Coronavirus

[Aruntraveller]

Anybody up for the latest government initiative - Schrodingers Christmas Party.

[Nearly Sane]

One rule for us, no rules for them


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59505975

[Gordon]

I'm sure I'm not the only person wondering if the UK governments insistence that there is no need to cancel Xmas parties may well backfire on them: must get some popcorn in!

[Nearly Sane]

This

[Udayana]

When asked about this in a recent Q&A presentation, Geert said that when an unvaccinated person gets symptomatically infected with covid he/she will at best completely isolate and at worst spend less time around other people until they are better, thus will tend to spread the virus only while pre-symptomatic. If a vaccinated person is less likely to be symptomatic when infected, they won't be so aware of the infection and so will be more likely to spread it to others. So he says mass vaccination increased the speed at which delta became most prevalent. Allowing the virus to become endemic naturally doesn't mean more infectious variants won't become dominant over decades or centuries.

Really? Does he provide any figures demonstrating this?

[SteveH]

A long and incredibly sad read:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/30/life-tragic-death-john-eyers-fitness-fanatic-who-refused-covid-vaccine?

Stupid bastard.

[Spud]

Blessed are the Greeks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59474808

[SteveH]

Good for Greece.

[Spud]

Good for Greece.

I can't agree with you I'm afraid. What if someone demanded that you give blood and fined you £100 a month if you didn't? A fundamental principal of medicine is patient autonomy.

[ProfessorDavey]

What if someone demanded that you give blood and fined you £100 a month if you didn't?

Completely different situation.

A fundamental principal of medicine is patient autonomy.

Indeed, but there have always been situations where public health considerations have been considered to trump individual autonomy. So the argument isn't whether public health considerations can over-ride individual autonomy - that seems to be a pretty settled view in medical ethics. This issue is whether the public health considerations SHOULD over-ride individual autonomy in this particular situation.

Personally I'm not sure I'd go as far as requiring people to have the vaccination. However I have no issue to requiring people to demonstrate they have had the vaccination (or cannot on medical grounds) in order to be able to access services, public events etc etc. In which case you are not required to have the vaccination, but if you refuse to do so you cannot expect to be permitted access public events/transport etc in the same manner as those who have had the vaccine and have reduced their risk to others.

[jeremyp]

Completely different situation.

It's a medical procedure that saves other people's lives. So is vaccination. It's not completely different is it.

Indeed, but there have always been situations where public health considerations have been considered to trump individual autonomy. So the argument isn't whether public health considerations can over-ride individual autonomy - that seems to be a pretty settled view in medical ethics. This issue is whether the public health considerations SHOULD over-ride individual autonomy in this particular situation.

Personally I'm not sure I'd go as far as requiring people to have the vaccination. However I have no issue to requiring people to demonstrate they have had the vaccination (or cannot on medical grounds) in order to be able to access services, public spaces etc etc. In which case you are not required to have the vaccination, but if you refuse to do so you cannot expect to be permitted access public events/transport etc in the same manner as those who have had the vaccine and have reduced their risk to others.

I think we are in agreement on this point.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's a medical procedure that saves other people's lives.

It is, because by not donating blood you do not personally render yourself a greater risk to others. By contrast by not having the vaccine you do render yourself a greater risk to others.

It isn't the notion that both are medical procedures - the point is about risk/benefit. Not giving blood does not personally convey a risk to others, but giving blood may convey a benefit. Not having the vaccine does personally convey a risk to others.

Vaccination is a public health issue, the donation of blood isn't.

[jeremyp]

It is

You saifd it was completely different. I gave you two aspects in which it isa the same. So it's not completely different. End of argument.

because by not donating blood you do not personally render yourself a greater risk to others

If blood supplies are short, it puts people's lives at risk. If you refuse to donate blood, you are contributing to the risk (I say that as somebody who hasn't donated blood for many years).

Vaccination is a public health issue, the donation of blood isn't.

I'd say it is. Similarly organ donation, or the lack of it.

I think the ethics behind fining people for not undergoing a medical procedure are similar in both cases. I think I am opposed. However, if an unvaccinated person walks into a room full of people, they are putting those people at a higher risk than a vaccinated person in a way that a non blood donor is not. Therefore, it is reasonable to put restrictions on vaccinated people, in that sense.

[Aruntraveller]

I can't agree with you I'm afraid. What if someone demanded that you give blood and fined you £100 a month if you didn't? A fundamental principal of medicine is patient autonomy.

It is a difficult one, although your comparison is spurious.

I was reading an article earlier about someone who was immuno-supressed and had shielded throughout the time she was supposed to and was double vaccinated and died after shielding ended due to her following govt advice that shielding was no longer necessary. This completely ignored the fact that some drugs used for rheumatoid arthritis render the vaccine much less effective in some cases. This woman was one such case.

Where are her rights in all this? If others are not getting vaccinated then this woman and people like her will have to remain forever shielding and isolated. What about the principle of being able to live your life?

If there was any proof for any of the many bizarre claims about the vaccines then I might have sympathy for those choosing not to get vaccinated as it stands I have precious little.

ICU's are full of largely unvaccinated patients who are still dying, worse than that they are placing an intolerable burden on the NHS and stopping other people getting treatment they desperately need for other conditions. I'm afraid the stupidity, ignorance and willingness to listen to some bloke on the internet rather than medically qualified specialists by some people in this country is quite frankly baffling and actually threatening other people's lives.

Unless they come to their senses we may have no other choice but to insist on mandatory vaccination. How long do we want this pandemic to go on for?

Let me be clear I do not want mandatory vaccination, but I do think the majority have a right to a life free from the fear of people infecting us as much as is possible, or indeed providing fertile ground for further mutations.

Finally patient autonomy is defined as follows:

 the right of competent adults to make informed decisions about their own medical care.

Currently the adults I have heard talking about not taking the vaccination have not sounded competent and therefore they are not making informed decisions.

[ProfessorDavey]

You saifd it was completely different. I gave you two aspects in which it isa the same. So it's not completely different. End of argument.

because by not donating blood you do not personally render yourself a greater risk to others

If blood supplies are short, it puts people's lives at risk. If you refuse to donate blood, you are contributing to the risk (I say that as somebody who hasn't donated blood for many years).
I'd say it is. Similarly organ donation, or the lack of it.

Nope they are different.

A non blood donor isn't a specific risk to the public, a non vaccinated person is a specific risk to the public as they carry a greater risk or transmitting an infectious disease.

The point about blood availability is different - it is about healthcare resource availability not the risk that a specific person poses to another person.

[Spud]

Nope they are different.

A non blood donor isn't a specific risk to the public, a non vaccinated person is a specific risk to the public as they carry a greater risk or transmitting an infectious disease.

I recall seeing a study that demonstrated this, so I won't question it. But don't forget a vaccinated person may transmit as well. So should they also be fined? Say half the amount? I think it's fine to restrict unvaccinated people, if the evidence shows they transmit more. But only fine someone if they deliberately attempt to transmit the virus. And also, people who recover from symptomatic infection will have immunity too, so I'm guessing they will transmit less.

[ProfessorDavey]

I recall seeing a study that demonstrated this, so I won't question it.

The vaccine has been shown to be effective in reducing transmission.

But don't forget a vaccinated person may transmit as well.

But the likelihood is reduced if you have the vaccine.

So should they also be fined? Say half the amount?

No - because the person who takes the responsible decision to gat vaccinated has taken the option to reduce the risk of transmission as far as possible through vaccination. The person who refuses to be vaccinated has deliberated taken a choice not to reduce that risk. That choice should not be consequence free if the deliberate choice impacts on the health of others.

I think it's fine to restrict unvaccinated people, if the evidence shows they transmit more.

The evidence is clear that vaccination reduces transmissibility of the virus.

But only fine someone if they deliberately attempt to transmit the virus.

Isn't refusing to get the vaccine a deliberate action - I think so, so anyone who has refused to get the vaccine and places themselves in situations where they may be infectious to others is in effect taking a deliberate decision to increase the risk to others. I doubt they actually want to infect people but they cannot absolve themselves of their responsibilities if they refuse to get vaccinated.

And also, people who recover from symptomatic infection will have immunity too, so I'm guessing they will transmit less.

That's true - but that shouldn't remove an obligation to be vaccinated, because immunity, whether natural or through vaccination doesn't last forever.

[ad_orientem]

I think as many as possible should be vaccinated, everyone should be encouraged to take it. Vaccines work. I feel deeply uncomfortable with vaccine passports and forced vaccinations though. If those of us who have taken the vaccine trust it (after all it is a good vaccine, although imperfect) then it shouldn't matter if the person next to us is unvaccinated.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think as many as possible should be vaccinated, everyone should be encouraged to take it.

Agreed.

Vaccines work

I feel deeply uncomfortable with vaccine passports and forced vaccinations though.

There is a major difference between being required to demonstrate that you have been vaccinated (or aren't able to be on medical grounds) in order to be able to travel or attend an event and being forced to be vaccinated.

If those of us who have taken the vaccine trust it (after all it is a good vaccine, although imperfect) then it shouldn't matter if the person next to us is unvaccinated.

It should because not all people are able to have the vaccine and why should they be at increased risk because some people who can get the vaccine selfishly chose not to do so. And significantly imparting community transmission, including to those who are vulnerable, can only be majorly impaired if we get sufficient people with immunity (whether natural or via vaccines) to attain so-called herd immunity. While millions of people (e.g. in the UK) refuse to be vaccinated, we may never reach that point and the people most impacted will be those unvaccinated (well that's their own fault, except for the costs etc in dealing with their hospitalisation), but also the most vulnerable whose immunity is impaired. Not much good telling that person that's it's OK that the person next to them on the tube has refused to have a vaccine.

[ad_orientem]

It's the segregation of people I dislike. Yes, they may be stupid, selfish and many other things to boot, but we don't do this for anything else. We always knew there was going to be a section of society who for varying reasons wouldn't take that vaccine, yet it was still supposed to be our route out. In the same way restrictions applied to everybody so should reopenning society.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's the segregation of people I dislike.

So do I - specifically people who are particularly vulnerable who feel they have to segregate themselves from many aspects of society as they are very concerned about getting the virus. I have rather more concern for those people than selfish people who refuse to get the vaccine. In my view if vax-refusniks get segregated from certain aspects of society that's their own fault. If vulnerable people do then it is the fault of others, most notably those irresponsibly not following covid advise and specifically refusing vaccines.

[ProfessorDavey]

In the same way restrictions applied to everybody so should reopenning society.

But it doesn't does it - it doesn't apply equally to people who are vulnerable through no fault of their own. In order to support those people then if people who refuse vaccines find that reopening of society doesn't apply equally to them, then so be it - their look-out and their choice.

[Nearly Sane]

UK Govt laughing at you, and dead and dying family members

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-gavin-williamson-hosted-party-25641812

[Nearly Sane]

Ever get the feeling you've been had

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1468285311415377932?t=I7dmHBo_atXoN78AUyNrIg&s=19

[Spud]

Ad_O and Prof Davey,

What about flu. Do we vaccinate everyone to protect immunosuppressed people who can't be vaccinated?