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

talldave

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2013
Messages
1,890
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.
I would take my business to pubs & restaurants who denied entry to people in support of mandatory vaccination.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

BJames

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2018
Messages
682
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.
Now this is possible (and arguably could be quite likely) - see Yellow Fever as the best example of this already in operation.
 

Scrotnig

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2017
Messages
513
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.
Nay, nay and thrice nay.
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
1,833
Now this is possible (and arguably could be quite likely) - see Yellow Fever as the best example of this already in operation.
That only applies when travelling to other countries though - not within the sam country which is what seems to be being suggested here.
 

87electric

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2010
Messages
680
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.
My body is my own and this talk of yours is dangerous. No one has the power to force medical treatment onto anyone. Do you understand why Human Rights are put into place? I don't think so.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
2,778
Yellow fever style certificates for entry into countries will probably become normal if / when a vaccine is ready. It would be difficult to demand British citizens and existing non citizen residents quarantining on return to the UK if they are not vaccinated. It would face legal challenges and be very unpopular at least initially. There is a huge difference between not wanting a vaccine that has been rushed and not wanting it at a later date. Its not implausible that a vaccine will be licensed too early because of the current situation and I don't want to be a guinea pig.
 

Scrotnig

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2017
Messages
513
My body is my own and this talk of yours is dangerous. No one has the power to force medical treatment onto anyone. Do you understand why Human Rights are put into place? I don't think so.
Totally agree.

I will probably get vaccinated if one becomes available, but I absolutely will not accept being forced to, and I will not accept others being forced to either. It must be personal choice. I’m quite sure the overwhelming majority will choose to have it.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,545
Location
London
We may, and I know this is controversial, have to legislate on the matter. That is, "you have it, you have proof you can't have it, or you stay at home until the disease has been eliminated", with prison sentences.

Or maybe we could just let people take their own risk and leave the virus in circulation - but what if it overwhelms the NHS?

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? That is, you can refuse it, but if you do your only option is to self-treat at home regardless of severity?

Would it mean we have to socially distance forever?

Are there other viable options to handle this possibility given the size of the anti-vaccination movement? It's quite a concern.
I’d say go with the “let people take their own risk” option.

Given how there no longer seems to be any divide between science and politics, I’m not particularly keen to have a vaccine that has been rushed through development, in a fraction of the time usually required, to further political aims. In fact, I almost certainly won’t have it for several years.

So long as those who are at high risk are vaccinated, what’s the issue? If I don’t have the vaccine I’m choosing to take the risk that I might contract the virus (which I’m statistically overwhelmingly likely to fully recover from), but I’m posing no risk to those who have chosen to be vaccinated.

Exactly the same thought process underpins why I (and millions of other relatively young, healthy people) don’t go for an annual a flu jab, either.

The comments in the OP about mandatory prison sentences, withdrawal of NHS treatment etc. for those who refuse the vaccine are far too over the top to take seriously, but I assume were only ever intended to provoke discussion :).
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
1,176
So long as those who are at high risk are vaccinated, what’s the issue? If I don’t have the vaccine I’m choosing to take the risk that I might contract the virus (which I’m statistically overwhelmingly likely to fully recover from), but I’m posing no risk to those who have chosen to be vaccinated.
It's not obvious to me that the risks from a "rushed" vaccine are likely to be worse than those from contracting Covid-19.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
8,204
Location
Redcar
It's not obvious to me that the risks from a "rushed" vaccine are likely to be worse than those from contracting Covid-19.
I don't think it's obvious to anyone. It might not be obvious until 30 years from now when everyone who had it turns into a flesh eating zombie. It would make an interesting future lockdown though.
 

joebassman

Member
Joined
5 Mar 2020
Messages
29
Location
Stowupland
The basic idea that you can force medical treatment on people is completely alien to this country's society and should never, EVER be even considered here.
That's not strictly true. Under the mental health act if someone is sectioned into hospital they can be treated and medicated against their will. I've known of people being strapped down and injected when they've refused treatment.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
1,297
Location
Ely
Given how there no longer seems to be any divide between science and politics, I’m not particularly keen to have a vaccine that has been rushed through development, in a fraction of the time usually required, to further political aims. In fact, I almost certainly won’t have it for several years.
Fauci appeared to be claiming today maybe October, more likely November. Either of those sound alarmingly rushed if they were to happen.

On a related note, have people seen the video of Bill Gates being interviewed - on American network news, surprisingly enough - and being asked about the side-effects seen in the trials of one of the vaccine candidates? The body language wasn't that of someone even remotely confident in what he was 'selling'. Sorry, can't find it now, but I'm sure it is out there if you look hard enough.

So long as those who are at high risk are vaccinated, what’s the issue? If I don’t have the vaccine I’m choosing to take the risk that I might contract the virus (which I’m statistically overwhelmingly likely to fully recover from), but I’m posing no risk to those who have chosen to be vaccinated.
Indeed - especially as it seems likely from what people have been saying that any vaccine won't stop you catching or transmitting Covid, just ameliorate the symptoms.
 

philosopher

Member
Joined
23 Sep 2015
Messages
188
My body is my own and this talk of yours is dangerous. No one has the power to force medical treatment onto anyone. Do you understand why Human Rights are put into place? I don't think so.
I did not say that vaccination should be compulsory, all I said is that certain business should have the right to refuse entry to those who have not been vaccinated, it may be that many pubs or restaurants decide not ask for proof of vaccination. In a similar way some countries refuse entry if you do not have a Yellow Fever vaccine certificate, this does not mean a Yellow Fever vaccine is compulsory.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
3,957
Location
Nottingham
Yellow fever style certificates for entry into countries will probably become normal if / when a vaccine is ready. It would be difficult to demand British citizens and existing non citizen residents quarantining on return to the UK if they are not vaccinated. It would face legal challenges and be very unpopular at least initially. There is a huge difference between not wanting a vaccine that has been rushed and not wanting it at a later date. Its not implausible that a vaccine will be licensed too early because of the current situation and I don't want to be a guinea pig.
I've had to present a Yellow Fever vaccination at a border. The most difficult thing was not losing the yellow booklet. Apart from that it was easy
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,545
Location
London
It's not obvious to me that the risks from a "rushed" vaccine are likely to be worse than those from contracting Covid-19.
That’s fine; and you should be entitled to have the vaccine if you want it. But, just as you might choose to have it, please respect my choice not to.

That's not strictly true. Under the mental health act if someone is sectioned into hospital they can be treated and medicated against their will. I've known of people being strapped down and injected when they've refused treatment.
That’s very much the “exception that proves the rule”: we only administer medical treatment to people against their will, where they are judged to be of unsound mind (and to children, who are legally considered to be too young to make their minds up, where that treatment is considered to be in their best interests).

You could quite legitimately turn down life saving chemotherapy, or surgery for cancer, and you could ask doctors not to resuscitate you etc.

Forcing people of sound mind to have medical treatment against their will, “for the greater good”, is the beginning of a very, very slippery slope indeed.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
49,849
Location
Yorkshire
This thread is pure fantasy; there will not be an enforced vaccine and there will be no shortage of people wanting to take the vaccine.
Fauci appeared to be claiming today maybe October, more likely November. ...
The Oxford vaccine could be ready first and is not being "rushed"; their work started many years ago on other coronaviruses, which meant they had a headstart. There is a thread about it on this forum.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,545
Location
London
This thread is pure fantasy; there will not be an enforced vaccine and there will be no shortage of people wanting to take the vaccine.
Agreed on both points. In fact I’ve no doubt a lot of people are so terrified of Covid 19 that they would take an untested vaccine, if they were told it worked, but had otherwise unknown side effects!

As a topic it certainly raises some interesting questions, though.
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
11,843
Location
Caerphilly
That’s fine; and you should be entitled to have the vaccine if you want it. But, just as you might choose to have it, please respect my choice not to.



That’s very much the “exception that proves the rule”: we only administer medical treatment to people against their will, where they are judged to be of unsound mind (and to children, who are legally considered to be too young to make their minds up, where that treatment is considered to be in their best interests).

You could quite legitimately turn down life saving chemotherapy, or surgery for cancer, and you could ask doctors not to resuscitate you etc.

Forcing people of sound mind to have medical treatment against their will, “for the greater good”, is the beginning of a very, very slippery slope indeed.
Refuse the vaccine, catch it and pass it on to somebody else. That's the big risk.
 

philosopher

Member
Joined
23 Sep 2015
Messages
188
This thread is pure fantasy; there will not be an enforced vaccine and there will be no shortage of people wanting to take the vaccine.
The Oxford vaccine could be ready first and is not being "rushed"; their work started many years ago on other coronaviruses, which meant they had a headstart. There is a thread about it on this forum.
Agree too. Between 60% and 75% seems to be required for herd immunity, which is not that high compared to some diseases (eg measles). Sure some may not want to get vaccinated, but from a purely self interest perspective the incentive to get vaccinated is quite high, so I think those choosing not to get vaccinated will be quite a bit less than 25%.
 

Richard Scott

Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
1,018
Refuse the vaccine, catch it and pass it on to somebody else. That's the big risk.
Perhaps they should have had the vaccine instead. I agree with vaccination but respect anyone who wouldn't want it at this stage. Some people want everything, others should distance, wear masks and now they should all have the vaccination.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
1,297
Location
Ely
This thread is pure fantasy; there will not be an enforced vaccine and there will be no shortage of people wanting to take the vaccine.
Probably so, but there's been a lot of things in the last six months that I wouldn't have thought would ever happen.

The Oxford vaccine could be ready first and is not being "rushed"; their work started many years ago on other coronaviruses, which meant they had a headstart. There is a thread about it on this forum.
Perhaps not the development, but the human trials would be very much rushed if they are complete before the end of the year.

This is a surprisingly good article (from the New York Times!) on vaccine development, trials, approvals, and how long each step takes (and how much they could realistically be speeded up by)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coronavirus-covid-vaccine.html
As a rule, researchers don’t begin jabbing people with experimental vaccines until after rigorous safety checks.

They test the vaccine first on small batches of people — a few dozen during Phase 1, then a few hundred in Phase 2, then thousands in Phase 3. Months normally pass between phases so that researchers can review the findings and get approvals for subsequent phases.

...

There are ways to slash time off this process by combining several phases and testing vaccines on more people without as much waiting.

...

It’s here that talk of fast-tracking the timeline meets the messiness of real life: What if a promising vaccine actually makes it easier to catch the virus, or makes the disease worse after someone’s infected?

That’s been the case for a few H.I.V. drugs and vaccines for dengue fever, because of a process called vaccine-induced enhancement, in which the body reacts unexpectedly and makes the disease more dangerous.

...

So researchers might produce a viable vaccine in just 12 to 18 months, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to get it. Millions of people could be in line before you. And that’s only if the United States finds a vaccine first. If another country, like China, beats us to it, we could wait even longer while it doses its citizens first.

You might be glad of that, though, if it turned out that the fast-tracked vaccine caused unexpected problems. Only after hundreds or thousands are vaccinated would researchers be able to see if a fast-tracked vaccine led to problems like vaccine-induced enhancement.

“It’s true that any new technology comes with a learning curve,” said Dr. Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “And sometimes that learning curve has a human price.”
The whole article is worth a read. There's even some graphs to play with :)
 
Last edited:

joebassman

Member
Joined
5 Mar 2020
Messages
29
Location
Stowupland
That’s fine; and you should be entitled to have the vaccine if you want it. But, just as you might choose to have it, please respect my choice not to.



That’s very much the “exception that proves the rule”: we only administer medical treatment to people against their will, where they are judged to be of unsound mind (and to children, who are legally considered to be too young to make their minds up, where that treatment is considered to be in their best interests).

You could quite legitimately turn down life saving chemotherapy, or surgery for cancer, and you could ask doctors not to resuscitate you etc.

Forcing people of sound mind to have medical treatment against their will, “for the greater good”, is the beginning of a very, very slippery slope indeed.
That is true, but then what is to stop medical professionals deciding that the vaccine is scientifically proven and is needed and that the conspiracy theorists are suffering from paranoid delusion, so are not of sound mind?
If people decide not to have chemo or be resuscitated, that isn't going to infect other's or spread a virus so it doesn't really affect anyone else.

I know that it won't need to happen as I believe as well that enough people will take up the vaccine. It's just not beyond the realms of possibility.
Who would have believed 4 months ago that the entire population would in effect be pretty much put under house arrest for several months?
 
Last edited:

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,545
Location
London
That is true, but then what is to stop medical professionals deciding that the vaccine is scientifically proven and is needed and that the conspiracy theorists are suffering from paranoid delusion, so are not of sound mind?
If people decide not to have chemo or be resuscitated, that isn't going to infect other's or spread a virus so it doesn't really affect anyone else.

I know that it won't need to happen as I believe as well that enough people will take up the vaccine. It's just not beyond the realms of possibility.
Who would have believed 4 months ago that the entire population would in effect be pretty much put under house arrest for several months?

Someone who has concerns about a rushed vaccine is hardly suffering from a paranoid delusion; it’s a perfectly rational worry. Vaccines are not risk free, especially rushed ones (IIRC there was an example of a new flu vaccine in the US, in the 70s, that caused many deaths), and medical professionals have been known to get things very, very wrong, especially in relation to new treatments and conditions (think Thalidomide, HIV being transmitted through blood transfusions in the 1980s, etc.)

Consent is a key part of medical treatment. Medical professionals might consider that blood transfusions are in the “best interests” of Plymouth Bretheren, for example, but do not force them to undergo them, because it would go against their religious beliefs (their children are a different matter).

Unless we want to live in a world where doctors simply decide what is in their patients’ best interests, in every case, and administer that treatment regardless of consent?

So long as the vaccine is available to protect those who are high risk (and preferably to all those who want it), concerns about those who choose not to have it infecting others should fall away.


It's just not beyond the realms of possibility.
Who would have believed 4 months ago that the entire population would in effect be pretty much put under house arrest for several months?
I agree, and what we’ve seen over the last few months terrifies me, quite frankly. Most notably the WHO admitting (or at least not denying) that it changed its advice on mask wearing as a response to political lobbying, rather than medical science.
 

AM9

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
8,686
Location
St Albans
That only applies when travelling to other countries though - not within the sam country which is what seems to be being suggested here.
It could apply temporarily here as the whole population aren't going to be immunised in a busy weekend. :)
There will be a long period (maybe up to two years before all those except the anti-vaxxers and the few who have genuine medical reasons for not being done) before all are covered.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,545
Location
London
It could apply temporarily here as the whole population aren't going to be immunised in a busy weekend. :)
There will be a long period (maybe up to two years before all those except the anti-vaxxers and the few who have genuine medical reasons for not being done) before all are covered.
Having concerns about a rushed vaccine does not make people into “anti-vaxxers”. I’ve had plenty of vaccines, I’m just not sure I fancy this one, at this stage.

Fill your boots. I’m very happy to let the lockdown enthusiasts be the guinea pigs :).
 

joebassman

Member
Joined
5 Mar 2020
Messages
29
Location
Stowupland
Someone who has concerns about a rushed vaccine is hardly suffering from a paranoid delusion; it’s a perfectly rational worry. Vaccines are not risk free, especially rushed ones (IIRC there was an example of a new flu vaccine in the US, in the 70s, that caused many deaths), and medical professionals have been known to get things very, very wrong (Thalidomide, HIV transmitted through blood transfusions in the 1980s, etc.)

Unless we want to live in a world where doctors simply decide what is in their patients’ best interests, in every case, and administer that treatment regardless of consent?
I totally agree that people have legitimate reasons for being fearful of the vaccine and am not saying in any way that i believe they are delusional and that you should force people to be medicated and that in a lot if cases when they do forciably medicate people in hospitals for mental health is wrong. This isn't just my opinion by the way, this comes from knowing and watching talks by pysciatric nurses and psychiatrists.
There have been many cases where governments have covered up known medical evidence of dangerous side effects ie. Smoking causing lung cancer, asbestos, lead poisoning, the side effects of psychiatric drugs, the fact that there is no scientific proof of chemical imbalances in the brain etc. Which at one time or another were classified as conspiracy theories until proven true. Which I think is a massive cause of a lot if the mistrust now in vaccines.
What I'm saying is that if the government decided that the vaccines were completely safe and necessary and they were going to force people to take them, then what is to stop medical professionals, if they wanted, saying someone is paranoid for not believing that and not of sound mind?
 

Jayden99

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2020
Messages
87
Location
Bucks
This is the same issue that's playing out on the masks thread really, at what point should your right to personal freedom be overruled to protect the health of others. Especially with vaccines, as they rely on as many people as possible getting vaccinated to protect those people who genuinely can't get a shot. For what it's worth though, I don't see a government like this one ever straying into the realm of mandatory vaccination, that would likely be a bridge too far.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,545
Location
London
I totally agree that people have legitimate reasons for being fearful of the vaccine and am not saying in any way that i believe they are delusional and that you shouldn't force people to be medicated and that in a lot if cases when they do forciably medicate people in hospitals for mental health it is wrong. This isn't just my opinion by the way, this comes from knowing and watching talks by pysciatric nurses.
There have been many cases where governments have covered up known medical evidence of dangerous side effects ie. Smoking causing lung cancer, asbestos, lead poisoning, the side effects of psychiatric drugs, the fact that there is no scientific proof of chemical imbalances in the brain etc. Which at one time or another were classified as conspiracy theories until proven true. Which I think is a massive cause of a lot if the mistrust now in vaccines.
I agree with all of that.

What I'm saying is that if the government decided that the vaccines were completely safe and necessary and they were going to force people to take them, then what is to stop medical professionals, if they wanted, saying someone is paranoid for not believing that and not of sound mind?
There’s absolutely nothing to stop the government from deciding that (so long as they can pass the legislation).

As things stand getting someone declared of unsound mind is (AIUI) an objective, medical exercise, undertaken by doctors rather than politicians. It’s also set at a low threshold of capability of the person concerned (for very good reasons).

There is legislation in place governing how it is done, but that legislation was informed by medical opinion, rather than the other way around. Hopefully it will remain that way!

What concerns me about the way this pandemic is being handled is that the divide between politics and medical science seems to be becoming increasingly blurred - masks are the best example of this.
 
Last edited:

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
9,147
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
My body is my own and this talk of yours is dangerous. No one has the power to force medical treatment onto anyone. Do you understand why Human Rights are put into place? I don't think so.
I don’t understand why some people seem so keen to mandate a vaccine. If one is worried about getting Covid then get vaccinated, then surely it doesn’t matter what others choose to do or not do, either way you’re protected. Or am I missing something obvious?
 

Top