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.

God you sound lovely OP. Not!!

You’re one of those people who come on asking if you’re unreasonable, then when people say you are, you stamp your feet saying you’re not. You’re also very rude in your responses.

Do their shopping, don’t do their shopping. FFS grow up. You sound like a kid.

And if your MIL worked for a big pharmaceutical and is getting her info from people from there, then leave her to it. She’s made her decision based on that.

Jesus is this what we’ve fucking come to?!!

@TheChip

Being against one vaccine does not make you anti vax though. Denying a relationship between grandparents and grandchildren over a decision that only affects their health, is manipulative and disgusting. Imo

It doesn't only affect their health.

The vaccine lessens your symptoms of the virus. It does not stop you getting it or passing it on

Being against one vaccine does not make you anti vax though. Denying a relationship between grandparents and grandchildren over a decision that only affects their health, is manipulative and disgusting. Imo*

Yes. I hope these people are also happy not to inherit from these “disgusting” people.

id stop doing their shopping if theyve been offered the vaccine and declined it. Bloody idiots

@nervalslobster

I'm afraid I would not be able to hide my contempt for them. I'd be telling them to fuck off and find some other mug to do their shopping, and they wouldn't be seeing the kids until they got vaccinated. I've cut contact with anti vaxxers before. Actions have consequences. And let's face it, if you don't knock this on the head, you could potentially be doing their bloody shopping for another 15 years. Why don't they have internet? The excuse of being old is wearing a little thin. Firstly early 70s is not ancient, and I've been working with computers since I started holiday jobs in 1980, so I find it hard to believe that anyone is not at least a bit familiar with computers, and secondly, if they're not they should fucking well learn. But I generally have no sympathy whatsoever with people who for no good reason refuse vaccines, or refuse to get even the slightest bit computer literate.

Totally agree.

If they're so independent-minded that they can flout modern science, let them walk the walk.

"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."

@9toenails what a great post, thank you.

@AStudyinPink but it doesn't just affect their health. I think it's the PILs who are being selfish and manipulative. They're not that much older than my husband and if he refused to get this vaccine I'd be just as disgusted.

What is the hang up?

If they got the vaccine they could still carry covid to your children
It doesn't stop it spreading. Just means it won't be as bad if they do get it.....
Its individual choice.
Unless I am missing something here? I assumed it lessened your symptoms but you still spread it just the same.

Although if they got the vaccine they could do their own shopping.......

[quote Bored2death2020]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[/quote]
Critical thinking and common sense. Hmm. I wonder what you think that ongoing trial you reference tells us?

Here is a more up-to-date paper: Covid-19 Vaccine Efficacy: Accuracy, Uncertainty and Projection of Cases ; Wenjiang Fu, Jieni Li, Paul Scheet; doi: doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.16.20248359.
I quote: [Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna …] … Both vaccines achieve an efficacy above 89% by the 95% confidence interval in updated reports … [Conclusion:] … The Covid-19 vaccines announced to date would prevent a substantial number of cases even at lower ends of the intervals.

OK, a preprint. But no doubt with your critical thinking and common sense, bored2death2020, you will be able to evaluate it appropriately.

Just in case anyone is wondering, Bored2death2020 has no clue about any of this. Ignore talk of people dying from vaccines and so on. This is internet misinformation of the first water. (As for ‘no data on fertility’, well …) (No, Bored2death2020, I do not intend to carry on a discussion with you. Sorry and all …)

I suppose we should be used to nonsense from internet platforms. I suppose some people find it difficult to decide who to believe, amongst all the conspiracy theories and crazies.

But look. Ask yourself whether you believe Bored2death2020 or the people we pay to examine these matters:

' Authorisation of first the Pfizer and now the AZ vaccine (AZD1222) for use is incredibly welcome. Both are highly effective vaccines from clinical trial data and are anticipated to have sizeable effects on preventing severe disease and hospitalisation. Getting vaccines deployed as rapidly as possible into as many older, clinically vulnerable patients, and also frontline health and social care workers is essential. '

-- Who says this? …It is from a letter signed by Dr Frank Atherton, Chief Medical Officer, Wales; Dr Michael McBride, Chief Medical Officer, Northern Ireland; Dr Gregor Smith, Chief Medical Officer, Scotland; Professor Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer, England; Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, England.

Are all these people crazy? Are they engaged in a conspiracy to hide the truth? Or is bored2death2020 the one not telling the truth? Use your critical thinking and common sense to decide.

And then get vaccinated. It is the right thing to do.

I find responses here sad and depressing. OK, people do not like being told what to do. I get that. But the response by ant-vaxxers and their enablers to being told what they are doing wrong and why typically, 'You're not the boss of me!' or 'What makes you a moral arbiter?' seem more appropriate to a moody adolescent than a grown-up facing her/his responsibilities to others.

Think, people. As a member of society as a member of the human race, indeed you have certain responsibilities to others as well as yourself. Amongst these responsibilities, currently, is that of helping others by getting yourself vaccinated against Covid19. I am not the only person pointing this out. I do not claim to be any sort of moral arbiter. I know I am not your boss. I do claim along with many others that you ought to get vaccinated. Everyone (with the possible exception of some few who are super-allergic to constituents of the vaccine -- something checked in specific detail by vaccinators) ought to get vaccinated. Why? Because not doing so harms other people.

I am sure most if you will be able to see this if you think about it. I do not care that you may see me as a sanctimonious old fool. I ask you to think about it. You are not a bad person; do not behave badly, then, in this regard.

As for those peddling misinformation, such as Bored2death2020, shame on you.

Realistically the risk is from your children/yourselves to them, if they're in your childcare bubble. My parents and in laws are in their 70s and one set is usually our childcare bubble for 1 day a week. Weve stopped all contact until they receive both vaccines. I think your inlaws are being unreasonable. Can they not do online shopping?

MilesJuppIsMyBitch:
@9toenails what a great post, thank you.

You are welcome. Thank you for the kind words.

@TheChip

The vaccine lessens your symptoms of the virus. It does not stop you getting it or passing it on

@Thechip

This is not true.
It does prevent people catching the disease in the majority of cases.
It prevents serious illness in all cases.
It isn’t yet proven that it prevents people spreading disease but this is being studied and JVT said the signs were good that it was the case.

I find responses here sad and depressing. OK, people do not like being told what to do. I get that. But the response by ant-vaxxers and their enablers to being told what they are doing wrong and why typically, 'You're not the boss of me!' or 'What makes you a moral arbiter?' seem more appropriate to a moody adolescent than a grown-up facing her/his responsibilities to others.

But once again, you are not the arbiter. I don’t get to decide what risks you must take with your health. You don’t get to decide that for me. We all have the right to make our own healthcare choices.

think it's the PILs who are being selfish and manipulative. They're not that much older than my husband and if he refused to get this vaccine I'd be just as disgusted.

Well, we can all be disgusted. I’m disgusted at people who think they have the right to make other people’s healthcare decisions for them, and withhold family relationships if they don’t get their own way.

AstudyinPink.....do you object to the idea of the Op and her family providing the PiL with leaflets or print outs of government information about the vaccine?

Do you think that provision of info that the PiL haven't had access to due to no TV or internet is advisable or wouldn't you recommend it, because the PiL should be able to make a choice with or without info, even if there is info they are totally unaware they don't know about?

OP, have you and your family got on and provided that info that your PiL are lacking?

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/31/there-is-a-lot-of-distrust-why-women-in-their-30s-are-hesitant-about-the-covid-vaccine

It isn't that I think people shouldn't have the vaccine - to my mind the vaccine is the rational choice. But I do accept that others have a right not to take it. This approach has served Britain well for a long time and it would be shame for us to change our approach to be more authoritarian.

As with other medical treatments - in many situations people will not know who has been vaccinated and who has not.

Unless the OP demands to see the vaccination card, if they push the issue, surely the ILs can just lie anyway?

@Studyinpink but that's the point - their decision does affect other people, they are the selfish ones, and need to realise the consequences of their actions.

[quote nervalslobster]@Studyinpink but that's the point - their decision does affect other people, they are the selfish ones, and need to realise the consequences of their actions. [/quote]
This is not a mature argument.

Lots of people make decisions that negatively impact others all the time but they are tolerated.

Toleration is a key principle in a liberal society.

but that's the point - their decision does affect other people, they are the selfish ones, and need to realise the consequences of their actions.

You are the one missing the point. Yes, sometimes our decisions affect others but that doesn’t mean we are selfish for making the decision in our own interests. Are you selfish every time you eat a meal rather than giving it to a starving person? No. You are seeing to your basic needs. Healthcare is a basic need, too. You are allowed to put your own needs first, and that is why individual choice in healthcare is an absolute right.

@AStudyinPink

I find responses here sad and depressing. OK, people do not like being told what to do. I get that. But the response by ant-vaxxers and their enablers to being told what they are doing wrong and why typically, 'You're not the boss of me!' or 'What makes you a moral arbiter?' seem more appropriate to a moody adolescent than a grown-up facing her/his responsibilities to others.

But once again, you are not the arbiter. I don’t get to decide what risks you must take with your health. You don’t get to decide that for me. We all have the right to make our own healthcare choices.

None of what you say here is wrong. But it does not engage.

Sure, we do not decide for each other what risks we should take. Exactly. ' We all have the right to make our own healthcare choices .' Spot on; we do indeed. I am not the arbiter of right and wrong . Too true. (Luckily for me, phew!)

But none of this goes any way to gainsaying the point I was making about these choices we all make for ourselves. Some of them are morally wrong, for instance refusing the vaccine. Not because I say so (I am no moral arbiter!), but because refusing the vaccine harms other people.

Look. Is harming other people wrong? Yes. Does refusing to be vaccinated harm other people? Yes. It follows, then, that refusing the vaccine is wrong.

-- No attempt here to arbitrate morally or to make another's choice for them.

I dunno, what else can I say? This seems to me not so difficult to grasp.

Everyone, you should choose -- of your own free will, not arbitrated by me or anyone else, to do what is right. Get yourself vaccinated, not because anyone tells you to, but because it is the right thing to do.

Think about your choices here. Do the right thing.

AStudyinPink

“But once again, you are not the arbiter. I don’t get to decide what risks you must take with your health. You don’t get to decide that for me. We all have the right to make our own healthcare choices”

Absolutely, but once the majority of the adult population have been vaccinated, unvaccinated people can no longer expect them to limit their lives to accommodate your choice.