Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[Crazyface]

I've had a very long chat with a collegue today that has not been vaccinated because she caught it before she got called for the vaccine. She's not had it since and refuses to wear a mask or get the vaccine. She's had many rows with another collegue over this, one who has been triple jabbed and wears a mask. Guess who's off work with it?

Also, another thing she said that makes you think, what has happened to the other two varients? They cannot just disappear can they? Why are there no figures now on people catching those other varients. Sure the lastest one is the dominant one, but where are the other two?

Also......there is lot more. I'll add to this later.

 

[PNWokingham]

I strongly disagree. Whilst for some ages the vaccine is a life saver there are other ages where the chances of the virus causing any particular issues are minute however the vaccine itself may cause life changing severe adverse reactions. Have a look at Maddie de Garay who took part in the Pfizer trial in the US, 12 years old and is now facing a lifetime (however long that lasts) of hospital visits and treatment. Her changes of facing a similar situation with the virus would have been far lower so why should other younger people be face with a roll of the dice just to protect those who are at risk?

like i said a tough one and i am only reluctantly in favour if it helps enable normal life to continue. The way France looks to be doing it is not to march you in to get injected, just to exclude your ability to do many activities.

But, if implemented, there would need to be many safeguards - such as an age cut off - maybe 15 - and for any medical reasons.

 

[hovis]

Can't be done, the Human Rights issues will make sure of that.

Greece didn't get that memo

 

[Ethan]

grow up. I included reference to Nordic neighbours that did way better on deaths than Sweden and all other EU countries. But Sweden did better than the EU average and several other large EU countries on deaths and all others economically - and may have done better on many other social and other medical issues.

Of course i am obsessed by the cost of restrictions - we are all going to be for the rest of our lives. Also, losses of life to covid will likely pale into insignificance compared to the deaths from the other diseases that have gone undiagnosed over the past couple of years and the loss of severvices than could have been improved over the coming decade from some of the £400bn+ we have borrowed through this period. This and the resulting inflation surge are direct results of covid restrictions, economic contractions and spending

The counter argument is that much of the cost of restrictions, as you put it, was largely inevitable and the pain was prolonged by indecisive and weak action.

There is no evidence that losses to life with Covid will pale into insignificance - data for excess deaths is similar to estimated Covid deaths, some Covid deaths probably weren't Covid and some true Covid deaths were missed, so probably a zero sum game. There is no good evidence that an epidemic of late diagnosed cancer has occurred. Undoubtedly some people died earlier than they otherwise would have, but isn't that the same argument as saying that some Covid deaths were in old people who were likely to kick it soon anyway?

And it also ignores subclinical inflammatory damage done by Covid. Good device that end-ran (heart, liver, kidney, brain, vasculature) damage occurs in people who have had mild Covid, and some of that will bite in later life.

Sweden had a disastrous pandemic and had to row back on all the initial measures. Its economy did no better than Norway, Finland and Denmark, but the death rates were multiples higher.

There is good data that supports what we knew before the pandemic, that making a choice between fighting Covid and protecting the economy is a false dichotomy. The laissez-faire libertarian nonsense just damages the economy more. Which was a lesson from Spanish flu in 1919 and after. Not hindsight during this pandemic, 100 years of foresight.

 

[DanFST]

like i said a tough one and i am only reluctantly in favour if it helps enable normal life to continue. The way France looks to be doing it is not to march you in to get injected, just to exclude your ability to do many activities.

But, if implemented, there would need to be many safeguards - such as an age cut off - maybe 15 - and for any medical reasons.

I was berated on here when I said I was going to enjoy myself to the fullest, Even with all the jabs needed and a recent infection.

Some people just don't want a "normal life". And power to them, but it's an impossible task to get everyone to agree on risk and reward/what a normal life is.

 

[Ethan]

I strongly disagree. Whilst for some ages the vaccine is a life saver there are other ages where the chances of the virus causing any particular issues are minute however the vaccine itself may cause life changing severe adverse reactions. Have a look at Maddie de Garay who took part in the Pfizer trial in the US, 12 years old and is now facing a lifetime (however long that lasts) of hospital visits and treatment. Her changes of facing a similar situation with the virus would have been far lower so why should other younger people be face with a roll of the dice just to protect those who are at risk?

It certainly sounds like this girl had a complication of the vaccination, although the prices aetiology of it is not yet understood. And you have no idea if her problems are life-long, or as you seem to hint, her life will be shortened. But even so, that is just one case. There have been a lot more cases of Covid-related Multistem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C) and a range of other inflammatory complications ranging from Kawasaki Disease to Type 1 Diabetes. The benefit-risk for vaccination remains favourable at all ages, even in children.

 

[road2ruin]

It certainly sounds like this girl had a complication of the vaccination, although the prices aetiology of it is not yet understood. And you have no idea if her problems are life-long, or as you seem to hint, her life will be shortened. But even so, that is just one case. There have been a lot more cases of Covid-related Multistem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C) and a range of other inflammatory complications ranging from Kawasaki Disease to Type 1 Diabetes. The benefit-risk for vaccination remains favourable at all ages, even in children.

It is just one case however it was out of a trial of 1,200 people, at that sort of reported risk vs reward I'd suggest she'd have been better off not having it and taking her chances with Covid as the odds there would have been heavily stacked in her favour.

I am not sure I agree that the benefit-risk is favourable for the younger ages. It is certainly favourable for the older members/more vulnerable in society that everyone is vaccinated but for those who are at the younger end I don't think the same applies. For me personally, I wouldn't be allowing my daughter (7) to have the vaccine on that basis.

In the specific case of Maddie I was very careful before bringing that up, I did a load of investigation around it to ensure it wasn't anti-vax propaganda (although it has been taken up by them since) and she appears to have had no underlying health conditions and she was just one of the poor unfortunates who had a severe reaction to the vaccine. There is nothing on the fact check websites or Snopes to suggest it is anything other than legit which, for me, is enough to put me off the vaccination process for those at her age. As I said, rightly (or possibly wrongly) my daughter won't be having it if they do roll it out to her age as I feel the risk just isn't worth it......at this point.

 

[Fade and Die]

You mean you agree with The Guardian because in this instance you agree with the articles, but on all other bits of their reporting where they don't match your views, you don't?

Yes I think you’ve grasped it…I don’t normally agree with articles published in the Guardian but it’s not healthy to live in an echo chamber so for ballance I do look at it, the article I linked was one I agree with. ?‍

 

[SocketRocket]

Population density - or least urbanisation is higher in Sweden than the UK - 88% compared to 83.9%

I did live through the 70s and 80s - but totally differnet scenario from now. We are coming out of covid (at least i hope we are) with house prices at record highs, income to house prices at record highs, government debt at record levels of 2.5 trillion (a 5 fold increase since 2005), government debt to GDP at record levels for several generations of 105% (it was circa 35% in 2005) and steady at 80% area 2014 to pre covid. Equity markets are at record highs, energy prices at record highs and interest rates are at record lows. Interest rates have starting pushing higher due to very strong inflation that may not be so transitory and QE will likely end this year. Taxes are going up, living conditions are going up in all areas. I am concerned that the impact of rising interest rates and all other factors could have a big negative on peoples' lives over the coming few years - hence the worry that we are at or near the end of covid restrictions so growth can be maximised against a very difficult backdrop

What! The UK has a population density of 271 per Km sq, Sweden has one of 23 per KM sq. England is 426.

 

[Foxholer]

grow up...

Kindly explain how that infantile comment has any relevance!

...I included reference to Nordic neighbours that did way better on deaths than Sweden and all other EU countries. But Sweden did better than the EU average and several other large EU countries on deaths and all others economically - and may have done better on many other social and other medical issues.

Comparing Nordic countries, who have relatively similar (well, not too dis-similar) attitudes to so many 'societal' things is far more appropriate than comparing them to midish-European countries like Italy, France, Spain (who have similar Death rates to each other).
Basically Sweden would be expected to have had similar Death rates to Norway, Finland and Denmark (which was higher but not to level of UK, France etc), yet was considerably higher - to UK/France/Spain etc levels - than the other Nordic countries!

And such a 'debt' isn't as crippling as you make it out to be imo (even though about 15% of GDP). UK's WW2 debt lasted until 2006. To me, it's any loss of infrastructure that's more important, which is why industry and services recovery should take priority over reducing current and consequential Covid related borrowing imo.

 

[road2ruin]

And such a 'debt' isn't as crippling as you make it out to be imo (even though about 15% of GDP). UK's WW2 debt lasted until 2006. To me, it's any loss of infrastructure that's more important, which is why industry and services recovery should take priority over reducing current and consequential Covid related borrowing imo.

I agree with the this although shouldn’t we be treating the Covid debt in the same way as the war debt, don’t start increasing taxes and making the present generation(s) pay it back. Make it a long (very long) term thing to allow the economy to recover properly.

 

[Ethan]

It is just one case however it was out of a trial of 1,200 people, at that sort of reported risk vs reward I'd suggest she'd have been better off not having it and taking her chances with Covid as the odds there would have been heavily stacked in her favour.

I am not sure I agree that the benefit-risk is favourable for the younger ages. It is certainly favourable for the older members/more vulnerable in society that everyone is vaccinated but for those who are at the younger end I don't think the same applies. For me personally, I wouldn't be allowing my daughter (7) to have the vaccine on that basis.

In the specific case of Maddie I was very careful before bringing that up, I did a load of investigation around it to ensure it wasn't anti-vax propaganda (although it has been taken up by them since) and she appears to have had no underlying health conditions and she was just one of the poor unfortunates who had a severe reaction to the vaccine. There is nothing on the fact check websites or Snopes to suggest it is anything other than legit which, for me, is enough to put me off the vaccination process for those at her age. As I said, rightly (or possibly wrongly) my daughter won't be having it if they do roll it out to her age as I feel the risk just isn't worth it......at this point.

It was in a trial of almost 1200, but that doesn't mean the risk is 1 in 1200. It patently is much much lower. 16 million teenagers and almost 7 million pre-teens have been vaccinated in the US so far.

Medicine in general, including vaccination, is a probability game. There is a risk of side effects and a chance of benefit with treatment and a risk of harm from the disease. The balance is the benefit-risk assessment (basically likelihood of benefit from the medicine divided by likelihood of harm from the condition or the medicine). There are a few people who have a bad outcome from treatment and a few who would never get the bad illness through dumb luck, genetics or whatever.

It is very unwise to base a decision on one case that you do not really know anything about. We know plenty about Covid, though. Earlier today, a colleague asked me if I would advise him to have his 7 year old vaccinated. I said I would.

 

[Foxholer]

I agree with the this although shouldn’t we be treating the Covid debt in the same way as the war debt, don’t start increasing taxes and making the present generation(s) pay it back. Make it a long (very long) term thing to allow the economy to recover properly.

Probably!

 

[PNWokingham]

What! The UK has a population density of 271 per Km sq, Sweden has one of 23 per KM sq. England is 426.

Most of Sweden live in urban areas - most of the rest of the country is extremely sparsely populated, where covid spreading will be very low and lower than our rural population which is more densely packed but will still not be the places covid is spreading. So comparing urban living is a much more relevant metric for the point your were trying to make

 

[Deleted member 16999]

It is just one case however it was out of a trial of 1,200 people, at that sort of reported risk vs reward I'd suggest she'd have been better off not having it and taking her chances with Covid as the odds there would have been heavily stacked in her favour.

I am not sure I agree that the benefit-risk is favourable for the younger ages. It is certainly favourable for the older members/more vulnerable in society that everyone is vaccinated but for those who are at the younger end I don't think the same applies. For me personally, I wouldn't be allowing my daughter (7) to have the vaccine on that basis.

In the specific case of Maddie I was very careful before bringing that up, I did a load of investigation around it to ensure it wasn't anti-vax propaganda (although it has been taken up by them since) and she appears to have had no underlying health conditions and she was just one of the poor unfortunates who had a severe reaction to the vaccine. There is nothing on the fact check websites or Snopes to suggest it is anything other than legit which, for me, is enough to put me off the vaccination process for those at her age. As I said, rightly (or possibly wrongly) my daughter won't be having it if they do roll it out to her age as I feel the risk just isn't worth it......at this point.

I’m glad my son is now a man and could decide for himself, must be really difficult for some parents with small children.
Maybe @Ethan can answer, but aren’t there cases of bad reactions to a lot of “normal” vaccines, I remember a big scaremongering outburst over the MMR jab when my lad was small.

Obviously you will do right by your family as we would do ours, but every medication carries a risk and can it be proved that Covid wouldn’t of killed Maddie if she’d of been left to chance?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Looks like my trust is bucking the trend regarding critical incidents and waiting times very good https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59549800 (you may need to put Reading in and click on Royal Berkshire). We are managing 84 patients around the hospital as of today but only 6 in ICU

 

[road2ruin]

It was in a trial of almost 1200, but that doesn't mean the risk is 1 in 1200. It patently is much much lower. 16 million teenagers and almost 7 million pre-teens have been vaccinated in the US so far.

Agree that the actual risk is much lower however (and prepare your tin hats), Pfizer reported this study as having ZERO adverse reactions. Maddie’s case was put down to ‘anxiety’. There is zero evidence for this and appears to have been a complete cover up by Pfizer to ensure this is given the go ahead for kids. Again, I’m triple vaxxed so not trying to put anyone off having the vaccination however I won’t be giving it to my daughter.

 

[Ethan]

I’m glad my son is now a man and could decide for himself, must be really difficult for some parents with small children.
Maybe @Ethan can answer, but aren’t there cases of bad reactions to a lot of “normal” vaccines, I remember a big scaremongering outburst over the MMR jab when my lad was small.

Obviously you will do right by your family as we would do ours, but every medication carries a risk and can it be proved that Covid wouldn’t of killed Maddie if she’d of been left to chance?

Most vaccines are pretty well tolerated. Usually a sore arm and a brief flu-like illness is as much as people get. Rare serious adverse effects do occur, often related to an over-activated immune system, so stuff like Guillain-Barre Syndrome is well known to be associated with vaccinations (and other medicines). Myocarditis is also known to be associated with some vaccines, for much the same reason, but it also occurs in a range of other inflammatory states.

On the flip side, people have forgotten how serious some childhood illness can be. Measles, for example, causes an meningo-encephalitis. Ever heard about people with measles not liking light? That is meningo-encephalitis, inflammation of the brain and its covering. I had a cousin who went deaf after measles, same reason, and have seen kids with a very nasty complication, subacute sclerosising pan encephalitis (SSPE), which essentially shorted out their brains and lifetime immobile and unresponsive. Likewise rubella and mumps can be nasty. I had them all as a kid, and no complications (although I remember the darkened room).

 

[Ethan]

Agree that the actual risk is much lower however (and prepare your tin hats), Pfizer reported this study as having ZERO adverse reactions. Maddie’s case was put down to ‘anxiety’. There is zero evidence for this and appears to have been a complete cover up by Pfizer to ensure this is given the go ahead for kids. Again, I’m triple vaxxed so not trying to put anyone off having the vaccination however I won’t be giving it to my daughter.

Yeah, I saw the fevered Anti-Vaxx coverage.

For a start, the causality of an event (relatedness) is determined by the clinical investigator. If the clinical investigator deems it related, Pfizer can not downgrade it to unrelated.

Second, the important part is the report sent to FDA. This event would be deemed a serious and a severe (two different things) event regardless if whether it was considered related or not, so FDA got a narrative and details of the case.

Third, it is perfectly possible, and probably likely, that the vaccine caused serious adverse events in this kid, but you need to consider the possibility that there are other explanations, either in previously unknown risk factors or in psychological factors. It happens, and there will have been objective investigations of this girl; MRI, nerve conduction studies, EEGs etc to determine what the pathophysiological basis of the problem is. Those results may support an organic (evidence of tissue effects and other relevant tests) or functional (no evidence of tissue effects or other tests) cause. I don't know, and neither do you.

Either way, it makes no sense to base your decision on this case and all the unknowns and intangibles involved. Covid is real and causes real effects in kids at a much higher rate than this poorly understood case. Whatever it is, we can be pretty sure it is exceptionally rare. Good luck to your daughter.

 

[SocketRocket]

Most of Sweden live in urban areas - most of the rest of the country is extremely sparsely populated, where covid spreading will be very low and lower than our rural population which is more densely packed but will still not be the places covid is spreading. So comparing urban living is a much more relevant metric for the point your were trying to make

Are you suggesting England doesn't have a large Urban population.