if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
I find this approach works in a lot of arguments - establish the desired end result, and then make them think if they are helping move towards this or not.
and right now I think you’re as dumb as ****.
Or just has an opinion that differs to yours?
The drug has years of data behind you dumb ****. What do you think SARS or MERS has been treated with?
TBH Chrispo not taking vaccines causes death, me calling you a rude name is just a bit unpleasant. I’m done trying to convince you, there plenty of evidence, if you don’t understand any of it, that’s not anything I can help with, you’re a walking talking example of Dunning-Kruger
Or just has an opinion that differs to yours?
and the entirety of modern international medical research. That’s a level of dumb ****ery that a bike forum can help with I’m afraid
Last word from me. As an anti vaxxer, you’re either complicit in causing unnecessary death, or you’re too stupid to realise you’re complicit in causing unnecessary death, chose which one of those applies to you.
and right now I think you’re as dumb as ****.
Or just has an opinion that differs to yours?
I'm not as vocal as others but if you trust the science (I do) and the counter amounts to not listening to or not understanding what is being said and/or statements like the one previously that the scientists are not truthful (lied, or at least twisted the story), it's hard to not come to the conclusion. I'd stop short of saying dumb, but I'd say they clearly can't or don't want to be convinced.
What about flat earthers. They can come up with a version of evidence that fits their belief, and counters to all the evidence that is presented otherwise. They won't be convinced either. They might not be dumb in general but on this point it's hard to consider them smart.
I don't think Chrispo is dumb. Where they've raised some real concerns, they have been addressed in an honest and reasonable way. But for them to counter that what they're being told is lies - that puts backs up and gets responses like nickc's.
I ask again - what do you need to see that will convince you. Or can you just admit you've chosen your stand and will not be convinced.
No. Most drugs have ten or more years of data behind them.
You seem relatively intelligent. So I'm assuming you are better read than just reading facebook memes. In which case I really can't fathom how you are still able to come up with this stuff. There are so many articles and opinion pieces from those involved in the research, trails and roll out of new drugs and vaccinations that thoroughly debunk this 'if it's not taken 10 years it can't be safe' nonsense. I find it amazing that someone capable of dribbling in a straight line (and you clearly are) is so behind the curve.
A broader point (not directed at anyone in particular) - some people's lives must be so stressful. To self flagitate about every little decision in life must be so draining. To vaccinate or not. To worry yourself that behind every and any announcement is a devilish plot to catch you out. Someone many pages back said that after his science related MSc he appreciated quite how hard science is so chooses to trust fellow scientist as getting thing right and gets on with his day. That surely has to be the attitude best suited to having a long, stress free and healthy life. I wonder how many conspiracy theorists, general sceptics and the uber health obsessed worry more years off their life than they add by not falling into the 'traps' set for them.
They’d do better to say “needs must”.
The problem people have with the speedy production of the current vaccines really stems from warnings earlier in the pandemic when some of the more populist leaders in the world were being reticent to implement measures to safeguard their populations - Trump saying in February that it would all blow over by Easter - on the basis that someone would find a cure and it would all be fine. The 'it takes 10 years to create a vaccine' factoid stems from warnings being given at that time that you can't plan public policy for population health on a hunch that scientists can just pull a new medicine out of their arse. But the 'it takes 10 years to create a vaccine' overlooks the fact we routinely roll out a new vaccine for a new strain of flu every year.
Times of crisis change the timeframes for medical advances because the economics change. Under normal conditions economics dictate that the way we move forward medically is in incremental improvements - its out of a fear of failure. Even though failure is something the search for progress should embrace the reality is no public body or large commercial enterprise is going to invest in efforts for a major advance that might result in zero return when another option on the table is some sort of marginal gain. So what we do in those times is invest in safe-bets for small improvements.
A major crisis changes that - we make all our big scientific leaps in the face of war and natural disaster. In those circumstances 'Doing nothing' is worse that trying and failing. So you try everything. Multiple agencies and manufacturers have gone all in - confident that they can try and fail because everyone else is playing for the same stakes - theres no loss of competitive edge from failure because many of your competitors are making the same investments and risking the same failure.
Looking at other periods of crisis - Heart surgery was pioneered in the WW1 for instance - because there was no choice. Prior to WW1 the heart was considered off limits for surgery - there was a culturally ingrained moral squeamishness about anything involving hearts. A surgeon faced with a patient with a heart injury would chose not to act - rather than be seen to try and fail
" A surgeon who tries to suture a heart wound deserves to lose the esteem of his colleagues.”
Professor Billroth 1896
It took a war of bullets and shrapnel and surgeons seeing heart injuries on their table every day to get past that taboo. In those circumstances all sorts of advances were made on the battlefield that benefited the whole population.
In 1914 if you fell off a ladder and broke your leg there was an 80% chance you'd die as a result of that injury. In 1918 there was an 80% chance you'd survive. Big changes happen in short time frames when they need to.
In this moment comparing the timeframe and economics of drug development to even a year ago is an irrelevance
As I have said before I think we overvaccinate here. However any vaccine must have a cost / benefit ratio ( its this I think we have wrong in the UK) but in the case of covid the cost / benefit ratio is very clearly infavour of the vaccine. I will take a vaccine as soon as it is offered to me.
As I have said before I think we overvaccinate here.
Out of curiousity which vaccines do you think we shouldn't administer?
It’s not that we shouldn’t vaccinate, it’s that there’s some evidence that the efficacy of vaccines like tetanus and diphtheria have been under-estimated and we’ve been giving boosters when it’s not needed.
I agree with the scientists,
Prof Metin Avkiran of the British Heart Foundation said: “Air pollution is clearly a huge problem across Europe. We need to see WHO guidelines in UK law in order to drive decisive action to protect the nation’s health.”
Penny Woods, the chief executive of the British Lung Foundation, said: “Toxic air doesn’t just cut lives short. It also seriously affects the health and quality of life of millions of people.”
The scientists acknowledge there are large uncertainties in their early death estimates for Europe, which range from 645,000 to 934,000. Some deaths could have been misattributed to air pollution, but it is as likely that the true number of deaths could be even higher, they said.
get some perspective people.
Not sure how air pollution equates to a vaccine roll out, and not sure this is the place to get into the how's and why's of how to reduce deaths from it and why governments have failed to grasp it to date.
Nickc nailed the reason why the vaccine has come about so quickly in terms of Covid-19. It is a variant of an existing virus. If you look at the background to the Oxford/AZ vaccine the original team have been researching this for a number of years and the rise of Covid is what has finally given them funding to develop their findings into a vaccine this last 12months. I'm sure there are similar stories with existing teams behind the other vaccines also.
There is plenty of information out there as to why the vaccines are safe, but that will never satisfy anti-vaxxers. Unfortunately facts are been drowned out by hysteria from a minority, and this is where the media and governments are failing, in some cases this suits their own agendas but it's coming back.to bite them on their arses.
It does not really equate, I just find it bizzare the willingnes and unified action from the public, govt. and industry in the face of this pandemic, but it seems that we believe we are immune to the effects of our polluted enviroment despite mountains of scientific evidence and we find reason to prevaricate endlessly.
Just proves what a bunch of bickering idiots we are no?
There's a correlation between air pollution and respiratory diseases yes.
I also agree it needs tackling, but like all effects that take time to build up, smoking, shit diets, asbestos etc, until there is a tipping point in terms of evidence governments won't act. The more cases where deaths are recorded as due to air pollution will tip the scales eventually, but it will also need the general public to start raising concerns with their mps etc.
When you still have articles equating cyclists as right wing nut cases oppressing poor old car drivers there is a way to go. Not seen much by way of oppressed journalists banging on about their rights to smoke indoors in recent years.
Still unsure how air pollution ties in with anti-vaxxers...
The caveat that long-term side-effects are highly unlikely isn’t very scientific
unless you consider that other vaccines that have gone through the same regimes of testing have very rarely been found to have long term side effects.
the short term effects of covid are pretty well established.
the longer terms of covid for the 1/20 who contract it are apparently varied and range from mild to really very serious indeed.
on the other hand you have vaccines that are going through extensive tests that have been developed over a prolonged period and it is likely that by the time they get to the 40s - 50s age group and younger they will be in millions upon millions of people. think of it as an extended trial if you like, with those taking part highly motivated to do so, so it's up to you if you like those odds.
i think the concern about possible long term side effects is a legitimate one but personally my concern over the chances of getting this in the first place and then the potential consequences of contracting this thing significantly outway what i view as an extremely low risk of long term effects from the information i have consumed.
place your bet. all of life is risk.
if you don't want to play you know what the options are.
crucially if you decide that the risk is the other way for you that's a perfectly legitimate view but you really must not try to convince others. for many people it would be a fairly natural thing to do as a way of reassuring yourself that you are doing the right thing. however doing that makes you an anti vaxxer. that makes you dangerous. IMO.
I think it was the point that people are concerned that their (in)actions infringe on the rights of others or vice versa (like clean air or water) and we should have laws etc, that would have to apply to everything or nothing.
i dip into this thread from time to time out of interest, not understanding any of the technical science behind a lot of the posts which go straight over my head.
as a layman, could i ask a couple of questions that i dont know the answer to and havent seen an answer to yet, although i havent read every post. however, i tend to get my news/info from here rather than tv/social media, so figure this thread is the best place to ask.
1. do we know yet if the vaccine will stop people spreading the virus? or is it just to ensure the consequences of catching it arent serious enough to trouble the NHS? so if youve been vaccinated, can you still catch the virus in the usual ways, and thus spread it about in the same way even tho you dont become unwell yourself?
2. if this is the case, then should we really worry if someone decides not to have the vaccine, as it will still spread the same anyway? arent they only putting themselves at risk? and that person 'dropping out' means another takes advantage of it that wouldnt have had it themselves so 'cost neutral' in the big scheme of things?
so long as all the vaccines available are being taken, which i believe will be the case as itll take a long time to get round to having any 'spare', then isnt this ok? and on that note, should we even applaud a relatively young, fit person saying "no thanks, ill take my chances on the seriousness of the virus on me, and let someone more vulnerable overtake me in the queue".
i realise that this is an emotive subject, people are being shot down in flames for some of their comments, and im not trying to wind anyone up or play devils advocate here, i realise its too important for that. i genuinely dont know the answer to the first point, and depending on the answer to that, i dont know the answer to my second point.
thanks
get some perspective people.
My perspective is that without the unpleasant restrictive measures we've had to put in place, Covid related deaths across Europe would be up around that level too.
do we know yet if the vaccine will stop people spreading the virus?
no. from what i understand it is likely but that's basically what we'll find out when a large proportion of people get vaccinated. primary reason for vaccinating now is to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the extent that it's so busy it can't treat someone who's had a heart attack, for instance, and (later) to allow some normalcy to return to life and therefore get the economy going again.
your second point is really a matter of opinion hinging on facts not yet established. it's moot.
1/ we don't know - hence it's not being claimed (briefing yesterday the question was specifically asked). There's a hope but this is going to be tracked in a study group and then we'll know better.
2/ Yes..... if that's all that's at play. But we also have to balance that the young, active vaccine-refusers are possibly also the ones more likely to not follow the rules and thus more likely to catch and spread. This sort of thing is where the epidimiological and the behavioural modellers work, to try to predict how that plays out and hence who benefits most from the earliest vaccinations.
Unlike the science of the vaccine itself this is not exact and is where I'm more prepared to accept that politicians might spin the models based on some other factors (effect on economy and even populism, doing what their voter base wants them to do)
But the science of the vaccine is not modelling, and is also independant (companies, Unis and regulatory bodies) - so to answer anyone that will argue they are being less that truthful based on a 'political' motivation, I disagree.
My perspective is that without the unpleasant restrictive measures we’ve had to put in place, Covid related deaths across Europe would be up around that level too.
Covid related deaths are already around that level - realistically well above it when you take Russia and the 9M window of infection into account. It is an interesting point though.
i think the concern about possible long term side effects is a legitimate one but personally my concern over the chances of getting this in the first place and then the potential consequences of contracting this thing significantly outway what i view as an extremely low risk of long term effects from the information i have consumed.
This is my thinking. Worst case we could have a big problem in say 2 years time when a long term side effect emerges but the vaccine is not that different than many others and are there any vaccines that have had widespread bad side effects?
this provides one view
Everyone, including myself at times, describes this particular piece of vaccine development as a precipitous foot race that started at the beginning of this year, when in truth, some very forward-thinking people were well aware of the pandemic-potential of coronaviruses and had already been developing vaccine templates capable of countering them, then just added the relevant genetic sequences from Covid 19 to their existing work.
This is from this morning's Mail, of all places:
Reading a news website, Prof Gilbert’s attention was drawn to worrying reports of a new virus causing pneumonia-like symptoms that had surfaced 5,000 miles away, in the little-known Chinese city of Wuhan.
Having worked in immunology for 25 years and having anticipated that the world would one day be confronted with a seemingly unstoppable pandemic, she had already pioneered a ‘plug-and-play’ type of vaccine which she believed could be adapted to combat multiple types of infection – among them coronaviruses.
Now its moment had arrived.
First, though, she and her team needed to know the genetic coding of the strange novel virus.
When this information arrived from China (by way of a ping on Prof Lambe’s mobile) on January 11, it was as if the chequered flag had come down, sparking a frantic global race between more than a dozen teams competing to produce the first safe and effective vaccine.
Determined to be first out of the starting grid that weekend, Prof Lambe barely slept, working through the night ‘in my pyjamas in my bedroom, trying to get this done with my colleagues’, and barely seeing her family.
Astonishingly, by January 13 – just 48 hours after receiving the code – Prof Gilbert and her colleagues had succeeded in modifying her existing template. The vaccine had been designed. Developed from the type of virus that causes the common cold in chimpanzees, and disabled so it is harmless to humans, it had been modified with tiny fragments of the genetic code from Covid-19’s distinctive spike.
The Mrna vaccines are similar - the current Pfizer/Moderna vaccines are the product of work dating from many years before Covid was a twinkle in the saliva of a friendly bat.
‘if it’s not taken 10 years it can’t be safe’ nonsense. I find it amazing that someone capable of dribbling in a straight line (and you clearly are) is so behind the curve
But I haven’t ever said it can’t be or isn’t safe.
Most drugs end up having ten years for late side-effects to show up. This one has had nine months. That is a difference.
That’s not to say that this is a problem, or that the vaccine isn’t safe, or that people shouldn’t take it.
But it is a difference. Acknowledging and addressing that is more likely to reassure a sceptic than just repeating over and over it’s the same, it’s the same, it’s the same.
Last word from me. As an anti vaxxer, you’re either complicit in causing unnecessary death, or you’re too stupid to realise you’re complicit in causing unnecessary death, chose which one of those applies to you.
Last word to you: Please read what people say before slagging them off. It doesn’t get more unequivocal than “I am not an anti-vaxxer”.
Most drugs end up having ten years for late side-effects to show up. This one has had nine months. That is a difference.
This isn't a drug in the same sense - most drugs are small molecules in comparison. What they are and how they work cannot be directly compared.
Oh god is this 'devil's advocate/trolling' still going on.
Thank you to Mcckruiskeen most recently and others who have replied helpfully and amicably.
Just to recap:
I am not an anti-vaxxer and I am not opposed to the new vaccines, so I don’t need convincing of science.
I simply wanted to understand the depth of feeling about anti-vaxxers.
This seems to boil down to “they kill people”.
I asked how many, but nobody has been able to tell me.
I have also made the mistake of questioning aspects of this ill-feeling, and some of the arguments made, and largely been shut down.
Ironically, this is exactly how I have been treated my anti-vaxxers when attempting to engage with them.
I would just say that you can never, ever, know another person or their life or circumstances, and should never rush to judge them.
Which sounds a bit Christian, which I’m not, but there we go.
Happy New Year!
Well, why do you think there’s so much Ill feeling towards anti vaxxers?
I posted this on another thread but it seems to fit here tbh
At the wifes work they are now contacting anyone and everyone included staff to take the vaccine as they can’t get enough of the vulnerable to take it before its shelf life runs out as not many people seem willing to take it tbh
Don't know what its like elsewhere but there seems to be an unwillingness to take it
I've heard they've underbooked appointments, they can't overbook and send the public away if too many turn up. Couple that to no-shows for whatever reason (and being mainly elderly there is reliance on lifts / transport) so any spare doses are then being used on staff. Seems entirely rational to me.
Don’t know what its like elsewhere but there seems to be an unwillingness to take it
The pensioners of north west London are mad for it! 😀
Quite a lot of them can see being able to get out of their houses at some point in the future and are quite keen for it to happen.
Well there appears to be a fair few vaccines going to the bin round our way for whatever reason
I simply wanted to understand the depth of feeling about anti-vaxxers.
This seems to boil down to “they kill people”.
I asked how many, but nobody has been able to tell me.
And in all probability nobody will because it's a very difficult question to quantify with any degree of accuracy.
For instance: Would you accept as a truism the suggestion that some people voted Leave because of the constant drip-drip anti-immigrant / anti-EU / anti-'other' headlines they've been reading on the front pages of certain newspapers for years? You would have to be incredibly naive to argue that this wasn't the case, that absolutely no-one's view has ever been swayed by that commentary. But now ask the question, "how many?" Who knows.
If you shout about something loudly enough, some people will believe you. If that weren't the case, no-one would do it. Hell, that's literally where we get the word "forum" from.
there seems to be an unwillingness to take it
There is no shortage of people wanting the vaccination, nor will there be for months to come. The first vaccine in use has very strict handling requirements, hence the “fill gaps with health staff” approach, which is entirely sensible and understandable… and anyone suggesting that it is a sign that there is a shortage of people in the community happy to take up the vaccine are best avoided, for now. Worry about them in six to nine months time, when we do get down to the reluctant citizens.
Well there appears to be a fair few vaccines going to the bin round our way for whatever reason
Source?
I’m part of the vaccination group for a major health trust. Take up in care homes has been very, very high and also amongst staff prioritised under the JCVI guidelines.
DNAs are generally low, and usually the result of people getting pinged to self isolate at the last minute.
Most wastage we saw was down to spare vaccine in the vials, but the dosing guidelines have been amended from 5 to 6 to fix that
Has anyone heard anything on how the vaccine reacts with antibodies
As I understand it its a different kind of thing but you'd have thought antibodies had some kind of reaction, I only ask as ive just had my second antibodies test results back and I yet again still have antibodies after having it in april
Or just has an opinion that differs to yours?
That's the second time you've said that now so you're clearly angling for a bite. What exactly are you disagreeing with?
The argument that the vaccine has been properly tested, yes it has, no doubt about it, trust me I’m a scientist, no corners have been cut, it’s gone through everything every other drug goes through, you’re an idiot if you don’t believe it, etc, is a bit weak though and doesn’t really do anyone any favours.
This is the "I don't understand it so it can't be true" fallacy much beloved by religious types. The critical thing you're missing is, science does not require your understanding in order to work.
They’d do better to say “needs must”.
Needs do must. Happy? Next question?
(Not really a compelling argument in a thread discussing anti-vaxxers and the more cuddly-sounding "vaccine hesitant" though, is it. Reckon the hesitant are gonna hear that and then go "oh, alright then"?)
The caveat that long-term side-effects are highly unlikely isn’t very scientific. The vaccines haven’t been tested for as long as other drugs, fact.
Saying "fact" doesn't make something factual, the phrase you're grasping for there is (in fact) "I think".
We've been inoculating against viruses for over two centuries (fact!), this is mature technology, it isn't something new and poorly understood. It's like arguing that someone who's been making blue paint for 200 years wouldn't have the first clue how to make green paint.
(They're also probably long overdue for retirement by now, but hey.)
That’s the second time you’ve said that now so you’re clearly angling for a bite. What exactly are you disagreeing with?
In the context you quoted me, nickc calling people dumb ****
It’s like arguing that someone who’s been making blue paint for 200 years wouldn’t have the first clue how to make green paint.
No, it's like arguing that someone who made green paint for the first time a year ago doesn't know for certain it'll stick to my house for ten years just because their blue paint does.
Dulux (science-based too I imagine) make that kind of promise, and have you ever known their paint stick that long? It might do in a laboratory but it doesn't on my house.
But what I was actually arguing was that if you've been making blue paint for ten years and green paint for one year, you shouldn't claim that you have exactly the same level of experience of both paints. You don't, and people might not trust you on other things either if you do.
And it is a fact, however much you try to deny it. It was first administered to a human this year, not ten years ago.
So I don't think this is a good approach to convincing the sceptics. Trust me: I am very much on the front line.
Chrispo having spent some time in the coatings industry, your anology is shite.
We had a lab full of scientists whose actual job it was to understand why the blue paint stuck to your house. Thus when we made green paint they knew how to make it stick. They understood at a molecular level the difference between all manners of pigment so that you could achieve the disered result without expirementing on your customers.
You remind me of the religious types who use the watchmaker anology without understanding anything about how a watch is made, or human anatomy.
So I don’t think this is a good approach to convincing the sceptics
Is it someones job to do this?
convincing the sceptics ... Is it someones job to do this?
Yes. Against expectations, relying on random people slagging off anti-vaxxers on obscure internet forums hasn't had the desired results, so the government has allocated a budget of £29.6m for a new task force to change their minds scientifically.
having spent some time in the coatings industry, your anology is shite.
I don't want to paint myself into a corner so I will bow to your greater experience and get my coat...
HNY
