• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scrotnig

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2017
Messages
592
Therefore, anything that even looks like a requirement to be vaccinated is going to get the government into trouble without a further Act of Parliament.
I'm pretty certain there will be no mandatory vaccination in the U.K.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Huntergreed

Established Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
3,019
Location
Dumfries
I'm pretty certain there will be no mandatory vaccination in the U.K.
No, there won’t.

There are so many legal, moral, ethical problems with this proposal I don’t even know how it could even be contemplated.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
No, there won’t.

There are so many legal, moral, ethical problems with this proposal I don’t even know how it could even be contemplated.

However it could be possible to have a vaccine or a 14 day (at the individuals expense) quarantine (probably at a designated location rather than in a home) as a condition of entry to the UK without hitting quite so many of those problems.

If you don't wish to have the vaccine then it makes it harder to travel, but not impossible. There's a lot less reasons why that would become a moral issue.

The majority of the population would see it as stopping new cases coming into the UK and so would support it, those who didn't always have the option of not going abroad, especially given that many other countries would likely have a similar rule.

For anyone traveling to a high risk areas they would certainly wish to have the vaccine anyway (in the same way as other holiday vaccines).

Such a rule would likely help to increase the uptake.

However I would guess that to get to >80% uptake would be fairly easy to achieve, as there's likely to be a fairly big proportion of people who would like things to return fully to normal. As well as many businesses applying pressure to their staff to get a vaccine (although still they'd have to be careful to not to discriminate, but a company wide communication with wording like "until we can return to the way things were before we can not be sure that all jobs will be secure" would probably be enough to focus enough minds to also help uptake).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
However it could be possible to have a vaccine or a 14 day (at the individuals expense) quarantine (probably at a designated location rather than in a home) as a condition of entry to the UK without hitting quite so many of those problems.

If you don't wish to have the vaccine then it makes it harder to travel, but not impossible. There's a lot less reasons why that would become a moral issue.

Assuming a successful vaccine is available I would expect it will be like that, yes - basically how it works with Yellow Fever in countries affected by that. No requirement inside the country, but required to cross borders, effectively.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
Assuming a successful vaccine is available I would expect it will be like that, yes - basically how it works with Yellow Fever in countries affected by that. No requirement inside the country, but required to cross borders, effectively.
Indeed, I imagine something like that is most likely to happen, if we find a vaccine.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,602
Talking of "rushed vaccines", I'd be interested to know how much testing the vaccine mentioned here has had:

Russian health authorities are preparing to start a mass vaccination campaign against coronavirus in October, the health minister has said.

Russian media quoted Mikhail Murashko as saying that doctors and teachers would be the first to receive the vaccine.

Reuters, citing anonymous sources, said Russia's first potential vaccine would be approved by regulators this month.

However, some experts are concerned at Russia's fast-track approach.
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
Talking of "rushed vaccines", I'd be interested to know how much testing the vaccine mentioned here has had:
Russian health authorities are preparing to start a mass vaccination campaign against coronavirus in October, the health minister has said.

Russian media quoted Mikhail Murashko as saying that doctors and teachers would be the first to receive the vaccine.

Reuters, citing anonymous sources, said Russia's first potential vaccine would be approved by regulators this month.

However, some experts are concerned at Russia's fast-track approach.

I wonder if it is one that they have gained access to another vaccine by industrial espionage. It could well be the Oxford vaccine, as the timing of masks in shops in England relative to the Oxford immugenicity test results does look suspicious (even if there is nothing there, it is still a correlation).
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,221
Location
London
I'd agree with that last sentence, and I have concerns about the Russian vaccine which does seem to have been rushed into general use. But there is a social media driven campaign against all vaccines, especially in the US. However I don't know whether Jonny (the poster I replied to) believes in that or not.

(This reply to @DelW is from the masks thread, but is off topic).

There are lots of conspiracy theorists out there who believe vaccines are to inject microchips into people etc. These people are clearly a mad and delusional minority, and were no doubt anti all vaccines long before Covid came along. I haven’t seen anyone posting agreement with these theories on this forum.

There is a worrying tendency for the pro vaccine/pro mask to shut down/discredit any concerns over this vaccine as being an “anti vaxxer” conspiracy theory.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,835
(This reply to @DelW is from the masks thread, but is off topic).

There are lots of conspiracy theorists out there who believe vaccines are to inject microchips into people etc. These people are clearly a mad and delusional minority, and were no doubt anti all vaccines long before Covid came along. I haven’t seen anyone posting agreement with these theories on this forum.

There is a worrying tendency for the pro vaccine/pro mask to shut down/discredit any concerns over this vaccine as being an “anti vaxxer” conspiracy theory.
Those are fair points, which I wouldn't disagree with.

I hadn't read this thread before, maybe I should do so :)
 

NorthOxonian

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
1,483
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
(This reply to @DelW is from the masks thread, but is off topic).

There are lots of conspiracy theorists out there who believe vaccines are to inject microchips into people etc. These people are clearly a mad and delusional minority, and were no doubt anti all vaccines long before Covid came along. I haven’t seen anyone posting agreement with these theories on this forum.

There is a worrying tendency for the pro vaccine/pro mask to shut down/discredit any concerns over this vaccine as being an “anti vaxxer” conspiracy theory.

I agree that some people tend to shut down concerns about a vaccine too quickly, but equally I think some on the other side tend to exaggerate the risks. Frankly, I would rather take the very small risk of a properly tested vaccine which was developed quickly, than have to live in this horrible dystopia any longer than necessary. And with some vaccines such as the one developed at Oxford, it seems like the science of their vaccine is well understood, it is just being adapted to deal with a new type of virus.

Also, I notice how you conflate being pro-vaccine with being pro-mask - but in my case I'm pro-vaccine partly because I'm anti-mask. The sooner the vaccine comes, the sooner the masks will go.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,221
Location
London
I agree that some people tend to shut down concerns about a vaccine too quickly, but equally I think some on the other side tend to exaggerate the risks. Frankly, I would rather take the very small risk of a properly tested vaccine which was developed quickly, than have to live in this horrible dystopia any longer than necessary. And with some vaccines such as the one developed at Oxford, it seems like the science of their vaccine is well understood, it is just being adapted to deal with a new type of virus.

That’s all perfectly reasonable (and I do take the point on the Oxford vaccine, which sounds both promising and (hopefully!) safe!)

I suppose my view on the vaccine generally is that it might well provide a way out of this - but it needs to be optional. The (barking mad, dystopian) premise of this thread was that vaccination should be forced on the population on pain for refusal of NHS treatment or imprisonment!

As someone who is at low risk for Covid, I doubt I’ll be queuing up for a vaccine, in just the same way as I don’t get an annual flu jab. Clearly that risk v reward analysis would be different for someone who has more vulnerability to the virus (or indeed for someone who is paranoid about it).


Also, I notice how you conflate being pro-vaccine with being pro-mask - but in my case I'm pro-vaccine partly because I'm anti-mask. The sooner the vaccine comes, the sooner the masks will go.

Hopefully they will, although I’m afraid I don’t share your optimism on that!
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
(quote from another thread)
Why should we need to be "tricked" into using a vaccine? Vaccines have saved millions of people from serious illness or death caused by diseases like polio, smallpox and measles which are now almost unknown in much of the world. Do you really think we'd be better off without them?

Because when there is a 99.9-something-plus survival rate with regard to a short infection, and the vaccine is quite new (such that the longer-term risks are unknown), it is perfectly understandable if there is a low uptake. Also, vaccines do cause adverse reactions and side-effects. My own concerns are not so much about what happens with regard to the coronavirus pandemic and vaccine, but what happens next time something coronavirus-like (e.g. another coronavirus with similar effects) occurs, given that the vast majority need a test to know that they have a coronavirus infection that they will recover from without noticing, and a different test (coronavirus antibodies) to know they have recovered?

Then there are flu vaccinations, which take place yearly, have adverse side effects and are sometimes ineffective. That is a whole new can of worms.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Do flu vaccines have adverse side effects? I had it last year, only the once I admit, and had none at all, and I tend to find I am quite prone to getting side effects of medications, particularly anything relating to the skin (itching etc).
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
Do flu vaccines have adverse side effects? I had it last year, only the once I admit, and had none at all, and I tend to find I am quite prone to getting side effects of medications, particularly anything relating to the skin (itching etc).
Can do, I had it once and had an incredibly painful arm for quite a while, that isn't a normal reaction to an injection. Have known people have mild flu like symptoms after as well.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,602
Because when there is a 99.9-something-plus survival rate with regard to a short infection, and the vaccine is quite new (such that the longer-term risks are unknown), it is perfectly understandable if there is a low uptake.

For any vaccine being rolled out the survival risk of having the vaccine will be a lot higher than 99.9-something-plus.

Covid-19 is quite new such that the long term risks are unknown.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Can do, I had it once and had an incredibly painful arm for quite a while, that isn't a normal reaction to an injection.

Depends which one I suppose. If you've ever had heparin (for DVT) that one's strange - you put it in (and can barely feel it, the needle is very thin), goes in the stomach, then about 10 seconds later it's like someone has kicked you hard in whatever part of the stomach you put it.

Have known people have mild flu like symptoms after as well.

Yes, I suppose some vaccines do give you a mild, non-transmissible version of the disease and so that can happen. No great concern, though, as it's expected - the mechanism for developing antibodies is based on this on those types of vaccine.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Covid-19 is quite new such that the long term risks are unknown.

You keep saying that, but there's no evidence that more than a tiny fraction of people actually have any long-term effects. It's not that new now either - nobody knows exactly when it first emerged, but it's not that far short of a year in all probability, so if any long-term effects were common they would very probably have been identified by now.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,602
You keep saying that, but there's no evidence that more than a tiny fraction of people actually have any long-term effects. It's not that new now either - nobody knows exactly when it first emerged, but it's not that far short of a year in all probability, so if any long-term effects were common they would very probably have been identified by now.

No, there's doesn't seem to be good evidence of widespread long term effects.

But that will also be true of a vaccine or it won't be licensed.

OK Covid-19 has been around longer than a vaccine will (though I don't think the fact that a small number of people may have had it 'early' helps), but the vaccine will have been through a large double-blind trial. We can't (or rather won't) do that with Covid-19.

I can understand the reasoning that says oh Covid-19 probably won't kill me so why would I try a brand-new vaccine?

But I think it is yet another example of people failing to correctly evaluate risks.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
I can understand the reasoning that says oh Covid-19 probably won't kill me so why would I try a brand-new vaccine?

But I think it is yet another example of people failing to correctly evaluate risks.

Afraid I disagree - for most people (i.e. under 70 and with no serious health conditions) I think that refusing the vaccine, at least for a while, would show a perfectly sound evaluation of the relative risks.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The vaccines also won't necessarily be completely brand new. Some projects are working with altered versions of existing, better-tested ones like vaccines for SARS-CoV-1.

Afraid I disagree - for most people (i.e. under 70 and with no serious health conditions) I think that refusing the vaccine, at least for a while, would show a perfectly sound evaluation of the relative risks.

Then we'll be stuck with distancing and masks for a long time :(
 

talldave

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2013
Messages
2,169
But I think it is yet another example of people failing to correctly evaluate risks.
People who quite rightly might just tell you where to stick your opinion of their risk evaluation capabilities.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,602
People who quite rightly might just tell you where to stick your opinion of their risk evaluation capabilities.

Maybe I've misunderstood.

Are we only supposed to be expressing our views here if they agree with the majority?
 

NorthOxonian

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
1,483
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
Afraid I disagree - for most people (i.e. under 70 and with no serious health conditions) I think that refusing the vaccine, at least for a while, would show a perfectly sound evaluation of the relative risks.

Not really. The risk of a vaccine could even be greater than the risk of the virus, and I'd still take it. Why? Because the damage social distancing, masks, and all the other restrictions we know and love cause to my mental health is far greater than the risk of a vaccine. And realistically the government aren't going to scrap any of those measures unless enough people get vaccinated.
 

talldave

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2013
Messages
2,169
Maybe I've misunderstood.

Are we only supposed to be expressing our views here if they agree with the majority?
No I'm just pointing out that your suggestion that people are evaluating incorrectly will fall on deaf ears.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,602
No I'm just pointing out that your suggestion that people are evaluating incorrectly will fall on deaf ears.

I wasn't planning on embarking on a campaign to attempt to bring the masses round to my point of view.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Not really. The risk of a vaccine could even be greater than the risk of the virus, and I'd still take it. Why? Because the damage social distancing, masks, and all the other restrictions we know and love cause to my mental health is far greater than the risk of a vaccine. And realistically the government aren't going to scrap any of those measures unless enough people get vaccinated.

This is basically my view too. I'm sure the anti-measures people will shout "but scrap them anyway", and they are entitled to that view, but that is simply not going to happen whether they like it or not, and unlike them I don't like to engage in civil disobedience, and so while I may disagree with the law I generally prefer to comply with it.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Not really. The risk of a vaccine could even be greater than the risk of the virus, and I'd still take it. Why? Because the damage social distancing, masks, and all the other restrictions we know and love cause to my mental health is far greater than the risk of a vaccine. And realistically the government aren't going to scrap any of those measures unless enough people get vaccinated.

If those who are at risk have them (and they will probably choose to in a significant number of cases) why is there a problem? Among those not at risk, the chances of it causing enough hospitalisations to pose a significant problem is very low.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,602
If those who are at risk have them (and they will probably choose to in a significant number of cases) why is there a problem? Among those not at risk, the chances of it causing enough hospitalisations to pose a significant problem is very low.

If the vaccine gave 100% protection and everybody could have it, then in principle you could only give it to the people with a low risk of hospitalisation.

But there's a good chance that neither is true (and it may well be those most at risk due to age are those for whom it is less effective), in which case the way a vaccine can protect everyone is if enough people have it to reach herd immunity.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
If the vaccine gave 100% protection and everybody could have it, then in principle you could only give it to the people with a low risk of hospitalisation.

But there's a good chance that neither is true (and it may well be those most at risk due to age are those for whom it is less effective), in which case the way a vaccine can protect everyone is if enough people have it to reach herd immunity.

Your views on the vaccine are entirely hypothetical - until one is licensed nobody knows the circumstances in which it will be effective (or not).
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,602
Your views on the vaccine are entirely hypothetical - until one is licensed nobody knows the circumstances in which it will be effective (or not).

Er no.

I'm not making statements on what any vaccine we may have will do.

I'm commenting on how we'd be able to use a vaccine depending on what properties it had (i.e. 100% effective or not).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top