Poll: Will you take the Covid vaccine?

Post by mehrdadn » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 9:42 AM UTC

mongol wrote: post #810

mehrdadn wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh wow I see, thanks for the pointer! Looking it up now, it seems the increased risk was 1 in 18400, or 0.005%. [1] So I guess it was rare enough that it could easily not have shown up during trials either. 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 vacc…

I don't know but from what I recall at the time, it became news after most people were already vaccinated. It was long enough that it was too late to act on it in a real sense.

Post by mongol » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 9:57 AM UTC

pgalvin wrote: post #537

mongol wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This actually isn’t really true. Europe jumped the gun out of caution, but multiple later studies have found no link. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps...

Post by e900542 » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:53 AM UTC

Post by rimliu » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 11:06 AM UTC

chapium wrote: post #345

radicalbyte wrote: post #27

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.

While noble to give to the more acutely affected people first, I think distribution at random makes more sense since that decreases the ability of the virus to grow. I'll let the epidemiologists be my guide however.

Post by rimliu » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 11:19 AM UTC

blueline wrote: post #320

tux1968 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not enough to know with absolute certainty what will happen when millions of people get it. Especially unforeseen reactions that take several years to appear. As much as you trust each of the (5?) vaccines, you yourself can not know for certainty.. there is some doubt. You may judge that that uncertainty and risk is minimal and well worth taking the vaccine, another completely rational person may decide that it is no…

Well luckily we _do_ know what happens with a great deal of certainty when you get actually infected with covid, and it turns out it sucks pretty hard. i find this "better the devil you know" mindset really weird when the "devil you know" is an extremely infectious virus that has killed _three hundred thousand_ americans (not to mention more worldwide), and thousands more by the day. these hypothetical vaccine side e…