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
1,736
I see no reason to have a vaccine, just as I don't have a flu vaccine. Same for my partner and child. But my elderly parents always have a flu jab and I would imagine they'd consider having a Covid one.

Seems a common sense approach to me, but common sense appears to have gone out the window to be replaced by irrational hysteria and fear.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
8,768
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Personally I'd rather spend a bit more time looking into the evidence when or if the time comes, rather than assuming that the presence of vested interests must mean that the vaccine is a greater risk than the disease itself.
I don't think anyone's saying all this *must* mean that it's a massive risk, just that clearly there's an element of risk with *any* vaccine, and there's certainly reasons for an element of caution. Everyone will need to make their own judgement, and this judgement will quite rightly be different for someone who's at relatively low risk from Covid compared to someone for whom Covid represents a very high risk.

None of that should be an issue except to those who seem to feel vaccination should be compulsory.
 

AdamWW

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
839
I see no reason to have a vaccine, just as I don't have a flu vaccine. Same for my partner and child. But my elderly parents always have a flu jab and I would imagine they'd consider having a Covid one.

Seems a common sense approach to me, but common sense appears to have gone out the window to be replaced by irrational hysteria and fear.

Might be a common sense approach but not necessarily correct.

At least some vaccines aren't suitable for people who have certain allergies.

The general principle with vaccines is that if enough people have them, the ones who can't are protected. I.e. the herd immunity in the title of the thread.

Suppose the vaccine doesn't work so well for the elderly, or is just 80% effective for everyone - but does prevent people from becoming infections not just from being ill. The best protection for everyone's elderly parents comes if enough people have the vaccine to stop the spread even if they aren't likely to become terribly ill themselves.

So no....suggesting widespread vaccination isn't just the product of irrational hysteria.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,273
Location
London
Might be a common sense approach but not necessarily correct.

At least some vaccines aren't suitable for people who have certain allergies.

The general principle with vaccines is that if enough people have them, the ones who can't are protected. I.e. the herd immunity in the title of the thread.

Suppose the vaccine doesn't work so well for the elderly, or is just 80% effective for everyone - but does prevent people from becoming infections not just from being ill. The best protection for everyone's elderly parents comes if enough people have the vaccine to stop the spread even if they aren't likely to become terribly ill themselves.

So no....suggesting widespread vaccination isn't just the product of irrational hysteria.
It’s highly unreasonable to suppose that people will take (or give their children) a vaccine they are unhappy with, just to protect others. People will prioritise their own wellbeing over that of strangers, and will certainly prioritise their childrens’ wellbeing over both!

I’ve never had a flu jab. Not because I’m concerned about the injection, but because I’m in a demographic where I’m unlikely to be at risk from flu, and it would be inconvenient, and unpleasant. Would me having a flu jab protect strangers (or their elderly parents) from flu? I honestly don’t know. I’ve never given it any thought.

It might not sound pleasant when it’s written out as starkly as that, but it’s reality. People who have the vaccine will be doing so because they’re scared of the virus. Those who are more worried about the vaccine than they are about the virus may well choose not to have it.
 
Last edited:

AdamWW

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
839
I don't think anyone's saying all this *must* mean that it's a massive risk, just that clearly there's an element of risk with *any* vaccine, and there's certainly reasons for an element of caution. Everyone will need to make their own judgement, and this judgement will quite rightly be different for someone who's at relatively low risk from Covid compared to someone for whom Covid represents a very high risk.
I was replying to someone who seemed to have already made their mind up that the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of infection:

At the moment, in the midst of a global pandemic, there’s both an enormous commercial incentive *and* an enormous political incentive to get a vaccine over the line.

That observation is plenty enough to persuade me that I’m not going to be first in line for this particular vaccine. I’d rather take my chances with the virus.
Anyway if it's correct that the majority won't risk a vaccine unless they think they are personally going to benefit, then I suspect we won't be able to vaccinate enough to reach herd immunity.
 

AdamWW

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
839
I’ve never had a flu jab. Not because I’m concerned about the injection, but because I’m in a demographic where I’m unlikely to be at risk from flu, and it would be inconvenient, and unpleasant. Would me having a flu jab protect strangers (or their elderly parents) from flu? I honestly don’t know. I’ve never given it any thought.
Well with flu vaccinations the protect the vulnurable approach seems to be what the government go for (plus children I think because they are the most likely vector for giving it to the elderly).

But this probably won't be what works for Covid-19.

If someone won't get vaccinated to protect others, might they do so because if enough people agree to be vaccinated we could end social distancing and they could go back to normal life themselves?

You could still of course sit back and let everyone else have the vaccine. But if everyone does that....?
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,273
Location
London
Well with flu vaccinations the protect the vulnurable approach seems to be what the government go for (plus children I think because they are the most likely vector for giving it to the elderly).

But this probably won't be what works for Covid-19.

If someone won't get vaccinated to protect others, might they do so because if enough people agree to be vaccinated we could end social distancing and they could go back to normal life themselves?

You could still of course sit back and let everyone else have the vaccine. But if everyone does that....?
For the record I haven’t yet made my own mind up about the vaccine (which doesn’t even exist yet!), but I have concerns at the speed of development etc., particularly based on the hysterical and incompetent way every other aspect of this pandemic has been handled.

I appreciate it’s a difficult one, but in the end it has to come down to individual choice. The only realistic approach is for those who are vulnerable to receive the vaccine (and indeed anyone else who wants it), and hopefully derive some protection that way. It’s hard to imagine that there won’t be a very large proportion of population willing to have it.

Herd immunity isn’t an end in itself and social distancing cannot continue forever. Realistically we may well have to approach Coronavirus in a similar way to flu, now that it’s not going to be possible to eliminate it.
 

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
8,768
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
For the record I haven’t yet made my own mind up about the vaccine (which doesn’t even exist yet!), but I have concerns at the speed of development etc., particularly based on the hysterical and incompetent way every other aspect of this pandemic has been handled.

In the end it has to come down to individual choice. The only realistic approach is for those who are vulnerable to receive the vaccine (and indeed anyone else who wants it), and hopefully derive some protection that way.
This is pretty much my view. I’ve totally lost confidence in this government’s ability to handle this competently, and perhaps more significantly, in a rational manner. We should not delude ourselves that things are that far up the ladder above drinking bleach here - looking back the whole thing is a farce, and the memories of empty toilet-roll shelves just sum it up really.

We shall have to see how things develop over the next few months. I wouldn’t rule out taking a vaccine, but I’m certainly wary. I’m certainly not going to be bullied into having it on a compulsory basis in the same way the government (and some people) seem to feel they had the right to do over masks.
 

AdamWW

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
839
Herd immunity isn’t an end in itself and social distancing cannot continue forever. Realistically we may well have to approach Coronavirus in a similar way to flu, now that it’s not going to be possible to eliminate it.
It is quite different to flu and I don't think approaching it in the same way is going to work.
 

jtuk

Member
Joined
4 Jun 2018
Messages
172
In what way?

Isn't herd immunity via vaccine a way out of this...if it's possible?
It's probable we have herd immunity in some areas already, e.g. London, it's just a technical term where the thing will die out on its own. We don't need a vaccine to do that if there's a large enough combination of previous infections and other forms of immunity, be that from related coronaviruses, t-cells, whatever. The only thing we need is for the government to show some bottle, which was lost in mid March
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,273
Location
London
In what way?

Isn't herd immunity via vaccine a way out of this...if it's possible?
If that’s possible, great, but still we don’t know: a. whether we will get a vaccine (if we get one at all), or b. how effective it will be.

It is quite different to flu and I don't think approaching it in the same way is going to work.

Just as with flu, we can’t eliminate Covid, so surely the end game is learning to live with it: preventing the NHS from being overwhelmed; protecting the vulnerable as far as possible; but also accepting that unfortunately more are likely to die from it. Especially if we have a resurgence of cases in the autumn.

There are thousands of flu deaths every year and sadly perhaps we will be having thousands of Covid deaths per year going forward.

Nobody asked for this virus to appear but, whatever happens, we *cannot* sustain the current hysteria which is quite literally ruining lives of many, with children not receiving education, livelihoods being ruined, the NHS turning its back on everything that isn’t Covid related etc.

This is pretty much my view. I’ve totally lost confidence in this government’s ability to handle this competently, and perhaps more significantly, in a rational manner. We should not delude ourselves that things are that far up the ladder above drinking bleach here - looking back the whole thing is a farce, and the memories of empty toilet-roll shelves just sum it up really.
Precisely.
 
Last edited:

AdamWW

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
839
Just as with flu, we can’t eliminate Covid, so surely the end game is learning to live with it: preventing the NHS from being overwhelmed; protecting the vulnerable as far as possible; but also accepting that unfortunately more are likely to die from it. Especially if we have a resurgence of cases in the autumn.

There are thousands of flu deaths every year and sadly perhaps we will be having thousands of Covid deaths per year going forward.

Nobody asked for this virus to appear but, whatever happens, we *cannot* sustain the current hysteria which is quite literally ruining lives of many, with children not receiving education, livelihoods being ruined, the NHS turning its back on everything that isn’t Covid related etc.
But that doesn't mean that dealing with it in the same way as we do with flu will work. Maybe I took what you said too literally.

I'd just like to point out that considering the current approach to be driven by hysteria is an opinion not a fact.

There are plenty of people (myself included) that think that what is currently happening - gradually opening up and seeing what happens - is the least worst option overall because unpleasant as the current situation is, letting infections build up exponentially again would be worse.

If the people who think we've already reached herd immunity are correct (and it will be great if they are) we'll see infection rates continue to drop as restrictions are relaxed and it will be clear quite soon that they aren't necessary.

And we won't have to worry about whether enough people will agree to be vaccinated or not because we don't need it.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,273
Location
London
There are plenty of people (myself included) that think that what is currently happening - gradually opening up and seeing what happens - is the least worst option overall because unpleasant as the current situation is, letting infections build up exponentially again would be worse.

If the people who think we've already reached herd immunity are correct (and it will be great if they are) we'll see infection rates continue to drop as restrictions are relaxed and it will be clear quite soon that they aren't necessary.
Fair enough. We can agree to disagree on the correct speed of reopening, masks etc.

But I suspect what we are all most worried about is the worst case scenario: what happens if cases once again begin to rise exponentially, but we still have no vaccine, and no herd immunity?

Continuing to lock down ad infinitum isn’t a realistic option. We still have to continue with life, get people back to work and kids back to school. Presumably the government’s plan then is simply to go back to where we were in March and reactivate the nightingale hospitals to cope with the rise in cases (and deaths). In which case, what has really been achieved over the last few months, other than delaying the inevitable?

There doesn’t seem to be any exit strategy other keeping fingers crossed for vaccine which might never arrive.

That’s deeply worrying.
 
Last edited:

AdamWW

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
839
But I suspect what we are all most worried about is the worst case scenario: what happens if cases once again begin to rise exponentially, but we still have no vaccine, and no herd immunity?

Continuing to lock down ad infinitum isn’t a realistic option. We still have to continue with life, get people back to work and kids back to school. Presumably the government’s plan then is simply to go back to where we were in March and reactivate the nightingale hospitals to cope with the rise in cases (and deaths). In which case, what has really been achieved over the last few months, other than delaying the inevitable?

There doesn’t seem to be any exit strategy other keeping fingers crossed for vaccine which might never arrive.

That’s deeply worrying.
A very good question indeed.

The best hope I can see in the short term is to do as much as you can via track and trace, and then local restrictions up to and including lockdowns if necessary to keep things under control.

From where I'm sitting track and trace doesn't look like it's doing well enough and needs drastic improvement. But maybe there's a lot going on behind the scenes that doesn't make it into the media.

As for keeping fingers crossed for a vaccine - a good and widely available treatment which made it much less severe if you caught it would also be a potential way out I would have thought.

But I'm with you - if we can't get schools properly open in September (August in Scotland?) I have no idea where we go from here.
 

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
8,768
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Fair enough. We can agree to disagree on the correct speed of reopening, masks etc.

But I suspect what we are all most worried about is the worst case scenario: what happens if cases once again begin to rise exponentially, but we still have no vaccine, and no herd immunity?

Continuing to lock down ad infinitum isn’t a realistic option. We still have to continue with life, get people back to work and kids back to school. Presumably the government’s plan then is simply to go back to where we were in March and reactivate the nightingale hospitals to cope with the rise in cases (and deaths). In which case, what has really been achieved over the last few months, other than delaying the inevitable?

There doesn’t seem to be any exit strategy other keeping fingers crossed for vaccine which might never arrive.

That’s deeply worrying.
I think they will have to do herd immunity, accompanied by shielding. I can say with certainty that if Boris Johnson expects me just to work on as a “key worker” whilst large elements of the rest of the population lounge around on some form of furlough then he can choke on his own piffle! We’d then have to ask the question as to was it really worth it first time round?

It does seem to be the case that Covid will ultimately tear its way through whether we like it or not, it’s interesting that many places getting “second waves” are actually places that didn’t get hit too badly first time round.

The strategy needs to be keep as many people as possible at work. The current muddled mess is simply not sustainable let alone repeatable.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
3,290
From what I've heard, the delivery method of the Oxford vaccine is a long-established formula that's known to be safe. It's a fine-tuning of an existing vaccine, and the main purpose of the current trials is to confirm it works, rather than whether it's safe, which is apparently already sufficiently proven.

On the strength of that, I'd happily barge to the front of the queue if it means I can have my life back.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
5,007
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
From what I've heard, the delivery method of the Oxford vaccine is a long-established formula that's known to be safe. It's a fine-tuning of an existing vaccine, and the main purpose of the current trials is to confirm it works, rather than whether it's safe, which is apparently already sufficiently proven.

On the strength of that, I'd happily barge to the front of the queue if it means I can have my life back.
If that's true then its really promising. My only slight concern would be that coronaviruses are notoriously difficult to create vaccines for as I understand it, so I wonder which existing one is being refined?
 

birchesgreen

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
194
Location
Birmingham
If that's true then its really promising. My only slight concern would be that coronaviruses are notoriously difficult to create vaccines for as I understand it, so I wonder which existing one is being refined?
There seem so many vaccines that i'm losing track but is this the one based on the SARS vaccine they worked on years ago, but stopped because SARS went away?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
7,325
I suspect that if there were restrictions put in place which required the person involved to be vaccinated or otherwise prove that they are at harm if they are then they would be infrequent activities.

This could include:
- Flying into the UK (although to begin with it would be a strongly encouraged)
- Working for the NHS
- Working in a school
- Working in a care home

By making it a requirement to be checked infrequently (i.e. not going into shops or pubs) then people have the choice to not be checked upon, but it would only limit on certain activities.

With regards to getting rid of Covid-19, it might be easier than flu. As if it doesn't mutate as fast then a vaccine may be enough to last 12-18 months rather than 4-6.

Then it's just a case of getting enough vacancies to enough people to stop it in its tracks and then ensuring no travel into the UK without a vaccine having been administered at least 2 weeks before travel is in an area where there's cases (although in the short term it would probably be any travel).

Then it's a case of vacancies for the rest of the world, places like Japan Europe, Australia, New Zealand and China wouldn't be a problem. The US maybe, but possibly not too bad. Then it's just how much is the rest would be a problem, is guess not too much (especially if the richer Nations are funding free vaccines).

Any remaining places then would then require a vaccine before travel to those areas and ongoing no travel into the UK without an update vaccine.

It would require a massive effort, but the impact here could be fairly small within a few years, even international travel could be fairly back to normal within a decade.
 

jtuk

Member
Joined
4 Jun 2018
Messages
172
I suspect that if there were restrictions put in place which required the person involved to be vaccinated or otherwise prove that they are at harm if they are then they would be infrequent activities.

This could include:
- Flying into the UK (although to begin with it would be a strongly encouraged)
- Working for the NHS
- Working in a school
- Working in a care home
One of these is not like the others, do you see which one it is?
 

AdamWW

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
839
With regards to getting rid of Covid-19, it might be easier than flu. As if it doesn't mutate as fast then a vaccine may be enough to last 12-18 months rather than 4-6.
If the people here who think that few people will get a vaccine unless they will directly benefit, then we aren't going to be able to use a vaccine to get rid of Covid-19 here. And the government has wasted a lot of money procuring all the doses they have. Maybe they could sell them on to countries where the population are more capable of seeing the bigger picture?

If that's true then its really promising. My only slight concern would be that coronaviruses are notoriously difficult to create vaccines for as I understand it, so I wonder which existing one is being refined?
I believe it's a generic vaccine, developed as something which can be quickly modified to protect against a new disease.

As I understand it, in general terms it uses a chimpanzee cold virus which can enter human cells, but has been modified to be non infectious, i.e. doesn't use the cells in the person being vaccinated to make more copies of itself as a virus normally does.

To produce a vaccine for a given virus, you include the DNA (or RNA?) for some part of the virus (in this case the 'spike'), causing it to be manufactured, which the body then sees as an infection and generates antibodies against.
 

talldave

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2013
Messages
1,736
If the people here who think that few people will get a vaccine unless they will directly benefit, then we aren't going to be able to use a vaccine to get rid of Covid-19 here. And the government has wasted a lot of money procuring all the doses they have. Maybe they could sell them on to countries where the population are more capable of seeing the bigger picture?
I've read that first sentence several times and it still doesn't make sense - there's no conditional statement on the "if"?
 

AdamWW

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
839
I've read that first sentence several times and it still doesn't make sense - there's no conditional statement on the "if"?
Good point.

Try:
If the people here who think that few people will get a vaccine unless they will directly benefit are right, then we aren't going to be able to use a vaccine to get rid of Covid-19 here.
 

MikeWM

Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
1,080
Location
Ely
As for keeping fingers crossed for a vaccine - a good and widely available treatment which made it much less severe if you caught it would also be a potential way out I would have thought.
The more I look into it the more I think we already have it - hydroxychloroquine. There is something downright sinister in the way people are demonising it, and ridiculing anyone supporting it. The evidence appears to show it works well if given early. It is cheap, readily available, and safe. It is on the WHO 'essential medicines list'. Yes, there are some nasty side-effects, but these are well-understood and can be watched for.

Here's an excellent, detailed - and very long - article, by a Trump and Bolsonaro hater, who has looked into all the facts and data and reached his own conclusions.
https://medium.com/@filiperafaeli/h...est-hoax-in-recent-human-history-2685487ad717
Here I propose to put together, piece by piece, the puzzle of what I consider the biggest farce in modern history. I don’t worry about producing a short text. It will have analyzes, including new ones, and from different points of view.

It involves science, healing, politics, geopolitics, mass and group psychology. With the scenario set, it is not difficult to predict good and bad things that will happen in the coming months and years.

Throughout the text, the reader will understand the most important thing: the circumstance of how this false narrative was put together. The reader will also be prompted, by itself, to conclude whether the treatment proposed by Didier Raout works or not.
For example, this graph from Switzerland appears to give some of the clearest evidence of pretty much anything I've seen over the past few months

1596199569638.png


Is it a coincidence that HCQ is generic and wouldn't make anyone any money? As opposed to new, branded treatments, or new vaccines, which stand to cost billions upon billions?


I'm quite surprised at what I've found over the past few days, as I assumed there was indeed something wrong with HCQ, but when you *look at the evidence*, the case for HCQ appears pretty good.

At this point, I'd far rather take my chances with the virus - and be treated with HCQ if I get it - than go for an rushed vaccine.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
3,712
Location
Nottingham
The more I look into it the more I think we already have it - hydroxychloroquine. There is something downright sinister in the way people are demonising it, and ridiculing anyone supporting it. The evidence appears to show it works well if given early. It is cheap, readily available, and safe. It is on the WHO 'essential medicines list'. Yes, there are some nasty side-effects, but these are well-understood and can be watched for.
I'm not 100% either way on HCQ, I feel that if it has an effect, it will have it early, rather than later, but it's probably as soon as symptoms develop, and of limited use later on. And most of the tests seem to be on patients in already severe condition, I suppose early administration (or even preventative) is still an open question, but touting it as a miracle cure is probably unfounded for now.

[Massive caveat that I've not reviewed the evidence in a few weeks.]
 

AdamWW

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
839
I'm not 100% either way on HCQ, I feel that if it has an effect, it will have it early, rather than later, but it's probably as soon as symptoms develop, and of limited use later on. And most of the tests seem to be on patients in already severe condition, I suppose early administration (or even preventative) is still an open question, but touting it as a miracle cure is probably unfounded for now.

[Massive caveat that I've not reviewed the evidence in a few weeks.]
I think it would be much harder to manipulate the sort of trials being done at the moment on coronavirus treatments than trials funded by drug companies where they can conveniently fail to report the ones that give the results they don't like.
 

MikeWM

Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
1,080
Location
Ely
I'm not 100% either way on HCQ, I feel that if it has an effect, it will have it early, rather than later, but it's probably as soon as symptoms develop, and of limited use later on. And most of the tests seem to be on patients in already severe condition, I suppose early administration (or even preventative) is still an open question, but touting it as a miracle cure is probably unfounded for now.

[Massive caveat that I've not reviewed the evidence in a few weeks.]
Yes, I agree - definitely needs to be taken earlier if it works.

I'm not persuaded it is a magic solution, but I do see major issues with the studies that purported to show it was harmful, and it seems to me to be a good plan to try it *properly*. Those countries using it seem to be doing better on the whole than those who aren't.

Here's another Twitter thread on the subject with graphs and links to studies, quicker to read than the article I posted above :)

https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1283840177497088001
Conclusions:
HCQ Studies are overwhelmingly positive
Negative studies get lots of attention but have some serious flaws
Country data offers some convincing arguments
Need to wait for RCTs to be proven
 

Furryanimal

Member
Joined
4 Jun 2018
Messages
27
Location
Cwmbran
The question I keep asking is this-why would anyone risk having a vaccine that has essentially been rushed through all the normal protocols if one becomes available soon?Vaccine development normally takes years.
I would be happy to be vaccinated once it has been proved one is safe.But you will have a hard time convincing me one that has been rushed into service is safe.
 

jtuk

Member
Joined
4 Jun 2018
Messages
172
The question I keep asking is this-why would anyone risk having a vaccine that has essentially been rushed through all the normal protocols if one becomes available soon?Vaccine development normally takes years.
I would be happy to be vaccinated once it has been proved one is safe.But you will have a hard time convincing me one that has been rushed into service is safe.
If we've learned one thing over the last few months it's that the British public aren't the most rational group of people
 

Top