C_J
Not taken as provocative, happy to answer.
In the round, Iām referring to both of the options you mention but perhaps the overarching point is that if larges swathes of the population donāt get vaccinated, it needlessly perpetuates this situation for everyone. Iāll respond to both points though using your summary headings:
āUnvaccinated people spreading itā
On the unvaccinated being more likely to practice social distancing, Iād be interested in seeing any data you have that would support that position. You would certainly hope that if not being vaccinated increases your risk of getting Covid by a factor of x %, they would apply a similar level of āsafety measuresā as a counterweight to not having had the vaccine. This may or may not be the point that you are alluding to but the overall fact is that there is reliable worldwide data that shows how effective the vaccine is against Covid. Even if you disagreed with the data and put the effectiveness of it at 10% (random figure for the sake of argument and to illustrate the point) on top of the additional social distancing measures that you have adopted, it remains the case that it is morally irresponsible to not have the vaccine because that 10% is a margin that you can contribute to what should be a shared goal of defeating the virus. Taking reasonable precautions and observing social distancing where appropriate should be a basic standard and not a substitute for not having the vaccine.
My own intuition/bias is that the unvaccinated are more likely to not follow safe social distancing practices, simply because they are likely to be in the same category of people who think they can do what they want irrespective. This isnāt backed up by any data that I have seen other than my own anecdotal experiences of people who would maintain that people should , essentially, be entitled to do what they want. Even if it was shown to be wholly untrue, it still comes back to the point made in my previous post that the only truth we have known for sure throughout this pandemic is that what you do affects me and what I do affects you.
Although most of what I have read of what Funky said sounds quite misinformed, there is a kernel of truth and however you want to slice the data, there is still a proportion of people who are double-jabbed that are still getting the virus. You are right to highlight it.
I could explain that from the perspective of someone who has been incredibly cautious throughout the pandemic and say that Iāve really noticed an alarming number of people who have essentially given up on basic precautionary steps (like wearing masks, social distancing etc.) feeling perhaps, that having had the vaccine that they are invulnerable or the risk is extremely low. However you wan to look at it, I think it points to what we know already: that we are in a very complicated, multi-faceted situation where everybody (vaccinated and unvaccinated) has to play their part and accept we are in it for the long haul if we are to have any hope of triumphing against the virus. It is also unfortunately the case that the unvaccinated tend to be orders of magnitude behind everybody else in this regard if they can have the vaccine and simply opt not to because of whatever rubbish they have read on social media.
āUnvaxd people taking up critical care beds meaning someone else doesnāt get one because of the unvaxd using them out of stupidityā.
Yes, that too. Iāve got no idea what the data is on the question of how many resources have been used (vaccinated versus unvaccinated). It does present questions like the one that you mention about whether they were eligible in the first place. Although Iām not a medical professional, I do know that the NHS already have to make pretty difficult life or death decisions where it concerns the use of their resources. Obviously this was one of the key aims of lockdown: to prevent overwhelming the NHS and necessitating this type of rationale but I think they would have been looking at factors like age of patients, underlying health issues, and I suspect that they would take into account the vaccination status of the person they are treating as well. For example, if you have two patients of similar age, health and advancement of the virus but only one of the two has been vaccinated, they might decide to allocate the resources to the one with the greater chance of surviving, which in this case is likely to be the vaccinated person. That is pretty bleak but I suspect the NHS has been making those types of decisions, as unpalatable as they are for quite a long time and especially where we have seen spikes in the virus.
Sorry, much longer answer than I had intended.
Any ghost writers wishing to apply for future posts should send an up to date CV and salary expectations.
