The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Alpha1 wrote:Why what's the problem.

If introduced anyone who chooses not to have the vaccine, for whatever reason, would effectively become a second class citizen and it would create yet another social divide and yet another way to erode freedom of choice as an individual.If taken to the extreme it would make anyone that chooses not to have it a social outcast.

What Snaperskaya just said...........not to mention those who might have some genetic/medical contraindication or intolerance of the vaccine, but I suppose they could be required to have "exempt" tattooed on their foreheads in large friendly letters......

Pete

shugie wrote:

Newsportshooter wrote:What if the vaccine does not give you immunity.... like some of the others, sometimes a person does not become immune - what will the WHO do then....

Even if it is 90% effective, that implies ten out of every hundred that are vaccinated and then exposed to the virus will become infected. Although in the Oxford trials, no one who became infected after vaccination had serious enough symptoms to need hospitalisation.

But how representative of those who have suffered more from covid was the study group? A virus where the average age of those that have died is in excess of the UK life expectancy, where becoming seriously ill is most likely going to be the result of other factors , where over 99% of those who catch it will recover quite happily thank you, and there will be many who’ve had it and didn’t even know.

I can understand the policies in the first few months when very little was known but now the course of action is just plain daft. We know who are vulnerable and how to shield them , we also know that the best way to avoid getting very ill is to be reasonably fit and healthy, people have had six months to make inroads in that department.

Far more will die as a result of an effectively closed nhs.

As for the vaccines, made in a hurry , in a new way, to be given to people who would otherwise deal with catching the virus anyway. Why is it not targetted the same way the annual flu jab is? I don’t agree with the conspiracy theorists but its not hard for them to make up stuff that sounds plausible.

artiglio wrote: we also know that the best way to avoid getting very ill is to be reasonably fit and healthy, people have had six months to make inroads in that department.

While that will help if exposed to a small viral load, it won't stop you getting very ill if you don't. The best way to avoid getting very ill is to avoid getting exposed to a high viral load, no matter how fit and healthy you are, and that means keeping your distance from other people and observing hand washing and surface cleaning etc.
The husband of one of my cousins, was a fit marathon runner, no underlying health issues, but working for London Underground on the Northern Line prior to the first lockdown, he was exposed to a high viral load from joe public in a short space of time, and was in a bad way by end of April, and is still very poorly with long Covid, and has organ damage. He will likely not be able to return to work, or ever run a marathon again.

Just continuing from what GeeRam posted.

I was talking to one of the local nurses getting my flu jab, she told me that the point of a vaccine, any vaccine, is that, whichever virus is floating around at the time, if caught, then having had the vaccine the result will be less serious.
In other words one will be less ill.

So yes, the higher virus load one is surrounded by the more ill one will get without a vaccine.
Regardless of fitness, health, weight, age etc.

It seems to me that it is a bit of a lottery who walks away clean, who ends up having long C-19 and who dies.

I am thinking there is a genetic reason as well to the above.

I'm staggered that anyone is taking the stand point of "it probably won't affect me so why should I have to go to the effort of protecting others..."

Christel wrote: I was talking to one of the local nurses getting my flu jab, she told me that the point of a vaccine, any vaccine, is that, whichever virus is floating around at the time, if caught, then having had the vaccine the result will be less serious.
In other words one will be less ill.
.

You're absolutely right, but taking it further. If one is less ill, and fights the infection quicker, then they expose less people during their infectious period. I.e. the virus slows down. If there is enough of this protection available then the virus slows sufficiently that the "R number" drops below 1 and therefore the number of people infected reduces to eventually "zero".

Pippin89 wrote:I'm staggered that anyone is taking the stand point of "it probably won't affect me so why should I have to go to the effort of protecting others..."

Mentality of a large proportion of the British public these days. It happens in other areas - "why should I object to Heathrow runway 3 - i live far enough away to not be affected and it will make going on holiday easier" OR "why should I object to restrictions on rifles, I only shoot an air pistol" OR "that is not my gran who has fallen over, I'll walk on the other side" OR ...

It is always about self and not the common good.

The sooner a card system is intriduced the better. If people are medically exempt, they can cary a card that says that too. Non need for any dramas. People who refuse to be vaccinated are, in my opinion, second class citizens.....they clearly care little for their fellow human beings.

On a slippery slope when things like vaccines are made mandatory.......just sayin'

Plecotus wrote:The sooner a card system is intriduced the better. If people are medically exempt, they can cary a card that says that too.

Maybe 'em could ring a bell, chant "Unclean" and perhaps wear a ikkle badge too...