there is no right to shout names at people for having a different level of risk aversion
Our way out of this is still vaccinations. Social measures can not go on for ever. If you're against the vaccination route of out of a pandemic state and towards an endemic one, then you'll be part of a collective that will be costing us all socially and economically. It has already prevented our NHS functioning properly this Autumn, and cost many people I know in terms of their treatment and health. Don't be part of that problem. Help us move on. Get vaccinated. Get boosted.
@kelvin. I have already had it once - honestly I am not at all concerned about getting it again. Really I am not. I may be being gung-ho but I have nearly died twice through illness and Covid, for me, was not even nearly as bad as the monster cold that has just been doing the rounds and was not nearly as bad as the side effects of jab 1.
However, regardless of your concern for me, I think most people would - by the standards of this thread at least - consider my wife to be a selfish **** for not having her booster. She does not have any underlying health conditions but like me, is not comfortable with the idea of multiple doses of a vaccine at such short intervals. And like me thinks the current reporting of Omicron is, at the very least, completely at odds with the guidance and laws implemented with the laughable intent of slowing its spread. Nor are we going to let the boy have his jab if and when it is cleared for 5-12 yo's.
I don't know about "selfish", I don't know enough about her. But her decision is a tiny part of a large problem that has a cost for everyone else.
I'm happy for people to characterise my small family Christmas as "selfish", it probably is.
Ignore any mud slinging
Even better, lets all stop the mud slinging. The more compassion we show to each other and our differing views, the better we'll navigate a way though this shit and the happier this thread and the world in general will be without getting in to entrenched positions.
Jesus, I can't believe how hippy that sounds especially from someone as intolerant to all of humanity as me. 😮
Get vaccinated. Get boosted.
I am. Both. Months ago
There needs to be a recognition that some won't for whatever reason and getting so angry about it to the point you're venting abuse on a mountain biking forum will only negatively affect your quality of life.
As long as the majority are vaccinated that is the best we can hope for and marginalising those who aren't (through choice, age or medical reasons) isn't going to make a jot of difference in the grand scheme of things
There are many, many risks to life we deal with on a daily basis and this is now just another one and we need to accept that or we will never move on from this, ever.
Nor are we going to let the boy have his jab if and when it is cleared for 5-12 yo’s.
You'll let him be jabbed for German Measles though, yes?
Presumably this is impossible to answer due to vaccinations but do we have any idea if how you reacted to one version of Covid 19 is how you would react to a newer version?
You’ll let him be jabbed for German Measles though, yes?
The JCVI stated that the medical benefit of the jab for 12-15 yo's was marginal and indeed went on not to recommend its use but were overridden by the CMO's for 'the greater good'.
In this country until this point vaccinations for children have only ever been given when there is a medical benefit to the child. And again, as yet there is no long term data on the use of mRNA vaccines in general nor specifically the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
So at this stage, yes I was more than happy for him to have his normal childhood vaccines and as stated before even paid for his meningitis one as there was a clear medical rationale for doing so. That rationale is not present for vaccinating young children against Covid.
I’m more worried about you getting ill yourself if you avoid the booster. Ignore the “selfish” comments, and go and talk to your clinic for your pre-existing condition about what is best for *you*. Please. Ignore any mud slinging, and look after yourself, and your family.
Plus one for the proper medical advice. It may be the experts feel you really ought to have it because of your condition? Who knows.
But definitely we need to stop the name calling. There's degrees of risk aversion, and degrees of social contract that are necessary to avoid mental health issues, and they need to be balanced with wider public health and economic issues.
But backing up your preferred decision with some pseudo science from Dr Karen on YouTube is not a clever thing to do.
In this country until this point vaccinations for children have only ever been given when there is a medical benefit to the child.
There is ZERO medical benefit for your son when it comes to being vaccinated for German Measles. It is to protect people who have not even been born yet.
And again, as yet there is no long term data on the use of mRNA vaccines in general nor specifically the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
So, a few years down the line you'll consider mRNA vaccines for him? I still don't get why you still consider them more dangerous than any other recent vaccine, but I don't think I ever will.
But backing up your preferred decision with some pseudo science from Dr Karen on YouTube is not a clever thing to do
Some people may do that. I can say hand on heart I have not watch any anti-vax YouTubers, unfriend anyone on Facebook posting anti0vax or other conspiracy theory bollocks etc.
My decision is simply borne out of my own concern that we have never had a vaccine that has been repeatedly and regularly pumped into us and that there may just be long term effects of that. So, until there is clear data that it is absolutely 100% safe I ain't doing it.
Other than the Yellow Card thing which was a genuine mistake on my part and didn't even realise there was a whole anti-vax thing on it I cannot think of any time I have tried to back up my rationale with someone else's pseudoscience.
There is ZERO medical benefit for your son when it comes to being vaccinated for German Measles. It is to protect people who have not even been born yet.
But it is included in the MMR jab so a little difficult to avoid given the dangers of Mumps and Measles.
But it is included in the MMR jab so a little difficult to avoid
So a MMRC jab would be fine with you?
[ not going to happen, don't worry... combined flu and coronavirus jabs make much more sense ]
we have never had a vaccine that has been repeatedly and regularly pumped into us
Which "we"? Have you seen how high an uptake there is for flu vaccines in other countries? Not as high here, but plenty of people I know have a flu jab every year, including my family.
The JCVI stated that the medical benefit of the jab for 12-15 yo’s was marginal and indeed went on not to recommend its use but were overridden by the CMO’s for ‘the greater good’.
I thought their judgement was that the benefits outweigh the risks by so little that they decided not to mandate it, and I also thought that they did not consider the broader, societal impacts.
And again, as yet there is no long term data on the use of mRNA vaccines in general nor specifically the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
They're the most closely-scrutinised, most heavily-tested vaccines in history, based on technology we've been researching and testing for years. I further understand that vaccine side effects emerge in weeks.
No it wouldn't. At that point I would insist (as indeed you can even now) on separate M & M jabs and leave the other two. Indeed if the option stopped becoming available on the NHS I would pay for the M & M jabs privately.
But, as with my own choice not to get the booster this is at the moment. If and when the long-term data becomes available and it is demonstrably safe, I would reconsider.
There is ZERO medical benefit for your son when it comes to being vaccinated for German Measles. It is to protect people who have not even been born yet.
That's an interesting point. Of course, our society wouldn't work if only narrow self-interest ruled; the free-rider problem, paying taxes, etc. That isn't to say that all social action is justified of course.
But, as with my own choice not to get the booster this is at the moment. If and when the long-term data becomes available and it is demonstrably safe, I would reconsider.
That sounds good. Have another look at the data soon though. We're already at year two for large scale field data, and even longer for medical trails... so keep an eye on it and keep reconsidering (for your own booster) please.
If and when the long-term data becomes available and it is demonstrably safe, I would reconsider.
How would you make that determination out of interest?
They’re the most closely-scrutinised, most heavily-tested vaccines in history, based on technology we’ve been researching and testing for years. I
Source? They have not been tested as thoroughly as any other vaccine in history as there have been no long term trials of them prior to release. An understandable position under the circumstances but they are not the most heavily test vaccines ever.
With regards to side effects - immediate short term side effects yes but we do not know whether it is entirely safe to keep pumping the same vaccine in over and over again at three month intervals and longer term issues may arise from this. Of course they may not but at this stage we simply do not know.
We’re already at year two for large scale field data, and even longer for medical trails…
Not for regular repeated doses we don't. And note the suggestion that we now have 1-2 years of field data would imply that the general population has been used as a testbed - myself included in that of course and as I say I was happy to risk two doses.
@i_scoff_cake - if in 3-4 years of regular boosters people are not showing adverse autoimmune responses and the like I will reconsider.
1-2 years of field data would imply that the general population has been used as a testbed
If there wasn't the trials, that might be true. But there were. But things can be learnt from field data when it comes to all medicines, medical equipment, and vaccines... and not just new ones... and so we're back to the yellow card reporting again. Having proper reporting of what happens in the field is essential, but shouldn't be interpreted as an alternative to proper testing, or that there was something especially lacking in the medical trials for something where we choose to record any adverse effects in the field... we capture such data for everything.
Being ultra-cautious is fine, but I wonder if you apply this consistently? Have you ever walked or driven over a relatively new bridge or driven in a new model car, for example?
What I'm getting is that many people who are applying this extreme caution to coronavirus vaccines are surely not similarly extremely cautious in other aspects of their life. It's a peculiar hill they wish to fight on.
If there wasn’t the trials, that might be true
Shortened trials...
Being ultra-cautious is fine, but I wonder if you apply this consistently? Have you ever walked or driven over a relatively new bridge or driven in a new model car, for example?
No, can't say I have. And look what happens when the testing regime is shortened (Boeing for eg). Never ends well.
Shortened trials…
I'll leave that one for others closer to research and trials to address. Keep talking. Keep considering. I've gotta go though...
Source? They have not been tested as thoroughly as any other vaccine in history as there have been no long term trials of them prior to release. An understandable position under the circumstances but they are not the most heavily test vaccines ever.
Multiple labs working in union towards a common goal globally, with ample funding and a ready supply of volunteers? That's never been done before. And it went through exactly the same test phases as any other vaccine you wouldn't think twice about, on a larger scale and with a sharper focus.
With regards to side effects – immediate short term side effects yes but we do not know whether it is entirely safe to keep pumping the same vaccine in over and over again at three month intervals and longer term issues may arise from this. Of course they may not but at this stage we simply do not know.
"May not"? 🙂 What are your concerns?
And it went through exactly the same test phases as any other vaccine you wouldn’t think twice about,
No, it did not. There was no longer term testing which would usually be undertaken.
As I have stated many times, we simply do not know the long term effect of multiple repeated vaccinations. With just about any medicine long term and sustained use leads to contraindications over time and we do not know, for example, if there could be lasting damage to our immune response by having it constantly triggered over and over again for the same illness.
Even the flu jab is only once a year and a different composition each time for different strains (the different flu strains not being the same thing as variants of the same strain) so that is not comparable with having your immune system triggered every 3 months by the same vaccine each time.
Test sites are rammed in South London. My 6 and 4 yos had a temp obey night and a cough this morning so had to get them tested, busy busy busy. Did a PCR myself. Also did a LF which was negative, I was surprised, I felt sure this was it.
for example, if there could be lasting damage to our immune response by having it constantly triggered over and over again for the same illness.
As an eg - could it become so 'specialised' at fighting Covid it becomes less effective at fighting over illnesses. Doesn't seem a totally outrageous proposition when you are 'training' it every 3-6 months to do just that.
There was no longer term testing which would usually be undertaken.
What long-term testing do you think was missed? Vaccines undergo three phases of testing - these have had all three.
As I have stated many times, we simply do not know the long term effect of multiple repeated vaccinations. With just about any medicine long term and sustained use leads to contraindications over time and we do not know, for example, if there could be lasting damage to our immune response by having it constantly triggered over and over again for the same illness.
I'm unsure if 3 vaccines in 6 months constitute long-term sustained use? Certainly not heard anything to cause alarm on that front since hundreds of millions started getting vaccinated. I'm not a scientist (like you can't tell... 🙂 ) but I would hope that immune systems are reasonably well able to cope with exposure to the same disease numerous times.
As an eg – could it become so ‘specialised’ at fighting Covid it becomes less effective at fighting over illnesses. Doesn’t seem a totally outrageous proposition.
Interesting. What is your proposed mechanism for this?
As an eg – could it become so ‘specialised’ at fighting Covid it becomes less effective at fighting over illnesses. Doesn’t seem a totally outrageous proposition.
Kinda does, unless there's any evidence to the contrary?
I’m unsure if 3 vaccines in 6 months constitute long-term sustained use? Certainly not heard anything to cause alarm on that front since hundreds of millions started getting vaccinated. I’m not a scientist (like you can’t tell… 🙂 ) but I would hope that immune systems are reasonably well able to cope with exposure to the same disease numerous times.
However we are already being told that a 4th jab is likely to be needed soon and then regular boosters thereafter. And the immune system has never been exposed to repeated vaccines at such short intervals before so there has to be at least an element of doubt.
Kinda does, unless there’s any evidence to the contrary?
It is a risk, I personally, am not willing to take until there is evidence it cannot happen.
As an eg – could it become so ‘specialised’ at fighting Covid it becomes less effective at fighting over illnesses. Doesn’t seem a totally outrageous proposition.
Accepting your within your rights to have your concerns, I'm not hearing these concerns raised by any reputable medical or science specialist working in the field.
That doesn't reassure you at all?
It is a risk, I personally, am not willing to take until there is evidence it cannot happen.
Kind of tricky to prove a negative, unfortunately
Interesting. What is your proposed mechanism for this?
Biological systems evolve and change over time. If an immune system is constantly triggered and asked to fight the same thing over and over is it entirely impossible that it would not adapt to become a specialist in fighting that one thing at the expense of others?
A genuine question BTW.
Or, it starts to see normal cells as the enemy and triggers an autoimmune response. Autoimmune conditions are little understood even now hence why they are so difficult to treat and what triggers them isn't clear (as a chronic sufferer of one I know something of them).
And the immune system has never been exposed to repeated vaccines at such short intervals
<sigh>
Just off the top of my head, there are probably quite a few more:
Rabies vaccine - 3 doses in 28 days.
6 in 1 vaccine (diptheria, pertussis, polio, hib etc) doses at 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 16 weeks.
Autoimmune conditions are little understood even now hence why they are so difficult to treat and what triggers them isn’t clear
This is very true. Go and talk to your specialist and ignore any armchair advice from anyone on the internet (including on here).
Just off the top of my head, there are probably quite a few more:
Rabies vaccine – 3 doses in 28 days.
6 in 1 vaccine (diptheria, pertussis, polio, hib etc) doses at 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 16 weeks.
Yes however we are being primed for a lifetime of boosters. So, genuine question, let's suppose we need booster 4 at another 3 months and booster five at a further 6 months from then and then we are told we will need a booster every 3-6 months.
I am 45. So lets say I've got another 35 years in me (assuming I don't die from Covid for ignoring booster advice) - that's another 70 -140 vaccines for the exact same thing. Would you sign up to that without there being clear data that it was safe to do so? Fine if you would but I am not.
This is very true. Go and talk to your specialist and ignore any armchair advice from anyone on the internet (including on here).
My concern is not me anymore. Thankfully my condition is gone now thanks to having my bowel and rectum surgically removed. My concern is autoimmune conditions being triggered in other people. I would not wish in a million years for anyone to have gone through what I did. Apologies, I thought I had made that point in an earlier post but may not have done.
Longer term testing is not a regulatory requirement.
It normally happens by accident as it is rare that you have such a high level of infections to be able to demonstrate efficacy, so the trials would take several/many years with a much smaller number of patients.
Risk is assessed on a patient years incidence. So smaller number of patients would need many more years of data per patient, bigger number of patients less years per patient.
If you required many years of data per patient then very few medicines would be coming through in a reasonable time
Accepting your within your rights to have your concerns, I’m not hearing these concerns raised by any reputable medical or science specialist working in the field.
That doesn’t reassure you at all?
You mean like this?
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4347/rr-6
And note that specifically mentions the fact the longer term testing was not carried out. OK it is a single letter in the BMJ however I know of other medical professionals who have expressed some concern that there is, albeit a small risk, of long term autoimmune issues.
It states that longer term testing is not a requirement.
That is different to what you are suggesting, it is not a requirement for vaccines so as a stage it was not missed.
Should it be included? Now that is a different question and is worth discussing, but you cannot say that it was skipped, as it is not needed for regulatory approval
Yes however we are being primed for a lifetime of boosters
So far we have been offered one booster six months or so after the initial doses. The likelihood is that, perhaps not this year, but eventually, there would be an annual booster given to vulnerable individuals rather than the entire population prior to the winter season.
A bit like the flu vaccine I've been receiving annually for the last 15 years or so.
If repeated vaccination was responsible for long-term issues, you would expect to be seeing this even at longer intervals between jabs.
Is there any evidence from this or the other multi-dose vaccinations that are out there already (and have been for years) that this is the case?
A question for those who may have the capacity to answer:
Approx. 9.6M (~14% of UK population) [1] children in the UK under the age of 12 are not (currently) eligible for vaccination. Total vaccination of the UK population is 76% [2] (I've used first dose given teenagers haven't been offered a second dose yet and in general the vast majority who get a first dose will go on the get a second) leaving only 10% unvaccinated. Assuming 3% can't be vaccinated for medical reasons (I made this number up as medical exemption numbers aren't available on the internet that I could find) leaves 7% or 4.7M not vaccinated for other reasons.
Does and additional 7% over the 14% of children really cause us a significant issue in terms of transmission and therefore deaths?
Given under 5s are unlikely to ever be vaccinated (3.8M, ~5.6%) [1] what level of additional risk is posed by the extra 7% not being vaccinated either?
Gut feeling is statistically it'll make sod all difference in terms of whole population consequences (I can't be arsed to show my workings)
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/281174/uk-population-by-age/
[2] https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations
