Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

IGNORED

Vaccine Passport for Ashton Gate?


Recommended Posts

The fact that so many people are seemingly ready to accept the proposed domestic vaccine passports astounds me.

I am not an “anti-vaxxer” by any stretch - my two young children are up to date with their vaccinations (bar Covid), as am I. 
 

i also readily accept that Covid is dangerous to many, and given that, those people who are vulnerable would be well advised to have their jabs. 
 

However, there is a world of difference between protecting the vulnerable, and coercing the entire adult population to have the jab.

Chris Whitty is on record as saying that Covid is of no danger to the vast majority of people. Huge numbers of people will never catch it, and most who do will either be asymptomatic or have a very mild illness.
 

5 million of the most vulnerable are now fully vaccinated - 31 million more have had one dose. The vast majority are now safe.

As of Feb 2021, only 3442 people in England had died solely of Covid - the other 78,968 had pre-existing conditions. A friend went into hospital recently with final stage leukaemia, caught Covid on the ward, and was recorded in the stats as a Covid death. Nb: All lives lost are tragic - I do not wish to downplay anyone’s personal loss.

While the vaccine has had relatively few serious side effects so far, and hopefully this will continue to be the case, the fact is that it is a new vaccine technology, with trials not due to finish for at least another year, granted approval under emergency use, with its manufacturers given immunity in the event of adverse effects arising. 

As a relatively young, physically fit person who has barely ever seen their GP, why would I (and potentially my children) take an injection that it’s owners are so confident of they have legal protection, when the average age of a Covid death is approximately  80 (around the UK life expectancy)? 
 

Should I feel that I do not need the vaccine (my children certainly don’t, with just 6 u19’s with no pre-existing conditions dying), then I should be free to refuse the jab. Those that do feel they need the jab should take it. We have been fairly familiar with this system for the past few decades with the flu jab - those at risk take it, those that aren’t don’t. 
 

Under these proposals, your right to a normal life (or at least one without endless testing) will be taken away from you unless you take the vaccine that you neither need nor want.

 

Add into the mix the following:

 

Logic - you would be able to go to the pub and supermarket via bus without a VP (perfectly safe then) on your way to Ashton Gate, but he refused entry to the stadium on safety grounds! You have just been mixing with the same people on the bus and in the pub, but sitting in a seat in the open air is deemed unacceptable!
 

Even more amazing is the fact that the policy is obviously not based on any genuine public health concerns. Imagine a night out - 4 or 5 pubs with friends, with no issue. You then arrive at the nightclub, to sit with the same people you have spent the past 5 hours with, but are refused entry as it is on the VP banned list! How is that more dangerous than the pubs - can the virus read the signs above the door?!?

Thin end of the wedge - we were told numerous times by various politicians (Johnson, Gove, Zahawi) that we weren’t getting vaccine passports. Now they are on the table. Once they are here, they will be here to stay. Biometric face scanners have already been proposed to implement the system. Like the sound of those, and their accelerated intrusion into more facets of your daily life?
 

Those in favour of a VP system - do you think that millions of young, fit and healthy people should be demoted to second class citizens, for exercising their right to choose not to take an injection that they simply do not need, when those at risk are already safe?

 

Edited by Brum Red
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Flames 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait for all those worried about vaccine passports to learn about their actual passports.

 

16 minutes ago, Brum Red said:

Those in favour of a VP system - do you think that millions of young, fit and healthy people should be demoted to second class citizens, for exercising their right to choose not to take an injection that they simply do not need, when those at risk are already safe?

Not being able to go to a football match is hardly being demoted to a second class citizen. You have a right to refuse it, and private businesses have an equal right to refuse you entry.

 

I think it's important as there seems increasing evidence the vaccine(s) help reduce transmission, and help reduce spread in the community as a result. Many people are unable to get the vaccine for health reasons, so they're reliant on the "young, fit and healthy" ones you mention to do so for them. Or should people's choice not to take it demote them to "second class citizens", when they don't have a choice in the matter? Additionally the more and longer spread is around the more risk we are of covid mutating and the vaccines we do fortunately currently have no longer being effective, or as effective.

Edited by IAmNick
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/04/2021 at 09:19, spudski said:

Have people just generally just sat at home watching the BBC news over the past year, and let the constant rhetoric of fear and vaccination bullshit wash over them to a point of being brain washed?

It seems so...it's like living in North Korea...feed the masses the same narrative and they eventually become apathetic and believe everything they are being told, if you keep repeating it.

I find it fascinating that people will say in general that Governments lie, and that there is always an agenda behind their moves..yet in this instance so many have just fallen in line without ever questioning what's actually happening around the world.

Quote from Boris yesterday when asked about the vaccine...

"We don't think that they entirely reduce or remove the risk of transmission."

Not just remove risk...but reduce risk.

It's a complete farce...

Better than sitting at home watching your facebook/twitter feed and letting that rhetoric wash over you.

You've been posting nonsense on these covid threads and been continually called out for a year now and you're still here doing it. Haven't you learnt yet?

The key word in that sentence you've missed is "entirely". We don't think they entirely reduce or remove the risk of transmission.

 

Shall we go back over the last year and look at some of your other claims and predictions about covid and see how they now look?

Hmm... the "fear and rhetoric" of the bbc watching crowd who are "apathetic and believe everything they are being told" indeed. Incredible irony!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

I can't wait for all those worried about vaccine passports to learn about their actual passports.

 

Not being able to go to a football match is hardly being demoted to a second class citizen. You have a right to refuse it, and private businesses have an equal right to refuse you entry.

 

I think it's important as there seems increasing evidence the vaccine(s) help reduce transmission, and help reduce spread in the community as a result. Many people are unable to get the vaccine for health reasons, so they're reliant on the "young, fit and healthy" ones you mention to do so for them. Or should people's choice not to take it demote them to "second class citizens", when they don't have a choice in the matter? Additionally the more and longer spread is around the more risk we are of covid mutating and the vaccines we do fortunately currently have no longer being effective, or as effective.

Not being able to go to a football match/cinema/concert/other leisure activities etc, when others do have those rights? I’d have said that was a pretty perfect definition of a two-tiered system in which I could do less than my fellow citizens.

Your second point is more worthy of debate, and of course we should be sympathetic to those in that situation. Coercing those that have very valid reasons to decline the vaccine, under threat of losing their civil liberties is not a solution that I endorse. 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Flames 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/04/2021 at 11:23, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Sure about that?  The people I know who have bene vaccinated have little cards.  I doubt GP records are anyway up to date as I have heard of people being able to turn up to have spare vaccines when those booked in haven't shown.

I'm not an "anti-vaxxer" by the way before the non-football debate follows the same path here.  I am always perfectly happy to have a vaccine once it has been fully tested which includes going through several annual cycles.  So I will be having a vaccine but not any time soon.

Well let's hope you're still here then when those annual cycles have passed, personally I think your playing Russian roulette with your life, if your prepared to take that risk then so be it but don't say you weren't warned or given the opportunity if you end up very ill in hospital. 

Edited by pillred
Add comment
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brum Red said:

The fact that so many people are seemingly ready to accept the proposed domestic vaccine passports astounds me.

I am not an “anti-vaxxer” by any stretch - my two young children are up to date with their vaccinations (bar Covid), as am I. 
 

i also readily accept that Covid is dangerous to many, and given that, those people who are vulnerable would be well advised to have their jabs. 
 

However, there is a world of difference between protecting the vulnerable, and coercing the entire adult population to have the jab.

Chris Whitty is on record as saying that Covid is of no danger to the vast majority of people. Huge numbers of people will never catch it, and most who do will either be asymptomatic or have a very mild illness.
 

5 million of the most vulnerable are now fully vaccinated - 31 million more have had one dose. The vast majority are now safe.

As of Feb 2021, only 3442 people in England had died solely of Covid - the other 78,968 had pre-existing conditions. A friend went into hospital recently with final stage leukaemia, caught Covid on the ward, and was recorded in the stats as a Covid death. Nb: All lives lost are tragic - I do not wish to downplay anyone’s personal loss.

While the vaccine has had relatively few serious side effects so far, and hopefully this will continue to be the case, the fact is that it is a new vaccine technology, with trials not due to finish for at least another year, granted approval under emergency use, with its manufacturers given immunity in the event of adverse effects arising. 

As a relatively young, physically fit person who has barely ever seen their GP, why would I (and potentially my children) take an injection that it’s owners are so confident of they have legal protection, when the average age of a Covid death is approximately  80 (around the UK life expectancy)? 
 

Should I feel that I do not need the vaccine (my children certainly don’t, with just 6 u19’s with no pre-existing conditions dying), then I should be free to refuse the jab. Those that do feel they need the jab should take it. We have been fairly familiar with this system for the past few decades with the flu jab - those at risk take it, those that aren’t don’t. 
 

Under these proposals, your right to a normal life (or at least one without endless testing) will be taken away from you unless you take the vaccine that you neither need nor want.

 

Add into the mix the following:

 

Logic - you would be able to go to the pub and supermarket via bus without a VP (perfectly safe then) on your way to Ashton Gate, but he refused entry to the stadium on safety grounds! You have just been mixing with the same people on the bus and in the pub, but sitting in a seat in the open air is deemed unacceptable!
 

Even more amazing is the fact that the policy is obviously not based on any genuine public health concerns. Imagine a night out - 4 or 5 pubs with friends, with no issue. You then arrive at the nightclub, to sit with the same people you have spent the past 5 hours with, but are refused entry as it is on the VP banned list! How is that more dangerous than the pubs - can the virus read the signs above the door?!?

Thin end of the wedge - we were told numerous times by various politicians (Johnson, Gove, Zahawi) that we weren’t getting vaccine passports. Now they are on the table. Once they are here, they will be here to stay. Biometric face scanners have already been proposed to implement the system. Like the sound of those, and their accelerated intrusion into more facets of your daily life?
 

Those in favour of a VP system - do you think that millions of young, fit and healthy people should be demoted to second class citizens, for exercising their right to choose not to take an injection that they simply do not need, when those at risk are already safe?

 

Let's hope that your not one of the many so called fit and healthy young people that have caught covid and have either died or are suffering long term symptoms then, why risk it? there have been a tiny percentage of bad side effects compared to the millions who have received the vaccine, for whom it has almost certainly helped keep them alive or free from serious illness, I have a feeling whatever I say will make no difference to you as you seem to have already made up your mind which of course is your right, personally I think you are misguided but hope it turns out alright for you in the long term. I hope you don't have cause to regret your stance further down the line.

Edited by pillred
Add comment
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, pillred said:

Let's hope that your not one of the many so called fit and healthy young people that have caught covid and have either died or are suffering long term symptoms then, why risk it? there have been a tiny percentage of bad side effects compared to the millions who have received the vaccine, for whom it has almost certainly helped keep them alive or free from serious illness, I have a feeling whatever I say will make no difference to you as you seem to have already made up your mind which of course is your right, personally I think you are misguided but hope it turns out alright for you in the long term. I hope you don't have cause to regret your stance further down the line.

Thank you for the reply Pill Red - always good to have a contrary view to debate. 

Why risk it? It is like life essentially- assessing risk. I don’t drink, don’t smoke, have played sport all my life, and have a strong immune system. The number of people in my age group that have died without any known pre-existing conditions is 65. I consider my risk from Covid extremely low, and my children’s almost non-existent. 
 

Getting ill is a possibility, but again, I feel that I am well placed to recover with no outside help, like the vast, vast majority of people who catch it. I believe that many people’s perception of the risks posed by Covid have been skewed by the endless tv coverage and government messaging. 
 

We have to assess risk every day - every time you get behind the wheel of a car you risk injury or death (your own or someone else’s), and that is our responsibility and choice, not the government’s.
 

Thank you for your good wishes (I have seen plenty wishing illness and death on those with my stance on Twitter!), and for also perfectly proving my point on vaccine passports by saying “You seem to have already made up your mind, which is of course your right”. Firstly, when the vaccine has completed its trials, been approved for non-emergency use, and the long term effects are known, my mind may well change. Secondly, under a vaccine passport scheme, by exercising my right to make an informed decision as you say, the government will remove my right to see the mighty reds, my favourite bands, to enter a cinema, and will segregate me from my friends and colleagues socially.

In my view, this is chilling.
 

 

Edited by Brum Red
  • Like 6
  • Flames 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Better than sitting at home watching your facebook/twitter feed and letting that rhetoric wash over you.

You've been posting nonsense on these covid threads and been continually called out for a year now and you're still here doing it. Haven't you learnt yet?

The key word in that sentence you've missed is "entirely". We don't think they entirely reduce or remove the risk of transmission.

 

Shall we go back over the last year and look at some of your other claims and predictions about covid and see how they now look?

Hmm... the "fear and rhetoric" of the bbc watching crowd who are "apathetic and believe everything they are being told" indeed. Incredible irony!

I'll take that as a compliment coming from you...one because you're wrong, and two from reading your non football posts it has become apparent you'd be quite happy living in a far left world. 

We can agree to disagree. You and I can quote from as many sources as we like...none of them can be 100% conclusive on this topic.

The Governments use data from Scientists who have just as many peers who disagree with their conclusions.

If you want to live in a more controlled world under the guise of its ' for your health and safety'...then fill your boots.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil liberties! What about the Civil liberties of the seriously ill in hospital with Covid. Some people should be made to walk through a Covid ward, that may just open their eyes to see how this virus has affected not only the patient, but their family and friends too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, spudski said:

I'll take that as a compliment coming from you...one because you're wrong, and two from reading your non football posts it has become apparent you'd be quite happy living in a far left world. 

We can agree to disagree. You and I can quote from as many sources as we like...none of them can be 100% conclusive on this topic.

The Governments use data from Scientists who have just as many peers who disagree with their conclusions.

If you want to live in a more controlled world under the guise of its ' for your health and safety'...then fill your boots.

Ah yeah bring out the far left boogeyman. I don't want to live in a "far left" world, but even if I did that'd be irrelevant!

Can you link me these "just as many peers" who disagree? Post some sources for once, which are better than the MSM?

I've asked people so many times and never got anything back, ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brum Red said:

Not being able to go to a football match/cinema/concert/other leisure activities etc, when others do have those rights? I’d have said that was a pretty perfect definition of a two-tiered system in which I could do less than my fellow citizens.

I simply thought you were overstating it for dramatic effect.

In life there are many decisions we make our things we have to do to have "full access". A driving licence, a passport, vaccinations to go abroad, and so on.

8 hours ago, Brum Red said:

Your second point is more worthy of debate, and of course we should be sympathetic to those in that situation. Coercing those that have very valid reasons to decline the vaccine, under threat of losing their civil liberties is not a solution that I endorse

I don't agree they are valid reasons in the vast majority of cases I suppose is the difference. I think people made up their mind on it before they had a reason to and are now working backwards to justify it.

People should absolutely be free to choose whether to have it, but if they don't want to I object when they spread misinformation or pseudoscience to others to do so. To be clear I'm not saying you're doing that!

What would your suggestion be, out of interest?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Ah yeah bring out the far left boogeyman. I don't want to live in a "far left" world, but even if I did that'd be irrelevant!

Can you link me these "just as many peers" who disagree? Post some sources for once, which are better than the MSM?

I've asked people so many times and never got anything back, ever.

Google is your friend...if you are really interested, then do your own research....which I guess you have, and you've chosen to believe what you have.  I've not got time or the inclination to get into some debate about something we disagree on. You are entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. We could argue all day. Our information comes from all sources. And just because it may come from some well established institute doesn't mean it's true. I'm more likely to listen to independent opinions from people who work in industries, that have no agenda or monetary stake or owners/funding involved. The great majority of actions taking place around the world will all have people making massive profits from them. 

You may wish to reply, but as far as I'm concerned, we can agree to disagree. And there is no point debating. I respect your opinion...but I don't agree with it. 👍

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, spudski said:

Google is your friend...if you are really interested, then do your own research....which I guess you have, and you've chosen to believe what you have.  I've not got time or the inclination to get into some debate about something we disagree on. You are entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. We could argue all day. Our information comes from all sources. And just because it may come from some well established institute doesn't mean it's true. I'm more likely to listen to independent opinions from people who work in industries, that have no agenda or monetary stake or owners/funding involved. The great majority of actions taking place around the world will all have people making massive profits from them. 

You may wish to reply, but as far as I'm concerned, we can agree to disagree. And there is no point debating. I respect your opinion...but I don't agree with it. 👍

Ah yes.

The old "I've got loads of sources" then fail to post a single one and tell me to do it myself. Again.

More likely you know they're embarrassing and don't want to admit it.

What. A. Surprise.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If we have to use a Covid passport to enter Ashton gate then I would never step foot in Ashton gate again. So at the moment I won't be renewing my season ticket of 15 years until this is announced wether we need it, all 6 of my season ticket  friends are of the same opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by big p
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, pillred said:

Well let's hope you're still here then when those annual cycles have passed, personally I think your playing Russian roulette with your life, if your prepared to take that risk then so be it but don't say you weren't warned or given the opportunity if you end up very ill in hospital. 

 

It's a fair point but the same could be said about those people who don't go and get the annual 'flu vaccine every year.

If you are otherwise healthy then there is a incredibly remote chance that either 'flu or Covid will cause you serious damage let alone kill you.

I have had 'flu twice and it is ansolutely dreadful.  It is the worst that I have ever felt by a country mile.  As a consequence I ensure that I have the 'fu vaccine every year but I can certainly see how, if I was already unwell, that it would kill me as it does tens of thousands each winter.

I don't think it is to downplay Covid that I see it in the same light and, once I am happy that the vaccines have been through several annual cycles, the side effects have been established and only the safer vaccines produced, then I will be equally scrupulous in having a Covid vaccine each year as I am in having a 'flu jab.

 

 

Here is a link to the expected testing regime for a new vaccine.  This is a standard page albeit from the US for which I have just searched "what is the usual testing standard for a new vaccine".  It isn't hosted by any anti-vaxx movement or speaking about Covid.

I would draw your attention to the Phase III trials; the ones before the drug is licenced and goes into live / Phase IV trials where the vaccine continues to be monitored.

 

My view is that we have by-passed Phase III entirely and gone staright into Phase IV; which I regard as a dangerous step when you are injecting a live substance direct into the bloodstream of tens of millions of people in this country.

 

Phase III Vaccine Trials

Successful Phase II candidate vaccines move on to larger trials, involving thousands to tens of thousands of people. These Phase III tests are randomized and double blind and involve the experimental vaccine being tested against a placebo (the placebo may be a saline solution, a vaccine for another disease, or some other substance).

One Phase III goal is to assess vaccine safety in a large group of people. Certain rare side effects might not surface in the smaller groups of subjects tested in earlier phases. For example, suppose that an adverse event related to a candidate vaccine might occur in 1 of every 10,000 people. To detect a significant difference for a low-frequency event, the trial would have to include 60,000 subjects, half of them in the control, or no vaccine, group (Plotkin SA et al. Vaccines, 5th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2008). 

Vaccine efficacy is tested as well. These factors might include 1) Does the candidate vaccine prevent disease? 2) Does it prevent infection with the pathogen? 3) Does it lead to production of antibodies or other types of immune responses related to the pathogen?

Next Steps: Approval and Licensure

After a successful Phase III trial, the vaccine developer will submit a Biologics License Application to the FDA. Then the FDA will inspect the factory where the vaccine will be made and approve the labeling of the vaccine.

After licensure, the FDA will continue to monitor the production of the vaccine, including inspecting facilities and reviewing the manufacturer’s tests of lots of vaccines for potency, safety and purity. The FDA has the right to conduct its own testing of manufacturers’ vaccines.

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Brum Red said:

Those in favour of a VP system - do you think that millions of young, fit and healthy people should be demoted to second class citizens, for exercising their right to choose not to take an injection that they simply do not need, when those at risk are already safe?

Yes, because you're missing the point of how viruses behave.  Given a suitable opportunity to mutate in a young healthy completely oblivious population mutate they will.  Then when said new varient rips through the vaccinated population who's fault is it?  The government is between a rock and a hard place they have to take reasonable steps to ensure covid is controlled and that means an element of control over the population.  If you took covid out of the mix then I'd be up in arms, but we keep comparing our deaths with those of far more restricted systems and then arguing diametrically the opposite. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

It's a fair point but the same could be said about those people who don't go and get the annual 'flu vaccine every year.

If you are otherwise healthy then there is a incredibly remote chance that either 'flu or Covid will cause you serious damage let alone kill you.

I have had 'flu twice and it is ansolutely dreadful.  It is the worst that I have ever felt by a country mile.  As a consequence I ensure that I have the 'fu vaccine every year but I can certainly see how, if I was already unwell, that it would kill me as it does tens of thousands each winter.

I don't think it is to downplay Covid that I see it in the same light and, once I am happy that the vaccines have been through several annual cycles, the side effects have been established and only the safer vaccines produced, then I will be equally scrupulous in having a Covid vaccine each year as I am in having a 'flu jab.

 

 

Here is a link to the expected testing regime for a new vaccine.  This is a standard page albeit from the US for which I have just searched "what is the usual testing standard for a new vaccine".  It isn't hosted by any anti-vaxx movement or speaking about Covid.

I would draw your attention to the Phase III trials; the ones before the drug is licenced and goes into live / Phase IV trials where the vaccine continues to be monitored.

 

My view is that we have by-passed Phase III entirely and gone staright into Phase IV; which I regard as a dangerous step when you are injecting a live substance direct into the bloodstream of tens of millions of people in this country.

 

Phase III Vaccine Trials

Successful Phase II candidate vaccines move on to larger trials, involving thousands to tens of thousands of people. These Phase III tests are randomized and double blind and involve the experimental vaccine being tested against a placebo (the placebo may be a saline solution, a vaccine for another disease, or some other substance).

One Phase III goal is to assess vaccine safety in a large group of people. Certain rare side effects might not surface in the smaller groups of subjects tested in earlier phases. For example, suppose that an adverse event related to a candidate vaccine might occur in 1 of every 10,000 people. To detect a significant difference for a low-frequency event, the trial would have to include 60,000 subjects, half of them in the control, or no vaccine, group (Plotkin SA et al. Vaccines, 5th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2008). 

Vaccine efficacy is tested as well. These factors might include 1) Does the candidate vaccine prevent disease? 2) Does it prevent infection with the pathogen? 3) Does it lead to production of antibodies or other types of immune responses related to the pathogen?

Next Steps: Approval and Licensure

After a successful Phase III trial, the vaccine developer will submit a Biologics License Application to the FDA. Then the FDA will inspect the factory where the vaccine will be made and approve the labeling of the vaccine.

After licensure, the FDA will continue to monitor the production of the vaccine, including inspecting facilities and reviewing the manufacturer’s tests of lots of vaccines for potency, safety and purity. The FDA has the right to conduct its own testing of manufacturers’ vaccines.

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation

Thanks for that, my personal opinion is that the vaccine will save many more lives than any side effects ever would endanger it, yes it's a bit of a risk but I feel sure had the vaccine been able to have been rolled out even earlier then we almost certainly would not have had 126,000 deaths in this country alone, you have to weigh everything up and make your choice mine is to take that very small risk of side effects and to have a vaccine which after tests on many many thousands has been proven to cut the risk of death hospitalisation  or severe illness by 100% why wouldn't I?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Brum Red said:

The fact that so many people are seemingly ready to accept the proposed domestic vaccine passports astounds me.

I am not an “anti-vaxxer” by any stretch - my two young children are up to date with their vaccinations (bar Covid), as am I. 
 

i also readily accept that Covid is dangerous to many, and given that, those people who are vulnerable would be well advised to have their jabs. 
 

However, there is a world of difference between protecting the vulnerable, and coercing the entire adult population to have the jab.

Chris Whitty is on record as saying that Covid is of no danger to the vast majority of people. Huge numbers of people will never catch it, and most who do will either be asymptomatic or have a very mild illness.
 

5 million of the most vulnerable are now fully vaccinated - 31 million more have had one dose. The vast majority are now safe.

As of Feb 2021, only 3442 people in England had died solely of Covid - the other 78,968 had pre-existing conditions. A friend went into hospital recently with final stage leukaemia, caught Covid on the ward, and was recorded in the stats as a Covid death. Nb: All lives lost are tragic - I do not wish to downplay anyone’s personal loss.

While the vaccine has had relatively few serious side effects so far, and hopefully this will continue to be the case, the fact is that it is a new vaccine technology, with trials not due to finish for at least another year, granted approval under emergency use, with its manufacturers given immunity in the event of adverse effects arising. 

As a relatively young, physically fit person who has barely ever seen their GP, why would I (and potentially my children) take an injection that it’s owners are so confident of they have legal protection, when the average age of a Covid death is approximately  80 (around the UK life expectancy)? 
 

Should I feel that I do not need the vaccine (my children certainly don’t, with just 6 u19’s with no pre-existing conditions dying), then I should be free to refuse the jab. Those that do feel they need the jab should take it. We have been fairly familiar with this system for the past few decades with the flu jab - those at risk take it, those that aren’t don’t. 
 

Under these proposals, your right to a normal life (or at least one without endless testing) will be taken away from you unless you take the vaccine that you neither need nor want.

 

Add into the mix the following:

 

Logic - you would be able to go to the pub and supermarket via bus without a VP (perfectly safe then) on your way to Ashton Gate, but he refused entry to the stadium on safety grounds! You have just been mixing with the same people on the bus and in the pub, but sitting in a seat in the open air is deemed unacceptable!
 

Even more amazing is the fact that the policy is obviously not based on any genuine public health concerns. Imagine a night out - 4 or 5 pubs with friends, with no issue. You then arrive at the nightclub, to sit with the same people you have spent the past 5 hours with, but are refused entry as it is on the VP banned list! How is that more dangerous than the pubs - can the virus read the signs above the door?!?

Thin end of the wedge - we were told numerous times by various politicians (Johnson, Gove, Zahawi) that we weren’t getting vaccine passports. Now they are on the table. Once they are here, they will be here to stay. Biometric face scanners have already been proposed to implement the system. Like the sound of those, and their accelerated intrusion into more facets of your daily life?
 

Those in favour of a VP system - do you think that millions of young, fit and healthy people should be demoted to second class citizens, for exercising their right to choose not to take an injection that they simply do not need, when those at risk are already safe?

 

I'm even more surprised you'd trust the words of Chris Whitty. Another voice box for a far right political regime. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pillred said:

Thanks for that, my personal opinion is that the vaccine will save many more lives than any side effects ever would endanger it, yes it's a bit of a risk but I feel sure had the vaccine been able to have been rolled out even earlier then we almost certainly would not have had 126,000 deaths in this country alone, you have to weigh everything up and make your choice mine is to take that very small risk of side effects and to have a vaccine which after tests on many many thousands has been proven to cut the risk of death hospitalisation  or severe illness by 100% why wouldn't I?  

 

I think where we differ is that I do not agree with the "very small risk of side effects".  Medicines and vaccines which have not properly tested can have very serious side effects which are not immediately apparent like Thalidomide, which I know is not a vaccine, as well as immediately apparent ones like blood clots.

There is also continued pushing of the line by the government of "the vaccine" when there is not one vaccine but multiple ones each very different in the way that they work.  They can't all be equally safe so which is the safest?  There is no attempt to find out which is the safest and use this instead it is "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" as the government simply buys and rolls out whatever it can get.

This is the absolute Wild West of medicine.  Testing and trials procedures are there for a very good reason and that reason is being deliberately ignored.

I am unable to list out the multiple vaccines and their supposed side effects as I am not that interested; I simply want the standard set of medical trials to take place prior to my accepting a live vaccine into my body.  That may mean that some of the currently administered vaccines fail trials and are therefore withdrawn.

If I was older or in ill health then yes I would have a vaccine because on a balance of risks I would be less worried about a possible side-effect from vaccination than of catching Covid.  My parents have both had "the jab" and follow-up jab and I did nothing to dissuade them because I regarded that as good news on balance of risks.  They are, of course, rather older than me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

My view is that we have by-passed Phase III entirely and gone staright into Phase IV; which I regard as a dangerous step when you are injecting a live substance direct into the bloodstream of tens of millions of people in this country.

Why?

Phase 4 is "optional studies that drug companies may conduct after a vaccine is released." - however there were many trials conducted before the vaccine was released which were surely considered Phase 3?

In the UK: "Phase III study – a trial in a much larger group of people (usually several thousand). Phase III trials gather statistically significant data on the vaccine's safety and efficacy (how well it works). This means looking at whether the vaccine generates a level of immunity that would prevent disease, and provides evidence that the vaccine can actually reduce the number of cases. It also gives a better chance of identifying rarer side effects not seen in the phase II study."

For our vaccines:

Pfizer, 43,000 people Phase 3: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

AstraZenica, 32,459 people Phase 3 (double blind, placebo controlled): https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04516746

There are more as well. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

I think where we differ is that I do not agree with the "very small risk of side effects".  Medicines and vaccines which have not properly tested can have very serious side effects which are not immediately apparent like Thalidomide, which I know is not a vaccine, as well as immediately apparent ones like blood clots.

There is also continued pushing of the line by the government of "the vaccine" when there is not one vaccine but multiple ones each very different in the way that they work.  They can't all be equally safe so which is the safest?  There is no attempt to find out which is the safest and use this instead it is "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" as the government simply buys and rolls out whatever it can get.

This is the absolute Wild West of medicine.  Testing and trials procedures are there for a very good reason and that reason is being deliberately ignored.

I am unable to list out the multiple vaccines and their supposed side effects as I am not that interested; I simply want the standard set of medical trials to take place prior to my accepting a live vaccine into my body.  That may mean that some of the currently administered vaccines fail trials and are therefore withdrawn.

If I was older or in ill health then yes I would have a vaccine because on a balance of risks I would be less worried about a possible side-effect from vaccination than of catching Covid.  My parents have both had "the jab" and follow-up jab and I did nothing to dissuade them because I regarded that as good news on balance of risks.  They are, of course, rather older than me.

Wild west of medicine? 

Respectfully, I don't think you have a grip on how medicines are regulated. 

My own son has spent over 10 years on medical and drug trials. I can assure you they are frustratingly cautious.

So cautious, in fact, that the lay person might easily be persuaded they are deliberately holding drugs back. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I am unable to list out the multiple vaccines and their supposed side effects as I am not that interested; I simply want the standard set of medical trials to take place prior to my accepting a live vaccine into my body.  That may mean that some of the currently administered vaccines fail trials and are therefore withdrawn.

 

What do you mean by "live vaccine"?

The Pfizer vaccine is an mRNA one so doesn't actually contain covid, it contains something which teaches our body how to make a protein to fight the virus. It's impossible for it to cause covid. It contains no live virus at all.

The Oxford/AZ one I believe contains a weakened different virus with the same spike protein. It's been genetically changed so it's harmless.

Moderna is mRNA as well I believe so has no live virus again.

Edited by IAmNick
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

I think where we differ is that I do not agree with the "very small risk of side effects".  Medicines and vaccines which have not properly tested can have very serious side effects which are not immediately apparent like Thalidomide, which I know is not a vaccine, as well as immediately apparent ones like blood clots.

There is also continued pushing of the line by the government of "the vaccine" when there is not one vaccine but multiple ones each very different in the way that they work.  They can't all be equally safe so which is the safest?  There is no attempt to find out which is the safest and use this instead it is "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" as the government simply buys and rolls out whatever it can get.

This is the absolute Wild West of medicine.  Testing and trials procedures are there for a very good reason and that reason is being deliberately ignored.

I am unable to list out the multiple vaccines and their supposed side effects as I am not that interested; I simply want the standard set of medical trials to take place prior to my accepting a live vaccine into my body.  That may mean that some of the currently administered vaccines fail trials and are therefore withdrawn.

If I was older or in ill health then yes I would have a vaccine because on a balance of risks I would be less worried about a possible side-effect from vaccination than of catching Covid.  My parents have both had "the jab" and follow-up jab and I did nothing to dissuade them because I regarded that as good news on balance of risks.  They are, of course, rather older than me.

As am I (probably) but I would most likely have had it even if I was younger like you, I may be wrong here but the vaccines do differ in their approach to combating the virus are some not live?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

What do you mean by "live vaccine"?

The Pfizer vaccine is an mRNA one so doesn't actually contain covid, it contains something which teaches our body how to make a protein to fight the virus. It's impossible for it to cause covid. It contains no live virus at all.

The Oxford/AZ one I believe contains a weakened different virus with the same spike protein. It's been genetically changed so it's harmless.

Moderna is mRNA as well I believe so has no live virus again.

You make a lot of interesting points there.

What so many people seem to also be overlooking, is that we’re potentially only one virus mutation away from this all kicking off again, regardless of vaccinations, so we’re far from over this.

As for the current vaccine, I dread to think how many more would have died if the roll-out had been delayed for even a couple of months, let alone the traditional testing periods of the past.  

This was definitely a needs must situation, and the fact that the roll-out happened when it did must have saved many thousands of lives. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Why?

Phase 4 is "optional studies that drug companies may conduct after a vaccine is released." - however there were many trials conducted before the vaccine was released which were surely considered Phase 3?

In the UK: "Phase III study – a trial in a much larger group of people (usually several thousand). Phase III trials gather statistically significant data on the vaccine's safety and efficacy (how well it works). This means looking at whether the vaccine generates a level of immunity that would prevent disease, and provides evidence that the vaccine can actually reduce the number of cases. It also gives a better chance of identifying rarer side effects not seen in the phase II study."

For our vaccines:

Pfizer, 43,000 people Phase 3: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

AstraZenica, 32,459 people Phase 3 (double blind, placebo controlled): https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04516746

There are more as well. 

 

 

 

You're missing the necessary time depth.  Some inherent side-effects will take a long time to show up: birth defects, infertility, being more prone to certain cancers.  There is also the response of the vaccine to the next year variant; for some viruses, from memory Dengue fever is one, having the vaccone one year makes you more susceptible to the next year variant than had you not had the prior year vaccine.

 

51 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

Wild west of medicine? 

Respectfully, I don't think you have a grip on how medicines are regulated. 

My own son has spent over 10 years on medical and drug trials. I can assure you they are frustratingly cautious.

So cautious, in fact, that the lay person might easily be persuaded they are deliberately holding drugs back. 

 

My use of the term "Wild West" was specifically because those normal excellent standards have just had a coach and horses driven through them with regard to Covid vaccines.

I strongly approve of the normal regulation procedures as would be clear had you read my full post.  Respectfully.

 

49 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

What do you mean by "live vaccine"?

The Pfizer vaccine is an mRNA one so doesn't actually contain covid, it contains something which teaches our body how to make a protein to fight the virus. It's impossible for it to cause covid. It contains no live virus at all.

The Oxford/AZ one I believe contains a weakened different virus with the same spike protein. It's been genetically changed so it's harmless.

Moderna is mRNA as well I believe so has no live virus again.

 

It was simply shorthand for putting something in your body that isn't a simple chemical like aspirin.  You are reading too much into it.

 

20 minutes ago, pillred said:

As am I (probably) but I would most likely have had it even if I was younger like you, I may be wrong here but the vaccines do differ in their approach to combating the virus are some not live?

 

As above pillread; I am not claiming clinical knowledge here.

My attititude is because there is a standard system of regulation and that has been blatantly circumvented.

I would feel, and behave, exactly the same if the established system of safety inspection of passenger aircraft was simply waived because governments wanted fewer planes grounded on safety reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, BrizzleRed said:

You make a lot of interesting points there.

What so many people seem to also be overlooking, is that we’re potentially only one virus mutation away from this all kicking off again, regardless of vaccinations, so we’re far from over this.

As for the current vaccine, I dread to think how many more would have died if the roll-out had been delayed for even a couple of months, let alone the traditional testing periods of the past.  

This was definitely a needs must situation, and the fact that the roll-out happened when it did must have saved many thousands of lives. 

Viruses have always mutated haven't they like this is one doing? In fact didn't the Spanish Flu mutate in to something less dangerous and not be an issue anymore which is why that pandemic ended? They will amend boosters for the new variants like the flu jab but of course there will be deaths and risk - that's life. 

If we lockdown every time there is a slightly more dangerous variant of this then we might as well hide under the stairs the rest of our lives. The effects of not returning to normal life asap now far outweigh the effects currently - especially when you see the number of deaths and hospital admissions at the moment. I certainly can't do another year like the one we've just had - no point being alive if so as all I do is work and go for exercise. We are used to a proper life and we need that back especially when this is has a survival rate of well over 99% and much more now the vaccine is here.

So I'm all for vaccine being rolled out asap but anything other than returning back to normal life is a huge mistake for the vast majority IMO.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eddie Hitler said:

You're missing the necessary time depth.  Some inherent side-effects will take a long time to show up: birth defects, infertility, being more prone to certain cancers.  There is also the response of the vaccine to the next year variant; for some viruses, from memory Dengue fever is one, having the vaccone one year makes you more susceptible to the next year variant than had you not had the prior year vaccine.

Perhaps, but that wasn't in your quote for the Phase 3 stuff I don't think?

The phase 3 trials of the Pfizer one started in July. The Oxford/AZ vaccine phase 3 trials began as early as April last year I believe. You've said you take the flu vaccine which is changed every year?

You're right long term side effects are of course possible.

1 hour ago, Eddie Hitler said:

It was simply shorthand for putting something in your body that isn't a simple chemical like aspirin.  You are reading too much into it.

But while aspirin is a "simple" chemical, it can have a huge range of effects on the body. I'm not sure what the "simplicity" of a chemical, however you're measuring that, is meant to indicate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...