Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Why is not having the vaccine selfish

538 replies

chorizoTapas · 06/08/2021 14:02

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
teepsp · 07/08/2021 14:45

[quote bumbleymummy]@Wideawakeandconfused we had to lockdown and have restrictions for over a year to prevent mass hospitalisations/deaths in the most vulnerable groups. They were prioritised for vaccination (rightly so). Should they not feel grateful rather than condemning the people who gave up a lot to protect them?[/quote]
It sounds to me like you've been getting the wrong health department messaging. You aren't in lockdown to protect the vulnerable, but to prevent the spread of the disease which also kills young people. No one needs to be grateful that you have tried a little bit harder to be a good person lately.

leafyygreens · 07/08/2021 14:46

@bumbleymummy

Really struggling to understand why people have a problem with immunity after infection being durable Confused It’s a good thing. Between vaccination and previous infection, over 93% of people over 16 now have antibodies. Wonderful news!
No one is debating that people showing signs of immunity is a good thing @bumbleymummy

But as discussed extensively, you extrapolating this to infer that these people cannot be reinfected or pass onto anyone else and so do not need vaccination which isn't true.

This is in addition to the difficulties screening billions of people for this, and identifying a biomarker that denotes "immunity". In reality, the vast majority of people will have partial immunity which can be bolstered by vaccination.

You do not have appropriate training or experience in epidemiology, so why do you think you know better than the experts who have weighed up the evidence which clearly demonstrated vaccination after infection is the best policy?

Crowtooyo · 07/08/2021 15:28

The way I see it:

  1. There is evidence that double jabbed people are less likely to pass on the virus, therefore important to those vulnerable people who would love the vaccine but aren't able to for medical reasons.
  2. Like you say, most people are vaxxed now so hospital admissions are low. That's basically like saying someone is happy for life to go back to normal by everyone else getting jabbed but not willing to do so themselves.

I hope a lot of these anti vaxxers change their minds. It's just going to keep going on longer and longer otherwise and I'm fed up!

Tealightsandd · 07/08/2021 16:17

over 93% of people over 16 now have antibodies

To what? Alpha (UK) strain? Delta? Gamma?

And for how long? Antibodies for what - one week? Two weeks? Two months?

The thing is that we don't know. And how could we. Ok yes we don't know for certain whether SARS-Cov-2 is a (bioweapon research) leak from a lab and some will deny it...especially those with connections to the work...but it absolutely could be.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology was studying (genetically modifying?) bat coronaviruses at the time.

So. A likely human modified potential bioweapon. We cannot know the full extent of potential long term damage. Not yet. Although we do have a pretty good idea. Lung damage, heart damage, kidney damage, liver damage, brain damage, diabetes, hearing loss, vision problems, erectile dysfunction.

Oh - and there's been recent studies suggesting people (including previously young and healthy) experience a significant drop in intelligence after a Covid infection.

So your assertion Bumbley that it's 'only' Other People - the elderly and vulnerable - at risk is rubbish.

KOKOagainandagain · 07/08/2021 16:17

www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/will-delaying-vaccine-doses-cause-a-coronavirus-escape-mutant--68424

It's not black and white. It is complex. Immune escape is a fact. The quantifiable risk is unknown - therefore theoretical - because in an open system there are multi factorial potential causal mechanisms.

But we can be sure about some things. Where community transmission is zero or very low, the relative risk of contacting the virus whilst imperfectly immunised is almost nonexistent. Therefore there is no chance for mutation. This also applies to the non vaccinated.

On the other hand, when community transition is high and nobody really knows who is infected, the risk of infection after first dose is relatively high. This increases the risk of selective evolutionary pressure. Non vaccination can contribute by keeping community transition high but more so in those not eligible than eligible that refuse the vaccine and only in the context of already high levels of community transmission that arguably exist due to political failure. Especially if non pharmaceutical measures of infection control have been ditched. In this instance the risk of creating the conditions favourable to escape variants increases.

Immune escape is real, both innate and adaptive. This is incontrovertible. The potential risk is almost impossible to quantify given the number of possible permutations of mutation. Especially in advance of real life consequences. Eg What does replacing a E with a K at the 484 position in the string of RNA mean? This is just one mutation. Given the length of the string and possible permutations, mathematically greater than the number of atoms in the visible universe.

To which you have to add political policy and human behaviour

But the risk of creating favourable conditions to selective pressure may be ignored due to local concerns. Because when in a crisis of exponential growth an individual national like the UK will weigh potential risk against real in your face risk of health system overload.

So it's a little more complicated than vaccinated = good/unvaccinated = bad. Personally/epidemiologically/globally and morally.

leafyygreens · 07/08/2021 16:24

This is not the opinion of credible virologists or epidemiologists @KOKOagainandagain

The virus can only mutate when it has a chance to replicate. Partial immunity will decrease the amount of replication it can do when it enters a human host, as the virus will be neutralised and cleared at a quicker rate. This reduces the opportunities for mutations to be acquired.

In terms of mutation, is it is better therefore to have partial immunity than none at all. This is why mass vaccination is important in terms of reducing the chances of new emergent strains.

Why do you think 99% of the worlds experts advocate for mass vaccination to slow the emergence of new variants? This isn't a problem that has somehow escaped their notice.

Tealightsandd · 07/08/2021 16:24

But we can be sure about some things. Where community transmission is zero or very low, the relative risk of contacting the virus whilst imperfectly immunised is almost nonexistent. Therefore there is no chance for mutation. This also applies to the non vaccinated.

So presumably London is a high risk for a mutation? (And the millions of vulnerable Londoners less protected than elsewhere?).

London has the lowest take-up of vaccines in the country.

Tealightsandd · 07/08/2021 16:26

Re London. I don't mean partially vaccinated. I mean at all. London has the lowest take up of any vaccine (one or two doses) in the UK. It's particularly an issue amongst young men 18-24 year olds.

Tealightsandd · 07/08/2021 16:28

I suppose London is high risk full stop. With the wide open borders. The international travel hub (like NYC, but unlike NYC continuing to be during the pandemic). Any and all new strains welcomed in, mixing together, spreading freely...

bumbleymummy · 07/08/2021 18:36

You aren't in lockdown to protect the vulnerable, but to prevent the spread of the disease which also kills young people.

We were in lockdown to reduce pressure on the nhs. How did you miss that? Confused The people most likely to end up in hospital are the top 9 groups identified by the JCVI - they made up over 85% of hospitalisations and over 99% deaths.

@leafyygreens I’m just quoting from the hiqa document. You are the one insisting that immunity after infection is not durable, in contradiction of their findings. Why does your training qualify you to contradict them?

@Tealightsandd I haven’t asserted that they are the only groups at risk, just that they are the higher risk groups. You can find the information about how they’re measuring immunity for their surveys on the ONS site.

Cornettoninja · 07/08/2021 18:53

“You aren't in lockdown to protect the vulnerable, but to prevent the spread of the disease which also kills young people”

We were in lockdown to reduce pressure on the nhs. How did you miss that? confused The people most likely to end up in hospital are the top 9 groups identified by the JCVI - they made up over 85% of hospitalisations and over 99% deaths

You’re both half right. We were in lockdown to ease pressure on the NHS because an overwhelmed health system results in other deaths and injury in all age groups and demographics. As we have seen.

Tealightsandd · 07/08/2021 18:53

85% of hospitalisations

Not quite sure of your point Bumbley...given The Others aka the vulnerable make up a sizeable proportion of the UK population.

Also your figures are possibly out of date. We've being told lots of young people are currently in hospital. And death rates would be even higher than already are with no mitigation measures. Full hospitals + ill/dead staff = no lifesaving care.

Regardless. It's not just about hospitalisation.

Long Covid happens not just to The Vulnerable.

bumbleymummy · 07/08/2021 19:00

@Tealightsandd

The numbers of younger people in hospital are at similar levels to January (see ons link above). They just make up a higher proportion of the hospital cases because there are fewer older/vulnerable people being hospitalised thanks to the vaccine reducing their risk of serious illness/death. :)

KOKOagainandagain · 07/08/2021 19:00

These are extracts from a more readable article from the scientist but even if you google and read research papers you will find lots of studies that point to less than 99.9 agreement. Like I said it's complex.

Vaccinating as many people as possible with initial doses before moving on to second doses is intended as the fastest means of inducing a good level of protection within the population. But some experts say they worry that this constitutes a giant experiment in viral evolution, where the potential consequences remain troublingly unclear.
Among those concerned is Paul Bieniasz, a virologist at the Rockefeller University. “Rolling out a partially effective vaccine regime in the peak of a highly prevalent viral epidemic is just not a great idea if one of your goals is to avoid vaccine resistance,” he says.

There’s a chance, Bieniasz explains, that people waiting for their second dose may have a sub-optimal level of immunity that places selective pressure on the virus. If someone were to become infected during the interval between jabs, that pressure could allow for the emergence of a mutant version of SARS-CoV-2 able to shake off a person’s immune response—a so-called escape variant. Any such variant that also proved capable of causing severe disease could potentially spark a whole new, devastating wave of infections and deaths.

Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser on COVID-19, said last month at a virtual World Economic Forum panel that delaying the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine could increase the likelihood of an escape variant emerging. “It may not be the case, but it gets risky,” he told the audience.
Scientists advising the UK government have considered the same scenario.

In a paper published last month, they wrote, “in the short-term, delaying the second dose would be expected to somewhat increase the probability of emergence of vaccine resistance.” But quantifying the risk is nigh on impossible.

We can’t really put a number on it,” says Björn Meyer, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, referring to the risk of delayed dosing leading to the evolution of an escape variant. Every time the virus replicates there is a chance that it could mutate into a more transmissible or more deadly form. In a single individual, the odds of this happening are vanishingly small but the picture changes somewhat when you consider that tens of millions of people are currently waiting for their second dose, notes Meyer.

bumbleymummy · 07/08/2021 19:01

Although, older people still have the highest rate of hospitalisation/death. (Link above)

leafyygreens · 07/08/2021 19:02

@bumbleymummy

You aren't in lockdown to protect the vulnerable, but to prevent the spread of the disease which also kills young people.

We were in lockdown to reduce pressure on the nhs. How did you miss that? Confused The people most likely to end up in hospital are the top 9 groups identified by the JCVI - they made up over 85% of hospitalisations and over 99% deaths.

@leafyygreens I’m just quoting from the hiqa document. You are the one insisting that immunity after infection is not durable, in contradiction of their findings. Why does your training qualify you to contradict them?

@Tealightsandd I haven’t asserted that they are the only groups at risk, just that they are the higher risk groups. You can find the information about how they’re measuring immunity for their surveys on the ONS site.

Nope, I never stated anything to do with "durability" of immunity after infection or contradicting their document.

I am stating that they do not say that people don't need to be vaccinated after infection, which is what experts and public health bodies are also saying.

You are the one contradicting these statements, insisting vaccination is not necessary, when you have no expertise to do so. Again and again you ignore the full response from posters in order to detract from the fact you're incorrect.

No one is debating that people showing signs of immunity is a good thing @bumbleymummy**

But as discussed extensively, you extrapolating this to infer that these people cannot be reinfected or pass onto anyone else and so do not need vaccination which isn't true.

This is in addition to the difficulties screening billions of people for this, and identifying a biomarker that denotes "immunity". In reality, the vast majority of people will have partial immunity which can be bolstered by vaccination.

You do not have appropriate training or experience in epidemiology, so why do you think you know better than the experts who have weighed up the evidence which clearly demonstrated vaccination after infection is the best policy?

Tealightsandd · 07/08/2021 19:07

And also. We shouldn't have been focused only on saving the NHS. If that is what it was about.

We are a society. Whatever Thatcher might've said. We pay taxes. We live as a society. That includes the millions of vulnerable. And the elderly. Our current elderly are a generation who were born before the creation of the NHS and the welfare state. The majority went straight out from school at 15/16 to work and pay taxes for 40/50 years.

Their lives - the vulnerable and elderly - were and are worth saving.

We are a country that, unlike other progressive more advanced places, doesn't allow assisted suicide. Why? Because we're told life is precious. Well it is when someone is denied the freedom (Boris's much loved personal responsibility) to choose a good death. Quite the opposite it seems when it's not a personal choice, SARS-Cov-2.

And separately, it's never been just about death. The potential long term health damage (Long Covid) of a new, possibly lab escaped bioweapon research, should never have been ignored or downplayed.

yikesanotherbooboo · 07/08/2021 19:10

Everyone who can be vaccinated ie those who are not in the incredibly tiny group of people who cannot have any of the currently available vaccines. It protects the vaccinated by making it much less likely that they will catch the virus and if they do catch it it is unlikely that they will become seriously ill. It reduces impact on the economy and the nhs as well as protecting those who cannot have the vaccine and those who are on medications or who have diseases that mean that their immune systems are poorly effective. By driving up community immunity rates it reduces the risk of the development of variants that may be less susceptible to the virus. If your brother doesn't have the vaccine I can understand why people might describe him as selfish. You should try to persuade him to have it op.

bumbleymummy · 07/08/2021 19:11

I am stating that they do not say that people don't need to be vaccinated after infection,

Why would they? That wasn’t the purpose of the document. They do discuss the advantages of longer presumptive immunity though, including,

Asymptomatic contacts not having to isolate and test if they have recently recovered (within 6 months).

And the implementation of ‘green certificates’ which do include recovery from infection as proof of immunity.

Tealightsandd · 07/08/2021 19:11

The numbers of younger people in hospital are at similar levels to January (see ons link above).

Quite a lot then.

leafyygreens · 07/08/2021 19:15

@bumbleymummy

I am stating that they do not say that people don't need to be vaccinated after infection,

Why would they? That wasn’t the purpose of the document. They do discuss the advantages of longer presumptive immunity though, including,

Asymptomatic contacts not having to isolate and test if they have recently recovered (within 6 months).

And the implementation of ‘green certificates’ which do include recovery from infection as proof of immunity.

Sigh

Yes @bumbleymummy, no one is stating that's the purpose of the document.

It is you who is attempting to use the report to insist that vaccinations are not necessary after vaccination, which is not the case

bumbleymummy · 07/08/2021 19:15

Not really. Young people were always low risk - although some may have underlying conditions or be higher risk due to obesity etc.

Tealightsandd · 07/08/2021 19:16

presumptive

Presumed. As in guess. Gamble.

It's a novel virus. Potentially human modified. Presuming and guessing isn't enough when it comes to lives and health (and wealth is health).

We don't know how long immunity lasts, and particularly we don't know if immunity to one strain gives immunity to another.

Nohomemadecandles · 07/08/2021 19:17

To do with overwhelming the NHS and viral loads.

bumbleymummy · 07/08/2021 19:18

See above linked Hiqa document - plenty of studies irt how long immunity lasts.

Swipe left for the next trending thread