Fed up with unvaccinated colleague isolating

[Peevedcolleague]

Name changed 'cos I'll probably get slated but aibu to be pissed off about a colleague self isolating yet again while the rest of us have to carry on and pick up the pieces?

A new colleague chose not to be jabbed and is now facing numerous isolation periods at home on full pay where the rest of us have to carry on and cover her workload. Nature of the job means she's likely to be a close contact fairly regularly.

Even if she changed her mind and gets jabbed tomorrow, it'll be 10 weeks minimum before she's exempt from isolation so this could happen several more times yet.

Aibu to feel resentful and wish she bloody well got jabbed like the rest of us?

Vaccine effectiveness evidence is much stronger as it has come from clinical trials.

But that isn't true is it.

It is widely accepted now that the clinical trial data showed effectiveness rates in the mid 90s for Pfizer for example whilst the current reality is that it is actually much lower in the wider population after 6 months.

We need more data and we need to examine it with open minds rather than dismiss it as weak because we don't like what it says.

I don't know if French policy was based on the study I linked to examining 1 dose in recovered persons but I certainly hope that policies will be rexamined and fine tuned as more data emerges (as opposed to sticking doggedly to the information from manufacturer's clinical trials).

It is widely accepted now that the clinical trial data showed effectiveness rates in the mid 90s for Pfizer for example whilst the current reality is that it is actually much lower in the wider population after 6 months.

The trial data was against Wuhan; current performance is largely against Delta. However the best data we have on anything currently is on vaccine effectiveness.

We need more data and we need to examine it with open minds rather than dismiss it as weak because we don't like what it says.

We also shouldn’t cherry pick weak data (and much of it is weak, on all sides of the arguments - I hope I have been clear in my own posts when the evidence base is equivocal versus when it is a lot firmer) to support our own preferred policy solutions.

I agree that more data is useful, particularly on secondary transmission, behavioural variances between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups (less whether vaccines lead to certain behaviours, but are there common behavioural and attitudinal characteristics) and getting a decent denominator for vaccine uptake would make my day (but is less of a public health priority than a ‘twats are intentionally misusing these figures’ priority for me personally.)

The imperative is to ensure none of us are treating any study as equal to all others. We need to look across the evidence base and data to get the best picture of what’s going on. We are fortunate in the UK to have a much higher level of testing than most places in the world, by a large amount, so our real time data is very strong.

The trial data was against Wuhan; current performance is largely against Delta.

Yes. Which is the same thing as saying that the trial efficacy data is out of date. Things have moved on.

Yes this would piss me off . Those who choose not to be vaccinated and have to isolate should not be on full pay, they are not sick so why get sick pay . Employers need to have plans in place for " COVID cover "

Which is the same thing as saying that the trial efficacy data is out of date. Things have moved on.

Yes, however we still have a much stronger evidence base on vaccine effectiveness than on anything else, including immunity from infection. The trials of course did not give predictions on longevity of immunity - it was always a possibility.

The efficacy from trials gives us a performance baseline to measure impacts from both variants and waning; it’s still relevant to current vaccine effectiveness. But it’s unarguable that after billions of doses we have better data now.

(They’re still pretty great.)

Yes, however we still have a much stronger evidence base on vaccine effectiveness than on anything else, including immunity from infection.

What do you mean by " much stronger evidence base"?

Do you mean that the evidence strongly shows vaccine immunity to be more effective and longer lasting than natural immunity?

Or do you just mean that we have more information on the performance of vaccines than we have on the phenomenon of natural immunity?

What do you mean by "much stronger evidence base"?

I mean we have greater certainty. We have an enormous amount more data, and that is being closely scrutinised. We have good baselines through REACT and ONS among others that have enabled large samples to track VE over time.

Disease acquired immunity is hardly a phenomenon. But we understand it much less well and we certainly have a much less strong evidence base on it - as the studies you’ve shared have taken pains to make clear.

I have not said anything about the relative performance of vaccine acquired immunity versus disease acquired immunity.

Sorry but your last 2 posts are clear as mud to me.

You seem to be using a lot of words to say "we have more data on covid vaccines than we do on natural immunity".

Which is no doubt the case but I'm not sure what point you hoping to make by saying that.

This makes for interesting reading on the subject.
www.cureus.com/articles/72074-equivalency-of-protection-from-natural-immunity-in-covid-19-recovered-versus-fully-vaccinated-persons-a-systematic-review-and-pooled-analysis

Overall, our comprehensive systematic review identified nine clinical studies of various designs, of which seven could be included in a pooled analysis. From a review of these studies, we conclude that there is currently no statistical advantage to vaccination in the COVID-naive compared to natural immunity in the COVID-recovered. Vaccination in the COVID-recovered may provide some incremental protective benefit, but the total size of this benefit is marginal. Explicitly, COVID-naïve individuals should not seek infection to bypass vaccination, as the risks of infection far exceed the low risks associated with vaccination. However, until further data is available, unvaccinated COVID-recovered individuals should be considered to have at least equal protection to their vaccinated COVID-naïve counterparts. The COVID-recovered represent a unique population segment with distinct risk/benefit considerations and a narrower therapeutic window than their COVID-naïve counterparts. National policy should reflect the need for clinical equipoise and restraint in vaccinating these individuals by mandate.

It literally has nothing to do with you or anyone else whether she is vaccinated or not. Have some respect for other peoples choices - she will have her reasons. And I say this as a fully vaccinated person.

@Belladonna12
@Bloodypunkrockers

Which is no doubt the case but I'm not sure what point you hoping to make by saying that.

Simply that there is a much greater degree of certainty about vaccine e

Which is no doubt the case but I'm not sure what point you hoping to make by saying that

Simply that there is a much greater degree of certainty around vaccine effectiveness than pretty much anything else.

You asked me what I meant in talking about the strength of the evidence base. I explained. That’s all.

I really worry about the current trend of the vaccinated pseudo superiority and the feeling that anyone not vaccinated are becoming an underclass. Unfortunately anyone who has chosen not to have the vaccine (still at the experimental stage) are labelled anti-vaccers, ignorant or a conspiracy theorist. These labels are not always accurate and are just encouraging just another form of discrimination and this should be avoided. I understand completely why people who have chosen not to take the vaccine lie about this rather than put up with the flack.

Unfortunately anyone who has chosen not to have the vaccine (still at the experimental stage) are labelled anti-vaccers, ignorant or a conspiracy theorist.

No vaccines deployed in the UK are in the experimental stage. This statement is absolutely false.

Explanation and evidence shared several times upthread. But for the TL;DR crowd: this is misinformation.

As regulars to this and other threads know, I will not apply labels to those who have not chosen to have vaccines apart from ‘person who says things that are demonstrably untrue’ where it applies - as it does in this case.

Simply that there is a much greater degree of certainty around vaccine effectiveness than pretty much anything else.

Thanks for clarifying JassyRadlett.

It does seem a bit of an empty statement however as that degree of certainty goes something like this: "clinical trials showed really high levels of efficacy but now that the vaccines are being used in the wider population, and the virus has mutated, the efficacy is proving to be significantly lower".

I appreciate that the vaccines were brought out really quickly in a world pandemic and that the evidence shows that they significantly reduce the severity of disease and rates of tranmission and for that we are all thankful. I also appreciate that the vaccines were absolutely a priority in order to protect as many people as possible and also of course to get lives and the economy back on an even keel. However I hope that now that we are in a much better place (thanks to the vaccines) that we will now be able to explore naturally aquired immunity.

The fact is that huge numbers of people have recovered from covid and to have more information on their immune status could be vital in public health policy and the impact that in turn has on the economy and people's quality of life.

I see that the word "experimental" has come up again. It may be because I'm in the EU and not the UK but I was under the impression that all the vaccines in use are currently under "Conditional marketing authorisation".

www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/vaccines-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-authorised#authorised-covid-19-vaccines-section

Conditional marketing authorisation is explained here :

In the interest of public health, applicants may be granted a conditional marketing authorisation for such medicines on less comprehensive clinical data than normally required, where the benefit of immediate availability of the medicine outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required.

www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/marketing-authorisation/conditional-marketing-authorisation

Lots of people on this thread seem to object to laypeople using the word "experimental". Can I ask then what is the word that you think we should be using instead?

@Beachcomber

Simply that there is a much greater degree of certainty around vaccine effectiveness than pretty much anything else.

Thanks for clarifying JassyRadlett.

It does seem a bit of an empty statement however as that degree of certainty goes something like this: "clinical trials showed really high levels of efficacy but now that the vaccines are being used in the wider population, and the virus has mutated, the efficacy is proving to be significantly lower".

I appreciate that the vaccines were brought out really quickly in a world pandemic and that the evidence shows that they significantly reduce the severity of disease and rates of tranmission and for that we are all thankful. I also appreciate that the vaccines were absolutely a priority in order to protect as many people as possible and also of course to get lives and the economy back on an even keel. However I hope that now that we are in a much better place (thanks to the vaccines) that we will now be able to explore naturally aquired immunity.

The fact is that huge numbers of people have recovered from covid and to have more information on their immune status could be vital in public health policy and the impact that in turn has on the economy and people's quality of life.

I see that the word "experimental" has come up again. It may be because I'm in the EU and not the UK but I was under the impression that all the vaccines in use are currently under "Conditional marketing authorisation".

www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/vaccines-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-authorised#authorised-covid-19-vaccines-section

Conditional marketing authorisation is explained here :

In the interest of public health, applicants may be granted a conditional marketing authorisation for such medicines on less comprehensive clinical data than normally required, where the benefit of immediate availability of the medicine outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required.

www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/marketing-authorisation/conditional-marketing-authorisation

Lots of people on this thread seem to object to laypeople using the word "experimental". Can I ask then what is the word that you think we should be using instead?

People object to the word "experimental" implies that they have not been properly tested which is not the case.

The fact that they have received "condiitional marketing authorisation" in the EU does not reflect the fact that they are waiting for studies to be completed and does not mean the vaccines are "experimental".
Btw. They have received full marketing authorisation in the US (the FDA have looked at all the data).

Don't blame you for being annoyed. But having to cover for an unvaccinated colleague self-isolating on full pay is presumably better than what may be the likely alternative: their not self-isolating, and coming in and giving Covid to all susceptible people.

Being vaccinated does reduce transmission, because it makes you less likely to get Covid in the first place, and likely to have it for a shorter time if you do get it. It doesn't absolutely prevent transmission, unfortunately. But it does reduce it.

@projuicehealth

I really worry about the current trend of the vaccinated pseudo superiority and the feeling that anyone not vaccinated are becoming an underclass. Unfortunately anyone who has chosen not to have the vaccine (still at the experimental stage) are labelled anti-vaccers, ignorant or a conspiracy theorist. These labels are not always accurate and are just encouraging just another form of discrimination and this should be avoided. I understand completely why people who have chosen not to take the vaccine lie about this rather than put up with the flack.

In what way do you feel that the vaccine is at the "experimental stage" .Do you feel that all drugs/vaccines on the market are experimental? What would make you feel that it was not "experimemtal".

I think many feel it’s experimental (to which it is as we have no idea if the vaccines shall work against new variants) and guidance keeps changing (along with understanding of the virus)

We really do not have anything to compare Covid to and that unsettles many people

Twice a year the flu vaccine is redeveloped to target the prevalent strains of flu. Nobody calls that "experimental". Why is that?

@OhWhyNot

I think many feel it’s experimental (to which it is as we have no idea if the vaccines shall work against new variants) and guidance keeps changing (along with understanding of the virus)

We really do not have anything to compare Covid to and that unsettles many people

I think people think it is "experiemental" as they read the conspiracy theories that the antivaccers put out on the internet. The internet is the main difference between these vaccines previous ones. It has nothing to do with the reality which is that there is a lot more data on the benefits and risks of covid vaccines now than just about any drug as they have been taken by millions of people around the world.

I find it bizarre that some people say they are not taking the vaccine because it is "experimental" in their opinion while at the same time are quite happy to be infected by what is arguably an "experimental" virus in that it's not similar to previous ones and we have no idea what the long-term effects will be in those who experience symptoms.

No I don’t think it’s about conspiracies for everyone

Some people are naturally very very wary

We have absolutely nothing to compare this too and that frightens many people

If the advice on having the vaccine (I was in group one and we were told well maybe you will have to have a booster) had stayed the same many more would have the vaccine

Our trust is chasing people to get their second booster the uptake is far slower. Also people have coughs/colds/infections and putting it off until they feel better (like myself) Many want the same vaccine but that isn’t guaranteed

There are many factors why people choose not to have the vaccine and we will see less and less people have the boosters

The unknown scares people far more than the known and the vaccines at present there is still too many unanswered questions for many to feel comfortable

Thanks for expanding on the whole "experimental" thing.

I think I probably would use the word for the mRNA vaccines as they use new techniques and are the first vaccines of their kind to be brought to market. That plus them having conditional marketing authorisation status in the EU - which to my mind means that they have been fast-tracked with less comprehensive data than usual. Although of course as been pointed out the situation is different in the US now.

But I see that many posters here would consider "experimental" to mean "untested" which of course these vaccines are not.

@OhWhyNot

No I don’t think it’s about conspiracies for everyone

Some people are naturally very very wary

We have absolutely nothing to compare this too and that frightens many people

If the advice on having the vaccine (I was in group one and we were told well maybe you will have to have a booster) had stayed the same many more would have the vaccine

Our trust is chasing people to get their second booster the uptake is far slower. Also people have coughs/colds/infections and putting it off until they feel better (like myself) Many want the same vaccine but that isn’t guaranteed

There are many factors why people choose not to have the vaccine and we will see less and less people have the boosters

The unknown scares people far more than the known and the vaccines at present there is still too many unanswered questions for many to feel comfortable

I don't blame people for being cautious about the vaccine. However unless they are going to lock themselves away for the next few years, they need to appreciate that it is a choice between the vaccine or the virus. Considering that the virus has killed millions of people it's bizarre that they are not more wary of that than the vaccine.