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.

We all have choices but as adults we have to understand that choices have consequences.

A proportionately tiny number of people who have had the vaccine have had very serious health consequences.

Your choices is not to take that very small risk that you might be one of those people but to take the much higher risk that you will catch and pass on Covid because you somehow think the risk to you personally of that of is less than having the vaccine ., Regardless of your age ,if you are an adult and if Covid infections are high when you make that choice, your choice is made in an extremely poor risk assessment

This puts you in a small minority of adults in the UK , though much larger than those who have had a negative outcome from the vaccine.

You have had some fairly mildly negative consequences of feeling judged for your choice. You may ( or may not) have more consequences depending on if vaccinated people are allowed to do more in time

The vast majority of adults in the UK have taken that that miniscule risk when they made a choice to have the vaccine and there will also be consequences to that choice though much more positive ones than from the choice you have made so far.

Nothing in life is fair. We are in a pandemic which means our choices have higher stakes than normal, do you really think you are exempt from that?. Feeling judged seems a pretty mild consequence to me

“ A proportionately tiny number of people who have had the vaccine have had very serious health consequences.

Your choices is not to take that very small risk that you might be one of those people but to take the much higher risk that you will catch and pass on Covid because you somehow think the risk to you personally of that of is less than having the vaccine ., Regardless of your age ,if you are an adult and if Covid infections are high when you make that choice, your choice is made in an extremely poor risk assessment”

Substitute ‘flu’ for covid here. Technically, most of us are at higher risk from flu (and of passing it on to more vulnerable people) than we are of the flu vaccine. But we don’t go out and get the flu vaccine simply because it’s the lower risk option of the two.

And before anyone says ‘covid isnt flu’ 🙄 I’m not saying it is. I’m just giving another example of a risk assessment situation where we don’t necessarily pick the lowest risk option.

I took the lowest risk option. That's what a risk assessment if for.

Lowest risk to me and everyone else. A no brainer

@bumbleymummy

And before anyone says ‘covid isnt flu’ 🙄 I’m not saying it is. I’m just giving another example of a risk assessment situation where we don’t necessarily pick the lowest risk option.

Yes I will say it - Covid isn't flu. It's a novel
Coronavirus that we as a species are only at the beginning of dealing with. It is very highly contagious and the new variants are becoming more so. It has the ability to cause very serious illness and as we know death.

And yes people can die from flu, but we have been dealing with flu for centuries at least and therefore across the world we have varying levels of antibodies in the population for different strains of flu. That, combined with an annual vaccination campaign for the current strains in circulation makes it manageable as a disease.

We are nowhere near that level of manageability with Covid yet. Without the vaccination, how many do you think would be dying right now in the UK as the Delta variant takes hold?

Yes, chequerboard. But my point was simply that we don’t always take the lowest risk option when we make a risk assessment. Do you have a comment on that seeing as we already know that ‘coronavirus is new’.

@Dustyboots

Thank you for the links *@riveted1*

I was really hoping that they might change my mind. But they really don't. It's just opinion and bias again.

But thank you.

I thought the nature article was very neutral @Dustyboots

I won't link any others as you can do some searching if you're still interested, there's a lot out there!

The facts are there and backed up by evidence - Andrew Wakefield faked the link between MMR and autism, which has never been replicated by other scientists (including many groups who are very motivated into helping prevent and treat autism in children, not those who are funded by "big pharma"). Part of his motivation was the fact he'd been paid a lot of money by a lawyer trying to build a case against vaccine companies.

The other aspect to this is that he subjected children to unnecessary, invasive procedures and lied to ethics committees as this project would have never been approved otherwise. Even if the link had been real and his paper not retracted, he still would've been struck off as he massively violated the code of ethics as a clinician. It really wasn't just people trying to get rid of him because he was going to cause "big pharma" to lose money.

@bumbleymummy

Yes, chequerboard. But my point was simply that we don’t always take the lowest risk option when we make a risk assessment. Do you have a comment on that seeing as we already know that ‘coronavirus is new’.

I have already said that many of the posters who make incorrect and glib statements to back up their anti-vax views have a great problem with their ability to conduct balanced research and make valid risk assessments.

So yes, I agree that anti-vaxers and the vaccine hesitant are generally poor at risk assessment.

@bumbleymummy

Yes, chequerboard. But my point was simply that we don’t always take the lowest risk option when we make a risk assessment. Do you have a comment on that seeing as we already know that ‘coronavirus is new’.

I don't understand why anyone would do a risk assessment then choose the option that was the highest risk to them and others.

@bumbleymummy

“ A proportionately tiny number of people who have had the vaccine have had very serious health consequences.

Your choices is not to take that very small risk that you might be one of those people but to take the much higher risk that you will catch and pass on Covid because you somehow think the risk to you personally of that of is less than having the vaccine ., Regardless of your age ,if you are an adult and if Covid infections are high when you make that choice, your choice is made in an extremely poor risk assessment”

Substitute ‘flu’ for covid here. Technically, most of us are at higher risk from flu (and of passing it on to more vulnerable people) than we are of the flu vaccine. But we don’t go out and get the flu vaccine simply because it’s the lower risk option of the two.

but my decision to not bother getting the 'flu vaccine doesn't impact on anyone else

It's well controlled and we're not desperately trying to get a flu pandemic under control. The general population have centuries of prior immunity built up, it's a completely different scenario.

@riveted1

“We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.”

“ Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.”

@ChequerBoard
so people who decide not to have the flu vaccine every year, even though the flu vaccine is lower risk than the flu for many people, are ‘anti-vaxxers’ and ‘poor at risk assessment’? Or are they just happy to accept that small risk that flu poses to them without trying to take action against it?

but my decision to not bother getting the 'flu vaccine doesn't impact on anyone else

What about the vulnerable people who can’t be vaccinated against flu? It could kill them! You could be a granny killer!

Why are you comparing flu and Covid?

@bumblingbovine49

We all have choices but as adults we have to understand that choices have consequences.

A proportionately tiny number of people who have had the vaccine have had very serious health consequences.

Your choices is not to take that very small risk that you might be one of those people but to take the much higher risk that you will catch and pass on Covid because you somehow think the risk to you personally of that of is less than having the vaccine ., Regardless of your age ,if you are an adult and if Covid infections are high when you make that choice, your choice is made in an extremely poor risk assessment

This puts you in a small minority of adults in the UK , though much larger than those who have had a negative outcome from the vaccine.

You have had some fairly mildly negative consequences of feeling judged for your choice. You may ( or may not) have more consequences depending on if vaccinated people are allowed to do more in time

The vast majority of adults in the UK have taken that that miniscule risk when they made a choice to have the vaccine and there will also be consequences to that choice though much more positive ones than from the choice you have made so far.

Nothing in life is fair. We are in a pandemic which means our choices have higher stakes than normal, do you really think you are exempt from that?. Feeling judged seems a pretty mild consequence to me

Exactly this. I really do believe it’s an individual’s choice re the vaccine. But part of your judgement and being grown up about it is taking the consequences

[quote bumbleymummy]@riveted1

“We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.”

“ Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.”

@ChequerBoard
so people who decide not to have the flu vaccine every year, even though the flu vaccine is lower risk than the flu for many people, are ‘anti-vaxxers’ and ‘poor at risk assessment’? Or are they just happy to accept that small risk that flu poses to them without trying to take action against it?[/quote]

The impact of not having a flu vaccine is completely different to not having a Covid vaccine. In both cases though, it is not just about you and the benefit the vaccine confers to you personally. You don't seem to get that at all.

Stop trying to make a comparison because it is not the same situation at all.

but my decision to not bother getting the 'flu vaccine doesn't impact on anyone else

Well it does, in that if you get the flu it increases your risk of infecting someone else.

Obviously a lower risk than with Covid and without the social factors created by NPI measures for Covid that will be difficult to shift fully without sufficient vaccination.

Those who have had the vaccine aren't the ones standing outside vaccination centres with megaphones shouting at the people queuing that they will die for their choice! That is the real vitriol!

@bumbleymummy

but my decision to not bother getting the 'flu vaccine doesn't impact on anyone else

What about the vulnerable people who can’t be vaccinated against flu? It could kill them! You could be a granny killer!

very clever droll response there

as I said, we're not trying to control an influenza pandemic

if we were and PHE said vaccinating non-vulnerable could help limit spread and save lives then I would do

[quote bumbleymummy]@riveted1

“We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.”

“ Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.”

@ChequerBoard
so people who decide not to have the flu vaccine every year, even though the flu vaccine is lower risk than the flu for many people, are ‘anti-vaxxers’ and ‘poor at risk assessment’? Or are they just happy to accept that small risk that flu poses to them without trying to take action against it?[/quote]
what is this a response to @bumbleymummy? where's the quote from?

@JassyRadlett

but my decision to not bother getting the 'flu vaccine doesn't impact on anyone else

Well it does, in that if you get the flu it increases your risk of infecting someone else.

Obviously a lower risk than with Covid and without the social factors created by NPI measures for Covid that will be difficult to shift fully without sufficient vaccination.

but it's not comparable to COVID?

presumably if the vaccination of a greater proportion of people against 'flu was going to confer substantial benefits in terms of protecting others, there would be a change in policy to increase uptake in non-vulnerable populations

Substitute ‘flu’ for covid here. Technically, most of us are at higher risk from flu (and of passing it on to more vulnerable people) than we are of the flu vaccine. But we don’t go out and get the flu vaccine simply because it’s the lower risk option of the two.

A lot of us do, tbh. Millions are offered it through the NHS system and many more will have it privately, mostly through their workplaces (I can’t find stats but most workplaces I’ve worked at have had a free flu vaccine programme including multinationals, govt and charities - I’m going to keep looking for any stats but suspect there aren’t any.)

but it's not comparable to COVID?

No of course not - I made that clear!

presumably if the vaccination of a greater proportion of people against 'flu was going to confer substantial benefits in terms of protecting others, there would be a change in policy to increase uptake in non-vulnerable populations

Which is why the programme has expanded to children over the last decade.

so people who decide not to have the flu vaccine every year, even though the flu vaccine is lower risk than the flu for many people, are ‘anti-vaxxers’ and ‘poor at risk assessment’? Or are they just happy to accept that small risk that flu poses to them without trying to take action against it?

The difference here is the public health recommendation, isn’t it? Which is based on multiple factors including the individual risk of negative outcomes compared to vaccine risk.

For Covid, for public health in a pandemic that has taken many lives and negatively affected millions, the recommendation is for all adults to have the vaccine.

For flu, it’s for around 25 million people to have the vaccine either to protect themselves due to increased risk, or to protect others because they are a higher source of transmission (care workers, children).

If a person doesn't want to accept the vaccine I have no choice but to accept their decision.

But...

I will not spend more time with that person than I need

I will judge (that is what my private thoughts are for)

I will be unsilently very annoyed when I hear them tell people they aren't having the vaccine (why don't you just STFU if you don't want to be judged???) and quote anti vac "data" from Facebook

I will support measures that mean those people are more restricted than others eg cannot visit relatives in a care home/travel etc

Life is risk.