Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Thoughts on mandatory vaccination?

239 replies

IllGetTheNextRound · 30/11/2021 23:07

I'm a healthcare professional and I've heard from both colleagues and patients that vaccinations should be mandatory.

This to me is concerning for a few reasons. One of the main reasons is that I think as a public health policy this is really problematic because we are mandating a healthcare intervention on an individual level which takes away their autonomy. And what about children? Compared to many other countries our vaccination uptake is generally excellent. Indeed there is definitely room for improvement, but I worry that mandating this would deter people who otherwise would consider it.

Having said that I'm very pro vaccination and I want as many people to be vaccinated as possible. I have educated many patients and advocated for greater uptake of childhood vaccinations.

If you're passionate about one side of the debate I'd love to hear your thoughts.

OP posts:
AliceA2021 · 02/12/2021 12:01

I forgot to add that what really is annoying is people that spread misinformation that leads to harm of others eg anti vax mis-information. Don't want it don't have it but stop sharing rubbish.

userperuser · 02/12/2021 12:07

@AliceA2021

I forgot to add that what really is annoying is people that spread misinformation that leads to harm of others eg anti vax mis-information. Don't want it don't have it but stop sharing rubbish.
Your link was to a website asking for support in bitcoins.
portandchocolate · 02/12/2021 13:08

No one should be vaccinated against their Will. But if their informed choice is to decline it then they are also declining some things that require it. Such as certain jobs, the freedom to mix in some situations (eg night clubs, pubs, theatres)

userperuser · 02/12/2021 13:27

How can anybody say they support freedom of choice/bodily autonomy when they also support restrictions on basic activities for those not partaking? Hmm

alexander2001 · 02/12/2021 13:47

@portandchocolate

No one should be vaccinated against their Will. But if their informed choice is to decline it then they are also declining some things that require it. Such as certain jobs, the freedom to mix in some situations (eg night clubs, pubs, theatres)
Vaccinations don't stop you getting CV or passing it on, its a red herring tbh.

A carer not vaccinated but tested daily (LFT) is far less of a risk to patients than a vaccinated one but not tested.

Its not possible to police pubs/clubs etc to ensure all vaccinated, Theatres perhaps as they tend not to be pissed.

Battenburg77 · 02/12/2021 13:58

Breaking news on the Guardian liveblog that there will be compulsory vaccination in Germany from February

AliceA2021 · 02/12/2021 14:24

@userperuser

Really? No idea where that came from then. I posted a link to a website commenting on anti vax individuals... how very odd

userperuser · 02/12/2021 14:57

[quote AliceA2021]@userperuser

Really? No idea where that came from then. I posted a link to a website commenting on anti vax individuals... how very odd[/quote]
Yes and it was a collection of unsubstantiated stories from an unknown source who was asking for donations by Bitcoin, not a very good when discussing misinformation.

portandchocolate · 02/12/2021 16:51

I see Germany have done what I mentioned. I cannot help but agree.

bumbleymummy · 02/12/2021 16:52

@portandchocolate

No one should be vaccinated against their Will. But if their informed choice is to decline it then they are also declining some things that require it. Such as certain jobs, the freedom to mix in some situations (eg night clubs, pubs, theatres)
Justify that. The vaccine is much better at reducing individual risk than it is at reducing infection/transmission to others. Why do you care if someone has decided to reduce their own personal risk or not?
bumbleymummy · 02/12/2021 16:53

@portandchocolate

I see Germany have done what I mentioned. I cannot help but agree.
Off you pop to Germany then. I’m not a fan of authoritarianism myself but each to their own!
CaliforniaDrumming · 02/12/2021 17:20

Don't believe in mandatory vaccination. Also don't believe that the UK needs it given we have a higher vaccine uptake. That said, worried about the NHS this winter.

NeverForgetYourDreams · 02/12/2021 17:22

@ManchesterTartwithCustard

Mandatory vaccination is one step too far. However people who decline vaccination need to accept that some of their choices may be limited.
This
bumbleymummy · 02/12/2021 17:25

Why? An unvaccinated person with proof of a negative test is less likely to be carrying the virus than a vaccinated person with no test. Why should the person with no virus be restricted while a vaccinated person who is potentially carrying the virus is not?

userperuser · 02/12/2021 17:32

I don’t understand why the consideration of restrictions should be based on vaccine status when studies show that the main benefit is to the individual, and don’t understand those that support this as all it says is that you don’t feel protected by your own vaccine so ask yourself why you took it.

I suspect that those in favour of these measures firmly believe that zero covid can be achieved when it has been established that it cannot be achieved even if 100% were vaccinated.

I don’t support any restriction but if we’re going down that road then the spotlight should be on those presenting a greater risk to the NHS regardless of vaccine status IF the goal is truly to protect the NHS.

portandchocolate · 02/12/2021 17:40

@bumbleymummy

Why? An unvaccinated person with proof of a negative test is less likely to be carrying the virus than a vaccinated person with no test. Why should the person with no virus be restricted while a vaccinated person who is potentially carrying the virus is not?
Because the overall aim is to reduce the amount of virus amongst the whole population. A non vaccinated person will allow it to multiply, a vaccinated person may, but to a much lesser degree.

Get the virus to a point where it can't multiply and mutate is the aim.

MaxNormal · 02/12/2021 18:12

Get the virus to a point where it can't multiply and mutate is the aim

You're talking about zero covid, which is not possible. The vaccines don't prevent enough spread, not everyone can or will have them, the virus mutates too quickly and crucially there are animal reservoirs.

ollyollyoxenfree · 02/12/2021 18:14

@MaxNormal

Get the virus to a point where it can't multiply and mutate is the aim

You're talking about zero covid, which is not possible. The vaccines don't prevent enough spread, not everyone can or will have them, the virus mutates too quickly and crucially there are animal reservoirs.

No, low rates of transmission (and therefore low rates of mutation) are not eqivalent to zero COVID
MaxNormal · 02/12/2021 18:22

Yes hence the difference between "low rates" and "can't multipy or mutate".

ollyollyoxenfree · 02/12/2021 18:26

@MaxNormal

Yes hence the difference between "low rates" and "can't multipy or mutate".
Not the pp, but their post made it clear they weren't talking about eradication?

Because the overall aim is to reduce the amount of virus amongst the whole population.
Get the virus to a point where it can't multiply and mutate is the aim.

bumbleymummy · 03/12/2021 17:24

There are still people who think we can prevent mutations by vaccinating a few more percent in the U.K. when the vast majority of the world remains unvaccinated? Hmm I thought we moved on from that silliness months ago.

ollyollyoxenfree · 03/12/2021 18:15

@bumbleymummy

There are still people who think we can prevent mutations by vaccinating a few more percent in the U.K. when the vast majority of the world remains unvaccinated? Hmm I thought we moved on from that silliness months ago.
No one referenced 1) UK only, or 2) that mutation can be prevented - it's an intrinsic part of viral replication (or indeed replication of anything with genetic material)
Beachcomber · 03/12/2021 21:09

This obsession with "the unvaccinated" is really weird.

Either the vaccine works well or it doesn't work well.

Either vaccinated people are immune or they aren't. Scapegoating unvaccinated people when we know full well that transmission is rife in all of the population is fucked up.

I understand that it is human nature to scapegoat and currently the scapegoat is "the unvaccinated". But shouldn't we be annoyed at the vaccine manufacturers who promised us 95% efficacy but have failed to deliver rather than infighting with our neighbours and co-workers?

If the vaccines worked in the way that vaccines are supposed to, current vaccination levels (plus natural immunity) would be more than enough to provide herd immunity. But they aren't.

If the vaccines were as good as the (rushed) clinical trials said they were, it wouldn't matter if vaccinated people mixed with unvaccinated people as the vaccinated people would be immune to the virus.

If the vaccines were as safe and beneficial as the (rushed) clinical trials said they were, there wouldn't be so many people who don't want to take them.

And why is there such a push to vaccinate recovered people who don't need to be vaccinated? And why is there a similar push to vaccinate children who don't need to be vaccinated?

Current public health policy does not seem to be based on either common sense or science at the moment. It's all about vaccines and nothing much else.

High numbers of people have been vaccinated and high numbers of people have had the virus. Why are we not seeing the move from pandemic to endemic? Scapegoating "the unvaccinated" and making endless boosters mandatory feels like a fool's errand to me.

bumbleymummy · 03/12/2021 21:16

Great post @Beachcomber

ollyollyoxenfree · 03/12/2021 21:32

@Beachcomber

But shouldn't we be annoyed at the vaccine manufacturers who promised us 95% efficacy but have failed to deliver

There's a lot of misunderstanding here - nothing was "promised", the numbers quoted was the efficacy produced from statisical analysis of the clinical trials. The manscripts are available so you can follow exactly how these numbers were derived.

Efficacy was been reduced due a rapidly mutating virus - the further it's genomic sequence gets from the original Wuhan variant, the lower the efficacy will be. A new 'flu vaccine is designed each year on exactly the same principle.

If the vaccines were as good as the (rushed) clinical trials said they were)
'Rushed' implies steps were missing or corners cut - this was not the case. Trials were able to be completed so quickly by some stages running parallel and not worrying about waste, and having no lags due to funding barriers. See above for comment on "good".

If the vaccines were as safe and beneficial as the (rushed) clinical trials said they were

See above for comment on "rushed" and also "beneficial".

Regarding safety - again I think there's a lot of misunderstanding here. It is impossible to detect very rare side effects in a clinical trial - for whatever intervention you're looking at. A trial is by it's very nature statistically underpowered to detect something that only occurs in 1/100,000 cases (or whatever).