The Unvaccinated ‘Will End Up Paying The Price’

at | 62 Replies

Last night.

Washington DC.

In remarks from the White House, President Joe Biden announced that the US will share millions more doses of coronavirus vaccines with other countries around the world.

He added:

 “if the unvaccinated get vaccinated, they’ll protect themselves and other unvaccinated people around them…

“…Ultimately, those who are not vaccinated will end up paying the price. The vaccinated will continue to be protected against severe illnesses, but others may not be if you’re not vaccinated.”

US to share 20m more COVID vaccine doses with world, total now 80m: Biden (CNBC)

Getty

Sponsored Link

62 thoughts on “The Unvaccinated ‘Will End Up Paying The Price’

  1. Nigel

    Well, yes. There are people who CAN’T get vaccinated. They have to rely on the rest of us getting vaccinated and acheiving herd immunity.

    Reply
    1. f_lawless

      Question: several millions of people in the US are known to have already contracted Covid and survived. Why is it that naturally acquired immunity is being treated as though it doesn’t exist?

      Also, not very long ago the narrative being put out by the likes of the UK government was “the more we vaccinate, the more the virus will attempt to survive and mutate even further” but not to worry “we’re looking to manufacture the new variant of vaccine that deals with the new variant of virus”. See clip here: https://twitter.com/jengleruk/status/1358353911002902530

      Now more and more we’re hearing EVERYONE must be vaccinated and then herd immunity will be reached. It seems the narrative is set by whatever is politically expedient at any given time.

      Reply
      1. Nigel

        1. One reason it might be getting less attention because if less people acheive immunity through the vaccine less people will die, therefore that’s preferable.

        2. I don’t think that’s a narrative, I think that’s a clearly flagged problem with viruses in gerneral and if it is a problem, that seems like a logical solution. Annual flu vaccines are geared towards new flu variants, aren’t they? This isn’t new information, this is just something that was always likely to happen to one degree or another.

        3. I’ve been hearing that everyone needs to be vaccinated since more or less the very beginning. It seems to me you only hear what you want to hear, when you want to hear it, and granting your sudden awareness a universal significance it doesn’t warrant.

        Reply
        1. f_lawless

          ” It seems to me you only hear what you want to hear, when you want to hear”

          Nigel you’re so far gone, you apparently think “people achieve immunity through the vaccine” Why aren’t you aware that the vaccines weren’t designed to make a person immune or prevent transmission? What the manufacturers themselves claim is that the vaccines may reduce severity of symptoms.

          There has been an increased pushing of the narrative in recent times that EVERYONE must be vaccinated. At the G7 summit in Feb, world leaders like Merkel and Johnson made headline news with declarations such as (quote): “We’ve got to make sure the whole world is vaccinated”. That’s very different from “we must provide access to those vulnerable around the world”

          Reply
          1. Cian

            Wrong again.
            The vaccinations are designed to prevent Covid.
            When they don’t prevent Covid (no vaccines are 100% effective) they both reduce the severity and transmission to other.

          2. SOQ

            There is no such thing as ‘COVID’- only SARS-Cov-1 virus and Covid-19 disease.

            The vaccines are for the disease not the virus- otherwise it would have been called SARS-Cov-2 vaccine- this was not a mistake.

            Interestingly- you can always tell what side of the debate someone is on from the use of correct names or, a made up label which means nothing.

          3. Cian

            LOL when you reduced to nitpicking “Covid” to “Covid-19” you are losing.

            Allow me rephrase using your preferred technical nomenclature.

            “The vaccinations are designed to prevent Covid-19.
            When they don’t prevent Covid-19 (no vaccines are 100% effective) they both reduce the severity and transmission to other.”

            It’s funny, I think you can tell a Ivor Cummins disciple when they get anal about naming.

          4. Nigel

            ‘Nigel you’re so far gone, you apparently think “people achieve immunity through the vaccine”…What the manufacturers themselves claim is that the vaccines may reduce severity of symptoms.’

            You have literally been paying no attention to anything at all, have you? Not even to the comments of the redoubtable alickdouglas of this parish. Plus it’s painfully obvious that this so-called ‘narrative push’ is a response to calls to make sure vaccines are made available to poorer countries, since the whole point of the vaccines from the beginning was that they’d be available to everyone until ugly problems of distribution and supply rared their heads and have caused a lot of concern.

          5. SOQ

            It’s not nit-picking, it is very important- the use of the word COVID is a deliberate attempt to conflate the two because if people realised that infection with SARS-Civ-2 is for most people perfectly harmless, then the cases number has no impact.

          6. Cian

            Doesn’t change anything:

            The vaccinations are designed to prevent Covid-19.
            When they don’t prevent Covid-19 (no vaccines are 100% effective) they both reduce the severity and transmission to other.

  2. eoin

    Blah, blah, blah…well it’s the choice of the unvaccinated. The more they try to force healthy young people into taking their jab the more people want to resist. I’m at the stage now where I don’t care if the jab is 100% safe and effective and comes with a free car…..I don’t like being coerced by traditionally corrupt and incompetent authority.

    Reply
      1. Micko

        It’s ok.

        They can protect themselves and look after their own health.

        Ye know… like it’s been… FOREVER!!!

        When the hell did we all become responsible for each others health – Jeeeeesus!

        Reply
        1. Nigel

          I know you claim you’ve been regressing to some sort of snuffling Ratman who coughs and sneezes from the shadows to inspire fear in the vulnerable, but the theory of herd immunity via mass vaccination should be comprehensible to even the tiniest rat-brain.

          Reply
          1. Unreal

            That’s a good question in fairness Nigel- who’d win between the badger and the rat? My money would be on the badger there alright

        2. Rob_G

          @Micko –

          What is it that you want – do you want no-one to get vaccinated, so that you never go back to work? You sometimes come across as a very bitter person, railing against the world.

          Reply
          1. Micko

            Ooooh. Personal a tad there Rob. Let’s keep it professional – cool?

            What would I like. Hmmm…

            I would like everyone who needs a vaccine to get one. So, the vulnerable and the older folks – those at risk. So the 0.23% this virus kills.

            I would like the vaccine to be kept out of the arms of almost everyone else.

            Especially our children and anyone who is thinking of having kids in the future. Again, 6 months of testing does not fill me with confidence.

            And, I would like no-ones movement to be restricted by the fact they have a vaccine or not. International travel – fine, but not domestically.

            And, I would like everyone to be responsible for their own and their families health themselves. Not to expect ever else to protect them.

            That’s it. My crazy manifesto in a nutshell. ;)

            Am I really that radical?

          2. Micko

            10%?

            Sorry Cian, are you saying that nearly 27k people have been hospitalised in Ireland due to Covid 19?

            You’re usually so factual.

        3. paddy apathy

          “When the hell did we all become responsible for each other’s health” – I suppose it came with the introduction (in theory, if not entirely implemented in practice) of universal health care, something we should all agree with?

          Reply
          1. Micko

            Yikes.

            That’s some stretch paddy.

            Responsible for each other’s health you say… eh?

            Well the next fat git I see coming out out of McDonalds stuffing a quarter pounder in their pie-hole is gonna get rugby tackled to the ground by me* and that burger is going straight in the bin.

            Ye know… for their health.

            .
            .

            * I may or may not be dressed in a Ratman costume.

          2. Nigel

            That may be your approach to public health, and possibly everything, but I think people prefer policies such as banning lead in petrol or banning smoking in public indoor areas or making vaccines freely available in the midst of a pandemic.

        4. Oro

          Ummmm we’ve all been responsible for each other’s health since……..forever.

          Gay people know a thing or two about the realities of public health and viruses in relation to ones personal health and responsibilities. People are supposed to learn from experience. The experience of contagious viruses should inspire an acknowledgment of the responsibility of the individual towards the community they live in, to the people around them. I can’t understand the selfishness.

          Every single part of the health service is community based to some degree. I think as someone below says you just want to complain. I thought you were all about people getting back to work – yet here you are moaning about a vaccine that makes that possible.

          Reply
          1. Micko

            Ok,

            I say, give it to the old folks, the vulnerable and anyone older who wants it – leave the youth out of it.

            Honestly, from where I stand YOU’RE the selfish ones.

            Willing to potentially harm and throw the younger folks under the bus to save your own skins.

            Your all like “Everyone has to get it for me to be safe”

            Lame and unimpressive.

          2. Oro

            Nope – it’s ‘everyone has to get it for everyone to be safe’. I don’t feel personally at risk of death (although some people I know of my age are suffering with not fun long term consequences like loss of taste / lethargy) from this virus, but I got vaccinated so that I count towards herd immunity, so that people at risk are protected and the virus can be removed from society. It’s selfless for most people, this is the reality. I know that doesn’t allow your opinion to exist so you frame it differently but that’s the reality. Another reality of the situation is that people are being vaccinated in sufficient quantities in places where the vaccine is available, in my zip code we’re up to 72% of people with at least one shot. So even though it may seem like on here that vaccine skepticism is mainstream, it’s not borne out in real life :)

          3. SOQ

            You may not know this Oro but I am gay and my partner died of AIDS- that is where my cynicism of big pharma comes from. They were quite prepared to let people die then- and they are now.

          4. Oro

            Do you deny the value of the pharmaceutical advancements made in the area over the last few years? What’s your opinion on PREP? I would say the problems with treatment of AIDs in the past were more political than medical tbh, but there’s too much history to get into in relation to the discussion about this vaccine. The death of your partner is terrible – I’m not sure how it relates to this subject though if I’m honest.

      2. frank

        Feck the immunocompromised indeed.
        Chickenpox is not on the vaccination program here in Ireland and it poses a far greater risk to the immunocompromised than a corona virus.

        Reply
  3. SOQ

    For the life of me I don’t know why people are blindly rushing towards this thing without a SARS-Cov-2 antibody test. It is no guarantee you have had it but a positive antibody result is a certainty- in which case its a near given that you are immune- and you don’t need to have had symptoms either.

    And, there is also a theory emerging that post infection people may have a more extreme reaction to the vaccine, which would make sense. The jury is out on that one until there is hard data either way but if the rules of say Hepatitis B are applied, anyone with a strong post infection antibody response does not need a vaccine.

    Reply
    1. Micko

      There was a doctor calling for everyone to be given an antibody test before the jab.

      It’s only 80 quid and you can pop out to the Tropical Medical bureau and get it done.

      Makes sense to moi.

      Reply
      1. Lilly

        Save your money. Antibodies only last a few short months and if your t-cell response kicked in, you might never have had any.

        Reply
        1. SOQ

          Six months usually but yes, something to be done as soon as possible. I find it hard to believe that people working in shops or supermarkets for example would not have had some level of exposure at some stage along the way.

          Reply
        1. Cian

          Yes. Science is hard. There are no guarantees that any medicine is 100% effective.
          Proper scientists use words like “MAY” and “UNLIKELY” because of the uncertainty that surrounds us.

          Charlatans use words like “WILL” and “NEVER”cfor future events that have an element of uncertainty.

          Reply
        2. Cian

          Wow. Did you actually read that?
          a few vaccines induce a better immune response than natural infection:

          Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — The high purity of the specific protein in the vaccine leads to a better immune response than natural infection.
          Tetanus vaccine — The toxin made by tetanus is so potent that the amount that causes disease is actually lower than the amount that induces a long-lasting immune response. This is why people with tetanus disease are still recommended to get the vaccine.
          Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine — Children less than 2 years old do not typically make a good response to the complex sugar coating (polysaccharide) on the surface of Hib that causes disease; however, the vaccine links this polysaccharide to a helper protein that creates a better immune response than would occur naturally. Therefore, children less than 2 years old who get Hib are still recommended to get the vaccine.
          Pneumococcal vaccine — This vaccine works the same way as the Hib vaccine to create a better immune response than natural infection.

          So, in summary, vaccines afford us protection with lesser quantities of virus or bacteria and the control of scheduling the exposure.

          Reply
      1. SOQ

        That is just pharma shilling. It is only very recently that they admitted that people who were infected were immune at all- when it was pointed out that if an infection did not provide immunity then neither would a vaccine.

        People who were infected with SARS1 are still immune now and probably will be for life- why would any different for a derivative? Its like they have thrown the virology rule book out the window.

        Reply
        1. Cian

          People who were infected with SARS1 are still immune now and probably will be for life- why would any different for a derivative? Its like they have thrown the virology rule book out the window.
          So if you get the flu you’re immune for life? That virology rule book?

          Reply
          1. SOQ

            People who were infected with SARS1 are still immune now and probably will be for life- why would it be any different for a derivative?

          2. Cian

            @SOQ“People who were infected with SARS1 are still immune now and probably will be for life- why would it be any different for a derivative?”

            There is no such thing as ‘SARS1’- only SARS-CoV-1 virus and SARS disease.

            Interestingly – you can always tell what side of the debate someone is on from the use of correct names or, a made up label which means nothing.

          3. Nigel

            ‘why would it be any different for a derivative?’

            This seems like hubris, but of a grotesquely clownish sort.

          4. SOQ

            @ Oro- I said antibodies for SARS-Cov-2 lasts six months- immunity for SARS1 appears to be ingoing. Also, there appears to at least a certain level of cross immunity between the two.

          5. Oro

            But you also suggested it would make sense that they would be the same in terms of immunity, yet you earlier said there was a 6 month limit, there’s an element of contradiction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie