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
ollyollyoxenfree · 09/08/2021 16:05

@bumbleymummy

“ And yup infection gives you some degree of immunity - but you are far less likely to get reinfected and transmit the virus if you've been vaccinated. (Alongside the fact that not everyone who hasn't been vaccinated has also been previously infected)”

Infection provides durable immunity for up to 10 months (www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2021-06/Duration-of%20protective-immunity-evidence-summary_22-June-2021.pdf) and reinfection rates are low. We have data for a longer period irt reinfection than infection after vaccination.

No comments on the study linked that demonstrates over a 2 fold increase in reinfection in those unvaccinated compared to unvaccinated?

Getting vaccinated bolsters immunity, and as I said in my post, the majority of people have no idea what level of immunity they have or even if they definitely had a previous infection.

All countries are recommending vaccination regardless of previous infection (including Ireland where that document comes from), why do you think that is?

ollyollyoxenfree · 09/08/2021 16:06

Ooops!

No comments on the study linked that demonstrates over a 2 fold increase in reinfection in those unvaccinated compared vaccinated?

paddyk · 09/08/2021 16:29

@bumbleymummy

“What person in their right mind would rather take thier chances with a potentially life threatening disease?”

People who take much higher risks than coronavirus for work/hobbies etc?

What an odd repy.
userperuser · 09/08/2021 16:30

@ollyollyoxenfree

Ooops!

No comments on the study linked that demonstrates over a 2 fold increase in reinfection in those unvaccinated compared vaccinated?

Was behind a paywall for me. Could you link the study the article is based on?
ollyollyoxenfree · 09/08/2021 16:34

For sure, it's from the CDC was released this month.

Although laboratory evidence suggests that antibody responses following COVID-19 vaccination provide better neutralization of some circulating variants than does natural infection (1,2), few real-world epidemiologic studies exist to support the benefit of vaccination for previously infected persons. This report details the findings of a case-control evaluation of the association between vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in Kentucky during May–June 2021 among persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020. Kentucky residents who were not vaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated (odds ratio [OR] = 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.58–3.47). These findings suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, full vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection. To reduce their risk of infection, all eligible persons should be offered vaccination, even if they have been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

userperuser · 09/08/2021 16:45

Thanks, just skimmed over and interesting findings but subject to a number of limitations including sample size.

Previous studies have indicated that reinfection is not a significant problem.

ollyollyoxenfree · 09/08/2021 16:48

@userperuser

Thanks, just skimmed over and interesting findings but subject to a number of limitations including sample size.

Previous studies have indicated that reinfection is not a significant problem.

All studies are subject to limitations as described in the discussion @userperuser, it's identifying how these are impacting your findings which is important, as the CDC have done.

As far as I know it's the only study to have specifically looked at reinfection rates in vaccination compared to unvaccinated population? Do you have links to the others?

ollyollyoxenfree · 09/08/2021 16:56

Would also been interested in if you have looked though the discussion sections (which will describe the limitations) of studies looking at rates of COVID reinfection which didn't stratify on vaccination status.....

userperuser · 09/08/2021 17:13

@ollyollyoxenfree

Would also been interested in if you have looked though the discussion sections (which will describe the limitations) of studies looking at rates of COVID reinfection which didn't stratify on vaccination status.....
www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00575-4/fulltext

I’m not a scientist, however, I am able to look through a paper and understand it’s findings.

I’m not even name changing for this and never ever tell this story however, it’s bloody painful for me to read the insults thrown out at people who choose not to have the vaccine and the flippant statistics thrown at them in some attempt to show them they are being stupid. Do you know what vaccine damage looks like? I do. I have just spent a period on suicide watch until my vaccine damaged daughter could get a bed in hospital.

It’s just a ‘vanishingly small’ statistic until it happens to you. Some damage is life devastating.

I’ve had vaccines since and so has my daughter but I would draw the line now unless I was absolutely convinced it was necessary for the protection of our own health.

leafyygreens · 09/08/2021 17:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Cornettoninja · 09/08/2021 17:27

What an odd reply

@paddyk it’s not though is it? We’re all left to make our own decisions about our medical care. Some people will be more scared of the vaccine than they are of covid and vice versa.

I’m scared of having to live a life like last year any longer than I have to, I’m scared of there being no medical resources to treat me and my family for unrelated covid issues, I’m scared of widespread shortages and closures of businesses due to high levels of illness, I’m not overly concerned about catching covid myself but do have members of family I worry for. All of these make it a fairly easy decision to identify the benefits of herd immunity for me personally so I’m prepared to have a vaccine even if it means playing (very low) odds that I could be adversely affected or have low level side effects for a few days. Someone else could look at my reasons and think I’m bonkers, that’s fine and if they don’t ‘get it’ they’re unlikely ever to tbh.

Foliageeverywhere122 · 09/08/2021 20:18

I think it's an odd reply as, for most, the risks of having the vaccine are far lower than the risks of getting COVID @Cornettoninja. This is something that has been determined by huge number of experts, using data collected from millions of people.

And the fact that some people take greater risks for work/hobbies etc is neither here nor there really.

Postdatedpandemic · 09/08/2021 21:40

Mumsnet is of course renowned for having a high proportion of members who take part in caving, base jumping, free diving and rock climbing Hmm

Why is not having the vaccine selfish
bumbleymummy · 09/08/2021 22:41

@ollyollyoxenfree

Ooops!

No comments on the study linked that demonstrates over a 2 fold increase in reinfection in those unvaccinated compared vaccinated?

Is that the study that compares antibodies 12 months after infection to antibodies 4 months after vaccination?
bumbleymummy · 09/08/2021 22:50

As far as I know it's the only study to have specifically looked at reinfection rates in vaccination compared to unvaccinated population? Do you have links to the others?

I think there was one small study included in the hiqa document above which showed no difference between the two - with the caveat that it was a small study and that further investigation was needed.

“One study assessed the protective effectiveness of natural infection against reinfection in both vaccinated and unvaccinated healthcare workers in the UK, and coincided with widespread transmission of the B.1.1.7 variant. This study found:
o Compared to unvaccinated seronegative HCWs, natural immunity and two vaccination doses provided similar protection against symptomatic infection: no HCW vaccinated twice had symptomatic infection, and incidence was 98% lower in seropositive HCWs (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.02 [95%CI

ollyollyoxenfree · 09/08/2021 22:50

Nope @bumbleymummy it's the reinfection study described in my post.

Although laboratory evidence suggests that antibody responses following COVID-19 vaccination provide better neutralization of some circulating variants than does natural infection (1,2), few real-world epidemiologic studies exist to support the benefit of vaccination for previously infected persons. This report details the findings of a case-control evaluation of the association between vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in Kentucky during May–June 2021 among persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020. Kentucky residents who were not vaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated (odds ratio [OR] = 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.58–3.47). These findings suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, full vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection. To reduce their risk of infection, all eligible persons should be offered vaccination, even if they have been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

ollyollyoxenfree · 09/08/2021 22:54

Also my query...

All countries are recommending vaccination regardless of previous infection (including Ireland where that document comes from), why do you think that is?

bumbleymummy · 09/08/2021 22:55

@Foliageeverywhere122

I think it's an odd reply as, for most, the risks of having the vaccine are far lower than the risks of getting COVID *@Cornettoninja*. This is something that has been determined by huge number of experts, using data collected from millions of people.

And the fact that some people take greater risks for work/hobbies etc is neither here nor there really.

Well, it is. If you take risks on a daily basis that are higher than your risks if becoming seriously ill/dying of covid then chances are you won’t have been too bothered by the risk of COVID for the last year or so. Now that you’re finally being offered a vaccine, you might not be all that fussed on taking it because a) you are happy enough with the low risk of COVID and/or b) you may have already had the virus anyway with no ill effects.
bumbleymummy · 09/08/2021 23:14

@ollyollyoxenfree sorry, lots of threads and lots of studies being mentioned! Hard to keep track :)

Just had a quick read (I’ll look again in the morning when I’m not as tired!) but people classed as ‘previously infected’ had the virus between March -December 2020 so a minimum of 5/6 months previous to reinfection and a max of 14 months? When were the people vaccinated in Kentucky and how long were they leaving between doses?

Sallydimebar · 10/08/2021 00:45

The amount of kids who are ending up in hospital very ill with covid in the US is worrying. Parents worrying about them attending school with this delta variant spreading .
Let’s hope for our children’s sake the majority of us who took the vaccines it’s enough to protect them when schools return . 90 million unvaccinated still in the US and vaccines not available to under 12s . Mask wearing being needed again in schs over there .

“This is not a political statement or an invasion of your liberties.
This is a life-saving medical device. And asking kids to wear a mask is uncomfortable, but, you know, kids are pretty resilient. We know that kids under 12 are likely to get infected and if we don’t have masks in schools, this virus will spread more widely.”
Let’s see how September goes ……

paddyk · 10/08/2021 08:27

@Cornettoninja

What an odd reply

@paddyk it’s not though is it? We’re all left to make our own decisions about our medical care. Some people will be more scared of the vaccine than they are of covid and vice versa.

I’m scared of having to live a life like last year any longer than I have to, I’m scared of there being no medical resources to treat me and my family for unrelated covid issues, I’m scared of widespread shortages and closures of businesses due to high levels of illness, I’m not overly concerned about catching covid myself but do have members of family I worry for. All of these make it a fairly easy decision to identify the benefits of herd immunity for me personally so I’m prepared to have a vaccine even if it means playing (very low) odds that I could be adversely affected or have low level side effects for a few days. Someone else could look at my reasons and think I’m bonkers, that’s fine and if they don’t ‘get it’ they’re unlikely ever to tbh.

So you're scared of all the thing that the Covid pandemic has caused....

If only we had a easy and effective way of limiting it's spread.... ;)

Cornettoninja · 10/08/2021 08:50

@paddyk I’ve had the vaccine, both jabs, pretty early on due to my previous job, I’m just pointing out that my reasons wouldn’t resonate with someone more scared of the vaccine than covid. I understand that pretty clearly even if I think its misguided. There’s a whole section of vaccine refusers I’ll never get my head around, but the majority seem to be experiencing similar anxieties to mine but about the vaccine and its repercussions rather than covid and its repercussions.

As it goes we likely will have some capacity to accommodate those who can’t/won’t have a vaccine in terms of herd immunity, the more time moves on and it’s apparent that the uptake is pretty good I’m less bothered about those who aren’t interested. Assuming most who had the first will have the second we’re going to hit 89% of the adult population double dosed soon. That’s a world away from where we were in early 2020 with a 100% vulnerable to a novel virus population. I don’t think it’s all over, but I’m pretty confident the worst is out of the way in the UK thanks to vaccines. If a minority choose to not have it then as far as I’m concerned they’ve chosen their own risk at this point even if they choose never to acknowledge that their risk has been greatly reduced by the vaccines they haven’t had.

Blinky21 · 10/08/2021 23:24

Not having it is incredibly selfish,it means you are not willing to contribute to the protection of the health of your community by reducing the transmission of a deadly disease. It also means you think it's acceptable to unnecessarily take up a critical care bed and increase pressure on the health service. The non vaccinated (who could have it) should be treated as pariahs

Heyhohi · 11/08/2021 07:27

@Blinky21

Not having it is incredibly selfish,it means you are not willing to contribute to the protection of the health of your community by reducing the transmission of a deadly disease. It also means you think it's acceptable to unnecessarily take up a critical care bed and increase pressure on the health service. The non vaccinated (who could have it) should be treated as pariahs
Lol, great sense of humour 😂😂😂
KOKOagainandagain · 11/08/2021 15:20

As I have tried (unsuccessfully) to point out so that debates are more nuanced and the unvaccinated don't become a straw target and labelled selfish - because the vaccinated protect the unvaccinated by contributing to some kind of herd immunity - at last there are experts that won't be dismissed as conspiracist gently explaining that this view is wrong.

Actually the opposite is the case in this instance. The vaccinated don't protect the unvaccinated. Imperfect immunisation (that doesn't prevent infection even after 2 doses never mind the gap) means that the virus continues to spread and does so better, thus increasing rather than decreasing risk to unvaccinated and others with weak immune systems and responses. I'm unaware of any data that supports the view that the unvaccinated pose a risk to the vaccinated. Without high circulating levels of the virus it is unlikely that the unvaccinated would pose a risk to the health service.

Perhaps this has not been explained earlier because it is fairly simple logic and should be self explanatory. Now it has become evident that so many have grasped the wrong end of the stick it needs to be made explicit.

Anyway, here are some recent quotes of evidence to the parliamentary enquiry:

"Reaching herd immunity is “not a possibility” with the current Delta variant, the head of the Oxford Vaccine Group has said.
Giving evidence to MPs on Tuesday, Prof Sir Andrew Pollard said the fact that vaccines did not stop the spread of Covid meant reaching the threshold for overall immunity in the population was “mythical”.
“The problem with this virus is [it is] not measles. If 95% of people were vaccinated against measles, the virus cannot transmit in the population,” he told the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on coronavirus.

“The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated. And that does mean that anyone who’s still unvaccinated at some point will meet the virus … and we don’t have anything that will [completely] stop that transmission.”
Although the existing vaccines are very effective at preventing serious Covid illness and death, they do not stop a fully vaccinated person from being infected by the virus that causes Covid-19.
The concept of herd or population immunity relies on a large majority of a population gaining immunity – either through vaccination or previous infection – which, in turn, provides indirect protection from an infectious disease for the unvaccinated and those who have never been previously infected."

There is a minority of gung ho unvaccinated but a larger group of gung ho vaccinated who think that being double jabbed means that they personally are safe but that they are protecting others and no longer need to social distance, wear a mask etc. And those in between who are vaccinated and are cautious because they know they can be infected and contagious despite not feeling ill. And those who can't be vaccinated or for whom vaccines 'don't work' Like I said, it's not black and white.