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?

@bumbleymummy - it’s comparing unvaccinated people infected > 6 months ago with people vaccinated within 6 months
No, you've misunderstood the report. The report @Foliageeverywhere122 linked very clearly explained that everyone included in the study had prior covid infection ("Kentucky residents aged ≥18 years with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or antigen test results"). They then compared reinfection statistics for those who ALSO chose to be vaccinated (one or two doses) with those who did not get a vaccination in that same period.
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

@Foliageeverywhere122

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.

I know. So why did you link to it in response to my comment above?

@Foliageeverywhere122

*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.

Oh my goodness, how are you still not understanding what I’m saying?

“it’s comparing unvaccinated people infected > 6 months ago with people vaccinated within 6 months.” so therefore can’t be used to show that there are fewer vaccine breakthroughs than reinfections (if that’s what you were trying to do by linking to it. Although now it seems that wasn’t what you were trying to do so I’m not sure why you quoted my post and linked to it at all!)

Yes, MRex I know what it’s doing, thanks. I haven’t misunderstood it’s purpose. I’m just trying to understand why foliage quoted my post and linked to it.

@bumbleymummy

Yes, MRex I know what it’s doing, thanks. I haven’t misunderstood it’s purpose. I’m just trying to understand why foliage quoted my post and linked to it.

But clearly you don't because you still keep saying it is comparing groups that it is not? I referenced it in response to this:

...but just pointing out a situation where it may actually be better to have people gaining immunity from infection rather than vaccination.

when evidence suggests immunity from infection alone is not recommended when a vaccine is available, hence why the study is relevant.

@bumbleymummy

Yes, MRex I know what it’s doing, thanks. I haven’t misunderstood it’s purpose. I’m just trying to understand why foliage quoted my post and linked to it.

You very clearly have misunderstood the purpose. It's right there at the beginning of the report, it sets out "the protection afforded by vaccination against reinfection", read that word again REINFECTION. If you have had covid, it sets out to see whether vaccination will provide additional protection, identifying if it's worth being vaccinated afrer infection. Conclusion is yes, it's worth being vaccinated even after a covid infection, because people did get additional protection from that vaccine.

I've said it before, but here we go again. You can choose not to be vaccinated, that's fine, your choice. What you do though is come onto hundreds of threads to continually try to suggest in the face of so much evidence to the contrary that vaccination is not useful. Whether you don't understand the information or whether you're lying, either way it is not helpful to those who you might confuse, nor even to you as an unvaccinated person who relies on protection from others who did get vaccinated. Time for a new hobby?

You need to the rest of the post for context.

(Hypothetically, as stated) If it is found that there are fewer reinfections than breakthrough infections after vaccination then it could be better to have more people who have acquired immunity through infection (potentially longer lasting with low incidence of reinfection) than vaccination (potentially not lasting as long and/or resulting in more breakthrough infections).

The study that you linked to is not actually relevant to this because it is not comparing immunity after vaccination to immunity after infection (as stated above).

Evidence so far suggests that immunity after infection last 9+ months for the majority. We do not yet know how long immunity after vaccination lasts for the majority. (Although we are now seeing more breakthrough infections with the delta strain) Time will tell!

Evidence so far suggests that immunity after infection last 9+ months for the majority.
THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY WERE REINFECTED, THEY HAD ALREADY HAD COVID AND THEN GOT IT AGAIN. THEREFORE EVERYTHING ELSE YOU STATE IS IRRELEVANT.

Do you understand it better in capitals?

MRex, yes, I’ve read it, (several times now ) I know what it’s saying.

What you do though is come onto hundreds of threads to continually try to suggest in the face of so much evidence to the contrary that vaccination is not useful.

Not doing this. Literally said in my above post about hypotheticals that even in that situation we could still vaccinate the most vulnerable groups.

Please stop reading my posts through your ‘bumbley is anti-vaxx’ lens.

@MRex

Evidence so far suggests that immunity after infection last 9+ months for the majority. THE PEOPLE IN THE STUDY WERE REINFECTED, THEY HAD ALREADY HAD COVID AND THEN GOT IT AGAIN. THEREFORE EVERYTHING ELSE YOU STATE IS IRRELEVANT.

Do you understand it better in capitals?

I DIDN’T SAY THAT EVIDENCE FOR 9+ MONTHS IMMUNITY AFTER INFECTION CAME FROM THIS STUDY.

Do caps help you?

I've said it before, but here we go again. You can choose not to be vaccinated, that's fine, your choice. What you do though is come onto hundreds of threads to continually try to suggest in the face of so much evidence to the contrary that vaccination is not useful. Whether you don't understand the information or whether you're lying, either way it is not helpful to those who you might confuse, nor even to you as an unvaccinated person who relies on protection from others who did get vaccinated. Time for a new hobby?

Well said @MRex

@bumbleymummy I don't understand why you dedicate this amount of time in trying to justify your decision to not get vaccinated with misinformation. It's your decision, and no one should make you feel bad for it, fine.

But I don't understand how you can look back at the last 18 months and feel you've contributed positively to a public health emergency by posting countless of posts that minimise coronavirus and the necessity of vaccination.

I’m not trying to justify my decision. I don’t think anyone needs to justify what they’re trying to do.

I’m not sure why you think posting links to data from PHE/WHO/CDC/HIQA/ONS and studies in reputable journals etc in relation to risks/hospitalisations/deaths etc is minimising coronavirus. And I’ve posted several times that the vaccine has done a great job at reducing risks in the most vulnerable groups so no, not against the vaccine either. Sorry to disappoint! You’ll have to take your witch hunt elsewhere

What they decide to do*

What would refute research is other actual evidence, but you don't have that. Hypotheticals aren't useful when they are directly contradicted by the research someone just linked.

@bumbleymummy

I’m not trying to justify my decision. I don’t think anyone needs to justify what they’re trying to do.

I’m not sure why you think posting links to data from PHE/WHO/CDC/HIQA/ONS and studies in reputable journals etc in relation to risks/hospitalisations/deaths etc is minimising coronavirus. And I’ve posted several times that the vaccine has done a great job at reducing risks in the most vulnerable groups so no, not against the vaccine either. Sorry to disappoint! You’ll have to take your witch hunt elsewhere

As many posters have said, there is obviously no issue in posting data from those public health bodies. The issue is how you choose to misinterpret that data, which are certainly not the views of said public health bodies.

Equally studies from reputable journals are great, but again you discount, without any attempt to suggest how the limitations you're proposing may impact findings, anything that does not agree with your views.

Oh dear MRex, you clearly didn’t follow the discussion. The above study does not contradict my hypothetical because it wasn’t designed to compare immunity after infection to immunity after vaccination. (Hence why I wondered why she linked to it - I thought she thought it was showing something that it wasn’t)

And no doubt there will be research into this because we will soon have data for vaccines over a longer time period to compare to immunity after infection (so far showing durable protection for 9+ months in the majority) Hence my comment ‘time will tell’.

@bumbleymummy

Oh dear MRex, you clearly didn’t follow the discussion. The above study does not contradict my hypothetical because it wasn’t designed to compare immunity after infection to immunity after vaccination. (Hence why I wondered why she linked to it - I thought she thought it was showing something that it wasn’t)

And no doubt there will be research into this because we will soon have data for vaccines over a longer time period to compare to immunity after infection (so far showing durable protection for 9+ months in the majority) Hence my comment ‘time will tell’.

I have already explained why I linked to the study and the relevance of it to the discussion.

I'm not sure why you're trying to pass of you not understanding the design as my mistake.

@bumbleymummy - It showed very clearly that your hypothetical infection immunity does not exist for a proportion of people, and that those people could have been better protected by vaccination. It doesn't matter how long vaccine immunity lasts because boosters can be given, it does matter if you're relying on infection immunity because you can see that doesn't last. As I've explained to you before, it's not measles where the child dies or gets lifetime immunity; covid infection immunity will wane so people need a vaccine booster or it will result in them having another infection. Shame, but that's how it is.

Nope, haven’t ‘misinterpreted’ them either.

Have you considered that you may be dismissing things (and calling people anti-vaxx etc) because they do not agree with your views? Just a thought.

@bumbleymummy

Nope, haven’t ‘misinterpreted’ them either.

Have you considered that you may be dismissing things (and calling people anti-vaxx etc) because they do not agree with your views? Just a thought.

I haven't called anyone "anti-vaxx", it's a term you keep using

My views are that it should be everyone's choice to get vaccinated or not, and they can't make an informed one if they're surrounded by misinformation. I don't have an agenda or an incentive to see particular trends from studies, I take each at face value.

It is very clear however, that vaccination is beneficial (not just for those who are vulnerable) for both the individual and society.

MRex

It showed very clearly that your hypothetical infection immunity does not exist for a proportion of people

Ok, firstly, infection immunity isn’t the ‘hypothetical’ part. We know it exists.

We already know that immunity after infection does wane for some people. However several studies have shown that for the majority of people immunity lasts 9+ Months (some have shown over 10/up to 12). The people in this study were infected 6-14/15 months before reinfection. (Infection March-December 2020, reinfection May/June 2021) The people for whom immunity wanes faster after infection may be the same group for whom vaccine immunity wanes faster and yes, these people may need boosters more regularly.

And no, the study does not show that vaccine immunity would have been ‘better’ because it wasn’t comparing duration/effectiveness of vaccination and natural immunity (as stated several times now).

So no, it hasn’t addressed my hypothetical which is that, if natural infection results in less reinfection than vaccine breakthroughs then it could (hypothetically!) be a good thing to have a percentage of the population immune after natural infection to provide a level of durable population immunity. However, even if natural infection did provide ‘better’ immunity, it would still make sense to vaccinate the most vulnerable and people for whom immunity is more likely to wane faster.

My views are that it should be everyone's choice to get vaccinated or not, and they can't make an informed one if they're surrounded by misinformation.

I agree.

@bumbleymummy - here is some proof for you. Vaccines are given in age order, see how the cases reduce by age as immunity kicks in, but also spot how the cases haven't grown in those older age groups. Compare the age profile with Jan/Feb before vaccine immunity.
Now, remember the over 70s were mainly all jabbed by end of Jan, so that's 6 months right there and for many of the most at risk from covid plus weaker immune systems.

What are you trying to prove to me here?

You are suggesting that vaccination leads to lots of breakthrough infections but infection immunity does not, that isn't borne out by the cases reducing for the older population. They would have to increase again higher than the younger age groups to show that.