The Lemon Fool

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66319065

Looks like a sensible call.

Personally I am eligible but don't think I will be taking it.

John

Sorry I fail to see the sense it that entirely

pje16 wrote:Sorry I fail to see the sense it that entirely

Could you expand on your issue with this please.

John

redsturgeon wrote:

pje16 wrote:Sorry I fail to see the sense it that entirely

Could you expand on your issue with this please.

John

Certainly what sense does it make to deny the under 65s

pje16 wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:
Could you expand on your issue with this please.

John

Certainly what sense does it make to deny the under 65s

The over 65's are going to come into contact with people who potentially have covid, if we gave boosters to all the over 50s, that would only help if the oldest were to exclusively mix with over 50's and thats not realistically likely.

I think we have reached the point where vaccination boosters to protect other people is pretty much over, because most people have already had at least one vaccination, so the only people who need to be boosted are those who are particularly vulnerable themselves.

Any remaining holdouts who haven't had a single jab yet, well they have had all the warnings and plenty of chances.

pje16 wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:
Could you expand on your issue with this please.

John

Certainly what sense does it make to deny the under 65s

The vaccines now have been shown really to only be effective in preventing possible worse outcomes than might otherwise have occurred.

Since the likelihood of a normally healthy person under the age of 65 having a severe outcome requiring hospitalisation now seem vanishingly small then why bother with costs and risks associated with vaccination.

It has been shown the vaccination will not prevent you either getting covid nor passing it on so the only possible benefits are to the individual rather than to others.

Those who are under 65 but have other vulnerabilities will remain covered by the vaccine programme.

John

Lanark wrote:

pje16 wrote:Certainly what sense does it make to deny the under 65s

The over 65's are going to come into contact with people who potentially have covid.

in the same way that everyone else is ... end of

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0g5916c

Scotland are still giving a flu vacc to over 50s. I guess they'll follow the JCVI recommendation for Covid though.

Scott.

I think this is the future pattern. Whether it will work remains to be seen. Many over 70s I have spoken to say they will have no more jabs.

CliffEdge wrote:I think this is the future pattern. Whether it will work remains to be seen. Many over 70s I have spoken to say they will have no more jabs.

Why are they saying that?

XFool wrote:

CliffEdge wrote:I think this is the future pattern. Whether it will work remains to be seen. Many over 70s I have spoken to say they will have no more jabs.

Why are they saying that?

I'm not sure but they seem to be tired of the whole business. It will be interesting to see what the uptake is among the over 65s.

I feel it is for individuals to make their own decisions on this now, with all the knowledge we now have, I think that vaccine mandates are an unnecessary blunt instrument against the covid threat to the population as a whole.

John

pje16 wrote:Sorry I fail to see the sense it that entirely

The age group that is no longer eligible would benefit more against Covid by improving their health via lifestyle choices verses what the jab may give them in the short term.

Lanark wrote:Any remaining holdouts who haven't had a single jab yet, well they have had all the warnings and plenty of chances.

I doubt there is anyone left who has not had a jab and not had Covid. The human immune system is going to be way better than any jab in relation to Covid and dealing with the virus.

Ashfordian wrote:I doubt there is anyone left who has not had a jab and not had Covid. The human immune system is going to be way better than any jab in relation to Covid and dealing with the virus.

By my understanding of things, I'm not sure the above really makes sense.

XFool wrote:

Ashfordian wrote:I doubt there is anyone left who has not had a jab and not had Covid. The human immune system is going to be way better than any jab in relation to Covid and dealing with the virus.

By my understanding of things, I'm not sure the above really makes sense.

Well as you give off the impression that in risk terms Covid is equivalent to Ebola, I'm not surprised the above does not make any sense to you. A bit of the old fashioned 'Foolish' research would benefit you greatly.

But to put it in simple terms, the Covid virus is made up of 28 proteins. When previously infected your immune system has been exposed and fought off and has memory of the whole virus.

The jab contains just one of these virus proteins, the spike protein, which as far as I am aware as I haven't checked, is from a mutation that is at least 18 months old. When you get the jab, you body only produces the antibodies for this spike protein and for a very short period of time, and not for any of the other virus proteins.

So is it better to rely on short term antibodies for an out of date spike protein mutation, or trust the human immune system that has memory of the whole virus (all 28 virus proteins, albeit a past mutation)? Before answering this question, remember the human immune system has 200,000 year of evolution behind it...

Ashfordian wrote:

XFool wrote:By my understanding of things, I'm not sure the above really makes sense.

Well as you give off the impression that in risk terms Covid is equivalent to Ebola...

I really do wonder where you get these strange notions from.

Ashfordian wrote:I'm not surprised the above does not make any sense to you. A bit of the old fashioned 'Foolish' research would benefit you greatly.

Err... My simple point was: To talk in terms of "the human immune system is going to be way better" as (apparently) opposed to "any jab" makes absolutely no sense to me. Why? Because, the whole point of vaccination is intimately connected with the human immune system. You quite simply cannot have the one (vaccination) without the other (human immune system).

To say, as you did: "The human immune system is going to be way better than any jab in relation to Covid and dealing with the virus." seems as sensible as somebody saying: "Forget all this nonsense we are told about drinking water when we are dehydrated. What you really need is to get some H2O molecules down yer neck."

Ashfordian wrote:But to put it in simple terms, the Covid virus is made up of 28 proteins. When previously infected your immune system has been exposed and fought off and has memory of the whole virus.

Ah well, if you have already contracted COVID-19 (I have no convincing reason to believe I have) then your immune system has indeed already been primed - assuming you are still alive . But again, how long lasting is this 'natural' immunity? I don't know, do you? For instance, catching influenza doesn't appear to mean you can never catch it again. Which is why we have annual flu vaccinations, despite 200,000 years of the human immune system.

Ashfordian wrote:So is it better to rely on short term antibodies for an out of date spike protein mutation, or trust the human immune system that has memory of the whole virus (all 28 virus proteins, albeit a past mutation)? Before answering this question, remember the human immune system has 200,000 year of evolution behind it...

Right. So nobody ever becomes ill, let alone seriously ill - or, God forgive us, ever dies - following a viral infection? Because of 200,000 years of human evolution. Leaving aside that viruses, too, also evolve and at a faster rate than humans.

The human immune system seems to struggle with the common cold. If it was that good, I'd have thought we would no longer catch colds once we've caught all the basic variants.

redsturgeon wrote:I feel it is for individuals to make their own decisions on this now, with all the knowledge we now have, I think that vaccine mandates are an unnecessary blunt instrument against the covid threat to the population as a whole.

John

I agree but I don't think it's compulsory more an opportunity. Maybe it should just be an individual decision as you say with the opportunity more widely available for those who want it.
But I guess the current system strongly encourages the most vulnerable to take the vaccine and that's a good thing.
Glad I don't have to make these decisions.

redsturgeon wrote:I feel it is for individuals to make their own decisions on this now, with all the knowledge we now have, I think that vaccine mandates are an unnecessary blunt instrument against the covid threat to the population as a whole.

John

It has always been for individuals to make their own decisions about it, and there was never any vaccine mandate for the population as a whole.

One was enacted for NHS staff in January 2022 but it was revoked two months later, a month before the deadline. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/15