Would you take a vaccine against CV? Vote now please!

[pwa]

It seems to me that over the coming months most of us will be accepting one of the vaccines and a significant minority will be refusing. If enough of us accept it the pandemic and the associated economic turmoil will be over and we can begin the recovery. And those who have refused a vaccine will enjoy some of the benefits of that without having taken whatever small risk a vaccine itself poses. They will get a free ride.

I doubt that the “free ride” comment is meant to be offensive but to my perspective it is. Those that don’t, for what ever reason, take the vaccine have typically had a dammed awful year brought to them by factors outside of their control. I can’t believe that you would think that they have enjoyed that time or that ride.
.

I knew what I said might offend but I thought it was worth the risk because I think some people are in danger of refusing a vaccine and by doing that, making a mistake they will later feel really bad about. When the vaccines transform our lives for the better, without significant drawbacks, and it becomes apparent that those who received it helped that transformation and those who didn't receive it just failed their communities. We are going to have a summer that is getting back to something more like normal, and those who have one of the vaccines will know they helped to bring that about. I am aware that in these times it is more fashionable to think only of self, but I'm thinking about civic duty, doing your bit, pulling your weight and stuff like that. If there ever was a time when society needed act together, this is it.

[pwa]

It seems to me that over the coming months most of us will be accepting one of the vaccines and a significant minority will be refusing. If enough of us accept it the pandemic and the associated economic turmoil will be over and we can begin the recovery. And those who have refused a vaccine will enjoy some of the benefits of that without having taken whatever small risk a vaccine itself poses. They will get a free ride.

Prof Van-Tam also told the public not to rely on being protected by those who have been vaccinated, saying 'the vaccine isn't going to help you if you don't take it'. He warned: 'Watching others take it and hoping that this will then protect you isn't going to work, necessarily.'

Well imagine if 75% take a vaccine and 25% don't. Infection rates will decline significantly and things will open up. Pubs, foreign holidays, visiting elderly relatives, kids having near normal lives that many will have forgotten about. Not straightaway of course, but probably by the summer. Everyone will see that benefit, but the 25% who are unvaccinated will keep the virus circulating and prevent a more complete return to normal. And I do wonder how a dentist will react to a patient who has not had a vaccine. How will they treat them, if at all? Currently dental facilities have to be deep cleaned after each use of a drill, which means one patient per hour instead of three. Will that have to continue?

[pwa]

One of my nagging worries about the pandemic is that it will have had a lasting effect on children. A young woman who lives nearby walked past our house with her three children yesterday, their ages ranging from about 7 to 3, and I wondered how they see the world. They must think it normal for humans to socially distance, for them not to visit elderly relatives, and for them to spend so much time not mixing with other people. By the time this is over they will have spent more than a year living like that and will remember nothing different.

[Carlton green]

It seems to me that over the coming months most of us will be accepting one of the vaccines and a significant minority will be refusing. If enough of us accept it the pandemic and the associated economic turmoil will be over and we can begin the recovery. And those who have refused a vaccine will enjoy some of the benefits of that without having taken whatever small risk a vaccine itself poses. They will get a free ride.

I doubt that the “free ride” comment is meant to be offensive but to my perspective it is. Those that don’t, for what ever reason, take the vaccine have typically had a dammed awful year brought to them by factors outside of their control. I can’t believe that you would think that they have enjoyed that time or that ride.
.

I knew what I said might offend but I thought it was worth the risk because I think some people are in danger of refusing a vaccine and by doing that, making a mistake they will later feel really bad about. When the vaccines transform our lives for the better, without significant drawbacks, and it becomes apparent that those who received it helped that transformation and those who didn't receive it just failed their communities. We are going to have a summer that is getting back to something more like normal, and those who have one of the vaccines will know they helped to bring that about. I am aware that in these times it is more fashionable to think only of self, but I'm thinking about civic duty, doing your bit, pulling your weight and stuff like that. If there ever was a time when society needed act together, this is it.[/quote]

I respect that your actions are intended to be public spirited but believe that your belief in what is right and best is not correctly placed. Certainly having absolute faith in the integrity of Pharmaceutical companies and of our political representatives and leaders (of all parties) isn’t that wise, though that is of course a sweeping generalisation and some are more worthy of our trust than others.

Part of the reason that we are in this mess is the astonishing degree to which people only consider themselves and even then only themselves in the immediate future. The culture of denial, self interest, greed and instant gratification is one that has led us here and whilst some of the population hold higher values a significant percentage do not.

Edit. That the ends justifies the means is at best a poor argument and opens the door to all types of abuses.

[Carlton green]

even if we had been advised and better led, even if we had all acted more responsibly, even if we had the lowest infection rates in Europe - we would still of needed the vaccine, we couldn't of went on in lock-downs trying to hide from it for ever.

As to who is to blame? we all probably are, the greed of humanity and the way we treat animals is very likely the cause.. And if it wasn't that then it was just one of those things, viruses change and evolve like every other living thing on the planet, new ones will come to challenge us every so often. It is the way of evolution and life on earth.

I think take up of the vaccine will be large, at first it will be only offered to those at very high risk and they will mostly take it. I am at very low risk and as such wouldn't want it now, but when it comes to my turn ( possibly late spring ?) the data sets on the vaccine will be large and the various vaccines well understood, I can't see me not taking it if the docs are still recommending it.

I will be keeping well out of the way this Christmas, too many people think the vaccine means game over and we can stop trying, massive third wave on the way this january!

The need for a vaccine is only there whilst the infection exists. By correct hygiene, responsible personal behaviour and isolation of infected people it would be possible to manage and wipe out this infection from our shores. Indeed we were well on the way to doing that when the Government gave in to pressures from part of the electorate and commercial lobbying. This second wave was entirely predictable and preventable.

Who is to blame? I do not accept that we are all to blame but would agree that society is so dysfunctional as to have been a root cause for the current problems. Individually I am pretty much blameless and somewhat annoyed with the situation.

I too will be keeping out of the way this Christmas. To me there seems to be ‘something in the air’ in that people want to believe and do believe that it is now OK to ease up because a ‘silver bullet’ has been found. My estimate is also that January and February will see us in more difficulties. This virus has a lot of inconvenient truths and many people have adopted the ostrich position; individuals can deny something and believe something else as much as they wish but at the end of the day facts are facts and they will determine the future rather than what some individual thinks.

[Oldjohnw]

Independent regulators, not politicians of pharma companies, decide if a vaccine or other medicine is safer for use.

We have a vaccine invented by Turkish immigrants, developed by a German company, made in Belgium and released under EU regulations. And still we have Tory politicians claiming it was Britain and Brexit.

[horizon]

Just a little thing on Radio 4 this morning with reference to our earlier discussion as to some people not knowing anyone with covid. Dr Clare Gerada of the Royal College of GPs said that she had had covid and "was looking after lots and lots of people with Long Covid, mainly doctors with Long Covid". It was casual remark but it jumped out of the radio, stopping the transfer of marmalade to the toast. What is it about medical professionals and covid? Is it all about just random clusters and selective listening?

[Jdsk]

I haven't seen a numerical analysis since April, but I'd guess that they're out there.
https://www.hsj.co.uk/exclusive-deaths-of-nhs-staff-from-covid-19-analysed/7027471.article

I don't expect any special risk factors beyond relentless exposure to infectious patients and especially to the sickest, and the increased risk known to be run by people from ethic minorities. The latter's strong association with poverty would be expected to show lower added risk for doctors than for other healthcare workers.

Jonathan

[uwidavid]

A random thought just struck me...(and I'm sure that jonathan can answer it)
I know that double blind is the only acceptable standard for testing therapeutic drugs, but is it really necessary for vaccines?
I cannot see the placebo effect coming in with vaccines.

[roubaixtuesday]

A random thought just struck me...(and I'm sure that jonathan can answer it)
I know that double blind is the only acceptable standard for testing therapeutic drugs, but is it really necessary for vaccines?
I cannot see the placebo effect coming in with vaccines.

Absolutely - just for instance, the endpoint for these trials is symptomatic COVID. That requires the subject to report their own symptoms.

If the patients knew they had the placebo, their own judgement of their symptoms would almost certainly be different.

Also their behaviour - how much risk they took in getting exposed - would very likely differ if they knew they were on placebo.

And that's just off the top of my head.

[pwa]

Just a little thing on Radio 4 this morning with reference to our earlier discussion as to some people not knowing anyone with covid. Dr Clare Gerada of the Royal College of GPs said that she had had covid and "was looking after lots and lots of people with Long Covid, mainly doctors with Long Covid". It was casual remark but it jumped out of the radio, stopping the transfer of marmalade to the toast. What is it about medical professionals and covid? Is it all about just random clusters and selective listening?

No, it is a hazard of working in a profession where close contact with lots of other people every day exposes you to much higher risk. No matter how careful you normally are with the PPE and hygiene, it only takes the tiniest lapse to pick up a virus. Touching a surface with a glove that has just touched an infected patient, for example, could contaminate that surface for you or a colleague to become infected from an hour or two later. One small slip by one health care professional in building where most are being very careful could be enough.

[horizon]

it only takes the tiniest lapse to pick up a virus.

That may be true but we are talking here about people who have actually had the disease (and I happen to be one of those people who (a) believe them and (b) accept the disease is not pleasant). So the question is surely why are they, on the face of it, less immune than the general population? Surely, whether you end up in bed or not with covid depends as much on your immunity to it as the contact you have with it. Health staff are working age and working and therefore probably fitter than many others. Having said that, we still don't seem to be sure whether more NHS staff do go down with covid - back to Radio 4?

[pwa]

it only takes the tiniest lapse to pick up a virus.

That may be true but we are talking here about people who have actually had the disease (and I happen to be one of those people who (a) believe them and (b) accept the disease is not pleasant). So the question is surely why are they, on the face of it, less immune than the general population? Surely, whether you end up in bed or not with covid depends as much on your immunity to it as the contact you have with it. Health staff are working age and working and therefore probably fitter than many others. Having said that, we still don't seem to be sure whether more NHS staff do go down with covid - back to Radio 4?

There is a suspected ethnic dimension. Perhaps that is the answer.

[thirdcrank]

it only takes the tiniest lapse to pick up a virus.

That may be true but we are talking here about people who have actually had the disease (and I happen to be one of those people who (a) believe them and (b) accept the disease is not pleasant). So the question is surely why are they, on the face of it, less immune than the general population? Surely, whether you end up in bed or not with covid depends as much on your immunity to it as the contact you have with it. Health staff are working age and working and therefore probably fitter than many others. Having said that, we still don't seem to be sure whether more NHS staff do go down with covid - back to Radio 4?

Your logic seems, well, illogical. People in close and regular contact with nasty things are more likely to suffer the effects than those who are not.

That applies to all sorts of dust eg coal, asbestos and flour as well as toxic chemicals and unguarded machinery. It's the basis of so much derided but vitally important health and safety legislation.

[horizon]

I'm working in the dark here but two things come to mind:

1. If we later discover that NHS personnel are no more afflicted than the general population (there are 1.4m of them after all!), it might imply that it doesn't matter how much virus you lather yourself in.

2. This document that Jdsk linked to suggests that those at the coal face (to use your own analogy) are no more likely to be infected than those working behind the front lines:

The absence [in the mortality figures] of those members of staff considered at high risk of viral exposure and transmission;

I suppose the fact is we really don't know - all this is based on my hearing the comment on Radio 4.