I'll buy a hat.👍
petemoore's vitriol was only jealousy - he would have settled for either drac or TiRed but missed out.. twice; poor little love.
Just goes to show persistence doesn't always pay off I guess. 😬
Hey! I’m game for a threesome if TiRed is.
I'd just like to say that i have concerns about losing otherwise committed and skilled NHS staff because of this. I still don't know why they aren't getting the jab - why aren't they just getting the jab? - but they evidently aren't, and in considerable numbers.
I appreciate there is a difference between the anti-vax and the anti-this-vax, but i don't really understand it.
I remain amazed that the numbers being talked about are still unvaccinated, but is there any evidence that this 'coercion' is actually bringing people into the fold?
I do not want to come across as being supportive of those choosing not to vaccinate, but there is a practical element to this that suggests a tactical retreat might be in order.
@monkeyboyjc: sorry to hear about your wife.
It was interesting observing the different messaging in the press around the safety of the AZ jab, in the UK vs Australia.
The Australian press was continuously reporting on the the safety of the AZ vaccine in the early days of the roll-out here - to the point that I think it was over-reporting. This had the effect of stalling the whole vaccine roll-out in Australia, the over 60s decided that they would "wait for Pfizer" instead of having AZ now. One has some sympathy for that position - deaths and hospitalizations in Australia were very low, so the benefits were questionable. Australia's vaccine rollout basically stopped at 3%, because the PM hadn't secured any Pfizer jabs.
Conversely, it seemed very strange that there was so little in the UK press about deaths/Serious Adverse Reactions due to the AZ vaccine. The covid situation in the UK was so dire just prior to the roll-out starting that I suspect that they press (in particular the BBC) were put on some sort of "war footing", where any stories that could threaten the willingness of the public to have the AZ jab were suppressed. I am aware that this sounds dangerously close to a conspiracy theory - but it was really noticeable sitting over here. Not saying that the data was suppressed - only that there didn't seem to be any kind of discussion about it in the media.
FYI: Policy in Australia became that anyone over 40 should have the Pfizer jab...... as the risk posed buy the virus in lower age groups than that, was lower than the risk of the AZ jab.
Not saying that's right/wrong/good/bad - but it was really weird that this same discussion wasn't playing-out in the UK media
YI: Policy in Australia became that anyone over 40 should have the Pfizer jab…… as the risk posed buy the virus in lower age groups than that, was lower than the risk of the AZ jab.
Sorry - I meant: "anyone under 60 should have the Pfizer Jab"
Loving that the South West are showing Scotland how it’s done :-).
Yours truly, a Scot living in the South West 😉
@batfink I agree, it took along time for the UK to adopt a possition of safety around the az. Which cirtainly hasn't helped the pro vaccine propaganda.
I remain amazed that the numbers being talked about are still unvaccinated, but is there any evidence that this ‘coercion’ is actually bringing people into the fold?
It is unlikely to. Some will no doubt fold if/when it comes to actually losing their jobs, others will be sacked. Does seem surprising how many people in a loosely medical area seem so ignorant but they are just people and there are a lot of idiots/ignorant/selfish people around.
Drac
Full Member
Hey! I’m game for a threesome if TiRed is.
Of all the disturbing posts on am antivaxx thread I thought I'd need to report, this wasn't it 😱
As set out earlier, that 80,000 figure isn't all front line staff and hasn't been updated to reflect any progress. The BBC has an article on it today.
I'm afraid I'd sooner do without the services of a medical professional who doesn't understand the data behind the vaccination and risks, or how a public health programme needs to work. It's a question of professional competence although I understand the ethical concerns.
I still don’t know why they aren’t getting the jab – why aren’t they just getting the jab? – but they evidently aren’t, and in considerable numbers.
I believe it is to do with the word and concept of 'Mandate' They dont wish to be forced and are standing up for their own rights- not to be forced against their will, and also for those who do not wish it, because of a number of personal reasons, which may include fear of having an adverse reaction.
They also feel the use of ppe safeguards the patient. And I suppose one could even argue now that if infection from the omicron variant is leading to less deaths from say for example seasonal flu, where there is no need for the carers to be vaccinated against, then they shouldn't need to be vaccinated against covid.
I dont think anyone is suggesting that the latest mutation isnt dangerous to some, I think it might be that its not as dangerous to the previous mutations or the original virus, but i suppose this relies upon a fact that you cannot catch previous variants, although that said im not sure this is correct and the previous mutations are still about.
As set out earlier, that 80,000 figure isn’t all front line staff and hasn’t been updated to reflect any progress.
The actual terms of it are here*, but i would suspect when they use the term 'Healthcare workers', they're referring to the staff who actually provide the healthcare and not people like the backroom staff who work in admin.
* " This will include front line workers, as well clinical workers not directly involved in patient care but who nevertheless may have direct, face to face contact with patients, such as receptionists, ward clerks, porters and cleaners."
Conversely, it seemed very strange that there was so little in the UK press about deaths/Serious Adverse Reactions due to the AZ vaccine.
There was they talked about Pulmonary Embolisms well out of proportion to the risk compared to other risks. The government reacted pretty quickly and switched to Pfizer for those with increased risk.
As set out earlier, that 80,000 figure isn’t all front line staff and hasn’t been updated to reflect any progress. The BBC has an article on it today.
Not too bad of an article as it has the voices of those not having it and then a response from a virologist. The dentist of 50 years not renewing their contract made me smile, yeah as that’s the reason there leaving.
The actual terms of it are here*, but i would suspect when they use the term ‘Healthcare workers’, they’re referring to the staff who actually provide the healthcare and not people like the backroom staff who work in admin.
The term is clear, what isn’t is which ones out of those that haven’t had the vaccine are patient contact. Clinicians can work in call centres, they’re healthcare but never see patient.
The government reacted pretty quickly and switched to Pfizer for those with increased risk.
Yes, I'm not saying that nothing was said/done..... my point was more that there hasn't been the same level of scrutiny by the press of the AZ vaccine side effects/risk-benefit, as there has been over here.
It was obvious that the BBC switched to more of a "PSA" role during the pandemic - which is fair enough..... I just wonder whether that extended to not running articles that might cause people to doubt whether they should go and have the AZ jab.
Conversely, it seemed very strange that there was so little in the UK press about deaths/Serious Adverse Reactions due to the AZ vaccine.
Wasn't it just proportionate to the actual risks?
I just wonder whether that extended to not running articles that might cause people to doubt whether they should go and have the AZ jab.
Like I say they did as they blew it out of proportion, the risk was minimal but the press made it look like it was high. You had no real choice of what vaccine you got, it depended what the vaccination centre had.
Like I say they did as they blew it out of proportion
I think that was my point..... I didn't see that in the UK press (admittedly from over here, but I follow the UK press) at anything like the same level as the Australian press.
my point was more that there hasn’t been the same level of scrutiny by the press of the AZ vaccine side effects/risk-benefit, as there has been over here.
Where is here? There was clearly some 'vaccine nationalism' going on in the UK, not sure why you'd think foreign press and governments would be immune to it - especially given British governments behaviour and resentment around Brexit etc. Just as likely foreign media were playing up the risks as the BBC were playing it down.
Edit: Australia? Not generally seen as a bastion of accuracy in the press is it?
They dont wish to be forced
I think I'd be cautious about lumping 60,000-80,000 individuals into a group like that. I think there's every variation of reason why folks chose not to be vaccinated.
the risk posed buy the virus in lower age groups than that, was lower than the risk of the AZ jab.
Citation needed. I found this, which isn't quite the same thing:
She added: "The balance of benefits and risks is very favourable for older people, but is more finely balanced for younger people."
From someone from the MHRA, on the BBC website of all places.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57021738
It's obviously terrible for anyone who does get it/their families etc but the risks are still incredibly tiny, and people are just not good at understanding/calculating risk.
There was they talked about Pulmonary Embolisms well out of proportion to the risk compared to other risks. The government reacted pretty quickly and switched to Pfizer for those with increased risk.
There was, but generally only talked about in the under 40's being switched away from az. My wife and I knew the az vaccine would be risky for her months before it's introduction/clearing by gov and use in the general population.
The government was extremely slow to react as many with the NHS had already raised concerns the prior year.
The government was extremely slow to react
Given they are still showing the CV symptoms as the ones from the original variant that aren't even very common any more, I'm sure this part is true.
Define 'risky' though.
From someone from the MHRA, on the BBC website of all places.
It was originally on the gov.uk website
It’s obviously terrible for anyone who does get it/their families etc but the risks are still incredibly tiny, and people are just not good at understanding/calculating risk.
Risk = Likelihood x Severity
So I guess a lot of the anti vaxers logic goes, particularly if they are young and fit:
Catching Covid = possible x mild
Vaccine = very unlikely x severe
There was, but generally only talked about in the under 40’s being switched away from az. My wife and I knew the az vaccine would be risky for her months before it’s introduction/clearing by gov and use in the general population.
The government was extremely slow to react as many with the NHS had already raised concerns the prior year.
Yes it was because they were the higher risk. You see I’d say they weren’t it wasn’t out that long before they changed to Pfizer for certain categories.
Sorry to hear about your wife.
Catching Covid = possible x mild
Vaccine = very unlikely x severe
Which would make sense if the risk of thrombosis wasn’t higher from covid.
Very simplistic as doesn’t show ages and other factors but here you go.
https://twitter.com/drailyntan/status/1381872393027784710?s=21
So I guess a lot of the anti vaxers logic goes, particularly if they are young and fit:
Catching Covid = possible x mild
Vaccine = very unlikely x severe
It's understandable to a degree but it seems a pretty self-centred way of looking at the world.
Risk = Likelihood x Severity
So I guess a lot of the anti vaxers logic goes, particularly if they are young and fit:
Catching Covid = possible x mild
Vaccine = very unlikely x severe
Seems to me thats exactly how the government are now treating it. I suppose at some point youre going to have to look at this in a pragmatic viewpoint, and not just throw it under the 'Anti-vaxx' bus.
Very simplistic as doesn’t show ages and other factors but here you go.
Way too simplistic. Particularly when age is put into the mix.
As I said, the heath advice in Australia is that the tipping point at which the risk of thrombosis/thrombocytopenia from the AZ vaccine is greater than the risk posed by covid, is 60. Anyone under 60 gets pfizer here, anyone older gets AZ.
As I said, the reason that the Australian vaccine roll-out was so slow was that the press were widely reporting this risk, and basically everyone refused to have it (Pfizer wasn't available at the time). I completely agree that it was over-reported.
What's interesting is that it wasn't (I don't think, correct me if I'm wrong) over-reported in the UK...... even with its bloodthirsty tabloid press, none of them went after this story with any of their usual disregard of the actual facts
Way too simplistic. Particularly when age is put into the mix.
Ok lets bring age in.
even with its bloodthirsty tabloid press, none of them went after this story.
Oh they did especially the gutter press.
Ok lets bring age in
Fair enough.
However, that's not the current situation. That's the peak of the 2nd wave. We are not seeing numbers like that now.
I'm over 50, I'm double jabbed.
If I wasn't jabbed and a healthy 30 year old, would I get it to protect against Omicron now? I'm not so sure. I would certainly wait until we get into March and see what the numbers are doing.
However, that’s not the current situation. That’s the peak of the 2nd wave. We are not seeing numbers like that now.
I wonder why we are not seeing numbers like that now following over a 100m vaccinations but only around 5 confirmed deaths from a vaccine.
I wonder why we are not seeing numbers like that now following over a 100m vaccinations but only around 5 confirmed deaths from a vaccine.
8 deaths from 13.5m az doses in Australia, from 166 TTS cases. That’s only until the end of November though
What’s interesting is that it wasn’t (I don’t think, correct me if I’m wrong) over-reported in the UK…… even with its bloodthirsty tabloid press, none of them went after this story with any of their usual disregard of the actual facts
In the UK in times of genuine national crisis (or even made up one's like WMDs in Iraq) I think there is an extent to which the government can exert pressure to get the press to tow the line on certain issues, and avoid a situation where
basically everyone refused to have it
I could be wrong but it seems that way. Maybe that's a bit conspiratorial thinking though. The government had certainly bet the house on their vaccine strategy working...
What’s interesting is that it wasn’t (I don’t think, correct me if I’m wrong) over-reported in the UK…… even with its bloodthirsty tabloid press, none of them went after this story with any of their usual disregard of the actual facts
The Press certainly reported, especially when others countries were being more cautious.
And the kind if rational risk discussion that Drac has shared hot buried in the noise.
And that's when the anti-vaxxers on social media really filled the void.
8 deaths from 13.5m az doses in Australia, from 166 TTS cases. That’s only until the end of November though
Still tiny.
to understand the mindset - how many people on this thread have had the flu jab, or had it pre-pandemic?
Vaccinated for flu means you're less likely to get and spread it, and less likely to put pressure on the NHS - standard 'winter pressures' for sure that the system just about copes with with a few tens of thousands dying of flu.
But pre-pandemic I could never be arsed getting the vaccine. I'd never had flu as far as I know, there's the hassle of going and getting jabbed, sore arm, possibly feeling rough for something which might not protect that much anyway. All of which makes me a slightly bad person I know and I am now getting flu jabs too fwiw. But it's not that different is it?
(If I've a point it's to try to avoid 'othering' folks who've gone down this very wrong road with cov vax.)
I appreciate there is a difference between the anti-vax and the anti-this-vax, but i don’t really understand it.
I do, social media.
If facebook and twitter existed in the 1960's I'm sure that there would have been a hardcore of measles anti vaxxers too, happily spreading misinformation about how dangerous these "untested" vaccines were.
to understand the mindset – how many people on this thread have had the flu jab, or had it pre-pandemic?
Me I have done for about 18 years or more. Then again I’m entitled to have one, flu vaccines aren’t as open to all like covid but it has been opened up. School kids have been able to have them around 4 years now for example.
If facebook and twitter existed in the 1960’s I’m sure that there would have been a hardcore of measles anti vaxxers too, happily spreading misinformation about how dangerous these “untested” vaccines were.
You don’t need to go that far back. It’s still a very much a thing.
A few points:
Antivaxxer is an umbrella term for anyone who questions the official covid narrative.
Antivaxxers are now scapegoates for the ongoing restrictions which are no longer tenable.
The 'lock them in their houses' mentality undermines the very model of society from which it is given.
I refuse mandated healthcare and will not comply.
Antivaxxer is an umbrella term for anyone who questions the official covid narrative.
No it's not. You can question the official narrative (your word). That's absolutely sensible to do that. If you question it, go away and look at some facts, that's fine. I'm pretty sure most people will come to a sensible conclusion.
If, however, you 'question' the narrative and instead of reading proper facts, you refer to Facebook and Youtube and then come to bonkers conclusion that the pandemic is a) made-up b) less serious than stated, c) a plan by Bill Gates / Soros / Baby-eating Hilary Clinton, d) something about 5G <delete as appropriate> then you're probably an anti-vaxxer.
Antivaxxers are now scapegoates for the ongoing restrictions which are no longer tenable.
I don't think they are? Do you feel like a Scapegoat? Do you feel as though the vast majority of the other people in the country would quite like you get a vaccine, so pose less risk to them / their family? Maybe that's what you're confusing with Scapegoating. P.S. did you ever consider that the majority of this country might have a point?
I refuse mandated healthcare and will not comply.
Vaccines aren't mandated?
I refuse mandated healthcare and will not comply.
And you accept the consequences of that decision?
In an insurance-driven healthcare system, one could imagine that cover for COVID19 treatment might be an exclusion for unvaccinated, for example. It's already an exclusion on my insurance (probably as they feared getting swamped with claims).
I refuse mandated healthcare and will not comply.
Vaccines aren’t mandated?
Isnt that the proposal ?.
Where does mandated healthcare take us, to what end.
Forced sterilization of the disabled. DNR on everyone over 90 ?.
Why would anyone not be out on the streets shouting at the government that these are fascist principles.
