Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

Plumbthedepths

polesheep wrote: »

And staff who have or will catch Covid from patients, is that a sticky situation?

It's fantasy stuff being peddled here. Importantly it's only a few who feel their desires are somehow guaranteed to be fact in the future. Time to allow them wallow in their delusional beliefs.
Btw I'm not against the Vax , I will take it when my turn comes but I'm one of the last who will be offered it. I just find the 'jackboot' mindset openly displayed here distrubing, but of course done with a anonymity here that I suspect would not be used offline.

Sconsey

polesheep wrote: »

And staff who have or will catch Covid from patients, is that a sticky situation?

Why would a health care worker be catching it in the future? they are practically the first to get offered it. If they are going to refuse it then it is not a sticky situation.

hmmm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I just find the 'jackboot' mindset openly displayed here distrubing,

Jackboot my arse. There is a more than legitimate debate for society during a pandemic as to whether people should be obliged to follow public health guidance. The courts haven't been shy either in the past about enforcing public health requirements. There is also a more than legitimate debate as to how people can be protected from people who are potentially carrying a dangerous virus, and whether there is any obligation on employers/transport providers/the State.

An example of this is people with certain strains of TB who have been deprived of their liberty by the state because they represented too great a risk to the public. This was done as nicely as possible, but they were still effectively prisoners.

Thankfully the miracle of science which is the effectiveness of the Covid vaccines looks like it will (ironically) bail out the anti-vaxxers. 95% effectiveness means most people who get the vaccine will be protected, and they hopefully will only have a small remaining risk if we get high rates of vaccinations. It would be a very different story if vaccines were only 50% effective.

cj maxx

I've asked this qurstion before but I cant find it now. Do you think this will be an annual vaccine like the flu as covid mutates or will the 2021 cover it indefinitely?

Plumbthedepths

hmmm wrote: »

Jackboot my arse. There is a more than legitimate debate for society during a pandemic as to whether people should be obliged to follow public health guidance. The courts haven't been shy either in the past about enforcing public health requirements. There is also a more than legitimate debate as to how people can be protected from people who are potentially carrying a dangerous virus, and whether there is any obligation on employers/transport providers/the State.

An example of this is people with certain strains of TB who have been deprived of their liberty by the state because they represented too great a risk to the public. This was done as nicely as possible, but they were still effectively prisoners.

Thankfully the miracle of science which is the effectiveness of the Covid vaccines looks like it will (ironically) bail out the anti-vaxxers. 95% effectiveness means most people who get the vaccine will be protected, and they hopefully will only have a small remaining risk if we get high rates of vaccinations. It would be a very different story if vaccines were only 50% effective.

'Jackboot my arse'
You do seem to be talking out of it though. As I said to another poster best to leave you and your ilk to your collective delusional beliefs.

Plumbthedepths

cj maxx wrote: »

I've asked this qurstion before but I cant find it now. Do you think this will be an annual vaccine like the flu as covid mutates or will the 2021 cover it indefinitely?

Unknown at the moment.

schmoo2k

begbysback wrote: »

Is there any process to check if you already had Covid, or is there an expectation that even those who previously had Covid should vaccinate?

I suspect the vaccine will be cheaper than full antibody and T-Cell tests...

hmmm

cj maxx wrote: »

I've asked this qurstion before but I cant find it now. Do you think this will be an annual vaccine like the flu as covid mutates or will the 2021 cover it indefinitely?

Slaoui who is running Operation Warp Speed was saying that he thinks based on experience with other viruses and the types of immune reactions he is seeing that it will probably be at least a few years. He thinks immunity to the virus might be relatively short-lived, but immunity to the disease (Covid) will be a lot longer. Fauci isn't sure, but was suggesting at least a year and probably a bit longer.

Apparently immunity to SARS & MERS is quite long-lasting. Immunity to the common cold coronavirus are much shorter (months). No-one knows why yet even though they are in the same family.

People who have been vaccinated in phase 1 trials several months ago have still got good levels of protection. And apparently also the mutation rate is far slower than the flu. Which is good news.

polesheep

Sconsey wrote: »

Why would a health care worker be catching it in the future? they are practically the first to get offered it. If they are going to refuse it then it is not a sticky situation.

The same could be said for the patients. This is all a red herring. Just tell your family and friends that it's a good idea to get vaccinated.

schmoo2k

hmmm wrote: »

I've heard this "discrimination" claim a couple of times. Discrimination laws in Ireland list very clearly the criteria which can be used to claim discrimination, and a vaccination requirement is not one I can see. Vague claims about the Constitution will be laughed out of court.

One thing the anti-vaxxers also over-estimate is how important their views are, and how far their "rights" go. People refusing the MMR were seen as a bit quaint, but an outbreak of Covid in a nursing home or on a plane caused by someone who is unvaccinated is a different matter. I suspect it may end up in court at some stage, but it will be the person who contracted Covid doing the suing.

If someone is not vaccinated and chooses to go into a high risk scenario and gets infected then they should bear some of the responsibility IMO?

hmmm

schmoo2k wrote: »

If someone is not vaccinated and chooses to go into a high risk scenario and gets infected then they should bear some of the responsibility IMO?

I'm talking about someone who is vaccinated and it doesn't fully protect them, or can't be vaccinated, and goes into an environment where someone who chooses not to get vaccinated ends up infecting them.

E.g. a nursing home or chemotherapy ward.

schmoo2k

j@utis wrote: »

The question is "how we gonna get to 70%" Nobody I know from my age group is rushing to get vaccinated [late 30s, 40s].

Everyone I know in that age group are planning on it - but they also know they are the last in line, so will have the luxury of "waiting and seeing".

As soon as the "at risk" groups are vaccinated, then the pressure will be off the hospitals and the lockdowns can be relaxed.

Low risk folks will have the option to take the vaccine or not, but there will be another spike in cases (thankfully without the corresponding hospitalization / death spike).

We will then hit 70% by a combination of vaccine and natural immunity.

schmoo2k

hmmm wrote: »

I'm talking about someone who is vaccinated and it doesn't fully protect them, or can't be vaccinated, and goes into an environment where someone who chooses not to get vaccinated ends up infecting them.

E.g. a nursing home or chemotherapy ward.

The current strict protocols will need to stay in place for vulnerable folks in those scenarios (even a vaccinated person could have it on their hands...). My comment was more to do with the "plane" scenario you mentioned.

"If evidence demonstrates the vaccine(s) prevent transmission, those aged 18-34 should be prioritised due to their increased level of social contact and role in transmission."

I have to say I think the above is frankly ridiculous. Current evidence strongly indicates that the single greatest risk of mortality from COVID-19 is increasing age. So Tony and co. are thinking it is likely a good idea to vaccinate an 18 year old before a 54 year old. He told this group throughout that covid is a very dangerous illness to everyone but now saying 34-54 years olds are not at risk at all. His argument seems to be vaccinate the vulnerable groups (older population and sick) and then protect them further by vaccinating younger people (18-34) as this will reduce spread greater to further protect vulnerable people who have already been vaccinated, but who may not be protected from vaccine. From an economic and health point of view I feel this is totally inequitable and unfair to the 35-54 population. This group is a major cohort in its own right. Their risk to ill health/death from covid is much higher than an 18 year old and will now have to restrict their life longer than 18-34 year olds to further protect already vaccinated persons.. I personally am in this group (41) and have led a very restricted life for the last 9 months, have now lost my job during this (first time unemployed in my life). I was told by Tony in his briefings that increasing age is the main risk factor in covid and that it could kill anyone. Now he has changed the goal posts and is saying we want to protect the over 55's etc. even more and that 34-54 is at no real material risk from covid now at all. I personally think I have taken a big enough hit mentally, financially and general well being to protect the more vulnerable. I now feel effectively at the bottom of the queue with regards to vaccine. Luke O'Neill had suggested going down the age groups 80-70-60-50-40-30 etc. which I felt was fair. Even in the UK it is open to all below 50. I would settle
for UK model of less than 55 open to all (first come first served). Tony is trying to be "Too Smart". My view once every person gets the vaccine, it effectively turns covid into a common cold/flu like disease and that the states major role in protecting the population against covid is complete. This is not good enough for Tony and wants to protect already vaccinated people further in the short term at the expense of 35-54 year olds. Everyone should receive vaccine based on the perceived risk. I wonder would Tony and Co be waiting on their teenage sons and daughters to be vaccinated before themselves? At that stage all of NPHET will likely be vaccinated. So in a household you could have an 18 year son receiving the vaccine before his parents in their early 50's to protect his 80 year old grandmother further, while mum and dad are left to take their chances with covid. This is a bizarre idea and contradicts what NPHET have told us to date about risks etc. Tony and co have lost my vote to even suggest this might happen. Hopefully government will intervene and this will not actually happen as it comes across as Tony and Co. pulling up the drawbridge on this cohort (35-54 year olds).

Thats me

Deleted User wrote: »

"If evidence demonstrates the vaccine(s) prevent transmission, those aged 18-34 should be prioritised due to their increased level of social contact and role in transmission."

I have to say I think the above is frankly ridiculous. Current evidence strongly indicates that the single greatest risk of mortality from COVID-19 is increasing age.

That was about preventing transmission. Where you see "risk of mortality"?

eagle eye

With the news on Ivermectin I'm in no rush to take a vaccine now. I'm starting to wonder if there's a parasite element to this illness now.

crazy 88

eagle eye wrote: »

With the news on Ivermectin I'm in no rush to take a vaccine now. I'm starting to wonder if there's a parasite element to this illness now.

so you're ok with becoming asymptomatic and spreading it?

Thats me

Sorry for intervening with a question not relating to the current course of discussion.. Native of mine asking is there any way to have an allergy test before taking the vaccine?

eagle eye

crazy 88 wrote: »

so you're ok with becoming asymptomatic and spreading it?

I certainly won't be asymptomatic if I contract it.

Thats me

eagle eye wrote: »

I certainly won't be asymptomatic if I contract it.

You never know, this is unpredictable

ExMachina1000

hmmm wrote: »

I've heard this "discrimination" claim a couple of times. Discrimination laws in Ireland list very clearly the criteria which can be used to claim discrimination, and a vaccination requirement is not one I can see. Vague claims about the Constitution will be laughed out of court.

One thing the anti-vaxxers also over-estimate is how important their views are, and how far their "rights" go. People refusing the MMR were seen as a bit quaint, but an outbreak of Covid in a nursing home or on a plane caused by someone who is unvaccinated is a different matter. I suspect it may end up in court at some stage, but it will be the person who contracted Covid doing the suing.

If an unvaccinated person can cause an outbreak on a plane or nursing home full of vaccinated people then the vaccine itself is fairly ineffective and pointless.

You might say well it's not 100% effective but if outbreaks are still happening despite widespread vaccinations then it really is an exercise in futility.

One of these vaccinated yet infected people might go down the pub and spread it to other vaccinated people. Lol

Thats me

Thats me wrote: »

Sorry for intervening with a question not relating to the current course of discussion.. Native of mine asking is there any way to have an allergy test before taking the vaccine?

I still interested in any response. It is already known Phizer vaccine can cause serious allergic reaction. Are any pre-tests available? What an allergic person should ask before taking vaccine?

runawaybishop

begbysback wrote: »

I’d be pretty sure you legally cannot discriminate in such scenarios.

You can legally discriminate in loads of scenarios, some general and some very specific. There is also a general "in obeying the law" clause that overrides all discrimination claims.

Aside from that, there is nothing really stopping the gov changing discrimination laws.

namloc1980

eagle eye wrote: »

With the news on Ivermectin I'm in no rush to take a vaccine now. I'm starting to wonder if there's a parasite element to this illness now.

Invermectin has known antiviral properties even though it's principally an anti-parasitic medicine.

hmmm

Thats me wrote: »

I still interested in any response. It is already known Phizer vaccine can cause serious allergic reaction. Are any pre-tests available? What an allergic person should ask before taking vaccine?

Obviously this is a question to ask your doctor. The two people in the UK who had the allergic reaction were reported as people who carried Epipen type devices already, so they had known conditions.

Thats me

hmmm wrote: »

Obviously this is a question to ask your doctor. The two people in the UK who had the allergic reaction were reported as people who carried Epipen type devices already, so they had known conditions.

Thanks, i didn't know that was a special case. In any case, the person has strong reaction on unpredictable factors. I would prefer to have them tested before vaccination. I know normally there should be such option but they were never offered to have it in Ireland. Not sure is it possible to have test in IE or the person should travel to the some low-developed country again to have medical assistance?

brisan

eagle eye wrote: »

And you are saying that it's not safe for them to work or travel, same applies to pregnant women.

The difference is can’t and won’t you don’t seem willing to address this
A certain cohort of people can’t wear a mask on public transport for medical reasons
A certain cohort of people won’t wear masks on public transport
Guess which cohort are allowed travel on public transport

is_that_so

eagle eye wrote: »

With the news on Ivermectin I'm in no rush to take a vaccine now. I'm starting to wonder if there's a parasite element to this illness now.

It's not approved for COVID but get your supply in!

brisan

is_that_so wrote: »

That would be a very tricky one and definitely a trip to the Labour Court to find out! As we do not need everyone to be vaccinated it looks discriminatory and very like enforced vaccinations. That's not good optics.

I don’t think anybody mentioned enforced vaccinations
I certainly would be strongly opposed to this
If you make a choice to not take the vaccine that is your right
However if you make that choice you have to accept that there will be like in any choice we make consequences
Those consequences may be restrictions placed on what you can and cannot do
If a person chooses to take the vaccine the consequences might be a reaction either severe or mild to the vaccine
We all have the right to choose

CIARAN_BOYLE

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"If evidence demonstrates the vaccine(s) prevent transmission, those aged 18-34 should be prioritised due to their increased level of social contact and role in transmission."

I have to say I think the above is frankly ridiculous. Current evidence strongly indicates that the single greatest risk of mortality from COVID-19 is increasing age.

Imo the single greatest risk of mortality from covid 19 is catching covid 19.

A strategy based on breaking the chains of transmission by targeting a group with a disproportionately high level of super spreading events may make sense.

However I do think he should have to stand over that and be able to produce data to show it spreads faster in that group.