If you don’t believe we need tighter restrictions now, will you vaccinate yourself and your kids?

[Dominicgoings]

Just that really.
Based on a FB comment from a covid conspiracy family member. Who will, apparently be living her best ( normal) life because the vaccine will be ready in six months.

Is this a unique thought process?

I don’t believe in any restrictions and no I won’t have the vaccine or will my children. We have to get the virus for it to go away and if you are healthy you will be fine. The vulnerable need to shield while the rest of us get it

My family are in no way at risk from this virus. I would not vaccinate my children or myself.

I am sure there are more people who would need it ahead of us.

The vaccine won’t be added to the children immunisation programme, they’ve already said that as it isn’t necessary. Neither is vaccinating people with almost no risk of serious infection. Remember the average age of death from Covid is 82 and only 307 people under 60 with no preexisting conditions died. They don’t vaccinate everyone for the flu either, just those most at risk. This will be similar. That’s provided we have an effective vaccine.

The problem is though, vaccines tend to be less effective in the elderly (which is why 1000’s of people die from the flu every year despite a vaccine programme). In order to truly protect the elderly and vulnerable, younger and less vulnerable people need to be vaccinated to protect them. The question is whether many young, healthy people will choose to have the vaccine when they are at little risk from Covid itself.

Yes, because although there’s minimal risk of death for anyone in my family I still don’t fancy them getting the long term side effects from having had the virus.

The vaccine will be given to the elderly and most vulnerable first anyway it will be a hell of a long time before anyone younger or without vulnerabilities will even be considered for a vaccine. There's a long time to decide if the vaccine is worth having and more information known about any side effects and the effectiveness of the vaccine. Its a bit silly to make that decision either way now.

Concerned Has made the point I was about to. Your precious selves won’t be first in line and Hancock has already said it will not be added to the childhood programme.

@Concerned7777

The vaccine will be given to the elderly and most vulnerable first anyway it will be a hell of a long time before anyone younger or without vulnerabilities will even be considered for a vaccine. There's a long time to decide if the vaccine is worth having and more information known about any side effects and the effectiveness of the vaccine. Its a bit silly to make that decision either way now.

Unless you pay for if

My question is why would you even consider a vaccine if you don’t believe COVID to be serious?

I wouldn't let my kids have due to concerns about side effects from the vaccine and the fact that covid doesnt seem to affect kids much.
Re myself I wouldn't be first in line for it due to potential side effects. I'd wait between 6-12 months.
I'm not one of those who thinks covid is not serious.

unless you pay for it
Ahh yes no doubt it will be a cronie of the Tory party that gets the vaccine contract who will no doubt make extra millions on those who are desperate to get vaccinated ASAP

I am immune suppressed and was on the initial shielding list in March. I would not have the vaccine, or let me children have it.
I’m in no way an anti-Baxter, but I trust my lowered immune system much more than I trust a rushed through race against time vaccine

I suppose it's the unknown. I don't consider chickenpox to be serious although it may be. I'm considering the vaccine for that of youngest doesn't get it before school.

I don't consider COVID is serious in the majority of cases so I wouldn't get a vaccine early on this depriving someone else of the chance to have it. I wouldn't be eligible anyway so it's a moot point.

I don't believe otherwise healthy people should be allowed to pay for it if and when there is one thus depriving someone else who may need it more. It would be case dependent.

@Dominicgoings

My question is why would you even consider a vaccine if you don’t believe COVID to be serious?

I don’t think Covid is serious for me, so I wouldn’t have a vaccine for me. If I was asked to have a vaccine to help provide hers immunity for those vulnerable then yes I would. You seem to be targeting those who want no extra restrictions at all but you think would be first in line for a vaccine... are there many of these around? That’s very black and white on both sides.

My question is why would you even consider a vaccine if you don’t believe COVID to be serious?

I believe Covid to be serious for some high risk groups, but no one in my household falls into that category. We'll have the vaccine when it's generally available (why not) but others will and should get it first.

I think restrictions have gone too far but yes I’d have it in the same way I’d have the flu vaccine to protect the wider population if needed, and am planning to have the flu vaccine this winter despite not being in an at risk group at all.

People are incredibly selfish and short sighted. The whole, it's doesn't affect me attitude ... until it does of course.

It doesn't look like we get any long term immunity from getting the virus, so getting it isn't going to help in the long term. Some people get antibodies but they seem to decrease over time. So even if vaccinations were rolled out, it's possible we would need a yearly knee like the flu one.

The reality is that while it may not affect a young healthy family, the young healthy family will come in contact with others who are not young and healthy and will out those people at risk.

There so a lot more at stake here than just lives lost as a direct result of the virus. For example, if we don't prevent the virus spreading now, then we will have difficulty containing it later. The more people who are affected the more likely it is to infect those more at risk and then lead to hospitalisation.

If that happens, which it looks very likely like it will from all the evidence we have seen then the NHS means it once again pours it's resources into that.

Now, what that means for the young healthy family is. If they have a car accident or one of the children fall from the trampoline or whatever accident or emergency befalls them over the next 6 months and beyond, than they are likely to not get the same care or adequate care because the NHS is already having to deal with this influx of cases.

Someone finds lump, skin mole, or generally needs a scan, has a baby or wants to change contraception but now these are impacted by the NHS being already under pressure and running limited resources.

We may not be impacted by COVID directly, but millions of people will be impacted indirectly by COVID if this doesn't get contained.

I have been refereed to the NHS for a urgent scan which was sent back to the GP due to limited resources, who resent it but said I'll have to wait 8 weeks even for urgent (I'm on week 5 for that). I have also been referred under the 2 week referral and I'm now on week three for that. I don't have COVID, I'm chances are it's not cancer, but if it was my outcomes are worse by every week I wait.

It's all our lives that are at risk if this thing is not contained.

@Skyla2005

I don’t believe in any restrictions and no I won’t have the vaccine or will my children. We have to get the virus for it to go away and if you are healthy you will be fine. The vulnerable need to shield while the rest of us get it

It's not true that we have to get the virus for it to 'go away'. I suppose you got that from an anti-vaxxer site.

If enough people are vaccinated than there's no way for it to spread so it makes sense for all or most to be vaccinated.

Well the health secretary doesn’t agree, he’s already said it won’t be added to the childhood immunisation programme

@MillyMollyFarmer

The vaccine won’t be added to the children immunisation programme, they’ve already said that as it isn’t necessary. Neither is vaccinating people with almost no risk of serious infection. Remember the average age of death from Covid is 82 and only 307 people under 60 with no preexisting conditions died. They don’t vaccinate everyone for the flu either, just those most at risk. This will be similar. That’s provided we have an effective vaccine.

The government are assuming that "a huge proportion of the population are going to take this up because of the obvious benefits to individuals and their families and their communities and indeed the whole nation"

The idea is to vaccinate as near everyone as possible. That way it can't spread.

This is not the flu.

They are assuming that people want to be able to go out normally, to see friends, to work and run their businesses. As of now they have made no provision for people who don't want any of that.

The idea is to vaccinate as near everyone as possible

Is it? Where did they say this? As Hancock has specifically said that’s not the approach planned. This isn’t like other diseases, smallpox, polio etc it shouldn’t be treated that way.

They certainly don’t have the money or capacity to vaccinate most of the population. It’s frankly absurd to suggest thats the aim.

I would prefer not to get it for my children. I very much wish I'd got the TB vaccine for the first when offered it in hospital (but it seemed a bit mean on his first day of life!) and am pro-vaccination. But the small but real risk of a new vaccine would only be worth it to me with an illness with a significant mortality rate among healthy children. I have nightmares about people forgetting to get the MMR because of covid. I would get it if the government requested it.

I would get it for myself but only after being assured that it had been tried out on people who had already had covid. I'm sure it will be, in hospitals, but perhaps something would need to be adjusted. Would they do a test like the Heaf test first to see if the antibodies were still there? (I didn't have a BCG because I apparently had antibodies, though am not sure if they will have waned now.)

@MillyMollyFarmer

The vaccine won’t be added to the children immunisation programme, they’ve already said that as it isn’t necessary. Neither is vaccinating people with almost no risk of serious infection. Remember the average age of death from Covid is 82 and only 307 people under 60 with no preexisting conditions died. They don’t vaccinate everyone for the flu either, just those most at risk. This will be similar. That’s provided we have an effective vaccine.

.... Why exclude the vulnerable under 60s from the death stats ?

People with what are defined as "underlying conditions" include:
autism, LDs, high BP, COPD, T1, BMI > 40 ....

it comes to a significant number of the population

They are in work, or at school or college, are raising families

Most would normally have decades of life expectancy

@MillyMollyFarmer

They certainly don’t have the money or capacity to vaccinate most of the population. It’s frankly absurd to suggest thats the aim.

.... There are universal vacination programs for some diseases in developing countries - and wealthier countries inlcuding the UK have pledged money to vaccinate for COVID in those countries too

So why would the UK not vaccinate its own people (if they want) ?

The amount of money required for a vaccination program is trivial as a % of government spending on Covid so far,
to say nothing of the money saved if we can abandon most SD measures and get back to normal

The annual flu jab is offered to about 25 million as a standard part of public health precautions
and about 15 million take up the offer.
There is no problem funding a vaccination program