Topic: COVID-19:VERIFIED news sources, 0 politishit, 0 CONSPIRACY SHITE

[Statto Red]

Nah, he’s not coming from a “wary” point of view, which is fair. He’s coming from a “I’m OK so fuck the rest”.

So he deserves calling out.

He's a troll who needs perma banning, you want to see his luny posts in the F1 thread.

[CraigDS]

He's a troll who needs perma banning, you want to see his luny posts in the F1 thread.

Seen them mate and totally agree.

[Linudden]

He's a troll who needs perma banning, you want to see his luny posts in the F1 thread.

 

Good night anyway folks and stay safe!

[afc tukrish]

Let’s just call them fuckwits.  Because they are.

Ignorant, blow hard, opinionated, know nothing fuckwits.

Let's just call them Linudden...

Edit: damn it, Elmo...

[TepidT2O]

Let's just call them Linudden...

Edit: damn it, Elmo...

No, that’s not fair.  The points weren’t made specifically at him no matter how low an opinion I have of him.

[Clint Eastwood]

Yeah good luck to those who choose to have it. If it just has an immunity guaranteed of less than a year I fail to see the point for non-vulnerable ones though. The problem with many people is that they live in a utopia where we can eliminate all deaths and all disease and it's been a large problem leading to the global reaction. When people set an unrealistic goal (say Everton to win the league) when that ain't achieved the blame game starts.

If the vaccine in ten years time saw 99 % of takers still have antibodies, then I'll put my hands up but I won't hold my breath, sadly.

Painful to read these kind of comments when the poster clearly has no idea how vaccines actually eliminate disease.

A vaccine isn’t just a magic power injected in to your body. It’s part of a collaborative effort to drive the amount of virus in circulation until it’s driven out.

[classycarra]

I don't think Linudden's a troll and don't think he should be banned, I just think he struggles to see (or try to see) other people's perspectives and losing his temper a bit when people don't see things the way he does - see for example multiple posts suggesting he's going to stop watching Liverpool, stop watching football, stop watching F1 because of a decision that upset him.

In the same way, he struggles to understand that taking a vaccine (such as the flu jab) even if you aren't concerned for your own health is important because it's putting your community first and putting their needs above your own. Again struggles with the perspective that even though he thinks he'd not be one of the unlucky ones to have covid complications, to the point of calling people in this thread cowards who are living in fear of a virus - but lacks the self awareness to spot that his main justification for not wanting the vaccine is, in his own words, fear.

He also thinks that because he doesn't know or see any 'vulnerable people' (obviously we know he's not capable of visually diagnosing people and only means 'old'), that he doesn't need to try to protect them by getting the vaccine. But that shows he can't put himself in the shoes of the people who work in his office with them, whose contacts he is unaware of and can't control.

I don't think it's trolling, it's just his personality.

[djahern]

I might be wrong here and apologise if I am, but I think Linudden has a point. Vaccines, from my understanding, teach the body how to deal with a virus its never encountered before. Now, once everyone classed as vulnerable has been vaccinated to prevent us getting seriously ill in the future, if a non vaccinated person has a healthy immune system that can deal with the virus on its own, then is there any real reason to vaccinate everyone, isn't it better to let the body deal with it if it can? The flu vaccine isn't needed for everyone, just those at risk, yet around 12 million people a year catch the flu. 

The question is valid. The assumptions by Linudden to arrive at the those conclusions are flawed though.

It comes down to transmission versus illness severity and how both are impacted by vaccination. If a vaccine blunts illness severity only with no impact on transmission, then of course only vaccinating those groups prone to serious illness is the correct strategy and then go back to what we were doing in February 2020. You've protected the vulnerable as best you can, not much more you can do unless we want to continue with social distancing - which we don't.

But if the vaccine significantly impacts transmission also, then the best way to protect the vulnerable is to vaccinate everyone after you've vaccinated them. The reason for this is that vaccines aren't protective for 100% of people. So for those vulnerable who it will protect from serious illness, they wont get ill, our mortality numbers will come down and we'll all go back to how we were in February 2020. But the virus will still spread, those vulnerable people who the vaccine didn't protect will get seriously ill and some will die. To protect these people we need to stop chains of transmission. We currently do it by social distancing, we could do it by vaccinating the bulk of the non-vulnerable population.

Vaccinating the vulnerable groups may end up protecting 70% of them from serious illness, vaccinating the remaining population can protect the other 30%. I say 70% because we don't know yet what efficacy this vaccine will have in the real world settings it is being administered (it won't be 90%) Measles was mentioned further down the page - it's always assumed we give the second dose of measles vaccination as a boost - we don't. The second administration is to protect the 8% of people who the first dose didn't work for due to it not being administered properly. That extra 8% makes a huge difference to population immunity for a virus that spreads so easily.

That's a caution not to assume that efficacy of trials will translate exactly to real world settings. We are likely looking at a vaccine that is somewhere between 70-90% effective rather than the numbers that came from the trial. So to protect that remaining 20-30% requires vaccination of everyone else and protects them simply by them not being exposed to the virus. Someone claiming they don't come into contact with the over 75's so vaccination isn't required misses the point about chains of infection. If you pick this up, you will pass it on, and that chain of infection you are a part of and helped (unwittingly) propagate will eventually pass through someone who's over 75, and someone who is vulnerable. Social distancing currently stops us 'youngsters' from being part of those chains and vaccination will stop us being part of them in the future when social distancing has gone.

As measles and mutation was brought up, some interesting things. Measles does mutate, just like other viruses. But it's proteins that it uses to latch onto and invade cells (a bit like to the coronavirus spike protein) are really sensitive to any changes in their structure. If they mutate even a little they can't bind and infect human cells at all. So we assume that measles doesn't mutate when it does - it's just that we never see a mutation in these surface proteins (which the vaccine creates antibodies to) as it would then never pass from person to person.

[classycarra]

Painful to read these kind of comments when the poster clearly has no idea how vaccines actually eliminate disease.

A vaccine isn’t just a magic power injected in to your body. It’s part of a collaborative effort to drive the amount of virus in circulation until it’s driven out.

Yes, embarrasing too.

Imagine referring to public health efforts to eradicate diseases causing millions of death as a "problem".

Luckily the public health world isn't as clouded in ignorance as he is, nor do they see trying to keep people from dying preventable deaths as a "problem".

If they shared in his ignorance and desired inertia (always find it weird that he gets worked up about other people putting effort in), we'd not have eradicated smallpox.

[Clint Eastwood]

Yes, embarrasing too.

Imagine referring to public health efforts to eradicate diseases causing millions of death as a "problem".

Luckily the public health world isn't as clouded in ignorance as he is, nor do they see trying to keep people from dying preventable deaths as a "problem".

If they shared in his ignorance and desired inertia (always find it weird that he gets worked up about other people putting effort in), we'd not have eradicated smallpox.

It’s ignorance. He clearly doesn’t fully understand what he’s talking about but he will go with it anyway.

It’s pretty jarring seeing some of the stuff he has said. He needs to walk in to a hospital and see what is going on right now.

[So… Howard Philips]

It’s ignorance. He clearly doesn’t fully understand what he’s talking about but he will go with it anyway.

It’s pretty jarring seeing some of the stuff he has said. He needs to walk in to a hospital and see what is going on right now.

He seems to live in splendid isolation and be a mite anti social, with more than a whiff of some form of Swedish supremacy to boot.

[west_london_red]

I don't think Linudden's a troll and don't think he should be banned, I just think he struggles to see (or try to see) other people's perspectives and losing his temper a bit when people don't see things the way he does - see for example multiple posts suggesting he's going to stop watching Liverpool, stop watching football, stop watching F1 because of a decision that upset him.

In the same way, he struggles to understand that taking a vaccine (such as the flu jab) even if you aren't concerned for your own health is important because it's putting your community first and putting their needs above your own. Again struggles with the perspective that even though he thinks he'd not be one of the unlucky ones to have covid complications, to the point of calling people in this thread cowards who are living in fear of a virus - but lacks the self awareness to spot that his main justification for not wanting the vaccine is, in his own words, fear.

He also thinks that because he doesn't know or see any 'vulnerable people' (obviously we know he's not capable of visually diagnosing people and only means 'old'), that he doesn't need to try to protect them by getting the vaccine. But that shows he can't put himself in the shoes of the people who work in his office with them, whose contacts he is unaware of and can't control.

I don't think it's trolling, it's just his personality.

First of all, I agree that Linudden shouldnt be banned, he has a different opinion and he’s entitled to that even if there’s very little to support it. What does piss me off though is that I don’t think he’s stupid and he seems to be at least reasonably educated. I can understand if someone doesn’t understand what’s going on because of a lack of education, not everyone has the same life chances etc and that can impact someone’s ability to understand what’s going on and what needs to be done, but I don’t think that applies to him.

[John Higgins]

I’m genuinely staggered that the herd immunity ghouls have the brass neck to post anything on this subject having been proven disastrously wrong at each and every turn.

[davidlpool1982]

Accidentally opened up the thread on the first page just now and decided to see what we thought a year ago ( thread started 31st Jan). I hold my hands up and did the "no worse than a flu" crap and didn't think too much would change.

How naive we all were eh?

[Son of Spion]

You're aware that under the formula of three deaths worldwide per second that accounts for 95 million annual deaths per year right? The Spanish flu killed 20 mil in a much less populated world in an equal amount of time.

1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 were more deadly years per capita in Sweden and 2015 ran identical to 2020. In fact, had it not been for a substantial deficit in total deaths in 2019 it would've looked a lot different last year.

Of course it's bad for those who get a bad case, but it doesn't mean the vast majority of people are at risk. Of course I'd give my kids regular vaccines if I ever had them but that doesn't mean I have to take something largely untested just because RAWK says so. The vaccine should be reserved for those who risk to suffer badly from something and should be effective in protecting them. Not someone who'd merely be a bit under the weather for a few days.

I think everyone has the right to an opinion, and certainly has the right to decide what they do and don't put in their bodies. If an individual does not want to have the vaccine, then that's their business.

I will definitely be having it, and I hope my loved ones do too, but that will be a choice they have to make themselves. My 80 year-old mum is having it tomorrow, and I'm incredibly happy that she is too. That said, I'm not so sure we can just carve up the population into groups we feel will probably get it bad and those who won't. Sadly, people of all ages have died from this horrible disease. Many who were not old, plenty who were otherwise fit and healthy until they contracted Covid. Thing is, none of us can know for sure how our bodies will react to Covid if we get it.

Initially, I was concerned about elderly loved ones getting it and not surviving, but far less worried about getting it myself. Now, after seeing how this has the potential to kill just about anyone, I'm far more worried about contracting it myself. I know a guy younger than I am who got it and was hospitalised for three months and was expected to die. He pulled through, but his health is wrecked and he'll never be the same again. It was almost life ending, and it certainly has been life changing for him, and there are plenty of cases just like his. All I'm saying is that we cannot know beforehand how our systems will react if we get it, and that's why I won't even be chancing it.

There was a 106 year-old lady on the news the other day who survived Covid. There have been young people and people with no apparent underlying conditions who have died of it. Not having the vaccine is a bit like Russian roulette, and fair dos if some decide to take the chance, but that's a risk I'm not personally willing to take. I had genuine Flu about 20 years ago and that almost saw me off, and I was fit and otherwise healthy, so no way will I mess with this virus unprotected.

Most younger, reasonably fit people who decide against the vaccine may well get Covid and just feel under the weather for a short time, but others will get it and die too. Before getting Covid, no one knows which of those two groups they will fall into. If it's the latter, it's too late. Stats are one thing, but every single one of those numbers is a body in the ground, a family devastated. That's tragic when there is no vaccine, but what is it when there actually is a vaccine and the person in the ground refused to take it? I'd find it difficult to get my head around that if it was me lowering my loved one into the ground.

[moondog]

I am type 1 diabetic, my mrs has serious but not outwardly obvious lung damage. You wouldn’t know quite how vulnerable to covid either of us are just by looking. So Linnuden assuming that staying away from old people is all he needs to do is just wrong, it is almost certain that he has friends and colleagues and fellow cyclists who will seriously struggle when he carelessly passes the virus on to them. Glad we won’t run into him but we live in daily terror of some other beaut bringing it to our doorstep. Being vulnerable doesn’t just mean old, just like being old isn’t always vulnerable .

[S]

Accidentally opened up the thread on the first page just now and decided to see what we thought a year ago ( thread started 31st Jan). I hold my hands up and did the "no worse than a flu" crap and didn't think too much would change.

How naive we all were eh?

My first post in the thread. In an ever changing pandemic, these morons are the one constant.

I've noticed a general pattern of strange responses online. At least on some of the sites I visit. If you express any kind of genuine concern about the virus and it's ramifications, you're labelled as some delusional conspiracy theorist getting worked into a frenzy. Some people seem to take pride in dismissing it as nothing.

[Macphisto80]

My first post in the thread. In an ever changing pandemic, these morons are the one constant.

Yeah, but the irony is that the ones doing it now have gone full swing and are the ones peddling bonkers conspiracies.

[redbyrdz]

I think everyone has the right to an opinion, and certainly has the right to decide what they do and don't put in their bodies. If an individual does not want to have the vaccine, then that's their business.

The problem here is that this an infectious disease. If you were talking about something that only affects your health, I agree. But in this case, what you do affects others. If enough people have immunity, either through vaccination or prior infection, we as a society protect the vulnerable. I think we have a moral obligation to do that, irrespective of whether we are happy to accept the risk of serious illness for ourselves.

It's a bit like a form of socialism, we all need to pull in the same direction for the common good. (Maybe that is why the antivaxxers hate it so much?)

[Crumble]

I think everyone has the right to an opinion, and certainly has the right to decide what they do and don't put in their bodies. If an individual does not want to have the vaccine, then that's their business.

As long as the vaccine has a chance of slowing transmission, which the science says is very likely, I consider it my civic duty to have the vaccine as soon as it is offered to me. My opinion doesn't matter. Break the chain!

[FlashGordon]

Accidentally opened up the thread on the first page just now and decided to see what we thought a year ago ( thread started 31st Jan). I hold my hands up and did the "no worse than a flu" crap and didn't think too much would change.

How naive we all were eh?

I was the same at the start. How foolish were we.

Linudden, hasn't the last year taught you a little humility? Obviously not.

[Red_Mist]

I think everyone has the right to an opinion, and certainly has the right to decide what they do and don't put in their bodies. If an individual does not want to have the vaccine, then that's their business.

I will definitely be having it, and I hope my loved ones do too, but that will be a choice they have to make themselves. My 80 year-old mum is having it tomorrow, and I'm incredibly happy that she is too. That said, I'm not so sure we can just carve up the population into groups we feel will probably get it bad and those who won't. Sadly, people of all ages have died from this horrible disease. Many who were not old, plenty who were otherwise fit and healthy until they contracted Covid. Thing is, none of us can know for sure how our bodies will react to Covid if we get it.

Initially, I was concerned about elderly loved ones getting it and not surviving, but far less worried about getting it myself. Now, after seeing how this has the potential to kill just about anyone, I'm far more worried about contracting it myself. I know a guy younger than I am who got it and was hospitalised for three months and was expected to die. He pulled through, but his health is wrecked and he'll never be the same again. It was almost life ending, and it certainly has been life changing for him, and there are plenty of cases just like his. All I'm saying is that we cannot know beforehand how our systems will react if we get it, and that's why I won't even be chancing it.

There was a 106 year-old lady on the news the other day who survived Covid. There have been young people and people with no apparent underlying conditions who have died of it. Not having the vaccine is a bit like Russian roulette, and fair dos if some decide to take the chance, but that's a risk I'm not personally willing to take. I had genuine Flu about 20 years ago and that almost saw me off, and I was fit and otherwise healthy, so no way will I mess with this virus unprotected.

Most younger, reasonably fit people who decide against the vaccine may well get Covid and just feel under the weather for a short time, but others will get it and die too. Before getting Covid, no one knows which of those two groups they will fall into. If it's the latter, it's too late. Stats are one thing, but every single one of those numbers is a body in the ground, a family devastated. That's tragic when there is no vaccine, but what is it when there actually is a vaccine and the person in the ground refused to take it? I'd find it difficult to get my head around that if it was me lowering my loved one into the ground.

That’s a great post and sums up my thoughts exactly on having the vaccine.

I’ve never had the flu vaccine before, but was offered it this winter for the first time, so I had it. It seemed a no brainer partly as there’s some studies that concluded it offers some reduced risk of a bad covid outcome, but also I’ve had a bad flu a few years ago and, whilst it didn’t put me in hospital it did make me very ill, completely out of it for about five days and I don’t want to go through that again, especially if there’s something scientifically designed to reduce the risk that I’m being offered for free 200 yards away at the Pharmacy.

There’s a chance that flu could put a person in hospital, so it’s a person’s duty really to do anything they can to prevent that whilst the nhs is struggling so badly. Also, getting flu and covid together is very dangerous by all accounts.

So yeah, being in the last category it’ll be a few months yet, but I’ll be having the Covid vaccine as well. I don’t personally understand why anyone wouldn’t. As SOS says, if you get Covid and your body reacts badly, IT’S TOO LATE. If you’ve previously refused a vaccine that would’ve prevented the terrifying situation you now find yourself in, then you’d definitely be eligible for a Darwin Award.

[TepidT2O]

I am type 1 diabetic, my mrs has serious but not outwardly obvious lung damage. You wouldn’t know quite how vulnerable to covid either of us are just by looking. So Linnuden assuming that staying away from old people is all he needs to do is just wrong, it is almost certain that he has friends and colleagues and fellow cyclists who will seriously struggle when he carelessly passes the virus on to them. Glad we won’t run into him but we live in daily terror of some other beaut bringing it to our doorstep. Being vulnerable doesn’t just mean old, just like being old isn’t always vulnerable .

Type I diabetic? You’re vulnerable and we’re probably going to die soon anyway.

That’s the logic that these “skeptics”

And I hate the lock down skeptic term.  The scientific skeptical community uses science, logic and reason to show why what we co sides the norm may be wrong.

The lockdown skeptics use half truths, carefully sampled and non representative bits of data, they delete what they got wrong, lie and obfuscate their horrific mistakes last time.

They should just be honest, they should just say that they find the restrictions a real pain and they’d be happy if a couple of hundred thousand more died so they didn’t have to follow them. Because that’s their position.  “Guck then, what about me”.

[didi shamone]

As long as the vaccine has a chance of slowing transmission, which the science says is very likely, I consider it my civic duty to have the vaccine as soon as it is offered to me. My opinion doesn't matter. Break the chain!

Haven't seen anything to suggest the vaccine slows transmission although I've taken a break from Covid news. I've seen a few articles where scientists suggest it won't.
Either or I'll be relieved when the folks get it.

It's clear after our current debacle in Ireland. You're getting the vaccine or the virus eventually. I know which I choose.

[Red_Mist]

One other point. You hear anti-vaxxers saying they’ll rely on their bodies own natural immunity. Well, there was a doctor on tv this week talking about exactly that. Unfortunately, as he pointed out, although yes you do get some immunity if you’ve had a virus (be it flu or covid or whatever) what viruses ALSO do whilst they’re in your body is alter your body’s response by deliberately turning off those immune responses that kept you alive so that long term you’re actually MORE susceptible to a bad response if you’ve had the virus before.

[Crumble]

Haven't seen anything to suggest the vaccine slows transmission although I've taken a break from Covid news. I've seen a few articles where scientists suggest it won't.

This is a bit of a hot topic at the moment. From the Guardian yesterday:

As well as analysing the latest data on case numbers and hospitalisations, it is understood ministers are waiting to see Public Health England (PHE) research on the impact the vaccines may have on limiting the spread of the disease. “That’s very important,” one government insider said.

Clinical trials demonstrated the overwhelming efficacy of the vaccines in preventing patients from becoming ill and dying with Covid but did not make clear whether those people could still be vectors for the virus.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/15/uk-nowhere-near-lifting-covid-lockdown-restrictions-vaccine-research-results

[moondog]

Type I diabetic? You’re vulnerable and we’re probably going to die soon anyway.

That’s the logic that these “skeptics”


😀

Yeah I have somehow managed to keep myself alive for 20 years with this condition without hospitalisation, probably helped by paying for a Continuous Glucose Monitor system myself because well I like being. But  some young healthy people just see us all as expendable because they don’t want a vaccination that will protect all of society, well boo fucking hoo sorry if your arm hurts for five minutes whilst the human race gets protected.

[jillcwhomever]

The problem here is that this an infectious disease. If you were talking about something that only affects your health, I agree. But in this case, what you do affects others. If enough people have immunity, either through vaccination or prior infection, we as a society protect the vulnerable. I think we have a moral obligation to do that, irrespective of whether we are happy to accept the risk of serious illness for ourselves.

It's a bit like a form of socialism, we all need to pull in the same direction for the common good. (Maybe that is why the antivaxxers hate it so much?)

I was about to make exactly the same point.

I had to come back on the train yesterday and was surprised by there being people on the train with no face masks on them, even though its compulsory on Mersey Rail supposedly.

[fudge]

I don't think Linudden's a troll and don't think he should be banned, I just think he struggles to see (or try to see) other people's perspectives and losing his temper a bit when people don't see things the way he does - see for example multiple posts suggesting he's going to stop watching Liverpool, stop watching football, stop watching F1 because of a decision that upset him.

In the same way, he struggles to understand that taking a vaccine (such as the flu jab) even if you aren't concerned for your own health is important because it's putting your community first and putting their needs above your own. Again struggles with the perspective that even though he thinks he'd not be one of the unlucky ones to have covid complications, to the point of calling people in this thread cowards who are living in fear of a virus - but lacks the self awareness to spot that his main justification for not wanting the vaccine is, in his own words, fear.

He also thinks that because he doesn't know or see any 'vulnerable people' (obviously we know he's not capable of visually diagnosing people and only means 'old'), that he doesn't need to try to protect them by getting the vaccine. But that shows he can't put himself in the shoes of the people who work in his office with them, whose contacts he is unaware of and can't control.

I don't think it's trolling, it's just his personality.

True to your name very classy Carra !

[Welshred]

I don't think Linudden's a troll and don't think he should be banned,

I don't think he's a troll but I do think he should be banned for consistently demonstrating himself to be lacking care and compassion for others through his right wing, Tory beliefs - the complete antithesis of what Liverpool Football Club and RAWK is about

[Qston]

He's a troll who needs perma banning, you want to see his luny posts in the F1 thread.

I second this re: F1 thread

[McrRed]

The question is valid. The assumptions by Linudden to arrive at the those conclusions are flawed though.

It comes down to transmission versus illness severity and how both are impacted by vaccination. If a vaccine blunts illness severity only with no impact on transmission, then of course only vaccinating those groups prone to serious illness is the correct strategy and then go back to what we were doing in February 2020. You've protected the vulnerable as best you can, not much more you can do unless we want to continue with social distancing - which we don't.

But if the vaccine significantly impacts transmission also, then the best way to protect the vulnerable is to vaccinate everyone after you've vaccinated them. The reason for this is that vaccines aren't protective for 100% of people. So for those vulnerable who it will protect from serious illness, they wont get ill, our mortality numbers will come down and we'll all go back to how we were in February 2020. But the virus will still spread, those vulnerable people who the vaccine didn't protect will get seriously ill and some will die. To protect these people we need to stop chains of transmission. We currently do it by social distancing, we could do it by vaccinating the bulk of the non-vulnerable population.

Vaccinating the vulnerable groups may end up protecting 70% of them from serious illness, vaccinating the remaining population can protect the other 30%. I say 70% because we don't know yet what efficacy this vaccine will have in the real world settings it is being administered (it won't be 90%) Measles was mentioned further down the page - it's always assumed we give the second dose of measles vaccination as a boost - we don't. The second administration is to protect the 8% of people who the first dose didn't work for due to it not being administered properly. That extra 8% makes a huge difference to population immunity for a virus that spreads so easily.

That's a caution not to assume that efficacy of trials will translate exactly to real world settings. We are likely looking at a vaccine that is somewhere between 70-90% effective rather than the numbers that came from the trial. So to protect that remaining 20-30% requires vaccination of everyone else and protects them simply by them not being exposed to the virus. Someone claiming they don't come into contact with the over 75's so vaccination isn't required misses the point about chains of infection. If you pick this up, you will pass it on, and that chain of infection you are a part of and helped (unwittingly) propagate will eventually pass through someone who's over 75, and someone who is vulnerable. Social distancing currently stops us 'youngsters' from being part of those chains and vaccination will stop us being part of them in the future when social distancing has gone.

As measles and mutation was brought up, some interesting things. Measles does mutate, just like other viruses. But it's proteins that it uses to latch onto and invade cells (a bit like to the coronavirus spike protein) are really sensitive to any changes in their structure. If they mutate even a little they can't bind and infect human cells at all. So we assume that measles doesn't mutate when it does - it's just that we never see a mutation in these surface proteins (which the vaccine creates antibodies to) as it would then never pass from person to person.

This is super.

Accidentally opened up the thread on the first page just now and decided to see what we thought a year ago ( thread started 31st Jan). I hold my hands up and did the "no worse than a flu" crap and didn't think too much would change.

How naive we all were eh?

We were naive then but we're not now, thank god [emoji4]

  ps can we stop jumping on one poster please? Address the issues raised by all means ...but there's an ad hominem thing that we do on rawk that is funny at first but becomes mob-like as more people jump in.

[Linudden]

I don't think he's a troll but I do think he should be banned for consistently demonstrating himself to be lacking care and compassion for others through his right wing, Tory beliefs - the complete antithesis of what Liverpool Football Club and RAWK is about

Wow. At least Classy got the libertarian label right rather than going to the T-word  How on earth does me being anti-authority make me a T-word? All this on a forum dedicated to a club which doesn't allow fan membership, have capital ownership deciding all the club's moves, ridiculous ticket fares prizing out the bulk of working class people and is sponsored by a global bank and a corporation accused of having child labour in poor countries. Let's chill mate.

We disagree. It's not the end of the world. In my hometown in rural Sweden I'm run-of-the-mill for my generation that is mostly about taking care of yourself first and then hope the gov't uses the tax money wisely and leave us alone. This is in spite of this place being a lean-left swing area nowadays. We have a different culture sometimes.

[killer-heels]

Story in Norway from their Medical Agency that adverse reaction to the vaccine may have caused some deaths in the elderly. Story on the Guardian news blog.

[TepidT2O]

Story in Norway from their Medical Agency that adverse reaction to the vaccine may have caused some deaths in the elderly. Story on the Guardian news blog.

Link?

[didi shamone]

https://www.thejournal.ie/norway-vaccine-elderly-patients-5326967-Jan2021/

Here's an article on it if the journal is visable to to UK posters

[Schmidt]

Oh good, something for the anti-vaxxers to cling desperately to...

[Welshred]

Occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease and that there's no certain connection between the deaths and the vaccine as in the report, it's good that they're investigating it so I don't think it's time to panic about the vaccine killing people just yet

[didi shamone]

Occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease and that there's no certain connection between the deaths and the vaccine as in the report, it's good that they're investigating it so I don't think it's time to panic about the vaccine killing people just yet

All true if you're arsed to read beyond the headline.

[rob1966]

Its inevitable that some people will die shortly after getting the vaccine, due to their existing conditions.

Doctors in Norway have been told to conduct more thorough evaluations of very frail elderly patients in line to receive the Pfizer BioNTec vaccine against covid-19, following the deaths of 23 patients shortly after receiving the vaccine.

“It may be a coincidence, but we aren’t sure,” Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told The BMJ. “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”

The agency has investigated 13 of the deaths so far and concluded that common adverse reactions of mRNA vaccines, such as fever, nausea, and diarrhoea, may have contributed to fatal outcomes in some of the frail patients.

“There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly,” Madsen said. “We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease,” he emphasised. “We are now asking for doctors to continue with the vaccination, but to carry out extra evaluation of very sick people whose underlying condition might be aggravated by it.” This evaluation includes discussing the risks and benefits of vaccination with the patient and their families to decide whether or not vaccination is the best course.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n149