Denmark mandatory Covid19 vaccine

[scamander]

Put aside vaxxer/antivaxxer hats for a little please. Does this bother anyone? Do people not have a choice? Are we losing our freedom before our very eyes?

'As well as enforcing quarantine measures, the law also allows the authorities to force people to be vaccinated, even though there is currently no vaccination for the virus'

www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelocal.dk/20200313/denmark-passes-far-reaching-emergency-coronavirus-law/amp

@TheSunIsStillShining

What's the difference in using it as a therapy or a vaccine?

The problem is that people think they are getting a jab when in reality they may be having gene therapy.

@MaxNormal

If the vaccines stop covid having a severe presentation rather than preventing spread, why on earth would the non vaccinated have to be excluded from anything? You have your jab, protect yourself from severe illness or death, and stop interfering in what other people do or don't do.

That's all well and good until you catch it and spread it to someone who is immunocompromised (so couldn't have a vaccine)

Or get really really ill from it and waste tons of NHS money when you could have been immunised for what, £5?

[quote trulydelicious]@TheSunIsStillShining

What's the difference in using it as a therapy or a vaccine?

The problem is that people think they are getting a jab when in reality they may be having gene therapy.[/quote]
and what do you think will happen? what's your choice: 5g, gates, soros, lizard men,...?
Or we all grow a second head? Or all our kids will be blonde?

You could have a point that gene editing ethics is still something that needs to be worked on massively.
But in this case getting 1 or 2 shots does not equate to therapy. I'd suggest you read up on biontech and novartis vaccines a bit more to get a deeper understanding. Yes, since CRISP-R humans have the technology to theoretically do gene modification therapies that would only be for enhancements of X/Y/Z features. But nobody is doing it. It is technically and theoretically doable, but in practice note done. So having a vaccine that uses the Rna does not = gene therapy.

Blue565 I don't think I can have the vaccine so all the talk of social exclusion for the non-vaccinated is making me very nervous. My condition excludes me enough as it is.

I don't feel I can expect other people to be forced/coerced into something that I don't want and can't have. That feels horrific to me.

@TheSunIsStillShining

and what do you think will happen? what's your choice: 5g, gates, soros, lizard men,...?
Or we all grow a second head? Or all our kids will be blonde?

No, I never said I believe any of this, but I have concerns about the potential long term health effects of experimental treatments given to healthy people who think they are just getting a vaccine

I get having concerns.

But are you not worried about long term effects (which we already know about and affects even young and healthy people) of post covid and the life changing effects of having the virus.

[quote Prokupatuscrakedatus]@RuleOfCat
And as you actually carry an Impfpass (mine is now 57 years old and upto date), they can also record your exemption in this pass.

I had measles before there was a vaccination and though I - unlike others in my year - survived, kept my hearing, did not develop SSPE, I still remember how dreadfull I felt for months afterwards and the empty classrooms.

And I put trust in StIKO recommendations and will have the vaccine as soon as it is there and it is my turn.
To get DH back into work (no grants for him), DD back into uni, DMil and her sister back into contact with people (care home "inmates") and get all those 'no cost' community events that are open to the poorest people back.[/quote]
Wow, 57 years counts as a historical document! Although I still have my original British record of inoculations from the early 70s, but that's very much not active. The current German one only dates from my first pregnancy. I'm not sure how my measles inoculation from 1971 would get transferred to the new document, but fortunately I don't need to prove anything in my current job. I did actually ask last year at my Allgemeinarzt if I needed a measles booster because the cut-off date for assumed immunity is 1970and that's when I was born, but I only had one inoculation because that was standard at the time in theUK. They seemed to think I would be absolutely immune.
I'm shocked that you say vaccinations were mandatory in West Germany - how did you get measles if you were vaccinated? And when did it stop, because we were certainly given a choice 22 years ago (although strongly encouraged to do it)?
I also trust the StIKo completely to make the right decision - it's sufficiently independent of politics to be trustworthy.

@trulydelicious every time you are infected by an RNA virus you are having random bits of genetic material inserted into your cells. If you've had live attenuated viruses like the flu nasal spray or the polio oral vaccine or the mumps vaccine you've had a vaccine that will insert genetic material into your cells. An mRNA vaccine is much better understood than the polio vaccine was when it was first introduced (there were and are still occasional cases where the vaccine causes the disease).

@RuleOfCat
I got measles before vaccination was rolled out. My younger sibling got the vaccination. I think prescription was changed to recommendation in accordance with changing public opinion.
(I do have among my family papers the 'Impfbescheinigungen' of my DMil now in her late 90ties)

Free choice of doctors meant that documentation rests with you, so you carry the Impfpass, where necessary.

[quote trulydelicious]@TheSunIsStillShining

and what do you think will happen? what's your choice: 5g, gates, soros, lizard men,...?
Or we all grow a second head? Or all our kids will be blonde?

No, I never said I believe any of this, but I have concerns about the potential long term health effects of experimental treatments given to healthy people who think they are just getting a vaccine[/quote]
see, this i can totally understand and somewhat agree with.
There are so many ppl though who are not so down to earth/realistic

[quote CountFosco]@trulydelicious every time you are infected by an RNA virus you are having random bits of genetic material inserted into your cells. If you've had live attenuated viruses like the flu nasal spray or the polio oral vaccine or the mumps vaccine you've had a vaccine that will insert genetic material into your cells. An mRNA vaccine is much better understood than the polio vaccine was when it was first introduced (there were and are still occasional cases where the vaccine causes the disease).[/quote]
The mRNA vaccines here don't insert genetical material into your cells in the way that RNA viruses do either so I would say they are even "safer" than an infection with an RNA virus anyway.

[quote trulydelicious]@TheSunIsStillShining

What's the difference in using it as a therapy or a vaccine?

The problem is that people think they are getting a jab when in reality they may be having gene therapy.[/quote]
These mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy. I've listed some reasons below.

1. Gene therapy is usually DNA
2. RNA gene therapy is being researched but it is completely different to this technology
3. Gene therapy is trying to provide a copy of a gene or its protein due to something like a mutation which means a protein isn't produced when it should be (e.g. cystic fibrosis) and the protein would need to be produced long term.
4. producing a viral protein using transient expression of mRNA is a vaccine not a gene therapy because the viral protein isn't normally expressed in the cells. I'm sure we could argue over whether you agree with what I have written or not and over the technicalities of whether I am 100% correct or not. Then again, it would depend how much experience you have in the field of gene therapy compared to me. I really don't think it is helpful to call it gene therapy when people are scared by terms such as gene therapy as they don't understand them. I'm sure that is what you want to do though as you want to put people off having the vaccine. If you don't want to put people off then stop using terms like this and just make the decision for yourself alone.

This is from the Moderna website (and is related to their products which aren't covid vaccines as it talks about making missing or defective proteins).

Is mRNA gene therapy?
mRNA transfers the instructions stored in DNA to make the proteins required in every living cell. Our approach aims to help the body make its own missing or defective protein. Unlike gene editing and gene therapy, mRNA technology does not change the genetic information of the cell, and is intended to be short-acting.

[quote trulydelicious]@CherryPavlova

Far better it is required for those things that are technically optional but which people want to do.

Genuinely curious as you seem to be so adamant that people are coerced into taking a new Covid vaccine. How would you feel if the vaccine ended up damaging your health or the health of your family? It could happen you know, nobody knows as these are new vaccines[/quote]
I'm far more concerned about the risks of long covid to myself and my family than any possible risks of the vaccine.
I'm sure people would be upset if they did suffer a rare side effect of a vaccine but I know that I would be able to rationalise that I was unlucky but that the risks from covid were greater.
Equally, we've all done stuff in our lives that could have increased our risk of cancer. If I develop cancer I will never know if it was due to things I've done in life or if I was just unlucky.
Given that any "long-term" side effects of a vaccine which develop after a long period of time are so unlikely I'm not sure that you'd know they were from the vaccine anyway. If it was a side effect that happened shortly after the vaccine then yes you could say it was from the vaccine (e.g. the narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine) but the risk would be very low as otherwise it would be noticed in the number of people required for a phase 3 trial (maybe > 1 in 30000 based on the numbers I think Moderna have vaccinated).

Good point @bumbleymummy

The mRNA vaccines here don't insert genetical material into your cells in the way that RNA viruses do either so I would say they are even "safer" than an infection with an RNA virus anyway.

Exactly. The recombination events in the gut with the original Sabin polio vaccine are both fascinating and quite scary to consider from a modern viewpoint.

@JS87

I am not trying to scare anyone.

But what is apparent from these threads is that most people do not understand what these new vaccines are, how they work or what the long term effects may be (nobody could possibly know).

Yet, not only are they happy to have them, but they think that if anyone is worried and does not want to be part of these experimental treatments (which is what they appear to be at present, whether you like it or not) it is ok to apply coercion and if this doesn't work, these 'dissidents' should become society pariahs and all services should be denied to them. I find this utterly disturbing.

[quote trulydelicious]@JS87

I am not trying to scare anyone.

But what is apparent from these threads is that most people do not understand what these new vaccines are, how they work or what the long term effects may be (nobody could possibly know).

Yet, not only are they happy to have them, but they think that if anyone is worried and does not want to be part of these experimental treatments (which is what they appear to be at present, whether you like it or not) it is ok to apply coercion and if this doesn't work, these 'dissidents' should become society pariahs and all services should be denied to them. I find this utterly disturbing.[/quote]
And yet you are ignoring that those of us who do know about vaccines
A) will take them when we are given the opportunity and
B) do not think they should be compulsory

Finally, what is your definition of 'experimental treatments'? Because for me, in the industry, I wouldn't call a drug that has been through Ph III trials 'experimental'.

@CountFosco

what is your definition of 'experimental treatments'

How long have these vaccines been around for?

That really doesn't answer my question does it. What is your definition of an 'experimental treatment'?

You clearly aren't aware of the sister to the placebo effect that means new treatments do better than older treatments. Anecdotally, but a great example, I had a conversation with MIL who was not happy at all to be given the old drug tamoxifen when she had breast cancer and I was 'but, but, but, it's a fantastic drug with loads of safety and efficacy data'. Nope, she wanted a shiny new drug because that would be better.

[quote trulydelicious]@JS87

I am not trying to scare anyone.

But what is apparent from these threads is that most people do not understand what these new vaccines are, how they work or what the long term effects may be (nobody could possibly know).

Yet, not only are they happy to have them, but they think that if anyone is worried and does not want to be part of these experimental treatments (which is what they appear to be at present, whether you like it or not) it is ok to apply coercion and if this doesn't work, these 'dissidents' should become society pariahs and all services should be denied to them. I find this utterly disturbing.[/quote]
What is also apparent from the threads though is that the people talking about the dangers of the vaccines also don’t understand what these vaccines are and how they work. In that instance they would be best off following the advice of people who do know. I don’t think it is a good thing that society has become so critical of everything that scientists say.

As an aside I saw an article in the Daily Mail yesterday about how crispr technology had been used successfully to rest cancer in mice. All the commenters couldn’t wait for the treatment to be available for humans. Seems like everyone is happy to have experimental techniques but only if they think it benefits them directly!

I’m not personally saying that people should have services denied to them. However, if enough people refuse the vaccines then we will be left with restrictions and effects on the economy for much longer than if everyone was vaccinated.

"if enough people refuse the vaccines then we will be left with restrictions and effects on the economy for much longer than if everyone was vaccinated."

No, we won't. Because, as has been pointed out several times, the vaccine is not the only way to gain immunity. For most people this is a mild or symptomatic illness and recent studies have shown that immunity from infection has lasted 6+ months. That means that every single case we have (and there have been a lot - including lots of asymptomatic ones that we haven't been able to count) is contributing to herd immunity. Yes, the vaccine will reassure people for whom natural infection would be more of a risk but it really isn't necessary for a large proportion of the population to be vaccinated to start lifting restrictions.

It hasn't even been tested on pregnant women. Is it mandatory for them too?

Restrictions will continue until hospitalisation rates drop. If vaccine uptake is low and restrictions are lifted, there is a strong possibility hospitalisation rates will increase again, leading to reimposition of restrictions. Acquisition of natural immunity leads to restrictions; this is the situation we are in at the moment. If half of over 70s refuse vaccinations but start to do normal things as restrictions are lifted hospitalisation will increase.

@bumbleymummy

"if enough people refuse the vaccines then we will be left with restrictions and effects on the economy for much longer than if everyone was vaccinated."

No, we won't. Because, as has been pointed out several times, the vaccine is not the only way to gain immunity. For most people this is a mild or symptomatic illness and recent studies have shown that immunity from infection has lasted 6+ months. That means that every single case we have (and there have been a lot - including lots of asymptomatic ones that we haven't been able to count) is contributing to herd immunity. Yes, the vaccine will reassure people for whom natural infection would be more of a risk but it really isn't necessary for a large proportion of the population to be vaccinated to start lifting restrictions.

While you are going for natural immunity, as opposed to vaccination, people will be dying and getting sick. I think it's morally reprehensible to suggest that this is a viable alternative to mass vaccination and it shouldn't be pushed as an option. When I say mass I don't mean forced.

I think this is one of the times that the internet may be a bad thing. It allows baseless and dangerous conspiracy theories to gain ground and it will kill people. I'm far more worried about that than any possible side effects from a tested vaccine that has been approved through the proper channels.