Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Treatments and their effectiveness, herd immunity, masks, testing, etc.
jotheboat
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:34 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by jotheboat »

miahoneybee wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:04 am Jotheboat
The only thing ever stopping you seeing your grandchildren was and still is your choice.
There is no guarantee you wont get it or give it with the jab. There is no guarantee in life full stop that you eont get cancer.. run over by a bus..die in a plane crash..get hit by a tree falling and so on.
I dont need an experimental vaccine to live my life without fear and taking risks or to see my grandchildren .I can do them all without. I think I may have had it who knows. I was poorly for about a week then up and getting on with life again much as I would with a cold or anything else.
Watching the care home deaths after the vaccines and other reports ( that censors attempt to keep from the population) no thanks to the vaccine. The risks to me far outweigh the benefits. Anyone's choice to not have an experimental vaccine should be respected and not coerced or bullied and allowed to take their own risks in life . Positive risk taking.
14 months into this fiasco and what beyond misery have we achieved. Just look to the countries and states in America who didnt lock down and compare.
I don't agree with you.
But (unlike you it seems with your spurious references) I do defend you're right to make your own choice. Same as I did based on what I read and heard.
You're mention of cancer, plane crashes and buses is an irrelevant, tangential aside. You shouldn't need to go there to substantify your argument.
We probably agree on some things, lockdowns for example, but allow me to make my own choices in other areas.

Fingal
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:11 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Fingal »

MikeAustin wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:56 am
Fingal wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:22 am The most worrying news variants (South African, Brazilian, Kent) are emerging in locations with existing very high infection rates.
News is news. Worrying is optional.
Unfortunately, even that option seems subject to government and media coercion.
If you find the potential for faster-spreading, vaccine-resistant, more-lethal new variants unconcerning - that's up to you.

RichardTechnik
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:01 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by RichardTechnik »

Fingal wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:22 am
Splatt wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:16 pm
amanuensis wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:29 am One reason to be cautious regarding universal vaccination is that it produces a homogeneous immunity profile. This might increase risks for the vulnerable groups.
That's the issue nobody seems to be bothered about.
You could just as easily argue the opposite. The more infections you have, the more chance you have for new mutations. So there's a case for reducing overall infections to the lowest level possible, whether or not those people are in high risk groups.

The most worrying news variants (South African, Brazilian, Kent) are emerging in locations with existing very high infection rates. Obviously it's way too soon to draw a conclusion from that but you have to accept it as a significant possibility.
You could equally say that 'new variants' (with the names designed to worry those who will be worried), out of a total of about 40k already, are detected in locations with high infection rates because that where the high rates of 'surge' testing is taking place. amanuensis is correct; should vaccines actually significantly reduce overall infections to the lowest level it follows that emerging variants will have selected to overcome that narrow immunity profile - that how things are.

RichardTechnik
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:01 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by RichardTechnik »

Fingal wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:24 pm
MikeAustin wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:56 am
Fingal wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:22 am The most worrying news variants (South African, Brazilian, Kent) are emerging in locations with existing very high infection rates.
News is news. Worrying is optional.
Unfortunately, even that option seems subject to government and media coercion.
If you find the potential for faster-spreading, vaccine-resistant, more-lethal new variants unconcerning - that's up to you.
"...vaccine-resistant, more-lethal .. new variants "

That Fingal, that is an unsubstantiated mischievious assertion designed to deceive. Where are any of the new variants you had named proved to be either ?

Fingal
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:11 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Fingal »

RichardTechnik wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:40 pm
You could equally say that 'new variants' (with the names designed to worry those who will be worried), out of a total of about 40k already, are detected in locations with high infection rates because that where the high rates of 'surge' testing is taking place. amanuensis is correct; should vaccines actually significantly reduce overall infections to the lowest level it follows that emerging variants will have selected to overcome that narrow immunity profile - that how things are.
As I said, it's too soon to know there's a significance in where variants emerge. But clearly, there's an extremely solid reason to suggest that large numbers of cases are more likely to produce more variations.

Of course, it's also possible that vaccination against a standard variant will also encourage a new variant.

On the other hand, it's possible that the Kent variant emerged in a person who immune system problems who had the virus for an exceptionally long time. Nothing to do with a vaccine.

We can't be sure yet, but the principle that vaccination is better than non-vaccination is well established with many other diseases.

StPiosCafe
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:00 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by StPiosCafe »

RichardTechnik wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:40 pm 'new variants' (with the names designed to worry those who will be worried),
What are you talking about?They are just named after Kent, south Africa, Brazil?
If they were design with names to worry, they would be called BlackDeathVariant or the SlowDeath variant etc.

miahoneybee
Posts: 1493
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:26 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by miahoneybee »

Equally jotheboat allow me to respect my choices as I do yours and anyone elses.
The point is i wouldn't ask 99.9 % of the population to lockdown lose their freedoms and liberties and take an experimental vaccine in order for the 1% to feel safe even if i fell into the 1% catergory.
If i felt there was a serious threat to me from covid 19 I would look into the vaccine but as I dont feel that I need it I dont want it and I do not feel as part of the 99.9%( at the minute ) selfish not having it to protect the 1%. The risks outweigh the benefits for me and my family so I should not feel coerced ...bullied or threatened for my decision.

Fudge
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:42 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Fudge »

Hopefully in a short while all this tiresome debate can conclude and those that exercise their Human Right to choose the vaccine can absolutely and unquestionably demonstrate their confidence in it and the pharmaceutical companies and as such put their ‘Arm where their mouth is’ and sit in a pub unmuzzled sharing a Tapa’s with those who exercise their Human Right to choose not to have the vaccine and equally confident to own this decision. A clear example of pro-choice all around. If the efficacy of the vaccine is so good and people trust it so much to ‘roll-up’ why take issue with those that don’t ‘roll the sleeve?’ Why all the drama? Why all the name calling? The vaxxed are protected aren’t they? Maybe those vaxed can really demonstrate their confidence by displaying a special badge proving they’re inoculated and safe so that those that choose not to roll the sleeve can give them an extra special hug and kiss 💋 🍻’s

Splatt
Posts: 1583
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Splatt »

Fingal wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:22 am
Splatt wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:16 pm You could just as easily argue the opposite. The more infections you have, the more chance you have for new mutations. So there's a case for reducing overall infections to the lowest level possible, whether or not those people are in high risk groups.
Not really, we aren't using sterilising vaccines so unless you want "case control restrictions" literally forever more you need to get out of that mindset.
Nothing ever opens up again (cases rise), test and trace remains forever, travel is permanently curtailed, normal life never resumes.

Worth noting the best guess for the B.1.1.7 emergence was from an immunocompromised patient not just "weight of infections".

In the next 1-2 months we'll be creating absolutely ideal conditions for immune-escape mutants regardless of cases.

Speedstick
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:27 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Speedstick »

An absolutely excellent post Miahoneybee.
This is exactly the issue here isn't it, lockdown sceptics like Miahoneybee, Jockcovidiot and myself are called out as selfish, but actually it is the reverse that is true.
We have given up our freedoms, been accosted with face muzzles, in my case had my hard built up business and previous years of study to get there destroyed, my granddaughter's future annihilated, and as if that's not enough now l have to risk my life itself to take an experimental vaccine that l don't want, all because people have been taken in hook, line and sinker by the propaganda of the government's behavioural scientists, into stupified fear of their own mortality.
Think again it is not the likes of the afforementioned who are selfish, it is those who instigate,back and allow such pure evil to prevail that are selfish, very selfish.

Post Reply