Vaccinating Football Players

I can't argue with what Sean Dyche says....

https://www.skysports.com/football/...for-footballers-and-testing-money-sent-to-nhs

100 vaccinations per club to stop a highly taxed industry from being stop start and one that helps people so much in being able to watch it when we can do so little would be a good idea after the vulnerable and the likes of teachers who should be bumped up the list.

 

As footballers are extremely fit, young and so far as I'm aware, not one single footballer has reported symptoms of any severity, they should default to being bottom of the list of being vaccinated.

The level of taxation is irrelevant. Should billionaires be up the list therefore? Leaders of industry have the privilege of being vaccinated first or early?

Or should it be in order of clinical need and what allows society to operate on a basic level as a minimum?

If Jack Grealish (a random example) gets vaccinated ahead of those of say a courier, a supermarket worker, a pharmacist, a hospital porter, a warehouse picker, etc.... then we're in a world that has lost all sense of reason and perspective.

 

I think Newcastle have a couple with long-Covid complications.

 

I can see some merit in the Indonesian approach of vaccinating younger working age people first as they are the most active in society and move around between groups more but I guess that depends on the efficacy of the vaccine

 

Fair does. Though when i typed, my thinking was more that severity involved hospitalisations. If football clubs cannot keep their players virus free, they should simply close, like all other non essential organisations are having to do.

 

...

 

I disagree with Dyche on this one. It’s not about money but medical need

 

Stick with rigorous testing that is being introduced via the PFA & have heavy fines / suspensions for any players breaking the rules.

 

We've got the state broadcaster pushing out the Government's dictats on who we can have sex with and how, the police marching into people's homes and arresting them on suspicion of having family in the house, 92 year old men being arrested on the street for a peaceful protest which is now verboten and you're worrying that the order we choose to vaccinate people in might show that we've lost all reason and perspective?

 

If they maintained their social bubbles instead of organising sordid parties then there shouldn't be any problems.

 

The vaccine doesn’t stop the spread though, it just stops you from getting really ill with it. Are footballers more likely to get really ill with it? The vaccine for them doesn’t change anything, they’d still have to isolate if they got Covid so I don’t see what purpose it serves for them to get it ahead of someone who would get really ill if they caught it.

It’s like the rumours of people not being able to go places unless they have the vaccine. That would make sense (not saying I’d agree with it still) if it meant that they couldn’t be carrying Covid but it doesn’t. Why would places stop you from going to a concert for example unless you had the vaccine? Would they care whether you got really ill or not? The Ryanair adverts whilst inappropriate and irresponsible make a weird kind of sense because at least they are saying that if you have one you can not worry about getting really ill if you catch it off someone on the plane or whilst on holiday (I’m presuming, I haven’t actually seen it).

 

I thought that it didn't stop you catching it but I saw a news report of a nurse who had been vaccinated a few weeks ago and is livid that she's still caught it and passed it on to her family. Nowhere in the report did anyone mention that the vaccine didn't stop you catching or spreading it, only that it stopped you having a bad reaction.

I'm actually really confused because if it is the case you can still catch and spread it as we are told then why did government officials refuse to rule out vaccine passports and actually muted the idea themselves?

 

Had she had the top up dose?

 

No that's what she was angry about I think, that she believes she caught it because she hadn't had the top up but like Jamdrop I was led to believe it didn't have anything to do with your ability to catch it just your ability to fight it off again.

 

I understand you can still catch it until a couple of weeks after the 2nd dose, but after that I assumed (maybe wrongly) that you were unlikely to, although with any vaccination there is a chance you can catch the disease, but if you do the symptoms should be milder.

 

Seems like they might be vaccinating faster than I thought, daughter just text me to say she's booked hers.

 

IIRC it takes 2-3 weeks for the immune response to kick in, but you could be vaccinated today having already been infected but not yet symptomatic for another 5-7 days. It won't stop you getting ill in that situation.

And as mentioned above, the first dose is 60+%, the second dose takes that up to 90+%.

 

I don't get this 'efficacy', thing, maybe someone can help?

If a vaccine is 60% effective, does that mean that each person who has a jab is protected to that degree, or does it mean that 4 out of 10 people who have the jab have no protection at all?

Confused in kirkham (or thick **** in kirkham if you like).

 

I've never heard of a vaccine before that doesn't prevent you from getting the disease for which you're being vaccinated. I don't mean that the efficacy may not be 100%. Very few things in life are a sure thing and all vaccines, all medicines, have various degrees of success. But the way some people are talking in this thread is that it doesn't prevent you getting the disease at all, or from infecting others, it just reduces the symptoms. It's not that it doesn't work for a small percentage of people, it's that it doesn't give immunity to anyone, it just means you don't get as ill. Surely there's been a misunderstanding here? If what you're describing is actually the case then this isn't a vaccine by any definition of the word. A vaccine gives acquired immunity. Something that doesn't isn't a vaccine.