If you didn't get the jab, would you consider having it now?

[AreYouVeryAnti]

You'd better be quick if you're healthy and under 50...

"The Telegraph understands the Government is also preparing to wind down the open offer of the first two doses over the coming months. The move will mean unvaccinated healthy under-50s will soon not be able to get a Covid jab unless one is recommended by a medical professional."

@MeetPi

You have to have a prescription from a doctor or a nurse or physician's assistant who are licensed to prescribe, so they're presumably checking medical history or potential interactions. Once you have the prescription, you can get it free at pharmacies or have it delivered. I haven't taken it myself, but know quite a few people who have for various reasons ranging from clinically vulnerable to already suffering from long covid to essential workers needing to be back at work as quickly as possible.

@MeetPi

By all means, try Ivermectin if you get covid or to attempt to prevent it, but for someone who has reason to believe covid could be dangerous to them, Paxlovid has been proven to be effective. If @MeetPi is in the UK and was given it, there is probably good reason to suspect they're considered vulnerable.

Additionally, the authors of the study you linked didn't conduct research, they basically summarised some not particularly respected trials and are careful to not conclude anything definitive. The bolded words below make that pretty clear.

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally

Thanks HappyHouses. I didn't even consider Ivermectin - sorry. I'm ECV. As soon as I I was aware I had Covid, I called my GP and - given she is aware of my medical history - prescribed Paxlovid. I'd rather take something proven to be effective for a particular condition, even if it is uncomfortable, rather than folk remedies.

i was wondering what you all think about the proposed law in idaho making it illegal to give the vaccine...

here is a link to the bill

legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/h0154/

Well it's clearly more bullshit from extremist people trying to get traction and not informed by anyone with expertise in immunology, vaccines, or public health.

"Adds to existing law to provide that providing or administering an MRNA shot is a misdemeanor."

So they can't even be bothered to specify what innoculation they're talking about, or use the correct terminology for mRNA. Presumably they actually mean the SARS-COV-2 vaccines?

"for use in an individual or any other mammal in this state."
And they're also proposing it should be illegal for mRNA technology to be developed or tested in phase I/II studies? (mice are mammals)

i was wondering what you all think about the proposed law
Given there is still good evidence to suggest certain groups benefit from boosters (e.g., elderly, pregnant) hence why they're still offered globally, I think it's complete nonsense.

Where do you even get all these links from @peppathe3rd ?

Ah more right wing bullshit in america. Depressing stuff @peppathe3rd

So they're basically gunning to remove the choice from their citizens as to whether they can get vaccinated or not. For certain demographics, this is catastrophic.

If these senators were actually concerned with mRNA technology, rather than just trying to impose restrictions on people (see their policies on reproductive healthcare, for example), they would reassure citizens they would move to offering the Novovax vaccine. But no, it's just more anti-science, rightwing, "COVID is a scam" crap.

i was wondering what you all think

@peppathe3rd To add - I would be furious if I was pregnant in Idaho and unable to access a recommended vaccine because of some senator's arrogance and ignorance.

Their posturing and scrambling to gain popularatity by proposing more and more extreme things directly increases risk for me and my baby.

There's real world consequences to all this, which means it can't simply be dismissed as nonsense.

i was wondering what you all think about the proposed law in idaho making it illegal to give the vaccine...

Thank god I don't live there. It sounds like a different century.

Where do you find this shit ?

@peppathe3rd

It’s a proposed law by someone with extremist views. Do you support her ideology?

In 2014, Tammy Nichols joined the Boise Tea Party (294 members) Facebook group. In 2018, her first year in office, Nichols joined the far-right paramilitary groups, the Patriot Network Summit (2,799 members) and U.S. Militia Northern Command-America’s Militia (3,275 members). She also joined the Posse-Influenced groups, Constitutional Grassroots Movement (7,026 members), Rural Land Rights Advocates (RLRA) (2,626 members), and The National Constitutional Coalition of Patriotic Americans (6,326 members). Finally, in 2019, Nichols joined the Islamophobic group Idaho G416 Patriots (722 members)

What do you think about it? I can guess, but I'd like to hear it in your own words.

i was wondering on what grounds such a bill could be put forth.

Political grounds.

@peppathe3rd

The far right do have representation and support - and can put bills forward. The bill has been proposed, it’s whether it would get enough support.

Do you support it?

Do you want to see far right politicians gain power?

“A new study has found that the far-right has extended their reach through messaging app Telegram and COVID-19 conspiracy theories.

The London-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue study has found that the far-right has been using COVID-19 conspiracy theories to recruit people into their extremist views.

It found that 90% of the most viewed posts from far-right groups contained misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccines or the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing them.”

doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02465-5

funny how bill gates is funding research that states the efficacy of natural immunity is equivalent to that of vaccination immunity and that it needs to be considered as we move forward with this phase of the understanding the virus. this is why many people chose to wait, until there was further long term evidence on how this virus can be fought by natural immunity, however some folks still want to berate those who opted out.

Those findings are really interesting, but are in no way an argument that we should not have had a vaccine programme and should not have one going forward. Especially because of omicron.

@IClaudine if definitely suggests that mandates aren’t necessary, and those who choose not to get vaccinated shouldn’t be vilified. Especially by now when everyone has been repeatedly exposed.

@statementstate

Opting out is one thing, but opting out spreading misinformation and linking far right politicians is another. It needs to challenged.

What it says is this:

"It supports the idea that those with a documented infection should be treated similarly to those who have been fully vaccinated with high-quality vaccines."

In fact, the study equated one infection to two vaccines. So what you are suggesting isn't the case at all. The study also does not discuss the health implications of infection, either.

@MeetPi you are interpreting the data from this meta-analysis as you see fit to support your hard stance. Natural immunity is VALID, whether you like it or not. Not everyone needs/needed to be vaccinated as their own immune systems were equipped to handle the virus without MRNA injections and their adverse effects.

Funny, or just evidence that the funding Bill Gates provides contributes to useful non-biased research?

This study provides good evidence that if immunity passes were ever used (which we now know are totally redundant) that a previous infection should be included. This is what Europe did, and what was proposed in England.

The study doesn't sugget that people should not have been vaccinated though, that's a huge leap of logic.

It is clear from replicated data worldwide that the best approach was for people to be vaccinated before their first infection, due to the far higher risks of COVID infection when compared to that of vaccination.

I don't think anyone should be "berated" for any decision on vaccination but you really are being close minded if you won't consider the wealth of evidence in front of you.

As above - the study tells you nothing about the costs of acquiring immunity via infection without any protection from vaccination.

We know from a robust body of evidence that outcomes are better in those vaccinated than unvaccinated, when it comes to a first COVID infection.

@statementstate

Natural immunity is valid, but a mix of immunity through both vaccine and natural immunity has allowed Covid to become less of a threat.

There is a far, far lower risk of adverse effects from the vaccine then from Covid itself.
13 billion shots have been administered globally and no country anywhere is saying anything other than : safe and effective. Apart from the far right politicians within those countries (continually linked on this thread) and they don’t have sufficient support to get their anti-science laws passed.

I don't have a "hard stance" and I have no issue with natural immunity. However, I do believe that it is safer to acquire immunity via vaccination, particularly for particular subsets of people. If we are to achieve a global baseline endemic level and slow down the virus' mutation rate - vaccination levels need to be maintained.

@Biochemist no, not everyone needed to be vaccinated from a risk benefit analysis. Plenty of studies show this. Vaccination over infection is not 100% necessary for immunity.

As I mentioned before, I have a dear friend who is receiving compensation from our government for vaccine injury from C19 vaccines. She was a 34 year old woman who now requires surgery, will be on medication for the rest of her life and is debilitated by her illness post vaccine. Her consultants and cardiologist told her she shouldn't have been vaccinated in the first place. For her, and many others the risk outweighs the benefit.
What is worse, is that she is in contact with others who are receiving this monetary compensation and they all detail how they aren't given any mental well-being support for their injuries apart from speaking with one another. Despite qualifying for compensation, in the real world, on forums like these, there is still no compassion for these groups of people, comparative to individuals suffering rom long Covid for example.

These vaccines aren't for everyone.