How should we deal with the groups who refuse to have the vaccine?

We Americans have a somewhat different problem. There are millions of people who very much want the vaccine, but not enough vaccine yet or personnel to administer it. So there is a "rationing" system; first responders, health care providers, and people 75 and over are the only ones able to get it yet. I don't know how many people are refusing to get the vaccine, but I think with the new mutation, we need 85% to be vaccinated to get herd immunity. If we get a large number of refusers, we will have the same problem.

I don't know anybody who is refusing to have the vaccine, except for me and a friend of mine who was so ill when she had a flu vaccine that she had to pay for respite care for her father.

The vast majority of people are going to have the vaccine so I think talk of tattooing "Unvaccinated" on people's foreheads, making them pay for treatment, etc, etc. seems a little over the top to me.

rubysong I see where you're coming from, but it's not how the NHS, or any welfare state can work. The NHS must remain free at the point of use, the minute we have to start paying for care, whether we are a covid denier, anti vaxxer or just plain terrified, is the moment we justify paying for all care and we destroy the NHS.

Because it would follow that a rugby player must pay for the treatment of a broken leg if he/she breaks it playing rugby.

Drivers must pay for treatment after RTAs because they chose to drive.

and so on.

I think we have to stick with persuasion and hope rather than sanctions.

How about if people refuse the vaccine with no good reason then catch covid and are in hospital, they should have to pay for their treatment?

Alegrias1 I'd take 2022. If that's what it is.
I hate the "maybe" and "hope to" and would rather the government said "honestly, we just don't know".

I loathe the manipulation of figures and "softening" of facts to make them more palatable.

But of course I'm one of those people who wants to know the very worst scenario - and the very best. I assume the worst and hope for the best.

Not everyone likes it this way.

JaneJudge Scream away, loud as you like. I can only imagine how hard and exhausting this is for you in your particular situation. I sincerely hope she gets her vaccination soon and that there is some respite for you. Best wishes. x

JaneJudge

I can cope with maybes and mights as well and I have stayed in almost all year apart from some work and training commitments I have (I am not a scientist so it isn't even important) I am not bothered about not going on holiday or not going to the pub etc, even though I would like to. I am bothered that I am having to keep caring for my daughter in order to keep her safe. I know to most of you will find that really unfeeling but it isn't about being unfeeling, she is here because I love her but the reality is it is hard work. She gets 2 staff when in her home and they get to go home to have a rest, here it is just me and I just don't have the space for everything or her tbh. I thought people like her would be prioritised for vaccination as they really couldn't cope with her in hospital with my support, so presumably they wouldn't take her, which is the reason she is here. I'm just a bit fed up of it all. Can I do a silent scream? I will get to the point where she will have to go back without being vaccinated at this rate, maybe writing that down has made me realise that.

I agree growstuff that the press have a lot to answer for in this whole thing. I think the WM government have learnt at long last not to over-promise and underdeliver, I think they probably set the vaccination targets at a level they thought they could meet, which is sensible.

There was a headline today on the BBC saying it could be 2022 before society is back to normal. I'd take that!!

I have no idea what "some time to come" is. My guess would be another 6-9 months, but I honestly don't know. Maybe people need some counselling in how to be resilient and stop hoping for unrealistic targets.

I'm not saying things are awful. I'm realistic. I really object to people treating others like toddlers who can't understand reality.

Alegrias1

I get that we need to understand that "vaccinated" doesn't mean "safe" growstuff but we need some good news!

If the Oxford vaccine helps prevent transmission then that means that the numbers of cases will fall faster, so the number of hospitalisations goes down and fewer people are badly affected. The faster cases go down, the closer we are to lifting restrictions.

If we just keep on saying that things are awful and we can't drop our guards, "for some time to come", well people are just going to give up and not follow any rules. What's "some time to come"? A month? A year? We can't live like this forever and we need a carrot as much as a stick to get us through this.

There is good news! But no need to exaggerate it.

I can cope with the "maybes", "mights" and "coulds", but it frustrates me when the press spin the stories as though they're definite and people interpret them as though they are.

It really is good news that most vaccinated people will experience a milder form of Covid, but that seems to be the only definite at the moment. The vaccine will give the people who are vaccinated some protection, which should lead to fewer hospital admissions, which means that fewer people should die and the NHS can get on with tackling its backlog and, hopefully, reduce mortality from the other conditions which have been put on the back burner. That's good news in itself, but the rest is going too far. Hopefully, the infection rate does come down, which will give fewer opportunities for mutations. I'm reconciled to being extremely careful for many months to come.

I get that we need to understand that "vaccinated" doesn't mean "safe" growstuff but we need some good news!

If the Oxford vaccine helps prevent transmission then that means that the numbers of cases will fall faster, so the number of hospitalisations goes down and fewer people are badly affected. The faster cases go down, the closer we are to lifting restrictions.

If we just keep on saying that things are awful and we can't drop our guards, "for some time to come", well people are just going to give up and not follow any rules. What's "some time to come"? A month? A year? We can't live like this forever and we need a carrot as much as a stick to get us through this.

growstuff All these maybes are massively frustrating aren't they? As good research takes a long time so I think we're going to be stuck with vague hopes rather than concrete proofs for quite a while.

Hopefully by the time the majority are vaccinated, even if transmission is one in three, the vaccines will at the very least mean that the vast majority will experience Covid in a milder form.

NotSpaghetti

I am loving all these links... but must get back to work...

Maybe the link obsessed like me need a "links only" thread where all the discussion is via academic papers! ??

Maybe ~lol~. I'm just wary of claims by Hancock and others that something "may" be true. It would be great news if the AZ/Oxford vaccine makes the virus less transmissible, but it hasn't been proved.

Not only that, but the claims I've seen are that the virus becomes 67% less transmissible. That doesn't make it "highly unlikely" that people can infect others.

If it's true, it means that the number of cases will reduce, which is good from a public health perspective because hospital admissions should go down.

However, from an individual point of view, it's not that helpful. It means that if a person happens to be in contact with somebody who is infected and has been vaccinated, the second person still has a one in three chance of being infected. I wouldn't want to play Russian roulette with those odds.

I think it is important that the public knows what the real situation is because it affects how soon people can start dropping their guard. If people get it into their heads that they are "safe" if vaccinated, it's not true. We're going to have to continue with safety measures for some time to come. That's why I'm always puzzled when people talk about vaccination certificates as a condition of travel.

Much of the country is still showing that at least one in fifty people are currently infected. It's possibly higher than that because some people don't go for tests. Even if all those people were vaccinated (and that won't happen until the autumn) and it is true that only one in three can pass on infection, that still means that one in 150 people can infect others. That really matters in places where people have to be in close contact, such as schools, university halls of residence, shopping centres, stations and airports, etc.

I am loving all these links... but must get back to work...

Maybe the link obsessed like me need a "links only" thread where all the discussion is via academic papers! ??

M0nica

growstuff www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55913913

I read it before. Where does it give evidence of the extent to which transmission is reduced?

Alegrias1

Gwenisgreat1

They should be put on one of the quarantine hotels and see who lasts out?

Is that before or after we mark them with indelible ink?

???? brightened my morning that. ?

Gwenisgreat1

They should be put on one of the quarantine hotels and see who lasts out?

Is that before or after we mark them with indelible ink?

They should be put on one of the quarantine hotels and see who lasts out?

growstuff www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55913913

Notspaghetti - I suspect I am guilty of a little hyperbole on this - read an article, can't find it now and ran my mouth off in support of vaccines without triple checking my source. Sorry. What a shame I'm not as thorough and robust in my arguments as others, I must do better...

In the meantime, whilst I focus on my self improvement, I did find a collation of articles you might enjoy - I believe a number of them focus on fertility issues and Covid.

cgf.cochrane.org/news/covid-19-coronavirus-disease-fertility-and-pregnancy

Marthjolly1

I have read a few forums where mostly younger age groups, including NHS care givers absolutely refuse to have the vaccine. They're reasons are many but largely because they cannot be forced into it; the vaccine does not stop the spread; we are not living in a dictatorship; there is no proof of immunity; they will not have anything unnatural put into their bodies, etc and other reasons. I do wonder how many of these protesters have had or considered having botox, boob jobs etc. (I do know a few myself). I do also know botox is used in medical procedures and is very safe but the point is it is still 'putting something unnatural' into their bodies. It reduces the viability of their arguments somewhat.

? agreed! They’ll go out and drink blue drinks but won’t be vaccinated. It’s ridiculous. I think it’s just kicking against the endless rounds of being told what they can and can’t do. A way of taking back control over their lives?? Once things start relaxing I think more and more will go because it’ll be difficult to travel without it and possibly socially unacceptable.

MOnica That article doesn't give any figure for transmissability.

The statistic I read elsewhere was that 67% of those infected don't transmit to others. That means that 33% are capable of transmitting. By no stretch of the imagination is a one in three risk "highly unlikely".