Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To refuse to have a corona vaccine?

384 replies

EasyPleasey · 13/05/2020 13:35

A lot of people seem to be waiting for a corona vaccine. However I just dont trust any vaccine 'rushed' out, especially after all the mistakes made so far in this crisis. I would rather catch the actual virus and take my chances, as for most people it is a mild illness but who knows what the vaccine may do.

I know quite a few other people who say they will refuse any vaccine for this. I have had all the other vaccines, as have my children.

AIBU?

OP posts:
bruffin · 14/05/2020 06:46

,,Are you aware of the swine flu vaccine which caused narcolepsy and other long-term medical issues (acknowledged and compensation reluctantly paid), mostly in children, in 2009? The number of confirmed cases of narcolepsy are almost as many as the number of deaths from swine flu, in the UK so far
Are you aware there were higher cases of narcolepsy after swine flu in countries that did not vaccinate, it is not as straight forward as you make out. There was an epidemic of sleeping sickness after the WW1 and the flu epidemic then. We do not know how many cases there would have been if we had not vaccinated.

SpillTheTeaa · 14/05/2020 07:15

Me and my DC have all our vaccinations but i want to see the effects it has on people who opt to be the first to get this vaccine. I cannot just let my DC have a vaccine I know nothing about.

Bubblebee7 · 14/05/2020 07:16

This ^^

Rowantree2020 · 14/05/2020 07:27

@SpillTheTeaa so you’ll wait how long before you’re satisfied? A year, two years? Whilst placing other people in your community at risk.

user127819 · 14/05/2020 07:31

@Roselilly36 Just out of curiosity, what makes you think there won't be a vaccine? There are dozens of (untested) vaccines already, and some are showing promising results in early trials.

shinyredbus · 14/05/2020 07:34

My friends good friend said something to that effect may many weeks ago, before this blew up. She would take her chances. Unfortunately She caught it and died 6 days later.

AtopAHighHill · 14/05/2020 07:49

I think if the likes of the Royal family and other VIPs are shown to be getting the vaccine then it's probably safe for the rest of us. Until then, I'm really not sure.

Penners99 · 14/05/2020 07:53

I can see a requirement for a positive antibody test or a vaccination certificate becoming a requirement to access services such as transport or even shops.

National ID by other means.

AgentJohnson · 14/05/2020 08:30

as for most people it is a mild illness.

Huh, we don’t know the long term damage having the virus has on some people. You are entitled to not want the vaccine because it’s being rushed but your inquisition doesn’t appear to extend to the long term effects of having the virus.

Nothing is 100% but Covid 19 isn’t going anywhere soon and given that we are in the middle of a pandemic that’s going to screw the economies of most of the planet, it’s not that strange that they are trying to find a vaccine so damn quickly.

JudyGemstone · 14/05/2020 08:41

You didn't answer the question in the slightest!

And newborn babies aren't a high risk group and are unlikely to even be offered the vaccine.

opticaldelusion · 14/05/2020 10:19

wouldn't take it either. They have never found a vaccine for a sars virus in all the time they have had

Jeez. Do some basic research. The search for a Sars vaccine was abandoned because the virus disappeared having infected only around 8,000 people. Why bother? Vaccine research is expensive.

Sars2 is a completely different proposition.

Wolfgirrl · 14/05/2020 10:29

@JudyGemstone

How did I not? I'm saying not everyone can have the vaccine even if they wanted it, so it is the duty of others to have the vaccine if it is offered to them.

Care to answer mine now? Answering a question with a question is a sign of a poor argument.

bumbleymummy · 14/05/2020 10:34

By the time the vaccine is ready there will probably be a big chunk of the population that are already immune so not everyone will need it anyway.

TeeBee · 14/05/2020 10:34

I work in the industry and usually take every vaccine I'm offered (and pay for the flu vaccine every year). I'll be waiting too OP. I'd like to see a few post-marketing studies conducted before I put it inside me. Remember thalidomide. I don't think you're being unreasonable...but cautious.

Smilethoyourheartisbreaking · 14/05/2020 11:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Blackhawkdown2020 · 14/05/2020 12:28

This reply has been withdrawn

Message from MNHQ: This post has been withdrawn

BirdieFriendReturns · 14/05/2020 12:32

Not having it as I almost died from a flu jab.

If the government want to pay me to stay home as I won’t be vaccinated that’s fine.

They can’t force people to have it.

adellaranger · 14/05/2020 12:49

(and yes trying to ban people from society aka schools and social benefits is a form of coercive manipulation against someones autonomy.)

It would be if it was purely as a form of punishment. However it is not

You either believe in consent free of coercion, and bodily autonomy or you don’t. You can’t just pick and choose when you agree with it because it suits your opinion. Any ‘consent’ given while someone is facing the risk of being excluded from society forever is not real consent. It’s taking away someone’s rights if they don’t agree to forced vaccination. How is that ok?

RoosterPie · 14/05/2020 13:11

How is that ok?

Because it is a proportionate response to the fact that the person refusing to have the vaccine is genuinely risking the lives of the vulnerable.

TeeBee · 14/05/2020 13:19

Of course its a comparison. And yes, I'm well aware that thalidomide isn't a vaccine but drugs and vaccines are marketing after Phase 3 trials, which are not infallible. Sometimes we have to wait for longer-term affects to become apparent. With orphan diseases and compounds that get fast track designations, the numbers in these trials are small.

crosstalk · 14/05/2020 14:04

Letmethink The only good thing is that the virus is apparently not mutating as fast as the flu virus does. So it is not currently as tricky as developing a vaccination based on preceding flu viruses.

Thalidomide was one of the big worldwide tragedies - there's a good book out now about how trials have always tended to be done using the male as a model - but it is now being used again for various skin and cancer treatments.

bruffin · 14/05/2020 14:10

TBF thalidomide was never intended to be used for morning sickness in the first place

Smilethoyourheartisbreaking · 14/05/2020 14:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bumbleymummy · 14/05/2020 14:20

@RoosterPie

“ Because it is a proportionate response to the fact that the person refusing to have the vaccine is genuinely risking the lives of the vulnerable.”

Firstly, the vulnerable are probably going to be offered the vaccine before everyone else. Secondly, there are other illnesses that are risky to vulnerable people and we don’t all get vaccinated against them.

RoosterPie · 14/05/2020 14:22

Some people who are vulnerable have medical conditions which mean they can’t be vaccinated.

What kind of examples are you using as your second point?