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."

No, haven’t and won’t. And also have read that from next year nhs is going to offer it to over 50 only. Bc “we need to live with covid”. Flu is not dangerous but still flu jabs are still offers, on payment, to under 50s. I wonder if this will be the case with this covid injection or they will pull it completely for young ppl, that will tell a lot.

and before I read one more time that millions have gotten it and have been fine, pls see the excess deaths happening ONLY after the vaccine was put in place, worldwide, so no “nhs is struggling” bs pls.

for 2 years of the pandemic when access to healthcare was denied, I know ppl with cancers who couldn’t get treatment, all operations cancelled, etc - and still excess deaths weren’t this high (outside covid deaths). Most of these deaths are from heart issues too, see nhs breakdown. And don’t tell me ppl with heart issues just waited 2 years to die.

this is a reasonable article that considers other reasons, plausible and not bs

unherd.com/2023/01/why-are-excess-deaths-still-so-high/

it also includes links for all they say

@CristinaNov182

Most of these deaths are from heart issues too, see nhs breakdown. And don’t tell me ppl with heart issues just waited 2 years to die.

If you're quoting unherd as your source, I suspect you won't let inconvenient research data get in your way, but just in case, please see below. Excerpt is from this article. www.heart.org/en/news/2022/03/31/after-covid-19-experts-say-watch-for-these-potential-heart-and-brain-problems

Researchers adjusted for pre-existing conditions and found that after one year, those who had COVID-19 were 63% more likely to have some kind of cardiovascular issue, resulting in about 45 additional cases per 1,000 people.

Risks were elevated even among people who did not have severe COVID-19. That matches what Singh has seen in his post-COVID clinic, which began treating patients in December 2020. "A lot of patients that we have seen with long-haul symptoms had minor illness and had been treated at home."

Singh also treats many people with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or POTS, which can cause dizziness, fainting and heart palpitations. "These palpitations mostly tend to happen when people are standing or sitting upright," he said.

In rare cases, "smoldering inflammation around the heart or in the heart" can occur, Singh said.

The Nature Medicine study also found a 52% increased risk of stroke at one year among COVID-19 survivors, or about four extra strokes per 1,000 people.

@CristinaNov182

No, haven’t and won’t. And also have read that from next year nhs is going to offer it to over 50 only. Bc “we need to live with covid”. Flu is not dangerous but still flu jabs are still offers, on payment, to under 50s. I wonder if this will be the case with this covid injection or they will pull it completely for young ppl, that will tell a lot.

Not read about the phases of pandemics, then? Or vaccine schedules? Wasn't it always planned at around this time to only offer the vaccine to over 50s?

@Wallaw so people who survived covid in 2020 waited until 2022 to die? The worst form of covid was in 2020, omicron etc were “light weight” in comparison.

Researchers adjusted for pre-existing conditions and found that after one year, those who had COVID-19 were 63% more likely to have some kind of cardiovascular issue, resulting in about 45 additional cases per 1,000 people.

why didn’t we see these excess deaths creeping up in 2021 from these damaged covid survivors? Don’t let too much thinking get in the way though.

re: phases of pandemic - normal flu was never pandemic, but flu jabs are available to under 50, on payment ofc. Will the covid jabs be available too? If not, why not?! We’re supposed to live with covid now as we’ve been living with the flu since forever.

I don’t doubt the study. But they don’t add another variable there, how about comparing survivors of covid who got the jabs vs survivors of covid who didn’t?

ha? Good idea?

You couldn’t pay me 5 million to have it injected.

the saddest thing is that MN totally banned anyone speaking out about it - but now allow us to.
why?

@CristinaNov182

re: phases of pandemic - normal flu was never pandemic, but flu jabs are available to under 50, on payment ofc. Will the covid jabs be available too? If not, why not?! We’re supposed to live with covid now as we’ve been living with the flu since forever.

I'd certainly hope Covid vaccinations would be offered to under 50s - free to any CV/ECV, teenagers and children; and at low cost to anyone else who may wish to have it. (And the Spanish Flu from 1918-1920 was a pandemic that resulted in 20 million deaths globally.)

No, never. Extremely happy about that.

DD can decide when an adult.

Both had Covid many times. Both under 50 (at the time) and healthy.

Because you have all been proved absolutely right and people are dropping dead all over the shop because of the vaccine?

Or because all the same old anti-vax crap has been trotted out over and over again on here and no-one who hasn't already succumbed to the misinformation is going to now?

@adriftabroad i had it twice too, my DH and DD as well, my elderly mum once, all my sisters and nieces once too. Some of my DH relatives had it twice too. Not one jabbed. I do know a lot of ppl who were jabbed and been fine since then as well. Only one who almost died of a stroke couple of weeks after the first jab.

The vaxxed and not vaxxed had various degrees of coping with it, but none ended in hospital, so all mild cases as they say.

I don’t think most would have been greatly harmed by the vaxx, but I wouldn’t take on a medical experiment (that what no long term studies + released under emergency statue mean) when my chance of surviving was 99.8% or some such (for my age and no health issues) and it didn’t prevent infection or spreading it to other ppl. I have the same chances of surviving flu(though flu doesn’t spread as easily). I made sure I took vit D (was deficient and didn’t know it at the start at the pandemic), vit C, zinc etc.

Even when you play Russian roulette the chance are in your favour not to get a bullet in your head.(5 out of 6)

And I don’t even want a “small” damage to my heart thank you very much.

How is it possibly anti vax to not want untested poison put into our bloodstreams?

None of my family have had the covid vaccine or my wider family. None of us are dead, some of us have caught covid but to no surprise, survived just like any other illness.

At one point it was broadcast everywhere if you don't have vaccine you WILL die, sorry but that just is not the case. This country is full of bloody sheep who get scared at the slightest thing and go along with what the government tells them. It's utterly pathetic.

Well, among other things, there was a lot more Covid in circulation as time went on.

coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases

Additionally, have a look at the non-Covid excess deaths March 2020-June 2022.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/excessdeathsinenglandandwalesmarch2020tojune2022/2022-09-20

Don't let too much thinking get in the way, though.

@IClaudine if only there were no unexplained excess deaths…

I don’t believe in the conspiracy to kill masses of ppl, nor I believe that smtg wouldn’t have been released if they knew the death rate is going to be big. My kid is vaxxed as per nhs schedule, I’ve been also getting the flu vaxx, looked into others for myself but were expensive etc.

Facts: unexplained deaths plus pharma still can’t explain how myocarditis, blood clots and period issues (weeks of bleeding etc) happen! If they can’t explain it, how are they still so confident in their product?

these are widely different side effects (all conspiracy theories that were proven right btw!) affecting different organs, process of the body.

you have to be really under some spell to still think they know 100% the jab is so “safe”. It doesn’t have to be death to consider damage. A small damage to the heart now might still mean decades or years off a normal life span, in the long run…

A small undetected damage to the heart, or blood cells/circulation..

or a small undetected damage to the ova stored in a women’s body (nobody is checking btw) might mean infertility issues that will take years to show up as a signal in stats

nhs is so confident that weeks of bleeding mean nothing (but without having an explanation for it) that they said ofc I’d doesn’t affect your fertility! (Never mind while you bleed you can’t conceive, and if your 42 and this maybe is your last chance - my case, ofc it affects your fertility, at least for the period you’re bleeding!)

what a lot of confidence all around :)

I won't be getting any boosters.

No pharmaceutical is 100% safe. Even the most innocuous, everyday medicine can be harmful or even lethal in a tiny number of cases. The question is always whether the benefits heavily outweigh the risks, which is so very clearly the case with the vaccines.

@CristinaNov182

So you’ve linked ‘unherd’ which has a reputation for printing articles by some pretty horrendous journalists - and is very right wing in its political bias. So - not a balanced article by any stretch of the imagination.

There is no evidence that the vaccine causes fertility problems. And that’s the same if you read NHS guidelines - European guidelines or global guidelines.

@CristinaNov182

A small damage to the heart now might still mean decades or years off a normal life span, in the long run…

But why are you ignoring all the actual research that shows a Covid infection is damaging to the vascular system? Not to mention the latest research which seems to show that with repeated reinfection the damage might well be cumulative?

@CristinaNov182

Nothing you’ve written there sounds factual at all. It also sounds very heavily biased by niche opinions from right wing think tanks like ‘unherd’.

I don’t think it’s even as straight forward/black and white as ‘fact’ ‘fiction’. There is a consensus opinion which has a far greater likelihood to be correct and safe.

@CristinaNov182 not just 50s, CEV are able to have it too
I'm 38 and was told they're looking at a spring and autumn booster

The article I’ve sent links to nhs data, etc, for every argument they make.

Resorting to “right wing website or “anti vaxxers” or “nothing you’ve written sounds factual” without engaging with what’s actually been said is lame. It’s your choice though.

@MinkyGreen
”There is no evidence that the vaccine causes fertility problems. And that’s the same if you read NHS guidelines - European guidelines or global guidelines.”

absence of evidence is not an argument as long as I’ve said they can’t explain how and why there is bleeding for weeks, some for months, and who such other different serious side effects like myocarditis or blood clouts.

as I said, it could take years before any fertility issue shows up in stats if, for example, there is only a small or partial damage to ova. Some might be ok and babies will be conceived, some might not resulting in a drop will have to wait years to see. As long as the reason for bleeding is unknown there is no argument to be made about safety or 0% fertility issues.

@Wallaw im not ignoring the evidence. I said I believe that study. The fact that Covid affects the heart doesn’t mean the vaxx doesn’t. They could be both true, you know? Mind blowing, I know. They need to add another variable and compare heart issues for jabbed covid survivors and unjabbed covid survivors.

anyway I’ve lost enough time here. People will default to their beliefs, attitudes, faiths in the infallibility of pharma and the gov (like it’s warranted :)) or like science never gets it wrong, or doesn’t need years sometimes to find out causes, explanations etc)

I trust science, explanations, trust that science can withstand questions, unlike faith.

Resorting to “right wing website or “anti vaxxers” or “nothing you’ve written sounds factual” without engaging with what’s actually been said is lame. It’s your choice though.

As posted on a similar thread... @CristinaNov182

I do usually reply to posts with misinformation specifically explaining why, where the claim came from if I know, and linking to sources that demonstrate it to be untrue.

You can appreciate that after 2 years of these careful posts being ignored (and then the same claim repeated dozens of times over) I don't always reply in as much detail anymore. I can understand why others don't either - by this point certain people/websites have such a strong catologue of pushing nonsense, it's a waste of time to double check to see if this time there's anything in their claims.

Please understand that there are huge amounts of fake claims that take a number/stat/sentence out of a publication, and use it to mean something completely different. When you follow the claim back, it is clear there is actually no evidence backing it at all. It would be more than a full time job to reply to all posts in detail explaining this - and it's pretty unrewarding as most of the time a poster will ignore and swerve onto a new fake claim!

@CristinaNov182

No - it is a right wing publication. So of course it would have a bias. And it’s incredibly important to consider bias in whatever you are reading. So no - I’m not ‘resorting’ to that. It’s an opinion based publication - mainly right wing opinion.

An view on Unherd here: Why do I dislike UnHerd? Because it purports to be ‘reasonable’, ‘fair’ and ‘balanced’ while pushing a relentless right-wing, cruel and populist agenda. It clothes itself in respectability but it is as dangerous as any YouTube cesspool.

I would therefore imagine that whatever NHS data is in there has been manipulated to support that opinion.

Consensus opinion is safer as it is the majority opinion and is peer reviewed - which would take into account extreme bias. Niche opinions are not safer than majority opinions in any field of science. The niche opinion need to be backed by robust evidence before it can become global health advice.

I’m not a fan of unheard or any other website. I found articles that poise a good arg, even if I don’t agree, some I don’t agree at all, some that I agree with. I don’t have to agree with everything or anything someone had said to be able to engage with a new argument? Unheard might be wrong on many issues etc but a broken clock is right twice a day, you know?

@minkygreen the links they provide there are direct nhs or gov links

again, everyone is comfortable with no one knowing why and how myocarditis, blood clots and period issues happen and who’s at risk because of… drum rolls… faith… in consensus!

there was a consensus opinion that thalidomide was safe in pregnancy, until there was a tipping point of damaged babies that swayed the consensus… same for tobacco, asbestos, lead, many others… so much for consensus… science evolves, the doctors of today know more than the ones of yesterday and less than the ones of tomorrow.

not engaging your own brain, going by consensus opinion, faith in this or that, dismissing or tarring dissenting opinions by resulting to insults - that is sheep thinking, good luck with it in life.