Forum Topic

“Anti-vaxxers are sociopathic loons. Wouldn't give them the time of day.”The normal level of level headed open minded debate here it would appear.So much argument from people here Pooh pooing others choices in respect of what to put in their own bodies is based on reduction ad absurdem, and mirrors the approach taken globally by governments and certainly by ours.Quote from our new health secretary over the weekend:“Mr Javid told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “If you work in a care home you are working with some of the most vulnerable people in our country and if you cannot be bothered to go and get vaccinated, then get out and go and get another job.””A few points - - the vaccines whilst showing excellent initial results especially for the elderly and immune compromised are still only on emergency authorisation as it takes years to assess whether side effects develop- increasingly we are seeing whilst the vaccines are excellent at suppressing harsher symptoms leading to hospitalisation or death they are not so good at stopping the passing on of infection.  I would assume there is some benefit in transmission (chances of catching it are reduced if you don’t catch it you can’t pass on etc) but probably reduces infectivity by a factor of three say - useful but hardly a panacea and this dips in months following the injection.  This effect could be reduced by people feeling well and not realising they have being more likely to meet and pass on to others.  Broadly it would be useful to have more work on this presented in an even handed way, almost impossible now- from the start of this the MSM and the opposition have taken a position more of questioning why not lockdown harder/ restrict further rather than pressing for consideration of other effects leading to a one sided take from the government in general.  I wonder how much of this is due to the vast advertising from the government over the lockdown - ie don’t bite the hand that feeds.- great for older people In their 60s/ 70s/ 80s who were the ones suggesting from most of the hospitalisations and deaths.  Direct benefits for younger people in their teens and 20s highly dubious yet they have been subjected to coercion to have under threat of not being able to go out with their friends at universities etc.- constant framing by the government of people being stupid for not doing as they’re told, with exemptions offered only to those who can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons rather than what seems a perfectly reasonable personal decision to wait for more information on benefits, downsides, longevity of protection etc- constant referral only to anti bodies, ignoring the role played by other elements of the immune system (t cells, memory b cells, I’m sure others as well as eating healthily) Now to come to Mr Javid’s comments regarding care workers who “can’t be bothered” and should therefore lose their jobs as it’s their own fault for being lazy.  I’m assuming these may be the very same care workers who were praised for their heroism 18 months ago, who had to deal with the NHS sending back many infected patients who then infected the careworkers and other residents in the days before all residents could be vaccinated (well unless one believed Matt Hancock’s denials of course)My father was in a care home for his final year and had visiting care at home for a couple of years before that.  The carers I meant were in the main lovely people who cared deeply for their charges, working in tough conditions on low wages to do a job they found personally rewarding whilst earning some money to help them live and feed their families etc.  Some of these (I’ve seen 7-10% mentioned) have not taken the jab presumably due to having reservations and would rather wait.  They work in roles where they’ve been working unjabbed since the start, where their charges will likely now all have been jabbed for personal protection and in an environment where being jabbed doesn’t make a huge impact on passing on the virus.  Yet 70,000 will lose their jobs they love doing work desperately needed) because the government (supported by many I’m sure) are trying to bully them into having what is still an experimental vaccine under emergency only authorisation from global health authorities injected.  And this passes for normal behaviour.The damage done to those elderly care home residents by losing a percentage of their carers they have got to know could be immense.  Can’t see Mr Javid and his colleagues popping round to fill in!Personally I’m a bit in the middle (I’ve had many vaccines in my life and assuming I go travelling in the future assume I will have more) but I absolutely believe in people’s right to decide what is injected into them and I’m disturbed by the relentlessness of the machine which says of course it’s your choice but if you don’t you could lose your job (this is already happening for example in Australia where my company has told 1000s of people they will be “medically retired” for not taking a vaccine) or not be allowed into a cafe (already the case of course in France, Israel although there you are allowed to show a negative test or recent case) - here a negative test or anti bodies from infection are not allowed for these poor care workers or likely when the gov introduces vaccine passports (all the time remembering that the vaccines may reduce infectivity by 40-60% so being in a crowd of vaccinated people will be absolutely no guarantee against catching it)So much coercion, avoidance and belittling of doubts or reservations, is it any doubt that many feel uneasy and would rather wait?  Or are they all “sothiopathic loons”?

Mike Warman ● 1350d

Alisha. Agreed, if you have concerns about having the vaccine then it's your decision and people have to respect that or allay your fears with suitable facts. I suspect Michael W may have been referring to some anti-vaxxers who are seeding conspiracy theories for their own purposes rather than those with genuine concerns about vacvines, but that's up time W to clarify.Unfortunately, the Times article is behind a paywall, akthough I believe this text posted on Reddit is taken from it:"Doctors have searched for a pattern among patients to determine if less access to health checks in the pandemic or a history of Covid-19 infection may explain it but have found no obvious trend. Mitchell Lindsay, lead consultant cardiologist at the Golden Jubilee, said: “There is not any evidence that it is as a consequence of any delayed care or missed opportunity. It is likely to be due to a multitude of factors: people being sedentary with lockdown; stress; people ignoring symptoms because they do not want to present at hospital. There are probably five to ten causes, all linked.”"Apologies, I don't see the relevance of the article as I can't see anything linking the increase in heart attacks with vaccines or ethnic minorities?  Is there additional information that's missing? (Sorry if I've missed something.) I agree the causality of the increase needs further investigation as the cases given seem to be speculative but do seem reasonable explanations. However, given that some ethnic minorities appear to be affected disproportionately by Covid itself wouldn't vaccination be less risky option? 

Michael Ixer ● 1350d

Well, there is pretty conclusive scientific evidence backing the climate emergency, as there is solid evidence that the Covid vaccines work pretty well. I'm not always convinced by XR and associated groups' methods - they do raise awareness but do they also generate a negative reaction? However, to my knowledge, they do not target or theaten individuals in their homes whereas the anti-vaxxer actions reported in the Mail article are seemingly the threatening behaviour by thugs.History will judge but I suspect XR won't be condemned in the same way as anti-vaxxers - the XR actions may be viewed as that by the suffragettes usually are: some personal sacrifices by the protesters and some public inconvenience but with a positive message and, let's hope, a positive outcome. With regard to vaccines perhaps scientists ought to have some understanding of those reluctant to be vaccinated? I'm not talking about those using the antivax conspiracy message for their own political purposes but groups in society who have been abused in the past by medical researchers, others who do not understand the very small risk and need to be shown the benefits (it should be recognised that nothing is zero risk but Covid itself is a higher risk and many risk drinking alcohol, smoking, taking illicit drugs, driving, etc without thinking about them), and I have friends who were uncertain about how the vaccines' mechanisms worked, and how testing and approval processes were accelerated and thus hesitant to be vaccinated. (This was done mainly by basing development on previous research, better communications between developers and approvers, no waits for funding, being able to overlap tasks because there were no bureaucratic or funding delays when that could be safely done.) I get the impression Dr Hilary may not have been very diplomatic; perhaps more understanding and better explanations would have been more productive. I front know any scientists who think using anything other than explanation and persuasion really works?It's interesting how conspiracy theory adherents seem to club together irrespective of the issue but as the Corbyns demonstrate perhaps there can be peace in our times:-)https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/03/are-the-corbyn-brothers-an-example-to-us-all

Michael Ixer ● 1351d