nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
I didn’t fancy the risk of getting Covid.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should the NHS refuse treatment for people that haven’t had the vaccination?
- Thread starter LAX54
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Fair enough. seems you are protected.
What concern then is it if other people get it or not?
Shouldn't affect you no?
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
Oh no! Anyway,'Oh dear, Tony Blair has called me an idiot, must be time to change my mind'
Wow, the most at risk age group who aren't vaccinated are the group who are most likely to die!
Also thanks for calling me an idiot for wishing to wait until the full data about side effects is available, so I can make an informed decision about taking the vaccine.
'Oh no, I was um, uh not *sweats nervously* talking about disabled people who can't have it for whatever reason *nervously laughs*. Heavens forbid I would discriminate in such a way. I only discriminate against those I take issue with.' I'm also Autistic, but since I'm not scared of needles and (to my knowledge) have no underlying health condition that would prevent me from getting jabbed, I'm an idiot. Just goes to show how unvirtuous the virtuous are.
The whole don't treat the unvaxed argument could easily be flipped on its head by saying that vaccinated people shouldn't be treated for covid because they got the jab. But I don't believe that as you shouldn't be discriminated against when it comes to giving medical aid.
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
It shouldn’t affect me at all but if the government start imposing restrictions because the NHS is under strain because more unvaccinated people are putting an undue burden on that service then yes I have an issue.
If it was just a matter of “natural selection” then I couldn’t care less but it’s not.
bramling
Veteran Member
45 minutes to get vaccinated?
If Blair wants people to get vaccinated, he’d be better off keeping his trap shut.
D821
Member
No, as A&E departments aren't currently being overwhelmed by those with Covid who don't haven't had the vaccine.
87electric
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 1,024
How very altruistic of you.
A few things to highlight, there's starting to be a suggestion that those who are immunity compromised could be the source of the new variants. (Such as the Kent variant potentially evolving within a cancer patient). If this turns out to be true, then we (both as the UK and worldwide) would be best suited to ensure that everyone had a good level of healthcare including taking suitable medications.
I suspect that this may not sure well with those who are vaccine hesitate (wider than just with the Covid vaccine) as some are likely to be opposed to taking lots of "chemicals". I say "chemicals" as we are encouraged to consume significant amount of chemicals a day, the Government even advise that we consume quite large doses of dihydrogen oxide*.
Likewise this is likely to benefit pharmaceutical companies, which are portrayed as evil by some. (As an aside I wouldn't be surprised if there was a significant overlap between those who are vaccine hesitate (again in the wider context) and those who very strongly oppose testing on animals (not those who just think that it would be better if we didn't do it)).
Whilst they do make a lot of money, does that mean that they do not good? Anyway, what is the harm in making money if that brings benefits to those who use their products.
As an example, I think that the cost of the latest iPhone is way too much, I may even consider those who use them at idiots as you can get nearly as good a product for quite a bit less money and then get something at good in 18 months time. It could also be argued that Apple profit excessively from them. Likewise there's been little long term research into the impact of the use of iPhones (we can't assume that research into mobile phones in general can be applied to iPhones, can we!?). I also thought that the first iPhone was the only phone that w you'd ever need and now there appears to be a new one every year. Also there's a divide with access to services being offered to those with an iPhone but not to those without a smartphone, insulating government services (such as instant access to some of your NHS information), a divide which is likely to get worse unless we fought against it.
As the above is true, however that doesn't mean that Apple are evil, nor does it mean that we should be fighting against the digital divide (yes ensure that for those without the latest technology still have access to it, however that's very different to not letting smartphone users have it either).
I'm sure that there would be others examples where if we look at the extreme views/conclusions that we could come up with other similar lists of arguments to those who are hesitant about getting the Covid vaccine (such as McDonald's). That's not too say that some of the concerns aren't unfounded, however I do think that some are being overplayed.
For instance the long term impacts argument, yes there's likely to be some concern about this particular mix in the Covid vaccines. However there fact that most pairings of chemicals are likely to be fairly well understood is likely to mean that mixing multiple together is unlikely to result in some rouge outcome. Especially given that many of the bases to the vaccines have been in development for a number of years for other purposes (including a cancer vaccine) and even then the chemical makeup is likely to be built upon previous work.
Yes there have been past vaccines which have caused issues, however they are fairly rare and most are older and science has learnt from those mistakes. For instance previously someone highlighted a vaccine which cased harm in 1:20,000 people. We'll even if that happened with the Covid vaccine that would result in harm to 3,400 people in the UK in total, or about half the number of people currently in hospital with a positive Covid test result (which is tiny compared to the number who have been in hospital and also fairly small compared to those who have died with Covid, so a fairly large margin of error compared to due to Covid).
I know that whatever I say isn't going to get 100% of people to get vaccinated, however if it gets even a few more get it then that's going to help in reducing the impact on the economy of any future waves, as even small increases in the number with the vaccine can reduce overall cases quite significantly.
As even small restrictions like people behind asked to limit their social interactions harms the economy. In turn that harms those people who work in those sectors which can cause them to struggle financially and may cause their well-being significant harm.
For instance, at one end a few people cancelling their bookings in a restaurant may result in staff not needing to work as many shifts, however at the other end that could be the last pub in a village closing and it leading to some of the older regulars no longer having as much (possibly not having any if there's no public transport and other activities in the village don't appeal to them) human contact, and them living more isolated lives and the harm that causes them.
*dihydrogen oxide, the oxide produced when you burn hydrogen, made up of two parts hydrogen and the bonded oxygen (H2O), government guidance is that we should consume 2 litres a day, that's quite a large dose in anyone's book.
I suspect that this may not sure well with those who are vaccine hesitate (wider than just with the Covid vaccine) as some are likely to be opposed to taking lots of "chemicals". I say "chemicals" as we are encouraged to consume significant amount of chemicals a day, the Government even advise that we consume quite large doses of dihydrogen oxide*.
Likewise this is likely to benefit pharmaceutical companies, which are portrayed as evil by some. (As an aside I wouldn't be surprised if there was a significant overlap between those who are vaccine hesitate (again in the wider context) and those who very strongly oppose testing on animals (not those who just think that it would be better if we didn't do it)).
Whilst they do make a lot of money, does that mean that they do not good? Anyway, what is the harm in making money if that brings benefits to those who use their products.
As an example, I think that the cost of the latest iPhone is way too much, I may even consider those who use them at idiots as you can get nearly as good a product for quite a bit less money and then get something at good in 18 months time. It could also be argued that Apple profit excessively from them. Likewise there's been little long term research into the impact of the use of iPhones (we can't assume that research into mobile phones in general can be applied to iPhones, can we!?). I also thought that the first iPhone was the only phone that w you'd ever need and now there appears to be a new one every year. Also there's a divide with access to services being offered to those with an iPhone but not to those without a smartphone, insulating government services (such as instant access to some of your NHS information), a divide which is likely to get worse unless we fought against it.
As the above is true, however that doesn't mean that Apple are evil, nor does it mean that we should be fighting against the digital divide (yes ensure that for those without the latest technology still have access to it, however that's very different to not letting smartphone users have it either).
I'm sure that there would be others examples where if we look at the extreme views/conclusions that we could come up with other similar lists of arguments to those who are hesitant about getting the Covid vaccine (such as McDonald's). That's not too say that some of the concerns aren't unfounded, however I do think that some are being overplayed.
For instance the long term impacts argument, yes there's likely to be some concern about this particular mix in the Covid vaccines. However there fact that most pairings of chemicals are likely to be fairly well understood is likely to mean that mixing multiple together is unlikely to result in some rouge outcome. Especially given that many of the bases to the vaccines have been in development for a number of years for other purposes (including a cancer vaccine) and even then the chemical makeup is likely to be built upon previous work.
Yes there have been past vaccines which have caused issues, however they are fairly rare and most are older and science has learnt from those mistakes. For instance previously someone highlighted a vaccine which cased harm in 1:20,000 people. We'll even if that happened with the Covid vaccine that would result in harm to 3,400 people in the UK in total, or about half the number of people currently in hospital with a positive Covid test result (which is tiny compared to the number who have been in hospital and also fairly small compared to those who have died with Covid, so a fairly large margin of error compared to due to Covid).
I know that whatever I say isn't going to get 100% of people to get vaccinated, however if it gets even a few more get it then that's going to help in reducing the impact on the economy of any future waves, as even small increases in the number with the vaccine can reduce overall cases quite significantly.
As even small restrictions like people behind asked to limit their social interactions harms the economy. In turn that harms those people who work in those sectors which can cause them to struggle financially and may cause their well-being significant harm.
For instance, at one end a few people cancelling their bookings in a restaurant may result in staff not needing to work as many shifts, however at the other end that could be the last pub in a village closing and it leading to some of the older regulars no longer having as much (possibly not having any if there's no public transport and other activities in the village don't appeal to them) human contact, and them living more isolated lives and the harm that causes them.
*dihydrogen oxide, the oxide produced when you burn hydrogen, made up of two parts hydrogen and the bonded oxygen (H2O), government guidance is that we should consume 2 litres a day, that's quite a large dose in anyone's book.
Bantamzen
Established Member
As others have articulated already, no they are not. For a start it is politicians that drag us down with their spectrum of highly ineffective measures to try and stop something that is already established. But furthermore those who choose the exercise their right not to have the vaccine may well already have perfectly goof immunity to the virus through natural infection & their immune systems reacting to it. And finally vaccinated people can also spread the virus, I thought this was made clear by now. Whilst it is true that being unvaccinated increases the risk of serious illness, that risk for most is still very, very small. Remember most of us went a year or more with the virus in circulation without a vaccine, so did that make us all idiots?
This puerile and pathetic narrative needs to come to an end now. Its time to grow up and stop looking to blame someone for something beyond their control.
Let's hope that does not happen - I think we both have common ground there in not wanting restrictions.
My view is that if the government choose to impose further restrictions because the NHS cannot cope then that lies firmly at their door. They have had ample time to build capacity and have failed miserably if we reach such a point.
Anyway, current data suggests that further restrictions will not be needed.
Have a good Christmas!
Given that someone without the vaccine is up to 8 times more likely to die with Covid than someone with the vaccine (whilst it's not certain that it is from Covid; unless the vaccine gives you some other protection, such as from a heart attack, then it's likely the comparison is fair), as such I'd argue that they don't have perfectly good immunity.
Whilst it's true that if someone with the vaccine cam still pass on Covid if they are infected to the point where it's testable, far fewer of them reach that point.
For example, if the vaccine gives us 40% protection from getting it and 90% are vaccinated and unvaccinated the virus infects 3 people for every host starting with 100 people we would see 300 potential cases, 30 would be infected regardless as they don't have the vaccine of the remaining 270 then 162 would be infected, giving a total of 192.
However the next infection cycles instead of it being 900 potential cases it's 576 potential cases of which 57 are of the unvaccinated and go on to be infected whilst of the remaining potential cases 312 are infected giving a total of 369 cases.
As we keep going the gap between unvaccinated potential cases and actual cases gets wider and wider.
However interestingly of you increase the vaccinated rate to 91% whilst in the first infection cycles it only reduces the number of cases by 1, by the end of the second it has reduced by 39 (by about 10%), with the reduction in cases getting larger and larger as the cycle goes through (next cycle 630 vs 708).
The problem isn't people dying it's, as your rightly point out, that the ineffective restrictions are put in place. However, without restrictions being imposed people would start to do them anyway.
Even if they didn't, for instance if people didn't self isolate after being a close contact, then it's likely that a lot of people would be I'll enough to be off work. Now depending on what jobs they do it would likely have an impact on what the rest of us could do.
The problem with that is that there's always going to be some unintended consequences which then has the potential to make life very hard for a lot of people.
Even something as simple as there being the perception of shortages will make people act irrationally, and you probably wouldn't need that many key staff off from a particular supply chain for it to start to struggle in meeting normal demand.
If that's, as an example, nurses supplying care in hospital you only need a fairly small number of before hospital capacity starts to fall, when they happens even if the total in hospital isn't going up by very much you start to see people being turned away from getting treatment (again wider than just Covid).
Only if there's enough staff not having to self isolate to provide the capacity needed, which is currently the bigger risk and not the building capacity. Although even then as long as case numbers stay broadly flat having (in some areas) 3 out of 200 people currently infected shouldn't cause too much of an issue.
However the fact that many are taking precautions when they don't have to, will be reducing the rise in cases.
Last edited:
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Someone who is anti-vax isn’t the same as someone who is merely unvaccinated.
Only if there's enough staff not having to self isolate to provide the capacity needed, which is currently the bigger risk and not the building capacity. Although even then as long as case numbers stay broadly flat having (in some areas) 3 out of 200 people currently infected shouldn't cause too much of an issue.
However the fact that many are taking precautions when they don't have to, will be reducing the rise in cases.
Indeed, however it raises the question why is the non anti-vaxx unvaccinated person is unvaccinated?
The numbers who unable to have the vaccine is likely to be fairly small and if it's for a medical reason beyond fear of needles then they should be fairly supportive of everyone else being vaccinated so that they are protected by heard immunity.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Some people are vaccine hesitant and it seems to me the rump of those people share a significant crossover of opinions regarding the role of the state and loss of personal control over their lives.
Ultimately, while locking down the unvaccinated is unethical and ineffective as a medical intervention, mandates have proven very effective at simply sifting out those who are being unreasonable from the truly anti-vax. Essentially, governments who do this are testing the price you claim to put on your safety, and seeing how genuine those concerns are.
You need to adjust for people who have and haven't previously had Covid.
I would suspect that someone who has had one or two jabs - at the short spacing that the government has sought to administer them - would have a similar level of risk as someone who has been infected and has recovered.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
I advise that everyone wanting to prevent the unvaxed from medical read article 25.1 of the International Declaration of Human Rights.
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
No one is denying you….you might just not get the same priority if you get Covid as someone more deserving. That’s what might have to happen if there’s too many in hospital.
I’m now waiting for some nonsense about Magna Carta and Nuremberg to come out of this forum.
bengley
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 May 2008
- Messages
- 1,845
What would you say to the family of someone who, due to your petty bullying, decided to get the vaccine, then subsequently died of complications due to the vaccine?
(It's a realistic scenario, so just answer the question)
Bantamzen
Established Member
The problem with randomly chucking around risk increases figures for the unvaccinated is that the risk is not spread evenly across demographics. We all know that the people most likely to suffer serious illness from the virus are predominantly older people and people with compromised immune systems (also true for many other diseases). Telling a healthy 20 year old that they are 8 times more likely to die from covid unvaccinated is like telling them they are 8 times more likely to be crushed by a falling tree than a piano. The risks either way are still minute.
Now that might seem like an absurd analogy, but its no more absurd than the notion that people in low risk groups (i.e. the majority) are suddenly at serious risk if they choose not to have the vaccine. That's not to say they shouldn't be encouraged, but nonetheless they should be making the decision based on their own perceptions of risk, not guilted, discriminated, bullied or insulted into it. As for those in higher risk groups, that should be an issue for the individual and their doctors, not for the media or forums like this.
Last edited:
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
There was a 1 in a million chance but very sad.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
Pretty sure that's denying healthcare. If there was someone who was knocked off their motorcycle and had serious injuries and someone went rock climbing, fell 300ft and had serious injuries, are you going to put the rock climber on ice because they chose to partake in an extreme sport?
Indeed, however few live in isolation, and so many will opt to have the vaccine so that they reduce the risk that they pass the virus to someone that they know who is in a high risk group.
However over time they are likely to move to higher risk group, either through age or potentially (although less likely) getting an underlying heath issue.
However define risk, yes the risk of dying is very low, going to hospital is higher, however being off work (even if you ignore any guidance on self isolating) is likely to be fairly high.
Whilst they each have different consequences there's still a level of risk to the individual. As someone who is only paid when they work that could harm their finances quiet a bit to be off work for a week.
Someone with a vaccine aged 50-60 has about the risk of hospitalisation as someone without a vaccine aged 18-30 and about the same death rate as someone without the vaccine aged 30-40.
However as I've highlighted even a 1% rise in the number with the vaccine and a fairly low (40%) level of protection can make a large difference to the number of cases even after a fairly short period of time. If those cases get too high it is more likely to have unintended consequences, even if it isn't causing healthcare too much of an issue.
As I've said before there was a case cited of a vaccine which caused harm on a rate of 1:20,000 (a rate which is a lot higher than anyone has been able to show for the Covid vaccine). However that's still half the risk of dying on the roads in the next 12 months (which at 1:10,000 is under half the risk it was 25 years ago where with less traffic there was about double the deaths), and tiny compared to the 1:250 chance of dying on the roads at any time (again much reduced from the near past). That's before we consider the risk of serious injury from using roads.
Yet few would say that we should do much about road safety, even though it's a higher risk to them than a high risk vaccine (which isn't the same as the Covid vaccine).
If we take the number of deaths in the yellow card system (which is comparable to comparing deaths with Covid, as such is likely to over report) and compare that to the number of first doses only and the rate is 1:30,000. This compares with about 1:700 (assuming that the entire population has had Covid and 100,000 of the deaths with Covid were of Covid).
Now assuming that is the rate for someone aged 65, someone aged 25 would need to have a rate for death of Covid about 1/40th of that (which does appear to be about right) however for each year that passes the risk increases.
However that's on data which is skewed to over estimate the death rate from the vaccine and assumes that everyone had already had Covid and that about 30% of people died with but not of Covid and ignores any deaths not registered before testing was able to confirm then (which skews the risk of death from Covid much too low).
As such the risk is likely to be bigger from getting the virus for the vast majority of the population (not adjusted for heath issues, but done so by age).
Now whilst heath issues will be another factor and is likely to reduce many people's risk below the average for the age group there have been some very fit and healthy people who have died with Covid who you wouldn't have expected to.
As such, whilst anything is a risk and anyone's death causes upset to those around them, I would say nothing. Not because I am embarrassed about the vaccine, but because anything I could say would likely just cause further unnecessary upset at a time when they are wanting to grieve.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
I suppose one should ask the same question of vocal vaccine refusers when unvaccinated people die - as they are doing by the dozen every day and not one in a million scenarios like you describe - unnecessarily and prematurely because of covid. The answer is of course, to say nothing, because that’s polite.
Last edited:
It is not a realistic scenario at all.
backontrack
Established Member
Speaking as someone who has been double-vaxxed and boosted and who loathes anti-vaxxers,
no. Of course they bloody well should still have access to NHS care. They're human beings, and they pay their taxes. Next question.
The vast majority of London hospitalisations for Covid are unvaccinated.
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
Useless bed blockers wasting people's time. One third of Londoners haven't even had one jab.
Seriously though if I was working in a hospital I'd be fuming at having to deal with this.
But hey the anti-vaxxers on here will 'claim' that 5 million "can't" have the vaccine.
A report on LBC earlier today said the doctors and nurses are.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Utter, utter tosh. As I have said earlier this puerile, pathetic narrative needs to stop.
Absolutely
Indeed, it's a slippery slope this only allowing the righteous to have medical care BUT all the unclean must still pay their share.
Ah, but you're no longer fully vaccinated as the current interpretation is that you need a booster too to be "fully vaccinated." Nor can you make any excuse of "gap between jabs not enough" as the govt is not expecting ALL persons to have a booster even if less than 6 months after 2nd main jab- otherwise not "fully vaccinated." Sorry mate, you ain't one of the righteous any more
(for a bit of context- I was accused up post of being anti-vax even though I made it clear I had the first 2 jabs, it was the booster I have decided not to have- for various reasons although I also note it was offered less than 6 months since my second jab so yet again the govt move the goalposts which were previously requiring a minimum gap of 6 months between 2nd jab and booster).
As I said above, we need to stop the inflammatory language, someone who is vaccine hesitant for the COVID vaccine- whether that be the first, second jab or booster no 1 or further boosters- is NOT THE SAME as an "antivaxxer" who is against all vaccines.
Lumping the 2 things together to try to threaten people into having yet another COVID vaccine is extremely unhelpful and counterproductive.
There has been a constant shifting of goalposts and information about need for/efficacy of COVID vaccines seems to depend on what particular "nudge" the govt want to use next. That does not engender trust or confidence.
The vast majority of bed-blockers are there because whilst in hospital the NHS pay for their care, once discharged the Local Authority picks up the tab. The local authorities are totally skint, so make lots of excuses to avoid putting in place the care package the person (most often old and frail) requires.
Maybe you should direct your wrath to the offspring of these "bedblockers" and make them take mum/dad home and care for them?????
I really don't understand why @nedchester, but you seem to have fixated all of your anger about the COVID restrictions on a group of people who are in the main either of an age so as to not be at risk from what is in fact a very survivable disease, or on those who decided that after having COVID and/or working on the healthcare/social care front line in the first and worst wave, there's little point in being vaccinated now- for them the stable door is well and truly left open after horse bolting.
Anyway, even if 100% of UK were "fully vaccinated" against COVID (whatever that means at the time), you're in cloud-cuckoo land if you think govt would abandon all restrictions then. Remember- it was said at the start of the vaccination campaign that "until the world beats COVID then we all remain at risk." And so it goes on.......... and of course the sucking up of the vaccine for ever-more boosters by the rich west makes it much more difficult for poorer countries to get even a first round of vaccination done.
TPO
Last edited:
- Status