Us and them- the vaccine. So much pressure

[ToTheLetter01]

Before i begin, i am not an anti vaxxer. Me and my DS have had all our jabs and we also have annual flu jabs.
However i feel such hostility and pressure from people who have had their vaccine for me to have it. The reason i do not want it at this moment is just because its still in the experimental stage until 2023 and i would like to know more long term data.
This is my choice, its my body and everyone should have the choice. Choice to have the vaccine and choice to not. I do not shame nor ridicule anyone for having it or not.
However i have felt so much pressure from friends and others in the wider public, media, government.

I feel like the nation is becoming split between us and them. ( vaccinated and unvaccinated). With things becoming unfair for people. Eg. may be able to travel and not quarantine if had vaccines, care home workers may be forced to have the vaccine. Now i get the point of view of they have had it and may be more "safe". But how is the ok in a freedom and rights point of view. As i stated freedom to do what you want with your body.

I feel like this world is becoming some kind of dystopian world. I miss my old life, i took all the freedom for granted. Its true that you don't realise how good it was until it's gone.
I don't want people to be hostile to me because of my choice to wait for long term data on the vaccine. Half of me wants to lie to people i've had it so they will not be stand off towards me.

@minipie

The thing is that it’s not a choice that only affects the individual.

You don’t want to take the risk of having a new vaccine. I didn’t particularly want to take that risk either. Lots of people feel the same. But most of us have gone ahead and taken that risk anyway, because it’s the only way we were going to get back to normal life as a country.

Is it fair that you get to opt out of taking that risk, but meanwhile you benefit from the gradual opening up that has happened solely because of the vaccine and all the people who have taken the risk and had it?

Tbh if there are a few things you are restricted from, like travel, that seems a fair pay off for the fact you’ve chosen not to take a risk that others have swallowed.

Unless you are going to drip feed and explain the vaccine is especially risky for you?

This

@bumbleymummy

You say you want your old life back but you're not prepared to do the only thing that will mean you get your old life back because of the risk.

Wow. It’s really scary that people think they have to have the vaccine to get their life back.

As the vaccine rollout is one of the 4 tests needed to end restrictions, I really don’t understand how people think refusing the vaccine will do anything other than drag it all out.

Just to stress, we aren't talking about the chance of you having covid right now (the rate per 100,000) this is the chance of you getting covid between now and an indeterminate date in the future (maybe tomorrow, maybe next June, maybe 3 years in the future).

RTB - how can this be - when the vaccine only covers people for a short amount of time?

How many times are people likely to need to be vaccinated to cover this indeterminate date?

@bumbleymummy

As I said previously, your posts are incredibly self absorbed.

@bumbleymummy - If the majority of people have taken the "risk" of having the vaccination in order to not get COVID and in order to NOT transmit it willingly to others then why can't you? I said, and you incorrectly decided to question me on it, that if we have the vaccination we cannot pass it to others but others can still pass it to us albeit not in such a dangerous form. Yes absolutely WE CAN STILL GET IT but it will be from people not vaccinated and with whom we have to have close contact with.

I don't think I have to have the vaccine to get my life back. I want my children to get their lives back and that only happens when transmission is low and everyone who can has been vaccinated which protects everyone and means we can stop restrictions and isolation.

Some people honestly can't see past the end of their nose.

Ok mnhq
Hopefully you will be able to post it so people can make an informed choice

@speckledostrichegg

But it is controlled. we’ve vaccinated (the majority of) the over 50s. The JCVI identified them as the groups most likely to end up in hospital.

You are an anti vaxxer. Having other vaccines doesn’t change it. You’re now an anti vaxxer.

Interesting that MNHQ have hidden your message @shewalkslikerihanna. I obviously did not "refresh" in time to see it.

@ilovesooty but it’s ok for the majority of the population to put vulnerable people at risk of flu every year?

Last flu pandemic was h1n1 (swine flu) in 2009.

@bumbleymummy - Did the Government give us the option to be vaccinated against the Flu? If it was voluntary I would have done it. This year, because of my age, I was "invited" to have it. Had it been voluntary to protect others, I would have had it years ago.

[quote bumbleymummy]@speckledostrichegg

But it is controlled. we’ve vaccinated (the majority of) the over 50s. The JCVI identified them as the groups most likely to end up in hospital.[/quote]
it clearly is not, seeing as the roadmap had to be paused whilst we see what happens to trajectories of transmission & hospitalisation due the increased transmission/lowered vaccine & prior immunity efficacy

[quote Unreasonabubble]@bumbleymummy - If the majority of people have taken the "risk" of having the vaccination in order to not get COVID and in order to NOT transmit it willingly to others then why can't you? I said, and you incorrectly decided to question me on it, that if we have the vaccination we cannot pass it to others but others can still pass it to us albeit not in such a dangerous form. Yes absolutely WE CAN STILL GET IT but it will be from people not vaccinated and with whom we have to have close contact with.[/quote]
No, technically you could also get it from a vaccinated person. Some vaccinated people will still contract and pass on the virus because the vaccine isn’t 100% effective. So, technically, if you’re one of the ‘vaccinated but not immune’ then you can also be putting people at risk and so, by your logic, you should be excluded from public places.

Just because some people willingly do something doesn’t mean that everyone has to or should. We are all allowed to make our own choices.

[quote Unreasonabubble]@bumbleymummy - Did the Government give us the option to be vaccinated against the Flu? If it was voluntary I would have done it. This year, because of my age, I was "invited" to have it. Had it been voluntary to protect others, I would have had it years ago.[/quote]
That’s fine. That’s your choice. Would you have campaigned for people who didn’t have the flu vaccine to be excluded from public places as well though - because they could be a risk to others?

Selfish.

it clearly is not, seeing as the roadmap had to be paused whilst we see what happens to trajectories of transmission & hospitalisation due the increased transmission/lowered vaccine & prior immunity efficacy

Maybe it's not controlled - because the vaccines don't really work ...

But if you end up testing positive or in hospital because you haven't been vaccinated you're another statistic and another excuse for the govt to keep measures in place. So your decision may affect us all.

@speckledostrichegg based on the outdated models that predicted us at levels that we are well below?

No, technically you could also get it from a vaccinated person. Some vaccinated people will still contract and pass on the virus because the vaccine isn’t 100% effective. So, technically, if you’re one of the ‘vaccinated but not immune’ then you can also be putting people at risk and so, by your logic, you should be excluded from public places.

@bumbleymummy

this makes no sense at all. Vaccination reduces the chances of you transmitting the virus, and if you do, it reduces the viral load the person is exposed to. At a population level, this makes a huge difference in reducing transmission and mutation.

Saying you shouldn't have it because it doesn't prevent transmission "100%" is like saying you shouldn't have it because it doesn't stop you getting ill "100%"

[quote bumbleymummy]@speckledostrichegg based on the outdated models that predicted us at levels that we are well below?[/quote]
so you believe all restrictions should be lifted and everything will be just fine?

rightiho

@bumbleymummy - Oh for goodness sake. You are twisting everything that someone posts. You are in the minority. We are (those that are vaccinated) doing everything we can for the rest of the population.

I am off to bed now as repeating records bore me.

@iminthegarden

But if you end up testing positive or in hospital because you haven't been vaccinated you're another statistic and another excuse for the govt to keep measures in place. So your decision may affect us all.

~30% of the people who died from the delta variant had been double jabbed (and another significant percentage had a single jab) so I’m not sure that argument would work out so well.

@speckledostrichegg

No, technically you could also get it from a vaccinated person. Some vaccinated people will still contract and pass on the virus because the vaccine isn’t 100% effective. So, technically, if you’re one of the ‘vaccinated but not immune’ then you can also be putting people at risk and so, by your logic, you should be excluded from public places.

@bumbleymummy

this makes no sense at all. Vaccination reduces the chances of you transmitting the virus, and if you do, it reduces the viral load the person is exposed to. At a population level, this makes a huge difference in reducing transmission and mutation.

Saying you shouldn't have it because it doesn't prevent transmission "100%" is like saying you shouldn't have it because it doesn't stop you getting ill "100%"

I haven’t said you shouldn’t have it because it’s not 100% effective. I was replying to a poster who thinks that only an unvaccinated person can contract/transmit it which isn’t the case.

@Dustyboots

Just to stress, we aren't talking about the chance of you having covid right now (the rate per 100,000) this is the chance of you getting covid between now and an indeterminate date in the future (maybe tomorrow, maybe next June, maybe 3 years in the future).

RTB - how can this be - when the vaccine only covers people for a short amount of time?

How many times are people likely to need to be vaccinated to cover this indeterminate date?

We don't know how long the vaccine gives us protection. Its untested for covid. It is likely to give younger people particularly some protection for some time and so far the vaccination seems to be giving longer protection than hoped.

I've seem some interest stuff on how this is much more complex than you might think. Theres work into flu jabs which says basically the first strain you are exposed to as a child has higher immunity for similar strains you for the rest of your life. This meant that older people who were exposed to a particular flu strain which was unusual when they were children had more protection than expected to a new usual but similar just a few years ago than people younger than them who had first encountered different strains because we don't fully understand how immunity works and its not just about anti-bodies but also t-cell immunity.

The expectation is now that whilst we might need a top up against new variants, an initial vaccination will continue to have some benefit for longer than the 6 months first thought.

Already there is talk that only the most vulnerable are going to need top ups soon - younger people may not be offered top ups this year because they won't need it.

Its another unknown.

Yes we are gambling on unknowns and unknown unknowns here. We can only go on the balance of probabilities here. But by the same token we knew enough about viruses to produce a vaccine which works within 48 hours of recieving the genetic profile of covid-19. THATS the level of what our knowledge is which is mindblowing. The vaccine wasn't just developed in those 48 hours though. This is decades of work which just had a production run which was 48 hours - the development stage was yeats prior to that point.

The point is that modelling allows us to understand things better ahead of use in humans in a way that hasn't been possible before. We still don't known everything and there are still risks but these are much smaller than they were in the past.

I dunno, I guess it depends on how much you trust science in general and how much you know about how it works.

Taking any kind of medication is a gamble. Even if its the most used and trialled one out there.

For me the unpredictability and the impact of covid on others were the tipping point. The risk of that was bigger than the combined long term knowledge of how to design and produce a vaccine (as I say, this has been decades in the making).