Coronavirus

[Aruntraveller]

As it stands, the jab has been shown to be dangerous

It has been shown to be remarkably safe not withstanding the sad cases where the rare blood clot has led to death. You are totally misrepresenting the facts.

If you are saying it is dangerous because of the few deaths there have been you might want to consider banning aspirin as it is believed to lead to 3,000 deaths a year.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/14/risk-of-bleeds-and-death-with-daily-aspirin-use-higher-than-thought

It is about weighing the risks against benefits, and you, for whatever reason, are painting an inaccurate and misleading picture of the safety of the vaccine.

[ProfessorDavey]

It was an attempt at a joke.

Oh dear - not very good at jokes are you.

To be clear, this is about the claim that because the vaccine carries lower risk of vascular diaease than the infection then everybody must get jabbed;

Not it isn't - it is about the claim that the having the vaccine is risky, which is about the risk of having the jab vs not having the jab. The overwhelming evidence is that having the jab provides less net risk than not having it and that is even the case if you cherry pick the most recognised (but incredibly rare) side effect of blood clots. Even selecting just this risk (which you shouldn't be doing if looking at overall net risk) then your risk of a blood clot is greater if you don't have the jab than if you do.

And this is just about the benefit to the person being jabbed rather than any altruistic motive, which leads me on to ...

and the charge that not being jabbed is selfish.

Yup refusing to have the jab is selfish as it confers greater risk on other people who may be more vulnerable and may not be able to have the jab. Plus refusing to be jabbed increases overall infection and virus replication levels which makes the chances of further variants of concern arising greater. So, yes, refusing the jab is selfish.

As it stands, the jab has been shown to be dangerous

Now it hasn't - the vaccine is incredibly safe and it is far more dangerous not to have the jab than to have it.

and so we should search for a safer way to prevent, or at best reduce the severity of the disease.

Such as ...

Do you not think that researchers aren't looking at all routes to prevent the disease and/or reduce its severity. And there is pretty well universal recognition that the best (and safest) available way to do this is via the vaccine. At least that is amongst people who know what they are talking about, rather than woo-merchants.

[Roses]

Good post PD.

[Aruntraveller]

Likewise there are situations where a vaccine is necessary.

And this is one such time. You can babble as much as you like about co-morbidities and rifles but you said this:

I think for some the vaccine is being used as a crutch, when there are other ways to prevent disease from Covid that are risk-free

Come on then? What are they? What do you know that the medical experts don't know? Risk free? Like Ivermectin perhaps?

It is precisely because the vaccine has limitations that we need to have fuller coverage, and as I understand it they are looking at the reasons as to why a small minority of people suffer clotting and the like so that the vaccine can be made safer.

The main point is that it's not to protect you primarily, it's to protect the vulnerable around you.

That is unless your risk free option is that people who have co-morbidities should live in isolation for the rest of their lives.

There is research going on in all sorts of areas to find other ways to deal with Covid. Until they bear fruit our first, best defence is the vaccine, despite it's risks and shortcomings.

If there is a chance something can kill you even if used professionally, it is not safe. Such a thing ought not to be used indiscriminately.

That is just about every medicine available and many medical procedure carried out.

It's a wonder you make it out of the house given the risks of crossing the road.

[Spud]

And this is one such time. You can babble as much as you like about co-morbidities and rifles but you said this:

Come on then? What are they? What do you know that the medical experts don't know? Risk free? Like Ivermectin perhaps?

Vitamin D and Exercise - limited to 20 minutes per day during lockdown, how can someone stay fit and get enough sunlight from that?
Here is the post you replied to, edited:

It has been shown to be remarkably safe not withstanding the sad cases where the rare blood clot has led to death.

if the country was being invaded and each citizen was given a type of rifle that occasionally fired backwards at the user, would that rifle be considered safe? Perhaps it would suffice for the short term but we would be working to make it safer.

You are totally misrepresenting the facts.

https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports
1,612 deaths and many more adverse reactions due to vaccination in the UK to date. Unconfirmed, but more than a few at any rate.

If you are saying it is dangerous because of the few deaths there have been you might want to consider banning aspirin as it is believed to lead to 3,000 deaths a year.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/14/risk-of-bleeds-and-death-with-daily-aspirin-use-higher-than-thought

No because there are times when it is necessary to have a pain killer. Likewise there are situations where a vaccine is necessary.

It is about weighing the risks against benefits

We also need to take into account (as well as the limitations of the vaccine) that some people are more at risk of covid disease than others. This study shows that 94% of hospitalizations due to Covod in the US between March 2020 and March 2021 were people who had one or more co-morbidities.
So I think there is justification for vaccinating those in the vulnerable category, provided they are not at more risk of side effects/death from the vaccine. But we need to also weigh the risks against the benefits for healthy people. I think for some the vaccine is being used as a crutch, when there are other ways to prevent disease from Covid that are risk-free. Also it might be more effective to prioritize vulnerable people worldwide before vaccinating the healthy in a rich country.

and you, for whatever reason, are painting an inaccurate and misleading picture of the safety of the vaccine.

Maybe, but I am yet to be convinced, especially from what friends have told me about side effects.
If there is a chance something can kill you even if used professionally, it is not safe. Such a thing ought not to be used indiscriminately. Notwithstanding the great reduction in deaths we have seen since the vaccine rollout, we might have seen a similarly low death rate had we vaccinated just the vulnerable and elderly.

[Spud]

That is unless your risk free option is that people who have co-morbidities should live in isolation for the rest of their lives.

But they would be vaccinated.

[Spud]

That is just about every medicine available and many medical procedure carried out.

When was the last time someone told you they had side effects from swallowing aspirin?

[Aruntraveller]

But they would be vaccinated.

As you have already pointed out it is not 100% effective, therefore people with co-morbidities would still be at risk from the unvaccinated population.

[Aruntraveller]

When was the last time someone told you they had side effects from swallowing aspirin?

As I keep pointing out nothing is risk free:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-aspirin-causes-more-than-3000-deaths-per-year-scientists-warn_uk_593fb481e4b0b13f2c6daa10

As talked about before risk/benefit balance. Do we keep taking aspirin because it helps stop deaths because it helps prevent blood clots for patients with heart disease or do we drop it because of the 3,000 who die taking it?

[Spud]

I recently read that optimum gaseous exchange in the lung relies on the alveoli being dry. I noticed last winter that the cough you can get if you are exposed to excessive cold air disappears if you turn on the car heater and point it at yourself.

Yoga-type stretches, particularly for the neck, can also relief flu-like symptoms.

I'm lucky in that I studied osteopathy so I have a long list of self-help techniques which I've used to prevent myself getting a cold for the last 5 years. I sometimes get mild symptoms but never full blown ones.

If more work was done in educating the public on matters other than washing hands, more disease would have been prevented.

[Spud]

As I keep pointing out nothing is risk free:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-aspirin-causes-more-than-3000-deaths-per-year-scientists-warn_uk_593fb481e4b0b13f2c6daa10

As talked about before risk/benefit balance. Do we keep taking aspirin because it helps stop deaths because it helps prevent blood clots for patients with heart disease or do we drop it because of the 3,000 who die taking it?

I don't agree with that philosophy anyway. I wouldn't take aspirin unless I was in severe pain.

[Spud]

As you have already pointed out it is not 100% effective, therefore people with co-morbidities would still be at risk from the unvaccinated population.

The risk-free options I believe exist would reduce disease severity in the unvaccinated population to the same extent that the vaccines do.

[Aruntraveller]

I don't agree with that philosophy anyway. I wouldn't take aspirin except if I was in severe pain.

Perhaps you've never had a heart attack. People's "philosophies" very often undergo changes after suffering a health crisis.

A bit like the anti-vaxxers who catch Covid and are now saying they wished they'd had the vaccine.

I suppose you could call them fairweather anti-vaxxers.

[Aruntraveller]

The risk-free options I believe exist would reduce disease severity in the unvaccinated population to the same extent that the vaccines do.

You have evidence?

I ask because the studies done on Vitamin D so far are showing mixed results (putting it mildly), as to exercise good luck motivating this lard arse nation to get off it's collective sofa.

As to not catching colds it is also years since I have suffered one. I have one rule - don't shake hands (this was before Covid).

[Spud]

Perhaps you've never had a heart attack. People's "philosophies" very often undergo changes after suffering a health crisis.

A bit like the anti-vaxxers who catch Covid and are now saying they wished they'd had the vaccine.

I suppose you could call them fairweather anti-vaxxers.

The worst I've experienced was severe palpitations. Enough to know something was wrong. I was trying to exercise at the rate I used to and also was sleeping on a too-firm mattress. I didn't need to take pills, just address the cause.

As I've said, I'm not anti-vaccination.

[Spud]

You have evidence?

I ask because the studies done on Vitamin D so far are showing mixed results (putting it mildly), as to exercise good luck motivating this lard arse nation to get off it's collective sofa.

As to not catching colds it is also years since I have suffered one. I have one rule - don't shake hands (this was before Covid).

Vitamin D is one I read elsewhere. Personally I just try and get a balanced diet. Yes, people do not exercise enough, and become obese. As I said I'm not against vaccinating them.
Well done, that's interesting. I believe in allowing myself to be exposed to a cold-virus but then allowing the immune system to deal with it. If you allow it to, it can. 'The body has its own medicine chest' (A T Still)
Nice to chat, by the way.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports
1,612 deaths and many more adverse reactions due to vaccination in the UK to date.

That is complete nonsense - have you actually read the source data:

These data are merely for people who died within 7 days of having the vaccine, not people who died due to a vaccine adverse effect. The rate of deaths is basically exactly what you'd get in the normal population, adjusted for the demographics of those having the vaccine.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting#annex-1-vaccine-analysis-profile

'Based on age-stratified all-cause mortality in England and Wales taken from the Office for National Statistics death registrations, several thousand deaths are expected to have occurred, naturally, within 7 days of the many millions of doses of vaccines administered so far, mostly in the elderly.

The MHRA has received 509 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 1,060 reports for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 15 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 28 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified.

[Aruntraveller]

I didn't need to take pills, just address the cause.

Sometimes you can't address the cause.

My partner had a heart attack some 10 years ago now. He had none of the risk factors associated with heart disease. He didn't smoke, wasn't overweight, drank very moderately, took exercise and yet he had a heart attack. Why you may well ask? We found out it was because of an unusually narrow artery that made him more susceptible to the plaque that builds up in all of us at a certain age. The consultant told him there are three main groups of people who have heart attacks - the lifestyle group = smoking, drinking, overeating, lack of exercise - the elderly who are just more likely to suffer cardiac issues because of their age, and a smaller group which the consultant called the "what the fuck am I doing here?" group which make up perhaps 5% of the cases they see - these are people who look after themselves, aren't elderly but have drawn a short straw genetically speaking in cardiac terms.

There is no way to address that cause. As is the case with many other diseases. For example, most of us will know, or at least be aware of people who have had lung cancer but never smoked a cigarette in their lives.

Covid, for a lot of people, only has one partial answer, and that is the vaccine. It would be great if we can find other treatments but none of the ones mentioned are a complete fix. Staying healthy and having vitamin D hasn't worked for a sizeable number of younger people who caught covid and died. It is a most peculiar virus. It can take the healthy sometimes and leave my Aunt's sister who is 95 virtually untouched by it. She had the disease but said she's had worse colds - and she truly is a creaking gate, in case you thought she was some nonagenarian wonder woman.

That's a long way round for saying there are some things you simply cannot address in the manner you have described.

[SusanDoris]

Perhaps you've never had a heart attack. People's "philosophies" very often undergo changes after suffering a health crisis.

Agreed. My son, whose condition was 'critical' when he was taken into hospital, and which is now good and getting better daily, is now taking aspirin. I too take it . I also take a capsule of something, the name of which ends in '...ozole', which helps to avoid any possible stomach upsets.

A bit like the anti-vaxxers who catch Covid and are now saying they wished they'd had the vaccine.

I have heard recently of quite a few very vocal anti-vaxxers who now are very ill with the disease and I'm afraid I have thought, well, it really serves them right. 

I have an equable temperament and rationalise things rather than waste energy being angry, but this particular problem shows signs of shaking that.

[SusanDoris]

Sometimes you can't address the cause.

My partner had a heart attack some 10 years ago now. He had none of the risk factors associated with heart disease. He didn't smoke, wasn't overweight, drank very moderately, took exercise and yet he had a heart attack. Why you may well ask? We found out it was because of an unusually narrow artery that made him more susceptible to the plaque that builds up in all of us at a certain age. The consultant told him there are three main groups of people who have heart attacks - the lifestyle group = smoking, drinking, overeating, lack of exercise - the elderly who are just more likely to suffer cardiac issues because of their age, and a smaller group which the consultant called the "what the fuck am I doing here?" group which make up perhaps 5% of the cases they see - these are people who look after themselves, aren't elderly but have drawn a short straw genetically speaking in cardiac terms.

There is no way to address that cause. As is the case with many other diseases. For example, most of us will know, or at least be aware of people who have had lung cancer but never smoked a cigarette in their lives.

Covid, for a lot of people, only has one partial answer, and that is the vaccine. It would be great if we can find other treatments but none of the ones mentioned are a complete fix. Staying healthy and having vitamin D hasn't worked for a sizeable number of younger people who caught covid and died. It is a most peculiar virus. It can take the healthy sometimes and leave my Aunt's sister who is 95 virtually untouched by it. She had the disease but said she's had worse colds - and she truly is a creaking gate, in case you thought she was some nonagenarian wonder woman.

That's a long way round for saying there are some things you simply cannot address in the manner you have described.

Such a good post and so well put. My son seems to be in the last group too! The doctors told him there were no clear causes and that it was probably bad luck!
I too havn't had a cold for many years and have only occasionally had really bad ones.
I don't get flu either, but I started having the flu vaccine some years ago because it is the sensible thing to do.

[ad_orientem]

As I've said, I'm not anti-vaccination.

You sure sound like one.

[Aruntraveller]

I have heard recently of quite a few very vocal anti-vaxxers who now are very ill with the disease and I'm afraid I have thought, well, it really serves them right.

I have an equable temperament and rationalise things rather than waste energy being angry, but this particular problem shows signs of shaking that.

An understandable reaction but one to resist, difficult though I personally find that!

They are human and have no doubt been subjected to amounts of misinformation that chime with some of their inner feelings/beliefs leading them to the place where they find themselves.

The real issues lie elsewhere with the internet and some politicians/religious leaders etc., who deliberately seek to mislead. Trump being a prime example and also a hypocritical one - both pushing scepticism whilst also taking the vaccine. At least some of the other anti-vaxxers stood by their ill thought out positions.

[Roses]

You sure sound like one.

That appears to be the case.

[jeremyp]

The risk-free options I believe exist would reduce disease severity in the unvaccinated population to the same extent that the vaccines do.

Getting out of bed is not risk free. There are no risk free options.

[ProfessorDavey]

The risk-free options I believe exist would reduce disease severity in the unvaccinated population to the same extent that the vaccines do.

Fantasy land - the only options to reduce disease severity in unvaccinated people that come close to vaccination are:

1. Lock downs and self isolation to prevent disease tranmission and:
2. Enough other people being vaccinated with consequential reduction in viral transmission to unvaccinated people.

But the second relies on a massive vaccination programme and the first is not risk-free as the risks of lockdowns and self isolation even on health are major, let alone on restrictions on basic liberties.

The vaccine is, without doubt, the best balance between effective reduction in covid disease severity and minimisation of associated risk. Nothing else comes close. Given that this is a global pandemic with pretty well every country on the planet prioritising dealing with the pandemic, including harnessing the best minds on the planet do you not think that they'd have come up with an effective alternative to vaccination if one existed.