Where have all the anti-vaxxers gone?

[vickster]

So - Prime Minister's Question tomorrow and last week Starmer had to back out due to a positive Covid test

So whether or not he has to miss tomorrow as well depends on the results of tests today and tomorrow

Or can he just turn up anyway as long as he brings a bottle???

(personally I would anyway and just put the bottle by the side of teh dispatch bottle with no comment - let someone ask about it)

What’s that got to do with a thread on anti vaxxers?

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

What’s that got to do with a thread on anti vaxxers?

Good point - bit off topic - apologies

 

[vickster]

Good point - bit off topic - apologies

Sort of comment that should be in NACA too

 

[farfromtheland]

So the aim of vaccinating front line NHS staff is to reduce sickness absence and maintain service continuity. In our example of an acute trust that kind of works since we've established that every single member of staff is front line but that's not by design, it's by default since they all work in the same building in which it is possible they will come into contact with patients. I don't think that staff falling into the front line category by default is really acceptable though when you're planning a strategic vaccination program.

What we haven't done is define as front line the staff who, regardless of patient contact, are essential to the running of the service. If the aim of vaccination is service continuity then these people also need to be defined as front line since without them the entire service grinds to a halt. And that's a lot of people in a lot of professions. We are way, way past just doctors and nurses as suggested upthread.

If we take a military analogy, which 'front line' lends itself to, then the other essential staff are still support staff, however essential, so we need a more nuanced approach to strategy.

Part of that, in my opinion (and a bit off topic) is giving practical workers more direction as to admin and its priorities.

Bringing it back to planning a strategic vaccination programme, public enthusiasm for vaccination has to be tempered by developments and informed by good research. The research for first wave vaccination was rushed but thorough enough and well debated. Then we sat back and assumed it was done and dusted, despite virus mutation always having been inevitable.

It seems from widespread observation and research that covid vaccination does not prevent infection, it moderates symptoms, and as things stand its effectiveness against the new Omicron is at best 'not proven'. So a thinking person, and I hope I am one, can reasonably decide that though vaccination last spring and summer was highly desirable with caution to study patients' allergic and other negative reactions, the situation has now changed with regard to booster shots of the original vaccines. Fortunately, consistent with informed predictions, the mutation we face now seems to be less virulent.

In this view makes me 'anti-vax' in the popular view so be it, but I hope not, because it's not a simple yes/no issue.

 

[winjim]

If we take a military analogy, which 'front line' lends itself to, then the other essential staff are still support staff, however essential, so we need a more nuanced approach to strategy.

That's one reason why I think we should not use the term. NHS staff are not fighting a war and they shouldn't be considered as 'heroes'. They are workers doing a job and should be properly resourced and supported, not fetishised and expected to go above and beyond what they're paid to do.

Part of that, in my opinion (and a bit off topic) is giving practical workers more direction as to admin and its priorities

It's not a terribly good use of resources to have staff performing tasks that could be better undertaken by experienced staff on a lower pay grade.

The research for first wave vaccination was rushed but thorough enough and well debated. Then we sat back and assumed it was done and dusted, despite virus mutation always having been inevitable.

Really? Because I'm about to attend my final clinic appointment in an immunogenicity trial for a booster against the beta variant, which is what was concerning scientists back in the summer.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Are shopworkers etc front line staff?

 

[Alex321]

Are shopworkers etc front line staff?

In the retail industry, arguably yes.

 

[Alex321]

If we take a military analogy, which 'front line' lends itself to, then the other essential staff are still support staff, however essential, so we need a more nuanced approach to strategy.

Part of that, in my opinion (and a bit off topic) is giving practical workers more direction as to admin and its priorities.

Bringing it back to planning a strategic vaccination programme, public enthusiasm for vaccination has to be tempered by developments and informed by good research. The research for first wave vaccination was rushed but thorough enough and well debated. Then we , despite virus mutation always having been inevitable.

Who "sat back and assumed it was done and dusted"?

I'm not aware of anybody who thought that.

It seems from widespread observation and research that covid vaccination does not prevent infection, it moderates symptoms, and as things stand its effectiveness against the new Omicron is at best 'not proven'.

It doesn't completely prevent transmission, any more than it completely prevents infection, but it most certainly very significantly reduces both.

And it appears to be still significantly reducing symptoms with Omicron, although it may not be having as much effect on transmission. Almost everybody needing intensive care with Omicron is not fully vaccinated.

So a thinking person, and I hope I am one, can reasonably decide that though vaccination last spring and summer was highly desirable with caution to study patients' allergic and other negative reactions, the situation has now changed with regard to booster shots of the original vaccines. Fortunately, consistent with informed predictions, the mutation we face now seems to be less virulent.

In this view makes me 'anti-vax' in the popular view so be it, but I hope not, because it's not a simple yes/no issue.

It isn't that simlpe, but you appear to be bending the facts slightly above.

 

[Milzy]

What are the risks? Could you quantify them? Can you also let us know how many young children have died of Covid and how many have suffered serious side effects from Covid. It would be very helpful if you could provide some robust evidence to support your views.

(I suggest you look at US figures as the UK isn't vaccinating 5-11 year olds at the moment).

It seems by definition there are no trials what so ever on children so young. They do not need it, they have good enough immune systems. The vaccines are just not safe enough.

 

[Alex321]

It seems by definition there are no trials what so ever on children so young. They do not need it, they have good enough immune systems. The vaccines are just not safe enough.

"It seems" you are posting complete rubbish here.
Why would it be "by definition" there are no trials. Some countries are vaccinating children that young - which effectively produces a trial, but even if not, there is no definition saying you can't carry out such a trial.

And where is your evidence that "The vaccines are just not safe enough."?

I have seen ZERO evidence to suggest that in anybody without some underlying medical condition that adversely affects vaccine safety, the vaccines are nearly as "unsafe" as catching COVID.

 

[KnittyNorah]

It seems by definition there are no trials what so ever on children so young. They do not need it, they have good enough immune systems. The vaccines are just not safe enough.

In the US, 4.8 million five to 11-year-olds had received a dose of the vaccine by 5 December, and it is certainly 'safe enough' for children in this country who are considered/known to be clinically extremely vulnerable i, to whom offers of the vaccine have already been extended. It is also being offered to those children aged 5 - 11 and living with the immunosuppressed.

Russell Viner, professor of child and adolescent health at University College London, a member of the Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) and a past president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said “We can be fairly sure that this is really a very safe vaccination for the five to 11-year-olds.”
Professor Viner added. the “medical balance of risks” of giving younger children a jab would be “even more marginal than for teenagers”, HOWEVER he also said he thought that, given the broader picture, that he thinks "the balance of risks is towards vaccination”
and pointed out that current data suggested the risk of myocarditis – an inflammation of the heart which is an extremely rare side effect of some Covid jabs – was far lower in primary-school-age children compared to older teens.
It's all reported in The I so have a look there.

 

[Rocky]

It seems by definition there are no trials what so ever on children so young. They do not need it, they have good enough immune systems. The vaccines are just not safe enough.

But you liked this post (which summarises just such a trial and explained the harms of covid and benefits of vaccinating 5-11 year olds.

The New England Journal of Medicine has just published an evaluation of vaccinating children (5-11) against Covid.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116298?query=featured_home

Its conclusion: 'A Covid-19 vaccination regimen consisting of two 10-μg doses of BNT162b2 administered 21 days apart was found to be safe, immunogenic, and efficacious in children 5 to 11 years of age'.

Why would you vaccinate these children?

Although Covid-19 is generally milder in children than in adults, severe illness and long-term complications, including multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), can occur after the primary infection. School-age children represent a high proportion of Covid-19 cases, and they may play an important role in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, including spread of the highly transmissible B.1.617.2 (or delta) variant. At the end of September 2021, persons younger than 18 years of age represented more than a quarter of weekly U.S. cases and 1.6 to 4.2% of cumulative hospitalizations. Covid-19–associated hospitalizations among children have increased steadily since early July 2021 in the United States; prevalence among 5-to-11-year-old children reached an all-time high of 1.1 per 100,000 population in late September. The pandemic has also interrupted education and has adversely affected children’s social and emotional development and mental health. Therefore, the availability of safe and efficacious vaccines for school-age children is critical.

TLDR - yes it's safe to vaccinate 5-11 year olds and it is a good idea to do this

Surely you can’t forget liking it? Or have you got covid brain fog ?

 

[Milzy]

But you liked this post (which summarises just such a trial and explained the harms of covid and benefits of vaccinating 5-11 year olds.



Surely you can’t forget liking it? Or have you got covid brain fog ?

LOL I like stuff as a respectable sign of acknowledgment even if I disagree sometimes.

 

[MontyVeda]

So... @Milzy... you acknowledged that your list of 'top' doctors was as much use as a chocolate fireguard, and your claim that no trials have been done regarding vaccinating 5-11 years olds appears to be complete hokum too, plus countless other claims throughout this thread have been debunked... are you any closer to changing your stance?

 

[Milzy]

So... @Milzy... you acknowledged that your list of 'top' doctors was as much use as a chocolate fireguard, and your claim that no trials have been done regarding vaccinating 5-11 years olds appears to be complete hokum too, plus countless other claims throughout this thread have been debunked... are you any closer to changing your stance?

We don’t have enough studies in children.

So... @Milzy... you acknowledged that your list of 'top' doctors was as much use as a chocolate fireguard, and your claim that no trials have been done regarding vaccinating 5-11 years olds appears to be complete hokum too, plus countless other claims throughout this thread have been debunked... are you any closer to changing your stance?

We don’t have enough studies in children.
What about this?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ew-scientist-helped-invent-MRNA-vaccines.html
Do you realise the brains that man has? Why are they going after him? Because you’ve got to follow the money trail.