Will you take the vaccine?

[Doddlebug2000]

Will you take the vaccine and why?
Just curious to different opinions on this really!

[quote TheSunIsStillShining]@Kazzyhoward
Okay, that is one point. If you take away emotion, than this makes no/little sense.
For example: 80/90+ people can be safeguarded by vaccinating their carers. They don't have the risk of commute, workplace, child in school. So why not keep them safe with alternative methods?
I'm not saying I'm right or they are wrong, just asking for other opinions on vaccine priority[/quote]
Well as of today both my sixth formers are home because of the rapid spread in their secondary school. They’d quite like to see their 95 year old grandmother before it’s too late.....

Yes. However I’ll be discussing at great lengths with my doctor first.

I have multiple allergies to medications and to a particular food that has ruled out another vaccine previously. I also have high BP, asthma and high BMI and I want my doctors opinion on the safety in my particular circumstances.

But I want it ASAP as I want my life back.

Also, unlike flu, you don't need to keep attenuating it based on various strains in circulation in good time to make them up and then distribute before flu season.

Even if everyone needed a booster annually there aren't the same logistics involved for covid-19 as for the flu vaccine.

Yes, as soon as I can.

I'll do whatever it takes to get my old life back, while remembering the lessons 2020 has taught me...

So people who don't want the vaccine are junkies and anti vaxers.
Heard it all now, why not include conspiracist too, that usually crops up on these threads.

Yes as soon as I can.

Yes, so will DP , DD, my mum, dad, brother, grandparents, all of us- grateful to have a family that fully understands science instead of falling for grooming by anti vax groups.

That is absolutely not true. We simply don't have the data to know how long immunity lasts, but so far it's looking like people who had it early on in the pandemic are still immune, bar the odd few who have been reinfected (mostly healthcare workers who are in contact with the virus all the time).

There is long-term (15+ years) immunity to SARS Cov-1 so no reason to think this virus will be any different.

Sorry - quote didn't work, I was quoting @LindaEllen.

[quote TheSunIsStillShining]@Kazzyhoward
Okay, that is one point. If you take away emotion, than this makes no/little sense.
For example: 80/90+ people can be safeguarded by vaccinating their carers. They don't have the risk of commute, workplace, child in school. So why not keep them safe with alternative methods?
I'm not saying I'm right or they are wrong, just asking for other opinions on vaccine priority[/quote]
So in your alternative scenario the vulnerable who have been essentially locked in their homes since March would still have limited interactions because they’d need to only mix with vaccinated people. Those who work or have children in school, many of whom have been pushing for ‘shielding the vulnerable’ and cracking on because they personally have a far smaller risk, would be able to live completely normal lives.Is that the gist?

My dad is 87 and very vulnerable due to various medical conditions as well as age. He doesn’t have carers, in normal times he is completely independent, does his own shopping, goes to the pub, meets friends and family, goes to medical appointments, art classes, U3A meet-ups etc. Why would you assume the elderly are all capable of being protected by vaccinating their younger and fitter carers? Surely it’s fairer to prioritise those who are most likely to be seriously ill and die?

I want a normal life, this is the only solution towards normal.

But wouldn't the virus eventually die out after 2 years as with the original SARS? No one was ever vaccinated for that and it was so low key in the media.

@Judashascomeintosomemoney
I see your point.
Wouldn't it make more sense to immunize those who have to mingle first? My logic would be that people who come in contact with 20-200 diff people a week are more at risk just by stats than those who come in contact with 5 in a month.
I see that giving vaccines to the ones who see 5 ppl a month is easier from a logistics aspect. On the other hand having full ppe/hazmat suits (not the too sturdy orange ones in films :)) on 5 ppl is easier than spending a limited resource of vaccine on those who have other means to be protected.
Again, this is a thought experiment and I am taking emotions out. Mu list would be

• healthcare (docs, nurses, dentists)
• social workers and teachers
• anyone who has contact with x ppl/week and has no other ways to be protected.
• ECV/CV of any age
• school kids above the age of 16?17? (I know they were not involved in clinical trials*)
• 65+
• mass population under 65

It would be interesting to draw up a timeline for the gov priority list to see when we will be vaccinating who approximately and for any alternative timelines. Then compare the economic, societal, educational pros/cons.

*I was wondering what physiological differences are there between 17 and 18? Because someone just turned 18 can potentially get it, but someone who will be 18 in 6 months won't. Is there really a biological reason or just the common understanding that 18 is the point where they magically become adults overnight.

In the JCVI report published today anyone under age 50 without underlying health conditions will not be vaccinated before Phase 2

*The next phase – further reduction in hospitalisation and
targeted vaccination of those at high risk of exposure and/or
those delivering key public services
As the first phase of the programme is rolled out in the UK, additional
data will become available on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. These data will provide the basis for consideration of
vaccination in groups that are at lower risk of mortality from COVID-19.
The Committee is currently of the view that the key focus for the second phase of vaccination could be on further preventing hospitalisation.
Vaccination of those at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 due to their occupation could also be a priority in the next phase. This could include first responders, the military, those involved in the justice system, teachers, transport workers, and public servants essential to the pandemic response. Priority occupations for vaccination are considered an issue of policy, rather than for JCVI to advise on. JCVI asks that the Department of Health and Social Care consider occupational vaccination in collaboration with other Government departments.
Wider use of COVID-19 vaccines will provide a better understanding of
whether they can prevent infection and onward transmission in the
population. Data on vaccine impact on transmission, along with data on vaccine safety and effectiveness, will potentially allow for consideration of vaccination across the rest of the population.
As trials in children and pregnant women are completed, we will also
gain a better understanding of the safety and effectiveness of the
vaccines in these persons. *

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/940396/Priority_groups_for_coronavirus__COVID-19__vaccination_-_advice_from_the_JCVI__2_December_2020.pdf

I'd have it as soon as offered but I suspect as under 50 I'll have to wait a while!
Reading the above it looks like phase 2 could either go down in ages again (e.g. >45, >40 etc) or be certain occupations first and perhaps other more at risk groups such as BAME.

I've not even on the list (35 and healthy) but I will have it if it is offered to me.

[quote TheSunIsStillShining]@Kazzyhoward
Okay, that is one point. If you take away emotion, than this makes no/little sense.
For example: 80/90+ people can be safeguarded by vaccinating their carers. They don't have the risk of commute, workplace, child in school. So why not keep them safe with alternative methods?
I'm not saying I'm right or they are wrong, just asking for other opinions on vaccine priority[/quote]
What if their carers are anti-vaxxers? There are other threads on Mumsnet about people who don't want to be forced to have the vaccine and will claim discrimination if they are sacked from their jobs because they won't have the vaccine. How do you solve that? It's common sense to vaccinate those who are vulnerable first rather than to try to vaccinate everyone who may come into contact with them.

No. And would be way down the list anyway. The drug companies are asking the Government to indemnify them against any claims relating to the vaccine..that in itself makes me nervous. The risk to me currently is small. I would potentially increase my risk by taking the vaccine.

Yes

Actually reinfection with COVID is not that uncommon even after a few months. Take a look on the COVID Facebook groups - quiteva few posters from the US showing positive tests for April and then again in June or September.

I got sick end of Match, low antibody levels end July, hone by September.
Anyway, I'll have the vaccine. Tried COVID, never want it again.

gone by September

I wait and see if there is side effects that resent themselves later on. I am not in the front of the queue anyway.

[quote TheSunIsStillShining]@Kazzyhoward
Okay, that is one point. If you take away emotion, than this makes no/little sense.
For example: 80/90+ people can be safeguarded by vaccinating their carers. They don't have the risk of commute, workplace, child in school. So why not keep them safe with alternative methods?
I'm not saying I'm right or they are wrong, just asking for other opinions on vaccine priority[/quote]
What about the elderly/extremely vulnerable who normally live normal lives and don't need carers? My OH is mid 50s and is ECV (cancer) and until covid was running his own business, doing his hobbies, caring for other elderly relatives, etc. He was told in no uncertain terms by his oncologist that he had to shield, even in recent months during the period when shielding wasn't officially required. He's virtually lost his business, is now climbing the walls at homes, only going out for socially distanced walks, etc. He has no "carers" as in normal times, he's perfectly capable of living a normal life as long as he takes pretty simple precautions. A vaccination will give him back his life, his business, etc for the few years he has left. Not all the elderly/vulnerable need carers! Many have pretty normal home/work lives.

Yes if offered. I've had every other 'standard' vaccine so why not. But I think I'll be at the end of the queue (although I think my BMI hovers around 40, I'm not on any 'list' as my GP has never weighed me) and part of me is quite glad that means I get to watch and see a bit.

No. And would be way down the list anyway. The drug companies are asking the Government to indemnify them against any claims relating to the vaccine..that in itself makes me nervous. The risk to me currently is small. I would potentially increase my risk by taking the vaccine.

This. I read something very worrying recently about Pfizer and previous drugs which had caused death in infants and they were sued millions. No wonder they're pushing for indemnity.

@MyPersona
My dad is 87 and very vulnerable due to various medical conditions as well as age. He doesn’t have carers, in normal times he is completely independent, does his own shopping, goes to the pub, meets friends and family, goes to medical appointments, art classes, U3A meet-ups etc. Why would you assume the elderly are all capable of being protected by vaccinating their younger and fitter carers? Surely it’s fairer to prioritise those who are most likely to be seriously ill and die?

But who do you think has a bigger unavoidable risk number? The 87 year old who doesn't have to go anywhere, but chooses to or the 36 yr old with underlying, but not life threatening issue(s) who has a 1-2-3 kids in school(s) and has a job to go to?
What are we prioritizing here? Need or necessity?

@Kazzyhoward
I really think that as you can't be a bus driver without a licence you should not be allowed to be a carer/healthcare professional without a vaccine. Many jobs have mandatory requirement, how is this different?

@Kazzyhoward
Your example is 50 year old. I said 80/90+. Let's be fair, the majority at that age will have form of help. Obv. not everyone.