Why is not having the vaccine selfish

[chorizoTapas]

If not getting the vaccine only means you're putting yourself at risk why is it considered selfish and why are some people choosing to not be around their own family members who are unvaccinated? As most people have now had the vaccine hopefully the hospitals won't become overwhelmed... even with the few people that won't have the jab.

I am double jabbed but my brother is refusing to have his. Is he selfish? And if so why?

Interesting context
Thanks for this

@leafyygreens as you said, I answered it upthread so I didn’t ‘swerve’ at all.

You are completely avoiding the question I asked you, however.

So again, do you think HIQA are wrong in their findings about duration of immunity?

They are unvaccinated through choice yet they are concerned that they will be restricted by their choices eg attending events, going on holiday, restaurants etc. To be, these concerns point to their decision being completely personal.

Yes, there is a strong ‘if I can’t have it then no one should be able to have it’ vibe alongside a strong sense of denial that their decision might have an impact, either individually or collectively, on others.

[quote bumbleymummy]@leafyygreens as you said, I answered it upthread so I didn’t ‘swerve’ at all.

You are completely avoiding the question I asked you, however.

So again, do you think HIQA are wrong in their findings about duration of immunity?[/quote]
No, you didn't answer it, you avoided it. Good grief.

The HIQA findings have been explained to you again and again, but you again you ignore responses.

From their findings they do not recommend that people with a previous infection are not vaccinated. This report was used by their public health bodies to emphasise the importance of bolstering immunity post vaccination with one infection.

Also linked to yet more evidence for this, but again was ignored. -->

Here's yet more evidence from the CCD, reported by NY times (manuscript not available).

The study, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, examined the risk of reinfection during May and June among hundreds of Kentucky residents who tested positive for the virus in 2020.

Those who did not get vaccinated this year faced a risk of reinfection that was 2.34 higher than those who did get their shots.

www.nytimes.com/2021/08/06/health/covid-vaccine-reinfection.html

MRex, are you suggesting that previously infected people don’t have their immunity ‘boosted’ when they come into contact/contract the virus again? We have evidence showing that incidence of reinfection is very low (even with the delta variant) (PHE). We also have evidence showing that in most cases reinfection is usually milder. Do you have anything to back up your assertion?

You seem to keep avoiding the fact that immunity also wanes over time in the vaccinated and that duration also varies between people (faster in immune compromised/elderly) so yes, we can decide to offer a booster after a certain period of time but those people may already have contracted and spread the virus before that happens.

You mean the PHE who have explicitly stated that the risk of reinfection is very much higher, that PHE? wap.business-standard.com/article-amp/international/uk-warns-of-increased-risk-of-covid-reinfection-with-delta-variant-121072301387_1.html

Not all wave 1 cases had

From their findings they do not recommend that people with a previous infection are not vaccinated. This report was used by their public health bodies to emphasise the importance of bolstering immunity post vaccination with one infection.

Oh dear. I didn’t say that they do not recommend that people with previous infection are not vaccinated

“This report was used by their public health bodies to emphasise the importance of bolstering immunity post vaccination with one infection.”

No, it doesn’t. This was the purpose of the report:

*The purpose of this evidence synthesis is to provide advice to the National Public Health Emergency Team (NPHET) on the following research questions:

“How long does protective immunity (that is, prevention of antigen or RT-PCR confirmed reinfection) last in individuals who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and subsequently recovered?”

and

“What is the duration of immune memory responses (T-cell and B-cell memory and or their components’ responses) following SARS-CoV-2 infection?”*

Do you accept their findings?

In light of these findings, consideration should be given to extending the period of presumptive immunity from six to nine months post-infection.

They’ve said ‘increased risk’ not that it is ‘very much higher’. Reinfection rates remain low.

To finish that sentence... Not all wave 1 cases had confirmed PCR tests, which dramatically reduces the stats on reinfection. Serological studies like the one I posted give the facts and they show waning immunity.

There are and will continue to be tests to check the immunity of vaccinated people; that will keep everyone safe. Your approach to decide to just let everyone catch covid is idiotic.

@bumbleymummy

From their findings they do not recommend that people with a previous infection are not vaccinated. This report was used by their public health bodies to emphasise the importance of bolstering immunity post vaccination with one infection.

Oh dear. I didn’t say that they do not recommend that people with previous infection are not vaccinated

“This report was used by their public health bodies to emphasise the importance of bolstering immunity post vaccination with one infection.”

No, it doesn’t. This was the purpose of the report:

*The purpose of this evidence synthesis is to provide advice to the National Public Health Emergency Team (NPHET) on the following research questions:

“How long does protective immunity (that is, prevention of antigen or RT-PCR confirmed reinfection) last in individuals who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and subsequently recovered?”

and

“What is the duration of immune memory responses (T-cell and B-cell memory and or their components’ responses) following SARS-CoV-2 infection?”*

Do you accept their findings?

In light of these findings, consideration should be given to extending the period of presumptive immunity from six to nine months post-infection.

Uhuh.

But the point you are trying to make is that people with a previous infection don't need to be vaccinated.

That is not what the report is saying, or what the HIQA are recommending, so I'm not sure why you keep wheeling it out as if it's an ace card.

Even with presumptive immunity, they recommend these individuals are still vaccination.

Posted this to you @bumbleymummy on another thread. You ignore the multiple strands of reasoning that are why experts are recommending individuals with a previous infection are still vaccinated.

-We do not yet have a validated biomarker for what constitutes immunity that would prevent reinfection or transmission to others- AB levels? It is therefore impossible to say if someone is "immune", or if their current immunity could be bolstered by vaccination.
-This would also require testing every individual to see what their "immunity" status is, as described above, we don't have a benchmark and this is adding a huge, resource intensive step that isn't necessary.

• Getting to population level immunity via infection is not recommended by any public health bodies when we have a vaccination. It puts both the individual and the population at risk by allowing extra transmission that could be mitigated.

@MRex

To finish that sentence... Not all wave 1 cases had confirmed PCR tests, which dramatically reduces the stats on reinfection. Serological studies like the one I posted give the facts and they show waning immunity.

There are and will continue to be tests to check the immunity of vaccinated people; that will keep everyone safe. Your approach to decide to just let everyone catch covid is idiotic.

See above HIQA link for plenty of studies showing duration of immunity.

So you think we should test for duration of immunity in vaccinated people but not previously infected people? Why?

My approach isn’t to ‘let everyone catch COVID’.

Of course it isn't selfish. But daily we are being manipulated and made to believe this story. Glad to hear many on here who can still think critically.

@urghicba

Not having the vaccine is not selfish in the slightest. It's a personal, medical decision.

I refuse to tell anyone if I have or haven't had it.

That's not true. A friend of mine just went on holiday with another friend who is not vaccinated. Unvaccinated friend caught Covid so my friend had to self-isolate. She had important things to do so it was a serious hassle. Her friend messed up. (I know that vaccinated people can get it too, but they have at least tried not to).

Also, we need herd immunity - the vaccine is not just about not getting it yourself.

No, hiqa don’t actually recommend that. It wasn’t the purpose of the report - see above.

Read and replied to you on the other thread speckled. The first points were addressed in the HIQA document. Have also previously replied to your ‘herd immunity via infection’ point (not what I’m suggesting btw) Not sure why you keep wanting to repeat yourself.

Of course it isn't selfish. But daily we are being manipulated and made to believe this story. Glad to hear many on here who can still think critically.

I mean, ‘I know my decision may negatively impact others, but I choose not to take that into consideration in my decision making, I’m only interested in the personal impacts’ is the definition of selfish.

It’s fine for people to make decisions on that basis, but it’s a bit crass not to own it.

@bumbleymummy

No, hiqa don’t actually recommend that. It wasn’t the purpose of the report - see above.

Read and replied to you on the other thread speckled. The first points were addressed in the HIQA document. Have also previously replied to your ‘herd immunity via infection’ point (not what I’m suggesting btw) Not sure why you keep wanting to repeat yourself.

The HIQA report was used by the public health body to come to this conclusion, as has been said to you repeatedly.

So you aren't arguing that people with a previous infection should be not vaccinated? Literally no one is claiming that a prior infection doesn't give you a degree of immunity so I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.

Not sure why you keep wanting to repeat yourself.

Because you don't seem to want to accept you're wrong @bumbleymummy. You've been repeating these same arguments for the past 18 months and the pattern is always the same.

@bumbleymummy - population level testing is efficient and can be compared with stats on infection, hospitalisation and death. Testing every individual every month is not practical, and can't be aligned with those stats.

Of course your approach is to let everyone catch covid. You have posted many times every day since vaccinations were available that you don't think people should be vaccinated. You do everything you can to discourage vaccination by twisting facts and figures to argue that there is no need to be vaccinated. You are also against lockdown measures. What that logically leaves everyone with, is a covid infection.

Really struggling to understand why people have a problem with immunity after infection being durable It’s a good thing. Between vaccination and previous infection, over 93% of people over 16 now have antibodies. Wonderful news!

@leafyygreens

Not sure why you keep wanting to repeat yourself.

Because you don't seem to want to accept you're wrong @bumbleymummy. You've been repeating these same arguments for the past 18 months and the pattern is always the same.

I’m not wrong. I’m literally quoting HIQAs findings:

Across studies, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was consistently found to be low. No study reported an increase in reinfection risk over time. More limited data were identified in relation to the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The identified studies suggest that immune memory develops in most or all people that have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and lasts for at least nine months.
In light of these findings, consideration should be given to extending the period of presumptive immunity from six to nine months post-infection. Any such changes to policy should be clearly communicated and consistently applied.

Do you disagree with their findings?

“ The HIQA report was used by the public health body to come to this conclusion, as has been said to you repeatedly.”

No, that policy was already in place, as I previously pointed out. The refer to that existing policy in the document.

over 93% of people over 16 now have antibodies
90% have been vaccinated and over 2% have had confirmed covid since June. Your unvaccinated immune people are not making any impact on the numbers.

Yes @teepsp I take the pandemic very seriously, and am certainly not a conspiracy theorist whatsoever, and have never believed it's a plandemic at all. I'm doing all that I can to avoid catching or passing on Covid, whilst I work through the vaccine issue. I'm essentially still semi-locked down. I honestly don't think I could be being more careful (in terms of distancing, mask wearing, vitamin taking etc)
Anyway, best wishes to you over in NZ. Hope the reopening of borders is smooth and safe etc