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.

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

This is the anti lock down argument.

Bluntness100

Yes it is and lives have been destroyed to protect the high risk and yet that’s not enough? You think what was unacceptable for the high risk should be acceptable for those who do not wish to receive medical treatment?

Recent studies have shown that a single dose of the vaccine after previous infection induced a greater immune response than people given two doses of the vaccine. Don’t suggest that people who have been previously infected aren’t developing a strong immune response.

www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n308

“Two weeks after a single dose of vaccine, people who had previously had covid-19 had antibody concentrations that were as high, or up to 10 times higher, than the levels seen in uninfected people who had received two doses of the vaccine.”

And from your own link, the reason they are offering it is because they don’t know just how long protection lasts - not that they think it is somehow inferior. Of course it’s easier to just roll out the vaccine to everyone rather than testing for previously existing antibodies. That doesn’t mean that people who have recovered don’t have adequate antibodies or that they are a risk to others.

Worth a read...
www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Risk-of-transmission-and-reinfection-of-SARS-CoV-2-following-vaccination.pdf

There’s also a recent preprint study showing that previous infection also reduces risk of transmission.

@Bluntness100

@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???

Well said and reassuring that there is some intelligent life on here despite the screaming and raging at individuals who don't wish to take a vaccine for a virus that with certain age demographics poses very little risk to them.

The average age of death from covid is over 80, we know that hundreds of women on here have complained of missed periods, illness etc after the vaccine so why would anyone want to subject themselves to these things for a virus that doesn't concern them. The reasons for taking a virus should be based on your own assessment on risks to corona weighing up the risks of each course of action. This isn't the borg where we are all part of some great collective- every individual is different and needs to make a choice right for them. No one should be taking a vaccine for government legislation to be changed- how ridiculous is that? If the NHS needs healthy young people to inject themselves with something which causes so many potential side effects and needs to lock people away for over a year on and off it needs scrapping for being unfit for purpose. Wasn't it the NHS that sent thousands to their deaths in care homes last year with the people banging pots and pans on Thursday night eventually given do not resuscitate orders? The countries that have no NHS virtually all are doing better with covid death rates anyway

The vaccine is a personal decision and many of the people banging on about protecting the NHS smoke and drink displaying the worst hypocrisy imaginable

@Heathermary1995 well said!

Bodily autonomy is important, and the right to make an informed choice about medical procedures that we put our bodies through. Questioning is an important part of that process, especially for a new treatment. It was questionning that settled my doubts about the acceleration of the research process, and I will be having my vaccine shortly. Insulting people and calling people anti-vaxx is deeply unhelpful and possibly harmful to improving take up of the vaccine, particularly as we are now reaching younger people who are at lower risk from Covid both statisically and in perception. The best general promotion for it is the successful scale of the programme. Some communities may need more persuasion, but that means listening to their concerns and engaging, not hectoring, insulting or isolating with prohibitive schemes like restricting emoloyment for carers or vaccine passports effectively banning people from the right to see overseas family.

Nuance in discussion has really suffered in the past decade. The point that vaccines improve immunity, and reduce transmission is important. The government did need to be cautious about seeing the effects in the early stages, but there is a political agenda at play of not wanting vaccinated people to breach lockdown.

I loathe lockdown both personally and its wider impact on society. I'm not so concerned about vaccination for my personal benefit but it seems to have the edge over taking my chances in other ways, and building up herd immunity where the virus is harder to spread and tends to be less severe i more vulnerable people is a positive step. My DCs had their flu vaccinations in the autumn, not because I particularly fear the effect of flu on them but because reducing flu levels is generally positive for all.

At this stage, vaccination is a useful tool in learning to live with Covid as we do with a large number of other illnesses, but insulting and stigmatising people who are better to not have it or have concerns is not helpful. Ultimately it's a private medical choice like any other vaccibation or procedures such as smear tests.

It’s an interesting and thought provoking discussion.

I can see thr argument why we should not have locked down totally and only protected the vulnerable. The difference for me, I think is that by allowing unvaccinated people into close contact with others, strangers, there is no control over who they are near. The elderly lady on the plane, the cev person in work, or in thr pub. These people cannot be expected that they cannot go about their daily lives because a small minority chose to go unvaccinated, and pose a risk to their health.

So fundamentally by allowing unvaccinated people to integrate as normal in society they continue to pose an increased risk to those who are vulnerable even though they are vaccinated, because thr vaccine does not guarantee immunity, it does not prevent transmission.

Lock down cannot continue, we need to get back to our normal lives. We cannot ask the vulnerable to shield because a percentage of the population don’t wish to be vaccinated.

So the answer must be those who chose to remain unvaccinated must take personal responsibility and understand the consequences of their decisions, so be prevented from entering areas where they pose a heightened risk to the public.

So the answer must be those who chose to remain unvaccinated must take personal responsibility and understand the consequences of their decisions, so be prevented from entering areas where they pose a heightened risk to the public

For how long? And will people who can not have the vaccination for whatever reason be treated the same? If not, why not? Their risk to others is the same.

@Bluntness100

It’s an interesting and thought provoking discussion.

I can see thr argument why we should not have locked down totally and only protected the vulnerable. The difference for me, I think is that by allowing unvaccinated people into close contact with others, strangers, there is no control over who they are near. The elderly lady on the plane, the cev person in work, or in thr pub. These people cannot be expected that they cannot go about their daily lives because a small minority chose to go unvaccinated, and pose a risk to their health.

So fundamentally by allowing unvaccinated people to integrate as normal in society they continue to pose an increased risk to those who are vulnerable even though they are vaccinated, because thr vaccine does not guarantee immunity, it does not prevent transmission.

Lock down cannot continue, we need to get back to our normal lives. We cannot ask the vulnerable to shield because a percentage of the population don’t wish to be vaccinated.

So the answer must be those who chose to remain unvaccinated must take personal responsibility and understand the consequences of their decisions, so be prevented from entering areas where they pose a heightened risk to the public.

To summarise then, are you saying that a healthy 25 year old female who may have fertility worries after hundreds of people on this site alone are reporting missed periods deciding not to take a vaccine for a disease that poses next to no risk to them should be barred from places due to a tiny number of vulnerable people (who have now been vaccinated)

In 2014/15 between 40 and 50 thousand died of flu in the winter so for those who didnt take the flu jab you presumably would advocate the same policies? Do you believe it is the duty to protect every person in society... I assume you dont drive a car or get on a bus which contributes to air pollution and don't drink/smoke in order not to put a strain on the NHS also?

I will if people will stop screaming how safe it is.

We are in stage four trials and - oops! - looks like those pesky Europeans have found an issue in pre-menopausal women

People like “bluntness” scare me with their lack of critical thinking.

I sometimes wish I lived in Germany where the lives of young females were slightly more valued

@Roonerspismed

People like “bluntness” scare me with their lack of critical thinking.

I sometimes wish I lived in Germany where the lives of young females were slightly more valued

I've seen threads on here where people have politely said they aren't having the vaccine but encouraging everyone to do what's right for them yet they have been set upon by lots of people where they have been insulted with anti vaxer/tin foil hat rubbish.

This thread has some useful information for those worried that AZ is risky for pre-menopausal women and who feel that it would be better to skip the vaccine. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4206181-Canada-pauses-AZ-vaccines-for-under-55s-and-says-women-most-at-risk

These people cannot be expected that they cannot go about their daily lives because a small minority chose to go unvaccinated, and pose a risk to their health.

I'll ask again though... why do we expect that people with allergies cannot go about their daily lives because other people want to wear perfume or eat certain foods or produce certain foods?

And like a pp said... what about the flu vaccine? I don't have that and don't intend to unless I'm 50+ or develop heath conditions or get pregnant etc.

Remember public opinion when someone suggested we give men a curfew because 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted? If we don't remove civil liberties for a risk to ONE in FOUR women, why do you think we can or should remove civil liberties for a 1% risk in a small proportion of the population that has been reduced by what... 65% post vaccine? And those % are me being generous. An 80yo with no underlying health issues has a 0.09% risk, reduced by 82% with AstraZenica.

I cannot understand your logic at all here.

This screams like 1 rule for Covid, 1 rule for everyone else and usually the people screaming loudest about this are at higher risk themselves - which I COMPLETELY understand. If my child was allergic to perfume, maybe I'd want to ban it in public places too.

@Roonerspismed

People like “bluntness” scare me with their lack of critical thinking.

I sometimes wish I lived in Germany where the lives of young females were slightly more valued

I think when you resort to personal insults you’ve lost thr argument.

Keep it classy,

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?

What do you define as "vast majority"?! Considering everyone over 50 plus those with underlying conditions have quite a high risk of severe Covid I'm not sure even the majority of the population let alone the "vast majority" could be considered "not at high risk". That phrase is used far too often to minimise the risk of Covid.

LOL blunt

I very much hope I’m wrong and so are various scientists around the world

Let’s see shall we?

But any UK pre menopausal woman should exercise caution - especially if very low risk from covid.

@Roonerspismed

I will if people will stop screaming how safe it is.

We are in stage four trials and - oops! - looks like those pesky Europeans have found an issue in pre-menopausal women

Interesting that its premenopausal women. I wonder if it's actually due to hormonal contraception.

Considering everyone over 50 plus those with underlying conditions have quite a high risk of severe Covid

What do you consider to be a ‘high risk’?

To summarise then, are you saying that a healthy 25 year old female who may have fertility worries after hundreds of people on this site alone are reporting missed periods deciding not to take a vaccine for a disease that poses next to no risk to them should be barred from places due to a tiny number of vulnerable people (who have now been vaccinated)

There is absolutely no evidence that the vaccine has an effect on fertility . That has been plucked entirely out of the air. It's interesting that some people worried about that and yet completely am worried about the effect of Covid. It may not have killed many 25-year-olds but it has certainly made some very ill and you have no idea what the long-term effects could be. I have an autoimmune disease that was triggered by a virus. Many are and who knows what Covid could do.

If people want to have the vaccine, that’s their choice, and that’s fine.

If others, like myself, choose to not have the vaccine because this vaccine has never been trialled on humans before long term (this is, in fact, the long term trial - not that they care how it pans out to be honest as it’s all about depopulation), then that’s their choice.

For me, I’d rather take my chances with the virus, and I have an underlying condition.

Those that are vaccinated will be safe from my choice, right?

@bumbleymummy

Considering everyone over 50 plus those with underlying conditions have quite a high risk of severe Covid

What do you consider to be a ‘high risk’?

High risk of severe Covid? I know many people over 50 who are still suffering long-term effects from Covid and a couple who were hospitalised. One person has since needed heart surgery as a result. Unless my acquaintances and friends are very unusual it's certainly not true that the "vast majority" of people are not at risk.

Those that are vaccinated will be safe from my choice, right?

Only if you continue with current lockdown guidance. Stay six feet away, don’t socialise in your home, wear ppe at all times etc. The vaccine does not guarantee immunity.

@CautiousBlonde

If people want to have the vaccine, that’s their choice, and that’s fine.

If others, like myself, choose to not have the vaccine because this vaccine has never been trialled on humans before long term (this is, in fact, the long term trial - not that they care how it pans out to be honest as it’s all about depopulation), then that’s their choice.

For me, I’d rather take my chances with the virus, and I have an underlying condition.

Those that are vaccinated will be safe from my choice, right?

The vaccine isn't 100% effective so no, not everyone will be "safe" from your choice. It's a bit bizarre that you were worried about the long-term effects of the vaccine more than the virus. I'd rather go with the option that hasn't killed millions of people so far.