Choosing not to get vaccine

[InnerDiscomfort]

Not looking to start a fight, but interested if you have made the decision not to get the vaccine and have no condition that you know of that would stop you, why not?

Family members abroad have decided not to get the vaccine (Pfizer I think). Vague concerns about it not being safe and/ or tested enough. They both work outside the home and have families. Fairly fit and healthy so unlikely to be seriously affected by COVID, under 50 years of age.

It's not something I agree with but up to them I guess. I'm also unlikely to get ill but had my first vaccine mainly to help stop the spread (and I'd like to go abroad!)

So if you haven't had it, I'm interested in your reasoning if you would care to share.

am still on Maternity leave ( and was off sick with HG and complications from 6 weeks pregnant and then Covid restrictions so I’ve not worked during the pandemic) , but I care for and love my service users and colleagues so check in daily, give advice, I can’t keep away

Now THATS community

Very true. It seems the ‘greater good’ argument only applies to a very narrow set of circumstances.

I beg your pardon, I'm originally from the US and I moved here in part because I appreciate things like the NHS (that is to say - free healthcare for all, but higher taxes). I personally have always tried to live my ideals. I also make less money than I could because I'm working for a public institution.

I also am aware that there are risks to the vaccine, hence not wanting to take it. But that actually is irrational, as the risks of Covid are higher. Even for young and healthy people it is, by a long shot.

Make whatever decision you want, but please don't keep assigning these horrible motives to people who just want everyone to be safe and healthy, and for the economy to be in better shape so people can work again.

There is an age tipping point where risk from the vaccine is greater than the risk of covid.

No there isn't.

G5000 I think the point some here are making is that the risk of the vaccines is still unknown. It's new to the market. Possibly you're talking just about one commonly discussed risk from the AZ vaccine, I'm not sure.

So you are saying that the risks from the coronavirus infection are known? That's new to the market as well, so to speak.

babbaloushka
I appreciate your reply. I am not opposed to taking the vaccine in a few years once all this huge amount of data has been collected over a longer period. I understand mRNA vaccines have a long research history- fine- but they haven't been in mass circulation for more than a few months.

I don't generally take medication unless absolutely necessary. I think that's probably also a common theme the OP will see from responses here.

I remain concerned about how severe the side effects have been and how under-reported they seem to be. I think the evangelism around the vaccine has probably had the effect that people feel guilty or wrong reporting them, as if they're in some way disloyal to "the cause", or accept even really bizarre and worrying symptoms as just par for the course without yellow carding them. The threads on here about disruption to menstrual cycles are a good example- I haven't seen any mainstream news coverage of this apparently common symptom. I'm an older woman but open to having more children so I'd want to avoid disrupted periods, but even if I wasn't I'd be questioning why the news isn't covering it.

G5000 If I've already had Covid, I'm already running the risks. Most people have symptomless or low symptom cases. Which other coronaviruses have brought about unforseen illnesses years afterwards when the initial illness was mild? Of course there's no guarantee. But it's just about taking the risks you are personally more comfortable with.

Wow. There are lots of terrifyingly ignorant people on here. So much misinformation. It makes me sad

@PetraRabbit

babbaloushka I appreciate your reply. I am not opposed to taking the vaccine in a few years once all this huge amount of data has been collected over a longer period. I understand mRNA vaccines have a long research history- fine- but they haven't been in mass circulation for more than a few months.

I don't generally take medication unless absolutely necessary. I think that's probably also a common theme the OP will see from responses here.

I remain concerned about how severe the side effects have been and how under-reported they seem to be. I think the evangelism around the vaccine has probably had the effect that people feel guilty or wrong reporting them, as if they're in some way disloyal to "the cause", or accept even really bizarre and worrying symptoms as just par for the course without yellow carding them. The threads on here about disruption to menstrual cycles are a good example- I haven't seen any mainstream news coverage of this apparently common symptom. I'm an older woman but open to having more children so I'd want to avoid disrupted periods, but even if I wasn't I'd be questioning why the news isn't covering it.

No problem, what I was trying to say is that you won't necessarily benefit from waiting, as the roll-out has amassed huge amounts of data already, and there are not going to be any long term effects cropping up, as biochemistry dictates. That said, if waiting would help you feel more at ease and you would feel comfortable getting it, then absolutely do, you shouldn't feel pressured into something that is not a completely benign process.

I would be cautious of your age and the effects of long COVID, but I'm sure you're already aware and equipped to make an informed choice. As I said above, I really don't feel a sense of vaccine evangelism and scrutinised the information available to me, with my DD, before deciding to go for it, and there is no way on Earth I would have let my PFB (she may be an adult, but still my PFB) be vaccinated unless I was completely satisfied with the process and outcomes, and I am fortunate to be in a very good position to make that decision, as have decades of experience working on trials and drug development.

babaloushka what do you mean we won’t see longer term data for biochemical reasons? I don’t understand what you mean

@Roonerspismed

babaloushka what do you mean we won’t see longer term data for biochemical reasons? I don’t understand what you mean

The vaccine doesn't have the long term effects people are set on waiting for, as it is merely a vessel to prompt a primary immune response.The long term effect of immunity is generated and stored by your body's own defence mechanism, which quickly breaks down the vaccine constituents and excretes them- within days. So there is nothing left in your body after vaccination that was in the injection, just the antibody model stored in your memory cells, exactly as it is after you get a cold. Does that make sense? Please ask if it doesn't, sometimes I can't tell how well I am explaining things.

So you are saying as the immune response itself is short therefore any side effects are also quick to show up?

That doesn’t make any sense to me. Firstly this is new technology for both kinds of vaccines. We surely cannot possibly know if there aren’t subtle - or non subtle - longer term effects even if the desired response of the immune system is rapid

This honestly terrifies me - that we aren’t even tracking potential longer term issues such as autoimmunity.

@Roonerspismed

So you are saying as the immune response itself is short therefore any side effects are also quick to show up?

That doesn’t make any sense to me. Firstly this is new technology for both kinds of vaccines. We surely cannot possibly know if there aren’t subtle - or non subtle - longer term effects even if the desired response of the immune system is rapid

This honestly terrifies me - that we aren’t even tracking potential longer term issues such as autoimmunity.

mRNA vaccines have been in development for a long time, and potential for long term effects like autoimmunity have been rigorously strategised and ruled out, based on fastidious study and physiological scoping. Of course they are keeping a keen eye on side effects but it really isn't a feasible concern.

The primary immune response is rapid- this is exactly what happens when any other pathogenic infection is detected and causes liminal side effects like fever, muscle aches, etc. That is your body at work neutralising the risk. It does this by making specific antibodies that bind to antigens on the cell surface membrane and guide white blood cells to attack the pathogen. Next time those antigens are detected, your memory cells already know which antibodies to make, and therefore the virus is neutralised often before symptoms begin. The long term effects of the vaccine are the latter- your memory cells knowing how to make the specific antibodies for the virus, so if you catch it, you are much less likely to get ill.

That's how we know there are not going to be long term effects from what's in the injection, as the actual chemicals in it are not designed to stay in the body very long at all. Obviously there are individuals with particular conditions where immune responses are limited or over zealous, but these have been well accounted for and guarded against. I have an AI condition, but was assured that it was safe, and although I studied immunology as part of my degree, I did speak to the consultant when I was first offered the jab, just to make sure.

If you have a condition that may be sensitive to the vaccine, speak to your GP for tailored guidance, but I can almost guarantee they will give the green light if it's not under the contraindications. I have a history of anaphylaxis but went over the ingredients with my consultant and came to the agreement that it was likely to be safe, and took that risk (an increased risk than most!) as per their, as a specialist in the field and a general expert in immunology.

*as per their advice, that should say

@gelatodipistacchio

Very true. It seems the ‘greater good’ argument only applies to a very narrow set of circumstances.

I beg your pardon, I'm originally from the US and I moved here in part because I appreciate things like the NHS (that is to say - free healthcare for all, but higher taxes). I personally have always tried to live my ideals. I also make less money than I could because I'm working for a public institution.

I also am aware that there are risks to the vaccine, hence not wanting to take it. But that actually is irrational, as the risks of Covid are higher. Even for young and healthy people it is, by a long shot.

Make whatever decision you want, but please don't keep assigning these horrible motives to people who just want everyone to be safe and healthy, and for the economy to be in better shape so people can work again.

Why did you take this as a personal attack? It wasn’t directed at you. The phrase ‘greater good’ has been used by lots of people on this thread and is all over social media. For many of those people their concerns about the ‘greater good’ begin and end with people being vaccinated. They don’t give a crap about any other issues in their community that don’t impact them directly.

@babbaloushka, thank you for that very clear explanation of why vaccines aren't observed to have long-term effects, other than priming the immune system. Viruses, on the other hand, often have long-term effects, as we are seeing with covid.

I don't have young kids, mine are 19 and 21 (both fully vaccinated now). But if I did I would happily get them vaccinated upon approval for their age cohort.

@G5000

There is an age tipping point where risk from the vaccine is greater than the risk of covid.

No there isn't.

These figures were released from the EMA a couple of days ago re the AZ vaccine and when/if/who should get it.

Im not in the uk, in an industrial City in Germany where less than 0.5% of the city's population has been infected with COVID and of that 0.5%, 2% have died, 90% pf whom are over the age of 70.

The EMA released a report on the safety of AZ to try to allay some of the fears around it here in Germany.

Im not decided yet on whether to have the vaccine if offered.

The report: www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/chmp-annex/annex-vaxzevria-art53-visual-risk-contextualisation_en.pdf

German news report: www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama/corona-impfung-astrazeneca-risiko-thrombosen-100.html

Pictures - didn't upload

For many of those people their concerns about the ‘greater good’ begin and end with people being vaccinated. They don’t give a crap about any other issues in their community that don’t impact them directly.

This is so true. For many people it’s just about them getting their life can be back to normal, but they dress it up as the greater good and community.

@KaleSlayer

For many of those people their concerns about the ‘greater good’ begin and end with people being vaccinated. They don’t give a crap about any other issues in their community that don’t impact them directly.

This is so true. For many people it’s just about them getting their life can be back to normal, but they dress it up as the greater good and community.

Exactly this.

[quote MissConductUS]@babbaloushka, thank you for that very clear explanation of why vaccines aren't observed to have long-term effects, other than priming the immune system. Viruses, on the other hand, often have long-term effects, as we are seeing with covid.

I don't have young kids, mine are 19 and 21 (both fully vaccinated now). But if I did I would happily get them vaccinated upon approval for their age cohort.[/quote]
Glad to hear it, my younger ones will be vaccinated when their time comes too. It's never a decision undertaken without risk, and those not fully equipped to make a completely comprehensive decision themselves ought to feel safe in the knowledge that there are hundreds of thousands of academic and experiential experts who are much better placed to advise. I think sometimes people forget that scientists are individuals with families and loved ones and worries of our own, not just white-coat-clad slaves to biG pHaRmA

But jeezo baba that previous work didn’t involve proper full scale human trials did it? And even if it did, the AZ issue only cake to light well after 40,000 doses had been given

Perhaps this is my ignorance but if the body is being taught to respond to the spike protein via mRNA how do we know there aren’t longer lasting implications of this? I appreciate you asked your consultant but yes doesn’t know any more than the rest of us - the longer term studies simply aren’t there.

But there is no plausible biological mechanism by which delayed side effects could occur.

I think the issue is that people want certainty/proof about negatives which is pretty much impossible to establish. I'm as certain as it's possible to be that leprechauns do not exist but how could I prove 100% for definite that they don't? Honest answer is that I couldn't. I could tell you that despite extensive research/enquiries/searching there is no evidence that leprechauns exist but that's not certainty.

@Roonerspismed

But jeezo baba that previous work didn’t involve proper full scale human trials did it? And even if it did, the AZ issue only cake to light well after 40,000 doses had been given

Perhaps this is my ignorance but if the body is being taught to respond to the spike protein via mRNA how do we know there aren’t longer lasting implications of this? I appreciate you asked your consultant but yes doesn’t know any more than the rest of us - the longer term studies simply aren’t there.

No, but the initial trials before vaccine roll out consisted of 44,000 people, which is a vastly superior sample size to most drug trials- we would thank our lucky stars to get clinical like that! No drug you take OTC or otherwise will have had that accurate a data analysis.

And the consultant does know exactly what the interactions between the mRNA and the immune system entail. As stated above, there aren't any longer lasting implications of stored immunity, except that your body can recognise and destroy a pathogen quicker.

I'm not quite sure you're grasping the mechanism quite right, but essentially, mRNA is like the working construction leaflet for protein synthesis. Our cells rely on proteins and they are the fundamentals to life. Normally, as indicated by the central dogma of biology, mRNA is made from DNA, then is translated into a protein. In this case, the mRNA isn't transcribed from our DNA, but injected, so our cells start making the protein that mRNA codes for, just as it would when the virus enters our cells (coronaviruses are positive sense, single strand, essentially just RNA in a neat little phospholipid envelope). When this protein is made, our cells display the protein as an antigen on the surface. This makes them look like the virus. Our immune system recognises the foreign antigens (all your cells have antigens, just ones that "look like yours") and creates antibodies to bind to the antigens, facilitating the rest of the immune response (Memory B cells, TFH cells, etc). The latter is exactly the same as would happen in any other instance of infection, your body doesn't know it is artificial, so it is completely natural, just like your stored immunity to every other pathogen you have encountered.

This is how we know it is safe, and the extra clever bit is that the mRNA injected is just the bit that codes for the intrinsic cell-surface protein, not any of the other nasty bits of viral RNA that cause symptoms and rampant infections, literally just the harmless coding region for a protein that your body then makes itself.

It's quite difficult to explain without getting very technical, and I've studied it so long I can hardly remember what is intuitive/common knowledge and what is not, so apologies if I've not done a good job, but I can once again assure you that every potential issue you, a layman, spot, an accredited expert has studied it tenfold and passed it from concerns. We have no scope for mistakes and are absolutely fastidious in having everything ironed out repeatedly, by difference teams, in different fields. It's just not one of those things where Joe Bloggs sees an oversight a scientist has missed, ever.