In reply to Post #265
Interesting discussion on here tbh, and agree with parts of both sides. For me the idea of mandatory vaccines to impact normal life is repulsive, though I could at least understand why if the vaccines produced sterilizing immunity (IE prevent transmission).
Fantastic though they appear to be (and the obvious potential benefits of how quickly mRNA technology can be used in the case of a new pathogen), given there is no long term safety data on these injections (and there cannot be given they have never been inside a human body before October 2019) and we have what looks to be an even better (based on comparing the initial stages of testing against Pf/AZ/M - and made in the UK if thats important) tradition vaccine that the government cancelled their contract for that. i think that would have encouraged a number of people who are hesitant of the newer vaccines (a view point that personally I think is fair enough).
One thing here though Mark is that as i understand it, the current mRNA (or adenovirus vector in the case of AZ) only instruct your body to create the spike protein. Although this is the major antigen expressed by cells infected by Cov19 (and indeed is key in the infection process so a good one to choose), there are 9 expressed antigens (off the top of my head, maybe +/- 1 or 2 either way).
If the Omnicom variant has significant changes to the spike protein as believed, then immunity from natural will be better than vaccinated (in this case) as all of the 9 antigens will likely be recognised by the immune system.
We know that historically natural immunity from exposure is stronger and longer lasting than artificially acquired immunity - indeed a recent study Stanford in the US suggests up to 27 times in the case of Cov19.
My issue is why natural immunity isnt given as much credit as immunity acquired from a 1/2/3 does of a vaccine that only expresses 1 out of 9 (or so) antigens (albeit the largest of them).
On a hopefully brighter note, respiratory virus' (including the multitude of endemic Coronovirus' that cause 30/40% of the common colds each winter) have evolved to become more transmissible and less lethal, thats how they survive.
Hopefully this is indeed the case with the current variant de jour (and seems to have been borne out with previous variants following this pattern).
I do think it is good to discuss these things so be interested in anyone's thoughts.
Interesting discussion on here tbh, and agree with parts of both sides. For me the idea of mandatory vaccines to impact normal life is repulsive, though I could at least understand why if the vaccines produced sterilizing immunity (IE prevent transmission).
Fantastic though they appear to be (and the obvious potential benefits of how quickly mRNA technology can be used in the case of a new pathogen), given there is no long term safety data on these injections (and there cannot be given they have never been inside a human body before October 2019) and we have what looks to be an even better (based on comparing the initial stages of testing against Pf/AZ/M - and made in the UK if thats important) tradition vaccine that the government cancelled their contract for that. i think that would have encouraged a number of people who are hesitant of the newer vaccines (a view point that personally I think is fair enough).
One thing here though Mark is that as i understand it, the current mRNA (or adenovirus vector in the case of AZ) only instruct your body to create the spike protein. Although this is the major antigen expressed by cells infected by Cov19 (and indeed is key in the infection process so a good one to choose), there are 9 expressed antigens (off the top of my head, maybe +/- 1 or 2 either way).
If the Omnicom variant has significant changes to the spike protein as believed, then immunity from natural will be better than vaccinated (in this case) as all of the 9 antigens will likely be recognised by the immune system.
We know that historically natural immunity from exposure is stronger and longer lasting than artificially acquired immunity - indeed a recent study Stanford in the US suggests up to 27 times in the case of Cov19.
My issue is why natural immunity isnt given as much credit as immunity acquired from a 1/2/3 does of a vaccine that only expresses 1 out of 9 (or so) antigens (albeit the largest of them).
On a hopefully brighter note, respiratory virus' (including the multitude of endemic Coronovirus' that cause 30/40% of the common colds each winter) have evolved to become more transmissible and less lethal, thats how they survive.
Hopefully this is indeed the case with the current variant de jour (and seems to have been borne out with previous variants following this pattern).
I do think it is good to discuss these things so be interested in anyone's thoughts.
In reply to Post #281
Jon, it's already proven that mutations occur in vaccinated too. I agree that poorer countries should be given the vaccine for them to give out to who wants it.
I think a better approach to unvaccinated people is antibody tests rather than Covid passports which are proven to be ineffective. At least the Government would have a far clearer picture to work with going forward!
Great post Tim......
Jon, it's already proven that mutations occur in vaccinated too. I agree that poorer countries should be given the vaccine for them to give out to who wants it.
I think a better approach to unvaccinated people is antibody tests rather than Covid passports which are proven to be ineffective. At least the Government would have a far clearer picture to work with going forward!
Great post Tim......
In reply to Post #284
I know, but there are fewer.
It's reasonable to ask whether we'd be in a better position if everyone were vaccinated compared with no one, and then apply that to your own decision making. I view it as 'doing your bit', nothing more.
Getting vaccinated if you're not in a vulnerable group is a bit like like paying tax - few do it with great enthusiasm, but most understand we'd all be worse off if no one did it.
I know, but there are fewer.
It's reasonable to ask whether we'd be in a better position if everyone were vaccinated compared with no one, and then apply that to your own decision making. I view it as 'doing your bit', nothing more.
Getting vaccinated if you're not in a vulnerable group is a bit like like paying tax - few do it with great enthusiasm, but most understand we'd all be worse off if no one did it.
In reply to Post #284
When the virus replicates, there are slight genetic changes or errors, this happens when it passes from one person to the next. So the changes occur when the virus spreads. The vaccines REDUCE the ability of the virus to transmit from one person to the next (by up to about 70%) so therefore vaccines REDUCE the chance of the virus mutating.
In life, we make decisions every day that reduce risks, we don't only take action when the outome is 100% guaranteed to remove the risk. Or at least sensible people don't.
When the virus replicates, there are slight genetic changes or errors, this happens when it passes from one person to the next. So the changes occur when the virus spreads. The vaccines REDUCE the ability of the virus to transmit from one person to the next (by up to about 70%) so therefore vaccines REDUCE the chance of the virus mutating.
In life, we make decisions every day that reduce risks, we don't only take action when the outome is 100% guaranteed to remove the risk. Or at least sensible people don't.
Guys, Any thoughts on Tim's post!
In reply to Post #287
It's rubbish, you shouldn't be allowed to take a balanced stance in these threads, they should only be about polarised views and name calling
C***s
It's rubbish, you shouldn't be allowed to take a balanced stance in these threads, they should only be about polarised views and name calling
C***s
In reply to Post #288
In reply to Post #287
Yes at the end of the day none of us are scientists / really qualified to make a valid input and really haven't got a scooby lol.
And when we read something we just grasp on to it because it sort of makes sense and throw it out there.
Agreed the name calling sucks duggs
Yes at the end of the day none of us are scientists / really qualified to make a valid input and really haven't got a scooby lol.
And when we read something we just grasp on to it because it sort of makes sense and throw it out there.
Agreed the name calling sucks duggs
Had to explain the subtlety of the 'r' number today to some students.
Simply getting them to realise that each person passing on to 4 others means a growth rate that becomes unmanageable very quickly
Simply getting them to realise that each person passing on to 4 others means a growth rate that becomes unmanageable very quickly
In reply to Post #287
Yes, I did read an expert state that natural immunity is better, such as with the great barrington declaration. But the problem is that a chunk of the population can't survive to achieve natural immunity.
Personally, regarding vaccinations, I am prepared to take the risk for the benefit of others as well as myself.
I believe there's 5 million people in the UK who have declined the offer of a vaccine. If that figure was lower, we would have less people dead, less people in hospital taking up resource, less restrictions, less impact on the treatment of other medical issues, less impact on the economy and less arguments on forums.
Yes, I did read an expert state that natural immunity is better, such as with the great barrington declaration. But the problem is that a chunk of the population can't survive to achieve natural immunity.
Personally, regarding vaccinations, I am prepared to take the risk for the benefit of others as well as myself.
I believe there's 5 million people in the UK who have declined the offer of a vaccine. If that figure was lower, we would have less people dead, less people in hospital taking up resource, less restrictions, less impact on the treatment of other medical issues, less impact on the economy and less arguments on forums.
In reply to Post #291
Mal - when I was in primary school, we had a science teacher who got us to make a chess board, put 1 grain of rice on the first square, then on subsequent squares, double the previous number and so on....
I still remember that example today.
Mal - when I was in primary school, we had a science teacher who got us to make a chess board, put 1 grain of rice on the first square, then on subsequent squares, double the previous number and so on....
I still remember that example today.
In reply to Post #291
If I had you as a teacher,I wouldn't have listened either
If I had you as a teacher,I wouldn't have listened either
In reply to Post #290
On the contrary, the name calling is about the only constructive thing in these threads, allowing someone to vent a bit of the pressure this crap has put on all of us
They haven't offered much else
On the contrary, the name calling is about the only constructive thing in these threads, allowing someone to vent a bit of the pressure this crap has put on all of us
They haven't offered much else
In reply to Post #295
I agree with Jon that Name calling is best placed on FB or Twitter.......you can really let go with the C and F bombs to argue your point.......
I agree with Jon that Name calling is best placed on FB or Twitter.......you can really let go with the C and F bombs to argue your point.......
In reply to Post #296
But finding new imaginative ways to call someone a c*** is part of the cathartic process
But finding new imaginative ways to call someone a c*** is part of the cathartic process