What if herd immunity can't be reached with a vaccine, as too many refuse to have it?

[bramling]

The only problem being that those who refuse to get immunised on non-medical grounds can still be carriers yet presumably their principles wouldn't go as far as limiting the risks that they present to others.

Would they present a risk to others though? They would, presumably, only risk spreading to non-vaccinated people.

 

[Mike395]

Statistically scientists think we need 60-80% of people (dependent on who you ask) in this country to be vaccinated in order to reach herd immunity. I'd say it'd be very unlikely that demand for the vaccine wouldn't reach that threshold, barring any media coverage saying the vaccine might not be safe, so it's a non-issue really.

 

[DB]

Statistically scientists think we need 60-80% of people (dependent on who you ask) in this country to be vaccinated in order to reach herd immunity. I'd say it'd be very unlikely that demand for the vaccine wouldn't reach that threshold, barring any media coverage saying the vaccine might not be safe, so it's a non-issue really.

That number could be considerably lower depending on how many people already have immunity without a vaccine.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That number could be considerably lower depending on how many people already have immunity without a vaccine.

This is certainly something requiring of more research. No vaccine is zero risk, so if you're already immune there's no point having it (not to mention the cost saving).

 

[jfollows]

Statistically scientists think we need 60-80% of people (dependent on who you ask) in this country to be vaccinated in order to reach herd immunity. I'd say it'd be very unlikely that demand for the vaccine wouldn't reach that threshold, barring any media coverage saying the vaccine might not be safe, so it's a non-issue really.

The SIR model, which is necessarily simple and not completely accurate, nonetheless gives a useful pointer that as long as less than 1/R of the population remain susceptible (so essentially aren't vaccinated) then we attain "herd immunity".

This is, in fact, well demonstrated with measles in which R=18 (or so), meaning that around 95% of the population needs to be vaccinated, which it generally is, and when the percentage falls below this critical value - as it does in certain places - then outbreaks of measles occur.

 

[Yew]

This is certainly something requiring of more research. No vaccine is zero risk, so if you're already immune there's no point having it (not to mention the cost saving).

Indeed, some vaccines (TB) have a immunity check beforehand, as there's no point giving it to people who are already immune.

 

[Skymonster]

Could we say that those who refuse a vaccine (and aren't unable to have it for medical reasons) are effectively rejecting NHS treatment for anything relating to the virus?

Really??!! You can't just withdraw universal healthcare that everyone is paying for through taxation on the basis of declining a vaccine. Perhaps we should also withdraw schooling for any child who hasn't had a vaccine too? Or the right to use public transport, with checks that passengers have a certificate before they are allowed to buy a ticket? And while we are at it, lets withdraw NHS treatment for conditions that arise from activities that are not necessary as part of normal, everyday life - horse riding, rock climbing, smoking, obesity, etc.

 

[jfollows]

It's not a problem, so looking for solutions isn't required.

For COVID-19, almost all estimates for the value of R in an unconstrained environment (before social distancing etc.) show values less than 4, so - as Mike395 said - the percentage of people needing to be vaccinated is easily achieved, following experience with other vaccines. 75% looks like being well in excess of the percentage required.

However, assuming a vaccine does allow us to move away from "social distancing" measures, one of the first incentives might be to allow those vaccinated to be free from prosecution from the (frankly pretty unenforceable) law requiring face masks to be worn in certain environments. My point is that it'd be better to give people incentives to get themselves vaccinated than to come up with yet another law (or equivalent) which imposes sanctions on people who don't.

But nothing of either sort is actually required, I maintain.

 

[philosopher]

However, assuming a vaccine does allow us to move away from "social distancing" measures, one of the first incentives might be to allow those vaccinated to be free from prosecution from the (frankly pretty unenforceable) law requiring face masks to be worn in certain environments. My point is that it'd be better to give people incentives to get themselves vaccinated than to come up with yet another law (or equivalent) which imposes sanctions on people who don't.

Once there is a vaccine, those who are vaccinated should receive a certificate. Then pubs, restaurants, gyms, events, etc should be allowed to deny entry to those without a vaccination certificate or a valid exemption for not being vaccinated. I think this would be a pretty big incentive to get vaccinated.

 

[DB]

Once there is a vaccine, those who are vaccinated should receive a certificate. Then pubs, restaurants, gyms, events, etc should be allowed to deny entry to those without a vaccination certificate or a valid exemption for not being vaccinated. I think this would be a pretty big incentive to get vaccinated.

Do you really believe that? It would be a civil liberties issue of the like not seen in this country for decades.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once there is a vaccine, those who are vaccinated should receive a certificate. Then pubs, restaurants, gyms, events, etc should be allowed to deny entry to those without a vaccination certificate or a valid exemption for not being vaccinated. I think this would be a pretty big incentive to get vaccinated.

They can do that without any law change; having or not having a vaccine, unless that is itself for reason of a protected characteristic, is not itself a protected characteristic. I think at least some will do.

 

[BJames]

Once there is a vaccine, those who are vaccinated should receive a certificate. Then pubs, restaurants, gyms, events, etc should be allowed to deny entry to those without a vaccination certificate or a valid exemption for not being vaccinated. I think this would be a pretty big incentive to get vaccinated.

This could spark serious problems though as this is akin to forcibly being vaccinated - what about those who are not eligible for the vaccine or for those whom it is not safe? Should they have to carry round their medical records to explain their exemption?

 

[BJames]

They can do that without any law change; having or not having a vaccine, unless that is itself for reason of a protected characteristic, is not itself a protected characteristic. I think at least some will do.

It will cause a mountain of legal challenges, and likely they will be successful as well. It is discrimination, whether or not you look at it that way, as telling people they can't come in without a vaccine is basically forced vaccination.

Do you really believe that? It would be a civil liberties issue of the like not seen in this country for decades.

Exactly.

 

[philosopher]

This could spark serious problems though as this is akin to forcibly being vaccinated - what about those who are not eligible for the vaccine or for those whom it is not safe? Should they have to carry round their medical records to explain their exemption?

Having a vaccination certificate could be voluntary and would be removed once enough had be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.

 

[BJames]

Out of interest, the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 states that

"Regulations under section 45B or 45C may not include provision requiring a person to undergo medical treatment."

The act does allow the relevant minister (i.e. Hancock) or magistrates to prevent the spread of disease through isolation and other tactics, which is what we've done. Amending this act would likely be blocked in court. Not to mention the fact that while people have generally been compliant up till now, they won't be if they tried to tell everyone they had to have a vaccine.

If the vaccine is proven to be safe I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with them telling the whole country you must get it.

 

[BJames]

Having a vaccination certificate could be voluntary and would be removed once enough had be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.

This doesn't make sense though because you're saying it should be optional but those who choose to get it basically get privileges over those who don't. Good luck with the enforcement of this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It will cause a mountain of legal challenges, and likely they will be successful as well. It is discrimination, whether or not you look at it that way, as telling people they can't come in without a vaccine is basically forced vaccination.

That's an interesting point, and I'm not sure if I agree or not. Certainly if it was forced or even recommended by the Government it would be seen that way. But private businesses do have the right to unilaterally refuse to serve anyone for any reason provided it doesn't breach a protected characteristic, and so provided this allowed for people who for health reasons cannot be vaccinated (e.g. those who are immune suppressed) I'm not sure it would be illegal. For instance, there were some businesses who insisted on the wearing of masks prior to this being a legal requirement, though this was more prevalent in the US than here.

The question of whether it is desirable or necessary is an entirely different one, and is the main premise of this thread.

 

[DB]

That's an interesting point, and I'm not sure if I agree or not. Certainly if it was forced or even recommended by the Government it would be seen that way. But private businesses do have the right to unilaterally refuse to serve anyone for any reason provided it doesn't breach a protected characteristic, and provided this allowed for people who for health reasons cannot be vaccinated (e.g. those who are immune suppressed) I'm not sure it would be illegal.

The question of whether it is desirable or necessary is an entirely different one, and is the main premise of this thread.

Apart from the obvious civi rights issues, do you not think that a thriving online trade in fake vaccination certificates would appear very quickly?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apart from the obvious civi rights issues, do you not think that a thriving online trade in fake vaccination certificates would appear very quickly?

Most probably, yes. I was however in that reply only commenting on whether it was legal or not, and I don't see what wouldn't be legal about it.

 

[Skymonster]

Once there is a vaccine, those who are vaccinated should receive a certificate. Then pubs, restaurants, gyms, events, etc should be allowed to deny entry to those without a vaccination certificate or a valid exemption for not being vaccinated. I think this would be a pretty big incentive to get vaccinated.

Madness, utter madness... And perhaps apply the same to shops too, so anyone who has not been vaccinated would not be allowed into any shops - and public transport, where folks who hadn't been vaccinate would not be allowed to travel???

 

[BJames]

Most probably, yes. I was however in that reply only commenting on whether it was legal or not, and I don't see what wouldn't be legal about it.

I take your point but I see it as discriminating by way of not allowing people to engage in the same activity based on medical grounds. I still think the legality would be challenged but whether it is proven or disproven is another matter - I don't know if there's any precedent ruling either way. Perhaps I'll look into that later.

 

[birchesgreen]

Madness, utter madness... And perhaps apply the same to shops too, so anyone who has not been vaccinated would not be allowed into any shops - and public transport, where folks who hadn't been vaccinate would not be allowed to travel???

Yeah i think they should be put in chains until vaccinated, to keep everyone SAFE.

 

[MikeWM]

I can't say I've ever felt the need to investigate the claim of 'anti-vaxxers' before, but with the potential of a mandatory or coerced vaccine being something that may occur in the near future, I've taken a look.

Firstly I think it is fair to say that after the last few months, it is a rather good idea in general to be somewhat sceptical about anything where the government, media, and the subset of experts that have access to the government and media, are all in lockstep. On any issue going forwards. Certainly that's the attitude I'm taking.

As for the 'anti-vaxxers', some of what they say is clearly rather silly or downright wrong. However, three things struck me as worth consideration:


- The fact that in a minority of people vaccines have nasty, even life-changing side-effects. I was already aware of the issues with the rushed 'swine flu' vaccine, eg.

https://www.narcolepsy.org.uk/resources/pandemrix-narcolepsy

The UK Health Protection Agency (now Public Health England) undertook a major study of 4- to 18-year-olds and found that around one in every 55,000 jabs led to narcolepsy.

but was less aware that there are also issues with the more established vaccines. This is why the UK has a 'Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme' and the USA has a federal 'National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program', the latter having paid out over *$4 billion* to date to people who had life-altering responses to routine vaccinations.


- The list of ingredients in vaccines is rather interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaccine_ingredients

It appears there are good, or at least fairly good, arguments for including things like formaldehyde, aluminium compounds and mercury compounds in various vaccines, eg. here is what the CDC say about it

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

but it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to at least consider if injecting such things into the body has the potential to cause problems.


- I appreciate this won't be a concern for many, and it opens up quite an elephant trap of moral debate, but some people have moral concerns over the fact that many vaccines, including many of the leading candidates for a Covid vaccine (eg. the 'Oxford' vaccine), are manufactured using human cells that originated from aborted human fetuses. I have to say this makes *me* somewhat uncomfortable.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/abortion-opponents-protest-covid-19-vaccines-use-fetal-cells



I think these are legitimate concerns. They may well be outweighed by the positive effects of vaccination, but I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss all people who have such concerns as monsters or fools.

 

[AdamWW]

I think these are legitimate concerns. They may well be outweighed by the positive effects of vaccination, but I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss all people who have such concerns as monsters or fools.

Fair points...though we don't actually have any idea what the long term effects of having had Covid-19 are either. So when choosing whether to have a vaccine or not, one is comparing two unknowns, though at least the vaccine is designed to minimize harm.

A more difficult decision if you think you've already had Covid-19...

 

[Yew]

After looking at twitter, most arguments I've seen are against compulsary vaccination using an untested vaccine. Unfortunately they don't realise the likeliehood of an experimental vaccine being mandated is so incredibly small to be basicaly zero.

With the exception of the general anti-vax nutjobs,it seems that most of those complaining are against a position that nobody is advocating.

 

[Skymonster]

It is currently academic because the Public Health (Control of Desease) Act 1984, amended in 2020 currently says:

45E Medical treatment
(1)Regulations under section 45B or 45C may not include provision requiring a person to undergo medical treatment.
(2)“ Medical treatment ” includes vaccination and other prophylactic treatment.

Sections 45B and 45C relate to arrangements for international travel, and domestic arrangements, respectively. Fortunately changes to this need a parliamentary resolution and cannot just be imposed. Unfortunately, the Tories could if they wanted railroad such a change through. I think the civil liberties debate over enforced vaccination would be massive.

 

[philosopher]

- The fact that in a minority of people vaccines have nasty, even life-changing side-effects. I was already aware of the issues with the rushed 'swine flu' vaccine, eg.

https://www.narcolepsy.org.uk/resources/pandemrix-narcolepsy


but was less aware that there are also issues with the more established vaccines. This is why the UK has a 'Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme' and the USA has a federal 'National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program', the latter having paid out over *$4 billion* to date to people who had life-altering responses to routine vaccinations.

I think this concern is a big factor for many people. If the testing period is two years and during that time there are no significant side effects and the vaccine is approved after two years, then people will probably be confident that it is the safe and hence uptake will likely be higher. However a longer testing period likely means a longer period of social distancing. So it is a trade off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think this concern is a big factor for many people. If the testing period is two years and during that time there are no significant side effects and the vaccine is approved after two years, then people will probably be confident that it is the safe and hence uptake will likely be higher. However a longer testing period likely means a longer period of social distancing. So it is a trade off.

I think I would say I dislike social distancing enough that I would take the (small) risk. The thing is whether enough people will.

 

[AdamWW]

but was less aware that there are also issues with the more established vaccines. This is why the UK has a 'Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme' and the USA has a federal 'National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program', the latter having paid out over *$4 billion* to date to people who had life-altering responses to routine vaccinations.
I think these are legitimate concerns. They may well be outweighed by the positive effects of vaccination, but I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss all people who have such concerns as monsters or fools.

I think there is pretty good evidence in the case of existing vaccines that the possible bad effects of vaccines are strongly outweighed by the benefits - while the chances of severe effects from, say, measles, are small, the chance of damage from vaccines is almost certainly a lot less.

Clearly with a new vaccine and a new virus it's less clear-cut, though already there seems to be good evidence that Covid-19 can do pretty unpleasant things to various organs - not just the lungs.

 

[AM9]

Would they present a risk to others though? They would, presumably, only risk spreading to non-vaccinated people.

It would be interesting to see how a persons's vaccination status would be viewed when visiting an area where the vaccination programme is behind that of the individual's residency, e.g. holidaying in lands where a far smaller proportion of the population had been innoculated yet. Maybe the travel health record (of the type that I attached to post #24) would become a condition of entry.