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 😆😆

toad - you said the following-

think the problem is that science is pedantic, careful and focusses on the look before you leap/worst case scenario. Because it HAS to. It is dealing with life or death.

I don’t agree at all. I want the precautionary principle but instead we say “there is no evidence” before we have collated the evidence or even in the face of mounting evidence.

It’s not cautious enough for me at all. Billions of people are receiving nano mRNA vaccines and my view is that we don’t know enough about them and I don’t believe the covid pandemic justifies their use in anyone except the vulnerable

But I have thoughts about a lot of stuff like this. For example, the use of old tyres on 4g football pitches - there is a mindfuck - or the combination of pesticides which as a combo aren’t tested enough - or various new medications or certain cosmetics. Even dog vaccines and medications - the rigour isn’t there.

I appreciate I sound deranged but it’s how my mind works now and generally when you look into various aspects of anything, there is a lot of corruption and negligence and greed. Even housebuilding/cladding - how that was able to happen - I just can’t fathom the utter shit show that lead to it.

I think it's pretty anti social to refuse the vaccine.

I can only assume these people either lack civic duty or the education or capacity to understand why this important.

I have no need for your ‘patient’ explanations, thanks. I tried to explain to you that people, like me, can decide not to have the vaccine without being caught up in anti-vaxx conspiracy theories, but based on feeling happy with the low personal risk. You were incredibly rude in return and accused me of being frightened of the vaccine, making illogical choices, basing my decision on pseudoscience, being selfish etc etc. Is that really you being ‘patient’ and not rude? Well, I guess you don’t think you’re arrogant either so clearly there is a bit of a lack of self awareness there.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

Meee, meee, meee, meee. What an indivdual you are, bravo. Good evening to you, too

@GintyMcGinty DH is scared that i will catch Covid at the vaccination centre
Scare tactics have consequences.

@DownSideUpped
According to PHE there are more vaccinated over 50s in hospital than unvaccinated, and more vaccinated have died from the delta variant than unvaccinated. So I don’t think this is evidence of protection from the new variant, or prevention of hospitalisation or death. It’s evidence of the complete opposite.
Given that more over 50s are likely to be vaccinated than not especially CV ones thsn this is hardly surprising.
Imagine how many more could have been admitted or died without the vaccine.
Sorry could be covered but working way through thread slowly.
We know the vaccibe won't work for some so all the more important to keep cases low to protect the vulnerable vaccinated or not.

Backofbeyond50
Given that more over 50s are likely to be vaccinated than not especially CV ones thsn this is hardly surprising.

As at 18th June, PHE figures showed 50 deaths in over 50s who were fully vaxxed and 18 deaths in over 50s partially vaxxed. 2 deaths in under 50s partially vaxxed. These were from a total of around 20,000 vaccinated (fully or partially) cases.
There were 53,000 unvaccinated cases and a total of 44 deaths, 38 of whom were over 50.
According to ONS data nearly every death was in a person with comorbidities ( mainly diabetes and heart disease) which includes vaccinated/unvaccinated people.

The latest data due to be released in their Technical Briefing 18 appears to have been withheld. I have emailed PHE to request it. The figures should be (by now) much more telling.

Something struck me this morning - if, say, Jill refuses to have the vaccine because of various concerns/anxiety, why is the reaction from others that they will avoid her or call her selfish etc? If we are a compassionate, caring society then why are we not reaching out to people like Jill? If you have a friend like Jill, why would you not say 'I'm worried that you haven't had the vaccine, you're my friend and I want you to stay safe and well. What are the concerns you have? Maybe we can talk it over?'

Instead of a compassionate attitude, what are we seeing? 'You're selfish, don't care about society as a whole, and I will shun your company, because you are clearly stupid and misinformed'. There's something very wrong here. If we as a society want as many to be vaccinated as possible (and don't forget, the UK already has a very high rate) then we need to show more understanding and the willingness to reach out to those who aren't vaccinated and include them, not reject them. The anger is palpable, and doesn't help anyone.

I really don’t understand this general “belief in science”. Science is about studying, analysing, trial and error a lot of the time. Many things are still unknown about our immune systems, about genetics, about viruses. Science isn’t a religion. It’s not a thing to “believe” in. It isn’t all hard facts and truth. Science evolves. Theories are proven or disproved. Medicine advances, things are learned, mistakes are made. Most science around vaccines is based on probability and risk. Science around covid vaccines is in its teething stages. It’s not something to “believe in”.

An example. “Science” said wearing masks was safe. Science is now saying wearing masks is not safe. (Sorry for the Daily Fail link) www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9758217/amp/Children-wearing-masks-exposed-dangerous-levels-carbon-dioxide-study-finds.html?__twitter_impression=true

"'You're selfish, don't care about society as a whole, and I will shun your company, because you are clearly stupid and misinformed'."

I wouldn't shun the unvaccinated because they're clearly stupid or misinformed. I'd definitely avoid them because they are a health risk to us at the moment, that's all.

I don't think it works to try to convince people who've fallen for the anti-vax messages. Look at the arguments here, going round in circles.
Sadly, as cases go up and up and up, then they'll find out it exists by experiencing it themselves, or having a loved one hit by it. By which time it's really too late.

If you look at the vaccine rollout figures, though, and take away the few people who can't have it yet, the number choosing not to have it is very low. It's just a shame that we need such high immunity to stop the virus circulating. If we offered jabs to the children who want it, then that might then add up to enough to let this virus die out here. But it doesn't look hopeful. Plus, we have to help do that all around the world and we don't even have a government bothering to stamp it out here.

"An example. “Science” said wearing masks was safe. Science is now saying wearing masks is not safe. (Sorry for the Daily Fail link)"

It's a well-known issue. It's why surgeons pass out all the time.
FFS. Daily Mail really is an evil rag, wanting to help spread this thing with this kind of drivel.

@Wimpund21 I was told I would be dead in two to three years for having the vaccine. This person also did their research and Is concerned about their freedoms and has attended the protests etc.
They have been all over social media trying to talk people out if having the vaccine.
I respect their decision not to have the vaccine but I object to the poison they are spreading.
Apparently AZ is going to kill off the vulnerable and pfizer will track the younger ones.

From the report.
*With only 45 children in the study, it can not be used to represent all populations, but with every child recording at least three times healthy levels of carbon dioxide, researchers believe they did find a worthy trend.

They also noted that since the research was done in a laboratory setting, some of the children may have been apprehensive and not breathing...*

Backofbeyond50

But it is still “science” and that is my point. People pick and choose which “science” to “believe in”. It doesn’t have to be a huge study and peer reviewed to be representative of fact, and neither does a very large study that is peer reviewed necessarily represent fact. I work with very large studies looking for data errors and I have seen published studies based on flawed data.

[quote DownSideUpped]An example. “Science” said wearing masks was safe. Science is now saying wearing masks is not safe. (Sorry for the Daily Fail link) www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9758217/amp/Children-wearing-masks-exposed-dangerous-levels-carbon-dioxide-study-finds.html?__twitter_impression=true[/quote]
the daily mail is utter trash

@DownSideUpped

that study has well and truly been debunked - it's methods make no sense and neither do the conclusions drawn

unsurprisingly it's from an anti-vaxxer who has no training or publication history in relevant fields - harald wallach - who's recent paper claiming the coronavirus vaccines cause more deaths than lives save was littered with methodological issues and was subsequently retracted

bit of a red flag when someone with no expertise is randomly publishing lots of anti-vax, anti-mask, anti-lockdown papers

@DownSideUpped

Backofbeyond50

But it is still “science” and that is my point. People pick and choose which “science” to “believe in”. It doesn’t have to be a huge study and peer reviewed to be representative of fact, and neither does a very large study that is peer reviewed necessarily represent fact. I work with very large studies looking for data errors and I have seen published studies based on flawed data.

There is a vast body of literature showing that masks are safe and effective.

You have chosen to propagate the one that claims masks are harmful.

This is why we conduct systematic reviews - you should be triangulating evidence, not cherry picking single studies that support your views.

ollyollyoxenfree
You’ve completely missed the entire point of my post! 😂

@DownSideUpped link above is to a far right video hosting platform. I am SICK of seeing this stuff. Mumsnet should be regulating their content. FFS.

ollyollyoxenfree
It was an example of “science” whether good or bad. I’m saying it doesn’t make sense to “believe in science” because it isn’t a right or wrong. It’s ever evolving, often flawed, often trial and error. Sorry to bring up thalidomide, but that was also “science”.

@DownSideUpped

ollyollyoxenfree You’ve completely missed the entire point of my post! 😂

No I really haven't

this was your post right:

I really don’t understand this general “belief in science”. Science is about studying, analysing, trial and error a lot of the time. Many things are still unknown about our immune systems, about genetics, about viruses. Science isn’t a religion. It’s not a thing to “believe” in. It isn’t all hard facts and truth. Science evolves.

you're now linking to a study which is really poor example of this concept, it's junk science, it shouldn't even be part of the conversation. It's not that the evidence on whether masks are safe or not has changed or evolved over time, it's that there are people, for whatever reason, are insistent on spreading misinformation.

Why are you linking to places like odesee?