The Student Room Group

Children aged 12-15 to be offered covid jab at schools in England

Scroll to see replies

Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
It allows them to search for those ingredients on the internet and find out their levels of harm and risk. Same for any product. Same for any food product on supermarket shelves.

Do you do that for every drug you have taken?

Most normal people rely on the fact the drug has been approved, leaving the scientific work for the scientists.
Original post by DiddyDec
Do you do that for every drug you have taken?

Most normal people rely on the fact the drug has been approved, leaving the scientific work for the scientists.


Yes. I'd consider it highly foolish not to research every drug and/or medical treatments before taking it. All such come with levels of risk and those risks are different to each individual so unless you research them you can't determine the risk level to yourself. The same goes with foods. I am very discerning about what foods I buy. I look at all the label ingredients in anything I'm looking at. Thereby I shun products loaded with sugars, sweeteners, chemicals, excessive "e" numbers and lots of specific ingredients.
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
Yes. I'd consider it highly foolish not to research every drug and/or medical treatments before taking it. All such come with levels of risk and those risks are different to each individual so unless you research them you can't determine the risk level to yourself. The same goes with foods. I am very discerning about what foods I buy. I look at all the label ingredients in anything I'm looking at. Thereby I shun products loaded with sugars, sweeteners, chemicals, excessive "e" numbers and lots of specific ingredients.

What are you going to find that the medical authorities didn't?
Nothing. I'm sure the medical authorities know precisely what's in everything and how effective or not any given treatment, drug, vaccine is. However the fact that the medical authorities know this doesn't change my stance. In fact it reinforces my stance as the medical authorities are not imo very forthcoming with all the salient details.

Take Flu vaccines for example. I've never met any medical practitioner or GP that freely tells me that the Cochrane Institute did a systematic review of Flu shots and concluded that they were so limited in efficacy that you'd have to vaccinate 71 people just to prevent ONE single case of Flu.

https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influenza-healthy-adults

"Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case"
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
"completely optional"?

ALL medical treatments whether vaccine or not LEGALLY require Informed Consent. I would be hugely surprised if any 12 to 15yr old child has been given the full information about the vaccines, about the numbers of adverse effects, about their realistic chances of getting serious illness, about the ingredients and so on. Where there is no informed consent, there is liability and people can and will be sued and rightly so.


I’m pretty sure 12- 15 year olds are as capable as you or I of researching the vaccines on this thing called the Internet
Original post by harrysbar
I’m pretty sure 12- 15 year olds are as capable as you or I of researching the vaccines on this thing called the Internet


No I don't agree at all. They are no where near as experienced and worldly wise as older people imo.
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
No I don't agree at all. They are no where near as experienced and worldly wise as older people imo.


I'm not sure age has really helped.
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
No I don't agree at all. They are no where near as experienced and worldly wise as older people imo.

Perfectly capable of doing a bit of research and coming up with their own opinions, no need to insult their capabilities
Reply 68
Avatar for hotpud
hotpud
18
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
lol wat?!

Did you really just say this !! Unbelievable

I think you are just being pedantic. The aim of the vaccine is to reduce deaths and hospitalisation. The biggest burden on the function of society however has been the impact on hospitals so the fact that it has reduced number of hospitalisations is the biggest win.

I'm not really sure why you are ridiculing me.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by hotpud
The aim of the vaccine is to reduce deaths and hospitalisation.


And to make Patrick Vallance a fortune.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8766531/Chief-Scientific-Officer-Sir-Patrick-Vallance-600-000-shares-vaccine-maker-GSK.html
Reply 70
Avatar for hotpud
hotpud
18
Original post by Megacent

You sound shocked. Jacob Reece-Mogg made a fortune out of Brexit.

But regardless of this rather disappointing conflict of interest, are you telling me that all the independent research that has been done is wrong because of one person? I note this article is a smear on Patrick Vallance and not on the efficacy of the vaccines.
Reply 71
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by DiddyDec
What are you going to find that the medical authorities didn't?

PoT has "done their own research", so they will find all the stuff the government and their science collaborators are hiding. Obvs.
Reply 72
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
Nothing. I'm sure the medical authorities know precisely what's in everything and how effective or not any given treatment, drug, vaccine is. However the fact that the medical authorities know this doesn't change my stance. In fact it reinforces my stance as the medical authorities are not imo very forthcoming with all the salient details.

Take Flu vaccines for example. I've never met any medical practitioner or GP that freely tells me that the Cochrane Institute did a systematic review of Flu shots and concluded that they were so limited in efficacy that you'd have to vaccinate 71 people just to prevent ONE single case of Flu.

https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influenza-healthy-adults

"Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case"

"Inactivated vaccines can reduce the proportion of healthy adults (including pregnant women) who have influenza and ILI, but their impact is modest."

So the study found that the vaccines have a modest impact on transmission and infection of flu and ILIs.
1. Why is that a bad thing?
2. Where is the health risk?

If you are not claiming flu vaccines are a bad thing, or that there is not a health risk - then what is your point?

I have never had any medical practitioner quote any study at me unsolicited. I'm sure this applies to almost everyone. Flu vaccines demonstrably have a beneficial effect, especially for vulnerable cohorts, so really not sure what you think you are on about here.
Original post by hotpud
You sound shocked. Jacob Reece-Mogg made a fortune out of Brexit.

But regardless of this rather disappointing conflict of interest, are you telling me that all the independent research that has been done is wrong because of one person? I note this article is a smear on Patrick Vallance and not on the efficacy of the vaccines.

I don't know. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. It's hard for me to have any trust in these scientists right now after what's happened in the last 18 months. People say that makes me "anti science". I'm not anti science, I just think a lot of them are being very manipulative. There are documents showing that they discussed the best way to ramp up fear in the population. And stuff like that makes it difficult to trust them. I also think they are behaving quite unprofessionally and have lost perspective. They seem to lack any empathy or humanity. Covid is all that matters, they don't seem to give a damn about the mental health nightmare they are inflicting on people or the economic damage that restrictions cause. And why would they? Susan Michie wasn't struggling to make ends meet on minimum wage furlough. Chris Whitty didn't have to spend 4 months locked down in an overcrowded council house. It's very easy for them to advocate restrictions when they won't experience any of the suffering it causes.

I think the vaccines are probably safe. But I'd like to leave it a while to be sure. I won't be coerced by vaccine passports and I don't want discounts, or free food, or any other incentive. I just want to be sure that what I'm getting won't harm me. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.
(edited 2 years ago)
Reply 74
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by Megacent
I just want to be sure that what I'm getting won't harm me. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.

But you can never be sure.
Even the safest medications can have rare dangerous side effects.
Even medicines that have been safely on the market for years could be fatal to a particular person who has not taken it yet.
If you are waiting for absolute certainty, you will never have the vaccine.

Strange that you have not applied this principle to any other medication or vaccine you have had. Why is that?
Original post by QE2
But you can never be sure.
Even the safest medications can have rare dangerous side effects.
Even medicines that have been safely on the market for years could be fatal to a particular person who has not taken it yet.
If you are waiting for absolute certainty, you will never have the vaccine.

Strange that you have not applied this principle to any other medication or vaccine you have had. Why is that?


You can assess the likely risk of any medical treatment, drug or vaccine if you have the requisite information.
You can also assess the risk of any pathogen/virus if you have the requisite information.

In respect of Covid19 and the vaccines I seriously doubt that the public has the requisite information about either to make an informed decision.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by QE2
But you can never be sure.
Even the safest medications can have rare dangerous side effects.
Even medicines that have been safely on the market for years could be fatal to a particular person who has not taken it yet.
If you are waiting for absolute certainty, you will never have the vaccine.

Strange that you have not applied this principle to any other medication or vaccine you have had. Why is that?


I've had vaccines before but the way they are pushing this one makes me feel rather uneasy. They've never tried bribing or coercing me to get a tetanus jab. I'm fairly certain the vaccines are actually safe, but the more they try forcing them on us, the more suspicious I get and the more red flags go up. If it's that good, why do they need to bully people into having it?
Original post by QE2
PoT has "done their own research", so they will find all the stuff the government and their science collaborators are hiding. Obvs.


And what exactly is wrong with that? Surely it's good practice to research and study a subject you are commenting on? Why did you write it like that, with speech marks around it?
Original post by Megacent
And what exactly is wrong with that? Surely it's good practice to research and study a subject you are commenting on? Why did you write it like that, with speech marks around it?

Because it's attempted character assassination, neglecting the fact that you can bamboozle with data simply by being selective in what you present or omit, and how you do it, sometimes in the hopes that it just won't be probed further.
Reply 79
Avatar for hotpud
hotpud
18
Original post by Megacent
I don't know. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. It's hard for me to have any trust in these scientists right now after what's happened in the last 18 months. People say that makes me "anti science". I'm not anti science, I just think a lot of them are being very manipulative.

Ah - the classic, "One day we will find out the truth" clause. What is the truth that "they" are not telling us?

Perhaps the scientists are telling it to us as it is? Perhaps the truth is dirty, complicated, difficult to understand and multiple shades of grey? Perhaps there isn't a nice simple narrative? Perhaps covid is like life - not straightforward?

Vaccines are evil is nice and simple. It suits people who are ignorant, happy to be ignorant or are unwilling to learn more. The truth is that the covid is better than not taking the covid but there are caveats, just like anything in life.

As for Patrick Vallance. He is but one scientists amongst a whole field. When lots of very clever experts in a field they have devoted their entire life to all tell you the same thing, there surely has to be a point at which you accept they might know what you are talking about?

I take it you always take your cars to around 15 garages before getting it fixed? No doubt in education you sought the learning from a dozen teachers from one subject and referenced another dozen or so sources before believing what they teach you is correct? Yet you are undecided on something as basic as a vaccine the likes of which are currently protecting you from illnesses that used to kill millions?

Sorry, but I have to wonder what has gone so badly wrong in your life that you can't trust experts?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you