So the vaccine is going to be compulsory then?

[Gigheimer]

There was a thread ages ago about the fact people were being tin foil hat about a vaccine being compulsory.

Latest news out they are considering “vaccine passports”, which lets face it, on our news cycle throughout this entire thing it’s been ... prepare them gently with maybes, odd leak here or there, test the messaging, oh look the guesses were right

So no one is going to pin anyone down and spear them, but it’s basically the same thing. If you can’t enter a shop/leisure/work place domestically without a vaccine. It’s fucking compulsory.

Where did free will go? Where did vaccine uptake because we have trust go? I’m not anti-vaccine, had them all, even TB. But this isn’t on I terms of civil liberties. Does no one else feel concern at a general use of this crisis into nanny state?

it should not be compulsory. The unvaccinated may not be allowed to do certain other things. Choices have consequences.

“ people who choose not to have the vaccine are going to have a major impact on everyone else’s lives. ”

Why? If you’ve been vaccinated, it won’t impact you.

@Pinkroses87 What about if you have immunity from natural infection?

@Sakura7

Perhaps shops can stop gay people coming in in case they have Aids

You really can't see a difference here? Or do you actually believe you can get Aids by simply being in close proximity to someone?

Burpeesshmurpees

My point is that a lot of bollocks is being spouted as per usual on these threads. We are not about to enter a dystopian world where all the over 50s swan around while the under 50s aren't allowed to go to MacDonalds because they haven't had the vaccine.

I think it would be great if MN can host a proper vaccine information thread. Where people in the know, has expertise can educate us and have genuine debate. Not a thread like this, full of scaremongering started by a poster with skewed view.

Gah quote fail!

@ShrikeAttack

There's a massive difference between 'mandatory anti-vaxxer conspiracist' and;

'You cannot participate in life if you don't'

I'm pretty sure it's against international law to be forced to take medication. I'd be very interested in a case-law regarding an individual and their right to participate in life without a C19 vaccine.

I'm mot a conspiracist at all, I do fight back against ownership 'creep' all the time. I fought against abortion rights as a young woman, and I've unregistered myself as a donor, just because presumed consent became law.

I think it's very important to recognise ourselves as individuals. It's always informed my politics. People matter. Individuals matter. You matter.

I may be wrong on this, but isn't there somewhere that won't allow children in nursery or school without their vaccinations? (with exemptions, obvs)

@AngelicaSchuylerAndHerSisters

The only way diseases can be eradicated is by mass vaccinations. My friend’s teenage son caught mumps a few years ago despite having the MMR. His GP told them that there are more cases now because not everyone vaccinates their children. Luckily he was okay. COVID is not like Chicken Pox which is low risk so therefore not vaccinated against. This awful infection kills people.

My daughter caught the measles. Due to a huge influx of people not vaccinating. Back in 2013 ish.

Fortunelty she’d had the measles vaccine. So wasn’t too poorly. But it was eradicated.

@pastandpresent

I think it would be great if MN can host a proper vaccine information thread. Where people in the know, has expertise can educate us and have genuine debate. Not a thread like this, full of scaremongering started by a poster with skewed view.

The trouble with that is there are a lot of dunning kruger types who claim to have done their research but dont know the difference between bad information and good information

@AldiAisleofCrap

Good, if you are to selfish to protect the vulnerable who can’t be vaccinated, then I am not going to lose sleep if you can’t go on holiday or to your local pub.

And if I suffer from vaccine damage, will you be happy for your taxes to support me? No, I didn't think so.

Any parent of a child with SN will say how hard they have to fight to get any sort of support.

And don't tell me vaccines are 100% safe - the existence of vaccine damage legislation is evidence that they are not. Vaccination is down to economics, it's cheaper to prevent illness than treat it. Fair enough. But calling people who don't want it "selfish" is a very weak argument as there is no social contract.

Why should this vaccine effectively be mandatory when no other vaccine is (I don't count things like yellow fever as I can choose not to travel to the countries that require it, there is a massive choice of other places to visit).

It will go the way it’s gone in France with compulsory vaccinations, where you can find gps who will issue a prescription for the vaccine, have you go buy it, chuck it in the bin and sign your passport...everyone in the anti vaxx movement will know who they are.

Shoot themselves in the foot, as then they don’t know what the real immunisation rate is.

The problem is that people are talking about the vaccine assuming it's safe and effective.

The fact is that we just don't know this yet. I know the vaccine has had a lot of investment thrown at it, so the normal testing procedures have been followed up to this point. That's fine.

But what hasn't been followed is the possibility of any long term effect, bar a couple of months post-vaccine. That is what I would like to see some evidence of before I take the vaccine.

It's about risk analysis. I have had covid, and while not pleasant, it was never a serious illness for me. So on a personal level - putting everything else aside for a moment - I would not want nor need a vaccine. My 80yo grandad however was very very poorly in hospital, and is lucky to be here today. He will be first in line for the vaccine - because the potential danger from another bout of covid is higher than whatever dangers the vaccine could bring.

By all means allow each individual to decide whether they feel the vaccine is a worthwhile thing for them. I think we all agree that the vulnerable must be vaccinated, if they choose to be.

However, those who are not vulnerable should never be forced into taking a vaccine. It might not be law that we must have it, but by putting rules in place to mean we can't go to certain places - even places you can go currently with no vaccine! - that becomes coercion, which isn't much better than writing it into law. Because obviously nobody wants to live like we are now forever. I'm not even bothered about pubs or restaurants or travelling, but I do need to work, and I do need to go to the supermarket.

You cannot and should not put so much pressure on people to accept a vaccine that has no long term research for the sake of an illness that has such a low death rate, and such a high rate of mild cases.

You just can't.

COVID is not like Chicken Pox which is low risk so therefore not vaccinated against. This awful infection kills people

Until covid came along everyone on MN was petrified of chicken pox and constantly moaning about the NHS not vaccinating against it.

But not everyone wants to be vaccinated against a disease that is low risk for them

Can you not see this is a selfish attitude? Some vulnerable people in our society cannot have a vaccine, for example
a new born, immunocompromised person, someone having cancer treatment or an autoimmune disease. It is socially responsible to protect those people by creating herd immunity don't you think?

I think most anti vaxxers have the luxury of refusing vaccines because they are protected by the herd of socially responsible people who are vaccinated.

It is very fortunate that the majority of people won't refuse the vaccine. We'd be fucked.

o no one is going to pin anyone down and spear them, but it’s basically the same thing. If you can’t enter a shop/leisure/work place domestically without a vaccine. It’s fucking compulsory

It's not the same thing and its not fucking compulsory. If you don't want to protect yourself from this disease you can choose not to. But you can't then choose to roam around putting others in danger.

I’m amazed how quickly people are demanding exclusion from society for the unvaccinated.

No one has had the vaccine yet, the vaccines are so new they don’t even know how long they are effective for! It’s bonkers to demand vaccine passports when there is no evidence yet for how each manufacturers vaccine will work in the medium term, simply because not enough time has elapsed for the government and pharma companies to know with any certainty.

But sure let’s exclude everyone who wants more information first.

If people really want proof of vaccine to enter airports, public transport, large events, shops etc why don’t we go the whole hog and “chip” people just scan your shoulder or wrist when you go in. Far quicker and easier than faffing around with e-passports, QR codes, smart phones etc. They could probably make arches that would set off an alarm and red flashing lights so everyone would know an unvaccinated person is trying to gain entry. I’d be curious to know how many people would support that?

No thanks.

People against having this vaccine never seem to be able to come up with an alternative plan. Rolling lockdowns forever?

Unfortunately we are living in a time that had had a pandemic. We are now having to face a choice that generations before us didn’t have to make- have a vaccine and take a tiny chance of vaccine injury or don’t take that tiny chance and continue to have some restrictions placed on where we can go. No it’s not fair but thats what life has thrown at us.

@pastandpresent

I think it would be great if MN can host a proper vaccine information thread. Where people in the know, has expertise can educate us and have genuine debate. Not a thread like this, full of scaremongering started by a poster with skewed view.

I don’t think it’s a skewed view. I think the point is valid.

It doesn’t matter if the vaccine is perfectly harmless - which it probably is, the point is we shouldn’t be forced in to having it. And stopping people travelling or going in to shops unless they have a vaccine stamp is forcing people to have it. People travel for work this isn’t just about going to Spain on holiday for a week. As adults we should be able to choose what goes in to our bodies with out our civil liberties being taken.

We also have to be carful that if one poster doesn’t like the view of another poster that they demand the site to be an echo chamber.

We were told at the start of this vaccine stamps would never come in to effect but now we see they actually might. That rightly worries people.

I think it would be great if MN can host a proper vaccine information thread. Where people in the know, has expertise can educate us and have genuine debate. Not a thread like this, full of scaremongering started by a poster with skewed view.

Yes, this ^

Why? If you’ve been vaccinated, it won’t impact you

Unvaccinated people do impact others, even those who have been vaccinated.

No vaccine has 100% efficacy so not everyone vaccinated will gain immunity from it, something they won't know unless they have an antibody test or they catch the disease in question. As an example, I don't assimilate the rubella vaccine and have had it multiple times without developing antibodies. Unvaccinated people could pass covid to these people.

Everyone unvaccinated is a disease vector and the more disease vectors you have, the more it is transmitted, and increased transmission increases the risk of mutation at which point the vaccine is rendered less effective or - worst case scenario - completely ineffective. Obviously some people cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons and that can't be helped and this create a limited number of disease vectors, people not vaccinating for non-medical reasons increases this number.

@SmileyClare

But not everyone wants to be vaccinated against a disease that is low risk for them

Can you not see this is a selfish attitude? Some vulnerable people in our society cannot have a vaccine, for example
a new born, immunocompromised person, someone having cancer treatment or an autoimmune disease. It is socially responsible to protect those people by creating herd immunity don't you think?

I think most anti vaxxers have the luxury of refusing vaccines because they are protected by the herd of socially responsible people who are vaccinated.

It is very fortunate that the majority of people won't refuse the vaccine. We'd be fucked.

But protect them at what cost, exactly? I don't think anyone is stating they will never have the vaccine, only that they would like more information about it before having it injected into their body.

I don't think that's too much to ask.

For all we know the vaccine could cause cancer to start growing after a few months. And then where will the NHS be? That's just an example, but the point is that we need accurate information so we can make an informed decision.

People against having this vaccine never seem to be able to come up with an alternative plan. Rolling lockdowns forever?

Oh, they do! Their plan is for everyone else to develop immunity, so they can benefit from it but without taking any responsibility themselves!

@LindaEllen

The problem is that people are talking about the vaccine assuming it's safe and effective.

The fact is that we just don't know this yet. I know the vaccine has had a lot of investment thrown at it, so the normal testing procedures have been followed up to this point. That's fine.

But what hasn't been followed is the possibility of any long term effect, bar a couple of months post-vaccine. That is what I would like to see some evidence of before I take the vaccine.

It's about risk analysis. I have had covid, and while not pleasant, it was never a serious illness for me. So on a personal level - putting everything else aside for a moment - I would not want nor need a vaccine. My 80yo grandad however was very very poorly in hospital, and is lucky to be here today. He will be first in line for the vaccine - because the potential danger from another bout of covid is higher than whatever dangers the vaccine could bring.

By all means allow each individual to decide whether they feel the vaccine is a worthwhile thing for them. I think we all agree that the vulnerable must be vaccinated, if they choose to be.

However, those who are not vulnerable should never be forced into taking a vaccine. It might not be law that we must have it, but by putting rules in place to mean we can't go to certain places - even places you can go currently with no vaccine! - that becomes coercion, which isn't much better than writing it into law. Because obviously nobody wants to live like we are now forever. I'm not even bothered about pubs or restaurants or travelling, but I do need to work, and I do need to go to the supermarket.

You cannot and should not put so much pressure on people to accept a vaccine that has no long term research for the sake of an illness that has such a low death rate, and such a high rate of mild cases.

You just can't.

So what are you actually proposing? 3 years, 5 years before we would have a mass vaccination programme? I’d genuinely like to understand how you see things panning out in the meantime.

I think it is a really difficult ethical issue.

I imagine international travel will be impossible without a vaccine for years. How many years will depend on whether this virus is eradicated, mostly eradicated, treatment improves etc etc. It may be only in certain areas - for example, yellow fever vaccine certs only have to be shown now when travelling from certain countries.

I'm still not 100% sure how I feel about that but I think its ok, for most people international travel is a choice. It will limit some people from taking some jobs, I'll be interested in how it affects people already in jobs which require international travel who are unable to get the vaccine for their own health reasons: will it be acceptable to fire them?

But the point about needing the vaccine to return to the office or get local public transport I think is very problematic, and I think its very unlikely that will happen. Requiring masks, fair enough, but limiting people's ability to engage in society to that level is not acceptable.

I am pretty sure I've already had covid, and I'm ttc. I would happily take the vaccine tomorrow if it was available, but probably not while pregnant (I doubt it will be allowed): I'm pretty sure I'd take it while breastfeeding but I understand why some people might not without further evidence. So if that ends up being a two year period I'm unable to have the vaccine, would it really be acceptable for me to never be allowed to get on a bus? Or to return to work? Also, I'd be curious about the interaction between already having had the virus, having the vaccine, and either pregnancy or breastfeeding. We know the flu vaccine is safe for pregnant women, maybe this will be too, but I understand why people with risk factors for vaccines and low risk factors for COVID would be wary until there's more evidence. I've been pregnant or breastfeeding for nearly 3 years now and in that time I haven't been able to have sudafed, I've had very basic OTC medication refused to me. Throwing all that caution out the window for the greater good seems mad. There are lots of scenarios where being cautious is far from anti-vax, personally I used to travel extensively in the developing world and at this stage I think I've had almost every vaccine on offer, but good public health modelling does not involve what the OP is describing.

But equally, I think its a fairly outlandish scenario, I'm more concerned by the number of people on the thread defending it.

People travel for work this isn’t just about going to Spain on holiday for a week. As adults we should be able to choose what goes in to our bodies with out our civil liberties being taken.
My dd couldnt work in a US summer camp without proof of either vaccination or infection. This included chicken pox and spent a fortune an vaccines and titre test before she went.

For all we know the vaccine could cause cancer to start growing after a few months. And then where will the NHS be? That's just an example, but the point is that we need accurate information so we can make an informed decision

A totally inaccurate and unfounded example. No vaccine has ever caused "cancer to grow a few months later".