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?

I said in my last post I don't know anyone who died or got seriously ill from covid..but I also don't know anyone personally who even tested positive for it! I know quite a few who got tested and were negative. That must mean that either I don't know any adults at all who had it.......or that the ones I did know that had it didn't know themselves and were asymptomatic.

You either live somewhere where are not many cases or everyone you know works at home . . I know a lot of people who have tested positive. Some had mild symptoms but one person died (although they were elderly), three men in their 40s were hospitalised, and a 20 year old who while not hospitalised was very ill for a couple of weeks.

@NooNooHead1981

Sorry not RTFT but I am choosing to probably not have the vaccine because it could possibly make my involuntary neurological movement disorder worse... Is that a valid reason enough not to?

Sounds like it. Sorry you can't have it. Hopefully it helps to know you're doing your bit for the country - by freeing up a space in the very long queue for the vaccine.

I know quite a few who got tested and were negative
Experts estimate that nearly 30% of tests are false negatives.

@MyPersona So you have a problem with the idea of protecting the more vulnerable, in the absence of a vaccine, while the people for whom cv is less risky get infected thereby reducing the susceptible population and moving towards herd immunity? Now that we do have a vaccine, you think we shouldn’t vaccinate the more vulnerable first because it isn’t 100% effective anyway? Riiight.

Also, I don’t object to the vaccine. Nor have I said anything against its safety so I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make here at all. I just don’t think it should be compulsory.

@bumbleymummy

Are you kidding? We’ve locked down the country to different degrees several times now to help protect the vulnerable and stop the nhs from being overwhelmed. That’s hardly treating them as expendable

No. We locked down to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. And to try to save the economy. We all know that the countries who've taken effective containment measures now have healthier economies. Economic experts, including those at Deutsche Bank, have explained that there's a difference between short-term and long-term economic development.

The vulnerable were clearly not protected. As demonstrated by our very high death rate, the discharge of Covid positive patients to care homes, and the failure to include diabetes and hypertension on the shielding list.

The most vulnerable are often unable to be intubated. The NHS was being protected for the sake of younger healthier people. Many didn't die but needed hospitalisation. Something they wouldn't have accessed (and therefore might've died) if beds were full and staff off sick.

Also, people can deny or downplay all they like, but Long Covid is a thing. A very concerning one. It will affect the economy as much as individual health.

There will be no businesses, airlines or countries etc after this who will be able to afford to turn people away due to not having the vaccine.

I shudder to think what might have happened if social media had been around then 'the government can't control me, I'll have unprotected sex if I want, these scientists know nothing

Or we would have had a lockdown based on the 1985 assumption that you could catch HIV?AIDS off a toilet seat or a knife and fork, spoon, cup, glass, chair etc.............

@Scbchl

There will be no businesses, airlines or countries etc after this who will be able to afford to turn people away due to not having the vaccine.

Thanks for the laugh 🤣

There are plenty of Covid safe countries pretty much ready to open their borders to each other.

They don't need Brits full stop, and they certainly don't need vaccine refusers.

There's a very long queue for the vaccines. Huge demand. Yes companies absolutely can afford to turn away the minority who choose not to vaccinate.

Far more of an issue than anti vaxxers is the (initial) short supply. For the time being, anti vaxxers are doing everybody else a favour.

@SheepandCow

Far more of an issue than anti vaxxers is the (initial) short supply. For the time being, anti vaxxers are doing everybody else a favour.

Good point. What annoys me is the fact that some of them will be turning up a year from now in A&E needing a bed and supplemental oxygen.

Yes longer-term they might put pressure on the NHS. Also some will possibly end up long-term sick on disability benefits with Long Covid. But, seeing as they're a minority, and the time when everybody can have one is a long way off, I don't think it's a huge concern. As long as the majority gets vaccinated (and most do want it) there should be reasonable herd immunity.

"Sorry to disappoint OP. The jackboots and facism is already here. Have a look through all the posts from the last 9 months writing off the lives of the elderly and disabled aka The Vulnerable aka The Others. That's the MO of far right fascists. Viewing vulnerable people as expendable. Sickening isn't it."

What's really sickening is allowing them to die in large numbers in nursing homes because their greater vulnerability wasn't properly considered in the rush to protect those not at great risk.

The use of the word vulnerable to discuss the old and sick in relation to Covid is to acknowledge statistical reality and only a food and a bigot would believe this means those using the word universally think those people are expendable.

In reality, having had a quack at the hospital pressure me into agreeing to a non resuscitation order for my father simply because he was in his 80s and in frail health I get the impression that many in the NHS view the old and sick as expendable and not worth the effort of saving.

"No. We locked down to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. And to try to save the economy. We all know that the countries who've taken effective containment measures now have healthier economies. Economic experts, including those at Deutsche Bank, have explained that there's a difference between short-term and long-term economic development."

They're very clever experts if they can explain how shutting down the economy for the best part of a year won't significantly harm that economy regardless of the number of lives it may or may not save.

I am not an anti vaxxer but I have reservations about the covid vaccine.

It feels like it is being rushed.

I don't see why I should be shouted down and made to feel like I am killing the vulnerable because I have concerns about taking something that I don't know what the long term affects are. In a few years if it is proven to be safe then I will be more than willing to get the covid vaccine.

In reality, having had a quack at the hospital pressure me into agreeing to a non resuscitation order for my father simply because he was in his 80s and in frail health I get the impression that many in the NHS view the old and sick as expendable and not worth the effort of saving

Alexafrost I'm sorry for your loss but I disagree with your premise.

A DNR order isn't a refusal to treat, it's a decision not to resuscitate. Because the chances of survival post-resuscitation are very low in the over 80s, something like 10% of survival to leaving hospital. Of those the survival rate after a year is even lower. The chances of the person living with any quality of life is even lower. If your father was in frail health, his chances would probably be even lower still.

CPR can be unpleasant for the person and can cause broken ribs etc. It can result in brain damage for the patient too. Surely you would prefer a dignified death for your father, who was extremely likely to die anyway, than to be in pain with all the stress and activity of a CPR attempt.

It's really unhelpful to go round spreading the idea that doctors want to kill off old people.

Just to add to the above post, I don’t think a hospital actually needs a patient or family’s permission for a DNR.

What about those people who cannot have the vaccine due to underlying health conditions? I have a relative with severe immunity problems and that the flu jab triggered symptoms of a life changing problem.

I heard that the COVID vaccine is a live vaccine so could prove very dangerous for relative.

Does this mean this person can never go out anywhere again?

"It's really unhelpful to go round spreading the idea that doctors want to kill off old people."

I'll spread what I damn well like. I talked to the man and heard his tone, you did not.

It's also unhelpful when those who support the lockdown accuse those of us who don't of not caring about the old and sick without knowing the details of our lives.

@ElinoristhenewEnid

What about those people who cannot have the vaccine due to underlying health conditions? I have a relative with severe immunity problems and that the flu jab triggered symptoms of a life changing problem.

I heard that the COVID vaccine is a live vaccine so could prove very dangerous for relative.

Does this mean this person can never go out anywhere again?

Unlikely.

Those who really cannot receive the vaccine will (at some point) get a valid exemption. It might not be straightaway, because they'll want a good proportion of the population covered so that restrictions can be lifted (especially if the benefit is not stopping the circulation of the disease (called sterilising immunity? something we do not yet know if it confers) in addition to making the disease mild enough that serious illness is prevented.

You are however in a luckier position than the 10-30% of people who will have had the jab but not formed the intended response. They will not know who they are and that they continue to be at risk of the full range of severity of the disease

I agree btw with posts above about what the pandemic has shown us about hie we really treat the 'vulnerable' and how readily some will see them as expendable. I think some of the reaction of antivaxxers is the realisation that they will be the new underclass who we need to 'protect' society from

There will be people who are exempt for many reason, who cannot be stopped from entering public buildings etc if they haven’t had the vaccine. There will be a rise in people who are exempt from taking the jab on religious grounds, who will not be able to be restricted in travel etc if they haven’t had the jab. Religion is a protected characteristic after all.

“ they will be the new underclass who we need to 'protect' society from”

And there it is. The very type of ‘othering’ that people against the idea of compulsory/coerced vaccination are talking about.

@MoggyP can you explain why people would need to be protected from someone who is immune through having been infected?

@cracracatlady

There will be people who are exempt for many reason, who cannot be stopped from entering public buildings etc if they haven’t had the vaccine. There will be a rise in people who are exempt from taking the jab on religious grounds, who will not be able to be restricted in travel etc if they haven’t had the jab. Religion is a protected characteristic after all.

Religious grounds should not be allowed as an exemption. Medical reasons only.

I suggest you read up on discrimination law as you are pretty clueless. If people don’t have the jab citing religion then that is potentially indirect discrimination on religion and belief grounds. However it is arguably objectively justifiable on public health grounds.

In a few years if it is proven to be safe then I will be more than willing to get the covid vaccine

So what happens in the meantime? The world crashes and burns and people keep dying in vast numbers? Do you think we have “a few years” to wait?

@Scbchl

There will be no businesses, airlines or countries etc after this who will be able to afford to turn people away due to not having the vaccine.

There are plenty of small nations, dependent on the tourist dollar/pound/euro, who are trying to keep their tourist industry going despite by protecting themselves by requiring pre-entry/on arrival testing....(cf. the UK).

I suspect they'll be quite keen on establishing the vaccine and/or exemption status of any new arrivals if we get an internationally accepted protocol..

If countries impose inbound vaccine restrictions then the airlines that serve those countries will have no choice but to impose those rules on any passengers heading there.

• Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.

Zaks said, “Would I like to know that this prevents mortality? Sure, because I believe it does. I just don’t think it’s feasible within the timeframe [of the trial]—too many would die waiting for the results before we ever knew that.”*

So it’s essential and not rushed and I’m an antivaxxer for considering risk Vs reward.

This should not be the vaccine they break the code of trust on, buts it’s coming.

BMJ before you ask if my source is David Icke or a lizard person