Our church was severely curtailed during the winters of the war because it proved impossible to fit black out blinds or shutters to our church windows. Hence, services were banned outwith the hours of daylight, which are quite short in the depths of winter up here.
I assume the same was true of a great many churches.
I suspect there may have been some pubs which also struggled to black out and also had to close for the duration of the war. And, going out for a meal at a nice restaurant was likely to be limited to a very special treat. And, it might have felt restrictive back in March when supermarkets were capping how many bags of pasta and loo roll you could buy that was simply the result of a few idiots hoarding, nothing like rationing because the food wasn't there in the first place. We've not had any significant limits on what we are able to eat (beyond those who have found that they're not covered by the various government support schemes and thus reliant on food banks, and those who were dependant on food banks already).
There is also the fact that Covid magnifies structural in qualities, so those who die are the poor, the BAME folk, the disabled and the old. The common factor being that most of these can not limit their exposure.
Just a brief rebuttal of the whole “this is the worst disease ever” thing.
People die. The fact that they’re dying of something different than usual is interesting but not the end of the world. Also, there’s no such thing as saving a life. Just postponing a death.
I looked at some actual data (weird, I know). In the USA there were 635,260 cardio deaths in 2019. That averages to 1740 per day. Covid deaths have surpassed that number 4 of the last 5 days, and the one that didn't was a Sunday when numbers artificially dip due to reporting issues. So do you have any other diseases you can compare to that actually make your point?
Just a brief rebuttal of the whole “this is the worst disease ever” thing.
People die. The fact that they’re dying of something different than usual is interesting but not the end of the world. Also, there’s no such thing as saving a life. Just postponing a death.
Respectfully: didn't we have this discussion several months ago? With similar comments all around?
IIRC, it seemed like your perspective was from depression re the pandemic, and wanting to whittle the pandemic down to something you could handle.
I'm not saying "it's the worst disease ever". I don't know.
BUT
It's what we're dealing with now. And it's contagious. And many people are so extremely freaked out about it that they refuse masks and social distancing; convince themselves it's a hoax or exaggerated; and host/attend large events where the rules aren't observed, resulting in a super-spreader event.
It's what we're dealing with now. And it's contagious. And many people are so extremely freaked out about it that they refuse masks and social distancing; convince themselves it's a hoax or exaggerated; and host/attend large events where the rules aren't observed, resulting in a super-spreader event.
Yeah, that's the thing about Covid. It's not about how many people it kills in abstract - it's about whether Covid was / is a big problem or a small problem entirely depends on how the people behave.
Cancer isn't contagious. Heart disease isn't contagious. You can choose to live a healthier or a less healthy lifestyle, and you'll alter your odds of living a longer or shorter life, but you won't kill anyone else by eating a bacon sandwich every morning.
But by not taking Covid seriously, you kill people.
Coronavirus/Covid-19 is not the worst disease we have ever had. Take, for instance, the Influenza of 1918. In six weeks it had killed over 675,000 civilians in the United States. That would be the equivalent of 1,800,000 civilians in the US today.
Then, there is the HIV pandemic. While we have learned to control the disease, we still do not have the means to vaccinate against it. That started over 40 years ago.
Yet in 12 months we are on the cusp of having several Coronavirus vaccines being distributed within weeks. Thank Science, Thank God
I looked at some actual data (weird, I know). In the USA there were 635,260 cardio deaths in 2019. That averages to 1740 per day. Covid deaths have surpassed that number 4 of the last 5 days, and the one that didn't was a Sunday when numbers artificially dip due to reporting issues. So do you have any other diseases you can compare to that actually make your point?
I was responding to the “one death almost every minute” (or about 525,000 per year) stat that was quoted.
I looked at some actual data (weird, I know). In the USA there were 635,260 cardio deaths in 2019. That averages to 1740 per day. Covid deaths have surpassed that number 4 of the last 5 days, and the one that didn't was a Sunday when numbers artificially dip due to reporting issues. So do you have any other diseases you can compare to that actually make your point?
I was responding to the “one death almost every minute” (or about 525,000 per year) stat that was quoted.
I looked at some actual data (weird, I know). In the USA there were 635,260 cardio deaths in 2019. That averages to 1740 per day. Covid deaths have surpassed that number 4 of the last 5 days, and the one that didn't was a Sunday when numbers artificially dip due to reporting issues. So do you have any other diseases you can compare to that actually make your point?
I was responding to the “one death almost every minute” (or about 525,000 per year) stat that was quoted.
Don't quibble. One death every minute from a highly contagious novel virus that's only been kicking around the world for a year is a different quality of threat to non-contagious highly treatable, well known diseases. Either you're prepared to factor in everything that's relevant to your own references or you don't, in which case don't make the references. When was the last time you heard of someone dying of 'catching' cancer from an asymptomatic cancer sufferer? Or getting a fatal heart disease as a result of attending one over-populated social event?
With your attitude we'd still be burying infants, and others, from measles, rubella, yellow fever, sleeping sickness, malaria, smallpox, polio, AIDS/HIV, Bubonic plague, and all the other viral and bacterial diseases that people have long forgotten about because medical investigation into the extension of life, and the alleviation of suffering, is seen, generally, as a good thing.
@Marvin the Martian constantly refuses to engage with my argument that it’s not about numbers it’s about people.
He has never responded to my point that people who can’t breathe need hospital treatment and, if hospitals become overwhelmed, then all the usual treatments will become unavailable. After that arrives a true dystopia. This virus has to be stopped by all means possible for that reason, even if all others are discounted.
Countries which locked down very hard (see New Zealand) are reaping the benefit now. We are an island, we could have done the same.
Coronavirus/Covid-19 is not the worst disease we have ever had. Take, for instance, the Influenza of 1918. In six weeks it had killed over 675,000 civilians in the United States. That would be the equivalent of 1,800,000 civilians in the US today.
Would you please explain your math and assumptions there? It sounds like talk of monetary inflation.
The assumption seems to be that things simply scale with population - about a 3 fold increase in US population between 1920 and 2020. Of course, all things aren't equal - I'd expect that in 1918 the ratio of rural:urban populations to be different (a larger proportion in rural areas in 1918), medical treatment for respiratory diseases should be better now (whether the whole population has access to this is a different question), I'd also expect that nutrition and housing conditions are better now which would affect disease spread.
I can't find the 675,000 - the second wave of 'flu in 1918 was the most deadly, and US estimates are around 300,000 deaths. Even with what should be improvements in nutrition, housing and health care the US is approaching 300,000 Covid deaths.
But, historical comparisons aren't necessarily relevant. There's no doubt that this coronavirus is the most deadly contagious disease of our time. The UK is currently heading for 100,000 excess deaths, 2-3x times the deaths in a bad 'flu year.
One death every minute from a highly contagious novel virus that's only been kicking around the world for a year is a different quality of threat to non-contagious highly treatable, well known diseases.
Sure, it's a different quality of threat. But what good is it to save lives if you destroy them in the process?
One death every minute from a highly contagious novel virus that's only been kicking around the world for a year is a different quality of threat to non-contagious highly treatable, well known diseases.
Sure, it's a different quality of threat. But what good is it to save lives if you destroy them in the process?
A few months more of restrictions is not going to destroy lives.
One death every minute from a highly contagious novel virus that's only been kicking around the world for a year is a different quality of threat to non-contagious highly treatable, well known diseases.
Sure, it's a different quality of threat. But what good is it to save lives if you destroy them in the process?
A few months more of restrictions is not going to destroy lives.
The sagging economy will have a significant effect on many and likely a permanent effect on some.
However, not locking down would have done the same and the economy is currently more adversely affected because the initial lockdown was not more severe.
One death every minute from a highly contagious novel virus that's only been kicking around the world for a year is a different quality of threat to non-contagious highly treatable, well known diseases.
Sure, it's a different quality of threat. But what good is it to save lives if you destroy them in the process?
Do you think there's some magic way of separating out those who should be permitted to die, so that those who would otherwise suffer can escape their suffering?
Are you arguing that it wouldn't be 'destroying' lives by letting a highly contagious novel virus rip basically unchecked through the population? How do you know that the lives you're so keen to protect from being 'destroyed' won't be destroyed by the effects of permitting a highly-contagious novel virus to impact communities without imposing the restrictions you object to?
Listening to 1A on NPR yesterday, the host was interviewing some of the makers of the various vaccines: Phizer, Moderna, and Astra-Zenica. One thing that I heard was the Pfizer and Moderna method can be quickly adapted to any other new virus in the foreseeable future.
There is still some question that while the vaccines can help protect the client, it is still unknown if it will prevent the virus from spreading.
Moderna’s chief medical officer says we don’t know if their vaccine prevents transmission yet, just that it (mostly) prevents symptomatic illness, but he’s optimistic.
Sounds weird. Normally, if a virus cannot infect a host, it cannot reproduce and spread either.
Not quite. A virus may infect and reproduce at a level which gives few symptoms. Hence asymptomtic people infecting others with rhinoviruses (colds) and flu. This is one route that destroyed indigenous peoples in the Americas.
Read that again. I said, "Normally, if a virus cannot infect a host [that is, because the host is immunized], it cannot reproduce and spread either." The infection is the point, not the symptoms or lack thereof. The whole purpose of infecting a host is to reproduce--no infection, no reproduction (because viruses use the host cell as machinery to reproduce themselves).
Although maybe what you're getting at is this: That the trials, as conducted, cannot rule out the faint, faint possibility of this scenario:
The vaccine (in our imaginary scenario) has the highly unusual (to say the least) property of allowing infection but preventing all COVID symptoms in 95 out of 100 people. Therefore those people get infected, the virus reproduces in their cells, and it spreads merrily hither, thither and yon to their various contacts, leaving a swathe of death and destruction around the vaccinated, but leaving them, themselves, untouched. AND AND AND none (well, five maximum, from the data reported!) of these theoretical asymptomatic infections were detected among a full 15,000 people who had blood taken and cotton swabs stuck up their noses on several occasions during the past three months. Somehow the virus managed to do ALL its infecting (but five cases) at times when all those 14,995 people were NOT being tested.
This is just really, really unlikely. BUT you know how scientists (and lawyers!) are when they're giving public speeches. Even if the chances are vanishingly unlikely, they aren't about to put themselves at a major legal risk by forgetting the disclaimers. Especially when we're looking at statements made before publication in a peer-reviewed journal, duplication of research and all that good stuff.
The vaccine (in our imaginary scenario) has the highly unusual (to say the least) property of allowing infection but preventing all COVID symptoms in 95 out of 100 people. Therefore those people get infected, the virus reproduces in their cells, and it spreads merrily hither, thither and yon to their various contacts,
I think this (vaccine prevents infection but not transmission) is largely true of Inactivated Polio Vaccine. But that's because the poliovirus can multiply in the intestine of a person innoculated with the ipv. They won't get polio, but they'll still shit virus.
The open question is whether there's a similar avenue for Covid to multiply in the mucous membranes of an innoculated person.
According to the Moderna protocol, they only do test swabs in cases of symptomatic illness; there isn’t a frequent screening plan that would catch asymptomatic cases. Blood tests looking for an immune response after the 2nd dose are few and far between (Day 57, Day 209, Day 394, and Day 759 after 1st dose.)
AIUI (and, I'm not a virologist) the route of infection is via the upper respiratory tract (nose and throat) where the virus replicates with minor or no symptoms, but can migrate into the lungs where more severe symptoms may be experienced. Transmission to others is largely from the upper respiratory tract (which is also where the samples are taken for the test). Immunity (whether from prior infection or a vaccine) isn't going to stop someone getting infected, but it should prime the immune system such that it responds quicker than for someone without that immunity. The reported vaccines seem to be successful at getting the immune system to eliminate the virus before it can migrate into the lungs (and, hence preventing the more severe symptoms) thus it's reasonable to assume that the spread of the virus is slowed by the immune response kicking in sooner and stronger, but there would still be a period where the virus is infecting cells in the nose and throat and producing virus that can be breathed out. My assessment of what I've read would suggest that that period where virus is being produced will be shorter, and the number of virus particles produced will be reduced - the combination of which will reduce the chances of infecting someone else, the unknown is by how much. Of course, those few for whom the vaccine doesn't produce immunity will be as infectious as before.
But, if the vaccine reduces transmission by 50% that will also cut the R-value by the same amount (approximately). Which will be enough to allow a significant reduction in restrictions we'll all face. And, I suspect that the chances of transmission will be reduced by a lot more than that - a cut to 25% will cut R below 1 even without restrictions (for those who remember early March, the estimates of R were 3-4 before we did anything) and there will still be changes in behaviour that will also reduce R - the no-cost behaviour changes like wearing face masks in public and more effective hand washing will probably continue even after all legal restrictions are lifted; it's also going to be a while before a lot of people are comfortable in large crowds so it could also be a time before we see lots of pubs packed to the rafters and the like.
Of course cutting the transmission by 50% will only cut the R-value by roughly that amount if everybody gets the vaccine. Which in this country is guaranteed to not happen.
But, if the vaccine reduces transmission by 50% that will also cut the R-value by the same amount (approximately). Which will be enough to allow a significant reduction in restrictions we'll all face. And, I suspect that the chances of transmission will be reduced by a lot more than that - a cut to 25% will cut R below 1 even without restrictions (for those who remember early March, the estimates of R were 3-4 before we did anything) and there will still be changes in behaviour that will also reduce R - the no-cost behaviour changes like wearing face masks in public and more effective hand washing will probably continue even after all legal restrictions are lifted; it's also going to be a while before a lot of people are comfortable in large crowds so it could also be a time before we see lots of pubs packed to the rafters and the like.
Given the opposition to vaccination in the UK and US, and the relish at which a significant portion of of people who jumped in the deep end at each lifting of restrictions, this thing is going to drag on for awhile.
Infections rising in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, exposing failures in strategy and accusations that officials squandered valuable planning opportunities
We're completed horrified with the perfidy of gov't with the wide medical consensus.
And the forward positioning of the Pfizer vaccine begins. United Charter flights began to preposition it from Brussels to Chicago on Friday. Story here
I am sure other airlines are also being pressed into service.
As soon as the FDA approves the vaccine, the inoculations will begin within 24 hours.
Please note we have a four-star general who is experienced in military logistics ramrodding the distribution plans for the United States.
I talked to my local pharmacist yesterday. He is expecting the distribution of the Moderna vaccine to our pharmacy since it is more portable. Moderna has also filed for Emergency Approval and should get it within days after Phizer.
I am confident we will be able to get the vaccine quite soon.
Now, how long it will take to vaccinate up to 60% of the population is a question. I have heard it might be by the end of June to the end of next December.
June is 7 months, Dec is 13 months. So Sept is the median prediction as I noted. That's not very soon. The plans touted in the is USA are represented to outside your country as compensation for generalized failure to manage the pandemic. Not as realistic in the context of manufacturing bottle necks and leadership failures.
Bear in mind, though, that as vaccinations ramp up it's likely that R will start to fall and some restrictions can be eased (unless the vaccines don't inhibit transmission at all). It's not a binary situation. It might be possible, for example, for all but the most risky activities to be resumed once 50% of the population have been vaccinated, particularly if contact tracing is effective.
June is 7 months, Dec is 13 months. So Sept is the median prediction as I noted. That's not very soon.
It's a lot sooner than it could have been. The fact that a vaccine has been developed at all is pretty big. Some viruses resist that for years or decades (e.g. HIV). Yet there are still complainers that it took almost a year to go from discovery of the virus to a workable vaccine. You gonna complain that it doesn't come with a free pony, too?
Good gods, between 1/6 and 1/4 of Britains say they won't get the jab and nearly 1/2 of Americans seem that they might not.
If there were more proof needed that we are not an intelligent species, this should be more than enough.
Actually, I'll probably wait a good while, see what the side effects are, and find out how other people with immune system problems and chronic illnesses react--or if they even take it. I can have reactions to vaccines and medications.
I'm satisfied that the trials of the three vaccines under current consideration have been sufficient to identify common minor side effects and that there are no common immediate severe reactions. Of course, there may be unexpected long term effects - but vaccines in general don't have effects beyond immediate minor reactions and protection from infection. Whether the efficacy of the immune response decays with time is another unknown. When I get offered the vaccine I'll be taking it, but I don't anticipate that to happen until the March (ish), being quite low on the priority list.
If there are people who feel that others deserve the vaccine ahead of them and don't take it up then that's their decision, providing they continue to largely self-isolate. Likewise, if some people want to see whether there are more side effects and reactions identified among the first people to get vaccinated outwith trials, then that's fine if they're going to continue self-isolation. If someone wants to go out without a mask, to visit a couple of different pubs on a night out with mates etc then they should be as far forward in the queue for the vaccine as they can be. But, until we get enough people vaccinated restrictions on socialising will continue - because the alternative of everyone carrying evidence of vaccination before booking a meal out or space in a pub will be impractical.
Good gods, between 1/6 and 1/4 of Britains say they won't get the jab and nearly 1/2 of Americans seem that they might not.
If there were more proof needed that we are not an intelligent species, this should be more than enough.
Before Pfizer announced they had applied for emergency authorization, the CDC had begun an advertisement campaign explaining how the vaccine was being developed, will be distributed, and why it is important to get the shots.
Yes, there is some skepticism, but I think that as the vaccines start being distributed and the numbers start going down, more people will come on board.
Comments
I assume the same was true of a great many churches.
ABC's "America This Morning" is now reporting "one viral death almost every minute" in the US.
:votive:
Still fewer per year than heart disease or cancer, then.
Whataboutery
People die. The fact that they’re dying of something different than usual is interesting but not the end of the world. Also, there’s no such thing as saving a life. Just postponing a death.
Respectfully: didn't we have this discussion several months ago? With similar comments all around?
IIRC, it seemed like your perspective was from depression re the pandemic, and wanting to whittle the pandemic down to something you could handle.
I'm not saying "it's the worst disease ever". I don't know.
BUT
It's what we're dealing with now. And it's contagious. And many people are so extremely freaked out about it that they refuse masks and social distancing; convince themselves it's a hoax or exaggerated; and host/attend large events where the rules aren't observed, resulting in a super-spreader event.
People have good reason to be upset and afraid.
It's ok for them--*and you*--to feel that way.
Yeah, that's the thing about Covid. It's not about how many people it kills in abstract - it's about whether Covid was / is a big problem or a small problem entirely depends on how the people behave.
Cancer isn't contagious. Heart disease isn't contagious. You can choose to live a healthier or a less healthy lifestyle, and you'll alter your odds of living a longer or shorter life, but you won't kill anyone else by eating a bacon sandwich every morning.
But by not taking Covid seriously, you kill people.
Then, there is the HIV pandemic. While we have learned to control the disease, we still do not have the means to vaccinate against it. That started over 40 years ago.
Yet in 12 months we are on the cusp of having several Coronavirus vaccines being distributed within weeks. Thank Science, Thank God
I was responding to the “one death almost every minute” (or about 525,000 per year) stat that was quoted.
And now better stats have come along.
Don't quibble. One death every minute from a highly contagious novel virus that's only been kicking around the world for a year is a different quality of threat to non-contagious highly treatable, well known diseases. Either you're prepared to factor in everything that's relevant to your own references or you don't, in which case don't make the references. When was the last time you heard of someone dying of 'catching' cancer from an asymptomatic cancer sufferer? Or getting a fatal heart disease as a result of attending one over-populated social event?
With your attitude we'd still be burying infants, and others, from measles, rubella, yellow fever, sleeping sickness, malaria, smallpox, polio, AIDS/HIV, Bubonic plague, and all the other viral and bacterial diseases that people have long forgotten about because medical investigation into the extension of life, and the alleviation of suffering, is seen, generally, as a good thing.
He has never responded to my point that people who can’t breathe need hospital treatment and, if hospitals become overwhelmed, then all the usual treatments will become unavailable. After that arrives a true dystopia. This virus has to be stopped by all means possible for that reason, even if all others are discounted.
Countries which locked down very hard (see New Zealand) are reaping the benefit now. We are an island, we could have done the same.
Would you please explain your math and assumptions there? It sounds like talk of monetary inflation.
Thx.
I can't find the 675,000 - the second wave of 'flu in 1918 was the most deadly, and US estimates are around 300,000 deaths. Even with what should be improvements in nutrition, housing and health care the US is approaching 300,000 Covid deaths.
But, historical comparisons aren't necessarily relevant. There's no doubt that this coronavirus is the most deadly contagious disease of our time. The UK is currently heading for 100,000 excess deaths, 2-3x times the deaths in a bad 'flu year.
Sure, it's a different quality of threat. But what good is it to save lives if you destroy them in the process?
A few months more of restrictions is not going to destroy lives.
However, not locking down would have done the same and the economy is currently more adversely affected because the initial lockdown was not more severe.
Do you think there's some magic way of separating out those who should be permitted to die, so that those who would otherwise suffer can escape their suffering?
Are you arguing that it wouldn't be 'destroying' lives by letting a highly contagious novel virus rip basically unchecked through the population? How do you know that the lives you're so keen to protect from being 'destroyed' won't be destroyed by the effects of permitting a highly-contagious novel virus to impact communities without imposing the restrictions you object to?
There is still some question that while the vaccines can help protect the client, it is still unknown if it will prevent the virus from spreading.
Not quite. A virus may infect and reproduce at a level which gives few symptoms. Hence asymptomtic people infecting others with rhinoviruses (colds) and flu. This is one route that destroyed indigenous peoples in the Americas.
Although maybe what you're getting at is this: That the trials, as conducted, cannot rule out the faint, faint possibility of this scenario:
The vaccine (in our imaginary scenario) has the highly unusual (to say the least) property of allowing infection but preventing all COVID symptoms in 95 out of 100 people. Therefore those people get infected, the virus reproduces in their cells, and it spreads merrily hither, thither and yon to their various contacts, leaving a swathe of death and destruction around the vaccinated, but leaving them, themselves, untouched. AND AND AND none (well, five maximum, from the data reported!) of these theoretical asymptomatic infections were detected among a full 15,000 people who had blood taken and cotton swabs stuck up their noses on several occasions during the past three months. Somehow the virus managed to do ALL its infecting (but five cases) at times when all those 14,995 people were NOT being tested.
This is just really, really unlikely. BUT you know how scientists (and lawyers!) are when they're giving public speeches. Even if the chances are vanishingly unlikely, they aren't about to put themselves at a major legal risk by forgetting the disclaimers. Especially when we're looking at statements made before publication in a peer-reviewed journal, duplication of research and all that good stuff.
I think this (vaccine prevents infection but not transmission) is largely true of Inactivated Polio Vaccine. But that's because the poliovirus can multiply in the intestine of a person innoculated with the ipv. They won't get polio, but they'll still shit virus.
The open question is whether there's a similar avenue for Covid to multiply in the mucous membranes of an innoculated person.
But, if the vaccine reduces transmission by 50% that will also cut the R-value by the same amount (approximately). Which will be enough to allow a significant reduction in restrictions we'll all face. And, I suspect that the chances of transmission will be reduced by a lot more than that - a cut to 25% will cut R below 1 even without restrictions (for those who remember early March, the estimates of R were 3-4 before we did anything) and there will still be changes in behaviour that will also reduce R - the no-cost behaviour changes like wearing face masks in public and more effective hand washing will probably continue even after all legal restrictions are lifted; it's also going to be a while before a lot of people are comfortable in large crowds so it could also be a time before we see lots of pubs packed to the rafters and the like.
Of course cutting the transmission by 50% will only cut the R-value by roughly that amount if everybody gets the vaccine. Which in this country is guaranteed to not happen.
We're completed horrified with the perfidy of gov't with the wide medical consensus.
I am sure other airlines are also being pressed into service.
As soon as the FDA approves the vaccine, the inoculations will begin within 24 hours.
1. All of the info about vaccines comes from drug companies thus far.
2. Full out manufacturing will provide about 60% of the population with vaccine by about September 2021.
3. No country has yet developed a delivery system nor procedure to vaccinate their populations en masse.
4. So yes, it's hopeful that vaccines are coming, but we're less than half way through the pandemic and infection control before vaccination.
(Sources: epidemiology, college of medicine, U of Sask, & CBC's vaccine tracker)
The distribution plans under our US Operation Warp Speed is very detailed. Here are two videos that explain what is going on from our end:
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/operation-warp-speed-vaccine-development-adviser-discusses-distribution-plans/?intcid=CNM-00-10abd1h
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/operation-warp-speed-nears-pinnacle-of-mission/
Please note we have a four-star general who is experienced in military logistics ramrodding the distribution plans for the United States.
I talked to my local pharmacist yesterday. He is expecting the distribution of the Moderna vaccine to our pharmacy since it is more portable. Moderna has also filed for Emergency Approval and should get it within days after Phizer.
I am confident we will be able to get the vaccine quite soon.
Now, how long it will take to vaccinate up to 60% of the population is a question. I have heard it might be by the end of June to the end of next December.
It's a lot sooner than it could have been. The fact that a vaccine has been developed at all is pretty big. Some viruses resist that for years or decades (e.g. HIV). Yet there are still complainers that it took almost a year to go from discovery of the virus to a workable vaccine. You gonna complain that it doesn't come with a free pony, too?
In other news, Siri, find a photo least likely to inspire public trust in vaccines.
If there were more proof needed that we are not an intelligent species, this should be more than enough.
I'm not too worried about polling about an hypothetical future event.
I will be getting the Covid19 vaccine as soon as it’s offered!
If there are people who feel that others deserve the vaccine ahead of them and don't take it up then that's their decision, providing they continue to largely self-isolate. Likewise, if some people want to see whether there are more side effects and reactions identified among the first people to get vaccinated outwith trials, then that's fine if they're going to continue self-isolation. If someone wants to go out without a mask, to visit a couple of different pubs on a night out with mates etc then they should be as far forward in the queue for the vaccine as they can be. But, until we get enough people vaccinated restrictions on socialising will continue - because the alternative of everyone carrying evidence of vaccination before booking a meal out or space in a pub will be impractical.
Before Pfizer announced they had applied for emergency authorization, the CDC had begun an advertisement campaign explaining how the vaccine was being developed, will be distributed, and why it is important to get the shots.
Yes, there is some skepticism, but I think that as the vaccines start being distributed and the numbers start going down, more people will come on board.