Question for people who are so anti-vaccine

[User135644]

Whether people choose to take the vaccine or not is up to them, that's not what i'm interested in.

But you get people who are so against the Covid vaccines, yet are also vehemently anti-lockdown and any restrictions (i.e. the rabble in London the other day, spreading anti-vax rhetoric all over the city while doing their best William Wallace impressions 'freedom').

Do these people not realise that without vaccines we'd still massively be up shit creek without a paddle (as many countries still are)? We'd likely still be in lockdown with the Indian variant particularly causing many deaths among the elderly and vulnerable. Therefore, whether you choose to take the vaccine or not, are you not at least glad at the effect they've had on suppressing the virus?

Our government have handled Covid so badly that the vaccines have been a literal life saver for thousands of people. We'd be fucked right now without them. Be grateful.

@JaniieJones

'You will be protected and what someone else does is actually kind of irrelevant'

It isn't only about protecting ourselves it is also about keeping community transmission down so restrictions remain lifted. What someone else does is absolutely relevant.

It really only matters if you are vulnerable and haven’t had the vaccine. If you are in a vulnerable category and didn’t get the vaccine, that’s on you.

Community transmission (as far as COVID goes) is only relevant when you have the vulnerable out and about. They should have isolated themselves while everyone else got back to normal.

The lockdowns will absolutely be seen as a public health disaster.

'Hospitals were certainly very busy in Sweden (which obviously had no lockdown)'

Sweden. A country with a population density of 25 per sq km www.worldometers.info/world-population/sweden-population/

The UK has 10 times that. When dealing with a highly infectious virus this is very relevant.

Compare us to countries with similar population densities and pop sizes for relevance and context.

'Community transmission (as far as COVID goes) is only relevant when you have the vulnerable out and about. They should have isolated themselves while everyone else got back to normal.'

Many did! Perhaps we should have just locked the over 50s and disabled people up for ever. Great plan.

Why is anyone questioning the safety of the covid jab immediately castigated as an anti-vaxxer? From my circle of friends/family several had scary side effects, including a friend who hasn't regained the use of her arm 3 months later. when she asked her GP what to do, and whether to proceed with the 2nd doze of AZ, the GP said to have a jab in the other hand. It's a joke .
I have no issues with anyone wanting or refusing the jab. I don't ask anyone if they had it.
The emotional and psychological pressure on everyone to get it is ethically immoral.

arm, not hand

'Why is anyone questioning the safety of the covid jab immediately castigated as an anti-vaxxer?'

Anti vaxxer, vax refuser whatever. Call them what you like really. Vax sceptics suit you better? Tbh we all question the safety of vaccines but you have to listen to experts not hysterical pals on social media.

'The emotional and psychological pressure on everyone to get it is ethically immoral'

Immoral! I've heard it all now.

@SamanthaChumbaMumba

What then happens? According to this view

Most favoured the Swedish approach, I think - voluntary measures rather than lockdowns.

Are difficult health decisions made or something else (we don’t overwhelm etc)

These were made anyway - hence the removal of the elderly to care homes to clear the hospitals, a move which of course likely killed a lot of people.
The idea that the hospitals would become overwhelmed if we didn't lockdown was based on speculation, informed by Ferguson's models.

Hospitals were certainly very busy in Sweden (which obviously had no lockdown), especially during the second winter wave. I think they came close to breaching capacity, but just about managed.

We were at the limit a couple of times. I take it from this you mean with voluntary measures we would not have breached capacity?

It’s hard to see that taking away furlough and keeping sectors open, if that goes along with it too?, would mean we’d have lower hospitalisation than we did just from people deciding to behave a certain way.

I’ve seen posts from people adamant masks work or don’t and I’m on the fence and haven’t invested enough time to see which studies say what, but both sides seem pretty sure.

The thing that makes me think that it is possible to overwhelm health capacity if no lockdown are countries where this nearly or did happen. Eg Italy.

Many did! Perhaps we should have just locked the over 50s and disabled people up for ever. Great plan

Yeah, it would have been a great plan. Young and healthy would have had a case of the sniffles for the most part and developed immunity. Vulnerable are mostly retired anyway, we could have made exceptions for those classed as vulnerable of working age.

We could have gone back to normal on this basis alone. Luckily we have the vaccine now too.

Abhorrent attitude usedup but really sums up some of the more selfish attitudes out there.

People who don’t want to else at a mask as it doesn’t protect them, only other people, so what’s the point?

People who won’t take the vaccine but are happy for others to take the “risk” so they can reap the benefits.

People who think they’re healthy thinking it’s a good idea to “lock up” the elderly and vulnerable” becomes who cares if they differ, as long as you get your nice easy life.

“people who don’t want to wear a mask” that should read.
And “who cares if they suffer.”

Apparently asking me to be fed up and coherent at the same time is a step too far

Samantha I was bewildered to see adverts for “lockdown support”, a government/council run scheme offering help to elderly and vulnerable people who needed support with care/shopping etc during lockdown. In May 2021.
Something that would have literally been a lifesaver in May 2020. The government seemed to leave it up to community run schemes, and some council outreach where possible, but these didn’t have the money and scope that the government could have provided.

As usual, too little too late.

@SomeKindOfFloppyWeirdo

Abhorrent attitude usedup but really sums up some of the more selfish attitudes out there.

People who don’t want to else at a mask as it doesn’t protect them, only other people, so what’s the point?

People who won’t take the vaccine but are happy for others to take the “risk” so they can reap the benefits.

People who think they’re healthy thinking it’s a good idea to “lock up” the elderly and vulnerable” becomes who cares if they differ, as long as you get your nice easy life.

Masks don’t magically work because you want them to. If they worked, Western Europe would not be going in and out of lockdowns under strict mandates 🙄

So, before the vaccine came out, why would you lock down everyone? Why not protect the very people who need protecting? You haven’t given me a satisfactory strategy.

Instead you prefer name calling. Typical.

Also, the vaccine is there to protect you, and it’s pretty damn good at that. Me getting the vaccine doesn’t make your vaccine more or less effective at all. It’s really silly to think otherwise. (Btw I’m fully vaxxed for personal reasons and have no expectations that anyone else vaxx themselves. They can make their own choices)

I actually think the lockdown we had was pretty selfish, and designed to protect those who were scared but didn't need protection

Sums it up nicely

“I actually think the lockdown we had was pretty selfish, and designed to protect those who were scared but didn't need protection“

Could not agree more! The media whipped up fear and people swallowed it up. Which left the government with little choice but to impose unnecessarily extreme restrictions

I actually think the lockdown we had was pretty selfish, and designed to protect those who were scared but didn't need protection

I can’t say I agree. I loathed it, esp second and another concerns me more than nearly anything so I did it knowing it wasn’t really for me. Also it definitely was not for my dc who had to stay home.

'I actually think the lockdown we had was pretty selfish, and designed to protect those who were scared but didn't need protection.'

'Pretty selfish' 🙄.

It was/is a public health emergency. Transmission needed to be slowed down.

Honestly it is incredible the stuff you read online from armchair professors.

Just get the vaccine or if you daren't just be very grateful millions have so life can return to normal.

So, before the vaccine came out, why would you lock down everyone? Why not protect the very people who need protecting? You haven’t given me a satisfactory strategy.

I think it just shows that you don’t have a good understanding of who the “vulnerable” in the “elderly and vulnerable” are. They not bed bound invisible people, they’re people with jobs - who need their wage and can’t stay locked up at home - they’re people who provide the services you rely on. How do you make that work?

Personally I think all the lockdowns are shit and useless, as the government acted to late and did too little. So not sure why you think I want to “lock down everyone”.

Where’s your strategy for ensuring everyone had access to a life, and no one was locked down?

@SomeKindOfFloppyWeirdo

So, before the vaccine came out, why would you lock down everyone? Why not protect the very people who need protecting? You haven’t given me a satisfactory strategy.

I think it just shows that you don’t have a good understanding of who the “vulnerable” in the “elderly and vulnerable” are. They not bed bound invisible people, they’re people with jobs - who need their wage and can’t stay locked up at home - they’re people who provide the services you rely on. How do you make that work?

Personally I think all the lockdowns are shit and useless, as the government acted to late and did too little. So not sure why you think I want to “lock down everyone”.

Where’s your strategy for ensuring everyone had access to a life, and no one was locked down?

Haven’t you seen the mortality rates by age? The average age of COVID death is 81 years of age!

I think it’s you who haven’t a clue.

Vast majority of them are retirees and a large minority in care homes. They aren’t the people providing essential services—they are relying on younger, healthier people as a matter of fact!

Age is by far the biggest risk factor for this disease. Adjustments could be made for the far smaller group of vulnerable working age persons (and much easier to do when you aren’t shutting down the economy), but it’s staggering you don’t know the relevant statistics here.

@SamanthaChumbaMumba

'Pretty selfish' 🙄.

It was/is a public health emergency. Transmission needed to be slowed down.

The vulnerable needed to be protected from the virus. That in turn would have kept the pressure off the NHS. Which, if you remember, was the original goal.

Honestly it is incredible the stuff you read online from armchair professors.

I'm calling out the millions of people who aren't vulnerable but gratefully accepted furlough/working from home, whilst essential workers (no matter how vulnerable other than those classified as CEV) had to keep working to make sure that everyone else was fed and watered and housed etc.
All that those sheltering did was transfer their risk onto others. How anyone who did that can think of themselves as the unselfish ones, I cannot fathom. 'I demand to be protected from a virus but I also demand to maintain a lifestyle that means others must be exposed to it - and in return I free up the hospitals for them and give myself a nice pat on the back and tell myself I'm awesome'. Yeah, really selfless....

Just get the vaccine or if you daren't just be very grateful millions have so life can return to normal.

The people who were likely to die need to get the vaccine - no one else. Life should not have been normal over the course of this pandemic - we should had a wee bit extra to do to help those who needed it. But what we actually did was a travesty.

you're wrong

the past year has shown that lockdown was necessary and mass vaccination is needed to get society back a reasonable normal

you can argue against this until you're blue in the face, but having coronavirus circulating continuously in the population will cause huge issues

@SamanthaChumbaMumba

you're wrong

the past year has shown that lockdown was necessary and mass vaccination is needed to get society back a reasonable normal

There is no correlation between lockdown and severity and number of deaths. Numerous studies have shown this.

there is no good quality systematic review looking at the impact of lockdown on CV outcomes - I'd be interested to know where you're getting this evidence from