Are you pressured to get the vaccine?

I do understand that point about the masks and in their position I might have done the same. I accept they were misleading us for a noble reason, but it's still misleading people. And that makes it difficult for me to trust them now.

I'm not bothered about getting covid and quite frankly I'm not bothered if other people catch it from me. I get a cold every single winter and I probably pass it on to others too. I don't think people should feel guilty about that, it's unavoidable really.

I genuinely don't understand why people are so afraid of getting this virus, surely you must have had lots of colds in the past, and you've probably had the flu at least a couple of times. This is just another virus that will become endemic too, why are you so frightened of it? Feels to me like the world has gone utterly mad. But if you're really scared, then you can get the jab. If it's that good then it won't matter if you catch it from me, because you'll be protected.

I have no doubt that The Johnson and Trump administrations lied and attempted to distort the reality of the scientific and medical advice they were recieving. But this is a different to the case you and others on this thread are putting forward, which is that there has been a conspiracy of public health professionals (probably in alliance with Big Pharma, lizard people and Communists) to work together to promote the same lies.

For the most part, the shifting of public health advice was driven not by politicians, but by the reality that the COVID pandemic was a novel infection, and our understanding of it necessarily changed as it spread. However, the *release of such advice by government departments* would sometimes have been timed to coicide with changes in public policy. Public health speiocialists would have very little control over that aspect of information provided to the public.

The reclassification (downgrading) of the infection illustrates why changes were inevitable. One of the key criteria for a HCID is "a high case fatality rate" (CFR). Other HCIDs include Ebola (CFR 50%), monkeypox (11%), SARS (15%). In the early days of the pandemic, there were some reports of CFR's for COVID close to 10%, but it is very difficult to get an accurate case fatality rate when a novel infection is spreading rapidly. So a precautionary designation as a HCID was appropriate. As it became clear that the case fatality rate was not so high (its now about 1% in the UK), it no longer met the HCID classification criteria. So its classification got changed. Can you see how a CFR of 1% is not "a high case fatality rate" and therefore fails to meet the criteria for a HCID?

The story woven from the politically inspired conspiracy thinking around the efficacy of facemasks is similar. Here's an actual, peer-reviewed paper summarising the situation. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

This explains that the relative effectiveness of facemasks depends on the environment. If you are closely confined with people who have high viral load, a facemask will significantly decrease your risk of infection. Clinicians on a COVID ward would be at significantly lower risk by wearing a mask. But if you are in a public space, the decrease in relative risk is small. As with case fatality rate, accurate figures for risk reduction were still unavailable early in the pandemic. As evidence accumulated and the pattern of infection in the community changed, so the calculation changed.

In summary, the confusion around public health advice was mainly a function of public health professionals having insufficent data, and of patterns of infection changing, within in a fast-changing pandemic. Some politicans played fast and loose with this advice, but the idea that the public health professiionals and scientists had another, sinister agenda is ridiculous and dangerous.

In epidemiology the case fatality ratio CFR is a poor way of measuring the mortality risk from a disease. The most important number is the infection fatality ratio or IFR.

I don't know how the 10% appeared but it was nonsensical to start with, just as many other predictions, was based on a doomsday scenario not ground in science but in the reporting and misreporting from the media as well as the general climate of hysteria and paranoia.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/deaths-covid-19-vs-case-fatality-rate


The CFR as from today stands at approximately 1.76%
Total cases: 7.77M
Total Deaths: 137K

https://www.google.com/search?q=coronavirus+uk&oq=coron&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39j69i61j69i60l2.2052j0j7&client=ms-android-vf-gb-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#scso=_XORVYbyYBobdgQaH0aCABw11:428.5

However the number of people infected with the virus in the UK is not just 7.77M. These are the confirmed cases. It could be 3, 4 or 5 times as much which makes the IFR much lower and less than 1%

In terms of the pressures to get vaccinated these cannot be justified just as the emotional blackmailings, threats, intimidation, etc. And just as everything else so far that has been derived from a climate of fear and irrationality long before the vaccines came into existence.

Pilgrim's claim was that it made no sense to remove COVID from the HICD classification. The HICD criterion is based on the CFR. If you don't like it, please let Public Health England know. I'm sure they'd be glad of your expert advice.

I am in the extremely vulnerable group, and high up in that group too, so if it is deemed ok for someone in poor health like myself to be vaccinated there should be little to concern the young and healthy.

The fact that clinically vulnerable people are given and take the vaccine has no bearing on young people. You need it because you are clinically vulnerable.

Sorry to hear you're in the clinically vulnerable group

I'd just like to point out that your logic in the above statement is not sound imo. The fact that clinically vulnerable people are given and take the vaccine has no bearing on young people. You need it because you are clinically vulnerable. What that means is your balance of risks weighs towards Covid being a serious threat to you. You effectively have a choice of 2 evils, risk the harms of Covid or risk the potential harms of the vaccines. In your case the risk of serious illness from Covid and/or death is high because of your age and heath condition and possibly other factors. It makes sense that you get vaccinated as a result. But that risk is NOT the same for everyone else, not remotely the same.
Many young people are at extremely low risk of serious Covid illness [1] so it's wrong to say or assume that if YOU in your personal situation need the vaccine that the same must be true of everyone else.


Citations:

Children and young people remain at low risk of COVID-19 mortality
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00066-3/fulltext

Covid: Children's extremely low risk confirmed by study
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57766717

I think you will find that is exactly what I said or meant ... if someone in poor health is safe to have the vaccine then young healthy guys have little to fear........ but check with your GP if in doubt.

Sorry to hear you're in the clinically vulnerable group

I'd just like to point out that your logic in the above statement is not sound imo. The fact that clinically vulnerable people are given and take the vaccine has no bearing on young people. You need it because you are clinically vulnerable. What that means is your balance of risks weighs towards Covid being a serious threat to you. You effectively have a choice of 2 evils, risk the harms of Covid or risk the potential harms of the vaccines. In your case the risk of serious illness from Covid and/or death is high because of your age and heath condition and possibly other factors. It makes sense that you get vaccinated as a result. But that risk is NOT the same for everyone else, not remotely the same.
Many young people are at extremely low risk of serious Covid illness [1] so it's wrong to say or assume that if YOU in your personal situation need the vaccine that the same must be true of everyone else.


Citations:

Children and young people remain at low risk of COVID-19 mortality
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00066-3/fulltext

Covid: Children's extremely low risk confirmed by study
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57766717

This is indeed one take on things. Another take might be that the young and "healthy" who don't take the vaccine and end up in hospital are taking away services and treatment probably better offered to those who need it more.

And as we know from countless newspaper articles about all those young people who didn't take the vaccine because they didn't think they would end up in hospital but did... better safe than sorry.

I take it you don't wear a seatbelt when in a car? After all, the chances of an accident per car mile are very small. It seems a bit pointless no?

Precisely my position.

The argument above in regards to seatbelts is neither valid nor relevant in the discussion for this thread. And has been answered long time ago as well as refuted.

In regards to vaccinations nobody should be pressured or forced to get vaccinated and everyone must decide for themselves. If you think the vaccine is vital for you as you are in a high risk group then by all means get vaccinated. If you think the opposite then you give it a miss. Ask the GP if possible before any decisions taken.

However nobody should be forced, pressured or intimidated and blackmailed to get vaccinated.

In other countries there is plenty of resistance against mandatory vaccinations and against pressures.

If for instance you decide not to have the vaccine, try not to take chances visiting at risk relatives etc, we should all want people to be safe and well

I will be intrigued to see what happens in Come Dancing where two of the participants are refusing to take the vaccine, which brings up a perfect example of when people should be vaccinated.
Two dancers more or less cheek to cheek, breathing heavily and sweating, working together up to 10 hours a day, I would have thought it would be common courtesy to either withdraw from the competition or get vaccinated.

Again you are forgetting or choosing to ignore the possibility that one or both may have already had Covid and thus gained natural immunity so not being vaccinated shouldn't be an issue imo.

Really, well I would be concerned, but apparently there's no law stating you must have a vaccine so there is little the BBC can do about it, seems like a can of worms to me.
If you consider something a little similar, a trip to the dentist where there is again obviously close contact, you will find the dentist all masked up, and before and after your appointment the whole room will have to be covid cleaned.

Some on here will have been convinced not to have the vaccine after reading posts like this one and others

....And aren't those "at risk" people largely vaccinated anyway and thus well protected? Or are you suggesting their vaccines aren't very effective?

No I'm just not in agreement with your overall ethos here.

Let those who feel at risk get the vaccines if they so choose and let those who don't feel at risk choose not to take them if they so choose. Each to their own, free choice, no pressures.

And of course the vital element in all this which you have consistently failed to mention is that millions of people have already been exposed to the virus and have recovered....I peersonally believe those with natural immunity are safer to society than the vaccinated but each to their own.
[1] - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/coronavirus-vaccine/

"you might still get or spread COVID-19 even if you have a vaccine"

[2] - https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19220824.covid-herd-immunity-reached-within-days-uk/

[3] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13520

"In this study in the whole general population in Austria with a follow-up of over half a year, those individuals with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection had a significant reduction by 91% for the odds of a re-infection versus the odds of a first infection in the remainder general population.

Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies."

I disagree. If you read my posts, I'm not advising anyone else what they should do. It's not my place to advise others what they should or shouldn't do, I feel vaccination should be a personal choice. I'm just giving my own opinions of the vaccine, am I not allowed to do that?