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

Watch
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by HansLuben)
By properly tested I mean over a long period to see what all the side affects are, you can't do that with less than a year of testing and some serious ones have already emerged albeit not affecting very many people.
So how long should drug trials last before you accept the results?
Is it simply the length of time from formulation to approval that concerns you, or is it the specific length of time that the clinical trials last?
Pretty much every medication has serious side effects in a few cases, even the ones that have undergone 'Luben Approved' testing.
0
reply
stomachulcer
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 weeks ago
#22
Ah round two of how to unsucessfully emotional manipulate people into doing things by treating them like idiots instead of having a rational discussion and trying to get them to understand why doing X is a good idea.
2
reply
anime<3gaming
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 weeks ago
#23
blood clots and heart swelling sounds just as dangerous as covid. let covid spread as thats how a virus bbecomes one with nature. you cant fight nature. even if humanity stayed indoors for years the virus can infect animals. so kill off all animals and imprison everyone in their homes over a flu virus?

i say we live on and forget this rubbish. its gone on long enough and the human response to covid has been x10 worse than the virus itself
1
reply
HansLuben
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by QE2)
So how long should drug trials last before you accept the results?
Is it simply the length of time from formulation to approval that concerns you, or is it the specific length of time that the clinical trials last?
Pretty much every medication has serious side effects in a few cases, even the ones that have undergone 'Luben Approved' testing.
Personally I won't even consider it for at least 10-20 years until I can see how it affects others over the long term.

Like with the blood clots/hearts inflammation, there may be people now who are fine but this will become an issue when they are older due to the vaccine.
3
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by HansLuben)
Personally I won't even consider it for at least 10-20 years until I can see how it affects others over the long term.

Like with the blood clots/hearts inflammation, there may be people now who are fine but this will become an issue when they are older due to the vaccine.
Seems like a rather lazy cop out... the supposed safety concerns you have here i rather doubt you apply to much else in life despite the risks associated with it or the lack of study on it..
0
reply
HansLuben
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by Napp)
Seems like a rather lazy cop out... the supposed safety concerns you have here i rather doubt you apply to much else in life despite the risks associated with it or the lack of study on it..
It's not just the vaccine but the way the government/media is behaving that is rather off-putting, censoring criticism and using coercion to push uptake.
1
reply
hotpud
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by anime<3gaming)
you cant fight nature.
Can't you? Do you remember mumps, rubella, cholera, hepatitis B, measles, rickets, diphtheria and scarlet fever? Do you remember that time when huge numbers of children died before they were 5 years-old?

https://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/...f%20the%20past.

The covid vaccine is just another vaccine. Just like the flu vaccines many of us take every year and just like the vaccines that provide for good health we all had as children. The covid vaccine isn't something new. Sadly, by the time you are satisfied it is safe, it might be too late just as it was for the millions of children who died from disease and illness that doesn't even exist in out country today.
Last edited by hotpud; 4 weeks ago
6
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by BlinkyBill)
All children aged 12 to 15 in England will be offered one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid jab, Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi has said.

Check out the full story.

If you're a student aged 12-15, how do you feel about being offered a covid jab?
While I have no objection to 18+ choosing to be vaccinated the statistical risk of death is sub 1% (assuming no health conditions) below the age of about 50.

Essentially there is little material benefit beyond a small reduction in cases among a group which is not statistically vulnerable, especially since government is discussing overriding parents wishes to pander to the irrational fear of young students.

So I am mildly opposed.
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by HansLuben)
It's not just the vaccine but the way the government/media is behaving that is rather off-putting, censoring criticism and using coercion to push uptake.
It seems like this is the actual reason for vaccine hesitancy - the idea that the government, as well as all the health authorities and experts around the world, has some evil, hidden agenda.
And we all know that any conspiracy theorist worth their salt sees any evidence that there is no conspiracy as evidence for the conspiracy.
0
reply
Ra_Ar
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by anime<3gaming)
wholly agree. This vaccine is only phase 2 testing and only for emergency use but we are not longer in an emergency, these variants are getting weaker because it adjusts to be more transmissible and less harmful for humans, thats how a virus lives. This isnt like Ebola with a %55 chance of death, this is just but a simple flu virus that can give you chest infections, colds or tiredness etc. We've all had to live with viruses like these. If it was the 1930's - 1970's then yes I would be worried but we have clean water, central heating and medicines, we can easily manage flu viruses providing we look after ourselves and not letting big government get involved. The government is not responsible for your health nor should interfere with it. Im not having this vaccine until at least 2024 when as much long-term data has been collected and I have spoken to my GP. Its when I feel as it is safe to do so. I dont want government offering me freebies or blackmailing me, threatening to shun people out of society because they wont take the needle. If they bring out these virus passports then I wont spend my money at said businesses, not that any business would do that unless they want to damage their profits, so be it. We was born into freedom, we was not given it, it was fought for, and fought hard by our great grandparents. If this is how we are going to live then WWI/II was for nothing. Freedom was just some illusion to be shattered. The media arent certainly not helping because they are but hired reporters, to push for agendas. One caller on BBC radio wanted to talk about the side affects to the vaccine and he was promptly switched off and he was directed to another caller that he was going 'off subject' and had to be shut down.

We may as well live in a communist country where its not allowed to talk bad about something, that everything is 'fine' just like in Chernobyle where everything was 'fine' and everyone needs to keep smiling when in actual act they were breathing in death and for decades to come, it was only when it was too late that alarm bells were ringing. The same will happen here
A simple flu virus? really?
Name:  fpubh-09-628479-g001.jpg
Views: 15
Size:  116.6 KB
Name:  816.png
Views: 12
Size:  82.9 KB
and you have to remember the older and or weaker you are, the worse it is:
Name:  2bc5fb-20200311-coronavirus-charts02.png
Views: 16
Size:  159.8 KB
I'm not trying to exaggerate anything here, because for some people it will feel similar to the flu. But for those vulnerable, we have to reach herd immunity to protect them
Because it’s not a “simple flu virus” for them
3
reply
hotpud
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by Rakas21)
While I have no objection to 18+ choosing to be vaccinated the statistical risk of death is sub 1% (assuming no health conditions) below the age of about 50.

Essentially there is little material benefit beyond a small reduction in cases among a group which is not statistically vulnerable, especially since government is discussing overriding parents wishes to pander to the irrational fear of young students.

So I am mildly opposed.
The vaccine was never really intended to reduce deaths although it has had a positive impact in this regard. It was intended to keep people out of hospital in in this regard is has been hugely successful, especially if you are under 50.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1914238.html
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by QE2)
More Covidiot lies. Why are you doing this?

Are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or just stupid? Serious question.
You know I'm starting to get real sick of this new trend where people just label anything they disagree with "misinformation". Whether you like it or not, some of us have real concerns about this vaccine and we're probably not going to get the jab unless those concerns are properly addressed. If you attack and ridicule us for raising our concerns, then what do you think is going to happen? We're just going to be more sceptical because if our concerns are as unfounded as you say, why not just answer them?

I'm not sure you actually understand what misinformation is, so I'll try explaining it for you. It's comes down to a persons intent. If someone has a genuine concern about the safety of the vaccine, but that concern isn't supported by medical data and we reassure them and explain why they don't need to worry, that doesn't mean they were spreading misinformation. Their concern turned out to be unfounded, but at the time they were genuinely worried about the safety of a medical procedure and they were absolutely correct to raise that concern. Misinformation is when you deliberately spread lies. Chris Whitty stood there and said we could have 4000 deaths a day, knowing fine well the most recent data did not support that at all. Isn't that misinformation? What do you have to say about the Chief Medical Adviser misleading (at best) and worst telling a bald faced lie to the general public in the middle of a pandemic?

Source for the 4000 deaths a day
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/133438...-predications/

At the start of November, the predications were branded “Noddy Land figures” and "clearly ropey" by experts who said the modelling that provided the figure was outdated.
Last edited by Megacent; 4 weeks ago
4
reply
Ra_Ar
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by Megacent)
You know I'm starting to get real sick of this new trend where people just label anything they disagree with "misinformation". Whether you like it or not, some of us have real concerns about this vaccine and we're probably not going to get the jab unless those concerns are properly addressed. If you attack and ridicule us for raising our concerns, then what do you think is going to happen? We're just going to be more sceptical because if our concerns are as unfounded as you say, why not just answer them?

I'm not sure you actually understand what misinformation is, so I'll try explaining it for you. It's comes down to a persons intent. If someone has a genuine concern about the safety of the vaccine, but that concern isn't supported by medical data and we reassure them and explain why they don't need to worry, that doesn't mean they were spreading misinformation. Their concern turned out to be unfounded, but at the time they were genuinely worried about the safety of a medical procedure and they were absolutely correct to raise that concern. Misinformation is when you deliberately spread lies. Chris Whitty stood there and said we could have 4000 deaths a day, knowing fine well the most recent data did not support that at all. Isn't that misinformation? What do you have to say about the Chief Medical Adviser misleading (at best) and worst telling a bald faced lie to the general public in the middle of a pandemic?

Source for the 4000 deaths a day
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/133438...-predications/

At the start of November, the predications were branded “Noddy Land figures” and "clearly ropey" by experts who said the modelling that provided the figure was outdated.
but when QE2 was talking about misinformation he was referring to the user that said the vaccine was in phase 2. This was stated as a fact, and QE2 was pointing out that it's not phase 2 - phase 3 already ended long ago
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by Megacent)
You know I'm starting to get real sick of this new trend where people just label anything they disagree with "misinformation".
Fair play to that, although a fair amount of it is misinformation along the same lines as the lies spread about MMR or the polio vaccine
Whether you like it or not, some of us have real concerns about this vaccine and we're probably not going to get the jab unless those concerns are properly addressed
What exactly are the legitimate concerns? As most of them either seem to be about it being a government plot, making people sterile or some nonsense about 5G chips. The only legitimate one ive heard is a lack of testing.. something thats fairly easily rebutted with the fact millions of people have had the jabs and are fine. If its the one about not knowing notional long term adverse effects then it cant exactly be countered as no one has a time machine. Suffice it to say i have no reason to think there will be any adverse long term effects as its a mere vaccine, not a drug that can cause cancer or some such.

I'm not sure you actually understand what misinformation is, so I'll try explaining it for you. It's comes down to a persons intent. If someone has a genuine concern about the safety of the vaccine, but that concern isn't supported by medical data and we reassure them and explain why they don't need to worry, that doesn't mean they were spreading misinformation. Their concern turned out to be unfounded, but at the time they were genuinely worried about the safety of a medical procedure and they were absolutely correct to raise that concern. Misinformation is when you deliberately spread lies. Chris Whitty stood there and said we could have 4000 deaths a day, knowing fine well the most recent data did not support that at all. Isn't that misinformation? What do you have to say about the Chief Medical Adviser misleading (at best) and worst telling a bald faced lie to the general public in the middle of a pandemic?
With all due respect you yourself have just spread misinformation, by yourt own admission no less. Someone giving their medical opinion, especially the highlighted bit, is not 'misinformation' it is an estimate based on the evidence they had at the time.. Not an intent to deceive.

[/quote]
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by Napp)
With all due respect you yourself have just spread misinformation, by yourt own admission no less. Someone giving their medical opinion, especially the highlighted bit, is not 'misinformation' it is an estimate based on the evidence they had at the time.. Not an intent to deceive.
No I haven't. Chris Whitty told the public that we could have 4000 deaths a day. At the time he said that, the data did NOT support that assertion, and Whitty knew that the data did not support that assertion. Doesn't that mean he was spreading misinformation? He was not giving a genuine estimate based on the data, he was intentionally exaggerating the amount of deaths, presumably to scare us into another lockdown. It was clearly a calculated move.

That is why I'm not trusting them. He still won't apologize for misleading the public nearly a year later. Why should I trust him when he tells me the vaccine is safe? I'm pretty sure it is safe, but when you've been lied to once, you tend to lose faith.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by Megacent)
No I haven't. Chris Whitty told the public that we could have 4000 deaths a day. At the time he said that, the data did NOT support that assertion, and Whitty knew that the data did not support that assertion. Doesn't that mean he was spreading misinformation? He was not giving a genuine estimate based on the data, he was intentionally exaggerating the amount of deaths, presumably to scare us into another lockdown. It was clearly a calculated move.
Again though, you cant really call it misinformation when a man is presenting a guesstimate which, by definition, could easily be wrong. And, again, you have already said this yourself with the crucial word 'could'. He didnt say 'we will' he said 'we could' and he was talking of a worst case scenario on top of that. From ones perspective that merely serves to highlight just how bad things could have gottten if we sat on our heels and did nothing. That is not the same as saying we will be seeing this whether we like it or not. This coming from someone who has no particular love for the man (or our version Dr Bloomfield) nor the draconian measures theyve put in place, from putting us under house arrest to generally curtaily our liberties. However, in the specific field of a vaccine, i simply see no particular reason not to get a harmless prick in the arm if itll allow us to get back to life as before.
That is why I'm not trusting them. He still won't apologize for misleading the public nearly a year later. Why should I trust him when he tells me the vaccine is safe? I'm pretty sure it is safe, but when you've been lied to once, you tend to lose faith.
I would again refer you back to my original point, theres little to apologise for when asserting a guestimate to highlight the gravity of the situation. Especially when he is merely the medical adviser, if anyone needs to apologise it is the politcians who enacted these policies all by themselves... it is quite frankly ludicrous to blame an adviser for something they havent done.
You dsont have to trust him, aside from it being a seriously dubious notion that he'd be peddling a deadly vaccine to kill the country.. you can rely on the test data from the drug companies, the independant doctors and researchers whove analysed it etc.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 weeks ago
#37
(Original post by Megacent)
You know I'm starting to get real sick of this new trend where people just label anything they disagree with "misinformation".
The post I was referring to contained demonstrable falsehoods. Whether that was deliberate or just through ignorance remains to be seen (but I have my suspicions).
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by Megacent)
No I haven't. Chris Whitty told the public that we could have 4000 deaths a day. At the time he said that, the data did NOT support that assertion, and Whitty knew that the data did not support that assertion. Doesn't that mean he was spreading misinformation? He was not giving a genuine estimate based on the data, he was intentionally exaggerating the amount of deaths, presumably to scare us into another lockdown. It was clearly a calculated move.

That is why I'm not trusting them. He still won't apologize for misleading the public nearly a year later. Why should I trust him when he tells me the vaccine is safe? I'm pretty sure it is safe, but when you've been lied to once, you tend to lose faith.
Claiming that there could be 4000 deaths per day, as a worst case scenario, is not "an assertion", it is an "estimated prediction, given the worst possible combination of events" if nothing was done. Even with the measures put in place, we still reached nearly 2000 deaths a day!

Ironically, to claim that it was impossible for there to be 4000 deaths per day is actually an assertion, and one that you cannot support.

It is baffling that people are using this as "evidence" of some kind of government conspiracy against the public.
Last edited by QE2; 4 weeks ago
1
reply
Megacent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 weeks ago
#39
(Original post by QE2)
Claiming that there could be 4000 deaths per day, as a worst case scenario, is not "an assertion", it is an "estimated prediction, given the worst possible combination of events" if nothing was done. Even with the measures put in place, we still reached nearly 2000 deaths a day!
FFS why do people keep saying this? It was not an estimated prediction. The numbers being used were out of date, and the most recent data did not support the 4000 deaths a day figure. Everyone keeps using the flawed analogy of a weather forecaster accidentally getting predictions wrong. But what happened here is more like a weather forecaster having data that suggests it's going to rain, then turning round and telling us that the data actually says it's going to be sunny. 4000 deaths a day was not a genuine prediction based on data, it was completely rubbish Noddy Land figures intended to scare the public into complying with a second lockdown.

The Chief Medical Adviser shouldn't be spreading misinformation during a pandemic.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report 4 weeks ago
#40
(Original post by Megacent)
FFS why do people keep saying this? It was not an estimated prediction. The numbers being used were out of date, and the most recent data did not support the 4000 deaths a day figure. Everyone keeps using the flawed analogy of a weather forecaster accidentally getting predictions wrong. But what happened here is more like a weather forecaster having data that suggests it's going to rain, then turning round and telling us that the data actually says it's going to be sunny. 4000 deaths a day was not a genuine prediction based on data, it was completely rubbish Noddy Land figures intended to scare the public into complying with a second lockdown.

The Chief Medical Adviser shouldn't be spreading misinformation during a pandemic.
Can you present the data they used to made this prediction, and then we can see if they were deliberately falsifying the figures, as you claim.

From a purely evidential basis, given 2000 deaths a day after strict and widespread measures were put in place, an estimate of 4000 a day as a worst case scenario if nothing was done seems entirely reasonable.

Finally, even if it was a deliberate exaggeration, if it got a few more people to wear masks, socially distance, wash their hands, etc, it was entirely justified. So really not sure what your point is here.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made your mind up on your five uni choices?

Yes, and I've sent off my application! (168)
55.45%
I've made my choices but havent sent my application yet (44)
14.52%
I've got a good idea about the choices I want to make (34)
11.22%
I'm researching but still not sure which universities I want to apply to (26)
8.58%
I haven't started researching yet (17)
5.61%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (14)
4.62%

Watched Threads

View All