Will you have the Covid-19 vaccine?
Comments
-
joe2019 said:Pross said:
Daughter had her first jab today. My wife's colleague, who has turned down the jab offered to them as care workers, thinks it's irresponsible. This isn't because of the same reason for not getting jabbed herself (vaccine rushed through, not properly tested blah blah) but because those who have it will become "silent killers" as they won't know they have the virus but can still pass it to those who don't have the vaccine.
I'm really struggling with that logic. This is an educated, normally sensible, person we've known for years. I think her husband may have been the trigger although he's a well-educated person with a responsible job too. She has already had three 10 day stints off work self-isolating after coming into contact with positive cases (outside work).
Even 'well educated' people are allowed different opinions to yours.
Ignoring the science/data isn't just "having a different opinion"... if it shows (as it increasingly appears to be showing) that having the vaccination both protects you, and greatly reduces the likelihood of you passing it on, then it's not just 'opinion', it's data: cold, hard, data.2 -
Even stupider people than you are entitled to their own facts.briantrumpet said:joe2019 said:Pross said:Daughter had her first jab today. My wife's colleague, who has turned down the jab offered to them as care workers, thinks it's irresponsible. This isn't because of the same reason for not getting jabbed herself (vaccine rushed through, not properly tested blah blah) but because those who have it will become "silent killers" as they won't know they have the virus but can still pass it to those who don't have the vaccine.
I'm really struggling with that logic. This is an educated, normally sensible, person we've known for years. I think her husband may have been the trigger although he's a well-educated person with a responsible job too. She has already had three 10 day stints off work self-isolating after coming into contact with positive cases (outside work).
Even 'well educated' people are allowed different opinions to yours.
Ignoring the science/data isn't just "having a different opinion"... if it shows (as it increasingly appears to be showing) that having the vaccination both protects you, and greatly reduces the likelihood of you passing it on, then it's not just 'opinion', it's data: cold, hard, data.
2 -
briantrumpet said:joe2019 said:Pross said:
Daughter had her first jab today. My wife's colleague, who has turned down the jab offered to them as care workers, thinks it's irresponsible. This isn't because of the same reason for not getting jabbed herself (vaccine rushed through, not properly tested blah blah) but because those who have it will become "silent killers" as they won't know they have the virus but can still pass it to those who don't have the vaccine.
I'm really struggling with that logic. This is an educated, normally sensible, person we've known for years. I think her husband may have been the trigger although he's a well-educated person with a responsible job too. She has already had three 10 day stints off work self-isolating after coming into contact with positive cases (outside work).
Even 'well educated' people are allowed different opinions to yours.
Ignoring the science/data isn't just "having a different opinion"... if it shows (as it increasingly appears to be showing) that having the vaccination both protects you, and greatly reduces the likelihood of you passing it on, then it's not just 'opinion', it's data: cold, hard, data.
So the experiment is going well then
0 -
Do you really believe this?joe2019 said:briantrumpet said:joe2019 said:Pross said:Daughter had her first jab today. My wife's colleague, who has turned down the jab offered to them as care workers, thinks it's irresponsible. This isn't because of the same reason for not getting jabbed herself (vaccine rushed through, not properly tested blah blah) but because those who have it will become "silent killers" as they won't know they have the virus but can still pass it to those who don't have the vaccine.
I'm really struggling with that logic. This is an educated, normally sensible, person we've known for years. I think her husband may have been the trigger although he's a well-educated person with a responsible job too. She has already had three 10 day stints off work self-isolating after coming into contact with positive cases (outside work).
Even 'well educated' people are allowed different opinions to yours.
Ignoring the science/data isn't just "having a different opinion"... if it shows (as it increasingly appears to be showing) that having the vaccination both protects you, and greatly reduces the likelihood of you passing it on, then it's not just 'opinion', it's data: cold, hard, data.
So the experiment is going well then- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
pangolin said:
Do you really believe this?joe2019 said:briantrumpet said:joe2019 said:Pross said:Daughter had her first jab today. My wife's colleague, who has turned down the jab offered to them as care workers, thinks it's irresponsible. This isn't because of the same reason for not getting jabbed herself (vaccine rushed through, not properly tested blah blah) but because those who have it will become "silent killers" as they won't know they have the virus but can still pass it to those who don't have the vaccine.
I'm really struggling with that logic. This is an educated, normally sensible, person we've known for years. I think her husband may have been the trigger although he's a well-educated person with a responsible job too. She has already had three 10 day stints off work self-isolating after coming into contact with positive cases (outside work).
Even 'well educated' people are allowed different opinions to yours.
Ignoring the science/data isn't just "having a different opinion"... if it shows (as it increasingly appears to be showing) that having the vaccination both protects you, and greatly reduces the likelihood of you passing it on, then it's not just 'opinion', it's data: cold, hard, data.
So the experiment is going well then
No , just being childish tbh
0 -
Does that mean you would now have the vaccine?joe2019 said:pangolin said:
Do you really believe this?joe2019 said:briantrumpet said:joe2019 said:Pross said:Daughter had her first jab today. My wife's colleague, who has turned down the jab offered to them as care workers, thinks it's irresponsible. This isn't because of the same reason for not getting jabbed herself (vaccine rushed through, not properly tested blah blah) but because those who have it will become "silent killers" as they won't know they have the virus but can still pass it to those who don't have the vaccine.
I'm really struggling with that logic. This is an educated, normally sensible, person we've known for years. I think her husband may have been the trigger although he's a well-educated person with a responsible job too. She has already had three 10 day stints off work self-isolating after coming into contact with positive cases (outside work).
Even 'well educated' people are allowed different opinions to yours.
Ignoring the science/data isn't just "having a different opinion"... if it shows (as it increasingly appears to be showing) that having the vaccination both protects you, and greatly reduces the likelihood of you passing it on, then it's not just 'opinion', it's data: cold, hard, data.
So the experiment is going well then
No , just being childish tbh0 -
Just seen a TV advert for a cruise ship holiday.
I never laughed so hard0 -
veronese68 said:
Does that mean you would now have the vaccine?joe2019 said:pangolin said:
Do you really believe this?joe2019 said:briantrumpet said:joe2019 said:Pross said:Daughter had her first jab today. My wife's colleague, who has turned down the jab offered to them as care workers, thinks it's irresponsible. This isn't because of the same reason for not getting jabbed herself (vaccine rushed through, not properly tested blah blah) but because those who have it will become "silent killers" as they won't know they have the virus but can still pass it to those who don't have the vaccine.
I'm really struggling with that logic. This is an educated, normally sensible, person we've known for years. I think her husband may have been the trigger although he's a well-educated person with a responsible job too. She has already had three 10 day stints off work self-isolating after coming into contact with positive cases (outside work).
Even 'well educated' people are allowed different opinions to yours.
Ignoring the science/data isn't just "having a different opinion"... if it shows (as it increasingly appears to be showing) that having the vaccination both protects you, and greatly reduces the likelihood of you passing it on, then it's not just 'opinion', it's data: cold, hard, data.
So the experiment is going well then
No , just being childish tbh
Yeah, got my invite today, booked in for the 26th.
4 -
Pleased to hear itjoe2019 said:veronese68 said:
Does that mean you would now have the vaccine?joe2019 said:pangolin said:
Do you really believe this?joe2019 said:briantrumpet said:joe2019 said:Pross said:Daughter had her first jab today. My wife's colleague, who has turned down the jab offered to them as care workers, thinks it's irresponsible. This isn't because of the same reason for not getting jabbed herself (vaccine rushed through, not properly tested blah blah) but because those who have it will become "silent killers" as they won't know they have the virus but can still pass it to those who don't have the vaccine.
I'm really struggling with that logic. This is an educated, normally sensible, person we've known for years. I think her husband may have been the trigger although he's a well-educated person with a responsible job too. She has already had three 10 day stints off work self-isolating after coming into contact with positive cases (outside work).
Even 'well educated' people are allowed different opinions to yours.
Ignoring the science/data isn't just "having a different opinion"... if it shows (as it increasingly appears to be showing) that having the vaccination both protects you, and greatly reduces the likelihood of you passing it on, then it's not just 'opinion', it's data: cold, hard, data.
So the experiment is going well then
No , just being childish tbh
Yeah, got my invite today, booked in for the 26th.1 -
Of course and I can even understand the hesitancy when a big deal was made about how quickly the vaccines were developed, usually takes years etc. but the argument that people having the vaccine is making it more dangerous for those choosing not to have it left me gobsmacked to be honest. I just don't know where you go with the logic of 'you shouldn't have the vaccine as I don't want it and you might give me the virus as you don't know your carrying it'.joe2019 said:Pross said:Daughter had her first jab today. My wife's colleague, who has turned down the jab offered to them as care workers, thinks it's irresponsible. This isn't because of the same reason for not getting jabbed herself (vaccine rushed through, not properly tested blah blah) but because those who have it will become "silent killers" as they won't know they have the virus but can still pass it to those who don't have the vaccine.
I'm really struggling with that logic. This is an educated, normally sensible, person we've known for years. I think her husband may have been the trigger although he's a well-educated person with a responsible job too. She has already had three 10 day stints off work self-isolating after coming into contact with positive cases (outside work).
Even 'well educated' people are allowed different opinions to yours.2 -
Most definetly I will have it, I had Covid 19 in November and as someone with zero pre existing stuff and someone who classes themselves as healthy it fairly knocked me for six I spent 10days in hospital on Oxygen and i wouldnt wish it on anyone.
I am 41 years old, dont smoke, I dont drink, and i am a healthy bmi etc. For me the most important element is I want to protect my family and see my parents again who are in there 70's.
With me my other half is a teacher in a college and she brought it into the household as she teaches vulnerable kids and has being working all the way through whereas I have being working from home since June. 3 out of our household of 4 got it, I got it worse me and my partner had what we just thought was a bad cold for 4-5 days we got test and were negative. Then a week later i did my 4 nightshifts and it hit me like a tonne of bricks a temp i couldnt break, taste went, smell went, then it hit my chest the day I went into hospital as an ambulance my oxygen levels were 86, pulse was in the 120's resting.
The worst bit for me was I had it at exactly the same time as my partner and son ten days in hospital was torture as natural instinct was i wanted to help my help family and couldnt. These nuggets that say covids fake need a slap5 -
Having read some of your other posts and how loosely based they are in reality I am none the wiser as to whether you dad is dead or alive.joe2019 said:briantrumpet said:MattFalle said:
that as maybe but you've got to admit its funny.briantrumpet said:FFS - if you two want to get flagged, you're going the right way about it. If you can't be civil, shut up.
I'm just surprised it hasn't yet got to "My dad's harder than your dad".
My dad's dead
0 -
Discrimination, which is a complicated area presents serious challenges in the provision of medical care. eg prep a hugely expensive drug used by the gay community to prevent infection caused by unprotected gay sex was demanded as a right and framed as a discrimination issue. the budget which is finite has to be balanced and the net effect is other areas have to be pruned, Cancer treatment perhaps.First.Aspect said:
Okay. Can you explain the comment about it being a discrimination issue. It struck a nerve. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, I'll apologise.david37 said:
I wasn't making a comment other than replying to an earlier comment about expected timescales. Group 6 is for those people who fall into assorts of different categories obesity being but one.First.Aspect said:
I'm well behind on the thread but I don't have an issue with vaccinating anyone young with specific issues. My bother in law is in care and is in his early 40s and the whole thing has given him fewer options in life than someone in prison. And he doesn't really understand. Sure there will be exceptions captured by national policy, but the greater good is served by innoculating people who through no fault of their own are more likely to catch it if thet are out and about.david37 said:
its because they're on group 6 which is massive. If for eg you have a child who has been diagnosed with adhd or has learning difficulties you get the jab as the disability is then associated to you. Its a discrimination issue I believe. This means many more people under 50 will be getting the jab than those 50 - 65 before AprilFirst.Aspect said:
I'm the same age, and I'm expecting well into June.N0bodyOfTheGoat said:Feels like the pace of calling up new groups is slowing in Hampshire, two weeks ago those aged 64+ could visit ad-hoc walk-in vaccination centres, these have now ceased as the 60-63 group are being invited to get their first jab. At 47, I'll be amazed if I get a jab before the end of April.
It also includes those who have eaten and drunk themselves to obesity or diabetes, have drink or drug problems etc etc
As well of course as those with all other underlying health issues past or present.
As for the other hypothetical categories, you sound like Norman Tebbit. You would prefer.to deny those in genuine need than inadvertently benefit those who in your judgement deserve what they get.
Death is a harsh sentence for being a fattie, I would say.
Since group 6 encompasses an awful lot of people, many of them relatively young then the following groups are some way down the line.
It seems your own personal position has led you to defensively ascribe meaning to my post that just isn't there. (your Tebbit comments and deciding what I would or wouldn't like)
I don't expect an apology, this is the internet after all.
I do think Tebbit is under used as an insult though.
In the provision of the vaccine in a justified discriminatory manner (age) there is also an exceptions group (group 6) where a very large group of people are given priority based on their needs. The vaccination of the parents of a child who has a statement of education need for example makes little sense. Especially since the parent and the child will be through necessity mixing with children and parents who don't fall into that category. However depending on the issue with the child, the parent may be considered to have the same disability and treated as such.
Now im not saying that's the case, but I suspect it might be a consideration. Im not sure if each health authority has to manage the order of its own citizens and therefore make decisions about the group in which each person belongs but if they are I would expect some to err on the side of caution and to take advice accordingly.
0 -
Id bet he might be if he could.john80 said:
Having read some of your other posts and how loosely based they are in reality I am none the wiser as to whether you dad is dead or alive.joe2019 said:briantrumpet said:MattFalle said:
that as maybe but you've got to admit its funny.briantrumpet said:FFS - if you two want to get flagged, you're going the right way about it. If you can't be civil, shut up.
I'm just surprised it hasn't yet got to "My dad's harder than your dad".
My dad's dead0 -
john80 said:
Having read some of your other posts and how loosely based they are in reality I am none the wiser as to whether you dad is dead or alive.joe2019 said:briantrumpet said:MattFalle said:
that as maybe but you've got to admit its funny.briantrumpet said:FFS - if you two want to get flagged, you're going the right way about it. If you can't be civil, shut up.
I'm just surprised it hasn't yet got to "My dad's harder than your dad".
My dad's dead
I'm pretty sure we buried him 20 years ago, but I'll check anyway, thanks.
0 -
david37 said:
Id bet he might be if he could.john80 said:
Having read some of your other posts and how loosely based they are in reality I am none the wiser as to whether you dad is dead or alive.joe2019 said:briantrumpet said:MattFalle said:
that as maybe but you've got to admit its funny.briantrumpet said:FFS - if you two want to get flagged, you're going the right way about it. If you can't be civil, shut up.
I'm just surprised it hasn't yet got to "My dad's harder than your dad".
My dad's dead
Does that even make sense?
0 -
what does that even mean?joe2019 said:david37 said:
Id bet he might be if he could.john80 said:
Having read some of your other posts and how loosely based they are in reality I am none the wiser as to whether you dad is dead or alive.joe2019 said:briantrumpet said:MattFalle said:
that as maybe but you've got to admit its funny.briantrumpet said:FFS - if you two want to get flagged, you're going the right way about it. If you can't be civil, shut up.
I'm just surprised it hasn't yet got to "My dad's harder than your dad".
My dad's dead
Does that even make sense?
My god, all is clear. But Im sure any linguists here could describe you pretty accurately from your last comment.
Psychiatrists could do the same from your previous comments.
0 -
Sorry to say but "Id bet he might be if he could." is not even close to good English.
0 -
I'll expand. for your confected outrage and offence.joe2019 said:Sorry to say that "Id bet he might be if he could." is not even near to good English.
I bet he might be dead if he could. (the inference being that I bet he might be dead through choice, to get away from your asinine comments)1 -
david37 said:
I'll expand. for your confected outrage and offence.joe2019 said:Sorry to say that "Id bet he might be if he could." is not even near to good English.
I bet he might be dead if he could. (the inference being that I bet he might be dead through choice, to get away from your asinine comments)
Thanks for the clarification. I'm obviously out of my depth here, all the best in your life.
0 -
Just a quick reminder that you have both voted 'Yes' and nobody has voted 'No' to having the vaccine.
0 -
Interested to read that Denmark and Norway have suspended use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine today.0
-
I am definitely not going to accept the AstraZeneca Vaccine, until they sort out this little issue.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/542780-denmark-norway-and-iceland-suspend-astrazeneca0 -
Mmm, so I've had a few glasses of wine, but isn't denial / approval of a drug to do with a homosexually transmitted disease* based on cost because it is associated with homosexuals a discrimination issue? And not terribly close to the line when it comes to medical ethics?david37 said:
Discrimination, which is a complicated area presents serious challenges in the provision of medical care. eg prep a hugely expensive drug used by the gay community to prevent infection caused by unprotected gay sex was demanded as a right and framed as a discrimination issue. the budget which is finite has to be balanced and the net effect is other areas have to be pruned, Cancer treatment perhaps.First.Aspect said:
Okay. Can you explain the comment about it being a discrimination issue. It struck a nerve. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, I'll apologise.david37 said:
I wasn't making a comment other than replying to an earlier comment about expected timescales. Group 6 is for those people who fall into assorts of different categories obesity being but one.First.Aspect said:
I'm well behind on the thread but I don't have an issue with vaccinating anyone young with specific issues. My bother in law is in care and is in his early 40s and the whole thing has given him fewer options in life than someone in prison. And he doesn't really understand. Sure there will be exceptions captured by national policy, but the greater good is served by innoculating people who through no fault of their own are more likely to catch it if thet are out and about.david37 said:
its because they're on group 6 which is massive. If for eg you have a child who has been diagnosed with adhd or has learning difficulties you get the jab as the disability is then associated to you. Its a discrimination issue I believe. This means many more people under 50 will be getting the jab than those 50 - 65 before AprilFirst.Aspect said:
I'm the same age, and I'm expecting well into June.N0bodyOfTheGoat said:Feels like the pace of calling up new groups is slowing in Hampshire, two weeks ago those aged 64+ could visit ad-hoc walk-in vaccination centres, these have now ceased as the 60-63 group are being invited to get their first jab. At 47, I'll be amazed if I get a jab before the end of April.
It also includes those who have eaten and drunk themselves to obesity or diabetes, have drink or drug problems etc etc
As well of course as those with all other underlying health issues past or present.
As for the other hypothetical categories, you sound like Norman Tebbit. You would prefer.to deny those in genuine need than inadvertently benefit those who in your judgement deserve what they get.
Death is a harsh sentence for being a fattie, I would say.
Since group 6 encompasses an awful lot of people, many of them relatively young then the following groups are some way down the line.
It seems your own personal position has led you to defensively ascribe meaning to my post that just isn't there. (your Tebbit comments and deciding what I would or wouldn't like)
I don't expect an apology, this is the internet after all.
I do think Tebbit is under used as an insult though.
In the provision of the vaccine in a justified discriminatory manner (age) there is also an exceptions group (group 6) where a very large group of people are given priority based on their needs. The vaccination of the parents of a child who has a statement of education need for example makes little sense. Especially since the parent and the child will be through necessity mixing with children and parents who don't fall into that category. However depending on the issue with the child, the parent may be considered to have the same disability and treated as such.
Now im not saying that's the case, but I suspect it might be a consideration. Im not sure if each health authority has to manage the order of its own citizens and therefore make decisions about the group in which each person belongs but if they are I would expect some to err on the side of caution and to take advice accordingly.
So I'm not quite at the apology stage, to be honest.
(*Presumably you are talking about HIV. Which is only a gay disease if you are still based in 1981.)
0 -
Regardless. "No" still has 0%.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Rather strange viewpoint rom someone that is going to have the vaccine.joe2019 said:pblakeney said:Regardless. "No" still has 0%.
Possibly not so many visitors to the thread from Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Italy, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Luxembourg.
"Yeah, got my invite today, booked in for the 26th." Pick a stance and stand by it.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
treatment is declined every day for all sorts of things on the basis of cost. Id have thought when faced with a finite budget that allocating a significant chunk of it in the direction of a group that has established cheap readily available and effective alternatives whilst at the same time restricting the treatment of others who couldn't avoid their situation is exactly the type of medical ethics question that is challenging.First.Aspect said:
Mmm, so I've had a few glasses of wine, but isn't denial / approval of a drug to do with a homosexually transmitted disease* based on cost because it is associated with homosexuals a discrimination issue? And not terribly close to the line when it comes to medical ethics?david37 said:
Discrimination, which is a complicated area presents serious challenges in the provision of medical care. eg prep a hugely expensive drug used by the gay community to prevent infection caused by unprotected gay sex was demanded as a right and framed as a discrimination issue. the budget which is finite has to be balanced and the net effect is other areas have to be pruned, Cancer treatment perhaps.First.Aspect said:
Okay. Can you explain the comment about it being a discrimination issue. It struck a nerve. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, I'll apologise.david37 said:
I wasn't making a comment other than replying to an earlier comment about expected timescales. Group 6 is for those people who fall into assorts of different categories obesity being but one.First.Aspect said:
I'm well behind on the thread but I don't have an issue with vaccinating anyone young with specific issues. My bother in law is in care and is in his early 40s and the whole thing has given him fewer options in life than someone in prison. And he doesn't really understand. Sure there will be exceptions captured by national policy, but the greater good is served by innoculating people who through no fault of their own are more likely to catch it if thet are out and about.david37 said:
its because they're on group 6 which is massive. If for eg you have a child who has been diagnosed with adhd or has learning difficulties you get the jab as the disability is then associated to you. Its a discrimination issue I believe. This means many more people under 50 will be getting the jab than those 50 - 65 before AprilFirst.Aspect said:
I'm the same age, and I'm expecting well into June.N0bodyOfTheGoat said:Feels like the pace of calling up new groups is slowing in Hampshire, two weeks ago those aged 64+ could visit ad-hoc walk-in vaccination centres, these have now ceased as the 60-63 group are being invited to get their first jab. At 47, I'll be amazed if I get a jab before the end of April.
It also includes those who have eaten and drunk themselves to obesity or diabetes, have drink or drug problems etc etc
As well of course as those with all other underlying health issues past or present.
As for the other hypothetical categories, you sound like Norman Tebbit. You would prefer.to deny those in genuine need than inadvertently benefit those who in your judgement deserve what they get.
Death is a harsh sentence for being a fattie, I would say.
Since group 6 encompasses an awful lot of people, many of them relatively young then the following groups are some way down the line.
It seems your own personal position has led you to defensively ascribe meaning to my post that just isn't there. (your Tebbit comments and deciding what I would or wouldn't like)
I don't expect an apology, this is the internet after all.
I do think Tebbit is under used as an insult though.
In the provision of the vaccine in a justified discriminatory manner (age) there is also an exceptions group (group 6) where a very large group of people are given priority based on their needs. The vaccination of the parents of a child who has a statement of education need for example makes little sense. Especially since the parent and the child will be through necessity mixing with children and parents who don't fall into that category. However depending on the issue with the child, the parent may be considered to have the same disability and treated as such.
Now im not saying that's the case, but I suspect it might be a consideration. Im not sure if each health authority has to manage the order of its own citizens and therefore make decisions about the group in which each person belongs but if they are I would expect some to err on the side of caution and to take advice accordingly.
So I'm not quite at the apology stage, to be honest.
(*Presumably you are talking about HIV. Which is only a gay disease if you are still based in 1981.)
But then I haven't "had a few glasses of wine"
0 -
Reminds me of this:david37 said:
treatment is declined every day for all sorts of things on the basis of cost. Id have thought when faced with a finite budget that allocating a significant chunk of it in the direction of a group that has established cheap readily available and effective alternatives whilst at the same time restricting the treatment of others who couldn't avoid their situation is exactly the type of medical ethics question that is challenging.First.Aspect said:
Mmm, so I've had a few glasses of wine, but isn't denial / approval of a drug to do with a homosexually transmitted disease* based on cost because it is associated with homosexuals a discrimination issue? And not terribly close to the line when it comes to medical ethics?david37 said:
Discrimination, which is a complicated area presents serious challenges in the provision of medical care. eg prep a hugely expensive drug used by the gay community to prevent infection caused by unprotected gay sex was demanded as a right and framed as a discrimination issue. the budget which is finite has to be balanced and the net effect is other areas have to be pruned, Cancer treatment perhaps.First.Aspect said:
Okay. Can you explain the comment about it being a discrimination issue. It struck a nerve. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, I'll apologise.david37 said:
I wasn't making a comment other than replying to an earlier comment about expected timescales. Group 6 is for those people who fall into assorts of different categories obesity being but one.First.Aspect said:
I'm well behind on the thread but I don't have an issue with vaccinating anyone young with specific issues. My bother in law is in care and is in his early 40s and the whole thing has given him fewer options in life than someone in prison. And he doesn't really understand. Sure there will be exceptions captured by national policy, but the greater good is served by innoculating people who through no fault of their own are more likely to catch it if thet are out and about.david37 said:
its because they're on group 6 which is massive. If for eg you have a child who has been diagnosed with adhd or has learning difficulties you get the jab as the disability is then associated to you. Its a discrimination issue I believe. This means many more people under 50 will be getting the jab than those 50 - 65 before AprilFirst.Aspect said:
I'm the same age, and I'm expecting well into June.N0bodyOfTheGoat said:Feels like the pace of calling up new groups is slowing in Hampshire, two weeks ago those aged 64+ could visit ad-hoc walk-in vaccination centres, these have now ceased as the 60-63 group are being invited to get their first jab. At 47, I'll be amazed if I get a jab before the end of April.
It also includes those who have eaten and drunk themselves to obesity or diabetes, have drink or drug problems etc etc
As well of course as those with all other underlying health issues past or present.
As for the other hypothetical categories, you sound like Norman Tebbit. You would prefer.to deny those in genuine need than inadvertently benefit those who in your judgement deserve what they get.
Death is a harsh sentence for being a fattie, I would say.
Since group 6 encompasses an awful lot of people, many of them relatively young then the following groups are some way down the line.
It seems your own personal position has led you to defensively ascribe meaning to my post that just isn't there. (your Tebbit comments and deciding what I would or wouldn't like)
I don't expect an apology, this is the internet after all.
I do think Tebbit is under used as an insult though.
In the provision of the vaccine in a justified discriminatory manner (age) there is also an exceptions group (group 6) where a very large group of people are given priority based on their needs. The vaccination of the parents of a child who has a statement of education need for example makes little sense. Especially since the parent and the child will be through necessity mixing with children and parents who don't fall into that category. However depending on the issue with the child, the parent may be considered to have the same disability and treated as such.
Now im not saying that's the case, but I suspect it might be a consideration. Im not sure if each health authority has to manage the order of its own citizens and therefore make decisions about the group in which each person belongs but if they are I would expect some to err on the side of caution and to take advice accordingly.
So I'm not quite at the apology stage, to be honest.
(*Presumably you are talking about HIV. Which is only a gay disease if you are still based in 1981.)
But then I haven't "had a few glasses of wine"
https://youtu.be/W4JsjI5gUHk 0 -
So are you arguing that we should deny cancer treatment to ex smokers?david37 said:
treatment is declined every day for all sorts of things on the basis of cost. Id have thought when faced with a finite budget that allocating a significant chunk of it in the direction of a group that has established cheap readily available and effective alternatives whilst at the same time restricting the treatment of others who couldn't avoid their situation is exactly the type of medical ethics question that is challenging.First.Aspect said:
Mmm, so I've had a few glasses of wine, but isn't denial / approval of a drug to do with a homosexually transmitted disease* based on cost because it is associated with homosexuals a discrimination issue? And not terribly close to the line when it comes to medical ethics?david37 said:
Discrimination, which is a complicated area presents serious challenges in the provision of medical care. eg prep a hugely expensive drug used by the gay community to prevent infection caused by unprotected gay sex was demanded as a right and framed as a discrimination issue. the budget which is finite has to be balanced and the net effect is other areas have to be pruned, Cancer treatment perhaps.First.Aspect said:
Okay. Can you explain the comment about it being a discrimination issue. It struck a nerve. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, I'll apologise.david37 said:
I wasn't making a comment other than replying to an earlier comment about expected timescales. Group 6 is for those people who fall into assorts of different categories obesity being but one.First.Aspect said:
I'm well behind on the thread but I don't have an issue with vaccinating anyone young with specific issues. My bother in law is in care and is in his early 40s and the whole thing has given him fewer options in life than someone in prison. And he doesn't really understand. Sure there will be exceptions captured by national policy, but the greater good is served by innoculating people who through no fault of their own are more likely to catch it if thet are out and about.david37 said:
its because they're on group 6 which is massive. If for eg you have a child who has been diagnosed with adhd or has learning difficulties you get the jab as the disability is then associated to you. Its a discrimination issue I believe. This means many more people under 50 will be getting the jab than those 50 - 65 before AprilFirst.Aspect said:
I'm the same age, and I'm expecting well into June.N0bodyOfTheGoat said:Feels like the pace of calling up new groups is slowing in Hampshire, two weeks ago those aged 64+ could visit ad-hoc walk-in vaccination centres, these have now ceased as the 60-63 group are being invited to get their first jab. At 47, I'll be amazed if I get a jab before the end of April.
It also includes those who have eaten and drunk themselves to obesity or diabetes, have drink or drug problems etc etc
As well of course as those with all other underlying health issues past or present.
As for the other hypothetical categories, you sound like Norman Tebbit. You would prefer.to deny those in genuine need than inadvertently benefit those who in your judgement deserve what they get.
Death is a harsh sentence for being a fattie, I would say.
Since group 6 encompasses an awful lot of people, many of them relatively young then the following groups are some way down the line.
It seems your own personal position has led you to defensively ascribe meaning to my post that just isn't there. (your Tebbit comments and deciding what I would or wouldn't like)
I don't expect an apology, this is the internet after all.
I do think Tebbit is under used as an insult though.
In the provision of the vaccine in a justified discriminatory manner (age) there is also an exceptions group (group 6) where a very large group of people are given priority based on their needs. The vaccination of the parents of a child who has a statement of education need for example makes little sense. Especially since the parent and the child will be through necessity mixing with children and parents who don't fall into that category. However depending on the issue with the child, the parent may be considered to have the same disability and treated as such.
Now im not saying that's the case, but I suspect it might be a consideration. Im not sure if each health authority has to manage the order of its own citizens and therefore make decisions about the group in which each person belongs but if they are I would expect some to err on the side of caution and to take advice accordingly.
So I'm not quite at the apology stage, to be honest.
(*Presumably you are talking about HIV. Which is only a gay disease if you are still based in 1981.)
But then I haven't "had a few glasses of wine"0
