Can we please stop saying the vaccine does not reduce transmission?

[Frequentflier]

It does. Plenty of evidence now out which everyone can find for themselves. edition.cnn.com/2021/03/29/health/pfizer-and-moderna-covid-19-vaccines-work-wellness/index.html

It is up to you to not take the vaccine if you don't want to. But please stop dressing it up as an unselfish choice if you have no conditions that stop you from taking it.

Proof of a vaccine is not a guarantee that a person is not a risk to anyone else

No one said it was. You have misunderstood the discussion, it’s being said rhe risk is reduced, snd this is factually correct

To put it another way, you don’t have to wear a seat belt. Wearing one does not eliminate the risk of serious injury in a collision. It reduces it. Just like being vaccinated reduces the risk of becoming seriously ill from Covid and reduces the ability to infect others.

Trying to pretend that if you’ve had Covid you’ve enough antibodies to habe the same effect as the vaccine fools no one, even the scientific community won’t make that claim.

There’s no point arguing the facts of the vaccine in terms of risk reduction. Don’t have it by all means. Just don’t expect to be allowed to sit next to someone else on a plane or go into your local pub. Or work in close proximity to others in many work places.

The choice is yours. You should never be bullied for it. But expect to pay the price for the decision and not force anyone else to.

The choice is yours. You should never be bullied for it. But expect to pay the price for the decision and not force anyone else to

So punishment for failure to comply?

@reformedcharacters

The choice is yours. You should never be bullied for it. But expect to pay the price for the decision and not force anyone else to

So punishment for failure to comply?

Accepting the consequences of your decision and taking personal responsibility to ensure you do not harm others is not being punished.

Ok I regret saying selfish because it has muddied the waters. Reiterating my original point: the vaccine reduces transmission. So please do not use the argument that it does not to not take it. You now have many other arguments to use, until Canada resumes vaccination :) ( I still think the risks are v low).

As for the virtue signalling, I don't even... I suppose all the parents who have vaccinated their children against MMR are virtue signalling that their kids are better than the other kids.

Accepting the consequences of your decision and taking personal responsibility to ensure you do not harm others is not being punished

Really? Tell that to drink drivers who are punished for not taking responsibility. ‘Accepting consequences’ in the form of restricted freedom is absolutely punishment.

@reformedcharacters

Accepting the consequences of your decision and taking personal responsibility to ensure you do not harm others is not being punished

Really? Tell that to drink drivers who are punished for not taking responsibility. ‘Accepting consequences’ in the form of restricted freedom is absolutely punishment.

Drink driving prosecution is a punishment and is very different. No one is suggesting a custodial sentence for not being vaccinated. If you view not being able to go out ans about and pose a health risk to others as a punishment, then that’s fine also.

@Poorlykitten

Greater immunity comes from being vaccinated rather than actually catching covid, from what I’ve read.

We know more about immunity after infection than after the vaccine at the moment. Immunity after infection lasts for 6-8+ months in the majority of people.

We know more about immunity after infection than after the vaccine at the moment. Immunity after infection lasts for 6-8+ months in the majority of people

This is just such an over exaggeration. It can last this long. It might not. It depends on many factors in the individual. Many get re infected. Even the shonkiest of scientists aren’t making as big claims as you are.

Virtue signaling has no place on this thread. It’s a new, popular phrase, that peeps are using to make themselves look clever.

@TheDailyCarbunkle

I find it interesting how not taking a vaccine is considered a 'selfish' choice, when shutting down the entire economy, forcing people out of work, denying children education, creating a budget deficit that will haunt our children for their entire lives, destroying careers and livelihoods in a way that massively impacts younger people, ie the people in the least amount of danger from covid, is considered - what - unselfish?

It is unbelievable to me that people are expected to sacrifice and sacrifice and sacrifice to extent of taking a medication that they personally don't need and may have unknown side effects that have long term health consequences, and people are genuinely calling them selfish for not wanting to do that.

What the fuck is wrong with people???

👏

@CovoidOfAllHumanity Thank you for being a voice of sanity.

@winched

Where have I said that people in public places need to adjust their behaviour?

When you were arguing in favour of treating the unvaccinated like lepers and banning them from going anywhere because it's not discrimination to want to avoid people who may infect you.

Banning them from everywhere would be an adjustment of behaviour, don't you think?

I didn't say that they should be banned from going anywhere. I think it's up to businesses to decide on that and if they do decide it will not be something that is illegal (assuming pregnant people can be vaccinated or show proof of exemption) because not wanting to be vaccinated is not a protected characteristic. Trying to avoid people who are not vaccinated is not discrimination or even unreasonable and I will certainly be doing that.

I think if it had been children, people would have given up so much and more and you wouldn’t have seen these threads where folk blithely spouted it’s okay that Granny X died from Covid, after all she was 70...

I honestly believe the opposite. I think if it had been children, they'd have all been under lockdown / told to shield in the same way the CEV and elderly have been told to shield. Except the "rest of the country" would have gone on to a certain extent. There would likely have been restrictions, masks + SD etc, but I think there would have been a much bigger focus on keeping the economy going.

Also, I don't think it's as black and white as saying "Granny X died but that's okay because she's 70". I think the vast majority of people believe every death is sad, and a tragic loss.

What I sometimes take issue with is the attitude that only covid deaths are a tragic loss. That people are justifying others losing homes and businesses and education and mental health as being worth it, yet the majority have never, ever considered babies dying every 2 minutes of malaria a cause worthy enough to inconvenience ourselves over in the slightest. Most people wouldn't give £10 a month to save malnourished children in third world countries, yet the same people are demanding more and more and more and calling anyone who disagrees, who feels they have given up enough, selfish.

I thought it was interesting on the thread about how we are killing the planet. Plastic in the oceans, climate change, cutting down rainforests, cotton production, on and on. And people were saying there are too many people in the world - we need a plague. Well, we're living through a "mild plague" right now and taking the most extreme measures possible to try to make sure it doesn't kill a single person.

That paragraph above sounds almost sociopathic in how much empathy it lacks when you add emotion into it... but I think it goes to show that it's not always about not caring if granny X dies. Of course granny X dying is a tragedy, anyone dying is sad. But when you step back and take ALL emotion out of the situation, it's more nuanced. When you take emotion out of the situation we can be more factual. This is probably the only time in the long, long history of humans where an average death of 80-85 would be considered tragic. That's just a fact. Yet 83 year old granny dying of a preventable infection is tragic and sad.

If you take emotion out of the situation you can't deny that deaths in London are falling, as are hospitalizations, because of the vaccines. All this " you would not donate to a child in a third world country" is obfuscation.

By the way I am from a 'third world country' and that term is frowned upon now, especially as the first world hasnt handled Covid any too well.

@Bluntness100 I understand the discussion perfectly. You are saying that people who aren’t vaccinated are a risk to others and should be treated differently. However, you haven’t factored in that the vaccine does not guarantee immunity and natural infection also provides immunity. So, as I said above, you could have a situation where a vaccinated person is still a risk while an unvaccinated person is not.

The claims ‘I’ am making are based on several studies showing that natural immunity lasts 6-8+ months and it is expected to last longer. Where are the studies backing up your claims?

Someone mentioned scaremongering around safety of the vaccine. That's interesting that people see it that way. I've seen the scaremongering come from the opposite direction - weve spent a year being called granny killers, being blamed for the burden on the NHS, being called murderers if we fail to comply with mask wearing, being told that we are at risk of death when in fact that risk for healthy young people is barely there, told not to see friend and family, that we can see 6 people but 7 is borderline genocide. We have just spend 3 months in lockdown with horrendous weather, homeschooling while working, industries are on their knees, and peoples mental health is on the floor. And then, at the end of all this we are told that we all need to get a trial vaccine and if we dont there may be a chance we cannot engage with normal day to day activities, and everyone will know who hasnt had the vaccine because it will be on an app on our phones. That, to me, is scaremongering at best, and coercion.

I think those that can take it and chose not to are hugely irresponsible. There is a small chance of minor side effects, the impact on the population as a whole is far more devastating and you need to look at society and stop being selfish.

Bluntness100

Restricted freedom based on behaviour is a punishment whether you accept it or not. People have their freedom restricted on the bases on the risk they pose to the public.

Sorry! I was about to say developing nations but I realise that can be offensive too. Low income countries, then. (And I agree with you re covid response!).

I'm not sure how it's obfuscation, though? Because they're so far away geographically? You could use the same analogy in Britain... preventable homelessness etc. My point is nobody is expected to give up all of the things people have given up for any other reason, and they're not called selfish. That's just normal human behaviour. If my child had cancer I'd sell my house and my business to treat her, as I'm sure my close family would. But I wouldn't expect a stranger in Manchester to. Similarly I wouldn't do that for a stranger in Manchesters child.

And yes I agree deaths and hospitalisations are falling due to vaccines and it's a great thing. I've never been in any denial about that and I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I believe everyone who wants a vaccine should have one, and everyone who has a significant risk of death or hospitalisation should be encouraged to get one.

@millenialblush well said

Imagine if when the first polio campaigns were rolled out, people who said they donated to children dying of malaria were exempt. Whether you donate to malaria or are a pedophile is completely and absolutely irrelevant.

[quote bumbleymummy]@Bluntness100 I understand the discussion perfectly. You are saying that people who aren’t vaccinated are a risk to others and should be treated differently. However, you haven’t factored in that the vaccine does not guarantee immunity and natural infection also provides immunity. So, as I said above, you could have a situation where a vaccinated person is still a risk while an unvaccinated person is not.

The claims ‘I’ am making are based on several studies showing that natural immunity lasts 6-8+ months and it is expected to last longer. Where are the studies backing up your claims?[/quote]
I think you’re misunderstanding, and I’m unsure why, because I keep stating it. No one is saying vaccines eliminate risk or guarantee immunity, no one. Least of all me. What we are saying is it reduces the risk.

As for the studies on immunity following infection there are many and a lot of uncertainty. Google it. I’m honestly not going to sit and google them for you.

Restricted freedom based on behaviour is a punishment whether you accept it or not. People have their freedom restricted on the bases on the risk they pose to the public

It’s not about me “accepting it”. As said, I’m perfectly ok with you thinking it’s a punishment, I see it as facing the consequences of your decision to not vaccinate and being forced to take personal responsibility. It is simply a difference of opinion.

My belief is if you are known to have a heightened risk to the public as you choose to remain unvaccinated and we have no methodology for checking antibodies following an infection and tracking it, then you should not be permitted to integrate with the rest of society and potentially increase the risk to others and to potentially perpetuate the spread of the virus.

I understand your view is different. And that’s ok.

Bluntness100

What if public opinion shifted to ‘those most at risk should have their freedom restricted’? It was unacceptable that the at risk groups should shield alone and the low risk groups sacrificed much as a result.

The vast majority of the population are not high risk so where’s the logic for restricting their freedom for simply exercising their right to bodily autonomy?

Restricted freedom on the basis that your behaviour poses a risk to the public is aka prison.

Link from the cdc on immunity post infection sigh.

If I have already had COVID-19 and recovered, do I still need to get vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine?

illustration of a COVID-19 vaccine vial
Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. Even if you have already recovered from COVID-19, it is possible—although rare—that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 again. Learn more about why getting vaccinated is a safer way to build protection than getting infected.

If you were treated for COVID-19 with monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma, you should wait 90 days before getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Talk to your doctor if you are unsure what treatments you received or if you have more questions about getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

Experts are still learning more about how long vaccines protect against COVID-19 in real-world conditions. CDC will keep the public informed as new evidence becomes available.

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html

No one is saying vaccines eliminate risk or guarantee immunity, no one. Least of all me. What we are saying is it reduces the risk

Then why are you saying that people who have had the vaccine are not a risk to others? They can still potentially be a risk. So why should they be treated differently and have more privileges than someone who is immune after natural infection?

I don’t need to google more studies about immunity after infection. I have plenty. I’m asking you for studies that prove your points. - that covid antibodies ‘aren’t the same’ as those after vaccination. Btw The ONS released figures yesterday showing that over half of the U.K. has covid antibodies and they included both vaccinated and previously infected people.

And of course we have ways of testing for and proving the presence of antibodies. How do you think they’ve been monitoring the effectiveness of the vaccines?