The Vaccine

and I don't get people wanting a vaccine that has only been tested for a few months, it's obvious to any sane minded person surely that it cannot [ no matter what the government say ] be 100% safe as it just has not been tested for long enough.

Sorry but I just cannot understand the fools who say they can't wait to get this vaccine. For YEARS they have been trying to find a vaccine and cure for Cancer to no avail, YEARS trying to find a vaccine and cure for all sorts of diseases to no avail, they come up trumps on certain diseases but not very many. Suddenly they find a vaccine for something in just a few months and if you believe that then more fool you. How many times in the past have they discovered a vaccine for something only for things to go wrong because it wasn't tested for long enough. These vaccines have only been tested for so many months and it takes years to find the right vaccine for the right disease. So they know what they can do with their vaccine now, go find another guinea-pig.

growstuff

starlily106

I also remember Thalidomide, the drug that was given to pregnant women because it was safe. Turned out it wasnt safe for lots of their children.

Safety procedures have improved vastly since Thalidomide was given to pregnant women.

In any case starlily nobody's forcing you to be vaccinated. It's your choice, especially if you're prepared to take the risk.

It wasn’t given to pregnant women because it was safe - it was never tested on pregnant women so they had no idea if it were safe to do so. The regulatory framework back then was very poor. The country which emerged with most credit was the US because the FDA refused to approve its marketing, thanks mainly to a very brave female pharmacologist at the agency who resisted the pressures from the drug company. An annual medal is awarded in her name every year. Many changes in regulation and drugs trials followed in the mid to late 60s which changed the whole face of drug development. Both the US and the Uk have much to be proud of in this regard and it was scientists themselves who fought for the changes and forced pharmaceutical companies to have to be open about the results of clinical trials. In addition at this time, the whole framework of ethical approval for clinical trials was properly established, with the UK a leading light. So as awful as the thalidomide scandal was, it lead to improvements that we have benefitted from for the last 50 years or more.

I won't be rushing into anything. We've been sheilding since before the first lockdown and are quite prepared to continue doing so until we feel ready. I'm mostly housebound anyway and have poor health so would rather wait until I feel the time is right for me.

growstuff

OceanMama

starlily106

I also remember Thalidomide, the drug that was given to pregnant women because it was safe. Turned out it wasnt safe for lots of their children.

And DES. There are many reasons people are more likely to question medication and processes now. I always refused to take anything at all when pregnant after attending the lecture on teratogens. I am grateful for what medical science can offer and it can do amazing things, save many lives, but I personally only ever take medication when there is no other option. That is partly borne of learning and personal experiences.

Nobody's forcing you.

After it was clear they had no respect for my autonomy I went off and had all my babies at home and stated engaging with the medical profession on my own terms. Doesn't mean it wasn't tried.

So far COVID has killed at least 57,000 people and left many people very ill for an unknown period (long COVID).

If I understand your arguments correctly starlily106. You are saying that you feel safer living in a country where up to 100,000 people a year may well die from a pandemic disease than risk having an innoculation against it that could save your life and many others?

I am sorry, I do not get it

growstuff scientists like most people use evidence which supports their (often) preconceived concepts and reject evidence that doesn't. Especially when such evidence might result in a reputation they have worked to establish being undermined. In other words they believe what suits them. I named Hugh Everett because his 1950's research is a classic example of something which didn't fit. It wasn't until the 1970s that it was really acknowledged. Call it by a different name if you wish but it is a belief and No really, not belief. Science doesn't depend on belief is wrong because sometimes it absolutely does..

OceanMama

starlily106

I also remember Thalidomide, the drug that was given to pregnant women because it was safe. Turned out it wasnt safe for lots of their children.

And DES. There are many reasons people are more likely to question medication and processes now. I always refused to take anything at all when pregnant after attending the lecture on teratogens. I am grateful for what medical science can offer and it can do amazing things, save many lives, but I personally only ever take medication when there is no other option. That is partly borne of learning and personal experiences.

Nobody's forcing you.

starlily106

I also remember Thalidomide, the drug that was given to pregnant women because it was safe. Turned out it wasnt safe for lots of their children.

Safety procedures have improved vastly since Thalidomide was given to pregnant women.

In any case starlily nobody's forcing you to be vaccinated. It's your choice, especially if you're prepared to take the risk.

starlily106

I also remember Thalidomide, the drug that was given to pregnant women because it was safe. Turned out it wasnt safe for lots of their children.

And DES. There are many reasons people are more likely to question medication and processes now. I always refused to take anything at all when pregnant after attending the lecture on teratogens. I am grateful for what medical science can offer and it can do amazing things, save many lives, but I personally only ever take medication when there is no other option. That is partly borne of learning and personal experiences.

I also remember Thalidomide, the drug that was given to pregnant women because it was safe. Turned out it wasnt safe for lots of their children.

Hope that answers your question trisher. I'm not a scientist, but I've known enough scientists to understand scientific method and some of the specific ways scientists use language.

starlily there are lots of opinions and facts earlier on in this thread that might give you more information to think about. Watch out for the conspiracy theories! I'm sure your doctor will be able to give you some advise as well, about what's best for you at your age. All the best!

Elegran

The increase in deaths begins to be very noticeable from 60 up.
From Deaths of patients in hospitals in England up to September 30th, split by age and gender

- - - - - - - - Female - - - Male - unknown - -total
0 - 19 yrs - - - - 10 - - - - - 11 - - - - 0 - - - - -21
20 - 39 - - - - -93 - - - - - -124 - - - -0 - - - - -217
40 - 59 - - - - -781 - - - - -1,543 - - - -0 - - -2,324
60 - 79 - - - - 3,957 - - - --7,467 - - - 0 - - -11,424
80+ - - - - - - 6,959 - - - -9,103 - - - -1 - - -16,063

Not only do people have reduced immunity as they age, but most people over 60 have at least one co-morbidity.

trisher

But still no answer to a direct question. I shall take that as an admission that sometimes belief is involved. That's the trouble with scientists they pretend they are all-knowing when in fact they are like all of us fallible, they just find it difficult to acknowledge that.

They hypothesise (possibly because they believe something is true), but any claims they make are based on empirical evidence (facts). There's a vast difference between that and a belief in, for example, a religion.

Forgot to mention that I am 83.

I am very unsure about the vaccine. I used to have the flu jab every year, but realised that I was ill with sore throats, coughs, runny nose etc. every couple of months. I decided not to have the vaccine quite a few years ago, and I did not get ill every few weeks. Last time I had flu was 1957.
I may sit on the fence at first as i am not too sure about the safety of the vaccine, I don't think enough time has been given to the testing, and I'm afraid there might be hidden dangers of side effects

The increase in deaths begins to be very noticeable from 60 up.
From Deaths of patients in hospitals in England up to September 30th, split by age and gender

- - - - - - - - Female - - - Male - unknown - -total
0 - 19 yrs - - - - 10 - - - - - 11 - - - - 0 - - - - -21
20 - 39 - - - - -93 - - - - - -124 - - - -0 - - - - -217
40 - 59 - - - - -781 - - - - -1,543 - - - -0 - - -2,324
60 - 79 - - - - 3,957 - - - --7,467 - - - 0 - - -11,424
80+ - - - - - - 6,959 - - - -9,103 - - - -1 - - -16,063

A friend's daughter died of Covid last week. She was in her late 40s.

I do know -6,438 under 65s so far, the vast majority aged over 45. As the evidence shows, risk increases as you age so at the age of 64 you’re tipping fast into the 65-74 age range. It’s not an insignificant risk.

Casdon

"GrannyRose15 you are demonstrating that you haven’t done your research if you don’t consider yourself vulnerable at the age of 64, because you are, that’s why you’re in one of the vulnerability categories, and you will be offered the vaccine early next year (about February probably)."

Do you know how many people under the age of 65 have actually died from this illness? Not as many as you think. Most of the casualties are over 85 and not in good health.

But still no answer to a direct question. I shall take that as an admission that sometimes belief is involved. That's the trouble with scientists they pretend they are all-knowing when in fact they are like all of us fallible, they just find it difficult to acknowledge that.

Happy to talk about the many-worlds interpretation, trisher, not feeling cornered at all.

I wonder are you still insisting that belief has no place in science?

When cornered pick out the typo! Goes to prove that scientists are by no means as expert as they pretend, just egocentric.