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?

@KOKOagainandagain

Prof Pollard isn't using this as argument to suggest people should not be vaccinated though, as you are saying.

He is using it to explain the importance of getting as many people vaccinated as possible, potentially shortening the gap and offering it to children.

Because the unvaccinated are taking up ICU beds which in turn certain operations can't go ahead

I had to take my auntie to see her lung specialist on Monday she needs an operation which will improve her quality off life, yet we was told from the surgeon that as the operation requires an ICU bed for the operation to go ahead and it's currently full off young unvaccinated COVID patients he can't see it being this year.

She has already been waiting over 18months it, so yes I do think they are very selfish.

Also heart operation have had to be cancelled as-well so don't think that not having the vaccine has no impact on other people

I am not saying that people should not be vaccinated. I have never said that. I am vaccinated. There were compelling reasons why mass vaccination, despite high levels of prevalence, was the least worse option. Not ideal, but logical in the circumstances. Needs must. Arguably didn't need to be this way but we don't have a time machine.

But to then argue that vaccination will create herd immunity that the unvaccinated (for whatever reason) are selfish because the righteous vaccinated are protecting them and therefore the unvaccinated are a risk and deserve to die is both illogical and socially divisive. Not to mention just plain nasty.

Prof Pollard is most definitely not saying that herd immunity can be reached by vaccinating as many as possible, shortening the gap, vaccinating children.

Even if 100% of the population including children were fully vaccinated, herd immunity is impossible whilst the existing vaccines allow infection and transmission with background high infection rates. Even if the vaccinated are less likely to be infected and transmit. The reduced likelihood is sufficient.

This what you need to grasp. Less but enough.

Therefore, before vaccines that do block infection and transmission are found, we need to explore all other avenues.

It's not nuanced. It's a pandemic & requires mass vaccination. Unless there is a solid gold reason not to be vaccinated in a matter of the greatest import to public health then you are selfish.
Simples.

Unless it’s found that natural infection actually results in fewer reinfections than vaccine breakthroughs… if that was the case then having more younger, healthy people contracting the virus and their immunity keeping transmission low while we protect the more vulnerable from serious illness with the vaccine would be the better scenario. Purely hypothetical atm of course :) but just pointing out a situation where it may actually be better to have some people gaining immunity from infection rather than vaccination.

@KOKOagainandagain

I am not saying that people should not be vaccinated. I have never said that. I am vaccinated. There were compelling reasons why mass vaccination, despite high levels of prevalence, was the least worse option. Not ideal, but logical in the circumstances. Needs must. Arguably didn't need to be this way but we don't have a time machine.

But to then argue that vaccination will create herd immunity that the unvaccinated (for whatever reason) are selfish because the righteous vaccinated are protecting them and therefore the unvaccinated are a risk and deserve to die is both illogical and socially divisive. Not to mention just plain nasty.

Prof Pollard is most definitely not saying that herd immunity can be reached by vaccinating as many as possible, shortening the gap, vaccinating children.

Even if 100% of the population including children were fully vaccinated, herd immunity is impossible whilst the existing vaccines allow infection and transmission with background high infection rates. Even if the vaccinated are less likely to be infected and transmit. The reduced likelihood is sufficient.

This what you need to grasp. Less but enough.

Therefore, before vaccines that do block infection and transmission are found, we need to explore all other avenues.

Additionally, it’s now being suggested that targeted protection was not such a bad idea after all:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/11/future-covid-measures-should-apply-vulnerable-says-sage-member/

"not willing to contribute to the protection of the health of your community"

Theres that community rhetoric again. Which only counts when its Covid.

@MercyBooth

"not willing to contribute to the protection of the health of your community"

Theres that community rhetoric again. Which only counts when its Covid.

Nail on the head there.

Yeah This country is all about community.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/people/families-on-yorkshire-estate-built-for-coal-miners-told-to-leave-homes-ahead-of-demolition-3342842

Pretty daft not to take up the offer of a vaccine.

Just ask this guy!!

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dick-farrel-newsmax-right-wing-scamdemic-dies-of-covid_n_610f50d3e4b041dfbaaabac6?ri18n=true

Are you comparing an overweight 65 year old declining the vaccine to a young, healthy person declining the vaccine.

@bumbleymummy

Unless it’s found that natural infection actually results in fewer reinfections than vaccine breakthroughs… if that was the case then having more younger, healthy people contracting the virus and their immunity keeping transmission low while we protect the more vulnerable from serious illness with the vaccine would be the better scenario. Purely hypothetical atm of course :) but just pointing out a situation where it may actually be better to have some people gaining immunity from infection rather than vaccination.

The CDC have demonstrated that in people with previous infection, those who were not vaccinated were 2.4x more likely to get reinfected with COVID. Vaccination bolsters previous immunity and there isn't anywhere that doesn't recommended having it if you've previously had COVID

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.

Already read that paper. It’s comparing people who we’re previously infected > 6 months (Up to over 12 months) ago with people vaccinated < 6 months ago.

@bumbleymummy

Already read that paper. It’s comparing people who we’re previously infected > 6 months (Up to over 12 months) ago with people vaccinated < 6 months ago.

I think you may need to reread it as nope, that is definitely not how the authors conducted the analysis.

All participants were recruited in Kentucky if they had a positive test result Jan-March 2020 (infection 1). Cases were defined as those who subsequently tested positive between May-June 2021 (infection 2). Odds ratios were calculated using vaccination status as long as it had occurred >14 days pre infection.

Not sure why you're so keen to discount a study that demonstrated vaccine efficacy, even if it did use the methods you thought it did, it would still be of value.

"Selfish" has unfortunately become synonymous, after the past 500 or so days, with "people not doing what I want them to do for my own benefit"

Soo bloody true 👏🏻

@MaxNormal

People make "selfish" decisions all the time. It's normal to put your own well-being, and that of immediate family, first.

Are you selfish if you don't donate blood? Spend money on takeaway coffees and disposible fashion instead of donating it to a charity that provides clean drinking water to children who would otherwise die of diarrhea? Drive a car (40K pollution deaths annually in the UK)?
Are you selfish because you're not donating part of your liver, or one of your kidneys?

The vaccine uptake has been interesting as the percentages who have had it are extremely high in the higher age groups and then drop off the younger people are. And that seems simply like people have made a reasonable assessment of the risks vs benefits of the vaccine to them vs catching covid.
I don't think that's selfish, I think it's a perfectly valid and reasonable approach to any medical intervention.

"Selfish" has unfortunately become synonymous, after the past 500 or so days, with "people not doing what I want them to do for my own benefit".

Well said! I'd give your post 5 stars if I could

@Foliageeverywhere122 sigh…

Ok…

All participants were recruited in Kentucky if they had a positive test result Jan-March 2020 (infection

Incorrect.

“Kentucky residents aged ≥18 years with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or antigen test results† reported in Kentucky’s National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (NEDSS) during March–December 2020 were eligible for inclusion.

Odds ratios were calculated using vaccination status as long as it had occurred >14 days pre infection.

Yes, and they were looking at reinfections (people who tested positive again) in May/June. Vaccination did not start until December 2020 (at the earliest) which means that the vaccinated people in the study had been vaccinated within the previous 6 months and at least 2 weeks before their reinfection.

Not trying to ‘discount it’ but it is worth noting that you are comparing people infected > 6 months from reinfection (March-December 2020) to people vaccinated < 6 months before reinfection as I stated in my previous post.

@bumbleymummy

No, there is not a difference in time between infection in the vaccinated an and unvaccinated group which seems to be what you have interpreted?

They are using conditional logistic regression to compare infection rates -within the same time periods- with the exposure being vaccination. I'm not sure why you think this negates the findings - what impact would you expect this to have on the results? If you do expect substantial bias, why do you think a group of epidemiologists failed to highlight something in their discussion that you with no expertise noticed?

I find it bizarre that instead of considering how a limitation (that does not exist) might impact findings, you instead deem it not relevant or useful to the discussion purely because it demonstrates efficacy of vaccination to boost pre existing immunity.

The authors have carefully explained the actual limitations of the study, and what this means for their findings and further work, in their discussion.

No, there is not a difference in time between infection in the vaccinated an and unvaccinated group which seems to be what you have interpreted?

No, that is not what I’m saying. I am saying there is a difference in time between the people who were considered immune after natural infection (up to December 2020) and those that were vaccinated (which occurred after December 2020). Protection due to natural infection would therefore have been > 6 months and protected after vaccination was < 6 months old.

you instead deem it not relevant or useful to the discussion purely because it demonstrates efficacy of vaccination to boost pre existing immunity.

No, I’m not doing that either.

@bumbleymummy

No, there is not a difference in time between infection in the vaccinated an and unvaccinated group which seems to be what you have interpreted?

No, that is not what I’m saying. I am saying there is a difference in time between the people who were considered immune after natural infection (up to December 2020) and those that were vaccinated (which occurred after December 2020). Protection due to natural infection would therefore have been > 6 months and protected after vaccination was < 6 months old.

you instead deem it not relevant or useful to the discussion purely because it demonstrates efficacy of vaccination to boost pre existing immunity.

No, I’m not doing that either.

But that is not how the groups were defined.

The groups were exchangeable - there was broadly no difference between them. All had a prior infection i.e., "natural immunity", and the only difference between was that of vaccination. The model was then adjusted for the date of first infection.

The aim of the study was to understand whether "boosting" immunity in those with a previous coronavirus infection resulted in less re-infections, which it did substantially.

Yes, I know what the purpose of the study was. Perhaps we need to go back and figure out why you think it was relevant to my earlier post?

“Unless it’s found that natural infection actually results in fewer reinfections than vaccine breakthroughs…”

You replied…

“The CDC have demonstrated that in people with previous infection, those who were not vaccinated were 2.4x more likely to get reinfected with COVID. ”

This study does not actually show that there are fewer vaccine breakthroughs than reinfections for the reasons I’ve stated above. It wasn’t intended for that purpose and can not be used for that purpose because it’s comparing unvaccinated people infected > 6 months ago with people vaccinated within 6 months.

If you know what the purpose of the study is, why are you quoting the differences in timing as if it impacts of findings?

It is not a study designed to understand if vaccination provides "better" protection than infection.

*This study does not actually show that there are fewer vaccine breakthroughs than reinfections for the reasons I’ve stated above. It wasn’t intended for that purpose and can not be used for that purpose because it’s comparing unvaccinated people infected > 6 months ago with people vaccinated within 6 months.^

Again, no it is not. It is comparing vaccinated people against unvaccinated, in a cohort of people who have all been previously infected.