Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Off-Topic
General Chat
COVID vaccination
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jo_the_boat" data-source="post: 2341002" data-attributes="member: 436209"><p>I am not anti-vaccine. I would love to see the country get back to 'normal'. I've said it before but I believe the vaccine is probably not dangerous, at least in the short term, but I still think it's been rushed. As it stands now I will not be taking it. But last time we discussed it, my wife will!</p><p>I'll also reiterate my thought that when debate is squashed by the establishment we need to be REALLY careful.</p><p></p><p>Moving on....</p><p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-b6360f40-84f9-469b-b6a3-a4568e161c4f" target="_blank">Here is a piece from the BBC today. </a></p><p>Among other things it appears to answer Dr Julian Tang's (if that's who you're referring to) point about how to protect the vulnerable.</p><p>I've said before that we can all pick articles, items of research etc. etc. to support our views. My problem is I think the go-ahead for the vaccine is a massive political / economic exercise.</p><p>I heard an interview the other day. I can't remember who it was, but he said this:</p><p><em>"If 75% of people take the vaccine and the vaccine is 75% effective 1 in 2 people will be helped. </em></p><p><em>That means that one in two will get less severe symptoms than if they hadn’t had the vaccine. It is NOT the case that one in two will be prevented from getting Covid 19, but that they will have less severe symptoms.</em></p><p><em>The other person won’t be helped at all.</em></p><p><em>Is either person capable of transmitting the virus even though they have had a vaccine? Unknown.</em></p><p><em>The WHO have said we have to carry on as we have been because we don’t know who is protected, to what degree they are protected or whether they can pass it on."</em></p><p>Now perhaps the vaccine may be more than 75% effective, but conversely maybe less than 75% will have it, but the figures indicate that a vaccine is not the be all and end all.</p><p>The upshot is perhaps that we MAY protect some of the vulnerable (and their carers and their visitors and the NHS staff). In that respect it's a shot in our national arm, but a return to 'normal' by spring seems unlikely.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jo_the_boat, post: 2341002, member: 436209"] I am not anti-vaccine. I would love to see the country get back to 'normal'. I've said it before but I believe the vaccine is probably not dangerous, at least in the short term, but I still think it's been rushed. As it stands now I will not be taking it. But last time we discussed it, my wife will! I'll also reiterate my thought that when debate is squashed by the establishment we need to be REALLY careful. Moving on.... [URL='https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-b6360f40-84f9-469b-b6a3-a4568e161c4f']Here is a piece from the BBC today. [/URL] Among other things it appears to answer Dr Julian Tang's (if that's who you're referring to) point about how to protect the vulnerable. I've said before that we can all pick articles, items of research etc. etc. to support our views. My problem is I think the go-ahead for the vaccine is a massive political / economic exercise. I heard an interview the other day. I can't remember who it was, but he said this: [I]"If 75% of people take the vaccine and the vaccine is 75% effective 1 in 2 people will be helped. That means that one in two will get less severe symptoms than if they hadn’t had the vaccine. It is NOT the case that one in two will be prevented from getting Covid 19, but that they will have less severe symptoms. The other person won’t be helped at all. Is either person capable of transmitting the virus even though they have had a vaccine? Unknown. The WHO have said we have to carry on as we have been because we don’t know who is protected, to what degree they are protected or whether they can pass it on."[/I] Now perhaps the vaccine may be more than 75% effective, but conversely maybe less than 75% will have it, but the figures indicate that a vaccine is not the be all and end all. The upshot is perhaps that we MAY protect some of the vulnerable (and their carers and their visitors and the NHS staff). In that respect it's a shot in our national arm, but a return to 'normal' by spring seems unlikely. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Off-Topic
General Chat
COVID vaccination
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…