Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?

[tonto1888]

He didn't acknowledge that road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid.

Can we all agree that statistically speaking road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid?

How can you agree that? They are false equivalences, road accidents (and resulting deaths) are not contagious.

Angelo's argument is that we get around a certain number of road deaths per year, therefore we should allow drink driving, no seat belts, and have all cars without brakes

Angelo's logic holds that if we did that, road deaths would not increase

Angelo's logic is if somebody wants to drink drive home without a seat belt in a car with no brakes, that's fine, because that individual "is making the best decision for themselves, the individual"

Never mind that might crash into another car and kill a load of people, all that matter's is that individual's "personal utility"

This is what far right far right libertarian "logic" holds

And the anti-lockdown, anti-vaxx ideology is far right libertarian

It's the ideology of a psychopath

And people should not be politically correct and extend any undue respect to this psychopathy

We should say what it is - psychopathy

I've never said anything like that.

All I have done is point out that we accept half measures on something that kills far more young people every single year than Covid.

While we have draconian measures on a virus that is little threat to the u40 demograph.

We are soft on road deaths if anything. Society accepts road deaths but does not accept Covid deaths.

Once again I am using statistics and facts to put forward a very reasoned and informed argument while you are howling at the moon - psychopath, anti-vaxxers bla, bla, bla - the rantings of an unhinged maniac.

Could you make up your mind. Is it no threat to U40s or is it little threat? Hard enough to take you serious at the best of times nevermind when you can't even agree with yourself

The statistics say we have had 3 deaths in 40-50k cases. Minimal threat.

So is it minimal threat, little threat or no threat? Can you at least agree with yourself here?

[Angelo]

""Sneering" at a psychopath" 

"Oooh, you're mean, why can't I be a psychopath in peace? Why do people have to keep reminding me what I am? Why won't they stop SNEERING at my psychopathy?"

"They sneered, so I'm a victim!"

Em, yeah, whatever

All this distraction, insults, innuendo and deflection merely because when I asked questions that was at odds with your misinformation.

There is no evidence to suggest the vaccine stops you contracting Covid or transmitting it.

There have been 3 deaths in 46,408 positive cases in the u40 grouping, a fatality rate of 0.0064%.

So once again, what's the upside of an u40 taking this vaccine?

I don't think you've got it in your locker to answer it to do what you do best, throw some more vitriol at me and avoid the issues.

[Angelo]

He didn't acknowledge that road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid.

Can we all agree that statistically speaking road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid?

How can you agree that? They are false equivalences, road accidents (and resulting deaths) are not contagious.

Angelo's argument is that we get around a certain number of road deaths per year, therefore we should allow drink driving, no seat belts, and have all cars without brakes

Angelo's logic holds that if we did that, road deaths would not increase

Angelo's logic is if somebody wants to drink drive home without a seat belt in a car with no brakes, that's fine, because that individual "is making the best decision for themselves, the individual"

Never mind that might crash into another car and kill a load of people, all that matter's is that individual's "personal utility"

This is what far right far right libertarian "logic" holds

And the anti-lockdown, anti-vaxx ideology is far right libertarian

It's the ideology of a psychopath

And people should not be politically correct and extend any undue respect to this psychopathy

We should say what it is - psychopathy

I've never said anything like that.

All I have done is point out that we accept half measures on something that kills far more young people every single year than Covid.

While we have draconian measures on a virus that is little threat to the u40 demograph.

We are soft on road deaths if anything. Society accepts road deaths but does not accept Covid deaths.

Once again I am using statistics and facts to put forward a very reasoned and informed argument while you are howling at the moon - psychopath, anti-vaxxers bla, bla, bla - the rantings of an unhinged maniac.

Could you make up your mind. Is it no threat to U40s or is it little threat? Hard enough to take you serious at the best of times nevermind when you can't even agree with yourself

The statistics say we have had 3 deaths in 40-50k cases. Minimal threat.

So is it minimal threat, little threat or no threat? Can you at least agree with yourself here?

All of the above.

[tonto1888]

How is it all of them? Seriously??? Do you think no threat is the same as little threat?

[Rossfan]

RIP to this poor young man

https://m.independent.ie/news/a-beautiful-spirit-tributes-paid-to-nurse-with-young-son-who-died-after-contracting-covid-19-39980869.html

[Franko]

What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.

Basic regard for one's own health

Basic regard for the health of their loved ones

Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself

A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.

A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.

What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.

Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.

Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.

I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.

We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.

We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.

So we take half measures on road deaths but we go draconian on Covid.

If you're under 40 you're far more likely to die from a car crash than Covid. That is statistically proven in the O6.

I don't have figures but I'd say suicide impacted the u40 population more than Covid deaths in O6 too this year. Are we doing enough on suicide? Why does Covid trump all these other factors of death and quality of life in society?

So I refer to the earlier points, road accidents are not contagious.

Road accidents kill under 40s in multiples of what Covid has every year, that is statistically proven. We've had more u40s wiped out in one weekend this year in road accidents than we have had u40s killed in 9 months from Covid? So if road accidents are not contagious but yet kill around 10x that of u40s every year than Covid does, then why does contagion matter?

What you seem to be telling us is that road deaths don't matter, Covid deaths do.

65 year olds can't catch a fatal car crash from you

Yet u40s are more likely to die in a car crash than catching Covid from you.

So road deaths don't matter? Got ya.

Pig -  Grunt

Good point, well argued.

I'm debating in facts and logic.

[RadioGAAGAA]

A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.

Do you know why that is? It beggars belief that you are still going on about this when every time you do so it's putting a big neon sign on your head saying "I'm clueless".

Because its impossible to prove a negative.

All they can do is observe those that have received the vaccine to try and catch any instances of where someone that has been vaccinated might pass it on. That requires a lot of observation over a long time frame. Far longer and far more extensive than has been possible in the compressed safety studies.

Or they can deliberately infect people that have had the vaccine to see if they shed viral particles that can then be cultured in the lab. But that's a bit immoral, unless you get volunteers - which a number of programs are looking for right now.


It is known covid is at its most contagious up to around 5-7 days after initial infection. Then it drops off - that drop off is likely due to the immune system's response. So if the immune system is kick-started with the vaccine, then it likely also nails the contagious period. But stating the theory and proving it by observation are two very different things.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/11/covid-19-most-contagious-first-5-days-illness-study-finds

[Angelo]

What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.

Basic regard for one's own health

Basic regard for the health of their loved ones

Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself

A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.

A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.

What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.

Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.

Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.

I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.

We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.

We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.

So we take half measures on road deaths but we go draconian on Covid.

If you're under 40 you're far more likely to die from a car crash than Covid. That is statistically proven in the O6.

I don't have figures but I'd say suicide impacted the u40 population more than Covid deaths in O6 too this year. Are we doing enough on suicide? Why does Covid trump all these other factors of death and quality of life in society?

So I refer to the earlier points, road accidents are not contagious.

Road accidents kill under 40s in multiples of what Covid has every year, that is statistically proven. We've had more u40s wiped out in one weekend this year in road accidents than we have had u40s killed in 9 months from Covid? So if road accidents are not contagious but yet kill around 10x that of u40s every year than Covid does, then why does contagion matter?

What you seem to be telling us is that road deaths don't matter, Covid deaths do.

65 year olds can't catch a fatal car crash from you

Yet u40s are more likely to die in a car crash than catching Covid from you.

So road deaths don't matter? Got ya.

Pig -  Grunt

Good point, well argued.

I'm debating in facts and logic.

Insults is your bread and butter. Facts and logic confuse you.

[Angelo]

A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.

Do you know why that is? It beggars belief that you are still going on about this when every time you do so it's putting a big neon sign on your head saying "I'm clueless".

Because its impossible to prove a negative.

All they can do is observe those that have received the vaccine to try and catch any instances of where someone that has been vaccinated might pass it on. That requires a lot of observation over a long time frame. Far longer and far more extensive than has been possible in the compressed safety studies.

Or they can deliberately infect people that have had the vaccine to see if they shed viral particles that can then be cultured in the lab. But that's a bit immoral, unless you get volunteers - which a number of programs are looking for right now.


It is known covid is at its most contagious up to around 5-7 days after initial infection. Then it drops off - that drop off is likely due to the immune system's response. So if the immune system is kick-started with the vaccine, then it likely also nails the contagious period. But stating the theory and proving it by observation are two very different things.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/11/covid-19-most-contagious-first-5-days-illness-study-finds

So what that long posts states is that there is nothing to point out that the vaccine stops you getting Covid or spreading it.

So what's the upside for a demograph, like the u40s, getting it when they are not at risk to the virus?

Statistically I'd imagine the fatality rate this year for u40s is similar to flu? Most u40s I know don't get the flu jab. Only around 20% of the population get the flu jab, I've never gotten it.

If we are looking at things logically and pragmatically we can state we have 46k cases of Covids in the u40s, 3 deaths. It's not really a threat to u40s and to try and frame as such is scaremongering and really disingenuous, completely at odds with the data.

[Milltown Row2]

Do you know why that is? It beggars belief that you are still going on about this when every time you do so it's putting a big neon sign on your head saying "I'm clueless".

Because its impossible to prove a negative.

All they can do is observe those that have received the vaccine to try and catch any instances of where someone that has been vaccinated might pass it on. That requires a lot of observation over a long time frame. Far longer and far more extensive than has been possible in the compressed safety studies.

Or they can deliberately infect people that have had the vaccine to see if they shed viral particles that can then be cultured in the lab. But that's a bit immoral, unless you get volunteers - which a number of programs are looking for right now.


It is known covid is at its most contagious up to around 5-7 days after initial infection. Then it drops off - that drop off is likely due to the immune system's response. So if the immune system is kick-started with the vaccine, then it likely also nails the contagious period. But stating the theory and proving it by observation are two very different things.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/11/covid-19-most-contagious-first-5-days-illness-study-finds
[/quote]

Radiogaga, can an under 40 contract this virus as easy as an over 60?

And if that demographic can catch it and deliver it to someone else that will push up the numbers in hospitals? 

If after a lengthy study of these vaccines will it prove either way whether it's preventive or just good at reducing the illness that comes with it? Which would be great considering the hospitals working at full capacity.

So while under 40's have a better chance of not dying they can still give it to someone else who'll have a lesser chance of not being hospitalised or dying..

The more people vaccinated the less likely the hospitals will be busy, and rates of Covid may stay the same but eventually it'll be like catching a cold or flu..

Though unvaccinated people may be at risk, I think that's a good thing, it may work out better in the end.

[Lar Naparka]

Do you know why that is? It beggars belief that you are still going on about this when every time you do so it's putting a big neon sign on your head saying "I'm clueless".

Because its impossible to prove a negative.

All they can do is observe those that have received the vaccine to try and catch any instances of where someone that has been vaccinated might pass it on. That requires a lot of observation over a long time frame. Far longer and far more extensive than has been possible in the compressed safety studies.

Or they can deliberately infect people that have had the vaccine to see if they shed viral particles that can then be cultured in the lab. But that's a bit immoral, unless you get volunteers - which a number of programs are looking for right now.


It is known covid is at its most contagious up to around 5-7 days after initial infection. Then it drops off - that drop off is likely due to the immune system's response. So if the immune system is kick-started with the vaccine, then it likely also nails the contagious period. But stating the theory and proving it by observation are two very different things.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/11/covid-19-most-contagious-first-5-days-illness-study-finds

Radiogaga, can an under 40 contract this virus as easy as an over 60?

And if that demographic can catch it and deliver it to someone else that will push up the numbers in hospitals? 

If after a lengthy study of these vaccines will it prove either way whether it's preventive or just good at reducing the illness that comes with it? Which would be great considering the hospitals working at full capacity.

So while under 40's have a better chance of not dying they can still give it to someone else who'll have a lesser chance of not being hospitalised or dying..

The more people vaccinated the less likely the hospitals will be busy, and rates of Covid may stay the same but eventually it'll be like catching a cold or flu..

Though unvaccinated people may be at risk, I think that's a good thing, it may work out better in the end.

I'd have expected  better of you.
Have you forgotten the golden rule, "Don't feed the trolls?"

[Franko]

Insults is your bread and butter. Facts and logic confuse you.

*are

[RadioGAAGAA]

So what that long posts states is that there is nothing to point out that the vaccine stops you getting Covid or spreading it.

No you utter idiot - it points out how the process of making that declaration is - by its very nature - much more drawn out than determining whether it gives primary vaccine recipient anti-bodies, T-cells and whether they are protected against the disease/virus in question.

Of course, all that sailed straight over your head. Going by the state of your posts I'm guessing your default position on something beyond your grasp is just retreat to the facebook opinion?

[RadioGAAGAA]

Radiogaga, can an under 40 contract this virus as easy as an over 60?

I would suspect the main factor in contracting it is viral load exposure. Not age.

What it does beyond that depends on the viral load exposure and the state of the persons immune system*. The state of the person's immune system of course having a correlation with age (but not necessarily bound to it - you'll get 80 year olds in better shape than some 60 year olds for instance).

*Hence why young medics can die of it (massive exposure) and why immunocompromised are obviously vulnerable to any exposure.

Of course, this is just me postulating - but I'd be reasonably confident that's the way it'll turn out in studies. Its not like one viral particle stops in someones nose or mouth and says to his mates "nah, too young, lets go somewhere else".



I suppose the real question you are asking is "can an under 40 spread this virus as easy as an over 60?" For that I have no answer. Put a gun to my head and I'd say, everything else being equal, they likely shed less viral particles, but to what degree I've absolutely no idea, the variation may be significant or may be irrelevant. Of course, against that, its reasonable to suggest a 40 year old is likely to be in contact with more people thus offering more opportunity for spread.

[Ed Ricketts]

Perhaps worth noting (well, worth noting by those with a genuine interest in the discussion) that around 7% of COVID hospital admissions in the north through the pandemic have been from the under 40s cohort.

The death stats would suggest that these individuals usually respond well enough to treatment to allow for eventual discharge, but that 7% is not insignificant. It equates to several hundred people occupying hospital resources at a time when the health service here has effectively ceased to function.

I'd suggest that the continued potential for this cohort to need hospital treatment, and thereby eat into already overstretched resources, is a decent reason to encourage those in the age bracket to take the opportunity of a vaccine when offered.