If this doesn't worry you nothing will

The vaccine poses more risk than it has benefits? You really need to show me the data on that one.

It may have been 26th (again, I would like to see that data) on the cause of death list, but it's a preventable illness if everyone uses their brains.

Sage have been rightly taking a cautious approach when it comes to their predictions, when you're dealing with peoples lives I think that's the best course of action.

And "peddling rhetoric"? I've been quoting the Johns Hopkins University and the CDC. Hardly untrustworthy institutions when it comes to disease control.

 

Again with the "more risks" claim. Where does this come from? The number of serious side effects reported amongst all age groups is microscopically small, you've got more chance of dying from covid than you do from the vaccine and you keep banging on about how insignificant the covid death rate is...

 

More "rhetoric" for you

Latest modelling suggests that COVID-19 vaccines have prevented 7.2m infections and 27,000 deaths.

http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/blog/l...e-prevented-7-2m-infections-and-27000-deaths/

 

In Australia, like in many other countries the astrazenica vaccine wasn't given to those under 60 as the risk outweighed the reward. In England we have routinely ignored the international standards and given the AZ vaccine to 30 year olds. We originally gave it to anyone until we too realised that it wasn't safe for young people.

Now Australian politicians are wanting to lower their cut off age for the AZ vaccine and the medical advisors are arguing against doing so based on public safety. The president of the Australian medial association says that the risk outweighs the reward and it's dangerous to lower the age, as does Queensland's chief health officer.
The Australian Technical advisory group for immunisation object to the use of the astrazenica vaccine in under 60s due to the risk associated with it. They have however been put under pressure from politicians to change their advice and to rule it safe based on nothing but the fact that Australia has a lot of spare astrazenica vaccinations and a desire to use them up. Under political pressure I believe they have now reluctantly backed the idea.


I have no idea of the safety of each individual vaccine but what I can say with certainty is that with so many experts split on their safety and the risk versus reward it's completely wrong to A. ridicule anyone who doesn't believe they are safe and B. Enforce vaccinations via threats to remove freedoms.

 

Hasn’t it been 40 and over since before 30s were called up?

 

I'm under 40 and was given the AZ vaccine (wasn't given an option) in March

 

I can say I'm a dancing dog named Brian, it doesn't necessarily make it true.

Again, I'm looking for real evidence that any of the vaccines are more deadly than Covid for any age bracket.

 

Did you get it before your age group was called up? It was already pulled by the time I was called up. I could have got one early through school but I wasn’t sure how I felt about that morally and I had a feeling they were going to put the minimum age back based on other countries.

Edit: just saw Loko’s reply and remembered that people in different vulnerability groups would have got it sooner although I guess that would change the risk/benefit ratio if they are particularly vulnerable to Covid.

 

If someone was in a high risk group there’s still a very good chance that it was less risky to get the vaccine than not. I was offered an early one but it was at the time when it was being reported that having AZ was a tiny bit riskier than not having it and I had a feeling it was going to get pushed back. I also didn’t want to queue jump so decided to wait. I’ve since had Moderna.

 

Yes I got it earlier than I should have because they were going spare and I got a call at 7pm asking me to rush over for one. When I was told how many they were throwing in the bin as soon as I'd finished it made me feel less guilty about having it then. I wasn't told it was AZ until after I'd had it.

 

I said the other day that proof of negative test should be enough.

 

I don’t think that people are replying thinking that you are an anti-vaxer. Just that people are replying with their ‘facts’ that they have read, trying to neutralise your ‘facts’ that you have read, each person believing theirs to be the one that is most correct.
Effectively, what is happening, here, is that a bloke from Australia, a woman from China and a person from Peru are arguing with each other on a football bulletin board in a small town in the North of England, and they don’t even know about it.
Reminds me of when Derren Brown took on the worlds greatest chess players without them even realising they were playing each other through him.

 

Thanks for this.

Maybe "banging on" was a poor choice, similar to your use of "rhetoric".

 

On the Covid passport:

I think venues need to be free to accept or not. (I'm thinking late bars / clubs, etc). Some that cater for older crowds might take it on. Most bars & clubs aimed at the young, this would be the final straw for their business.

I can understand another country wanting proof of vaccination for entry without quarantine, so some merit to that.

I fear it may be used in draconian ways, like others, but need to see the detail.

I can't see how this is implemented at football grounds, with loads of young kids attending, who are not vaccinated.

PS

I started watching at 10 & was hooked. We need the youngsters at the ground. How do they prove they are too young to get the vaccine?