Joan Bakewell vaccine legal challenge

I must admit I feel very uneasy about the policy. I think a challenge is a good thing. The scientific basis needs to be established for everyone’s safety.

I find it unbelievable that the government is trying to bring this in. The manufacturers only have results for the three week gap so any variation is untested.
We should not be forced into an experiment. That is unethical.

I agree Whitewave, however, I hope Ms Bakewell's legal challenge does not hold up the vaccination programme.

It seems counter-productive.

Now, if 87 year old Ms Bakewell was urging the government to vaccinate all health care workers and those on the front line eg teachers, before elderly people who are able to stay at home then I would applaud her.
It seems a selfish move to me.

None of the vaccines thus far have promised 100% protection, they have said if you catch Covid, the symptoms will be milder, thus negating the need for hospital admission in the majority. The requirement for hands, face, space still exists post vaccination, you could contract an infection and not be aware with a risk of passing it on. So those who think they’re totally protected Chestnut after one dose or two have not been paying attention.

But no vaccinations give 100% protection. For example the annual flu jab is only something like 50 or 60%. To expect 100% is unrealistic.

Exactly -94% protection means 6% will still get it?

Exactly Jaxjacky - people seem to be misunderstanding the “protection” offered. it never promised to prevent infection or transmission but to mitigate the symptoms to something easier to treat and, bottom line, to survive.
I would ask Joan Bakewell how the nurse who caught it is now? My 10 year old grandson tested positive before Christmas and remained asymptomatic but enjoyed his enforced isolation on the sofa with the tin of Quality Street to himself.
JB is muddying the water and misleading people. If she does hold up the vaccination programme she will not be doing us any favours.
There is a type of person who is stroppy just because they can be. I thought JB was more intelligent than that.

It seems a selfish move to me.

I'm sorry. I don't understand. What is 'selfish' about wanting to be absolutely sure that the vaccine, as it is being delivered, gives maximum protection?

She actually sounds to me as though she's being public spirited

And I very much doubt if it will hold up the vaccination programme. Pfizer's clearly expressed disclaimers didn't, and they only developed and make the thing...

I assume she’s had her first one? Now she wants her second.

Obviously such an important person should get that extra protection rather than some ordinary old pensioner getting what’s she’s already got.

She has had her second, I think, so she could just have an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude.

MawBe

Exactly Jaxjacky - people seem to be misunderstanding the “protection” offered. it never promised to prevent infection or transmission but to mitigate the symptoms to something easier to treat and, bottom line, to survive.
I would ask Joan Bakewell how the nurse who caught it is now? My 10 year old grandson tested positive before Christmas and remained asymptomatic but enjoyed his enforced isolation on the sofa with the tin of Quality Street to himself.
JB is muddying the water and misleading people. If she does hold up the vaccination programme she will not be doing us any favours.
There is a type of person who is stroppy just because they can be. I thought JB was more intelligent than that.

????????

I read a scientific basis somewhere. I'll see if I bookmarked it....

PS Well said, mawbe.

Peasblossom

I assume she’s had her first one? Now she wants her second.

Obviously such an important person should get that extra protection rather than some ordinary old pensioner getting what’s she’s already got.

She’s had the full course

Oh well, she’s probably feeling that nobody pays her any attention any more.

It’ll be nice for her to see her name back in the media.

The government should be honest about what it's doing and why.

They are trying to give some protection to a larger number of people instead of higher protection to a less large number of people.

They're hoping this will work out okay but they don't actually know.

I agree that those who are at risk because of work involving the public should be first.

Apropos of nothing, Joan Bakewell was Head Girl at my Grammar School

I was very conflicted when the new regime was announced as those who'd had the first dose did so on the understanding that they would have the second dose three weeks later, but then came the new variant, which necessitated getting as many people as possible vaccinated to afford some protection for more people.

Goodness, so many nasty people on this thread.

She has my backing.
I'm not sure when it ever became acceptable to take a chance on a vaccine whilst completely changing how it's administered.

There was an immunologist on local TV the other night who said research had shown giving the second dose later improves the level of protection.

There are all sorts of people saying all sorts of things.

It would be good to have a definite, proven conclusion, and I don't think that's too much to ask.

What on Earth is wrong with some of you?! The makers of the vaccine designed it for the three week wait and not a three month wait and that’s what she is very sensibly campaigning for - for everybody.