Thoughts on mandatory vaccination?

[IllGetTheNextRound]

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.

it wouldn't matter if vaccinated people mixed with unvaccinated people as the vaccinated people would be immune to the virus.

And on this - it isn't the case with vaccines without a 100% efficacy.

Again 'flu is a good comparator. We protect those vulnerable by vaccinating them and by vaccinating various cohorts of the general population to keep circulating levels down.

I think you have been sorely misled by your understanding of vaccination and what is realistically acheivable these programmes @Beachcomber

@bumbleymummy

Great post *@Beachcomber*

No it's not. She ignores the reason why countries are mandating vaccines completely. It's a load of waffle.

@luinagreine

OK. So why are countries mandating vaccines?

By which I mean why are they mandating (or at least saying they are going to mandate) vaccines which are not very good at preventing infection and transmission???

What is the reasoning? What is the objective?

Is it a short term objective? Is it a long term objective?

What is the plan?

Dependence on endless boosters that don't really work for more than a few months?

Funny how flu is a good comparator in some situations and not others.

Interestingly the uptake of the flu vaccine tends to range from around 60-72% most years and yet people who decline it don’t get labelled ‘anti-vaxx’.

We can agree to disagree on that @luinagreine :)

And that’s 60-72% in the groups that are offered it - not the population as a whole.

[quote ollyollyoxenfree]@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).[/quote]
I like your positivity @ollyollyoxenfree

However everyone knows that the covid vaccines were rushed. Of course they were. There was a scary pandemic going on and people did the best they could to come up with a quick solution by manufacturing vaccines within less than a year that would normally take several years to test and develop.

And I don't have a problem with that. Quite the opposite - I take my hat off to the people who worked hard to find an emergency solution to an emergency situation.

What I have a problem with is how the goalposts keep changing (doses, boosters, efficacy, transmission, age groups, waning) and how it seems to be taboo to point out the following about the covid19 vaccine program;

a) it is experimental (of course - new virus, new vaccine, new pandemic, new mutations. No shame in admitting that we don't have a crystal ball).

b) it should constantly be monitored and reassessed and modified according to the emerging data and evolution of the situation.

c) vaccines are made by for profit private companies who are not impartial.

d) a vaccine program is a vaccine program. It is not the be all and end all of public health policy.

I don't think I have been mislead by my understanding of vaccination and what vaccine programs can achieve. I think the vaccines are not the way out of a pandemic situation and the sooner we admit that the better. For all of us.

Funny how flu is a good comparator in some situations and not others

Not sure what you mean by this @bumbleymummy?

@Beachcomber
Well said. I completely agree with you.

However everyone knows that the covid vaccines were rushed. Of course they were. There was a scary pandemic going on and people did the best they could to come up with a quick solution by manufacturing vaccines within less than a year that would normally take several years to test and develop.

Well it depends what you mean by "rushed" @Beachcomber

As I said the fact that they were able to do this in such a short time frame compared to "several years" (tbh it's actually normally a lot longer - that would be optimistic) was because they ran many stages in parallel, not caring about waste (i.e., they had several possible avenues on the go at once) and there were no funding barriers which normally cause time lags.

Rushed makes it sound like you're allduing to the idea corners were cut and safety compromised, which is not the case.

“It’s not flu!!!!”

@bumbleymummy

“It’s not flu!!!!”

But it isn't

@Beachcomber your posts are brilliant.

There seems to be this mentality that the unvaccinated are not as clever or only do reach on “social media” or just told well you “don’t understand.” I am fully vaccinated but I think that is every single person should be entitled to their choice.

Another point I’d like to make is that if you’re fully vaccinated and would like to live a normal life, why are they so fearful of the unvaccinated? The vaccine is proven to provide full immunity or lessen symptoms of the vaccinated. What are they scared of? It seems a weird sanctimonious thing and it’s very dangerous world we’re entering into

Comparisons of coronavirus vaccines with influenza vaccines in terms of historically what's acceptable - lowish efficacy, needing to have annual boosters, subsets of low risk population vaccinated mainly to keep circulating levels low

AND

the fact that coronavirus is not comparable to 'flu virus in terms of it's public health impact on cases, hosp admissions, long term complications, and deaths

Are both reasonable statements to make

they ran many stages in parallel

Which is another way to say "rushed".

There are good reasons why stages of clinical trials are not usually run in parallel. And that is that stage I informs the design and development of stage II and stage II informs the design and development of stage III.

Running 3 parallel tests is not the same thing as running 3 sequential tests.

These are fundamental basic concepts used in the conception and development of any product. You use quality gates and project milestones of the initial stages to inform the next steps and you modify the process accordingly.

And I wish we could stop with the comparisons to flu vaccines already. Flu vaccines do not use the new techniques that covid vaccines use, flu is a well known virus that we are used to living with and we are not in a flu pandemic. Flu vaccines are not mandatory. People who are not vaccinated against flu can travel freely and enter bars and restaurants. They are not discriminated against - and if there was an attempt to segregate people according to flu vaccination status it would, quite rightly, be considered outrageous and bonkers.

Running 3 parallel tests is not the same thing as running 3 sequential tests.

Again @Beachcomber - I don't think you understand

This is not what my post said, and it is not how any of the vaccines were designed. I suggest you look into this first (Sarah Gilbert gives an overview for AZ), before launching intot a critque of the development process....

Excellent posts @Beachcomber.

I 100% agree with everything.

Sarah Gilbert gives an overview for AZ

Does she include in that overview the biological process for adenovirus vector vaccines triggering the formation of blood clots?

Or was that missed in the speedy parallel step development process??

MYTH: Researchers rushed the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, so its effectiveness and safety cannot be trusted.

FACT: Studies found that the two initial vaccines are both about 95% effective — and reported no serious or life-threatening side effects. There are many reasons why the COVID-19 vaccines could be developed so quickly. Here are just a few:

The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were created with a method that has been in development for years, so the companies could start the vaccine development process early in the pandemic.

China isolated and shared genetic information about COVID-19 promptly, so scientists could start working on vaccines.
The vaccine developers didn’t skip any testing steps, but conducted some of the steps on an overlapping schedule to gather data faster.

Vaccine projects had plenty of resources, as governments invested in research and/or paid for vaccines in advance.

Some types of COVID-19 vaccines were created using messenger RNA (mRNA), which allows a faster approach than the traditional way that vaccines are made.
Social media helped companies find and engage study volunteers, and many were willing to help with COVID-19 vaccine research.

Because COVID-19 is so contagious and widespread, it did not take long to see if the vaccine worked for the study volunteers who were vaccinated.

Companies began making vaccines early in the process — even before FDA authorization — so some supplies were ready when authorization occurred.

Yes @user1999952776

I don't know why @MNHQ are happy for this to be repeated over and again on their site

It also merrily ignores the fact the data has been assessed and approved by multiple indepedent regulatory bodies in various countries, and billions of doses rolled out worldwide

As always, the important discussion of the issues surrounding mandatory vaccination & associated policies gets derailed by the same old misinformation

@Beachcomber

Sarah Gilbert gives an overview for AZ

Does she include in that overview the biological process for adenovirus vector vaccines triggering the formation of blood clots?

Or was that missed in the speedy parallel step development process??

Are you a research scientist @Beachcomber?

The CVST cases caused by AZ would not have been picked up if the development process had followed normal time scales (i.e., loads of wasted time and gaps due to funding deficits)

[quote MaxNormal]@MistressoftheDarkSide oh me too, I literally just texted DH saying today is the day I became a Brexiteer and I was full-on anti-Brexit.
I owe a big apology to all the people I spent years thinking were idiots - they clearly had the EU's number better than I did.

@Battenburg77 the Austria news floored me as well. The problem is that one country goes there and then it normalises it. I would desperately like to think that it's not something that would happen in the UK but I honestly don't know any more.[/quote]
Yes me too. Ardent remainer during the referendum and now I am utterly disenchanted with EU and realised Brexiteers had it right and I'm ashamed how dismissive I was towards their viewpoint. They were right. Shame on Ursula Von der Leyen, the EU have shown their true colours here and it isn't pretty 😮

Do you have a hindsight crystal ball @ollyollyoxenfree ?

@Beachcomber

Do you have a hindsight crystal ball *@ollyollyoxenfree* ?

No, but have basic knowledge of standard vaccine development, how the coronavirus vaccines were developed, and the emerging evidence regarding the molecular mechanism underlying AZ-induced CVSTs..

FACT: Studies found that the two initial vaccines are both about 95% effective — and reported no serious or life-threatening side effects.

But nobody is even attempting to claim that the vaccines are actually 95% effective now (or anywhere near that) - not even the manufactures.

And serious side effects such as myocarditis and pericarditis are now acknowledged (see the UK goverment's website for guidance on this www.gov.uk/government/publications/myocarditis-and-pericarditis-after-covid-19-vaccination/myocarditis-and-pericarditis-after-covid-19-vaccination-guidance-for-healthcare-professionals) .

Things have moved thon since the clinical trials. And pretending otherwise is really not helpful. Posting outdated information and claiming that it is FACT is misleading.

What I posted refers to Covid-19 vaccine development as per your question and initial testing or did you miss the word initial?