To refuse to have a corona vaccine?

[EasyPleasey]

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?

[Frankiegoestocornwall]

The important distinction is you’re not saying someone will lose their job as a punishment, you’re saying that they can’t keep their job because of the risk which would be posed to others
It’s still not ethical in a medical capacity whether or not it’s a ‘punishment’. It’s still not proper consent.

[letitgolego]

@frankiegoestocornwall

By that definition people get coerced Into doing things all the time.

My friend was really struggling for money and receiving benefits. Part of the condition of that is actively seeking a job and the only job she was able to get (through the help of a job centre) was a minimum wage care job. Do you think she wants to wipe other people's arses, wash them and deal with their waste? No, she's an educated graduate and wants to do a job where she can use her degree and doesn't like personal contact. But she had to choose between her pride and having enough money to put food on the table. By your definition she was coerced into that job. Yet on MN you see it trotted our all the time that we need more cares so the unemployed should just go and do that. So do you think anyone doing a job they don't 100% want to in order to feed themselves is being coerced into it?

[bumbleymummy]

@RoosterPie I’m not sure why you wrote this yesterday then:

“ So those who are at very low risk of covid/have already had it so probably immune at least for short term, shouldn’t have to stay at home during lockdown for the benefit of those more likely to die from it?”

It would be better for the low risk/immune people to be the ones getting things back up and running while the more vulnerable continue to stay home.

@ddl1 That comment was in the context of the more vulnerable people staying at home while the healthier people put themselves at risk in order to create a level of herd immunity. We can’t stay locked down forever and just hope it goes away. It’s not going to happen. It makes more sense for the healthier people to take the risk because the risk is lower for them. The fact that there is still a risk is why I said you could argue they are being self less.

[Frankiegoestocornwall]

@letitgolego It’s not a medical procedure though so it’s not the same! Consent for medical issues is the number 1 thing they teach HCPs when they’re training- it’s at the forefront of care. It’s not the same ethically as consenting to a medical procedure/treatment.

[letitgolego]

"Several people I know are actually anti-vaxxers for religious reasons and they are brilliant nurses. Would you threaten all these people with the sack? Totally unethical to threaten people into consent"

Anyone anti-vaxx who works in healthcare isn't good at their job. They would be actively hypocritical. And I'm sorry but IMO religion does not coke above public safety. We should absolutely do everything we can to accommodate religion but if it comes down to belief vs safety safety wins every time. It's fine to kill your self with your own beliefs (religious or not) but it is absolutely not ok to put others at Risk because of them.

[RoosterPie]

@bumbleymummy you’re ignoring the “probably” in my comment.

@Frankiegoestocornwall so your solution is what? Vulnerable people’s lives (who can’t be vaccinated) should be put at risk when accessing the NHS?

When my husband cut his finger during an operation, he had to have a blood test to check if he had caught any contagious diseases or he wouldn’t be able to continue operating. Did he consent? Should he not have had to do so? Footballers who have to undergo medical examinations before signing for new clubs - are they not consenting to the examination because they won’t get signed otherwise? I had to show my yellow fever certificate to get into Tanzania. Did I not consent to that vaccination because I couldn’t have visited otherwise?

[bumbleymummy]

@Roosterpie How does the ‘probably’ change the meaning? The comment seems to contradict what you’re saying today.

[RoosterPie]

Because we don’t know for sure that people have immunity. If they don’t have immunity, then they pose a risk. If we knew for sure that they had immunity (which we don’t) there would be no direct risk, but the second point about incentivising people catching it would stand anyway.

I don’t know what you’re finding so confusing.

[bumbleymummy]

I think you’re contradicting yourself. You’ve acknowledged today that people will have to come out of lockdown whether they’re putting people at risk or not. It makes more sense for those who are immune/healthy to go out and about first. Yesterday you were suggesting that even the immune/healthy should stay locked down.

[NotAnotherUserNumber]

I am really hoping as many people take it as possible. I am in the shielding group but have an immune problem that means that not all vaccines produce an adequate response in me. So I am going to take it as soon as offered, but it might not work for me.

If there isn’t sufficient herd immunity from enough people taking the vaccine, then people like me may be at very high risk indefinitely.

Basically those that don’t take it could kill me if I have the misfortune to meet them.

[RoosterPie]

Yesterday you were suggesting that even the immune/healthy should stay locked down

I have read back over my posts and cannot see where I’ve said everyone should stay locked down indefinitely. If you could quote specifically because all I can see is posts where I’ve commented on during the lockdown.

During the period of lockdown, yes everyone should. Once it is lifted, no. I can’t see where I’ve said on this thread (or any other) that I think we should stay locked down indefinitely.

[bumbleymummy]

@NotAnotherUserNumber there is also naturally acquired immunity. It’s quite likely that we will reach a decent level of that before the vaccine is even released.

@Roosterpie I haven’t used the word ‘indefinitely’. I quoted you just a few posts above -
“ So those who are at very low risk of covid/have already had it so probably immune at least for short term, shouldn’t have to stay at home during lockdown for the benefit of those more likely to die from it?”

I pointed out that the immune/healthy people are in the best position to go back out and get things started and you argued with me that we don’t know if they’re actually immune. Today you seem to be acknowledging that yes, healthy and likely-to-be-immune people will be going out. I’m not really sure why you argued against it yesterday.

[RoosterPie]

🤦🏼‍♀️

“During lockdown”. I said they should have to stay home “during lockdown”. I didn’t say anything about if, when or on what terms lockdown should be lifted and you launched off into asking am I one of those people who thinks we should stay locked down forever.

Today you seem to be acknowledging that yes, healthy and likely-to-be-immune people will be going out

As and when restrictions allow, yes. Nothing inconsistent there whatsoever with my saying that while lockdown is in force they should stay home in accordance with the rules for everyone’s benefit.

i pointed out that the immune/healthy people are in the best position to go back out and get things started and you argued with me that we don’t know if they’re actually immune

Which was a separate issue to the one we were discussing, namely whether ethical considerations arise asking people to sacrifice their rights for the benefit of others.

I honestly think you’ve read a different discussion to me.

I have always said everyone should abide by the rules. This means the healthy, low risk and probably (I’ll repeat - ’probably’ and ’definitely’ are not the same word) immune stay home during lockdown. We have at no stage discussed between whether when and how lockdown should be lifted, and whether it should be lifted earlier for some demographics, which is what you now seem to be saying it was about. I have never said that the govt shouldn’t consider eg sending the young and healthy back to work before the vulnerable.

[PrincessButtercuppp]

What's the worry? The vaccine will be for the elderly and risk groups at most not for everyone else

[bumbleymummy]

Technically we’re still ‘in lockdown’ even though we are entering phases of lifting it. I thought my next point in reply to yours made it perfectly clear that I thought antibody testing and letting immune/healthy people return first was the most sensible option and you argued against that as if everyone should stay at home regardless - hence my question about whether you wanted to wait for a vaccine.

Meh. It’s not that important really. It just seemed like you changed your position.

[RoosterPie]

Fair enough, maybe we were at cross purposes and you’re right, it doesn’t really matter.

Apologies for being grumpy - 37w stick home with a teething toddler has meant I’m on a short fuse today.

[RoosterPie]

*stuck

[bumbleymummy]

Oh don’t worry. I’m being silly fixating on it! Sounds like you deserve a nice bath, a good movie and a hunk of chocolate! Toddlers are hard work at the best of times!

[DocusDiplo]

Not RTFT but why are 37% saying YANBU. Shocking.

[ddl1]

'If you threatened to sack people who didn’t want to have a particular vaccine how is that not coercion? They’d be forced into having the vaccine to put food on the table. That’s not true consent!'

But that applies to ANYONE who can't or won't do the things that are required for a particular job! Some vegans are not prepared to sell or prepare meat: therefore they cannot work in butchers' shops, or in groceries or supermarkets where selling meat is part of the job. I can't drive as a result of mild but relevant disabilities; therefore I cannot take a job where driving is a requirement, and yes, this has sometimes been restrictive for me, but I have to accept it. Some people aren't prepared to provide birth control for religous reasons. and therefore may not be able to take certain jobs in pharmacies or women''s healthcare (sometimes it might be possible if there are colleagues who can take over for this purpose, but if there aren't, or the religious people aren't even prepared to refer patients to others who can assist, then it's not possible). There are times when clients' right to receive vital services, or to be safe from serious illness, trumps other people's right to unrestricted choice about what jobs they can have.

[ddl1]

'Several people I know are actually anti-vaxxers for religious reasons and they are brilliant nurses.'

That's a contradiction in terms.

[ddl1]

Unless they only work with the non-vulnerable; and the non-vulnerable usually don't need nurses.

[Rosebel]

I just hope those who refuse the vaccine also stay at home and don't send their children to school. Perfectly fine if you want to risk your health but you shouldn't be allowed to infect those who actually can't have the vaccine.

[Rubyupbeat]

Yes, you could be one of those who gets it mildly or one of the 3 ladies I personally know who died. One in her 70s, one in her 50s and one 29.
I'll take my chances with the vaccine. Thanks.