Coronavirus vaccine | Page 27 | Vital Football

Coronavirus vaccine

Make of this what you will, but my 90 year old mum in law and her 88 year old friend have both been phoned today by the health centre to return on Thursday for their second Covid vaccine jabs.

EDIT. Since this post, my Son in law tells me his gran in Bristol has also had the call back for her 2nd jab.
 
Last edited:
Just in case anybody skipped over my post above, #520 (I wouldn't blame you, it was more than a couple of paragraohs long!) there was a question in there that I'm really hoping somebody can answer for me. I'll repost the bit here:

"One question I have, which may be a really simple and stupid question, and I'd love to be answered is why does everybody have to have the vaccine? If most people can survive the virus without the vaccine and with the use of their own immune system, why do they need to have the jab? The flu virus is here every year and every year the elderly and the vulnerable are offered a jab. Why is this different? Why isn't it enough for just the eldery and vulnerable to have this vaccination whilst the fit, healthy and young build up their own immunity?

"As I said, I realise that might be a stupid question and I hope there's somebody on here who can explain it to me."
 
Just in case anybody skipped over my post above, #520 (I wouldn't blame you, it was more than a couple of paragraohs long!) there was a question in there that I'm really hoping somebody can answer for me. I'll repost the bit here:

"One question I have, which may be a really simple and stupid question, and I'd love to be answered is why does everybody have to have the vaccine? If most people can survive the virus without the vaccine and with the use of their own immune system, why do they need to have the jab? The flu virus is here every year and every year the elderly and the vulnerable are offered a jab. Why is this different? Why isn't it enough for just the eldery and vulnerable to have this vaccination whilst the fit, healthy and young build up their own immunity?

"As I said, I realise that might be a stupid question and I hope there's somebody on here who can explain it to me."

I don't think everybody WILL get a jab. Only those in the most vulnerable groups. Which makes sense. Cut off is healthy folk under 50 I believe?
 
Make of this what you will, but my 90 year old mum in law and her 88 year old friend have both been phoned today by the health centre to return on Thursday for their second Covid vaccine jabs.

EDIT. Since this post, my Son in law tells me his gran in Bristol has also had the call back for her 2nd jab.
I’d believe that Vambo.
Much of what is spoken is actually bollax.
It’s easy to criticise but if anyone chooses to read foreign news, every country is in the same boat.
France has allegedly vaccinated 320 people so far.
Malta has a serious roll out issue.
Comparatively, the U.K. is doing pretty well.
 
I don't think everybody WILL get a jab. Only those in the most vulnerable groups. Which makes sense. Cut off is healthy folk under 50 I believe?

Is that true? I'd not heard that.

Are you suggesting that you don't think it'll turn out that everybody gets it? Or instead that it's not intended for everyone to receive it?

My understanding is that the elderly and most vulnerable, along with health workers, were the priority, but that the aim is to ultimately vaccinate everyone.

My fear, as alluded to above (and by nobs and others), is that those who cannot prove that they've had the jab will have certain freedoms curtailed.
 
Just in case anybody skipped over my post above, #520 (I wouldn't blame you, it was more than a couple of paragraohs long!) there was a question in there that I'm really hoping somebody can answer for me. I'll repost the bit here:

"One question I have, which may be a really simple and stupid question, and I'd love to be answered is why does everybody have to have the vaccine? If most people can survive the virus without the vaccine and with the use of their own immune system, why do they need to have the jab? The flu virus is here every year and every year the elderly and the vulnerable are offered a jab. Why is this different? Why isn't it enough for just the eldery and vulnerable to have this vaccination whilst the fit, healthy and young build up their own immunity?

"As I said, I realise that might be a stupid question and I hope there's somebody on here who can explain it to me."
For a non expert answer I'd say that we don't HAVE to have EVERYBODY get the vaccine. I've heard from medical experts saying 70% tends to be enough.

Obviously it doesn't kill everybody or even cause serious illness in each victim. However, I for one would unhesitatingly take it, as I do the flu jab.

With regard to concerns about its rapid production and scientists getting it wrong sometimes I would say on the balance of probabilities it is a no brainer to have the jab. The chances of this all being a shabby con trick are extremely small given the overwhelming number of scientists and medics who back it.
 
Is that true? I'd not heard that.

Are you suggesting that you don't think it'll turn out that everybody gets it? Or instead that it's not intended for everyone to receive it?

My understanding is that the elderly and most vulnerable, along with health workers, were the priority, but that the aim is to ultimately vaccinate everyone.

My fear, as alluded to above (and by nobs and others), is that those who cannot prove that they've had the jab will have certain freedoms curtailed.
Is that true? I'd not heard that.

Are you suggesting that you don't think it'll turn out that everybody gets it? Or instead that it's not intended for everyone to receive it?

My understanding is that the elderly and most vulnerable, along with health workers, were the priority, but that the aim is to ultimately vaccinate everyone.

My fear, as alluded to above (and by nobs and others), is that those who cannot prove that they've had the jab will have certain freedoms curtailed.
 
Is that true? I'd not heard that.

Are you suggesting that you don't think it'll turn out that everybody gets it? Or instead that it's not intended for everyone to receive it?

My understanding is that the elderly and most vulnerable, along with health workers, were the priority, but that the aim is to ultimately vaccinate everyone.

My fear, as alluded to above (and by nobs and others), is that those who cannot prove that they've had the jab will have certain freedoms curtailed.
How about the freedom not to be infected and killed by someone who refuses the jab and is asymptomatic?

Obviously if there is a genuine reason (health) not to have the jab then it shouldn't be compulsory but that would be a tiny minority.

Those that need to be shielded will in effect be under house arrest if we don't supress this virus sufficiently.

I don't believe this is a plot to suppress freedoms, quite the opposite actually. I'm not accusing Johnson of that and I loathe the bloke. I've wanted him to be tougher on our "freedoms" so that in the long term we'll be in a better position.
 
With regard to concerns about its rapid production and scientists getting it wrong sometimes I would say on the balance of probabilities it is a no brainer to have the jab. The chances of this all being a shabby con trick are extremely small given the overwhelming number of scientists and medics who back it.

I'm inclined to agree with you, '58. And I'm not really suggesting that it's a, "shabby con-trick". All Im saying is that often, when something is, 'rushed through', mistakes can be made.

It might be that this is a marvelous exampole of the best minds working overtime to save the world from the pandemic in record quick time. And if it is then it is something to be greatly celebrated and endorsed.

But it is really so outlandish or loony, espercially if you're not elderly or vulnerable, to think, "hang on a minute, this has all happened very quickly, am I sure that I can trust this science; maybe I'll just take the chance that my immune system can deal with this virus without the need for a vaccine that's been developed more quickly than any previous one?"
 
Last edited:
How about the freedom not to be infected and killed by someone who refuses the jab and is asymptomatic?

Obviously if there is a genuine reason (health) not to have the jab then it shouldn't be compulsory but that would be a tiny minority.

Those that need to be shielded will in effect be under house arrest if we don't supress this virus sufficiently.

I don't believe this is a plot to suppress freedoms, quite the opposite actually. I'm not accusing Johnson of that and I loathe the bloke. I've wanted him to be tougher on our "freedoms" so that in the long term we'll be in a better position.


Yes, yes, I get this if we all need to take the jab.

But my question is why would we all need to take it?

Shirley if those at risk all take it, then it doesn't matter if asymptomatic people don't have the vaccine because they wont be able to infect the vulnerable (because they will have been vaccinated).

I don't believe it is a plot to suppress freedom and actually I think that many of those who are spreadiung misinformation are dangerous neo-fascists. I (and the large majorioty of my friends) have been taking this seriously and adhering to the guidelines - and I can tell you now that I'm missing the freedom of normality as much as anyone!

But I do have questions. And I reckon others have questions too. All we want is answers. (The real conspiracy loons wont accept any of the answers, they'll dismiss everything as part of the conspiracy - but many people aren't that fdar down the rabbit hole and simply need some reassurance).
 
"As I said, I realise that might be a stupid question and I hope there's somebody on here who can explain it to me."

You cannot be forced to have the jab and they have a real problem in France where over 50% say they will not be vacinated and herd immunity is unlikely to occur.
People who refuse the jab should be made to have tests to ensure they are not super spreaders. If they refuse they should suffer the same fate as "Typhoid Mary"
 
I'm inclined to agree with you, '58. And I'm not really suggesting that it's a shabby con-trick. All Im saying is that often, when something is, 'rushed through', mistakes can be made.

It might be that this is a marvelous exampole of the best minds working overtime to save the world from the pandemic in record quick time. And if it is then it is something to be greatly celebrated and endorsed.

But it is really so outlandish or loony, espercially if you're not elderly or vulnerable, to think, "hang on a minute, this has all happened very quickly, am I sure that I can trust this science; maybe I'll just take the chance that my immune system can deal with this virus without the need for a vaccine that's been developed more quickly than any precious one?"
Your last point is a fair one but because this virus is so infectious, especially this latest mutation, I think it is a civil duty to have the vaccination to protect others (assuming it means you are less likely to pass it on). I would take the vaccine even if it offered me no benefits as we owe it to look after eachother in society.
 
Your last point is a fair one but because this virus is so infectious, especially this latest mutation, I think it is a civil duty to have the vaccination to protect others (assuming it means you are less likely to pass it on). I would take the vaccine even if it offered me no benefits as we owe it to look after eachother in society.

Yes, again I agree. But only if we do all need to be vaccinated, for whatever reason? That's my question really: is there a reason why everyone needs to have it?

As it stands people under 50 who are not vulnerable are at the back of the queue. By the time it's these peoples turn to have the vaccine then supposedly the elderly, vulnerable and heakth workers will have already received theirs.

And if they've received theirs, what need is there for the under 50s to have the vaccine?
 
Make of this what you will, but my 90 year old mum in law and her 88 year old friend have both been phoned today by the health centre to return on Thursday for their second Covid vaccine jabs.
I'm inclined to agree with you, '58. And I'm not really suggesting that it's a shabby con-trick. All Im saying is that often, when something is, 'rushed through', mistakes can be made.

It might be that this is a marvelous exampole of the best minds working overtime to save the world from the pandemic in record quick time. And if it is then it is something to be greatly celebrated and endorsed.

But it is really so outlandish or loony, espercially if you're not elderly or vulnerable, to think, "hang on a minute, this has all happened very quickly, am I sure that I can trust this science; maybe I'll just take the chance that my immune system can deal with this virus without the need for a vaccine that's been developed more quickly than any precious one?"

But would you would expect any vaccine avoiders/doubters to still take up a hospital bed if they became seriously ill with the virus?
 
Yes, again I agree. But only if we do all need to be vaccinated, for whatever reason? That's my question really: is there a reason why everyone needs to have it?

As it stands people under 50 who are not vulnerable are at the back of the queue. By the time it's these peoples turn to have the vaccine then supposedly the elderly, vulnerable and heakth workers will have already received theirs.

And if they've received theirs, what need is there for the under 50s to have the vaccine?
Yesterday I heard that a quarter of those hospitalised by Corona are aged under 53. It doesn't just kill old wrinklies like me.

I would guess that they don't end up forcing the entire population to have the vaccine but as I said earlier they will want 70+ % and for good reason.

Freeloaders might want others to have the vaccine to supress the virus but not take it themselves. Similar to non union members enjoying the pay rises and workers rights that their fee paying union member colleagues pay for through their subs.
 
But would you would expect any vaccine avoiders/doubters to still take up a hospital bed if they became seriously ill with the virus?

Do I think they should? Or that they would?

My guess is that they almost certainly would. There have already been quite a few cases of covid deniers who have caught the virus and/or lost loved ones to the virus, and who have subsequently modified or wholly changed their views.

As for whether or not they should be given a hospital bed, that's a more difficult question.

If the avoiders/doubters have been wilfuly spreading disinformation for the purposes of furthering their own political agendas then maybe they're not as worthy of that hospital bed.

But if they've just genuinely been confused and felt that they've not received clear answers to their questions, well in those circumstances I think they're just as entitled to care as those who have believed unquestioningly all that they've been told by the government and the media.

Besides which, I'm talking specifically about people under 50 who are not considered vulnerable. As yet they've not had the opportunity to have or refuse the vaccination because they're at the back of the queue.

I'll ask again, once all the vulnerable, elderly and health workers have been vaccinated, what is the point or necessity for others to have it?
 
I take those "statistics" with a large pinch of salt and don't see them as a reason to start judging and blaming before the event still less going on to imagine the reaction of Diane Abbott. If we have the slightest suspicion that there is more reluctance in some communities then we should be engaging with them in every way we can to explain and reassure. The basics of a vaccination programme have always involved just such an approach in the past. Practical action to prepare the ground is surely the first and most obvious step.

BAME (ugh) communities are by no means the hardest to reach and vaccinate and much can be done through places of worship and association. They will be much easier to win round than the lost, the lonely, the itinerant, the poorly educated, the vulnerable and the troubled. If I do want to allow myself some righteous indignation then I'm aiming at those with all my advantages of education, time, comfort and access to reliable information and advice, who think it clever to oppose vaccination.

This is where the stats came from (The Royal Society for Public Health)

https://www.rsph.org.uk/about-us/ne...groups-less-likely-to-want-covid-vaccine.html

My guess is that the difference in figures is down to religion. If you have faith that you are protected by God, why would you need a vaccination jab? I don't know how places of worship are going to sell the jab to their congregations (yes, I know I have been telling you that if you pray (and pay) then you are protected by the almighty, but would you mind just......)?
 
Freeloaders might want others to have the vaccine to supress the virus but not take it themselves. Similar to non union members enjoying the pay rises and workers rights that their fee paying union member colleagues pay for through their subs.

I don't see how they're "freeloaders"?

This suggests they're getting something for free. What would they be getting for free? An end to the pandemic?

What are those who take the vaccine paying? Why would a vaccinated person be worried about whether or not somebody else is vaccinated?

The only way this argument makes any sense is if there is a good reason NOT to take the vaccine, and that those who do have it are taking some kind of risk that those who don't wat to take it are somehow managing to sidestep.