Covid-19 Virus

My 18 year old niece has the opposite problem in that she’s going to Reading next weekend but got Covid last week, so desperately hoping for a clear test result so she can go.

 

14 YO ASD son has his 1st Pfizer on Wednesday (telephone by GP clinic on Friday PM).

 

Fair argument. I may have liked it as an honest opinion if it hadn’t been for the end of your post.

Interesting that in your last paragraph you do exactly the same to me that you accuse Moose of doing to you. What you say is quite incomprehensible when I make it clear that people at higher risk from COVID should take the vaccine, and that I have taken the vaccine for my three stated reasons, accepting that there is a risk, just as there is in not taking it. But how you react to disagreement is your own business, no matter how disappointing I find it. I have not accused you of anything and would appreciate it if you did not insinuate anything about me that is clearly refuted by my words.

I am not a sceptic, and I am not anti vax. I simply think that there are advantages to both taking and not taking the vaccination, and that our understanding of both, as you describe extremely well in your post, is incomplete. Therefore it is perfectly proper to expect individuals, faced with a choice, to weigh up the information they have before committing either way. It is logical, if you do not require a vaccination to survive a disease, to consider that you do not require that vaccination.

You disagree. Fair enough. Can we leave it there?

 

Yes, precisely. You will also recall, I hope, that my one criticism of the woman was the risk of her infecting those more vulnerable.

So it is more bizzare perhaps that you describe me in such a way, and then describe my exact situation as the norm.

A persons decision must be their own, and for a healthy person at extremely low risk, they must be allowed to consider risks from their own point of view. But then, I am anti-authoritarian and pro society.

I would encourage her to consider the vaccination to avoid unnecessary injury and death, just as I would encourage everyone to walk or cycle to work to avoid traffic injuries, deaths, pollution, conurbation, etc. But the decision is hers, and the logic she applies is absolutely sound in her case. And just like those who choose to drive their car everywhere, she has weighed up the risks to herself and those around her, and her personal circumstances, and made a choice.

 

This has been debated to death, but personally I think it’s not just down to that. I think we have a civic duty to have it regardless of how fit and healthy we may believe we are. If everyone looked at it solely from their own point of view and decided they won’t take it then we’d be in an awful mess as a country.

Of course, many people actively damage their own health through their own lifestyle choices, but equally many health conditions are indiscriminate. You can mitigate against many things but equally none of us are immune from getting cancer or any number of horrible conditions, indeed many of us will eventually get something unfortunate.

So you decide not to take the vaccine, because up to now you’ve been lucky in the lottery of life, but then on the other hand you have someone else who hasn’t been so lucky that you could infect and kill because you’re making a decision based on you and you alone, and not the society you belong to which you still want to enjoy the benefits of.

 

I’ll quote this to you next time GoBE cites expert opinion about Tory policy, the WHO, BSE, Thalidomide, Opiate medicines, Brexit, etc.

On the contrary to your insinuation, I agree with them almost 100%. But I also think that the evidence they give equally implies that a healthy young person, considering risks to themselves given their own circumstances, has a choice to make that satisfies their own outlook, with very little peril presented either way.

 

Absolutely fair opinion, but when you extrapolate that to all other personal decisions which present a risk to others, like driving, flu jabs, Nike trainers, smart phones, etc., you will end up with a world that no one will be happy to live in. Why should a bio engineer, a fire fighter, soldier, a maintenance worker, a truck driver, etc., risk death in order to save the lives of others, or even just to make them more comfortable?

You are mistaking society, which is where we all share the benefits and risks of living a bearable life together, with authoritarian dystopia, where it would fairly be considered hypocritical to prevent one risk, but not others. You go down that route, as you suggest, and you will soon realise that life is worth the risk.

 

I’m not really sure those are viable comparisons. For one you can choose not to drive and avoid roads etc, but I think most people accept that if they want to eat food etc, then transport is a necessary feature of society.

Covid has no benefit to anybody, if you choose not to have the vaccine purely based on an individual decision, that decision can only benefit you (although that’s debatable in itself) but could be hugely detrimental to everyone else.

 

Again, a fair argument, but it completely seems to ignore the fact that we are discussing an authoritarian decision that all people will be subject to one risk, rather than another. If a minority can make such decisions, they will attempt to do so at every opportunity, and when an ideological government gets its hands on such powers, they will find it difficult to let go.

There is also the very valid argument that total vaccination would deny us the benefit of natural resistance being developed. Instead we will have to rely on big pharma being able to react quickly enough to a disease which will basically be evolving as an alien species around us, for which our only resistance is chemically reliant.

 

I’m not saying it should be compulsory, I’m just saying I don’t agree with people who decide not to take it, simply because they think they’re healthy and don’t need it. I fully accept there will always be a percentage of people that will take that view in any given situation, I just don’t personally agree with it.

I do wonder how these people would feel if we all adopted the same mindset, and as a result vaccine take up was so low that lockdowns had to remain indefinitely and our freedoms curtailed longer term. Would those people be happy about that, or do they in fact expect everyone else to shoulder their own perceived risk, so that they can also live a normal unrestricted life?

I equate it to the people on the news last summer, sitting on packed beaches being interviewed by TV reporters and saying everyone else shouldn’t be there. They think in a population of 66m they have a unique view to everyone else, and are somehow removed from the rest of society.

By the way I had no issue with people going to the beach, just the people who went to the beach and didn’t expect other humans to have the exact same idea as them.

 

I'm more than happy for you to do that.

I've got no issue with having different opinions, but you said she had "perfect logic and understanding", and that (in my opinion) cannot be correct.

Also, when you say the following; "If she was in her seventies, I would recommend she go for the vaccine." that implies that you wouldn't if she was under 70. That, in my opinion, means that you would be a vax sceptic, at the very least.

That's all.

 

I appreciate this applies to the US rather than the UK but presumably in light of the below the Pfizer vaccine is no longer considered to be 'under trial' or 'experimental' in the States?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58309254

 

She’s had one vax so far. Apparently she has been quite bad with it, well she was bed ridden for a few days at least.

I guess hopefully for your daughters, although a festival seems high risk as far as catching it, it’s still odds on they won’t as most of it is outdoors.

 

If my eldest's Wireless experience about 10 years ago is anything to go by catching Covid is the least of your daughter's worries!

 

Oh dear, sorry! I'm sure your daughter will be fine and have a great time. Girls are much more sensible than boys!

 

Good news for me! I got pfizered!

I think the fact that the UK government had to underwrite any claims in order to get AZ to produce the vaccine untested pretty much proves the point that there was an unusual risk involved. Pointless arguing against that really.

IMHO, I really don't see how any of that detracts from her logic, that she is young enough and fit enough to tolerate the virus, with a proven very low risk, and would rather do that than take the vaccine even if that too has a very low risk (an argument that I was making myself on here a few months ago, for anyone who still thinks I am anti vax.

I think people should have a choice, in just about anything they do (taking responsibility for themselves), and if they have thought the matter out, deciding they are at an extremely low risk from catching the disease, then they are neither being reckless or illogical.

 

Considering the death rate of Covid is about 2% averaged across all age groups in the UK, and according to the latest study in Europe, the death rate across all age groups amongst vaccine takers who have expressed some side effects, the death rate is so low that it works out at 0.00127%, or one 1,574th of the covid death rate.

That is because out of over 330,000,000 vaccinated only 4,198 people have reported vaccine side effects and then subsequently died (of any cause, including cancer or other pre-existing disease).

Unless HH24's mate is in total isolation, and not living any sort of life at all, then she still has a reasonable chance of catching the virus. As we have seen, even when pubs and clubs were shut, cases still went up due to shopping, travelling some socialising, etc. The age group of 30 to 50 has 2 to 4 times more chance of being hospitalised through covid than someone in their 20's and 4 to 35 times more chance of dying through covid. I'd guess that HH's mate is in that 30 to 50 age group (a guess, but based on the age of her kids).

These numbers aren't theoretical, they aren't projections based on economic theory into unknown scenarios like brexit, they are based on hard numbers, research and results - and every country that has examined these issues independently and come up with the same conclusions - get vaccinated.

To ignore all this evidence is definitely illogical. If HH's mate is not understanding of the actual risks then she at least has some excuse. But for others like you and I, there is no excuse.

 

I disagree. Particularly given that people in that age group most negatively affected, are those with co-morbidities, which I think we can count out in her case, given the description.

If she is saying that she would rather not take the vaccine because she believes she is at very, very, very extremely low risk of serious effects from contracting covid, a factually correct assumption - based on the data available - for someone in her situation, then saying that her decision is lacking in logic is, in my opinion, quite absurd.

Yes, she is subject to greater risk, but yes, it is a very low risk for her based on the information available, and she would rather not take the vacvine. Where is the absence of logic? More people will die or be injured in road accidents today (injury that occurs regardless of age) than healthy people in her assumed age group will from covid. That, I believe, has been the case throughout the pandemic. At what point do you get to say that she should stay in doors to avoid the risk of accidental death or injury?

 

But, of course, anyone unfortunate enough to be killed in a traffic accident who has tested positive for covid in the last 28 days will be chalked up as another covid death!

 

And one of my clients, who died OF Covid 42 days after being admitted to hospital and put on a ventilator, wasn't.

 

Both numbers, for covid and vaccinations are across all age groups, and so trying to isolate the covid number by age doesn't work.

But OK, no worries, I can only provide the facts. If someone chooses to ignore them, nothing else can be done.

But my understanding is that ill patients in hospital are tested routinely during their stay, not just the once when they arrive.

 

As the UK road death rate is about 5 per day and as positive test results (as % of tests taken daily) is about 4% (data for 17th Aug) this looks it'll produce a number that will have a massive effect in skewing that data. Remember a small percentage of a small number (sample) is an even smaller number aka 0.2 deaths per day or 1 death per 5 days or just over 5 1/2 deaths in 28 days. This is assuming, of course, that c19 infection does not affect road usage as a driver, rider or pedestrian in anyway whatsoever.

 

The road accident one isn’t really comparable though. If their friend doesn’t want to take the risk of being killed in a road accident then they can stay indoors for the rest of their life. It’s not very practical, but it would also have no impact on anybody else in society.

On the flip side, if they live their life normally, they will always be at risk of dying in a road accident, like we all will, short of locking yourself in your house for the rest of your life. If you equate Covid to a road accident, their is a solution that will help mitigate 90% of the risk, it’s called a vaccine. It will have no negative impact on you, it will enable you to have a significantly better chance of suffering no ill effects and it will also protect other people. No such thing exists to avoid dying in a car accident short of never going near a car or a road again, if it did, it would be deeply illogical to not take advantage of it.

 

Even if all road deaths were chalked up as covid, the effect on covid deaths would be statistically insignificant.

 

I am not ignoring them. I accept that you have quoted valid evidence, I even accept that you have a fair but flawed opinion, for the reasons I have stated. What I am saying is that there is enough additional evidence, equally factual, that either puts your information into context, or contradicts the conclusion you have come to: that she is at such great risk from covid that it is illogical for her to choose not to take the vaccine. I believe she is at such a low risk that she made a reasonable and logical choice. If you want to imply that she is at as equal a risk from covid as an 80 year old, or an obese 40 year old with diabetes, that is your prerogative.

But like you say, if people wish to ignore the inconvenient facts, no worries.

 

I chalk it down to the human condition of not being able to imagine a feeling that is different to the one you’re currently experiencing. Like how if it’s raining you can’t imagine it being sunny, or if you go and do your weekly shop hungry, you’ll buy food for the hear and now and without any consideration for what you’ll want for dinner next Wednesday.

If you feel fit and healthy, some people will imagine they’re invincible and that they will always feel like that, they won’t be able to contemplate getting ill and feeling ill. Factually and statistically Covid carries a far, far greater risk than the vaccination, whichever way you slice it, it is illogical to not have it because you think you’ll be ok if you get it.

It’s simply down to being able to imagine the conscious choice of walking into a vaccination centre and willingly getting an injection which you imagine could have some ill effect on you, vs an intangible virus which your current state of mind prevents you from imagining could make you feel different to how you currently feel. Totally illogical, but it’s how people view life, that they’re totally invincible and couldn’t ever feel different to how they feel right now.

Most people would rather do nothing, rather than actively do something that could in theory have a downside.

 

Good point. Well made

 

And some people would rather not do something with a possible downside if there is a low risk natural alternative for them.

Interesting that people choosing not to take the vaccine are not insisting that everyone else joins in their abstinence.

It really does come across, rightly or wrongly, as trying to justify a feeling of "If I have to take it, you lot should have to take it too". I can think of no other reason for being so concerned for another person who has chosen to act differently, and take responsibility for what they do.

She doesn't even have to be concerned about, or even imagine, the possible ill effects of the vaccine. She may just not want to take a vaccine which she considers unnecessary to her, no matter what everyone else thinks. Like someone choosing sugar over sweetner. That was certainly my point of view.

 

The number of fit people between the age of 30 and 50 who have died from covid is dwarfed by the number of road deaths. We are talking about risk to an individual and the evidence that informs a person taking that risk.

If people are going to say to a fit and healthy 20 year old that the risk of covid is so great they must take the vaccine, then we should really be telling them to lock themselves indoors stay away from the kitchen and never stray from home, for fear of accidental injury, death, or contraction of harmful diseases of all kinds.

Statistically, the non-covid risks will be much higher for them.

 

I think, if you fairly apply your thinking on Covid to the risk of road accidents, then the natural assumption is that people will be told they are irresponsible in choosing to drive.

Someone who is vaccinated that does not want to be in the vacinity of an unvaccinated person is equally welcome to stay at home and isolate for the rest of their life, if that is the type of scenario you wish to consider as an option.

Removing traffic from the road will 100% reduce road deaths to zero in urban areas on non-commercial routes. Banning school drop offs and unnecessary short trips will seriously reduce the risk of death and injury. Having phone signal blockers in vehicles will have a very positive effect.

Stopping the sale of refined sugar will reduce type 2 diabetes to virtually zero cases, forcing overweight people onto strict diets will massively reduce deaths, including Covid deaths, by numbers that dwarf covid numbers, banning parents from feeding their children sugary foods likewise. Then you could ban alcohol reducing all the harmful issues that arise from that, add gambling to it and adventure sports.

Why you only want to pick on this Covid thing, when there are plenty more harmful options out there for people to make is something we should all reflect on.

We accept that life has risks, we weigh them up, and we make choices. We are permitted to make far more risky decisions on a regular basis, than would leave a healthy forty something at risk from covid.

The risk from the vaccine, as we currently understand it, is virtually non-existent. The risk from covid to a healthy younger person is extremely low, almost to the point of insignificance, even if it is mathematically many times higher. I wouldn't be critical of anyone's choice, either way, in those circumstances.

The risk of radiogenesis of a malignant tumour from an x-ray is significant enough to be regulated in the strictest manner, but few if any people would refuse an x-ray at the dentists, or as an investigatory procedure. Yet the reasoning for CT (using multiple x-rays) over MRI (using magnets), which in most respects is a more accurate and less risky procedure, is more often than not the fact that CT is many times cheeper. Most patients would also choose CT because it is far quicker, less noisy and less claustrophobic. in terms of the risk of radiogenesis of a tumour, there is no risk what so ever from MRI, compared to a risk that requires government regulation based on international guidelines, and informed patient consent with CT or any form of x-ray. But most people are more than happy, if not adamant, that they would prefer the riskier examination. Would people suggest that they are being illogical and naive?

 

Can you try to use Bullet points and an executive summary in chapter one of your posts ?