If only someone had thought of this.

it massively restricts the chance of death or severe illness ( much as the flu vaccine does), therefore hopefully allowing the NHS to work on other stuff.

 

No.

https://www.immune.org.nz/vaccines/efficiency-effectiveness

 

You've misunderstood the argument.

No vaccine is 100% effective in that it gives immunity to all people. But for it to be called a vaccine it has to give immunity to some. The higher the proportion, the better the efficacy. Pfizer claimed this vaccine had a 95% efficacy. That would mean it provided immunity (not reduced symptoms, immunity) for 95 people in every 100. For the other 5 people in every hundred then it may result in reduced symptoms if they contract the virus or it may have no discernible effect. But if it's a vaccine then it gives immunity to a percentage of those to whom it is administered. If it doesn't, it's not a vaccine.

 

You fundamentally don't understand the concept of a vaccine. A vaccine increases the body's ability to fight infection by essentially giving it practice in fighting the disease.

Those who are "immune" will still get the disease. Their bodies should simply be better equipped to fight it off, and they will display no symptoms. The outlying 5% may still show symptoms, but they should experience milder symptoms as their body has had practice fighting off the virus. Some won't, and may even die.

To say the vaccines aren't vaccines is ridiculous.

 

Good factual post this.

 

Been on news that if you've had it your 85 per cent immune. I thought imunity only lasted a few months? Somebodies telling lies.

The more I see and read the more I think an inept Tory government are keeping us under house arrest.

It's far fetched but even "the science" has become so contradictory.

I can't hand out fabric anti bacterial face masks previously ok'd for staff and public use now.

Why are millions of pounds worth of face masks from Viet Nam being skipped in favour of surgical masks now when we knew in the profession people needed surgical masks back in March?

 

Everything in this is incorrect

 

I don't know how you've got the cheek to say this. That isn't what you were asking for at all. You just wanted to lock the vulnerable up, at no point was vaccinating them part of your plan. So no...nowhere near word for word.

 

Technically, if you hand out a facemask and that party wears it and has a reaction you maybe liable. . .

 

Good job I rub m' round my ******** first then!

 

Sandman, sandman!

 

"Control" for what ends?

 

Exactly. I would say we are pretty much controlled in this country anyway, the ruling elite tend to carry on regardless.

 

I mean in relation to covid

 

Well they'll have to try harder, Leeds has run out of ICU beds

 

Whereas lockdown supporters want to lock EVERYONE up. Yes, definitely a better strategy. Lockdowns have failed. There’s no evidence to prove they’ve saved a single life. We literally could not have done worse.

Meanwhile, we’d still have a vaccine. So those people who’ve had to shield would have been unaffected - they’d have had to shield till now under either scenario.

 

Did you want gentrified concentration camps? Don't remember you suggesting this. I thought you wanted to protect more vulnerable people. Is what they're saying true or are they just like making it up?

 

I think they’re all well aware of exactly what we were asking for Jay, and they don’t like it that the lockdowns they tried to twist to be the ethical and moral thing to do have been a total and utter unmitigated disaster. They got their way and it was the second biggest **** up ever witnessed in Britain after Keith Hill trying to manage a football team.

 

I’ve still never had an answer beyond SuperTyke’s silly idea to turn the Nightingale hospitals into concentration camps. How do you shield the most vulnerable long term and ensure they get the care and supplies they need?

 

This isn’t right.

It’s an example of equating “no evidence it reduces transmission” with “it does not reduce transmission”. It’s the same reason people got their knickers in a twist about delaying the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

It just wasn’t tested as part of the clinical trials. The clinical trials simply tested whether vaccinated people suffered from the disease. It would have been pretty much impossible to test whether they transmit less without challenge trials, where they purposely infect patients with the virus and put them in contact with unvaccinated patients.

In reality, the expectation is that the vaccine will reduce transmission. The antibody and T-cell response stimulated by the vaccine will help neutralise cells that become infected, meaning the virus cannot replicate within them and go on to infect other cells. Given the greater a persons viral load (I.e. the amount of virus in their body) the greater their infectivity, a vaccine that reduces the virus’s ability to replicate should reduce transmission. They just haven’t been able to test the hypothesis yet.

The fact a large majority think it doesn’t reduce transmission is probably a good thing though, because we can’t let the vaccinated roam free until it’s proven. There’s work being undertaken on this currently.