This question goes out those who took the 2 jabs? Will you you take it to get back to normality? Or are you sick of the government moving the goalposts constantly?
Seems to be. Just going by friends and family, a tiny sample group of course, the one that had the fewest side effects was the J&J, the Pfizer the most, the AZ somewhere in the middle but closer to the Pfizer. One guy I know had one of the Pfizer and point blank said no way to the second as the first really buggered him up. His wife had bad enough side effects, but milder. His older kids had none. There does seem to be some resistance to the notion of boosters for a few of the above and none are close to being anti vaccination types. With some it's just general virus panic fatigue kicking in, with others the ones that had the side effects it's more to do with that.
felt like shite after the first, no problems on the second, seems different for many
If its offered i don't see why not, i really hope it doesn't have the same side affects as the 2nd jab though, that was an awful 24 hours for me.
its sole reason for existing is to kill as many humans as possible
FFS, where's a facepalm smiley when you need one. No that is NOT it's sole reason for existing. It's not even a reason. A virus actual sole reason for existence is to reproduce as efficiently as possible. Killing people is a side effect and one Covid is remarkably shíte at doing. Indeed the perfect virus would be highly infectious and cause few or no obvious symptoms, spreading silently in the background, happily making little copies of itself. Obvious symptoms and death are detrimental to any virus as it kills their host and makes potential hosts keep away so limits their ability to reproduce.
whats normal or normality, in relation to a new virus, that will probably always be in circulation?
government decisions are based on the progress of this virus, its sole reason for existing is to kill as many humans as possible, hence for such decisions, so id say its truly the virus thats actually in control and moving 'goalposts'
...and yes, i ll snap up that booster as soon as i can....
Yes, I'll take it. Not due one for a few months Id say though. One issue Ill have to ask my GP is if I can get a different one because I was so sick after the second, I really dont want to go through that again.
Why do you think they are not effective? What numbers are you looking at to decide that and what numbers would you need to see to decide they are effective?
Yes and remember it's not giving us any freedoms back, just look at the EU now, going/gone back into lockdown.
Only a matter of time for Ireland ...
No, and I got my 2 jabs last year.
The only way i'll get it is if I have to for travel - which will probably be the case ... so yes, I am forced to get it by the EU medical dictatorship we live in.
Feel free to present your mystery data. I've shared some (and the Atlantic article linked to some excellent NYC data.) So, what's the cost of Covid illness to an under 45? What is the likelihood of under-45 spreading it unboosted versus boosted?
Booster programs just started, FYI, so data might be hard to come by. But there's plenty of data on how bad it is to die from Covid.
Basically, your point seems to be "I can't be bothered since I was double jabbed and I'm under 45." Is that right? And you're advocating the same for others under 45, even though you have no data, pro or con?
In the US, depending on the severity, it's pretty scary. In Ireland I'm sure it's very expensive but good luck pulling data from the walking failure that is the HSE.
Booked in for next week for mine. So yep, seems to be showing promise
Never said it did, in fact i expect that i will in all honesty.
The statistics don't back up the need for double jabbed people under 45 to be worried. I'm sorry that's just the data.
Of course, you could be very unlucky as with so many things in life.
Yeah, I'll take it, I get the flu jab annually so will just roll along with this for now.
I'm still relieved its not a decision I need to make for my smallies as they are currently under the age for it and I'd rather it stay that way for now, they are at very little (if any) risk from the current strains circulating.
But I got the two jabs and happily did so.
Yet now, not getting boosters every 6 months will be considered selfish. Wow.
tl;dr: vaccinated are much less likely to transmit.
Long read: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccinated-arent-just-as-likely-to-spread-covid/620161/
"I'm not worried..." bollocks. Go read any of the death-from-covid sites out there, would you want that? Versus taking a vaccine? If you're not worried, your heads in the sand (or worse, you're a lying anti-vaxxer)
Having Covid doesn't mean you won't get it again.
I'm interested in the stats and the science.
I'll make my decisions based on those.
I won't be taking part in a vaccine merry go round without sufficient evidence to back it up.
No, I'll take my chances with Covid. A few friends and colleagues have had Covid and I was more ill from each jabs than than any of them were from this "deadly" disease.
This, it appears to have a minimal enough effect on transmission.And we know we can't eradicate it, so really you are just taking a booster to protect yourself, it doesn't really contribute to herd immunity
But just because your vaccinated doesnt mean you wont bring the virus home!
Less likely but that percentage difference in spreading the virus if vaxed or not vaxed seems to be lessening all the time so the idea that you arent spreading it by being vaccinated is... well... The viral load for unvaxxed and vaxxed is the same at its peak only unvaxxed spend a slightly longer time at their peak
Our health service has been under pressure for decades,
So what have we done since 2017, or actually since early 2020 in our hospitals?
Ive no issue with vaccinations, will probably get the booster but my head is screaming at me, whats the point? Im still going to spread this disease by living normally and im not going to get sick from this, ive had it.
If anything a booster is wasted on me, still going to spread it, not going to get sick or need hospital so again, whats the point?
Having said that i probably will get it because we seem to be happy to welcome apartheid rather than question why and ask the hard questions of those who have spent billions of euros of our money for decades but still run a third world country health service whilst earning mouth wateringly huge salaries of their own!
"decent health service!!! nah just stick that jab in your arm there now if you want to have a cup of coffee and shut up!"
I will probably take this one, but I am very sceptical about how long it will remain effective for.And if it starts becoming a booster every 6 months or so, I'll be questioning that.
I mean it probably has some effect on transmission but it looks like it's pretty negible tbh so that protecting others doesn't really apply. It's doing a good job of protecting hospitalisations, for a while anyway, so at that point it really should be opt in so that the vulnerable can take it and anyone else who wants it.
No you're wrong there.
I also want to see the statitistcs on transmission reduction and efficacy.
I'm not worried about being hospitalised or dying.
So transmission will be the key metric in my decision
the vaccine doesnt stop you from catching the virus, if it did then there would be no need for boosters and we'd be out of this whole mess
it greatly reduces the risk of you getting very ill
This isn't really a matter of "different ways to look at things". It's objectively true that vaccination confers a measure of protection on people who are, for whatever reason, not themselves vaccinated; that's how herd immunity works. Whether the individual being vaccinated knows or cares about this doesn't change the objective fact.
Someone who approaches the question of whether to be vaccinated purely in terms of the benefits it confers on them is implicitly saying that they do not care about, or do not accept responsibility for, the consequences their choice may have for other people. That is, as you say, one way to look at things, but I'm sure we can agree that it's not a particularly admirable way. It's pretty selfish.
If the question becomes whether the government should encourage or require people to be vaccinated, then obviously the government is primarily concerned with the benefits of vaccination for the community at large. So they should definitely be taking account both of the protection conferred on the person who is vaccinated, and on the protection conferred on everyone around them. It would be bizarre to suggest otherwise.
I was recently reading and article that says the astra zeneca vaccine is only effective for 96 days. Not great.
Got the booster a few weeks ago. WiFi has not improved. Getting a Covid test today as a close contact. Hopefully the booster has worked.
I'll take it when I'm offered although I think I'd prefer another dose of Astra rather than a different one, but that's not going to happen.
Well I'm not concerned about covid myself, so thats not a factor for me.
And the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission, so I still have to avoid people anyway.
And if the two jabs I have aren't working then what is the point of a 3rd?
And do I have any respect for the NPHET government or engagement with what they are doing? Absolutely not.
2+2 = Shove your booster.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/713409f13dde445ace50a13a61a2d5fd.svg)
