[Brighton] New Churchill Square vaccination centre opens today....and closes due to protesters

[daveinprague]

Global chipping and glowing arms are probably bs- but I worry that the anti-vaxer smear is used against anyone with misgivings about the efficacy or safety of the vaccines on scientific grounds not because of what is percieved as wacky far out notions. Also, the problem for people who suffer from auto immune disease, or who are unable to take the vaccines for other reasons, including ethical ones, is that as the trials are not complete medical advice could differ between one medical professional and another as the research simply has not been done yet so they want to wait until the full data is in. Meanwhile with vaccine passports being mandated they become excluded from activities that they once previously enjoyed - e.g. football.

To utilise a Potter saying..it is what it is. I've only just had 1st jab yesterday. I believe covid is a thing but have had no symptoms whatsoever. There's no conspiracy in my eyes, just the world doing its best against something they don't understand fully. That said, I want to get on with my life, life at 66 that's perceptibly running out
I've no problem with people not wanting the vaccines, but if you want life to return to normal, until the next pandemic of whatever, it's going to be a thing. I do have a problem with people who want to stop other people taking it with little knowledge, or knowledge gleaned from FB and the like.

 

[HitchinSeagull]

Delta Airways said staff who don't want vaccinations need to pay $200 dollars insurance extra a month due to additional risks on the company medical insurance. Maybe we should charge the non vaccinated for medical treatment related to covid. Why should any one have to foot the bill for morons.

Sent from my EVR-N29 using Tapatalk

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Global chipping and glowing arms are probably bs- but I worry that the anti-vaxer smear is used against anyone with misgivings about the efficacy or safety of the vaccines on scientific grounds not because of what is percieved as wacky far out notions. Also, the problem for people who suffer from auto immune disease, or who are unable to take the vaccines for other reasons, including ethical ones, is that as the trials are not complete medical advice could differ between one medical professional and another as the research simply has not been done yet so they want to wait until the full data is in. Meanwhile with vaccine passports being mandated they become excluded from activities that they once previously enjoyed - e.g. football.

Given yourself away there

 

[Matt Penfold]

Delta Airways said staff who don't want vaccinations need to pay $200 dollars insurance extra a month due to additional risks on the company medical insurance. Maybe we should charge the non vaccinated for medical treatment related to covid. Why should any one have to foot the bill for morons.

Sent from my EVR-N29 using Tapatalk

There are problems with charging people like that, but if there are not enough ICU beds it is not unethical to prioritise on how likely a patient is going to be to be compliant with treatment. If a patient chose not to be vaccinated that can, and I think should, be taken as evidence of likely non-compliance.

 

[BenGarfield]

Yes, that is all bullshit as well. There have been numerous posts on here from knowledgeable posters about the rigours of the trials and the licensing hurdles gone through. I am not going to repeat as it is all available for you to research. Of course undermining all of this is a part of the anti vaxxer strategy as is ignoring answers to questions such as this and indeed the science itself. Is that the reason for your question?

Really?, in which case the document issued by the NHS to health professionals who are to administer the vaccines is also bullshit. Here is a quote from it and the direct link to the .gov website for you to inspect:-

https://assets.publishing.service.g...d-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-reg174-gbs-clean.pdf

REG 174 INFORMATION FOR UK HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS


Paediatric population
The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in children under 12 years of age
have not yet been established.

4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction

No interaction studies have been performed.

Concomitant administration of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca with other vaccines has not been
studied (see section 5.1).

4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation

Pregnancy
7 Ref:SPC BNT162 UK 13_0
There is limited experience with use of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnant
women. Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy,
embryo/foetal development, parturition or post-natal development (see section 5.3). Administration of
the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential
benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and foetus.

Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk.

 

[BenGarfield]

Given yourself away there

What do you mean by that?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Really?, in which case the document issued by the NHS to health professionals who are to administer the vaccines is also bullshit. Here is a quote from it and the direct link to the .gov website for you to inspect:-

https://assets.publishing.service.g...d-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-reg174-gbs-clean.pdf

REG 174 INFORMATION FOR UK HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS


Paediatric population
The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in children under 12 years of age
have not yet been established.

4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction

No interaction studies have been performed.

Concomitant administration of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca with other vaccines has not been
studied (see section 5.1).

4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation

Pregnancy
7 Ref:SPC BNT162 UK 13_0
There is limited experience with use of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnant
women. Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy,
embryo/foetal development, parturition or post-natal development (see section 5.3). Administration of
the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential
benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and foetus.

Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk.

I am going to refer this to in house experts [MENTION=33374]Audax[/MENTION] and [MENTION=2095]Commander[/MENTION] as they have considerable knowledge in this field. They are also pretty good at countering the misinformation campaign.
For my own part I would suggest with regard to pregnant women the relevant part of your quote is the part I have bolded. It is like anything; the pregnant woman weighs up the risk and ask herself what are the risks to her and the baby of the alternative ie catching Covid. There has been much talk about blood clots from the vaccine but in fact the risk has been shown to be smaller than from taking the contraceptive pill. Would you advocate banning this as well ? For my own part I have had a severe stroke (last year) and am susceptible to further strokes. I weighed up the stroke risk from the vaccine and the same from Covid itself. I took the vaccine. When people like yourself post on the internet you only ever mention the risks of taking the vaccine and never weigh it up with not doing so. It is ironic that you choose a thread about weird anti vaxx protesters to have another go at your disinformation campaign.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

What do you mean by that?

You said that global chipping and glowing arms are ‘probably’ bullshit
You don’t think such weirdness is unambiguously bullshit ?

 

[Nixonator]

Global chipping and glowing arms are probably bs

Fair play to you for (semi) conceding on those, their accuracy had us all wondering

 

[rippleman]

Global chipping and glowing arms are probably bs- but I worry that the anti-vaxer smear is used against anyone with misgivings about the efficacy or safety of the vaccines on scientific grounds not because of what is percieved as wacky far out notions. Also, the problem for people who suffer from auto immune disease, or who are unable to take the vaccines for other reasons, including ethical ones, is that as the trials are not complete medical advice could differ between one medical professional and another as the research simply has not been done yet so they want to wait until the full data is in. Meanwhile with vaccine passports being mandated they become excluded from activities that they once previously enjoyed - e.g. football.

If the vaccine was really as dangerous as you anti-vaxxers believe don't you think we would be seeing millions of deaths across the globe given that more than 5 BILLION doses have been administered? Well?

There is no (sane) ethical reason for rejecting the vaccine. For a few there may be a medical reason.

Are you really unable to understand how many lives the vaccine has already saved? How many millions are you happy to let die before you are finally satisfied that "the full data is in"?

There's dumb....then there's dumber.

 

[BenGarfield]

Many of the so called anti-vaxers are not anti every vaccine, and quitre happily take well established jabs for flu, tetanus etc, but have a particular problem with this novel trial of the MRNA vaccine, and have not based their views purely on face book but by reading basic government sourced data and medical journals. Some "anti-vaxers" dont oppose vaccines for the vulnerable groups - e.g. the over 70s, but have serious misgivings as to the efficacy or morality of giving MRNA -based vaccines to groups of people for whom the advantage is minimal ,or the risks from side effects are greater than catching the virus. Some of these people are world leading scientists and medical practioners - e.g Professors Carl Heneghan and Guptra of Oxford university, and the hundreds of scientists, medical professionals, and academics in the field of virology and public health who are signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration

Also are you saying that people should have no right to protest? I dont like the BNP, but I wouldnt prevent them holding a protest which stays peaceful and breaks no other laws.

 

[rippleman]

Delta Airways said staff who don't want vaccinations need to pay $200 dollars insurance extra a month due to additional risks on the company medical insurance. Maybe we should charge the non vaccinated for medical treatment related to covid. Why should any one have to foot the bill for morons.

Sent from my EVR-N29 using Tapatalk

yup - no argument from me

 

[rippleman]

Many of the so called anti-vaxers are not anti every vaccine, and quitre happily take well established jabs for flu, tetanus etc, but have a particular problem with this novel trial of the MRNA vaccine, and have not based their views purely on face book but by reading basic government sourced data and medical journals. Some "anti-vaxers" dont oppose vaccines for the vulnerable groups - e.g. the over 70s, but have serious misgivings as to the efficacy or morality of giving MRNA -based vaccines to groups of people for whom the advantage is minimal ,or the risks from side effects are greater than catching the virus. Some of these people are world leading scientists and medical practioners - e.g Professors Carl Heneghan and Guptra of Oxford university, and the hundreds of scientists, medical professionals, and academics in the field of virology and public health who are signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration

Also are you saying that people should have no right to protest? I dont like the BNP, but I wouldnt prevent them holding a protest which stays peaceful and breaks no other laws.

You can protest. You have every right to protest.

What you do NOT have the right to do is threaten and intimidate those wanting to get their jab, and promote lies and misinformation in order to try to dissaude them. As you don't object to protests, you won't be surprised that I, and others like-minded, will be turning up to protest against you the next time your mob of loonies pulls a stunt like that one in Brighton at the weekend.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Global chipping and glowing arms are probably bs- but I worry that the anti-vaxer smear is used against anyone with misgivings about the efficacy or safety of the vaccines on scientific grounds not because of what is percieved as wacky far out notions. Also, the problem for people who suffer from auto immune disease, or who are unable to take the vaccines for other reasons, including ethical ones, is that as the trials are not complete medical advice could differ between one medical professional and another as the research simply has not been done yet so they want to wait until the full data is in. Meanwhile with vaccine passports being mandated they become excluded from activities that they once previously enjoyed - e.g. football.

I have an autoimmune disease but had both vaccines without any problems. In fact, I'm pleased to have had the vaccine so that it's one less thing to worry about.
As for pregnant women, they are only pregnant for nine months, so as soon as the pregnancy is over, they can get jabbed.

 

[BenGarfield]

If the vaccine was really as dangerous as you anti-vaxxers believe don't you think we would be seeing millions of deaths across the globe given that more than 5 BILLION doses have been administered? Well?

There is no (sane) ethical reason for rejecting the vaccine. For a few there may be a medical reason.

Are you really unable to understand how many lives the vaccine has already saved? How many millions are you happy to let die before you are finally satisfied that "the full data is in"?

There's dumb....then there's dumber.

As far as ethical reasons are concerned - some may have religious reasons for not taking the vaccine, many regard giving the vaccine to children as unethical as there have been virtually zero cases of covid in this age group, and not trials have been undertaken in this age group. Indeed, for this reason, the governments own advice does not recommend doing so. Re the full data- this is the normal process for the clinical trials of vaccines. Are you recommending that in future for all new medical interventions, all phase 3 (long-term) trials should be abandoned and that only phase 2 trials should be used before releasing them for wider use? Wouldnt that be rather risky?

 

[Matt Penfold]

I have an autoimmune disease but had both vaccines without any problems. In fact, I'm pleased to have had the vaccine so that it's one less thing to worry about.
As for pregnant women, they are only pregnant for nine months, so as soon as the pregnancy is over, they can get jabbed.

A large number of health organisations, such as the NHS and the CDC are recommending pregnant women get the Pfizer vaccine as it is been shown to be safe during pregnancy, and Covid presents a serious risk to pregnant women, with a greatly increased risk of serious harming to them or the fetus if they get Covid.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Many of the so called anti-vaxers are not anti every vaccine, and quitre happily take well established jabs for flu, tetanus etc, but have a particular problem with this novel trial of the MRNA vaccine, and have not based their views purely on face book but by reading basic government sourced data and medical journals. Some "anti-vaxers" dont oppose vaccines for the vulnerable groups - e.g. the over 70s, but have serious misgivings as to the efficacy or morality of giving MRNA -based vaccines to groups of people for whom the advantage is minimal ,or the risks from side effects are greater than catching the virus. Some of these people are world leading scientists and medical practioners - e.g Professors Carl Heneghan and Guptra of Oxford university, and the hundreds of scientists, medical professionals, and academics in the field of virology and public health who are signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration

Also are you saying that people should have no right to protest? I dont like the BNP, but I wouldnt prevent them holding a protest which stays peaceful and breaks no other laws.

Ah yes, the survival of the fittest approach. Actually it’s not even that because of hidden health problems that become a risk with Covid and of course no mention in this Great Barrington thing of Long Covid. This approach also requires complete shielding of the vulnerable. Practical, do you think ? Of course not. You just don’t give a damn about them.

 

[Nixonator]

Many of the so called anti-vaxers are not anti every vaccine, and quitre happily take well established jabs for flu, tetanus etc, but have a particular problem with this novel trial of the MRNA vaccine, and have not based their views purely on face book but by reading basic government sourced data and medical journals. Some "anti-vaxers" dont oppose vaccines for the vulnerable groups - e.g. the over 70s, but have serious misgivings as to the efficacy or morality of giving MRNA -based vaccines to groups of people for whom the advantage is minimal ,or the risks from side effects are greater than catching the virus. Some of these people are world leading scientists and medical practioners - e.g Professors Carl Heneghan and Guptra of Oxford university, and the hundreds of scientists, medical professionals, and academics in the field of virology and public health who are signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration

Could you cite some of these medical journals by leading scientists please.

Also are you saying that people should have no right to protest? I dont like the BNP, but I wouldnt prevent them holding a protest which stays peaceful and breaks no other laws.

Not if they're going to throw smoke bombs in and make the vaccination centre close down, no. Also I'm afraid to say that many of these people don't easily take no for an answer, and are capable of creating a soundboard of mad yet semi-believable responses if said with enough conviction that could deter, maybe even scare impressionable kids away from taking one of the safest and most tested vaccines ever created.

 

[Matt Penfold]

As far as ethical reasons are concerned - some may have religious reasons for not taking the vaccine, many regard giving the vaccine to children as unethical as there have been virtually zero cases of covid in this age group, and not trials have been undertaken in this age group. Indeed, for this reason, the governments own advice does not recommend doing so. Re the full data- this is the normal process for the clinical trials of vaccines. Are you recommending that in future for all new medical interventions, all phase 3 (long-term) trials should be abandoned and that only phase 2 trials should be used before releasing them for wider use? Wouldnt that be rather risky?

There have been trials conducted using the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in 12-18 year olds, and the vaccines have proven to be safe and effective. There are currently stage III trials underway in younger children.

Objecting to a vaccine on religious grounds has nothing to do with the ethics of the vaccines in question.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

A large number of health organisations, such as the NHS and the CDC are recommending pregnant women get the Pfizer vaccine as it is been shown to be safe during pregnancy, and Covid presents a serious risk to pregnant women, with a greatly increased risk of serious harming to them or the fetus if they get Covid.

I haven't kept up with the latest advice for pregnancy as I am way too old for that. Interesting spelling of foetus.