COVID Vaccine !

[KnittyNorah]

Nothing remotely new about anti-vaxxers - its far, far older than the 1930s.

Go back to the 1730s or even the 1630s ... given how old the practice of variolation is, maybe long, long before that.

But to have something directly comparable to today, involving people we might even 'know about' through research into our family tree, we need only go back to the 1860s to see the parallels with current anti-vaxxers, and the weird conflation of 'liberty' and 'freedom' with the issue of vaccination.
The equivalent of 'Covid vaccines change your DNA!' was 'Smallpox vaccines are made from cow product – they turn you bovine!' And cue pictures of people having had their vaccination, growing a horn here, a bit of fur there, an udder or a hoof ...
There was also the dismissal of the severity of the disease. 'Covid's no more than a bad cold!' 'It only kills those who were already seriously ill from other fatal things' and 'It's just like the flu' had exact equivalents 170-ish years ago from the Victorian anti-vaxxer's leagues - and today's claims that the C-19 vaccination is rushed and experimental are mere echoes of what was said almost 200 years ago.

The saying 'there's nothing new in this world' is certainly true for the anti-vaxxer's arguments!

 

[Andy in Germany]

Nothing remotely new about anti-vaxxers - its far, far older than the 1930s.

Go back to the 1730s or even the 1630s ... given how old the practice of variolation is, maybe long, long before that.
...
The equivalent of 'Covid vaccines change your DNA!' was 'Smallpox vaccines are made from cow product – they turn you bovine!' And cue pictures of people having had their vaccination, growing a horn here, a bit of fur there, an udder or a hoof ...

I believe the Smallpox vaccination included elements of a milder disease called "Cowpox", hence the bovine connection.

To some extent it was also understandable: vaccination was a new idea and apparently involved putting a disease in your body. It's not a great surprise some people viewed it with suspicion.

Today, on the other hand, with a massive body of evidence and theoretically well educated population, you'd think people would know better.

 

[purpan]

I believe the Smallpox vaccination included elements of a milder disease called "Cowpox", hence the bovine connection.

To some extent it was also understandable: vaccination was a new idea and apparently involved putting a disease in your body. It's not a great surprise some people viewed it with suspicion.

Today, on the other hand, with a massive body of evidence and theoretically well educated population, you'd think people would know better.

Ah, but social media side-steps evidence and education.

 

[KnittyNorah]

I believe the Smallpox vaccination included elements of a milder disease called "Cowpox", hence the bovine connection.

To some extent it was also understandable: vaccination was a new idea and apparently involved putting a disease in your body. It's not a great surprise some people viewed it with suspicion.

Today, on the other hand, with a massive body of evidence and theoretically well educated population, you'd think people would know better.

But it wasn't actually a new idea - variolation for smallpox - a much riskier procedure than vaccination - had been around for centuries.

In addition, Jenner's vaccination had - by the 1860s - a long, safe and effective history - and did not, and had not for many, many years, used 'cowpox from a cow' but rather a changed or attenuated version of it which had passed through humans many many times. There had been many investigations - not just Jenner's - and instances recorded of successful use of cowpox as a vaccine in the second half of the 18thC, in the UK, Germany and France - and probably elsewhere too. The success, efficiency and safety of Jenner's procedure was widely recognised and rapidly spread around Europe; a Spanish physician in 1803 led a 3 year long mission around the world to vaccinate thousands, and Napoleon - who was at the time at war with Britain - awarded Jenner a medal, had all his troops vaccinated and even said, when Jenner requested of him to release two British POWs, that he could not "refuse anything to one of the greatest benefactors of mankind" and let them come home. Jenner's vaccination was widely provided in the UK and elsewhere, free of charge and in 1840 the UK government banned variolation – the use of smallpox itself to induce immunity.

The reason for the rise in 'anti-vaxxer' rhetoric in the 1860s appears to be because in 1863, the government of the day passed a Vaccination Act, making vaccination of small children compulsory.

Within weeks of the Act being passed, an Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League was formed and within a few short months had spread its tentacles to every corner of the UK. The anti-vaxxers even had their very own Bill Gates- style bogeyman - the long-dead Dr Jenner, who was accused of having 'given smallpox to the world solely so he could make his fortune with his vaccination'. The similarities in the anti-vaxxer campaigns from that moment on have been striking, even given the distances in time.

 

[Johnno260]

I believe the Smallpox vaccination included elements of a milder disease called "Cowpox", hence the bovine connection.

To some extent it was also understandable: vaccination was a new idea and apparently involved putting a disease in your body. It's not a great surprise some people viewed it with suspicion.

Today, on the other hand, with a massive body of evidence and theoretically well educated population, you'd think people would know better.

Issue being you have educated people stating facts and providing proof, but these people have been conditioned to believe they’re lying or are paid for crisis actors.

Then you have the YouTube graduates who think they know better than an actual expert, it’s why I always have one of these ready.

Many of these people are now kidding themselves that medical people aren’t actually educated well and it’s all a lie to fit their narrative.

 

[Ajax Bay]

these people are now kidding themselves

I think you are doing WAAY too much 'research' Johnno, and it's not good for you.
Btw, this is the 'vaccine' thread, not the anti-vaxxers thread, in case you've confused yourself. Get back over there and spread your intrepid counter-anti-vaxx propaganda

 

[Johnno260]

I think you are doing WAAY too much 'research' Johnno, and it's not good for you.
Btw, this is the 'vaccine' thread, not the anti-vaxxers thread, in case you've confused yourself. Get back over there and spread your intrepid counter-anti-vaxx propaganda

Unfortunately those pictures are all shots from people I know, it’s hardly research.

 

[Johnno260]

I can’t see how people especially Americans can dispute the vaccine, when you look at the states worst affected and then look at ICU patients and deaths it’s almost exclusively unvaccinated people.

 

[Gillstay]

I can’t see how people especially Americans can dispute the vaccine, when you look at the states worst affected and then look at ICU patients and deaths it’s almost exclusively unvaccinated people.

Yes, but many Americans somehow cannot see how guns are bad either !

 

[Ajax Bay]

Why not here?
. . . administering the jab to the 12 to 15-year-old age cohort

More detailed JCVI answer:
"Most children are at minimal risk of being made seriously ill by COVID-19. Having looked at the available international data, and considered the direct and indirect benefits (such as education), the JCVI has weighed in the balance the benefit to children over 12 of being vaccinated against the very small but important risk of potential side effects from the vaccine. It has decided that for children who are otherwise healthy, the risk is not outweighed by the benefit.
"JCVI has said it will continue to review evidence from around the world on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and whether this changes its view on the balance of risk and benefits."

 

[mjr]

More detailed JCVI answer:
"Most children are at minimal risk of being made seriously ill by COVID-19. Having looked at the available international data, and considered the direct and indirect benefits (such as education), the JCVI has weighed in the balance the benefit to children over 12 of being vaccinated against the very small but important risk of potential side effects from the vaccine. It has decided that for children who are otherwise healthy, the risk is not outweighed by the benefit.
"JCVI has said it will continue to review evidence from around the world on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and whether this changes its view on the balance of risk and benefits."

But is that weighing published? I suspect they are undervaluing mental health again.

 

[Johnno260]

Yes, but many Americans somehow cannot see how guns are bad either !

Good point.

 

[midlife]

Government say my 16 year old will be offered a vaccine by 23rd August. I wonder if the GP practice will contact him. He is keen to be vaccinated and maybe look for a walk in center?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Government say my 16 year old will be offered a vaccine by 23rd August. I wonder if the GP practice will contact him. He is keen to be vaccinated and maybe look for a walk in center?

Took ours to a walk in centre today.

No publicity. Heard about it through Facebook, no official info whatever.

 

[mjr]

Took ours to a walk in centre today.

No publicity. Heard about it through Facebook, no official info whatever.

You mean apart from "From 4 August - UK WIDE - 16 and 17 year olds can now get vaccinated." on gov.uk/coronavirus and "This site is for these age groups: 16 and over" on the list of walk-in vaccination sites?

Maybe you feel that's not enough publicity, but it's more than nothing.