What's new

A lone infection may have changed the course of the pandemic

i think the flu is a load of different viruses and that’s why they need to make different vaccines, because they predict which ones will be most prevalent. maybe that’s why it’s not uncommon for folk to get the flu even though they had the vaccine? not sure, maybe @vapesmarter can enlighten us?

I'm no expert I can only go by training in infection control we have to do, years ago I didn't have the flu jab because I was a moron and had a big head..... it won't touch me....until I had a mild case and I mean mild I was out of it for 3 weeks when I went back to work I was told yeah you got it mild now are we going to have the jab stupid

the flu jab is only a prediction jab the flu strains are what has hit the southern hemisphere first plus some others flu doesn't always kill as such its the secondary infections the same as covid so pneumonia, sepsis etc

but there are loads of different types of flu the same as every time the covid virus is spread it changes slightly but the more people that get the jabs the less it spreads but most of the flu jabs are grown using chicken eggs an old time-consuming technique

but I've read on here and the press doing the whole conspiracy thing over fewer cases of flu this year that's correct because we are washing our hands wearing face masks and not coughing on your gran as much as before.

if everyone washed there hands and practised good hygiene we would save millions of lives per year.
 
Its much more relevant that the vaccines overwhelmingly prevent hospitization or death, which they apparently do.
 
i don’t think vaccines are ever 100% effective though. and we need to remember they’ve probably only had one dose, so they don’t even have the full protection.

And that right there is the gamble...... give folks something, some protection, it may work, it might well don't.....it sure isn't the 94.5% we were promised though.
Normally vaccines need to be at least 52% trialled effective......or else the are binned, deemed shit, not worth giving.
With this one dose we do not as yet know.....
I understand fully the take something, but it's hope and not clinical trialled science at this moment.
 
Last edited:
And that right there is the gamble...... give folks something, some protection, it may work, it might well don't.....it sure isn't the 94.5% we were promised though.
Normally vaccines need to be at least 52% trialled effective......or else the are binned, deemed shit, not worth giving.
With this one dose we do not as yet know.....
I understand fully the take something, but it's hope and not clinical trialled science at this moment.

that's the problem if you say its 60% or 55% then people would listen more to the chip mongers and go it's 50/50 I will take my chances until there being wheeled into itu and the consultant says you have 15% per cent of life if you recover

this whole covid thing is all based on figures it's not based on reality and the trouble is until you stand there and see the reality walk past and notice the people are not white-haired old fogies who were going to die anyway as some papers love to say, they are now dark-haired 30-60-year-olds.... you suddenly realise "oh shit that could be me"
 
that's the problem if you say its 60% or 55% then people would listen more to the chip mongers and go it's 50/50 I will take my chances until there being wheeled into itu and the consultant says you have 15% per cent of life if you recover

this whole covid thing is all based on figures it's not based on reality and the trouble is until you stand there and see the reality walk past and notice the people are not white-haired old fogies who were going to die anyway as some papers love to say, they are now dark-haired 30-60-year-olds.... you suddenly realise "oh shit that could be me"

Yip, agree mate 94.5% was a dead cert, would have had everyone on board...but that's gone.
 
Back
Top Bottom