In article snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes
I was offered it and declined. I don't want a vaccine not in accordance with the manufacturers instructions based on their testing and not in accordance with our own medical approval system, but on the bright idea from Tony Blair.
You mean like last time when they neglected to send PPE (bullet proof vests) and vehicles suited for transport in improvised road side bomb territory?
Don't the forces employ private companies/contractors for a lot of this work?
How would the the current army logistic personnel cope with supplying vaccine and army manpower to a thousand different UK locations rather than just one combat zone?
And ships made of aluminium which melted in our last major conflict. Which for a time was touch and go with a third world country.
In message snipped-for-privacy@ghcq.uk, bert snipped-for-privacy@bert.bert.com> writes
I'm sure they will be monitoring some of the recipients of the first jab in order to check that the protection doesn't peak at three weeks, then drop off rapidly. There is also the possibility that twelve weeks might actually be a better time to give the second injection than the original three weeks.
In message snipped-for-privacy@ghcq.uk, bert snipped-for-privacy@bert.bert.com> writes
Not really. If it looks like the twelve week gap is not going to be a good idea, they will almost certainly change the policy, and start giving the second jab somewhat earlier - even if that does mean that some will no longer get their first jab as soon as was recently anticipated.
Seems unlikely given that surely the first jab will always give better protection than a second one.
In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, Fred snipped-for-privacy@hotnail.com writes
Well, it's quite certain that the first jab gives infinitely more protection than if you haven't yet had any jab at all.
However, if after 12 weeks they find that the first jab has almost totally 'worn off', then the first jab will have been wasted - and they will be almost back to square one. So until they have enough vaccine and enough people to quickly give the injections, I'd say that the best compromise would generally be to delay the second jab for as long as they dare (well, at least for those in the lower risk categories).
Don't football clubs come near?
If you think that then it's a good idea to decline and let someone else have that jab.
It was Clive Sinclairs business model. Remember the QL ?
These days it is known as 'crowd funding'.
I support that policy 100%. I have no intention of having a covid-19 jab until all the people who matter have been offered one.
Unlike you and your fellow NHS freeloaders, I have actually worked in an NHS path lab.
Oh, and the gut is now known to be an important organ in its own right.
Isn't is called Microsoft where the OS needs a update every 2 minutes to plug security holes?
In message snipped-for-privacy@ghcq.uk, bert snipped-for-privacy@bert.bert.com> writes
Well, I suppose that's your choice. Think of it as a magnanimous sacrifice, and rejoice in the knowledge that someone, somewhere, will get your dose of vaccine - and they may actually have their life saved because of what you did (or, more correctly, didn't do).
However, it's not as though those who decided that it would probably be OK to delay the second shot didn't have any experience in this sort of thing - and while Tony Blair may have been one of those who suggested the idea, it wasn't (thank goodness!) his decision to implement it!
And so it makes sense to do as many of those as you can while there is a shortage of vaccine.
That's not the reason for the second shot. It cant have worn off in the 3 weeks they normally give the second shot.
Nope, you have protection for those 12 weeks.
Nope. There is no evidence that you only get the best protection with the two shots 3 weeks apart.
You don't understand why there are two shots.
And its even more complicated with the Oxford vaccine which clearly gives much better protection if the first shot is a half dose. And that's because it uses a monkey virus to deliberately infect the patient and the patient does develop immunity to the monkey virus which is the carrier.
In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, Fred snipped-for-privacy@hotnail.com writes
And the Pope's a Catholic too!
I said TWELVE - not 3.
I didn't say it WOULD wear off. Please read again.
I didn't say that you did.
And you don't seem to understand what I wrote!
There's nothing absolutely clear at all. It's simply that it seems that this was the case during the tests. Now that they've started giving the first doses of the AZ, is the policy to actually give half-strength doses - or until there is solid evidence that half-strength is definitely better, are they sticking to the original plan of intending to give two equal-strength doses?
I don't see why 'because'!
Yes, but the original 3 proves that that isnt the reason for the second shot so there is no basis for your speculation about what might happen with 12 weeks.
I didn't say you did, I JUST said that that isnt the reason for the second shot.
No need.
I didn't say you did either.
I understand that you don't have a clue about why there are 2 shots and why 12 weeks will likely be fine and will see a lot more get one shot and that we will see a massive benefit from vaccinating twice as many people more quickly with the virus rampant.
It is absolutely clear that the vaccines do see the severity of the disease drastically reduced if you do get infected.
And its absolutely clear that if the first shot is half dose, that gives a much better result than if the first shot is a full dose, at least with a month between doses.
It has been proven during the tests.
Nope.
We have that already, but the group that that regime was unintentionally tested on isnt as representative of the population as a whole as the tests with the first shot a full dose.
Yes, for now. Presumably until the half dose test is done on a more representative test group of similar size to the two full dose group.
That's the only really plausible reason why a first half dose works much better.
It means that the individual will not have developed the same level of immunity to the monkey vaccine and so it wont see the second dose killed by the developed immunity and so be less effective.
In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, Fred snipped-for-privacy@hotnail.com writes
I'm at a total loss to understand why you're having this essentially one-sided argument against things I haven't really said - so it's more-or-less impossible for me to defend or clarify what I didn't say. I therefore suggest that you try to find another victim to waste your time on.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Mrs had hers this morning.
Same here ... I took the call from the local Surgery on Thursday and se initially booked us both in ... but she called back later and cancelled mine (loads of apologies etc) because she realised I was a toy boy. ;-)
I pulled up outside their car park 7 mins before her 10:05 appointment, she walked over to what looked like a stall at a fete and they checked her name off, she then walked straight across to a sort of outbuilding with two 'rooms' (doors left open), she sate down, jab administered (didn't feel a thing) and was back in the car is less than 120 seconds. ;-)
She wasn't asked to wait though?
Similar thing re what I saw on ours.
She was given the AstraZeneca one OOI (I had to go and ask afterwards).
We do seem to be way behind many others when it comes to such solutions ... with all the other billions of pounds that have been 'wasted' on failed / abandoned integration / databasing type projects over the years.
The thing is though, we are more used to 'freedom' on such things, little chance of the Stasi kicking the door in and carting you off for turning your phone off when going out for a meal when you have been requested to do otherwise.
And why the lockdown worked better in China as they generally do as they are told.
In many cases over here you wouldn't think there was a global pandemic in full swing. ;-(
Cheers, T i m
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.