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

That is a very good point, very well made NellG. Thank you.

Also, what NotSpagetti said. Is there evidence of this?

Oh. I haven't read this anywhere before, about fertility:

Covid itself can have a catastrophic effect on fertility in both genders

Could you send a link please NellG?

Grannynannywanny

I would offer the choice of a vaccination or a tattoo on their forehead saying Unvaccinated.

That didn't work well for Hitler when Jews were tattooed. Or maybe it did, those with their number tattooed on them were easy to spot and send to the gas chambers. Is that what you'd like?

Much simpler than that! We have two options, one at a hub out of town which will require taxi/bus, the other at the local GP within walking distance. The hub gives the Pfizer, the GP the Oxford AZ, which incidentally happens to be my personal choice. No complicated theories, just that.

scuse typos!

GagaJo - I believe it came form a misinterpretation of how amino acids and proteins 'work' in the action of the mRNA vaccines. Basically it was fake news circulated on Social Media using faux science. It was based on the fact that a protein required for the implantation of the foetus and the formation and health of the placenta is similar to a protein which is blocked by the mRNA vaccines. The similarity does exist but differs greatly (to do with amino acid chains) and has no effect on fertility or ability to carry a pregnancy to term ( this has been proven and is generalisible to the wider population) However, for other reading this, Covid itself can have a catastrophic effect on fertility in both genders and the ability to maintain pregnancy to term. So yet again, the vaccines are a no brainer.

I know of young women who don't want it because they think it will interfere with their fertility. WHERE did that belief come from?

Psssst, growstuff, for God's sake no one mention that the AZ vaccine is derived from Chimpanzee DNA, there'll be carnage! It'll be like the Charlton Heston version of Planet of the Apes!

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.

NellG

growstuff - so it's not the Bill gates one, or the 5G one then?

M0nica

This is not a silly question. In principle all carers and care home residents over 65 are the top priority and vaccinating carers, doesn't just protect the carers, as today's vaccine news says. Having the vaccination means that you are highly unlikely to be sble to pass the disease to anyone else - and that will protect care home residents.

As to priority vaccinations for those in care who are under 65. Here is a link to a government document that may be able to help you www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2020/12/C0993-Care-home-vaccination-guidance-31dec.pdf

Today's news doesn't prove that people who have been vaccinated are "highly unlikely" to transmit infection. There's a suggestion that people are "less likely" to infect others, which isn't the same thing at all. In the case of professional care workers, more solid evidence would be needed.

Esspee

For goodness sake, you cannot enforce your will when it comes to medical choice.

I was reticent about getting the vaccine but now that there have been so many vaccinated without problems I am going to get it as I want to be able to fly to see my grandchildren again and I suspect some type of certification will be required.

I do feel that NHS, care home workers, and carers should have to show they have been vaccinated.

I certainly agree that those carers you have mentioned should be vaccinated or lose their jobs.

growstuff - so it's not the Bill gates one, or the 5G one then?

Blue Sky, ah, thanks for that. Is there a better time of day to ask why being part of the problem is preferable to contributing to the solution? Because I do feel that when people state their case on a public forum without backing up their claims with facts and evidence that they are inviting two responses - approval or opinion. Unfortunately, for me, your statement means you wont like one and you aren't going to get the other unless you can argue it in a reasoned way.

NellG

BlueSky, may I ask why you would prefer the AZ vaccine and why, in the midst of such a massive crisis, you feel people should be given the choice? I wasn't aware we were entitled to have a preference so I am genuinely interested to hear logical, fact based arguments that support it.

The chip which is implanted has a union flag on it. Pah!

NellG a bit early in the morning for
“Logical, fact based arguments”. Let’s just say because I can.

JaneJudge yes your daughter needs her own vaccination to have protection. Have you discussed it with the manager of her residential care setting? Take care that you don’t risk missing a vaccination session that might be scheduled for there while your daughter is temporarily living at home with you.

Wishing you well and I hope you don’t have too long to wait.

BlueSky, may I ask why you would prefer the AZ vaccine and why, in the midst of such a massive crisis, you feel people should be given the choice? I wasn't aware we were entitled to have a preference so I am genuinely interested to hear logical, fact based arguments that support it.

This is not a silly question. In principle all carers and care home residents over 65 are the top priority and vaccinating carers, doesn't just protect the carers, as today's vaccine news says. Having the vaccination means that you are highly unlikely to be sble to pass the disease to anyone else - and that will protect care home residents.

As to priority vaccinations for those in care who are under 65. Here is a link to a government document that may be able to help you www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2020/12/C0993-Care-home-vaccination-guidance-31dec.pdf

I am sorry to ask such a stupid question but I'm a bit confused. My daughter who has a severe disability came home for Christmas and because we went into lockdown she stayed here as we felt it would be safer than her going back to her 'care home' (it's not a care home in the normal sense but is classed as one) initially I thought I would keep her here until staff were vaccinated but now I am confused as does she need to be vaccinated too? Them being vaccinated just protects them doesn't it? It doesn't protect the patients/residents? or have I got completely mixed up? My dd is in group 6 under the clinically vulnerable group so we are a way off her being vaccinated I think

The Oxford AZ is still my first choice regardless and I’ll wait to be offered an appointment at the GP surgery to make sure I get it.

Sorry Blinko I misspelled your name.

It was because not many over 65s volunteered for the trials initially Blonko not because they were deliberately excluded.

You have to question why the Oxford AZ vaccine wasn't trialled to include more older people, given that they're the hardest hit by the virus. Or have I missed something...

An oversimplification, blondenana, as usual in the media It has never been said that it will NOT protect over 65s, but that the trial did not concentrate on trialling on large numbers of 65s.

Experts have said things like:
"“For the Oxford/Astra Zeneca vaccine, in Germany and the rest of the EU there is a shortage, as is well-known. It must be emphasised that this is not a regulatory decision, but draft advice on usage. It is in a context where supplies of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for which data in older people shows similar efficacy as in younger people, are relatively plentiful. In such a situation it is reasonable to prioritise younger people with one and older people with the other vaccine."

and
"It is really important to read what has been said, German scientists conclude that the Oxford /AZ vaccine is safe and it is effective for under 65’s. Their assessment is that effectiveness is not yet demonstrated for over 65s. They have not said the vaccine is ineffective for over 65’s"

and
"As noted in their original report, there is “limited information available on efficacy in participants aged 65 or over” for the AstraZeneca/Oxford COVID-19 vaccine in the phase 3 trial data published so far. This reflects a need for more data to be gathered and published on the effectiveness of the vaccine in this age group but there is no data so far to indicate that the vaccine isn’t effective in people over the age of 65"

and
"The authors of the draft recommendation appear to interpret that there is no evidence that the vaccine works in this age group. Others may interpret it that there is no evidence to suggest the activity is different for older age groups.”

and
" The most recent Lancet publication has demonstrated that older adults showed strong immune responses to the vaccine, with 100% of older adults generating spike-specific antibodies after the second dose.”

and
"However, we do know that antibody responses in older people is very little different to that in younger people and antibody levels seem to be a good predictor of protection"

www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-reports-that-guidance-from-stiko-in-germany-has-recommended-the-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-only-for-under-65s/