475 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Deal J on Nov 20, 2020 11:25:33 GMT
Yeah, TB I think - I remember that one, it was like a big pepperpot.
|
|
4,047 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 20, 2020 11:43:07 GMT
Talking about the Flu vaccine, senior management at the lab where I work arranged for a local nurse to come in over a few weeks to give the vaccine to those who wanted it. Certainly, looking at the list of staff who put their names forward there was certainly a big uptake. Maybe this is the sort of thing other organizations could look at not only for the Flu but also the COVID vaccine to help the vaccination process later on. Yes, we've had that the past few years. It makes good sense - if you get a flu outbreak in the office that has a few people off sick for a week you'll lose far more money than the cost of the vaccinations. This year we've all been sent a voucher to use locally - but I haven't been able to get an appointment to actually get it yet. Though thinking about it I did give them my mobile phone number, which is now dead....
|
|
|
Post by firefingers on Nov 20, 2020 11:47:27 GMT
Risk is very low. Cost too. The answer seems to be that it has only ever been offered to those most at personal risk (the old and the young in the case of flu) which is a policy they're presumably going to abandon for the Covid vaccine. Hopefully they do abandon the policy but that wasnt the plan last month: www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-7889-4d5d-84a3-43e51355a751I feel our understanding of the virus and effects is progressing to a point where it is blindingly obvious we need a good 90% of the population vaccinated for it to actually work (plus effects of long covid, private companies choosing not to hire staff they think of as a risk, events including theatres refusing patrons, countries closing borders to the unvaccinated etc) I suspect that will change. But to do it quickly and well then it is going to cost a sh*t ton, and if the government donors can't skim 20% of the money then will they bother to crack on or just drag it out for a few years and save the cash? Time will tell.
|
|
585 posts
|
Post by christya on Nov 20, 2020 11:47:38 GMT
With TB you had to have the 'six pricks' (teehee, said all the primary school children) first to see if you needed the jab. Then the BCG afterward, which left a scar for most people. I still have mine. It was quite the horror story among kids about how dreadful it all was, I was quite surprised when it just hurt a bit. All the kerfuffle seemed a bit overdone for something that was just 'Ow, bye'.
It seems rather irresponsible to refuse the vaccine without good reason. None of us want this rubbish to go on forever - why should some people be able to take advantage of the improvements brought by a vaccine, without doing their bit? Once everyone has been offered it, I'd frankly make it a requirement for a hell of a lot of things. Some people genuinely cannot have this kind of jab so it's important for those who can to do so.
|
|
4,973 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Nov 20, 2020 11:49:48 GMT
My memory of the TB jab is that the five dot thing was a precursor to the actual vaccine being administered. I can't remember which way round it was, but if you reacted one way, I'm sure you were deemed to already have sufficient antibodies. As it turned out, the actual injection wasn't anything like as painful as we all imagined, but being 10, we didn't half work ourselves into a right lather. ETA: You posted while I was still writing, christya. Your experience sounds the same as mine. 🙂
|
|
18,902 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Nov 20, 2020 12:52:59 GMT
Yes I’m sure that would be it. There was never any question about having vaccinations back then as far as I remember. People just dutifully lined up and took what was on offer. I mean, given the choice between a sugar lump and being incapacitated for life because of polio.... no brainer?
|
|
3,938 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Nov 20, 2020 13:08:44 GMT
When I had the polio booster as a teenager I was deeply hacked off to find there was no sugar lump, just liquid squirted down the back of one's throat. It tasted disgusting & I thought it was far worse than having the other boosters injected at the same time. I don't recall being too worried about having the TB jab personally but evidently others were as I vividly remember walking into the school hall to have it done & there being several girls laid out on matresses, like a field hospital! I suspect they were collapsing due to axiety & perhaps mass hysteria rather than any actual physical effects of having the vaccie, as I strongly doubt any vaccine could cause side effects that quickly.
NB to opera directors: when you're directing a film of an opera where the heroine dies of TB, don't having your leading lady in a sleeveless bodice so on her bare arm the scar from her TB jab is clearly visible!
|
|
360 posts
|
Post by lichtie on Nov 20, 2020 13:28:04 GMT
Risk is very low. Cost too. The answer seems to be that it has only ever been offered to those most at personal risk (the old and the young in the case of flu) which is a policy they're presumably going to abandon for the Covid vaccine. I think the main reason they were hesitating before in England was lack of supply. They'd already run out near me and hadn't even finished the over 70s...
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 20, 2020 13:48:20 GMT
People in this thread are conflating anti-vaxers in general with people who are anti this particular vaccine. For example the MMR has been around for years, has been administered 500 million times and thus is known to be safe. It would be foolish to refuse it. However this vaccine has been around for a few months and has been tested on less than 100,000 people, it also uses an entirely new technology which has never been been approved before. For higher risk people it would seem obvious to take it - for young people at little risk from the disease itself the decision is less clear. There is no real downside for them to wait a few years before deciding, to see how safe this vaccine is in practice or to wait for a “conventional” vaccine (not based on genetic modification techniques) to come along. In the case of children I think it might even be medically unethical to give it to them unless the protection it offered was permanent.
|
|
894 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Nov 20, 2020 14:11:33 GMT
Well given this current conversation was kicked off by someone saying they wouldn't accept this pollution of their body it didn't really give the impression that they were just concerned about this vaccine being new.
I'm on an advisory committee at work and a colleague got in touch to demand the company didn't make the vaccine mandatory for staff. Out of the blue as this was months ago and there was no reason for her to think we would ever do that. At first she said it was because it would be too new but then to back up her argument she sent a 100+ page PDF of the most nonsense anti vax stuff including a chapter on Andrew Wakefield, scientific martyr.
From what I've seen online most of the resistance to this vaccine comes from being anti vaccine in general.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Nov 20, 2020 14:12:07 GMT
People in this thread are conflating anti-vaxers in general with people who are anti this particular vaccine. For example the MMR has been around for years, has been administered 500 million times and thus is known to be safe. It would be foolish to refuse it. However this vaccine has been around for a few months and has been tested on less than 100,000 people, it also uses an entirely new technology which has never been been approved before. For higher risk people it would seem obvious to take it - for young people at little risk from the disease itself the decision is less clear. There is no real downside for them to wait a few years before deciding, to see how safe this vaccine is in practice or to wait for a “conventional” vaccine (not based on genetic modification techniques) to come along. In the case of children I think it might even be medically unethical to give it to them unless the protection it offered was permanent. Has every poster against against this vaccine given that answer? If that is what they meant but did not convey the message as eloquently as you have done then I understand. But not sure all have said that
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Nov 20, 2020 15:02:06 GMT
With TB you had to have the 'six pricks' (teehee, said all the primary school children) first to see if you needed the jab. Then the BCG afterward, which left a scar for most people. I still have mine. It was quite the horror story among kids about how dreadful it all was, I was quite surprised when it just hurt a bit. All the kerfuffle seemed a bit overdone for something that was just 'Ow, bye'. It seems rather irresponsible to refuse the vaccine without good reason. None of us want this rubbish to go on forever - why should some people be able to take advantage of the improvements brought by a vaccine, without doing their bit? Once everyone has been offered it, I'd frankly make it a requirement for a hell of a lot of things. Some people genuinely cannot have this kind of jab so it's important for those who can to do so. Yes I also still have a very noticeable dent in my arm from the BCG - seems like a lot of people had injection site infections with that one, whereas for the HPV vaccine I have no scar at all! And I had this year's flu vaccine on Wednesday and already have no idea where the injection site was on my arm! Barely felt it at the time either.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Nov 20, 2020 15:06:35 GMT
There is no real downside for them to wait a few years before deciding, to see how safe this vaccine is in practice or to wait for a “conventional” vaccine (not based on genetic modification techniques) to come along. There is a real downside, because the purpose of a vaccine isn't just to protect the individual but also, and far more importantly, to protect the group. A vaccine gives your immune system a head start when it comes to fighting infection but it doesn't mean the disease can't touch you. You can still catch the disease, and if it's a terminal one you can still die from it. All the vaccine does is reduce the risk.
The power of a vaccine comes from its effect on the population as a whole. It not only reduces each individual's chance of catching the disease but also reduces the prevalence of the disease in the population, and the latter is orders of magnitude more powerful than the former. If you vaccinate only the most vulnerable the disease will carry on circulating in everyone else and you might reduce the chance of dying to 10% of its previous value, because the only protection is that provided by the vaccine itself. If you vaccinate most of the population then you can get the reproduction rate below 1, reduce the number of cases to one or two per million, and thereby reduce the chance of dying to something like 0.001% of its previous value, because you're coupling the protection the vaccine gives to each individual with the fact that most people will never encounter the disease at all.
|
|
3,102 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by david on Nov 20, 2020 16:54:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Nov 20, 2020 17:02:34 GMT
People in this thread are conflating anti-vaxers in general with people who are anti this particular vaccine. For example the MMR has been around for years, has been administered 500 million times and thus is known to be safe. It would be foolish to refuse it. However this vaccine has been around for a few months and has been tested on less than 100,000 people, it also uses an entirely new technology which has never been been approved before. For higher risk people it would seem obvious to take it - for young people at little risk from the disease itself the decision is less clear. There is no real downside for them to wait a few years before deciding, to see how safe this vaccine is in practice or to wait for a “conventional” vaccine (not based on genetic modification techniques) to come along. In the case of children I think it might even be medically unethical to give it to them unless the protection it offered was permanent. No real downside? I'd say carrying on with this lockdown stop start, a destroyed economy and social distancing for another few months will cause almost irreparable damage never mind a few years!
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Nov 21, 2020 11:29:50 GMT
Wow, anti-vaxxer and libertarian memes all popping up together... I reckon Laurence Fox is masquerading as a board member! To give the other side of the coin, just back from my booster as part of one of the trials. Yes, it's my body, and I believe in the benefits of participating as a wider good to society. Anyone who refuses to be vaccinated should be made to pay for all of their healthcare. ‘Freedom’ has consequences, otherwise it’s like not getting yourself insured and expecting a payout. Post war there was a much more communal expectation but we’ve devolved into a decadent phase in the last thirty/forty years or so. Not everyone but enough to be a societal threat.
|
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Nov 21, 2020 11:49:34 GMT
Anyone who refuses to be vaccinated should be made to pay for all of their healthcare. ‘Freedom’ has consequences, otherwise it’s like not getting yourself insured and expecting a payout. Post war there was a much more communal expectation but we’ve devolved into a decadent phase in the last thirty/forty years or so. Not everyone but enough to be a societal threat. I would strongly oppose any measure that would undermine the principle of free healthcare for all. But there could be other consequences: for example, allowing employers to specify vaccination as a condition of employment, or (more pertinent to this board) theatres refusing entry to the unvaccinated.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Nov 21, 2020 12:24:24 GMT
Anyone who refuses to be vaccinated should be made to pay for all of their healthcare. ‘Freedom’ has consequences, otherwise it’s like not getting yourself insured and expecting a payout. Post war there was a much more communal expectation but we’ve devolved into a decadent phase in the last thirty/forty years or so. Not everyone but enough to be a societal threat. I would strongly oppose any measure that would undermine the principle of free healthcare for all. But there could be other consequences: for example, allowing employers to specify vaccination as a condition of employment, or (more pertinent to this board) theatres refusing entry to the unvaccinated. What's wrong with theatres refusing the unvaccinated? Why should they be allowed to come in and spread the virus while willingly refusing the treatnent?
|
|
1,848 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Nov 21, 2020 12:28:56 GMT
Vaccines along with antibiotics are the success stories of 20th Century medicine and there is a good chance of some of us on this forum would not be here were it not for vaccines.
The issue I believe comes down to illness as being something that happens to other people and therefore preventative measures are seen as an impingement on their free will and way of life and any risk to this is seen as too high even though the risks we take each day by living would outweigh any of a vaccine.
All medicines have an impact on our biochemistry by definition otherwise why take them, I do not know any anti-Vaxxers but would not be surprised if many if not all do take post illness medication such as antibiotics, insulin, statins and the multitude of other medications prescribed in their millions every day.
I also find the chipping argument laughable, placing a chip in ‘Walkers Crisps’ would be a lot more effective and a hell of a lot cheaper.
Also take those that criticise Bill Gates on population control, he is giving the developing Countries the choice we now have due to the measures we introduced generations ago to control our population, in these Countries they have large families as infant mortality is high and Bill Gates wants to reduce the drive for large families just so a few can reach adulthood and they are able to live the lives we lead. We never say in the U.K. that people who choose 1 or 2 children are practicing population control whilst in fact that is what they are doing.
When watching Who Do You Think You Are nearly all are surprised how many of their relatives died in childhood and we need all nations to be confident that their children will reach adulthood.
I read somewhere but have been unable to corroborate that it was only in the early 60’s that being under one was no longer the age with the greatest mortality in Britain.
|
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Nov 21, 2020 12:37:16 GMT
I would strongly oppose any measure that would undermine the principle of free healthcare for all. But there could be other consequences: for example, allowing employers to specify vaccination as a condition of employment, or (more pertinent to this board) theatres refusing entry to the unvaccinated. What's wrong with theatres refusing the unvaccinated? Why should they be allowed to come in and spread the virus while willingly refusing the treatnent? I didn't say there would be anything wrong with it. I'm just presenting it as a potential consequence of refusing to be vaccinated. By no means am I saying there should be no consequences; just that the withholding of free healthcare shouldn't be one of them.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Nov 23, 2020 19:11:30 GMT
I'm sitting here waiting for Trump to claim credit for the Oxford vaccine.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 23, 2020 19:50:31 GMT
Hasn't someone already said the vaccine should be named Trump in his honour? And sadly I kid not.
Found my mother moaning about the jab, having to have two! How can it have been developed so quickly yada yada yada but she's a Lawrence Fox fan so I had little hope there.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Nov 23, 2020 20:23:30 GMT
Hasn't someone already said the vaccine should be named Trump in his honour? I remember that. (Searches.) Geraldo Rivera of Fox News.
I think a better idea would be for Trump to mean a planetary scale hissy fit where you try to wreck everything just because it turns out the world doesn't revolve around you. "I didn't get my five year old an iPad for his birthday. Ooh, he threw such a Trump!"
|
|
875 posts
|
Post by daisy24601 on Nov 23, 2020 20:52:18 GMT
I probably would, I trust it. But I won't because I don't mind dying soon.
|
|
|
Post by sph on Nov 24, 2020 0:38:27 GMT
I will ABSOLUTELY DEFINITELY HAPPILY be getting vaccinated. The sooner we all do it the sooner we can get our lives back on track.
I don't understand the anti-vax movement at all. Maybe it comes down to the resistance to taking medicine if you aren't already sick? "I'm fine, why do I need it?"- or something like that. I'd rather take the very very very minutely small risk of something being wrong with the vaccine than spend the rest of my days watching a virus cause a total economic collapse and leave me with no career and no social life.
And how are vaccines and phone apps going to allow the government to start "tracking and controlling" us anyway? When we are born, our birth is registered, we register with doctors and with schools, we are given a unique national insurance number and we register our cars with individual license plates. Then we carry plastic cards which make a record of each shop we've spent money in and sign up to websites with our addresses and carry our phones with us which we use to tag our locations and upload photos of ourselves all day on social media.
Why would the government need to microchip us? You're already listed in more databases than you could ever even know about! That's just modern society. Go get your vaccines people. The government doesn't want to put a GPS dot in you just to watch you go shopping in Primark in Milton Keynes on a Sunday afternoon.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Nov 24, 2020 1:09:22 GMT
Unfortunately being in a category of being very vulnerable, I have absolutely no choice but to have it. But then again if I wasn’t vulnerable I would still take it, as ultimately I don’t want to spread to other people.
In America the Government has bought so many millions of jabs, which are free. However you have to claim on your health insurance for the administration.
|
|
4,605 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Nov 24, 2020 8:15:50 GMT
Unfortunately being in a category of being very vulnerable, I have absolutely no choice but to have it. But then again if I wasn’t vulnerable I would still take it, as ultimately I don’t want to spread to other people. In America the Government has bought so many millions of jabs, which are free. However you have to claim on your health insurance for the administration. But you don't actually have to take it. You want to take it so you go back to a your former lifestyle Even the most vulnerable are not been forced to take it. It's still a choice.
|
|
22 posts
|
Post by rosie on Nov 26, 2020 12:05:45 GMT
Can't wait personally. The extremely low risk of any issues with a vaccine are nothing to get out from this constrained isolated life we're presently living
|
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Nov 27, 2020 0:06:52 GMT
I'm waiting to see how the government goes about this. If they give the job of administering the vaccines to the NHS, I'll be first in line (or at least whatever position in line my priority grouping allows me to be). If they give it to Pestfix, I may have to think twice.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Nov 27, 2020 18:40:28 GMT
My mates missus has massively ran with the anti-vax thing. Makes me laugh when she starts about the vaccine being unknown when she had no problems taking bombs of magic back in her kitchen after parklife
|
|