Rickent
-
Posts
1,841 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Rickent
-
-
1 minute ago, MoominPapa said:
RNA is not altered DNA. And your dumbed down natural virus vaccines contain viruses, and viruses contain - RNA (at least the ones that are any use in a COVID vaccine do, because COVID is an RNA virus.(
MP.
I think his point is, as is mine is that no mrna vaccine has ever been used or approved for use on humans therefore we are stepping into the unknown, it may be fine, but we just don't know so people are right to be concerned.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:
The Pfizer virus doesn't "mess about with DNA" it contains RNA. If you want to understand more, Google "The central dogma of molecular biology", but basically, in a cell the DNA stores information long-term. To use the information, it gets copies into a short piece of RNA, and that gets used by a Ribosome to control the construction of a protein. This RNA is called messenger RNA, or mRNA. The Pfizer vaccine is an mRNA wrapped in coating to help it get into cells, where it drives the Ribosome to make a Covid spike protein that then primes the immune system.
MP.
A very good post.
-
13 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:
This just isn't true. I can see why it seems true. But the delay in rolling out vaccines normally is usually in progressing through stage 1 to stage 3 trials. Once the large scale stage 3 trials are complete, the vaccine can gain approval quite quickly, not years down the line. So the 'risk' with the vaccines you've already had are much the same as this time.
With covid, the money and expertise which was been provided has meant that each stage of the trials has overlapped with the previous stage, but the time given to each stage has been the same as usual. Also, manufacturing started well before approval, meaning that roll out could happen instantly once approval was gained.
I'd have some sympathy with your position if covid only caused mild symptoms. In that case, the tiny risk with a vaccine may be deemed unreasonable. But covid KILLS PEOPLE!! I can't state this strongly enough. The chances that a vaccine is more harmful than the virus it attacks, is so vanishingly small that the idea deserves nothing but derision. It's akin to staying indoors in case the sky falls on your head.
I partly blame hollywood films like I Am Legend and World War Z for making people distrustful of medicine.
A thought to leave you with: smallpox killed approximately 300-500 million people in the 20th century alone. The vaccine arrived in the early 19th Century. Every single one of those lives would have been saved if there was a widespread vaccine roll out in the 19th Century. Logistics and money stood in the way of that, but also people didn't want the vaccine because of misinformation propaganda which was circulated at the time. Eventually the WHO made a concerted effort to eradicate it, and now we all complacently live in a world where nobody has to worry about that awful disease any more.
let me make this quite clear as you are not taking it in.
Vaccines are a fantastic tool in the fight against deadly diseases, I cannot stress this enough but the pfizer vaccine and the moderna vaccine are not like previous traditional vaccines , they are a novel vaccine the likes of which has never been licenced for human use, this is my issue, we are being asked to step into the unknown, I do not see why this is such a big issue with people, if you are happy to take it, fine , that's up to you but please do not label people with genuine reservations about its safety as anti vaxxers or conspiracy theorists.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:
At the risk of being called a 'cyber bully' - You consistently seem to miss the point that we do not have the luxury of 'years' in this particular case.
10 years (or even 'just a few') of cycling in and out from one lock down to the next just is not something that any reasonable person could accept. The mental health toll on the population would be completely unacceptable for one thing. The impact on the economy would be unthinkable further bringing misery and death through suicides and poverty.
But worry not those of us willing to 'take the risk' will do so. If I grow two more heads after I have been lucky enough to get both doses I will let you know.
There is no "risk" of you being called a cyber bully, you are most definitely one, in fact you are the worst offender on this forum.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:
I wrote a long and detailled response to this, and then as I sent it, it disappeared into the ether! Feeling very frustrated now!
Am I still on the naughty step.
-
18 minutes ago, Jerra said:
Does the boat decide to "bona fide" cruise on its own? No so a boat where people live in a house cannot logically be undertaking bona fide navigation.
I heard a a producer of vaccines pointing out that the only reason this vaccine has been produced so quickly is money. Normally months and often years are spent between stages begging various sources for finance. Non of the stages have been shortened in the production, yes a little overlap of the stages but each stage has been run for the normal length of time.
I'm not saying corners have been cut in production of a vaccine but clinical trials usually last many years due to side effects manifesting years down the line, this is where corners have been cut, it is not possible to know the effects a few years down the line, if people are willing to take the risk then fair play but I am not and because of this the cyber bullies on this forum are in full flow.
-
13 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:
It's interesting that you describe yourself as a non-risk taker. You do understand that catching covid is a risk, yeah? And these vaccines reduce that risk by 90%. Covid is KNOWN to kill people. It's also known to cause long term effects. Further side effects from covid may manifest after several years. There is evidence of permanent organ damage. And you're willing to risk all that, to avoid a possible risk from taking a vaccine which has had the same rigourous trials as any other vaccine, but has been fast-tracked by carrying out those trials in tandem and by diverting almost the entire global resources available onto this one thing???
Also masks are clinically proven to work in the case of covid and many other diseases spread in respiratory droplets and aerosols. It's why medical staff were routinely wearing them for many procedures well before this pandemic. Posting daft videos from conspiracy websites doesn't give you any credibility at all. Try some actual peer reviewed research. To try and explain: Yes, the holes in masks are bigger than the individual virus, but the virus isn't carried in the air like this. It's carried in respiratory droplets, which are far bigger than the holes in the mask. So when you wear a mask and breathe out, those droplets remain stuck in the mask. By the time the mask has dried out, most of the virus has 'died' and any that hasn't will remain non-airbourne and stuck in the mask, hence why we are encouraged to use disposable masks or you wash them regularly.
You call yourself a pro-vaxxer. You're not. You're an anti-vaxxer, a freeloader and a conspiracy theorist. At least admit it.
If everyone took your stance, there would be no solution to this pandemic until it had run its natural course. That would likely mean tens or hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide. That's your plan. Why don't you own it.
wow, because I won't take a vaccine that's been rushed through I am an anti vaxxer, a freeloader, and a conspiracy theorist all rolled into one.
I suppose I can take some comfort in the fact that whilst I am being targeted at least @LadyGis being given a break, maybe I could have my own thread.
Vaccines are fantastic tools in the fight of deadly diseases and as I said last night I am fully vaccinated , but I will not take a vaccine that has not had time to be fully evaluated to assess potentially dangerous side effects.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:
It's been trialled.
It's not experimental.
It's approval is imminent.
So are you now backtracking and saying you will have it when it's approved?
Your argument is all over the place.
I didn't say I would have it when it's approved.
It's going to have emergency approval.
It might have been trialled but there is a reason why vaccines are trialled for several years before approval, side effects can take years to manifest and if you think it is not experimental then show me another MRNA vaccine that has been used before.
Goodnight all.
-
1 minute ago, matty40s said:
The simple science says we moved away to a different aisle. ...and were safe, projectile snottage of anything will have been slowed or caught, we went the other way.
I'm not saying your actions were not right and I would have done the same and yes , the snottage would have been caught, but the vast majority would not. Bedtime, need some beauty sleep.
10 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:They have presented their proposed solution, I'm interested in yours. Oh hang on yet again, you haven't got one have you?
I am a bus driver who lives on a boat of course I haven't got the solution.
-
8 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:
It's not experimental.
So what is your solution for ending the pandemic? we can't continue this for years to come.
Oh hang on, you won't have one......
Show me another MRNA vaccine approved for human use and I will concede on this point.
Until you do, it remains experimental.
-
Jerra really didn't have anyones pants down, he offered a response to my post that's all, as I said earlier everybody is entitled to an opinion and I respect that even if it differs from my own , I don't have to resort to petty digs like " Jerra had your pants down "
1 minute ago, The Happy Nomad said:It's not experimental.
So what is your solution for ending the pandemic? we can't continue this for years to come.
Oh hang on, you won't have one......
I'll let the government work that one out , oh hang on........
-
17 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:
Exactly.
You are freeloading, letting others take any risk that might be there.
It's frankly unbelievable that somebody would admit that in public.
Oh and Jerra had your pants down on the issue of masks.
If letting you take an experimental vaccine first because the risks are unknown makes me a freeloader then so be it, don't have a problem with you thinking that, if you are prepared to take the risk first then you sir are a top man.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:
A lot depends on how old you are. The older you get, the more likely you are to die of the virus. Also, if there are side effects five years down the line, odds are you'll be dead by then so that won't matter either. So us old farts will happily be the guinea pigs for you young sprogs, although NHS staff will get it first as they are even more likely to die of what some people keep thinking is a harmless bug.
Of course, we already know that if younger folk get it, it can wreck their lungs, probably for ever, and has all sorts of other long term effects, but I'm afraid that's their problem, and my sympathy will be severely limited if they don't take vaccines when offered, as the more unvacced people there are the more chance they have of catching it.
I also have great doubts about the efficacy of masks. But even if it lowers the chance of my infecting someone by 1%, that's fair enough, isn't it? There may be little convincing evidence to show they work, but there is none at all to prove they don't.
you make a good point about masks but people are convinced that they make a massive difference when they really don't.
I am not going to get into a massive debate over it as everyone is entitled to their own opinion and unlike some people on here I respect their right to have that opinion.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, matty40s said:
Sorry, but we were 20 feet away, and had time to move away. The masks stop projectile everything, a virus cant carry on moving at 200mph through cotton thread, it gets impeded, and slowed. It's simple science, not politics which is helping the quick drop of new cases across the country.
sorry mate, but simple science will tell you that the size of the virus compared to the size of the holes in the fabric means it's barely impeded or slowed , when we sneeze much of what is expelled is like aerosol, I agree that some of the snot will be caught but most will pass through.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Jerra said:
I was hoping for a reference showing some scientific tests and results to prove the case. After all there are masses of laser photos etc showing the reduction of the droplets by wearing one.
Of course if somebody thinks they are wearing the mask to stop them catching the disease then of course it isn't any help. The mask is to reduce the infection from the inevitable asymptomatic spreaders.
I agree that some of the larger droplets are caught by the mask but the vast majority are not, virus laden droplets pass through the very large holes in the mask fabric.
2 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:Your choice.
You will of course receive the benefit of those that chose to get vaccinated.
So maybe you are not an anti vaxer but more a freeloader.
I'd say more of a non risk taker, I am quite happy for you to go first and for you to let me know how you get on.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, matty40s said:
Ah, I can say otherwise.
In Morrisons Blackpool, that epicentre of middle,upper class intelligence, I was taking my Mum shopping last Saturday.
Entered an aisle, cant remember which, but there was a 6'6" bloke at the other end with a trolley. He started to sneeze into his mask, and did so several times.
I turned Mum around and we went elsewhere.
His mask saved most of the people in the aisle from his germs, some carried on past him, others retreated.
If nothing else, masks create a barrier on your explosions. ....helping everyone else.
It would have saved people from the large droplets but most if not all of the germs, especially virus particles would have passed straight through the mask, but you felt safer due to the fact he was wearing a mask so my point stands.
Virus particles are minute compared to the holes in the fabric of masks, common sense tells you that they cannot offer any real protection.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Jerra said:
Care to give a reference for some scientific proof of that?
-
10 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:
Anti vaxers, anti maskers and the like should be denied free NHS care if they need NHS care for Covid. Not denied care just charged for it at the going rate. If they require a stint in critical care and survive that should cost them a tidy sum, if they snuff it the cost should pass to the next of kin.
(Of course this will never be implemented).
I am pro vaccine, I have had all my vaccines as have all my children, but there is no way I will be taking a vaccine that has been rushed through in seven months, the side effects cannot be known as they can take years to manifest, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are MRNA vaccines and as of now , no vaccine of this type has ever been licensed for use on humans, so if that makes me an anti vaxxer in your eyes then so be it, oh and masks have been proven to do nothing apart from give the wearer a false sense of safety.
-
1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:
No chance. I havnt got money to waste on a dead cert loss.
The odds ain't that good.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, frangar said:
I love winter on a narrowboat....it’s lovely being tucked up in my favourite place.
couldn't have put it better. ??
-
23 minutes ago, alias said:
Nevertheless, they seem concerned, for example in Stockholm:
Decision on stricter general advice in Stockholm County
Published: 10/29/2020
The Swedish Public Health Agency has, after consultation with the acting infection control physician in the Stockholm Region, decided on stricter general advice for Stockholm County. The decision applies from today and three weeks ahead.
As in some other parts of the country, the number of cases of covid-19 has increased rapidly in Stockholm County. Patients with covid-19 who are so ill that they are now in need of hospital care have also increased sharply in the past week. Since last week, the number of diagnosed cases of covid-19 has increased by almost 80 percent and the number of covid-19 patients in need of hospital care has increased by about 60 percent.
Are the hospitals any busier than at the same time in previous years, that is what counts as well as excess mortality, they may well be, and if so they are right to be concerned.
The seasonality increase has to be taken into account.
-
5 hours ago, matty40s said:
You were doing well until you got to this bit. Sweden is now struggling, deaths and cases far higher than any of their Scandanavian neighbours, their hospitals are going to teach saturation within weeks. Chances are, they will have to have a proper lockdown this time.
just looked at the excess mortality for Sweden up to week 44 and unless I am seriously missing something they look pretty normal.
The shaded grey is normal, dotted black line is the baseline.
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, Jerra said:
What about the New Scientist do you call that a rag as well?
EDIT to add what is wrong with a rethink about how we live. Long past time in the opinion of many.
The same people pushing the great reset are the same people pushing the fourth industrial revolution, a world where humanity and AI are merged and the lines between what's real and what's artificial are blurred.
These people are The World Economic Forum.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Jerra said:
As has been pointed out he is a single voice crying in the wilderness. Now go and read the two links I provided you with. Then you might be able to post some sensible facts.
https://time.com/collection/great-reset/
same rag that's promoting this madness.
*CRT enforcement of 14-day rule post lockdown and Tier 3 areas*
in General Boating
Posted
pfizer and the other companies that have produced these vaccines have an indemnity so they will not be liable if anyone has an adverse reaction.
Pfizer have over the years paid out over 2.3 billion in lawsuits to people who have been damaged by their products.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN26D0UG&ved=2ahUKEwjt8qbrrq_tAhXeQEEAHSL5A1kQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3YBOCgfBSCIFs0YpPzIPcW&cf=1