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."

@Biochemist

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.

Where is the evidence to back this statement?

I have had pretty nasty neuro issues since my 4th vaccine but thinking about it I had issues after the 3rd one too , but they went away after a few weeks, so I kind of stupidly dismissed it . After the 4th they didn't go away. One of the things though is they ask if you are allergic to xxxx and thinking about it we all tend to say no- how would we know? Many of us haven't had vaccines for many years and nor would we have known or asked what the ingredients were. I suspect like me many with long covid possibly actually had issues with the vaccine.

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.

Again, this is incorrect and completely at odds with what replicated data tells us.

It doesn't mean anyone should be vaccinated if they don't want to be, but we have robust evidence that it was better to be vaccinated than unvaccinated, even in younger low risk age groups.

Vaccination over infection is not 100% necessary for immunity.
Not sure what you mean by this.

Her consultants and cardiologist told her she shouldn't have been vaccinated in the first place.
I am very suprised by this, because again it's at odds with global health recommendations that are based on the most recent evidence. For someone in their 30s, it was far safer to be vaccinated than remain unvaccinated (before a first infection).

This is a completely seperate point to the fact that vaccine side effects do occur, and people should be recognised and compensated.

As I've said before, all disinformation does is negatively impact those who do genuinely have side effects.

You've been linked to papers time and time again @peppathe3rd

You don't read or engage with them, which is why I haven't linked any in this post.

Genuine question: why do you think the vast vast majority of experts have this view? Do you think these tens of thousands of people are just mistaken?

You seem to be ignoring all replies to your last post @peppathe3rd , and just swerving onto another unrelated thing?

^ @peppathe3rd

i'm not ignoring the questions - i'm just exasperated with explaining over and over that i hold NO far right beliefs. it is tiresome to be asked the same thing consistently. i follow législature which is how i learned of the proposed bill.

Neither mine or the PP said anything about your beliefs or even mentioned the phrase "right wing".

It was pointed out that these senators, with absolutely no evidence or expertise, are trying to remove the option for people to be vaccinated who would benefit.

It means those who are recommended to be vaccinated, are no longer able to. This would cause real harm, increasing risk to various groups including babies in utero.

Along with all the other points that show how it's complete nonsense.

I'm actually pro vaccine - hence why I've had 4 - but I do feel it's necessary to highlight for some there have been problems - in many cases though we can't really know unfortunately if it's vaccines or covid itself (unless you are 109% sure you've not had covid) or if it's completely coincidental. If you had a look at the Facebook support forums for long covid they are enormous. Some I feel are the kind of people who've always had big health problems and covid has exacerbated it but there are lots and lots of previously very healthy fit and well people of all ages and suprisingly I noticed a lot of previously very fit men in their 30s and 40s.- all now with neuro or heart type issues or both

I absolutely cannot understand the mindset behind : continually linking far right politicians, but disregarding/or getting annoyed when someone points out the link between their politics and views on science.

If you think governments worldwide are corrupt/pushing mandates - why would you then completely and wilfully ignore the fact that your links have a very extreme political agenda.

It’s just so contradictory! To say : politicians/scientists worldwide are corrupt, here’s a link to a far right extreme politician to prove I’m right (however we should completely and wilfully ignore the political persuasions of my link because politics in this instance have nothing to do with what their agenda).

Or rather : I linked something, had no clue they were from a far right party, and now I’m pissed off/flouncing because someone’s pointed it out. So I’ll change my user name and post an anecdotal story stating I’ve had a vaccine injury instead.

@pinkred
i answered both questions in one post. yours - where did i find this link, and minkyred - do i hold alt right beliefs.

@MinkyGreen
i'm not sure if your last message was directed at me?

i answered both questions in one post. yours - where did i find this link, and minkyred - do i hold alt right beliefs.

sorry- i meant minkygreen

So do I take from that you're fine with all of the above as you're ignoring these points? (summarised below)

-removing option for those who would benefit from vaccination, increasing risk of health issues and death in various demographics. Globally, a booster vaccine is recommended for cystic fibrosis patients and pregnant women, for example.

-failing to offer a non-mRNA based vaccines such as novovax instead - demonstrating it's not really about the vaccine at all

-making all mRNA technology research illegal even if you're anti the idea of using it for SARS-COV-2 vaccines, you're potentially leading to millions of preventable deaths due to banning research in this area. There are many types of cancer, for example, that do not currently have treatment options but could benefit from therpeutics using this technology.

It's bonkers you don't want to acknowledge any of this.

@peppathe3rd

Was it you linking the Idaho far right politician?

We’ve had someone linked from the Alternative for Germany party too?

You are saying we should ignore their politics in this instance. Statements from far right politicians = absolutely fine/their politics have nothing to do with their agenda. Whereas every other politician worldwide (if they happen to be in favour of the vaccine) should very much be held accountable for their corrupt politics.

I think that’s very contradictory.

no, i did not propose this bill. i wondered what could have been the legal framework allowing for such a bill to be proposed. enquiring about something does not mean i support it

@peppathe3rd

Loving the wide eyed naivety there 👍

Think many people find links to far right politicians and misinformation unpleasant too. Good job that Mumsnet deletes that sort of stuff when it’s reported.

It just doesn't make sense then, why you won't state this at the start in all your posts on this kind of theme, and why you won't engage with anyone who points out issues in the things you're linking.

If you aren't of a specific viewpoint, I'm not sure why you'd have an issue in agreeing "oh yes it's a bit shit that they're trying to ban something that is recommended for various groups due to the health benefits", or "oh yes it's a bit weird they're not offering a viable alternative that isn't mRNA based"

@MinkyGreen

If you think governments worldwide are corrupt/pushing mandates - why would you then completely and wilfully ignore the fact that your links have a very extreme political agenda.

i do not think that

@MinkyGreen
i do believe that mandates were wrong, but i would not reduce their implementation down to worldwide corruption, as you suggested.

@peppathe3rd

Misguided then? Biased? If you don’t favour the word corruption.

You have to apply the same critical eye to your sources. If you want to scrutinise the agenda of consensus scientific opinion and global government policy - you can’t then claim a “whoops”/‘I didn’t know”/wide eyed innocence/“the politics don’t matter” approach to the far right sources of information that you link.

i only need one word - wrong.

@peppathe3rd

I don’t think it’s as clear cut as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

It’s more to do with the safest approach possible at a given point in time.

So at source level : I’d say global consensus opinion is likely to be better regulated/safer/freer from bias than - a far right source promoting vaccine misinformation because there may well be an agenda. The agenda being : those who are ‘fit’ or have good natural immunity deserve to live/have freedom whereas those who are ‘not fit’ will not be protected if it impinges on the liberty/economic wealth of the ‘fit’. That IS an argument, it’s not one I support at all and it’s not a world I want for my children.

Some very disturbing excess death figures out from NZ..