Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Drinking] Which pub would you choose?
- Thread starter R. Slicker
- Start date
In my short time on here i have noted you have a distinctive way with words that fits your new avatar , bloody brilliant always have a laugh
I try so hard to be nice
Creaky
Well-known member
Err....yes it will.
Only for 4 out of 5 people who are vaccinated
Only?
When you factor in the unfortunate who already had Covid when vaccinated, or got it in the 5 days before the immunization kicked it...that makes (hang on....let me....yes! 5 out of 5! Or near as dammit.
FFS.
Don't have the vaccination, then. You never know, it may not save your life
Justice
Dangerous Idiot
The proof of your vaccine is linked to your medical records
Creaky
Well-known member
Only?
When you factor in the unfortunate who already had Covid when vaccinated, or got it in the 5 days before the immunization kicked it...that makes (hang on....let me....yes! 5 out of 5! Or near as dammit.
FFS.
Don't have the vaccination, then. You never know, it may not save your life
I've been vaccinated and would urge everyone who can to also get the vaccination.
however I'm not stupid enough to believe that having had the vaccination I'm now invulnerable to Covid - I'm NOT.
Not only may I still contract Covid, I may pass it on to others. The vaccination is very effective but not 100%.
Neville's Breakfast
Well-known member
Err....yes it will.
Afraid not. It merely protects you from the worst of symptoms that would otherwise put you in hospital. You can still catch and transmit Covid after vaccination.
Your original statement was 'being vaccinated won't protect you against Covid'. If the vaccine worked (i.e., you are 'vaccinated', then you won't contract covid or pass it on. That is a fact.
The reality is it is much more likely that you are vaccinated (immune and not a spreader) after getting the jab than surviving in a car crash when wearing a seatbelt.
I have heard people spreading lies on national radio saying 'there is no point getting vaccinated because it doesn't protect you'. And 'there may be side effects we don't know about'.
Nobody said getting the jab makes you invulnerable. I understand that it is possible to be nuanced about vaccination, but let's not start making misleading statements.
I'm 95% sure that's a misunderstanding. We simply don't have the data yet, so the government web site says "We do not yet know whether it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus, but we do expect it to reduce this risk".
The only way to test whether vaccination prevents infection is to attempt to deliberately infect someone with the virus after vaccination and see what happens (and repeat with multiple 'volunteers' to get statistical power). That is, I'm pretty sure, unethical.
The only way to prove that one cannot spread the vaccine after vaccination is to shut a vaccinated person in a room with an unvaccinated person then attempt to deliberately infect the vaccinated person (which may not work, due to them being vaccinated) and see what happens to the other person. Obviously you'd need to do this with at least 30 people and include a variety of control pairs (for example a pair who have not been vaccinated and one is deliberately infected and then the investigators waits to see if the infection transmits to the other person) allowing the necessary controls and statistical power to test the hypotheses.
The other way of getting a steer is to compare over time a population with widespread vaccination compared with a population without. Say, compare the UK with somewhere really poor and disorganized such as, er, Zimbabwe, for numbers of new cases, relating outcome to vaccination numbers. The trouble with this is there are too many confounds, not least patient selection, level of diagnosis, data collection and collation, access to information, etc. Cohort studies like these are prone to false positives and are a source of false findings. Wasn't Andrew Wakefields 'revelation' that MMR causes autism the product of a cohort study?
In the meantime we can look at the wider medical piece for clues. There is no vaccine I know of that does nothing more than reduce symptoms and somehow magically make the invading virus or bacterium less able to spread in exhaled microdroplets to others. Vaccine's work on the human, not the invading organism, changing the human's immune response. The outcome, I am 95% certain, is all-or-none. Thus the flu vac either protects us so we don't get flu, or it fails for some reason and we get flu. (I would add that if it fails I am 95% certain that this would be due to a technical issue, not a genuine shortcoming of the vaccine itself).
Reading various comments elsewhere in this thread and in the wider world, I think we are seeing the turbulence created when scientific facts (things proven), and well-justified scientific hypotheses are imported into government statements and policy for the digestion of a public that does not truly undestand the nature of proof, or things like the risk benefit ratio, let alone how infection, vaccination and immunity work. I must admit that I don't really understand it. I'm not an immunologist (albeit I did study immunology as an undergraduate. Er...44 years ago
:Thumbsup:.
Creaky
Well-known member
I’m going to assume that you are mixing me up with someone else, otherwise you have already lost any argument by making up quotes.
I agree it is a “fact” that if the vaccine has worked then you will be immune and not be able to spread the virus - however what you are disregarding is that it only works 100% in 80% of cases. I won’t be risking giving the virus to vulnerable people by unprotected contact despite having had the vaccine.
Claiming the vaccine is 100% effective is just as “dangerous” as spreading rumours that discourage others from being vaccinated.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/27/astrazeneca-vaccine-oxford-covid-19-safe-uk-pfizer/
The data, released on Feb 2, found a single dose was 76 per cent effective in fending off infection between 22 days and 90 days post-injection, rising to 82.4 per cent after a second dose at that stage.
The PHE data, from more than seven million people, found that either jab cuts the risk of hospitalisation among over 80s by more than 80 per cent while reducing infections in such age groups by around two-thirds.
Creaky
Well-known member
I'm 95% sure that's a misunderstanding. We simply don't have the data yet, so the government web site says "We do not yet know whether it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus, but we do expect it to reduce this risk".
The only way to test whether vaccination prevents infection is to attempt to deliberately infect someone with the virus after vaccination and see what happens (and repeat with multiple 'volunteers' to get statistical power). That is, I'm pretty sure, unethical.
The only way to prove that one cannot spread the vaccine after vaccination is to shut a vaccinated person in a room with an unvaccinated person then attempt to deliberately infect the vaccinated person (which may not work, due to them being vaccinated) and see what happens to the other person. Obviously you'd need to do this with at least 30 people and include a variety of control pairs (for example a pair who have not been vaccinated and one is deliberately infected and then the investigators waits to see if the infection transmits to the other person) allowing the necessary controls and statistical power to test the hypotheses.
The other way of getting a steer is to compare over time a population with widespread vaccination compared with a population without. Say, compare the UK with somewhere really poor and disorganized such as, er, Zimbabwe, for numbers of new cases, relating outcome to vaccination numbers. The trouble with this is there are too many confounds, not least patient selection, level of diagnosis, data collection and collation, access to information, etc. Cohort studies like these are prone to false positives and are a source of false findings. Wasn't Andrew Wakefields 'revelation' that MMR causes autism the product of a cohort study?
In the meantime we can look at the wider medical piece for clues. There is no vaccine I know of that does nothing more than reduce symptoms and somehow magically make the invading virus or bacterium less able to spread in exhaled microdroplets to others. Vaccine's work on the human, not the invading organism, changing the human's immune response. The outcome, I am 95% certain, is all-or-none. Thus the flu vac either protects us so we don't get flu, or it fails for some reason and we get flu. (I would add that if it fails I am 95% certain that this would be due to a technical issue, not a genuine shortcoming of the vaccine itself).
Reading various comments elsewhere in this thread and in the wider world, I think we are seeing the turbulence created when scientific facts (things proven), and well-justified scientific hypotheses are imported into government statements and policy for the digestion of a public that does not truly undestand the nature of proof, or things like the risk benefit ratio, let alone how infection, vaccination and immunity work. I must admit that I don't really understand it. I'm not an immunologist (albeit I did study immunology as an undergraduate. Er...44 years ago
Deliberately attempting to infect vaccinated individuals is NOT the only way to test efficacy of the vaccine. Over 25 million people have had their first jab already and the number having received a second dose is rapidly increasing. All that is needed to check whether or not it works 100% is to see how many of those contract COVID and test for those who have caught COVID but aren’t displaying symptoms.
The proof of your vaccine is linked to your medical records
But it doesn`t give access to them or am i missing something ?
Neville's Breakfast
Well-known member
I'm 95% sure that's a misunderstanding. We simply don't have the data yet, so the government web site says "We do not yet know whether it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus, but we do expect it to reduce this risk".
The only way to test whether vaccination prevents infection is to attempt to deliberately infect someone with the virus after vaccination and see what happens (and repeat with multiple 'volunteers' to get statistical power). That is, I'm pretty sure, unethical.
The only way to prove that one cannot spread the vaccine after vaccination is to shut a vaccinated person in a room with an unvaccinated person then attempt to deliberately infect the vaccinated person (which may not work, due to them being vaccinated) and see what happens to the other person. Obviously you'd need to do this with at least 30 people and include a variety of control pairs (for example a pair who have not been vaccinated and one is deliberately infected and then the investigators waits to see if the infection transmits to the other person) allowing the necessary controls and statistical power to test the hypotheses.
The other way of getting a steer is to compare over time a population with widespread vaccination compared with a population without. Say, compare the UK with somewhere really poor and disorganized such as, er, Zimbabwe, for numbers of new cases, relating outcome to vaccination numbers. The trouble with this is there are too many confounds, not least patient selection, level of diagnosis, data collection and collation, access to information, etc. Cohort studies like these are prone to false positives and are a source of false findings. Wasn't Andrew Wakefields 'revelation' that MMR causes autism the product of a cohort study?
In the meantime we can look at the wider medical piece for clues. There is no vaccine I know of that does nothing more than reduce symptoms and somehow magically make the invading virus or bacterium less able to spread in exhaled microdroplets to others. Vaccine's work on the human, not the invading organism, changing the human's immune response. The outcome, I am 95% certain, is all-or-none. Thus the flu vac either protects us so we don't get flu, or it fails for some reason and we get flu. (I would add that if it fails I am 95% certain that this would be due to a technical issue, not a genuine shortcoming of the vaccine itself).
Reading various comments elsewhere in this thread and in the wider world, I think we are seeing the turbulence created when scientific facts (things proven), and well-justified scientific hypotheses are imported into government statements and policy for the digestion of a public that does not truly undestand the nature of proof, or things like the risk benefit ratio, let alone how infection, vaccination and immunity work. I must admit that I don't really understand it. I'm not an immunologist (albeit I did study immunology as an undergraduate. Er...44 years ago
I just don’t think it as straightforward as you are saying. Quite a good discussion in this Guardian link, in particular about Long Covid and about the protection provided by the vaccine ie the prevention of hospitalization and death rather than infection.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....021/mar/12/vaccines-long-covid-health-answers
I won’t cherry pick quotes from scientists or health bodies in the article but there are plenty to choose from. I do think the avoidance of hospitalization and death is wonderful in itself. I’ve had my first jab and am looking forward to the second and to follow up boosters for new variants. I also think that there is a risk of over confidence from vaccinated people and it is going to be interesting when the pubs re-open.
Last edited:
There is no way I would go into a pub requiring vaccination certificates if there was another alternative. Do we want to live the rest of our lives in such a controlled environment? I've had enough. A year of my life has already been stolen and I'm not putting up with this nonsense for a minute longer.
Taybha
Whalewhine
Which pub would you choose?
One that has a ban on those musty smelling, Volvo driving, jumbo cord wearing real ale drinkers.
Absolutely ruined pubs sitting there for 4 hours sipping something that has a fancy trendy name then leaving half of it because it tastes like shoe leather, then driving at 11mph to the library to take their trendy Russian novel they've only read the first and last page of in the pub before driving home to Hove listening to radio 4 absorbing all the information on how to grow larger marrows which will then become the topic of conversation at the next unfortunate pub to allow them in .
One that has a ban on those musty smelling, Volvo driving, jumbo cord wearing real ale drinkers.
Absolutely ruined pubs sitting there for 4 hours sipping something that has a fancy trendy name then leaving half of it because it tastes like shoe leather, then driving at 11mph to the library to take their trendy Russian novel they've only read the first and last page of in the pub before driving home to Hove listening to radio 4 absorbing all the information on how to grow larger marrows which will then become the topic of conversation at the next unfortunate pub to allow them in .
Uncle C
Well-known member
What you really meant to say was "when it becomes a matter of life and death"
Uncle C
Well-known member
Does the virus know this?
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,399
If you’ve had the vaccine yourself, how does it affect you if you’re surrounded by unvaccinated people? The only people at risk are those who are unvaccinated, which by the time pubs open will be people like me who won’t be offered the vaccine till much later this year, and statistically healthy under 40’s are at the same risk as flu. (No, covid isn’t ‘just the flu’ but statistically speaking, COVID is not significantly more deadly than flu to under 40’s)I’m stunned how quickly people have decided they will view individual people differently based on vaccination status, it’s abhorrent.
Uncle C
Well-known member
The Wizard.
Can I respectfully suggest you try to educate yourself a bit better. Someone who has had the vaccine can still carry the virus and hand it on to others such as the under 40's or the 40% of people that have only had the first jab (which only offers about 60% protection).
Can I respectfully suggest you try to educate yourself a bit better. Someone who has had the vaccine can still carry the virus and hand it on to others such as the under 40's or the 40% of people that have only had the first jab (which only offers about 60% protection).
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,399
So someone who has had the vaccine can still carry the virus and pass it on..... whats the point of vaccine certificates for pubs then? You’re arguing against the very point you are supporting.
Educate myself
The vaccine even with one dose offers 98% protection against severe disease, stopping people dying is really all that matters and the vaccine does that, even after one dose.