comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
Sorry to hear about your loss. I'll definitely be taking the vaccine if and when I'm eligible to do so
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks mate.
It just feels like a lot of people don't care less because it affects the older generation. But they have every right to be protected.
If it were kids dying of this (god foribid), there would be far, far less anti mask/anti vax types.
The people who are unsure about the vaccine due to it's rushed nature have rightful concerns.... But these conspiracy, or worse still, political nay sayers are boiling my blood right now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the things they believe are scary. And scary because this lockdown has seen the number of these believers grow from a very small number of tinfoil hat wearers to what seems to be a large number of people who believe this bubbling below the surface.
Fack knows how that trajectory will keep on growing and where it will lead. Scary times.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Dr Sheldon Cooper (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 6 minutes ago
Why has this 70% number been used? Genuinely interested.
People always talk about the side effects of vaccines - but are they really that bad? I’ve never really heard of any genuine long term side - effects but appreciate that I don’t really research it at all. Did listen to a podcast on the ‘Autism’ conspiracy and all the research papers link to a source that is misquoted as it says it’s actually fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember reading an article a few weeks ago which basically said long term negative effects of a vaccine isn't really a thing. If I manage to find it again I'll put the link on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As much as that is true, take into consideration how long it would take to develop such vaccine.
We are talking less than 12 months to suddenly roll this vaccine out to the general public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get what you're saying and it's a legitimate concern, but I believe a) this vaccine isn't as "sudden" as it looks, as they've built on the existing technology for a SARS vaccine and b) due to the global emergency, testing stages that would usually be run one after another have been run concurrently to save time.
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
Sorry to hear about your loss. I'll definitely be taking the vaccine if and when I'm eligible to do so
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks mate.
It just feels like a lot of people don't care less because it affects the older generation. But they have every right to be protected.
If it were kids dying of this (god foribid), there would be far, far less anti mask/anti vax types.
The people who are unsure about the vaccine due to it's rushed nature have rightful concerns.... But these conspiracy, or worse still, political nay sayers are boiling my blood right now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My mum got clots in both her lungs around this time last year and was lucky to survive. But even bending over to tie a shoelace still leaves her breathless. It's for people like her moreso than myself that I'll be getting vaccinated. As it is, I feel nervous when I see her, as I'm terrified that I'm asymptomatically carrying Covid and could infect her. Hopefully the vaccination can help make those occasions less worrisome
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 9 minutes ago
Sorry my poor wording, 95% effective not safe, I was thinking of 2 different sentences at the same time.
Either way, my point stands, 95% effective is not enough for me, personally, to warrant getting a vaccine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just admit you got it wrong ffs!
This sums up the debate for me. People going out there saying it's not 100% safe.
This is why the media needs to close this debate off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally did by saying "my poor wording" and then corrected myself, do you get some sort of buzz out of you not being wrong or other people having to say they're wrong.
Why is that an issue? If it was 100% safe, which it never would be, I probably wouldn't get it either. As far as I am aware, I personally have no reason to be vaccinated at this moment in time, so why would I do it on something that has taken less than 12 months to develop, when it takes somewhere in the region of 10 years to correctly develop a vaccine.
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 1 second ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Dr Sheldon Cooper (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 6 minutes ago
Why has this 70% number been used? Genuinely interested.
People always talk about the side effects of vaccines - but are they really that bad? I’ve never really heard of any genuine long term side - effects but appreciate that I don’t really research it at all. Did listen to a podcast on the ‘Autism’ conspiracy and all the research papers link to a source that is misquoted as it says it’s actually fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember reading an article a few weeks ago which basically said long term negative effects of a vaccine isn't really a thing. If I manage to find it again I'll put the link on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As much as that is true, take into consideration how long it would take to develop such vaccine.
We are talking less than 12 months to suddenly roll this vaccine out to the general public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get what you're saying and it's a legitimate concern, but I believe a) this vaccine isn't as "sudden" as it looks, as they've built on the existing technology for a SARS vaccine and b) due to the global emergency, testing stages that would usually be run one after another have been run concurrently to save time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. People could look at this another way - because there is an urgency to get the world turning again this has shown what a global effort can achieve when they need a vaccine for this. Imagine what that global effort and urgency could do if this much emphasis was put towards Dementia, Parkinson’s, Cancer etc
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 9 minutes ago
Sorry my poor wording, 95% effective not safe, I was thinking of 2 different sentences at the same time.
Either way, my point stands, 95% effective is not enough for me, personally, to warrant getting a vaccine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just admit you got it wrong ffs!
This sums up the debate for me. People going out there saying it's not 100% safe.
This is why the media needs to close this debate off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally did by saying "my poor wording" and then corrected myself, do you get some sort of buzz out of you not being wrong or other people having to say they're wrong.
Why is that an issue? If it was 100% safe, which it never would be, I probably wouldn't get it either. As far as I am aware, I personally have no reason to be vaccinated at this moment in time, so why would I do it on something that has taken less than 12 months to develop, when it takes somewhere in the region of 10 years to correctly develop a vaccine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor wording?
You've seen the reports about 95% and thought it was only 95% safe.
Just admit it.
This is exactly the problem with scaremongering - uninformed people scaring everyone else.
As has been said above. I think there will be rules put in place for attendance at sporting events, concerts, cinemas etc and probably air travel that you will have to prove you have had a vaccine.
At least until the virus is finally well under control.
comment by Robb Pochettino - 🧢 Make United Great Again (U22311)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 1 second ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Dr Sheldon Cooper (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 6 minutes ago
Why has this 70% number been used? Genuinely interested.
People always talk about the side effects of vaccines - but are they really that bad? I’ve never really heard of any genuine long term side - effects but appreciate that I don’t really research it at all. Did listen to a podcast on the ‘Autism’ conspiracy and all the research papers link to a source that is misquoted as it says it’s actually fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember reading an article a few weeks ago which basically said long term negative effects of a vaccine isn't really a thing. If I manage to find it again I'll put the link on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As much as that is true, take into consideration how long it would take to develop such vaccine.
We are talking less than 12 months to suddenly roll this vaccine out to the general public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get what you're saying and it's a legitimate concern, but I believe a) this vaccine isn't as "sudden" as it looks, as they've built on the existing technology for a SARS vaccine and b) due to the global emergency, testing stages that would usually be run one after another have been run concurrently to save time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. People could look at this another way - because there is an urgency to get the world turning again this has shown what a global effort can achieve when they need a vaccine for this. Imagine what that global effort and urgency could do if this much emphasis was put towards Dementia, Parkinson’s, Cancer etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or climate change...
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Dr Sheldon Cooper (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 6 minutes ago
Why has this 70% number been used? Genuinely interested.
People always talk about the side effects of vaccines - but are they really that bad? I’ve never really heard of any genuine long term side - effects but appreciate that I don’t really research it at all. Did listen to a podcast on the ‘Autism’ conspiracy and all the research papers link to a source that is misquoted as it says it’s actually fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember reading an article a few weeks ago which basically said long term negative effects of a vaccine isn't really a thing. If I manage to find it again I'll put the link on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As much as that is true, take into consideration how long it would take to develop such vaccine.
We are talking less than 12 months to suddenly roll this vaccine out to the general public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get what you're saying and it's a legitimate concern, but I believe a) this vaccine isn't as "sudden" as it looks, as they've built on the existing technology for a SARS vaccine and b) due to the global emergency, testing stages that would usually be run one after another have been run concurrently to save time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's nothing new though. That's part of discovery research which does take the longest amount of time, how many clinical trials do you think you can get through in less than 12 months? Running them alongside each other is one way of cutting corners though straight away, as that's not the purpose of developing a vaccine, otherwise it would have been done sooner.
Plenty of other pandemics have come and gone and yet vaccines are still being developed to this day for them.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 9 minutes ago
Sorry my poor wording, 95% effective not safe, I was thinking of 2 different sentences at the same time.
Either way, my point stands, 95% effective is not enough for me, personally, to warrant getting a vaccine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just admit you got it wrong ffs!
This sums up the debate for me. People going out there saying it's not 100% safe.
This is why the media needs to close this debate off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally did by saying "my poor wording" and then corrected myself, do you get some sort of buzz out of you not being wrong or other people having to say they're wrong.
Why is that an issue? If it was 100% safe, which it never would be, I probably wouldn't get it either. As far as I am aware, I personally have no reason to be vaccinated at this moment in time, so why would I do it on something that has taken less than 12 months to develop, when it takes somewhere in the region of 10 years to correctly develop a vaccine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor wording?
You've seen the reports about 95% and thought it was only 95% safe.
Just admit it.
This is exactly the problem with scaremongering - uninformed people scaring everyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe I used the wrong word, which I did and then corrected myself. I don't think anybody has taken a fright from an online forum with a bunch of sports fans pal, think you've taken it a little bit too far.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 9 minutes ago
Sorry my poor wording, 95% effective not safe, I was thinking of 2 different sentences at the same time.
Either way, my point stands, 95% effective is not enough for me, personally, to warrant getting a vaccine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just admit you got it wrong ffs!
This sums up the debate for me. People going out there saying it's not 100% safe.
This is why the media needs to close this debate off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally did by saying "my poor wording" and then corrected myself, do you get some sort of buzz out of you not being wrong or other people having to say they're wrong.
Why is that an issue? If it was 100% safe, which it never would be, I probably wouldn't get it either. As far as I am aware, I personally have no reason to be vaccinated at this moment in time, so why would I do it on something that has taken less than 12 months to develop, when it takes somewhere in the region of 10 years to correctly develop a vaccine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason would be a social conscience
comment by The Mane Man (U19731)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
I would wait a few years until I know the side effects of the people who were injected with this vaccine.
don't trust the pharmaceutical companies which want to make big profits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharma is one of the most heavily regulated industries there is. Also, a pharma company would not make big profits if there were unlisted side effects as they get sued for billions.
Also, a pharma company would not make big profits if there were unlisted side effects as they get sued for billions.
====
This is not true.
As you are a pharma ITK, DJ. Do they ever cause long term effects?
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Also, a pharma company would not make big profits if there were unlisted side effects as they get sued for billions.
====
If you do a bit of research you'll see that most of these big pharma companies HAVE been sued for 100's of millions for the exact same thing you mentioned.
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 26 seconds ago
As you are a pharma ITK, DJ. Do they ever cause long term effects?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Many have, yes. Less likely nowadays, with the extra rules and regulations - but there are still many pharmaceuticals that cause long term effects. Some drugs that have been out for 50-60 years suddenly get pulled due to long term affects only being found long after they were introduced.
comment by AFCISMYTEAM (U14931)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Also, a pharma company would not make big profits if there were unlisted side effects as they get sued for billions.
====
If you do a bit of research you'll see that most of these big pharma companies HAVE been sued for 100's of millions for the exact same thing you mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharma companies are protected against being sued for issues with vaccines.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Also, a pharma company would not make big profits if there were unlisted side effects as they get sued for billions.
====
This is not true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, GSK, Eli Lilly etc have all been fined over a billion dollars in the US due to their activities on label claims in the last 10 years. Johnson & Johnson paid $8 billion in damages last year because one of their products cause a guy to grow breasts:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/09/uk/johnson-and-johnson-male-breast-growth-damages/index.html
Not only would it be a massive hit to their reputation, the impending lawsuits would cause a pharma company not to make a profit on a vaccine if they had unlisted adverse effects.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Also, a pharma company would not make big profits if there were unlisted side effects as they get sued for billions.
====
This is not true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, GSK, Eli Lilly etc have all been fined over a billion dollars in the US due to their activities on label claims in the last 10 years. Johnson & Johnson paid $8 billion in damages last year because one of their products cause a guy to grow breasts:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/09/uk/johnson-and-johnson-male-breast-growth-damages/index.html
Not only would it be a massive hit to their reputation, the impending lawsuits would cause a pharma company not to make a profit on a vaccine if they had unlisted adverse effects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An antiphyscotic drug is not a vaccine.
Vaccines are very low profit makers, and most pharmas don't produce them as it is not worth it. If they were open to being sued no-one would make them. As such those who produce vaccines are protected against legal action, unless they do something against procedure.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 26 seconds ago
As you are a pharma ITK, DJ. Do they ever cause long term effects?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Many have, yes. Less likely nowadays, with the extra rules and regulations - but there are still many pharmaceuticals that cause long term effects. Some drugs that have been out for 50-60 years suddenly get pulled due to long term affects only being found long after they were introduced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The exact problem with a short term vaccine. What are the long term risks of the vaccine? Discoveries continue to happen, this is exactly why it takes 10 years or so to develop a vaccine.
The previously mentioned SARS vaccine, hasn't even been developed yet and that has been something that began back in 2003. So if we are linking any sort of Covid vaccine to SARS, any sort of outstanding clinical trials for SARS wouldn't be reliable, as there is no vaccine proven to be safe.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 21 seconds ago
I am aged 71, and shortly to be 72, and I will definitely be the first in the queue if offered a vaccine, it is the only way out of this crisis, so why anybody would turn it down is a real mystery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I'm hoping I've still got somewhere in the region of 60+ years of my life left yet so why would I risk a vaccine, that has likely cut huge corners in order to be prepared for the general public, that is only considered 95% safe.
By all means, those who are elderly or vulnerable would make sense, as the virus is more likely to have a bigger effect on them, therefore a vaccine would be sensible.
I don't fall under elderly or vulnerable, so why take a gamble on a potentially unsafe vaccine that I don't need to take, when chances are I'd be quite likely to fight off the disease within a couple of weeks anyway. Seems illogical for me to gamble something I'd more than likely survive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every single medicine, tablet, pill has a health warning on it of some kind, nothing is ever 100 per cent safe for some people.
I daresay though that you would go buy some dodgy stuff of a complete stranger though if it was on offer.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by AFCISMYTEAM (U14931)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Also, a pharma company would not make big profits if there were unlisted side effects as they get sued for billions.
====
If you do a bit of research you'll see that most of these big pharma companies HAVE been sued for 100's of millions for the exact same thing you mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharma companies are protected against being sued for issues with vaccines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is also a similar principle to when somebody undergoes surgery. Consent is signed by the person to allow surgery on their body, but if there are any issues, the doctors cannot be sued, that's there way of protecting them.
As has been said above. I think there will be rules put in place for attendance at sporting events, concerts, cinemas etc and probably air travel that you will have to prove you have had a vaccine.
Be interesting to know how it would affect people that need to travel a lot for work if they refused the vaccine.
Would employers etc have grounds for dismissal? Or would employees have the right to say you cannot force me to get the jab.
I very much doubt those conditions are in any current employment contract but can see them being in contracts for the future.
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by HoughOffEnd-er (U22510)
posted 58 seconds ago
Would a higher % of people get the vaccine in say six months? Once they know that it's been in circulation for six or so and nobody has grown an extra eye or an extra nipple??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know; they might harbour concerns about longer-term problems. Cancer, birth defects in children of those who have been vaccinated etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/09/ministers-lose-fight-to-stop-payouts-in-swine-flu-jab-narcolepsy-cases
Sign in if you want to comment
Vaccine Hesitancy
Page 3 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 20/11/20
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
Sorry to hear about your loss. I'll definitely be taking the vaccine if and when I'm eligible to do so
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks mate.
It just feels like a lot of people don't care less because it affects the older generation. But they have every right to be protected.
If it were kids dying of this (god foribid), there would be far, far less anti mask/anti vax types.
The people who are unsure about the vaccine due to it's rushed nature have rightful concerns.... But these conspiracy, or worse still, political nay sayers are boiling my blood right now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the things they believe are scary. And scary because this lockdown has seen the number of these believers grow from a very small number of tinfoil hat wearers to what seems to be a large number of people who believe this bubbling below the surface.
Fack knows how that trajectory will keep on growing and where it will lead. Scary times.
posted on 20/11/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Dr Sheldon Cooper (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 6 minutes ago
Why has this 70% number been used? Genuinely interested.
People always talk about the side effects of vaccines - but are they really that bad? I’ve never really heard of any genuine long term side - effects but appreciate that I don’t really research it at all. Did listen to a podcast on the ‘Autism’ conspiracy and all the research papers link to a source that is misquoted as it says it’s actually fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember reading an article a few weeks ago which basically said long term negative effects of a vaccine isn't really a thing. If I manage to find it again I'll put the link on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As much as that is true, take into consideration how long it would take to develop such vaccine.
We are talking less than 12 months to suddenly roll this vaccine out to the general public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get what you're saying and it's a legitimate concern, but I believe a) this vaccine isn't as "sudden" as it looks, as they've built on the existing technology for a SARS vaccine and b) due to the global emergency, testing stages that would usually be run one after another have been run concurrently to save time.
posted on 20/11/20
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
Sorry to hear about your loss. I'll definitely be taking the vaccine if and when I'm eligible to do so
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks mate.
It just feels like a lot of people don't care less because it affects the older generation. But they have every right to be protected.
If it were kids dying of this (god foribid), there would be far, far less anti mask/anti vax types.
The people who are unsure about the vaccine due to it's rushed nature have rightful concerns.... But these conspiracy, or worse still, political nay sayers are boiling my blood right now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My mum got clots in both her lungs around this time last year and was lucky to survive. But even bending over to tie a shoelace still leaves her breathless. It's for people like her moreso than myself that I'll be getting vaccinated. As it is, I feel nervous when I see her, as I'm terrified that I'm asymptomatically carrying Covid and could infect her. Hopefully the vaccination can help make those occasions less worrisome
posted on 20/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 9 minutes ago
Sorry my poor wording, 95% effective not safe, I was thinking of 2 different sentences at the same time.
Either way, my point stands, 95% effective is not enough for me, personally, to warrant getting a vaccine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just admit you got it wrong ffs!
This sums up the debate for me. People going out there saying it's not 100% safe.
This is why the media needs to close this debate off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally did by saying "my poor wording" and then corrected myself, do you get some sort of buzz out of you not being wrong or other people having to say they're wrong.
Why is that an issue? If it was 100% safe, which it never would be, I probably wouldn't get it either. As far as I am aware, I personally have no reason to be vaccinated at this moment in time, so why would I do it on something that has taken less than 12 months to develop, when it takes somewhere in the region of 10 years to correctly develop a vaccine.
posted on 20/11/20
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 1 second ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Dr Sheldon Cooper (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 6 minutes ago
Why has this 70% number been used? Genuinely interested.
People always talk about the side effects of vaccines - but are they really that bad? I’ve never really heard of any genuine long term side - effects but appreciate that I don’t really research it at all. Did listen to a podcast on the ‘Autism’ conspiracy and all the research papers link to a source that is misquoted as it says it’s actually fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember reading an article a few weeks ago which basically said long term negative effects of a vaccine isn't really a thing. If I manage to find it again I'll put the link on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As much as that is true, take into consideration how long it would take to develop such vaccine.
We are talking less than 12 months to suddenly roll this vaccine out to the general public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get what you're saying and it's a legitimate concern, but I believe a) this vaccine isn't as "sudden" as it looks, as they've built on the existing technology for a SARS vaccine and b) due to the global emergency, testing stages that would usually be run one after another have been run concurrently to save time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. People could look at this another way - because there is an urgency to get the world turning again this has shown what a global effort can achieve when they need a vaccine for this. Imagine what that global effort and urgency could do if this much emphasis was put towards Dementia, Parkinson’s, Cancer etc
posted on 20/11/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 9 minutes ago
Sorry my poor wording, 95% effective not safe, I was thinking of 2 different sentences at the same time.
Either way, my point stands, 95% effective is not enough for me, personally, to warrant getting a vaccine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just admit you got it wrong ffs!
This sums up the debate for me. People going out there saying it's not 100% safe.
This is why the media needs to close this debate off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally did by saying "my poor wording" and then corrected myself, do you get some sort of buzz out of you not being wrong or other people having to say they're wrong.
Why is that an issue? If it was 100% safe, which it never would be, I probably wouldn't get it either. As far as I am aware, I personally have no reason to be vaccinated at this moment in time, so why would I do it on something that has taken less than 12 months to develop, when it takes somewhere in the region of 10 years to correctly develop a vaccine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor wording?
You've seen the reports about 95% and thought it was only 95% safe.
Just admit it.
This is exactly the problem with scaremongering - uninformed people scaring everyone else.
posted on 20/11/20
As has been said above. I think there will be rules put in place for attendance at sporting events, concerts, cinemas etc and probably air travel that you will have to prove you have had a vaccine.
At least until the virus is finally well under control.
posted on 20/11/20
comment by Robb Pochettino - 🧢 Make United Great Again (U22311)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 1 second ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Dr Sheldon Cooper (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 6 minutes ago
Why has this 70% number been used? Genuinely interested.
People always talk about the side effects of vaccines - but are they really that bad? I’ve never really heard of any genuine long term side - effects but appreciate that I don’t really research it at all. Did listen to a podcast on the ‘Autism’ conspiracy and all the research papers link to a source that is misquoted as it says it’s actually fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember reading an article a few weeks ago which basically said long term negative effects of a vaccine isn't really a thing. If I manage to find it again I'll put the link on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As much as that is true, take into consideration how long it would take to develop such vaccine.
We are talking less than 12 months to suddenly roll this vaccine out to the general public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get what you're saying and it's a legitimate concern, but I believe a) this vaccine isn't as "sudden" as it looks, as they've built on the existing technology for a SARS vaccine and b) due to the global emergency, testing stages that would usually be run one after another have been run concurrently to save time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. People could look at this another way - because there is an urgency to get the world turning again this has shown what a global effort can achieve when they need a vaccine for this. Imagine what that global effort and urgency could do if this much emphasis was put towards Dementia, Parkinson’s, Cancer etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or climate change...
posted on 20/11/20
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Dr Sheldon Cooper (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 6 minutes ago
Why has this 70% number been used? Genuinely interested.
People always talk about the side effects of vaccines - but are they really that bad? I’ve never really heard of any genuine long term side - effects but appreciate that I don’t really research it at all. Did listen to a podcast on the ‘Autism’ conspiracy and all the research papers link to a source that is misquoted as it says it’s actually fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember reading an article a few weeks ago which basically said long term negative effects of a vaccine isn't really a thing. If I manage to find it again I'll put the link on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As much as that is true, take into consideration how long it would take to develop such vaccine.
We are talking less than 12 months to suddenly roll this vaccine out to the general public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get what you're saying and it's a legitimate concern, but I believe a) this vaccine isn't as "sudden" as it looks, as they've built on the existing technology for a SARS vaccine and b) due to the global emergency, testing stages that would usually be run one after another have been run concurrently to save time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's nothing new though. That's part of discovery research which does take the longest amount of time, how many clinical trials do you think you can get through in less than 12 months? Running them alongside each other is one way of cutting corners though straight away, as that's not the purpose of developing a vaccine, otherwise it would have been done sooner.
Plenty of other pandemics have come and gone and yet vaccines are still being developed to this day for them.
posted on 20/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 9 minutes ago
Sorry my poor wording, 95% effective not safe, I was thinking of 2 different sentences at the same time.
Either way, my point stands, 95% effective is not enough for me, personally, to warrant getting a vaccine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just admit you got it wrong ffs!
This sums up the debate for me. People going out there saying it's not 100% safe.
This is why the media needs to close this debate off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally did by saying "my poor wording" and then corrected myself, do you get some sort of buzz out of you not being wrong or other people having to say they're wrong.
Why is that an issue? If it was 100% safe, which it never would be, I probably wouldn't get it either. As far as I am aware, I personally have no reason to be vaccinated at this moment in time, so why would I do it on something that has taken less than 12 months to develop, when it takes somewhere in the region of 10 years to correctly develop a vaccine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor wording?
You've seen the reports about 95% and thought it was only 95% safe.
Just admit it.
This is exactly the problem with scaremongering - uninformed people scaring everyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe I used the wrong word, which I did and then corrected myself. I don't think anybody has taken a fright from an online forum with a bunch of sports fans pal, think you've taken it a little bit too far.
posted on 20/11/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 9 minutes ago
Sorry my poor wording, 95% effective not safe, I was thinking of 2 different sentences at the same time.
Either way, my point stands, 95% effective is not enough for me, personally, to warrant getting a vaccine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just admit you got it wrong ffs!
This sums up the debate for me. People going out there saying it's not 100% safe.
This is why the media needs to close this debate off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally did by saying "my poor wording" and then corrected myself, do you get some sort of buzz out of you not being wrong or other people having to say they're wrong.
Why is that an issue? If it was 100% safe, which it never would be, I probably wouldn't get it either. As far as I am aware, I personally have no reason to be vaccinated at this moment in time, so why would I do it on something that has taken less than 12 months to develop, when it takes somewhere in the region of 10 years to correctly develop a vaccine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason would be a social conscience
posted on 20/11/20
comment by The Mane Man (U19731)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
I would wait a few years until I know the side effects of the people who were injected with this vaccine.
don't trust the pharmaceutical companies which want to make big profits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharma is one of the most heavily regulated industries there is. Also, a pharma company would not make big profits if there were unlisted side effects as they get sued for billions.
posted on 20/11/20
Also, a pharma company would not make big profits if there were unlisted side effects as they get sued for billions.
====
This is not true.
posted on 20/11/20
As you are a pharma ITK, DJ. Do they ever cause long term effects?
posted on 20/11/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Also, a pharma company would not make big profits if there were unlisted side effects as they get sued for billions.
====
If you do a bit of research you'll see that most of these big pharma companies HAVE been sued for 100's of millions for the exact same thing you mentioned.
posted on 20/11/20
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 26 seconds ago
As you are a pharma ITK, DJ. Do they ever cause long term effects?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Many have, yes. Less likely nowadays, with the extra rules and regulations - but there are still many pharmaceuticals that cause long term effects. Some drugs that have been out for 50-60 years suddenly get pulled due to long term affects only being found long after they were introduced.
posted on 20/11/20
comment by AFCISMYTEAM (U14931)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Also, a pharma company would not make big profits if there were unlisted side effects as they get sued for billions.
====
If you do a bit of research you'll see that most of these big pharma companies HAVE been sued for 100's of millions for the exact same thing you mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharma companies are protected against being sued for issues with vaccines.
posted on 20/11/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Also, a pharma company would not make big profits if there were unlisted side effects as they get sued for billions.
====
This is not true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, GSK, Eli Lilly etc have all been fined over a billion dollars in the US due to their activities on label claims in the last 10 years. Johnson & Johnson paid $8 billion in damages last year because one of their products cause a guy to grow breasts:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/09/uk/johnson-and-johnson-male-breast-growth-damages/index.html
Not only would it be a massive hit to their reputation, the impending lawsuits would cause a pharma company not to make a profit on a vaccine if they had unlisted adverse effects.
posted on 20/11/20
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Also, a pharma company would not make big profits if there were unlisted side effects as they get sued for billions.
====
This is not true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, GSK, Eli Lilly etc have all been fined over a billion dollars in the US due to their activities on label claims in the last 10 years. Johnson & Johnson paid $8 billion in damages last year because one of their products cause a guy to grow breasts:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/09/uk/johnson-and-johnson-male-breast-growth-damages/index.html
Not only would it be a massive hit to their reputation, the impending lawsuits would cause a pharma company not to make a profit on a vaccine if they had unlisted adverse effects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An antiphyscotic drug is not a vaccine.
posted on 20/11/20
Vaccines are very low profit makers, and most pharmas don't produce them as it is not worth it. If they were open to being sued no-one would make them. As such those who produce vaccines are protected against legal action, unless they do something against procedure.
posted on 20/11/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 26 seconds ago
As you are a pharma ITK, DJ. Do they ever cause long term effects?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Many have, yes. Less likely nowadays, with the extra rules and regulations - but there are still many pharmaceuticals that cause long term effects. Some drugs that have been out for 50-60 years suddenly get pulled due to long term affects only being found long after they were introduced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The exact problem with a short term vaccine. What are the long term risks of the vaccine? Discoveries continue to happen, this is exactly why it takes 10 years or so to develop a vaccine.
The previously mentioned SARS vaccine, hasn't even been developed yet and that has been something that began back in 2003. So if we are linking any sort of Covid vaccine to SARS, any sort of outstanding clinical trials for SARS wouldn't be reliable, as there is no vaccine proven to be safe.
posted on 20/11/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 21 seconds ago
I am aged 71, and shortly to be 72, and I will definitely be the first in the queue if offered a vaccine, it is the only way out of this crisis, so why anybody would turn it down is a real mystery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I'm hoping I've still got somewhere in the region of 60+ years of my life left yet so why would I risk a vaccine, that has likely cut huge corners in order to be prepared for the general public, that is only considered 95% safe.
By all means, those who are elderly or vulnerable would make sense, as the virus is more likely to have a bigger effect on them, therefore a vaccine would be sensible.
I don't fall under elderly or vulnerable, so why take a gamble on a potentially unsafe vaccine that I don't need to take, when chances are I'd be quite likely to fight off the disease within a couple of weeks anyway. Seems illogical for me to gamble something I'd more than likely survive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every single medicine, tablet, pill has a health warning on it of some kind, nothing is ever 100 per cent safe for some people.
I daresay though that you would go buy some dodgy stuff of a complete stranger though if it was on offer.
posted on 20/11/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by AFCISMYTEAM (U14931)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Also, a pharma company would not make big profits if there were unlisted side effects as they get sued for billions.
====
If you do a bit of research you'll see that most of these big pharma companies HAVE been sued for 100's of millions for the exact same thing you mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharma companies are protected against being sued for issues with vaccines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is also a similar principle to when somebody undergoes surgery. Consent is signed by the person to allow surgery on their body, but if there are any issues, the doctors cannot be sued, that's there way of protecting them.
posted on 20/11/20
As has been said above. I think there will be rules put in place for attendance at sporting events, concerts, cinemas etc and probably air travel that you will have to prove you have had a vaccine.
Be interesting to know how it would affect people that need to travel a lot for work if they refused the vaccine.
Would employers etc have grounds for dismissal? Or would employees have the right to say you cannot force me to get the jab.
I very much doubt those conditions are in any current employment contract but can see them being in contracts for the future.
posted on 20/11/20
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by HoughOffEnd-er (U22510)
posted 58 seconds ago
Would a higher % of people get the vaccine in say six months? Once they know that it's been in circulation for six or so and nobody has grown an extra eye or an extra nipple??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know; they might harbour concerns about longer-term problems. Cancer, birth defects in children of those who have been vaccinated etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/09/ministers-lose-fight-to-stop-payouts-in-swine-flu-jab-narcolepsy-cases
Page 3 of 8
6 | 7 | 8