Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Discuss...
Oh, happy to 😉

I think the fundamental question that needs to be addressed is where does communal responsibility override personal choice.

There are many examples of behaviour where we accept the “for the greater good” argument, but medical intervention has never been one of them. Why change that now?
 
Oh, happy to 😉

I think the fundamental question that needs to be addressed is where does communal responsibility override personal choice.

There are many examples of behaviour where we accept the “for the greater good” argument, but medical intervention has never been one of them. Why change that now?

Should getting vaccinated (apart for those who can not do so for medical reasons), be considered one's duty?

See also:

 
I have no doubt that we will build up immunity to this virus; life will be able to return to “normal” eventually. How long that takes is likely to be up to us. Getting vaccinated is part of the process of speeding things up; for all of us. I view it as a way of helping others. Some people appear to not have this as a priority, which is their choice. It’s just not a great choice for humanity IMO.
I completely understand the "speeding things up" argument, but I don't view that as the overriding factor.

The reality is that vaccination carries a risk. It may be minor, it may not be, but nevertheless there is a risk associated with it. In the instant case, no one has any idea what the medium and long-term effects of the various Covid-19 vaccines will be. There is a strong chance that they will be benign, but there is no guarantee that will be the case.

I took the view, as someone at the bottom end of the age range where mortality risk from a Covid-19 infection is starting to climb, that I would prefer to take a risk with the vaccine than contracting an infection. That is my personal choice to make, and I made it in the full knowledge that there could be unexpected long-term negative effects of taking that path. But I am closer to the end of my life than the beginning, I will not be procreating, and my body is not developing (no sniggering at the back, please).

Had I been in my 20's and with no known health issues that increased my risk of a Covid-19 infection leading to death, I'm not sure I would have made the same decision. What would be the effect on my body's development? What would be the effect on any children I fathered? What would be the effect on me in (say) 30 or 50 years time? All are complete unknowns to be weighed against a virtually zero risk posed to me by Covid-19. And I'm afraid that the argument I should take the vaccine so as to protect others is pretty weak against the potential downsides, especially when I could achieve a similar reduction in my risk to others through natural infection, if and when that occurred.

In short, I fully support a voluntary vaccination campaign backed up by education that provides evidence and clear presentation of what we know and what we don't and the risks associated with different approaches. I do not support compulsory vaccination, and have very serious reservations about coercion.
 
The UK actually has the highest vaccine confidence out of 15 countries surveyed according to an article in this weeks British Medical Journal. 87% said they trusted the vaccines even though they are not yet fully approved as illustrated on the cover of the BMJ.

Regarding the argument around communal responsibility or duty how would that translate to a medical professionals ethical responsibilities to inform the patient not only of the advantages of the product but also it’s risks?

How can trust exist if a doctor has the role of persuader in the same way that a dealer or agent might try to sell a car or a property?

 
Last edited:
I completely understand the "speeding things up" argument, but I don't view that as the overriding factor.

The reality is that vaccination carries a risk. It may be minor, it may not be, but nevertheless there is a risk associated with it. In the instant case, no one has any idea what the medium and long-term effects of the various Covid-19 vaccines will be. There is a strong chance that they will be benign, but there is no guarantee that will be the case.

I took the view, as someone at the bottom end of the age range where mortality risk from a Covid-19 infection is starting to climb, that I would prefer to take a risk with the vaccine than contracting an infection. That is my personal choice to make, and I made it in the full knowledge that there could be unexpected long-term negative effects of taking that path. But I am closer to the end of my life than the beginning, I will not be procreating, and my body is not developing (no sniggering at the back, please).

Had I been in my 20's and with no known health issues that increased my risk of a Covid-19 infection leading to death, I'm not sure I would have made the same decision. What would be the effect on my body's development? What would be the effect on any children I fathered? What would be the effect on me in (say) 30 or 50 years time? All are complete unknowns to be weighed against a virtually zero risk posed to me by Covid-19. And I'm afraid that the argument I should take the vaccine so as to protect others is pretty weak against the potential downsides, especially when I could achieve a similar reduction in my risk to others through natural infection, if and when that occurred.

In short, I fully support a voluntary vaccination campaign backed up by education that provides evidence and clear presentation of what we know and what we don't and the risks associated with different approaches. I do not support compulsory vaccination, and have very serious reservations about coercion.
I feel that is a rather selfish attitude, a sort of sod you jack I'm ok! It is not just whether you are ok but also should you contract the disease, who you could then pass it on to, your parents, neighbours etc etc. I am not sure of your age, I am 70 and had various injections as a child and young adult, polio, measles, diphtheria, TB and god knows how many tetanus jabs some of which were for complaints that could not be passed on, but most were to stop me getting ill and not passing on any illness to my siblings.

My opinion and of course everyone is entitled to theirs :D
 
Discuss -
My body my choice.
Have I taken the vaccine or not, my business.

Until national legislation changes for the worse to allow allow for the non qualified to know and removes my choice of who to make aware as to my health status that's my stance.

I do believe there is a covid virus, and it's deadly to many.

I do believe the (insert name) vaccine has great benefit.

I don't trust the ever changing narrative from our leaders, so I question what i'm told and arrive at my own conclusions.

I question the corruption of our monies by those that are telling us what is good and bad. That is my greatest issue with the ever changing narratives, that being the financially incentivised bias that becomes apparent.
Add to that the corruption to promote political ambitions and the trust in the narratives is further reduced.

Worse, and I'm no socialist, the covid strategies are going to increase the gap between the well off and the not well off. That is already the case with other world strategies being played with by the (sarcasm warning) superior and vastly more knowledgeable decision makers.
Ahead we will have greater social disruption as more recognise the disadvantaged position they have been put in.


IMHO.
 
I feel that is a rather selfish attitude, a sort of sod you jack I'm ok!
I think you've read too much into what I wrote: my decision to be vaccinated also took into account the "bigger picture" of herd immunity and, were I in my 20's, I'd like to think I would take similar account of that "bigger picture".

Even if that weren't the case, I would defend the right of anyone to make the decision based upon personal impact alone, not least because...
I am 70 and had various injections as a child and young adult, polio, measles, diphtheria, TB and god knows how many tetanus jabs
The key difference is that every one of those vaccinations you mention have (and had at the time you were vaccinated) a strong track record regarding medium- and long-term outcomes. The Covid-19 vaccines do not.
 
Politics and science make for very poor bedfellows.

An informed response to the question of vaccine hesistancy from a retired consultant Anaesthetist published recently in the British Medical Journal.



This original article in the BMJ made the point that the person concerned had already contracted the virus and had been tested twice and shown to have antibodies. The overall objective must be that whole population gains protection against future infection. Whether that is achieved by vaccination or by contracting (and surviving) the virus would seem to me a reasonable personal choice. At 67 my choice was obvious but I can understand young people making a different choice as long as they realise that without vaccination they are almost certainly going to contract the virus sooner or later particularly given the way this latest strain is spreading. When that happens we will have achieved herd immunity one way or another and everyone should be happy.
 
This original article in the BMJ made the point that the person concerned had already contracted the virus and had been tested twice and shown to have antibodies. The overall objective must be that whole population gains protection against future infection. Whether that is achieved by vaccination or by contracting (and surviving) the virus would seem to me a reasonable personal choice. At 67 my choice was obvious but I can understand young people making a different choice as long as they realise that without vaccination they are almost certainly going to contract the virus sooner or later particularly given the way this latest strain is spreading. When that happens we will have achieved herd immunity one way or another and everyone should be happy.
Everybody that has contracted the disease and recovered will have developed antibodies, that is the reason they recovered. Personally i recovered in January 2020.
 
This original article in the BMJ made the point that the person concerned had already contracted the virus and had been tested twice and shown to have antibodies. The overall objective must be that whole population gains protection against future infection. Whether that is achieved by vaccination or by contracting (and surviving) the virus would seem to me a reasonable personal choice. At 67 my choice was obvious but I can understand young people making a different choice as long as they realise that without vaccination they are almost certainly going to contract the virus sooner or later particularly given the way this latest strain is spreading. When that happens we will have achieved herd immunity one way or another and everyone should be happy.
As long as they also realise that when choosing immunity through natural infection, they risk spreading the disease to others that are not immune… Vaccination for Covid is also about protecting others not just about achieving immunity for one’s self.
 
I think you've read too much into what I wrote: my decision to be vaccinated also took into account the "bigger picture" of herd immunity and, were I in my 20's, I'd like to think I would take similar account of that "bigger picture".

Even if that weren't the case, I would defend the right of anyone to make the decision based upon personal impact alone, not least because...

The key difference is that every one of those vaccinations you mention have (and had at the time you were vaccinated) a strong track record regarding medium- and long-term outcomes. The Covid-19 vaccines do not.
I think you’re mistaken about previous vaccines having had “a strong track record regarding medium to long-term outcomes.” The measles vaccine, for instance, wasn’t introduced until 1963 following trials the previous year. Obviously there wasn’t time for any assessment of anything but very early side-effects.

The history of vaccines goes back to Edward Jenner’s work on a vaccine to protect against smallpox in the late 18th century and continued through the big one to protect against polio in the 1950s and on to this day. The long-term reassurance is in the lack of significant negative outcomes of vaccines as a whole.

People’s reluctance to have chemicals introduced to their bodies is understandable, but contradicts their willingness to eat and drink products that are laced with them.

As for the argument of “Why should I put myself at risk to protect others”, didn’t some 70 million do just that in WWII? Yes, there was conscription and a great deal of coercion, but nearly 40% were volunteers. Are we all getting too delicate now, or is it selfishness on the part of (thankfully) a few?
 
Everybody that has contracted the disease and recovered will have developed antibodies, that is the reason they recovered. Personally i recovered in January 2020.

Did you mean to say January 2021? In January 2020 there was no method for diagnosing SARS-Cov-2, as far as I am aware - if you were unwell at the time, there would have been no way of knowing if it was indeed COVID-19 and whether you have developed immunity, unless you are regularly being tested for antibodies with positive results? You do not have to share and personal medical information obviously, I am just following-on from your statement that you have recovered in January 2020 - and the question is if this statement can be substantiated?
 
The measles vaccine, for instance, wasn’t introduced until 1963 following trials the previous year. Obviously there wasn’t time for any assessment of anything but very early side-effects.
Thanks for the correction.
Are we all getting too delicate now, or is it selfishness on the part of (thankfully) a few?
A very wide-ranging question, and one to which there's probably no simple answer.

One observation I would make is that as life outcomes have improved in general, we are less used to lives ending early for health reasons and therefore treat it as an abnormal event rather than the "that's the way things go" view that previous generations often had. This undoubtedly has a bearing on how people perceive risk.

A parallel is the change in attitude towards risky physical endeavours. Back in the 1960's when the American space program was in full flow, virtually everyone would have either personally served, or had a relative who served, in WWII (or Korea) and would have known (or witnessed) death in all its ugliness. It was, to an extent, normalised. When Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins set off in Apollo 11 they agreed between themselves that they thought they had at best a 1/3rd chance of returning to earth alive - yet they willingly went. I find it impossible to believe that those in charge of NASA hadn't made a similar calculation and reached a similar conclusion. I also think it highly unlikely that anyone would sanction such an endeavour today.
 
Last edited:
As long as they also realise that when choosing immunity through natural infection, they risk spreading the disease to others that are not immune… Vaccination for Covid is also about protecting others not just about achieving immunity for one’s self.

The other issue is that vaccination is scheduled, while infection is random.

So you can get a booster jab every year or two (if needed), or an annual jab against new strains (like we do with the winter flu jab).

But having contacted COVID-19 in the past year is an act of pure chance. Any natural immunity acquired in this way will lapse over time, and won't cover new strains anyway.

So unless someone has a plan how to get reinfected with COVID-19 every two years exactly (or however long the natural immunity lasts), and also get infected with every new strain as it emerges, then the natural immunity route is irrelevant.

The fact that someone may have been infected last year or this year is a one-off coincidence, and as such has no bearing on what they will choose to do going forward - they will still need to consider whether they choose the vaccination route, or the protection-by-random-chance (aka natural immunity) route.

(COVID-infection parties not being a viable option...... :doh:)
 
Did you mean to say January 2021? In January 2020 there was no method for diagnosing SARS-Cov-2, as far as I am aware - if you were unwell at the time, there would have been no way of knowing if it was indeed COVID-19 and whether you have developed immunity, unless you are regularly being tested for antibodies with positive results? You do not have to share and personal medical information obviously, I am just following-on from your statement that you have recovered in January 2020 - and the question is if this statement can be substantiated?
No January 2020 following symptoms of severe acute respiratory syndrome in December 2019.
 
The idea that younger people are being selfish in not, if they so choose, being vaccinated to protect older people is not only wrong but mainly massively ungrateful. Young people have and continue to have their freedoms and in many cases life chances hugely affected in order to protect the older generations. Overwhelmingly younger people have behaved responsibly and now older people would like to berate them if they choose not to be vaccinated.
In my view the unvaccinated 20 year old is not the selfish one.
 
The other issue is that vaccination is scheduled, while infection is random.

So you can get a booster jab every year or two (if needed), or an annual jab against new strains (like we do with the winter flu jab).

But having contacted COVID-19 in the past year is an act of pure chance. Any natural immunity acquired in this way will lapse over time, and won't cover new strains anyway.

So unless someone has a plan how to get reinfected with COVID-19 every two years exactly (or however long the natural immunity lasts), and also get infected with every new strain as it emerges, then the natural immunity route is irrelevant.

The fact that someone may have been infected last year or this year is a one-off coincidence, and as such has no bearing on what they will choose to do going forward - they will still need to consider whether they choose the vaccination route, or the protection-by-random-chance (aka natural immunity) route.

(COVID-infection parties not being a viable option...... :doh:)
Lots of points here but the important thing is the state of an individuals immune system and its ability or unfortunate inability to elicit a strong immune response.

The immune system trigger can be natural exposure or artificially induced.

Imho the very first thing Matt Hancock should have done back in April 2020 when faced with a respiratory disease epidemic was to take off sale in the UK all tobacco and vaping products. If for no other reason than to create NHS capacity.
 
No January 2020 following symptoms of severe acute respiratory syndrome in December 2019.
…and later confirmed as a Covid-19 infection?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Back
    Top Bottom