• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

COVID vaccination

there are three groups regards this vaccine.

Those who want it yesterday
Those who want to wait a while for a variety of reasons. I include myself in this category.
Those who do not want it under any circumstances

In my practice i have come across mothers with children who have had no vaccinations whatsoever, even killers like polio. I am not anti-vaccination at all, far from it. I am just very wary of the speed at which these covid vaccines have been rolled out. I am no guinea-pig.
 
There are another 2 groups you missed out
Those that waited too long, then didn't make it
Those that got through it and wished they had gone for the vaccine when it was on offer.

There is another group who should be mentioned as well, those who got through it but have permanent or long term disabilities as a direct result of Covid. This could end in a lifelong regret of listening to the anti-vaxers.

You say 'In my practice'. Are you an HCP? If you are then whatever happened to "First Do No Harm"
 
Oldvatr said:
Those that waited too long, then didn't make it
Click to expand...

Who couldn't have had it anyway as it's not yet available so a non argument..

Oldvatr said:
Those that got through it and wished they had gone for the vaccine when it was on offer.
Click to expand...

Again a non argument as no-one has so far had that opportunity or been able to take that decision

Oldvatr said:
whatever happened to "First Do No Harm"
Click to expand...

And if over time the vaccine is shown to be harmful then what?
What will have happened to first do no harm?
 
I will get annual flu jab but I think I’m going to give this Pfizer jab a miss for now. I’m abit scared because of the length time it took to make it...
 
Oldvatr said:
Since when has the Wail been the fount of all knowledge? Do you actually believe what you are saying?
Click to expand...

I thought the quote from the CEO of Pfizer gave it sufficient authority..

And yes I believe that we should question whether a hastily prepared, poorly tested vaccine should be distributed willy nilly into our aged and frail population.. don't you?

The government reaction to the entire "pandemic" has been poorly thought out and badly managed if not directly harmful to many of the people it has been alleged to protect. Why should the vaccine be any different.. how can the MHRA be the only entity on the planet to have approved its use so far?
 
Last edited:

I watched the interview on CNN, and it was clear he was being quite truthful about it, No one is making that claim in the world, not even the Chinese or the Russians. No one is making the claim that their vaccine will prevent onward transmission of the virus, That is a wishful thinking aim that so far has not been demonstrated by anyone anywhere in the universe, It is a poor excuse to diss the Pfizer vaccine over this since that is NOT the aim of a vaccine. The primary aim is to prevent infections in the first place which it seems it achieves well. It is prophylactic, and the fact that it also seems to be therapeutic as well is a bonus.

As to the old and frail, this was indeed tested by all the tranche 3 trials, and the Moderna vaccine seems to offer slightly better age effectiveness than the Pfizer one. The Oxford vaccine is looking to improve on that for the over 60's but their trial is still ongoing,

I note that you do not recognise that this is a pandemic. It has already killed 1.5M worldwide and is on track to kill over half a million Americans this year, Do you need more proof, or will it require another couple of years of this to convince you?
 
Oldvatr said:
. It has already killed 1.5M worldwide
Click to expand...

Which is a grand of 10 days worth of deaths that happen anyway.. over 150,000 people die every single day globally.
It simply isn't that big a deal.
Context has been completely lost during the reporting of this virus.
 
So Sad. That is a fatuous argument, and I am surprised you hold to it,
 
Oldvatr said:
So Sad. That is a fatuous argument, and I am surprised you hold to it,
Click to expand...

Again it is completely accurate and truthful..not sad at all just reality.

I refuse to be frightened by data.

Surprised you have been made so fearful.
 
bulkbiker said:
Again it is completely accurate and truthful..not sad at all just reality.

I refuse to be frightened by data.

Surprised you have been made so fearful.
Click to expand...
Careful, not fearful. I seek to be proactive and protect myself where I am able to. That's why I take medicine and test regularly, coz that is what I can control. Same with taking the vaccine. I will exercise my choice when it is offered, since, like diabetes, the projected outcomes without taking action, are not where I would choose to be. To me it is obvious.
 

This says it all to me..

 
bulkbiker said:
This says it all to me..

View attachment 45983
Click to expand...
TaRah! Point Scored. Triumph?
NO
This merely shows why the vaccine is being offered to each group in rota as being the most efficient way of using the new tool. (which is all that the vaccine is, just another tool in the toolbox) It is information that we already have to hand, but with the spreadsheet cells filled in for today. We will still need to follow the guidelines but hopefully will be able to pull back on the worst restrictions as the vaccine is rolled out. I do not see it as a reason for me to refuse a vaccine when my turn comes.

It is clear that the majority of elderly folk will be suffering pre-existing conditions as we age, and also that there is a higher possibility that many will be in institutional care as time goes by. We know care homes and hospices were soft fruit for the virus and it spreads rapidly in these places. More reason for starting with care home residents and the staff that attend to their needs. Do you have a problem with that?
 
Oldvatr said:
Do you have a problem with that?
Click to expand...

I have a problem with exposing the most vulnerable to a relatively untried vaccine yes.. I'm very surprised that you don't.

We have already seen thousands sent back to care homes from hospital to die in March and April without being checked out for being infected.. we have seen a huge increase in DNR orders for the same cohort and now we are using them as guinea pigs for a vaccine that has not been tested in their cohort at all.

The social care budget has been reduced greatly over time and those in care homes have suffered.. how convenient a bit of a cull of the very old would be..

What could possibly go wrong?
 
By your logic, that cohort would never be tested. You cannot use them for safety testing, but the testing that was done did apparently use volunteers of comparable age. How would you ensure all flavors of co-morbidity are exposed to risk without actually doing it - answer: use a vaccine to mimic it, which is exactly what is going to happen, starting next week. By the time it gets down to my tier in the pecking order, there will have been several tens of thousands of' guinea pigs' already providing evidence. It's the way vaccines mature, as there is no other way unless you start doing the live-fire testing that was being mooted in the summer. That is too much like Russian roulette for me.
 
And how many of them will have knowingly "volunteered" to be guinea pigs do you think? I'd say Russian roulette is injecting a very old very vulnerable section of society en masse with a relatively untested treatment that doesn't stop transmission, infection or death is pretty much against the "first do no harm" principle that you mentioned previously don't you think?
 
How do you propose to test this cohort (and all the other variants of old age preconditions without actually doing it for real with real people? Simple question. Do you forever deprive them of the opportunity of getting some protection?

You make open statements about these vaccines being untested (not true) and not stopping onward transmission (not proven either way, but also not the primary requirement for a vaccine) and of preventing death (again, not a primary requirement), It is not a treatment or a therapeutic. It's a vaccine and all it is required to do is work to prevent infection from taking hold, which it has been proven to achieve. By doing so it will reduce the chances of early death, and in the case of the Oxford vaccine, does seem to reduce the severity of the illness as a bonus,
 
Oldvatr said:
Simple question. Do you forever deprive them of the opportunity of getting some protection?
Click to expand...

You ask them if they are interested in being vaccinated.. those that say yes become your test group and those that don't become the control .. however there should absolutely zero compulsion.. I seriously wonder how many would opt for the vaccine. A lot fewer than many think I bet.

Oldvatr said:
being untested (not true)
Click to expand...

Relatively untested is the phrase I believe I use...but we have obviously left accuracy behind.

Oldvatr said:
all it is required to do is work to prevent infection from taking hold, which it has been proven to achieve.
Click to expand...

Has it really? how was this proven? PCR testing?
 
Point#1 : That is already included in the protocol that has been approved under the terms of the Emergency Licence. My sister who is an employed nurse is being trained to use it in preparation for next week's start. My neighbor is the House Manager for a Nursing Home that is also being prepared for this, but later on after the staff have been inoculated. at the local hospital.
You may be right about patients not taking up the offer, especially those with dementia. But you may be surprised and this is only in your opinion. Since the Home in question suffered severe losses in May from Covid deaths, I suspect many residents may be quite keen to get inoculated,

Point#2: These were closely monitored trials, with an overriding need for accuracy, so I dispute your assertion here.

Poin#3: I believe that PCR is relatively accurate, It is not the only method though. In terms of the size of the trial, there will be some margin of error, which the Authorising panel will have reviewed during the independent assessment and scrutiny that has just completed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…