Covid 19 Part XXXII-215,743 ROI (4,137 deaths)111,166 NI (2,036 deaths)(22/02)Read OP

bb1234567

Hector Savage wrote: »

I never said it was as bad, so we should have at least 10% of the restrictions we do in normal flu season so ?

In all fairness we should. I think during the pandemic most of us have realised how wrong it was to not encourage people with obviously infectious viral illnesses to stay home from work and avoid contact with the community, for example.

DraftDodger

Deleted User wrote: »

Health experts warn new COVID mutations could prolong the pandemic for another year - as South African super-COVID variant that could be vaccine-resistant is discovered in South Carolina

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9200185/Covid-mutations-prolong-pandemic-year-health-officials-warn.html?ito=push-notification&ci=72594&si=22382002

The daily mail :pac:

DraftDodger

cjyid wrote: »

https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1355171598538579970?s=20

High number of swabs

Dingaan

DraftDodger wrote: »

The daily mail :pac:

So is the Daily Mail making this up? That's an impressive 'pretend' video of Dr. Fauci if that's the case.

RebelButtMunch

DraftDodger wrote: »

High number of swabs

Aren't they back testing close contacts today?

seamus

mohawk wrote: »

Dregs is quite harsh. There are people out their who genuinely can’t get a vaccine for medical reasons.

It's pretty clear I'm only talking about people who refuse it and would otherwise have no medical reason to.

They should not be under any obligation to disclose this information to any employer to prevent themselves being managed out of their jobs.

Where being vaccinated is a requirement for someone's job and they are unable to obtain the vaccine, they will at least need to tell their employer of this fact. They don't have to disclose specifically what the issue is, but they will need to confirm their medical exemption.

Privacy is not absolute. There always has to be balance between the privacy of the individual and the safety of others.

KrustyUCC

cjyid wrote: »

https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1355171598538579970?s=20

Not too bad

2084 swabs this day last week so still progress

Ger Roe

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6RcuaRN3k&feature=emb_title


Reports of numerous adverse effects from vaccine. Reported in real time from around the US.


https://wonder.cdc.gov/VAERS.html

From the site you linked:

"The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database contains information on unverified reports of adverse events (illnesses, health problems and/or symptoms) following immunization with US-licensed vaccines. Reports are accepted from anyone and can be submitted electronically at www.vaers.hhs.gov."

That's all I need to know for now. They are gathering data and will investigate. I will wait for the results of those investigations before getting concerned about what is just a collection of stories at the moment. Also note that this data collection is standard practice and has been ongoing for any and all vaccinations since 1990. All clearly stated on the site.

Benimar

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

Aren't they back testing close contacts today?

Those would be wednesdays swabs, tested yesterday, so wouldn't include close contacts.

Kunta Kinte

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I think it's the other way round. To me it seems to be mostly anti-restriction "it's only a mild respiratory illness" types who are bigging up the dangers posed by variants.

They've spent months calling for governments to just admit defeat and immediately end all restrictions. They felt this was the only way out of this and would be their vindication. The vaccines are potentially providing another way out of the pandemic so are eroding the basis of the anti-restriction argument.

I'd also imagine there's an anti-authority thing going on too.
Authorities go for restrictions=They oppose restrictions.
Authorities go for vaccines=They oppose vaccines.

Absolutely correct.

Quantum Baloney

I don't understand people's insistence that everyone must take the vaccine. If everybody in the vulnerable categories who wants to take the vaccine is given the opportunity, and then this choice filters down to everyone else, surely it doesn't matter a great deal whether the minority that don't want it abstain.

Some people are uncomfortable with taking a vaccine with no long term studies, or a vaccine for which there still seems to be less than perfect clarity regarding sterilization. If you can still pass on the virus after having the vaccine then absolutely people should do their own risk assessment.

I would have thought that concerns like these would be very much within the normal range, hardly anything to sneer at or ostracise people over.

Deeper Blue

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

I don't understand people's insistence that everyone must take the vaccine. If everybody in the vulnerable categories who wants to take the vaccine is given the opportunity, and then this choice filters down to everyone else, surely it doesn't matter a great deal whether the minority that don't want it abstain.

Some people are uncomfortable with taking a vaccine with no long term studies, or a vaccine for which there still seems to be less than perfect clarity regarding sterilization. If you can still pass on the virus after having the vaccine then absolutely people should do their own risk assessment.

I would have thought that concerns like these would be very much within the normal range, hardly anything to sneer at or ostracise people over.

Your concerns are all well and good for the likes of the flu vaccine.

The flu doesn't shut down the entire planet though.

Therefore as many people as possible need to do their bit and take the covid vaccine.

Unless you're unable to take vaccines for medical reasons there's no excuse for not taking it.

Those that don't are nothing but selfish in my opinion.

Virgil°

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

I don't understand people's insistence that everyone must take the vaccine. If everybody in the vulnerable categories who wants to take the vaccine is given the opportunity, and then this choice filters down to everyone else, surely it doesn't matter a great deal whether the minority that don't want it abstain.

Some people are uncomfortable with taking a vaccine with no long term studies, or a vaccine for which there still seems to be less than perfect clarity regarding sterilization. If you can still pass on the virus after having the vaccine then absolutely people should do their own risk assessment.

I would have thought that concerns like these would be very much within the normal range, hardly anything to sneer at or ostracise people over.

Because there are some people whom, for legitimate medical reasons cannot take certain vaccines. My father being one of them.

They rely instead on everyone around them to be vaccinated and or resistant to the disease. So far be it from ostracising or sneering, I will actively verbally lift these "people who have concerns" out of it. My direct family is put at risk by these clowns who take their info from facebook. I've absolutely zero tolerance for it.

Gruffalux

Virgil° wrote: »

Because there are some people whom, for legitimate medical reasons cannot take certain vaccines. My father being one of them.

They rely instead on everyone around them to be vaccinated and or resistant to the disease. So far be it from ostracising or sneering, I will actively verbally lift these "people who have concerns" out of it. My direct family is put at risk by these clowns who take their info from facebook. I've absolutely zero tolerance for it.

So far as is known to date all the people who are vaccinated can still transmit the virus in some (uncertain, to date) amount to people who cannot take vaccines.

seamus

Virgil° wrote: »

Because there are some people whom, for legitimate medical reasons cannot take certain vaccines. My father being one of them.

They rely instead on everyone around them to be vaccinated and or resistant to the disease. So far be it from ostracising or sneering, I will actively verbally lift these "people who have concerns" out of it. My direct family is put at risk by these clowns who take their info from facebook. I've absolutely zero tolerance for it.

This is the key. Outside of the 'flu vaccination, vaccines are a group effort*. It's not just about you not getting sick, it's about stopping the transmission of the disease completely - achieving herd immunity.

If someone refuses the vaccine because "sure I won't get that sick anyway", then they're saying that they don't care if anyone else gets sick either.

It's pure selfishness, up there with taking a sun holiday to Lanzarote in the middle of a pandemic. Mé féiners. While I will wholeheartedly support someone's right to refuse a vaccine, I won't be slow to exercise my right to tell them that they're a selfish prick.

*Even then, there is a certain amount of spread-limiting achieved with the 'flu vaccine, which is why it's a good idea

Virgil°

Gruffalux wrote: »

So far as is known to date all the people who are vaccinated can still transmit the virus in some (uncertain, to date) amount to people who cannot take vaccines.

The data isn't in yet because the vaccines are so new. But from what I've read just about every single one of the available vaccine curbs chance of infection to some degree.

Even if it were just an outside chance that it stops infection it would still be incredibly stupid and selfish to object given the virtually non existent risk profile.
Going a bit off topic here as this isn't the vaccine thread so i'll leave it there.

Gruffalux

Dear Google - does the covid vaccine prevent transmission....?
Gruffalux, dear, we just don't quite know yet.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-getting-the-covid-19-vaccine-stop-you-spreading-it-scientists-dont-know-yet-11610989882

https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2020/12/covid-19-vaccines-transmission.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/q-a-can-i-still-pass-covid-on-after-i-ve-been-vaccinated-1.4461158

This is one of the many big questions that scientists are currently working on. While the vaccines protect the person who is vaccinated against disease, we still don’t know if they stop that person transmitting the virus to someone else.

Dr Anne Moore is a senior lecturer in biochemistry and cell biology in UCC with extensive expertise in vaccines and their delivery systems. According to Moore, the primary objective of current Covid-19 vaccines was to prevent disease and, while studies are still ongoing as to whether they would have an impact on transmission, it was unlikely but not impossible.

“They might prevent transmission, it’s unlikely . . . looking at it from an immune perspective, if you inject something into a muscle and into the body, you generally don’t induce a good immune response in the mucosa, in your upper airways. So, if you don’t have an immune response in your your nose and your throat, then there’s a chance that you will still harbour that virus there and you can still transmit it to other people.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-transmission-idUSKBN29N1UH

Meanwhile, there is currently no conclusive evidence to claim the COVID-19 vaccine stops people spreading the virus that causes the disease – nor is there for the opposite. Early findings from Oxford/AstraZeneca revealed its vaccine could have some effect on transmitting the virus (here), while similar results have also been reported by Pfizer/BioNTech (here).

Scientists do not yet know whether COVID-19 vaccinations will reduce transmission because this was not tested in the trials (here, here). Instead, they found candidate vaccines were able to prevent symptomatic and severe effects of COVID-19 (here), meaning future research would need to take this further (here). For instance, it would need to look deeper into how the vaccine works in the body – whether it prevents an individual getting infected altogether, or whether it simply stops a person becoming sick. With the latter, this could mean the virus continues to replicate in the nose and throat, and is still able to spread (here).

As a result of this lack of information, governments and experts have openly stressed the need to follow social distancing and mask requirements even after being fully vaccinated (here, here, here).

The HorsesMouth

RTE: We are getting alot of slack about being to negative

RTE staff:Ok..how about we start reporting on the positive news regarding coronavirus?

RTE: No I have a better idea...lets do a segment on knock knock jokes on primetime drivetime radio.

Seriously...that is what's on RTE radio 1 now...

polesheep

Virgil° wrote: »

Because there are some people whom, for legitimate medical reasons cannot take certain vaccines. My father being one of them.

They rely instead on everyone around them to be vaccinated and or resistant to the disease. So far be it from ostracising or sneering, I will actively verbally lift these "people who have concerns" out of it. My direct family is put at risk by these clowns who take their info from facebook. I've absolutely zero tolerance for it.

It seems everyone has their own reasons for acting in their own self interest. Happy to say that I've never been on facebook.

wadacrack

El Sueño wrote: »

Your concerns are all well and good for the likes of the flu vaccine.

The flu doesn't shut down the entire planet though.

Therefore as many people as possible need to do their bit and take the covid vaccine.

Unless you're unable to take vaccines for medical reasons there's no excuse for not taking it.

Those that don't are nothing but selfish in my opinion.

Its reasonable for people to be concerned about this vaccine. Have to remember having reservations about it is not the same as refusing to take it. Needs to be more understanding around this topic rather than judgement.

Quantum Baloney

Virgil° wrote: »

Because there are some people whom, for legitimate medical reasons cannot take certain vaccines. My father being one of them.

Yes, but in fairness, the information available to the public around this issue is not first rate.

There is no clarity regarding efficacy against contagion for one. This lack of understanding regarding how well the vaccine works from the makers themselves will itself be off-putting for some people. If the scientists and boffins don't know something as fundamental as the broad extent to which your chances of getting the virus and passing it recede after inoculation, then what else don't they know people may ask.

All things considered, some people will be more cautious than others, and I think the problem we're facing now is that the whole issue has been politicised.

polesheep

seamus wrote: »

This is the key. Outside of the 'flu vaccination, vaccines are a group effort*. It's not just about you not getting sick, it's about stopping the transmission of the disease completely - achieving herd immunity.

If someone refuses the vaccine because "sure I won't get that sick anyway", then they're saying that they don't care if anyone else gets sick either.

It's pure selfishness, up there with taking a sun holiday to Lanzarote in the middle of a pandemic. Mé féiners. While I will wholeheartedly support someone's right to refuse a vaccine, I won't be slow to exercise my right to tell them that they're a selfish prick.

*Even then, there is a certain amount of spread-limiting achieved with the 'flu vaccine, which is why it's a good idea

You cannot know that, therefore it is just your own projection.

As for holidays; I went to a green list country last year and stayed within all the rules and advice, there was nothing selfish about it.

majcos

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

I don't understand people's insistence that everyone must take the vaccine. If everybody in the vulnerable categories who wants to take the vaccine is given the opportunity, and then this choice filters down to everyone else, surely it doesn't matter a great deal whether the minority that don't want it abstain.

Some people are uncomfortable with taking a vaccine with no long term studies, or a vaccine for which there still seems to be less than perfect clarity regarding sterilization. If you can still pass on the virus after having the vaccine then absolutely people should do their own risk assessment.

I would have thought that concerns like these would be very much within the normal range, hardly anything to sneer at or ostracise people over.

There is a possibility that those who are the most immunocompromised will not respond as well to the vaccine as stronger healthier people do as is the case with other vaccines. If healthy people take the vaccines, they are protecting those who do not respond and they are protecting those who cannot take the vaccine for a medical reason. It’s not just old and vulnerable people that are being admitted to hospital. The risks are far lower if younger and healthier but no-one is entirely protected from having a severe illness related to Covid.

The concern is that it will not be a small minority that will abstain. A poster mentioned earlier that 6/24 staff in a nursing home had declined to take it. That is very concerning especially among those who work in a high risk setting. The BAME population who are at higher risk have had a lower uptake in the UK than the Caucasian population based on misinformation that the vaccine can alter DNA or that it is not halal.

There is no scientific evidence that the vaccine affects fertility. To use the word sterilization is dramatic. 23 women became pregnant during the initial study. There was one poor pregnancy outcome but it was in the placebo group. At the moment there is more evidence that Covid itself affects fertility rather than the vaccine. There are no long term studies but there are never long term studies for new medications when they come to the market initially. If waited for long term studies, there would be no vaccine for decades. Early data suggests that the vaccine will reduce transmission.

I agree that it is not right to sneer or ostracize people who decide not to take the vaccine but I also think that people who turn it down on the basis of conspiracy theories and poor evidence without considering their responsibility to others are somewhat misguided and perhaps even selfish. I don’t think anyone should do their own risk assessment without having the proper facts and anyone who is concerned should have a discussion with their GP rather than basing their decision on reading what is posted on Facebook, etc.

polesheep

The HorsesMouth wrote: »

RTE: We are getting alot of slack about being to negative

RTE staff:Ok..how about we start reporting on the positive news regarding coronavirus?

RTE: No I have a better idea...lets do a segment on knock knock jokes on primetime drivetime radio.

Seriously...that is what's on RTE radio 1 now...

As I said earlier today, close them down and spend the money on vaccines.

Gruffalux

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

Yes, but in fairness, the information available to the public around this issue is not first rate.

There is no clarity regarding efficacy against contagion for one. This lack of understanding regarding how well the vaccine works from the makers themselves will itself be off-putting for some people. If the scientists and boffins don't know something as fundamental as that what else don't they know, people may ask.

All things considered, some people will be more cautious than others, and I think the problem we're facing now is that the whole issue has been politicised.

Personalised, more like. Calling ordinary people some version of mouth-breathing dregs is not political.

Deeper Blue

wadacrack wrote: »

Its reasonable for people to be concerned about this vaccine. Have to remember having reservations about it is not the same as refusing to take it. Needs to be more understanding around this topic rather than judgement.

The safety data is there, hence no excuse for not taking it. Simple as that.

Just my opinion though obviously

Mark1916

We’re getting the AstraZeneca vaccine a week earlier commencing on 8th Feb

https://www.newstalk.c...ned-donnelly-1142877

polesheep

majcos wrote: »

There is a possibility that those who are the most immunocompromised will not respond as well to the vaccine as stronger healthier people do as is the case with other vaccines. If healthy people take the vaccines, they are protecting those who do not respond and they are protecting those who cannot take the vaccine for a medical reason. It’s not just old and vulnerable people that are being admitted to hospital. The risks are far lower if younger and healthier but no-one is entirely protected from having a severe illness related to Covid.

The concern is that it will not be a small minority that will abstain. A poster mentioned earlier that 6/24 staff in a nursing home had declined to take it. That is very concerning especially among those who work in a high risk setting. The BAME population who are at higher risk have had a lower uptake in the UK than the Caucasian population based on misinformation that the vaccine can alter DNA or that it is not halal.

There is no scientific evidence that the vaccine affects fertility. To use the word sterilization is dramatic. 23 women became pregnant during the initial study. There was one poor pregnancy outcome but it was in the placebo group. At the moment there is more evidence that Covid itself affects fertility rather than the vaccine. There are no long term studies but there are never long term studies for new medications when they come to the market initially. If waited for long term studies, there would be no vaccine for decades. Early data suggests that the vaccine will reduce transmission.

I agree that it is not right to sneer or ostracize people who decide not to take the vaccine but I also think that people who turn it down on the basis of conspiracy theories and poor evidence without considering their responsibility to others are somewhat misguided and perhaps even selfish. I don’t think anyone should do their own risk assessment without having the proper facts and anyone who is concerned should have a discussion with their GP rather than basing their decision on reading what is posted on Facebook, etc.

Have you considered offering your services to the vaccine roll-out? You would certainly win over a lot more of the vaccine sceptics with your reasoned argument than the 'lock them up if they don't take the vaccine' cohort posting on here today.

is_that_so

El Sueño wrote: »

The safety data is there, hence no excuse for not taking it. Simple as that.

It's not that simple. People need to get to a point where they are comfortable with current data. I know a few who will wait to see more data for various reasons.

is_that_so

Mark1916 wrote: »

We’re getting the AstraZeneca vaccine a week earlier commencing on 8th Feb

https://www.newstalk.c...ned-donnelly-1142877

This is the proper link.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/ireland-to-receive-astrazeneca-vaccine-a-week-earlier-than-planned-donnelly-1142877