Coronavirus

[denphone]

The Government's new regional tier restrictions pass by 291 votes to 78 in Parliament this evening.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55142152

56 Tory MPs rebelled against it's own government.

Drama though, during the parliamentary vote, you had the Prime Minister of the day, begging Tory MPs to vote with the government.

I really don't understand his obsession with the tiered system, it did not work last time, they won't post evidence and reasoning for the tiers this time round.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mick

56 Tory MPs rebelled against it's own government.

Drama though, during the parliamentary vote, you had the Prime Minister of the day, begging Tory MPs to vote with the government.

I really don't understand his obsession with the tiered system, it did not work last time, they won't post evidence and reasoning for the tiers this time round.

Personally l prefer a more localised system as the tiered system treats some places unfairly.

[Jimmy-J]

Just had the vaccine and feeling fit fit fit!

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

Just had the vaccine and feeling fit fit fit!

But that’s the ‘before’ picture...

[Jimmy-J]

Oops, my post should have said "Russ just had the vaccine and is feeling fit fit fit!"

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

Just had the vaccine and feeling fit fit fit!

Here’s the ‘after’ picture...

Originally Posted by denphone

Personally l prefer a more localised system as the tiered system treats some places unfairly.

Looking on the BBC site, Watford, Northampton, Milton Keynes are all T2 with higher figures than my area.

Luton is double our count, yet they are T2, we are T3, and they wonder why people are starting to resent it.

Funny how they were happy to shove just our area up to T2 a few weeks ago, but now suddenly they cant go the other way.

Even MPs are slowly realising this now ;

Conservative MP Damian Green, who represents Ashford, asked the government to apply rules at "a local level, districts rather than counties or regions" as "restrictions which people feel are unfair to their particular community will simply not be respected or obeyed".

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

MP's should go down the rout of getting their own family's vaccinated first just to show how safe it is.

---------- Post added at 19:17 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------



Gets my vote

Indeed. Vaccinations can and do go wrong, so the Government set up a vaccine damage scheme in 1979.

Any disability caused must be severe and it can affect other benefits that the person is entitled to.

So, the manufacturers may not be able to be sued because they've been given limited liability, you won't get the £120,000 lump sum if your resultant disability is not deemed to be severe or you don't meet any other conditions and, even if you do, it is very likely to be given in one hand and taken away with another.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Indeed. Vaccinations can and do go wrong, so the Government set up a vaccine damage scheme in 1979.

Any disability caused must be severe and it can affect other benefits that the person is entitled to.

So, the manufacturers may not be able to be sued because they've been given limited liability, you won't get the £120,000 lump sum if your resultant disability is not deemed to be severe or you don't meet any other conditions and, even if you do, it is very likely to be given in one hand and taken away with another.

I do not understand why you persist in pressing the possibility of something occurring, while flatly ignoring all discussion of the *likelihood* of it occurring.

Is there any chance of you moving away from scaremongering and onto intelligent debate about the subject?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

I do not understand why you persist in pressing the possibility of something occurring, while flatly ignoring all discussion of the *likelihood* of it occurring.

Is there any chance of you moving away from scaremongering and onto intelligent debate about the subject?

I'm having to shield as i'm extremely vulnerable to the effects of the coronavirus, so a safe and effective vaccine would allow me to leave the house i've been effectively imprisoned in since last March.

I'm neither pro nor against the vaccines, but I need to be sure that they are safe before having one. I am severely disabled as it is, so don't want anything that could potentially make this worse. If anything should happen, I may not be able to sue the manufacturer and may not be able to claim anything from the Government to help with the extra costs of worsened disability. Then there is the human cost and this scares me.

Most vaccines are fine, but this is the Government list of vaccines that were thought to be ok, but turned out to be problematic:

diphtheria
haemophilus influenzae type B (HIB)
human papillomavirus
influenza, except for influenza caused by a pandemic influenza virus
measles
meningococcal group B (meningitis B)
meningococcal group C (meningitis C)
meningococcal group W (meningitis W)
mumps
pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 (swine flu) - up to 31 August 2010
pertussis (whooping cough)
pneumococcal infection
poliomyelitis
rotavirus
rubella (German measles)
smallpox - up to 1 August 1971
tetanus
tuberculosis (TB)

"problematic" how exactly ?

A few of those are routinely given to large numbers of people, I dont see any large scale problems.

Have just copy pasted a list from some antivax site ?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

"problematic" how exactly ?

A few of those are routinely given to large numbers of people, I dont see any large scale problems.

Have just copy pasted a list from some antivax site ?

This is the Government list of vaccines that have caused some people to become severaly disabled. I've never been on an antivax site:

https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment/eligibility

Maybe some of these are fine with some people, but not with others??

The covid vaccine might be the same, nobody know one way or the other yet. This is one of the problems with my strategy of waiting until others, who are prepared to have it first, have had it and waiting to see what happens before I make a decision as to whether to have it or not. It could take some time for any negative effects to show themselves, but how long do I remain shielding to see what happens, 6 months, years?? Is it better to take the risk and at least have the chance of having a more normal life for the remaing time that I have left? I really don't know.

[denphone]

Good news as the UK Covid Pfizer vaccine has been approved for use from next week.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55145696

The UK has become the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine for widespread use.

British regulator, the MHRA, says the jab, which offers up to 95% protection against Covid-19 illness, is safe for roll out.

Immunisations could start within days for people in high priority groups

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This is the Government list of vaccines that have caused some people to become severaly disabled. I've never been on an antivax site:

https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment/eligibility

Maybe some of these are fine with some people, but not with others??

The covid vaccine might be the same, nobody know one way or the other yet. This is one of the problems with my strategy of waiting until others, who are prepared to have it first, have had it and waiting to see what happens before I make a decision as to whether to have it or not. It could take some time for any negative effects to show themselves, but how long do I remain shielding to see what happens, 6 months, years?? Is it better to take the risk and at least have the chance of having a more normal life for the remaing time that I have left? I really don't know.

The frequency of severe side effects from vaccination are extremely rare to the point of statistically being very difficult to be confident that there is a systemic issue with the vaccine. Vaccines, like all drugs are continuously monitored for safety and efficacy throughout their life though schemes like the yellow card scheme from the MHRA.

The vaccine payment scheme was set up to cover for these extremely rare events. There is very little proof needed to show that is was specifically a vaccine that caused the issue.

In the end it's all about risk - how much risk is enough? What level of risk from the vaccine is acceptable here - for example, if the virus kills 1% of those infected but the vaccine kills 0.000000001%, is the risk acceptable?

I will be taking the vaccine to protect myself, my family and for the good of society in general.