FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Vaccine restrictions
Vaccine restrictions
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Seeing a few people lobbying for placing restrictions on those who refuse vaccinations re concert venues, restaurants, general crowded places.
As much as I would encourage getting vaccinated in order to reduce the strain on the NHS and ease social distancing, I'm struggling to see how those kinds of restrictions would make sense in reducing the spread? Someone who is asymptomatic or has very mild symptoms without vaxx has about as much chance of passing it on as someone who is vaxxed but might still be harbouring the virus or experiencing a mild version of the illness, right? The vaccine only stops you getting severely ill, so less spluttering and coughing about = less spread, but I can't really imagine anyone, vaxxed or not, who is feeling super ill wanting to even go out to concerts or restaurants? Might just be me, but when I'm ill I tend to just... Stay home.
I do understand why it would be compulsory for travel though, as a) you wouldn't be as inclined to change travel dates for illness and b) it's not fair to add to foreign countries' health services.
Am I missing something? If so, please explain it to me  microbiology is not one of my fortés. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ab jamesMan
over a year ago
ribble valley |
"Seeing a few people lobbying for placing restrictions on those who refuse vaccinations re concert venues, restaurants, general crowded places.
As much as I would encourage getting vaccinated in order to reduce the strain on the NHS and ease social distancing, I'm struggling to see how those kinds of restrictions would make sense in reducing the spread? Someone who is asymptomatic or has very mild symptoms without vaxx has about as much chance of passing it on as someone who is vaxxed but might still be harbouring the virus or experiencing a mild version of the illness, right? The vaccine only stops you getting severely ill, so less spluttering and coughing about = less spread, but I can't really imagine anyone, vaxxed or not, who is feeling super ill wanting to even go out to concerts or restaurants? Might just be me, but when I'm ill I tend to just... Stay home.
I do understand why it would be compulsory for travel though, as a) you wouldn't be as inclined to change travel dates for illness and b) it's not fair to add to foreign countries' health services.
Am I missing something? If so, please explain it to me microbiology is not one of my fortés. "
I think there's a period where you are infectious before you feel the symptoms |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Seeing a few people lobbying for placing restrictions on those who refuse vaccinations re concert venues, restaurants, general crowded places.
As much as I would encourage getting vaccinated in order to reduce the strain on the NHS and ease social distancing, I'm struggling to see how those kinds of restrictions would make sense in reducing the spread? Someone who is asymptomatic or has very mild symptoms without vaxx has about as much chance of passing it on as someone who is vaxxed but might still be harbouring the virus or experiencing a mild version of the illness, right? The vaccine only stops you getting severely ill, so less spluttering and coughing about = less spread, but I can't really imagine anyone, vaxxed or not, who is feeling super ill wanting to even go out to concerts or restaurants? Might just be me, but when I'm ill I tend to just... Stay home.
I do understand why it would be compulsory for travel though, as a) you wouldn't be as inclined to change travel dates for illness and b) it's not fair to add to foreign countries' health services.
Am I missing something? If so, please explain it to me microbiology is not one of my fortés.
I think there's a period where you are infectious before you feel the symptoms "
Right, but isn't it true for those who have had the vaccine too? That's what I'm not getting. There's no guarantee that your body will fully fight the virus off, right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ab jamesMan
over a year ago
ribble valley |
"Seeing a few people lobbying for placing restrictions on those who refuse vaccinations re concert venues, restaurants, general crowded places.
As much as I would encourage getting vaccinated in order to reduce the strain on the NHS and ease social distancing, I'm struggling to see how those kinds of restrictions would make sense in reducing the spread? Someone who is asymptomatic or has very mild symptoms without vaxx has about as much chance of passing it on as someone who is vaxxed but might still be harbouring the virus or experiencing a mild version of the illness, right? The vaccine only stops you getting severely ill, so less spluttering and coughing about = less spread, but I can't really imagine anyone, vaxxed or not, who is feeling super ill wanting to even go out to concerts or restaurants? Might just be me, but when I'm ill I tend to just... Stay home.
I do understand why it would be compulsory for travel though, as a) you wouldn't be as inclined to change travel dates for illness and b) it's not fair to add to foreign countries' health services.
Am I missing something? If so, please explain it to me microbiology is not one of my fortés.
I think there's a period where you are infectious before you feel the symptoms
Right, but isn't it true for those who have had the vaccine too? That's what I'm not getting. There's no guarantee that your body will fully fight the virus off, right? "
No vaccine is 100% effective. I'm sure it will offer a high level of immunity. Also there will be a period after the vax, you will be susceptible. So still wear a mask etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Seeing a few people lobbying for placing restrictions on those who refuse vaccinations re concert venues, restaurants, general crowded places.
As much as I would encourage getting vaccinated in order to reduce the strain on the NHS and ease social distancing, I'm struggling to see how those kinds of restrictions would make sense in reducing the spread? Someone who is asymptomatic or has very mild symptoms without vaxx has about as much chance of passing it on as someone who is vaxxed but might still be harbouring the virus or experiencing a mild version of the illness, right? The vaccine only stops you getting severely ill, so less spluttering and coughing about = less spread, but I can't really imagine anyone, vaxxed or not, who is feeling super ill wanting to even go out to concerts or restaurants? Might just be me, but when I'm ill I tend to just... Stay home.
I do understand why it would be compulsory for travel though, as a) you wouldn't be as inclined to change travel dates for illness and b) it's not fair to add to foreign countries' health services.
Am I missing something? If so, please explain it to me microbiology is not one of my fortés.
I think there's a period where you are infectious before you feel the symptoms
Right, but isn't it true for those who have had the vaccine too? That's what I'm not getting. There's no guarantee that your body will fully fight the virus off, right?
No vaccine is 100% effective. I'm sure it will offer a high level of immunity. Also there will be a period after the vax, you will be susceptible. So still wear a mask etc. "
I know, I get that. But immunity doesn't mean "not infected". Are vaccinated people who are infected and still go out to crowded places as infectious as asymptomatic non-vaccinated people? Because I am assuming that if one is ill to the point of showing symptoms they just generally wouldn't go out at all. Does my question not make sense?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seeing a few people lobbying for placing restrictions on those who refuse vaccinations re concert venues, restaurants, general crowded places.
As much as I would encourage getting vaccinated in order to reduce the strain on the NHS and ease social distancing, I'm struggling to see how those kinds of restrictions would make sense in reducing the spread? Someone who is asymptomatic or has very mild symptoms without vaxx has about as much chance of passing it on as someone who is vaxxed but might still be harbouring the virus or experiencing a mild version of the illness, right? The vaccine only stops you getting severely ill, so less spluttering and coughing about = less spread, but I can't really imagine anyone, vaxxed or not, who is feeling super ill wanting to even go out to concerts or restaurants? Might just be me, but when I'm ill I tend to just... Stay home.
I do understand why it would be compulsory for travel though, as a) you wouldn't be as inclined to change travel dates for illness and b) it's not fair to add to foreign countries' health services.
Am I missing something? If so, please explain it to me microbiology is not one of my fortés.
I think there's a period where you are infectious before you feel the symptoms
Right, but isn't it true for those who have had the vaccine too? That's what I'm not getting. There's no guarantee that your body will fully fight the virus off, right?
No vaccine is 100% effective. I'm sure it will offer a high level of immunity. Also there will be a period after the vax, you will be susceptible. So still wear a mask etc.
I know, I get that. But immunity doesn't mean "not infected". Are vaccinated people who are infected and still go out to crowded places as infectious as asymptomatic non-vaccinated people? Because I am assuming that if one is ill to the point of showing symptoms they just generally wouldn't go out at all. Does my question not make sense? "
This vaccine is to help prepare the body to fight covid-19 more efficiently, it won't stop us catching it or stop us spreading it, social distancing, face coverings and washing/sanitising hands frequently will be around for a long time.
We still don't know exactly how much of the virus is needed to seriously infect us so immunity passports etc etc are as much use as a chocolate teapot |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Seeing a few people lobbying for placing restrictions on those who refuse vaccinations re concert venues, restaurants, general crowded places.
As much as I would encourage getting vaccinated in order to reduce the strain on the NHS and ease social distancing, I'm struggling to see how those kinds of restrictions would make sense in reducing the spread? Someone who is asymptomatic or has very mild symptoms without vaxx has about as much chance of passing it on as someone who is vaxxed but might still be harbouring the virus or experiencing a mild version of the illness, right? The vaccine only stops you getting severely ill, so less spluttering and coughing about = less spread, but I can't really imagine anyone, vaxxed or not, who is feeling super ill wanting to even go out to concerts or restaurants? Might just be me, but when I'm ill I tend to just... Stay home.
I do understand why it would be compulsory for travel though, as a) you wouldn't be as inclined to change travel dates for illness and b) it's not fair to add to foreign countries' health services.
Am I missing something? If so, please explain it to me microbiology is not one of my fortés.
I think there's a period where you are infectious before you feel the symptoms
Right, but isn't it true for those who have had the vaccine too? That's what I'm not getting. There's no guarantee that your body will fully fight the virus off, right?
No vaccine is 100% effective. I'm sure it will offer a high level of immunity. Also there will be a period after the vax, you will be susceptible. So still wear a mask etc.
I know, I get that. But immunity doesn't mean "not infected". Are vaccinated people who are infected and still go out to crowded places as infectious as asymptomatic non-vaccinated people? Because I am assuming that if one is ill to the point of showing symptoms they just generally wouldn't go out at all. Does my question not make sense?
This vaccine is to help prepare the body to fight covid-19 more efficiently, it won't stop us catching it or stop us spreading it, social distancing, face coverings and washing/sanitising hands frequently will be around for a long time.
We still don't know exactly how much of the virus is needed to seriously infect us so immunity passports etc etc are as much use as a chocolate teapot "
This is what I thought, thank you  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Can you refuse entry to your workplace to an employee who will not take the vaccine?
Realistically, yes
so no job if you refuse
"
I get that though because employees are more likely to come into work when sick rather than take time off, especially if they need the money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seeing a few people lobbying for placing restrictions on those who refuse vaccinations re concert venues, restaurants, general crowded places.
As much as I would encourage getting vaccinated in order to reduce the strain on the NHS and ease social distancing, I'm struggling to see how those kinds of restrictions would make sense in reducing the spread? Someone who is asymptomatic or has very mild symptoms without vaxx has about as much chance of passing it on as someone who is vaxxed but might still be harbouring the virus or experiencing a mild version of the illness, right? The vaccine only stops you getting severely ill, so less spluttering and coughing about = less spread, but I can't really imagine anyone, vaxxed or not, who is feeling super ill wanting to even go out to concerts or restaurants? Might just be me, but when I'm ill I tend to just... Stay home.
I do understand why it would be compulsory for travel though, as a) you wouldn't be as inclined to change travel dates for illness and b) it's not fair to add to foreign countries' health services.
Am I missing something? If so, please explain it to me microbiology is not one of my fortés. "
I think the hope is that even if you get infected the vaccine will react to the virus quickly and so reduce or hopefully eliminate the chances of you passing it on. As yet though this hasn’t been tested.
One of the reasons that it is so important that a high percentage of the population have the vaccine though is that the number of people who can then catch the virus will be much lower, and the R number and number of infections will reduce drastically. I think if we can get down to a low number of new infections per day like it was in the summer and people have been vaccinated most people will start to feel safe and we can start to get back to normal. I think based on previous mass vaccination we need 90%+ of the population to be vaccinated for this to be the case though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
People who have paid big money for something, or anytime there's higb motivation, will go above and beyond what you might expect OP. Seeing a concert may be more alluring than moping ill in bed etc..
Have you read the full research evidence for each of the vaccines? If you haven't, you're better to wait for it, so that you can forecast results and compare between those with and without the vaccines.
Reducing viral loads is probably a major game changer, in limiting the numbers of new infections.
Certainly it is in our interests to reduce severe illnesses and deaths but as more of the vaccines get tested and approved, it's likely that we will get better performance |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"People who have paid big money for something, or anytime there's higb motivation, will go above and beyond what you might expect OP. Seeing a concert may be more alluring than moping ill in bed etc..
Have you read the full research evidence for each of the vaccines? If you haven't, you're better to wait for it, so that you can forecast results and compare between those with and without the vaccines.
Reducing viral loads is probably a major game changer, in limiting the numbers of new infections.
Certainly it is in our interests to reduce severe illnesses and deaths but as more of the vaccines get tested and approved, it's likely that we will get better performance "
I did read into the Pfizer one and how mRNA vaccines work; once the other two are approved I will be doing the same. What I still didn't understand from my research though is how infectious one remains upon catching the virus after having been vaccinated.
Obviously I do hope we have enough of an uptake to lower the R number and reach herd immunity, but I will first and foremost be taking the vaccine to protect myself and in turn those I live with. While I understand that it won't stop me getting sick, it will reduce the amount of infectious droplets in the air and on surfaces caused by coughing and sneezing.
I just don't understand the difference between someone asymptomatic and non-vaccinated not being allowed into venues versus someone asymptomatic or mildly ill and vaccinated. I don't know if I'm explaining myself properly tbh. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think to anyone who will refuse take the vaccine, will be triggered same as put someone against a wall with a gun in their head , i really believed we all going to be forced to have this vaccine no matter what government says now . If you don't get the vaccine you will lose your job and this will happen without any doubt to NSH workers, front line key workers , health care workers.
I do believe even the ones they have catch the virus with the only mild symptoms they will need to have this vaccine also , what i think is contradictory because those people who have it (conv19) they are imune and they can't catch it twice |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It will always be a free choice in our country but, I can see some kind of restrictions and some areas where a vaccine would be required, whether that be for work or for recreation purposes, or even hospital appointments etc. So if you want to return to some kind of normal 'they' will be twisting your arm to, but not forcing you to get a vaccine. Why else would they be mentioning vaccine cards or passports of some kind. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago
the land of saints & sinners |
There are over 20 countries where vaccination is mandatory for certain viruses.
Or there is a requirement to be vaccinated for either schooling or welfare.
In 1853 England and Wales enacted a law for mandatory smallpox vaccination. With fines for those who did not comply.
Compulsion is nothing new. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are over 20 countries where vaccination is mandatory for certain viruses.
Or there is a requirement to be vaccinated for either schooling or welfare.
In 1853 England and Wales enacted a law for mandatory smallpox vaccination. With fines for those who did not comply.
Compulsion is nothing new."
The worst thing you can do is make the vaccine for this particular virus compulsory is what most of the top virologists are saying.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arry247Couple
over a year ago
Wakefield |
"There are over 20 countries where vaccination is mandatory for certain viruses.
Or there is a requirement to be vaccinated for either schooling or welfare.
In 1853 England and Wales enacted a law for mandatory smallpox vaccination. With fines for those who did not comply.
Compulsion is nothing new."
False,it was compulsory for parents to have their children vaccinated. It was the parents who got fined not the children, in a similar way that it is the parents who have to ensure their children are educated and if the children do not go to school (including home schooled) it is the parents who are fined not the children.
In other words the government is protecting the children from what they claim is bad parenting. That is the difference |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago
the land of saints & sinners |
"There are over 20 countries where vaccination is mandatory for certain viruses.
Or there is a requirement to be vaccinated for either schooling or welfare.
In 1853 England and Wales enacted a law for mandatory smallpox vaccination. With fines for those who did not comply.
Compulsion is nothing new.
False,it was compulsory for parents to have their children vaccinated. It was the parents who got fined not the children, in a similar way that it is the parents who have to ensure their children are educated and if the children do not go to school (including home schooled) it is the parents who are fined not the children.
In other words the government is protecting the children from what they claim is bad parenting. That is the difference"
True, actually as I did not say who exactly had to be vaccinated.
Just that compulsion is not a new concept when it comes to mass vaccination. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
