Can someone talk me into the vaccine?

[Cassie6]

Embarrassed to even be writing this. I work for the bloody NHS for gods sake. My children have had all their vaccinations. I'm really not anti vax in the slightest and I'm surprised that I feel this way but I'm really scared to get the vaccine.

I'm scared because there's no knowledge of if anything could happen long term after having it, 15+ years down the line? Like there have been no long term studies? Can someone with a bit more knowledge explain to me if this is actually a thing?

I've seen it explained on here to people countless times that it hasn't been rushed there's just not been the waiting time there usually is with vaccine development and I understand that but I still feel uneasy about the long term effects.

In my mind my children and I are at such a low risk of being seriously ill that there's not much point having it when it could go wrong. However working in the NHS this is not the attitude and I'm so miserable living in lockdown after lockdown I know I need to do my bit.

So can someone convince me. Can someone explain logically what I'm getting wrong and unnecessarily anxious about?

@Haffiana

Not on this thread (which is particularly bad) but on others, there are many posters who link to interesting actual research which is valuable

However working in the NHS this is not the attitude

The OP maybe is embarrassed to ask colleages IRL as they may not be receptive to questions?

I wouldn't class a two day a week filing job as a health background. You can work for the NHS and have nothing to do with health or medical staff.

The vaccines have been through exactly the same processes and safety procedures as those you have happily given to your children, simply more quickly because of the urgency.

OP please try and read some of the useful comments rather disregarding all because of some of the backlash.

@FamilyOfAliens

Surely it’s about the evidence presented to you

I think what some of us need is time to have passed before we can make a decision. And that's evidence no one can be presented with at the moment

People need to accept that

@Chesthurtsagain
Good post.

@Cassie6

I wouldn't class a two day a week filing job as a health background. You can work for the NHS and have nothing to do with health or medical staff.

Might have been useful to have clarified this in your OP.

Or said nothing about working for the NHS if it’s irrelevant to your thread.

[quote trulydelicious]@FamilyOfAliens

Surely it’s about the evidence presented to you

I think what some of us need is time to have passed before we can make a decision. And that's evidence no one can be presented with at the moment

People need to accept that[/quote]
I think it’s fine too, if people want to wait a few years before deciding to have it.

As long as people accept, as I said, that it may have an impact on things like foreign travel. Maybe even health insurance? Who knows.

The BBC have said that Bame[hate that term], the uptake of the vaccine is currently 53%, as opposed to 79% white, in the UK.

I have also read that the UK has the highest uptake, compared to rest of Europe.

So currently at least, FamilyOfAliens, that means a vast amount of people are refusing.

Personally, I think as time goes on, say in two years time, uptake will be greater across the board. But who knows with covid. Anything is possible.

So currently at least, FamilyOfAliens, that means a vast amount of people are refusing.

At least they’ll be afforded some protection from the even vaster numbers of people who are willing to take the risk of having the vaccine themselves.

@FamilyOfAliens

At least they’ll be afforded some protection from the even vaster numbers of people who are willing to take the risk of having the vaccine themselves

Those who are willing to take the vaccine now are doing it for their own benefit (and that's fine). It has not yet been proven whether these vaccines prevent transmission or not

[quote trulydelicious]@FamilyOfAliens

At least they’ll be afforded some protection from the even vaster numbers of people who are willing to take the risk of having the vaccine themselves

Those who are willing to take the vaccine now are doing it for their own benefit (and that's fine). It has not yet been proven whether these vaccines prevent transmission or not[/quote]
I don’t think it’s possible to know everyone’s reasons for having the vaccine. My 85-year-old DM really doesn’t want it have it, but she’s doing it to protect her family.

And whatever her reasons, she is taking a personal risk, which others are choosing not to do, which of course is entirely up to them.

I was a bit nervous (NHS Scientist) but had a read about how it works and can’t see any problem. Your antigen presenting cells show the immune system a small protein that then disappears.

Plus I’d stick just about anything in my arm right now to be able to get back to normal and see my overseas family / holiday again!

@FamilyOfAliens
Might have been useful to have clarified this in your OP. Or said nothing about working for the NHS if it’s irrelevant to your thread.

Yes, it's so strange. The 'NHS worker' who posted an almost verbatim thread yesterday also felt the need to put that in their OP, before saying that the thread had been 'derailed', being unable to give any reasons for their hesitancy or responding to any of the questions put to them, and then saying it would be everyone else's fault that they weren't going to get the vaccine.

Really weird deja vu!

I doubt there was a study to show the combined impact of eating lots of cook chill food or additives which, individually were deemed fit for consumption over say several decades ? But we do.
Sometimes we have to trust others who know more than we do about things eg. solicitors, dentists, doctors. And scientists. In order to live an semblance of a normal life. We cannot have everything explained and qualified to us to the maximum degree. Is it safe to use anything ? If you or we all waited ten years for the answer to be found to your question we would probably go insane by then or be dead.

@Spaniels2020

I doubt there was a study to show the combined impact of eating lots of cook chill food or additives which, individually were deemed fit for consumption over say several decades ? But we do. Sometimes we have to trust others who know more than we do about things eg. solicitors, dentists, doctors. And scientists. In order to live an semblance of a normal life. We cannot have everything explained and qualified to us to the maximum degree. Is it safe to use anything ? If you or we all waited ten years for the answer to be found to your question we would probably go insane by then or be dead.

Agree, and I think idiots like Michael Gove have a lot to answer for when they come out with this bullshit:

‘Gove, then Lord Chancellor, declared: “I think the people of this country have had enough of experts with organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.”’

@saffire

It's not a new vaccine though - that's how it's come about so quickly. They have adapted a 'base' vaccine which has been around for years.

And yes, you might think you're low risk, but my dd stepmum who works for the NHS thought so too. She's never been so ill. Four weeks now of illness and it was looking like she may have to be hospitalised. Goodness knows what damage it's done to her. Also, my perfectly healthy friend with no underlying conditions has been left unable to walk by himself for life as so much damage was done to his body. His kidneys failed, he had a heart attack, a blood clot.

It's fucking scary. The latest is scans from a smokers lungs compared to a covid survivor. The smokers lungs look just dandy compared to covid - so even if you survive it now, what damage has it done that will bite you in the bum in the future?

"It's not a new vaccine though - that's how it's come about so quickly. They have adapted a 'base' vaccine which has been around for years."

Sorry, but this is plain wrong. If by "been around" you mean licensed.

I found this article helpful. www.livescience.com/mrna-vaccines-future-vaccine-development.html

"Around three decades ago, scientists realized that they could synthesize mRNA in the lab, deliver it into human cells and use the body to make any protein they wanted, such as proteins that could help fight a range of diseases in the body from cancers to respiratory illnesses."
"This relatively new tech, which relies on a synthetic strand of genetic code called messenger RNA (mRNA) to prime the immune system, had not yet been approved for any previous vaccine in the world."

So the concept is decades old but the application is new.

I think it’s normal to feel some level of apprehension with a totally new vaccine. But I have seen several young healthy people be devastated by long COVID so I think the vaccine is a smaller risk than that.

*"It's not a new vaccine though - that's how it's come about so quickly. They have adapted a 'base' vaccine which has been around for years."

Sorry, but this is plain wrong. If by "been around" you mean licensed.*

It's not wrong it the conceptual understanding that is wrong.

Licensing isnt some special process that determines whether a vaccine (or any drug) is safe or not - it's just the final step in reviewing ALL the data. What your're saying is like saying "I don't trust the new Hyundai Bayon" because its a new car and therefore has a model-specific "new" engine in it. But that's not the same as a new type of engine or that petrol car engines haven't been thoroughly tried and tested.

@pinbinpin

*"It's not a new vaccine though - that's how it's come about so quickly. They have adapted a 'base' vaccine which has been around for years."

Sorry, but this is plain wrong. If by "been around" you mean licensed.*

It's not wrong it the conceptual understanding that is wrong.

Licensing isnt some special process that determines whether a vaccine (or any drug) is safe or not - it's just the final step in reviewing ALL the data. What your're saying is like saying "I don't trust the new Hyundai Bayon" because its a new car and therefore has a model-specific "new" engine in it. But that's not the same as a new type of engine or that petrol car engines haven't been thoroughly tried and tested.

I think in this context "been around for years" is supposed to inspire confidence by implying that they are already widespread in use. They have not been - because they have not been licensed.

COVID-19 Vaccine Communication Handbook (tracks behavioural science evidence and advice about COVID-19 vaccine uptake.)

hackmd.io/@scibehC19vax/c19vaxfacts

hackmd.io/@scibehC19vax/vaxprocess

hackmd.io/@scibehC19vax/home

Vector-based vaccines are licenced and have been in use for many years. The Oxford vaccine is just an example of this type of vaccine.

mRNA-based vaccines are newer, but based on technology and research that has been around for years - like all drugs that eventually get licensed. And have been used because they look to create better vaccines - more effective, at lower doses, with less potential side-effects.

To suggest that scientists should not have used the latest and greatest technology available to them to try and develop the best and most effective vaccines to address a world-wide pandemic causing wide-spread misery because "it's new" is just plain ungrateful. And sublimely ridiculous - are you using your "new" smartphone or still on a Nokia brick? Do you have your "new" gel nails done, or just use old-fashioned nail polish because you "don't trust it". Do you sit in "new" types of planes when you go on holiday, or do you think it's safer to go by bi-plane?

I think it's because we've all been so helpless through the pandemic. Choosing not to have the vaccine is something you have control over. It's tempting to refuse it just to exercise your bodily autonomy. But you should have it.

I am lucky in that a close family member worked on the Oxford vaccine so that helps me be reassured about it. As people have said before, the Oxford vaccine is very much based on existing science so I have huge amounts of confidence in it.