UKC

Given I've seen a number of Social Media posts and news items (the couple I've seen where from France) regarding people who don't want the vaccine but don't want their lives restricted by not having it due to their human rights being infringed, what are people thoughts about "Vaccine Passports"

I respect, but think they're complete f*ckwits, peoples rights not to have a vaccine (though obviously if enough people don't have the vaccine we all suffer), but I can certainly see the need for some sort of proof of vaccine to be implemented.

It appeared the people involved were complaining about privacy / human rights and personal freedoms.

How do we get around this? Preventing the vaccine being a waste of time. My thoughts being, if enough people aren't vaccinated, and those that are get some extra freedoms because of being vaccinated, a large number don't look like they're going to bother. If they don't that's a massive pool of virus circulating in society, transmitting and retransmitting, evolving and mutating, until the vaccine we do have will be useless (possibly) and then we're ALL back to square one.

Should vaccinated people be rewarded, with greater freedom, for being vaccinated?

Some countries (Tanzania) already require evidence of vaccination (yellow fever) when entering the country, so nothing new there.

I am not in favour of compulsory vaccination, but I'd much sooner see vaccination passports than closed borders. Pretty tough on those with good medical reasons that mean vaccination is not an option, but if anything they are the ones who need the virus to be controlled the most.

I was thinking more about within the UK, but I see your point.

It's not a reward for being vaccinated but a cost of choosing not to be I would say.  

I would be all for it and I think it would provide a great stimulus to businesses. If I was to consider going to a pub, I would have much more confidence if I knew everyone was vaccinated.

I reckon those who medically can't be are probably pretty small in number, maybe there would be a system for their GP to issue a passport with exemption on it. It would have to be a proper medical exemption through the GP though. 

I expect it will become a requirement for international travel, or maybe the option of that or expensive quarantine. People are starting to close borders more readily now there is the new strain so I think it's a reasonably high likelihood.

Either way, the point they were making in all seriousness was, it wouldn't be fair to discriminate against them for NOT getting vaccinated, they think they should have the same freedoms as people who do get vaccinations.

I don't see how this can work, if there are large enough numbers who are going to turn away the chance of a jab.

If you're desperate for a reward I'll send you a packet of jelly babies once you've provided proof of vaccination

You've completely missed the point, but carry on sending jelly babies.

The other way to look at it is restrictions on people not vaccinated, if that helps. Which of course is in the first sentence of the OP

Besides I've not been vaccinated yet.

I'm not against it in principle but I don't really see how it could be practically administered.

For the foreseeable future it looks like vaccine (or administration of) supply will be the limiting factor - it seems a bit unfair to give people who got vaccinated earlier just because they happened to be higher up the list more freedom.

No I agree. They can't expect to wander round spreading a deadly disease.

It might seem unfair but the economic carnage coming next year might mean we have to give those vaccinated greater freedoms in order to minimise it.....how it would work I don't know.

I'm 46 so way down the list but I wouldn't mind those aged 50+ having greater freedoms if it helped get the economy moving....

But if you have the vaccine then surely your safe? So it doesnt matter about someone else catching it and dying? Your safe by having it??

It is entirely fair to discriminate against people who aren't vaccinated for no good reason. 

Some people genuinely can't be vaccinated and to protect them everyone else should have the vaccine.  

You might be safe for a while, but if there's a mass of virus in the population, it can mutate (as we've already seen) one of those mutations might not be guarded against by the vaccine, so everyone is back to square one. There are other issues besides this, but this is one possibility.

This is was my thinking too, I don't know how it could be administered, but I can see it being useful, as stated about for some businesses, pubs etc.

Like most things "anti-Vaxer" though, people  seem to want have their cake and eat it, without any logic.

I will be having the vaccine but playing devils advocate here... what about certain religions who due to beliefs will not have vaccinations. Should they be banned from Borders etc 

I'm a hcp in the NHS and had my vaccine invite yesterday. I'm also breastfeeding, which is currently a contraindication for the covid vaccine, so no vaccine for me. My daughter is over 2 which is way beyond the norm for breastfeeding in the UK (but not the rest of the world). So some might judge me as selfish for putting my daughter's needs before my patient's/the public.

How should this be recognised with a vaccine passport, since it is my choice to breastfeed, therefore my choice not to have the vaccine?

You have temporary vaccine exemption certificate with an expiry date. Easy.

Not necessarily as it isn't 100% effective.  Also various groups can't have it.

I think the discussion over how all this will be fairly administered is a bit moot. I think the Government is unlikely to propose or implement it because it would be too controversial, including with some of their base. I could be wrong. But regardless, I think they will also defend business' right to ask for proof of vaccination if they wish to do so, and in that way it may well take off in an ad-hoc manner. Also, if other countries start asking for proof of vaccination before you can holiday there (which we have no control over) then the idea will become normalised and people will be less surprised if asked for proof when visiting a theatre.

I think it will probably happen.

What about women trying to conceive, will exemption certificates for them carry an expiry date too?

Who decides the expiry dates? 

Who decides whether or not you get the exemption certificate you ask for, do you have to provide proof of you claim for exemption?

All very Orwellian don't you think?

I would say tough. You are making the choice.

I was replying to the particular poster's scenario. Expiry date when breastfeeding ceases since she wants the vaccine. 

Medicine, science and ultimately politics decides that policy.

Who - medical doctors I suggest.

Proof - I hope so.

No. If somebody asks for a certificate you can decline to say if you have one or not and they can decline or not decline your business. It would be public knowledge where you get asked for a certificate so you can chose to avoid those places and never be asked.

Choices often come with consequences.

A country has a right to protect themselves. As mentioned elsewhere, vaccine passports are already in place for other diseases. There could be an option for quarantine, at their expense. Their choice to travel or not. 

I'm not sure, but a temporary passport seems reasonable.

What do you think we should do for people who simply don't want the virus, since they endanger all of us, your breastfeeding child also, do you think they should not have to bother but be allowed the same freedoms as the rest of us?

So a man who is in a relationship where they are trying to conceive can get the vaccine and live life as normal but his wife/partner has to put her life on hold for however long it takes to conceive, then be pregnant, then breastfeed (to the NHS recommend 6 month exclusive breastfeeding, or the WHO recommended 2 years breastfeeding). Bit discriminatory don't you think. 

Obviously the could pause trying to conceive for 3 months in order to get the vaccine, but for women over a certain age or those already struggling this could be a poor decision.

Well if it's the choice of delay conceiving to be vaccinated or risk getting covid while pregnant...sounds like a straight forward decision to me!

They talking about this in France now, which is where I picked up on it. If we just give free reign and there are sufficient numbers of non-vaxers, then we might as well not bother.

But what about women who are early pregnancy now, 9 months pregnancy plus 6 months breastfeeding (just to meet NHS recommendations), so 15 months before they can safely have the vaccine. Should their lives be limited by vaccine passports? Should businesses be allowed to bar these women from their premises?

What would you suggest?

Would you want to bring a child into a pandemic world, where the vaccine we have might become useless because people aren't being vaccinated?

It seems there are difficult choices either way, one's personal though and the other is for the benefit of society.

I suggest that we don't live in a authoritarian state where a women has to justify and prove her choice to conceive, be pregnant or breastfeed, over a vaccine for a disease that kills a tiny percent of people. 

Is this really what people want?

Can't we just educate people, and offer the vaccine to all the people who do want it and can safely have it, as quickly as possible.

Indeed, it's tough. However, there is a pandemic and needs must. It will keep mum and baby safe until such time as they can be vaccinated. 

And maybe there will be research eventually to suggest it is safe for pregnant women to have anyway, but until then I guess some will just have to wait. 

A disease with long-term consequences which we don't yet even know how long term!

No one is asking you to justify your reproductive choices, but you might need to stay out of the pub until you can have the vaccine! 

A vaccine with no longitudinal data available!!

So this faux concern for ever more niche scenarios is actually a smoke screen for the-pandemic-is-all-a-conspicary f*cknuttery.  Would have been easier if you just said that to begin with.

Your decision, you have to take the consequences.  There is no necessity for breastfeeding a 2 year old, it is a choice.  

As for trying to conceive, most couples could leave it for a couple of months and then start trying again.  

Personally I think children benefit most from having a healthy mother.  It's  not going to be good if someone gets Covid during pregnancy or during breastfeeding.  

Yes.  

No, but we DO know that covid has medium term negative effects, and no reason not to think there are long term effects. 

The vaccine has good efficacy and only seems to have any serious side effects on people with certain allergies (which will be the case with any vaccine). 

If I had babies in mind, I know where my priorities would be!

What do you do about people who refuse to have it, and if that number is significant enough, we never get rid of the virus.

There is a great range of debilitations from Covid, it's not just get better or die.

People should be reminded that rights s come with responsibility,  in this case the responsibility not to kill other people.

Implementation is not a problem... no harder than a bank card

No I expect the wife/partner would go to GP to get an exemption.
GP would look at proof of the person in front of them and medical records to decide "female within certain age range". I don't expect that would be too taxing for the GP in most cases.

So an appointment with the GP (see above) might be more appropriate.

I think it'll be needed for things like cheaper travel insurance.

I'm hoping come September colleges say you can stay remote or have the vaccine and come to campus. Private ones, common in the US, certainly can.

Why?

Can women not get the vaccine if they are planning to conceive?

My wife gets hers next week and is nursing twins so there's no issue there.

I’m sorry but that is false. You only need a yellow fever vaccine if you’ve recently been in a country where it is endemic. You won’t need to prove you’ve had one if you’re travelling in from the UK.

There's more by the day.  The window of observations on the trial cohorts is growing by one day per day, and that's the best anyone can do.  They're exceptionally large cohorts as well, so given that any (highly unlikely) long term effects would likely follow a bell curve, the cohorts are likely to detect them earlier than normal.

So far, the vaccine is shown to be infinitely less lethal to people than Covid.  The general behaviour of vaccines like the Oxford/AstroZeneca one that I think we will soon see a mass deployment off is very well understand and as I understand it, long term effects (as addressed by longitudinal studies) are exceptionally rare.

Meanwhile, the new variant of the virus appears to have spread out of control and the current modelling is suggesting > 100,000 dead and healthcare rammed beyond the March/April level - I think for a much longer period too - without immediate mass vaccination.   I still do not think there is a case to vaccinate children without significant longitudinal data, but I can see that changing as the more pessimistic projections of the current situation don't allow for viable in-person teaching for some months, and education is important to the long term outlook for our children.

 How many people depend on a functional, accessible health service to live their normal lives? Far more than the already large number of people that your "tiny percentage" translates in to.  This is a matter of perspective, and the direct deaths from Covid are not the perspective that has driven policy in the UK to date, nor I think that is going to drive in in response to our new crisis.

As for your example of someone getting an exception from a vaccine passport because they wish to conceive; given what I understand about the risks of pregnancy and delivery, these eclipse those posed to the mother by Covid, so it's in her best interests to do everything she can to protect the health service she and her baby are going to depend upon.  If that means accepting the vaccine and delaying the attempt to conceive, I would hope they take the societal view and make that choice.  There is absolutely no way on this earth that I would be trying to father a child right now, because there is no way on this earth I want myself or my partner anywhere near a hospital in the next 6 months given my best understanding of what is likely to come.  Perhaps the modelling is wrong, perhaps my understanding of the situation is wrong and its all going to be roses.  I hope so, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Personally, I don't think we're going to see a vaccination passport (or if the vaccine in in short supply, an immunity passport) as part of the solution.  Although as I understand it, whilst Covid remains a notable disease, employers may have legal grounds for some sort of requirement but my understanding is not good there.

So could going in to pregnancy right now when in that later age and subject to the many health complications of that, as access to hospitals could be rather disrupted for some months if the current best estimates are accurate on what this new variant is going to do.  Yes, this sucks.  Everything about this situation sucks.  It's awful.  Not everyone can have everything they want.

Now is not the time for an ever-decreasing-corner-cases libertarian view.  We are a society and the only way we are coming out of this new, worse hole is as a society.  If that means some people having to make a choice (nobody has proposed forcing anything on anyone) between accepting vaccination and giving up some freedoms for a short while, I can live with that.

MHRA haven't licenced it for pregnant and breastfeeding women, and advice is not to have it within 2 months of trying to conceive (so 3 months to cover 1st and 2nd doses).

What are you suggesting ?

NO women get vaccinated until either reaching the menopause or entering a nunnery ??

After all, no form of contraception is perfect - except complete abstention, so theoretically any female between puberty and menopause "could" find themselves "expectant" after "relations".

Gosh there’s some very authoritarian people out there.

There’s no evidence at the moment that having the vaccine stops you spreading the disease.

Once those at risk (the old and vulnerable) have been vaccinated we can go back to normal. We don’t need high levels of compliance in the rest of the population, only in the old.

I would like to see no vaccine, no benefits (including state pension). That would guarantee near universal uptake.

.......

That is authoritarian.  

Your suggestion seems to be the most extreme and authoritarian I've read on the thread, am I missing something?  

Although a bit of first-order thinking goes a long way in the absence of evidence - which is not evidence of absence.  

If only we knew who all the vulnerable were.  Hint:  We don't.  To preserve access to healthcare for all, my estimate is that "old" actually means everyone over the age of 52 or so.

In March I stated that it was a mistake to let this virus run large given the mutation risk.  This risk is becoming a lot more evident now.  Whose to say the next mutation to make it big-time isn't going to increase the definition of "vulnerable" or pull the definition of "old" down significantly?  Running this virus hot is not a strategy that has paid dividends to date.

I really don't think we're going to get back to normal once the old and vulnereable are vaccinated. We can still overwhelm the health service with under 50s if we let off the brake entirely. There's also the problem that's now been demonstrated with variants - so the possibility of vaccine escape mutants if we tolerate circulation at high levels.

Relaxation, but not back to the old normal yet.

Of course, get pregnant without having had the vaccine and waited and you risk Covid during pregnancy.

Sure, you might note the NHS say there is no evidence of higher risk from Covid on the mother due to the pregnancy, but there is no longitudinal data on the effect of Covid on either the mother or the child!  

Which should the mother be more worried about?  The lack of longitudinal data on a vaccine shown to be highly safe in the short term, or the lack of longitudinal data on a virus shown to be highly harmful to many people (including a fraction of younger folks) and to leave many younger people with debilitating long term effects?

Okay, so now you might argue that the mother should stay home and avoid contact for her safety whilst being unvaccinated, pregnant and in a world with a high covid exposure risk - it's only responsible after all given the lack of longitudinal data on covid during pregnancy!

Great - the mother avoids contact.  So she has no need of an immunity passport.

This particular corner case from you just does not stack up no matter how I look at it. 

It depends where the traveller has been in transit, too, and not what their point of origin is. The rules for Tanzania are (at the moment, and this can and does change) less absolute than for many countries, where a certificate is a condition of entry for all.

Sorry I'm probably out of date, not travelled to E Africa since the 90s.

Either way, it wouldn't be unprecedented to require travelers to provide proof of vaccination on entry.

I don't think we can overwhelm the health service with under 50s, the hospitalisation rate is not high enough and once 20-25m are jabbed up the R will drop significantly even with no restrictions....

The theory sounds fine but is someone who has been vaccinated, cocky and taking chances because they believe they are safe any less of a risk than someone who hasn't been vaccinated yet and taking care?

Unless there's a significant mutation which increases the rate of hospitalisation.

Seems odd to immunise less than half the population and then go 'ah f**k it, it'll do, we can't be arsed to do any more’.

The guidance seems to be two months rather than three, which is probably only long enough to feel like a huge pause for those fairly close to a critical age.

From what I can find online, the advice to not vaccinate during pregnancy is based on an abundance of caution rather than any particular expectation of problems, so there's every chance that this will become a non-issue soon enough if the advice changes.

I am not suggesting we stop, far from it... my point was it wouldnt overwhelm the health service.

My understanding is 2 months from the second vaccination, therefore 3 months total.

Yes, but currently those are the rules and it is unlikely that a doctor or other hcp would knowingly vaccinated a pregnant or breastfeeding women, so either the women has to lie (hide the pregnancy) or go without.

It will be interesting to see how quickly they sign it off for pregnant/breastfeeding women considering the extensive list of drugs currently not accessible (or prescribed off label) to these groups, also based on an abundance of caution but where there is already plenty of evidence of them being safe.

Now you put it like that considering the current government I wouldnt rule it out.

Although with regards to vaccinating younger people it is required since for those old and vulnerable quite a few are likely not to be able to have the vaccine (especially vulnerable groups) and of those that do there will all those that for whatever reason it doesnt trigger the response.

So everyone else would need vaccinating to protect those. I suspect it would also somewhat damage the tourist trade. "come and see the UK. ps only go near the old people since the youngsters are a plague pit".

Here they've said there's no reason for women not to have it. My wife checked re her breast feeding and there were no concerns.

Again though, you've missed the point what about the what about the person who hasn't been vaccinated and doesn't believe in the virus or it's transmissiblity. What about those people taking the risks and being cocky. By taking care do you mean never living normally? Like going down the pub for a night out
?

If you've been vaccinated, what risk is there?

It doesnt work in all cases.

5-10% chance that you think you are vaccinated but you aren't in practice as vaccines are 90-95% efficacy.

Uncertain chance that you transmit the virus as vaccination know to reduce or even eliminate risk of serious Covid but not yet clear if vaccination prevents transmission of the virus.

Having just been through jab1 yesterday, the possibility of being or planning pregnancy wasn't included in the admin checklist before the jab, despite the person I accompanied being of an age where it was possible. Might have been different for an obviously pregnant woman though.

TBH, all the staff there were overjoyed people were trooping through and they thanked everyone for coming. Very busy day for them all, first of many,  legends.

Mark

I think it’s a case of wait and see. If vaccine take up is not high enough, some kind of carrot and stick approach may we’ll be needed. Hopefully that won’t be necessary but if needs must then so be it. 

There are too many variables to even consider the bureaucrats wet dream of vaccine passports at present.

In 6 months time we will know how many people are willing to be vaccinated, how many of those people we have managed to vaccinate and how prevalent the infection is.  Even the good old fashioned answer of those who need a medical certificate paying their GP for it is going to be far simpler.

Judging by my NHS Trust facebook group people are clamouring for vaccines and there is not enough to go around quickly enough (local health boards are texting out last minute appointments and they are going almost instantly), it will be a long time before there is vaccine going to waste due to people who are safe to have it refusing it, and I am not sure this will be in the signisficant numbers some people seem to imagine.  Which is another reason I think draconian and authoritarian methods are unwarrented, and I find it unsettling how many people seem desperate to push this country down this route.

I would agree that special rules are unnecessary at this stage. We shall see how things pan out over the coming months.

Yes I thought I had suggested that with mentioning it was required if you've recently been somewhere endemic with it - which would include transit Apologies if not. 

Unprecedented no, but far away enough from 'normal' that most travellers would find it a novelty. As would travelling to any of the countries with similar policies, to be fair

Which is why we need everyone to have it, the virus can't survive without enough hosts. The fewer people there are without immunity the better for ALL of us. Deciding not to join in because you don't feel like it, but still wanting to be able to live as normal seems selfish in the extreme.

We might not have 6 months, we've had two confirmed and radically different strains of the virus already, the more of it that's in the wild, the more it has chance to mutate. The more it mutates the greater the chance of the vaccine we have now not working on a new strain.

I agree we shouldn't maybe make the decision now, but there are lots of people saying they're not going to have any vaccine "pumped into them". Eventually we need a reasonable number of people to prevent the virus pool being around for ever.

You still haven't suggested any way around this? You simply keep repeating the same thing.

If people had taken the attitude of, "I'll let others do the right thing, I'll do what I want" with smallpox, we'd still be having outbreaks of that on a regular basis.

It hardly surprising there's plenty of takers, considering we've got 60 million to do  and we've currently done around 600,000 that 1%, out of those 600k a good percentage will be waiting to have their second dose.

Absolutely! We cannot as a society afford to allow any kind of backwards mumbo jumbo to be turned into a license to spread a deadly disease. Unless medically absolutely necessary, vaccine refusal should result in bans from travel, pubs, stadiums, schools, public transport....

CB

I see no difference between a Covid vaccination certificate and other for Cholera, Hepatitis, Polio, Rabies etc which are required for travel to certain countries. I am quite happy to carry such a document(in my passport) if it makes travelling any less of a hassle

Why are you so absolutely sure that there will be a problem with poor uptake of the vaccine when there is currently no evidence of this happening apart from social media hype. Currently no vaccine is going to waste.

Why not wait to see if it actually starts becoming a problem before insisting that we all need to carry certificates and have restrictions in place that penalise people some of whom may have valid reasons not the have the vaccine at this point in time.

It's not about vaccine going to waste. Also, it's a hypothetical, since they are already making plans for this in France (and there seems to be a large number of people planning on not having the vaccine), I thought we might think about it here, before it happens, or at least discuss how we might ensure enough people get vaccinated. In addition I know a number of people who think they probably won't have the vaccine if offered, my mother has turned it down!! FFS! Based on BS statistics and flawed science, probably from the DM.

No doubt we will wait and see, if we do what we've been doing so far, we'll wait too late. We'll spend a lot of time and money vaccinating a lot of people, but it might not be enough, and those that refuse to be vaccinated will keep the virus circulating until it mutates enough for the vaccine we have to be useless. Then we can start again, but with less hope and more economic damage.I don't see what you reluctance is to simply looking to the future and making plan Bs or Cs, surely this is how we equip ourselves to fight on should things not go to plan.

There were plenty of suggestions put forward up the thread for making exemptions for people who have valid reasons, but you seemed to be against all of them, and you never suggested any alternative. By discussing it we might find an alternative that could work for everyone.

Or we could wait till we find out the proportion of the population who get vaccinated, isn't enough and see what we can do then.

To be honest, you sound like someone who's determined not to get vaccinated whatever the cost, which is fine if that's what you think, but making excuses for particular people in particular circumstances, doesn't really cut it, just be honest.

I'm having the vaccine when it is available to me but a vaccine passport seems to me to be a route to the authorities asking you to present your papers for leaving the house. Where do you draw the line?

Airports? well that's other countries business, we already have vaccine demands from certain countries for visas but they're pretty forgeable. 

To get into a public building? Who would check these? They would need to be difficult to forge, this means new kit, equipment and a data network similar to passport control. Yet more covid data security problems, particularly in a hastily set up system. 

Then what about people who haven't yet had access to the vaccine because they are low priority, or a new strain is out and they need an update? Do we exclude them from the workplace because they're out of date, potentially through no fault of their own?

It's a minefield of questions which when you follow the implications leads you quite simply to the fact that every heavy handed law affects the working class and minority communities more than the affluent.

I share many of the same frustrations. My very elderly grandmother had turned down the vaccine due to once having a bad reaction to the flu jab. She has been told there is little prospect of having family visits (she lives 200 miles away) until she does as no-one wants to risk passing it on.

I think airlines and entry to other countries are key here. Most of the anti-vaxxers will pipe down when they can't go on holiday. 

All the other points you raised are as you say a minefield, very hard to enforce and possible moral issues as well.

Of course it's a minefield, your right, which is why we should be talking about it now, rather than ignoring it.

I was just reading, there's no proof yet that being vaccinated prevents you from passing the virus on, it simply stops you getting ill ( at least that's the evidence we do have at present ).

So people refusing the vaccine, thinking that everyone can do the work and they won't catch it, might be misguided, at least on what we know now.

I'm not sure how a heavy handed law affects the working class more, having a passport to travel doesn't affect working class more that it does someone who's wealth when travelling abroad, why should a passport to say you've been vaccinated?

It could be as simple as chip and pin card that, let's say pubs could use, to know you've been jabbed prior to serving you. They've all got card scanners these days, so we only need cards and it's job done. (Besides the infrastructure behind the card reader and the database, but I'm sure Boris could farm this out to one of his mates to sort out).

For all the obstacles you're putting in the way there are reasonable and easy solutions, the more difficult problem is going to be the numbers of people simply refusing to have the vaccine based on BS reasons, Bill Gates, creating mutant humans, and 5G to name a few.

I think you'd still be able to leave your house, businesses might have the right not to have you on their premisses though, who knows?

What colour do you think our vaccination passports should be ?

Puce

Maybe we can just inject something that's picked up by 5G at the same time,  then we won't need to carry anything around with us.

Although I'm in agreement about mass vaccination im not sure people would appreciate there religious beliefs being called backwards mumbo jumbo 🤣

Are they not? Oh dear, how sad, nevermind...

They can shove their bronze age superstitions whereever, they are simply not valid justifications for public health measures today.

CB

Too long to read all the thread so this may have already been mention. 

On first look a vaccination passport is a fair idea, it shows the consequences of not participating. 

However, there are a finite number of vaccines available. These are currently being given to those least likely to travel anywhere. It will take a long time to trickle down to the affluent, fit, healthy travelling climber cohort. At a guess a further 12 months of lockdown until a passport scheme could be effective. 

I agree with you that it's a matter of collective responsibility to society as well as personal health to be vaccinated - I'm delighted my parents received the BioNTech vaccine last Wednesday, and I'll be getting mine as soon as its offered.  But I do think we need to work a bit harder to understand where peoples' reluctance comes from, because I don't think it's as simple as a lack of a scientific outlook arising from the grip of religion.

After all, the centre of vaccine scepticism in the Western world is that home of the Enlightenment, France, where less than half the population (47%, according to the Wellcome Trust's survey) think that vaccines are safe.  Contrast that with Pakistan, where 87% are confident in vaccine safety.  Meanwhile the religiosity of the USA and a vocal antivax movement doesn't stop  72% of Americans thinking vaccines are safe, a higher figure than Germany's 67%. The UK is actually one of the most accepting of vaccines in the developed world, with 75% thinking they are safe.

What's going on with vaccine scepticism is clearly much more complicated than just a clash with religious values, and given the importance of the issue we probably should work a bit harder to understand the historical and cultural roots of peoples' reluctance to be vaccinated.

Yet the government have no interesting in investigating the web of corporate interests that lie behind the anti-vax and now anti-covid control measure protest groups in the UK; groups that have a lot of overlap with the pro-Brexit campaign and share a surprising number of views and interests with the shill academics pushing out material to undermine public understanding of the Covid situation on behalf of the AIER.   They can be found jumping on multiple scandals and contentious issues in Britain to amplify their anti-nationalised healthcare message for their American audience and on behalf of their American funders.  The Charlie Guard case and the legal case over the historical clotting factor scandal being two recent examples - one clear, one needing a bit of detective work and supposition. 

The roots for much of the resistance aren't historical and cultural in the UK. They're a modern and vast tangled web of fronts put together by corporate interests who ruthlessly engage and exploit those susceptible to their messages, who crank out, on demand, a company front, a web page, a Facebook group and a recruitment network for a rent-a-mob, who fold in any scientist who starts to go off the rails in their direction and elevate their platform taking twitter followers from hundreds to tens of thousands in weeks.  They have ruthlessly created a toxic environment to collect and amplify the natural fears that people have, keeping the web of influence hidden, creating a vast resonant chamber to bring people together.  

Many of the links in the web are not hard to find, and it stinks.  I'm assuming ort intelligence services have been told not to look for signs of orchestration, much like with Russian interference in democratic processes.  

When someone susceptible to this falls in to their social media snares, the descent into madness happens within months.  

I start to think that the real reason for an American land grab in to the NHS is not the extraction of profit but to dismantle a counterpoint to their healthcare model - one that's more dangerous than most to their profits because it's in a country with more language and cultural overlap than most other socialised healthcare systems.

This swindle is all a lot easier to pull off in the absence of investigative journalism.  The new Byline Times are standing out in this.

I agree with much of what you say, but I would still suggest that in order for propaganda of the kind you describe to work so well, it needs to work with the grain of pre-existing tendencies in society, so we ought to understand where those tendencies come from.  For the case of the UK, I do think there is a connection between our model of socialised medicine and a level of acceptance of innovations in medical biotechnology that is rather high by the standards of other Western countries. 

You are right - the process feed and amplify tenancies that are already out there, and understanding those is a part of solving the problem.  Holding a toddler down for a set of vaccine injections was a very unpleasant experience - the trust, the brief moment of passing pain, screams and tears, the totally irrational flare-up of self-doubt.  30 seconds, one dinosaur plaster and one lolly pop later and those emotions are gone.  I think this is more primal than cultural.  This certainly suggests a target audience for those looking to drive anti-vax sentiment.

I was rather shocked by the numbers you gave for France and Germany.  I live in more of a bubble than I thought.  

My worry is that this new variant likely takes us in to the territory where vaccine-induced herd immunity is not going to happen; achieving herd immunity is important to drive case numbers low to keep a lid on the evolutionary rate of the virus.  A combination of high case rates in younger adults and shielding + vaccination in age ranked decreasing order could perhaps reach the same result. I would rather wait for vaccination to achieve this, government have a very different it seems.  I worry the new variant may take that choice away.  To quote you from the other thread:

Buckle up.  I've still got high hopes for summer 2021.  But it's a ways away yet.

I think some countries (Australia?) can already exclude children from school for not having immunisations (I think in the wake of the MMR scandal) so it's a short step for them to provide (internal and external) restrictions on those without Covid passports.

I think the risk associated with "passports" aligns with the risks associated with ID cards so, to make covid "passports" palatable they need to specifically not fulfil the function of ID cards (which is easily done).

When I first started thinking about these issues, I found a book by the Harvard sociologist Sheila Jasanoff - "Designs on Nature" - very thought-provoking.  She contrasted the USA, Germany and the UK; in very broad-brush terms her premise was to ask why the USA rejected medical biotechnology, but accepted agricultural biotech, while in the UK the situation was reversed - and in Germany both were rejected.  The book's perhaps a bit dated now but still well worth a read.

With you on this!  My son's 17 now but the experience of a meningitis scare when he was a toddler is still etched in my mind.  I was astonished at how many nurses you need to hold a small child down to get a cannula in.  Primal indeed.

Sure, there are other flavours of idiocy. All should be shown the same disrespect. Unfortunately religious idiocy gets a free pass all the time.

CB

I wonder what the right word is to describe scientists who can't be bothered to understand the society they live in, and then end up being surprised when bad things happen.

Yes, religious freedom to live out those beliefs ends where it impinges upon those who don't in things like endangering their health. I think.

That's my feeling, I'm expecting the middle or end of next summer to be when things are about normal again. I'm possibly punch drunk from things, but it's a lurking hunch. I think it might take a while for things to get organised, with it being Boris's government in charge as well as a complex undertaking, at least it'll be the end of winter though.

In times gone by there was no such thing as vaccination, so religions couldn't take them into account.

Judaism and Islam however do have religious laws centred particularly around food and the prevention of illness (and as it's the Old Testament Christians have simply ignored these same rules).

It is completely unlikely that, if they had been around at the time, that vaccinations would have been on the no-no list. Indeed it is far more likely that they would have been a religious requirement.

One could therefore say with some certainty that any Christians, Moslem or Jew who objects to vaccinations is from a "loopy" sect that shouldn't be tolerated in the first place.

I agree with what you are saying. I however enjoy throwing multiple angles into the mix for a better debate. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/24/england-could-have-more-covid...

A friend has just shared this on facebook.

I was bored so I had a look. 

British Muslims are being advised to have the vaccine.  

https://www.blackburnwithdarwenccg.nhs.uk/british-islamic-medical-council-r...

There is no pork in it.  However even if  there was, there is a fatwa saying that it is fine in medical situations for a number of reasons.  https://www.derbyfamilymedicalcentre.co.uk/practice_news/fatwa-on-flu-vacci...

Full explanation if anyone needs it as to why it is recommended for children to have the flu spray and why insulin with similar issues is also acceptable.  

From the Jewish perspective https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/fluenz-flu-vaccine-containing-pork-product-is...

Meanwhile in Moldovia

https://balkaninsight.com/2020/05/20/moldovan-church-denounces-covid-vaccin... 

The majority of Christians presumably don't have a problem with vaccine, but it appears that in America it is quite a problem that people are claiming to be Christian to avoid vaccine for their children, when they aren't actually churchgoers.  

https://www.good.is/anti-vaxxers-are-suddenly-getting-religious-to-get-out-...

Overall my view is we need to worry about the antivaxx nutters, religion isn't the major issue, conspiracy theorists are.  

On the subject of pregnancy, a pregnant doctor in America explains why she decided to have the vaccine.  

THIS LINK CONTAINS UPSETTING STORIES OF MOTHERS AND BABIES DYING.  

https://mobile.twitter.com/Cleavon_MD/status/1342204801812025344

An opinion piece on vaccination while breastfeeding.  

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/12/21/healthcare-workers-who-breastfeed-shou...

Genuinely interested, where do jehovahs witnesses stand with the vaccine i cannot make heads or tails of it online. 

Jehovah witnesses did a U turn on vaccines in the 1950s and are now pro vaccine.  

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201103/protect-your-health/#?insig...

However they would forbid plasma treatments for Covid.  

If they need to vaccinate 2M people a week chances are the record keeping on who has and has not been vaccinated and gone back for their second dose isn't going to be that great.   

Are you kidding?  You can't stick a plaster on a kid without documenting it.  

No way are they going to jab and no paperwork.  

I'm sure you'll get a bit of paper handwritten by the guy who gives the jag but I doubt they've got the infrastructure to maintain an accurate national database of who has and has not had which vaccine and how many doses and I don't see them hanging about until they do.

That's why you need the Bill Gate microchip!

I haven't worked much in the "real world" much but in education there would be safeguarding issues if a pupil wasn't correctly marked as being present/absent within 5 minutes of a lesson starting. It has been a few years since this was done on bits of paper.

By my estimates, pre-pandemic there were about 5.6 million people a week meeting with a GP.  More yet would meet staff at urgent care centres and at hospitals.  All these meetings result in entries in a database somewhere.  The system looks a total mess - someone swipes their card on the keyboard a minute before they need it as the logon can be so slow etc, but it works.  Keeping track of this is relatively low down my worries.  For auxiliary vaccination centres, print out sheets of paper with names on, have someone cross names off when jabbing, have someone else let it in later.  That’s perhaps 60 names per aux centre or so per day.

I’m more interested in the production and delivery schedules of both the Oxford/AZ and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines.  That’s the key question.

I don't see it being difficult.  They manage to keep a database of all women of the appropriate age and if they had a smear test in the last 5 years for example.  Letters go out to remind us like clockwork. 

All children and their immunisations is already there.  Presumably Health Visitors could check which children are overdue.  

If it's done within existing systems it can be done quite easily. We already have health records and a number assigned to us.  

It doesn't need to be a national database it can be done at health board level.  They will be recording the information anyway, along with the batch number from the bottle.  

As a teacher I had optical recognition paper registers initially which were scanned in at the office, but as far as I remember registers have been computerised one way or another for 30+ years.  I don't think I ever did one of the book type but I may have done as a student teacher.  

That fits with Cumbria being about 10 years behind other parts of the country, 1998 was the last register I entered into a book.

Of course it is, and even the government think so.  

Which is why I think the vaccination passport idea won't fly.  The UK and other countries will rush to vaccinate and there won't be reliable national databases of who got what when which could form the basis of a travel document.

They had years to make those systems.  If they don't have one for these vaccinations now, and they start injecting a million doses a week they aren't going to have it in time.

The stories are starting to hit the press. Might not have to wait much longer to find out:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55471282

https://p.dw.com/p/3nIJK

Phone call last week between 10 and 11am, do you want one if our surplus doses so it's not wasted? (They got stacks more than expected and having trawled round all additional vulnerable people just wanted numbers through the door)

Yes and gave DoB. Got a text with appointment in 20 mins and 2nd text appointment few mins later.

At centre 4pm same day. Checks done at one of 10 stations with staff using laptops then directed to one of jab cubicles.

So they've gone from name and DoB via GP/NHS records, generated appointment  and checked against records when I checked in. 

I think you're doing the frontline health care staff a disservice, it was all very impressive for a first day in operation

Yes. It seems mass vaccination has suddenly become the only way out of this mess.  We’ll see how many libertarians are grown up enough to recognise that their liberty not to get vaccinated goes hand in had with the liberty of others to refuse them entry. From what I’ve seen to date, they’re not  very good at recognising different liberties of others...

As I said in the rest of that post, the collection of information on a couple of jabs is only a small fraction of the information the healthcare system collects and records on a weekly basis.  

In theory it should be possible, in practice my experience of government run or procured databases they are capable of a quite spectacular lack of foresight.

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that things fell down due

to something as naïve as a lack of database fields for vaccination records

Probably safe from the virus, at least until it mutates to bypass the vaccine primed immune response. Not safe from the health service damage rampant covid does, not safe from the economic damage rampant covid does. If you get the chance, please get vaccinated.

Jk

No but if and while border control forms a coherent part of an anti-covid public health plan they should be quarantined. Hopefully in time that will no longer be a proportionate response to the remaining threat and full freedom can be returned to those who aren't vaccinated whatever the reason.

Jk

For what it's worth I am a person who was at first wary and had some questions about the rapid development... but having done a fair bit of reading around, fact-checking and listening to the points of view of people like yourself, I am all for being vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

Having said that, I don't think it's going to happen during 2021 for me here in France, given the logistical challenges and the fact that I'm in a very low-risk group.  Fingers crossed the logistical challenges and other barriers are solved rapidly...before the virus mutates to bypass the primed immune response....  The worst thing that could happen is for doubts to be raised at this point about whether the vaccination has lost efficacy because of mutations etc...

The Spanish have said they will record any that REFUSE, and make the list available to other countries (but not private business). So I think that (effectively) a vaccine passport may well be needed for a week sunning yourself, either on the beach or on the crag, may well be required for the Costas !

Exactly - they had years to make those systems, and adding another option is scarcely difficult.

My GP has records of all my "jabs", including Hepatitis A, Typhoid, Diptheria and Polio.

To travel abroad to some countries has for many years required "extra" vaccinations, and records have always been kept to ensure boosters etc. get done at the right time, or whether they are necessary.

it strikes me that both sides in this debate are missing the point by thinking entirely about what it means to themselves. Anti vaxers are thinking that the vaccine is attack on themselves and the rightous ones are thinking that those who can't or wont vaccinate are a threat to themselves. But of course reality is far more nuanced . C19 is only fatal to those with underlying conditions or extreme old age and healthcare workers are getting better and better at keeping people alive and out of ICU. The threat is to the effectiveness of the health service, and if the outbreak gets out of control then the health care becomes irrelevant as there won't be any beds. ALl we need to do then is vaccinate the vulnerable and a reasonably good proportion of the rest. The reduction in transmission paths, ie. the frequency of those who are non-vaccinated meeting in confined spaces  for more than 15 minute will be greatly reduced and consequently the infection rate will be much lower. Yes 100% vaccination is desirable but it is not at all necessary. Reduced transition paths is sufficient to keep the virus under control until it evolves into something else, likely much less harmful. 

Those who refuse to vaccinate for no good reason are a threat to society. 

It's not just this particular vaccine.  

Children dying of preventable diseases like whooping cough and measles.  Utterly bonkers. 

Oh and in America some utter @#$& has deliberately taken around 500 vaccines out of a fridge.  

very tough

https://www.treefellingpretoriaeast.co.za/

"C19 is only fatal to those with underlying conditions or extreme old age and healthcare workers are getting better and better at keeping people alive and out of ICU. "

That isn't true. It's a low risk to others but it can still be fatal.

41 years old, 2 very young children.

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/30/951332740/louisiana-congressman-elect-dies-a...

"Reduced transition paths is sufficient to keep the virus under control until it evolves into something else, likely much less harmful. "

And seriously? That is your plan. We'll just hope it evolves into something less harmful!

Turns out an lot of working aged people have underlying conditions and some don’t even know it.  An awful lot.

“if”?!?!?

So basically most people...

You need a trip to A&E mate, you also seem to be ignoring the long term effects of covid on some people. I can't believe people still think they're OK either because they're young or otherwise healthy. In fact there is some evidence that ultra fit people are having the most longterm issues from having covid.

This is partly true, but it also seems you don't care that NHS staff might be constantly battling to keep numbers down as long as they don't get overwhelmed.

So let someone else do the work for you?

You sound like one of those people who don't think masks are necessary, but moan like f*ck if someone's getting too much dole money or sick money, or we're wasting too much money on homeless people.

You are presuming, having the vaccine stop people passing the virus on, this might not be the case, we don't know yet.

It's evolved already, into something much more contagious, what if it evolves into something the present vaccines don't work on?

The more virus in the wild the more chance it has of mutating.

Again, you seem happy to let everyone else do the work, and you carry on as normal.

I might have this wrong, it's difficult to tell from reading a page of text, but really your facts are at least dubious and your assumptions, hopes more than science.

If you were Spain would you accept a vaccine passport from the UK?

The UK  is using the Astra Zeneca vaccine with 60 something % efficacy where Spain have the Pfizer one with 90% and the UK is now saying its going to change the protocol from the qualification and have a three month instead of a one month gap between doses. 

It makes sense to do this in the current circumstances since the first dose seems to give protection from serious disease but if the UK moves away from the protocol qualified in the trials it makes a vaccine passport issued by the UK much less useful.    The passport is about whether you have full immunity and aren't going to spread it rather than a level of immunity that makes it less likely you get serious disease yourself.

They'll accept any vaccine. It'd be irresponsible to tell people to get a certain type and the dollar is god. They need tourism next summer.

We also do not know if any of the vaccines offer protection against transmission, at best it reduces transmission but that data is not great.

On an earlier subject, they have U turned over here and are now suggesting that pregnancy and breastfeeding are not an issue if women want the vaccine.  

If you actually read in to the details, it’s a *lot* more complicated than that, along with a large dose of small number statistics. 

R is about 3-4 in an unrestricted society, so 33% vaccinated with a 100% effective vaccine results in an R still in ecess of 1, which will still screw over the NHS.

Does your daughter need breastfeeding more than she needs a healthy / alive mother who can look after her?  As her primary carer can you afford to risk catching covid?

I suggest you stop breastfeeding your daughter but express and dump your milk whilst you get vaccinated then resume the breastfeeding once the danger period has passed as the best compromise.

In addition to the complexity Wintertree has pointed out.

The proof will be in the pudding.

We will vaccinate high numbers of people before most other European countries.

If the death rates, hospitalisation rate and/or infection rate drop significantly and proove the effectiveness of what we've done, everywhere will accept our vaccine passports, if such things come to be. They won't want to keep us out unless absolutely necessary.

If those things don't happen, we have bigger problems. The real risk is if the new protocol really doesn't work so well, not lack of a vaccine passport.

If we don't know if the vaccines offer protection against transmission the whole premise for a vaccine passport fails.   A vaccine passport is about showing you are not a risk to the country you are entering not that your own health is partially protected.

Yes, but this thread is about vaccine passports.   My view is that uncertainty undermines the case for a vaccine passport.     If there is uncertainty about whether a person with a passport recording a particular protocol can still transmit the virus then the passport doesn't have as much value as a criterion to deny entry. 

My wife had her vaccine (moderna) yesterday, and breast feeds twins. The US stance is basically no evidence either way talk to your pcp. They don't say they should or should not take it.

Here they are now saying, since yesterday, that breastfeeding mothers can have it on an individual risk Vs benefit basis (individual risk not public risk).

Which is an interesting one for many breastfeeding hcps who will be white women in their 20s and 30s with no health problems, and thus low risk. I'm 39 but still won't be moving into the moderate risk category for another 15 years (according to the most comprehensive risk assessment tool I've been able to find). So ignoring the greater good of population wide vaccination, by the UK medical establishments own criteria it is presumably still hard to justify it for me at the moment.

There are other issues with vaccination in my area at the moment though, so don't think I'll be having the conversation for a little while yet!

There won't be uncertainty in a few months. We'll know. Efficacy is not effectiveness. Still a lot to learn, and my money's on it being a lot higher than the reported number.

It's not a proper double blind study that participants signed up to, but the information will be there pretty quickly as twenty or more times people have been vaccinated than during the trials at a time of higher virus prevalence.

A million vaccinated so far, round that to 2% on population.

Currently 2,000 Covid hospital admissions per day so if vaccine does not work 40* will have been vaccinated. In 1 or 2 weeks, if few or nobody admitted to hospital who has been vaccinated then we know the vaccine works. If that remains true as weeks go by we know delaying second injection is good public policy even if second jab better for the individual.

Hospital info should reveal what is happening within weeks of the first vaccination and first delayed second jab.

*VERY VERY ROUGHLY, maybe more because we vaccinate those at risk who are less likely to be asymptomatic, maybe less because many are shielding.

We do know that

a) vaccines prevent severe clinical signs

b) there is a proportional increase in spread with the severity of signs. for instance in houses with asymptomatically infected people it was not necessary that everyone else became affected.

There are massive issues with passports of this type, but relatively we know at least for pre-new-mutant virus there will be some protection against transmission. If there is a difference between the older and new variants then we can see selection pressure for the new variant.

Yes, I agree watching for reports from hospitals of people with the vaccine who have got sick will be important.

I think it takes a couple of weeks after vaccination to build up your immunity though. So few people will have that immunity so far (I think the very first are 3 weeks in now.) And ongoing, there will always be a group of people who have had their first vaccine but are still vulnerable, even if efficacy was 100%. So it won't be easy to discern if news reports of "person X died after having a vaccine" are actually an indicator of a wider problem.

I think the best thing we can do with public data is see if the relative number of hospitalisations in over 80s starts to reduce significantly when compared to the over 70s. I think that would take a good few more weeks yet.

We'll possibly find out quicker from healthcare workers getting sick or not, for the Pfizer vaccine at least. Anecdotally seems they've been the most vaccinated group so far, and intuitively they're the most exposed. 

Collated official data should show if there is a demographic of a million vaccinated people missing from hospital admissions. Hopefully it will be apparent after a few weeks after start of mass vaccination. Hence it should be apparent in official collated data about now or in the next few weeks.

We have had 2 cases publicised on local TV recently of people hale and hearty in their early 60s, enjoying life, who were killed by COVID

check your facts. I'm still enjoying the hills in summer and winter, I'm a little older than that but with 2 boys at university and your facts are shit

one of the reason they were reserved about pregnancy was the fact that there has not been time for women to go to term to prove the  vaccine safe for the foetus rather than concrete knowledge of risks.

Yeah in the US they are saying we should start to see it from this week. 

Exactly, it's the same with how long we should wait for the second dose, only the Oxford vaccine was tested with varying times, it turns out 12 weeks appears to give better results than 3.

It's all about gathering information, which takes time.

They have however seen what happens to pregnant women who get C19. 

From the BMJ

Given what we already know about other vaccines there is no reason to think it would affect the pregnancy.  The vaccine isn't live.  

https://www.gponline.com/updated-jcvi-advice-says-at-risk-pregnant-women-re...

I know what I'd do.  

I thought early evidence suggested they reduced the risk of transmission but did not eliminate it. To my mind, if they reduce the chances of people (1) getting the virus and (2) having (severe) symptoms, that must reduce the risk of transmission - you can't transmit it if you don't get in the first place (or rather you get it but your immune system deals with it before it can spread) and you're less likely to transmit it if you don't have symptoms.

If you're 39 and your child is 2, I'd have thought you will have stopped breast feeding them by the time you have the opportunity to get the vaccine in about 6 months' time...

I agree in general but I think the effect on admissions will take longer to show. Firstly, it takes about 3 weeks for immunity to show. Secondly, as you say, it depends on who is getting vaccinated and how likely they are to get it at the moment. For example, medical and care workers are getting it but a lot of them will be relatively young and healthy so not very likely to end up in hospital (of course some do end up in hospital or worse unfortunately but I suspect most have a relatively mild illness if they get it - I'm just speculating here though).

I really hope the papers won't run those kinds of stories, even if this does happen. As my brother said (who used to be a doctor and now works for PHE), the plural of anecdote is not data. Unfortunately there could be cases of people who have been vaccinated who still die, probably because they get infected before the vaccine becomes effective, possibly because the vaccine isn't at all effective for them for some reason. Those kinds of cases would be very rare in the scheme of things but a lot of people do equate anecdote with data and it would just feed into the whole anti-vax argument. 

This just happened in the US, a nurse who tested positive 8 days after the vaccine.

It's hardly unexpected. 1 dose isn't 100% effective or he'd got infected prior to vaccination. I don't know why it made the news.

There has been a case in my NHS trust of someone testing positive after the 1st dose. Not sure of the exact timeline.

She did have the opportunity as on the front line NHS but was told not to at the time due to breastfeeding.  

I suppose they might have had it already, or because only one dose may have caught it.  

I'm not sure how clear the evidence is for delaying the 2nd dose.  It seems like a gamble that could be a really good idea, but might not be.  

But 'early evidence suggests' and an unquantified level of reduction is not the basis for introducing a legal document which has consequences for whether someone can enter a country or get a job.

The UK is deploying the Pfizer vaccine in a protocol which the manufacturer has explicitly stated is not supported by the clinical trials “there is no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.”  Why would other countries accept a vaccine passport based on that? 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-31/pfizer-backs-two-dose-va...

that's exactly how I'd balance the risk

The UK's priority at the moment isn't about people getting a job in a foreign country or going on holiday, it is about reducing hospital admissions and keeping hospitals staffed.  The government obviously think increasing the numbers vaccinated asap is the strategy to do that... Who knows if they are right!!!

I'm not arguing against that. 

All I'm saying is the 'vaccine passport' idea has some big problems.

My response was purely in relation to the point you made. I don’t disagree that the vaccine passport idea is potentially problematic in a number of ways. It would certainly need to be thought through very carefully if it were to be introduced.

But even if 1 dose is 95% effective (it's less) and we've only vaccinated a few % of the population (about 1 million I think it is) around 50,000 will still be susceptible to covid - we've vaccinated way too few to offer any form of herd immunity.

So it shouldn't really be news if vaccinated people are testing positive for covid. 

What about trust issues, as opposed to anti-vax. Pfizer’s unexplained indemnity isn’t likely to instil confidence for those already concerned with the speed of development and approval. 

It does you're right, but it might be something you have no choice over. Spain seem to be going for a "naughty list" system where if you don't have the vaccine when offered you get listed.

Either way it's a minefield but one we're going to have to deal with some how.

I'd be quite happy for my local to stop people entering if they weren't vaccinated.

Imagine you were the CEO of Pfizer and you were developing a vaccine as a no profit project that would be injected into tens or hundreds of millions of people on a rushed schedule.  You'd be betting your company on a project that made you no money.  It isn't going to happen without an indemnity from government.

The whole 'was the development process rushed', ' is there enough long term data' and 'did the regulator check thoroughly enough' argument is now moot.   The fact is within a month of getting approval they've decided to go completely off piste and use the vaccine in a way which was not studied in the trials.   They might just as well have approved it months ago after the safety data came in rather than wait until efficacy was shown and signed off by MHRA if they don't stick to the protocol which was studied in the efficacy trials.

On the other side of that we have a new mutation of the virus which has pushed R up by 0.8 and we have a government which refuses to do a full-on lockdown like the one last year.  We are at the point where the only option left is to vaccinate as many people as possible on an unqualified protocol and hope we get lucky.   It's the last throw of the dice.

As usual with the Tories it just gets worse.  Now as well as changing the interval between doses they are proposing giving a totally different vaccine for the second dose based on what is available.  This is so far off-piste with regard to what was qualified in the clinical trials it is ridiculous.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/health/coronavirus-vaccines-britain.html

Clearly there is a gigantic problem developing with the second strain.   We need a lockdown not making sh*t up as we go along on vaccination protocols.

This bit is concerning and there is already talk on my work Facebook group of people cancelling vaccination appointments for first jabs as a result. I fear this could back fire with lower uptake amongst young hcps who are having it for the greater good of the country not due to personal risk. Hopefully this decision will be amended soon.

I really don't think it's a good idea for politicians to be making decisions about this stuff.  

It's quite a stretch to give the 2nd dose so late, but to decide to give mix and match 2nd dose seems quite ridiculous.  

Don't want to get involved with most of the arguments on this thread. We don't have all the data in public and I'm inclined to trust the JCVI and MHRA to make a reasonable decision. Can you tell me why you think the decision has been made by politicians (other than in accepting the JCVI/MHRA recommendations)? That would put a completely different slant on things.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=248573663351733

Chris

this is an interesting read. https://theconversation.com/how-effective-does-a-covid-19-coronavirus-vacci...

so as I was trying to say earlier 100% uptake is not required *unless* vaccine efficacy is low (60%) and a the virus has already infected a large proportion of the population (15%) .

Taking the current situation into account then a single dose gives 65% protection which I think makes efficacy 65% And a double does gives 95% efficacy. Total infection is about 6% according to the internet.

And I quote "If 5% of the population has been infected, a vaccine that is 80% effective could reduce the peak number of cases by 80%, even if only half the population has been vaccinated."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/experts-question-britain-s-mix-and...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9106003/Vaccines-expert-says-docto...

I honestly don't know what is happening anymore.  

I don't know who to believe.  

I wouldn't trust either of those sources without understanding where they get their information. 

All the Irish Times article says is ", British officials disagree with American officials." Neither article implies to me that politicians have come up with this. All the published info on gov.uk is explicit that it is from JCVI and MHRA, via the CMOs.

Chris' link has some good info taken directly from the Green Book towards the end, so you can see what the guidance actually is, rather than how it is spun.

The role of the MHRA is to review the clinical trial data and based on that make a decision on whether to approve a medicine.   They did that, then a few weeks later the government says it will use a completely different protocol from that which was in the trials, one which the vaccine developers have stated there is no evidence for, and MHRA just give it the nod based on zero data.  That puts into question the whole independence and credibility of MHRA as a regulator. 

In an honest process the regulator would have refused to approve a protocol outside what was tested and the politicians and CMO/Public Health would have overruled it and gone ahead anyway justifying their decision by the emergency situation.

There are multiple concerns, particularly with mix and matching two vaccines:

a. will it actually be effective.

b. will it have unknown dangers

c. will it create a situation which makes it more likely the virus can evolve to make both vaccines ineffective.

They should be doing clinical trials, experiments and simulations to get a lot of confidence on these rather than making the first test on 2 million people a week.  It will take a few months so we need a lockdown.  That is what this is all really about, the government will not accept the economic and political hit of a lockdown: it prefers to roll the dice and take massive risks with unqualified vaccine protocols.  Probably because they have no f*cking idea what they are doing and they are not listening to the experts.  Same situation as all the way through Brexit and Covid.

But that isn't what it seems happened, unless you have made up your mind before you read what has been written. It's possible but seems unlikely to me without evidence.

Because the government have consistently ignored the expert advice, and taken different decisions themselves...?

A few weeks ago, everyone I saw interviewed was clear that mixing of vaccines was categorically out of the question, since it had not been trialled. Exactly the same reason why pregnant women would not be given the vaccine; no pregnant women were involved in the trial, so there is zero safety evidence.

I read the statement by MHRA and JCVI  it is pretty brief and not that convincing.

They've got a few theories with some early evidence.  If I was a research council or pharma company I'd be happy to sign off on funding clinical trials.  What makes no sense at all is immediately going to millions of people per week based on unqualified theories.

Except that with the new strain the sh*t is about to hit the fan big time.  The response should be an immediate hard lockdown to stop the shit/fan collision while maintaining the qualified protocol for vaccine use and starting clinical trials for other potential vaccine protocols.

My reading is that the Tories are not willing to take the political and economic hit of a lockdown and the scientists they have appointed are rolling the dice as the best chance of preventing the shit/fan collision.

This is the full JCVI statement:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

It all seems reasonable to me and the logic makes sense. They are open that they are using both published and unpublished data. It's valid to ask if we can see the unpublished data and understand what efficacy we might expect for these different protocols.

The JCVI is a body set up to provide advice to health departments and has been running for several years. Their website explains their membership and also contains the minutes of their meetings.

https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-imm...

That link doesn't have minutes from the latest meetings yet but includes a short statement issued on new year's eve that explains more of the detail behind their findings:

https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fapp.box.com%2Fs%2Fiddfb4ppwkmtj...

Again, it refers to unpublished data so we should ask to see that, rather than looking at the preliminary data that was reported initially a number of weeks ago and declaring that they are working outside it. But nothing in the above rings any alarm bells that this is being done for political reasons. They are simply recommending the immunisation programme that they judge will have best effect in reducing deaths.

Finally, this link is the letter from the CMOs explaining the decision to the health profession, which was issued NYE:

https://www.cas.mhra.gov.uk/ViewandAcknowledgment/ViewAlert.aspx?AlertID=10...

They explain the reasons clearly, with reference to the JCVI advice. We can never avoid a small possibility of political interference and that's why I asked marsbar what her source was. But if you are worried, it is worth noting this letter is signed by all four CMOs, who of course all advise different parties including both Welsh labour and the SNP, so you would not expect them to sign up without complaint if they felt it was driven by Tory politics.

If one of the CMOs or a member of JCVI was to break ranks and state they did not support the recommendation on the grounds of political interference I would want to know. If that hasn't happened, all you are doing is promulgating conspiracy theories that play into anti vaxxers hands.

Thank you for providing such detailed information.  I will read it later when I have time to look at it properly. I appreciate it. 

I realise all of that, though the figures might not be spot on (who knows), but it still relies on SOME people doing the right thing while other can decide not to bother because they don't want too. Also, while there are greater numbers of people carrying around the virus, or prolonging the time it takes to combat the virus, the more time there is for it to mutate into something different.

I understand how immunisation works, but you only need to look at measles in the US to see how few people a needed to not bother to see what can happen. Or for a more positive story look at smallpox, anyone over 70 will probably have a smallpox vaccination scar.

It's the same argument some people use to not following guidelines, i.e. someone else can stay in, I'm off round my mates for a party.

If it's in the DM, I reckon you can wait a bit longer to find out the truth.

Why?

I'm no expert on vaccines.  But it concerns me that Pfizer - who are clearly experts since they developed the stuff - say there's no evidence for extending the period between doses and that Dr Fauci who clearly is an expert says he wouldn't be in favour.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/covid-vaccine-doses-pfizer-f...

I think we need to differentiate between the MHRA and the others.  MHRA should be a regulatory agency and it should be basing decisions on the clinical trials and saying no to unqualified protocols.   They certainly shouldn't be signing off on protocols which the developers of the vaccine don't approve.  The CMO and JCVI have different responsibilities and they could honestly conclude they should go ahead anyway without approval because of the emergency situation.

But I see the underlying problem as being the Tory government's unwillingness to have a second lockdown.  Lockdown is a proven intervention and if it was used to deal with the immediate problem there would be no need for unqualified vaccine protocols and unquantified risks.

This part is plain wrong. Read the Imperial paper. Not true any more. With the new strain out there that's just not the case. Nothing to do with Tories, everything to do with B1.1.7.

I completely agree. It's absolutely the right decision to protect the greater number of people from severe disease.

I made the point earlier about 12 weeks because I was under the impression that there wasn't any supporting data.  Tests were done at 21 days to get the percentages.  

However I have now read the statement that Si dh has provided and I'm happy that there is data saying it is still effective at 12 weeks, although I don't have any details on that.  

As for the Daily Mail, I understand your point, but I think they are under new management.  I was interviewed by them for a piece on anti vaxxers, and they appear to have changed their message since the Wakefield days.  

The JCVI paper says there is.  

That does appear to explain clearly the reasons why the second dose is being delivered later, although it would be nice to have a little detail on the unpublished data.  

It confirms that a mix and match is not supported.  

Yes I have edited that post. 

I do feel reassured on that point.  

I am going to assume for now that the mix and match vaccine thing is a bit of a red herring that the media is getting excited by.  

Thank you for your help in clearing this up.  

there wasn't any data, because there weren't any tests done, I've not read Si's post yet, ONLY Oxford did any testing with different timings on the second jab, which is their data I was quoting. It's all so new, no doubt we'll get better information later on.

There's no evidence, because they did do the trials, this isn't the same as it won't work, they simply didn't do the science, Oxford did!

Exactly.  Pfizer did not do the trials with an extended period within doses.  That means it isn't qualified by the clinical trial data.  Pfizer did not ask the regulator to approve it.

Imagine an aircraft manufacturer in the same situation.  Some academics think their engines might work with a new low-carbon fuel.  Maybe the manufacturer's engineers have done a couple of experiments that suggests it may be OK.  But they have not extensively qualified their engines with the new fuel and they have not asked the aviation regulator to approve the new fuel.   Then the regulator goes and qualifies the new fuel for use in the engine anyway and in a few weeks the entire fleet of planes in the UK are using the new fuel.  They do not do sh*t like this in safety critical industries because it is not safe.

The other unpleasant aspect to this is that the changes to the protocols being considered will give Astra Zeneca commercial advantage over Pfizer.   Pfizer are first to market with a more advanced product and have scaled up their manufacturing faster.  Astra Zeneca are late to market, haven't scaled up as fast but they have a cheaper and more easily handled product.   These changes give Astra Zeneca a chance to displace Pfizer after the initial round of vaccinations.

It's not about safety. It's been proven safe to inject into someone's arm. It's about getting best protection for the population. It's taking the bet that one dose will keep most people out of hospital. In your analogy it's more like giving all the planes enough of the qualified fuel to get where they're going, rather than giving a few of them a full tank and letting the rest crash.

Citation needed.

But AZ did.

As more evidence becomes available would you not change protocols?

There is evidence that delaying the Oxford one the protection is better then 3 week second dose.

Imagine you and a friend are going outside and it's pissing down, there are two raincoats you can each use to keep yourselves dry, you have the option of trading one of the raincoats for a hat, so one of you can have a raincoat and a hat and stay totally dry while the other gets soaking wet. Which do you go for?

Holy shit, if you can get this expectation of compliance with an illness that has a fatality rate of less than 2%, I hate to think how people would react in a properly serious crisis.

I find this more worrying than the virus!

The term anti-Vaxer used to be used for people who refuse vaccines that have been used for several decades to protect against diseases with extremely high mortality/disability rates. Is it really appropriate to use it for people who are wary of a vaccine that has been in use for a matter of weeks to treat a disease with a relatively low mortality rate, in particular one that has only been authorised by the scientists of 2 countries?

To take your definition a little further still, is someone who chooses not to have the flu vaccine an 'anti-Vaxer'?

Well you could always let someone else do the work of protecting everyone.

You are still speaking as if the only outcome from catching covid is death or normality, by now I would hope people realise there are long term issues and damages to organs of the body not all of which disapear.

You can take precautions when you have the flu to not spread it around, in other words you know you have flu it will make you ill and you might not, if you have any conscience, go out and spread it around to other people. With covid you might not know you have it and be spreading it around to  many many people some of which might not survive.

Once again though I can't believe people don't realise this difference between flu and covid.

There's a much more succinct term for someone with this attitude.

Ffs.  

Let me explain it to you in basic terms.  

2 is small.  

2% of a big number is not small.  

Only problem I can see is if the vaccine rollout is very slow (entirely possible especially with this government) then giving people who have been vaccinated greater freedoms creates a haves and have nots issue. Especially if wealthy individuals manage to miraculously jump the queue.

Edit: Apologies if this has already been covered, probably has further upthread.

I didn't give any indication of my own view on the merits of the Covid vaccines. My point was about the skewing of the term anti-Vaxer. I find it troubling that established language can be deformed to demonise people who do not fit the original definition.

Do you self-isolate when you have a mild dose of the flu? I don't know of anyone who does. People generally just warn me and suggest I shouldn't shake their hand.

I find your total ignorance or dismissal of all aspects of the current crisis other than the deaths to be more worrying than the virus.

I’d spell it out to you, but it’s been hashed to death on these pages and at this point the only question is - are you being deliberately misleading over the nature of the crisis or have you just come out of a year long coma?

I never said Covid wasn't an issue. I said an expectation that others postpone conceiving because of it is worrying. How would society expect people to behave in more catastrophic circumstances? Things can get a lot more serious than this.

If people in the UK realised how insignificant an issue Covid is in many countries around the globe, they would be gobsmacked!

I'm just back from the country which apparantly has the second biggest Covid problem in Africa. So perhaps I have a perspective that you don't...

Please enlighten me!

I've never had a mild case of flu as far as I know.  I've had a lot of mild and heavy colds and chest infections but flu flattened me totally.  Do you mean flu proper or aspirational flu?

Well, feel free to share that rather than banging the same old incorrect drum that the fatality rate is low and that it’s the only consequence of the virus.

Does the place you came from have healthcare to the level of the UK?  Does it have the same kind of demographic as the UK?  Does it have the same strong dependency between many of its working aged people and it’s healthcare service?  

> If people in the UK realised how insignificant an issue Covid is in many countries around the globe, they would be gobsmacked!

I don’t think so.  Besides, they people of the UK live in the UK, where it’s a massive issue - and not primarily because of the 0.7% of those who catch it who will go on to tide, but because of the much larger percentage who require hospital care.

In general, the virus doesn’t seem to be causing the same level of problems in Africa as here in terms of infection rates. The lessons from this appear to be to live somewhere with a warmer winter climate and not to have so many old people still alive, so I’m not sure it’s a great help to compare.

Anyone who knowingly goes into work with the flu, whether it is a "mild" dose or not is a selfish idiot.

Firstly they do not know whether it is "mild" or the beginnings of "something horrible"; Secondly everyone they get anywhere near could catch it off them; And thirdly they cannot possibly know how the unlucky recipients of "their" flu might react - people may well have breathing problems or "at risk" relatives.

Then of course what is the Management going to think when one senseless idiot, who just wants to show how brave they are at "soldiering on" has infected half the workforce and completely buggered up production ???

Rather than just not "shake their hand" I'd prefer to put both my hands around said idiots' throats and then squeeze - but of course that's not "PC" so I defer to walking away instead.

I do hope you're isolating !

I'll feel free to voice my opinion in the way that I consider appropriate thank you, or is that as socially unacceptable as conceiving these days!

You have deformed my comments. I said that the fatality rate is "relatively low" compared to other diseases that are systematically vaccinated for - this is actually the correct drum! I also never said that death was the only consequence of Covid. 

I could share my experience of how another country is dealing with Covid but I don't think many people on here are receptive to anything that doesn't conform to the established consensus, so I'm not going to bother!

You're welcome.

The message I replied to - which was apparently your first on this thread and your reply to me, said:

So, I am not deforming it as you allege.  Further, you overlook the massive difference between this 2% fatality rate and the diseases we routinely vaccinate against.  This 2% could be applied to 80% of the whole population, as (almost) nobody is currently vaccinated or otherwise immune.  That's why this is fundamentally different to the other diseases you are comparing it with.  It's not the possibility of 0.72% of 80% of 66.7 m people (380,000 people) dying that's the main problem, it's what that would do to healthcare, and what the control efforts to avoid that are doing to society and certain sectors of the economy.

So, I maintain you are banging the wrong drum.  The risk being mitigated against with this virus about all else is that posted to healthcare, wish is proportional to the product of the fatality rate (your 2%, a small number), the susceptible population (a large number) and the rate at which the disease spreads (a reasonably large number, but not the largest).  By focusing solely on the small number, you completely misunderstand or perhaps misrepresent the situation.

The poster I was referring to was saying they couldn't consider a vaccine if trying to conceive of breastfeeding as there is no longitudinal data on the vaccine for maternity or breastfeeding.   There is no such data on the effects of the infinitely (literally, to date) more lethal virus either on maternity and breastfeeding, so if they're concerned about the former they sure as hell should be concerned about the later.  There, my point was, for such a person I don't see how they could are trying to conceive or going to the kind of place that would need a "vaccine passport" given their concerns.  I was making the point that their ever more specific corner cases were nonsensical, not that the whole country should stop trying to have babies as you interpreted.  Mind you, there's no way I'd want to be giving birth in the next 3 months, and that this winter was likely to be a healthcare disaster was quite predicable last summer.

It was literally the only risk that you noted in the message that I am replying to.

That seems an entirely reasonable inference from the post I referred to.

Well, that's convenient.  There are no "right" answers, but simply dismissing it because it has a low fatality to rate is to miss many points, including:

• Unusually, almost all the population is susceptible meaning that total hospitalisations and deaths eclipse those from any other circulating disease
• These disease spreads rapidly even with control measures, eating that the very high total hospitalisations and deaths could happen in a very short span of time with horrible consequences for healthcare, for those needing access to healthcare (e.g. pregnant mothers), and for society as a whole

It's curious that the list of African countries Covid cases and the list of per capita health care expenditure seem to have some commonality. A good argument for scrapping the NHS perhaps?

I infered that if someone really wants to conceive at the moment they should damn well go for it! I also infered that an expectation for people not to conceive because of Covid is a gross over-reaction to the seriousness of the situation. I maintain that view.

The rest is your imagination (or manipulation).

I get the feeling you're trying to deflect from your statement about hoping people delay conception by focusing on inferences which don't exist.

I'm telling you how I interpreted it, pointing out that your claim I "twisted" it is not evidenced by the post I was replying to, and that you've carried out the tired old trope of focusing on low fatality rate in isolation of all the other consequences.

No, and I clarified the context for it as I gather you'd not bothered to read the context.  Here, I'll repeat myself.  You'll notice it's quite a complex set of discussions that's framed by someone else's (not mine) niche corner case on why it's unreasonable to expect them to be denied access to places due to not taking the vaccine in the event of a hypothetical and unlikely vaccine "passport scheme".

I have no deed what so ever to deflect from the statement I made.  It's there in black and white with all the context above and around it.  For someone complaining variously about me "twisting" and "imagining" around their perspective, it's odd that you took once sentence out of context from my post, ignoring the context going on around it.

The poster I was referring to was saying they couldn't consider a vaccine if trying to conceive of breastfeeding as there is no longitudinal data on the vaccine for maternity or breastfeeding.   There is no such data on the effects of the infinitely (literally, to date) more lethal virus either on maternity and breastfeeding, so if they're concerned about the former they sure as hell should be concerned about the later.  There, my point was, for such a person I don't see how they could are trying to conceive or going to the kind of place that would need a "vaccine passport" given their concerns.  I was making the point that their ever more specific corner cases were nonsensical, not that the whole country should stop trying to have babies as you interpreted.  Mind you, there's no way I'd want to be giving birth in the next 3 months, and that this winter was likely to be a healthcare disaster was quite predicable last summer.

Right now I agree with you as they mothers won't likely be needing hospital attention for 6 months.  Personally, I'd be bricking it if my partner was due to give birth in London in the next few weeks.  

I did bother to read the context. It's someone trying to conceive.

This isn't true; how could it be, the pandemic has been ongoing for a year. The article below dates from Sep. The vaccine, however, has not been tested on pregnant women so there is no data for a woman to base a decision on.

https://www.who.int/news/item/01-09-2020-new-research-helps-to-increase-und...

Glad we've cleared that up!

No, it’s someone who is saying “what about a hypothetical someone trying to conceive who therefore can’t take the vaccine - they should still get a vaccine passport”

My point was that if they’re worried about the vaccine they shouldn’t need a vaccine passport as they’ll be more worried about the virus...

As it stands, the MHRA advice had changed for the vaccines and pregnancy but given the lack of longitudinal studies of people confirmed as covid +ve for all periods during pregnancy I assume the hypothetical person the other poster invented is still going to hold off conception given the strength of their concerns.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/oxford-universityastrazeneca-covid-19-va...

The CHM has also reviewed further data for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine as it has become available and has recommended the following changes:

Pregnancy and women who are breastfeeding - the vaccine should only be considered for use in pregnancy when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and baby. Women should discuss the benefits and risks of having the vaccine with their healthcare professional and reach a joint decision based on individual circumstances. Women who are breastfeeding can also be given the vaccine. This advice is in line with pregnancy and breastfeeding advice for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine

FFS!! That's exactly the point I was making, you KNOW you've got it, so you can warn people, also other can usually see YOU'VE got it so they can steer clear. Covid gives neither a choice. Can you see the difference?

If you've got "mild flu" you probably just have a cold.

And yes sometimes I do stay off work and self isolate, a few times I haven't had that option, flu doesn't give you the choice.

Based on what? I suggest you volunteer for work in a hospital and see what's going on.

Agreed, maybe that's why Spain has opted for the "naughty list" method.

It'll be interested if businesses will be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of a covid jab. I can see we couldn't do much against other countries requiring vaccinations before being allowed in. But if businesses, e.g. pubs, wanted a jab for a pint, then it might be a great encouragement.

You should do. If anyone turns up where I work with flu they get sent home and get their backside kicked hard for being so stupid... 

I suspect you've never actually had the flu

Yes. There is no point further reducing the productivity of my employer by spreading the illness. They agree with that approach.

The mortality rate is relatively low (say compared to Ebola) but it spreads much more readily and the whole world is screwed up because of it. Vaccination is the only way out of this.

Having seen your comment about how it’s managed differently in the African country you’ve just come back from. Would be interested to hear about it. Bear in mind that the climate, demographics, population density / interconnectedness, health care provision and economic situation will be pretty different to the UK, so what works there probably won’t work here and indeed vice versa. However it would be interesting to hear about it. 

The fatality rate you will see quoted now is for when the hospitals can cope with the number of cases.

It will be much higher if too many people get sick at once.

Also, there are more people becoming ill in a life changing way than die outright within 28 days.

To put Wintertree's calculation of 380,000 deaths in context, the Hiroshima nuclear bomb killed 140,000.  In my book that is a disaster. 

I was diagnosed with flu just last winter as it happens, although given the circumstances (international gathering) it may have been Covid

I didn't comment on the management, but on the significance. There was less judgemental angst, a more realistic and balanced assessment of the risk and more value given to the maintenance of a healthy degree of social interaction. Tbh the Swiss, French and Greeks have also proved much more tolerant and relaxed.

Are you seriously comparing Covid in the UK with Hiroshima?! I'm starting to think some people on here should delay conceiving forever!

Perhaps due to a better climate and a younger population?

I take it the case abs death rates were lower - at least the official ones. Who knows how many people died of Covid without getting a test or any medical care...

Israel has been one of the countries most affected in the area, so I don't think climate has anything to do with it. 

The article I read said Egypt was the 2nd hardest hit country in Africa. I can't remember if this was cases or deaths and can't find the article again. In any case I doubt the stats are reliable

For sure, and when you spend time in a country which probably has a similar Covid problem to other countries but which is operating normally, you do start to wonder about the draconian measures implemented in the UK.

That said, I have never questioned these measures, just reacted to one person who suggested people should delay conceiving for the benefit of society, challenged another who used the term 'anti-Vaxer' for people wary of UK vaccine authorisations (as the EU and USA are - neither has authorised the Oxford one), and another who compared Covid in the UK with Hiroshima! I think these are quite disproportionate reactions, don't you?

Reacted out of all context for the message which was clear and has since been spelt out again.

According to Worldometer, deaths per 100k in Egypt is 76, for the UK it's 1,108.  So, we have 14.5x as many people dead (per capita), and Egypt doesn't appear to be in the grip of uncontrolled, high prevalence transmission risking a doubling in the number of dead and healthcare overload.

So, I'm not sure what Egypt can teach us about how society responds when the virus is this out of control, and I don't think it's fair to compare attitudes between the two countries given the difference in scale of death - and presumably therefore healthcare disruption.

How Egypt got to this point with so little deaths is the more pertinent question, but I can guarantee you that the answer wasn't a more relaxed attitude to the virus.  I'll give you a starting point - the fraction of the population in Egypt over 64 years of age is around one quarter of that in the UK.  It looks like the fatality rate increases exponentially with age.  Having less old people is an excellent way of mitigating the impact of this virus, but it's not ethically portable to the UK where we are right now.