Right, but that was in the 50s and 60s when our knowledge and mapping of medicine was still pretty meh. We now live in an era where we're approaching some technologies that in those times would have seemed outrageous, such as nanotechnology and cures for cancer. You're absolutely right that blind faith in anything is misplaced, however, that doesn't mean that the alternative is complete mistrust. I keep seeing arguments against vaccines such as "but what about long term effects" and "this disease has a 99% survival rate"; for the first one, I'd say that there are new treatments available that don't have long term data available, but are being taken without question. To the other, I'd question why people are using death as a measure of whether or not to do something. Death isn't the only issue with Covid. I'm double jabbed, I had it a few weeks ago and I'm still recovering. I'd hate to think what I would have been like had I not been vaccinated. There's a risk of death with nearly everything we do in life, the Daily Mail went through a phase in the late 90s of telling us everything was linked to cancer, it didn't really stop anybody from doing those things despite the comparatively low survival rates of cancer. People still drink alcohol, considered a poison to the body. They eat fast/processed food, they smoke, sunbathe, they use devices that emit radiation, work with chemicals...the list goes on. Yet, ask them to get a vaccine to reduce the impact of a virus on their body, and they kick off. There's some sort of dissonance going on here and it isn't helpful because the narrative should be to do whatever it takes to give SOCIETY the best chance of cracking on, not the individual. As most know, stats mean nothing to the individual, which is why people have found it so easy to look at the survival rate and go "I'll be fine, what's the fuss?". What we need to start doing more is saying "how does this impact all of us?" instead of "how does it affect me?".
I mentioned to some after Pascal Soirot mentioned that a vacc would be ready last September that I wouldn’t have it as the timescales wouldn’t work. It helped their share price though. It was never a cure. It’s a vaccination. The more people who have it (worldwide) the more under control it becomes, that’s how vaccinations work. It’s pointless getting everyone here vaccinated if the third world & other countries without sufficient resource are not vaccinating their citizens. Us & other better off nations should be funding the vaccination programmes of these countries if we want normality to return. Children have other vaccinations. As with those, it’ll be the choice of the parents. I’d be ok with mine having it. They had the others. People have the flu vaccination, without the drama, every year. Each year the vaccination is different as it’s developed & subsequently administered based on annual predictions of which strain of influenza will be the most prominent that “flu season” If that’s how the covid vaccs need to work then so be it. I can understand people’s frustrations & anger but these should be aimed at inept & corrupt governments & not the scientists who worked tirelessly, collaborating with other organisations, to get an effective vaccine to the table in the shortest possible time, with the intention of saving lives & assisting in getting the lives of others back to some normality.
What does importance have to do with it? You've obviously made a decision, you're going with it, just don't complain when people call you out on it.
A thought to consider too: This all happened in a very different testing world. https://fullfact.org/health/thalidomide-covid-vaccines-misleading/
They are, so then to play devil's advocate, why would you trust those over the ones creating the measures? Why are our scientists recommending more severe measures when another set have said it isn't as bad?
Engineers built bridges that collapsed in strong winds. Do you never use bridges or do you accept that they learnt from the mistakes of others & developed new industry standards that are regulated & inspected.
The point wasn’t that the testing for thalidomide and covid jabs were the same but that experts can be wrong, even when it’s consensus within that field for a while. I’m double-jabbed but I won’t be taking the booster anytime soon. Not because I think it’s dangerous, but I just don’t see the point. I’ll take my chances with the 2 jabs the experts originally said were sufficient.
If you don't mind me asking, based on what? Because there seems to be a lot of people taking chances, I'm not seeing a lot of reasoning other than their own gut feeling.
To add to this, ‘less severe’ could still be bad. It seems to be significantly more infectious, and some people will still get ill with it and need hospital treatment. I know people don’t like the whole ‘strain on the NHS argument’ but I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the ONLY measure the government are using with this. Too much strain on the NHS could be an absolute catastrophe, with significant repercussions for anyone who gets ill of anything for the next few years. There’s only so many staff to go round.
Agreed, experts can be wrong. However the chances of experts being wrong now is significantly smaller than it used to be. This is probably the worlds most watched infection mitigation, the chances of it being wrong are very small. The booster DOES give you more protection. That’s a fact. It’s like saying ‘oh I had the flu vaccine one year so there’s no point in me having anymore’
And on your last line What measures have the government taken to address this? Are student nurses still Having to pay 9 grand a year to train? I know a few years ago the intake was down over 30 %
Well like I said, it's relative. Second degree burns are less severe than third degree burns, but they're still incredibly painful and cause damage to the skin. The thing about the NHS is, that Covid isn't the only disease out there. It hasn't replaced the flu or cancer or heart disease, those things are still going on. What we don't need is more people going in when it's avoidable. I can understand why people think that, because they claim that the "media" isn't reporting it, but then these are the same people who claim they don't trust the media (despite often quoting them in their arguments) so it doesn't appear as though there's any consistency to what they're saying. There are only so many staff, spot on, we don't want to be adding to the workload.
Also mandating vaccines for thoose working in the Nhs is not exactly going to help with staffing levels is it.
Because I’m in my early 20s and have no underlying health conditions. I don’t take the flu jab every year either because I don’t feel it’s necessary. There’s no harm in me getting a flu jab every year, but it’s not worth it imo. I have the same attitude towards a 3rd covid jab.
Of course we should be addressing the nursing shortage, but how is that long term fix going to help the short term issue of a Covid surge this winter?
Yeah, and I never get the annual flu vaccine and I’ve never had flu. I’ll probably get it later in life but I don’t see the reason to get it every year now. See my other post as to why. A 3rd jab for someone my age with no underlying health conditions just seems like belt and bracers. I’ll manage.
