Surviving Covid-19 - Yak Support Network!

Ben_S

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Jul 26, 2015
5,708
9,738
208
Southampton, UK
any long term side effects, are realitively unknown. Even worse, not fully forseeable.

I understand the point that any regulatory checks that have been done on new vaccines may have missed possible long-term effects. No one can say that the vaccine is 100% without any risks, but nothing in life is (you could get hit by a bus on your way to your appointment). However, I don't see why these 'known unknowns' should lead someone to refuse a vaccine.

Yes, the vaccine could have long-term bad effects that we don't yet know. But, if the point is simply that we don't yet know about it's long-term effects, it's also possible that it could have long-term good effects that we don't yet know. Why assume bad effects are more likely than good?

Similarly, people focus on the possibility that the vaccine could have harmful side effects that we haven't yet seen, but so too could the virus. The death rate may not be as high as first feared, but some people do seem to be left with lasting effects and possibly organ damage. Who knows what further complications may develop in survivors. So, even if you prefer caution, why think the vaccine is more likely to have unknown negative side effects than the virus?

To be clear, I don't claim to have studied the science. I doubt I'd understand it if I tried. But my point here is about the possibility of unknown risks, rather than known ones. I don't see why possible unknown effects should influence behaviour either way.
 

Tiny

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Jul 12, 2011
3,735
8,901
178
South Wales, UK
www.tinyworlds.co.uk
Its the possible long term effects that bother me.

I get that money has been thrown at the research for this vaccine so while rushed, it is well funded. Its just that no amount of money can buy long term testing and other rushed vaccines such as the Pandermix vaccine for swine flu in 2009 had some fairly severe long term reactions, despite assurances that it was safe and fully funded.

To paraphrase @ClockworkOrange:

I’m a reasonably healthy (almost) 40 year old man

So I don't see the point in risking the vaccine when my immune system will likely fight off any infection I may get anyway.

I'm fairly sure I already had Covid early last year anyway although it may have just been a different chest related illness as there was no testing at that time unless you needed hospitalization.

Similarly, people focus on the possibility that the vaccine could have harmful side effects that we haven't yet seen, but so too could the virus. The death rate may not be as high as first feared, but some people do seem to be left with lasting effects and possibly organ damage. Who knows what further complications may develop in survivors. So, even if you prefer caution, why think the vaccine is more likely to have unknown negative side effects than the virus?

For me, if both the virus and vaccine have possible long term side effects, I'll take the risk of maybe catching one over definitely catching the other.

But my point here is about the possibility of unknown risks, rather than known ones. I don't see why possible unknown effects should influence behaviour either way.

If a scientist offered you an injection that had a 90% chance of stopping you dying of cancer but one in ten people who took it would have a random side effect ranging between some swelling, to a brain tumor and in some cases death. Would you take it?

What if he told you that each time he convinced someone to take it, the scientist would get paid £1000?

Just playing devil's advocate. Not suggesting that anyone shouldn't get the vaccine for whatever reason they choose. I'm a libertarian. You do you.
 

Luke82

Gang Champion
Mar 11, 2017
419
1,261
123
Basildon, United Kingdom
If you get the vaccine, you cant then spread this vaccination to others who might not have wanted it.... not so with coronavirus, so you’re not just taking a chance with your own health, but everyone else’s too. Its not as simple as saying ‘i’ll risk getting coronavirus instead’ as you’re also putting others at risk.

Its a bit like saying ‘i’ll just drink drive and take the risk of crashing’ assuming its just you who’s gonna take the damage. It isnt.

Choosing not to get the vaccine is fine but i dont think it should then be framed as a choice that only affects that person. The possible consequences of this choice should not be glossed over.
 

Tiny

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Jul 12, 2011
3,735
8,901
178
South Wales, UK
www.tinyworlds.co.uk
If everyone who wants the vaccine has it, where's the problem? If the vaccine works then you're safe. If it doesn't then there was no need to take it.

The only people who it could affect are the ones who didn't get it.

If you get the vaccine, you cant then spread this vaccination to others who might not have wanted it.... not so with coronavirus, so you’re not just taking a chance with your own health, but everyone else’s too. Its not as simple as saying ‘i’ll risk getting coronavirus instead’ as you’re also putting others at risk.

You can still catch and spread coronavirus after having the vaccine. The vaccine protects you, not other people.

Also I don't trust a company who's representative is saying things like:

“This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... four years the vaccine is showing side effects,” Ruud Dobber, a member of Astra’s senior executive team, told Reuters.

 
Last edited:

almic85

Cranky Git
Oct 30, 2014
1,860
3,165
163
Palmerston, ACT, Australia
If everyone who wants the vaccine has it, where's the problem? If the vaccine works then you're safe. If it doesn't then there was no need to take it.

The only people who it could affect are the ones who didn't get it.

That’s not actually how vaccines work in most cases.

They don’t 100% prevent you from getting the disease. they usually just help your immune system fight the disease in its early stages before it can overtake your immune system.

If however you come into contact with a number of fully infectious person you are still somewhat likely to get infected with the disease.

You see it with polio outbreaks that occur in first world countries that have eradicated the disease. If someone comes from outside the protected community and brings the full blown polio disease first a lot of unvaccinated people will get sick, then a lot of the vaccinated people still contract it and can suffer serious consequences.
 

Tiny

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Jul 12, 2011
3,735
8,901
178
South Wales, UK
www.tinyworlds.co.uk
Then why do only vulnerable people get offered a flu vaccine? Why is spreading flu perfectly natural but spreading Covid is a mortal sin? By not having a flu vaccine every year you're contributing to the deaths from flu, which in some flu seasons are 50,000 deaths (around half of the deaths from 2020-21 Covid season) in the UK?

Maybe we all need to start getting annual flu shots and have flu passports, or are you happy killing granny?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stoof

Caledore

Ganger
Jun 2, 2015
123
350
68
Maryland, USA
They don’t 100% prevent you from getting the disease. they usually just help your immune system fight the disease in its early stages before it can overtake your immune system.

This, and also herd immunity kicks in once a certain % (depending on the efficacy of the vaccine) of the population gets vaccinated, which protects everyone, including those who have legitimate medical reasons they can't get the vaccine. So it's also important to get the vaccine from a public health perspective.

In personal news, I am at the 2 week mark after my 2nd vaccine shot. Still have a friend in my Necro group who hasn't gotten his but should be soon - looking forward to being able to actually play! I initially thought I was going to be the only player without a House of X book (Cawdor) but it's been so long that won't be a problem anymore!
 
Last edited:

almic85

Cranky Git
Oct 30, 2014
1,860
3,165
163
Palmerston, ACT, Australia
Then why do only vulnerable people get offered a flu vaccine? Why is spreading flu perfectly natural but spreading Covid is a mortal sin? By not having a flu vaccine every year you're contributing to the deaths from flu, which in some flu seasons are 50,000 deaths (around half of the deaths from 2020-21 Covid season) in the UK?

Maybe we all need to start getting annual flu shots and have flu passports, or are you happy killing granny?

Not sure how it works in the UK or the USA but down here in Australia flu vaccines are available to everyone for a modest fee ($30) and are free for anyone in a vulnerable category.

Most corporates also offer them free of charge to encourage people to get them.

To put it in perspective for you in Australia the annual number of deaths from influenza in 2018 (before the pandemic) was 58 compared to the number of deaths from COVID last year that was 909.

There is a stark difference between the number of people that die each year from influenza (of every type) and COVID-19 if it isn’t eradicated.

Also it should go without saying but get your flu shot as well!!!
 

almic85

Cranky Git
Oct 30, 2014
1,860
3,165
163
Palmerston, ACT, Australia
Very different to the UK then. 50k flu deaths in 2018 season and only the vulnerable are ever offered a vaccine. No wonder people fussing about getting a vaccine seems so weird.

I just looked up the UK official statistics and they are nowhere near 50k per year for the past 5 years.

You are looking at the “influenza related deaths” rather than the actual influenza deaths. Your actual influenza deaths for the winter from 2018-2019 was something like 312.

your influenza related deaths (which includes all deaths related to high weather temperatures averages about 23k for the period from 2014 to 2018.

This is a link to the UK annual flu report that has the actual figures in it if you want to take a look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiny

Tiny

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Jul 12, 2011
3,735
8,901
178
South Wales, UK
www.tinyworlds.co.uk
You are looking at the “influenza related deaths” rather than the actual influenza deaths. Your actual influenza deaths for the winter from 2018-2019 was something like 312.
Our reported Covid deaths are actually Covid related deaths so the figures are comparable.

I know 50,000 people didn’t die “of” flu in one flu season the same way 100,000 people didn’t die “of” Covid in one season either.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Stoof and almic85

Coenus Scaldingus

Gang Champion
Yak Comp 1st Place
Apr 29, 2018
288
1,165
143
Finland
[...] For me, if both the virus and vaccine have possible long term side effects, I'll take the risk of maybe catching one over definitely catching the other.



If a scientist offered you an injection that had a 90% chance of stopping you dying of cancer but one in ten people who took it would have a random side effect ranging between some swelling, to a brain tumor and in some cases death. Would you take it?

What if he told you that each time he convinced someone to take it, the scientist would get paid £1000?
Except the odds of currently established detrimental side effects from even AstraZeneca are far lower than 10% (these blood clots were described in 79 out of >20 million people, so less than 0.0004% - compared to e.g. the 0.05%-0.1% chance of blood clots experienced by women taking the contraceptive pill, I should add), the odds of both dying from covid and suffering non-lethal long-term effects from covid appear to be quite a bit or a huge amount higher than from AstraZeneca (margin depending on various demographic and health factors), and medical experts and scientists don't tend to work on commission. Except for all of that, yeah, you'd have a point.

Both covid and vaccines have unknown long-term risks; that's a given with things that are new. But the numbers are pretty clear on which is more likely to be detrimental in the short term, and by such margin that there would have to be immensely horrible long-term effects to make up the difference.

We're wargamers here, right? We all know you can fail a 2+ re-rollable save, but that doesn't mean it's the same as a 5+ save "because there's always a chance you fail anyway". There are no guarantees, but why not take the better odds?*

*Disclaimer: This post in no way supports win-at-all-costs play in Necromunda, Mordheim, or similar games. These games are best enjoyed narratively, and at times poorly balanced to the extent that a competitive mindset either has to be held by all or none of the participants, as any disagreements on this matter will result in reduced fun for all involved. Using juves and youngbloods as cannon fodder should furthermore not be seen as representative of the value placed on human lives - and if those wretched souls ever want some armour, they'd definitely have to earn it first, because good armour is expensive, and new volunteers are not!
 

Tiny

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Jul 12, 2011
3,735
8,901
178
South Wales, UK
www.tinyworlds.co.uk
Except the odds of currently established detrimental side effects from even AstraZeneca are far lower than 10% (these blood clots were described in 79 out of >20 million people, so less than 0.0004% - compared to e.g. the 0.05%-0.1% chance of blood clots experienced by women taking the contraceptive pill, I should add), the odds of both dying from covid and suffering non-lethal long-term effects from covid appear to be quite a bit or a huge amount higher than from AstraZeneca (margin depending on various demographic and health factors), and medical experts and scientists don't tend to work on commission. Except for all of that, yeah, you'd have a point.
I didn’t say severe side effects for 1 in 10. Just some kind of side effect. Even more than that experience some period of sickness for a few days after the jab.

Many of the prominent scientists and advisors pushing the AstraZeneca jab in the UK have shares in the companies producing the vaccines. So yes they are working on commission.

My analogy is actually fairly well researched and accurate thanks.
 

Tiny

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Jul 12, 2011
3,735
8,901
178
South Wales, UK
www.tinyworlds.co.uk
it's also possible that it could have long-term good effects that we don't yet know. Why assume bad effects are more likely than good?
If there was a history of vaccines causing increased muscle mass or phallic growth I'd probably feel a lot differently about it.

We're wargamers here, right? We all know you can fail a 2+ re-rollable save, but that doesn't mean it's the same as a 5+ save "because there's always a chance you fail anyway". There are no guarantees, but why not take the better odds?*

I liken it more to choosing between a guaranteed 2+ armour save or having a 4+ dodge save followed by a 4+ armour save. You know how many 2+ saves I've failed in my time?
 

Luke82

Gang Champion
Mar 11, 2017
419
1,261
123
Basildon, United Kingdom
If anyone hasn't seen this channel, take a look. Lots of great painting videos and techniques I'd never seen before.

Zatcaskagoon Miniatures
Will take a look, cheers! Always looking to expand my skillz beyond ‘slather in agrax’. I see they also have a tutorial on the nighthaunt black coach which i am really trying to resists buying, so i fully expect to crumble today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiny