What happens about the unvaccinated ?

[vera99]

There is a lot of speculation about how many will buy into the continuing vaccination program. Some has said 20% won't but I'm sure it will be less than that. We don't know any would be refuseniks. But say it's 10% and suppose Covid will become stronger and therefore potentially more lethal and troublesome will that not lead to many more deaths and hospitalisations amongst this cohort and by doing so threaten the capacity of the hospital's once again ? Hopefully not of course does anyone know of any modelling around that outcome. Therapeutics of course will be of importance to lessen any resultant disease and persuading the currently unpersuaded remains of paramount importance. The stick of no vaccine no travel or no entry will be a great persuader no doubt as well.

Have you got a reliable source link I can read please Excuses? Googling this stuff brings up all sorts.

@Thatwentbadly

Trials in children are only in over 6a.

True! But roughly 5m children in the Uk are 5 or younger. Well less than 10% of the population. So if the rest of us who can be vaccinated - including children 6 and up when approved, hopefully later this year - then we can protect the liitle 'uns by general immunity.

@RollOnSummer21

Sadly some will die because of the selfishness/foolhardiness of the casual refusers/avoiders.

Genuine question, because I haven't had an invitation yet so only going off the information I'm reading in the press and forums, but why will some die if others dont have the vaccine? From what I read it doesn't prevent transmission or give full protection from catching covid, but lessens the severity if you do get it.

You've been reading in the wrong places then. There's nothing official saying it doesn't stop you getting covid and nothing official saying it doesn't stop spread. The scientists and medical experts generally expect that it can stop people getting covid and can stop people spreading it. As it's only just been rolled out, it's too early to know the figures yet of how much it stops the spread.

@icdtap

If the person with concerns is vaccinated they are protected so it is irrelevant whether visitors to their home have been vaccinated or not. Once you are vaccinated you have protection.

You do, but it’s not a cast-iron guarantee, is it? In the trials, no-one in the vaccination group was hospitalised or died - but in the real world, with larger numbers of people, there will be some hospitalisations and deaths among vaccinated people. Israeli data showed 97% of Covid deaths in the previous 30 days among unvaccinated.... which means 3% were among vaccinated. Recent BBC report on data showing that one dose of either Pfizer or Astra Zeneca reduced hospitalisations by 80% in the over 80’s.

So, for the sake of argument - let’s assume you are one of the 3% (or 5%, or 20% - we don’t know for sure) who will still catch Covid and be severely ill after vaccination. The thing is - you don’t know whether you are in that group or not, you just have a rough idea of probability. So if you are in a vulnerable group through age or medical conditions, who would you prefer to have visit you - an unvaccinated person (who probably won’t be carrying the virus, but you never know), or a vaccinated person, who is approximately 1/3 as likely to be carrying the virus as the unvaccinated person?

Now if the visitors we’re talking about are your grandchildren who you haven’t seen for a year, many people will take the risk because the benefit to them is perceived as much greater. But if it’s a tradesperson coming to do a job, or a somewhat casual friend, some people would prefer to choose a vaccinated tradesperson, or meet the friend out of doors.

I won’t make this choice for myself, because I have had Covid, was not severely ill, and therefore am comfortable that even if I caught it again it would not be dangerous to me (at least until I’m a lot older). I am however CV - in fact, recently upgraded to CEV. Had I not already had Covid, I would probably be quite anxious, and yes, I would be avoiding unvaccinated people as much as possible.

I should have added the most recent info I've read was a PHE faq on .Gov.

I have someone on my Twitter feed who is anti mask, anti vaccine, and who retweets every "Covid is myth" post that she can find. I haven't blocked her just out of a sort of fascination with how batshit she can get. She may have reached a peak when she complained about the proposed mask in schools rules: it wasn't about her child not wearing a mask, it was the fact that the school wouldn't prevent other children from wearing a mask if they/their parents wanted it. She insisted that that was discriminatory against her child.

@DenisetheMenace

icdtap

I'm still waiting for the people who are saying that they won't go to a restaurant where unvaccinated people are allowed or will only hire a vaccinated tradesperson to explain why.
I really don't understand the reasoning and it would be interesting to know why.
Once you are vaccinated then you are protected so it is of no concern to you whether your plumber is vaccinated or not.”

For us, it’s because my husband (who’s only 61) has a nasty, life threatening genetic disorder, episodes of which can be set off by any infection. He will be 80/90% protected after both jabs, which is fantastic but, for us, 10/20% is still a risk worth avoiding if we can. It’s not the fear of Covid itself, it’s the fear of his condition being set off by it.

We don’t go to crowded, indoor places in “normal” times anyway but occasionally need to have work done at home when, yes, we would ask.

My OH was in a high risk group pre covid, due to blood cell cancer which impairs his immunity and infection response (moreso when on chemotherapy treatment that he needs every couple of years for life), so we were always careful anyway and tended to stay away from busy/crowded places. He'd stay away from tradesmen in our house, i.e. stay in a different room, or even sometimes would go out for the day, and I'd carefully clean the toilet/cups etc that they'd used, and wipe down surfaces they'd touched.

Even with the vaccine, low risk doesn't mean no risk. He could well die if he got a serious infection of anything. We'll certainly be asking future tradesmen if they'd had the vaccine. Obviously we know they can lie, but the "anti vaxxers" tend to shout it from the rooftops as some demented badge of honour, so any tradesman with that kind of attitude won't be getting our work!

As for pubs/restaurants, holidays, etc., we're just going to sit out the next few months and wait and see how things turn out. If infection rates generally plummet in the community, then obviously, very low risk of infected people being out and about, so on top of the vaccine, that reduces risks further. But if there's still any significant numbers of infections, then we'll continue to avoid anywhere we feel we can't safely social distance.

I’d be staggered if you found a PHE document saying that it doesn’t prevent transmission RollOnSummer. I strongly suspect that if you reread it it actually says “we don’t yet know whether it prevents transmission”, like the example I’ve attached.

For policy reasons public health bodies are playing it cautious but the initial real world data is showing what everybody expected, that it does prevent you from contracting and transmitting the virus to some extent. There’s a whole bunch of studies but no time to link right now.

In the trials, no-one in the vaccination group was hospitalised or died

There'd be few, if any, "vulnerable" people in the trials, i.e. those with impaired immunity due to, say, cancer, wouldn't have been eligible for the trials.

@user1497207191

In the trials, no-one in the vaccination group was hospitalised or died

There'd be few, if any, "vulnerable" people in the trials, i.e. those with impaired immunity due to, say, cancer, wouldn't have been eligible for the trials.

There were elderly people and people with less erupts co-morbidity. Some of the placebo group were hospitalised with severe illness

‘Real World’ evidence which will include vulnerable groups www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/03/pfizer-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccines-may-offer-high-efficacy-elderly

I’m sure there will be evidence from Israel if you look

Meh. I don’t care. So long as the number of critically ill/dying drops to the same level as the annual flu, the health systems can handle it.

I think it too will be added to the schedule as a high school vaccine for 15yr olds so that they are all immunised before heading off to 6th Form or into the workplace. So each year we will add more %vaccinated.

I think also, as it mutates we may have a booster updated jab at age 50 and then every ten years.

I think many of us are unfortunately losing patience, do people want to be in lockdown for ever? Even if you’re not worried about the risk of covid for yourself or others do people really want restrictions to continue indefinitely?

They are very unlikely to be protected by herd immunity. Most of the deaths next winter will be among the unvaccinated. That’s what the scientists are saying.
If I couldn’t have the vaccine for medical reasons I would take massive precautions next winter including social distancing and wearing a mask.
For those who are refusing the jab, well they will still be at risk and that is their choice. The rest of us can get on with our lives

@reformedcharacters

I don’t think many have considered the wider and damaging long-term consequences of forced/coerced medical treatment.

This. The fact there are people in this thread fully supporting the prospect of places like restaurants and even shops refusing access to unvaccinated people is terrifying. Unvaccinated people are not deadly biohazards. The main reason an individual should want a vaccine is for their own health... not to go to the pub or a concert.

@Oly4

They are very unlikely to be protected by herd immunity. Most of the deaths next winter will be among the unvaccinated. That’s what the scientists are saying. If I couldn’t have the vaccine for medical reasons I would take massive precautions next winter including social distancing and wearing a mask. For those who are refusing the jab, well they will still be at risk and that is their choice. The rest of us can get on with our lives

I agree, but I hope that there are measures put in place to protect vulnerable people in hospitals and care homes. Everyone else can make their own decisions about risk - granny can choose to go to church or bingo and if she catches covid, that was her risk to take. That's not the case for those who may catch it in medical/care settings where they're "sitting targets" at the mercy of those around them.

@BungleandGeorge

I think many of us are unfortunately losing patience, do people want to be in lockdown for ever? Even if you’re not worried about the risk of covid for yourself or others do people really want restrictions to continue indefinitely?

Restrictions can’t go on indefinitely anyway, regardless of vaccine refusers.

You can’t compartmentalise hospitals and care homes. We’ve seen clearly that if community rates rise, it eventually leaches out into every setting. Just think of the through put of people in a hospital. Care homes have been virtually shot and have everyone in PPE and still covid enters, it is incredibly infectious

Unvaccinated people are not deadly biohazards.

They are if they're out and about whilst contagious with covid, aren't they?

It's being said that one contagious person can infect up to 20 others in the right conditions. Obviously, once most people are vaccinated, most of the other 20 will have been vaccinated, but if take up is only 80%, then that leaves 4 others who may become infected.

Only time will tell re ongoing infection rates. Obviously if rates become trivial, then fair enough, but if there's still and underlying significant level of infections in the community, then that will just mean ongoing restrictions for the longer term.

@BungleandGeorge

You can’t compartmentalise hospitals and care homes. We’ve seen clearly that if community rates rise, it eventually leaches out into every setting. Just think of the through put of people in a hospital. Care homes have been virtually shot and have everyone in PPE and still covid enters, it is incredibly infectious

Hence why people think medical and care staff should be vaccinated!

My friend works for a company which does a lot of travel, and meets/supports people who are returning from periods of travel overseas.

Their office has been told that while having a vaccine or not is entirely up to you, the offcie will make no accommodation for your choice, unless there is a medical reason why you can't be vaccinated.

I am not sure exactly what that would mean for someone UK based. But I think it is interesting.

I work with a volunteer organisation, we have requirements, eg if you volunteer with us, you are expected to (have to sign up to say you will) use malaria meds when in a malaris area, and have the vaccines required for entry (eg in places where you need a yellow fever jab)

I am wondering if they can add covid to that or not.

It is going to be interesting.

@user1497207191 there are far more patients than staff so how do you suppose that will help?
I support all the vulnerable, elderly, people who can’t have/ don’t get full protection from the vaccine to be out and about in society over those who have chosen not to have the vaccine. It’s a personal choice but don’t expect the ones who have had it to accommodate you. It’s a pandemic, it’s not a normal illness, the consequences of people refusing the vaccine are not the same

It’s a pandemic, it’s not a normal illness

It is, actually. The problem has been that it was:
A. New, so we didn't know how to treat it effectively to start with
B. New, so lots of people were getting it in a relatively short time frame.
C. New, so no one/very few people had existing immunity to it.

It is a normal illness, whatever that means, just a relatively new one.

I'm waiting to see how safe it is longer term.
Not swayed by holidays and events.

@user1497207191

There'd be few, if any, "vulnerable" people in the trials, i.e. those with impaired immunity due to, say, cancer, wouldn't have been eligible for the trials.

Exactly, and with vulnerable people in the wider community and a much larger number receiving the vaccine, the 100% protection from hospitalisation and death of the trials will not be replicated in the population. That was my point - a vaccinated person is highly protected, but not 100% protected. Therefore they may want to limit their contact with unvaccinated others, if they themselves are vulnerable or live with someone who is.