The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll

[jojojo]

I totally disagree. Vaccine hesitancy and outright anti-vaxers only exist because such idiotic views haven't been sufficiently challenged with actual evidence.

That you might persuade a few by more gentle methods is irrelevant imo because it comes at the price of buying in to the bullshit of opinion equivalence that has allowed us as a society to ignore scientific evidence.

Historically he's right though. Talking in absolutist terms and about enforcement tends to reinforce conspiracy theories and panic. Take a look at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-50713991
for an historic examples of a mass anti vaccine movement in the 19c UK. That movement didn't actually collapse until compulsion was removed.

You might think we can do better in 2020, but that's missing the point - we haven't been doing better with a significant minority of the population in some countries. In any case, placing demands on people for the social good actually require evidence that viral transmission is reduced by the covid vaccines, which remains unproven.

 

[Wibble]

Mister, I am not asking you or anyone else NOT to take Vaccine, and I really hope it works 100%. I am not confusing anything, and this is my right. What is it with you people, if things are not your way. Your right all the time then. I have heard enough from you on this. Let's talk football.

I think society's right to get back to normal trumps your right to be illogical. Of course nobody is going to hold you down and inject you so you can revel in your right to ignore the social contract.

 

[11101]

One or two people have died by being trapped in a burning vehicle by seatbelts. Millions have been saved from death and injury.

And don't confuse drugs with vaccines. I seriously doubt you have experience of anyone who had a very serious reaction to a vaccine. Even if you do the risk of taking one is far far less than the risk of getting covid and having a serious adverse symptom or death.

This you do not yet know for certain, for some demographic groups.

 

[Wibble]

Historically he's right though. Talking in absolutist terms and about enforcement tends to reinforce conspiracy theories and panic. Take a look at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-50713991
for an historic examples of a mass anti vaccine movement in the 19c UK. That movement didn't actually collapse until compulsion was removed.

You might think we can do better in 2020, but that's missing the point - we haven't been doing better with a significant minority of the population in some countries. In any case, placing demands on people for the social good actually require evidence that viral transmission is reduced by the covid vaccines, which remains unproven.

Historically we have been illogical and muddle-minded as well. Evidence isn't the issue. If it were we wouldn't be the mess we are e.g. global warming. Ignoring scientific evidence is otentially going to be the death of our planet and species.

 

[slyadams]

Mister, I am not asking you or anyone else NOT to take Vaccine, and I really hope it works 100%. I am not confusing anything, and this is my right. What is it with you people, if things are not your way. Your right all the time then. I have heard enough from you on this. Let's talk football.

When do you think you will be ready? You mentioned above I think for it to be proven for a year?

 

[Brwned]

I totally disagree. Vaccine hesitancy and outright anti-vaxers only exist because such idiotic views haven't been sufficiently challenged with actual evidence.

That you might persuade a few by more gentle methods is irrelevant imo because it comes at the price of buying in to the bullshit of opinion equivalence that has allowed us as a society to ignore scientific evidence.

That's a feeling you have, but the evidence for it is quite weak, and there's plenty of evidence that at least makes it questionable. In the context of berating other people for saying things that they feel is true but can't prove to be true, that seems a little off.

At the end of the day if you're advocating for science you're advocating for a recognition of your own ignorance, but sometimes it seems like you just use it as a hammer to attack other people's ignorance. It is something people take seriously and feel strongly about so it's not unusual to veer towards extreme positions.

But the same applies to people who are vaccine hesitant. They are mostly not anti vaxxers using the strict definition and are mostly just scared. I don't think affording them that right to be scared is allowing society to just crumble under a wave of conspiracies. There is a middle ground that can be empirically shown.

 

[Bestietom]

I think society's right to get back to normal trumps your right to be illogical. Of course nobody is going to hold you down and inject you so you can revel in your right to ignore the social contract.

There is NOTHING proved yet, so you carry on talking to yourself, and believing your rights, whilst calling everyone else who want to wait for proof, IGNORANT and SELFISH.

 

[kouroux]

Covid has shown people's actions has consequences on other like rarely before so is it unfair to expect a lot of people who are at risk by their own fault (self inflicted diabetes, unhealthy lifestyles etc etc...) to work and improve their health ? I find it funny when I see someone super obese acting high and mighty when someone doesn't wear a mask. We're all in this together as Covid 19 might not be the last pandemic we see. Social contract should also imply people getting fitter for the greater good.

 

[Wibble]

This you do not yet know for certain, for some demographic groups.

Demographic groups do not exist in isolation. Even in the highly unlikely event that young people have an equivalent risk from being vaccinated vs risking getting covid that comes at a huge price to the society they are part of.

And it is almost inconceivable that an approved vaccine will be more harmful to young people than catching covid on average. Any undiscovered side-effects, if any, are likely to be so rare as to be irrelevant in comparison.

 

[Bestietom]

When do you think you will be ready? You mentioned above I think for it to be proven for a year?

Please, I have enough with the others.

 

[Wibble]

There is NOTHING proved yet, so you carry on talking to yourself, and believing your rights, whilst calling everyone else who want to wait for proof, IGNORANT and SELFISH.

Do you mean we are still a few days away from the end of phase 3 trials for the first 3 vaccines?

They could still fail of course but do you think they will?

Capslock?

 

[slyadams]

Please, I have enough with the others.

This sounds like you know where my point was going. You sound like you want to let others go first and take whatever risks you believe exist for you.

 

[Bestietom]

Do you mean we are still a few days away from the end of phase 3 trials for the first 3 vaccines?

They could still fail of course but do you think they will?

Capslock?

Just leave me alone now. I just don't know how you are staff. Namecalling is only an act for girls I thought.

 

[Wibble]

That's a feeling you have, but the evidence for it is quite weak, and there's plenty of evidence that at least makes it questionable. In the context of berating other people for saying things that they feel is true but can't prove to be true, that seems a little off.

At the end of the day if you're advocating for science you're advocating for a recognition of your own ignorance, but sometimes it seems like you just use it as a hammer to attack other people's ignorance. It is something people take seriously and feel strongly about so it's not unusual to veer towards extreme positions.

But the same applies to people who are vaccine hesitant. They are mostly not anti vaxxers using the strict definition and are mostly just scared. I don't think affording them that right to be scared is allowing society to just crumble under a wave of conspiracies. There is a middle ground that can be empirically shown.

People are scared because we have allowed illogical feeling and belief to trump actual evidence. Opinions should be very vigorously debated as this exposes bad ones for what they are.

 

[Wibble]

Just leave me alone now. I just don't know how you are staff. Namecalling is only an act for girls I thought.

No.

Name calling? I was merely asking you to back up what you said, which I suspect you can't.

And we don't approve of sexism fyi.

 

[Bestietom]

No.

Name calling? I was merely asking you to back up what you said, which I suspect you can't.

And we don't approve of sexism fyi.

Then throw me off.

 

[Wibble]

Then throw me off.

Why would I do that? I'm asking you to justify what you said as part of a discussion on a discussion forum. I'm fairly sure I haven't even mentioned that I'm a modmin, much less implied my opinion in this matter carries more weight because I am.

 

[Brwned]

People are scared because we have allowed illogical feeling and belief to trump actual evidence. Opinions should be very vigorously debated as this exposes bad ones for what they are.

There's a lot of reasons why people are scared. Some rational, some not so rational. Your ability to conflate them so easily is not too dissimilar from ardent vaccination supporters before. Sometimes for the wrong reasons. Hey-ho, I'll leave you to it.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

But the same applies to people who are vaccine hesitant. They are mostly not anti vaxxers using the strict definition and are mostly just scared. I don't think affording them that right to be scared is allowing society to just crumble under a wave of conspiracies. There is a middle ground that can be empirically shown.

Talked to a woman just now who is both highly educated and intelligent (the former doesn't always equate to the latter, as we know) - and she's basically what you call "vaccine hesitant". She's worried about these vaccines being rushed through and doesn't fancy being some kind of guinea pig. Essentially, she doesn't implicitly trust either the health authorities or the pharma companies involved.

Whether her skepticism is well founded or not isn't really the point: in my opinion (as I told her) it is clearly not well founded (because she knows feck all about the process, i.e. the science behind this). The point is, rather, that people like her do not react well at all to being told they're in the same class as "anti-vaxxers". And - again - people like her aren't nutters who deny science on principle. They're perfectly "normal" - just apprehensive.

 

[sammsky1]

Some very informative Q&A on all things vaccine from BBC

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Brwned]

Talked to a woman just now who is both highly educated and intelligent (the former doesn't always equate to the latter, as we know) - and she's basically what you call "vaccine hesitant". She's worried about these vaccines being rushed through and doesn't fancy being some kind of guinea pig. Essentially, she doesn't implicitly trust either the health authorities or the pharma companies involved.

Whether her skepticism is well founded or not isn't really the point: in my opinion (as I told her) it is clearly not well founded (because she knows feck all about the process, i.e. the science behind this). The point is, rather, that people like her do not react well at all to being told they're in the same class as "anti-vaxxers". And - again - people like her aren't nutters who deny science on principle. They're perfectly "normal" - just apprehensive.

Yep, agreed

 

[sammsky1]

The developers of Russia's Sputnik V vaccine say it will be sold internationally for less than $20 (£15)
(BBC)

 

[RK]

Yep, I had a similar reaction when I read the press release. Then I remembered that it is just a press release, very much like the one Pfizer did a couple of weeks ago where they announced their first batch of 90%+ headlines.

It is frustrating because I would like to see what numbers they are really talking about and I want to see how big that sub-study was that seemed to suggest that they were having an effect on infection rates as well as disease rates. I'd also like to know what covid test they were using for it, as they seem to talk about PCR separately. He's right about the no serious side-effects thing as well - do they know that because the people who fell ill had symptoms prior to the trial, or had the placebo, or something else.

And then I remember it's a press release and that they'll have to produce their real data as an actual scientific report, so that it can be reviewed - so I'm just being impatient really.

I think these are the general numbers. My only assumption is that the trial(s) contained equal vaccinated and unvaccinated. I expect this to be the case otherwise all the numbers fall down, not just mine:

Trial	# Total	# Vacc	# Inf Vacc	# Inf Unvacc	Eff
Overall	23,272	11,636	30	101	70%
Full/Full	17,790	8,895	27	71	62%
Half/Full	5,482	2,741	3	30	90%

Obviously scant information about potential sample bias yet.
I think a good 'final' result is the Half/Full regimen staying above 80%. Think it's very likely to be below 90%.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I think these are the general numbers. My only assumption is that the trial(s) contained equal vaccinated and unvaccinated. I expect this to be the case otherwise all the numbers fall down, not just mine:

Trial	# Total	# Vacc	# Inf Vacc	# Inf Unvacc	Eff
Overall	23,272	11,636	30	101	70%
Full/Full	17,790	8,895	27	71	62%
Half/Full	5,482	2,741	3	30	90%

Obviously scant information about potential sample bias yet.
I think a good 'final' result is the Half/Full regimen staying above 80%. Think it's very likely to be below 90%.

They’re saying that “about 3000” people got the Half/Full combo so those numbers stack up. They also say they got that dose by mistake!

 

[Withnail]

No.

Name calling? I was merely asking you to back up what you said, which I suspect you can't.

And we don't approve of sexism fyi.

I think he thought 'Capslock' was some kind of pejorative remark

Maybe he read it as cockslap or something?

 

[sammsky1]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[RK]

They’re saying that “about 3000” people got the Half/Full combo so those numbers stack up. They also say they got that dose by mistake!

The good thing is that even with those sample sizes, the basic mathematical chance of the half/full and full/full being different measurements of the same phenomenon is very unlikely. I.e., there's some genuine difference (improvement) of the half/full regimen. However you never know what could be confounding the samples in practice, which is where medical expertise is king.

 

[Revan]

Talked to a woman just now who is both highly educated and intelligent (the former doesn't always equate to the latter, as we know) - and she's basically what you call "vaccine hesitant". She's worried about these vaccines being rushed through and doesn't fancy being some kind of guinea pig. Essentially, she doesn't implicitly trust either the health authorities or the pharma companies involved.

Whether her skepticism is well founded or not isn't really the point: in my opinion (as I told her) it is clearly not well founded (because she knows feck all about the process, i.e. the science behind this). The point is, rather, that people like her do not react well at all to being told they're in the same class as "anti-vaxxers". And - again - people like her aren't nutters who deny science on principle. They're perfectly "normal" - just apprehensive.

My brother is in the same boat. I would say that he is actually quite intelligent. And while he is vaccine-hesitant, him, his wife and their two kids are fully vaccinated. They are not planning to take the vaccine shot though, and I am not very happy about it (he is paralyzed from an accident as a teenager, and while he has a decent immune system, it is probably not as strong). The fool actually could easily be at the start of the queue if he would want, but for whatever reasons thinks that the vaccine could be more dangerous than the virus (in the sense, that we don't have long term studies so who knows if there will be future side-effects).

 

[11101]

Demographic groups do not exist in isolation. Even in the highly unlikely event that young people have an equivalent risk from being vaccinated vs risking getting covid that comes at a huge price to the society they are part of.

And it is almost inconceivable that an approved vaccine will be more harmful to young people than catching covid on average. Any undiscovered side-effects, if any, are likely to be so rare as to be irrelevant in comparison.

But until it's proven, you can't say that with the certainty you have been doing in this thread. It is not unheard of for a drug to be withdrawn post approval due to previously unknown adverse effects. All these Covid vaccines will be extremely closely monitored once out into the general public for that very reason and they are unlikely to be approved for all people from day 1, for example nobody under 12 or pregnant was in the Pfizer study, and they will be rolled out according to the risk profiles. Aggressively arguing that every person on the planet should have the vaccine from day 1 or they are selfish and/or ignorant helps nobody and right now is just not true.

 

[Kaos]

But until it's proven, you can't say that with the certainty you have been doing in this thread. It is not unheard of for a drug to be withdrawn post approval due to previously unknown adverse effects. All these Covid vaccines will be extremely closely monitored once out into the general public for that very reason and they are unlikely to be approved for all people from day 1, for example nobody under 12 or pregnant was in the Pfizer study, and they will be rolled out according to the risk profiles. Aggressively arguing that every person on the planet should have the vaccine from day 1 or they are selfish and/or ignorant helps nobody and right now is just not true.

It is proven though, it wouldn't be approved for mass use otherwise. Despite the quick turnaround, it has still gone through the same gauntlet of vigorous testing and clinical trials you'd expect with any pharmaceutical product - there are thousands of people who have already been administered it from several months back and so far there's nothing to suggest any adverse effects, and everything suggests they're both safe and effective. They're not just subjecting all of us to experimental medication.

 

[jojojo]

The good thing is that even with those sample sizes, the basic mathematical chance of the half/full and full/full being different measurements of the same phenomenon is very unlikely. I.e., there's some genuine difference (improvement) of the half/full regimen. However you never know what could be confounding the samples in practice, which is where medical expertise is king.

It's the sampling and randomisation that I'd question. The half dose lot are UK, most of the full dose group aren't. The half dose group may be early triallists - who almost by definition will be interested in broader healthcare issues, who perhaps skew towards non-smokers, lower BMIs, more cautious behaviours. Or late triallists - who were being assessed over a shorter period or in a different area. Even if they compare them to their matched set placebo group (which I assume they have) they still may only be getting results about that kind of test subject. Whereas the Brazil group, or some other section may not see the same benefit, even with the same dosing regime.

Incidentally versions of this will play out in all the clinical trials and all the efficacy rates have a certain yes/but factor. Volunteers may cover all groups, but statistically the the enthusiasm/opportunity to commit the time, and the confidence in the process necessary, may mean they are not in the same proportions as the general population.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

The fool actually could easily be at the start of the queue if he would want, but for whatever reasons thinks that the vaccine could be more dangerous than the virus (in the sense, that we don't have long term studies so who knows if there will be future side-effects).

Yes - that pretty sums up what some (many?) think.

Might mention - on the flip side, as it were - that both my parents are 100% willing to take the shot(s) even though they hardly trust either big pharma OR the authorities implicitly (see above). They're in their mid-70s now, and their reasoning is simple: they want the damn pandemic to become manageable, so that they can live more or less normally, visit their kids and grandkids, not having to spend years living under serious restrictions towards the end of their spell on this earth. In short, whatever risk is involved with taking that shot is clearly worth it - to them.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

My brother is in the same boat. I would say that he is actually quite intelligent. And while he is vaccine-hesitant, him, his wife and their two kids are fully vaccinated. They are not planning to take the vaccine shot though, and I am not very happy about it (he is paralyzed from an accident as a teenager, and while he has a decent immune system, it is probably not as strong). The fool actually could easily be at the start of the queue if he would want, but for whatever reasons thinks that the vaccine could be more dangerous than the virus (in the sense, that we don't have long term studies so who knows if there will be future side-effects).

The obvious retort to this is that we don’t know the long term consequences of catching the virus either. It’s only been infecting human beings for less than a year. We do know the short term consequences, though. It kills roughly one in one hundred people it infects.

 

[zing]

The obvious retort to this is that we don’t know the long term consequences of catching the virus either. It’s only been infecting human beings for less than a year. We do know the short term consequences, though. It kills roughly one in one hundred people it infects.

I would say the long term effects of the virus are unknown only for those with severe disease, while the vaccines long term effects are unknown for all that take it. If you perceive yourself to be in the low-risk category, then I think it’s a reasonable stance to take.

I am going to get the vaccine when I have the opportunity but I’m not going to knock someone like @Bestietom for not doing so. There may be some hard science that contradicts his position(is there?) but it seems reasonable given even the approval provided is EUA and not a full approval.

 

[sammsky1]

I'll happily take any of the phase III tested vaccines as soon as they get approval. That includes Sputnik. Just get this thing over with!

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I would say the long term effects of the virus are unknown only for those with severe disease, while the vaccines long term effects are unknown for all that take it. If you perceive yourself to be in the low-risk category, then I think it’s a reasonable stance to take.

I am going to get the vaccine when I have the opportunity but I’m not going to knock someone like @Bestietom for not doing so. There may be some hard science that contradicts his position(is there?) but it seems reasonable given even the approval provided is EUA and not a full approval.

Why is that? HPV is a virus that causes a mild (often asymptomatic) illness during the initial infection but increases the risk of cancer in the long-term. So it’s not as though it would be unprecedented to have long term, nasty consequences for what was initially mild disease.

 

[Revan]

The obvious retort to this is that we don’t know the long term consequences of catching the virus either. It’s only been infecting human beings for less than a year. We do know the short term consequences, though. It kills roughly one in one hundred people it infects.

For many people, it is actually quite easy to see this. Unfortunately, some seem to think that only the vaccine might have future side-effects.

 

[zing]

Why is that? HPV is a virus that causes a mild (often asymptomatic) illness during the initial infection but increases the risk of cancer in the long-term. So it’s not as though it would be unprecedented to have long term, nasty consequences for what was initially mild disease.

I didn’t know that. I wasn’t sure about making that statement, thanks for correcting me.

 

[djembatheking]

I think it will be quite a surprising number that will refuse vaccination .

 

[Dumbstar]

I'll happily take any of the phase III tested vaccines as soon as they get approval. That includes Sputnik. Just get this thing over with!

If it means not having to wear a mask and suffer shit vision (I wear glasses that are always steaming up indoors) and have a certificate I can carry around (cinemas, snooker hall, airports, etc) then I too will be up for any of them after final reports come out.

Edit: it's time for a Redcafe poll. 'Mins, get it done.