Thoughts on the latest news about the Vaccine?

[hell2bwith76]

Part of governments contingency and crises planning is to look at worse case - the stark reality is that older people and people with disabilities would lose access to treatment first, if a health system becomes overwhelmed.

It has nothing to do with young peoples opinions (although I appreciate you have received some shocking comments from Blue in chat over this)

I agree Fun. My kids and grandkids are all worried about us two being in the Vulnerable groupings . The young are generally concered about the elderly .Most of the anti age thing comes from extreme persons or people in the 40 to 60 age group : lol.

 

[Bad_Influence]

I agree Fun. My kids and grandkids are all worried about us two being in the Vulnerable groupings . The young are generally concered about the elderly .Most of the anti age thing comes from extreme persons or people in the 40 to 60 age group : lol.

Silly old man

 

[jenarator202]

I was quite interested in the statement re the two Ambulances turning up, I think that all have forgotten about nurturing our children, for example if I was in one ambulance and say one of my children, grandchildren in the other, I most certainly would have directed the staff to save my child over myself and I think that most people would react in the same way. After all we have spent years and a lot of effort in bringing up our children to ensure that they have a future better than ours. However, life is important regardless of what age you are.

 

[BasildonBond]

I never had much faith in the vaccine, it was rushed into production far too quickly. It became a race between the drug companies, corners were inevitably cut. Not only that, the virus has already mutated, so it must have reduced the vaccine's efficacy. Herd immunity was possibly the way to go. The government did flirt with that at the start but instead, went for the endless lockdown route. Sooner or later, everyone will have to come into contact with the virus. It might have been better to let nature take its course and get it over and done with, was just a thought.

I don't think it's true that "corners were inevitably cut". Testing stages that were previously run in sequence have this time been run in parallel, allowing the whole process to be truncated. Even if that was true, the licensing authorities would have taken a dim view and possibly not licensed the vaccines so quickly, though obviously they were under immense pressure to do so. Even if there are risks with the vaccines, I think you have to balance them against the risks of NOT being vaccinated, especially (though not exclusively) for people of my age and older.The Herd Immunity thing is an interesting idea in theory but would have taken ages to achieve and inevitably resulted in the NHS being totally overwhelmed in the meantime, not to mention many more deaths.

 

[Bad_Influence]

I don't think it's true that "corners were inevitably cut". Testing stages that were previously run in sequence have this time been run in parallel, allowing the whole process to be truncated. Even if that was true, the licensing authorities would have taken a dim view and possibly not licensed the vaccines so quickly, though obviously they were under immense pressure to do so. Even if there are risks with the vaccines, I think you have to balance them against the risks of NOT being vaccinated, especially (though not exclusively) for people of my age and older.The Herd Immunity thing is an interesting idea in theory but would have taken ages to achieve and inevitably resulted in the NHS being totally overwhelmed in the meantime, not to mention many more deaths.

What evidence is there that herd immunity would have resulted in many more deaths? When this first started we were told that we would have done well to keep the death toll under 20,000. We’ve now had over 90,000 deaths using the lockdown method, I’d say the scientists got it wrong wouldn’t you? So who can say herd immunity would not have worked better?
And if we had properly shielded the old and vulnerable, I think the NHS would have coped. Of course the old and vulnerable wouldn’t have liked that, keeping them isolated just to protect their lives, how very dare we? Lol

 

[BasildonBond]

I take your point about the licensing authorities, it's just that it was a race with a great prize at the end of it.. . . The pfizer? vaccine for me, is the one to avoid, what with it having to be kept at -70 degrees in transit, and those 30 deaths in Norway after getting the vaccine. I will have the Oxford one, simply out of necessity. The vaccine may not be mandatory, but you'll struggle without it. Already cruise companies are saying you must have had the vaccine, you won't be able to get on a plane, no way will you get a dentist appointment etc. . . . .

I do take your point about the vaccine companies being in a kind of commercial race to get their product licensed first but if you think about it, it doesn't make commercial sense for such companies to have rushed through their Covid vaccine development. If it is found that efficacy rates are much lower than reported, or serious side effects come to light, it would REALLY hurt the bottom line of these major companies. At the end of the day, I doubt they'd intentionally do anything that would hurt their profits and anger their shareholders. Like you, I hope I get the Oxford vaccine, because all things considered, I think it's probably the best one. But I'm not sure we'll have a choice actually. I guess we'll get what we're given!

 

[BasildonBond]

What evidence is there that herd immunity would have resulted in many more deaths? When this first started we were told that we would have done well to keep the death toll under 20,000. We’ve now had over 90,000 deaths using the lockdown method, I’d say the scientists got it wrong wouldn’t you? So who can say herd immunity would not have worked better?
And if we had properly shielded the old and vulnerable, I think the NHS would have coped. Of course the old and vulnerable wouldn’t have liked that, keeping them isolated just to protect their lives, how very dare we? Lol

All I would say is that herd immunity would take a while to achieve and in the meantime the NHS may well have been overwhelmed and more people would have died. Many more than those who have died through successive lockdowns. I think the consensus of experts suggests that my view is correct, but I respect your right to an alternative opinion.

 

[BasildonBond]

What evidence is there that herd immunity would have resulted in many more deaths? When this first started we were told that we would have done well to keep the death toll under 20,000. We’ve now had over 90,000 deaths using the lockdown method, I’d say the scientists got it wrong wouldn’t you? So who can say herd immunity would not have worked better?
And if we had properly shielded the old and vulnerable, I think the NHS would have coped. Of course the old and vulnerable wouldn’t have liked that, keeping them isolated just to protect their lives, how very dare we? Lol

....and as for shielding the vulnerable (not just the old).....you have to assess the mental health implications of telling people not to go out for months and months. I don't think the scientists HAVE got it wrong actually. It is hellishly difficult to predict how a virus will sweep through a country, not least because scientists aren't experts in human behaviour, nor determiners of Government policy. Factor in too the emergence of more virulent strains and it's all very difficult to predict. It is not scientists who have got things wrong....it is US, the great British people, many of whom have not taken it seriously enough and been selfish and ignorant about the virus. The Government too has not come out of this so far smelling of roses.

 

[Bad_Influence]

All I would say is that herd immunity would take a while to achieve and in the meantime the NHS may well have been overwhelmed and more people would have died. Many more than those who have died through successive lockdowns. I think the consensus of experts suggests that my view is correct, but I respect your right to an alternative opinion.

With respect. those same ‘experts’ have made mistake after mistake so far, it seems to me they are just guessing like the rest of us. Yes they will have their statistics and their models, but they have yet to be correct on anything, and we are supposed to believe them because they have letters after their name?
I trust science, but I’m having great difficulty trusting the public voices of the gov’t mouthpieces.
Again, you say many more would have died, based on what? Something you were told? Gut feeling? Are you taking into account deaths related to covid, ie caused by mental health due to lockdown/financial hardship/etc(which will never be counted in gov’t numbers).
Sadly it’s not all black and white, and I’m not saying we would have been better off under herd immunity, only that it’s nigh on impossible to know if we would.
I’ve just seen on SkyNews website the following headline... “No10 briefing announced for later-as UK expert says lockdown not working”.
No sh** Sherlock.

 

[Bad_Influence]

....and as for shielding the vulnerable (not just the old).....you have to assess the mental health implications of telling people not to go out for months and months. I don't think the scientists HAVE got it wrong actually. It is hellishly difficult to predict how a virus will sweep through a country, not least because scientists aren't experts in human behaviour, nor determiners of Government policy. Factor in too the emergence of more virulent strains and it's all very difficult to predict. It is not scientists who have got things wrong....it is US, the great British people, many of whom have not taken it seriously enough and been selfish and ignorant about the virus. The Government too has not come out of this so far smelling of roses.

I couldn’t agree more that it’s us that have got it wrong, and we should not have been allowed to. But on the one hand you say we have to take into account the mental health consequences, which rightly we do, and on the other hand you say people are not taking it seriously enough. Sadly we can’t have it both ways while using the lockdown method, they counter each other.

I think under the circumstances the Gov’t has not done too badly. Of course mistakes have been made but as you have said there are so very many variables they too can’t control, and they are advised by the scientists.

 

[BasildonBond]

What evidence is there that herd immunity would have resulted in many more deaths? When this first started we were told that we would have done well to keep the death toll under 20,000. We’ve now had over 90,000 deaths using the lockdown method, I’d say the scientists got it wrong wouldn’t you? So who can say herd immunity would not have worked better?
And if we had properly shielded the old and vulnerable, I think the NHS would have coped. Of course the old and vulnerable wouldn’t have liked that, keeping them isolated just to protect their lives, how very dare we? Lol

like I say, I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it

 

[hell2bwith76]

I was quite interested in the statement re the two Ambulances turning up, I think that all have forgotten about nurturing our children, for example if I was in one ambulance and say one of my children, grandchildren in the other, I most certainly would have directed the staff to save my child over myself and I think that most people would react in the same way. After all we have spent years and a lot of effort in bringing up our children to ensure that they have a future better than ours. However, life is important regardless of what age you are.

I think you have lost an ambulance and not really inderstood what my hypothesis was .Never mind it`s of no consequence

 

[hell2bwith76]

What evidence is there that herd immunity would have resulted in many more deaths? When this first started we were told that we would have done well to keep the death toll under 20,000. We’ve now had over 90,000 deaths using the lockdown method, I’d say the scientists got it wrong wouldn’t you? So who can say herd immunity would not have worked better?
And if we had properly shielded the old and vulnerable, I think the NHS would have coped. Of course the old and vulnerable wouldn’t have liked that, keeping them isolated just to protect their lives, how very dare we? Lol

I certainly won`t be around then but i would get a lot of pleasure out of seeing you when you get old

 

[hell2bwith76]

With respect. those same ‘experts’ have made mistake after mistake so far, it seems to me they are just guessing like the rest of us. Yes they will have their statistics and their models, but they have yet to be correct on anything, and we are supposed to believe them because they have letters after their name?
I trust science, but I’m having great difficulty trusting the public voices of the gov’t mouthpieces.
Again, you say many more would have died, based on what? Something you were told? Gut feeling? Are you taking into account deaths related to covid, ie caused by mental health due to lockdown/financial hardship/etc(which will never be counted in gov’t numbers).
Sadly it’s not all black and white, and I’m not saying we would have been better off under herd immunity, only that it’s nigh on impossible to know if we would.
I’ve just seen on SkyNews website the following headline... “No10 briefing announced for later-as UK expert says lockdown not working”.
No sh** Sherlock.

Lockdown is NOT going to work if the selfish British public don`t do what is asked of them is it ? All they`r really interested in is getting down the boozer every day to talk rubbish ( football?) .

 

[hell2bwith76]

One year ,2 years ...is it a lot to ask of anyone under aged 80 to lose in order to beat this Virus ? . Certainly no child will suffer badly in terms of education unless they miss their school friends of course which is again a "social " thing not an academic thing.

 

[Bad_Influence]

I certainly won`t be around then but i would get a lot of pleasure out of seeing you when you get old

I don’t have Skype. Sorry.

 

[Bad_Influence]

One year ,2 years ...is it a lot to ask of anyone under aged 80 to lose in order to beat this Virus ? . Certainly no child will suffer badly in terms of education unless they miss their school friends of course which is again a "social " thing not an academic thing.

The logistics of catching up 2 years of the education system is enormous. Be it the number of teachers available, the hours involved, the gaps in college/university places, among many other things. It’s just not as simple as kids missing 2 years of schooling.

 

[hell2bwith76]

The logistics of catching up 2 years of the education system is enormous. Be it the number of teachers available, the hours involved, the gaps in college/university places, among many other things. It’s just not as simple as kids missing 2 years of schooling.

That`s what we pay Government to deal with .Logistics ! They can`t sit on their backsides in a cosy office throwing paper darts around for £100k pa

 

[Bad_Influence]

That`s what we pay Government to deal with .Logistics ! They can`t sit on their backsides in a cosy office throwing paper darts around for £100k pa

And you think that’s what they are doing?
I’m sure universities and schools would love to leave the logistics to the gov’t, but they can’t. I’m sure teachers won’t mind having massively heavier workloads for the next few years.
You seem to think the govt can just shut education down with no consequences other than the missed schooltime? I wonder if you think the same about businesses? Should they remain shut for the next 12-24 months?

 

[megs233]

That`s what we pay Government to deal with .Logistics ! They can`t sit on their backsides in a cosy office throwing paper darts around for £100k pa

Nay they pass buck to poor civil servants to work it out for them then take all credit.