Black and ethnic minorities less likely to agree to the Covid-19 vaccine.

I saw the Report on BBC News and mentioned it to my exh.He told me I am becoming a Right Wing Racist as I get old
His comment has actually left me feeling very upset.

I also realise it’s illogical to lump all ethnic minorities together which was why I made a point of saying ‘some’.

What a strange reaction from your ex husband avitor considering you were just discussing a tv news item.

Alexa "people from ethnic minorities tend to be not so well educated" really! How about: Rishi Sunak, Sir Trevor McDonald, Diane Abbot, David Lammy, Baroness Scotland and Baroness Doreen Lawrence to name just a few. Definitely cannot agree with such a sweeping statement.

rosecarmel

Mistrust, growstuff- Most believe it will slow the pandemic, revive the economy but eventually at some physical expense in the area of future side effects as has happened in the past with other injections and drugs deemed safe but became anything but-

That fear is understandable but two of the Covid vaccines are of a completely new type based on messenger RNA (mRNA) which has been studied for some time.

There is a good article in the Spectator about it by Matt Ridley.

Thank you,jenniferE. He is odd which is a good reason he is my ex.
Unfortunately it is still playing on my mind.
I'm a Labour Party Member and not Racist.
I just need to get over it and ignore him.

Interesting article Baggs. I used one of my two free monthly articles in The Spectator to read it.

My theory is that people confuse RNA with DNA. They've read all sorts of horror stories about the potential of genetic engineering and are frightened. I read a scare story about the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine claiming it would alter the gene line forever. It's a load of nonsense, but genetics is a relatively new branch of science and few people (including me) know that much about it. I also read that it will lead to infertility, which is also rubbish.

Possibly they are more wary because they are more aware of scandals that have occurred in the past where poor/vulnerable/captive populations were deliberately used as guinea pigs. In effect, though, anyone who has this vaccine is to some degree a guinea pig since it has been developed so quickly and can't possibly have had the rigorous testing that other vaccines/drugs have been subjected to.

The Independent reported:

"The UK government has granted pharmaceutical giant Pfizer a legal indemnity protecting it from being sued, enabling its coronavirus vaccine to be rolled out across the country as early as next week.

"The Department of Health and Social Care has confirmed the company has been given an indemnity protecting it from legal action as a result of any problems with the vaccine.

"Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications.

"NHS staff providing the vaccine, as well as manufacturers of the drug, are also protected."

There are lawyers who specialise in vaccine damage cases, so even with vaccines that have been around for a long time there is a small risk of someone getting a bad reaction. If the worst happened and someone were to be significantly damaged by one of these Covid vaccines, who exactly would their representatives be able to sue to get compensation? The Covid vaccine has, I believe, been added to the government's own Vaccine Damage Payment scheme but the maximum one-off payment under that scheme is £120,000 which would be wholly inadequate in the case of a profound and life-changing disability.

I expect I will get a deluge of outraged voices for raising some concerns. However, as far as I am aware, people are still allowed to raise questions - though this may change in the future.

since it has been developed so quickly and can't possibly have had the rigorous testing that other vaccines/drugs have been subjected to.
You're very wrong there and shouldn't go spreading mis-information. It has passed through every process required but they have speeded through all the red tape that usually slows everything down. The vaccine has been tested and processed as thoroughly as any vaccine.

We have probably all read that vaccines typically can take ten years to develop.

It has been pointed out that during those ten years, many years pass when nothing whatsoever is done, so the ten years time frame is meaningless.

For instance funding and getting people willing to participate in the clinical trials normally takes a great deal of time.

This time however, everything was thrown at these trials. Money flooded in, willing, public spirited folk,( some GN members actually) signed up for the trials.

There are very good articles to read explaining all this in more detail which should hopefully be reassuring.

I would like to see a prime time tv programme shown soon, ideally on all terrestrial channels, clearly setting out the facts, and in particular stressing just how wrong it is to think that corners have been cut or safety compromised in the development of these vaccines.

If the take up is low this virus will never be beaten.

Until vaccinations are compulsory as they are in some countries abroad, (not likely in the UK) there will be people from all walks of life, who will refuse it for all sorts of reasons.

Eloethan anyone who has this vaccine is to some degree a guinea pig since it has been developed so quickly and can't possibly have had the rigorous testing that other vaccines/drugs have been subjected to
That’s your opinion but you are wrong.

For some balance, here is Dr Phil Hammond, aka MD, in Private Eye:

“The Pfizer Covid vaccine uses a new technology and the trial safety data and efficacy (available at www.gov.uk) are excellent.
However, you never know how a new vaccine (or any therapy) will perform and how long protection will last until you try it in the real world. No severe reactions were reported in the trials, but they happen in real life.
The chances of having short or long-term serious side effects for existing vaccines is one in 25000. The chances of having life-threatening side effects is roughly one in 1,000,000.
This compares to one in 250 and one in 10,000 for a course of antibiotics, making vaccines roughly 100 times safer than, say, penicillin.”

I hope that puts things into perspective & people are reassured.
MD says
“Not having a vaccine because no-one can guarantee it is ‘100% safe’ or ‘completely free from harm’ seems odd, particularly when you consider the potential good it could do”
and “Those who do not wish to have a vaccine should have that choice respected. However, they should also be aware of the potential dangers of not vaccinating, to others as much as themselves.”

Dr John did a Q&A with an African country and said afterwards a lot of people are suspicious of the word ‘nano’ that is sometimes used in conjunction with the vaccine because it’s used in technical terms like nano bot etc. But, as he says, it just means small, simple as that.

66,000 out of a UK population of 66 million have died so far, so that's 1 in a 1,000. Some people, of course, are at a higher risk than that unless they shield completely. If you're over 65, you're more likely to die from Covid than have a serious effect from an existing vaccine and I've no reason to believe the new vaccines will be any more dangerous.

Eazybee I heard that interview too. She also said that she had asked if she could legitimately insist on her staff having the vaccine to protect the residents or, insist that new staff had it before being taken on. Apparently, she cannot do this and I can understand it goes against industrial law.

It is a dilemma for everyone, balancing personal freedom against the needs of the majority.

I saw the article on TV and commented on it yesterday on the GM thread. The chap who said he thought the vaccine contained a chip had his back to the camera, but the two ladies interviewed were quite open in their opinions - one would use natural remedies and the other was in God’s hands. Immaterial what their ethnicity - the responses were incredulous. There’s no cure for stupid, but I live in hope that enough of us get the vaccine to produce some degree of herd immunity.

I do not understand those saying the government should hide bad news. Where does it stop, what is bad news, is bad news defined as uncomfortable news.

The survey covers all those not of European Heritage. It s a broad brush approach so the diversity of different groups in the broad group doesn't matter. Their is a wide diversity in the European group from Swedes to Greeks, I expect each of these groups reacts differently, but again there is no breakdown.

If a report likes this comes out the reporters will probably do a dozen interviews, and select ones that illustrate how the group on average react.

I wish they had interviewed some more sensible sounding people who could explain exactly what deters them from having the vaccine. if they found people like this they would not be anti-vaxxers so it would becounter productive.

I have yet to hear/read/see and ant-vaxxer who could rationally explain their views.

So is "red tape" of no use whatsoever? If so, why is it there?