Will people go back to normal after a vaccine?

[DB]

And I have no patience for people who spout nonsense arguements without first going off and doing the nessesary research from reliable sources.

Here we go again - anyone who disagrees with your expert opinions must be badly-informed, clearly...

 

[Yew]

You have clearly missunderstood what I have been saying. No I don't expect (long term) for an entire society to lock itself away to protect a few.

What I would expect is people to embrace the very low risk preventative measure of getting vaccinated when their time comes in order for society to reach a new post covid normality in the most timely fashion. I would hope that this period has woken us all up to how closely we are interconnected to each other, even to people who's name you may not know, or who's face you may have never seen before. Thus I hope our new post covid normality brings out the compassionate society that we used to have. Where we look after one another, where those of us who can carry the burden do so on behalf of those less fortunate. That goes for all things, not just taking a vaccine when it is offered to you, but being proud to pay a higher share of taxes, to help those who have lost their jobs during this time, and choosing to travel by cleaner forms of transport= to protect the lungs of those around you.

So I've been locked up for the last year, to protect a very wealthy group near the end of their natural lives, and now you're expecting me to pay for the damage that this caused?

You can toss the words "frail" and "vulnerable" around all you want, but the boomer generation is politically powerful, selfish, and exploitative.

 

[bramling]

So I've been locked up for the last year, to protect a very wealthy group near the end of their natural lives, and now you're expecting me to pay for the damage that this caused?

You can toss the words "frail" and "vulnerable" around all you want, but the boomer generation is politically powerful, selfish, and exploitative.

It will certainly be interesting to see if the boomers are happily prepared to take a hit on something like the triple lock as their contribution to the cost of all this.

 

[DustyBin]

Low Risk of death <> low risk of long covid.

40% of people recovering from the SARS outbreak still had chronic fatigue symptoms 3.5 years later. Whilst Covid-19 seems to be lower than this, I will take my chances with a vaccine that has a faction of that risk.

Personally I will be front of the queue to take any vaccine if and when I may be offered it. At 34 years of age that will be a long long time away, but even if I was offered it yesterday I would have. If I was eligable I would have happily taken part on the trials. Why would I do this? Because I trust in the science and the scientists. I trust that they get to the positions they do through the expertise they have. I trust in the procedures, non of which have been bypassed or compromised in these trials. As has been pointed out above, it is far easier to gather the data required to prove the efficacy of a pharmacutical when the global pandemic you are trying to fight is happening all around. Combined with an understanding that the early sign off, from the UK government has been for a single batch production of this vaccine. Meaning future batches will have to be signed off individually, until they can be signed off on mass. The rest of Europe is waiting for all the data so they can sign off all of the batches in one go.

I don't trust the politicians in the slightest, the government has in your words, shown shambolic handling of the pandemic, and I have no doubt their roll out of the vaccine will be equally shambolic. But when it comes to my turn, (if I get a turn) at getting a needle stuck in my arm, at that point it isn't the government that I am putting my trust in. But the years and decades of careers that have gone into studying immunology since 1798 wher Dr Jenner triggered the movement from inoculation to vaccination.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Dec 2020 ==


And no amount of testing in other people will prove that any individual won't have an adverse reaction. You are looking for something that can never be proven.

In the meantime people are dying, other people are getting horrendously sick, and some people will never fully recover from the after effects; whilst you can play your part in developing the 'herd immunity' to surpress this.

It really is that simple. You are trying to conflate a miniscule but unquantifiable risk to yourself, with a large quantified risk to the wider population. There is a word for people who do that, but I won't use it through fear of causing offence, which is not my intention.

The risk from 'long covid' appears negligible, in fact it may simply be post-viral fatigue. I suspect it's a political invention if I'm honest, a way of getting younger people to take the virus seriously. You can't compare Covid-19 with SARS, the latter had an estimated 10% mortality rate so it's not unreasonable to presume the post-viral effects would be commensurately more serious.

In regard to herd immunity, has the possibility of building immunity naturally now been discounted? I'll admit that given the choice, that would be my preference given my own risk profile.

I don't agree with you that there is a large quantified risk to the wider population. There is certainly a considerable risk to those we know are vulnerable, and as such I would encourage them to take the vaccine. However, the mortality rate is no more than 1%, and may be much lower.

I'm not trying to conflate (or compare?) anything here; I'm not scared of the vaccine in the same way that I'm not scared of the virus, it's probably perfectly safe. The difference is you clearly have 100% confidence in the science whereas I don't, so unless I'm convinced that by being vaccinated I'm definitely helping others I'll continue to wait and see what happens in the 'real world'. Genuine question; what are the benefits (to others) of young healthy people being vaccinated? Having read about what the vaccine does it's not clear (to me anyway)?

 

[notlob.divad]

How exactly, none of the vaccines have studies the effect on transmission...

Because for every person who doesn't get vaccinated, there is a risk that when they do eventually catch it they will require hospitalisation. You can draw whatever risk profile you want regarding age, pre-existing conditions etc. But the facts are that whilst not equal risk levels, everyone is suseptable and anyone could end up in hospital taking up resources that could otherwise be used for the benefit of others.

So even in the small chance that these vaccines have no supressing effect on transmission. - Which is highly unlikely as a person who's immune system has been trained to fight the virus, will be infectious for less time than someone who's immune system has no response to fighting the virus. - However even if there is no surpression of transmission, the very fact that you are mush less likely to end up in a hospital bed, is enough to reduce the risks to wider society.

 

[DustyBin]

Completely false comparison. You choosing to get on or not get on a 737 Max, only impacts you. You choosing not to take a vaccination offered to you impacts everyone you may come into for the rest of your life. Once again, instead of taking the tiny, infinitesimally small risk to yourself, you are choosing to load the wider population with a much bigger risk.

But if the vulnerable are vaccinated I won't pose a risk to them surely? The point of the analogy was to illustrate that testing in highly regulated industries isn't fail proof, the experts can and do miss things with devastating consequences. It's rare but it happens. Probably not the best analogy (they rarely are!) but that was the point I was trying to make.

 

[notlob.divad]

So I've been locked up for the last year, to protect a very wealthy group near the end of their natural lives, and now you're expecting me to pay for the damage that this caused?

You can toss the words "frail" and "vulnerable" around all you want, but the boomer generation is politically powerful, selfish, and exploitative.

No, I am expecting the richest and most well off in society who are best placed to withstand the financial hit to bear the financial cost.
Whilst the fittest and healthiest who are best placed to withstand the health risk, bear the burden of the tiny health risks.

When you talk about the "frail" and "vulnerable" you automatically jump to the old the boomer generation. That is not who my mind jumps to, it is the immuno surpressed youngsters, those born with genetic conditions, those who have been unlucky to develop luckimia, or cystic fibrosis. Those with underlying conditions that are not simply age related. Those are the people who you are protecting by getting vaccinated.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Dec 2020 ==

But if the vulnerable are vaccinated I won't pose a risk to them surely? The point of the analogy was to illustrate that testing in highly regulated industries isn't fail proof, the experts can and do miss things with devastating consequences. It's rare but it happens. Probably not the best analogy (they rarely are!) but that was the point I was trying to make.

Not all the vulnerable can be vaccinated. For reasons outlined above.

 

[Yew]

Those are the people who you are protecting by getting vaccinated.

Have any studies shown that the current crop of vaccines have any effect on transmission? You can wax lyrical about the emotive cases you want, but if science doesn't back up your assertions then it's all in vain.

 

[DB]

Because for every person who doesn't get vaccinated, there is a risk that when they do eventually catch it they will require hospitalisation.

But it's well known which groups are at risk from that, and it's up to them to choose whether to have the vaccine if they are able to have it (which most will be). The chances of people outside those known groups being hospitalised is so small as to be an insignificant factor.

 

[Domh245]

Because for every person who doesn't get vaccinated, there is a risk that when they do eventually catch it they will require hospitalisation. You can draw whatever risk profile you want regarding age, pre-existing conditions etc. But the facts are that whilst not equal risk levels, everyone is suseptable and anyone could end up in hospital taking up resources that could otherwise be used for the benefit of others.

I'm really struggling to see your point here. So because everyone could end up in hospital is the reason that everyone needs to get vaccinated, and we're going to ignore the fact that the vast majority of hospitalisations are from the elderly? If we're going to just completely ignore who's actually at risk, why shouldn't we just distributing the vaccines based on surname. Have a look at this graph and tell me that the risk posed to the NHS by an unvaccinated 15-44 year old is the same as an unvaccinated 85



Taking the average hospitalisation rate of under 15-44s at 2/100,000 (0.002%) then you'd expect to see a massive 507 people hospitalised

No, I am expecting the richest and most well off in society who are best placed to withstand the financial hit to bear the financial cost.
Whilst the fittest and healthiest who are best placed to withstand the health risk, bear the burden of the tiny health risks.

When you talk about the "frail" and "vulnerable" you automatically jump to the old the boomer generation. That is not who my mind jumps to, it is the immuno surpressed youngsters, those born with genetic conditions, those who have been unlucky to develop luckimia, or cystic fibrosis. Those with underlying conditions that are not simply age related. Those are the people who you are protecting by getting vaccinated.

You know full well that isn't what's going to happen - everyone will be asked to contribute equally.

Similarly, it's not an unfair conclusion to arrive at that the boomers are the people standing to benefit from the covid response - there's 12,552,000 people over state pension age by the ONS estimates - if you widen that to anyone in the boomer generation (to 64) you hit almost 21,000,000. I sincerely doubt that there are anywhere near that many immunocompromised young people

 

[Mintona]

At some point. But not for a while.

 

[notlob.divad]

The risk from 'long covid' appears negligible, in fact it may simply be post-viral fatigue. I suspect it's a political invention if I'm honest, a way of getting younger people to take the virus seriously. You can't compare Covid-19 with SARS, the latter had an estimated 10% mortality rate so it's not unreasonable to presume the post-viral effects would be commensurately more serious.

I will agree that the naming it as such of it is probably part of the political side / behavioural science of it, but it cannot be denied that some people are sufferingfor a significant period beyond what might be deemed usual. We won't know the comparisson to SARs for 3.5 years, I like you suspect it will be lower. The point I was making is that for any individual; what is being calling Long Covid is a non-zero risk of long term symptoms and for any individual the odds are not known until the virus has been suffered. Yet on here and in other places, people are balking at the idea of a vaccine, because it may also have a non-zero risk of long term effects, all be it infinitesimally small. Again, as with any vaccine the possibility of a bad reaction either immediatly or long term, cannot be ruled out in any individual. But people seem happier with the risks of getting 'long covid' which you describe as negligable, over the risks of having an adverse effect to the vaccine which is many many times lower.

In regard to herd immunity, has the possibility of building immunity naturally now been discounted? I'll admit that given the choice, that would be my preference given my own risk profile.

As a government imposed policy yes, as it should, because the 'collateral damage' of doing so is unbearable by a morally conscious society. However a hybrid model of heard immunity by vaccine for those in the highest risk groups who can take it, alongside naturally developed immunity for those in the lowest risk profiles, will clearly be in government's plans. That said, any plans for naturally developed immunity will increase the chances of this becoming endemic in society like influenza and rhinovirus thus requiring ongoing potnetially annual interventions, as apposed to eliminating it from the world as we have done with other, viral born diseases.

I don't agree with you that there is a large quantified risk to the wider population. There is certainly a considerable risk to those we know are vulnerable, and as such I would encourage them to take the vaccine. However, the mortality rate is no more than 1%, and may be much lower.

I'm not trying to conflate (or compare?) anything here; I'm not scared of the vaccine in the same way that I'm not scared of the virus, it's probably perfectly safe. The difference is you clearly have 100% confidence in the science whereas I don't, so unless I'm convinced that by being vaccinated I'm definitely helping others I'll continue to wait and see what happens in the 'real world'. Genuine question; what are the benefits (to others) of young healthy people being vaccinated? Having read about what the vaccine does it's not clear (to me anyway)?

I think my answer to Yew sums this up. Even if there is zero impact on transmission, which in itself is unlikely. There is always a chance that you could be one of the unlucky ones who despite being young and healthy ends up unessesarily hospitalised, and or suffering long term after effects. Wider society will pick-up the wider reprcussions of that decision one way or another, most directly in the potential for taking a bed of someone who's needs could not have been met by a couple of injections, but more widely in the cost of treatments, loss of productivity, all the things that are happening right now during this period of surpressed economic activity that we are trying to get out from.

 

[greyman42]

I'm really struggling to see your point here. So because everyone could end up in hospital is the reason that everyone needs to get vaccinated, and we're going to ignore the fact that the vast majority of hospitalisations are from the elderly?

Some people, including the government, seem to of been ignoring that fact since March.

 

[bramling]

Because for every person who doesn't get vaccinated, there is a risk that when they do eventually catch it they will require hospitalisation.

And there's a risk of ending up in hospital inherent in pretty much every aspect of life, even staying indoors.

 

[Domh245]

That said, any plans for naturally developed immunity will increase the chances of this becoming endemic in society like influenza and rhinovirus thus requiring ongoing potnetially annual interventions, as apposed to eliminating it from the world as we have done with other, viral born diseases.

The opportunity for global elimination is quite clearly long gone at this point, quite why people persist with the idea that it's still possible I don't know.

 

[WelshBluebird]

But it's well known which groups are at risk from that, and it's up to them to choose whether to have the vaccine if they are able to have it (which most will be). The chances of people outside those known groups being hospitalised is so small as to be an insignificant factor.

Isn't the point that some of those groups simple can't have the vaccine though, due to issues with immune systems and the like.
Indeed the whole point of traditional mass vaccination programs in that regard is to provide that herd immunity (which is actually where the phrase comes from - not from letting a virus run though the majority of a population like some on this board seem to think) so that the virus is in less of a circulation and so is less likely to infect those who cannot get the vaccine for a number of reasons.
Now - if that applies for COVID-19 (or indeed should apply to it) is another question, and itsn't something I have the time or inclination to get into an argument about - but the general idea of those who are generally not at risk being vaccinated so those who are at risk but cannot get vaccinated can live their lives as normal is not a new idea and as I said above is basically the grounding for most mass vaccination programs in both the developed and developing worlds.

 

[DB]

The opportunity for global elimination is quite clearly long gone at this point, quite why people persist with the idea that it's still possible I don't know.

Quite. The only human virus which had achieved significant worldwide spread and was eliminated is Smallpox, and that took 200 years.

Comparisons with viruses like MERS and SARS aren't relevant, as those were contained at an early stage.

 

[Darandio]

The opportunity for global elimination is quite clearly long gone at this point, quite why people persist with the idea that it's still possible I don't know.

As Boris talked up the vaccine this morning he was still using lines such as "we haven't defeated this virus yet" which still suggests he somehow believes it can, or at least wants others to believe that is the goal from the vaccination program. Using these type of words along with calling out anyone object to having the vaccine at this stage as plain 'wrong' then he's clearly hoping to win people over by making them sign up to this impossible goal.

 

[DB]

Isn't the point that some of those groups simple can't have the vaccine though, due to issues with immune systems and the like.

So how is Covid different from flu in this respect? We don't expect everyone to have a flu vaccine to protect the small minority who are at risk and can't have a vaccine.

 

[notlob.divad]

Have any studies shown that the current crop of vaccines have any effect on transmission? You can wax lyrical about the emotive cases you want, but if science doesn't back up your assertions then it's all in vain.

The chances of it not are small just for the shear fact that if you became infectious you would be infectious for less time. But it has also been shown that whilst an unusually high amount of asymptomic transmission has been occuring, more severe responses are the ones that have lead to higher levels of transmission. Therefore, reducing your potential response, will in turn reduce the risk of you becoming a transmission vector.

But having said that, It doesn't even need to have any effect on transmission for you to be protecting them and the resources they rely on.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Dec 2020 ==

And there's a risk of ending up in hospital inherent in pretty much every aspect of life, even staying indoors.

Yes, but taking this vaccine is one way of significantly reducing one of those risks.

 

[Bantamzen]

You have clearly missunderstood what I have been saying. No I don't expect (long term) for an entire society to lock itself away to protect a few.

What I would expect is people to embrace the very low risk preventative measure of getting vaccinated when their time comes in order for society to reach a new post covid normality in the most timely fashion. I would hope that this period has woken us all up to how closely we are interconnected to each other, even to people who's name you may not know, or who's face you may have never seen before. Thus I hope our new post covid normality brings out the compassionate society that we used to have. Where we look after one another, where those of us who can carry the burden do so on behalf of those less fortunate. That goes for all things, not just taking a vaccine when it is offered to you, but being proud to pay a higher share of taxes, to help those who have lost their jobs during this time, and choosing to travel by cleaner forms of transport= to protect the lungs of those around you.

Compassionate society you say? That's a good one having seen people almost literally dive into oncoming traffic, or diving into bushes to avoid coming within metres of someone walking in the opposite direction. Or having seen people glare & shout at each other for not wearing a mask, even when one was not needed. Or perhaps having seen people claim anyone not jumping up & down screaming "me next" for a vaccine is selfish? Hmmm....

The facts remain, the vaccination programme will be aimed at those most at risk & those who care for them, as it should. Thereafter the risk to the NHS becomes very small, to the point that any further offering of vaccinations to under 50s & those who previously chose not to have it should be no more of a big deal than flu vaccinations. Someone saying they do not intend to seek a vaccine is not someone being selfish, they could just as easily pass on flu or even the common cold to someone who subsequently suffer from it.

Life if full of risks, as a society we mitigate for the worst (which is what we are doing), and deal with the rest.

The opportunity for global elimination is quite clearly long gone at this point, quite why people persist with the idea that it's still possible I don't know.

Quite, only a handful of experts too closely aligned to their governments & politicians even believe that crap now.

Isn't the point that some of those groups simple can't have the vaccine though, due to issues with immune systems and the like.
Indeed the whole point of traditional mass vaccination programs in that regard is to provide that herd immunity (which is actually where the phrase comes from - not from letting a virus run though the majority of a population like some on this board seem to think) so that the virus is in less of a circulation and so is less likely to infect those who cannot get the vaccine for a number of reasons.
Now - if that applies for COVID-19 (or indeed should apply to it) is another question, and itsn't something I have the time or inclination to get into an argument about - but the general idea of those who are generally not at risk being vaccinated so those who are at risk but cannot get vaccinated can live their lives as normal is not a new idea and as I said above is basically the grounding for most mass vaccination programs in both the developed and developing worlds.

Well for a start these initial vaccines may not actually reduce the risk of transmission, that will only be known many months, maybe even years down the road. Secondly if you are expecting entire populations to permanently take vaccines for Covid, why not other viruses? Any number could be passed on and potentially cause the demise of someone else, so why the focus on just this one?

I'm sorry to sound brutalist, but as mentioned above I have had people close to me with the very worst of immune deficiencies succumb to illnesses as a result and frankly you cannot expect the entire population to mitigate for everyone with these unfortunate conditions. You mitigate for the individual, make decisions along with the consultants to get the best quality of life they can hope for. Then you let the individual make the final choice, and make their own risk assessments.

 

[WelshBluebird]

So how is Covid different from flu in this respect? We don't expect everyone to have a flu vaccine to protect the small minority who are at risk and can't have a vaccine.

Maybe we should? Or at least - I'd like to ask you why shouldn't we expect the majority to have the flu vaccine (there is an argument about cost and logistics - but given that doesn't seem to be the argument you are making I'll ignore those for now).

Certainly some employers provide the vaccine for free to their staff each year and some of those won't look too kindly on staff who had the option, refused it and then ended up costing the business money by being off with flu that year.

Well for a start these initial vaccines may not actually reduce the risk of transmission, that will only be known many months, maybe even years down the road. Secondly if you are expecting entire populations to permanently take vaccines for Covid, why not other viruses? Any number could be passed on and potentially cause the demise of someone else, so why the focus on just this one?

Sure - but as I said I'm not getting into that discussion.
I was simply stating that the whole basis for most mass vaccination programs is that the majority of people have the jab so that the minority who can't have it are fine.
The whole principal - which is nothing new - kind of flies in the face of your "individual choice" argument doesn't it?

you cannot expect the entire population to mitigate for everyone with these unfortunate conditions.

Why not exactly?
We already do mitigate for them in some respects in terms of childhood vaccinations and in terms of providing healthcare for them (in some cases some pretty specialised and expensive healthcare). Why is mandating adults have a certain vaccination any different?

And in terms of vaccinations specifically:
We basically mandate that most children should have some specific vaccinations.
And getting certain jabs for travel to other countries is nothing new either.
You seem to be suggesting that this idea of mandating the majority of people get a vaccine is somehow new. It really isn't. The only real thing that is new is we are talking about it being for adults instead of children.

 

[Spamcan81]

Having the vaccine is a no brainer for me. I plan to retire next year so I wan't to be able to enjoy retirement and get out and about pursuing my interests, not have to live life under a raft of restrictions. The more people who get vaccinated the better IMO as normality will return sooner.

 

[DB]

Maybe we should? Or at least - I'd like to ask you why shouldn't we expect the majority to have the flu vaccine?

Because any benefit from it would be completely disproportionate to the cost, and it is not acceptable to force this sort of thing on the population.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Because any benefit from it would be completely disproportionate to the cost, and it is not acceptable to force this sort of thing on the population.

Ok so cost is one reason. Although I'd counter that by looking at how much time (and thus money) is lost by businesses every single winter due to staff being off sick, and how much money is spent by the NHS treating people who get ill with the flu. I don't have the numbers - but I'd be willing to bet it isn't as one sided as you seem to think it is. Hell it is exactly why a lot of companies do offer the flu jab to staff for free - because the cost of the jab is nothing compared to the cost of multiple members of staff being off ill with flu in the winter.

And "it not being acceptable" isn't an actual reason - it is an opinion, presumably a moral issue because the person isn't choosing to have it? What about childhood vaccinations then? Why do we think it is ok to decide that children should have a whole host of jabs but saying adults should have one or two is so unacceptable?

 

[Spamcan81]

So I've been locked up for the last year, to protect a very wealthy group near the end of their natural lives, and now you're expecting me to pay for the damage that this caused?

You can toss the words "frail" and "vulnerable" around all you want, but the boomer generation is politically powerful, selfish, and exploitative.

Nice to see compassion for your fellow citizens is alive and well with you. I presume you have no close relatives in the "boomer generation".

 

[notlob.divad]

I'm really struggling to see your point here. So because everyone could end up in hospital is the reason that everyone needs to get vaccinated, and we're going to ignore the fact that the vast majority of hospitalisations are from the elderly? If we're going to just completely ignore who's actually at risk, why shouldn't we just distributing the vaccines based on surname. Have a look at this graph and tell me that the risk posed to the NHS by an unvaccinated 15-44 year old is the same as an unvaccinated 85

View attachment 86880

Taking the average hospitalisation rate of under 15-44s at 2/100,000 (0.002%) then you'd expect to see a massive 507 people hospitalised

No, you prioritise those most at risk. Of course you do, I have never said otherwise. But the point is, that 0.002% hospitalisations is still non-zero, and is still vastly higher than risk of any adverse reaction to the vaccine. So what I am saying is that once it is your turn, based on a distribution equal to risk, then it is illogical fo you to not take the vaccine. Now in the UK with its public health system, it will be government policy to determine how far down the risk profile they are willing to fund a vaccine for incrementally diminishing returns. But all the while, the risk profile is such that taking the vaccine is better than not. Both for you and your fellow human beings.

You know full well that isn't what's going to happen - everyone will be asked to contribute equally.

Well I assume that will be up to the government of the day to decide as voted for by the people. We are not all asked to contribute equally now, and whilst I foresee tweaks and changes, it is ultimatly up to the people to elect a government who will share out the burdens fairly. If people are too selfish to vote for that, well they can only blame themselves.

Similarly, it's not an unfair conclusion to arrive at that the boomers are the people standing to benefit from the covid response - there's 12,552,000 people over state pension age by the ONS estimates - if you widen that to anyone in the boomer generation (to 64) you hit almost 21,000,000. I sincerely doubt that there are anywhere near that many immunocompromised young people

But taking your graph above it is actually the Silent generation, those born prior to 1946 and thus over the age of 74 who are most at risk of hospitalisation and thus the ones we have been protecting the most.

Now you are quite right that there are far fewer immunocomromised people, but given the number of people on here who like to extol the virtue of protecting life years over lives, when it come to lockdowns, would you not agree that this should also be the case when it comes to a far less draconian measure such as accepting a vaccine when the time comes.

 

[Darandio]

What about childhood vaccinations then? Why do we think it is ok to decide that children should have a whole host of jabs but asking adults to have one or two is so unacceptable?

Jesus wept, talk about apples and oranges. You are comparing vaccines for conditions that won't be an issue to 99.9% of the population with childhood vaccinations that help against conditions such as Cancer, Meningitis, Diptheria, Hepatitis, Polio, Measles, the list goes on.

That's why people (not everyone) generally think it's okay to vaccinate children.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Jesus wept, talk about apples and oranges. You are comparing vaccines for conditions that won't be an issue to 99.9% of the population with childhood vaccinations that help against conditions such as Cancer, Meningitis, Diptheria, Hepatitis, Polio, Measles, the list goes on.

That's why people (not everyone) generally think it's okay to vaccinate children.

I am talking about the concept of mandating a vaccination. Given that is the complaint that seems to be coming out - that a vaccination must be a personal choice - I was just asking the question why that same logic isn't applied to other vaccinations too.

Now - if your reply to that is because of what you have said - i.e. how dangerous the specific illness is, then fine.
But some people on this board seem to be making the case not based on that, but purely on the basis of personal choice. In which case my question still applies to them.

 

[Yew]

But having said that, It doesn't even need to have any effect on transmission for you to be protecting them and the resources they rely on.

That depends entirely on your risk profile...