Cases soar in Israel despite high vaccine uptake

[Shanghaisprize]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9951117/Israel-worlds-Covid-hotspot-0-2-population-catching-yesterday.html

Apologies for the source, but this looks a bit worrying - cases are soaring in Israel despite very high vaccine uptake. Serious Illness and deaths are down from the second wave, bit apparently rising sharply. Waning immunity is thought to a reason for this, yet in the UK we seem to be dithering around whether to introduce boosters.

With the already high number of cases, imminent back to school situation in England and lack of any mitigation measures, I'm worried. Anyone else?

I’m happy with the low risk to me from the virus

And that’s a valid choice @bumbleymummy but I don’t think that encompasses all the effects of covid because it simply can’t be reduced to an individual impact per person.

Again, I fully respect your decision (and anyone else’s who has chosen not to have the vaccine) even though I don’t understand it. I don’t think that you can claim to be gambling your own personal stake society though, being a part of society means that your needs/wants are irretrievably entwined with other peoples and we’re all affected by each other’s decisions along the way.

@ManifestDestinee

I guess it depends on whether they’re actually an anti-vaxxer who believes in conspiracy theories and microchips or if they’ve just decided not to have this vaccine

If they've decided not to have the vaccine they are against the vax. They are an anti vaxxer. You don't have to be a full blown tin foil hatter to be so.
You're an anti-vaxxer, you've been railing against vaccinations on MN for about 1o years now.

False. I am not against vaccines at all. And no, if you decide not to get one particular vaccine then you are not ‘anti-vaxx’ in general. We did not label people who decided not to have the flu vaccine ‘anti-vaxx’.

@henlee

I was replying to this statement:

will those who are currently anti vaccine decide to have it as they can’t rely on others having it and benefitting from hers immunity as so often happens with other illnesses

We know it isn’t possible to achieve herd immunity now. The benefit from the vaccine is more for the individual, not the population as a whole given that vaccinated people can still contract and spread the virus.

And no, if you decide not to get one particular vaccine then you are not ‘anti-vaxx’ in general. We did not label people who decided not to have the flu vaccine ‘anti-vaxx’

If there was a flu pandemic that had killed over 4.5 million people, we certainly would. But please do keep proving the point for us.

You personally are benefitting from other people taking the vaccine. It's unsurprising you don't understand that.

I’m in Scotland where it’s pretty widespread at the moment. I know loads of people who have covid this wave - mostly children or double vaxxed. Almost all of them have been completely asymptomatic so I’m not overly worried. Only speaking from what I’m seeing, cases don’t equal sick people. Just inconvenience of self isolating.

As I said @bumbleymummy, you benefit from others having the vaccine due to reduced circulation of the virus, this isn't just simply limited to you being less likely to get COVID.

It's your decision to not get vaccinated but silly to justify it by saying you don't want protection from others, when you're already getting it and other benefits.

@ManifestDestinee

I guess it depends on whether they’re actually an anti-vaxxer who believes in conspiracy theories and microchips or if they’ve just decided not to have this vaccine

If they've decided not to have the vaccine they are against the vax. They are an anti vaxxer. You don't have to be a full blown tin foil hatter to be so.
You're an anti-vaxxer, you've been railing against vaccinations on MN for about 1o years now.

Strongly disagree.

Many are reluctant to get the vaccine as worried about side effects. That doesn't make them anti vaccination.

We need to stop with the labels. It's just not helpful

@ManifestDestinee

And no, if you decide not to get one particular vaccine then you are not ‘anti-vaxx’ in general. We did not label people who decided not to have the flu vaccine ‘anti-vaxx’

If there was a flu pandemic that had killed over 4.5 million people, we certainly would. But please do keep proving the point for us.

You personally are benefitting from other people taking the vaccine. It's unsurprising you don't understand that.

Well that would be wrong too. Deciding against one vaccine does not make someone anti-vaxx in general. It just gets thrown around as a slur to try to discredit people. Just as you are trying to do now. It’s a bit childish really -name calling.

I was thinking about this overnight.

I think you are right.
Those who are middle aged and maybe older, are essentially used to vaccinations being pretty much a cure.
My guess is many MPs think the same.

But those in the real know amongst them, those who were maybe warned, should not, as you say, have given the impression that the new vaccines were going to be the or a complete answer.

The vaccines are proving to be far from that.

Well that's a patronising post isn't it lightand.

Rather than vaccines for things like MMR, I'm sure most over 50's are more famililiar with the flu vaccine, which they will know isn't 100% effective. Old people aren't thick and have a lot of life experience behind them. Best not to understimate their intelligence.

legally, as far as I know,, anti vax and vaccine hesitant are not the same two things at all.
And shouldnt be confused imo.

Where does legality come into it lightand?

I maybe older than you @knittingaddict, and I dont find it the least bit patronising!
I am not easily offended either.

A question for those who say they aren't anti vax, but won't have this one. Will you have the next vaccine that comes along or will you treat it the same was as the CV vaccine? Will you be suspicious of all vaccines? What makes one vaccine good and another bad?

If you wouldn't have future vaccines, then you're anti vax aren't you?

Legality please? What does that even mean?

@lightand

I maybe older than you *@knittingaddict*, and I dont find it the least bit patronising! I am not easily offended either.

Of course you say it's not patronising because it was you that posted it.

Fortunately you don't get to tell me what I find patronising.

it’s your decision to not get vaccinated but silly to justify it by saying you don't want protection from others, when you're already getting it and other benefits.

I’m not justifying it. I’m simply pointing out that my choice not to have the vaccine had nothing to do with relying on others to have it - as the pp suggested.

Well that would be wrong too. Deciding against one vaccine does not make someone anti-vaxx in general. It just gets thrown around as a slur to try to discredit people. Just as you are trying to do now. It’s a bit childish really -name calling

I don't think you are following. If you are against a vaccine you are anti that vaccine. Anti means against, fyi. If you are against the most important vaccine in the world, you are an anti vaxxer with regard to the vaccine we care about right now.

In your case you are an actual anti-vaxxer as you campaign against all vaccines. You are MN's pet anti-vaxxer.

Many are reluctant to get the vaccine as worried about side effects. That doesn't make them anti vaccination

But all vaccines have side effects.

I’m not justifying it. I’m simply pointing out that my choice not to have the vaccine had nothing to do with relying on others to have it - as the pp suggested

You're trying to point that out but you are entirely wrong.

If you wouldn't have future vaccines, then you're anti vax aren't you?

No, I may decide to have other vaccines in the future. It would depend on the risk/benefit. I don’t just automatically go out and get every one that’s offered though.

@ManifestDestinee

I’m not justifying it. I’m simply pointing out that my choice not to have the vaccine had nothing to do with relying on others to have it - as the pp suggested

You're trying to point that out but you are entirely wrong.

Well, no, actually. I know my reasons for deciding not to have the vaccine and they had nothing to do with other people’s decisions. You can throw accusations around all you like but you’re wrong.

“Campaign against all vaccines” 😂 Total BS.

[quote luckylavender]@PrincessNutNuts - it's not low though is it? This time last year it was low. [/quote]
No, I'm in agreement with you.

We're usually 5th worst in the world or 12th worst in the world, or 21st worst in the world - so 44th (41st today) is a better position for us than our usual ranking compared to other countries.

How could thousands dying of covid every month and thousands being admitted every week ever be considered "low"?

We know what "low" looks like.

It's when people on Mumsnet post a single figure death toll every day on a thread called "Deaths Aren't Going Up Any More" or something like that.

It was nice while it lasted.

you are an actual anti-vaxxer as you campaign against all vaccines.

This also completely contradicts your earlier point that antivaxxers are relying on other people having the vaccine to benefit from herd immunity. If that is the case then why would an anti-vaxxer campaign against vaccines? By your logic, they want as many people as possible to have the vaccine.

@bumbleymummy

you are an actual anti-vaxxer as you campaign against all vaccines.

This also completely contradicts your earlier point that antivaxxers are relying on other people having the vaccine to benefit from herd immunity. If that is the case then why would an anti-vaxxer campaign against vaccines? By your logic, they want as many people as possible to have the vaccine.

not the pp but this doesn't make any sense - quite a bizarre twisting?

people who are anti-vaccine generally minimise how bad infectious diseases like measles and HPV actually are, whilst simultaneously lying about side effects of vaccines.

They don't think they need herd immunity, because they don't actually understand public health.

@bumbleymummy

it’s your decision to not get vaccinated but silly to justify it by saying you don't want protection from others, when you're already getting it and other benefits.

I’m not justifying it. I’m simply pointing out that my choice not to have the vaccine had nothing to do with relying on others to have it - as the pp suggested.

Out of interest, what do you think the state of play would be without the vaccines we do have access to? Genuine curiosity here at what someone declining this particular vaccine thinks the word would currently look like without them or if the majority of people had took the same position.

I think I’m trying to establish whether the thinking is that they make no difference at all or whether vaccines are objectively a good thing even if an individual chooses not to have one themselves.

These new vaccines don’t have a long history so I understand people being wary, but I do often wonder if they’ve considered where we would be without them and whether they’ve distanced themselves from the whole situation or just this bit.

The key thing that you seem to have missed is this group of people will benefit from population level immunity, whilst simultaneously going on about how they don't need it.