Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Tooooks, Mar 15, 2020.
Sounds like you have made your mind up. Best of luck.
Merkins seem to ignore the economical and social benefits of a society who are able to return back to work and not get sick. Productivity returns to normal. Economic growth back to where it should be. Consumer confidence blossoms.
Meanwhile there are a cohort who are more focused on themselves. The same people who are vaccine hesitant are mostly also lockdown haters. Irony ++.
What? I thought young people were hip.
Right, so they don't reduce transmission of the virus, which was my original statement. And without that there is no argument to force it on anyone.
Why would you want people going to work if they're infected?
Ive never had a flu shot. In 20 yrs had a flu once.
I know friends who have it every year. And they still had flu more often then me.
Mik reckons worse flu had was after had a flu shot. Knocked him for 6.
The anti vaxxers have been vocal enough and I think their views will be taken on board.
As @Bandwagon said the risks and views will be weighed up and we’ll arrive at something fairly balanced.
And predictably the small percentage that complain will be the ones that see it as a black and white issue. Some will complain it is forcing vaccines on people and others will complain it isn’t forceful enough.
The majority of sensible people in the middle will just get on with their lives.
My point is using the claim they don’t reduce transmission is a misnomer. They “reduce transmission” because less people get sick.
Without vaccinations, more people get sick.
Does everyone agree that less people get sick or is that still being debated?
The vaccines are not supposed to prevent transmission, my understanding is that once some one has had the vaccine, it lessens their risk of getting sick, or worse
The idea of the vaccines is to achieve herd immunity and eventually eradication if possible, which may be difficult with this virus as it now has multiple strains, much like the flu
The Astra Zeneca Vaccine doesn't sound too promising.
Dr Swan said that the "multiple strains" does not make any vaccine less effective. The UK and SA strains are just more contagious.
He also said that they would give the less at risk the AZ vaccine (which is actually safest) and the Pfizer and Moderna which has a 95% efficacy to the most at risk. We are manufacturing the AZ vaccine here and already have 25 million doses.
why is it the safest if its only 62% effective ?
the others are in the 90s
AZ claimed it was 90% .... why now only 62%?
the 90 was when they did a boo-boo with a half dose first ... but why don't they go with that? ... did they figure out 90% wasnt true?
Safest - expect zero side effects. RACGP say that for regular punters, 70% is a good number. The regular flu vaccines released each year have a lower efficacy rate.
It also does not need to be kept at sub zero temperatures.
'safest' refers to side-effects I would presume.
They might. But they don't know whether that 90% efficacy was due to the different dosing or just random variation across the testing groups. The average efficacy across the 4 groups (including the one that got 90%) was 70%.
I’ll only get vaccinated when it’s 100%, no side effects and I get a superpower of my choosing
X-ray vision is taken, merkin.
Time travel mofo!
Imagine being that idiot who wished for a never ending packet of tim tams.
Super power opportunity wasted right there.
Separate names with a comma.