Why vaccianate everybody instead of just 10-20%?

[Pro1Expat]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

As we said it's not 100% effective and it wears out after a certain time, so we still need to be carefull. 

as far as the "fix" is concerned , it works in the following way,  In order that the virus spreads it needs new hosts , so imagine that there is only one person infecter, and 7.6 billion possible hosts that can receive the virus from that one host. now if we could vaccinate a 100 people that  can't be infected and form a wall around that one infected person the viruce is effectively neutralized.  The infected person will either recover or die, either way the virus if eliminated unless it remains dormant, or is re-introduced from the wilde. 

That's how we brahe the virus's back. It is a simplistic explanation to be sure, and there are other components to consider, but for the purpose of this conversation adequate IMO 

 

According to the UK government even if you have had the vaccine you can be infected

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, sometimewoodworker said:

Not really correct.

With the Oxford vaccine after the initial shot and 7~10 days later anyone who got COVID19 after that did not need to be hospitalised.

 

If I catch a cold I don’t go to hospital in the same way once I’ve got the first Oxford shot I will not need to go to hospital if I contract Covid19 

For sure different vaccines work in different ways and have different efficacy rates,  and outcomes. They have advantages and disadvantages. 

The CDC quotes I provided , said "the vaccines available in the US" which is Pfizer and Moderna, with J&J expected to be introduced in the next couple of weeks. 

[sometimewoodworker]

4 minutes ago, Pro1Expat said:

that is what the British government are implying

No. It’s in the data from the trials performed by Oxford AsroZenica and then published and peer reviewed.

The MRNA vaccines did not have a similar trial so it’s not proven if the same effect is present, thus if offered an MRNA I will require both shots on the 28-36 day schedule, if Offered an Oxford vaccination (based on the data) I will certainly wait at least 6 weeks and be happy at 12 for the second 

[Pro1Expat]

1 minute ago, sometimewoodworker said:

No. It’s in the data from the trials performed by Oxford AsroZenica and then published and peer reviewed.

The MRNA vaccines did not have a similar trial so it’s not proven if the same effect is present, thus if offered an MRNA I will require both shots on the 28-36 day schedule, if Offered an Oxford vaccination (based on the data) I will certainly wait at least 6 weeks and be happy at 12 for the second 

None of the vaccines have been properly tested. It will be interesting in a few years time to see what the effects of the vaccine really are and all because they rushed it out without proper trails

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, Pro1Expat said:

According to the UK government even if you have had the vaccine you can be infected

Yes indeed,

the rage of effectiveness varies from  70-95% depending on the type of vaccine. Some vaccines are easier to store,  administer and cost less but have a lower affectines , but are desirable because of the first 3 factors, Others are more effective but more difficult to administer store . reproduce and cost more.

As with everything else in life there are trade offs and different people chose different strategies. 

[onebir]

19 hours ago, ukrules said:

The very vulnerable are the elderly patients who don't make it into ICU for one reason or another - like they're too old and frail to survive invasive emergency treatment (ventilation), so they die before it gets to this stage.

 

That leaves the vast majority of other patients - people in their 50's and 60's - these need treating for weeks at a time and fill ICU into expanded emergency capacity.

A doc (in a segment on Sky) today mentioned this wave is affecting a much wider age range. I guess that could be partly due to the 'UK variant', though it wasn't mentioned explicitly.

[sometimewoodworker]

17 minutes ago, Pro1Expat said:

None of the vaccines have been properly tested. It will be interesting in a few years time to see what the effects of the vaccine really are and all because they rushed it out without proper trails

Again absolute total B*S* and talking though an orifice not designed for oral communication. Do please extract your head from that orifice.

 

All the vaccines have gone through pre-clinical trials several through stage 1, 2 and 3 before release, at least 3 (Russian, Chinese and Indian) have had emergency use concurrent with the stage 3 or before publication of the stage 3 data. Stage 4 is analysis of mass patient data after release. 1 has been sent back to stage 2 as it was failing stage 3.

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by sometimewoodworker

[rabas]

29 minutes ago, Pro1Expat said:

True but medicine has progressed a lot since then. There are many virologists who have said, go to BMA and Lancet plus USA equivalents, the panic that is generated is unjustified.

Statistics, go to the ONS (Office of National Statistics) do not show a high mortality from th virus.and the government was using solid verifiable data no one would question it but the data they are using is selected to give the impact they desire and much of it is old and out of date.

Here in Italy the minister for health a while back made a statement that the people that died all were over 80 and all had at least 3 under laying health conditions.

Check the ONS you will find it interesting

You know all these things about viruses, virologists, and medical journals like Lancet?

 

And you say you never heard of the Spanish flu?

 

Your augments are very disingenuous.

[jak2002003]

7 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

That part of your statement is another incorrect generalisation, read the research on infected and longer term effects of infection across all age age groups please.

 

I have. It's very small percentage. Less then people getting long term problems from other diseases or even pollution like from the burning here, or unhealthy eating and lack of exercise. 

[jak2002003]

3 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

Please can you tell us where you studied medicine and where you specialized in infectious diseases. I would be interested to know.

Same for you. Where did you study virology or qualify as a doctor? Or do you just blindly believe what you are told by the general media and the totally trustworthy government that never makes mistakes, is above corruption or question and would nevero mislead people for profit and political reasons?

[Pro1Expat]

1 hour ago, sometimewoodworker said:

No. It’s in the data from the trials performed by Oxford AsroZenica and then published and peer reviewed.

The MRNA vaccines did not have a similar trial so it’s not proven if the same effect is present, thus if offered an MRNA I will require both shots on the 28-36 day schedule, if Offered an Oxford vaccination (based on the data) I will certainly wait at least 6 weeks and be happy at 12 for the second 

The trials have been rushed through

[Pro1Expat]

1 hour ago, sometimewoodworker said:

Again absolute total B*S* and talking though an orifice not designed for oral communication. Do please extract your head from that orifice.

 

All the vaccines have gone through pre-clinical trials several through stage 1, 2 and 3 before release, at least 3 (Russian, Chinese and Indian) have had emergency use concurrent with the stage 3 or before publication of the stage 3 data. Stage 4 is analysis of mass patient data after release. 1 has been sent back to stage 2 as it was failing stage 3.

 

 

 

Do you have any idea how long normal testing takes for a vaccine? Obviously you dont but it is around 10 years after all the trials, evaluations and changes if and as required. Stop talking rubbish until you have done proper research. The BBC is not the place to get the information.

Just ask a virologist how long they take.

[Salerno]

16 minutes ago, Pro1Expat said:

Stop talking rubbish until you have done proper research.

 

Pot meet kettle 

[Throatwobbler]

1 hour ago, jak2002003 said:

Same for you. Where did you study virology or qualify as a doctor? Or do you just blindly believe what you are told by the general media and the totally trustworthy government that never makes mistakes, is above corruption or question and would nevero mislead people for profit and political reasons?

When my car breaks down I take it to the mechanic and listen to what they say. Same with infectious diseases. I listen to what the experts say.
 

It is amazing how many world class virologists there are on TV.  People who think they know better than people who have studied viruses all their lives. Questioning them does not make you clever as so many of you seem to think. The complete opposite is actually true.

[Throatwobbler]

23 minutes ago, Pro1Expat said:

Do you have any idea how long normal testing takes for a vaccine? Obviously you dont but it is around 10 years after all the trials, evaluations and changes if and as required. Stop talking rubbish until you have done proper research. The BBC is not the place to get the information.

Just ask a virologist how long they take.

It used to take 6 weeks to get from the UK  Now you can do it in around 10 hours. Times and science has changed but some people are still stuck in the past. As for talking rubbish well please refer to your posts an this thread about virus mutation.

 

[Throatwobbler]

29 minutes ago, Pro1Expat said:

Do you have any idea how long normal testing takes for a vaccine? Obviously you dont but it is around 10 years after all the trials, evaluations and changes if and as required. Stop talking rubbish until you have done proper research. The BBC is not the place to get the information.

Just ask a virologist how long they take.

https://theconversation.com/less-than-a-year-to-develop-a-covid-vaccine-heres-why-you-shouldnt-be-alarmed-150414
Have a read. 
 

[sharksy]

5 hours ago, tribalfusion001 said:

This is why society is damaged beyond repair, people who want to force their medical views on other people. Only the vulnerable need these vaccines and no one else.

Not everyone knows if they are vulnerable.  You may have an underlying health condition that you are not aware of.

Everyone seems to be getting hung up on deaths.

"Long covid" scares me.  Don't know your thoughts on this?

[rabas]

32 minutes ago, Pro1Expat said:

Do you have any idea how long normal testing takes for a vaccine? Obviously you dont but it is around 10 years after all the trials, evaluations and changes if and as required. Stop talking rubbish until you have done proper research. The BBC is not the place to get the information.

Just ask a virologist how long they take.

Ah, now a virologist.

 

What do you mean by normal time? Is your normal for all vaccines? Which ones? Should an mRNA or DNA vaccine be tested for the same time, given they have no virus? Or can they be tested faster, especially  during a pandemic? Has it always been so long? How long did they test vaccines used during the Spanish flu?

[sometimewoodworker]

33 minutes ago, Pro1Expat said:

Do you have any idea how long normal testing takes for a vaccine? Obviously you dont but it is around 10 years after all the trials, evaluations and changes if and as required. Stop talking rubbish until you have done proper research. The BBC is not the place to get the information.

Just ask a virologist how long they take.

I see you are continuing to talk through the orifice mentioned before so I should not be surprised that it’s B*S*
 

The information I am getting is from the medical papers, peer reviewed journals central medical organisations like the CDC, DCC and others.

 

just because trials that do not have virtually unlimited funding take longer and that these have been done as fast as the have is not relevant, when you have all governments and private funded organisations working as hard as they have the speed of development is understandable. Borders are closed economies are haemorrhaging, trade is badly affected so governments have an enormous incentive to help research as the amounts needed are tiny in relationship.

[ukrules]

52 minutes ago, Pro1Expat said:

Do you have any idea how long normal testing takes for a vaccine? Obviously you dont but it is around 10 years after all the trials, evaluations and changes if and as required. Stop talking rubbish until you have done proper research. The BBC is not the place to get the information.

Just ask a virologist how long they take.

 

Do you know how long they've been working on the ChAdOx based vaccine?

 

 

[Pro1Expat]

51 minutes ago, Salerno said:

 

Pot meet kettle 

It is amazing how many people never bother to find out the facts they blindly go on what the media tells them. Hardly surprising governments around the world get away with serving their own interests

[Salerno]

1 minute ago, Pro1Expat said:

It is amazing how many people never bother to find out the facts

 

I say again, pot meet kettle. Parroting the BS from ... alternative media (being polite) ... as you've done throughout this thread doesn't make you look clever, it makes you look sad. Especially when the BS is so easily refuted.

[rickudon]

A few points to make.

 

'I will not take a vaccine, it is my right to choose' and I can drink and drive, it is my right to choose'  Same same.

 

It s not just old people dying. From my UK family circle, i know of 4 deaths - 2 relatives and 2 friends/colleagues of family members. One was over 80 and in a nursing home, fair enough. Second was 73 and fit and healthy before he caught covid-19. The last 2 were in their 50's still working, and no 'known' underlying health problems. So not just the old and unproductive dying.

 

Vaccines - they have TWO purposes. First, to protect the individual. Second, to reduce the risk of contagion, that might be because you do not get infected again, OR because if you are infected, your body fights the virus and the infection is defeated more quickly and the viral load does not get to high levels, so less opportunity to spread. We have all heard about super spreader events when one person has infected many others, but most asymptomatic people have less virus so are less infectious.

 

SARS MERS, Covid-19 - all coronaviruses but different symptoms, infectiousness. MERS is hard to catch but pretty deadly. SARS was a bit less deadly, but was more infectious - however symptoms develop quickly and it was possible to isolate patients before they infected others (with the right precautions - and they did have lockdowns but only at the local level e.g. some tower blocks in Hong Kong). Covid-19 was different  so it spread ......

 

Yes, generally speaking viruses when they mutate the successful mutations are those that spread more easily or are less dangerous. Viruses which kill their hosts tend to destroy the most susceptible members of a population and eventually find it hard to find a new host. BUT they can go the other way - viruses can swap genetic information with other related viruses (this what influenza sometimes does), and along with mutations this is why the annual influenza epidemic can be more of less severe - there have been 5 separate influenza pandemics in the last 140 years.

 

Coronavirus epidemics/pandemics can also occur. 'Russian flu' in the 19th century is now thought to have been a coronavirus rather than influenza. SARS and MERS were epidemics that didn't make it. Covid-19 did, big time. But imagine if Covid-19 had the death rate of SARS ....

 

Covid-19 has been found in a number of other mammals since the pandemic began. Covid-21 could already be evolving.

[ericthai]

18 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

If the proportion of vaccinated people in a community falls below the herd immunity threshold, exposure to a contagious disease could result in the disease quickly spreading. Measles has recently resurged in several parts of the world with relatively low vaccination rates, including the United States. Opposition to vaccines can pose a real challenge to herd immunity.  

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808

 

Generally needs to be higher than 80%

 

Saying 90% recover is over simplictic,  as it does not account for ongoing long term effects, extreme longterm fatigue, cardiac complication.\, kidney impairment, ongoing respiratory effects,increased risk of stroke, (research suggests the risk of stroke in under 50s on respirators is very high)  this is not only occurrring in older people but also younger infected.

 

One of my childhood friends died of a stroke after contracting Covid. He was only 52, in good health, took no medications and had no medical issues. He was in the hospital for 3 months before he passed. Besides the long term effects the current issue is using hospital resources for long periods. Hospitals are setup to get you out ASAP, not for prolonged care that Covid 19 ends up causing. 

[Patong2021]

On 1/24/2021 at 1:16 PM, gafdtomaka366 said:

Given that around 90% recover with no problem at all, and given that the number would be even higher if every sick person  was discovered, why vaccianate everybody instead of 10%, at most 20%, in the risk group?

How do you know 90% recover with no problem at all?

Covid19 is an inflammatory disease and now it is being documented that serious long term damage occurs. Because we are only 1 year in and are still in survival mode, no research is being done on the  long term damage.

 

Look at measles. It is contagious like Covid but  less deadly. We vaccinate against the  disease for good reason.

 

More importantly, you are wrong about 90%. On the contrary, the impact of Covid is 100%, and we ALL sufffer.

-Hospitals do not have the resources to care for the critically ill.

-Medical care cannot be provided because of Covid infections

- With the  mutations it is expected that prior infection and recovery will not protect against subsequent infection, no more so than occurs with the flu or  corona related colds. The economy cannot withstand  such a continuous toll that wipes out workplaces.

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

18 hours ago, tribalfusion001 said:

You don't seem to understand a large proportion do not want the vaccines and will refuse them. Your point of view and your fear of this virus is what's driving this agenda. I live my life and I don't want a covid vaccine. You are advocating medical fascism by saying remain part of society, who are you to decide who is remain part of society for a mild virus, yes mild, 98% of those who die have underlying conditions.

 

You loose any credibility when using such words as medical fascism and then start throwing around statistic without any factual back up. 

 

98% of those who due have underlying conditions ? - where is that statistic ?

(while I believe comorbidity may be high and the virus does impact those of age, most of those of age also have underling medical conditions, high blood pressure, diabetes etc etc.. all which can be lived with, thus the comorbidity statistic remains misleading - those who died may still have died as a direct result of Covid-19 and not as you are implying died of their other reason and then labelled as a covid-19 death... 

I don’t know the true statistics on that, but neither do you - yet you post made up statistics (98% - you have no idea).

 

[jdlancaster]

Well, I don't think the actual question has been answered yet....

The reason is that immunizing 10-20% of the population doesn't reach the Herd Immunity Threshold of Pc= 1-(1/R0). Where we would need about 60-70% of people to be immune for the disease to slowly reduce (people will still get infected but at lower rates over time). At a basic level you can compute this as those infected multiplied by the efficacy of immunity to reinfection plus the percentage of uninfected multiplied by the percentage that get the vaccine and multiplied by vaccine efficacy.

 

Comparing other diseases such as the flu is incorrect... They have a very different R0 and require very different public health approaches.

 

It doesn't matter if you think most people will be ok or not (morbidity and mortality)... Given the current political climate, we need to reach the Herd Immunity Threshold to move on with our lives.

[richard_smith237]

18 hours ago, redwood1 said:

 

For some strange reason people like yourself feel it's their God given right to force people to do things against their will....

It must not be a very good vaxx if after you take it your not protected....

Viruses mutate all the time, that's why they give flu shots every year...So it stands to reason that people will need to take this vaxx 1-2 times a year indefinitely as the virus mutates to try to get the herd immunity that can never be achieved.....

 

 

If people wish to remain part of society they need to respect the society they are in. 

 

Many seem unable to do this which is why we have laws which require enforcement. 

 

I am forced to drive within the speed limits for the benefits of the safety of others. I am force or encouraged to do many things.  I am encouraged to take vaccinations to protect society on a whole. 

 

 

As it stands it is unknown if we need this Covid-19 vaccine on a yearly basis in much the same way those in risk groups need the flu-vaccine every year, as with influenza this virus has already presented antigenic drift - it is yet to be established if the RNA based vaccine is responsive as the virus evolves or whether or not a ’seasonal’ vaccine will be required.

 

You may wish for ‘herd immunity’ but herd immunity comes at high cost when dealing with viruses that kill - thus any herd immunity must be supported with a vaccine, a minimum threshold of those vaccinated is required to support this. 

 

 

So, I don’t believe it is my god given right do force others to do something they are unwilling to do. 

But I do believe it is the job of the government to encourage and even force people to play a part in protecting the general population from the selfish and the stupid. 

 

 

I think its perfectly reasonable if some don’t want to take a vaccine - if those same people are willing to forego medical treatment if they catch Covid-19. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

7 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

I am not an anti-vaxer, I have my annual flu shots, last year I also got my first pneumonia shot, due again this year for the flu shot + booster for pneumonia, although I will go for the Covid vax instead of the flu shot, only makes sense to, these are my choices and of course don't affect society.

 

I understand what you are saying, however you cannot place conditions on people because they don't wish to be vaccinated, in Australia the government stops payments to parents if they don't vaccinate their kids, and pay those that do, that in itself is wrong in my opinion.

 

We all have a right to live in society, there are those of us that will vaccinate, not because we wish to protect others, but because we want to protect ourselves first, call that selfish, but its the honest truth, however it is up to those who don't vaccinate that take the risk, remembering that those of us that do get vaccinated with Covid-19 offer no protection to those who do not vaccinated, or anyone else for that matter.

 

The above said, if Covid-19 was a virus that killed everyone who didn't want to vaccinate, then that in itself would sort things out, this vaccination will only protect those who have been vaccinated, not 100%, up to 95%, 90% even as low as 52% depending on which vaccination you take.

 

We have no control on hospitals being over run by those who choose not to be vaccinated, although I suppose hospital staff can decide who is to be treated first, i.e. the heart attack victim, the stroke victim, the car accident victim or the Covid victim, what I am saying, is it shouldn't be too hard if you follow what I mean, sort of like an alcoholic always ending up in the hospital, being put into an educed coma in the ICU ward only to return time and time again, eventually they will prescribe him with a couple of pills and tell him to sleep it off, (self inflicted), harsh, but it is the reality, they need the ICU ward for people who do not self inflict themselves with whatever.

 

So those that don't get vaccinated still have a choice, as for me, well, if and when I get vaccinated, hopefully I won't have that problem, and if I do end up catching it, at least I can say, hey guys I did get vaxed, no doubt they would allow me in for treatment as opposed to sending me home with some pills.

 

Got to be cruel to be kind as they say.

 

I agree with your points, with the exception of the last sentence in your third paragraph. 

 

[those of us that do get vaccinated with Covid-19 offer no protection to those who do not vaccinated, or anyone else for that matter]

 

The virus has less opportunity to spread through a vaccinated society. i.e. those who are unwell carry the virus for longer and carry a higher viral load. 

 

The difference is between those who would be truly asymptomatic and those would would have mild to sever symptoms. The vaccine will reduce the numbers of those in a society who have mild to severe symptoms; they would become asymptomatic instead, or have significantly reduced symptoms. i.e. they’d still carry the virus, but with a lower viral load and for a shorter period of time, thus reducing the potential for spread. 

Thus, someone who is vaccinated has less chance of being someone who spreads the virus, in contrast someone who refuses the vaccine has a higher chance of becoming someone who spreads the vaccine to others. 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

6 hours ago, Pro1Expat said:

According to the UK government even if you have had the vaccine you can be infected

 

 

SARS-CoV2 is the virus. It can be contracted from hand to mouth / eye contact after touching infected surfaces, or breathed in from the respiratory droplets of someone else who is carrying the SARS-CoV-2 virus - everyone knows this already.

 

Covid-19 is the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. 

 

Someone who is asymptomatic is carrying SARS-CoV-2 while not showing symptoms of Covid-19, they can still pass along the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but their viral load is less, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be in their, system for long as their body fights and kill the virus more efficiently.

 

Someone who has been vaccinated and becomes infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus may be asymptomatic of Covid-19 when they otherwise may have had mild or even severe symptoms, or worse, died.

 

Thus, someone who has been vaccinated can still become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but, in aggregate their symptoms are either non-existent (asymptomatic of Covid-19) or symptoms are reduced and there is less viral load for a shorter period of time, thus carriers of SARS-CoV-2 are carriers for a briefer period than those who exhibit Covid-19 symptoms.