelligent and self aware young people can take back some control over their bodies if they have unsupportive or even abusive parents. Sometimes it is the only way in which they can escape from ideologies that are being forced upon them against their best interests. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not for my 12 year old. No chance. " Hopefully, you have allowed your child to have other vaccines in their life. Without them, your child may have died or suffered life-altering harm. The situation is the same with Covid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not for my 12 year old. No chance. Hopefully, you have allowed your child to have other vaccines in their life. Without them, your child may have died or suffered life-altering harm. The situation is the same with Covid." Can you back up your claim with figures for 12 yr olds or similar ages? How deadly/risky is it to them.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not for my 12 year old. No chance. Hopefully, you have allowed your child to have other vaccines in their life. Without them, your child may have died or suffered life-altering harm. The situation is the same with Covid. Can you back up your claim with figures for 12 yr olds or similar ages? How deadly/risky is it to them...." If the vaccine was "deadly/risky" to them, it never would have been approved. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57888429 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People still don't get it and it's unbelievable to watch normally sane people accept what is going on in this whole situation. From the eighties to seventy year old, to sixties to the fifties, forties to thirties all the way down to now 16 year olds (without parental permission!!!) and some are still not questioning why. I'm now convinced that when newborn babies are being given this injection (and it's coming soon) these same people will just shrug their shoulders and still justify it. My hope for human kind and rational thinking has taken a real knock this year, the power of fear has reigned supreme once again as people can be controlled with ease. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who gives there child an untested vaccine seriously needs to re-evaluate there way of thinking. The mr " Anyone who thinks the approved vaccines haven't been thoroughly tested seriously needs to re-evaluate their way of thinking. And probably critically appraise their sources of news. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who gives there child an untested vaccine seriously needs to re-evaluate there way of thinking. The mr " I agree. Fortunately all of the vaccines currently be administered in the UK have been fully researched, fully tested and fully approved. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who gives there child an untested vaccine seriously needs to re-evaluate there way of thinking. The mr I agree. Fortunately all of the vaccines currently be administered in the UK have been fully researched, fully tested and fully approved. E" Not quite right. The testing and research data was provided by the manufacturer, and the MHRA granted a temporary licence. This licence includes various stipulations. Below is an unredacted extract of the contract (Aug 2021 update). This temporary Authorisation under Regulation 174 permits the supply of identified COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 batches, based on the safety, quality and efficacy data submitted by Pfizer/BioNTech to MHRA in the period from 1 October to 2 December 2020; There are currently question marks of the efficacy of the pfizer/biontech vaccine so I'm sure there will be an update or addendum to the contract once the manufacturer provides detail of their findings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who gives there child an untested vaccine seriously needs to re-evaluate there way of thinking. The mr I agree. Fortunately all of the vaccines currently be administered in the UK have been fully researched, fully tested and fully approved. E Not quite right. The testing and research data was provided by the manufacturer, and the MHRA granted a temporary licence. This licence includes various stipulations. Below is an unredacted extract of the contract (Aug 2021 update). This temporary Authorisation under Regulation 174 permits the supply of identified COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 batches, based on the safety, quality and efficacy data submitted by Pfizer/BioNTech to MHRA in the period from 1 October to 2 December 2020; There are currently question marks of the efficacy of the pfizer/biontech vaccine so I'm sure there will be an update or addendum to the contract once the manufacturer provides detail of their findings. " Approved is approved. Licensed is licensed. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who gives there child an untested vaccine seriously needs to re-evaluate there way of thinking. The mr I agree. Fortunately all of the vaccines currently be administered in the UK have been fully researched, fully tested and fully approved. E Not quite right. The testing and research data was provided by the manufacturer, and the MHRA granted a temporary licence. This licence includes various stipulations. Below is an unredacted extract of the contract (Aug 2021 update). This temporary Authorisation under Regulation 174 permits the supply of identified COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 batches, based on the safety, quality and efficacy data submitted by Pfizer/BioNTech to MHRA in the period from 1 October to 2 December 2020; There are currently question marks of the efficacy of the pfizer/biontech vaccine so I'm sure there will be an update or addendum to the contract once the manufacturer provides detail of their findings. " Trust me you are wasting your time with the vaxxed...governed by fear they are adamant it has been tested thoroughly and approved | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who gives there child an untested vaccine seriously needs to re-evaluate there way of thinking. The mr I agree. Fortunately all of the vaccines currently be administered in the UK have been fully researched, fully tested and fully approved. E Not quite right. The testing and research data was provided by the manufacturer, and the MHRA granted a temporary licence. This licence includes various stipulations. Below is an unredacted extract of the contract (Aug 2021 update). This temporary Authorisation under Regulation 174 permits the supply of identified COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 batches, based on the safety, quality and efficacy data submitted by Pfizer/BioNTech to MHRA in the period from 1 October to 2 December 2020; There are currently question marks of the efficacy of the pfizer/biontech vaccine so I'm sure there will be an update or addendum to the contract once the manufacturer provides detail of their findings. " Trust me you are wasting your time with the vaxxed...governed by fear they are adamant it has been tested thoroughly and approved | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who gives there child an untested vaccine seriously needs to re-evaluate there way of thinking. The mr I agree. Fortunately all of the vaccines currently be administered in the UK have been fully researched, fully tested and fully approved. E Not quite right. The testing and research data was provided by the manufacturer, and the MHRA granted a temporary licence. This licence includes various stipulations. Below is an unredacted extract of the contract (Aug 2021 update). This temporary Authorisation under Regulation 174 permits the supply of identified COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 batches, based on the safety, quality and efficacy data submitted by Pfizer/BioNTech to MHRA in the period from 1 October to 2 December 2020; There are currently question marks of the efficacy of the pfizer/biontech vaccine so I'm sure there will be an update or addendum to the contract once the manufacturer provides detail of their findings. Trust me you are wasting your time with the vaxxed...governed by fear they are adamant it has been tested thoroughly and approved" https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/vaccines-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-development-evaluation-approval-monitoring You're welcome. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who gives there child an untested vaccine seriously needs to re-evaluate there way of thinking. The mr I agree. Fortunately all of the vaccines currently be administered in the UK have been fully researched, fully tested and fully approved. E Not quite right. The testing and research data was provided by the manufacturer, and the MHRA granted a temporary licence. This licence includes various stipulations. Below is an unredacted extract of the contract (Aug 2021 update). This temporary Authorisation under Regulation 174 permits the supply of identified COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 batches, based on the safety, quality and efficacy data submitted by Pfizer/BioNTech to MHRA in the period from 1 October to 2 December 2020; There are currently question marks of the efficacy of the pfizer/biontech vaccine so I'm sure there will be an update or addendum to the contract once the manufacturer provides detail of their findings. Trust me you are wasting your time with the vaxxed...governed by fear they are adamant it has been tested thoroughly and approved "It has been, follow think I just posted above. The information is quite clear. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
