Coronavirus (Covid-19) Discussion
-
"Experts" get things wrong from time to time, not all recommendations are based on strong evidence, and not all people interpret evidence the same way. Decision-makers, and people in positions to make recommendations are not clairvoyant. Emergencies of this nature force them to weigh in before they would probably be otherwise comfortable to do so, and being cautious with recommendations–or changing them--is a good sign.
The vaccine absolutely was rushed...just like an ambulance rushes to your house if you call with a medical emergency. Rushing isn't without risk, but the cost of taking your time is known and significant.
My wife's step-grandmother has leg braces and walks with a cane because she got polio when she was young. Had the vaccine been out just a few years earlier she would never have gotten it and had a much different life. Some diseases of civilization are devastating. If you're going to live in civilization and risk these diseases my feeling is you may as well get the offsetting benefits of civilization, i.e. the deep scientific specialization it allows and the resulting preventative measures (vaccines, etc).
Certain COVID symptoms are worrisome like some have mentioned here, and I personally think vaccinating is important in this case. I have two young children and I do worry for them still even though both my wife and I are vaccinated.
-
Very well said. And that expert probably just flubbed his statement because he was, I don’t know, nervous? Preoccupied with the heavy task of is managing with a pandemic? Human? I’ll give him a pass.
And yep, it seems like most of the worries I hear these days are from parents with kids too young for the vaccine. I can’t imagine how frustrating this all must me.
-
And yep, it seems like most of the worries I hear these days are from parents with kids too young for the vaccine. I can’t imagine how frustrating this all must me.
It's been a double-edged sword for sure, in so many ways.
Prior to the pandemic our daughter was in preschool and had a cough for like 6 months straight, worst in the mornings. We had filters throughout the house and a humidifier in her room, the works. We were about to get a mold study done on the house when the pandemic hit. Less than two weeks home and it was gone, and has never come back. Probably had constant bronchitis.
My son was in daycare and it was a triumph if he napped for 40-50 minutes there. Probably happened 2 or 3 times per week. Pandemic hits and he sleeps 3 hours per day, no exceptions. We thought he just slept a lot on the weekends because he lacked naps during the week, but no, he just liked to nap that much. I can't even guess the difference in mental/physical development, not to mention lack of stress (for everyone) when he wasn't a basket-case every night after 6pm.
All this really highlighted the intangible costs of daycare. It was difficult to work home with them home, but I got to see my son walk and talk for the first time when I almost certainly would have missed those things otherwise.
-
^^^ Yes indeed! Those are some mega silver linings to this whole thing.
-
When you work in the health and social care profession, trust me, we are sick and tired of the media misrepresenting statistics THAT A READILY AVAILABLE to the public. There is a massive difference between 'death within 28 days of a positive covid test' (what the BBC reports), and covid as a leading cause of death… From the ONS
The leading cause of death in both England and Wales in June 2021 was ischaemic heart diseases (10.8% and 11.9% of all deaths respectively).
This compares COVID-19 as a leading cause in 0.9% of all deaths registered in June in England and 0.1% of all deaths in Wales.
PHE take a view that annual Covid vaccination will be as standardised as influenza vaccination. It will be offered to vulnerable groups and those working in certain professions.
The influenza vaccine each year is generally not that reliable as it is developed in September/October before strains have mutated over the months November to January. There are hundreds of strains of influenza and Coronavirus circulating every season, so any vaccine is hit and miss.
https://www.labnews.co.uk/article/2030503/coronavirus-is-it-just-a-type-of-flu
I've opted to not have the vaccine as my own values do not support the lack of science and ethics of testing on animals. All vaccines are laboratory tested on mice and rhesus monkeys.
That said, the UK Government are seeking to legislate that anyone entering a care home to undertake work will need to have had 2 vaccine does as of October 2021, with 12 weeks grace period. If Social Work England make it a requirement of my professional registration, I have some difficult decisions to make.
-
You have to test on animals, human or otherwise, at some point. There's no safer way at this point to make medicines and vaccines. I would rather start with a rodent than with my daughter, to put it in a human perspective and to remove the perverse illusion that we would value a mouse's life as much as a human's. Either way, your opting in or out of a vaccine does nothing to change that, and beyond idealism, you have to think about the impact of you being removed from those who love and depend upon you into the calculus around vaccination decisions. Almost every single hospitalization and death around here at least is unvaccinated people, and not always unhealthy or elderly ones. At a minimum, by opting out of a ready vaccine, you're helping the virus by providing an open Petri dish (you) for it to play around in and use as a staging ground to mutate or infect others, and thereby impacting all of civilization since we are all connected.
Not sure what is meant by "lack of science." It is a triumph of the scientific method to have made these COVID vaccines and we're lucky that they were already working on coronaviruses since SARS and other viruses, and on mRNA technology.
-
Brilliant.
If you're going to live in civilization and risk these diseases my feeling is you may as well get the offsetting benefits of civilization….
And @mclaincausey I agree 100%.
-
I am really trying my best to look at both sides of this vaccine debate.
But I keep coming back to a feeling that something isn’t quite right with this whole pandemic. Stuart T is right it’s crazy that the deaths we are told about on mainstream news are a positive test within 28 days. So how can we actually believe all these numbers??
Also we were told through out that people could be asymptomatic and spread the virus. Which was supposedly making it so dangerous. But from my understanding the vaccines are basically making people asymptomatic. So by that logic vaccinated people are spreading it without knowing.
Was asymptomatic even a word we had used before all this?!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The state of being asymptomatic (which has been a word used in medicine and allied fields for a long time) isn't what governs transmissibility. It is simply noteworthy that this virus can spread without symptoms being evident and that's part of what makes it so insidious. It is also important to note that the virus spreads even more easily from symptomatic people as they blast droplets containing the virus into the air that others breathe when they cough and sneeze, for example.
Being vaccinated means at least a couple of things: 1) you are less likely to get infected, asymptomatic or not. That means you are less likely to spread the virus. Scaling this truth up means that our communities can weather the virus more effectively with fewer deaths and less morbidity, less strain on the medical system, and less economic strain and risk of further curtailment of our freedoms. 2) if you do get infected, the chances of a serious infection (hospitalization, death, and perhaps chronic damage such as cardiac muscle or lung scarring) become almost zero. You also are less likely to spread the virus because you won't be coughing and sneezing infected fluids into the atmosphere, or wiping your nose and leaving infected residue on door handles and faucet handles.
Taking 1 and 2 together, there is less risk of you getting infected AT ALL, less risk having a symptomatic infection with vectors like coughing and sneezing that drive more community infections, much less risk of a serious infection that will land you in the hospital or the morgue, or perhaps place you on an oxygen tank in a decade, and much less risk of you symptomatically or asymptomatically spreading the virus. These facts make the vaccines inherently a good choice for individuals and for society at large.
I am not 100% sure whether or not the science is settled as to how much any of the active variants spread from vaccinated individuals (and this would have to be looked at in terms of the varied vaccines and variants).
-
But from my understanding the vaccines are basically making people asymptomatic. So by that logic vaccinated people are spreading it without knowing.
The vaccines not only prevent difficult progressions (protective effect about 80%) they also prevent the infection itself (protective effect 80-90%). In cases where vaccinated people became PCR-positive (asymptomatic) the viral load was drasticly reduced therefore spreading was drasticly reduced. With the data currently available German Robert Koch Institute concludes that ‚vaccinated people have no decisive roll within the pandemic‘.
This will likely change with the rise of more aggressive mutations.
Pardon my English.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
But from my understanding the vaccines are basically making people asymptomatic. So by that logic vaccinated people are spreading it without knowing.
The vaccines not only prevent difficult progressions (protective effect about 80%) they also prevent the infection itself (protective effect 80-90%). In cases where vaccinated people became PCR-positive (asymptomatic) the viral load was drasticly reduced therefore spreading was drasticly reduced. With the data currently available German Robert Koch Institute concludes that ‚vaccinated people have no decisive roll within the pandemic‘.
This will likely change with the rise of more aggressive mutations.
Pardon my English.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
Exactly… that's why not getting jabbed is not only a decision that is relevant for oneself but for a whole population. The less virus circulating the less risk for mutations... therefore not getting jabbed is not only stupid it is egoistic. Some people think they are young and healthy with a low risk of getting a severe progress of disease but the guy sitting next to them might be not... btw being young and healthy is no guarantee.
-
I LFT every 3rd day, and if a positive was indicated I'd have a PCR and self isolate and follow Gov.uk guidance as required. I am at less risk of spreading covid than a fully vaccinated person that does not test, or does not test regularly. As of August double vaccinated people (England, possibly NI, Wales, and Scotland) do not have to self isolate when they test positive. Therefore vaccinated people are free to spread. I would continue to isolate as required. Do the maths.
'You have to test on animals, human or otherwise' correct, in the UK pharmaceutical companies do have to test on animals to get a licence to bring your product to the licence. AI modelling is generally (by academics… Look up the research) considered more reliable than testing on other species. Trouble is it costs more so the pharmas don't lobby government for changes in legislation. Pharma and tech lobbying of Government in the UK and USA carries a hell of a lot of weight economically.
PHE have stated that covid vaccines in the UK will be opt ins in about 2-3 years, the same as influenza.
I always link to reliable resources such as the Ons and NEVER the fucking media, that edit to meet an overarching agenda. If I could invite you all to sit in on some of the MS Team's meetings I attend, I would. It would open a few eyes and minds.
Deaths within 28 days of a positive covid test in last 7 days 445
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
Deaths with Covid on the death certificate past 7 days 213
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
That's a discrepancy in how the media portrays this data of 232. That's over 51%
I have to analyse this fucking data on a week to week basis, and I used to put the news on in the evening. Most of us in my department have stopped as it just winds us up.
I've been back in our regional acute hospital this past couple of weeks too, for work and private reasons. They were interesting experiences.
-
@Stuart.T your first paragraph rests upon the supposition that infected, vaccinated people can still spread the virus as readily as unvaccinated, infected people (asymptomatic or not), but also includes a glaringly obvious fallacy: you're comparing yourself to vaccinated people who don't test regularly and follow protocols if they are infected, when you should be comparing your unvaccinated to your vaccinated self. There you will see that the risk to yourself and to others is reduced, therefore you should get vaccinated. Pretty simple.
Nothing else you've said supports your arguments either.
Could we be living in a world without animal testing? Perhaps, but we don't. So it is a meaningless argument. That testing has already happened. You're not changing that or future animal testing, you're just helping make that testing go to waste.
Could the media be off in their numbers? Sure, but we know the disease is deadly and has lasting effects. It is worth trying to mitigate this disease in the wild at least until we better understand it.
Not sure what agenda you think the media is pursuing here but all signs point to getting stuck.
-
Testing among those double vaccinated has nose dived in England. ONS research suggests this is due to people's belief that they are protected, that's their priority, and testing is not a legal requirement. I am comparing myself against this benchmark.
My view on animal testing is a personal value. I mentioned it only as a counterpoint, as thankfully we don't live in an autocracy in the UK. That is my own subjective opinion.
This is a hugely important discussion (covid and vaccination). I think it reasonable to link to reliable sources of data. I'm not afforded subjective opinions at work, they have to be supported with objective research and data, or established theory at best. If you have time, please read the linked data and articles, they are interesting.
It is really difficult for me discuss covid subjectively as I spend 37 hrs a week immersed in it. I value the opportunity to discuss these issues, but I also don't appreciate being alluded to as an egoist etc. I'd hate the thought that we might succumb to mob rule mentalities in our societies. Two way discussion is a good thing.
-
Could the media be off in their numbers? Sure, but we know the disease is deadly and has lasting effects. It is worth trying to mitigate this disease in the wild at least until we better understand it.
Not sure what agenda you think the media is pursuing here but all signs point to getting stuck.
I definitely agree with most of your points here, but I do have to say that the media does enjoy maximizing our reactions to this and always has a tendency of hyper inflating data to serve their purpose. The media isn’t ran for the sake of public education anymore, it’s ran as a business. How do you keep a customer? I don’t think they’re ashamed of using fear
-
Once again, these statements don't withstand the most trivial scrutiny.
I know you have insisted that comparing yourself to other, vaccinated people is valid, but as explained above, it is not. The important question is, will you, your loved ones, and your community, all else aside, be safer if you vaccinate or if you don't? From a logical perspective the answer is clearly that vaccination is the safer choice.
The preponderance of peer reviewed and hospital data do not support your position either. Again, upwards of 98% of hospitalizations in every geography I've seen figures for have been unvaccinated patients. And the vaccines have generally been very safe. You really have to look hard for the few edge case exceptions to that. And when you look at charts comparing vaccination rates to hospitalizations, a very strong (inverse) linear correlation is always there. From a data perspective, the answer is clear.
Sure, you have a personal view that animal testing is unnecessary. You're letting this personal belief take a part in guiding a public act (not getting vaccinated is very much a public decision, because it impacts the entire community). I consider this a non sequitur, as at the end of the day at least the animals would not have had their lives taken in vain if the vaccines are allowed to serve their purpose of protecting people's health, which is compromised every time people who are able to vaccinate fail to do so. Then your personal decision and public action are likely to add up to a (public) problem for other people (as well as a personal problem for you). And the animals are still dead, only their lives mean a little bit less. Meanwhile, human life is jeapordized by your decision. From a moral perspective, the answer is clear, as ultimately, you're not helping the animals, and you're potentially harming yourself and your community.
So the math doesn't add up. Which is fine, but it would be a lot easier to say "I don't want to take the vaccine" without attaching reasons to that decision that don't make sense.
But I guess you are helping yourself and maybe that's all that matters. Perhaps in your moral universe feeling morally superior is more important than utilitarianism, and however misguided that may be in my eyes, it is your right to be wrong.
I hope you think more deeply about the decision and its broader impact, and that's all else I'll say on the topic.
-
I would agree @cwcaswell that the media is a sensationalism machine, which is why you have to think things through without panicking based on what they say. And that includes not reflexively taking a contrarian position to their narratives, but rather thinking through the best course of action.
