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?

The guardian article you linked.

Yes absolutely. Like I said we need to tackle the major causes of obesity. Poverty, stress, homeless and poor housing, mental ill health, delayed health diagnoses (that leave patients struggling to exercise due to mobility and/or pain issues).

Noticeable isn't it. The increase in obesity coincides with a decrease in smoking... It's almost as if people struggling (be it poverty, stress and trauma, or poor mental health) have turned to an alternative source of comfort/stress relief treat. Human beings need something to get them through.

When it comes to illnesses including heart disease, obesity, autoimmune conditions, and type 2 diabetes, the role of stress is greatly underestimated. Chronic and/or extreme stress increases inflammation. These diseases are triggered and worsened by inflammation.

The biggest (and most costly) public health crisis is homelessness and insecure/poor housing.

@teepsp

“How do you get that the left, who generally advocate for healthcare for all, have suddenly turned into individual rights and responsibility above all and user pays?”

I think the idea has come from the fact that a few nhs workers, on this thread and others, have said that unvaccinated people should be denied hospital treatment. Although I suppose they may only be claiming to sign for the nhs/be hcps.

Claiming to work*

So nowhere near the 2.6 billion that smoking is estimated to cost.

You keep ignoring that smoking contributes more to the NHS (and wider economy) than it costs.

You're also ignoring the wider costs of homelessness. For a start, with the NHS it's not just about acute services. There's also chronic services and primary care.

Then there's the other associated costs to society including funding the demand on social services, mental health care, and the criminal justice system. And - billions on temporary accommodation.

You're pretty keen on ages of deaths. The average age of death of a homeless person is 43 for women and 47 for man. Significantly younger than the average smoker death.

And importantly. The UK government are very big on freedom and personal choice re risk. Smoking is a free choice (and boosts the economy). Homelessness and poor housing is not.

@bumbleymummy

Source for the billions that smoking contributes in taxes please?

“Add lower pension and care home costs”

Are you actually promoting smoking because it ‘kills people off’ quicker here?

It's not killing people off. Unlike Covid, smoking is a personal free choice. It's not smoking that left care home residents sitting ducks to be killed off by Covid.

But if you want to talk about the financial impact of smoking on society, then you have to look at the full picture. Which includes the reduced pension and social care costs.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/06/smokers-good-economy-think-tank-finds/amp/

Smoking is worth almost £15 billion to the public purse because of the tax revenue and the savings from smokers' early deaths, according to a think tank's analysis.

tobacco duties brought in £9.5 billion a year and the Government saves £9.8 billion in pension, healthcare and other benefit payments because of the premature deaths of smokers.

@Tealightsandd

But yes. Let's do something about obesity. Deal with the major causes. Poverty, the housing crisis, poor mental health, stress, and delayed physical health diagnoses (that leave patients with mobility and/or pain issues making exercise difficult).

I agree. You left out 'diet' because poor diet is one of the roots of health problems (and poor diet is more likely, although not solely, connected to poverty).

Yes smokers do impact on the NHS. Positively. Their taxes paid for not only their own treatment but for others too.

Such a shocking truth. I really can't respond coherently to it as it's so upsetting.

Chronic and extreme stress and trauma increase inflammation. Which links to type 2 diabetes, heart disease (and obesity). Also type 2 diabetes is strongly genetic.

Yes, because it's an autoimmune disease, I know only too well as I have an autoimmune disease, thankfully not diabetes. But do remember, genetics is only part of this (and is one element we cannot change), genes will not necessarily be 'triggered' so that ill health ensues. Environmental factors and dietary choices will heavily impact on this. Chemicals in foods and furnishings play a part. In a way, it's very hard to avoid these triggers but we as a society have to try.

Medics haven't died or ended up disabled by dealing with smokers or obese patients.

Fair point!

We'll have to rethink pensions entirely if our population does manage to become healthier!!

Well if they become healthier they’ll probably be working for longer…

@Mummyford I think you are addressing straw arguments. And trying to over simplify complex arguments to achieve a strict dichotomy of good and bad.

Vaccines have been granted as the only way out. Of course billions have been spent. Of course antiviral treatment has been ignored. Vaccines would not be granted emergency licence otherwise. Of course any concerns about vaccines per se or the gap between vaccines will be dismissed in a context of overload where nothing else is available.

Absolute risk will overcome unquantifiable potential risk in a given context. Of course it will. But you have to recognise risk to make an informed choice. On an individual basis this might mean being vaccinated (as I am) but I can still be pissed off that my hand was forced. On a national basis the known risk of consequences of high levels of infection outweighs the potential risk of vaccine escape. Of course it does. But it doesn't stop me from thinking that things didn't have to be this way.

You can be critical and act and think strategically - even when it compromises morals - in a given situation and still consider the wider picture.

It's not zero/sum, good/bad. No risk or 100% risk. Life's not that simple.

I am vaccinated but accept the importance of non pharmacological interventions. And antivirals including ivermectin. It's not either/or.

@KOKOagainandagain You've made these arguments many times before

Vaccines have been granted as the only way out. Of course billions have been spent. Of course antiviral treatment has been ignored. Vaccines would not be granted emergency licence otherwise.

This is not true, but has been widely repeated. An effective anti-viral would not take the place of vaccination for multiple reasons.

And antivirals including ivermectin
There is no robust evidence ivermectin is effective in preventing or treating COVID. It has become hugely politicised and adopted by the pseudoscience anti-vax crowd.

Merck sell invermectin, and have no working vaccine, yet they say there is no evidence it helps: www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/.
Invernectin was used extensively in Peru, who now have the highest excess deaths in the world. If it's useful, the dose level and stage of disease isn't yet known.
Dexamethasone is cheap as chips, yet that's widely used, so that doesn't help the profit argument.
Have you considered researching who is funding these anti-lockdown / anti-mask / incermectin campaigns, and considering why foreign agents and a couple of US capitalists are so strongly motivated to lie to you? Then consider whether it's a good idea to perpetuate their lies?

OP I don't think it's selfish to refuse the vaccine generally - after all, I don't bother with (paying for) the flu vaccine as I don't come into contact with immune-suppressed people either in my family or my job.

I do think it's selfish (such an overused word!) to refuse if you have vulnerable relatives/members of your household. And you have to be a special sort of stupid to refuse the vaccine if you work in healthcare and elderly care.

But generally speaking nobody should be compelled to have medication they don't want for the benefit of people they don't know.

This is part of the black/white polemic.

It is actually true that vaccines were granted emergency licence. I can live with that truth. I don't have to deny it.

I didn't say that antivirals could take the place of vaccines. In fact nobody trying to have a rational debate ever has. It's not either/or.

There are lots of doctors and scientists who believe that ivermectin treatment warrants discussion. They are not anti vaxers. It's not either/or.

How many times do I have to say it's not either/or?

@KOKOagainandagain

This is part of the black/white polemic.

It is actually true that vaccines were granted emergency licence. I can live with that truth. I don't have to deny it.

I didn't say that antivirals could take the place of vaccines. In fact nobody trying to have a rational debate ever has. It's not either/or.

There are lots of doctors and scientists who believe that ivermectin treatment warrants discussion. They are not anti vaxers. It's not either/or.

How many times do I have to say it's not either/or?

@KOKOagainandagain

You said ...importance of non pharmacological interventions. And antivirals including ivermectin.

Which implies you think it's effective no? Institutes including Oxford are trialling it for efficacy as a pre-hospital treatment, so no one is saying it doesn't "warrant further discussion".

This is very different from the views of the anti-vax crowd who are hailing it as a miracle preventative, treatment and therapy for long COVID and insisting there is evidence behind it, which is not the case. There have been at least two large ivermectin trials now which have been proven to be fraudulent - one of which was the one pushing positive findings in meta-analyses.

And also this view you mentioned that it's use is deliberately blocked because if not vaccines would not have been granted a license

Anti-Vaxxers are the most selfish self-centred people showing such ignorance & entitlement.
Their anti-vaccine sentiments will last as long as it takes for them to be prevented from doing something that they want to do e.g. board a plane or go on a cruise or attend a gig.

They don't care that I'm Immuno-compromised or pregnant women can't have the vaccine & rely on herd immunity to protect them.

There is a reason it's called public health and not personal health.

The jag is not compulsory and I'm very glad of that. That's called being free to exercise your own decisions.
Other people are free to call you selfish and inconsiderate and companies are free to not allow entry to their premises.
Other countries are free to bar entry to their borders from you
Other people are free to bar you and/or your kids from their homes/kids parties etc.

Freedom of speech and freedom of decision does NOT mean freedom from consequence.

These anti-vaxxer nutters will see that soon enough as their world grows smaller.

@beachcitygirl

Anti-Vaxxers are the most selfish self-centred people showing such ignorance & entitlement. Their anti-vaccine sentiments will last as long as it takes for them to be prevented from doing something that they want to do e.g. board a plane or go on a cruise or attend a gig.

They don't care that I'm Immuno-compromised or pregnant women can't have the vaccine & rely on herd immunity to protect them.

There is a reason it's called public health and not personal health.

The jag is not compulsory and I'm very glad of that. That's called being free to exercise your own decisions.
Other people are free to call you selfish and inconsiderate and companies are free to not allow entry to their premises.
Other countries are free to bar entry to their borders from you
Other people are free to bar you and/or your kids from their homes/kids parties etc.

Freedom of speech and freedom of decision does NOT mean freedom from consequence.

These anti-vaxxer nutters will see that soon enough as their world grows smaller.

Considering that no vaccine is risk free, do you think it’s selfish to expect people to assume that risk to protect you? What’s the difference?

*Anti-Vaxxers are the most selfish self-centred people showing such ignorance & entitlement.
Their anti-vaccine sentiments will last as long as it takes for them to be prevented from doing something that they want to do e.g. board a plane or go on a cruise or attend a gig.

They don't care that I'm Immuno-compromised or pregnant women can't have the vaccine & rely on herd immunity to protect them.*

This keeps getting trotted out, I don't think anti vaxxers are relying on herd immunity to protect them, you on the other hand are.

It's kind of self centred to expect everyone to have vaccine to protect you. Also you are immu suppressed why haven't you had it it doesn't contain live vaccine.

“Considering that no vaccine is risk free, do you think it’s selfish to expect people to assume that risk to protect you?”

I was wondering the same thing.

This should say Immuno-compromised or pregnant women can't have the vaccine. (Typo)

I'm the picture of health and double vaxxed because I'm not a selfish twat.

They can

You just said you were immunocompromised and are relying on herd immunity.

@bumbleymummy

You just said you were immunocompromised and are relying on herd immunity.

And one post up, I explained that there was a typo & it should read immunocompromised & pregnant women. Not I'm immunocompromised & pregnant women. I'm neither immunocompromised nor pregnant.

Ok. They’re now offering pregnant women the vaccine and it’s always been offered to immunocompromised people. They were one of the priority groups.