A Covid-19 vaccine at last!

[lostandfound]

Poll by Opinium for The Observer suggests 35% are unlikely to take a vaccine, but only 20% would not do so if advised to do so by Gov - down from 24% 2 weeks ago.

External Link/Members Only

One in three ‘unlikely to take Covid vaccine’
Public concern in UK remains an issue for ministers, as nearly half of respondents to Opinium poll say they worry about safety

More than a third of the public say they are unlikely to take the Covid-19 vaccine when it becomes available, according to a new Opinium poll for the Observer.

It found that following the approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine for emergency use by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority, the public have become much more optimistic about when they will receive a jab. Three-fifths (60%) now think it will be offered to “people like them” by the end of April. This is up from 49% two weeks ago. Older people are even more optimistic, with a majority (52%) thinking they will receive a vaccine by the end of February.

However, there are still some underlying concerns that ministers will need to address. More than a third (35%) say they are unlikely to take it, while 48% worry that it will not be safe, 47% worry it will not be effective and 55% worry that it will have side-effects.

Despite the concerns, just one in five (20%) said they were unlikely to take it if it is available and the government recommends that they take it, down from 24% two weeks ago. More than two-thirds (68%) now say they would be likely to take it in those circumstances, up slightly from 67% two weeks ago.

[scutty brown]

First 50 hospital trusts to receive vaccine, next question is who gets it, and how

External Link/Members Only

[winkywanky]

First 50 hospital trusts to receive vaccine, next question is who gets it, and how

External Link/Members Only

Despite earlier statements that Care Home residents would be among the first, my understanding was that the first 'wave' of vaccines will now be given actually at the hospitals. This is because of the difficulties over the storing and transporting of the vaccine away from the first port of call (the hospital).

So I guess that would be hospital staff, doctors and nurses within the hospital, patients within the hospital who fit the age demographic (80+?), Care Home and Social Care workers within the catchment area who are able to travel to the hospital.

The actual Care Home residents will be within a couple of weeks while they sort out the logistics of how to deliver the vaccine safely to the Homes (the safety of the residents and the safety of the vaccine remaining effective).

Seems like they're trying to work out protocols for the safe dissemination of the vaccine, and also making sure they get a steady flow of recipients to make sure each and every vaccine is able to be used and not wasted. It is a big logistical exercise, but it seems a bit crap that they didn't have it ready to apply from the outset  .

[scutty brown]

It will have been an achievement just getting those -80C freezers built, installed, tested and working in time.
That kind of kit isn't available off-the-shelf in any kind of numbers, especially given the reliability and monitoring standards needed.

I'll hazard a guess that the Pfizer vaccine will only go to NHS staff and maybe patients, care homes will get whichever is approved next,  while the general population will get whatever comes third - and doesn't need low temperature

[winkywanky]

It will have been an achievement just getting those -80C freezers built, installed, tested and working in time.
That kind of kit isn't available off-the-shelf in any kind of numbers, especially given the reliability and monitoring standards needed.

I'll hazard a guess that the Pfizer vaccine will only go to NHS staff and maybe patients, care homes will get whichever is approved next,  while the general population will get whatever comes third - and doesn't need low temperature

I think there's also been specific mention of Care Home workers being vaccinated in the first wave too, in other words the people that come and go into care Homes every day for their job. They're able to go to the hospital hubs to get their jabs, it's not possible for the frail or demented residents to do that, they need to be done in situ when a system has been sorted out.

They're a big risk factor for the residents however careful they are, because they have lives outside of the Home. Apart from visits from family members, early on in the pandemic they will have inadvertently been bringing the virus into the Homes, that's why some Care Homes very quickly arranged for the staff to live in.

[Doc Holliday]

Interesting points Doc, I know to begin with the UK Govt didn't adopt face masks saying there was no evidence of them being effective but then did a U-Turn which is previously unheard of 
I believe the rationale they then adopted was that they didn't protect the wearer from contracting CV19 but they did protect other people from the wearer.
Not sure how that logic stacks up and i'm still not convinced of how effective the masks actually are but perhaps it's more important as a conscious reminder of the need to wash hands; distance etc etc and to maintain peoples focus 

In terms of cost and I mean overall cost the wearing of PPE is an initial cost but then if there are less hospital cases from CV19; Flu et al then on the face of it it should be a cost saving.
However when you then factor in that people who didn't die of CV19 and flu may well then need all sorts of treatment in the extra years they live along with drawing pensions etc then wearing masks then becomes double expensive.

I'm not saying we should just let people contract illnesses and die however the harsh but true reality is that mankind is trying to find a way to cheat nature here and while we can extend the game a little ultimately nature always wins, basically the bitch has fixed it 

You make some excellent points and you are quite right about the bigger picture etc. I'm not going to reply to those points, as I would get carried away and bore the shit etc 

However in relation to the sentence I have highlighted, it has been known for a great many decades that was likely the case. Surgical masks have really only ever been worn to protect others from the wearer. This was not anything new. How effective they are, has always been a point of contention because studies were difficult, sparse and conflicting. Covid gave an ideal opportunity to further study mask effectiveness and the evidence in favour is now much more conclusive.

However the powers that be were happy to use the historical lack of evidence (either way) as justification to save money.

[Xtro]

....... Surgical masks have really only ever been worn to protect others from the wearer. This was not anything new. How effective they are, has always been a point of contention because studies were difficult, sparse and conflicting. Covid gave an ideal opportunity to further study mask effectiveness and the evidence in favour is now much more conclusive.
.....

Not so much protecting others 100%, but sharing just a little bit....

Facial Masking for Covid-19 — Potential for “Variolation” as We Await a Vaccine -
External Link/Members Only

[Strawberry]

It will have been an achievement just getting those -80C freezers built, installed, tested and working in time.
That kind of kit isn't available off-the-shelf in any kind of numbers, especially given the reliability and monitoring standards needed.

I'll hazard a guess that the Pfizer vaccine will only go to NHS staff and maybe patients, care homes will get whichever is approved next,  while the general population will get whatever comes third - and doesn't need low temperature

This is how I see it, those who have to wait may have the benefit of further development and knowledge, if not fine tweaking.

I do feel uncomfortable about those who will be encouraged to take the first vaccine, also will it be compulsory in these settings, or do employees and those at high risk for example care home residents still have power of refusal?

[king tarzan]

I don't think this is a 'live vaccine' in the conventional sense. It's the one which contains the RNA of the virus.

The Anti-Vax brigade can fuck off, this is one time where those that choose not to have the vaccine lose out, unlike when they refuse to have their kids vaccinated. With Covid kids are virtually unaffected, this vaccine means that adults can choose to protect themselves and others by having it, and those that choose not to will lay themselves open to infection. Of course ultimately they will also benefit because those that do take the vaccine will essentially gradually kill off the virus. But I think the vast majority that take it up will be enough to make the change.

Vaccination is going to be made compulsory for everyone..
Government directive.. SIMPLETTO

[Blackpool Rock]

This is how I see it, those who have to wait may have the benefit of further development and knowledge, if not fine tweaking.

I do feel uncomfortable about those who will be encouraged to take the first vaccine, also will it be compulsory in these settings, or do employees and those at high risk for example care home residents still have power of refusal?

There was something on TV last week about how the BAME community are more reluctant than other groups to be in the 1st wave of taking the vaccine as they think they are being used as lab Guinea pigs.
Obviously it's been stated on many occasions that BAME people have been most affected though I don't think this is down to genetics but more down to socioeconomics and having front facing roles in the NHS etc

Wonder what the reaction would be if the authorities listened to their concerns and told them they were at the back of the queue 

[Xtro]

There was something on TV last week about how the BAME community are more reluctant than other groups to be in the 1st wave of taking the vaccine as they think they are being used as lab Guinea pigs.
.......

It wouldn't be the first time, Pfizer pays out to Nigerian families of meningitis drug trial victims -
External Link/Members Only

[Hobbit]

Vaccination is going to be made compulsory for everyone..
Government directive.. SIMPLETTO

Where did you read that? 

[king tarzan]

Where did you read that? 

It was last week was briefly mentioned on news..

[GingerNuts]

Vaccination is going to be made compulsory for everyone..
Government directive.. SIMPLETTO

It isn't and if it was it couldn't be done by "government directive".

Compulsory vaccination would require legislation and therefore proper parliamentary scrutiny and process.

[Hobbit]

It was last week was briefly mentioned on news..

I didn't hear anything like that. I think you could be wrong about that. 

[scutty brown]

This is how I see it, those who have to wait may have the benefit of further development and knowledge, if not fine tweaking.

I do feel uncomfortable about those who will be encouraged to take the first vaccine, also will it be compulsory in these settings, or do employees and those at high risk for example care home residents still have power of refusal?

I don't think it will be compulsory, but I expect that those who are exposed to patients will be under a lot of moral pressure

[king tarzan]

I didn't hear anything like that. I think you could be wrong about that.

I saw it on TV.. I'm not on drugs or a drunk that I could of imagined it..

[Hobbit]

I saw it on TV.. I'm not on drugs or a drunk that I could of imagined it..

You may need a new TV. 

[winkywanky]

Vaccination is going to be made compulsory for everyone..
Government directive.. SIMPLETTO

Bollocks, I'll bet you a tenner 

[scutty brown]

It isn't and if it was it couldn't be done by "government directive".

Compulsory vaccination would require legislation and therefore proper parliamentary scrutiny and process.

I can't remember the details but my understanding is that primary legislation already exists to make vaccinations of any kind compulsory in a national emergency - if the government deems it necessary. Same legislation as allows for enforced hospitalisation or isolation of certain categories of infected people.
But even if I'm wrong, an Order in Council could be used to enforce compulsion

[winkywanky]

I saw it on TV.. I'm not on drugs or a drunk that I could of imagined it..

Perhaps there was a discussion about it and you got hold of the wrong end of the stick?

Just because a mango doesn't look appetising from a distance, doesn't mean it will smell funny.

[GingerNuts]

I can't remember the details but my understanding is that primary legislation already exists to make vaccinations of any kind compulsory in a national emergency - if the government deems it necessary. Same legislation as allows for enforced hospitalisation or isolation of certain categories of infected people.
But even if I'm wrong, an Order in Council could be used to enforce compulsion

External Link/Members Only

Current legislation gives the Government powers to prevent, control or mitigate the spread of an infection or contamination. However, it explicitly outlines it cannot require a person to undertake medical treatment, including vaccination. The Coronavirus 2020 bill introduced in March 2020 extended this prohibition to Scotland and Northern Ireland. This legislation makes it explicitly clear the power to make such regulations does not include mandatory treatment or vaccination.

If an Order in Council was used to compel vaccinations it would undoubtedly be subject to judicial review and face scrutiny in that way.

[winkywanky]

There was something on TV last week about how the BAME community are more reluctant than other groups to be in the 1st wave of taking the vaccine as they think they are being used as lab Guinea pigs.
Obviously it's been stated on many occasions that BAME people have been most affected though I don't think this is down to genetics but more down to socioeconomics and having front facing roles in the NHS etc

Wonder what the reaction would be if the authorities listened to their concerns and told them they were at the back of the queue 

Why would that be the case if de white folks is takin' de same shit?

Or was it thought there would be 'special vaccines' only for them when they rocked up at a vaccination centre?

[timsussex]

if you are over 50 you would be mad not to have the vaccine

f you are 20 and in good health you might have an excuse for waiting to see what the % of side effects is

[daviemac]

I can't remember the details but my understanding is that primary legislation already exists to make vaccinations of any kind compulsory in a national emergency - if the government deems it necessary. Same legislation as allows for enforced hospitalisation or isolation of certain categories of infected people.
But even if I'm wrong, an Order in Council could be used to enforce compulsion

There's a world of difference between issuing a fine for failing to self isolate and forcing medical treatment on someone. Can you link to instances of any forced hospitalisation, I don't recall any reports of that happening. Whilst it is illegal not to self isolate if required it is only punishable by a fine.

Who do you imagine are going to go around kicking front doors in and dragging people off to hospital and holding them down while the are injected. It's the right of everyone in this country to refuse medical treatment and I can't see that changing anytime soon. 

[The Film Director]

Bollocks, I'll bet you a tenner 

Make it a monkey, 

[Strawberry]

There's a world of difference between issuing a fine for failing to self isolate and forcing medical treatment on someone. Can you link to instances of any forced hospitalisation, I don't recall any reports of that happening. Whilst it is illegal not to self isolate if required it is only punishable by a fine.

Who do you imagine are going to go around kicking front doors in and dragging people off to hospital and holding them down while the are injected. It's the right of everyone in this country to refuse medical treatment and I can't see that changing anytime soon.

And we don't have the person-power to do this, compliance, willing has to be the way.

[daviemac]

And we don't have the person-power to do this, compliance, willing has to be the way.

I think we both know that, but there seems to be quite a few who think it will be compulsory.    

[Blackpool Rock]

Why would that be the case if de white folks is takin' de same shit?

Or was it thought there would be 'special vaccines' only for them when they rocked up at a vaccination centre?

The problem is all these rumours and such shit does the rounds within communities and on social media etc and before you know it people are quoting lies as facts, a bit like the vaccine having a micro chip in it 

[Blackpool Rock]

And we don't have the person-power to do this, compliance, willing has to be the way.

Perhaps someone who does social media should start a rumour via a friend of a friend who works in the NHS at a top level that they are going to put the vaccine in the drinking water supply.
How long until the conspiracy theorists latch on and have 1/3 of the fuckwits under 50 believing it 
Then sit and watch as sales of bottled water goes up by 50% 

[scutty brown]

There's a world of difference between issuing a fine for failing to self isolate and forcing medical treatment on someone. Can you link to instances of any forced hospitalisation, I don't recall any reports of that happening. Whilst it is illegal not to self isolate if required it is only punishable by a fine.

Who do you imagine are going to go around kicking front doors in and dragging people off to hospital and holding them down while the are injected. It's the right of everyone in this country to refuse medical treatment and I can't see that changing anytime soon.

Forced hospitalisation has certainly happened in the past in cases of plague, typhoid, polio, Guillam-Barrre, and - I think - smallpox.
The powers to do it for a notifiable disease still exist. If you got ebola or lassa you'd have no choice

[chrishornx]

enforcing compulsory vaccination for everyone is just never going to happen

[daviemac]

Forced hospitalisation has certainly happened in the past in cases of plague, typhoid, polio, Guillam-Barrre, and - I think - smallpox.
The powers to do it for a notifiable disease still exist. If you got ebola or lassa you'd have no choice

This is COVID though with a very high risk of infection, the chances of contracting Eboal in this country are tiny and loads of people have been fined for not self isolating but none forced into hospital. The fact remains putting someone in prison or some secure hospital for not isolating, which they would have to do, is a world away from forced injections or even forced treatment for CV.

If I decide not to have the vaccination it would take quite a few to get into my house in order to drag me out, but the idea that they would even try is ludicrous.

[Doc Holliday]

If I decide not to have the vaccination it would take quite a few to get into my house in order to drag me out, but the idea that they would even try is ludicrous.

Knock Knock ... 

[billybobsmith]

My sister has been working on the drug trials and development, and she's said she wouldn't take it.

I'm a bit down the chain, so by the time it gets around to my age group, either it has "inadvertently" killed off all the 80yo+ people, been found to be good or have side effects, or other drugs are available.

[Marmalade]

There’s a very interesting page on the top five and bottom five countries according to how well they handled the pandemic. After selecting them based on fairly transparent data, the analysis goes on to look at the probable reasons, from small populations to swift action.

The failures mostly look at government failures. On the one hand it would likely be too controversial to look at cultural reasons, although it does mention previous experience in at least one case. Blaming governments is of course a blame game (would an opposition govt in crisis have done any better?) and in our own case, outside Forum rules. But looking at population/cultural behaviour, turning the lens on ourselves, the citizens also has a part.

From Scotland, I look at the pictures of packed masses shopping in central London, and probably mirrored in other big English cities, with horror: yet it is hard to say us Scots are more restrained. Scotland doesn’t have the vast shopping conurbations for a start. What I do feel overall is that  the U.K. has become a nation of rather wilful masses. The ingrained idea of democracy and individual rights has become almost a dangerous chimera where atrocious mob behaviour, in the streets and online, is conflated with freedom. We vote for a government then ignore it. Not democracy, but anarchy.

Anyway, have a look at the top five countries and why they’re there and see what do you think...

External Link/Members Only

[GingerNuts]

My sister has been working on the drug trials and development, and she's said she wouldn't take it.

Which vaccine and what is your sister's involvement? Why wouldn't she have the vaccine?

[Marmalade]

Another reason for the difference in Scotland is possibly not so much ‘better handling’ but the almost total hegemony of the SNP which enables the them to bully the population without interference from ‘opposition parties’. So much so, that the bullying top dog is able to appear quite benign and the sheep behave accordingly.

[myothernameis]

My sister has been working on the drug trials and development, and she's said she wouldn't take it.

I'm a bit down the chain, so by the time it gets around to my age group, either it has "inadvertently" killed off all the 80yo+ people, been found to be good or have side effects, or other drugs are available.

I place my self in this boat, I will eventually take the vaccine but not right away, as I want to see how it performs, and if any side effect crop up

Between 1995 - 2008, I took part in a number of clinical trials, most of these were out patients, but ones that were in patient, and require overnight stay in clinic.  The drug trials which required you to stay in a  clinic, were the most testing, and had the greatest risk, but you were paid well

In all the year, I have seen mild and severed reactions, and I experienced this my self as well, which made many of us ill.  One drug I was given, turned out to affect the heart rate, and 4 of us found our self's on heart monitors, as out heart rate dropped dangerously low, to around 30 bpm

The clinic were ready to rush the 4 of us to hospital, if we didn't see an improvement in out health, so to help us we were put on  drip, and by 4 hours later our heart rate was stable, and we were out of danger

[ruggedscot]

It isn't and if it was it couldn't be done by "government directive".

Compulsory vaccination would require legislation and therefore proper parliamentary scrutiny and process.

you are wrong there - under the emergency powers that were introduced back at the begining of covid undertaking were put in to the legislation that would let them do for- sorry compulsory innoculations if required.

[Steelworker]

Knock Knock ... 

+1. Risk of bad COVID result aged over 50 massively outweighs risk of taking vaccine. Doc and me (also a doc) will be dragging you out 

[GingerNuts]

you are wrong there - under the emergency powers that were introduced back at the begining of covid undertaking were put in to the legislation that would let them do for- sorry compulsory innoculations if required.

Please provide a link to the legislation (or the title of it) with a reference to the section covering compulsory vaccination.

[myothernameis]

Some one on the news, Q&A session, had asked, with more than one vaccine coming out, and we will require to be vaccinated twice.  Could the vaccinations be mixed, so the we get the pfizer vaccine first, and by Feb the oxford vaccine could be doing the rounds

So the expert thinks yes, we wont need to stick to the once vaccine, but it might not be down to our choice, the choice could be made by the nhs, so with 58 vaccines being test, it could become a lottery, which one we get

Now I doubt there been any testing, of taking two different vaccines made by different companies

[Marmalade]

Please provide a link to the legislation (or the title of it) with a reference to the section covering compulsory vaccination.

Easy enough to find the sabre-rattling:

External Link/Members Only

The way it could be effected legally:
External Link/Members Only

[GingerNuts]

Some one on the news, Q&A session, had asked, with more than one vaccine coming out, and we will require to be vaccinated twice.  Could the vaccinations be mixed, so the we get the pfizer vaccine first, and by Feb the oxford vaccine could be doing the rounds

So the expert thinks yes, we wont need to stick to the once vaccine, but it might not be down to our choice, the choice could be made by the nhs, so with 58 vaccines being test, it could become a lottery, which one we get

Now I doubt there been any testing, of taking two different vaccines made by different companies

I can't see you'll get anything other than two doses of the same vaccine.

[daviemac]

+1. Risk of bad COVID result aged over 50 massively outweighs risk of taking vaccine. Doc and me (also a doc) will be dragging you out 

Can you link to the evidence for that please. Or to be more precise point out the evidence in my medical records that suggests that would be the case or that the vaccine does not interact in a negative way with the other medication I take.   

[GingerNuts]

Easy enough to find the sabre-rattling:

External Link/Members Only

The way it could be effected legally:
External Link/Members Only

Those links don't say that compulsory vaccination is actively being considered or the UK has legislation in place allowing it as is claimed.

[winkywanky]

If I decide not to have the vaccination it would take quite a few to get into my house in order to drag me out, but the idea that they would even try is ludicrous.

Knock Knock ... 

Knock knock
Who's there?
Doctor
Doctor Who?
No, the Punting Doctor you idiot!   

[winkywanky]

There’s a very interesting page on the top five and bottom five countries according to how well they handled the pandemic. After selecting them based on fairly transparent data, the analysis goes on to look at the probable reasons, from small populations to swift action.

The failures mostly look at government failures. On the one hand it would likely be too controversial to look at cultural reasons, although it does mention previous experience in at least one case. Blaming governments is of course a blame game (would an opposition govt in crisis have done any better?) and in our own case, outside Forum rules. But looking at population/cultural behaviour, turning the lens on ourselves, the citizens also has a part.

From Scotland, I look at the pictures of packed masses shopping in central London, and probably mirrored in other big English cities, with horror: yet it is hard to say us Scots are more restrained. Scotland doesn’t have the vast shopping conurbations for a start. What I do feel overall is that  the U.K. has become a nation of rather wilful masses. The ingrained idea of democracy and individual rights has become almost a dangerous chimera where atrocious mob behaviour, in the streets and online, is conflated with freedom. We vote for a government then ignore it. Not democracy, but anarchy.

Anyway, have a look at the top five countries and why they’re there and see what do you think...

External Link/Members Only

UK: a good percentage: whiney, whingey, entitled snowflakes, and a steady corrosion of social cohesiveness (various factors), leading to many simply looking after themselves, or even just being in denial because their favourite Influencer (insert cunt's name here) has been spouting utter shite all over their channel, while all their tattooed, HD-eyebrowed and frankly gormless followers hang on their every stupid word  . Many people don't trust the TV News any more, don't trust authority.

Cummings going to Newcastle on a family bender, Hancock appearing to be useless (or is infact, actually) and Boris blustering. It's all froth, ultimately people need to do the right thing, and too many are looking for any excuse not to do it. I wouldn't mind, but they're not even discreet about it. they trumpet their stupidity from the rooftops and then blame everyone apart from themselves.

Anyway, that's what I reckon.

[winkywanky]

Some one on the news, Q&A session, had asked, with more than one vaccine coming out, and we will require to be vaccinated twice.  Could the vaccinations be mixed, so the we get the pfizer vaccine first, and by Feb the oxford vaccine could be doing the rounds

So the expert thinks yes, we wont need to stick to the once vaccine, but it might not be down to our choice, the choice could be made by the nhs, so with 58 vaccines being test, it could become a lottery, which one we get

Now I doubt there been any testing, of taking two different vaccines made by different companies

I don't understand what you're saying, it sounds like you're confused about the fact that some of the vaccines (including the Pfizer one) require a second jab a few wks after the first, like a 'booster'.

You certainly wouldn't take your first jab as a Pfizer for example, and then your booster as the Astra Zeneca. They're completely different vaccines and work in completely different ways 

Current thinking is that the immunity you get from a vaccine should last quite a few months or even over a year. When it's deemed necessary to be vaccinated again you might be given a different one second time around. But you would never 'mix' them.