The Vaccine has landed- a giant step for mankind !!!

I just hope 70% agree to take it else we might not get back to normal.

While not remaining in lockdown, I’m not sure those that refuse to take it should be allowed to certain events. Just my thought I can’t see it being policy.

This will be the next discussion, plenty of anti-vaxxers out there!

Governments could incentivise maybe only allow flights and entry to pubs and football games that type of thing to people who have antibodies or have had a vaccine?

Maybe Spain, Greece the US etc will ban brits without them maybe via passport or ID cards?

I think the take up will be good enough to protect the NHS, most old people are generally sensible and accept medical advice so will have the protection of the vaccine.
If it's 60% that may be enough, sure some of the 40% would get it, but they would hopefully be younger and at less risk anyway, if old people reject it so be it they take the chance, you can't make people have it.

There is no point in having a vaccine that works to gradually see off the dangers of this sort of virus if a significant number of the population still present themselves to the virus as a viable breeding ground to infect themselves and other non vaccinated individuals. If this looks at all likely the Government(s) will be forced into introducing some sort of recognition marker for those who have been vaccinated which will allow that group to access foreign holidays, mass entertainments etc. Those who refuse to be vaccinated will be subjected to lockdowns until they either catch the virus and (hopefully) recover or they present themselves for vaccination.

A few other points should be borne in mind before deciding to refuse this vaccination:
1. The Ebola vaccine which saved millions of lives in Africa in particular took the same sort of timescale to deliver.
2. The fact that this is one of the Covid virus strains - several of which we as a race have worked on for years - gave us a leg-up on what sort of vaccines and processes would deliver the breakthrough.
3. The data thus presented whilst encouraging is not the end of the pre-delivery research. More results will be assimilated before anyone is vaccinated.
4. Would the Government be ready to inject NHS employees if there was any real danger of it suddenly making someone's head fall off - wouldn't that really be shooting yourself in the foot then!!??
5. The billionaire Andrew Lloyd Webber actually volunteered and was part of the clinical trial of the Oxford Vaccine - don't think he is insane or would be willing to join the trials unless there was an insignificant chance of any bad side effect.

I'm 66 and suffer with underlying conditions and have been self isolating for 9 months - not had direct contact with my kids or grand kids during that time. If I caught this I'm a goner and living like this is not really living. Even if I was 20-30 years old and strong and fit, I would still take the vaccine - because people in that age group have more chance of dying or being left with long term disabilities if they catch the virus and recover than they have of serious side effects from the vaccine.

Here's my arm - stick the vaccination in me - I'd rather see you on the beach than in the morgue.

What about the 10% it doesn't work for' and those who cannot take it for other medical reasons?

Maybe not as cut and dried at it is being perceived but it's certainly a step in the right direction

dont matter mate...the nazis got the bit between their teeth...ban..restrict..exclude..incentivise. zeig heil and theyll all have their poppys on while saying it...

That’s f*cking ridiculous.

I want my mum and old man to be able to go out. Hopefully the vaccine will be effective for them but I don’t want them at risk by someone whose reasons for not taking it are because I’m being told to.

yes it is ridiculous that people think it should be mandatory.... because they say so.... ..jesus....

I don't think anyone has said it should be mandatory, just that to stop the spread the government may still have to apply restrictions to people that could be carrying and spreading the virus?

What about the 10% it doesn't work for' and those who cannot take it for other medical reasons?

Maybe not as cut and dried at it is being perceived but it's certainly a step in the right direction

dont matter mate...the nazis got the bit between their teeth...ban..restrict..exclude..incentivise. zeig heil and theyll all have their poppys on while saying it...

That’s f*cking ridiculous.

I want my mum and old man to be able to go out. Hopefully the vaccine will be effective for them but I don’t want them at risk by someone whose reasons for not taking it are because I’m being told to.

yes it is ridiculous that people think it should be mandatory.... because they say so.... ..jesus....

I don't think anyone has said it should be mandatory, just that to stop the spread the government may still have to apply restrictions to people that could be carrying and spreading the virus?

but thats not a lot different is it.. where does that start and end..

I just hope 70% agree to take it else we might not get back to normal.

While not remaining in lockdown, I’m not sure those that refuse to take it should be allowed to certain events. Just my thought I can’t see it being policy.

This will be the next discussion, plenty of anti-vaxxers out there!

Governments could incentivise maybe only allow flights and entry to pubs and football games that type of thing to people who have antibodies or have had a vaccine?

Maybe Spain, Greece the US etc will ban brits without them maybe via passport or ID cards?

I think the take up will be good enough to protect the NHS, most old people are generally sensible and accept medical advice so will have the protection of the vaccine.
If it's 60% that may be enough, sure some of the 40% would get it, but they would hopefully be younger and at less risk anyway, if old people reject it so be it they take the chance, you can't make people have it.

There is no point in having a vaccine that works to gradually see off the dangers of this sort of virus if a significant number of the population still present themselves to the virus as a viable breeding ground to infect themselves and other non vaccinated individuals. If this looks at all likely the Government(s) will be forced into introducing some sort of recognition marker for those who have been vaccinated which will allow that group to access foreign holidays, mass entertainments etc. Those who refuse to be vaccinated will be subjected to lockdowns until they either catch the virus and (hopefully) recover or they present themselves for vaccination.

A few other points should be borne in mind before deciding to refuse this vaccination:
1. The Ebola vaccine which saved millions of lives in Africa in particular took the same sort of timescale to deliver.
2. The fact that this is one of the Covid virus strains - several of which we as a race have worked on for years - gave us a leg-up on what sort of vaccines and processes would deliver the breakthrough.
3. The data thus presented whilst encouraging is not the end of the pre-delivery research. More results will be assimilated before anyone is vaccinated.
4. Would the Government be ready to inject NHS employees if there was any real danger of it suddenly making someone's head fall off - wouldn't that really be shooting yourself in the foot then!!??
5. The billionaire Andrew Lloyd Webber actually volunteered and was part of the clinical trial of the Oxford Vaccine - don't think he is insane or would be willing to join the trials unless there was an insignificant chance of any bad side effect.

I'm 66 and suffer with underlying conditions and have been self isolating for 9 months - not had direct contact with my kids or grand kids during that time. If I caught this I'm a goner and living like this is not really living. Even if I was 20-30 years old and strong and fit, I would still take the vaccine - because people in that age group have more chance of dying or being left with long term disabilities if they catch the virus and recover than they have of serious side effects from the vaccine.

Here's my arm - stick the vaccination in me - I'd rather see you on the beach than in the morgue.

Great post, I agree

Governments could incentivise maybe only allow flights and entry to pubs and football games that type of thing to people who have antibodies or have had a vaccine?

Maybe Spain, Greece the US etc will ban brits without them maybe via passport or ID cards?

I'd politely say that thats not incentivisation that is stripping away the rights of people based on who they are.

It's literally the same logic that Enoch Powell used when talking about repatriation, to paraphrase his infamous interview on the topic 'we're not forcing them to leave, just making it unbearable to stay and appealing for them not to.'

Where is the difference between that and 'we're not forcing people to take the vaccine, just making it impossible for them to travel and enjoy basic freedoms if they don't.'

The fact that you mention it so casually in off hand way shows just how far down the dystopian path we've gone without even realising.

I dont mean to single you out btw,I'm sure your a good person who just wants the best for everyone and to get back to normal soon as possible and I honestly mean that

Equally, I totally accept you're not alone in this line of thinking, indeed I'd say my view on this is in the minority. Maybe, I'm the one not seeing a bigger picture, maybe I'm seeing monsters under the bed when it's just a pair of slippers - it could well be the case.

But for me, where we are heading next and how easily we head there without taking a minute to stop and think through the consequences is far more terrifying than the pandemic ever was.

What about the 10% it doesn't work for' and those who cannot take it for other medical reasons?

Maybe not as cut and dried at it is being perceived but it's certainly a step in the right direction

dont matter mate...the nazis got the bit between their teeth...ban..restrict..exclude..incentivise. zeig heil and theyll all have their poppys on while saying it...

That’s f*cking ridiculous.

I want my mum and old man to be able to go out. Hopefully the vaccine will be effective for them but I don’t want them at risk by someone whose reasons for not taking it are because I’m being told to.

yes it is ridiculous that people think it should be mandatory.... because they say so.... ..jesus....

I don't think anyone has said it should be mandatory, just that to stop the spread the government may still have to apply restrictions to people that could be carrying and spreading the virus?

but thats not a lot different is it.. where does that start and end..

Unless a person is silly and doesn't agree this virus actually exists and is killing people in despair and loneliness then surely you would want to be protected against it along with as much of the general population as possible. Unfortunately it appears AT THE MOMENT that it would not protect 100% of the population. However that other 10% could be protected by either the virus disappearing as a result of a vaccinated general population offering herd immunity so the virus dies out or by further research continuing into developing vaccines that will work for the other 10% or by developing better treatments so if they caught it they would achieve a full recovery.

I fail to see what viable alternative to taking the vaccination there would be for the anti-vaxxers? Surely no anti-vaxxer would want to remain in lockdown indefinitely and denied a more normal life with access socially to the rest of humanity? Perhaps the anti-vaxxers would prefer to be "safely" infected with an injected dose of live virus to enable them to be safely isolated and hopefully achieve a recovery and therefore immunity (well for about 15 weeks anyway as suggested by experts before their naturally developed anti-bodies reduce to nothing in their blood streams) - surely not?
As I say - I fail to see what viable alternative to taking the vaccination there would be for the anti-vaxxers but would welcome someone enlightening me if there is an alternative action?

Governments could incentivise maybe only allow flights and entry to pubs and football games that type of thing to people who have antibodies or have had a vaccine?

Maybe Spain, Greece the US etc will ban brits without them maybe via passport or ID cards?

I'd politely say that thats not incentivisation that is stripping away the rights of people based on who they are.

It's literally the same logic that Enoch Powell used when talking about repatriation, to paraphrase his infamous interview on the topic 'we're not forcing them to leave, just making it unbearable to stay and appealing for them not to.'

Where is the difference between that and 'we're not forcing people to take the vaccine, just making it impossible for them to travel and enjoy basic freedoms if they don't.'

The fact that you mention it so casually in off hand way shows just how far down the dystopian path we've gone without even realising.

I dont mean to single you out btw,I'm sure your a good person who just wants the best for everyone and to get back to normal soon as possible and I honestly mean that

Equally, I totally accept you're not alone in this line of thinking, indeed I'd say my view on this is in the minority. Maybe, I'm the one not seeing a bigger picture, maybe I'm seeing monsters under the bed when it's just a pair of slippers - it could well be the case.

But for me, where we are heading next and how easily we head there without taking a minute to stop and think through the consequences is far more terrifying than the pandemic ever was.

You have to remember that without life things like an individual having a human/humane/free existence /choices etc are totally meaningless and make no bones about it this virus destroys and takes away life. Without immunity this virus will continue to destroy life. Curbs on social activities for an individual who carries no immunity is not removal of choice or rights, it is an action which must be taken to preserve HUMANITY. Whilst I agree that no-one should force you physically to take the vaccine, there must be implications for individuals who are not prepared to support the rest of the population by refusing it - much the same as there were implications for people whose understandable principles forced them to make the choice to be conscientious objectors during the war.

I just hope 70% agree to take it else we might not get back to normal.

While not remaining in lockdown, I’m not sure those that refuse to take it should be allowed to certain events. Just my thought I can’t see it being policy.

So anyone who wont/cant,should be cast aside like lepers? My mum is 80,znd had the flu vaccine for the 1st time a couple of years back,had such a severe reaction she ended up very ill and hospitalised for ten days,to the point we thought we were going to lose her!! She has flstly said she will not be having a vaccine,as it really took a toll, after the flu jab episode,so because she is scared,she shouldn't be allowed to mix with others?? May as well give them a bell each,so they can ring it,and shout unclean!unclean! Its a personal choice,for each individual,not for other people to make for you.its called freedom of choice.

I have sympathy for your Mum but what’s the solution? Not getting back to normal?

Governments could incentivise maybe only allow flights and entry to pubs and football games that type of thing to people who have antibodies or have had a vaccine?

Maybe Spain, Greece the US etc will ban brits without them maybe via passport or ID cards?

I'd politely say that thats not incentivisation that is stripping away the rights of people based on who they are.

It's literally the same logic that Enoch Powell used when talking about repatriation, to paraphrase his infamous interview on the topic 'we're not forcing them to leave, just making it unbearable to stay and appealing for them not to.'

Where is the difference between that and 'we're not forcing people to take the vaccine, just making it impossible for them to travel and enjoy basic freedoms if they don't.'

The fact that you mention it so casually in off hand way shows just how far down the dystopian path we've gone without even realising.

I dont mean to single you out btw,I'm sure your a good person who just wants the best for everyone and to get back to normal soon as possible and I honestly mean that

Equally, I totally accept you're not alone in this line of thinking, indeed I'd say my view on this is in the minority. Maybe, I'm the one not seeing a bigger picture, maybe I'm seeing monsters under the bed when it's just a pair of slippers - it could well be the case.

But for me, where we are heading next and how easily we head there without taking a minute to stop and think through the consequences is far more terrifying than the pandemic ever was.

Great reply and it's always good to see a different position .

We need to get out of this situation and we need to the population to help out otherwise we are stuck with lockdowns forever.

I tend to be fairly pragmatic and logical so if the government's stance makes sense, is logical and fair I tend to go along with it. If they need to keep restrictions to stop the spread of a nasty virus that's fair enough isn't it?

It's like asking us to wear a mask, it protects me and you, and will help stop the spread and bring life back to normal as quickly as possible. I don't like wearing one, but experts say it will help, so I'll wear one

They'll do what they like anyway, and I think it will be other countries bringing the travel restrictions in before us, some are already asking for a test before you travel.

You have to remember that without life things like an individual having a human/humane/free existence /choices etc are totally meaningless

It's funny because I almost look at this entirely the other way around. Without personal freedoms, life becomes meaningless. It's a matter of personal priorities and perspective I guess, but for me, personal autonomy is perhaps the most fundamental right we would expect.

Make no bones about it this virus destroys and takes away life. Without immunity this virus will continue to destroy life. Curbs on social activities for an individual who carries no immunity is not removal of choice or rights, it is an action which must be taken to preserve HUMANITY.

I guess this is where our priorities are shaped by different interpretations of the situation. I see a pandemic that isn't a scary as it is portrayed. I see a pandemic with a total number of deaths that despite each and everyone is a tragedy, is still only 0.15% of the total population (1,270,000/7,800,000,000).

For me, this is not something that will end humanity, we're a strangely resilient species and we will continue to be, long after the virus runs its course. The erosion of civil liberties in the name of saving us all, however, could bring an end to a way of life and a set of principals that have served us well, certainly in the west, over the last few centuries.

We need to tread very carefully as we move forward is all I guess I'm saying, and suggestions of forced vaccination, which ultimately is what is being discussed even if it is forcing people through coercion rather than physicality, sets off a lot of alarm bells in my head.

I do take on board the other side of the argument, truly I do, it's just I'm not sure we understand what we are sacrificing if we head down this path.

They'll do what they like anyway...

Thanks for the kind words fella - it is through polite but robust discussion good ideas can be found usually somewhere in the common ground - so it is appreciated

The point above at the end of the day is pretty much the key issue here ayway. When we boil it all down, there really isn't much any of us can do, ultimately we'll all comply in one way, shape or form. Some of us willingly, some of us reluctantly but there isn't much can be done about it.

Whichever way the cards fall that the hand we got to play I guess. I'll just be quietly hanging around at the back of the queue for as long as I can see how everyone else does first on this one though

Just one additional thought on this. If there is a vaccine that is 90% effective, and the virus as we know has an incredibly low mortality rate anyway, why would a vaccination need to be mandatory?

Surely, if you take the vaccine you have 90% protection against a virus with a morbidity rate of 0.66% (and that is factoring in the increased morbidity rate of 7.8% of over 80-year-olds)

Now I'm no maths whizz so I may have the numbers here wrong, but wouldn't that mean that someone who has taken the vaccination has a statistical chance of dying from the virus of 0.066 now as the danger of catching it when vaccinated is now a tenth of what it was? Like I say I may have my maths wrong here but even if I do you get the general point.

If a vaccine reduces someone's chance of dying from Covid to less then a tenth of a per cent, surely there is no danger to the vaccinated from those who have chosen not to take it? If this is the case, then surely the conversation is no longer - 'you have to take it for the sake of others and the greater good' and we can go back to allowing people a personal choice regarding their own bodily autonomy?

This seems so clear cut that I must have missed something obvious here, some I'm happy to be corrected if someone has the answer.

What about the 10% it doesn't work for' and those who cannot take it for other medical reasons?

Maybe not as cut and dried at it is being perceived but it's certainly a step in the right direction

dont matter mate...the nazis got the bit between their teeth...ban..restrict..exclude..incentivise. zeig heil and theyll all have their poppys on while saying it...

That’s f*cking ridiculous.

I want my mum and old man to be able to go out. Hopefully the vaccine will be effective for them but I don’t want them at risk by someone whose reasons for not taking it are because I’m being told to.

yes it is ridiculous that people think it should be mandatory.... because they say so.... ..jesus....

I don't think anyone has said it should be mandatory, just that to stop the spread the government may still have to apply restrictions to people that could be carrying and spreading the virus?

but thats not a lot different is it.. where does that start and end..

Unless a person is silly and doesn't agree this virus actually exists and is killing people in despair and loneliness then surely you would want to be protected against it along with as much of the general population as possible. Unfortunately it appears AT THE MOMENT that it would not protect 100% of the population. However that other 10% could be protected by either the virus disappearing as a result of a vaccinated general population offering herd immunity so the virus dies out or by further research continuing into developing vaccines that will work for the other 10% or by developing better treatments so if they caught it they would achieve a full recovery.

I fail to see what viable alternative to taking the vaccination there would be for the anti-vaxxers? Surely no anti-vaxxer would want to remain in lockdown indefinitely and denied a more normal life with access socially to the rest of humanity? Perhaps the anti-vaxxers would prefer to be "safely" infected with an injected dose of live virus to enable them to be safely isolated and hopefully achieve a recovery and therefore immunity (well for about 15 weeks anyway as suggested by experts before their naturally developed anti-bodies reduce to nothing in their blood streams) - surely not?
As I say - I fail to see what viable alternative to taking the vaccination there would be for the anti-vaxxers but would welcome someone enlightening me if there is an alternative action?

are people who think this a complete hoax silly..yep...as silly as being as unreasonably terrified and thinking its the plague 2..no its not...

What about the 10% it doesn't work for' and those who cannot take it for other medical reasons?

Maybe not as cut and dried at it is being perceived but it's certainly a step in the right direction

dont matter mate...the nazis got the bit between their teeth...ban..restrict..exclude..incentivise. zeig heil and theyll all have their poppys on while saying it...

What?

You'll learn to just ignore him & feel so much better for it as he adds nothing to a conversation.

Ha ha...busted! He says an awful lot but much of it is in code

Just one additional thought on this. If there is a vaccine that is 90% effective, and the virus as we know has an incredibly low mortality rate anyway, why would a vaccination need to be mandatory?

Surely, if you take the vaccine you have 90% protection against a virus with a morbidity rate of 0.66% (and that is factoring in the increased morbidity rate of 7.8% of over 80-year-olds)

Now I'm no maths whizz so I may have the numbers here wrong, but wouldn't that mean that someone who has taken the vaccination has a statistical chance of dying from the virus of 0.066 now as the danger of catching it when vaccinated is now a tenth of what it was? Like I say I may have my maths wrong here but even if I do you get the general point.

If a vaccine reduces someone's chance of dying from Covid to less then a tenth of a per cent, surely there is no danger to the vaccinated from those who have chosen not to take it? If this is the case, then surely the conversation is no longer - 'you have to take it for the sake of others and the greater good' and we can go back to allowing people a personal choice regarding their own bodily autonomy?

This seems so clear cut that I must have missed something obvious here, some I'm happy to be corrected if someone has the answer.

Because while you may not get ill (and many under 40s have been hospitalised) you can give it to someone else who might die, or give it to someone who gives it someone who gives it someone and four people die or more.

Or you can take a vaccine and reduce that chance.

ANY SIDE EFFECT WILL BE BETTER THAN DYING!!!

Covid: Who will have the Pfizer vaccine first and when can I get it?

By James Gallagher
Health and science correspondent

A vaccine which can prevent nine out of 10 people getting Covid-19 is set to be put forward for emergency approval.

Its developers, Pfizer and BioNTech, said it had been tested on 43,500 people, with no safety concerns raised.

What is the new vaccine and how effective is it?

The vaccine trains the immune system to fight coronavirus.

It is a new type of vaccine called an RNA vaccine and uses a tiny fragment of the virus' genetic code. This starts making part of the virus inside the body, which the immune system recognises as foreign and starts to attack.

It is given in two doses - three weeks apart - and early data suggests it protects more than 90% of people from developing Covid symptoms.

Has this type of vaccine ever been used before?

There are no RNA vaccines that have been approved for use in humans.

The concept has been researched before and people have been given them in clinical trials for other diseases.

The vaccine will be considered by regulatory agencies around the world, and they will decide whether the jab can be approved for use.

Because while you may not get ill (and many under 40s have been hospitalised) you can give it to someone else who might die

But surely if there is a vaccine that is 90% effective, the overwhelming majority of people at any possible meaningful risk (and I use that term very liberally as the risk of dying is low as it is) are those who have also chosen to not take a vaccine.

The argument of protecting others loosely holds up for mask wearing but it becomes negated by a vaccine that has such a high effectiveness rate surely?

Just one additional thought on this. If there is a vaccine that is 90% effective, and the virus as we know has an incredibly low mortality rate anyway, why would a vaccination need to be mandatory?

Surely, if you take the vaccine you have 90% protection against a virus with a morbidity rate of 0.66% (and that is factoring in the increased morbidity rate of 7.8% of over 80-year-olds)

Now I'm no maths whizz so I may have the numbers here wrong, but wouldn't that mean that someone who has taken the vaccination has a statistical chance of dying from the virus of 0.066 now as the danger of catching it when vaccinated is now a tenth of what it was? Like I say I may have my maths wrong here but even if I do you get the general point.

If a vaccine reduces someone's chance of dying from Covid to less then a tenth of a per cent, surely there is no danger to the vaccinated from those who have chosen not to take it? If this is the case, then surely the conversation is no longer - 'you have to take it for the sake of others and the greater good' and we can go back to allowing people a personal choice regarding their own bodily autonomy?

This seems so clear cut that I must have missed something obvious here, some I'm happy to be corrected if someone has the answer.

The main problem with the virus is that it spreads so easily, the NHS can't cope and we've had two waves with full restrictions and two full lockdowns already.

It's caused absolute chaos and will continue to do so until the vast majority of the population are protected against it either by immunity or vaccination.

Only 10% of the population has had it so if only so there is 90% left to get the vaccine.

So if 40% take it up and everyone is allowed in planes and pubs, 50% of the population would still be spreading and catching it so the NHS still wouldn't be able to cope? Remember even with restrictions it spreads like wildfire, in the new world without restrictions it would spread even quicker in the non-vaccinated community.

The only way to allow everyone back to normality is for the majority 70% plus to have the vaccine.

One last fact, they have said that people with the vaccine could still get the virus and may be spreading it's just that they won't feel ill, as the immune will attack it immediately, so those people wouldn't be taking any distancing measures and spreading it to the anti-vaxxers.

I just hope 70% agree to take it else we might not get back to normal.

While not remaining in lockdown, I’m not sure those that refuse to take it should be allowed to certain events. Just my thought I can’t see it being policy.

So anyone who wont/cant,should be cast aside like lepers? My mum is 80,znd had the flu vaccine for the 1st time a couple of years back,had such a severe reaction she ended up very ill and hospitalised for ten days,to the point we thought we were going to lose her!! She has flstly said she will not be having a vaccine,as it really took a toll, after the flu jab episode,so because she is scared,she shouldn't be allowed to mix with others?? May as well give them a bell each,so they can ring it,and shout unclean!unclean! Its a personal choice,for each individual,not for other people to make for you.its called freedom of choice.

Very sad, but just because you have a fluke unexpected crash the car you shouldn't give up driving.

If it were my Mum, I would take her to see the GP and evaluate whether she would be safer to have the vaccine or not, this is not a live dose vaccine and she won't receive a little bit of covid so she may not get the same sort of reaction.

If she/he can get this across to her she may decide to get the vaccine, which may help her allow her to get on with her life without the fear of catching covid while elderly and in a very vulnerable group.

If she is not suitable for the vaccine then at least she will know and have taken advice from an expert

Good luck I hope it all works out well for you all.

The main problem with the virus is that it spreads so easily, the NHS can't cope and we've had two waves with full restrictions and two full lockdowns already.

It's caused absolute chaos and will continue to do so until the vast majority of the population are protected against it either by immunity or vaccination.

Only 10% of the population has had it so if only so there is 90% left to get the vaccine.

Isn't this a contradiction though? If the problem is the virus spreads so easily, why have only 10% of the population had it?

Even with lockdown restrictions, it has been present now for over 9 months, and with the best will in the world, the restrictions haven't been followed rigidly. Look at the beaches just before lockdown, the BLM riots, the anti-lockdown protests, shouldn't we have seen massive spikes at each and every one of these events if was as virulent as suggested?

So if 40% take it up and everyone is allowed in planes and pubs, 50% of the population would still be spreading and catching it so the NHS still wouldn't be able to cope? Remember even with restrictions it spreads like wildfire, in the new world without restrictions it would spread even quicker in the non-vaccinated community.

I think there are two points here.

I can see the logic with regards to travel and the potential impact on less-developed/poorer nations who perhaps don't have the infrastructure to cope with an epidemic, as someone who firmly believes in the sovereign right to self-governance of a nation, I believe every nation should have a right to decide who can and cannot cross their borders and they must way up the health vs. economic risks of allowing or not allowing people in - and that 100% applies to making a decision on whether those infected/inoculated should be allowed to enter. With you on that bit

But I think the discussion around pubs, gyms, places of worship etc within our nation is a distinct and separate conversation and we should be careful of conflating the two topics.

Just for the record, I'm not antivaccine in general, even though I may have come across as so in this thread. I wouldn't ever term myself an anti-vaxxer, (don't really like the label in general but that is another discussion.)

Both my kids had the MMR jab and I've taken necessary vaccines when I have had to when travelling both in Asia and Africa.

I just find conversations around forced vaccination worrying - and that is ultimately where this conversation can potentially end up. I find such thoughts even more worrying when that vaccine is using an entirely new approach, an approach that has never been tested on humans prior to this, has been developed in record time and all for a virus that no matter how many ways we want to slice the data has been grossly hyped to be far, far more dangerous than it has in fact been.

2020 has been hard on all of us, we're all desperate for a return to normality, I get that, I really, really do. My mam and dad have had to miss out on both my kids birthdays and it breaks my heart and makes me angry even now just thinking about it, I too desperately want 2020 to be an anomaly, an anus horiblus as Liz would say, and let's get back on with things ASAP.

Yet, now more than ever, when we as a society at our most vulnerable both economically and emotionally, when we've gone through all of these hardships and we are open to anything that can end the bloody nightmare, I think it is important that we just take the time to stop and think and ask some fairly straightforward questions before jumping in with two feet and talking of restrictions on people who refuse to take it - especially when we see 2000 military personal moved into Liverpool to help with 'testing'. It all just feels like we are tiptoeing towards totalitarianism and we don't realise.

I pray to God that you are right and I am wrong on all this, but I think it is important that the questions are raised.

I just hope 70% agree to take it else we might not get back to normal.

While not remaining in lockdown, I’m not sure those that refuse to take it should be allowed to certain events. Just my thought I can’t see it being policy.

So anyone who wont/cant,should be cast aside like lepers? My mum is 80,znd had the flu vaccine for the 1st time a couple of years back,had such a severe reaction she ended up very ill and hospitalised for ten days,to the point we thought we were going to lose her!! She has flstly said she will not be having a vaccine,as it really took a toll, after the flu jab episode,so because she is scared,she shouldn't be allowed to mix with others?? May as well give them a bell each,so they can ring it,and shout unclean!unclean! Its a personal choice,for each individual,not for other people to make for you.its called freedom of choice.

Very sad, but just because you have a fluke unexpected crash the car you shouldn't give up driving.

If it were my Mum, I would take her to see the GP and evaluate whether she would be safer to have the vaccine or not, this is not a live dose vaccine and she won't receive a little bit of covid so she may not get the same sort of reaction.

If she/he can get this across to her she may decide to get the vaccine, which may help her allow her to get on with her life without the fear of catching covid while elderly and in a very vulnerable group.

If she is not suitable for the vaccine then at least she will know and have taken advice from an expert

Good luck I hope it all works out well for you all.

That's good and sensible advice

The main problem with the virus is that it spreads so easily, the NHS can't cope and we've had two waves with full restrictions and two full lockdowns already.

It's caused absolute chaos and will continue to do so until the vast majority of the population are protected against it either by immunity or vaccination.

Only 10% of the population has had it so if only so there is 90% left to get the vaccine.

Isn't this a contradiction though? If the problem is the virus spreads so easily, why have only 10% of the population had it?

Even with lockdown restrictions, it has been present now for over 9 months, and with the best will in the world, the restrictions haven't been followed rigidly. Look at the beaches just before lockdown, the BLM riots, the anti-lockdown protests, shouldn't we have seen massive spikes at each and every one of these events if was as virulent as suggested?

So if 40% take it up and everyone is allowed in planes and pubs, 50% of the population would still be spreading and catching it so the NHS still wouldn't be able to cope? Remember even with restrictions it spreads like wildfire, in the new world without restrictions it would spread even quicker in the non-vaccinated community.

I think there are two points here.

I can see the logic with regards to travel and the potential impact on less-developed/poorer nations who perhaps don't have the infrastructure to cope with an epidemic, as someone who firmly believes in the sovereign right to self-governance of a nation, I believe every nation should have a right to decide who can and cannot cross their borders and they must way up the health vs. economic risks of allowing or not allowing people in - and that 100% applies to making a decision on whether those infected/inoculated should be allowed to enter. With you on that bit

But I think the discussion around pubs, gyms, places of worship etc within our nation is a distinct and separate conversation and we should be careful of conflating the two topics.

Just for the record, I'm not antivaccine in general, even though I may have come across as so in this thread. I wouldn't ever term myself an anti-vaxxer, (don't really like the label in general but that is another discussion.)

Both my kids had the MMR jab and I've taken necessary vaccines when I have had to when travelling both in Asia and Africa.

I just find conversations around forced vaccination worrying - and that is ultimately where this conversation can potentially end up. I find such thoughts even more worrying when that vaccine is using an entirely new approach, an approach that has never been tested on humans prior to this, has been developed in record time and all for a virus that no matter how many ways we want to slice the data has been grossly hyped to be far, far more dangerous than it has in fact been.

2020 has been hard on all of us, we're all desperate for a return to normality, I get that, I really, really do. My mam and dad have had to miss out on both my kids birthdays and it breaks my heart and makes me angry even now just thinking about it, I too desperately want 2020 to be an anomaly, an anus horiblus as Liz would say, and let's get back on with things ASAP.

Yet, now more than ever, when we as a society at our most vulnerable both economically and emotionally, when we've gone through all of these hardships and we are open to anything that can end the bloody nightmare, I think it is important that we just take the time to stop and think and ask some fairly straightforward questions before jumping in with two feet and talking of restrictions on people who refuse to take it - especially when we see 2000 military personal moved into Liverpool to help with 'testing'. It all just feels like we are tiptoeing towards totalitarianism and we don't realise.

I pray to God that you are right and I am wrong on all this, but I think it is important that the questions are raised.

Isn't this a contradiction though? If the problem is the virus spreads so easily, why have only 10% of the population had it?

Even with lockdown restrictions, it has been present now for over 9 months, and with the best will in the world, the restrictions haven't been followed rigidly. Look at the beaches just before lockdown, the BLM riots, the anti-lockdown protests, shouldn't we have seen massive spikes at each and every one of these events if was as virulent as suggested?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not really the measures have been extreme and that's why it's only 10%, people are locked up at home and avoiding indoor venues, washing their hands 10 times a day, people working are wearing PPE, without these measures it would fly through the community in no time at all.

The dangers of outdoor demonstrations and lots of people on beaches were exaggerated, it spreads much quicker indoors in poorly ventilated areas like pub's, clubs, gyms, theatres and casino's if they hadn't been shut down or asked to operate in a sensible distanced way we would have seen an even bigger spike.

Where we have seen a spike is when the students came back and went on a bender in freshers week, that started the latest spike and lockdown.

The main problem with the virus is that it spreads so easily, the NHS can't cope and we've had two waves with full restrictions and two full lockdowns already.

It's caused absolute chaos and will continue to do so until the vast majority of the population are protected against it either by immunity or vaccination.

Only 10% of the population has had it so if only so there is 90% left to get the vaccine.

Isn't this a contradiction though? If the problem is the virus spreads so easily, why have only 10% of the population had it?

Even with lockdown restrictions, it has been present now for over 9 months, and with the best will in the world, the restrictions haven't been followed rigidly. Look at the beaches just before lockdown, the BLM riots, the anti-lockdown protests, shouldn't we have seen massive spikes at each and every one of these events if was as virulent as suggested?

So if 40% take it up and everyone is allowed in planes and pubs, 50% of the population would still be spreading and catching it so the NHS still wouldn't be able to cope? Remember even with restrictions it spreads like wildfire, in the new world without restrictions it would spread even quicker in the non-vaccinated community.

I think there are two points here.

I can see the logic with regards to travel and the potential impact on less-developed/poorer nations who perhaps don't have the infrastructure to cope with an epidemic, as someone who firmly believes in the sovereign right to self-governance of a nation, I believe every nation should have a right to decide who can and cannot cross their borders and they must way up the health vs. economic risks of allowing or not allowing people in - and that 100% applies to making a decision on whether those infected/inoculated should be allowed to enter. With you on that bit

But I think the discussion around pubs, gyms, places of worship etc within our nation is a distinct and separate conversation and we should be careful of conflating the two topics.

Just for the record, I'm not antivaccine in general, even though I may have come across as so in this thread. I wouldn't ever term myself an anti-vaxxer, (don't really like the label in general but that is another discussion.)

Both my kids had the MMR jab and I've taken necessary vaccines when I have had to when travelling both in Asia and Africa.

I just find conversations around forced vaccination worrying - and that is ultimately where this conversation can potentially end up. I find such thoughts even more worrying when that vaccine is using an entirely new approach, an approach that has never been tested on humans prior to this, has been developed in record time and all for a virus that no matter how many ways we want to slice the data has been grossly hyped to be far, far more dangerous than it has in fact been.

2020 has been hard on all of us, we're all desperate for a return to normality, I get that, I really, really do. My mam and dad have had to miss out on both my kids birthdays and it breaks my heart and makes me angry even now just thinking about it, I too desperately want 2020 to be an anomaly, an anus horiblus as Liz would say, and let's get back on with things ASAP.

Yet, now more than ever, when we as a society at our most vulnerable both economically and emotionally, when we've gone through all of these hardships and we are open to anything that can end the bloody nightmare, I think it is important that we just take the time to stop and think and ask some fairly straightforward questions before jumping in with two feet and talking of restrictions on people who refuse to take it - especially when we see 2000 military personal moved into Liverpool to help with 'testing'. It all just feels like we are tiptoeing towards totalitarianism and we don't realise.

I pray to God that you are right and I am wrong on all this, but I think it is important that the questions are raised.

Isn't this a contradiction though? If the problem is the virus spreads so easily, why have only 10% of the population had it?

Even with lockdown restrictions, it has been present now for over 9 months, and with the best will in the world, the restrictions haven't been followed rigidly. Look at the beaches just before lockdown, the BLM riots, the anti-lockdown protests, shouldn't we have seen massive spikes at each and every one of these events if was as virulent as suggested?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not really the measures have been extreme and that's why it's only 10%, people are locked up at home and avoiding indoor venues, washing their hands 10 times a day, people working are wearing PPE, without these measures it would fly through the community in no time at all.

The dangers of outdoor demonstrations and lots of people on beaches were exaggerated, it spreads much quicker indoors in poorly ventilated areas like pub's, clubs, gyms, theatres and casino's if they hadn't been shut down or asked to operate in a sensible distanced way we would have seen an even bigger spike.

Where we have seen a spike is when the students came back and went on a bender in freshers week, that started the latest spike and lockdown.

So why no supporters in the football stadiums? Why no outdoor festivals? Why restrictions on meeting outdoors? Why can't pubs and restaurants with outdoor facilities continue to operate?

I'm honestly not trying to pick every response apart, truly I'm not - as I said before you come across as a good person, with good motives, but I just can't get my head around the inconsistencies in the logic (again not yours particularly, but the wider narrative that has been presented by the government and media at large).

The arguments just don't hold up to scrutiny, there are too many inconsistencies across the board each and every way we turn, and this is the fundamental reason the vaccine feels too good to be true right now.

The main problem with the virus is that it spreads so easily, the NHS can't cope and we've had two waves with full restrictions and two full lockdowns already.

It's caused absolute chaos and will continue to do so until the vast majority of the population are protected against it either by immunity or vaccination.

Only 10% of the population has had it so if only so there is 90% left to get the vaccine.

Isn't this a contradiction though? If the problem is the virus spreads so easily, why have only 10% of the population had it?

Even with lockdown restrictions, it has been present now for over 9 months, and with the best will in the world, the restrictions haven't been followed rigidly. Look at the beaches just before lockdown, the BLM riots, the anti-lockdown protests, shouldn't we have seen massive spikes at each and every one of these events if was as virulent as suggested?

So if 40% take it up and everyone is allowed in planes and pubs, 50% of the population would still be spreading and catching it so the NHS still wouldn't be able to cope? Remember even with restrictions it spreads like wildfire, in the new world without restrictions it would spread even quicker in the non-vaccinated community.

I think there are two points here.

I can see the logic with regards to travel and the potential impact on less-developed/poorer nations who perhaps don't have the infrastructure to cope with an epidemic, as someone who firmly believes in the sovereign right to self-governance of a nation, I believe every nation should have a right to decide who can and cannot cross their borders and they must way up the health vs. economic risks of allowing or not allowing people in - and that 100% applies to making a decision on whether those infected/inoculated should be allowed to enter. With you on that bit

But I think the discussion around pubs, gyms, places of worship etc within our nation is a distinct and separate conversation and we should be careful of conflating the two topics.

Just for the record, I'm not antivaccine in general, even though I may have come across as so in this thread. I wouldn't ever term myself an anti-vaxxer, (don't really like the label in general but that is another discussion.)

Both my kids had the MMR jab and I've taken necessary vaccines when I have had to when travelling both in Asia and Africa.

I just find conversations around forced vaccination worrying - and that is ultimately where this conversation can potentially end up. I find such thoughts even more worrying when that vaccine is using an entirely new approach, an approach that has never been tested on humans prior to this, has been developed in record time and all for a virus that no matter how many ways we want to slice the data has been grossly hyped to be far, far more dangerous than it has in fact been.

2020 has been hard on all of us, we're all desperate for a return to normality, I get that, I really, really do. My mam and dad have had to miss out on both my kids birthdays and it breaks my heart and makes me angry even now just thinking about it, I too desperately want 2020 to be an anomaly, an anus horiblus as Liz would say, and let's get back on with things ASAP.

Yet, now more than ever, when we as a society at our most vulnerable both economically and emotionally, when we've gone through all of these hardships and we are open to anything that can end the bloody nightmare, I think it is important that we just take the time to stop and think and ask some fairly straightforward questions before jumping in with two feet and talking of restrictions on people who refuse to take it - especially when we see 2000 military personal moved into Liverpool to help with 'testing'. It all just feels like we are tiptoeing towards totalitarianism and we don't realise.

I pray to God that you are right and I am wrong on all this, but I think it is important that the questions are raised.

Isn't this a contradiction though? If the problem is the virus spreads so easily, why have only 10% of the population had it?

Even with lockdown restrictions, it has been present now for over 9 months, and with the best will in the world, the restrictions haven't been followed rigidly. Look at the beaches just before lockdown, the BLM riots, the anti-lockdown protests, shouldn't we have seen massive spikes at each and every one of these events if was as virulent as suggested?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not really the measures have been extreme and that's why it's only 10%, people are locked up at home and avoiding indoor venues, washing their hands 10 times a day, people working are wearing PPE, without these measures it would fly through the community in no time at all.

The dangers of outdoor demonstrations and lots of people on beaches were exaggerated, it spreads much quicker indoors in poorly ventilated areas like pub's, clubs, gyms, theatres and casino's if they hadn't been shut down or asked to operate in a sensible distanced way we would have seen an even bigger spike.

Where we have seen a spike is when the students came back and went on a bender in freshers week, that started the latest spike and lockdown.

So why no supporters in the football stadiums? Why no outdoor festivals? Why restrictions on meeting outdoors? Why can't pubs and restaurants with outdoor facilities continue to operate?

I'm honestly not trying to pick every response apart, truly I'm not - as I said before you come across as a good person, with good motives, but I just can't get my head around the inconsistencies in the logic (again not yours particularly, but the wider narrative that has been presented by the government and media at large).

The arguments just don't hold up to scrutiny, there are too many inconsistencies across the board each and every way we turn, and this is the fundamental reason the vaccine feels too good to be true right now.

The government didn't ask people to protest it's not good, but being outdoors isn't as bad as if they had all met in the pub.

Football matches? Really you think it's ok for however million people to travel together and meet up every Tuesday and Saturday, mix on the indoor stairs and communal areas, then go upstairs into the open air and shout for 100 minutes plus?

I should have added that another factor to indoor venues is the time spent in mixed company, pop to the papershop 2 mins, time in the pub 2 hours plus, time at a football match travel in car, bus ,tube, 30 mins to 6 hours (Boro) maybe 2 hours in the ground, it would all add to the spread.

Outdoor restaurants should be ok with good distancing and limited alcohol.

The government didn't ask people to protest it's not good, but being outdoors isn't as bad as if they had all met in the pub.

In fairness that is a valid point and taken onboard.

Football matches? Really you think it's ok for however million people to travel together and meet up every Tuesday and Saturday, mix on the indoor stairs and communal areas, then go upstairs into the open air and shout for 100 minutes plus?

I should have added that another factor to indoor venues is the time spent in mixed company, pop to the papershop 2 mins, time in the pub 2 hours plus, time at a football match travel in car, bus ,tube, 30 mins to 6 hours (Boro) maybe 2 hours in the ground, it would all add to the spread.

Outdoor restaurants should be ok with good distancing and limited alcohol.

I suppose its the very binary decisions that are being made that don't sit well with me. The football is a very good example, All you point out is very true - but why no halfway house measures. Only home fans with restricted numbers for example could mitigate a lot of what you outline. Why does it have to be all or nothing?

Anyway, I fear I'm unintentionally taking this thread away from the vaccine and back into wider lockdown discussion and I don't want to derail it further - so will leave it at that - but again I do take your points on board and appreciate the polite tone of the conversation even if it is a topic on which we don't agree.

Just one additional thought on this. If there is a vaccine that is 90% effective, and the virus as we know has an incredibly low mortality rate anyway, why would a vaccination need to be mandatory?

Surely, if you take the vaccine you have 90% protection against a virus with a morbidity rate of 0.66% (and that is factoring in the increased morbidity rate of 7.8% of over 80-year-olds)

Now I'm no maths whizz so I may have the numbers here wrong, but wouldn't that mean that someone who has taken the vaccination has a statistical chance of dying from the virus of 0.066 now as the danger of catching it when vaccinated is now a tenth of what it was? Like I say I may have my maths wrong here but even if I do you get the general point.

If a vaccine reduces someone's chance of dying from Covid to less then a tenth of a per cent, surely there is no danger to the vaccinated from those who have chosen not to take it? If this is the case, then surely the conversation is no longer - 'you have to take it for the sake of others and the greater good' and we can go back to allowing people a personal choice regarding their own bodily autonomy?

This seems so clear cut that I must have missed something obvious here, some I'm happy to be corrected if someone has the answer.

The main problem with the virus is that it spreads so easily, the NHS can't cope and we've had two waves with full restrictions and two full lockdowns already.

It's caused absolute chaos and will continue to do so until the vast majority of the population are protected against it either by immunity or vaccination.

Only 10% of the population has had it so if only so there is 90% left to get the vaccine.

So if 40% take it up and everyone is allowed in planes and pubs, 50% of the population would still be spreading and catching it so the NHS still wouldn't be able to cope? Remember even with restrictions it spreads like wildfire, in the new world without restrictions it would spread even quicker in the non-vaccinated community.

The only way to allow everyone back to normality is for the majority 70% plus to have the vaccine.

One last fact, they have said that people with the vaccine could still get the virus and may be spreading it's just that they won't feel ill, as the immune will attack it immediately, so those people wouldn't be taking any distancing measures and spreading it to the anti-vaxxers.

Great point well made.

In addition, the point that if the majority of the public take the vaccine then the non vaxxers have nothing to worry about as the action of the pro vaxxers will inherently cause the virus to basically disappear; sadly very much mirrors the position taken by conscientious objectors in the World Wars. Whilst society did not prevent those objectors sharing in the ultimate benefits of victory, society felt it was within its rights to introduce consequential rules which ensured the objectors lost their freedom during the war, whilst everyone else stoically put their lives on the line to achieve the desired outcome.

Just one additional thought on this. If there is a vaccine that is 90% effective, and the virus as we know has an incredibly low mortality rate anyway, why would a vaccination need to be mandatory?

Surely, if you take the vaccine you have 90% protection against a virus with a morbidity rate of 0.66% (and that is factoring in the increased morbidity rate of 7.8% of over 80-year-olds)

Now I'm no maths whizz so I may have the numbers here wrong, but wouldn't that mean that someone who has taken the vaccination has a statistical chance of dying from the virus of 0.066 now as the danger of catching it when vaccinated is now a tenth of what it was? Like I say I may have my maths wrong here but even if I do you get the general point.

If a vaccine reduces someone's chance of dying from Covid to less then a tenth of a per cent, surely there is no danger to the vaccinated from those who have chosen not to take it? If this is the case, then surely the conversation is no longer - 'you have to take it for the sake of others and the greater good' and we can go back to allowing people a personal choice regarding their own bodily autonomy?

This seems so clear cut that I must have missed something obvious here, some I'm happy to be corrected if someone has the answer.

The main problem with the virus is that it spreads so easily, the NHS can't cope and we've had two waves with full restrictions and two full lockdowns already.

It's caused absolute chaos and will continue to do so until the vast majority of the population are protected against it either by immunity or vaccination.

Only 10% of the population has had it so if only so there is 90% left to get the vaccine.

So if 40% take it up and everyone is allowed in planes and pubs, 50% of the population would still be spreading and catching it so the NHS still wouldn't be able to cope? Remember even with restrictions it spreads like wildfire, in the new world without restrictions it would spread even quicker in the non-vaccinated community.

The only way to allow everyone back to normality is for the majority 70% plus to have the vaccine.

One last fact, they have said that people with the vaccine could still get the virus and may be spreading it's just that they won't feel ill, as the immune will attack it immediately, so those people wouldn't be taking any distancing measures and spreading it to the anti-vaxxers.

Great point well made.

In addition, the point that if the majority of the public take the vaccine then the non vaxxers have nothing to worry about as the action of the pro vaxxers will inherently cause the virus to basically disappear; sadly very much mirrors the position taken by conscientious objectors in the World Wars. Whilst society did not prevent those objectors sharing in the ultimate benefits of victory, society felt it was within its rights to introduce consequential rules which ensured the objectors lost their freedom during the war, whilst everyone else stoically put their lives on the line to achieve the desired outcome.

.your seriously comparing a bunch of people completely terrified out of their wits with brave men...... your the exact opposite plus some.... they fought against. authoritarians, restrictions and for freedom of choice and our civil liberties..
pretty clear your trying to feel better about yourself and convince yourself you would have been in the front lines and not the conscientious objector you fear you might have been....but its not worked mate..

The government didn't ask people to protest it's not good, but being outdoors isn't as bad as if they had all met in the pub.

In fairness that is a valid point and taken onboard.

Football matches? Really you think it's ok for however million people to travel together and meet up every Tuesday and Saturday, mix on the indoor stairs and communal areas, then go upstairs into the open air and shout for 100 minutes plus?

I should have added that another factor to indoor venues is the time spent in mixed company, pop to the papershop 2 mins, time in the pub 2 hours plus, time at a football match travel in car, bus ,tube, 30 mins to 6 hours (Boro) maybe 2 hours in the ground, it would all add to the spread.

Outdoor restaurants should be ok with good distancing and limited alcohol.

I suppose its the very binary decisions that are being made that don't sit well with me. The football is a very good example, All you point out is very true - but why no halfway house measures. Only home fans with restricted numbers for example could mitigate a lot of what you outline. Why does it have to be all or nothing?

Anyway, I fear I'm unintentionally taking this thread away from the vaccine and back into wider lockdown discussion and I don't want to derail it further - so will leave it at that - but again I do take your points on board and appreciate the polite tone of the conversation even if it is a topic on which we don't agree.

Good reply as usual

I agree on football, I said in an earlier post exactly that we could have a far smaller distanced home crowd only, and close the communal areas with gaps to allow people to walk up the stairs, but I suppose toilets and travel back and fore is still an issue, probably safer to keep them closed and only allow people in that have had the vaccine when it does reopen

I just hope 70% agree to take it else we might not get back to normal.

While not remaining in lockdown, I’m not sure those that refuse to take it should be allowed to certain events. Just my thought I can’t see it being policy.

So anyone who wont/cant,should be cast aside like lepers? My mum is 80,znd had the flu vaccine for the 1st time a couple of years back,had such a severe reaction she ended up very ill and hospitalised for ten days,to the point we thought we were going to lose her!! She has flstly said she will not be having a vaccine,as it really took a toll, after the flu jab episode,so because she is scared,she shouldn't be allowed to mix with others?? May as well give them a bell each,so they can ring it,and shout unclean!unclean! Its a personal choice,for each individual,not for other people to make for you.its called freedom of choice.

Very sad, but just because you have a fluke unexpected crash the car you shouldn't give up driving.

If it were my Mum, I would take her to see the GP and evaluate whether she would be safer to have the vaccine or not, this is not a live dose vaccine and she won't receive a little bit of covid so she may not get the same sort of reaction.

If she/he can get this across to her she may decide to get the vaccine, which may help her allow her to get on with her life without the fear of catching covid while elderly and in a very vulnerable group.

If she is not suitable for the vaccine then at least she will know and have taken advice from an expert

Good luck I hope it all works out well for you all.

Thanks for your concern regarding my mother,ee hzve done as you have suggested,she has seen her gp,and even the practice nurse,and has still decided,its her choice,and her right to not take it! We will of course keep trying to persuade her to re consider,but knowing my mum,its not likely to have any effect on her decision.
The main concern we have is the constant barrage of scaremongering on tv,has scared her beyond belief,and we worry for her mental state,as she has been at home since last two weeks of February!!

I just hope 70% agree to take it else we might not get back to normal.

While not remaining in lockdown, I’m not sure those that refuse to take it should be allowed to certain events. Just my thought I can’t see it being policy.

So anyone who wont/cant,should be cast aside like lepers? My mum is 80,znd had the flu vaccine for the 1st time a couple of years back,had such a severe reaction she ended up very ill and hospitalised for ten days,to the point we thought we were going to lose her!! She has flstly said she will not be having a vaccine,as it really took a toll, after the flu jab episode,so because she is scared,she shouldn't be allowed to mix with others?? May as well give them a bell each,so they can ring it,and shout unclean!unclean! Its a personal choice,for each individual,not for other people to make for you.its called freedom of choice.

Very sad, but just because you have a fluke unexpected crash the car you shouldn't give up driving.

If it were my Mum, I would take her to see the GP and evaluate whether she would be safer to have the vaccine or not, this is not a live dose vaccine and she won't receive a little bit of covid so she may not get the same sort of reaction.

If she/he can get this across to her she may decide to get the vaccine, which may help her allow her to get on with her life without the fear of catching covid while elderly and in a very vulnerable group.

If she is not suitable for the vaccine then at least she will know and have taken advice from an expert

Good luck I hope it all works out well for you all.

Thanks for your concern regarding my mother,ee hzve done as you have suggested,she has seen her gp,and even the practice nurse,and has still decided,its her choice,and her right to not take it! We will of course keep trying to persuade her to re consider,but knowing my mum,its not likely to have any effect on her decision.
The main concern we have is the constant barrage of scaremongering on tv,has scared her beyond belief,and we worry for her mental state,as she has been at home since last two weeks of February!!

Fair enough all you can do is support her through and keep her safe, fingers crossed a few months down the line when some of her friends and family have had it and are doing well, she may reconsider, failing that if most people take it up she may not have too