A writer of a short submitted article to The Lancet draws comparisons with stigmitisation of unvaccinated and history *title edited by MNHQ*

[Sumsencosrshit]

"People who are vaccinated have a lower risk of severe disease but are still a relevant part of the pandemic. It is therefore wrong and dangerous to speak of a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Historically, both the USA and Germany have engendered negative experiences by stigmatising parts of the population for their skin colour or religion. I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatisation of unvaccinated people"

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02243-1/fulltext

I think it’s an excellent editorial, I just linked it on another thread. Do you think stigmatising people for turning down a medical intervention, however misguided that decision may be, is a good thing?

No I do not think it's a good thing.

I see so many comparisons with various parts of history, between what is going on now and what was then.

Sorry it's late and I'm tired. But I was posting this because I agree with it.

Yes me too

Goodness, he got to Godwin's Law all on his own very quickly.

I suggest he :

a) looks up what stigmatised really means ( I can recommend Imogen Tyler's excellent book)
b) Doesn't call the holocaust and the horrific treatment of Black people in parts of the US 'negative experiences' - a stunning example of litotes. Deliberate, I assume , so that he can't be accused of suggesting anything too extreme in the treatment of the unvaccinated and look a bit ridiculous. Ergo, he shouldn't be making the connection at all.
c) explains the stats of why the majority of those hospitalised with Covid in Massachusetts are vaccinated. He needs to get on to MN - it's been patiently explained many times .

I can't find out anything about this man, other than that his recent publication history suggests he is a vaccine sceptic. Difficult to know what level of authority he speaks from.

I still struggle to have confidence in the Lancet ever since they published Andrew Wakefield’s flawed “research”, all they had to do was bloody check it!

I'd also mention OP, your tile is misleading. The Lancet isn't doing anything. A writer of a short submitted article to The Lancet is stating an opinion.

Really interesting article - thanks for posting it. One of the things that makes me saddest about this whole situation is how people are being manipulated into turning against their friends and families. There is currently a big divide in society and it's being fuelled by governments and the media. Tolerance and understanding have been replaced with fear and aggression and it needs to stop!

@nojudgementhere

Really interesting article - thanks for posting it. One of the things that makes me saddest about this whole situation is how people are being manipulated into turning against their friends and families. There is currently a big divide in society and it's being fuelled by governments and the media. Tolerance and understanding have been replaced with fear and aggression and it needs to stop!

I really don't think it's true. Only people who thinks the government and media are trying to divide the society is anti something people. All the others just get on with their life, try their best not to get ill, and hoping this pandemic to be over soon.

Thank you @rainrainraincamedowndowndown - it is good to hear that people are out there just living their lives and not getting drawn into all the nastiness! It's hard not to feel a bit paranoid though when you see so many negative, disparaging articles in the press about the unvaccinated, that appear to scapegoat and blame them for all transmission even though this is clearly not the case. It's got to the stage where I would no longer feel comfortable talking freely about being unvaccinated to anyone I don't know really well & you only have to look at all the splits it's caused between friends and even families to know that people are feeling empowered to judge others and openly ridicule and belittle them. It reminds me of the way people were in the early days of lockdown, whipped up into a frenzy to report people sitting on benches or leaving their houses more than once a day. It sometimes feels like a modern day witch hunt.

[quote Sumsencosrshit]"People who are vaccinated have a lower risk of severe disease but are still a relevant part of the pandemic. It is therefore wrong and dangerous to speak of a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Historically, both the USA and Germany have engendered negative experiences by stigmatising parts of the population for their skin colour or religion. I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatisation of unvaccinated people"

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02243-1/fulltext[/quote]

I'm not sure how well you read you read this letter to the Lancet from a well-known stirrer in Germany. An excerpt:

"In Germany, 55·4% of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in patients aged 60 years or older were in fully vaccinated individuals,4 and this proportion is increasing each week. In Münster, Germany, new cases of COVID-19 occurred in at least 85 (22%) of 380 people who were fully vaccinated or who had recovered from COVID-19 and who attended a nightclub."

Remembering that a good proportion of people are vaccinated, I'm not sure that this is the bombshell you expected this to be. 85 people had Covid in Munster (either vaccinated or recently recovered, but why be precise?), but many more were unvaccinated.

The fact remains - it is much more risky to be unvaccinated. It is a risk on an individual level, and to others on a macro population level.

How does this fit in with your claims that no-one is allowed to question "the narrative", and all views published must be "mainstream"? All those scientists/doctors/experts you seem to think are being censored and silenced seem to have no problem getting their views out there.

"Historically, both the USA and Germany have engendered negative experiences by stigmatising parts of the population for their skin colour or religion."

Referring to the systematic racism that has led to and still leads to adverse health/economic/societal outcomes and deaths of African-Americans/Black people, and the Holocaust as negative experiences is shockingly offensive.

Referring to the systematic racism that has led to and still leads to adverse health/economic/societal outcomes and deaths of African-Americans/Black people, and the Holocaust as negative experiences is shockingly offensive.

This.

It's no coincidence the involvement of the far right in the anti vaxx and 'Covid is a conspiracy' business (and it is a business for those at the top of this scene - a rather lucrative one).

We all know that the Nazis were white supremacists - and also rather keen on eugenics. Which groups have been hit particularly hard by Covid - both directly and indirectly? The disabled (the definition includes long term illness), and several minority ethnic communities.

Do you think stigmatising people for turning down a medical intervention, however misguided that decision may be, is a good thing

There’s a fine line between stigmatising and managing public health risks though. It’s not a new issue although it’s the first time many people will find themselves involved in the scenario. Turning down medical interventions that have repercussions beyond the individual themselves are not straight forward.

A HIV patient who refuses treatment and continues to practice unsafe sex or needle sharing ( pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11366386/ ) a drug resistant TB patient who refuses to get treatment or isolate ( www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/12794697.desperate-hunt-as-tb-patient-isolated-in-city/ ) are examples that spring to my mind. It’s not a straight like for like comparison with the current vaccination debate but I do think it illustrates this is not a new issue.

Typhoid Mary is another interesting example, she was found to be harbouring typhoid and was offered gall bladder surgery which she refused and spent the rest of her life quarantined along with others in the same predicament.

Basically managing infectious diseases will always involve a degree of stigmatisation because of the reaction people have to infectious diseases; this is absolutely utilised in public health messages eg. Use a condom, don’t spit in the street, use a tissue, wash your hands - all of them utilise and rely on a degree of generating particular feelings in the larger population.

Perhaps more controversially, because suicide doesn't usually threaten wider public health, suicidal people are sometimes forced to undergo medical procedures. Despite suicide being legal.

@Cornettoninja

Do you think stigmatising people for turning down a medical intervention, however misguided that decision may be, is a good thing

There’s a fine line between stigmatising and managing public health risks though. It’s not a new issue although it’s the first time many people will find themselves involved in the scenario. Turning down medical interventions that have repercussions beyond the individual themselves are not straight forward.

A HIV patient who refuses treatment and continues to practice unsafe sex or needle sharing ( pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11366386/ ) a drug resistant TB patient who refuses to get treatment or isolate ( www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/12794697.desperate-hunt-as-tb-patient-isolated-in-city/ ) are examples that spring to my mind. It’s not a straight like for like comparison with the current vaccination debate but I do think it illustrates this is not a new issue.

Typhoid Mary is another interesting example, she was found to be harbouring typhoid and was offered gall bladder surgery which she refused and spent the rest of her life quarantined along with others in the same predicament.

Basically managing infectious diseases will always involve a degree of stigmatisation because of the reaction people have to infectious diseases; this is absolutely utilised in public health messages eg. Use a condom, don’t spit in the street, use a tissue, wash your hands - all of them utilise and rely on a degree of generating particular feelings in the larger population.

I think where your argument really falls down is that an HIV patient, the TB patient and Typhoid Mary were all infected with an illness so were contagious. There are many unvaccinated people who are currently perfectly well and no risk to anyone. Everyone regardless of their vaccine status should surely be taking precautions when ill to not spread the virus further? Routine testing would be more sensible rather than just assuming every unvaccinated person is infected and every vaccinated person not. I think your message is an example of how prejudice is getting in the way of common sense.

@Tealightsandd

Perhaps more controversially, because suicide doesn't usually threaten wider public health, suicidal people are sometimes forced to undergo medical procedures. Despite suicide being legal.

This is not a relevant analogy as if someone is suicidal then they are clearly not in a rational frame of mind so could possibly be considered unable to make an informed decision. I personally don't think it is reasonable to make this assumption about all unvaccinated people, although I am sure you would argue that point!

@Tealightsandd we actually don’t compel HIV patients to take treatment if they have capacity though. They can face criminal charges if they are found to have knowingly infected another person but they cannot be treated without valid consent if they have capacity as that would be assault. It’s kind of a cornerstone of medical ethics, or so I thought.

Same with TB. I’m not aware of any cases where a patient with capacity was forced to take treatment without consent in the UK on public health grounds despite risk to others.

This is not a relevant analogy as if someone is suicidal then they are clearly not in a rational frame of mind

Not necessarily. There is such a thing as rational suicide. Particularly when it comes to terminal or incurable illness, but arguably could be extended to long term intolerable life circumstances eg. destitution, homelessness, extreme physical pain not relieved by medication.

Also, how rational is it to turn down a life and health saving vaccine because of being taken in by misinformation?

[quote Hotcoffee10]@Tealightsandd we actually don’t compel HIV patients to take treatment if they have capacity though. They can face criminal charges if they are found to have knowingly infected another person but they cannot be treated without valid consent if they have capacity as that would be assault. It’s kind of a cornerstone of medical ethics, or so I thought.[/quote]
I didn't mention HIV.

@Tealightsandd

This is not a relevant analogy as if someone is suicidal then they are clearly not in a rational frame of mind

Not necessarily. There is such a thing as rational suicide. Particularly when it comes to terminal or incurable illness, but arguably could be extended to long term intolerable life circumstances eg. destitution, homelessness, extreme physical pain not relieved by medication.

Also, how rational is it to turn down a life and health saving vaccine because of being taken in by misinformation?

That's a bit of a leap! You have no idea why I have turned down the vaccine. I think for somebody to be forcibly given medical treatment when suicidal they would have to be behaving in an extremely irrational and uncontrolled way.

@nojudgementhere all fair points but I do think you’re failing to take into consideration the numbers of people involved. In September this article states there were still five million people over the age of 16 unvaccinated plus everyone under 16. www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/england-scotland-wales-ian-jones-b956990.html%3famp www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/england-scotland-wales-ian-jones-b956990.html%3famp and we were averaging 30k new cases per day.

Given case numbers then and now the sensible stance is that everyone (unvaccinated or not) is potentially a source of infection so we can look at the other factors including vaccinations reducing transmission by 40-60%. I think it’s hard to argue that there isn’t an effect from the vaccines on transmissions when literally all we’re doing in terms of mitigations is vaccinating and isolating the symptomatic and confirmed cases. Our case numbers haven’t reached the levels predicted earlier in the year when we were much less certain of the effect of vaccinations on transmission (off the top of my head I think it was 100k cases per day or around that).

We’ve yet to reach a point with a stability in numbers of cases but I suspect that when we do it will be less black and white with regards to the unvaccinated and able to be more nuanced. Regular testing in place of vaccinations instead of alongside it is more effective when cases are lower and outbreaks localised.

One thing to remember when quoting stats about "unvaccinated" being in ICU, the stated motivation for universal vaccination, is to help protect those vulnerable individuals who cannot be vaccinated. Lumping these individuals in hospital with those who chose not to vaccinate is really insulting to those who cannot.

It's not publicised how many of the unvaccinated in hospital couldn't be though, so we don't know the proportions.

Our case numbers haven’t reached the levels predicted earlier in the year when we were much less certain of the effect of vaccinations on transmission (off the top of my head I think it was 100k cases per day or around that)

The 100k a day was just a very poor model, the model actually predicted more success in the vaccine at preventing transmission than studies now show, it just got a lot of other stuff wrong to lead to that conclusion.