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 😆😆

Well we live in a society of illogical people then I’m happy to keep them company.

I don’t think you should assume that people are afraid, or uneducated, or influenced by conspiracy theories simply because they have looked at the evidence on risk of the virus and made a different decision to you.

[quote shrodingersbiscuit]And,@bumbleymummy you can be as smart arsed about it as you like but your choice is not based on evidence. We do not have strong evidence of long acting, mass immunity conferred by infection. Current estimates are at 6 months.

@UndercoverToad Rampant individualism indeed! Thank you for that phrase, that’s exactly what this sort of thing is![/quote]
Actually, many studies have shown that immunity after infection lasts over 8 months and a few recent ones have detected antibodies after a year.

I’m not really sure why you are insisting I haven’t made my decision based on evidence. How do you think the JCVI identified the most at risk groups to prioritise for vaccination? I guess they didn’t use evidence either in your opinion?

Actually, many studies have shown that immunity after infection lasts over 8 months

@bumbleymummy

Interested in the links to these studies? The issue with cohorts like the SIREN study is that there are of HCPs so not generalisable (i.e., likely to get a huge viral load at initial infection, then lots of "boosters" due the nature of patient facing work)

The trouble with natural immunity is strength of immunity is linked to the viral load you were exposed to, with vaccines we can control this dose to generate good immunity whilst being safe, with natural infection you have lots of mild cases, which is good, but not necessarily conductive to long lasting immune recognition.

How do you think the JCVI identified the most at risk groups to prioritise for vaccination? I guess they didn’t use evidence either in your opinion?

Well of course the most at risk were vaccinated first, that's common sense? The JCVI recommends everyone over the age of 18 without contraindications is vaccinated.

@bumbleymummy you post the same thing on every single coronavirus thread. 🙄

There are plenty of us with autoimmune diseases or CFS/ME who are worried about what effect the vaccine might have, also equally worried about the effect of catching the virus. If you visit forums for people with those concerns, you will find a totally different perspective. Many want to be vaccinated but are terrified of their progress being set back. Some have taken it and been OK or off colour for a few days, but a few have had awful set backs. On the thyroid forum I frequent, some have seen their thyroid hormone levels drop alarmingly. They do bounce back after 2-3 months, but it will interfere strongly with your health in the meantime. We have to try to balance this against the risks of getting Covid. It isn't nearly as black and white as 'look at the evidence and then do the right thing' view that predominates here.

I was in two minds until I discovered I'd actually had Covid asymptomatically, and still have antibodies one year on. I realised I had been needlessly terrified of the effect of the virus on my health. Of course others have had very different experiences. Each person must make their choice according to their own circumstances. It's not straight-forward and certainly not an easy decision.

@ollyollyoxenfree

Actually, many studies have shown that immunity after infection lasts over 8 months

@bumbleymummy

Interested in the links to these studies? The issue with cohorts like the SIREN study is that there are of HCPs so not generalisable (i.e., likely to get a huge viral load at initial infection, then lots of "boosters" due the nature of patient facing work)

The trouble with natural immunity is strength of immunity is linked to the viral load you were exposed to, with vaccines we can control this dose to generate good immunity whilst being safe, with natural infection you have lots of mild cases, which is good, but not necessarily conductive to long lasting immune recognition.

How do you think the JCVI identified the most at risk groups to prioritise for vaccination? I guess they didn’t use evidence either in your opinion?

Well of course the most at risk were vaccinated first, that's common sense? The JCVI recommends everyone over the age of 18 without contraindications is vaccinated.

Good summary of several studies in this document:

www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2021-06/Duration-of%20protective-immunity-evidence-summary_22-June-2021.pdf

Used to advise NPHET(Ireland) to extend the period of presumptive immunity from six to nine months post-infection.

Well of course the most at risk were vaccinated first, that's common sense?

Of course. I was asking how schrodinger thought they informed their decision if it wasn't evidence-based.

In terms of the immunocompromised, it’s not necessarily that they can’t be vaccinated. The other concern is that even if vaccinated if they were to contract COVID they could be extremely ill. Or it could be fatal.

COVID is not flu, and I wish people would stop saying “oh it’s just another flu virus”. It’s a disease which appears to be like flu but can also attack the neurological systems of the body, and interfere with the proper working of our blood.

The cohorts in those studies aren’t all indicative of the general population and we can’t be sure of things like impact of viral load.

And yet they are deemed ‘indicative’ enough to determine changes for presumptive immunity. Maybe you should contact HIQA and tell them they were wrong? I’m sure they’d love to hear from you.

Glad you agree that the JCVI are making evidence based decisions when they evaluate data on risk. You were previously arguing that my decision, based on evaluating the data on risk was not evidence based.

I’m not asking you for support. Why on Earth would I care what you think about my decision? I was simply correctly you on your idea that people only choose not to be vaccinated because they are afraid of the vaccine or influenced by anti-vaxx propaganda. You just seem to be finding that hard to accept.

Does anybody who insists everyone should have the vaccine live near this bloke and his family. Can you or are you willing to offer help.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9760519/Family-demand-answers-father-fights-life-ventilator-having-AstraZeneca-jab.html

He is still getting texts from the NHS to go for a second jab and he is lying in a NHS hospital paralysed. This is how impersonal it is. It's wrong on all levels

Of course they’re being cautious. But your original point was

“We do not have strong evidence of long acting, mass immunity conferred by infection. Current estimates are at 6 months. ”

which is incorrect based on current data. Glad I could help you with that :)

Again, I haven’t said that the vaccine is higher risk that the disease. I have said that I am happy with the risk of disease for me (which is low) and that decision was based on evidence of risk irt different age groups/ethnicity and comorbidities etc.

the evidence on extended infection acquired immunity is just not there

We also don’t have evidence on extended vaccine induced immunity, do we? In fact, we have more evidence on infection induced immunity than vaccine induced immunity.

I didnt say it was common. And as for the faux concern for the housebound there is aposter on here who cant get to a vaccination centre until the car that fits her wheelchair in is fixed in two months time. When she posted on the thread it didnt get a response. People would rather froth about Joe Bloggs not wearing a mask by the milk in Tesco.

@shrodingersbiscuit

Oh *@bumbleymummy*, give up. You can’t even keep track of the things you say so I don’t know why anyone else should bother.

I don’t think I can be penalised for not knowing that an Irish body had extended their advice from 6 to 9 months less than two weeks after the data was released: thank you for bringing it to my attention. Other countries (including the one I live in) official estimates are 3 months which demonstrates the heterogeneity of that data compared to the consensus on vaccine data.

Your trying to catch out the scientist is embarrassing now.

Vaccination boosts protection in the previously infected
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33640038/?dopt=Abstract

Number of antibodies is liked to severity of infection in infection acquired immunity (and lasts 5-7 months) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33129373/?dopt=Abstract

Immune response is more homogeneous following vaccination than infection
scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=C+Baraniuk&title=The+search+for+immune+responses+that+stop+COVID-19&publication_year=2020&journal=Scientist&volume=24

Currently available vaccines protect against foreseeable variants (an unknown with infection acquired immunity)
science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6534/1103?ijkey=a82049b1120d7ffed0dea730282e81baa58d7b6e&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Immune response is strengthened by vaccination following infection www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2103825?query=TOC

We’ve got the same amount of data on Covid vaccine acquired immunity as we do infection acquired immunity so you can stop that nonsense as well unless you’ve a time machine. But I’ve a lot more data on animal studies of mRNA vaccines than on a novel virus that didn’t exist until 2019 - max estimate for vaccine acquired immunity is 3 years but currently the assumption is 12 months and we’ll need boosters. Still much safer than getting a new Covid variant every year.

You’ve been repeatedly told that the risk you are taking is not only to you, it is to public health: your decision is not based on available evidence.

I’m perfectly able to keep track of what I’ve said. You clearly aren’t because you keep accusing me of saying things that I haven’t. (Just like you did with mercybooth irt her last post)

I don’t live in Ireland but I was aware of there being data that showed that immunity after infection persists for longer than 8 months. Studies showing that have been available since January. (Many of them U.K. based) If you bothered to read the link I sent you would see that the studies they used were from all of the world, including several from the U.K.

I’m not trying to ‘catch out’ the scientist. What a silly thing to say.

Irt, time no, we don’t have the same data on how long immunity lasts. We don’t have the same amount of data on vaccine induced immunity after 8+ months simply because we don’t have as many people vaccinated for that time period as we do people infected. That’s fairly basic. Most scientists acknowledge that and are using the length of immunity after infection as a benchmark against which to compare vaccine induced immunity.

www.biznews.com/health/2021/06/28/covid-19-vaccine-immunity?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&amp&__twitter_impression=true

We can all add links to support either side of the argument. Because that’s what true science is, development and understanding through experience and debate. That sort of thinking has been censored and shut down for the past 18 months though so now we are only allowed to see and agree to the “science” propagated by the mainstream media.

Anyway, I now await posters like ollyollyoxenfree to tell me what discredited scientists belong to the Panda group yawn

I haven't read through all kabillion pages of this thread so apologies if this has been covered....

How many of you choosing not to be vaccinated are on the contraceptive pill? Anyone on the pill choosing* not to be vaccinated really is just being ridiculous and has no excuse not to be vaccinated. You've far more risk of blood clots from the pill.

(TBH I think regardless of being on the pill, if you don't get vaccinated you're being selfish for all the reasons other people have said fairly eloquently, but if you're on the pill you're a special kind of silly.)

*I exclude anyone with medical reasons or severe phobias

@Lostinacloud

www.biznews.com/health/2021/06/28/covid-19-vaccine-immunity?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&&__twitter_impression=true

We can all add links to support either side of the argument. Because that’s what true science is, development and understanding through experience and debate. That sort of thinking has been censored and shut down for the past 18 months though so now we are only allowed to see and agree to the “science” propagated by the mainstream media.

Anyway, I now await posters like ollyollyoxenfree to tell me what discredited scientists belong to the Panda group yawn

Honoured by the shout out @Lostinacloud

We can all add links to support either side of the argument. Because that’s what true science is, development and understanding through experience and debate
Herein lies the problem - the vast majority of experts have converged around a set of guidance regarding COVID - the benefits of mass vaccination outweigh the risks, herd immunity via natural infection is problematic, masks are useful in preventing spread, ivermectin is not effective in treating COVID etc etc.

You can always find a ragtag person using a doctor or professor title with opposing views, but that goes against the 1000s of experts who disagree.

That sort of thinking has been censored and shut down for the past 18 months though so now we are only allowed to see and agree to the “science” propagated by the mainstream media.
But this is simply not the case. As a scientist you can always find a predatory journal to publish your dubious findings - only last month the anti-vaxxer Walach published his now retracted article claiming vaccines are killing more people than lives saved. Fox news and multiple platforms reported widely on these findings.

As for Panda, thanks for drawing my attention to it. It's just another ragtag group of mainly non-experts linked to Mike Yeadon (with a lot of overlap with the HART group), including the infamous Clare Craig. You seem to be big fan of hers despite posters pointing out the amount of misinformation she's spread, and tried to cover up, in the last 18 months.

Their website includes many gems such as the following: There is also science suggesting that extended periods of mask wearing can be harmful due to oxygen deprivation and various other side-effects

Absolutely ridiculous

She didn’t say that it was common though. You put words in her mouth so to speak. You keep trying to do the same to me.

What pseudoscience have I peddled?

My decision is based on looking at the evidence of risk to my age group/ethnicity etc. I’m really not sure why you struggle so much with that. Do you think there is no evidence that shows risk by age group etc? You acknowledged that the JCVI used that evidence to inform their decisions about which groups to prioritise for vaccination so clearly you do know that it exists and is considered acceptable evidence or it wouldn’t be used to inform policy decisions.

Scientists have been assessing the effectiveness of the vaccine by comparing it to the immune response after infection since last year. The finding that antibodies were persisting for several months after infection was what gave hope to the scientists developing the vaccine that they could produce a vaccine that could induce immunity for a significant period of time.

I’m not ignoring it but it none of those studies could be used as proof of long-term immunity after vaccination against COVID and I doubt that any reputable scientist would try to use it as such.

I really don’t need you to link me to studies. I’m perfectly capable of finding them myself. It would seem I’m a bit more up to date on my reading than you are anyway .

But yes, all the best to you too. :)

Ha there you are ollyollyoxenfree. Always stalking around threads daring to discuss alternative views so you can call them out as ragtag organisations because they don’t concur to the mainstream media led information.
Why is any scientific explanation that doesn’t concur with the WHO, Sage or Fauci ragtag? And on the subject of the linked article, why on earth would millennia old immunity follow any different pattern to sars-cov2 than it does to other coronaviruses. It seem ludicrous to suggest that immunity to sars-cov1 can be counted at 17 years so far, but apparently immunity to sars-cov2 will wane within 6-12 months.