NHS to offer a Gonorrhoea Vaccine

[Omadon2001]

For some reason my phone won't let me post a link but if you Google "Gonorrhoea Vaccine" there's plenty of results.

It's offered to those most at risk but it's only 30-40% effective.

I read that one guy (homosexual) paid privately last year after previously catching it. Despite the vaccine he's been reinfected again but said the symptoms were less severe

[RandomGuy99]

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=426061.msg4272346#msg4272346

[Rose_128]

Hmmm, is it a good thing that symptoms are less severe so people may not even know they are infected, therefore won't test, and spread it on. Obviously nobody wants to be in pain but this could create another cycle ( hopefully not ). The only good thing about gonorrhea is that you probably know you caught something down below ( I have heard the peeing can be like peeing needles ). Disappointing that is so low.

[Strawberry]

Yes the roll out was mentioned back in April or May, just after I had bought the vaccine. I have never tested positive for gonorrhea and never want to, but thought obtaining this would be a very good idea. First line of defence is however a condom, although I do currently offer OWO. The vaccine is my back up.

Of course the vaccine also protects against Meningitis.

[Rose_128]

Definitely useful for escorts and owo if it does reduce some risk, i will ask at Dean Street next time I go. I don't think they will offer it to punters so hopefully people will still get tested as normal and not rely on symptoms. I only wish it was more like 50/60 rather than 30/40 per cent .

[RandomGuy99]

External Link/Members Only

BBC News - Gonorrhoea vaccine roll-out begins across the UK - BBC News
External Link/Members Only

[superchamp]

Rather typical of the BBC in both the May article and the more recent one to report only on the experiences of a few homosexual men, thereby reinforcing, to some people no doubt (especially the young), that STI's are nothing to worry about for those in exclusively heterosexual relationships. Just poor and irresponsible reporting IMO.

[southcoastpunter]

Rather typical of the BBC in both the May article and the more recent one to report only on the experiences of a few homosexual men, thereby reinforcing, to some people no doubt (especially the young), that STI's are nothing to worry about for those in exclusively heterosexual relationships. Just poor and irresponsible reporting IMO.

whilst i wouldn't say "nothing to worry about" i think many youngster have a "not a big deal" attitude to STI's as these days, generally they are all very treatable and even HIV is treatable (to an extent) and is not the killer it once was for many of us in our youth.

For most guys on here, the risk, i would suggest, is more one of giving it to the OH and being caught out rather than the STI itself!

[RandomGuy99]

Rather typical of the BBC in both the May article and the more recent one to report only on the experiences of a few homosexual men, thereby reinforcing, to some people no doubt (especially the young), that STI's are nothing to worry about for those in exclusively heterosexual relationships. Just poor and irresponsible reporting IMO.

The most recent BBC article does say "The jabs will first be offered to those at highest risk - mostly gay and bisexual men who have a history of multiple sexual partners or sexually transmitted infections." to explain why it's not available to everyone immediately.

[RandomGuy99]

External Link/Members Only

[Andywb]

External Link/Members Only

New research has just been published on this topic so pls excuse bumping the old thread which seems to be the most relevant. The decision to give the vaccine to high risk groups was seemingly reached before clinical trials had been fully completed on the basis of promising early results and an urgent need to tackle the high frequency of infection in MSM. One such trial has now been published (link above). Sadly it reports no benefit in reducing risk of infection when comparing two groups of MSM (each approx 290) either receiving a placebo or the recommended doses of the vaccine. Participants were followed for two years after treatment. The occurrence of infection was about 48 events per 100 person years in each group.

[Massage Bloke]

So it seems, it's back to the drawing board!

[scutty brown]

Difficult trial to ethically carry out because you'd be relying on a bunch of people deliberately not using condoms, so effectively asking them to try infecting themselves. Not convinced you'd get accurate results

[Andywb]

Difficult trial to ethically carry out because you'd be relying on a bunch of people deliberately not using condoms, so effectively asking them to try infecting themselves. Not convinced you'd get accurate results

I am not sure that they were asked not to use condoms? I imagine the participants carried on with their usual lives (with or without safe sex as per their preference). That's why random and blind allocation to treatment vs placebo groups is part of the design. With a large enough sample size individual differences in behaviour should be balanced between groups.

[Strawberry]

Difficult trial to ethically carry out because you'd be relying on a bunch of people deliberately not using condoms, so effectively asking them to try infecting themselves. Not convinced you'd get accurate results

Yes indeed you need infected partners to have unprotected sex, however because person-to-person transmission is never 100% isn't the ultimate vaccine test to clinically introduce gonorrhea to an uninfected person?

I bought the Men B vaccine because I considered it useful, actually had pretty bad side effects lasting 5 days each time but it's done now and if it helps it helps, but I do not intend testing it!

[Hobbit]

I wouldn't take any new vaccine until it's been out for at least 30 years, so we know its side effects.

[daviemac]

I wouldn't take any new vaccine until it's been out for at least 30 years, so we know its side effects.

So you never had a COVID vaccine? 

[Strawberry]

So you never had a COVID vaccine? 

Some people didn't.

But what about Gardasil, and would he have waited for the Polio vaccine to be proven? Polio was seriously crippling and killing people.

[scutty brown]

I wouldn't take any new vaccine until it's been out for at least 30 years, so we know its side effects.

If everyone took that view there'd be no medical progress. But a lot of avoidable deaths due to the disease.

[cunningman]

I wouldn't take any new vaccine until it's been out for at least 30 years, so we know its side effects.

So when there's a pandemic with something new that appears to be quite lethal, you'd rather be exposed to that, than have something that professionals have engineered as well as they can, that might have a side effect?

Clearly COVID vaccines have been shown to have some nasty side effects, in some people, but it you look at the mortality and outcomes of those who took the risk vs those that didn't - surely it would be apparent that they were not a silver bullet - but did improve outcomes?

Seatbelts are not a silver bullet either.

Do you keep your money under the mattress and stick your fingers in your ears when anyone says 'Inflation Report'?

[daviemac]

Some people didn't.

Yeah I know I had the first two and regretted it and haven't had another one since.

I was just wondering whether Hobbit genuinely refused the COVID vaccine or if he's selective in which principles he adheres to.

[Doc Holliday]

I wouldn't take any new vaccine until it's been out for at least 30 years, so we know its side effects.

30 years? Why 30 years?

You do realise this isn't a new vaccine? After development and testing, the meningitis B vaccine has been in use since circa 2013 and has been routinely given to babies in the UK since 2015.

[Hobbit]

So you never had a COVID vaccine? 

Unfortunately, I have. When it first rolled out, they made a big panic about it, and due to health conditions I fell into that trap, but I only took one and decided not to take them anymore. Having learned of all the side effects from that vaccine, I decided from now on not to take any until many years have passed, until sure it has no side effects, and trust me, vaccines do have serious side effects, so we have to be careful. I'm not gullible enough to fall into that trap again.

[Hobbit]

If everyone took that view there'd be no medical progress. But a lot of avoidable deaths due to the disease.

I'm not asking anyone to take that approach. That is just my approach, and if you feel defensive about it, then that is more about you than it is about me. I have had serious side effects from vaccines before, and therefore I have made that decision based on my experience.

[Hobbit]

30 years? Why 30 years?

You do realise this isn't a new vaccine? After development and testing, the meningitis B vaccine has been in use since circa 2013 and has been routinely given to babies in the UK since 2015.

30 years is just an arbitrary number, but the point I'm making is that unless a vaccine has been out for several years, then I would not trust it not to have any side effects which are serious, so I choose not to take it. I see your point about the meningitis B vaccine, and I haven't done any research on it, but if it is a vaccine made from that, it may have fewer side effects. Still, I personally would not take it unless I am completely sure and the only way to know that is for it to remain in the public for at least a few years so I know its risks.

[Hobbit]

Yeah I know I had the first two and regretted it and haven't had another one since.

I was just wondering whether Hobbit genuinely refused the COVID vaccine or if he's selective in which principles he adheres to.

I refused it the second time round, and my doctor pushed for me to take it and was surprised I said no, but he didn't realise he was dealing with The Hobbit, and I have no issue with saying no.

[Hobbit]

So when there's a pandemic with something new that appears to be quite lethal, you'd rather be exposed to that, than have something that professionals have engineered as well as they can, that might have a side effect?

Clearly COVID vaccines have been shown to have some nasty side effects, in some people, but it you look at the mortality and outcomes of those who took the risk vs those that didn't - surely it would be apparent that they were not a silver bullet - but did improve outcomes?

Seatbelts are not a silver bullet either.

Do you keep your money under the mattress and stick your fingers in your ears when anyone says 'Inflation Report'?

I think there have been enough reports on this that have shown that lots of the data that was given was false, and it's slowly now leaking out to the public. It was also shown that having a lockdown was pointless and only caused more problems to the economy and made no difference in terms of the virus spreading.

I knew people were going to ask this question, and I am not stupid. If I had a choice between life or death, I would obviously never choose the latter. If there was a deadly virus out there and there was a vaccine that could help me to remain alive, then yes, I would choose it. Hence why I took the COVID vaccine the first time because of all the paranoia being spread about dying, etc. But obviously, experience now teaches me to be much more careful and much more vigilant and not so gullible.

[daviemac]

I refused it the second time round, and my doctor pushed for me to take it and was surprised I said no, but he didn't realise he was dealing with The Hobbit, and I have no issue with saying no.

They're doctors mate, you aren't dealing with the mafia. I've been refusing Covid and flu vaccines for years and never had to go all macho about it, I just say no and they accept it.

The only thing I can't get them to do is to stop offering them. They say they have to offer them, it's all to do with liability if anything happens and they hadn't.

[Hobbit]

They're doctors mate, you aren't dealing with the mafia. I've been refusing Covid and flu vaccines for years and never had to go all macho about it, I just say no and they accept it.

The only thing I can't get them to do is to stop offering them. They say they have to offer them, it's all to do with liability if anything happens and they hadn't.

I didn't go macho about it. The point I'm making is that you'd be surprised at the looks you get from them when you say no. It's as if you have taken away their toy.

[RedKettle]

I didn't go macho about it. The point I'm making is that you'd be surprised at the looks you get from them when you say no. It's as if you have taken away their toy.

Or they think you are an idiot. Or they are frustrated because they see the illness and death caused by people being vaccine hesitant.