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

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
7,518
One of these is not like the others, do you see which one it is?
Yes, however given that people will regularly take malaria tablets and have holiday jabs for other things, it's likely that (especially if there's a, say, 6 month period before it becomes compulsory and the reduced amount of air travel which is currently the case and if it allows you travel without PPE and/or without the 14 day quarantine) there'll be limited resistance to doing so.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
2,838
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.
Don't forget that the risk to some groups from Covid-19 is very high. If you have major health problems or are very old then its worth having the vaccine even if its been rushed. I would probably want to wait a bit and see if any problems emerge.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
1,177
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.
No vaccine will ever be proved 100% safe.

But even for a young, healthy person, getting Covid-19 is not 100% safe either.
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,421
But even for a young, healthy person, getting Covid-19 is not 100% safe either.
Neither is flu, or crossing the road, or driving a car - but the risks are so low that most people are prepared to risk it in order to have a life, rather than stay at home wrapped up in bubble wrap.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
1,177
Neither is flu, or crossing the road, or driving a car - but the risks are so low that most people are prepared to risk it in order to have a life, rather than stay at home wrapped up in bubble wrap.
Of course.

But the same applies to a vaccine that hasn't been proved completely safe. (Which is never going to happen).
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,421
Of course.

But the same applies to a vaccine that hasn't been proved completely safe. (Which is never going to happen).
The main difference with a vaccine which is new is the element of the unknown about it - if it seems to work and doesn't cause any serious issues it would probably become more accepted in time, but it would take a few years.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
1,177
The main difference with a vaccine which is new is the element of the unknown about it - if it seems to work and doesn't cause any serious issues it would probably become more accepted in time, but it would take a few years.
But Covid-19 also has a huge element of the unknown.

I don't see that anyone can reasonably conclude now that any vaccine that might be licensed must carry higher risks than contracting Covid-19.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
1,733
Location
Coach J Seat 39
But Covid-19 also has a huge element of the unknown.

I don't see that anyone can reasonably conclude now that any vaccine that might be licensed must carry higher risks than contracting Covid-19.
It's impossible to say, but I would rather take a vaccine which has been trialled and tested than a virus which has a small, but present chance of killing me.
 

talldave

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2013
Messages
1,927
But Covid-19 also has a huge element of the unknown.
I think you're being over-dramatic. We know a lot about how it causes death and therefore the groups who are vulnerable (eg. Elderly & obese).

We know it hardly affects some people, others get the worst flu ever experience. What's the huge stuff we don't know?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
7,518
The main difference with a vaccine which is new is the element of the unknown about it - if it seems to work and doesn't cause any serious issues it would probably become more accepted in time, but it would take a few years.
However the vaccine isn't totally new, it's one that's been under development for some time, just with different genetic material within it.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
1,177
I think you're being over-dramatic. We know a lot about how it causes death and therefore the groups who are vulnerable (eg. Elderly & obese).

We know it hardly affects some people, others get the worst flu ever experience. What's the huge stuff we don't know?
And by the time we have a licensed, trialled and tested vaccine we'll know about that too.

Where's the huge stuff we won't know about that?

I just don't get how someone can dismiss the risks of coronavirus out of hand but conclude that a vaccine must be too risky.

We've learned a lot about Covid-19, but - for example - have absolutely no evidence on what the long-term effects might be.

However the vaccine isn't totally new, it's one that's been under development for some time, just with different genetic material within it.
Well there's no guarantee that's the one that works - if any do.
 
Last edited:

talldave

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2013
Messages
1,927
We've learned a lot about Covid-19, but - for example - have absolutely no evidence on what the long-term effects might be.
I asked what the huge stuff we don't know about Covid-19 is and you're not coming back with anything huge. The long term effects might be zero, like lots of other viruses our bodies deal with.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
1,177
I asked what the huge stuff we don't know about Covid-19 is and you're not coming back with anything huge. The long term effects might be zero, like lots of other viruses our bodies deal with.
You want a list of what we don't know we don't know?

Obviously I can't do that.

I don't mean there is a huge impact we don't know about. I mean there is a huge amount we can't know because this disease is so new.

The long term effects might be zero indeed like lots of other viruses. They might not be, like some other viruses.

We also know that some (a very small number) of healthy young people do suffer seriously if they get coronavirus.

But here's the thing - what is the logic behind assuming that after half a year or so we know enough about coronavirus to dismiss any potential risks to a healthy, young person as so small as to not be worth worrying about, but conclude that a tested, licensed vaccine must be a much greater risk because there might be things about the vaccine we won't know until it's been in use for a few years?

I don't think it makes sense.
 

talldave

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2013
Messages
1,927
You want a list of what we don't know we don't know?

Obviously I can't do that.
But you know it's huge? That's what you said.

My point is that you're using frightening adjectives against things you don't know to add weight to your point. You know no more than the rest of us.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
1,177
But you know it's huge? That's what you said.

My point is that you're using frightening adjectives against things you don't know to add weight to your point. You know no more than the rest of us.
I said "But Covid-19 also has a huge element of the unknown."

Given we have had so little time to study it since it emerged, I stand by this statement.

For a vaccine we will have a good idea of what it does from controlled clinical trials - the sort where half have the vaccine, half have something else and nobody knows who is who until the trial is over.
We can't (or rather won't) do that with coronavirus.

Meanwhile people are using words like "rushed" based on the unjustified asumption that making a vaccine faster than before must involve dangerous short cuts.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
58,146
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
My point is that you're using frightening adjectives against things you don't know to add weight to your point. You know no more than the rest of us.
I don't think he is at all, he's being quite rational and realistic. There is indeed a pretty huge level of unknowns about the virus still, though fewer than there were.
 

talldave

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2013
Messages
1,927
I said "But Covid-19 also has a huge element of the unknown."

Given we have had so little time to study it since it emerged, I stand by this statement.
OK well I'll have to admit defeat on that one. You say we don't know what we don't know, but mysteriously know that it's huge. I say it could just as easily be a small element of the unknown. None of us know, so you're no more right than me.

That's the whole problem with Coronaphobia - everything unknown is huge, mammoth and scary, whilst impositions on our freedom and civil liberties are trivial because they're for the "greater good" and anyone who dares to challenge them is "killing people".
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
1,177
OK well I'll have to admit defeat on that one. You say we don't know what we don't know, but mysteriously know that it's huge. I say it could just as easily be a small element of the unknown. None of us know, so you're no more right than me.

That's the whole problem with Coronaphobia - everything unknown is huge, mammoth and scary, whilst impositions on our freedom and civil liberties are trivial because they're for the "greater good" and anyone who dares to challenge them is "killing people".
No that's not my point. I am not arguing "Coronavirus - scary - mustn't get catch it"

I'm arguing that it isn't logical to say now that a hypothetical vaccine licensed next year must carry too much unknown risk because it's new, but any risk from coronavirus can be dismissed because we know it's small, even though we haven't had much time to learn about coronavirus either.
 

Ken H

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
2,318
Location
N Yorks
Re vaccines, or any medication

The easy bit is proving its safe in a young fit person with no morbidities and who dont take any drugs

Then comes the hard bit. How does it work with drugs -
on their own or in combination
Prescription, over the counter and illegal/recreational.

how does it work with human conditons. other illnesses, obesity, pregnancy, undiagnosed deficiencies

does it affect different races of people differently?

and the myriad of combinations or drugs and conditions.

Thats why a drug takes a long time to get to acceptance. We must not forget what happens when we dont do the testing properly. Remember Thalidomide?
 

Glenn1969

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,080
Location
Halifax, Yorks
Herd immunity will take decades. You need 50 million people in the UK to have had the virus. Without a vaccine we need to learn to live with the virus which means social distancing probably forever
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
1,177
Re vaccines, or any medication

The easy bit is proving its safe in a young fit person with no morbidities and who dont take any drugs

Then comes the hard bit. How does it work with drugs -
on their own or in combination
Prescription, over the counter and illegal/recreational.

how does it work with human conditons. other illnesses, obesity, pregnancy, undiagnosed deficiencies

does it affect different races of people differently?

and the myriad of combinations or drugs and conditions.

Thats why a drug takes a long time to get to acceptance. We must not forget what happens when we dont do the testing properly. Remember Thalidomide?
OK true. But a vaccine isn't going to be licensed until they've done that, is it?
 

Ken H

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
2,318
Location
N Yorks
OK true. But a vaccine isn't going to be licensed until they've done that, is it?
One would hope not. But i am concerned about tales that the vaccine may be available this year. Which is far too quick to me. Maybe i am too risk averse on this. but its my body.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
1,177
One would hope not. But i am concerned about tales that the vaccine may be available this year. Which is far too quick to me. Maybe i am too risk averse on this. but its my body.
It sounds very fast but if one becomes ready I'd rather look at what has been done to speed things up rather than assume now that it's too quick.
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,421
Herd immunity will take decades. You need 50 million people in the UK to have had the virus. Without a vaccine we need to learn to live with the virus which means social distancing probably forever
Given that nobody knows how many have had it without realising, how many have natural immunity due to exposure to other coronaviruses, or what the herd immunity threshold actually is, not sure how that claim can be made.

And if herd immunity was the aim, social distancing would be scrapped, surely, provided the NHS could cope?
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
1,177
Given that nobody knows how many have had it without realising, how many have natural immunity due to exposure to other coronaviruses, or what the herd immunity threshold actually is, not sure how that claim can be made.

And if herd immunity was the aim, social distancing would be scrapped, surely, provided the NHS could cope?
If some percentage of the population has existing immunity then it just means the coronavirus is naturally more contagious than we think.
 

Glenn1969

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,080
Location
Halifax, Yorks
They are saying the threshold is 70-75%. Based on current official figures here in Calderdale just 0.4% of the whole population have tested positive for the virus (869 cases out of 211,000)
 

Ken H

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
2,318
Location
N Yorks
They are saying the threshold is 70-75%. Based on current official figures here in Calderdale just 0.4% of the whole population have tested positive for the virus (869 cases out of 211,000)
is that a virus test (virus is in the blood) or antibody test?
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,421
They are saying the threshold is 70-75%. Based on current official figures here in Calderdale just 0.4% of the whole population have tested positive for the virus (869 cases out of 211,000)
But have they actually tested a statistically significant samplr of people, including with no symptoms? If not then it doesn't demonstrate much.
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,205
Coming back to the original question, the government is on a very sticky wicket with its choice of enabling act for the lockdown and mask enforcement powers (Part 2A of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 as amended, "Public Health Protection", ie. Sections 45A to 45T(some parts)), as it includes Section 45E with the phrasing (Emphasis mine):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/section/45E
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.
And a similar wording in the Coronavirus Act 2020, extending these to Scotland, which can be taken as an endorsement of this by the current Parliament:
Extracts from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/schedule/19
SCHEDULE 19: Health protection regulations: Scotland (pursuant to Section 49)
...
Medical treatment
3(1)Regulations under paragraph 1(1) may not include provision requiring a person to undergo medical treatment.
(2)“Medical treatment” includes vaccination and other prophylactic treatment.
...
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.
 

Top