What's new
PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

This corona virus thing...

East Cheshire White said:
Not sure about convincing you but a few counter points to consider:
- a sample size of 71 is not going to provide a statistically significant data set. 71 isn’t a bad sample size when the data is relatively evenly split. It is, to my understanding, all the delta variant deaths in England in that time.
Click to expand...

East Cheshire White said:
- we are talking about 71 deaths in this instance, how many would we be looking at with no vaccine under the current rules? not sure what you mean by ‘current rules’. I assume you mean under current circumstances/ restrictions- but whatever: there would of course be many more deaths of the vulnerable and hard to quantify.
Click to expand...

East Cheshire White said:
- the most vulnerable groups have been vaccinated as a priority and therefore we are, in theory at least, comparing the number of deaths in the most vulnerable 50% of the population to the number of deaths in the least vulnerable 50% of the population. agree - in theory. What would we expect the ratio to be if nobody was vaccinated? As per previous point, clearly a lot more vulnerable.
- What is the average age of the deaths in each category? Vaccine effectiveness decreases with age and in the very elderly the efficacy can drop off dramatically in some cases. Dunno.
- How do we know the 26 did not have some kind of immunodeficiency, with the vaccine therefore not eliciting a sufficient immune response? Dunno
- were these deaths solely attributable to C19 or were there co-morbidity factors? Dunno

Obviously I know nothing about the specific 71 cases but lots of variables to consider in addition to vaccination status.
Click to expand...

Clearly there’s only the bare bones of data given in the table (I haven’t read the rest of the report).
Honestly, those factors had all flashed through my mind (except age-related vaccine efficiency, which I forgot).

It would also be fair to say that we keep hearing that some very vulnerable people are unvaccinated because they cannot be vaccinated- and a proportion have refused the vaccine - and unvaccinated people with potential co-morbidities were also vulnerable (clearly in much lower numbers).

It does however still strike me as surprising that such a dangerous variant only killed 34 unvaccinated people in 4.5 months- when the death-rate of the vaccinated shows the virus to have been pretty active and strong.

My post was not an attempt to spread doubt, but to increase understanding- and your post, as usual, helps.
 
Last edited:
sliper said:
If this is the number of fatalities among the vaccinated it begs the question "how many times more "life altering" ADR's are there ?"

As the plan to vaccinate the over 12's takes shape.. the other question here is "what is the breakdown per age group ?" There seems to be some anecdotal evidence that younger peoples immune systems respond more aggressively to the vaccine.

What happens if it was shown that more young people are dying after receiving the vaccine than have actually died from Covid ? Last time I checked the number of young people without a co morbidity that had died from Covid was <20. Is vaccinating the under 20's really worth that risk ?

I'm in my mid 60's and I can safely say i don't want a single child to die from taking a vaccine to reduce the possibility of my catching an illness which I have a 99.7% chance of surviving.

Lets be honest.. there is no national discussion on all this in the media. It is a myopic drive towards vaccinating the entire population.. whether they need it or not.
Click to expand...

First - considering the number of fatalities among the vaccinated is a false yardstick - perhaps mischievously false among the conspiracy theorists. It’s the number of lives saved that is the measure.

But I am in agreement with your concerns about vaccinating young people - and clear that the government is suppressing debate on that topic.
 
Last edited:
The government did change strategy to vaccinate younger people with a different vaccine (Pfizer rather than AZ) specifically because of relative risk-related arguments. This was all over the news? Not meaning to belittle anyones concerns (I share some of them) or defend the hopeless government.
 
Vaccinating kids against something that almost certainly won’t hurt them but with a vaccine whose effects on children are uncertain.

Yet amongst those same people there will be some who won’t apply flea and tick medicine to their dogs.

Fucking odd world.
 
Randall Flagg said:
I just spent the last 3 days in RPH with my 7 year old on an IV after he tested positive for covid. He's now on the mend and discharged thankfully. A truly horrible experience. NHS staff on ward 8 were superb.

He's now passed it on to me and my wife who have also tested positive. We've got flu symptoms and have lost our sense of taste and smell. We've both been double vaccinated so although that should keep you out of hospital, you're still going to feel like turbo shit.

Worryingly they said in the hospital that 42% of covid patients in there had been double vaccinated. That was a much higher number than I expected. The contact tracer also told me that its absolutely ripping through schools in Lancashire at the minute and has ramped up massively the last week.
Click to expand...

I take it you didnt read this before coming out with that comment?

Mer5eywhite said:
Vaccinating kids against something that almost certainly won’t hurt them but with a vaccine whose effects on children are uncertain.

Yet amongst those same people there will be some who won’t apply flea and tick medicine to their dogs.

Fucking odd world.
Click to expand...
 
raefil said:
seemed a bit insensitive, not like you at all!
Click to expand...
I'm pissed off at people walking blindfold into something. Take the blindfold off, have a good look around and then decide whether or not you want to take your kids along with you.

Blithely trusting media pressures/advice is not how I think we should decide upon vaccination.

Eg. My eldest has asthma and is 15. I anticipate from the data etc that he should have the vaccine. The benefit outweighs the risk.

My youngest is 13 and will go nowhere near a bloody vaccine because it appears to pose more of a risk to him than Covid.

We need clearer information, instead of just succumbing to the wave of media shite flying around.
 
Mer5eywhite said:
I'm pissed off at people walking blindfold into something. Take the blindfold off, have a good look around and then decide whether or not you want to take your kids along with you.

Blithely trusting media pressures/advice is not how I think we should decide upon vaccination.

Eg. My eldest has asthma and is 15. I anticipate from the data etc that he should have the vaccine. The benefit outweighs the risk.

My youngest is 13 and will go nowhere near a bloody vaccine because it appears to pose more of a risk to him than Covid.

We need clearer information, instead of just succumbing to the wave of media shite flying around.
Click to expand...
The one thing i would say is that, certainly on here, there are no blindfolds. Very good discussions all the way through with such a diversity of opinions.

The people i see using terms like blindfolds are antivaxxers, in truth.

I dont have school age kids now, gladly, because it would be a hard decision for me to make. My kids are all their 20s and all bar one have so far chosen to be vaccinated.
 
Mer5eywhite said:
I'm pissed off at people walking blindfold into something. Take the blindfold off, have a good look around and then decide whether or not you want to take your kids along with you.

Blithely trusting media pressures/advice is not how I think we should decide upon vaccination.

Eg. My eldest has asthma and is 15. I anticipate from the data etc that he should have the vaccine. The benefit outweighs the risk.

My youngest is 13 and will go nowhere near a bloody vaccine because it appears to pose more of a risk to him than Covid.

We need clearer information, instead of just succumbing to the wave of media shite flying around.
Click to expand...
You do seem very angry today! So please don't take my questions the wrong way... 😬

It follows that I should consider your own advice without a blindfold and with clearer information. Can I ask where you got the information you needed to make your own benefit vs risk analysis? And to follow up, who is pressurising you to ignore this analysis (you said "the media") and why would they do this?
 
Funky Monk said:
The government did change strategy to vaccinate younger people with a different vaccine (Pfizer rather than AZ) specifically because of relative risk-related arguments. This was all over the news? Not meaning to belittle anyones concerns (I share some of them) or defend the hopeless government.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true. But IMO that's a different point (and in fact my point of debate-suppression is not one which I point specifically at the UK government alone). Half the western world were crying out against the AZ jab - as you know, many banning it completely or banning it for younger age-groups. There were some rare but strange clotting going on, so what choice did they have?

The move to Moderna/Pfizer was presented as the solution - a fait-accompli - rather than perhaps sparking a wider debate about risk/benefit. Any debate about whether it's wise to vaccinate the young at all has been dampened at every opportunity IMO. An absolutely clear campaign that the scientists know best, don't ask questions, take the jab - because if people start raising doubts, then vaccine hesitancy might grow.

Now maybe the case for vaccination is SO clear cut, that the authorities think that this is the best approach to get max uptake. But I would like a more grown up debate myself. IMO, the default condition should be that young people should not take a vaccine... and that it is the duty of medical science to persuade young people (and for U18s, their guardians) of the case that it is the right thing to do. Government attitude feels the other way round to me.
 
Regardless said:
Absolutely true. But IMO that's a different point (and in fact my point of debate-suppression is not one which I point specifically at the UK government alone). Half the western world were crying out against the AZ jab - as you know, many banning it completely or banning it for younger age-groups. There were some rare but strange clotting going on, so what choice did they have?

The move to Moderna/Pfizer was presented as the solution - a fait-accompli - rather than perhaps sparking a wider debate about risk/benefit. Any debate about whether it's wise to vaccinate the young at all has been dampened at every opportunity IMO. An absolutely clear campaign that the scientists know best, don't ask questions, take the jab - because if people start raising doubts, then vaccine hesitancy might grow.

Now maybe the case for vaccination is SO clear cut, that the authorities think that this is the best approach to get max uptake. But I would like a more grown up debate myself. IMO, the default condition should be that young people should not take a vaccine... and that it is the duty of medical science to persuade young people (and for U18s, their guardians) of the case that it is the right thing to do. Government attitude feels the other way round to me.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying.
 
Funky Monk said:
Thank you for clarifying.
Click to expand...
Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional
Week number123456789101112131415161718192021222324
Week ended08-Jan-2115-Jan-2122-Jan-2129-Jan-2105-Feb-2112-Feb-2119-Feb-2126-Feb-2105-Mar-2112-Mar-2119-Mar-2126-Mar-2102-Apr-2109-Apr-2116-Apr-2123-Apr-2130-Apr-2107-May-2114-May-2121-May-2128-May-2104-Jun-2111-Jun-2118-Jun-21
Deaths involving COVID-19, all ages16,0577,2458,4228,4337,3205,6914,0792,9142,1051,501963719400379362260205129151107959884
Persons 4
Deaths by age group
<100000000000000000000000
1-400000000000000000000000
5-920000000000000000000000
10-1400100001011000000000001
15-1930203100100010000000000
 
So in the last 10 weeks, 1 person under the age of 20 has died within 28 days of testing positive from Covid in England and Wales.
That's not even to say that they died from Covid and doesn't even begin to factor in other underlying health conditions.
Yet we seem to be ready to vaccinate all young people, healthy or otherwise.
Sheesh!
 
Mer5eywhite said:
So in the last 10 weeks, 1 person under the age of 20 has died within 28 days of testing positive from Covid in England and Wales.
That's not even to say that they died from Covid and doesn't even begin to factor in other underlying health conditions.
Yet we seem to be ready to vaccinate all young people, healthy or otherwise.
Sheesh!
Click to expand...
I think ethically it’s very tricky to argue in favour of it. Given that Covid poses such little risk to children, we would essentially be vaccinating them in order to protect other people. Unless you can basically guarantee 100% vaccine safety I really don’t see how it could be deemed ethical.
 
raefil said:
Click to expand...

Child deaths from flu in the USA are typically much much higher than we have observed in Covid19.
In the flu season prior to Covid, 200 kids died and in the H1N1 flu season 368 died.
If we are to act proportionately using flu as a benchmark then vaccinating kids against Covid 19 appears to be an overreaction.
 
Top