No problem. The vaccines are just too new for me to feel comfortable taking it. I understand the reduced likelihood of not spreading the disease, but this pressure should not result in guilt when the government has made it my own choice to make.
Almost 4.5 billion doses have been given worldwide, including about a billion of Pfizer and billion of AstraZeneca. At some point, you'll have to stop calling it new!
I don’t really know whether the classic flu is corona, but last year I remember reading that corona diseases have always been with us and always were relatively lethal for seniors and such. Vaccines for the older variants were also developed with that demographic in mind. They were only recommended to non-seniors in cases where chronic illnesses were a risk factor.
Yep, seems you're talking about Flu. Vaccines for that are tweaked each year to try to cover the most expected strains of it in the coming winter, and when those miss it can get pretty bad (excess deaths). In the UK, those jabs are suggested for all over-50s.
A few things about Flu. First, it doesn't spread as quickly as COVID, partly because it's less contagious but mainly because symptoms start to show quite quickly, a day or two. COVID though is quite stealthy for a few days or more, helping it spread. Second, and more interesting perhaps, is that Flu mutates faster than coronaviruses. It might seem like we've seen countless COVID variants, but compared to the number of cases it's actually quite a small number. At the milder end, the common cold coronavirus has remained virtually unchanged for ages. Lastly, I think the risk for younger people from Flu is massively lower than the risk from COVID, not sure how the curve goes but I'm guessing it doesn't get to 1 in 12,000 risk of death until somewhere in your 50s or 60s rather than in your early 20s.
Put those points together and maybe you see why we have to accept that Flu will always be around, and why Flu vaccines are generally only given to seniors.
(I kind of get your point about Google - attempting to find information on coronaviruses in general as opposed to COVID is almost impossible now).
And that is obviously not good, and the UK prime minister made a strange call by reopening the society as much as he recently did.
It's all a bit odd, knowing that nightclubs are open and large events like festivals are taking place, while in many other respects almost nothing changed on 'Freedom day' - people still mostly masking, still mostly keeping distance, etc.
I don’t mind restrictions when justified as long the vaccines remain voluntary for the sceptics, whose cautious concerns for the time being are justified
I don't agree that those concerns are justified by any actual information though, just a perceived lack of it...
Well, I’m not sure why pointing out that agendas exist automatically leads to the assumption that “he must also believe the earth isn’t a sphere” stereotyping. People nowadays quickly jump to conclusions when viewpoints don’t fall under the established consensus. There’s also a climate agenda, but that’s not the same as saying climate change isn’t real.
I recently purchased a petrol car, but somehow it didn’t make me a selfish idiot. I’m sure it would in year 2029 though, as electric cars are expected to lead the future sales charts. See a pattern?
I agree that “vaccine propaganda” is a harsh postulation, but to me it very much comes across as such when authorities repeatedly fail to explain why vaccinating entire populations is urgent while statistics suggest otherwise.
But weren't you using 'agenda' in a way that implied distrust? Granted, I wouldn't listen to politicians or journalists for COVID or vaccine advice, in most cases they would be repeating some data they'd been told rather than analysed themselves. It's not necessarily that they be wrong, but it would generally be a dumbed down message. We also have Whitty and Vallance, both scientists, giving presentations of data - they do a much better job of explaining 'why', but still have to keep it fairly brief. For the real detail there's no substitute to reading the actual papers and reports produced by the people doing the analysis - it is pretty much all available, even if not always easy to find.
The short of it though is that the level of herd immunity needed depends on the transmissibility of the virus (which rose with Delta) and the effectiveness of vaccines at reducing transmission (which is worse with Delta). Before Delta it looked like UK was going to reach herd immunity with some to spare, but with Delta around there's no slack - pretty much everyone has to have either vaccine or previous infection, and it still might not be quite enough. That's probably not quite as bad as it sounds, but it has certainly caused alarm and drives the push for full vaccination.
That may be pretty much as you've heard it already, perhaps all I can add is that the math checks out and the data supports what's being said. (The main unknown is the R
0 of the Delta variant, often given as 6 but anything between 5 and 7 is possible).
Which statistics suggest otherwise? That hospitalisations and deaths are much lower than they were? That's anwered by the fact that nearly all people going to hospital now are unvaccinated, and the average is much lower than before. Or something else?
) because there's not a lot you can do to change the risk of getting it. 'It' also isn't a single thing. Very few precautionary measures are proven, and those that are only address one particular cancer (e.g. smoking -> lung), broadly speaking. Unlike, say, masks against COVID. There's certainly no vaccine. The main thing which improves outcomes is early detection and prompt treatment.
