Vaccine hesitancy testing the patience of fully inoculated Americans

[Thaiger]

As the Delta variant prompts a new wave of infections in the US, fully vaccinated Americans are running out of patience with fellow citizens who refuse to be inoculated. The issue of vaccine hesitancy, driven by factors such as conspiracy theories and mistrust of the government, could lead to restrictions being re-imposed, rather than the return to normality people are desperate for. Speaking to AFP, 58 year old healthcare administrator Alethea Reed has slammed those who refuse to be vaccinated. “It’s almost like they don’t care about the rest of the world. They’re being selfish and self-centred.” The US Centres […]

The post Vaccine hesitancy testing the patience of fully inoculated Americans appeared first on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Disenfranchised]

How does one persuade a house brick?

[AussieBob]

I am not here for USA politics and issues.

 

[Objectivance]

[sputnik]

vaccine is not working to make one 100 percent immune...people still get sick even they are vaccinated...this truth is slowly surfacing....

[Jeffpky]

I am not a anti vaccine type of person. However, I do make an effort to practice common sense. These vaccines utilize a new method of developing vaccines. In my opinion it seems warranted that people should be hesitant to get the vaccines given the limited time since they have been in development. 
Furthermore, over the past year and a half the definition of so-called heard immunity has been changed multiple times. With officials making different claims as to the minimum number of people in a given society needed to be vaccinated in order to reach so-called heard immunity. The first claim for Heard immunity stated that at least 70% of the population should be vaccinated in order to reach heard immunity. Now the experts of changed it to 85% to 90%. This creates on mistrust and skepticism among many people. Personally I see no issue with people wanting to take their time to see how the vaccines play out in society.

lastly, the choice to get a vaccine is a personal one. I do not see how people that push towards vaccinations should have any say in another persons choice. If you or I choose to get the vaccine or if we choose not to get the vaccine it should be no case for reprimand by anyone else. While the world is talking about heard immunity it seems much more important to me the matter of herd mentality. The latter seems a far more dangerous reality at times then many realize.

[BlueSphinx]

3 hours ago, Thaiger said:

... Speaking to AFP, 58 year old healthcare administrator Alethea Reed has slammed those who refuse to be vaccinated. “It’s almost like they don’t care about the rest of the world. They’re being selfish and self-centred.”

...

Yes, it seems some of the vaccinated are very angry at the unvaccinated because the vaccines don't work... 

Read a tweet which sums up it nicely: "The unvaccinated need to be vaccinated to protect the vaccinated? I’m sure there’s a parallel universe where this makes sense, but not this one!"

[MrStretch]

54 minutes ago, sputnik said:

vaccine is not working to make one 100 percent immune...people still get sick even they are vaccinated...this truth is slowly surfacing....

That's the problem...no one in a position of knowledge and power ever said it would, but because we have a history of near eradication, via vaccine (polo, smallpox, etc.) that some believe these vaccines to be ineffective because they don't perform the near-eradication others have in the past.

[9S_]

Can’t really blame them when a CDC document like this is leaked to the Washington Post stating:

 

>Studies showing that vaccinated individuals infected with delta may be able to transmit the virus as easily as those who are unvaccinated. Vaccinated people infected with delta have measurable viral loads similar to those who are unvaccinated and infected with the variant.

[9S_]

1 hour ago, Jeffpky said:

I am not a anti vaccine type of person. However, I do make an effort to practice common sense. These vaccines utilize a new method of developing vaccines. In my opinion it seems warranted that people should be hesitant to get the vaccines given the limited time since they have been in development. 
Furthermore, over the past year and a half the definition of so-called heard immunity has been changed multiple times. With officials making different claims as to the minimum number of people in a given society needed to be vaccinated in order to reach so-called heard immunity. The first claim for Heard immunity stated that at least 70% of the population should be vaccinated in order to reach heard immunity. Now the experts of changed it to 85% to 90%. This creates on mistrust and skepticism among many people. Personally I see no issue with people wanting to take their time to see how the vaccines play out in society.

lastly, the choice to get a vaccine is a personal one. I do not see how people that push towards vaccinations should have any say in another persons choice. If you or I choose to get the vaccine or if we choose not to get the vaccine it should be no case for reprimand by anyone else. While the world is talking about heard immunity it seems much more important to me the matter of herd mentality. The latter seems a far more dangerous reality at times then many realize.

There’s a Thai University Professor who made some interesting conclusions a few months ago. 
 

He noted that Moderna and Pfizer had their Phase 3 Clinical Trials all done in the US last year. At the same time, the US was spared the ravaging of the Indian, Brazilian and UK variants. Therefore, he concludes that the vaccines are actually ineffective because they were never tested against the variants. 

It practically confirms the CDC leaked that the Washington Post obtained and verified 

[Poolie]

So it looks like all he vaccines are less than efficient against the current virus. Interesting times.

I wait for Moderna/Johnson/etc to be referred to as 'junk,' 'dishwater,' and other derogatory terms. 

Edited July 30, 2021 by Poolie
Omission

[diegogg]

Quote

...is beg me for the vaccine...

Give them ivermectin and save most of their lives

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, Jeffpky said:

... the choice to get a vaccine is a personal one. I do not see how people that push towards vaccinations should have any say in another persons choice.

 A "personal" choice like which side of the road to drive on, or which way to drive down a one-way road?

 

Or whether to wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet?

 

If you drive the wrong way down the road, you may be fine or you may get hurt - your choice.

But you could also kill people, either directly by driving into them or indirectly by making them swerve into each other, and even if no-one was hurt you'd make things difficult for everybody else.

 

If you don't wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet you're the one most likely to be hurt, but if you're hurt you're also going to be taking an ambulance or a hospital bed away from others and, again, making things difficult for anyone else.

 

Not getting vaccinated is just the same - yes, you're the one taking most risk but you're directly affecting others, whether it's being more likely to pass on the virus, so putting others at risk or forcing others to carry on wearing masks and distancing to mitigate your actions, or taking up a hospital bed and staff who are badly needed to take care of others.

 

YOU'RE  NOT  THE  ONLY  ONE  AFFECTED  BY  YOUR  ACTIONS.

 

Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[gummy]

1 hour ago, diegogg said:

Give them ivermectin and save most of their lives

Asprin just as good

[Alavan]

4 hours ago, sputnik said:

vaccine is not working to make one 100 percent immune...people still get sick even they are vaccinated...this truth is slowly surfacing....

Fantastic all those antivax experts here.
Yes you still can get sick with Covid if you are vaccinated... but the chances of getting into IC or cemetary are much smaller. I guess that is an advantage.
I must think at nivaquine, paludrine and all those quinine pills. They don't protect you from malaria, you can still get it. But if you got it, the doctors (and you) had a better chance of diminuing the sickness. That is why I allways took it in Africa and some regions of Asia.

[Alavan]

10 minutes ago, Stonker said:

 A "personal" choice like which side of the road to drive on, or which way to drive down a one-way road?

Or whether to wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet?

If you drive the wrong way down the road, you may be fine or you may get hurt - your choice.

But you could also kill people, either directly by driving into them or indirectly by making them swerve into each other, and even if no-one was hurt you'd make things difficult for everybody else.

If you don't wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet you're the one most likely to be hurt, but if you're hurt you're also going to be taking an ambulance or a hospital bed away from others and, again, making things difficult for anyone else.

Not getting vaccinated is just the same - yes, you're the one taking most risk but you're directly affecting others, whether it's being more likely to pass on the virus, so putting others at risk or forcing others to carry on wearing masks and distancing to mitigate your actions, or taking up a hospital bed and staff who are badly needed to take care of others.

YOU'RE  NOT  THE  ONLY  ONE  AFFECTED  BY  YOUR  ACTIONS.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Agree. Your personal freedom stops it interferes with the freedom of other people.

[Stonker]

4 hours ago, Jeffpky said:

Furthermore, over the past year and a half the definition of so-called heard immunity has been changed multiple times.

No, the definition of herd immunity has never changed at all.

It's still exactly what it's always been:

 

the point when a sufficient percentage of a population becomes immune to an infection through vaccination or previous infection, so making the spread of disease unlikely so the whole community becomes protected, not just those who are immune.

 

That percentage varies depending on the virus, the vaccine, and natural immunity for those infected.

This was initially put at 70% based on what was known of the virus and the vaccines at that time, and it's changed since as the virus has changed and more has been learnt about the vaccines.

4 hours ago, Jeffpky said:

This creates on mistrust and skepticism among many people

Only if they're misinformed - unfortunately many are, as misinformation is the latest game, as the misinformed  play with other people's lives.

 

 

 

[sputnik]

7 minutes ago, Stonker said:

 A "personal" choice like which side of the road to drive on, or which way to drive down a one-way road?

Or whether to wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet?

If you drive the wrong way down the road, you may be fine or you may get hurt - your choice.

But you could also kill people, either directly by driving into them or indirectly by making them swerve into each other, and even if no-one was hurt you'd make things difficult for everybody else.

If you don't wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet you're the one most likely to be hurt, but if you're hurt you're also going to be taking an ambulance or a hospital bed away from others and, again, making things difficult for anyone else.

Not getting vaccinated is just the same - yes, you're the one taking most risk but you're directly affecting others, whether it's being more likely to pass on the virus, so putting others at risk or forcing others to carry on wearing masks and distancing to mitigate your actions, or taking up a hospital bed and staff who are badly needed to take care of others.

YOU'RE  NOT  THE  ONLY  ONE  AFFECTED  BY  YOUR  ACTIONS.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Hello...people who are vaccinated can pass on the virus to anybody same as not beeing vaccinated...( without noticing ) .it makes no difference... and they ( the vaccinated ) can catch the virus and get sick...BUT the chances are good ( 40 percent at Delta ) that it does not end lethal for the vaccinated person...thats all no more and no less....

so this is not the super immunisation like the weak educated mass may believe...

yes its an individual choice to take this not throughout tested gen coctail, a choice on your own risk....( severe sideeffects that can end lethal are known )  and in case of passing on the virus both groups are in the same position....for me it means thanks but no thanks....just saying

[sputnik]

2 minutes ago, Stonker said:

No, the definition of herd immunity has never changed at all.

It's still exactly what it's always been:

the point when a sufficient percentage of a population becomes immune to an infection through vaccination or previous infection, so making the spread of disease unlikely so the whole community becomes protected, not just those who are immune.

That percentage varies depending on the virus, the vaccine, and natural immunity for those infected.

This was initially put at 70% based on what was known of the virus and the vaccines at that time, and it's changed since as the virus has changed and more has been learnt about the vaccines.

Only if they're misinformed - unfortunately many are, as misinformation is the latest game, as the misinformed  play with other people's lives.

nobody becomes immune to the covid 19...with or without vaccination...herd immunity in the case of covid 19 is a dream....there was many cases that people who had it once and should be immun caught it a second or third time...also those who are vaccinated can easy catch the virus...it just might not end lethal...

[gummy]

Just now, sputnik said:

Hello...people who are vaccinated can pass on the virus to anybody same as not beeing vaccinated...( without noticing ) .it makes no difference... and they ( the vaccinated ) can catch the virus and get sick...BUT the chances are good ( 40 percent at Delta ) that it does not end lethal for the vaccinated person...thats all no more and no less....

so this is not the super immunisation like the weak educated mass may believe...

yes its an individual choice to take this not throughout tested gen coctail, a choice on your own risk....( severe sideeffects that can end lethal are known )  and in case of passing on the virus both groups are in the same position....for me it means thanks but no thanks....just saying

From your text "like the weak educated mass may believe"

So you consider then that those who believe that this vaccine will prevent serious illness that they are "weak educated" which I would consider you are actually inferring that those people are poorly educated ? Is that what you are saying ?

[Soidog]

4 hours ago, sputnik said:

vaccine is not working to make one 100 percent immune...people still get sick even they are vaccinated...this truth is slowly surfacing....

That’s true, but no one who understands vaccines ever said it makes you 100% immune. Only the people who don’t understand vaccines claim such things. 

[sputnik]

read my post carefully....

with many I spoke they believe the vaccine make them immun catching covid19 and in their logic it will prevent them from passing it on...

( like vaccines has done before )

both is absolutely wrong ONLY if they believe that the vaccine increase their chance of survival they are right....

for me it looks this wrong believe is very widespread....

so i concluded weak educated mass...

if you tell the truth in thailand you see the fear in their eyes....

covid 19 never will never leave the planet

that much is sure....maybe in the far future their might be a vaccine that really immunise the people...for now the stuff they give them here ( sinovac etc ) is a bad joke

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stevenkongju]

3 hours ago, MrStretch said:

That's the problem...no one in a position of knowledge and power ever said it would, but because we have a history of near eradication, via vaccine (polo, smallpox, etc.) that some believe these vaccines to be ineffective because they don't perform the near-eradication others have in the past.

Diseases are eradicated not because vaccines are 100% effective. They are eradicated because, if enough people use the vaccines, there are not enough places for the virus to go. A virus basically dies out because it can't reproduce.  Was that your point?

Edited July 30, 2021 by stevenkongju
I may have misread quoted post

[Soidog]

4 hours ago, Jeffpky said:

These vaccines utilize a new method of developing vaccines. In my opinion it seems warranted that people should be hesitant to get the vaccines given the limited time since they have been in development.

The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine uses a more traditional vaccine technique compared to the modified RNA method used by Pfizer and Moderna. However it still uses modified DNA as a delivery mechanism. Out of the 3 main vaccines, I’d prefer to opt for the Oxford AZ one except perhaps, for those under the age of 40

[Stonker]

4 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

Read a tweet which sums up it nicely: "The unvaccinated need to be vaccinated to protect the vaccinated? I’m sure there’s a parallel universe where this makes sense, but not this one!"

Sadly, it's this universe where it makes very clear sense but not to the selfish and those wanting their 15 minutes of fame playing at being an expert by quoting tweets and "expert" doctors who've been convicted of multiple counts of fraud and had their license taken away.

 

The vaccines don't give 100% protection from the virus or from transmission - no-one ever pretended they did.

 

What they do though, beyond any reasonable doubt, is reduce severity and transmission so saving lives directly and indirectly.

 

If the unvaccinated were to be vaccinated they'd be protecting the vaccinated as:

i) they'd be less likely to pass on the virus  -  not 100%, just less likely.

ii) they'd be less likely to have severe symptoms themselves, so freeing up hospital beds and staff.

iii) they'd be upping the chances of herd immunity being reached, so everyone (vaccinated or not) could return to a "normal" life, without checks, masks and distancing with greater safety  -  not 100% safety, but greater safety.

 

It used to be that humanity prided itself on protecting the weak.

 

Now, sadly, there's a vocal minority who couldn't care less about protecting the weak and all they're interested in protecting is their own interests however much it affects others.

 

They used to  be called selfish; now they prefer to paint themselves as "protecting their personal rights".