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.

Tax avoidance is within the law, as is vaccine avoidance.

Within which law?

@Dustyboots,

Not illegal.

@MercyBooth

Im currently reading A State of Fear by Laura Dodsworth. Ive just passed Chapter 18, she talks about a yougov poll which was done at the end of September last year. One question was "would you support mandatory vaccines. The next question was "would you support prosecutions or fines for those who dont take the vaccine" I didnt even realise this poll took place but im absolutely horrified.

Do you have a link to the poll that asks the second question, @MercyBooth? I can't find it. Presumably Dodsworth has provided references?

There has always been support in the UK for compulsory vaccines, as this poll from 2013 shows:

yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2013/04/11/majority-support-compulsory-vaccinations

There has always been some support for the death penalty too. It doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea or one we should pursue.

@RedToothBrush my point was that Tories focus on individualism. Individualism is not ‘wrong’ (allows innovation, personal success etc). However an individualistic strategy is not the best response to Covid. We in the UK - have 2 main parties - and we as society tend to swing between left/right (altruism/individualism).
I would say that fundamentally the Tories believe in individualism and this has led to a poor Covid response.

However - we - as a society (on the whole) have definitely recognised that need for altruism and acted accordingly. And I think Boris has (grudgingly?) recognised this too
But it has lead to mixed government messages and confusion.

@bumbleymummy

There has always been some support for the death penalty too. It doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea or one we should pursue.

I don't think the two things are comparable Bumbley!

I was just trying to point out that the current so-called "state of fear" may not have driven an increase in support for compulsory vaccination, there has always been some support. That poll from 2013 shows 55% support compulsory childhood vaccines . A yougov poll from October shows 49% support for compulsory covid vaccines.

@RedToothBrush no your post is superb and I fully accept I put mine into HIGHLY simplistic terms. I've made much longer posts on other threads (last one was the State of Fear review thread) so didn't want to rewrite a massive post going into the nuance.

I completely agree with you that this has been going on for years before covid... Although I don't think it's ever felt as commonplace or widespread as it does today. This could be because my "sciency" background is more in the realms of physics than healthcare, so I have obviously just not been as exposed to it as others. But I feel like that applies to a large proportion of society too.

And I added in that 'altruistic' line because, again, this has been widely debated on various threads and is often seen as something black and white when the reality is much different. The point you raised on it was excellent.

Covid has shone a spotlight on it but it also coincidenced with a moment in time where the cracks in the entire facade of the PR commercial complex are starting to show and the public at large are starting to distrust it.

I'll be completely honest about some of my distrust (or at least the thing which isn't making perfect logical sense for me right now).

If you or anyone else has thoughts on it, I'd be really interested to read them.

The #1 reason I often see on threads (and general media, I guess) is that if you don't get vaccinated, you are directly contributing to mutations, which may ultimately turn out to be vaccine resistant and thus putting us back to square one.

This seems absolutely logical to me. Of course more unvaccinated = more chance of mutations.

You have lots of articles in MSM saying that herd immunity might not be possible with covid, in the same way it's not really possible with flu. The vaccines are really good at reducing serious illness and death, but they're not going to be good enough at reducing transmission to create herd immunity. If vaccine efficacy against transmission falls below the herd-immunity threshold, then we would need to vaccinate more than 100 percent of the population to achieve herd immunity. I.e impossible.

But, does that really matter? Most sources don't think so. The vaccine is really good at preventing serious illness, so it's more akin to the flu jab (protecting those most at risk from severe disease / hospitalisation / death)?

Okay. So.

If all of the above is the case... then why does the public at large (and the government? The science? I don't even know anymore) still seem to be going for herd immunity without apparently any thought to the rest of the world and the millions of unvaccinated there?

Surely for every Work From Home teen, twenty, and thirty year old we jag here... that's another health care worker / shop worker / someone else with higher rates of potential transmission or someone who cannot self isolate due to poverty etc NOT being jagged in another country? Which I think has been universally established (at least on MN) leads to mutations and potentially vaccine resistant mutations?

Which could actually put as back to square one. And I mean right back at square one with a new mutation and low immunity (even though 100% of adults have been vaccinated), and again, rich countries buying up all the vaccines to use on 100% of their population without any thought for the rest of the world for a second time? We repeat the 'vaccinate all', same thing happens, rich countries buy up vaccines for a third time?

So is the answer that WE ARE going for herd immunity in the UK? (In which case, what about RoW, as I've said above). Or is it we are 'flu jabbing' in the UK i.e saving the most lives possible (In which case, why are we bothering with low risk people, and now apparently children, and not sending them elsewhere before it mutates again?).

I feel like some of my distrust (or not so much distrust but just, this isn't making sense?) comes from not understanding the plan. The strategy. The end game. Not just in a UK context but in a global context.

Some will say my irritation at being dismissed as uneducated and lacking in critical thinking is valid... but I feel like I'm asking questions and never getting straight, logical answers. (I don't mean on MN, I mean in the mainstream media. The government. The scientists. But maybe I just don't know where to look). Sometimes I feel like the only people actually asking these questions are people on YouTube. But again maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, despite trying to read the BMJ as much as poss.

I get annoyed with the peoplw who don't have covid jabs that i know because they are the ones spouting fear on social media but also the ones demanding freedom..

Firstly, vaccines do clearly massively reduce transmission. This should not even be a debate. If a disease with a ‘natural’ r number of 6 is giving rise to an r number of 1.2, something is clearly stopping it from spreading, and that something is mainly not disease acquired immunity.

Many responses on this one and lots of sources linked that give that evidence on either how the vaccines achieve or this or studies demonstrating that transmission is reduced in various settings

I really don't think it should be used as an argument for not getting vaccinated (ie I'm low risk so no big deal if I don't), and does go into the argument of how individual choice affects everyone in a pandemic

IMO it's not just being altruistic, lockdown/pandemic restrictions affect everyone, as does disrupted schooling, university, access to healthcare, free travel. You might be low risk from COVID if you did get it, but you're still vulnerable to the other harms of the pandemic.

I feel like some of my distrust (or not so much distrust but just, this isn't making sense?) comes from not understanding the plan. The strategy. The end game. Not just in a UK context but in a global context

I think that is a really interesting point, winched, although I feel the strategy may now not be herd immunity, bit living with the virus. Whichever is the true strategy, the only way either has any hope of working is for as many people as possible to be vaccintated. I take your point about the rest of the world, and I am not sure what the solution is, but I don't think it lies in us in the UK not jabbing as many as people as possible.

Surely for every Work From Home teen, twenty, and thirty year old we jag here... that's another health care worker / shop worker / someone else with higher rates of potential transmission or someone who cannot self isolate due to poverty etc NOT being jagged in another country? Which I think has been universally established (at least on MN) leads to mutations and potentially vaccine resistant mutations?

Which could actually put as back to square one. And I mean right back at square one with a new mutation and low immunity (even though 100% of adults have been vaccinated), and again, rich countries buying up all the vaccines to use on 100% of their population without any thought for the rest of the world for a second time? We repeat the 'vaccinate all', same thing happens, rich countries buy up vaccines for a third time?

@winched on these points what I think is important is that new variants (no matter how scary MSM makes them out to be) are unlikely to suddenly to be completely evasive to prior immunity. In the same way 'flu mutates each year, but it doesn't rip through the population because we have centuries of prior immunity.

If the vast majority of the population had be vaccinated by the time the delta variant had entered the UK, it wouldn't have been a significant problem. Vaccines and prior immunity seem to have lowered efficacy, but the majority of people having this (lowered) protection, will protect everyone else. Clusters could then be mopped up by a functional test and trace system. Having everyone vaccinated enables a level of control that means even if new strains are partially resistant, you're still not back to square one.

@youshouldbeplotting

Around 58% of British people support the death penalty for terrorists who commit murder:

yougov.co.uk/topics/legal/articles-reports/2019/10/01/brits-want-harsher-punishments-criminals

My point was simply that just because a significant number of people support an idea doesn’t mean that it’s a good one or that we should implement it. I mean, over 51% of people thought Brexit was a good idea

@speckledostrichegg no I do not think non vulnerable people should have the vaccine until more longer term data is available from trial participants, as happens with most other drugs and vaccines.
This is new technology (Pfizer) hopefully all will be fine and dandy and we can use this new technology for many other uses going forward. But that’s currently still unknown.
Many side effects have been felt after having these jabs- I personally know several people with ongoing problems days or weeks after the jabs (seeing a doctor worthy but none I hospital yet). I know a couple of dozen that had covid and one had effects lasting a couple of months.
Personally I think the two main sources of infection (international travel and hospitals) should have been addressed way earlier and way harsher. The medical provision in this country should have been bolstered hugely over this last year. Those two things and vaccines for all groups 1-9.
I’m all for vaccines but don’t feel these are safe enough personally for mass vaccination esp to pregnant women and children.
I would rather lockdown for another year or two than have something that will give me long term health problems which I do feel these jabs may do. I have 3 young children and also work so believe me lockdown is no picnic.
However, what many who call covid vaccine hesitant ‘selfish’ don’t realise, is that many have genuine terror about this.
At the moment, I wholeheartedly believe that if I have this jab, I am quite possibly going to end up with horrible life changing side effects- either now or in the future.
No amount of research or people telling me otherwise is really changing that.
Imagine you absolutely thought that there was a good chance that your health would be negatively changed forever after offering up your arm.
Of course I don’t want to live in restrictions but to me the alternative (bad side effects from the jab) is worse right now.
Everyone else has been free to make this decision.
If everyone thought like me, and the government didn’t put border controls in place and didn’t sort hospitals out then yes we would be in restrictions for longer. But to me that’s a lesser evil (although still an awful reality obviously)
What would we have done if there were no successful vaccines this year?

I mean, over 51% of people thought Brexit was a good idea

Ha, true enough.

I don't think vaccines shoud be mandatory except in the case of certain professions.

@winched good post

@riveted1 lockdown/pandemic restrictions affect everyone, as does disrupted schooling, university, access to healthcare, free travel. You might be low risk from COVID if you did get it, but you're still vulnerable to the other harms of the pandemic.

Yes, we all have been and we’ve all played our part but the point is that vaccinating the people who are most likely to end up in hospital (not everyone) eliminates the need for those restrictions. So telling young, low risk people that they need to be vaccinated in order to prevent restrictions when, iirc, well over 80% of the vulnerable have been vaccinated is incorrect.

[quote bumbleymummy]@winched good post

@riveted1 lockdown/pandemic restrictions affect everyone, as does disrupted schooling, university, access to healthcare, free travel. You might be low risk from COVID if you did get it, but you're still vulnerable to the other harms of the pandemic.

Yes, we all have been and we’ve all played our part but the point is that vaccinating the people who are most likely to end up in hospital (not everyone) eliminates the need for those restrictions. So telling young, low risk people that they need to be vaccinated in order to prevent restrictions when, iirc, well over 80% of the vulnerable have been vaccinated is incorrect.[/quote]
But it doesn't @bumbleymummy, i think that's the key point you may be missing here

Allowing coronavirus to circulate in a significant proportion of the population has meant restrictions are still needed in order supress transmission to manageable levels. Vaccinating the non-vulnerable is necessary, even though I know from your PPs you don't agree!

[quote winched]@Hornbill123456789

500,000 / 214,000,000

Vs

128,000 / 66,00,000

That's 0.23% for Brazil and 0.19% for the UK?

Brazil poverty: 19.20% < $5.50
UK poverty: 0.7% < $5.50

Might also want to mention that 70% of hospital beds and ambulances belong to the private sector in Brazil.

I completely understand what you're trying to do... but IMO it's the constant bombardment of these headlines and statistics that lead to what I was talking about previously i.e complete lack of trust in what we're being told.

Yes, on the surface no masks, no social distancing, low vaccines and 500,000 dead seems shocking.

But dig a little deeper (and it's not hard to do at all, just basic maths really) and it's not nearly as shocking as those blanket statements. But of course, those shocking blanket statements sell papers and get clicks, don't they?

I actually think the shocking thing is they haven't done THAT much worse than us, considering we've been masked up and distanced for well over a year now with large sections of society under lockdown for... at least 10 of those months?

Maybe the question we should be asking is... how have Brazil done so well despite the factors you've pointed out? No masks, SD, vaccines, most hospitals private and huge rates of poverty, and yet they've not done much worse than one of the richest countries in the world that threw everything at it.

Vitamin D? Better diet? More exercise? Climate?

None of this, however, provides clickbait. And thus you're seeing the complete lack of trust in all forms of mainstream media.

Which results in vaccine hesitancy...
[/quote]
Yes- thank you for putting this so succinctly. This is literally the tip of the iceberg regarding how I feel.

Allowing coronavirus to circulate in a significant proportion of the population has meant restrictions are still needed in order supress transmission to manageable levels.

But that’s the point, transmission isn't actually a problem unless it’s causing mass hospitalisations and deaths, which it isn’t. We are well below the levels that the models predicted and yet we’re still being told that we need restrictions and we have to vaccinate more and more people.

And yes the whole ‘but mutations’ argument but, as you said yourself, it’s unlikely that a variant is going to arise that will be completely resistant to prior immunity (and given that most of the world are not vaccinated, that argument falls a bit flat anyway).

@TensmumT

You're not alone OP, I'm glad there's other people who think alike, I was starting to feel alone! These are experimental vaccines, that have been approved in a rush. Immediate family members have had it, but DH and I are not, worried about short and long term effects. It's a case of waiting now that lots of people have had it, research on long term effects will then be done.

My friend has been very poorly after both Az, stabbing pains in chest and blood clots, still bleeding 6 weeks after second one Bitterly regrets having it now It seems to have increased her mums RA and other problems

I don't think the rogue mutation argument has much historical ground. Not for coronaviruses at least.

Yes we see sudden mutations but these are limited in the number that can occur at one time and i understand that the rate of mutations for Covid-19 isn't at a level to give too much concern. That gives us time, which combined with careful monitoring is key here - we will be able to create, manufacture and administer new variant specific vaccines going forward in the same way we do flu. There is nothing coming out to suggest this is going to be an issue once we have this new infrastructure built and in place. I don't think there's a single voice in the field of expertise warning this is going to be problematic going forward.

From what we know about coronaviruses new ones have appeared and then gradually become less virile over time because the more they evolve to become more transmittable (reach the maximum number of hosts to reproduce) but in doing so gradually become weaker (we see more hospitalisations because of the transmittability in a short period of time rather than because the virus is more deadly).

Vaccines can't stop a pandemic but they can reduce its impact and the time it takes for immunity to build. Thats the point. New waves of decreasing seriousness are what we should have and expect - but I'm not sure that's been well explained and instead people are panicking a little about a prospect of a new wave at this point. Its concerning but not outside of where things should be if the vaccine is working as hoped and expected. The biggest concern is merely that its arrived just before our new covid management and monitoring system is fully operational and we have got the first round of vaccines in to give everyone the chance of immunity. Its arrived a month earlier than is ideal.

Whilst we don't know how covid19 is going to pan out we do know how other coronaviruses work and how flu viruses work so it would be highly unusual and unlikely for it to do something particularly odd. One of the things is that generally viruses do not want to kill us, especially too quickly - as that kills them before it has chance to find a new host which is counterproductive to its own survival. The ideal virus is the common cold simply because its so mild and spreads so easily, not ebola because it kills so quickly.

I don't think ive seen anything that gives a credible cause for concern about how long term covid will get worse. We are now locked into an arms race against mutations but we have the science to do this and this isn't something fundamentality different to flu. At the same time our understanding of the virus is improving hugely so our knowledge of how to treat cases that do get to hospital is improving too. We know survival rates are getting better and discharge time quicker as a result and I think this is also being forgotten.

If the government stick to their policy of not going backwards this is our last chance to ensure that vaccines are distributed as widely as possible (because that’s when they work the best especially in the context of a novel virus) before stress testing their effectiveness. We’ve got an example of reopening things to early and having to lockdown again in Chile and no one wants that to happen here.

Our government have been reluctant, or at the very least delayed, the most severe restrictions each and every time they’ve been needed so I don’t believe that one period of caution is a bad thing when the consequences of getting it wrong are so very high. Business struggling with the delay certainly won’t survive another lockdown or even tighter restrictions for months and the same applies to mental health issues exacerbated by the delay.

I’m certain that everything will be done before widespread restrictions run the possibility of being introduced in the event we are thrown a curve ball but the reality is each time we’ve locked down it’s because there has been very little choice. The government can’t guarantee that won’t happen again but they can ensure that we’re in the best position possible to try and avert that necessity not least because we simply can’t afford to keep propping up business/housing.

Mrex
Quote

can't conceive a position in which refusal to take any vaccine or drug should be criminalised. I'm very pro vaccination because I believe it is lower risk than illness in the majority of cases, but people should each be given evidence and support. I'm against people who deliberately lie about anything and that includes vaccine risks; when lying is done for profit like Andrew Wakefield or David Icke, it's particularly despicable. Countering that should be more time given by professionals to discussing any individual's concerns; quite apart from it being essential to preserve people's right to bodily autonomy, on a societal level it would be a lot cheaper than a court case and more effective too.

Thing is no one knows 100per cent what effect this will have on their bodies.
The friend , I’ve just mentioned..her rot her and sister were fine
Herself, mum and dad all very poorly and still not properly recovered 6 weeks later

She totally regrets taking it

It's worth remembering a distinction between types of side effect and why they happen.
Some rare side effects are caused by vaccination process e.g. cellulitis.
Some rare side effects are caused by the vaccine itself e.g. anaphylaxis, sore arm.
Some side effects are a common immune response e.g. headache, fatigue, nausea.
Other rare side side effects are an uncommon immune response e.g. arthritis flare, myocarditis.
The immune response set of side effects would most likely be more severe with the disease itself.

Those not having the vaccine will be the first to complain when restrictions continue. On a plus point I was giving vaccinations yesterday and the numbers were huge. Queues as far as you could see, mainly young people. I don’t care why they are having it so long as they are.

Brazil is a huge country with a lot of variation in actual restrictions over the last year. Nevertheless their excess deaths are significantly higher than UK (not really worth looking at reported deaths for comparison): www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsdHwq6Gm8QIV1cPVCh1ekQCKEAAYASAAEgLYUfD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds.