Cheltz Fest 2021 Behind Closed Doors ?

[riccirich]

I wasn't attempting to be sarcastic, I thought I was openly and blatantly being very sarcastic!!!

You are not alone RR - vast swathes on people across multiple platforms are sharing the same views and concerns, and those are entirely yours to have.

I wonder how many people saying its been rushed understand the normal bottlenecks in vaccine development? (as if funding, sample sizes and regulators were going to be an issue during a global pandemic). How many people saying it's not safe understand how clinical trials work? (impossible to fake, and independent bodies monitor efficacy and safety).

Fair enough haha, I am in no way claiming to have any medical knowledge, but the things I am worried about are pretty basic and I dont think I need to be a medical professional to understand.

I dont doubt that everything is being done right to try to produce the perfect vaccine, but that doesnt guarantee anything. Plenty of vaccines in the past have been tested rigorously and thought to be safe, only for side affects to be realised months or years down the line.

My main worry is that they simply cant be positive there will be no side affects in the future. Since not a single person on earth had this vaccine five years ago for example and is perfectly fine today, its impossible for anyone to be certain that there will be no side affects five years from now.

its been pointed out that the same can be said of the virus itself which is true, but if your chances of catching the virus are slim if you follow procedures etc, is it worth the risk of actually getting the vaccine?

[riccirich]

So, same question as to the other refuseniks. If having the jab (or a negative test) was the only way to access pubs, restaurants, concerts and sports events or travel overseas, would you have it then?

If you could get into those places with just a negative test then no I would not have the vaccine. I would probably wait until vaccination had been under way for a couple months before I returned to those places, because I would be reasonably confident at that point that a lot of the other people in these places would have had the vaccine at that point, and so my chances of catching the virus would be gone down.

if you needed to have had the jab to get into these places though I really dont know what I would do. I would not want to get the vaccine, but obviously I also like to leave the house and go places. I would probably give it a while in the hope they would change the rule, but if it didnt then my arm would probably be twisted into getting it.

I highly doubt such a rule would come into play however. They must realise that many people would be uncomfortable with getting a vaccine that cant be properly tested at this point, and if you needed proof of the vaccine to get into these places I suspect businnesses would still be suffering for the foreseeable future.

[charlie]

Cant tell if genuine question or attempt at sarcasm

But no we dont have any such degrees. Im just taking the view that since this vaccine is being rushed in, which of course it is, that the usual testing period is significantly shorter, which means that I would rather not take the risk. I understand that testing periods for vaccines can usually take up to ten years, sometimes longer, so the fact that this vaccine has only been worked on for a year would be a worry for me. If this vaccine has existed for somewhere between 3-6 months lets say, then all that scientists can definitively say is that no adverse side affects have shown up in that time on the people who have tested it. Its impossible for them to say that no side affects will arise after 5-10 years as the vaccine just hasnt existed that long. That is just my view based on my profile which I am led to believe I am at relatively low risk, if I was 75 years old though I would probably be leaning towards getting the vaccine.

I wasn't attempting to be sarcastic, I thought I was openly and blatantly being very sarcastic!!!

You are not alone RR - vast swathes on people across multiple platforms are sharing the same views and concerns, and those are entirely yours to have.

I wonder how many people saying its been rushed understand the normal bottlenecks in vaccine development? (as if funding, sample sizes and regulators were going to be an issue during a global pandemic). How many people saying it's not safe understand how clinical trials work? (impossible to fake, and independent bodies monitor efficacy and safety).

[archie]

But if the vaccine is becoming available in a few months I would rather just try my best to avoid the virus until then, because if half the population got the vaccine that would probably be enough to wipe out the virus, so getting the vaccine myself would seem like an unnecessary risk to me at this stage.

So, same question as to the other refuseniks. If having the jab (or a negative test) was the only way to access pubs, restaurants, concerts and sports events or travel overseas, would you have it then?

[Jorvik]

10000 people eating scotch eggs is a health hazard I don't even want to think about.

Anyway, 2k is just a box ticking level of crowd, it'll be bigger by festival time I reckon but it'd be anyones guess by how much. Not enough for general admission I don't think, but we live in hope.

[Saxon Warrior]

Just 2000 spectators at Cheltenham today looks ridiculous. Could easily accommodate 8-10000 very safely. It's a massive course/area.

I think that Cheltenham can support many more punters without any problems - at the racecourse.

I am less convinced that a lump out of the 10,000 then pub-crawling around Cheltenham, eating scotch eggs (or not) would be a good thing - with regard to containing the virus.

Ditto for large football crowds.

[Lobos]

Just 2000 spectators at Cheltenham today looks ridiculous. Could easily accommodate 8-10000 very safely. It's a massive course/area.

[riccirich]

The virus won't be wiped out.
It will be with us forever.
Like all it's bastard cousins.

Well it will bring an end to the pandemic hopefully, I guess thats the best we can hope for, but yeah it will always be around.

[riccirich]

Yep.
Very good point.

Do you trust an unknown virus. With unknown long term effects.
Or a scientifically designed vaccine.

Tbh I wouldnt trust either, I would have no problems taking vaccines that were developed decades ago for other illnesses, but an emergency vaccine that has been rushed in for a new virus because we're in a pandemic, I would rather not risk it.

And of course im trying my best to avoid the virus itself, I guess I would rather just stick to the restrictions for the time being and hope for the best, instead of willingly going and getting the vaccine and that proving to be the cause of health issues.

Fully understand thats just my opinion and people will have different views on it.

[Quevega]

I agree, and I probably should have worded the original post a little better. I mean I would rather run the risk of getting covid than go and get the vaccine, but that doesnt mean im not trying my best to avoid the virus, nor does it mean that im happy to get covid because I dont think its anything serious.

But if the vaccine is becoming available in a few months I would rather just try my best to avoid the virus until then, because if half the population got the vaccine that would probably be enough to wipe out the virus, so getting the vaccine myself would seem like an unnecessary risk to me at this stage.

The virus won't be wiped out.
It will be with us forever.
Like all it's bastard cousins.

[riccirich]

We also dont know the long term effects if getting covid and initially recovering okay.

What damage has it left behind, to materialise into a future weakness?

No point musing on what a vaccine may do later to us, without thinking if covid has left its mark on us too.

I'd rather not get the air-pockets in my lungs coated with the covid virus, and hope that untold future damage , from it, won't occur.

I agree, and I probably should have worded the original post a little better. I mean I would rather run the risk of getting covid than go and get the vaccine, but that doesnt mean im not trying my best to avoid the virus, nor does it mean that im happy to get covid because I dont think its anything serious.

But if the vaccine is becoming available in a few months I would rather just try my best to avoid the virus until then, because if half the population got the vaccine that would probably be enough to wipe out the virus, so getting the vaccine myself would seem like an unnecessary risk to me at this stage.

[Quevega]

We also dont know the long term effects if getting covid and initially recovering okay.

What damage has it left behind, to materialise into a future weakness?

No point musing on what a vaccine may do later to us, without thinking if covid has left its mark on us too.

I'd rather not get the air-pockets in my lungs coated with the covid virus, and hope that untold future damage , from it, won't occur.

Yep.
Very good point.

Do you trust an unknown virus. With unknown long term effects.
Or a scientifically designed vaccine.

[Lobos]

I don't agree with kids being at Cheltenham today.

[Saxon Warrior]

We also dont know the long term effects of getting covid and initially recovering okay.

What damage has it left behind, to materialise into a future weakness?

No point musing on what a vaccine may do later to us, without thinking if covid has left its mark on us too.

I'd rather not get the air-pockets in my lungs coated with the covid virus, and hope that untold future damage , from it, won't occur.

[riccirich]

Do you and your friend have any qualifications in immunology, pharmacology, virology, infectious diseases or degrees in organic chemistry?

Cant tell if genuine question or attempt at sarcasm

But no we dont have any such degrees. Im just taking the view that since this vaccine is being rushed in, which of course it is, that the usual testing period is significantly shorter, which means that I would rather not take the risk. I understand that testing periods for vaccines can usually take up to ten years, sometimes longer, so the fact that this vaccine has only been worked on for a year would be a worry for me. If this vaccine has existed for somewhere between 3-6 months lets say, then all that scientists can definitively say is that no adverse side affects have shown up in that time on the people who have tested it. Its impossible for them to say that no side affects will arise after 5-10 years as the vaccine just hasnt existed that long. That is just my view based on my profile which I am led to believe I am at relatively low risk, if I was 75 years old though I would probably be leaning towards getting the vaccine.