THE COVID-19 VACCINE: WILL YOU HAVE ONE?

It's simple if anyone does not want it , respect there decision but if you come down with the virus and need hospital you will be refused treatment that's fair .

Why is that fair? If you life an unhealthy lifestyle, should you also be refused support and treatments? If you dont eat your 5 fruit and veg a day, should you be refused treatment for cancer too?

Taking a vaccine shouldn't give anyone additional privileges - that is ridiculous. You want to exclude and marginalise a section of people, who simply want to have more confidence in the vaccine and its safety. Do you know how dangerous that path is? Have we learnt nothing from history?

People have the right to make their own informed decisions, not manufactured one. Nobody should lose any freedoms nor be judged because of it. The fact people think they should, is quite frightening to me.

might end up being blackmailed into it...
but otherwise..no

Just asking but are personal and social responsibilities not enough?

You may, of course, have a valid reason not to have it (I know some have) but your tune does appear to have changed a few notes now it's getting closer to Jab Day

really....? i used the word blackmail.... doesnt come stronger than that tbh.....
as for my personal responsibilities...how about you turn that on its head.....
i believe all the scientific and medical expertise that has gone into coming up with the legal criteria for testing vaccines.... { which i assume you did, but do not anymore }
have family experience in what can go wrong when thats not the case ...{ thalidomide } which of course is part of the reasoning for all the well thought out previously government backed safety protocols.....and science im afraid does not change to suit unreasonable panic .... and should there be long term side effects and our hospitals are therefore overwhelmed by these new cases , who exactly were the responsible ? those unreasonably panic stricken willing to shove absolutely anything into themselves as long as it stops their fears or those that actually believe in a very long standing and considered safe testing procedure.... our government are so confident they have even waved liability for pharmaceutical companies on this... must be safe as houses...

It's as safe as houses, I'm going to put you down for the Oxford one which is made by genetically adapting a chimpanzee cold virus, what could possibly go wrong?

your someone that jumped on a plane and went on hols the minute it was allowed.... which shows how much thought you put into things mate....big important man say jump you say how high and would probably punch a tiger if joe exotic was PM and told you it wouldnt be a good idea normally but is fine today... so yes im a chimp which is a few rungs up the ladder from me no thinks me listens....

Not sure what that means?
I flew on holiday to Mexico early March before it kicked off, very safe and to Kos in August when it was under 10 cases per 100,000 so almost risk-free and very safe.
I didn't call you a chimp, the Oxford vaccine is made from a chimp cold virus which has been modified.
I don't listen to just any important man, but if it's a medical matter, I listen to doctors, it's obviously more sensible than some bellend on the internet or in the pub isn't it?
I'm glad you are coming round, you know it makes sense

might end up being blackmailed into it...
but otherwise..no

changing your tune quickly, for months its been no chance, and people are scared who want a virus

I'm glad you've seen the light

not changing my tune at all mate..... simultaneous testing.....the effects on 60 people for one month does not in way reproduce the effects for 1 person over 5 years..... its why its not been allowed previously and as well as being illegal is stupid..

Add to that,that this 90+% is a false figure,as a load of tests were done on people under 55 with no underlying illness.people need to concern themselves with their own choices,and not vilify others for theirs.

95% they say, it is tested on a cross-section of the public?

I didn't vilify him? I said I'm glad you've seen the light? Praise if anything

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

As I've said all along, I'll quietly hang around at the back of the queue and let all you eager beavers go first.

If your arms don't fall off, I might consider it, but certainly not going to be first in line.

Announcement on non mandatory is a positive though

My position has always been it should be a personal choice just like believing a pleisosaur could be living in the depths of a deep Scottish lake.

You're moving slowly too

All we need is Nukes now

Hmmm.... my first post on this back on September 24th....

Oh God you think the virus is fine, and your shit scared of a little needle, some people believe everything the read on the interweb

WIth all due respect, I don't think the majority of people are scared of a little needle, it's what that little needle will put into our bodies and the potential unknown effect of that.

Quick recent example, the World Health Organisation only a few weeks ago made a statement on an outbreak in Sudan of vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2

https://www.who.int/csr/don/01-septembe ... -sudan/en/

This doesn't mean all vaccine's are bad, god bless Mssr. Pasteur and his Cow Pox vaccine which has saved the lives of many, many millions for example (side note - that is where we actually get the word vaccine from - vacca is latin for cows). It is just that rushed testing of vaccines can lead to unknown, and often very, very bad side effects.

Equally, most people are not against a vaccine per see, it the idea of a vaccine being mandatory that sets off alarm bells.

To be clear as well, 'mandatory' vaccination might not neccessarily come in the way we assume.

It won't necessarily mean the government pinning us down and jabbing us in the arm, it is more likely that certain rights and freedoms are restricted for those who don't take it, so while being under the guise of voluntary it essentially becomes mandatory anyway.

We are already seeing the introduction of digital health passports to show if you have antibodies for the disease

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 20037.html

We are also already seeing talk of a need for Covid-19 'booster shots being an ongoing requirement

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronav ... ?r=US&IR=T

So is it really that big a leap to see a world of ongoing 'mandatory vaccination' and the erosion of civil rights of those who don't wish to comply and have the green light on their shiny new app? Possibly, possibly not - however, for me, it seems very ominous.

If you (not necessarily aimed solely at Bluebina, I mean anyone) are comfortable taking the vaccine and running the risks of possible unknown complications further down the line then that is your decision and should be your decision alone. However, if a percentage of the population having taken the vaccine are no longer vulnerable to the virus, what danger can an unvaccinated person who carries the virus, whether it be asymptomatiocally or not, be to that vaccinated population?

If someone sees a greater risk in taking a vaccine that has been produced faster than anything ever before, versus a virus that has an exceptionally low mortality rate amongst those under 75, shouldn't that simply be their choice as they can do no harm to those who have the vaccination so the only person they are potentially putting in danger is themselves?

'My body my choice' was the slogan of the day just 18 months ago in Ireland when they held their abortion referendum, now they seem to be leading the charge for mandatory vaccinations, with others closely behind. It's interesting how these slogans can suddenly be dropped when they become counter-productive for the prevailing narrative. Just one more great example of the pervasiveness of double think all around us I guess.

Whether you want to call it all a conspiracy theory or fake news or anything else, dive beyond the headlines and the information is clearly there. Some of us have taken the time to do so and make informed judgements. Others just repeat the empty rhetoric they are spoon fed (again not referring to you personally Bluebina, just in people general)

While some people may blindly believe what they read on the internet, the flip side is that many, many others simply don't take the time to properly read and understand what is openly available to them.

I'm all for people who want to take a vaccine as soon it is available being able to do so, all power to you, get the jab and get on with your lives, and deal with the consequences (if there are any) come what May.

But I'll just wait here quietly at the back of the queue for as long as I can.

My position seems remarkably consistent to me.

True I was wrong, I had you down as a non-believer, but you're on the vaccine bus, even if it's at the last stop

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Ambulance chasers would have a field day, any future illness and they would try and blame the vaccine, and it would cost billions to defend false allegations, unfortunately, solicitors and a large percentage of the UK/US public are always looking for someone to blame.

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Ambulance chasers would have a field day, any future illness and they would try and blame the vaccine, and it would cost billions to defend false allegations, unfortunately, solicitors and a large percentage of the UK/US public are always looking for someone to blame.

Any successful lawsuit would require proof that the vaccine was the cause, and the company (in this case Pfizer) were liable.

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?

I am not anti-vac, indeed I have had all my Jabs uk and for abroad and my children have.

I am with others on here, we probably wont get a choice, especially if you want to go abroad, but If I did have a choice I would prefer to wait a few months if not 12 - 18 months just to see how it goes .

Governments always have a get out clause. Which government department was checking the safety of the thalidomide morning sickness medication in the early 60's. A friend of mine's daughter who was a normal child was left mentally disabled at the age of 2 because doctors did not notice that she was given 2 doses of live polio vaccine (when live vaccines were the normal until the 80's)

What Government dept/agency was checking and double checking the cladding on tower blocks ? now poor old leaseholders have to stump up for something that many either did not want or/and did not agree to, etc.

As I said I am not anti-vac just cautious of being fed bullshit again.

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?

I am not anti-vac, indeed I have had all my Jabs uk and for abroad and my children have.

I am with others on here, we probably wont get a choice, especially if you want to go abroad, but If I did have a choice I would prefer to wait a few months if not 12 - 18 months just to see how it goes .

Governments always have a get out clause. Which government department was checking the safety of the thalidomide morning sickness medication in the early 60's. A friend of mine's daughter who was a normal child was left mentally disabled at the age of 2 because doctors did not notice that she was given 2 doses of live polio vaccine (when live vaccines were the normal until the 80's)

What Government dept/agency was checking and double checking the cladding on tower blocks ? now poor old leaseholders have to stump up for something that many either did not want or/and did not agree to, etc.

As I said I am not anti-vac just cautious of being fed bullshit again.

I agree totally. I don't understand why some are condescending towards those who have safety concerns, as if they are conspiracy theorists or anti vaxxers, believing they should lose freedoms and become marginalised. The truth is, this has been fast tracked and just 10 months ago a vaccine like this would have been illegal.

Well im 24 and there has been no news on if people under 50 years old will get the vaccine. So I guess the virus is not as harmful to the youth as the elderly.

The vaccine is there to prevent deaths from covid. Based on the information available, immunising the over 50's would prevent 99% of covid related deaths.
Covid isnt going away but giant strides are being made to reduce its effect.

They have to immunise those at the greatest risk and correct you're not a priority (assuming you have no underlying condition). It may well be that you'll eventually be offered one of the other vaccines when those most vulnerable have been dealt with.

Well im 24 and there has been no news on if people under 50 years old will get the vaccine. So I guess the virus is not as harmful to the youth as the elderly.

Award for stating the obvious Sam

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Ambulance chasers would have a field day, any future illness and they would try and blame the vaccine, and it would cost billions to defend false allegations, unfortunately, solicitors and a large percentage of the UK/US public are always looking for someone to blame.

Any successful lawsuit would require proof that the vaccine was the cause, and the company (in this case Pfizer) were liable.

I know but it could leave a floodgate open for thousands of people to try and blame the vaccine for all sorts of problems.

The amount of people who say they were really ill after a flu virus is unbelievable, in truth it could have been anything, doctors surgeries are full of sick people spreading bacterial infections and viruses.

No doubt people will pick up bugs while going for the covid vaccines, it's just one of those things, although with good distancing and masks maybe it can be avoided?

might end up being blackmailed into it...
but otherwise..no

mammys boy scared of needles.Perhaps they will put it on a lump of sugar for you.

Well im 24 and there has been no news on if people under 50 years old will get the vaccine. So I guess the virus is not as harmful to the youth as the elderly.

Sam,no offence to you,but do you live under a rock or something,?
Its been clear from the get go,just look at average age of deaths!so,no its not as harmful to the youth as elderly.

It's simple if anyone does not want it , respect there decision but if you come down with the virus and need hospital you will be refused treatment that's fair .

Why is that fair? If you life an unhealthy lifestyle, should you also be refused support and treatments? If you dont eat your 5 fruit and veg a day, should you be refused treatment for cancer too?

Taking a vaccine shouldn't give anyone additional privileges - that is ridiculous. You want to exclude and marginalise a section of people, who simply want to have more confidence in the vaccine and its safety. Do you know how dangerous that path is? Have we learnt nothing from history?

People have the right to make their own informed decisions, not manufactured one. Nobody should lose any freedoms nor be judged because of it. The fact people think they should, is quite frightening to me.

Absolutely 1st class post mate.

might end up being blackmailed into it...
but otherwise..no

changing your tune quickly, for months its been no chance, and people are scared who want a virus

I'm glad you've seen the light

not changing my tune at all mate..... simultaneous testing.....the effects on 60 people for one month does not in way reproduce the effects for 1 person over 5 years..... its why its not been allowed previously and as well as being illegal is stupid..

Add to that,that this 90+% is a false figure,as a load of tests were done on people under 55 with no underlying illness.people need to concern themselves with their own choices,and not vilify others for theirs.

95% they say, it is tested on a cross-section of the public?

I didn't vilify him? I said I'm glad you've seen the light? Praise if anything

I dont recall using your username in my post??but seeing as you've touched on it,you and a few others are constantly mocking others,whose take is different to yours on the covid subjects.so if the cap fits!

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?

I am not anti-vac, indeed I have had all my Jabs uk and for abroad and my children have.

I am with others on here, we probably wont get a choice, especially if you want to go abroad, but If I did have a choice I would prefer to wait a few months if not 12 - 18 months just to see how it goes .

Governments always have a get out clause. Which government department was checking the safety of the thalidomide morning sickness medication in the early 60's. A friend of mine's daughter who was a normal child was left mentally disabled at the age of 2 because doctors did not notice that she was given 2 doses of live polio vaccine (when live vaccines were the normal until the 80's)

What Government dept/agency was checking and double checking the cladding on tower blocks ? now poor old leaseholders have to stump up for something that many either did not want or/and did not agree to, etc.

As I said I am not anti-vac just cautious of being fed bullshit again.

Good reply and if people are sensible and have genuine concerns, it's fair enough if they don't want to take the vaccine.

Thankfully the medical profession has moved on leaps and bounds since thalidomide.

Your friend's daughters medical negligence is terrible and hopefully wouldn't happen these days although nothing is 100% risk-free.

Cladding on buildings is also terrible, but a completely different matter, even then can governments be held accountable for everything?

might end up being blackmailed into it...
but otherwise..no

Just asking but are personal and social responsibilities not enough?

You may, of course, have a valid reason not to have it (I know some have) but your tune does appear to have changed a few notes now it's getting closer to Jab Day

really....? i used the word blackmail.... doesnt come stronger than that tbh.....
as for my personal responsibilities...how about you turn that on its head.....
i believe all the scientific and medical expertise that has gone into coming up with the legal criteria for testing vaccines.... { which i assume you did, but do not anymore }
have family experience in what can go wrong when thats not the case ...{ thalidomide } which of course is part of the reasoning for all the well thought out previously government backed safety protocols.....and science im afraid does not change to suit unreasonable panic .... and should there be long term side effects and our hospitals are therefore overwhelmed by these new cases , who exactly were the responsible ? those unreasonably panic stricken willing to shove absolutely anything into themselves as long as it stops their fears or those that actually believe in a very long standing and considered safe testing procedure.... our government are so confident they have even waved liability for pharmaceutical companies on this... must be safe as houses...

It was a polite question but the rambling response didn't really answer it...

I'm not sure what "i believe all the scientific and medical expertise that has gone into coming up with the legal criteria for testing vaccines.... { which i assume you did, but do not anymore }" actually meant?

The rest are just the thoughts of someone I believe doesn't really stand by what he says or is just being obtuse

But one point from your post regarding Thalidomide is actually one of the prevalent reasons vaccines and medicines are more modernly trustworthy. A massive issue around the time of the birth of many on here, you'll not be the only one to have personal and/or family experience of that sad episode

Up to you at the end of the day though and I guess like most, you'll justify your decision either way

might end up being blackmailed into it...
but otherwise..no

changing your tune quickly, for months its been no chance, and people are scared who want a virus

I'm glad you've seen the light

not changing my tune at all mate..... simultaneous testing.....the effects on 60 people for one month does not in way reproduce the effects for 1 person over 5 years..... its why its not been allowed previously and as well as being illegal is stupid..

Add to that,that this 90+% is a false figure,as a load of tests were done on people under 55 with no underlying illness.people need to concern themselves with their own choices,and not vilify others for theirs.

95% they say, it is tested on a cross-section of the public?

I didn't vilify him? I said I'm glad you've seen the light? Praise if anything

I dont recall using your username in my post??but seeing as you've touched on it,you and a few others are constantly mocking others,whose take is different to yours on the covid subjects.so if the cap fits!

Assumed it was meant for me as a follow on from skidemans reply to me?

Anyway, that's enough from me on this post now, some will take it, some won't and I respect everyone's decision, it's up to them, if 67% people take it added to the people who have already had it and that should be enough to bring normality back next season

might end up being blackmailed into it...
but otherwise..no

changing your tune quickly, for months its been no chance, and people are scared who want a virus

I'm glad you've seen the light

not changing my tune at all mate..... simultaneous testing.....the effects on 60 people for one month does not in way reproduce the effects for 1 person over 5 years..... its why its not been allowed previously and as well as being illegal is stupid..

Add to that,that this 90+% is a false figure,as a load of tests were done on people under 55 with no underlying illness.people need to concern themselves with their own choices,and not vilify others for theirs.

95% they say, it is tested on a cross-section of the public?

I didn't vilify him? I said I'm glad you've seen the light? Praise if anything

I dont recall using your username in my post??but seeing as you've touched on it,you and a few others are constantly mocking others,whose take is different to yours on the covid subjects.so if the cap fits!

Assumed it was meant for me as a follow on from skidemans reply to me?

Anyway, that's enough from me on this post now, some will take it, some won't and I respect everyone's decision, it's up to them, if 67% people take it added to the people who have already had it and that should be enough to bring normality back next season

Fair play.

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Ambulance chasers would have a field day, any future illness and they would try and blame the vaccine, and it would cost billions to defend false allegations, unfortunately, solicitors and a large percentage of the UK/US public are always looking for someone to blame.

Any successful lawsuit would require proof that the vaccine was the cause, and the company (in this case Pfizer) were liable.

I know but it could leave a floodgate open for thousands of people to try and blame the vaccine for all sorts of problems.

The amount of people who say they were really ill after a flu virus is unbelievable, in truth it could have been anything, doctors surgeries are full of sick people spreading bacterial infections and viruses.

No doubt people will pick up bugs while going for the covid vaccines, it's just one of those things, although with good distancing and masks maybe it can be avoided?

people catching a cold at the surgery is not what liability is about...as well you know...
if your ok with it... fine... but its not normal... if you want to pretend removing liability is normal.. fine...but telling others that its normal when knowing full well it is not is a bit shitty....

might end up being blackmailed into it...
but otherwise..no

mammys boy scared of needles.Perhaps they will put it on a lump of sugar for you.

Another well thought out answer (not) its his choice,not yours.

True I was wrong, I had you down as a non-believer, but you're on the vaccine bus, even if it's at the last stop

Depends on two things

a) if the bus ever gets to where I'm standing

and

b) if it does and all you folks at the front of the queue have turned into mutated freaks after injecting modified chimp DNA into your bodies then i think I'll just take a walk instead anyway.

The way i see it, there's enough of you brave fools all lined up to be guinea pigs for the more sensible of us to quietly wait and see what happens.

In the mean time I'll just have to take my chances with the 99.3% survival rate

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?
.

Basically:
Far more money given
Far more people working on it
A lot of technology advancement/availability
Very similar to something they'd been working on recently
The virus is fast spreading which allows trials to end quicker.

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?
.

Basically:
Far more money given
Far more people working on it
A lot of technology advancement/availability
Very similar to something they'd been working on recently
The virus is fast spreading which allows trials to end quicker.

the issue is time.... you can not judge the effects of..say smoking for 10 years by giving 520, 30 year olds a weeks cigarettes and going on the result... a year is a year...

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?
.

Basically:
Far more money given
Far more people working on it
A lot of technology advancement/availability
Very similar to something they'd been working on recently
The virus is fast spreading which allows trials to end quicker.

the issue is time.... you can not judge the effects of..say smoking for 10 years by giving 520, 30 year olds a weeks cigarettes and going on the result... a year is a year...

That one's easy mate. They're working in Chimp years

It's not something most of us us will even have to worry about untill Easter at which point we will know a lot more about the effects of it, if it works and what any consequences maybe.

I will make my decision then at the time based on the evidence.

Iv got Asthma and even with that I was told I will be a long way down the pecking order for this when I spoke to the Nurse in my Asthma review last month.

I hope to god it works and doesn't cause issues purely based on the facts the most vulnerable are essentially going to be the Guinea Pigs.

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Ambulance chasers would have a field day, any future illness and they would try and blame the vaccine, and it would cost billions to defend false allegations, unfortunately, solicitors and a large percentage of the UK/US public are always looking for someone to blame.

Any successful lawsuit would require proof that the vaccine was the cause, and the company (in this case Pfizer) were liable.

I know but it could leave a floodgate open for thousands of people to try and blame the vaccine for all sorts of problems.

The amount of people who say they were really ill after a flu virus is unbelievable, in truth it could have been anything, doctors surgeries are full of sick people spreading bacterial infections and viruses.

No doubt people will pick up bugs while going for the covid vaccines, it's just one of those things, although with good distancing and masks maybe it can be avoided?

It could, and all illegitimate claims would be disqualified, whilst anyone who may be genuinely affected should have the option and right to file for damages - this is hypothetical at this stage ofcourse. A lot of people stage car crashes, we don't get rid of car insurance because those faulty claims are an inconvenience to insurance companies. All individuals and corporations should be held to the same standards, and held accountable where and when neccessary.

I hope to god it works and doesn't cause issues purely based on the facts the most vulnerable are essentially going to be the Guinea Pigs.

Good point about our vulnerable being the guinea pigs of the world.

Surely we could just hold fire for a wee bit and let one of those barbaric backwards countries that have a total disregard for human rights just go and test it on their prison population.

Only a matter of time in NZ with Jacelyn Aherne at the helm surely. Then anything NZ does the Aussies need to try and one up them and the Victorian state government are leading the way there.

Failing that President Elect Kamala Harris has form with abusing the prison population so as soon as those pesky MAGA folks in the US just get over it and accept that Dead Votes Matter she'll be all over it.

Being first is not always a good idea. Especially when there are plenty of morons desperate to push to their way to the front of the line.

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?
.

Basically:
Far more money given
Far more people working on it
A lot of technology advancement/availability
Very similar to something they'd been working on recently
The virus is fast spreading which allows trials to end quicker.

the issue is time.... you can not judge the effects of..say smoking for 10 years by giving 520, 30 year olds a weeks cigarettes and going on the result... a year is a year...

That one's easy mate. They're working in Chimp years

Can I ask what specific long term effect you're worried about?

Would you rather we develop a perfectly good vaccine and then wait a decade before giving it to the public? A decade of corona deaths and potentially long term effects of that or a vaccine?