No vaccine please

[Scienceisgreat76]

I have decided not to have the vaccine for coronavirus when it is rolled out. I don’t trust the government and will not be used as a pilot. It seems this will be a rushed vaccine (tested-yes) but we will not know the long term side effects until years down the line. I will politely decline the vaccine until I feel fully informed. Anyone else declining it?

It occurs to me that if the anti vaxx scaremongering is starting now, with a vaccine estimated 12 to 18 months away, they will have had a long time to put the fear of God into everyone

At which point, for the UK and other countries around the world where this has all got traction, there's little point in funding a vaccine. We might as well spend the money on some PPE and leave more sensible countries to research and protect themselves.

My DM actually had Guillain Barre Syndrome and was advised never to have the flu jab or any vaccinations again. GBS is an appalling condition. Absolutely terrifying. Luckily for us my DM's case was not one of the more severe ones.

However, although we will take advice she may well have the Covid vaccine if it appears. In an ideal world people like her at raised risk would not have to but if a significant number are not complying then she will, and she might in any case. The risk of a major autoimmune and GBS type reaction may well be higher from the disease than from the vaccine, so unless herd immunity through vaccination is well advanced it may make sense to have it.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/52310194#
please read this op the number of rumours & trolls & political based comments are rampant

@ EYProvider - The swine flu vaccine was developed and administered within a few months and it eradicated the disease. No reason to believe that this won’t be the same.

And because of the accelerated introduction of the swine flu vaccine, it did not have have same level of testing as normal vaccines. This resulted in some people getting narcolepsy.

I do understand the argument that no vaccine testing regime will pick up on 1 in a million complications. However, surely a hastily introduced vaccine could have a relatively high level of medium/long term complications which would be picked up in vaccines developed over 10 years but not a vaccine developed over 12 months...?

(Happy to be corrected by anyone who knows about vaccine development!)

It’s. Not. Being. Hastily. Produced.

All vaccine could be made this quickly if the resources of the state and private philanthropists were solely focussed on this.

Also remember all OTHER vaccine trials are currently on hold for this.

So to repeat. It’s. Not. Being. Rushed. It will go through the same regulatory vaccine process as all others.

Meanwhile. Here’s another thought. The Oxford group for instance. Can they make a billion copies of their vaccine for the world? Of course not. They don’t have the manufacturing capacity for it. Of the 78 trials happening around the world maybe 5-6 will produce a commercially realistic vaccine.

That Oxford vaccine, if it works, will be made in a small batch for U.K. healthcare workers.

Big pharmaceutical companies can make 500-600 million doses of say, the flu vaccine in about 2 months. So for a full roll out where it makes its way to you it might well be six months from when the vaccine is tested and produced.

The reality is that like all other medicines, we will probably need more than one vaccine manufacturer to supply the world quickly.

I am certainly not anti vaccine and as an asthmatic will likely be offered the vaccine earlier than most but I must admit to having concerns about a vaccine that will surely undergo the minimum testing period possible. Something that seems safe over a period of 6 months could still end up having catastrophic health implications 5-10 years down the line, surely it’s fair enough to have concerns about this?

tell me how many see it then. If they don't see it as being for the benefit of the community.

The people I've spoken to (not online forums), but people either face to face (observing 2m of course) and work colleagues certainly don't see it as having been put in place for our benefit.

They are seeing it as I always have. This has been done to stop the NHS being anymore overwhelmed than it has been already. If it had been properly funded over the years and could have coped, the government wouldn't have worried about protecting us at all, why would they. I'm under no illusion that they care about me or anyone else to be honest.

Yes, you can say that as a result of this we have been safer, but it wasn't done strictly for our benefit.

That all seems a bit wordy, Hope I've explained my thinking ok, I've tried to explain it while dicking around with a non-sucking Dyson, hmmm first world problems!!

Assuming that the NHS would be overwhelmed with SICK PEOPLE.

I am interested in your use of the word "us".

Does that specifically exclude the aged and otherwise vulnerable?

Of course the vaccine would protect people who would otherwise have become seriously ill.

It is a shame that the virus doesn't target stupid people. I had no idea there were so many.

The NHS is socialised medicine - which is The Community. If you think it isn't, you need to do some more research.
Don't you realise that it is for all of us?

I'll be pushing my way to the front of the queue saving myself from a potential KILLER.

I'm classed as extremely vulnerable. I will probably have to wait for a vaccine before I can live normally again. I've left my town centre little house and am currently living out in the country with my parents, 91 and 92. C19 will probably kill all three of us if we catch it.

I would be massively relieved if a vaccine became available. And I've no time for conspiracy theories.

Wouldn’t have it in a million years. Having nightmares that they may impose forced vaccination for this. Gross.

Wouldn't have it in a million years

If you think you can justify this then presumably you think no one should have a vaccine then? You want people to agree you are right?
If so how do you think this pandemic should be resolved? There are 2 options; stay inside forever to protect people or let this virus cull vast swathes of the population in an horrific survival of the fittest scenario.

Think about the implications of what you're advocating.

As with regards to making the vaccine mandatory. That won't happen. However, there are numerous nurseries and primary schools particularly in London that will refuse children a place if they haven't received an MMR vaccine now.
I agree with their stance.
I.e it's the parent's right to have a choice but they cannot inflict their choice on others.

This resulted in some people getting narcolepsy.
But there was a large increase in narcolepsy anyway in countries where they didnt vaccinate but had swine flu epidemics. so the vaccine may have reduced the numbers anyway.

Perhaps everyone who "wants to boost my immune system naturally" could hold "COVID Parties" in their homes?!!

They could invite all their loved ones from new born babies to the elderly round and have someone who has COVID-19 go round and cough on them all and lick their faces!

There will be cake (if you can get the flour/ eggs etc by then) and lovely sarnies and jelly and ice cream! Maybe even a BBQ where you could invite the neighbours over!

And party games! You have to have party games!!

Pass the germ infested parcel!!

Musical "who gets to sit next to the ill person" chairs!

Pin the tail on the person who you think will succumb and die first!!

A pinata filled with used infected tissues that will shower down on their happy upturned faces!!

Everyone can sleep over in body bags to add to the fun factor!

No vaccine for our household, we had the swine flu one, very ill with it. Everyone makes their own choices and needs to live with the outcome.

@OchonAgusOchonO - Well, that’s true, but it was only in a tiny minority of cases.

Unfortunately, there will always be a tiny minority which reacts badly to a vaccine. That’s bad luck, but we have to consider the other 99% of the population or we are all stuffed basically.

@SmileyClare makes a very good point. If everyone agrees with you OP, and no one has the vaccine if it arrives, would you be relieved or concerned?

Also why do you say you have decided not to have, rather than that you will be assessing the risks once you know more about it? We may not get one for years...how short a time is too short for you?

I’m not having the vaccine. I’ve had covid-19 and fortunately it wasn’t that bad.

I don' blame you, Science. I would be dubious about it too, it's so new and I am 'elderly' so would prefer not to risk.

@ EYProvider - Unfortunately, there will always be a tiny minority which reacts badly to a vaccine. That’s bad luck, but we have to consider the other 99% of the population or we are all stuffed basically.

That is true. However, my preference is to make an informed decision, which is difficult to do when longitudinal data is not available.

I’m not concerned about getting Coronavirus at all. But I would really like this to be over ASAP. My only concern is that there may be issues given the concerns over past coronavirus vaccines. I had the swine flu vaccine when it came out though without issue so I wouldn’t be that concerned about it if it was a legal requirement to have it in order to work or something. But I feel too uncomfortable about giving a new vaccine to my children.

rosiepony It's not known how long your natural immune response to c19 will last. Antibodies can degrade (become less effective) over time. This is why some immunisations are topped up by booster vaccinations or given yearly. Viruses can also mutate so the vaccination is adapted according to prevalent strains and given annually (e.g. flu vaccine).