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's amazing how many experts of vaccines and viruses have suddenly come out of the wood work.

For one thing, people need to learn the difference between 'fast tracking' and 'rushed'.

And secondly, if you have no good reason to refuse the vaccine when we do get one, I expect you to continue to self-distance indefinately.

I'll go for a vaccine if and when it is offered.

You talk about building up your immune system. Vaccination is a relatively safe way of doing this. Safer than either getting the diseases or relying on others to get them.

OP can you come back on what should happen next if everyone shares your opinion and refuses the (currently hypothetical) vaccine?

indefinately

I-N-D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y

QuestionMarkNow in the normal world, things should be tested and quality reviewed. I would not put my child in an untested car seat. However, if I needed to rush my child to hospital because I was worried they were dying I would. That is the scenario we are looking at, not business as usual.

There is nothing in the Ops postings to suggest she is particularly vulnerable to vaccines- of course those Particularly vulnerable should gain protection Of the rest of society. What the Op is saying, is that she expects the rest of society to take the risk, to protect her, when she has the same risk profile as the majority of society.

Vaccines are not risk free, but there are few current indicators to suggest that herd immunity will be achieved without a vaccines and the vaccine will be rolled out if the risk from the vaccine is significantly less than the risk of the disease.

Ok so you wouldnt feel the need to put your child in a car seat if they were close to death.
You go in the taxi, tell the driver about the issue and he rushes you to the hospital. Driving at 50mph in a 30mph zone.
Is that OK? You never asked hi to do that. Hei sputting your life, your dc life and other people around life in danger. But he is doing it to save your child life.
Is that OK? Do you want a taxi driver like this or would you prefer to see stick to the speed limit?

A badly tested vaccine is like a reckless taxi driver. He might well take you to hospital still alive and well. He might well kill you and some innocent passer by in the process.

Couldn't care less if I am flamed or not by a bunch of faceless people

I am not having it either OP .

Thicko . How grown up because you don't agree with the OP .

Reported for un needed nastiness

I'm not an anti-vaxxer, quite the opposite. But, Thalidomide. Just as one example. I still remember talking to medics when the Swine Flu vaccine was rattled out at top speed and they essentially said, don't have it, it hasn't been tested properly.

So for me personally I'll take my chances with COVID-19 and take every precaution I can not to catch it or inadvertently pass it on. Though if my circumstances were different I might be taking a different approach.

Why are you banging on with this car analogy?

If you want a car analogy then getting in a fully serviced car and driving at the speed limit can be the vaccine, walking down the dual carriageway with your eyes shut is roughly the equivalent to everyone not having a vaccine.

I can't stand all this misleading scaremongering around a possible future vaccine and I think it's fucking irresponsible to post on a public forum with such misinformed, inflammatory opinions.

Thalidomide cannot be used as an example. It's a drug. A vaccine is not a drug, it's an antibody (protein) which stimulates your body's natural immune response.

At the end of the day the choice is get the vaccine or get the virus. Folks can choose - although, it may be that many will have no choice and will catch it over the coming months.

Good point. I was using it as an example of what happens when things aren't tested properly.

So the op has no returned. What a surprise

The mortality rate from covid seems to be 1-5%. Ish. Maybe more if you are in a vulnerable group. Less for kids.

So for those saying they would never have the (so far hypothetical) vaccine I'm curious. Just what mortality rate would worry them enough to have the vaccine?

Plus the mortality rate is only this low due to quarantine social distancing school and business closures

What would it be if and when we return to normal?

I will decline it. I react badly to vaccines at the best of times.

IF there is a vaccine that works I would anticipate restrictions on those who don't have it eg entry to certain countries, maybe working certain jobs if they could come into contact with those who can't have it etc

This is unprecedented and I suspect if there is a vaccine there will be done kind of stuff around it.

I am worried that it seems anti vaxxers are already starting to try and get doubt etc in social media and a vaccine is months away...

I don't think the mortality rate is expected to change. Just that the UK population is roughly 66 million. 1% of that is a lot of people.

Lockdown is trying to stop all of that 1% from dying. Or at least, trying to make sure that we get ill at a rate the NHS can cope with.

Flu vaccination programmes have not reduced the number of hospitalisations and deaths due to acute respiratory diseases. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2018787/
There is also a possibility that the flu vaccinations are increasing our susceptibility to other viruses.. www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m810/rr-0. The swineflu vaccine (Pandemrix patented in 2006 so not rushed in during the pandemic) was found to cause narcolepsy in 1 in 55,000 cases and this vaccine was subsequently removed from use in the UK in 2011.
www.narcolepsy.org.uk/resources/pandemrix-narcolepsy. The H1N1 vaccines since then have been different formulations.

There are questions about vaccine safety that are asked during development, testing and in post production use. The fact that we are in crisis makes the process of ensuring these questions are asked and that manufacturers are held to strict guidelines and review even more important, not less important.

If you react badly to vaccines you should not take it. It should be taken by those who do not usually react badly. That is what should happen in a civilised society. A weakness should be covered by the strength of others - providing herd immunity.

I only object to those, who have no medical weakness, expecting others to burden the risks - and yes there will be risks, probably more risks than from a well tested flu vaccine.

We either take no vaccine and let corvid kill off a portion of the population, even if we suppress the rate of infection, or we mass vaccinate the population.

Surely, if the mass vaccination kills fewer than corvid that is the way to go. There are no unicorns and no magic wand to make the nasties go away with no risk at all!

You do you hun. I mean when a vaccine emerges there will be a global demand for it, so chances are unless you’re in a higher risk group you won’t be offered one anyway. It’s probably naive to think you’d have the luxury of deciding whether to have it or not. I’ll take your place in the queue though.

I agree Witchlight I'm staggered by the short sightedness of some vehemently anti vaccine posters.

It's frustrating when any valid arguments are met with blanket statements such as ooh I don't trust the government, I wouldn't get in a unsafe car, therefore I would never in a million years want a vaccine. I mean what the fuck? It's impossible to have a rational discussion.

None of this is helped by sensationalist headlines in the press.

I honestly think some people believe Boris will pop up on the tv in 3 weeks saying Good news, the virus has gone now. Everyone return to normal.

With the anti vaxx threads in the past I've asked about smallpox, polio, rubella etc

Answer often seems to be that those are in a different category for some reason...

It seems to boil down to individual risk assessment of how much benefit to them Vs perceived risk. Humans are notoriously bad at assessing risk. So when is something the person doesn't perceive as particularly 'bad' eg mumps, and has over estimated the risks, they say no why would I?

Thing is the whole thing only works with mass takeup. Which is why there have been outbreaks of measles around the world.

I do wonder why vaccines get such a focus. The stuff about telling people in certain countries that vaccines have been created by to sterilise them, it's an attack on their population. What's the motivation with that sort of thing?

I don't understand the mindset at all, so it's difficult.