Are you worried yet.

[BennyD]

You wouldn’t be saying that if it was you’re 91 year old gran/mum would you? An extra few months of contact in any situation is a blessing. Some compassion might be in order.

I‘d much rather it be given to a 40 something with most of thief life still ahead of them rather than someone who has outlived the average by over 10 years. I have compassion, but perhaps it’s not the same kind as yours.

 

[RobinL]

Seems simple enough. Greatest impact of vaccination will be in the older generations so win-win.
Government look good as numbers come down.

Expect the priorities to quietly shift behind the scenes
The cheaper, easier UK Vaccine was primarily tested in younger groups - wonder why.

So do I think testing has been accelerated unreasonably.....?

Was Thalidomide a surprise to all concerned?

Was Hep C and HIV transmission to haemophiliacs in blood products suspected long before action taken?

Anyone else wonder why Cov 19 deaths in China and other nations so much lower than ours? (Singapore 29 deaths!)

Why is my local pub closed here in North Wales with local (Conwy) infection rate at 27.3 per 100,000......



Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk

 

[lifes2short]

Couldn't make it up! There must be an ulterior motive

C

my wife mentioned it, thought she was joking at first, not sure if real name or changed by deed poll?

 

[Rwc13]

They are indeed. The majority of governments globally have provided exactly this as the pharma companies demanded it.

Pfizer given protection from legal action over coronavirus vaccine by UK government

Pfizer’s UK boss refuses to explain why the business needs protection from legal action

www.independent.co.uk

Remove “morale hazard” as I mentioned previously, especially when billions are involved and you have the recipe for abuse.

Or alternatively, the drug companies would just not have released their vaccines without this indemnity, recognising the accelerated development process, and many more would have continued to die.

 

[Swedish Paul]

I‘d much rather it be given to a 40 something with most of thief life still ahead of them rather than someone who has outlived the average by over 10 years. I have compassion, but perhaps it’s not the same kind as yours.

Maybe, but if you’re beloved was at that age...

It is a dilemma, but obviously over 60’s are more vulnerable. At least the 40 year olds can look forward to being vaccinated in the spring if they’re not knobs who go out now and get themselves infected through their own stupidity.

 

[Swedish Paul]

And, of course, there's the possibility she might just have been in the right place at the right time..

... but that wouldn't fit any narrative.

C

I don’t understand what you are saying.

 

[CatmanV2]

Maybe, but if you’re beloved was at that age...

It is a dilemma, but obviously over 60’s are more vulnerable. At least the 40 year olds can look forward to being vaccinated in the spring if they’re not knobs who go out now and get themselves infected through their own stupidity.

And, of course, a 40 year old is highly unlikely to be impacted by the virus. Except to infect a 90 year old.....

C

 

[BennyD]

Maybe, but if you’re beloved was at that age...

It is a dilemma, but obviously over 60’s are more vulnerable. At least the 40 year olds can look forward to being vaccinated in the spring if they’re not knobs who go out now and get themselves infected through their own stupidity.

That 40 something might already be in hospital gasping for breath as I am sure many are. The 91yo looked remarkably fit and well considering her age.

 

[CatmanV2]

I don’t understand what you are saying.

Everyone's asking why a 90 year old was first. I was just suggesting that she might have been the first person scheduled to be somewhere where she could get a vaccine at 0630. So chance, not deliberate action. But of course, chance doesn't fit the narrative of many so someone must have decided that we should pick a 90 year old, and then that specific 90 year old....

Am I explaining myself OK?

C

 

[Koz]

Couldn't make it up! There must be an ulterior motive

C

Yes there is.....The Taming of the Flu......

 

[Swedish Paul]

Everyone's asking why a 90 year old was first. I was just suggesting that she might have been the first person scheduled to be somewhere where she could get a vaccine at 0630. So chance, not deliberate action. But of course, chance doesn't fit the narrative of many so someone must have decided that we should pick a 90 year old, and then that specific 90 year old....

Am I explaining myself OK?

C

So some proportion of the population is stupidly saying they won’t get the vaccine. Which is pretty dumb. Conspiracy theories. The eldest are the most vulnerable. It’s not rocket science they would be first. At least she’ll get inbuilt 5G.

 

[CatmanV2]

So some proportion of the population is stupidly saying they won’t get the vaccine. Which is pretty dumb. Conspiracy theories. The eldest are the most vulnerable. It’s not rocket science they would be first. At least she’ll get inbuilt 5G.

Which will enable Bill Gates to shut her brain off. Win / Win.

Some proportion are saying they won't get the vaccine. OK, their call. The issue I was trying to highlight was the question 'Why does a 90 year old get it first as opposed to a 40 year old? There must be a secret agenda'. I think there's no agenda, it's just chance. And giving it to a 40 year old is not clearly a better decision than giving it to a 90 year old. A 40 year old is statistically massively less likely to be impacted bu contracting the virus, but if they were to contract it, and be asymptomatic, the odds of the passing it to any 90 year olds they were to encounter would be potentially significant.

C

 

[Wattie]

Or alternatively, the drug companies would just not have released their vaccines without this indemnity, recognising the accelerated development process, and many more would have continued to die.

The vaccine hasn’t proven, in the old or in adequate numbers, it reduces death -yet.

Its not even known whether taking the vaccine prevents you from passing it on to others......so for those that think taking it will assist their relatives - the jury is still out.
Pfizer CEO 'not sure' if its COVID-19 vaccine will prevent transmission after vaccination (republicworld.com)

 

[philw696]

 

[Wattie]

Don’t take Pfizer vaccine if you have ‘significant allergies’ - as two fall ill

PEOPLE with “significant allergies” have been warned not to get Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine after two NHS workers fell ill on V-Day. The healthcare workers developed symptoms shortl…

www.thescottishsun.co.uk

 

[lifes2short]

BREAKING NEWS: UK regulators warns people with a history of 'significant' allergic reactions should not receive Pfizer vaccine...more follows

 

[Phil the Brit]

Don’t take Pfizer vaccine if you have ‘significant allergies’ - as two fall ill

PEOPLE with “significant allergies” have been warned not to get Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine after two NHS workers fell ill on V-Day. The healthcare workers developed symptoms shortl…

www.thescottishsun.co.uk

Ah, the Sun newspaper, the paper who brought us such delights as "Freddie Starr ate my hamster". Yup, can trust them for getting their facts right!

 

[CatmanV2]

BREAKING NEWS: UK regulators warns people with a history of 'significant' allergic reactions should not receive Pfizer vaccine...more follows

<quote>
Professor Stephen Powis, the national medical director for the NHS in England, said: "As is common with new vaccines the MHRA have advised on a precautionary basis that people with a significant history of allergic reactions do not receive this vaccination after two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely yesterday.

"Both are recovering well."

</quote>

C

 

[bigbob]

<quote>
Professor Stephen Powis, the national medical director for the NHS in England, said: "As is common with new vaccines the MHRA have advised on a precautionary basis that people with a significant history of allergic reactions do not receive this vaccination after two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely yesterday.

"Both are recovering well."

</quote>


C

This is not what I was really on about yesterday as this is small beer but note the inconsistency in the statement - people should not get vaccines if they get significant allergic reactions and we are reiterating this today after yesterday we gave the vaccine to two healthcare workers who should not have got it and should have known better.

As for wider attitudes to vaccines look at how hard it is for the NHS to sell the flu vaccine to its own staff with take up rates typically about 70%. This will partially have something to do with the low efficacy rates of the flu jab, typically below 50% in many winters. Vaccines like all drugs work with varying degrees of success and we don't really understand how/why, hence my comment yesterday about polypharmacy etc. Drugs in 50-100 years will make our current portfolio look as primitive as how we scorn at what Victorians used to use. However, we are where we are and we need to use the best research/options we have to get us through this crisis.

The point is not that the Covid vaccines are not needed or indeed won’t prove effective as they will work to a point but depending on your age and healthcare presentation you may wish to assess whether you need to take it. The further down the timetable you are reinforces this and the government is effectively asking this question as well. Young fit people could be at more risk from the vaccine over the long term than the tiny chances of Covid19 hurting them. The media/government can always produce examples of anything happening to prove the spin but I'm just dealing in general percentages.

 

[Phil H]

Ah, the Sun newspaper, the paper who brought us such delights as "Freddie Starr ate my hamster". Yup, can trust them for getting their facts right!

A Covid thought; could a Hamster be a Guinea Pig?

PH