Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[Deleted member 21258]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2798-3

I know I posted up this link before, but well worth a read over vaccine developments etc and the existing technology was there. Some have been planning for pathogen X for years, which is covid 19.

 

[road2ruin]

Listening to BBC Radio 5 this morning the discussion is about the vaccine. The general theme is the contempt towards those who are either refusing or unsure whether they would have the new vaccine, these people should not be allowed NHS care if they refuse as it is a morally correct to have any available vaccine.

For me there are two camps, there are the real anti-vaxxers who wouldn't take any vaccine regardless of the amount of testing and proof of efficacy and safety. There are then those who are simply unsure and have an element of concern about any vaccine that has been put through at this speed. I would myself in the second camp, I have had every vaccine that I should have done as has my daughter and she will continue to have them however I do have my concerns about this present vaccines especially given that I am in an age group that is incredibly unlikely to develop complications from Covid. I do understand the argument that my having the vaccine I am protecting others so it is not sure for myself however I will need more convincing before I add myself to the line. That said I will be towards the back of the queue anyway so I will probably have enough time to get a fuller understanding. Even on the radio the phrase is used "they have been as diligent as they can be" which doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

What I am saying is that I don't think people who aren't immediately lining up to have the vaccine should be lumped together as being pariahs within society.

 

[Ethan]

Listening to BBC Radio 5 this morning the discussion is about the vaccine. The general theme is the contempt towards those who are either refusing or unsure whether they would have the new vaccine, these people should not be allowed NHS care if they refuse as it is a morally correct to have any available vaccine.

For me there are two camps, there are the real anti-vaxxers who wouldn't take any vaccine regardless of the amount of testing and proof of efficacy and safety. There are then those who are simply unsure and have an element of concern about any vaccine that has been put through at this speed. I would myself in the second camp, I have had every vaccine that I should have done as has my daughter and she will continue to have them however I do have my concerns about this present vaccines especially given that I am in an age group that is incredibly unlikely to develop complications from Covid. I do understand the argument that my having the vaccine I am protecting others so it is not sure for myself however I will need more convincing before I add myself to the line. That said I will be towards the back of the queue anyway so I will probably have enough time to get a fuller understanding. Even on the radio the phrase is used "they have been as diligent as they can be" which doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

What I am saying is that I don't think people who aren't immediately lining up to have the vaccine should be lumped together as being pariahs within society.

As you say, your situation will take care of itself if you are in a low priority age group.

There are two elements in the vaccine debate. One is personal benefit-risk assessment, the second is societal responsibility.

As far as personal benefit-risk goes, that is mostly to do with age and co-morbidities, ethnicity and weight are factors, and your personal attitude to risk. Average people don't understand risk very well, especially new and unfamiliar risks.

Societal responsibility is more of a contentious issue. If this was about motorcycle helmets, there isn't much societal responsibility. You come off your bike with a head injury, you are in a vegetative state until your organs are harvested for transplant recipients, end of story. But with Covid, you can transmit it to others and you can consume a large amount of healthcare resources. Have you a right to expect other people to accept the risk of catching it from you, or to consume several hundred thousand pounds of ICU costs and maybe displace another patient from a ventilator?

The Covid vaccine will not be mandatory in the UK. There are all sorts of ethical and practical problems with even trying to do so and it would never get through Parliament. But there is a case for requiring proof of vaccination or immunity (unless a very strong reason not to have it) for incoming travellers, certain jobs and arguably school and college. The argument in favour is that it will never be possible to get universal vaccination and as long as there is Covid in the wild, vulnerable people, those with immune disorders, very elderly, cancer sufferers etc, will never be safe.

The anti-vaxxers are in large part tied up in the culture war. Many have predictable views on other major questions of the moment. I don't think much air should be given to full on Bill Gates/5G/nanobot conspiracy theorists. The people who come out with the 'vaccine development takes 10 years, this is being rushed and corners cut' need to have the timelines broken down for them. Some corners are being cut, but not those which ensure safety and reliability.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

With the incredible speed and hopefully efficiency these vaccines have been produced at makes the conspiracist in me wonder if Covid and a potential vaccine have been around for a lot longer than we know about

..and so all those who have known about the coronavirus and have been working on a vaccine for years have all kept quiet about it and the risk if the coronavirus got 'out' and into the community.

All those 100s - 1000s over the years - of scientists in multiple pharma companies and research departments all over the world kept quiet about it. Why would they? What would be in it for them? Not a single whistleblower?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Thinking that those at the head of the queue for the vaccine should perhaps be those in front-line medical, nursing and healthcare - and not necessarily the elderly and vulnerable (as emotive and potentially unpopular as that might be). Logic is simply that the elderly and vulnerable can be shielded from the virus - but they need looking after. Sort out those who do the 'looking after' and who care for and treat those of us who are hospitalized by Covid19 and so need the protection a vaccine will afford. The elderly and vulnerable can be physically shielded and would not be exposed to risk from their vaccinated carers. Then when the front-line 'carers' are sorted move to the elderly and vulnerable.

 

[Ethan]

Thinking that those at the head of the queue for the vaccine should perhaps be those in front-line medical, nursing and healthcare - and not necessarily the elderly and vulnerable (as emotive and potentially unpopular as that might be). Logic is simply that the elderly and vulnerable can be shielded from the virus - but they need looking after. Sort out those who do the 'looking after' and who care for and treat those of us who are hospitalized by Covid19 and so need the protection a vaccine will afford. Then when the front-line 'carers' are sorted move to the elderly and vulnerable.

The criteria are designed partly for simplicity, with only the vulnerable, NHS and care workers selected out and everything else by age, even though there are other factors that influence risk. Arguably overweight or diabetic BAME men should be higher up the list. I assume that in practice it will happen in parallel, with NHS and care workers mostly getting their vaccine at the workplace and the vulnerable getting theirs through GPs, so as long as there is enough vaccine, shouldn't be any real delays in that sector. Administration staff and time is likely to be the main rate-limiting step.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Just back from taking younger Colch jnr for his 2nd Covid test. We're almost certain that he doesn't have it as he's got a croupy cough but the school won't let him go back until he's got a negative result.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

Listening to BBC Radio 5 this morning the discussion is about the vaccine. The general theme is the contempt towards those who are either refusing or unsure whether they would have the new vaccine, these people should not be allowed NHS care if they refuse as it is a morally correct to have any available vaccine.

For me there are two camps, there are the real anti-vaxxers who wouldn't take any vaccine regardless of the amount of testing and proof of efficacy and safety. There are then those who are simply unsure and have an element of concern about any vaccine that has been put through at this speed. I would myself in the second camp, I have had every vaccine that I should have done as has my daughter and she will continue to have them however I do have my concerns about this present vaccines especially given that I am in an age group that is incredibly unlikely to develop complications from Covid. I do understand the argument that my having the vaccine I am protecting others so it is not sure for myself however I will need more convincing before I add myself to the line. That said I will be towards the back of the queue anyway so I will probably have enough time to get a fuller understanding. Even on the radio the phrase is used "they have been as diligent as they can be" which doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

What I am saying is that I don't think people who aren't immediately lining up to have the vaccine should be lumped together as being pariahs within society.

I find the currently theme of trying to push people into the 'outliner' category as worrying. An outliner as you touch on is someone who is never going to have a vaccine and the mad people who wish to believe in 5G etc.

We need to engage with and discuss it with people who wish to, and give details, rather than trying to put the fear or almost ordering them into it. I like you believe completely in vaccines and that they are one of the medical wonders over the years, saving millions of people over time.

I am someone who is cautious and risk adverse. To paint a picture I haven't been inside anybody's house for instance since March, not in a clubhouse, even built a studwork plastic 'room within a room' for my mum, so she could come round. Yeah I'm pretty risk adverse, maybe an outliner there.

Personally I would love to see the vaccines being used for say 1-2 years to see if any medium/longer term effects(I fall into cat 10 on the vaccine list btw, so the choice will be made sooner than that for me), hopefully the question of efficiency is now being answered as a massive positive, so the vaccine to me appears a real benefit rather than say a 50% vaccine. Two in the family have had ramifications of medicines (one is used by loads of people use and the other was a trial drug[which was a god send tbh, and very grateful dad got on the trial, as it prolonged his useful life by years]), so am a little wary.

However for my mum, she needs a vaccine now, life is to short for her, she also has underlying conditions etc, she is high risk category, not getting out much and so on, she would take the vaccine now without any other thought and understandably.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The criteria are designed partly for simplicity, with only the vulnerable, NHS and care workers selected out and everything else by age, even though there are other factors that influence risk. Arguably overweight or diabetic BAME men should be higher up the list. I assume that in practice it will happen in parallel, with NHS and care workers mostly getting their vaccine at the workplace and the vulnerable getting theirs through GPs, so as long as there is enough vaccine, shouldn't be any real delays in that sector. Administration staff and time is likely to be the main rate-limiting step.

Yup - you wouldn't think it would be that difficult for a 'vaccination unit' to be set up in every hospital with all front-line staff booked to pop along for their vaccination(s) - and new staff just get included as part of the 'induction/joining' in much the same way as they'd have the photo-ID sorted.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I find the currently theme of trying to push people into the 'outliner' category as worrying. An outliner as you touch on is someone who is never going to have a vaccine and the mad people who wish to believe in 5G etc.

We need to engage with and discuss it with people who wish to, and give details, rather than trying to put the fear or almost ordering them into it. I like you believe completely in vaccines and that they are one of the medical wonders over the years, saving millions of people over time.

I am someone who is cautious and risk adverse. To paint a picture I haven't been inside anybody's house for instance since March, not in a clubhouse, even built a studwork plastic 'room within a room' for my mum, so she could come round. Yeah I'm pretty risk adverse, maybe an outliner there.

Personally I would love to see the vaccines being used for say 1-2 years to see if any medium/longer term effects(I fall into cat 10 on the vaccine list btw, so the choice will be made sooner than that for me), hopefully the question of efficiency is now being answered as a massive positive, so the vaccine to me appears a real benefit rather than say a 50% vaccine. Two in the family have had ramifications of medicines (one is used by loads of people use and the other was a trial drug[which was a god send tbh, and very grateful dad got on the trial, as it prolonged his useful life by years]), so am a little wary.

However for my mum, she needs a vaccine now, life is to short for her, she also has underlying conditions etc, she is high risk category, not getting out much and so on, she would take the vaccine now without any other thought and understandably.

Unless I have any underlying condition(s) that mean the vaccination would present a significant risk to me then I must play my part in 'validating' the efficacy and safety of the vaccination. I can't stand aside and let others take any risk there might be on my behalf.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

Unless I have any underlying condition(s) that mean the vaccination would present a significant risk to me then I must play my part in 'validating' the efficacy and safety of the vaccination. I can't stand aside and let others take any risk there might be on my behalf.

I don't disagree and is all part of the decision process.

I would imagine I will be down the doctors when my number comes up, with fingers, toes crossed and hair platted.

 

[Mudball]

After Bog rolls, a new interesting reason to raid Aldi >> https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19...avirus-within-30-seconds-study-finds-12134289

 

[SaintHacker]

..and so all those who have known about the coronavirus and have been working on a vaccine for years have all kept quiet about it and the risk if the coronavirus got 'out' and into the community.

All those 100s - 1000s over the years - of scientists in multiple pharma companies and research departments all over the world kept quiet about it. Why would they? What would be in it for them? Not a single whistleblower?

You're painting me as some kind of tin foil hat wearing flat earther, which I'm not. I'm simoly saying i believe there is a bit more to this whole saga than meets the eye

 

[SaintHacker]

Thinking that those at the head of the queue for the vaccine should perhaps be those in front-line medical, nursing and healthcare - and not necessarily the elderly and vulnerable (as emotive and potentially unpopular as that might be). Logic is simply that the elderly and vulnerable can be shielded from the virus - but they need looking after. Sort out those who do the 'looking after' and who care for and treat those of us who are hospitalized by Covid19 and so need the protection a vaccine will afford. The elderly and vulnerable can be physically shielded and would not be exposed to risk from their vaccinated carers. Then when the front-line 'carers' are sorted move to the elderly and vulnerable.

But why shouls they be sheilded any more? By nature that group generally have the shortest time left on earth anyway even without a virus, if a vaccine is available get them treated so they can enjoy what tie they have left not cooped up indoors scared to go out just in case. The rest of us who aren't going to be affected nearly as badly if we catch it can wait a bit longer.

 

[Hobbit]

How following the rules makes a difference.

3 weeks ago we had 76 confirmed cases in the village. A spike from 0 to 76 in 2 weeks. Admittedly, when a mayor over here locks down a town or village it is LOCKED DOWN. Fines are a great deterrence. But, equally, families are very well supported. Social Services, supported by the Guardia Local visit every day.

Today's figure is 1 case, and no still no deaths.

 

[Blue in Munich]

After Bog rolls, a new interesting reason to raid Aldi >> https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19...avirus-within-30-seconds-study-finds-12134289

All you need to know is when you were infected and use the mouthwash within 30 seconds then, simples. Mrs BiM uses mouthwash religiously & still got infected.

When the enquiry into this starts leave the politicians to second; the press & the media should be the first to explain themselves for some of the they've spouted.

 

[4LEX]

I know the Oxford and AstraZeneca vaccine is expected to cost £2 per dose with profits capped at 20%. But I wonder what percentage will be available privately for all of these vaccines and the cost?

I make no excuses I wouldn't wait for the NHS to get my hands on one.

 

[Old Skier]

We keep getting figures on how many vaccines have been purchased for England, has anything been published on how many our devolved governments have bought/order to support the needs areas of responsibility.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

We keep getting figures on how many vaccines have been purchased for England, has anything been published on how many our devolved governments have bought/order to support the needs areas of responsibility.

Think its for the whole of the UK, the announcements made, rather than for england :-

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ion-of-efficacy-data-for-its-covid-19-vaccine

Further information on UK vaccines
We will know whether the vaccine meets robust standards of safety and effectiveness once their safety data has been published, and only then can the medicines regulator can consider whether it can be made it available to the public

We have secured early access to over 350 million vaccines doses through agreements with several separate vaccine developers at various stages of trials, including:

• 100 million doses of University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine – phase 3 clinical trials
• 40 million doses of BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine – phase 3 clinical trials
• 60 million doses of Novavax vaccine – phase 3 clinical trials
• 60 million doses of Valneva vaccine – pre-clinical trials
• 60 million doses of GSK/Sanofi Pasteur vaccine – phase 1 clinical trials
• 30 million doses of Janssen vaccine – phase 2 clinical trials

 

[Billysboots]

When the enquiry into this starts leave the politicians to second; the press & the media should be the first to explain themselves for some of the they've spouted.

Absolutely spot on. In the main they have been an utter disgrace.