Us and them- the vaccine. So much pressure

[ToTheLetter01]

Before i begin, i am not an anti vaxxer. Me and my DS have had all our jabs and we also have annual flu jabs.
However i feel such hostility and pressure from people who have had their vaccine for me to have it. The reason i do not want it at this moment is just because its still in the experimental stage until 2023 and i would like to know more long term data.
This is my choice, its my body and everyone should have the choice. Choice to have the vaccine and choice to not. I do not shame nor ridicule anyone for having it or not.
However i have felt so much pressure from friends and others in the wider public, media, government.

I feel like the nation is becoming split between us and them. ( vaccinated and unvaccinated). With things becoming unfair for people. Eg. may be able to travel and not quarantine if had vaccines, care home workers may be forced to have the vaccine. Now i get the point of view of they have had it and may be more "safe". But how is the ok in a freedom and rights point of view. As i stated freedom to do what you want with your body.

I feel like this world is becoming some kind of dystopian world. I miss my old life, i took all the freedom for granted. Its true that you don't realise how good it was until it's gone.
I don't want people to be hostile to me because of my choice to wait for long term data on the vaccine. Half of me wants to lie to people i've had it so they will not be stand off towards me.

The main 'reservoir' for new mutations is the poorer countries of this world where vaccination programs have barely started. That is the 'us' and 'them' I am seeing, whilst we wrangle over the few people who don't want to be vaccinated in the UK. The bigger picture is that here we have an excellent take up of the vaccine, and there's no need to make unvaccinated people's lives a misery with constant sniping.

The problem is we are physically limited as to how many doses we can give in a day, set against the millions of people who need them. Time is the issue, and time gives this virus more chance of mutating away from the vaccines. There isn't much we can do about that except plod onwards. This is a global problem.

I do believe we should be turning our attention to other nations rather than jabbing all our kids, but I do understand some people think differently.

As for SAGE and their endless doom and gloom, I think it's so very wrong of them to present such a negative message to the public who by now are exhausted and fed up, and some are at the end of their tether. We are all tired of it, no matter what our circumstances are. There's no way to know what other viruses might be in circulation this coming winter, why assume the worst and fill people's mind with more anxiety? This is why we see threads of 'this will never be over, will it'.

@winched so would you rather the MSM only published articles with clear solutions and positive messages about Covid?

If a highly respected professor of virology has a concern, he should be muffled?
In favour of authors who have no scientific qualifications - but are encouraging us to reject the best scientific advice (worldwide) because they can only see it through the eyes of the government/and from their own personal individualistic stance?

And in favour of unproven, poorly researched pseudoscience with a very biased agenda?

And I’ve been saying for a while that if the virus can’t take effect in the older vaccinated, could it mutate and become more problematic in the groups it CAN infect? I don’t WANT to think that with my two young children, but I’d rather KNOW it is a possibility them stick my fingers in my ears and shove my head in the sand.
I also don’t know why there’s this belief that ‘we’ve been vaccinated, game over - the virus will just stop in it’s tracks now, no more mutations’.

The effect of new variants on children needs to be monitored carefully. I’d take far more comfort knowing that scientists are addressing this - then ignoring it because people find it ‘scary’.

Good post from Crunchy.

Well of course scientists should keep an eye on it hornbill but the media don’t need to report every little non-finding. “This new strain might be a risk.” “This new strain could become dominant.” “This new strain may evade vaccines.” As winched said, imagine we were living with every new NEO that’s identified being reported as a on a possible collision course with Earth.

@bumbleymummy it’s not a little ‘non-finding’ it’s a legitimate concern.

I’m sure you’d rather the blood clot risk was reported and not dismissed as a ‘non finding’ because it’s risk is so small.

The risk of the sky being green or every meteor potentially hitting the earth is extremely small so of course it doesn’t need reporting on. However blood clots do - even though the risk is small. And new variants certainly do because the risk there is potentially pretty high.

I’m sure you’d rather the blood clot risk was reported and not dismissed as a ‘non finding’ because it’s risk is so small.

They weren't reporting the blood clot risk though, which basically adds to my point. (Because the blood clot risk actually had possible mitigations). In fact I strongly remember the gaslighting over that.

Even when they started to, look at the headlines:

'AstraZeneca vaccine: Reports of blood clots double in weeks –but 'benefits outweigh risks'

Versus

'The drive to vaccinate all adults over the age of 18 in the UK could lead to the concentration of Covid-19 cases in schoolchildren, a leading British virologist has warned.'

No, but benefits outweigh risks added to that headline, is there? Which is telling indeed.

It's the obvious bias that's starting to annoy me and it's everywhere.

it’s not a little ‘non-finding’ it’s a legitimate concern.

Which one? Not everything that has been reported was a legitimate concern or had data to back it up.

@winched hang on - when was the blood clot risk ‘not reported’? It’s extremely well known and widely reported. But the risk of a blood clot from the AZ vaccine is far, far, far less than the risk from Covid.

The Guardian article is reporting a risk factor that needs to be monitored. Would you rather it wasn’t reported until it’s too late to do anything about it, and unleashed on the public - who would then say - why weren’t we told??

Listening to Matt Hancock on BBC breakfast this morning, he was asked about booster jabs. The govt are working on a program for autumn jabs, they're waiting on trials on vaccine mixing to see whether there's enhanced protection from having, say, 2 AZ jabs then a Pfizer booster.

There's also talk of flu jabs, can they be given at the same time as booster jabs, i.e. one in each arm.

The latter is the sort of thing that gives me pause as you are really giving your immune system a lot to do (plus the flu jabs are adjuvanted if I recall correctly, although that may vary with which age group vaccine is used). This is a big hit on the immune system, you need to be in good shape to deal with this. It's something that is never talked about. For your immune system to mount a good reaction you need good levels of iron, B2, Vit D3 and other nutrients. It doesn't work in isolation. I feel that some of the adverse vaccine effects occur because people are unknowingly depleted in these.

I know - I was told by a nurse happily they will combine the flu and covid vaccine. This is shit for the hesitant like me - I want that even less!

Well they’ve been trying to increase uptake of the flu vaccine for years so I guess bundling it with the vaccine for ‘much scarier’ COVID is a way to do that.

Doesn’t the latest data from MHRA show an incidence of blood clots in under 50s as around 1 in 50,000? And that’s still being calculated out of total doses given iirc - not just doses given to under 50s.

Yes it does show that incidence. At least that is what has been reported in the MSM. So are you happy to believe that or not, as MSM are apparently ‘covering everything up’ /can’t be trusted/should only be reporting about pink fluffy clouds and things that make us happy.

@Hornbill123456789 it wasn't though. You seriously have no recollection of all the threads on here?

In early March European countries stated they were investigating the link. On March 15th Germany suspended use pending investigation.

The UK: https://news.stv.tv/scotland/five-uk-cases-of-rare-blood-clot-after-astrazeneca-jab?top

Not linked. 'the evidence available does not suggest the vaccine is the cause'

My point is that for anything which might 'big up' the risk of covid, it's perfectly acceptable to report in the media or post on forums using points like 'could' and 'warns' and 'might'.

There is very little well what does this mean? or what is the evidence? or how likely is that prediction?

There's no censorship under the guise of misinformation.

There is a thread right now about a study on post covid brain scans where people are jumping to the conclusion of irreversible brain damage. A scientist posted a study on twitter (not peer reviewed) but speculation is fine. Acceptable.

But when that comes from the other side, anything that might 'big up' the risk of vaccines or 'downplay' the risk of covid, that's exactly what you get. No evidence. It's othered away as anti-science or denial or scaremongering. The 'inventor' of mRNA vaccine technology Dr Robert Malone recently claimed he has raised concerns with the FDA that the vaccines are not working as intended. He also claims the 'as intended' was never proven in clinical human trials and only evidenced on paper. I have zero medical knowledge or experience to know if he's telling the truth or lying, but his claims (to me) are just as worrying as your Guardian expert saying children are about to be a reservoir of mutations.

And yet one of those claims is in a mainstream newspaper (or twitter) while the other was pulled from YouTube?

It's the blanket 'speculate all you want on the risks of covid or need for further restrictions' versus 'media silence on any and all speculation' on the other side. It's like science is now a party line. 'Could' and speculation is acceptable in some scenarios but not others. If you can't see that then lets agree to disagree.

It's the blanket 'speculate all you want on the risks of covid or need for further restrictions' versus 'media silence on any and all speculation' on the other side.

Yep. It's very unbalanced and biased.

@Hornbill123456789

Yes it does show that incidence. At least that is what has been reported in the MSM. So are you happy to believe that or not, as MSM are apparently ‘covering everything up’ /can’t be trusted/should only be reporting about pink fluffy clouds and things that make us happy.

Eh? Who has said that? And actually I’d rather see the incidence in under 50s out of doses given to under 50s rather than total doses.

you are really giving your immune system a lot to do (plus the flu jabs are adjuvanted if I recall correctly, although that may vary with which age group vaccine is used). This is a big hit on the immune system, you need to be in good shape to deal with this. It's something that is never talked about. For your immune system to mount a good reaction you need good levels of iron, B2, Vit D3 and other nutrients. It doesn't work in isolation. I feel that some of the adverse vaccine effects occur because people are unknowingly depleted in these.

That is very interesting and makes a lot of sense @CrunchyCarrot

But when that comes from the other side, anything that might 'big up' the risk of vaccines or 'downplay' the risk of covid, that's exactly what you get. No evidence. It's othered away as anti-science or denial or scaremongering. The 'inventor' of mRNA vaccine technology Dr Robert Malone recently claimed he has raised concerns with the FDA that the vaccines are not working as intended. He also claims the 'as intended' was never proven in clinical human trials and only evidenced on paper. I have zero medical knowledge or experience to know if he's telling the truth or lying, but his claims (to me) are just as worrying as your Guardian expert saying children are about to be a reservoir of mutations.

Gosh that is very worrying

It's the blanket 'speculate all you want on the risks of covid or need for further restrictions' versus 'media silence on any and all speculation' on the other side. It's like science is now a party line. 'Could' and speculation is acceptable in some scenarios but not others.

And yes I totally agree with this, which is why I can't trust the vaccines. I don't trust the government - who does??? or the media ... and science is now all entwined with those two things. Maybe it always was.

It may be the case but would you prefer those eligible for flu jabs too didn’t?

As it’ll be a tougher winter if they avoid both.

I have a flu jab every year. I've had a pneumonia jab and both covid vaccinations. I'd be delighted if flu and covid were combined as boosters.

I'd be delighted if flu and covid were combined as boosters.

That's great @ilovesooty

I have sympathy for those with phobias but if posts convince any to avoid booster / flu jab combined it doesn't help. Not those avoiding and not the health service which will be rammed.

It doesn’t even help the phobic as you’re better off if others have it.

@winched - sorry I’m being quick here. I would suggest it was reported as insufficient evidence, pending further studies/investigation/based on the data we have available NOW. I would highly doubt there was any article stating ‘no link, 100% certainty, everyone can relax”.

At least - that was always the way I interpreted it.

@oneglassandpuzzled

You have the freedom to do what you want.

You may not have the freedom to travel as freely because YOU made that choice not to be vaccinated.

This.