In-laws have declined the vaccine... AIBU?

[HotGlueGun]

So my in-laws (early 70s) have declined to have the vaccine. They are in our childcare bubble and so we see them regularly. They also ask us to do their shopping. WIBU to a) stop doing their shopping for them and b) reduce/ stop their contact with the kids? I'm really cross about but appreciate that they have free will and it's their choice. But resent having to do shopping for them... it's like they are happy for us to be at risk and aren't prepared to take reasonable steps to reduce their vulnerability and eliminate the risk for themselves/ the wider community.

@Thewinterofdiscontent

Some people are happy to do wrong -- happy to be bad people. Are you one of those people, Grannycurls ? Are you happy to be a bad person? If not, you should get vaccinated.

Some of the lowest rates of vaccine take up are from the Afro Caribbean community - 50% in Birmingham.
Can’t wait to hear you say that to them.

OK. Good point. But on reflection yes, I would say that to them too.

Perhaps some people have less reason to trust the powers that be and so are unwilling to be vaccinated. But to use this in exculpation would be simply patronising, no? The moral imperative stands independently of (even understandable) reasons some might have for its non-fulfilment.

(If my child were killed by a drunk driver, it might be understandable for me to want to kill the person responsible. But it would be wrong. This seems relevantly similar. No?)

It is a complicated matter. But, yes, everyone should get themselves vaccinated for the common good. This way of putting it rather than 'everyone should be vaccinated' ( sc. whether they want to or not ) points up the complexity of the moral imperative as a societal-and-individual matter.

So, in the end, yes, be you whoever you are, the choice not to be vaccinated is wrong because of the effect of such a choice on others. And doing wrong makes you a bad person , no matter who you are or what community you belong to.

[quote saraclara]@MotherExtraordinaire that case of MS was previously existing but had not yet been diagnosed when the vaccine was given. The independent investigation confirmed that to be so.

The second case wasn't MS, but transverse myelitis. While I've not yet checked if that was confirmed, but it is also thought not to be connected to the vaccine.[/quote]
Glad you clarified that because I can’t see how it could even be possible. The vaccine hasn’t existed for long enough for it to be true.

If you think I am wrong, OK, say so and explain why. Maybe you will convince me (and others). Otherwise, well 'Bog off' seems more appropriate for the unreasonable. Take your own advice.

I’ve already explained why. I don’t care whether I convince you or not; your opinion is completely irrelevant to me.

@tara66 are you seriously suggesting that if a person gets covid and hasn't been vaccinated they should be refused treatment? Really? Who are you to play god?
In that case alcoholics should be refused treatment for liver related issues, smokers for lung issues, obese people for developing diabetes, drug addicts, cosmetic surgery gone wrong...refused treatment!
The list is endless. I actually can't believe you said that, thankfully the people in charge don't think like you.

It is up to each person.

The current moral issue for the UK is once the main at risk people are done do we stop, not do teachers, people like I am in my 50s and younger and give it all away to third world countries. The dilemmas are endless over all this....

@TheChip

The vaccine does not even stop you from catching or spreading it.

It stops you getting very ill or possibly dying

I just think if they don't plan to get the vaccine then they may as well go about life as normal as nothing is ever going to change for them.. the risk will always be there. Do they think Covid will disappear into thin air?

epcot15 - NB - alcoholism etc. are not world wide pandemics with vaccines to prevent them. There is no comparison between Covid19 and botched plastic surgery, diabetes etc. and Covid 19 at all. I presume you don't work for NHS?

There have been two cases so far with one confirmed MS in UK following the vaccination and a second most likely as well. This is why the USA won't touch the astrazeneca vaccine.

This is incorrect. The MS case was someone who already had it, but hadn't been diagnosed yet, and the other was transverse myelitis, and according to the Lancet "considered unlikely to be related to the intervention". The myelitis patient has since recovered.

The reason the USA "won't touch" the AstraZeneca vaccine, is nothing to do with the above cases, and that is incorrect anyway.

The FDA in the States want to do their own larger US based trial on the vaccine, in order to understand the dosing regime a bit better, where no half doses are planned, and shots are given 28 days apart . They expect to get the results after at least two months of safety data. And hope to get it cleared for use by @April time.

They obviously haven't thought it through. If they are 70 they are at high risk of being severely ill even though they probably won't actually die of covid. They are also likely to live another 10-20 years. Covid is not going away and if they refuse the vaccine it will just be a matter of time before they catch it, most likely from the OPs children once the schools go back. Just because they haven't caught it so far, doesn't mean they are safe.

So they have a choice between staying indoors for the rest of their lives and not having any contact with family, or almost certainly catching a dangerous but preventable disease.

A badly stored vaccine might not work but it's not going to do any harm.

I would not punish them for their choice but would certainly tell them to man up and go and get jabbed.

@Xenia

It is up to each person.

The current moral issue for the UK is once the main at risk people are done do we stop, not do teachers, people like I am in my 50s and younger and give it all away to third world countries. The dilemmas are endless over all this....

I don’t think there’s been any suggestion of “giving it all away”, the countries that got it would pay for it. It seems quite sensible to me to vaccinate the most vulnerable on a global basis. It’s certainly the fastest way of getting some normality back.

@tara66

epcot15 - NB - alcoholism etc. are not world wide pandemics with vaccines to prevent them. There is no comparison between Covid19 and botched plastic surgery, diabetes etc. and Covid 19 at all. I presume you don't work for NHS?

Still their choice to drink, smoke go under the knife etc. I mean if people didn't make the wrong choices in life with regards to their health the nhs would be under less pressure? So do you really think that people who haven't been vaccinated and contract covid should be refused treatment? You seem to have ignored that question so I'll ignore yours about working for the nhs, not sure why that would be relevant anyway. I hope to you don't work for the nhs with your attitude.

I'm struggling really to see how anything is any different whether they have the vaccine or not. You're already mixing with them. To just stop doing their shopping and stop allowing your children to visit would absolutely be punishing them for a decision they've made which impacts nobody but themselves.

My mother is 70 and I couldn't imagine telling her she'll have to do her own shopping just because we disagreed on whether she should have the vaccine. If she chose not to have it, it would be all the more reason for me to continue doing her shopping. But then I adore my mother and would do anything she needs to make her life better.

There have been two cases so far with one confirmed MS in UK following the vaccination and a second most likely as well. This is why the USA won't touch the astrazeneca vaccine.

Please don't spread this kind of lie. Neither of those cases were anything to do with the vaccine. If you vaccinate a huge number of people it's guaranteed that some of them will be diagnosed with other conditions shortly after having it. Someone will probably also win the lottery within a week of being vaccinated. That goes not mean there is any causal link. If you are too stupid to understand that you shouldn't go on the internet.

@AStudyinPink

If you think I am wrong, OK, say so and explain why. Maybe you will convince me (and others). Otherwise, well 'Bog off' seems more appropriate for the unreasonable. Take your own advice.

I’ve already explained why. I don’t care whether I convince you or not; your opinion is completely irrelevant to me.

I am sorry, somehow I missed your explanation.

'Bog off' struck me as indicative of one who has run out of reasons or their means of expression. Misreading argument as opinion largely confirms this assessment.

Oh well. I suggested you take your own advice. Eventually, I suspect you will do so. (But maybe not quite yet?)

@HotGlueGun

So the childcare is as hoc and we could manage without it... they want to do it, rather than we need them to do it, especially now the schools are closed.

Their reasons are that someone once told them that if they can avoid having a vaccine, then they should. Also concerns about how the vaccines are stored and whether they will be injected with something not stored properly.

They do not have internet access/ a television... so hear snippets of info and make them their own.

So they are putting themselves (and others) at risk due to being seriously misinformed?

Hmmmm, it might be a good idea to address this before someone gets seriously hurt?

Just a thought!

@9toenails, eventually this will become another flu. Why are you branding someone not getting a vaccine for this, above other communicable diseases, bad people? Or do you do that for all possible communicable diseases and those who smoke, abuse alcohol etc? If so the majority of society are bad people.

If the poster keeps herself isolated this winter, her getting Covid won't have that much impact on society. Is your judgement cost driven?

Adults under 70 make bad decisions all of the time. My adult children have, I've still supported them. I know people whose life has come to a standstill because their adult sons have fallen drunk, off balconies, had preventable car crashes, or taken drugs. They've still devoted their lives to caring for them. People whose daughters have had babies knowing they will need help for various reasons. Men who've fucked up their marriages and have had to go back home through lack of money. It seems to be only pensioners we should use emotional blackmail against to behave perfectly and abandon if they don't.

YNK, they're not leaving the house. They aren't putting anyone at risk, except themselves. We'll be vaccinated enough to have herd immunity by next winter.

Why haven't we ever condemned younger people for not getting a flu vaccination? For the sake of £9 they've been putting others at risk for years. That's without the rest of the risky behaviour in the 18-30 age group.

[quote Ponoka7]@9toenails, eventually this will become another flu. Why are you branding someone not getting a vaccine for this, above other communicable diseases, bad people? Or do you do that for all possible communicable diseases and those who smoke, abuse alcohol etc? If so the majority of society are bad people.

If the poster keeps herself isolated this winter, her getting Covid won't have that much impact on society. Is your judgement cost driven?

Adults under 70 make bad decisions all of the time. My adult children have, I've still supported them. I know people whose life has come to a standstill because their adult sons have fallen drunk, off balconies, had preventable car crashes, or taken drugs. They've still devoted their lives to caring for them. People whose daughters have had babies knowing they will need help for various reasons. Men who've fucked up their marriages and have had to go back home through lack of money. It seems to be only pensioners we should use emotional blackmail against to behave perfectly and abandon if they don't.[/quote]
[Sorry this is so long. I am rather rushed.]

Why covid vaccination, rather than those who smoke etc? Think of it as similar to, say, smallpox. When I was young (yes, long ago; I am one of those really old people), smallpox was endemic in various parts of the world. Now this killer disease has been eradicated.

I was given a smallpox vaccine, long ago. I could have refused. If enough people had refused, the world would still suffer from outbreaks of smallpox. Getting a smallpox vaccine was a moral requirement then. Why? Because not to have it would possibly have caused harm to others. If enough people refused it, smallpox would still be endemic.

Now we (we humans, that is) are faced with another killer disease. And we have vaccines that may plausibly confer immunity. Not to everyone who gets vaccinated, perhaps. But at least to a significant number.

Without these vaccines, Covid-19 will continue to run riot, killing many, condemning many others to lives of misery. If enough people get vaccinated, we can overcome this disease. But if not enough people get vaccinated, it will hang around and certainly evolve and mutate in such ways as again to be a threat to us all.

If one person does not get vaccinated, the risk to the rest of us may be small. But if many people do not get vaccinated, we will all be in danger. In such circumstances, we have a moral obligation each of us to get vaccinated. That seems clear, no? If we each can do a small thing that, taken together, gives a large benefit to humanity in general, we jolly well ought to do that small thing!

OK, now, some people, for various reasons, think (wrongly) that they have good reasons not to get the vaccine. And we believe strongly in personal autonomy. What should we do? We know it is morally imperative that everyone who can gets vaccinated. But we do not wish to make it compulsory that they do. So, what?

One thing we can do is persuade individuals of their moral obligation. This is not to say we should abandon anyone who is not perfect (we would all suffer badly from such an extreme policy!) Nor is it to base our policy on cost (I do not understand why you thought that). Simply, it is to say, strongly, which is the case , that if you do not get vaccinated you do wrong to others.

This is different from, say, smoking, in that arguably smoking only hurts the smoker. It may be wrong, but not explicitly to others. (OK, I know, passive smoking, etc., etc. -- that reinforces the main point though, does it not; we should avoid harming others.)

As for those who think, 'Me not getting vaccinated will not matter much,' they are like the Amazon farmer who thinks, 'Cutting down this small bit of forest will not matter much.' Individual choices may coalesce to cause harm; the harm so caused means the choices made individually were bad choices.

So, as I have said, if you do not get vaccinated, you do wrong because of possible harm to others. And doing wrong makes you a bad person. Yes, you may be a wonderful person in other ways, and, yes, we may still love you as a person overall for what and who you are. Still, though, you will in this way be a bad person if you do not get vaccinated.

Is it obvious how important this is? I think so. Are you convinced? I hope so.

Everyone, please get vaccinated. It is the right thing to do.

Their body their choice
Why would you do something so petty and bitchy?

@Sweet666

Their body their choice Why would you do something so petty and bitchy?

oooft 😳

@HotGlueGun

So my in-laws (early 70s) have declined to have the vaccine. They are in our childcare bubble and so we see them regularly. They also ask us to do their shopping. WIBU to a) stop doing their shopping for them and b) reduce/ stop their contact with the kids? I'm really cross about but appreciate that they have free will and it's their choice. But resent having to do shopping for them... it's like they are happy for us to be at risk and aren't prepared to take reasonable steps to reduce their vulnerability and eliminate the risk for themselves/ the wider community.

There choice (though a stupid and irresponsible one).

If you are worried about yourself or family then stop the bubble. Still get their shopping but drop off at a distance.

If you aren't worried about yourself or family carry on as you have been.

Not much else other than giving them more information about risks and the vaccine you can do.

Personally I would do their shopping because they obviously need the help if you have been doing it, but I would just take to the door and explain you hope they understand that whilst rates are so high you can't put your family at risk, but you respect their wishes so are still happy to make sure they are okay:
If they will kick up a fuss saying why is it different, we hadn't had the vaccine up to now anyway, what's the difference? The difference of course being that we do have a vaccine now so can protect ourselves.
I would ask why as well, as I nearly refused the vaccine I am in cat 2 as a health care worker and I have been working from home so felt I did not "deserve" it but friend pointed out that I am going to be vaccinating in the next couple of weeks, so I did in the end.

I am actually shocked at the amount of responses suggesting to stop shopping for grandparents.Last time i checked it was an individual decision as to what you put in your own body. And I can totally understand people NOT wanting to take EXPERIMENTAL vaccines because they ARE experimental. Trials for all of them will be completed in 2 years time. Pfizer did not publish their data as their study will be over only in 2023, when they review the results of all the 40,000 enrolled participants. ALL the vaccines have been approved for 'Emergency use only' as there is no data to support they are safe. Especially the new ones like Pfizer and Moderna ones that use mRNA platform, previously considered to be unethical.... There were reports of people dying from vaccines and having serious side effects. And yet you are questioning the decisions of them? My advice, do a proper research before you take your own vaccine, as there is NO DATA how it might affect fertility ( this is covered in the official document on the gov.uk site). In fact to increase the vaccine uptake, they changed the wording from 'no data on fertility' to ' animal studies (rats) did not show any negative reactions or side effects on fertility or pregnancy'. If that's good for you - go for it. But don't judge others for exercising critical thinking and using common sense. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728

@BluebellsGreenbells

That's just not the way we function. We help each other out where and when needed. When and if I become unable to care for myself, my daughter (and/or son) will care for me without question. But we are far from that stage

Totally different

These are capable people choosing to not go out to the shops, they don’t need help.

They can and should do their own shopping while OP is working full time with two kids and a lazy husband.

OP isn’t the one who needs to justify her actions - one the other hand the rest of her family do - the should be ashamed

Taken out of context. The context was the word ENTITLED, in caps. My daughter would never feel ENTITLED not to protect me, if I needed protection eg from infection, if I asked her, and vice versa. It does smell of punishment: "do as I say, or else, you stupid oldie".