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

I'm a scientist - a Chartered Biologist. I'd take the vaccine in a moment. Not because of anything that asshole Johnson amd his corrupt government tell me but because I have faith in the vigourous, scientific process that led to the vaccine's development.

Les wrote:I have no problem with being vaccinated, but the Pfizer vaccine sounds very fragile. The temperature/storage/refrigeration requirements don't fill me with enough confidence to think that it's viable. I'll wait for the home-grown vaccine.

The Ebola vaccine has the same temperature requirements and they seem to manage in Africa.

I'll have it just as soon as I'm offered.

I don't see any way out of the current situation other than a mass vaccination program which means buy-in from a significant proportion of the population. And that means me.

The virus is now endemic. People who don't have the vaccine are taking significant chance of catching Corvid and rolling the dice on the outcome. Those who do are putting their faith in the scientists who developed the vaccine and the regulators who approved it. There's risk either way, but it's a no-brainer to me.

Triffid

channel12 wrote:

Les wrote:I have no problem with being vaccinated, but the Pfizer vaccine sounds very fragile. The temperature/storage/refrigeration requirements don't fill me with enough confidence to think that it's viable. I'll wait for the home-grown vaccine.

The Ebola vaccine has the same temperature requirements and they seem to manage in Africa.

The Africans can have my share.

"Blackstuff"]Given that the Independent (i know) is reporting that the UK government has granted Pfizer immunity from any legal action relating to their vaccine I won't be touching it with a ten foot pole for at least a year.

If true then that is just the sort of boris the bastard interference and political interference I am worried about, the speedy introduction of the vaccine seems to me more of a political than a clinical expedient, all boris wants at the moment is his back benchers of his back and a vaccine headline regardless of its efficacy is all that boris the bastards wants, 'twill give him breathing space for a week or so.

If Pfzer want legal immunity then that tells me that they aren't all that confident in their own product.

How about a good old fashioned British compromise, oomans? You could even call it a scientific study with a control group if you like. There's even a precedent for it, DEFRA approved, that we have first paw experience of ! Here's the test protocol.

1. Those who want it can take the vaccine.
2. Those who don't want the vaccine, we'll cull.
3. We'll monitor the two groups and see where the virus spreads most.
4. If the vaccine works, we'll cull any remaining oomans who won't take it.
5. If the vaccine doesn't work, we'll widen the cull.

*Scurries away to order 60 million doses of 7.62x54R, packed in spam tins wrapped in nice warm wooden crates of course*

meles meles wrote:How about a good old fashioned British compromise, oomans? You could even call it a scientific study with a control group if you like. There's even a precedent for it, DEFRA approved, that we have first paw experience of ! Here's the test protocol.

1. Those who want it can take the vaccine.
2. Those who don't want the vaccine, we'll cull.
3. We'll monitor the two groups and see where the virus spreads most.
4. If the vaccine works, we'll cull any remaining oomans who won't take it.
5. If the vaccine doesn't work, we'll widen the cull.

*Scurries away to order 60 million doses of 7.62x54R, packed in spam tins wrapped in nice warm wooden crates of course*

The simpler solution is to isolate people who haven't had the vaccine. That may happen if there is a ban on public places for people without the vaccine. No pubs, restaurants, supermarkets, shops, flights. As well as no visitors to your home. This may well happen with airlines and pub chains already stating they will make this their policy. Its scientifically proven that identifying infectious people and isolating them is the quickest way to stamp out a virus. Expanding that to anyone potentially able to be infectious would have the same effect.

Christel wrote:Pippin89,

I am shielding, leaves no way in for the virus. Been like this since is all started.

I do agree with your post though - which would apply to people who are not shielding.

About the three months...does that mean in reality we need injecting every three months as long as the virus is here which I believe it will be?

You would be surprised at how little contact it takes. Postman dropping a letter through the door, grocery delivery etc. Possible ways for you to get it AND possible ways for you to pass it on to others.

The virus will die off VERY quickly if it is left no where to go. 3 months is more than enough given the incubation period is just 10 days. Anything left after that will be small outbreaks which will be much easier to catch early and stamp out before it gets going now we know what we are looking for.

Think of it like a forest fire. If you run ahead and burn away what's there in a controlled way (i.e. the vaccine) then you can stop the fire from spreading further. If you leave gaps in the stuff you have burnt away you leave a route through for the fire. If there are enough of these gaps it will catch on again and get out of control as it was in the first place. If there are few enough gaps (i.e. the immunocompromised etc.) then anything that gets through can be caught and put out before it catches and gets out of control again, especially as you are already there with a hose and looking for fire.

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who hasn't been vaccinated should be subject to house arrest, irrespective of whether they are infected or not?
Given the speed with which the coronavirus can evolve (also "scientifically proven"..........), and the likely rapid decline of immunity within a few months of vaccination, it's unlikely that it would have any effect whatsoever.........apart from the resulting civil unrest.........

Pete

Pippin89 wrote:

meles meles wrote:How about a good old fashioned British compromise, oomans? You could even call it a scientific study with a control group if you like. There's even a precedent for it, DEFRA approved, that we have first paw experience of ! Here's the test protocol.

1. Those who want it can take the vaccine.
2. Those who don't want the vaccine, we'll cull.
3. We'll monitor the two groups and see where the virus spreads most.
4. If the vaccine works, we'll cull any remaining oomans who won't take it.
5. If the vaccine doesn't work, we'll widen the cull.

*Scurries away to order 60 million doses of 7.62x54R, packed in spam tins wrapped in nice warm wooden crates of course*

The simpler solution is to isolate people who haven't had the vaccine. That may happen if there is a ban on public places for people without the vaccine. No pubs, restaurants, supermarkets, shops, flights. As well as no visitors to your home. This may well happen with airlines and pub chains already stating they will make this their policy. Its scientifically proven that identifying infectious people and isolating them is the quickest way to stamp out a virus. Expanding that to anyone potentially able to be infectious would have the same effect.

Have you gone completely off your rocker or what?

Whatever happened to freedom of choice?

LL