To those not having the vaccine

[Potager]

Your choice. But before you reject it. Read the proper science behind its rapid roll out, do not listen to uneducated twats/trolls/morons on social media.

The end is in sight. Masks and social distancing will go when the rate of new infections has fallen enough and there is no risk to the NHS anymore.

Are you going to continue to wear masks and avoid people while the rest of us get back to normal?

I also think maybe there is the possibility that even if they can still transmit they are contagious for less time? I don't know.*

Could they be more likely to be asymptomatic carriers?
People who haven't had the vaccine will be more aware to look out for symptoms and less likely to take a lemsip and press on of they do have them.

@epythymy

I don't want to have a vaccine for a disease that there's a 99.9% chance I'll survive. Especially one for which the long term impacts are unknown. I say that as someone who has otherwise been vaccinated, who has vaccinated her children, who gets the flu jab each year and works as a GP. And only 1/5 of the partners at my practice have said they'd get the vaccine.

I thought it was 99.9973 or something!

No. I'm definitely not having the vaccine but will be getting back to normal along with everyone else.

The face mask will go as soon as I have the green light to ditch it. As will social fucking distancing!

I hate the argument of "I'm under 40 so it won't affect me why waste money vaccinating me"- thats not the point, the point is that you act as a vector and transfer it to others who may not fare so well. This is how artificial her immunity works, vulnerable people and those who can't be vaccinated are less likely to come into contact with the virus if those around them are vaccinated. We did this in Biology O-Level, I really don't understand how its a difficult concept to grasp. My 14 year old has learnt it at school!

My DM said the same. I have managed to persuade her with the argument that if she ends up in hospital with Covid, she is potentially denying a younger person treatment, and not just for Covid, but for all the other things that are being delayed, her argument therefore fails. I came on to the thread to make the same point although I haven't read it all.

@babbaloushka

I hate the argument of "I'm under 40 so it won't affect me why waste money vaccinating me"- thats not the point, the point is that you act as a vector and transfer it to others who may not fare so well. This is how artificial her immunity works, vulnerable people and those who can't be vaccinated are less likely to come into contact with the virus if those around them are vaccinated. We did this in Biology O-Level, I really don't understand how its a difficult concept to grasp. My 14 year old has learnt it at school!

You seem to be missing the point. Vaccinating people is expensive and time-consuming so it makes sense to vaccinate those who will benefit most from it personally first. There really isn't any point in vaccinating a healthy 25 year old before a 75 year old. The point about artificial herd immunity is true but it's unlikely that herd immunity will every really be achieved with a virus like covid - it's just not that type of virus. It's likely that this vaccine ends up being more like the flu vaccine than the MMR - given to at-risk groups as and when needed rather than given as standard to everyone of a certain age.

@CaptainMyCaptain

My DM said the same. I have managed to persuade her with the argument that if she ends up in hospital with Covid, she is potentially denying a younger person treatment, and not just for Covid, but for all the other things that are being delayed, her argument therefore fails. I came on to the thread to make the same point although I haven't read it all.

I don't know if people realise what they're really saying when they make this point. I hope not, because the principle of this opinion is that unless a person does everything they can to avoid illness, when they get ill they should be considered to be 'denying treatment' to another (more deserving?) person. That opinion could apply to those who smoke, who are obese, who fail to manage chronic illnesses like diabetes well. Where does that attitude lead to? Should people be considered morally repugnant for expecting any sort of treatment when they didn't do everything they could to prevent their illness? Should people in car accidents be told their choice to travel in a dangerous vehicle has caused treatment to be denied to other people?

I've been trying to keep up but I was a bit shocked when I found out yesterday that the vaccine will not guarantee that we can't spread the disease. It does actually sound more socially dangerous to be vaccinated and risk becoming an asymptomatic spreader than being unvaccinated.

And we still have people going on about herd immunity.

It's really not the same Carbuncle but actually I think people who do ridiculous challenges like rowing across the channel in a bath tub, diving off Waterloo Bridge and the like are potentially wasting NHS resources. You could say the same about not wearing a seat belt.

@CaptainMyCaptain

It's really not the same Carbuncle but actually I think people who do ridiculous challenges like rowing across the channel in a bath tub, diving off Waterloo Bridge and the like are potentially wasting NHS resources. You could say the same about not wearing a seat belt.

It really surprises me that seemingly sane, normal people would have an attitude like this. Do you understand what it is that you're saying? That some people disqualify themselves from having life-saving treatment due to their actions?

Are you of the opinion that, for example, violent criminals should be denied treatment? Where is the line when it comes to 'qualifying' for basic human rights?

Thanks @TheGoodEnoughWife

I'm thinking the same @Coyacan and have been trying to get clarification. Because so far it seems

You can still get CV just milder - so still at risk of long covid..
If it really doesn't stop you transmitting then added with the long covid risk still, would this still create herd immunity?

Surely by forcing the vaccine, as some want, you put more people at risk of Long CV which surely will impact NHS services and the economy?

@babbaloushka there is currently no evidence that having the vaccine stops you transmitting the disease.

I don't know if you're aware but AIDS used to be called GRID - Gay-Related Immune Deficiency - and that there was an attitude, that wasn't at all rare or niche, that because gay people brought it on themselves with their immoral lifestyles they deserved what they got.

Saying that people who don't vaccinate against covid are denying other people treatment is only a few small steps away from that attitude. It is totally repugnant.

Does anyone have a link to the patient leaflet?

At the moment the only contra talked about is those pregnant and ttc.

@canigooutyet I suppose that Long Covid is an extreme symptom so the vaccine may well prevent this as you should have milder symptoms?

But I can see in the short term masks and SD will still be needed as you will have people around who have had the vaccine and so get very mild Covid-19 but might still be spreading?

@Coyoacan

I've been trying to keep up but I was a bit shocked when I found out yesterday that the vaccine will not guarantee that we can't spread the disease. It does actually sound more socially dangerous to be vaccinated and risk becoming an asymptomatic spreader than being unvaccinated.

And we still have people going on about herd immunity.

But the point is we don’t know yet, not that we know it won’t. It’s just not something it’s easy to ascertain from a third stage trial. From what I read both the Oxford and Pfizer teams are optimistic it will have an impact on spread. However no decent scientist is going to go around making claims for their vaccine that cannot be justified by the research.

I thought long CV was a side effect regardless of how mild/severe?

It would help if Pfizer would publish their findings online including the usual patient background.

They're still not certain that non vulnerable under 50s are going to be vaccinated, they're going to do a cost benefit analysis at some point in the future. Why don't people know this?

Do you understand what it is that you're saying? That some people disqualify themselves from having life-saving treatment due to their actions? I certainly haven't said anything about being disqualified, my point was that they were using valuable resources unnecessarily. Where you get the idea that I would deny anyone treatment from I can't imagine.

@CaptainMyCaptain

Do you understand what it is that you're saying? That some people disqualify themselves from having life-saving treatment due to their actions? I certainly haven't said anything about being disqualified, my point was that they were using valuable resources unnecessarily. Where you get the idea that I would deny anyone treatment from I can't imagine.

I get the idea from what you're saying, which is that a person who doesn't get vaccinated is denying treatment to other people, ie that they themselves don't really qualify for that treatment, it belongs to others and they're getting in the way. It comes across to me that you don't really understand the implications of what you're saying though - I imagine you feel you're saying that it's important to get a vaccine. IMO it's up to individual whether they get a vaccine or not and scaring them or trying to make them feel guilty is very very low behaviour.

@Potager

Your choice. But before you reject it. Read the proper science behind its rapid roll out, do not listen to uneducated twats/trolls/morons on social media.

The end is in sight. Masks and social distancing will go when the rate of new infections has fallen enough and there is no risk to the NHS anymore.

Are you going to continue to wear masks and avoid people while the rest of us get back to normal?

Dear OP the vaccine stops illness, not transmission.

Therefore it is every individual's choice whether they bother having it or not.

If that changes, and it is proven to stop transmission, then I imagine some people will reassess.

I get the idea from what you're saying, which is that a person who doesn't get vaccinated is denying treatment to other people, ie that they themselves don't really qualify for that treatment, it belongs to others and they're getting in the way
I absolutely did not say that, you are making stuff up. My comment was about an 89 year old who seemed to think they were not worth a vaccine and should let younger people have it. If she doesn't want it, it's her choice, but it might not be as helpful as she thinks it is.

I'm out now. Argue with yourself, it will save time.

It will be voluntary as is the flue vaccine and indeed all UK vaccines. Most people on MN will not be offered it due to their age so there is not much point debating it as it won't be available to them whether they want it or not.As with any vaccine people will weigh up pros and cons and make up their own mind.

@babbaloushka

I hate the argument of "I'm under 40 so it won't affect me why waste money vaccinating me"- thats not the point, the point is that you act as a vector and transfer it to others who may not fare so well. This is how artificial her immunity works, vulnerable people and those who can't be vaccinated are less likely to come into contact with the virus if those around them are vaccinated. We did this in Biology O-Level, I really don't understand how its a difficult concept to grasp. My 14 year old has learnt it at school!

That's what I thought as well, but NHS website seems to suggest otherwise.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/03/exclusive-vaccine-wont-free-self-isolation-says-government/