Why are we vaccinating everyone?

[preparetheships]

This is not a goady post and I am not anti vaccine. I am genuinely wondering why we are vaccinating everyone.
The vaccine does not prevent people catching the vaccine, just reduces the symptoms and risk of being seriously ill.
Is it financially worth while vaccinating people who, most likely, will have mild symptoms if any symptoms at all. Or should we just operate a vaccination system similar to the flu vaccination scheme?
I'd be grateful for any links for further information.

Thank you all for your replies.

With the mutations, could the virus still not mutate to fight the vaccine if everyone is vaccinated? So we would get a new vaccine every year?

@lljkk

The vaccine does not prevent people catching the vaccine, just reduces the symptoms and risk of being seriously ill.

That is a factually incorrect statement.

The correct statement is

We don't know how much the vaccine prevents people catching or transmitting disease, but we do know that it reduces symptoms and risk of serious illness.

Yes you are right. Thank you

It's a new virus, we don't know anything for sure. You are not forced to take it if you don't want to. Take your chance.

[quote bobbiester]preparetheships - This is not a goady post and I am not anti vaccine. I am genuinely wondering why we are vaccinating everyone.

OK - if you say so.

The vaccine does not prevent people catching the vaccine, just reduces the symptoms and risk of being seriously ill.

No - evidence shows that it does reduce tranmission and infections.

edition.cnn.com/2021/02/03/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-transmission-gbr-intl/index.html[/quote]
Thanks for the link. Very helpful considering there are so many conflicting articles regarding how much the vaccine will reduce transmission

I think it’s the easiest/fastest way to roll it out. We know that recovery after infection also provides immunity (6-8+ months for the majority) so it isn’t actually necessary to vaccinate everyone.

The idea that we’re somehow going to prevent new mutations is a bit unrealistic. Viruses mutate all the time. Current thinking is that the b.1.1.7 variant arose in a single, chronically infected immunocompromised person.

Because we want to achieve herd immunity and vaccinating as many people as possible is the quickest way to reach it.
The next step is to start vaccinating children, there's still more research into safety needed, but that shouldn't take too long.

My take on it is that it's to limit the opportunities for the virus to keep on mutating into new variants. However there will be a limit to this as apparently the virus shows 'convergent' mutation, i.e. variants in different parts of the world tend to converge towards the same mutations, which suggests there's a finite limit of how many mutations can happen that will be a threat.

Hopefully that means we won't need endless boosters to counter more and more variants. Who knows, in a couple of years perhaps we'll be mainly done with needing new boosters and there'll just be one standard vaccine.

@notrub

Hey while we're at it, why not bring back Measles - most people it's only mild (heck I had it and only got a few spots). Ditto Rubella - that's even less harmful - unless you're pregnant of course, but we could just vaccinate mothers. And polio - barely ever killed anyone!

In fact, let's just pretend that we're all f*king savages again, abandon medicine completely and go back to the f*king stone age. Then we can all celebrate dying naturally some time in our 30's if we're lucky.

I know you’re frustrated but

OP, you’ve had some great explanations but I’d like to add that covid is a novel virus meaning that there is no natural immunity in the population. Our bodies haven’t been exposed to anything like it. This means that nature can’t provide us with any natural fire breaks without a lot of us dying or becoming seriously ill.

In the future it’s likely covid vaccinations will be more targeted much like childhood vaccinations (which we do because we have enough protection in the rest of society that vaccinations can be scaled down to protect the newbies) and seasonal flu vaccinations or at risk pneumococcal vaccinations.

To get to the point we can use targeted vaccinations we need to expose the majority so our immune systems can do their thing independently.

If you are interested in this kind of stuff, there's a couple of good lectures by Chris Whitty at Gresham College about this subject. One is called Vaccination & there is another on Pandemics, among others. The pandemic one is particularly good especially because he did I before Covid-19 was even known.

Many reasons

1. We don't know everyone who's "vulnerable". While the majority of the deaths have been in the >70's, many younger people have died too. Among 20-30 year olds - one of the lowest risk groups - if the virus was left to freely circulate so they all caught it, then you'd be looking at over 1000 deaths.

And while most of the attention has focused on deaths, a great many younger people have suffered life changing consequences, either due to the damage suffered from a severe illness, or due to long-covid - a condition we barely know a thing about yet.

2. Yes, if the UK were to achieve herd-immunity against existing strains in the country, then a new mutation could not arise here! It could and will arise elsewhere in the world, but it's FAR FAR easier to stop it at the border than it is if it's home grown. Just look at the speed with which the Kent strain spread, vs the SA one (which is still trying to get a foothold)! That delay gives us time to identify a variant of concern and prepare boosters for it etc.

Keeping it out would also be easier than it is currently, because the vaccines, although not as effective would still slow the virus down making it easier for authorities to track down and eradicate any cases that do get in.

3. Finally it's cheaper - the cost of the vaccine program is miniscule compared to the costs to the health service and the economy of dealing with regular cases of covid among the population - that's even if a further lockdown isn't required due to surging cases next winter.

@notrub

Hey while we're at it, why not bring back Measles - most people it's only mild (heck I had it and only got a few spots). Ditto Rubella - that's even less harmful - unless you're pregnant of course, but we could just vaccinate mothers. And polio - barely ever killed anyone!

In fact, let's just pretend that we're all f*king savages again, abandon medicine completely and go back to the f*king stone age. Then we can all celebrate dying naturally some time in our 30's if we're lucky.

Bit dramatic. Interesting though, we vaccinate infants against measles and polio, because they are the groups most at risk.

I have never said we shouldn't vaccinate. I am questioning whether, giving the current economic state, it is financially worth while to vaccinate the lowest risk group.

there's a couple of good lectures by Chris Whitty

I wouldn't trust him to tell me the time never mind anything else given how much crap he came out with early last year.

They were discussing covid parties at one point ffs!

@notrub

Many reasons 1) We don't know everyone who's "vulnerable". While the majority of the deaths have been in the >70's, many younger people have died too. Among 20-30 year olds - one of the lowest risk groups - if the virus was left to freely circulate so they all caught it, then you'd be looking at over 1000 deaths.

And while most of the attention has focused on deaths, a great many younger people have suffered life changing consequences, either due to the damage suffered from a severe illness, or due to long-covid - a condition we barely know a thing about yet.

2. Yes, if the UK were to achieve herd-immunity against existing strains in the country, then a new mutation could not arise here! It could and will arise elsewhere in the world, but it's FAR FAR easier to stop it at the border than it is if it's home grown. Just look at the speed with which the Kent strain spread, vs the SA one (which is still trying to get a foothold)! That delay gives us time to identify a variant of concern and prepare boosters for it etc.

Keeping it out would also be easier than it is currently, because the vaccines, although not as effective would still slow the virus down making it easier for authorities to track down and eradicate any cases that do get in.

3. Finally it's cheaper - the cost of the vaccine program is miniscule compared to the costs to the health service and the economy of dealing with regular cases of covid among the population - that's even if a further lockdown isn't required due to surging cases next winter.

Thank you for this, this makes a lot of sense to me.

@preparetheships

we vaccinate infants against measles and polio, because they are the groups most at risk.

True but irrelevant - the vaccination is for their entire lives and both have been eliminated due to herd-immunity. If the protection did not last, then adults would have been encouraged to have boosters.

Nearly every vaccine works on this basis, the exceptions are flu (where herd immunity is probably not possible) and exotic diseases (e.g. for those who travel or do military service, where herd-immunity is pointless).

Measles and polio jabs protect for life , so babies are only most at risk because others have been vaccinated already

The covid vaccine does prevent infection and transmission as well as death and serious illness . The data on that is still be gathered as it's harder to measure properly . There is a difference between proof of effects and proof of no effect which you are mixing up

So vaccination of everyone prevents

1: long covid .. think if your tax bill if you are immune to long covid
2: infections in vaccinated vulnerable people for whom the vaccine fails to take
3: mutations of the virus which would lead us back to an overrun nhs

@roguetomato

It's a new virus, we don't know anything for sure. You are not forced to take it if you don't want to. Take your chance.

This^ no one knows what the best way forward is for sure. I used to think of a vaccination as something which gave you 100-percent immunity, but it seems this is not the case of the covid vaccine.... still we have to try and do something to reduce transmission 🤷🏼‍♀️

So, in the current economic state, the gov decided to vaccinate everyone, for free. I assume it will be extended to children in the future too. It's not just UK, it's all over the world. But you have better evidence not to, OP?

covid is a novel virus meaning there is no natural immunity
But some people do not develop the illness even when exposed to the virus .... Therefore some people have natural immunity to the virus.... surely 🤷🏼‍♀️

It’s not just limiting the opportunities for the virus to mutate. While the chance of the people you don’t want to vaccinate is low it isn’t zero. Only vaccinating part of the population and then opening up, dropping all restrictions and then letting the virus run wild will likely lead to a large spike in hospitalisation just because of the huge number of unvaccinated people affected given the natural R0 of Covid.
If you want things to go back to normal and the unvaccinated to be able to live their lives without restrictions, you really need to vaccinate until you are pretty close to herd immunity.

@notrub

‘If the UK were to achieve herd-immunity against existing strains in the country, then a new mutation could not arise here!”

This isn’t true. Herd immunity doesn’t mean that no one will ever get the virus or that it won’t continue to mutate.

Measles hasn’t been ‘eliminated’ either.

To reduce transmission as much as possible!

The parallels to the measles and polio vaccines do not make sense. Measles and polio are potentially very dangerous to contract, so it makes every sense to immunise against them.

Covid however is not dangerous to the absolute majority of children (and young healthy individuals). Instead we are going to be asked to immunise our children primarily to protect not them, but the clinically vulnerable.

The individual risk assessment for my children - the risk of them becoming seriously ill from
Covid vs the risk of potential vaccine side effects - is what I am going to be led by. We can’t ask parents to have their children subjected to a medical intervention mainly to protect others, if their individual risk does not motivate it. This balance needs to be discussed. I want facts and statistics, not opinions and feelings, when I make my decision.

To reduce transmission and mutation risk as others have said. It also protects the unvaccinated - who are not just anti-vaxxers but people with other health issues that may make the vaccine less effective, or pregnant women for example, who are at higher risk from covid.

Also "mild illness" doesn't really mean what lots of people think, it just means you probably don't need hospital treatment... Nearly everyone I know (under 50) who has had covid has been very, very ill for about 7-14 days, some have lingering long term effects months later. So while the younger age groups are not at high risk of death or hospitalisation on an individual level, if you just let the virus spread freely with no vaccine or restrictions, lots would get very ill.

And to those who say we are not being forced to have the vaccine, I think that’s debatable. Perhaps not forced but coerced? Life will be absolutely miserable for the unvaccinated, who are likely to be denied unrestricted entry into public spaces, and perhaps even schools and workplaces, so the choice isn’t really there. Whatever your feelings are about the vaccine, I think we can agree on this point.

But some people do not develop the illness even when exposed to the virus .... Therefore some people have natural immunity to the virus.... surely

I think what's going on here is that as we are all genetically different, and our MHCs (Major Histocompatibility Complexes) differ slightly (which is why we can't just transplant organs from anyone to anyone else, they have to be compatible), and so for some, our immune systems handle the threat far better than others. Apparently you need both a strong innate immune system response initially, and then a strong T cell response later, to ensure you fight off the virus. At the moment we don't know which people will deal well with it, and those who will not (apart from the age-related thing which would be the immune response being generally weaker in the older population).

It's just as well we don't all respond in the same way, because if we did, humanity would suffer a mass extinction! The way things are with genes, they ensure populations always have individuals who will survive or not get ill.