Should the NHS refuse treatment for people that haven’t had the vaccination?

[35B]

I think some of the others have already made the point, but unvaccinated people aren't keeping us in lockdown, the government are.

Don't you think the effect is two way - that the vaccination level in the country as a whole is linked to the government's policy on relaxing restrictions?

 

[Dent]

Don't you think the effect is two way - that the vaccination level in the country as a whole is linked to the government's policy on relaxing restrictions?

The government may have decided to base their policy on the level of vaccination, but ultimately the responsibility for government decisions lies with the government.

 

[35B]

The government may have decided to base their policy on the level of vaccination, but ultimately the responsibility for government decisions lies with the government.

And where the government has indicated a policy, our individual behaviours may reasonably be expected to affect how the government then acts. We all, whichever way we leap on this particular choice, own a share in the decision that government make; none of us can say hand on heart that it has nothing to do with us.

 

[Dent]

And where the government has indicated a policy, our individual behaviours may reasonably be expected to affect how the government then acts. We all, whichever way we leap on this particular choice, own a share in the decision that government make; none of us can say hand on heart that it has nothing to do with us.

This is all just attempts to deflect blame for government decisions away from the government, this is obviously what the government want people to do, and it is sad that anyone has actually fallen for it. We need to remain absolutely clear that if the government decide something, then all the blame for that lies with the government and no one else.

 

[35B]

This is all just attempts to deflect blame for government decisions away from the government, this is obviously what the government want people to do, and it is sad that anyone has actually fallen for it. We need to remain absolutely clear that if the government decide something, then all the blame for that lies with the government and no one else.

Perhaps if we take a step back and consider why the government might want us to take the vaccine, and what the policy objective of all these measures is?

I completely agree that the government are entirely responsible for the success - or failure - of their policies and measures in support of those policies. We are also entitled to question and challenge both the policy objective and the measures to achieve it. But where achieving the objective of their policies relies on us as individuals taking certain courses of action, and we know the government's likely reaction, we need to acknowledge our part in that result.

 

[DustyBin]

Don't you think the effect is two way - that the vaccination level in the country as a whole is linked to the government's policy on relaxing restrictions?

I see what you’re saying, however I’m in agreement with @Dent here. The vaccine roll out has been a huge success and we’re now well into “diminishing returns” territory. The objective was to protect the NHS by vaccinating the vulnerable which we have done; vaccinating everybody feels a little like a vanity project to be honest (as we saw with the X number of tests per day promise) and to say that the roadmap depends on it feels like coercion. I’m not suggesting the vaccine shouldn’t at least be offered to people, but in terms of the original objective it’s mission accomplished as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Jonny]

I think some of the others have already made the point, but unvaccinated people aren't keeping us in lockdown, the government are. If anybody says "I don't want to be vaccinated and therefore restrictions should remain to keep me safe" then please shoot them down in flames. However, I'm not convinced that such an attitude is particularly prevalent.

As someone who intends to decline (or, should I say, is declining) the vaccine, I am the exact opposite - I will gladly see the back of the rules altogether. If there is proof positive that there is an issue with vaccinated people (for whom it should still be effective but for foreseeable lapses) then I will understand but I expect the government to be completely open about such things.

The government may have decided to base their policy on the level of vaccination, but ultimately the responsibility for government decisions lies with the government.

Exactly - there was a President of the United States (I can't remember which one, might have been more than one) who had a sign "The Buck Stops Here" - meaning that he accepted that he was ultimately responsible. That is something that politicians generally should take note of.

This is all just attempts to deflect blame for government decisions away from the government, this is obviously what the government want people to do, and it is sad that anyone has actually fallen for it. We need to remain absolutely clear that if the government decide something, then all the blame for that lies with the government and no one else.

It is a strategy that has the potential to end badly and the longer it goes on, the more obvious it should be that the government are attempting to manipulate behaviour. Sadly, the politician points the finger and seemingly everyone just believes them without even a slight pause to check so much as their logic.

 

[35B]

As someone who intends to decline (or, should I say, is declining) the vaccine, I am the exact opposite - I will gladly see the back of the rules altogether. If there is proof positive that there is an issue with vaccinated people (for whom it should still be effective but for foreseeable lapses) then I will understand but I expect the government to be completely open about such things.

That's a false test, though. You are declining to take vaccination against Covid, as is your right. But the reduction in Covid that will lead the government to remove the restrictions you so despise is coming through the use of vaccination, which is why what's happening in Bolton etc. is so much less worrying than it would have been a year ago. We know that transmissible diseases can be kept at bay through the use of vaccines and that this relies on a high proportion of the population being - and staying - vaccinated. Where the vaccination levels fall, reservoirs of disease form and lead to outbreaks of disease. The aftermath of Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent and dishonest MMR papers has shown that effect despite vaccination levels remaining in high 80%s.

At the moment (and it is changing all the time), the number of people in the UK with full vaccine protection is nothing like that high, and current limits on who can receive the vaccine mean that it's unlikely to get near there. Whether you specifically choose to decline the vaccine is probably irrelevant; the impact is if there are many who make the same choice.

Exactly - there was a President of the United States (I can't remember which one, might have been more than one) who had a sign "The Buck Stops Here" - meaning that he accepted that he was ultimately responsible. That is something that politicians generally should take note of.

I think it was Eisenhower. I agree with it - where it's about decisions owned by the government. The problem is that by making government responsible for everything - which you seem to be challenging in other aspects of your posts - you subordinate yourself and us all more to government. The logical consequence is that all the cases of error in the disputes section of the forum are Boris Johnson's fault - a ridiculous position, that disregards the role of personal responsibility entirely.

It is a strategy that has the potential to end badly and the longer it goes on, the more obvious it should be that the government are attempting to manipulate behaviour. Sadly, the politician points the finger and seemingly everyone just believes them without even a slight pause to check so much as their logic.

How are governments supposed to persuade us to take actions without "manipulating" our behaviour? The politician is always wrong is every bit as dangerously pernicious a myth as the politician is always right.

Meanwhile, on vaccination, I'm curious as to how it is that the spread and seriousness of Covid falling could not be related to the role of vaccinations.

 

[The Ham]

It is interesting what people take from the same article. The other quote in the same article is "The PM said he saw nothing "currently in the data" to suggest the government would have to delay unlocking" which sounds a lot more optimistic to me!

I don't actually disagree with what you are saying, and you are right, it isn't a large risk to the NHS if there are some 25-50 year olds who end up in hospital with COVID as long as the actual overall numbers remain low (which does seem to be the case).
However, it has been claimed quite a few times on this forum by different posters that "the link between cases and hospitalisations is now broken" thanks to the vaccinations and thus an increase in cases is no problem because it won't case a following increase in hospitalisations. Clearly that line is not quite true if hospitalisations do seem to be rising as a result of rising case numbers in some areas and so the reality is that the link is been hugely weakened, and for some parts of the population broken - but not broken for society as a whole.

The link between hospitalisations and cases is being reduced due to the vaccine program, but certainly not broken.

If we are an increase in cases then it's likely that we'll see an increase in those in hospital. However we do need to see more cases for each person in hospital and likely more people in hospital for each death (with the numbers of each being lower overall).

For instance if there was a 1:10 ratio at each step and it's now 1:20 (and I'm just using those numbers as an example and or makes the maths easy) then for every 1,000 cases we'd have had 100 in hospital and 10 deaths, whilst at 1:20 we'd have 50 in hospital and 2.5 deaths.

However if we double the number of cases then the numbers of deaths would still double, however the number of deaths would still be loads lower that it was.

 

[VauxhallandI]

The link between hospitalisations and cases is being reduced due to the vaccine program, but certainly not broken.

If we are an increase in cases then it's likely that we'll see an increase in those in hospital. However we do need to see more cases for each person in hospital and likely more people in hospital for each death (with the numbers of each being lower overall).

For instance if there was a 1:10 ratio at each step and it's now 1:20 (and I'm just using those numbers as an example and or makes the maths easy) then for every 1,000 cases we'd have had 100 in hospital and 10 deaths, whilst at 1:20 we'd have 50 in hospital and 2.5 deaths.

However if we double the number of cases then the numbers of deaths would still double, however the number of deaths would still be loads lower that it was.

I believe your theory has been proved wrong this week.

Cases up hospitalisation down.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 May 2021 ==

I see what you’re saying, however I’m in agreement with @Dent here. The vaccine roll out has been a huge success and we’re now well into “diminishing returns” territory. The objective was to protect the NHS by vaccinating the vulnerable which we have done; vaccinating everybody feels a little like a vanity project to be honest (as we saw with the X number of tests per day promise) and to say that the roadmap depends on it feels like coercion. I’m not suggesting the vaccine shouldn’t at least be offered to people, but in terms of the original objective it’s mission accomplished as far as I’m concerned.

100% this

 

[The Ham]

I believe your theory has been proved wrong this week.

Cases up hospitalisation down.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 May 2021 ==


100% this

Of course my previous statement was a simplification, as the more people that are vaccinated then the larger the ratio between each step. The other factor is that if we are surge testing then you're going to find more cases which otherwise wouldn't have been found due to a lack of symptoms. Also hospitalisations have a lag, so it's possible to cases go up this week, but because there may have been a fall in cases a few weeks ago then hospitalisations would fall this week before rising again. That's not too say that is certainly the case, however it could be one way that both could be true.

The general point that I was getting at was that whilst cases doesn't mean that we'd see a similar increase in those in hospital it's not totally broken and typically the more cases there are the likelihood is that there would be more going to hospital in due course.

Of course other factors come into play, such as if those getting it being those who were never at risk of needing hospital care.

As we get to higher rates of double dose +3 weeks then the numbers of cases and the ratios of hospitalisation and then deaths would likely result in fewer of everything as we reduce the risk of infection and the risk of that infection requiring significant care and those who do require significant care having a reduced risk of death.

All of which still doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't refuse treatments to those who don't have the vaccine (or for whatever reason that we can come up with as to why we don't think that they are deserving).

I am very much of the view of the Trusses Trust when a newspaper got a food parcel. The Trust's spokes person said that they would rather give out several food parcels to those who didn't deserve it, if if meant that they always gave one to those who did deserve it.

In the same way the NHS should treat everyone who is in need of critical care as they turn up without asking lots of questions (non critical care is easier to ask the questions up front, however that typically likely to be through the booking system)? However they should also be able to follow up and reclaim costs from those not eligible for treatment.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Of course my previous statement was a simplification, as the more people that are vaccinated then the larger the ratio between each step. The other factor is that if we are surge testing then you're going to find more cases which otherwise wouldn't have been found due to a lack of symptoms. Also hospitalisations have a lag, so it's possible to cases go up this week, but because there may have been a fall in cases a few weeks ago then hospitalisations would fall this week before rising again. That's not too say that is certainly the case, however it could be one way that both could be true.

The general point that I was getting at was that whilst cases doesn't mean that we'd see a similar increase in those in hospital it's not totally broken and typically the more cases there are the likelihood is that there would be more going to hospital in due course.

Of course other factors come into play, such as if those getting it being those who were never at risk of needing hospital care.

As we get to higher rates of double dose +3 weeks then the numbers of cases and the ratios of hospitalisation and then deaths would likely result in fewer of everything as we reduce the risk of infection and the risk of that infection requiring significant care and those who do require significant care having a reduced risk of death.

All of which still doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't refuse treatments to those who don't have the vaccine (or for whatever reason that we can come up with as to why we don't think that they are deserving).

I am very much of the view of the Trusses Trust when a newspaper got a food parcel. The Trust's spokes person said that they would rather give out several food parcels to those who didn't deserve it, if if meant that they always gave one to those who did deserve it.

In the same way the NHS should treat everyone who is in need of critical care as they turn up without asking lots of questions (non critical care is easier to ask the questions up front, however that typically likely to be through the booking system)? However they should also be able to follow up and reclaim costs from those not eligible for treatment.

Absolutely, It annoys me when we concentrate of benefit fraud of a tiny percentage but never mention the overwhelming majority who are not frauds.

It’s the usual look at this shiny thing over here so I can do something dodgy over there

 

[yorkie]

A suggestion that might please both sides but I don't agree with. What about charging people after treatment if it turns out to be self-inflicted? E.g. refusing a vaccine but then getting ill because of it.

Would this also apply to those who drink excess alcohol, who do insufficient exercise and/or overeating by choice, play dangerous sports etc?

Where would you draw the line?

 

[Journeyman]

Would this also apply to those who drink excess alcohol, who do insufficient exercise and/or overeating by choice, play dangerous sports etc?

Where would you draw the line?

Exactly, you can't, unless you want a privatised healthcare system like the one in America, where preexisting exclusions abound, and are effectively death sentences for some people.

Apparently most American health insurance providers now classify people who have recovered from COVID as having a preexisting condition, and exclude long COVID symptoms from cover.

 

[Red Onion]

A question I ask of those supporting the withdrawal of treatment for the unvaccinated. What about those of us where the first dose has actually caused a medical condition and therefore refusing the second in case it does more damage. Should we be refused medical treatment?

 

[LAX54]

A question I ask of those supporting the withdrawal of treatment for the unvaccinated. What about those of us where the first dose has actually caused a medical condition and therefore refusing the second in case it does more damage. Should we be refused medical treatment?

Think it was said that unless it was for a valid medical reason not to, but I suppose some may say depends what the medical condition the vaccine caused ?

 

[duncanp]

The Telegraph is reporting that vaccination is to be made compulsory for NHS staff.

Access Restricted

I don't agree that vaccination should be compulsory for NHS, but I would like to think that they would have a good reason for refusing one.

And if you work in the NHS and refuse a vaccine without a well founded medical reason, don't complain about hospitals being "overwhelmed" with COVID patients, or expect the rest of the population to live under tighter restrictions as a consequence.

NHS staff to face compulsory Covid vaccination​

Jab could become a condition of employment in the health service under government proposals

NHS staff would be legally required to have a Covid vaccine under plans to crack down on transmission of the virus within hospitals.

As the Government also prepares to press ahead with plans to oblige care home workers to be vaccinated, ministers are understood to believe that changing the law to apply the requirement to doctors and nurses as well would "save lives".

Under the plans, having a Covid vaccine would become a condition of employment by the NHS, although the obligation could be targeted at staff deemed to be at the greatest risk of exposure to the virus.

Ministers are said to be "keen" on the unprecedented proposals, which were discussed by senior government figures last week and this weekend.

By the end of this week, it is expected that almost half of all adults in England will have had their second dose of a vaccine. More than half of people in their 30s have been jabbed in just over a fortnight, and those in their 20s are expected to be called for their vaccinations from this week.

But The Telegraph has disclosed that more than a fifth of Covid deaths at some hospitals happened after patients caught infections on wards.

Meanwhile, as many as one in five NHS healthcare workers have yet to have a jab in some parts of the country, according to the most recent figures. A Facebook group titled "NHS workers for choice, no restrictions for declining a vaccine" has attracted some 2,600 members.

A Department for Health and Social Care consultation on making vaccination a condition of employment at care homes closed last week, and ministers are believed to be preparing to give the plan the green light.

The consultation has now led to the development of proposals to adopt a similar approach with NHS workers.

A Whitehall source said: "There are very early conversations taking place. This has been driven by feedback from the social care consultation on mandating. It would save lives and there is precedent with the guidance for doctors to get the hepatitis B vaccine."

Ministers are expected to amend the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 to ensure care homes can only employ staff who have received a Covid vaccine, or those with a legitimate medical exemption.

Announcing the consultation on care home staff last month, the Department of Health said that "while vaccination uptake rates are increasing slowly week on week, there are still a high number of older adult care homes which do not have the level of protection needed to reduce the risk of outbreak".

Ministers are also understood to be concerned by the numbers of NHS medics failing to take up the vaccine. A study published in the British Medical Journal in February found lower Covid vaccination rates among ethnic minority healthcare workers compared to white staff.

The Government is likely to face claims that a policy of effectively mandating vaccinations would be "discriminatory". One senior doctor has already said the move would widen inequalities and increase workplace bullying and harassment.

In March, Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, cited the requirement for doctors to have a hepatitis B vaccine as a precedent for effectively making Covid vaccinations compulsory among social care workers.

NHS staff who could come into contact with sharp instruments, or bones or teeth, are required to have the hepatitis B vaccine. However the requirement is not written into law, unlike the proposed method of making Covid jabs mandatory for health and social care workers.

"Making vaccines a condition of deployment is something many care homes have called for to help them provide greater protection for staff and residents in older people's care homes and so save lives," Mr Hancock has said previously.

NHS figures published last week show that 88 per cent of NHS healthcare workers in England have had at least one dose of a Covid vaccine, with the figure dropping to 80 per cent in London.

Covid hospitalisations remain low, with new data suggesting vaccines are offering high levels of protection. But ministers are concerned about the possibility of new variants against which vaccines could prove less effective.

The extent to which social distancing restrictions will be lifted on June 21 depends on forthcoming data on the transmission of the Indian variant of Covid and resulting hospitalisations.

However, Prof Anthony Harnden, the deputy chairman of the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation (JCVI), told BBC Breakfast on Saturday that people should be "reassured" by the success of the "quite staggeringly effective" Covid vaccines.

He also said the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine could be used for booster jabs later this year.

On Monday, NHS officials are planning to vaccinate up to 15,000 people in the biggest ever walk-in vaccination event at Twickenham Stadium, south-west London.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

Absolutely not.
This pandemic really has highlighted how authoritarian some people are.

 

[greyman42]

Absolutely not.
This pandemic really has highlighted how authoritarian some people are.

As long as it's not them on the receiving end.

 

[Snow1964]

A question I ask of those supporting the withdrawal of treatment for the unvaccinated. What about those of us where the first dose has actually caused a medical condition and therefore refusing the second in case it does more damage. Should we be refused medical treatment?

The problem it is a transmissible disease.

There are now some hospitals with no Covid patients, and they are trying to get through backlog of people with other illnesses. It doesn’t really help the other ill people if they have to take in a Covid patient and then have to close a whole ward again.

If the Covid person refused a vaccine, got more seriously ill, and is now effectively blocking 12-18 beds then in my view it is rather more than selfish. The isolation hospitals of decades ago are long gone.

Even @Red Onion is suggestion an individual puts potential damage as a reason, but I don’t think potential should be more important than those with real pain and illness that are having operations delayed.

I’m in the get hospitals back to normal viewpoint, and those who voluntarily increase their chance of getting hospitalised with Covid by refusing vaccines won’t get my vote.

The NHS is for everyone, any no shouldn’t refuse treatment to a sick person, but individuals need to accept they shouldn’t deliberately increase pressure on hospital admissions when they have a chance to reduce it.

 

[The Ham]

The problem it is a transmissible disease.

There are now some hospitals with no Covid patients, and they are trying to get through backlog of people with other illnesses. It doesn’t really help the other ill people if they have to take in a Covid patient and then have to close a whole ward again.

If the Covid person refused a vaccine, got more seriously ill, and is now effectively blocking 12-18 beds then in my view it is rather more than selfish. The isolation hospitals of decades ago are long gone.

Even @Red Onion is suggestion an individual puts potential damage as a reason, but I don’t think potential should be more important than those with real pain and illness that are having operations delayed.

I’m in the get hospitals back to normal viewpoint, and those who voluntarily increase their chance of getting hospitalised with Covid by refusing vaccines won’t get my vote.

The NHS is for everyone, any no shouldn’t refuse treatment to a sick person, but individuals need to accept they shouldn’t deliberately increase pressure on hospital admissions when they have a chance to reduce it.

Indeed and those are all valid points and things that should be argued in favour of getting everyone vaccinated.

Much like saying that a lot of the anti vaccination information comes from China and Russia so as to weaken the West so that they can become much more powerful*

However as to whether that's enough to justify the forcing of people to be vaccinated (even by the removal of NHS treatment) I would argue not.

Firstly, we've got done it before, even with the MMR - so why is this different?

Secondly, until everyone had had a chance to have their first doses then what's the difference between those who've chosen not to have it and those who are unable due to government policy?

Assuming that such a policy would only come into effect after (say) July, then chances are that the risk would be fairly low of actually catching the virus as the number of cases would likely be fairly small.

Going forwards as more of the EU catches up with us in terms on numbers vaccinated and if the US continues with a high level of vaccination, then the risk of imported cases falls. This would further reduce the risk of someone getting the virus, let alone causing the closure of a ward due to being infected.

However even then I would imagine that, at least for the time being, that testing would catch most cases before it caused an issue (as it's easy enough to test most patients before or at least soon after they are admitted and testing visitors on their arrival could also work of there was need for it).

I would suggest that for NHS staff, although I wouldn't mandate vaccines I would require a much higher level of testing for those without a vaccine. It's then up to the staff as to if they are happy for that to happen.

As to who would pay for the testing required, that's another debate, but could end up like the debate on hospital parking charges. In that some areas (chiefly thinking like the devolved areas) may offer it for free whilst others would charge.




*To be clear I have no evidence whether this or isn't the case (but it does sound like a much better conspiracy theory than some which are given) and when does that stop those who suggest that the vaccines will rewrite your DNA or will kill you in whatever way is favour of the month or that it's so you can be tracked (even though many are happy to use a mobile phone) and it's unlikely that they would admit that they don't have the evidence for it (in fact it's more likely that evidence is made up and is questionable in its nature).

 

[NorthKent1989]

Wow.

This may sound very rude but what a ridiculous idea!

This has been said before in this thread but let’s ban smokers from getting treatment, they chose to smoke, let’s not treat obese people, they kept on eating and eating, let’s not treat alcoholics, they choose to keep drinking and drinking!

Healthcare is a human right! And with nearly half the population vaccinated there shouldn’t be any further restrictions, no ifs no buts, nobody should be coerced into taking a vaccine.

 

[DustyBin]

Wow.

This may sound very rude but what a ridiculous idea!

This has been said before in this thread but let’s ban smokers from getting treatment, they chose to smoke, let’s not treat obese people, they kept on eating and eating, let’s not treat alcoholics, they choose to keep drinking and drinking!

Healthcare is a human right! And with nearly half the population vaccinated there shouldn’t be any further restrictions, no ifs no buts, nobody should be coerced into taking a vaccine.

I know this is a discussion forum but some things aren’t worth discussing, this being one of them!

 

[MikeWM]

The Telegraph is reporting that vaccination is to be made compulsory for NHS staff.

Access Restricted

I don't agree that vaccination should be compulsory for NHS, but I would like to think that they would have a good reason for refusing one.

Personally I'd say 'don't want to undergo a medical treatment that isn't (yet) fully authorised' is a sufficiently good reason. There are other good reasons of course too.

That article is a very good example of why some 'slippery slopes' are so risky they should never be started on. Healthy people being forced to undergo medical treatment is one of the most important to avoid entirely. The argument in the article appears to be that (doctors) should have (a well-established and approved vaccine), and so we should extend that to (all healthcare staff) being required to have (a new and not yet fully-approved vaccine). Give it a year or two, and the argument will march along to (all healthcare staff) have to have (a new and not yet fully-approved vaccine) and so we should extend that to (some larger group of people) being required to have (some other new innovative and potentially more problematic medical treatment). And so on, and so on.

Also, this seems a rather odd story to push on the same day that the other main news story is the (ludicrous) opinion that we should delay ending restrictions because the NHS is now under pressure from all the patients they should have been treating over the last year. Losing trained doctors and nurses who, for whatever reason, would choose to lose their job than be vaccinated, isn't exactly going to help.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I know this is a discussion forum but some things aren’t worth discussing, this being one of them!

It’s mad isn’t it, Covid has certainly exposed those with worrying views

 

[The Ham]

Personally I'd say 'don't want to undergo a medical treatment that isn't (yet) fully authorised' is a sufficiently good reason. There are other good reasons of course too.

That article is a very good example of why some 'slippery slopes' are so risky they should never be started on. Healthy people being forced to undergo medical treatment is one of the most important to avoid entirely. The argument in the article appears to be that (doctors) should have (a well-established and approved vaccine), and so we should extend that to (all healthcare staff) being required to have (a new and not yet fully-approved vaccine). Give it a year or two, and the argument will march along to (all healthcare staff) have to have (a new and not yet fully-approved vaccine) and so we should extend that to (some larger group of people) being required to have (some other new innovative and potentially more problematic medical treatment). And so on, and so on.

Also, this seems a rather odd story to push on the same day that the other main news story is the (ludicrous) opinion that we should delay ending restrictions because the NHS is now under pressure from all the patients they should have been treating over the last year. Losing trained doctors and nurses who, for whatever reason, would choose to lose their job than be vaccinated, isn't exactly going to help.

What's the difference between fully authorised and authorised on a batch by batch basis going to mean to how much someone is willing to trust having it?

Back in January I could understand the logic as beyond those in the trails there hasn't been many who had had it, now many million (and not just in the UK) have had it and the number of serious adverse effects is limited.

Yes blood clots have been highlights as an area of concern, however the link is fairly week and it's been reported that someone in their thirties is at much risk from death from the vaccine as if they drive 250 miles (even if that stat is out most people will have driven far enough since January to put them at equal or more risk).

Of course the big risk isn't to you, it's to those who you may infect who are unable to have the vaccine (which includes older children), who as a cohort may be very low risk, but they may have underlaying breath conditions which could put them at serious risk of harm.

As for long term issues, most children now have a vaccine against the Rotavirus, yet it wasn't that long ago that it was universally offered and they will mostly have 60+ years of life ahead of them. Should we not offer then that as we've not tested it for 60 years?

As a parent of a child who wasn't vaccinated (it wasn't offered at the time) and they ended up in hospital with complications from the infection (not life threating, but it involved a week of them being in hospital and multiple or patient appointments until the blood tests were confirmed as clear - which was a significant inconvenience and fairly worrying for many people who know is). Then anyone suggesting that it's a bad idea and we should wait, then you are doing to have an uphill struggle to come up with an argument as to why.

Likewise I've seen people talk about their childhood where they were living abroad and their friends were dying of preventable illnesses and they were moved to action as an adult to limit that from happening.

I've always been in support of vaccinations and both of these just highlighted to me why it's important. Although, as you'll see from my other posts I'll defend the right of those who choose not to have the vaccine to also be treated. However I am also curious as to why people think otherwise, especially when, even though the risk of death for many is low, there's still significant risk from other harm.

For example there's an estimated 1 million people who have suffered from Long Covid. Even if that's 10 times higher than is actual the case that's still a 1:700 chance of suffering from that, again that might sound a low risk, but your risk of dying on the roads in the next 12 months is 1:10,000 (and even that isn't all that low a risk, as about 1,500 people a year die on or roads).

That's before you consider that it's fairly likely that you'll need to take a week away from work (even if just to self isolate) if you have it, which is fine if you are a full time employee and get paid sick leave and/or work in an industry where you can work from home. However if you are self employed/get paid by the hour you work or in an industry where WFH isn't an option that's potentially a week without pay.

 

[Bantamzen]

The problem it is a transmissible disease.

There are now some hospitals with no Covid patients, and they are trying to get through backlog of people with other illnesses. It doesn’t really help the other ill people if they have to take in a Covid patient and then have to close a whole ward again.

If the Covid person refused a vaccine, got more seriously ill, and is now effectively blocking 12-18 beds then in my view it is rather more than selfish. The isolation hospitals of decades ago are long gone.

Even @Red Onion is suggestion an individual puts potential damage as a reason, but I don’t think potential should be more important than those with real pain and illness that are having operations delayed.

I’m in the get hospitals back to normal viewpoint, and those who voluntarily increase their chance of getting hospitalised with Covid by refusing vaccines won’t get my vote.

The NHS is for everyone, any no shouldn’t refuse treatment to a sick person, but individuals need to accept they shouldn’t deliberately increase pressure on hospital admissions when they have a chance to reduce it.

Wait, you can vote for people getting hospital treatment now? Well that's a whole new angle on the discussion...

Seriously though, all you have really said is that people shouldn't be making life choices because there might be a risk of ending up in hospital. So as has been said quite a few times before you are advocating refusing healthcare to people who don't have the vaccine, people who smoke, people who drink or eat fast food, drive or even walk. You see every single decision we make in our lives has risk attached to it, and can also affect others.

I am seriously starting to worry that some people expect not only an impossible risk free existence, but want every decision they make mandated and approved by authority.

 

[The Ham]

Wait, you can vote for people getting hospital treatment now? Well that's a whole new angle on the discussion...

Seriously though, all you have really said is that people shouldn't be making life choices because there might be a risk of ending up in hospital. So as has been said quite a few times before you are advocating refusing healthcare to people who don't have the vaccine, people who smoke, people who drink or eat fast food, drive or even walk. You see every single decision we make in our lives has risk attached to it, and can also affect others.

I am seriously starting to worry that some people expect not only an impossible risk free existence, but want every decision they make mandated and approved by authority.

I would argue that (if we were to do something like this) rather than those who walk as those who shouldn't get treatment that those who drive should be those who don't get treatment.

Why? Typically 300 children are killed or seriously injured each year on the roads, the drain on NHS services on that alone (before you add in the thousands, overall number about 26,000, of adults too) would likely be enough to justify it.

That's before you consider that without the private motor car we'd all be a lot healthier and so that would also massively improve things for the NHS, especially when you consider that there's now been a proved link between air pollution and the death of a child (in that it's confirmed by a coroner).

Not only would it reduce NHS costs, but it would massively reduce carbon emissions.

Of course none of this would actually come to pass, and the only reason for saying it is to highlight that there are probably areas which would be higher up the list in terms of saving the NHS money and being for the benefit of the population as a whole.

 

[Snow1964]

Wait, you can vote for people getting hospital treatment now? Well that's a whole new angle on the discussion...

Seriously though, all you have really said is that people shouldn't be making life choices because there might be a risk of ending up in hospital. So as has been said quite a few times before you are advocating refusing healthcare to people who don't have the vaccine, people who smoke, people who drink or eat fast food, drive or even walk. You see every single decision we make in our lives has risk attached to it, and can also affect others.

I am seriously starting to worry that some people expect not only an impossible risk free existence, but want every decision they make mandated and approved by authority.

No you didn’t read what I stated, I said the NHS should treat everyone, but it is selfish to do a life choice that would mean if you are hospitalised then a whole ward needs to be taken out of use (thus preventing multiple other patients from being treated) if your choice is increasing risk of a transmissible disease.

Hospitals with no Covid patients are badly interrupted when a Covid patient prevents themselves as have to close off whole areas. A smoker going to hospital doesn’t cause same disruption so comparison isn’t valid.

 

[Bantamzen]

No you didn’t read what I stated, I said the NHS should treat everyone, but it is selfish to do a life choice that would mean if you are hospitalised then a whole ward needs to be taken out of use (thus preventing multiple other patients from being treated) if your choice is increasing risk of a transmissible disease.

Hospitals with no Covid patients are badly interrupted when a Covid patient prevents themselves as have to close off whole areas. A smoker going to hospital doesn’t cause same disruption so comparison isn’t valid..

If there is one thing that irritates me the most, it is this ridiculous notion that people are selfish during the pandemic. It started off with people being selfish for going outside, going to work, hugging family and now for not wanting to have a vaccine. Viruses are not out fault, they have existed as long as life has existed, and will continue to exist for as long as it does. If people are selfish for not having vaccines, are people who have had but choose to interact with other humans also selfish? That's a long dark rabbit hole there.

As for hospitals, if they really are shutting down entire areas for one patient with covid then they need to have a really serious rethink on how they handle these situations. Because covid is not the respatory illness to happen nor will it be the last. "Because covid" is not an excuse for this.