Coronavirus

[ricky2tricky4city]

The disease is contagious and kills old people. If we open up society after people get vaccinated then those who aren't vaccinated and don't care can still catch it and transmit it. Hence why they shouldn't be allowed to give the disease to people who have been responsible enough to take the vaccine.

In your scenario you are implying the vaccine hasn't worked? or have iread that wrong?

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

I believe we’ve ordered 30 million from Belgium coming in January. Hopefully there isnt anything happening around that time to delay shipping...

Classic, you couldn't make it up

 

[glorygloryeze]

The disease is contagious and kills old people. If we open up society after people get vaccinated then those who aren't vaccinated and don't care can still catch it and transmit it. Hence why they shouldn't be allowed to give the disease to people who have been responsible enough to take the vaccine.

If any vaccine is good enough, whoever takes it cannot be 'given the disease' by those who are 'carriers''.
Once a vaccine goes into a person's body it doesn't all of a sudden stop working if a next door neighbour, family member, person sitting next to them on a bus etc hasn't had the same vaccine.

 

[glorygloryeze]

there is zero chance of a vaccine being mandatory.

plus the new mRNA tech utilised in this (pfizer) vaccine is enough to make many people think 'maybe not this time' and thats before you get to the noisy anti-vaxxer crowd, twitterati and the playground mums. Many people don't like GM food, so to have genetic instructions injected into you is not going to be a goer for them, even if its explained to them, lets be honest.

..not to talk of the fact that the manufacturers are having any indemnity waived if anyone takes it and it has serious negative side effects for them (nice work if you can get it...)

 

[Glenda's Legs]

If any vaccine is good enough, whoever takes it cannot be 'given the disease' by those who are 'carriers''.
Once a vaccine goes into a person's body it doesn't all of a sudden stop working if a next door neighbour, family member, person sitting next to them on a bus etc hasn't had the same vaccine.

But there are people who for whatever reason can't have a particular vaccine. For those people it is the herd immunity built up across society by the vaccine that (in part) protects them.

 

[scaramanga]

Some logistical issues for the Pfizer vac....................

Some vaccines can be stored at normal fridge temperature and easily transported to wherever they’re needed. But things are trickier with this one. It has to be kept at -70C and in carefully handled containers. According to a presentation slide published online, which has been quoted by Science magazine, the dry ice in the box containing vaccine doses has to be replenished within 24 hours upon delivery, the box can’t be open more than twice in one day and it can only remain open for a maximum of one minute each time.

Not only that, manufacturers will require a vast and reliable source of materials such as glass vials so that they can produce and package billions of doses of the vaccine. Ensuring all of this goes to plan and the vaccine is delivered in appropriate conditions all around the world is not easy. The requirements for keeping it very cold only add to the expense and complexity of the operation. As does the fact that recipients need to get two doses at the right time, three weeks apart.

I believe the plan is to build a load of small production units locally to all the places that are outside the common distribution routes.

It's not a quick fix any way you slice it.

 

[glorygloryeze]

But there are people who for whatever reason can't have a particular vaccine. For those people it is the herd immunity built up across society by the vaccine that (in part) protects them.

I get that, but there are also people who are on cancer treatment or in other immunocompromised groups all the time; does everybody need to take x medications etc to protect those people too?
What about the people who would have their health badly effected by taking any vaccine or treatment? Should they always take such to protect that other group? You see you can always go round in constant circles with the 'herd immunity' thing...

 

[johnola]

Here are the priority groups for the rollout of covid19 vaccinations. This is high level and not specific to the Pfizer jabs....

1. older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers1
2. all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers1
3. all those 75 years of age and over
4. all those 70 years of age and over
5. all those 65 years of age and over
6. high-risk adults under 65 years of age
7. moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
8. all those 60 years of age and over
9. all those 55 years of age and over
10. all those 50 years of age and over
11. rest of the population (priority to be determined)2

The prioritisation could change substantially if the first available vaccines were not considered suitable for, or effective in, older adults.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...nterim ranking of priorities,in, older adults.

 

[johnola]

Back of an envelope calc suggests the 40 million procured doses (given twice), will cover more or less everyone in the above groups except the general population under 50....

 

[P.D.]

If any vaccine is good enough, whoever takes it cannot be 'given the disease' by those who are 'carriers''.
Once a vaccine goes into a person's body it doesn't all of a sudden stop working if a next door neighbour, family member, person sitting next to them on a bus etc hasn't had the same vaccine.

I thought they don't know if you can still get it and say be asymptomatic but still transmit it or get a mild dose of it and still transmit it. Probably won't know that for a while yet.

 

[Mikey10]

At least 50,000 now dead. Remember when 20,000 deaths “would be a good outcome”?

Meanwhile Downing St’s in turmoil (Lee Cain has resigned and Cummings is apparently considering his position) and the PM spent most of the day wandering round in a hi-vis. Somebody needs to tell him he won the election a year ago; he needs to stop campaigning and get on with leading.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I get that, but there are also people who are on cancer treatment or in other immunocompromised groups all the time; does everybody need to take x medications etc to protect those people too?
What about the people who would have their health badly effected by taking any vaccine or treatment? Should they always take such to protect that other group? You see you can always go round in constant circles with the 'herd immunity' thing...

I think that is pretty much what I was saying? All those examples - cancer treatment, immunocompromised, health badly effected by taking a vaccine - would fall under what I described as " people who for whatever reason can't have a particular vaccine".
For anyone for whom having a vaccine wouldn't (knowingly) cause problems - then yes, provided the vaccine has passed all the necessary safety thresholds, I think they should have the vaccine in order to protect those who can't.

 

[monkeybarry]

I've been somewhere that needed two within the preceding 5 days (and 48 hours apart!)

There was a slight risk element. For the second one I went to a walk-in centre in Harlseden 2 days before departure and just hoped the result came in time..(it did, within 1 day actually).

Good job!!
Was that NHS walk-in?
Bupa say 3-5 for results, which is annoying. Don't mind paying the £65, just need to know I'll get the result in time. Ggrrrr

 

[monkeybarry]

At least 50,000 now dead. Remember when 20,000 deaths “would be a good outcome”?

Meanwhile Downing St’s in turmoil (Lee Cain has resigned and Cummings is apparently considering his position) and the PM spent most of the day wandering round in a hi-vis. Somebody needs to tell him he won the election a year ago; he needs to stop campaigning and get on with leading.

Oh please no, it's bad enough as it is

 

[monkeybarry]

True, although International human rights laws advise that it should be unlawful to discriminate due to health status and that it's a persons right to determine what medicines/vaccines enters their body without discrimination. However, will this be respected?

A society where certain privileges are only given if you have certain injections / medication / health status wouldn't be great.

Next up, tax breaks if you are sterilised (Although actually...I've undone my own argument as that sounds good)

That opens up a very interesting question - those laws are written about societies that have overall good vaccination and immunity to most viruses, leaving the risk to society (public health, economy etc etc) of anyone choosing not to take up vaccination at very low level.

As societies we decide the kinds of behaviour we don't find acceptable to eachother, these change over time - you are no longer allowed to keep a human captive to work for you; you must let people love who they like etc.
If being antivaxx in the post covid world is a risk to society, then it isn't a huge leap for there to be punitive measures (restricted access to things) or criminal measures attached.
We've been lucky that criminal justice has focused on decriminalisation for decades, but ultimately it's about protection of the public, and that may vaccination if you want to stay part of society.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Was on a MOD call earlier and all stand h resource is being diverted for testing and for vaccinations
By all i mean everyone that’s not overseas and all leave cancelled
May not sound that radical but i work on overseas sensitive stuff and this came up on a call around that so it’s very unique

 

[awesome dawson]

Dubious company being kept at the non scientific end of the scale.

 

[P.D.]

That opens up a very interesting question - those laws are written about societies that have overall good vaccination and immunity to most viruses, leaving the risk to society (public health, economy etc etc) of anyone choosing not to take up vaccination at very low level.

As societies we decide the kinds of behaviour we don't find acceptable to eachother, these change over time - you are no longer allowed to keep a human captive to work for you; you must let people love who they like etc.
If being antivaxx in the post covid world is a risk to society, then it isn't a huge leap for there to be punitive measures (restricted access to things) or criminal measures attached.
We've been lucky that criminal justice has focused on decriminalisation for decades, but ultimately it's about protection of the public, and that may vaccination if you want to stay part of society.

What about say if you're receiving benefits but are an anti vaxxer - should they continue to receive them at the same level? SHould it be a condition of receiving state benefits that part of the deal is you need to also take the government things used to manage society like a vaccine? I think there should be some link.

 

[scaramanga]

What about say if you're receiving benefits but are an anti vaxxer - should they continue to receive them at the same level? SHould it be a condition of receiving state benefits that part of the deal is you need to also take the government things used to manage society like a vaccine? I think there should be some link.

That's the proper answer.

I don't believe the govt should be able to make anyone do something to their bodies against their will - that kind of power is fraught with danger.

Absolutely no reason why anyone (govt and private businesses) shouldn't refuse access to anyone who isn't vaccinated though. If you want government services, you have to be vaccinated. That's a lot less onerous than "Give us half of your money every month or we'll put you in prison"

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

If you want government services, you have to be vaccinated.

Except for the ones you pay for, I hope?