491–500 of 911 posts
I'll take it but only later in the year when it is more widely available. People at high risk should go first, then people who are super social (or stupid + spreading the plague). Especially younger people, they need to get pricked. Do you really think they're going to avoid drinking close physical contact in spring? Me neither.
I WILL refuse it if they try and make it mandatory, no matter the consequences. Because of it being untested and me thinking this will be used as a test run to see what the government can force on us. If they make it voluntary, I will wait, because of me being suspicious of long term consequences.
Vaccines are far from untested.
The covid vaccine isn't, along with being basically the first of its kind of vaccine. (mRNA)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I looked this up for a comment some time ago, and for someone in the 20-30 years range, the chance to die was somewhere aroun 1:10,000. That's still far above what you would usually expect for serious side effects of a vaccine (and I'm comparing death with serious side effects right now, so the actual comparison would be even more favorable to the vaccine). I'm not in the risk group, and I would take the vaccine righ…
It's not just age range, it's individual health, down to the specific person, not a group. Also you have to multiply the risk by the chance that you will actually contract Covid-19, which is very dependent on lifestyle etc. I'm not trying to talk you personally out of getting the vaccine, I don't think it will turn you into a zombie or some foolishness. I'm just asking you to understand that it is a rational decision…
And the risk is actually almost entirely age-dependent, the other risk factors weren't that significant in studies.
I WILL refuse it if they try and make it mandatory, no matter the consequences. Because of it being untested and me thinking this will be used as a test run to see what the government can force on us. If they make it voluntary, I will wait, because of me being suspicious of long term consequences.
In either case, your answer is NO to the poll.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have not seen any information that it likely does not inhibit transmission. All I have seen is that we don't have data on this. AFAIK, every other vaccine on the planet inhibits transition. Do you have a source?
No vaccine can entirely prevent transmission of an airborne pathogen that replicates in the upper airways - there's not enough blood flow there, so some replication will always happen before the immune system reacts sufficiently, and during that time transmission is possible. However, all available data suggests that the vaccine-initiated immune response would dramatically reduce the transmission probability by both…
I'll take it but only later in the year when it is more widely available. People at high risk should go first, then people who are super social (or stupid + spreading the plague). Especially younger people, they need to get pricked. Do you really think they're going to avoid drinking close physical contact in spring? Me neither.
It still helps the at risk people to take it asap as you won't be a carrier, doesn't it?
(reads news) "The F.D.A. accelerates its timeline to authorize the Pfizer vaccine to Friday evening after a threat from Trump's chief of staff: The White House told the F.D.A chief he should start working on his next job if he didn't get the vaccine authorization done Friday, an official said." -- NYTimes ... I think I will select, "I WILL WAIT"
The FDA doesn't actually approve drugs, it has an independent group of scientists/professors that approve them.
Question—have there historically been any comparable vaccines whose problems have become apparent long after the shot (> 6 months) while having seemed fine before that?
Comparable, I don't know. But during the swine flue influenza, the Swedish government rolled out a large vaccination campaign, encouraging everyone to get vaccinated. Unfortunately, it turned out that children in a certain age could get chronic narcolepsy from the vaccine Pandemrix. About 230 children have been reported suspected to get this side effect from the vaccine.
One key point in my question that I'm stuck on, though, if you happen to know the answer: how long did the effects take to become apparent in those children? Were they immediate or did they show up long after vaccination? (I'm mainly wondering how long people should expect to wait before side effects become apparent.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. mRNA technology has been in varying phases of human trials since 2013. The trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna were absolutely massive compared to normal study sizes. While this will be the first mass-distribution vaccine using the technology, it's not untested. Further, the results so far suggest it's far more effective than the Oxford vaccine. 2. It's really curious to see people saying, on the one hand, that…
Hi, Your post is insightful, but it could really do without the inflammatory death-wishing in 2a.
Multiple social issues throughout 2020 have together completely exhausted my usual compassion and optimism towards people. 300,000 Americans and 1.6 million people worldwide are dead but many millions more still don't see this as a public health emergency. Moreover, beleaguered medical workers have been harassed everywhere online and fist fights and other assaults have been reported across the country that were started by wearing a mask. And then there's the cyclopsian intersection in the venn diagram of "people who are aggressively anti-mask" and "people who are unconcerned with or even violently opposed to the health and safety of anybody outside their tribe".
From an entirely pragmatic standpoint, the freedom to choose one's own destiny is arguably the most important human right. All of the information necessary to protect yourself and those around you from this disease is now widely available. Most people who wish to minimize their risk of exposure can do so, with the notable exception of the many medical workers who have been, not asked, but demanded, to put themselves at risk in the service of people who believe those same medical workers are part of some vast conspiracy.
So, I'm asking honestly here, to you or whoever else: convince me to care about the plight of terrible people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is exactly it. based on my demographic, i'm going to be one of the last in line. I'm not going to be trying to jump ahead in that line because i'm not an asshole and i know other people need it more than I do. but also I'm a little bit of an asshole, so i'm kind of reassured to know that hundreds of millions of people will have gotten it before me, and if there are any issues there will have been plenty of time…
The other half of it, for the early days at least, is the fear of lining up with hundreds of people who are more likely to be high risk people. Putting yourself in higher risk. My pharmacy does COVID testing but only if you show no symptoms. The gov health networks tell symptomatic people to be tested in hospital set up centers. But high risk people are still high risk people, whether they are showing symptoms or not…
My hunch is most of the queues for vaccines will be type A e.g. the elderly. Not necessarily more likely to have COVID, but more likely to be at risk of severe symptoms if they were to get it.