A quick poll about taking the vaccine.

[Annetts key]

Yet I’m entitled to an opinion

Yes.

 

[NorthKent1989]

"Will" and "may" are different words, with very different meanings. It's very clear - and predictable - that some countries are going to impose vaccine passports as a condition of entry. There has been some discussion about the possibility of using proof of vaccination as a condition of entry to certain events and/or places in this country, but it's far from clear whether this will happen. @Annetts key then makes the very valid point that private establishments have considerable latitude to determine who may - or may not - enter their premises, which may include a condition around vaccination. There are some areas - health and social care in particular - where that may be justified.

However, I was impressed by the piece I saw on the local news a few days ago, where vaccine uptake is being significantly increased by the simple expedient of GPs ringing people who decline and talking to them. That feels the right choice for getting vaccination levels up to the very high levels that are needed for society as a whole, and a far better approach than a cack-handed one of quasi compulsion.

That said, I have minimal sympathy for the "but we're being coerced" argument - you aren't, you are being given hobson's choice; you can take the vaccine you don't particularly want, or you can go without but with significant constraints on what you can do. That's a choice, just as Californian parents have the choice of not vaccinating their kids - but those kids then not being allowed to attend schools. The concept of a social contract is very old, and part of it relies on people doing things that aren't in their personal direct interest for the benefit of society at large.

Being blunt, I see a number of people posting here to say that they'll decline to be vaccinated, who then get very offended at any hint that they might in some way be being selfish. On the arguments I've seen on this thread, my reaction is largely to think "the lady doth protest too much".

At one time it was legal to have a notice on an establishments door saying “No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs” because and establishment made a choice that as business they didn’t want Black or Irish people, doesn’t make it right though does it?

Why is it selfish to not take the vaccine if you aren’t in the vulnerable category? I would argue it’s selfish for those taking the vaccine demand others to take it

Being coerced into a taking medical treatment is against the law

We exist in a society where we can be excluded from various things for a variety of reasons. I can be barred from a supermarket because of my choice of (entirely legal) attire; I can be restricted from certain activities because of my physique (6'5" on a rollercoaster...?), to name a couple of factors. I cannot drive unless I hold a permit from the government permitting me to drive, which may be revoked if I transgress arbitrary laws governing how I must drive.

That does not prove or disprove that society is "authoritarian", just as the existence of laws restricting what I can say do not mean that society is "authoritarian".

For those who dislike the prospect of being made to do something against their will when it is a strongly driven social norm, the best course may just be to accept that norm rather than fight against it.

I have huge respect for WWI conscientious objectors, even as I think them profoundly mistaken, because of their willingness to suffer for their beliefs. I see no such moral strength in the arguments being advanced against vaccination, just a determination not to be told what to do.

There is a huge difference between having a drivers license to drive and being shunned from society because you don’t want to have a vaccine, by stating you want only vaccinated people on your premises it is coercion

 

[DB]

"Will" and "may" are different words, with very different meanings.

And we are currently already borderline between the two - it is already very clear that there will be peer pressure and shaming used against those who don't want the vaccine. Whether it goes further than that remains to be seen, but is by no means unlikely.

It's very clear - and predictable - that some countries are going to impose vaccine passports as a condition of entry.

They may do - but we have no control over what other countries do.

There has been some discussion about the possibility of using proof of vaccination as a condition of entry to certain events and/or places in this country, but it's far from clear whether this will happen. @Annetts key then makes the very valid point that private establishments have considerable latitude to determine who may - or may not - enter their premises, which may include a condition around vaccination. There are some areas - health and social care in particular - where that may be justified.

There is no precedent for asking and refusing access on the basis of medical treatments - and it would set a dangerous precedent. Health and social care are not relevant to pubs, restaurants, shops, events, etc.

However, I was impressed by the piece I saw on the local news a few days ago, where vaccine uptake is being significantly increased by the simple expedient of GPs ringing people who decline and talking to them. That feels the right choice for getting vaccination levels up to the very high levels that are needed for society as a whole, and a far better approach than a cack-handed one of quasi compulsion.

Browbeating them into it, in other words. Not really something GPs should be doing, with the possible exception of cases where the person concerned is themselves at particular risk from the virus.

That said, I have minimal sympathy for the "but we're being coerced" argument

Yes, we've realised that.

- you aren't, you are being given hobson's choice; you can take the vaccine you don't particularly want, or you can go without but with significant constraints on what you can do.

Sorry, but in the real world that's severe coercion.

The concept of a social contract is very old, and part of it relies on people doing things that aren't in their personal direct interest for the benefit of society at large.

There is no real evidence that this is for the benefit of society at large in any significant sense - if it were, exactly the same would apply to the flu vaccine, and it doesn't.

Being blunt, I see a number of people posting here to say that they'll decline to be vaccinated, who then get very offended at any hint that they might in some way be being selfish. On the arguments I've seen on this thread, my reaction is largely to think "the lady doth protest too much".

It could be said that some people on here possess a very high sense of entitlement in that they think it's fine to judge others in this way.

I feel no obligation to society, in that for the past six months I have been subjected to regular low level harassment over masks - in shops, on trains, and on here (including from you personally). If you (collectively) try to make people feel that they are the scum of society, don't be surprised if they then don't comply with what society wants.

 

[yorkie]

Well that only works if the vaccine is shown to reduce transmission

It has been, the data from Israel is very clear on that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2021 ==

Have I missed something here, as far as I'm aware the Astra Zeneca vaccine is sold at cost? So them stating something along lines of UK government supporting these giants to boost profits isn't true in that case? The flip side is if they don't make a profit then they don't do any research into new vaccines.

You are correct

 

[NorthKent1989]

That’s been my personal fear all along being restricted but none of the governments are being forward with this I wonder why?

The best case scenario are on the door covid tests, I think BoJo knows that this will be an unpopular step too far so he’ll take the easy way out I feel.....I hope...

 

[kez19]

The best case scenario are on the door covid tests, I think BoJo knows that this will be an unpopular step too far so he’ll take the easy way out I feel.....I hope...

I can't believe we have to even think that, thats paranoia (not you)

 

[NorthKent1989]

I can't believe we have to even think that, thats paranoia (not you)

Haha honestly I cannot believe that’s the best case scenario or that it’s the lesser of the two evils

 

[kez19]

Haha honestly I cannot believe that’s the best case scenario or that it’s the lesser of the two evils

Best case scenario would be is that the governments got their heads together and actually told the truth for once than keeping putting their heads in the sand.

 

[yorkie]

The best case scenario are on the door covid tests...

This isn't going to be viable or worth doing in anything other than the very short term in my opinion. but any further discussion of this nature belongs here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/vaccine-passports-permanent-restrictions.213501/

We do need to try to stay on the topic of attitudes towards taking the vaccine; anything that goes into too much depth on any other subject is best posted in another thread (there is nothing to stop people linking to such content from this thread where appropriate, of course)

 

[NorthKent1989]

Best case scenario would be is that the governments got their heads together and actually told the truth for once than keeping putting their heads in the sand.

It’s happening bit by bit, a few weeks back Matt Hancock said we would have to live with Covid, something I’ve been saying all year.

But yes I want more clarity on the exit strategy

 

[Ediswan]

Have I missed something here, as far as I'm aware the Astra Zeneca vaccine is sold at cost? So them stating something along lines of UK government supporting these giants to boost profits isn't true in that case? The flip side is if they don't make a profit then they don't do any research into new vaccines.

Rather like Churchill said about democracy, the current method for funding pharmaceutical R&D is terrible. This example, orphan drugs, the list goes on. The fact remains that if people want new dugs/vaccines, even if the system were somehow to become wholly non-profit, an enormous amount of money would need to be found to fund the research. So, until somebody figures out to make a non-profit model work, we are stuck with a for-profit model (or nothing).

Don't forget, the early railways were profit-seeking ventures. Ideas about providing a public services and being critical infrastructure came later.

 

[35B]

And we are currently already borderline between the two - it is already very clear that there will be peer pressure and shaming used against those who don't want the vaccine. Whether it goes further than that remains to be seen, but is by no means unlikely.



They may do - but we have no control over what other countries do.



There is no precedent for asking and refusing access on the basis of medical treatments - and it would set a dangerous precedent. Health and social care are not relevant to pubs, restaurants, shops, events, etc.



Browbeating them into it, in other words. Not really something GPs should be doing, with the possible exception of cases where the person concerned is themselves at particular risk from the virus.



Yes, we've realised that.



Sorry, but in the real world that's severe coercion.



There is no real evidence that this is for the benefit of society at large in any significant sense - if it were, exactly the same would apply to the flu vaccine, and it doesn't.



It could be said that some people on here possess a very high sense of entitlement in that they think it's fine to judge others in this way.

I feel no obligation to society, in that for the past six months I have been subjected to regular low level harassment over masks - in shops, on trains, and on here (including from you personally). If you (collectively) try to make people feel that they are the scum of society, don't be surprised if they then don't comply with what society wants.

If you feel that I have been harassing you, then we have utterly different views of what harassment consists of. Generally, your comparisons with flu seem to miss the completely different impact that Covid has had on healthcare compared with even a bad winter flu outbreak, and to disregard the wider implications of Covid.

I'll pick up specifically on one point you make - your comments on GP follow-up to those declining vaccination. Your use of the term "browbeating", and your focus on personal risk alone, implies that you believe it unreasonable to seek to check whether there's a reason why someone hasn't responded to a medical request. That suggests a peculiarly individualistic view of the world, where a GP should not take any interest in the health and wellbeing of their patient. When it is a commonplace that, in all spheres, responses to invitations improve when a general invitation is followed up to non-responders with a specific request, and take-up in Leicester by minority communities (i.e., those most at risk from Covid) was below the overall average (80+% was cited as the average, falling to 70% in South Asian and 50% in black communities), I'm struggling to understand how that approach is anything other than reasonable.

 

[yorkie]

If you feel that I have been harassing you, then we have utterly different views of what harassment consists of. Generally, your comparisons with flu seem to miss the completely different impact that Covid has had on healthcare compared with even a bad winter flu outbreak, and to disregard the wider implications of Covid.

I think any such comparisons are best made in a new thread, but we need to be careful not to compare apples with pears. To compare a virus to which we have very good immunity as a population to another virus to which about half the population has excellent immunity against but the other half has very little is not an easy comparison to make. I'll be happy to post more on the subject but this isn't the thread for it.

 

[DB]

If you feel that I have been harassing you, then we have utterly different views of what harassment consists of. Generally, your comparisons with flu seem to miss the completely different impact that Covid has had on healthcare compared with even a bad winter flu outbreak, and to disregard the wider implications of Covid.

I am referring to your snide implications on a number of occasions that I don't hevae a 'real' 'proper' reason for not wearing a mask, despite you not having any idea what my justification actually is. This attitude is commonplace nowadays - the implication that non-mask wearers are enemies of society. Why should it then come as a surprise if such people become alienated and don't do what society wants / demands when it comes to vaccines?

I'll pick up specifically on one point you make - your comments on GP follow-up to those declining vaccination. Your use of the term "browbeating", and your focus on personal risk alone, implies that you believe it unreasonable to seek to check whether there's a reason why someone hasn't responded to a medical request. That suggests a peculiarly individualistic view of the world, where a GP should not take any interest in the health and wellbeing of their patient. When it is a commonplace that, in all spheres, responses to invitations improve when a general invitation is followed up to non-responders with a specific request, and take-up in Leicester by minority communities (i.e., those most at risk from Covid) was below the overall average (80+% was cited as the average, falling to 70% in South Asian and 50% in black communities), I'm struggling to understand how that approach is anything other than reasonable.

It is fine for a GP to remind someone - but not really for them to phone and start interrogating people as to why they don't want it.

 

[LowLevel]

I am referring to your snide implications on a number of occasions that I don't hevae a 'real' 'proper' reason for not wearing a mask, despite you not having any idea what my justification actually is. This attitude is commonplace nowadays - the implication that non-mask wearers are enemies of society. Why should it then come as a surprise if such people become alienated and don't do what society wants / demands when it comes to vaccines?



It is fine for a GP to remind someone - but not really for them to phone and start interrogating people as to why they don't want it.

I disagree - sometimes a challenge to a view, particularly from a qualified professional, is enough to make someone change their mind. For those who don't want the vaccine because they believe misinformation this could be important. For those who have other reasons, then it is obviously less so, but the GP doesn't know that. If the GP is getting in touch at this stage then the risk to life or wellbeing from COVID is likely to be higher than it is for people further down the priority queue.

Having difficult conversations with your GP is a fact of life. My own doctor pointedly informed me I had been stupid not to come and see them regarding a medical issue I'd had my head in the sand over for some years fairly recently and they were entirely correct, and I am now on a greatly COVID extended wait for an operation to correct my problem.

Their job is to give you advice and at times challenge your perception on distressing subjects (and for some people that will include vaccines). If you don't change your position as a result then that is your prerogative.

 

[bramling]

I disagree - sometimes a challenge to a view, particularly from a qualified professional, is enough to make someone change their mind. For those who don't want the vaccine because they believe misinformation this could be important. For those who have other reasons, then it is obviously less so, but the GP doesn't know that. If the GP is getting in touch at this stage then the risk to life or wellbeing from COVID is likely to be higher than it is for people further down the priority queue.

Having difficult conversations with your GP is a fact of life. My own doctor pointedly informed me I had been stupid not to come and see them regarding a medical issue I'd had my head in the sand over for some years fairly recently and they were entirely correct, and I am now on a greatly COVID extended wait for an operation to correct my problem.

Their job is to give you advice and at times challenge your perception on distressing subjects (and for some people that will include vaccines). If you don't change your position as a result then that is your prerogative.

I don’t have a problem with someone like a GP attempting to present an argument in an attempt to inform and/or persuade.

As long as that’s where it stops, unlike with masks where you can have something like railway staff having a go at someone who isn’t wearing a mask (as well as spouting out misinformation, it’s also not their role to be enforcing this) or even random people in the street.

I can imagine going to do something mundane like pay for petrol, and be greeted with “have you got your vaccine card, sir?”. I don’t think that’s helpful.

 

[35B]

I am referring to your snide implications on a number of occasions that I don't hevae a 'real' 'proper' reason for not wearing a mask, despite you not having any idea what my justification actually is. This attitude is commonplace nowadays - the implication that non-mask wearers are enemies of society. Why should it then come as a surprise if such people become alienated and don't do what society wants / demands when it comes to vaccines?



It is fine for a GP to remind someone - but not really for them to phone and start interrogating people as to why they don't want it.

@LowLevel sums up my view on the role of the GP.

As for your mask wearing, I've no idea what your reasons are for not wearing one; I've never asked and never assumed. Some, and I accept from that post this includes you, are genuinely in the group who suffer severe distress from wearing masks. What I have been contemptuous of, and am unapologetic for, are the "won't wear" brigade who claim exemption when it is clear from what they say and write that what they mean is that they don't want to wear them. Apart from anything else, they undermine the credibility of those who really can't tolerate them.

But I strongly suggest that you step back from reacting to society in that way - it is a lose-lose battle.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It’s not necessarily just the side affects ffs it’s agreeing to be coerced into taking a vaccine for a virus that doesn’t badly affect the vast majority. But never mind eh? It’s just a mask. Its just on public transport, It’s just three weeks, we will just vaccinate the vulnerable etc etc.

The lockdowns and restrictions have been a right PITA I agree. The handling of aspects of it by government have been and continue to be immensely frustrating. No argument from me there.

I'm not sure where you get the idea of coercion though. Sure, the virus doesn't badly affect the vast majority, but an even smaller minority of individuals will in any way be affected by the vaccine when they have it. The common cold also doesn't affect the majority of people, but if there was a hypothetical vaccine available for that, it would be a good thing. Think of the economic impact that would have just in reduced sick days, let alone the protection of immuno-compromised people with that group of diseases no longer as prevalent in the population.

C-19 has rightly or wrongly had an enormous impact on the economy. It may well turn out that the world at large massively overreacted to it, and that a reliance on isolating the vulnerable and acquired herd-immunity of the healthy population would have been a better strategy. It may also turn out that some of the decisions made by those in power were not made in good faith- if so, colour me surprised.

But we are where we are. The vaccines are available and the positives massively outweigh the negatives in my opinion. If and when you are offered a vaccine I encourage you to take it. I obviously can't (and wouldn't want to) force you to do so.

I'm certainly not worried that it's given me autism!

 

[Yew]

It isn't a contradiction at all. I understand why people might not want the vaccine and accept it is their choice. I also understand some people have a real fear of the virus and accept they might want to put measures in place to protect themselves against what they perceive to be a threat. You, by being against absolutely everything and often ridiculing people who behave differently or perceive things differently, are the one who shows no empathy whatsoever for people who don't hold the exact views as yourself.

Empathy would be not locking up others in a pseudoscientific quest to alleviate ones unsubstantiated fears.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2021 ==

@LowLevel sums up my view on the role of the GP.

As for your mask wearing, I've no idea what your reasons are for not wearing one; I've never asked and never assumed. Some, and I accept from that post this includes you, are genuinely in the group who suffer severe distress from wearing masks. What I have been contemptuous of, and am unapologetic for, are the "won't wear" brigade who claim exemption when it is clear from what they say and write that what they mean is that they don't want to wear them. Apart from anything else, they undermine the credibility of those who really can't tolerate them.

But I strongly suggest that you step back from reacting to society in that way - it is a lose-lose battle.

Ah, that old hypothetical situation that you've never been able to prove happens, come to think about it, much like the supposed benefits of masks..

 

[AlterEgo]

I’m a reasonably healthy 31 year old, and I shan’t be taking the vaccine,

As is your right, but

by next year enough people will have been vaccinated and with everything opened back up again as normal Covid will be seasonal

...is only really possible if we reduce the transmission vastly, which is what vaccines do. Why would you not want to be a part of that?

 

[NorthKent1989]

As is your right, but

...is only really possible if we reduce the transmission vastly, which is what vaccines do. Why would you not want to be a part of that?

Because I’m not in a vulnerable category, and those who have been vaccinated why would it make any difference if someone like me had the jab or not?

 

[Crossover]

Because I’m not in a vulnerable category, and those who have been vaccinated why would it make any difference if someone like me had the jab or not?

Arguably it protects those who can't have it for medical reasons. If too many people elect not to have it through not feeling like they are vulnerable, it could put us as a nation in a tricky position, potentially

 

[Yew]

Arguably it protects those who can't have it for medical reasons. If too many people elect not to have it through not feeling like they are vulnerable, it could put us as a nation in a tricky position, potentially

We don't take that approach for many other diseases?

And that's before we consider the vulnerable who aren't vaccinated, whilst we're vaccinating those in their 20's.

 

[Crossover]

We don't take that approach for many other diseases?

And that's before we consider the vulnerable who aren't vaccinated, whilst we're vaccinating those in their 20's.

Meh - call me brainwashed, then!

 

[kez19]

It’s happening bit by bit, a few weeks back Matt Hancock said we would have to live with Covid, something I’ve been saying all year.

But yes I want more clarity on the exit strategy

I agree in terms of exit up in Scotland but it seems like this is getting dragged out

 

[Annetts key]

We don't take that approach for many other diseases?

Well, we kinda do. When we as a country get our act together, like with tackling Measles, we can all but wipe it out.

 

[nlogax]

There is an altruistic element lacking from one or two of the responses here. It's their right but it's pretty disappointing.

 

[AlterEgo]

Because I’m not in a vulnerable category, and those who have been vaccinated why would it make any difference if someone like me had the jab or not?

Vaccines are not 100% effective - the flu jab isn't, for example. Reducing transmission means far fewer people who are vulnerable will catch the virus. Only once we have herd immunity through either exposure or vaccination can the virus drop to endemic levels. The virus isn't going to go away, but it will be a much less dangerous prospect in the short to medium term the more people that are vaccinated.

Why do you think you are being encouraged to take the vaccine, if not for the benefit of your health or the health of your fellow citizens?

 

[NorthKent1989]

Vaccines are not 100% effective - the flu jab isn't, for example. Reducing transmission means far fewer people who are vulnerable will catch the virus. Only once we have herd immunity through either exposure or vaccination can the virus drop to endemic levels. The virus isn't going to go away, but it will be a much less dangerous prospect in the short to medium term the more people that are vaccinated.

Why do you think you are being encouraged to take the vaccine, if not for the benefit of your health or the health of your fellow citizens?

I wouldn’t call it encouraging if my livelihood is under threat if I don’t take it but that’s a topic for another thread.

I feel I’m entitled to my freedom of choice, something which I feel we have forgotten in the last year, it shouldn’t bother anyone if I don’t choose to take the vaccine, I’m not bothered if others feel the need to take it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2021 ==

I agree in terms of exit up in Scotland but it seems like this is getting dragged out

The only thing that is clear with England’s exit strategy is the fact that furlough has been extended to September....this reminds me of October when the tiers were introduced and furlough then was extended to April, next thing you know we’re in a 2nd Lockdown in November, London is put in tier 4 And lockdown 3 begins, but I shall remain optimistic

 

[AlterEgo]

I feel I’m entitled to my freedom of choice

You are of course entitled to your opinion and to refuse a medical intervention, and I would support you if you were denied a job because of your choice.