That post is more fun if you read it in a disappointed voice.
That post is more fun if you read it in a disappointed voice.
A scan of today's figures tells me that the south is steaming on ahead while the north (or specifically, the rugby league belt of the north) is levelling off completely.
Two theories around this:
- Fewer people able to work from home / socially distance in the north
- Herd immunity in the south vs the new variant
The London figures in particular are mental. Camden, Islington, Westminster, Tower Hamlets are all in the lowest 10 incidence levels in the country.
Just been reading through old posts in this thread. Page 153 is an absolute corker.
That was his last post...
What if he was killed at work (or whilst travelling to) that next day?
It's an absolutely belting last post, to be fair.
The target of vaccinating all adults has been brought forward from September to July.
Even that is way conservative. Will piss it.
And then send the spares to an African country that'll stockpile it for the ruling classes.
Someone close to me is refusing the vaccine based on concerns that the MRNA one has never reached stage 3 trials until CV-19 turned up. They are worried about the long term unknown risks of it.
Does anyone have an intelligent counter argument (reassurance) to this?
They are also in their 30's and claim that they don't need a flu jab, so why do they need to take this jab. Again, any intelligent counter to this?
Covid is not flu. Flu is less fatal. Covid has unknown long-term risks. And a known short term risk that is death.
True. But when you consider the percentage risk of dying from it (as someone in their 30's) it really is extremely low risk. I think it's about 0.2%. The long term covid I'm not so sure about the percentage risk though.
I can see their argument, but I'm going to take it if offered.
Yes, if offered, I'd take it. Mainly to protect others from a thing I might not know I have. If this thing was transmissible at the point of symptoms showing, I'd have a much easier time skipping it.
I think it is reasonable for people to have doubts on the vaccine but I believe it is worth getting.
In the body you’ve got a set of reactions that convert your DNA to mRNA to protein. The protein is then the thing that has a biological effect. An example is your pancreas cells which make insulin.
So if your body is not currently infected, or you have never been infected, your immune system has absolutely no recognition of the virus’ proteins. The vaccine introduces the virus mRNA which then allows the cells to make the virus protein and your immune system is alerted. Then when you come into contact with the virus out in the world, your immune system is already primed to deal with it i.e. you don’t get ill. The vaccine doesn’t modify your DNA or any pseudoscience wank like that.
The short term safety of these vaccines is robust. Granted, we don’t know the long term but you’d imagine they’d be okay. The mRNA that gets injected into you is either converted to the proteins (which are then destroyed by the immune system) or it degrades and is removed as a waste product. In theory, it should be fine.
And lastly, it’s not only about protecting yourself from symptoms but also stopping transmission and infecting other people. We believe the vaccines vastly reduce the transmission rates from person to person.
I see you sentiment, Spikerella. And generally I'm all for the vaccinations. However, I don't think you can dismiss people's concerns that flippantly.
Vaccines have historically gone wrong (source: https://www.ctpost.com/local/article...t-15530841.php). But I do acknowledge medical science has come a long way since then.
Thanks 7om, that's really helpful. And I note your comment that we simply do not have enough data to have any evidence of long term risks of the MRNA vaccine. But I fully acknowledge that the risk of CV-19 are, at this stage, more tangible and deadly.
My argument to my close friend is that the government's (and their advisers) all around the world surely wouldn't be allowing the MRNA vaccine to be used if there were any serious consequences known or foreseen at this stage. Quite a basic and vague viewpoint from myself I do admit.
As stated before, I will take it as I have enough confidence in it. But my friend won't at this stage. Citing as long you have a healthy lifestyle and below 40 then your risks are relatively low.
I would just ask why they aren't so risk averse with the rest of their decisions.
I presume they aren't quaking with fear that every pork product may contain worms that take up residence in your brain?
I presume they travel by Plane?
There are lots of things we do every day that have the potential to kill us.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...and-wales-2010
Lots of day to day activities to worry about there.
Truth be told, if someone is trotting out lines like "AN MRNA VACCINE HAS NEVER REACHED STAGE 3 TRIALS BEFORE!" then they're already too far gone. Mostly because the likely have no idea what an MRNA vaccine is or what Stage 3 trials are. They're just parroting what some mong on social media said.
Something I probably should have mentioned is that clinical trials are set up to test safety as first priority over effectiveness.
Phase 1 - purely safety in a small population.
Phase 2 - safety and effectiveness in a small to medium population.
Phase 3 - safety and effectiveness in large numbers to represent the general population.
So whatever mRNA products have gone through phase 1/2 have been tested for safety. Hopefully that can ease the fears of your relative.
Taz I would imagine.
I mean, he’s not far off.
Like if I got Covid, there’s practically zero risk of me dying.
I'm a twit
Correct, but he didn't say there's a low chance of dying, he said there are no health effects.
Kiko desperately trying to justify staying in Fife.
Can't blame him, I've seen the whisky collection they're rocking.
Will you take the vaccine, Magic?
He doesn't want double-autism.
No.
"post Covid".
Would you take it if your job depended on it?
A significant proportion of those with asymptomatic or mild disease have evidence of cardiac damage on follow-up MRI scans.
We don't know the long-term significance of that yet, but I'd much rather "risk" the vaccine than pretty much any chance of getting heart failure down the line.
Without wanting to fall in with the sceptic fringe lunatics, is that evidence of cardiac damage actually attributable to having had covid, or would it show up in a lot of people if they were routinely scanned (which I assume they aren't)?
Annual flu deaths are hard to gauge but I'll use this as a source. Taking the more conservative number puts Covid down as five times deadlier. It's not glorified. It's much more effective. Even so, this is not a seasonal illness. It's something we, until very recently had no means of natural defence.
166,000 people are estimated to die of cancer each year in the UK. Covid has managed three quarters of that number in two waves.
To call this glorified flu is flippant and incorrect.
The mans scared of airports, not flu.
Covid may be similar to the Flu, but It's hard to say because we have a vaccine and immunity throughout the population. It's not really comparable.
All we can say for certain is that novel Flu strains have been pretty fucking deadly before now, so saying "it's just the flu" is quite stupid.
Last edited by Spikey M; 21-02-2021 at 12:28 PM.
Magic is the definition of ‘quite stupid’
That's it really. If it was "just flu" then yeah, overreaction. But it's not. It's deadly in certain age groups, it can knock the age group below it into hospital requiring intensive care (and attention) and for others, produce potential longer term impacts. It's fucking ignorant to still parrot that line at this point.