To expect to be able to choose not to have the vaccine without being made to feel uncomfortable? *edited by MNHQ at OP's request*

[Drogonssmile]

Risking a flaming here:

I work in the NHS not patient facing. Our Trust has said all non frontline staff are likely to be offered the vaccine next week. (1000 staff have already been done which is brilliant!)

I'm a fit and healthy 39 year old with no underlying health conditions. I am not an anti vaxxer however I am concerned about the lack of long term research that has understandably not been able to be done on the vaccine and have made an informed decision that I probably won't have it. I'd prefer my dose to go to someone more vulnerable. I believe this should be my choice.
My colleague is 62 and is all for having the vaccine which is great. I said I probably wouldn't as it doesn't affect transmission only the severity of the illness. Now she isn't speaking to me.
AIBU?

(Also given the amount of setbacks and govt lies/omissions in the last 10 months I wouldn't be at all surprised if the vaccine isn't the silver bullet we've been told to expect. The way things are going I can see is in the same situation in 12 months time).

Where the hell is that coming from?

A vaccine that deosn't stop anyone from gettng a disease is not a bloody vaccine. It's a cough drop!

Just bloody stop it!

YABU. There are people who you may well come into contact with who cannot have it, specifically medically vulnerable children and young people, we need those who can have the vaccine to have it so everyone can get back to their lives, otherwise we're all going to be stuck indoors forever if only 50% of the population are vaccinated and it's still running rampant.

My understanding is that the current vaccines do not stop transmission, but rather lesson symptoms in the people who receive it.

Is this based on a feeling in your water? We don't know the onward transmission rates following vaccination yet.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30226-3/fulltext

The SARS vaccine was linked to increased risk of narcolepsy, guillain barre syndrome and liver damage in ferrets so hardly reassuring

Thank fuck I'm not a ferret.

No @FourTeaFallOut. Not a feeling. Rather what I've read.

No need to be so rude by the way. Ill take the vaccine if I'm offered it, but I cannot stand the way people are jumped on for expressing a different point of view or concern.

It's maddening isn't it?

The media leap all over common research questions: What % of infection will it prevent? Will it prevent transmission? How much? What is it's longevity? How is it best given?

All these and squillions more are pefectly normal research questions. Some answered prior to a vaccine being passed for use, some come after. But every bit of medicine we come ito contact with has the same tranche of questions asked about it.

It's only the lazy incoheremce of journalists that make bog standard research questions sound like a death knell!

And some of those lazy, unuduecated twonks are vaguely beatified on some MN threads. What does Bobby say? He normall has it right! etc. Peston is the man who argued Epidemiology 101 with an eminent epidemiologist - told the professor he had misunderstood a basic premise! Amongst other faux pas that should have had him taken off ourt screens and sent off for some proper education!

But no, we belive the twaddle he and others like him make out of perfectly doog science.

The problem is scienced is hard and uses words in weird ways and it's not fair, too slow, keeps changing, not 100% certain.... etc etc

@CuriousaboutSamphire

I hope those advocating not treating those who don't have the vaccine are themselves not fat\drinkers\smokers\unfit and expecting the NHS to treat them for any conditions where those are contributory factors. Where is the equivalence?

All of these are things we have direct control over, we know are bad for our health and yet we do anyway (similar to choosing not to be vaccinated).

yes, that's why there' s still so much yellow fever and small pox around .....

@IceIceBebe

Can we keep on shouting MEASLES at such people?

Or "Hey, remember smallpox and polio? No, because VACCINES, numbnuts!"

My children are both fully vaccinated thanks.

Im not sure to consider though

• Long covid

Im 41 think i had it in apr. Couldnt breathe properly till july. Still have some persistent issues. Eg muscle twitches so i might have MS or something frlm it. The 'brain fog' people are getting too. 40yo women at higher long covid risk.

• Doesnt stop catching and we don't know about transmission.

• Under 40 not being vaxxed or maybe not till next year

I could see your colleague point if it stops transmission. as it then affects them and potentially vulnerable patients who some wont be able to be vaxxed.

Re transmission at some point covid mmight just be most common in hospitals and so the staff (and patients) could be the main link bringing into the community...

YABU.

[quote Hotcuppatea]@CuriousaboutSamphire

www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30226-3/fulltext[/quote]
Yes! And? Or do you think that Lancet piece says that this, or any other vaccine WILL NOT do what it has been designed to do?

It doesn't. It tries to explain yet another aggrandisement made by a non scientist, an aggrandisement much touted in many ways, the flip side of "it won't work." It counters Cuomo's stupidity and poses the same questions I wrote - the bog standard normal ones every scientist asks about all research!

The Lancet is not saying that any of the current vaccines will not prevent infection. It IS saying that the current vaccines will, as is perfectly usual, require modification, remodelling etc before Covid will be managed, let alone eradicated. It stresses the novelty of this virus and vaccine, an immediate, real time vaccine research, manufactire and use on a global scale. It tries to convery the clear facts: covid will not go away any tme soon, no one vaccine will be the be all and end oall of covid, that we have a long way to go befoire covid is managed (if ever eradicated. All stuff we and our media don't seem to be able to process without mangling it!

Or am I still pissing in the wind?

My children are both fully vaccinated thanks

Shame you won't be then.

I think you’re being an idiot, but I wouldn’t compel you to have it. Free choice and whatnot.

Don’t blame your colleague for being pretty unimpressed with you though. We rely on everyone getting a vaccine who can, to help those immuno-suppressed and vulnerable who can’t. To turn it down is hardly doing your bit for everyone else.

@Crystalclair

I completely support you OP. Some people here seem to forget you have freedom of choice, and if you are concerned about the vaccine (which many are), it is your right to refuse and for your decision to be respected.

No one has said it's not her choice.

People are entitled to think it's a stupid choice.

He co worker doesn't have to 'play nice' with someone she thinks us a danger to her.

HTH

No @FourTeaFallOut. Not a feeling. Rather what I've read

There's no proof yet that vaccines will prevent onward transmission and there's no evidence that it will not. And in the meantime it's just reams and reams of column inches written by people who, in the absence of being able to put there finger on something, assumes that there must be nothing.

All of these are things we have direct control over, we know are bad for our health and yet we do anyway (similar to choosing not to be vaccinated). Oh god! Please let it stop!

One person with fat infects how many people with fat?

How many drinkers does it take to overwhelm the country's hospital beds?

How many deaths of smokers does it take to bring whole countries to a halt?

How many people need to take a vaccination beofre herd immunity takes effect?

Or am I still pissing in the wind?

This, I think. This thread is unreal.

@CuriousaboutSamphire I am actually very open to being educated on this by people who know more about it.

If the vaccine stops the person who has received the correct dose from transmitting it, then why do those who are vaccinated still need to wear masks, social distance, etc? I'm genuinely curious as to why.

Thank you to those who have been understanding and educating, even if you don't agree with me, I have read and will digest your information. I never said I had made my mind up, I just thought that by expressing my view that in my (potentially wrong) opinion I did not need vaccinating and was probably going to refuse it, did I deserve to be ostracised by a colleague? Most of you said yes. That is clear and I will reflect on what you have said.

I do believe that that current information is that is is not known whether the virus can still be transmitted after vaccination. The fact that our Trust is advising we still need to wear masks after vaccination made me question the need, for me, who currently wears a mask anyway and is extremely low risk (apart from the obvious what ifs) to take up a vaccine dose that could be more
urgently needed elsewhere. Never did I say I wanted more vulnerable people to become guinea pigs.
I'm glad I don't know you in real life, some of the things said have IMHO been unjustified and the level of vitriol on this thread has, not surprised, but saddened me.
Thanks all for your input.

By reducing the degree of symptomatic infection the vaccine should help to reduce spread in hospitals and other healthcare settings by allowing most people to recover at home. The pressure on normal health care services is reduced, routine operations, appointments and cancer care pathways can carry on.

Reducing the degree of symptomatic infection should in theory also reduce the amount of virus being spread through the population as the infection is milder and more short-lived, though as previously stated this research has not yet been carried out for the covid vaccine and we simply do not know for sure.

Ps

I apologise if I am uneducated about vaccines. I never claimed to be an expert I only made a decision based on what I was aware of. There is no need to be sanctimonious.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

All of these are things we have direct control over, we know are bad for our health and yet we do anyway (similar to choosing not to be vaccinated). Oh god! Please let it stop!

One person with fat infects how many people with fat?

How many drinkers does it take to overwhelm the country's hospital beds?

How many deaths of smokers does it take to bring whole countries to a halt?

How many people need to take a vaccination beofre herd immunity takes effect?

This particular vaccine isn't proven to prevent you from passing on COVID to other people (I know they are looking into it) so at the moment it's purely about protecting yourself and not other people.

Besides, the point others were making that this was a direct response to wasn't about social responsibility but rather the consequences for making bad personal choices and then not being treated because of them.

If you are going to talk about social responsibility though, you can certainly make the case that costing the NHS more for having to treat your self-inflicted conditions (therefore reducing the care available to everyone else) IS socially irresponsible.

Thanks @Fangdrew

Discourse on Mumsnet Covid threads can be informative and civil. Who knew?