Thoughts on the non-vaccinated!

[UnluckyMe]

Why have people been so critical of those who have chosen not to be vaccinated against covid 19?

I've read all sorts of comments about those, like me, who chose not to be vaccinated calling us selfish, uneducated and so on. There seems to be a massive lack of respect for what others choose to do with their body and I'm just curious as go why people feel the need to make comments about it. There are obviously many who don't and I do acknowledge that, my post is more directed to thoughts on why the other side do (feels very playground bully like to me).

The way I see it is everyone has a choice - respect that choice and move on with life rather than throwing insults at one another or dwell on something out of your own control.

I'd also like to confirm i do not own tin foil hat, expect the end of days soon or believe everyone will drop dead in 6 months / will transform into magneto from X-Men (all those coins sticking to people's arms!)

I have followed the rules down to a tee but have just chosen not to be vaccinated at present. Maybe I will change my mind, maybe I won't 🤷‍♀️ who knows.

I am genuinely curious - I read on another post "all vulnerable and sensible people have had the jab" as a comment which riled me a bit too! I like to think I'm pretty sensible but clearly this Mumsnetter thinks otherwise 😆😆

@RainbowMum11

I don't understand why you wouldn't have it, tbh

Surely it's individual choice? I say this as someone who has been jabbed!

My honest opinion is that you of course have an absolute right to remain unvaccinated. No one of sound mind should be medicated against their will. So of course it is your decision alone. Equally though, imho, those who manage businesses, cinemas, airlines, hospitals etc should have the right not to employ you in certain circumstances, and to ban you from entering their premises, if there is a reasonable chance of you putting their other employees or customers at risk.

Sorry, I should make clear that my post applies ONLY to people who are healthy enough to be vaccinated and it is therefore a choice for them not to do so.

@MarianGW I think you might be interested in this.

@Eeyoreswigwam Surely either way the risk is the same

I couldn’t care less. It’s personal choice, I don’t understand why people are discussing personal, medical data.
Does everyone go around blabbing about other things they have done- nope!

[quote MercyBooth]@Eeyoreswigwam Surely either way the risk is the same [/quote]
Yes of course but my point was about equality of rights not risks specifically.

@ReallyReady111

Sorry if I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were saying that anaphylaxis was the only reason for being unable to have the vax but I see know that you meant that the manufacturers, govt health services are acknowledging only that reason.The position for those of us with auto-immune disorders is pretty shocking - my GP admitted he knew little about it & could only comment that the vax wasn't being advised against but he knew that no-one had trialled them on auto-immune patients. He didn't know that there were already reports of auto-immune triggering until I told him about them! I'm quite sure that no-one at the vax centres would know anything or even ask. There is a big issue around "informed consent" re the vaccines.

When talking about human rights, this is an interesting point. Mandatory vaccination interferes with personal integrity but may be necessary to safeguard public health. However, states must consider all relevant factors in context and ensure such policies do not place disproportionate burdens on those hesitant about vaccination.

The question thus arises: is mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 compatible with international human rights law?

Mandatory vaccination can be justified but context vital. The main rule within international human rights law is that vaccination, like any other medical intervention, must be based on the recipient’s free and informed consent. This rule is, however, not absolute. In Solomakhin v Ukraine, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) held that mandatory vaccination interferes with a person’s right to integrity protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Nevertheless, the Court concluded such interference may be justified if considered a ‘necessity to control the spreading of infectious diseases’ (para 36).

Last week, the Court’s Grand Chamber delivered its widely-anticipated judgment in Vavřička and Others v the Czech Republic, providing more detailed discussion of the implications of the ECHR on mandatory vaccination in the context of childhood vaccines. The case concerned domestic legislation requiring children to undergo a series of vaccinations. The policy does not physically enforce vaccination but parents who refuse to let their children be vaccinated can be fined and unvaccinated children excluded from pre-school (paras 73 and 83). The Court held, by 16 votes to one, that the policy was compatible with the ECHR.

This judgment shows that states enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining vaccination policies, as long as vaccination is not forcibly imposed (para 280). States have a positive obligation to protect the health and life of their residents, including those particularly vulnerable to certain diseases and those who cannot have specific vaccines for medical reasons (para 282). Low vaccination rates increase risk of outbreaks of serious diseases which may severely impact individuals’ health and society in general. Thus, the Court held that the mere possibility that a system based on recommendations might be less effective than a mandatory one constitutes a strong reason to permit mandatory vaccination policies under the ECHR. The fact that most European states maintain high vaccination rates without mandatory policies did not deter the Court from this conclusion (paras 285, 306 and 310).

The above suggests governments are free to use economic sanctions and incentives to encourage vaccination against COVID-19. However, caution is required. Whether mandatory means are necessary to achieve sufficient vaccination coverage is essentially an empirical question which can only be answered in relation to a specific context, taking the expected effectiveness of various approaches and level of vaccination hesitancy in the country in question into account.

@MercyBooth

I've already read Laura Dodsworth's book! Keir Stamer & the BBC are still at the scaremongering!!

Just so people are aware - many people (including me) think Laura Dodsworth is a conspiracy theorist.

I will be slated now because ‘I keep going on about it’ but I only mention it when I see a link to her.
Mumsnet deleted a thread about her book because it had video links to a banned MP and a interview with LD in discussion with another conspiracy theorist who has compared the pandemic with the Holocaust.

I would follow the best medical advice and I think anyone who is medically ok to have the vaccine should have it.
If you don’t have it, you should take precautions.

But it looks like everyone will be left to their own devices now anyway.

I will exclude myself and not socialise with anyone who informs me that they have not had the vaccine because of pseudoscience.

I’ve reported the video link above, I’m interested to see if Mumsnet delete it.

Utterly ridiculous that we seem to have the most lax government in the world, one of the highest death tolls, one of the world’s worst responses to the pandemic - yet someone sees fit to write a book saying that the government have weaponised fear to control us.

We have one of the highest rates of vaccine uptake in the world - why?

I don’t think we should ever seek to abuse that as it removes trust in vaccines generally for one thing.

I have posted on various threads why I think that is happening, not least due to a reliance on MHRA reporting for ongoing monitoring of risks.

If the vaccine worked brilliantly I might consider the risk but it doesn’t.

I suffered CFS many years ago for a year and am now extremely careful about what I put in my body. Long covid worries me far less for various reasons I can’t be bothered explaining here.

I note that Laura is being interviewed there by someone who failed in their bid to replace Nigel Farage as UKIP leader.

The majority of the deaths were in the most vulnerable groups that were prioritised for vaccination.
The vaccine reduces the severity of illness in those who were most likely to be hospitalised/die. That is how the link between cases and deaths has been broken. We haven’t ‘benefitted’ from vulnerable people being vaccinated - we no longer have to restrict our lives to protect them/the nhs because they can have the vaccine to protect them instead. They are the ones ‘benefitting’ from the vaccine because it protects them from serious illness. The rest of us are just going back to our default way of life.

I think that might have been true of the early variant. More young people are being hospitalised with the new variant and are more susceptible to long covid.
There will also be a percentage of those who think they are invincible who are blissfully unaware that they have underlying health conditions which will make them more vulnerable than they realise.

But I think this is one of those topics where people firmly believe their own point of view and are never going to be persuaded otherwise (I include myself as a double jabbed person in that not just the anti-vaxxers to be clear)

I'm perfectly fine with the non-vaccinated having the luxury of a choice. But I'm not happy with them being treated for Covid in Hospitals when they Inevitably get it and potentially infecting the staff and other immunosuppressed patients. So as long as they sign a waiver saying no further treatment will be forthcoming from the Nhs - then fine go ahead.

Ffery1 that logic doesn't work. So we'll say to smokers, drinkers, drug takers, drivers, you have to sign a waiver that you can't be treated in hospital because you chose to put yourself at risk.
People who say they are having the vaccine "to protect others" is interesting. Suddenly everyone cares about everyone in the community. Bullshit. If we all did that there would be no social problems, homelessness, crime because we all care about each other. The effect of a community caring for each other would be much different if we all "did it for the community".

Ffery1 that logic doesn't work. So we'll say to smokers, drinkers, drug takers, drivers, you have to sign a waiver that you can't be treated in hospital because you chose to put yourself at risk.

Not comparable. If smokers, drinkers etc go to hospital they won't infect anyone else with smoking and drinking. If a vaccine refuser has to to go hospital with covid they are putting other people, including other patients, at risk.

@Aldilogue

Ffery1 that logic doesn't work. So we'll say to smokers, drinkers, drug takers, drivers, you have to sign a waiver that you can't be treated in hospital because you chose to put yourself at risk. People who say they are having the vaccine "to protect others" is interesting. Suddenly everyone cares about everyone in the community. Bullshit. If we all did that there would be no social problems, homelessness, crime because we all care about each other. The effect of a community caring for each other would be much different if we all "did it for the community".

Smoking, drinking etc are not rampantly contagious. Covid is.

Nearly 18 months on, that this distinction has to be explained to anyone is beyond frustrating.

@Hornbill123456789 The only issue with this as I’ve said upthread, is that even if you and your doctor decide that it’s too large a risk to take the vaccine, the official guidance lists no exemptions. There is no way of knowing who is most vulnerable because this drug is in its phase three trials. So saying “everyone who is medically ok to have the vaccine” is only half the story. The other half is, who gets to decide who is NOT medically ok to have it? Your doctor? The government? The pharmaceutical company? The WHO? Pregnancy is a great example. It says everywhere (the CDC etc) that there is no data at all on the risks of taking the vaccine in pregnancy as pregnant women were not included in the clinical trials. Is a woman who has just found out she’s pregnant medically ok to have the vaccine? Who knows. We’ll only know in 2023 after all the data has been gathered. And even at that point, adverse events are significantly under reported. Plus it’s impossible to prove causation if the event occurs a significant time period after the vaccine (for example the downstream effects of a vaccine activating an autoimmune disorder.)
IF the placebo arm of the Pfizer trial had remained intact (the placebo was saline so actually a useful control group), that would have yielded some useful long term information. But the decision was made by Pfizer, against the wishes of the FDA, to unblind the trial and offer the vaccine to the placebo group as well. So there will be no long term safety data from the clinical trial. There is no control group. I have no idea why that doesn’t seem to bother anybody.

@Fferny1 so it’s totally fine for someone with a history of multiple chemical sensitivities / an autoimmune disorder etc to be pressured into taking the vaccine, have an adverse reaction and end up in hospital? No problem there at all?
And there WILL be pressure if the govt plan to penalise those who are waiting until the drug finishes it’s trial and moves out of Emergency Use Authorisation. They are already penalising them. Yes in theory it’s everyone’s ‘choice’ whether or not to have the vaccine, but the fact that I haven’t had it now means that at my work I’d be the only one who would have to self isolate if I’m pinged by the NHS app. Even though I’ve personally committed to testing myself every single day with self purchased 98% sensitive lateral flow tests. And obviously PCR testing at the first sign of any symptoms at all. Just to make sure I’m discharging my social responsibilities. But I’ll be a pariah anyway because I’m ‘unvaxxed’.

I’m at risk of losing my job because of this. Because I’m a freelancer and my employers can hire whoever they want

PerveenMistry and nurses and doctors in hospital have training and equipment to protect themselves.
Covid is not the only contagious disease in hospitals.
The amount of people walking around the community with contagious diseases is pretty huge.
Lucky we all have immune systems.