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?

@henlee well yes, but the pp stated:

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

which would suggest that anti-vaxxers would want people to have the vaccine so they can benefit from others. So why would they campaign against vaccines? It’s in their best interest, by the PP’s logic, for as many people to be vaccinated as possible. I agree, it doesn’t make any sense.

@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.

No, again you have it wrong. As we have established, you and your ilk ARE benefitting from other people getting the vaccine, but you DON'T KNOW that you are. Indeed, you think you are not. So, you would hardly want people to get the vaccine as you have not understood how you benefit from it.

That was literally the point. Bless your little heart, do you grasp anything of what is actually going on?

Out of interest, what do you think the state of play would be without the vaccines we do have access to?

As I said in my first post on this thread, the vaccines have done a great job of reducing serious illness and death, particularly in the most at-risk groups. (Such an anti-vaxx thing to say, right? )

So, without them, we would have seen a lot more deaths and hospitalisations. Eventually we would have gotten to a level of population immunity with so many people recovering from infection, but at a great cost of life/detriment to the NHS - which is why pursuing herd immunity via infection was not recommended as a strategy.

I don’t think everyone would turn down the vaccine. For many people, particularly those in the top at-risk groups, it is in their best interest to reduce their risk of serious illness/death. For younger/healthier people, the personal benefit isn’t really as great because they are unlikely to end up seriously ill/die anyway. Many of the people in these groups only had the vaccine ‘for the greater good’/ to ‘get back to normal’ or to travel etc. They weren’t actually worried about the risk of the virus to themselves. Now, it turns out, that the main benefit of the vaccine is to the person having it rather than to others seeing as vaccinated people can still contract and spread it to others.

Oh dear @ManifestDestinee. Maybe you should try reading people’s posts. I haven’t said I’m not benefitting from population immunity - clearly we all are (from a combination of vaccine induced and infection induced immunity), I’ve said that my decision not to have this vaccine was not based on relying on other people to have it (as you said in your original post). I would have made the decision I did, regardless of other people’s decision.

@ManifestDestinee it's better for your sanity if you just accept that bumbley really isn;t relying on anyone else having the vaccine.

Mainly because so many others haven't had it, you know, young kids and those for who it is contra indicated.

But that doesn't means she is 'just one more', no. It means something else. Truly it does.

Not that she relies on herd immunity, or individual immunity post infection, just that she hasn't had the vaccine and that is her choice.

Choice, you see! Choice.

Not anything to do with living within a wider community that has, for the most part, had a vaccine that she will indirectly benefit from, Nope. No siree. Choice.

I tried have that conversation over the last few months and can honestly say that, depsite best intentions on both sides (I assume) we didn't ever get to a point where I udnerstood what she meant. Like we are separated by a common language or something. And then she, understandably, got tired of repeating her 'clear explanation'.

All I can say is I tried... and failed... to understand and would welcome clarity, mainly because I have someone in my real life who is also refusing to be vaccinated for similarly circuitous reasons and I feel the need to understand!

@Milkbottlelegs

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.

Yes they do, which is why it's a choice to have them.

It's ok to not be concerned about one vaccine but worry about another as maybe the side effects are different and worry you more. Maybe one vaccine may trigger an existing health issue where the other is less likely to do so.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Manifest: 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

Me: No, many people, myself included, are not making the decision not to have the vaccine because we are ‘relying on other people having it’. Others people’s choices had nothing to do with our decision.

Yes, everyone benefits from population immunity (from a combination of vaccine induced and natural immunity). However, the ‘greater good’ argument for the vaccine has been somewhat weakened by the fact that vaccinated people can still contract and spread spread the virus - it is good a preventing serious illness for the individual though.

So they are giving widespread boosters in Israel in response to this case surge, but the UK is limiting boosters, claiming not enough for everyone, but the UK just today sent 4 million Pfizer vaccines to Australia (which can presumably afford their own).

I’m very confused why we’re sending vaccines to Australia and not third world countries.

@user823445234

So they are giving widespread boosters in Israel in response to this case surge, but the UK is limiting boosters, claiming not enough for everyone, but the UK just today sent 4 million Pfizer vaccines to Australia (which can presumably afford their own).

The reason for the delay is not because there aren't enough vaccines, it's because the JCVI is reviewing the evidence and hasn't decided whether boosters are the right thing to do yet.

@PurpleDaisies

I’m very confused why we’re sending vaccines to Australia and not third world countries.

Are Australia paying for them?

Just had a quick google - it’s apparently a ‘swap’ deal. Australia are going to send doses back later in the year. Thibking they will have less need during their summer season perhaps?

Are Australia paying for them?

Is there any point you don't miss?

@ManifestDestinee

Are Australia paying for them?

Is there any point you don't miss?

Eh? It would just be a possible explanation as to why the vaccines would be sent to Australia rather than developing countries. They may have actually been buying them from us. As it turns out, they’re just ‘borrowing’ them for now in a way.

Announced on the news that the JCVI have ruled against vaxxing 12-15 year olds, apart from those with underlying health conditions.

Eh? It would just be a possible explanation as to why the vaccines would be sent to Australia rather than developing countries. They may have actually been buying them from us. As it turns out, they’re just ‘borrowing’ them for now in a way

Sigh. I could explain to you all about why we should be giving vaccines to developing nations that can't afford them or source them, rather than selling or lending them to Australia, but I doubt you'd follow.

Regardless of this dose swap thing, I think it’s really wrong that they’re going to aus. If we’ve got that many doses going spare they should go to somewhere where healthcare workers are totally unprotected, or they don’t have infrastructure to treat Covid patients.

All this talk of vaccinating the world has just been lip service. We don’t actually give a damn about poor countries.

All this talk of vaccinating the world has just been lip service. We don’t actually give a damn about poor countries

No, but it isn't even about that. Even if it's only pure self interest, we should be giving them to developing nations. If a vaccine resistant or more deadly strain arises, it isn't going to be out of Australia.

@ManifestDestinee

Eh? It would just be a possible explanation as to why the vaccines would be sent to Australia rather than developing countries. They may have actually been buying them from us. As it turns out, they’re just ‘borrowing’ them for now in a way

Sigh. I could explain to you all about why we should be giving vaccines to developing nations that can't afford them or source them, rather than selling or lending them to Australia, but I doubt you'd follow.

Ummm, I’ve been saying that we should be sending more doses to developing countries rather than vaccinating low risk people in the U.K. for months now .

If we’ve got that many doses going spare they should go to somewhere where healthcare workers are totally unprotected, or they don’t have infrastructure to treat Covid patients.

Agree.

[quote bumbleymummy]@CuriousaboutSamphire

Manifest: 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

Me: No, many people, myself included, are not making the decision not to have the vaccine because we are ‘relying on other people having it’. Others people’s choices had nothing to do with our decision.

Yes, everyone benefits from population immunity (from a combination of vaccine induced and natural immunity). However, the ‘greater good’ argument for the vaccine has been somewhat weakened by the fact that vaccinated people can still contract and spread spread the virus - it is good a preventing serious illness for the individual though.[/quote]
Yes, that what I said you had said, minus the bit about the vaccine itself.

You are going to have to accept that to others it is a very circular argument and lacks internal logic.

You are not having the vaccine because choice
You aren't relying on others to have the vaccine and reduce your chances of catching it
Everyone can rely in part on others to have the vaccine and reduce their chances of catching it
The vaccine may not do that anyway, depending on what science you read

I've responded so often to you trying to understand and you keep repsonind in the same vein. Neither of us seems to comprehend the other's logic!

So I will accept that that is your reasonong.

You are going have have to accept it looks flawed to me!

@PurpleDaisies

I’m very confused why we’re sending vaccines to Australia and not third world countries.

3rd wold countries are getting sent vaccines.

Australia has a timed swap agreement to help get them through their rising infection rate and we get them back later - to use or send on to Covax. A lot of it is just changing delivery times on paper rather than vaccines travelling hither and yon!

Mmid August data

www.gavi.org/news/media-room/uk-donated-covid-19-vaccine-doses-reach-african-countries

Yet this is still being rewritten as 'barely any'

theconversation.com/covid-19-why-its-time-for-the-uk-to-start-sharing-its-vaccine-doses-164303

@CuriousaboutSamphire if you think it looks flawed and circular then you probably just don’t understand it. You may not agree with my reasons but they aren’t ‘flawed’ :)

[quote bumbleymummy]@CuriousaboutSamphire if you think it looks flawed and circular then you probably just don’t understand it. You may not agree with my reasons but they aren’t ‘flawed’ :)[/quote]
Again, that is what I said! We can keep going round and round with this but we do agree... I don't understand your logic! In my opinion it is flawed, in yours it is not.

We agreed that months ago! I was not actually trying to get more clarity from you, just sharing that previous discussion with A N Other poster!

just sharing that previous discussion with A N Other poster!

Why? Just seems like you were trying to have a go tbh. A bit childish, no?