I AM writing with some concern about how messaging for these various vaccines is being given out in briefings and the press.
Vaccines are only one element of any disease prevention or harm reduction programme in public health. Increasingly it is being seen at best as a panacea to the pandemic and at worst as the saviour of us all. Neither of these are accurate.
A vaccine will only at best help people to be less ill and reduce mortality rates, but there will always need to be other things in place to prevent people becoming infected and infectious in the first place.
READ MORE: When will I get the vaccine and what vaccine centre is near me?
This was particularly clear in the highly successful vaccination programme in Scotland in the 1950s for smallpox, where other provisions were introduced as well as a comprehensive education programme, and more recently in the AIDS programme, where there was no vaccine but targeted reductions of risky behaviour had a significant effect in reducing mortality rates in at-risk groups.
In addition, the efficacy of the vaccines is not currently available so we don’t know for sure if we have to be vaccinated annually like with the flu jab or if it will be more often.
I am concerned that people will receive a vaccination and then think they are safe and resume risky behaviours like not distancing or wearing a mask.
READ MORE: All Scots to be offered their first Covid jab by September or sooner
I would like to say clearly I am not an anti-vaxxer; I have worked in other public health initiatives with high-risk-taking groups and am speaking from my own experiences around harm reduction and the use of vaccines within those programmes.
We need to be making sure that people get the complete message and not this rather dangerous message of “cure-all” or once you are vaccinated “you are safe”.
If we don’t make this clear, we may look at higher death rates and an erroneous view that the vaccines don’t work.
Carol Wood
via email
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel