ONS report - majority of parents would vaccinate their children

[Dustyboots]

Would you?

They're gunning for this now. I find that worrying.

twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1410589646040580106/photo/1

"I really don’t understand why vaccinated people are so afraid of unvaccinated people."

Seriously, you know that this is not the point. I am not personally afraid of unvaccinated people. I just want this pandemic to end.

@bumbleymummy

That’s all well and good but not everyone feels the same way about vaccinating their children so those immunocompromised people will always be at risk of encountering someone who isn’t vaccinated (for whatever reason) - just as they’re at risk of encountering people with flu or other viruses that could make them ill.

Hence we aim for herd immunity, to minimise the chances of those people encountering someone who has the disease.

But surely you already knew that?

@roguetomato

"I really don’t understand why vaccinated people are so afraid of unvaccinated people."

Seriously, you know that this is not the point. I am not personally afraid of unvaccinated people. I just want this pandemic to end.

Then why would you rather go into a vaccinated-only bar/restaurant?

@ZZTopGuitarSolo not for everything we don’t. And minimising isn’t eliminating so,just as I said in my pp, immunocompromised people are always at risk of encountering someone who isn’t immune.

What do you think the alternative is? There will always be new variants and no vaccine will ever be effective against them all.

I see vaccination as the road to cracking on? We need to be in a position of low spread, low incidence to reduce the chances of variants. The fact that the vaccination lowers transmission helps. You can't argue that because it doesn't work perfectly, there's no point to it's use at all.

I don't see the issues arising from vaccination as sufficiently worrying to outweigh the damage done by a stop start lockdown / isolation / distancing life to our children, but that's me taking a view from the point of view of society as a whole. others may disagree, and that's their right.

The good news here is that enough people seem to want the vaccine for their children so as to make it immaterial whether the 10% who don't, bother to or not. That's the news OP started with, so there's really no need to feel any concern on either side that others disagree with you. For myself I'm pleased that we may be getting the choice.

Why not? Why take a chance if there's better choice of knowing everyone is vaxxed = less likely to catch/spread, and don't know the status = there's a chance. No brainer, really.

@Barbie222

What do you think the alternative is? There will always be new variants and no vaccine will ever be effective against them all.

I see vaccination as the road to cracking on? We need to be in a position of low spread, low incidence to reduce the chances of variants. The fact that the vaccination lowers transmission helps. You can't argue that because it doesn't work perfectly, there's no point to it's use at all.

I don't see the issues arising from vaccination as sufficiently worrying to outweigh the damage done by a stop start lockdown / isolation / distancing life to our children, but that's me taking a view from the point of view of society as a whole. others may disagree, and that's their right.

The good news here is that enough people seem to want the vaccine for their children so as to make it immaterial whether the 10% who don't, bother to or not. That's the news OP started with, so there's really no need to feel any concern on either side that others disagree with you. For myself I'm pleased that we may be getting the choice.

That comment was written in response to a poster who objected to the idea of just ‘cracking on’ now that the most vulnerable have been double vaxxed. I wasn’t arguing that there was no point to the vaccine

@roguetomato

Why not? Why take a chance if there's better choice of knowing everyone is vaxxed = less likely to catch/spread, and don't know the status = there's a chance. No brainer, really.

Seems a bit paranoid and overly anxious to me but each to their own.

[quote bumbleymummy]@ZZTopGuitarSolo not for everything we don’t. And minimising isn’t eliminating so,just as I said in my pp, immunocompromised people are always at risk of encountering someone who isn’t immune.[/quote]
You really don't understand herd immunity do you?

The good news here is that enough people seem to want the vaccine for their children so as to make it immaterial whether the 10% who don't, bother to or not. That's the news OP started with, so there's really no need to feel any concern on either side that others disagree with you. For myself I'm pleased that we may be getting the choice.

Right. This thread was started by someone who sees the possibility of herd immunity as somehow threatening, which is completely bizarre. The fact that the majority of parents hope to vaccinate their children is very very good news, including for the anti-vaxxers.

[quote bumbleymummy]@ZZTopGuitarSolo not for everything we don’t. And minimising isn’t eliminating so,just as I said in my pp, immunocompromised people are always at risk of encountering someone who isn’t immune.[/quote]
herd immunity means population level protection - this means immunocompromised people or anyone who has had vaccine failure would be at a very very low risk of infection

this is how the vulnerable are protected from diseases like measles (or at least they were before people started turning down the jab)

I think most will vaccinate kids

I’ll hold my hand up and say I probabnoy wouldn’t have earlier because of their low risk even tho I’m double vaccinated

But us britiah love our holidays and many of us will vaccinate purely to travel

Plus by time it’s offered data on vaccines will be more substantial

Yes, I know what herd immunity is I also know that it isn’t a guarantee, so immunocompromised people for whom the vaccine doesn’t provide adequate protection will still be at risk of meeting people who are not immune. (as o said several times above) seriously, why are you trying to argue that herd immunity guarantees protection for immunocompromised people? You know it doesn’t. You also know that coronavirus isn’t the only thing that can put them at risk and that we don’t pursue herd immunity for every virus out there that may be a risk to an immunocompromised person.

But us britiah love our holidays and many of us will vaccinate purely to travel

And this is exactly what I mean about people making decisions that they wouldn’t make without being coerced into them.

My poor little girl has already spent a week on a ventilator in ICU with bilateral pneumonia. I would never ever want her to go through that again. I wouldn't hesitate to get her vaccinated. She's 8, if it makes any difference.

@bumbleymummy

But us britiah love our holidays and many of us will vaccinate purely to travel

And this is exactly what I mean about people making decisions that they wouldn’t make without being coerced into them.

I get that BUT if someone will vaccinate just to travel personally I would question the level of their concern about vaccines anyway

@bumbleymummy

Yes, I know what herd immunity is I also know that it isn’t a guarantee, so immunocompromised people for whom the vaccine doesn’t provide adequate protection will still be at risk of meeting people who are not immune. (as o said several times above) seriously, why are you trying to argue that herd immunity guarantees protection for immunocompromised people? You know it doesn’t. You also know that coronavirus isn’t the only thing that can put them at risk and that we don’t pursue herd immunity for every virus out there that may be a risk to an immunocompromised person.

Herd immunity does not 100% guarantee safety for immunocompromised people, and no one has said that it does. But it is the best tool a society has for achieving their safety particularly during a pandemic.

And yes we do actually pursue herd immunity for a wide variety of other viruses to keep various populations safe, including the rubella virus against which boys are vaccinated in order to protect pregnant women and their babies.

I genuinely have no idea how you've managed to get this far in a pandemic without understanding this.

@bumbleymummy

Yes, I know what herd immunity is I also know that it isn’t a guarantee, so immunocompromised people for whom the vaccine doesn’t provide adequate protection will still be at risk of meeting people who are not immune. (as o said several times above) seriously, why are you trying to argue that herd immunity guarantees protection for immunocompromised people? You know it doesn’t. You also know that coronavirus isn’t the only thing that can put them at risk and that we don’t pursue herd immunity for every virus out there that may be a risk to an immunocompromised person.

herd immunity means population level protection - this means immunocompromised people or anyone who has had vaccine failure would be at a very very low risk of infection

note how I said "very very low risk", not no risk

You seem to be using the fact that herd immunity doesn't confer 100% protection as an argument, when that is just a basic fact of biology.

As for your second argument, the idea that we don't attempt herd immunity for all infectious diseases, I don't really understand? We do try for those for which it is possible, and coronavirus is currently a priority as you have naive population and it is highly transmissible.

@ZZTopGuitarSolo I have absolutely no idea how you have read my posts and think that I don’t understand herd immunity or that I don’t think we vaccinate against any other disease to protect others.

You have literally just repeated what I said about herd immunity not being a guarantee - so this means, as I said previously, that immunocompromised people will still be at risk.

I said we don’t vaccinate against everything to protect immunocompromised people, not that we don’t vaccinate against anything.

Seriously, go back and reread what I wrote. It’s really not hard to understand.

@bumbleymummy

But us britiah love our holidays and many of us will vaccinate purely to travel

And this is exactly what I mean about people making decisions that they wouldn’t make without being coerced into them.

But it isn't unreasonable that countries that have eliminated or managed to get to controlled levels take steps to prevent the import of more cases and new strains?

This isn't unprecedented - yellow fever is classic example. Added to this is that many countries are suggesting an immunity passport rather than just vaccination as an option (ie, negative test or presence of ABs or proof of vaccination).

[quote bumbleymummy]@ZZTopGuitarSolo I have absolutely no idea how you have read my posts and think that I don’t understand herd immunity or that I don’t think we vaccinate against any other disease to protect others.

You have literally just repeated what I said about herd immunity not being a guarantee - so this means, as I said previously, that immunocompromised people will still be at risk.

I said we don’t vaccinate against everything to protect immunocompromised people, not that we don’t vaccinate against anything.

Seriously, go back and reread what I wrote. It’s really not hard to understand.[/quote]
You have literally just repeated what I said about herd immunity not being a guarantee - so this means, as I said previously, that immunocompromised people will still be at risk

As has been repeated multiple times, it drastically decreases risk. The fact that it doesn't bring it down to zero isn't really relevant, as most things in medicine are are about degrees of risk rather than a binary safe/not safe scenario.

@ollyollyoxenfree what argument do you think I’m trying to make? It was an observation that immunocompromised people will still be at risk and you, and another poster, have argued against that even though you both agree that herd immunity isn’t a guarantee. It’s a bit bizarre really. You’re repeating my point back at me to argue against it.

There are many viruses that could be risk to immunocompromised people, and others, and we don’t vaccinate everyone against them to try to create herd immunity for those people eg, flu, meningitis, rotavirus…

But it isn't unreasonable that countries that have eliminated or managed to get to controlled levels take steps to prevent the import of more cases and new strains?

Aside from the fact that it’s not going to be possible to prevent strains being imported, that wasn’t the point i was making in my post. Some people are being coerced into the vaccine in order to travel. They wouldn’t choose to be vaccinated otherwise.

“ The fact that it doesn't bring it down to zero isn't really relevant”

It was relevant to my point that there will still be a risk for immunocompromised people.

As has been repeated multiple times, it drastically decreases risk. The fact that it doesn't bring it down to zero isn't really relevant, as most things in medicine are are about degrees of risk rather than a binary safe/not safe scenario.

I think this point may be a little too complicated for bumbley to understand. We tried...

[quote bumbleymummy]@ollyollyoxenfree what argument do you think I’m trying to make? It was an observation that immunocompromised people will still be at risk and you, and another poster, have argued against that even though you both agree that herd immunity isn’t a guarantee. It’s a bit bizarre really. You’re repeating my point back at me to argue against it.

There are many viruses that could be risk to immunocompromised people, and others, and we don’t vaccinate everyone against them to try to create herd immunity for those people eg, flu, meningitis, rotavirus…[/quote]
Because you seem to be missing the point?

It is difficult and requires significant intervention to generate herd immunity. It is prioritised for infectious diseases that a high risk of mortality or complications after infection - this is based on how virulent the disease is and how transmissible it is. Diseases like measles, polio, mumps, rubella are judged to be worthwhile in terms of the cost/benefit profile for population level intervention. Other infectious diseases, like influenza aren't, but we still generate a level of protection by vaccinating people who aren't themselves at significant risk (e.g., child, HCPs).

You are trying to argue that herd immunity primarily by vaccination is not necessary for coronavirus, but that is because you drastically underestimate it's impact.