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 to sort them out.
You're assuming distribution will work fairly and optimally. That's very unlikely, especially because the initial rollout will still be overseen by the Trump admin.
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.
I believe the theory is, if the virus kills 85-year-old care home residents at 300x the rate it kills healthy under-30s, one dose given to the former is worth 300 doses given to the latter.
Depends on your goal. It the goal is to prevent deaths and reduce hospital occupancy then it make sense to give it to those most likely to die or to be hospitalized. If it spreads asymptomaticly that's not a big deal.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but don't the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines not grant sterilizing immunity, aka you can still be a carrier if you're immunized?
There's no evidence that getting the vaccine doesn't mean you can't still be infected and spread it to others (you just don't get sick). So giving it to super social/stupid people up front may not help, because they can still spread it and probably think it's no big deal anymore because they're vaccinated.
So people that are young that have next to no risk from covid should take a highly experimental vaccine with no longitudinal analysis. Not so great risk analysis there.
> ”then people who are super social (or stupid + spreading the plague)”
Many such people will have antibodies already. As do I. I’ll get the vaccine if it becomes a requirement to travel or whatever, but I see no need for it in the short term if you’re low risk and already had Covid.
How long IgM and IgG antibodies remain detectable following infection is not known.
...
it remains uncertain to what degree and for how long individuals with antibodies (neutralizing or total) are protected against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 or what concentration of antibodies may be needed to provide such protection.
> What if somebody has asymptomatic covid infection? He or she spreads it without intent, you can not blame them.
Yes, given what is widely publicly known about the disease, I can very easily blame people who are involved engaging in high-spread-risk behavior despite being a-(or, more likely if they are actually spreading it, pre-)symptomatic and who are thereby spreading the virus they don’t know they have.
Of course you can blame them, given what has publicly been known about the virus for months.
This virus has been primarily spread by people who are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic, particularly indoors and maskless.
At this point, if you're indoors and maskless with anyone outside your family or "pod" you are completely culpable if you spread the disease. Probably not legally, but morally.
> I'll take it but only later in the year when it is more widely available.
Same. Just like first generation Apple hardware, even if looks as good as the M1, I'd rather have other people take the plunge before I do.
In about a year, I may. By then, we'll have 2 years worth of data from the test group - good enough!
If I perceive any serious risk, I won't. Being young and with no risk factors, I have little to gain - so the rational move for me is to leech off the group herd immunity effect.
So people, please, do the right thing and get vaccinated!! Protect your parents and your neighbors!!!
What if every young person with no risk factors (that might be those more likely to be out and about spreading the virus) thought like that?. It sounds kind of selfish to encourage others to be your guinea pigs “so they can protect their parents”
I completely agree. The economy will recover when the pandemic ends, and I am going to contribute to the end of the pandemic in any way I can. Then we can end the massive business closures and massive eviction crisis that we're currently seeing.
Getting the virus under control is how we help the economy. It's not a trade-off between the two, it's both or neither.
Yes, of course, and I'm doing that. But staying cooped up at home and not going out at all is pretty stressful in terms of mental health. I can't wait to be able to go to restaurants and travel and see my parents and all of that.
You can lock yourself in your home and literally never go near another human being, but is that really an alternative?
Because even going to the grocery store has risk.
So yes: never leave your home and never have company, or get a vaccine.
Think about it like one of the many vaccines you got as a kid and never, ever worried about because they never took up any mental space for you to be concerned about it.
* because there are people who, due to age or immuno-compromisation or allergic response, cannot safely take the vaccine, so those who can safely take it should help contribute to herd immunity
* because there are many people out of work whose livelihoods depend on the types of establishments closed or restricted by COVID (restaurants, theaters, etc)
* because safely interacting with other human beings in-person is generally good for mental health
Assuming this is a good faith question: while this is not guaranteed, it is highly likely a vaccine will prevent disease transmission (given how the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines help create an antibody response to coronavirus's spike protein), breaking chains in viral spread.
Edit: correction to better reflect the mRNA vaccine mechanism.
"What will you having this vaccine do for anybody but yourself ?"
COVID is contagious meaning it's as much about those around you as it is yourself.
Second, in order to beat COVID we have to have a certain immunity threshold i.e. 75% or whatever, meaning, your participation in that effort matters.
It is our 'civic duty' and I'm proud that the top commenter (at the moment I write this) has put it in those terms because that's a good way to put it.
Its a good question let me answer - some people can't get the vaccine. Right now, it's banned for people with allergies. Babies can't get it. For some people, they can never get it due to their immune system.
Their only chance is never coming into contact with a contagious person, so that means as many of us need to get the vaccine as possible to ensure that doesn't happen.
It's my civic duty not to, because people are trying to make it mandatory and we have to set a precedent that mandating it is unacceptable.
I honestly think I would have said otherwise a year ago. But after seeing the mishandling of COVID-19, I no longer have faith in my countries ability to use emergency powers scientifically.
You're the kind of guy who doesn't wear a seatbelt and speeds through red lights to protest the government telling you what to do? Or are you smart enough to understand why it's important that we have rules that mandate certain behaviors? (Not that getting vaccinated will actually be mandatory.)
You’re ignoring that you getting vaccinated is not about you, but about protecting others. As long as the R value is above 1, every person vaccinated is protecting others more than themselves. Even at 90% effectiveness herd immunity is critical to stopping the pandemic.
I fully support people’s right to opt out of social goods like the vaccine, but I’m afraid you should be refused access to many social services your presence would threaten: schools, transit, libraries, etc.
We accept that we have to get a license to legally drive a car on public streets, why not accept a vaccine to access public spaces during a pandemic?
Societies already compel a number of behaviors for unrestricted participation, I don’t see vaccines during a pandemic as being particularly onerous.
> no longer have faith in my country
I don’t know what country you live in, but many countries have the same assessment of many vaccines. Even if you distrust one country there are likely many more positive assessments you can turn to.
I don't think most Western will mandate it. But there is a strong logical case for doing so, or at least denying access to certain public spaces and services if you refuse.
I don't think our politicians generally have the balls to do something that controversial though.
> It's my civic duty not to, because people are trying to make it mandatory and we have to set a precedent that mandating it is unacceptable.
Feels a bit like not letting the taxpayer-funded fire department turn their hoses on your burning house because you're worried about "socialism".
COVID is your house burning down while your family and friends are still inside it. Maybe get on with solving that problem first and then worry about the (currently totally speculative) spectre of mandatory vaccines later.
I have become more and more skeptic regarding our governments. The people who failed to protect us and the economy, now are going to "sell" us the solution. Where is their part of the accountability of what's happening?
I have invested in big-tech and bio-pharma companies, so I should be happy, but I am not. I cannot be happy when so many people are closing their small businesses and so many others die because of how the whole situation was handled.
I do not have a problem with the masks or the fact that we eventually will all have to take a vaccine.
However, the problem starts before that and doesn't end with the first vaccine we are going to get:
- Phase 1: Governments fail to protect the people during February-March by not banning travel from the infected areas.
- Phase 2: People should wear masks, socially distance, close their shops, self-isolate, etc. At the same time medical stuff should overwork and over-risk their lives.
- Phase 3: People should take the vaccine. At a low price initially, but big pharma will increase it at some point, (when they are done with the mass beta testing).
- Phase 4: People should keep taking the vaccine (at least that's the main story for the moment). They might end up having to prove that with a "vaccine passport".
I don't have problem with Phase 2. I follow the guidelines, since February, before they were guidelines of any Western government. Apparently, Eastern countries have faced similar outbreaks and there was plenty of information on what people there do.
I don't have a problem with Phase 3, either. I want to do as much to protect myself and others.
However, the current narrative is that people who do follow Phase 3 and then 4 (assuming they can take the vaccine but chose not to) are the "bad" people who do not care about the others. And they should be marginalized and even ostracized from the society.
>>> Where is the accountability for the governments?
They, before everyone else, put peoples' health at risk.
But I forgot. They "saved" the economy (only of some big tech companies and, eventually, the big pharma).
Pregnant women or women who are planning on becoming pregnant should not have it according to UK government guidelines. That’s a pretty good reason to click NO.
Note that there are differing professional opinions on this. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommends no special exclusion of pregnant women from vaccine trials or vaccine campaigns: [1] [2]
“Despite the categorization of pregnancy as a high-risk condition for severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and mortality, pregnancy remains an exclusion for participation in vaccine trials. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) and other leading organizations, including the National Academy of Medicine, have consistently advocated for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in vaccination trials, particularly when the following criteria are met: (1) pregnancy poses increased susceptibility to or severity of a disease; (2) the best approach to protect the infant is through passive placental antibody transfer, which provides the most efficient and direct protection to the newborn before an infant can be vaccinated, and (3) there is an active outbreak.”
“In general, SMFM strongly recommends that pregnant women have access to COVID-19 vaccines in all phases of future vaccine campaigns, and that she and her healthcare professional engage in shared decision-making regarding her receipt of the vaccine. Counseling should balance available data on vaccine safety, risks to pregnant women from SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a woman’s individual risk for infection and severe disease. As data emerge, counseling will likely shift, as some vaccines may be more suitable for pregnant women. mRNA vaccines, which are likely to be the first vaccines available, do not contain a live virus but rather induce humoral and cellular immune response through the use of viral mRNA. Healthcare professionals should also counsel their patients that the theoretical risk of fetal harm from mRNA vaccines is very low.”
Dead people and newborns also should not take the vaccine. What’s your point?
The poll’s intent is to understand why one would not want to take it, not whether they should. The government already makes that choice for you. See “People with allergies should avoid the vaccine.”
Right now its 310 YES to 39 NO. From what I've been reading in the (fake?) news, surveys and polls in the USA, I'm actually surprised to see so many yeses.
Also, ballpark 20% of Americans already had the disease, and the benefit for them (while still there) is lower. Also pregnancy. So multiple reasons why 10% is probably not crazy. For what it was worth, I was also a bit confused by the order, as I think they randomize it or something and almost tapped the wrong one.
Well - The hacker news community is not even remotely representative of the U.S. population (nor typical pops in other countries I suspect). If you thought it was, then you'd think 90% of everyone in America voted for Biden. But it was much closer to 50-50. So these forums are only useful for understanding the positions of people on these sorts of forums.
Yes there are other countries in the world on this forum, you'll find Trump is not favoured in many countries like Germany where opinion polling was around 9/10 disproving of Trump. Many grains of salt to get that to 50/50
That's an interesting take. There are a lot of negative affects caused by covid too. Disposable masks, boxes for shipping, social distancing means you need to build more so people are spaced out, public transit is inefficient since everyone is, etc.
I was always pro-vaccination, but this is the first time I see a vaccine developed so quickly, and like many others, it makes me uneasy.
If I'm not mistaken, some countries like France still remember such vaccines that went wrong. Russians have zero trust in their government and its Sputnik vaccine.
I will get the vaccine eventually, but I don't mind not being in front of the queue.
Edit: before you downvote, these are reasons I’ve read/heard. They do not represent my own views.
1. This is an mRNA vaccine and is the first of it's kind to be widely offered. This appears to be different than the rest of the vaccines out there for other illnesses.
2. There isn't a perceived benefit for many people: the vast majority of people won't get sick or be impacted in any way.
3. It apparently doesn't stop people from getting or becoming transmissions vectors. So, if you get the vaccine and it makes you less sick, then you may take "riskier" actions than if you were to get it and actually have some symptoms. (IOW, why take it?)
4. Some people can't take it due to allergy concerns?
This is just what I've found in my online research.
> 3. It apparently doesn't stop people from getting or becoming transmissions vectors. So, if you get the vaccine and it makes you less sick, then you may take "riskier" actions than if you were to get it and actually have some symptoms. (IOW, why take it?)
From what I've seen this is not established at all. They are careful to say that they don't have conclusive proof that the people who were in their study were not ever contagious - but that doesn't mean that they were contagious either.
They have simply called out that further studies will be needed before we can say whether and to what degree.
Regarding point 3 - isn’t it just that they haven’t studied that yet? The trials for the mRNA vaccines did not test for asymptomatic carriers, so they don’t know if it prevents transmission.
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 they're uncertain about a vaccine because of some unexpected long-term impacts, and then saying on the other hand that they're unconcerned about unexpected long-term impacts from a brand new and as-yet-poorly-understood disease. There are still a lot of question marks about covid-19 and researchers are still discovering far more "quiet" impacts in apparently healthy individuals, including blood clots and pericarditis.
2a. Overall though I'm in favor of anybody avoiding this vaccine that wishes to. The disease would continue to disproportionately affect the populations of people who believe it's a hoax, or believe it's not a serious health risk, or believe it's a conspiracy, or believe the vaccine is a conspiracy, or believe that vaccines in general are conspiracies -- and we could do with fewer of those people.
3. As two other people have already pointed out, the researchers have only been cautious about not stating something that they don't know to be factual. It's funny: when researchers are cautious, people read too much into it and draw bad conclusions, and that leads to the kinds of research press releases that other people then criticize for making statements unsupported by evidence. Researchers have repeatedly stated in various media that there's no reason for them to expect people to be infectious after taking the vaccine, they merely haven't tested for this specifically.
4. The people they're talking about here are the sort that need to carry an epi-pen with them wherever they go. If you are one of those people, then yes, at this time there's an uncertain amount of risk associated with these vaccines. The situation is still developing and there should be better information available as the vaccines are distributed.
People keep forgetting that the vast majority of people under 45 that get in never have any idea that even had it and over 97% of deaths are people over 45.
Do these vaccines prevent a person from spreading the virus? I've heard a number of times that these will prevent the person who got the vaccine from getting sick, but that it won't prevent them from spreading the disease. If that is the case then I could understand why a young healthy person would not want the vaccine as the risk to them from covid is extremely low.
Nothing is 100% yes or no, but it's safe to say that the vaccine helps reduce the spread of the virus.
Vaccinated people can spread the virus on a (there's a better term for this) surface level, which is why it's still important for them to wear masks and wash hands.
Hypothetical example of how it can spread: an infected person sneezes on a vaccinated person right in the face. That vaccinated person then rubs his face all over an non-vaccinated person. Really high chance the non-vaccinated person is infected.
I also want to emphasize that a vaccinated person that came in contact with the corona virus is far less contagious than an asymptomatic person.
Early thinking is that the virus still lives in the throat and can still be passed if you have had the vaccine. You won't get sick but the whole problem with this virus is people spreading it because they have not yet developed symptoms. Short answer, it doesn't look like it no.
- The rushed nature of the vaccines. “Fastest approved vaccine” is not re-assuring if you don’t understand what trade was made for that accelerated timeline.
- “I’ll just stay isolated until it dies off”
- “I don’t trust western medicine”
- “I don’t trust the FDA or big pharma”
- “I don’t care if I get covid . People at risk can take the vaccine”
Don’t forget how many people don’t even take the flu shot.
> Don’t forget how many people don’t even take the flu shot.
That's a funny comparison from a UK perspective where the flu shot isn't even offered to the general population (only the elderly, vulnerable or those whose work in healthcare or similar). I'd say there is much more reason to take the COVID vaccine than the flu shot.
From what I'm able to gather, a COVID infection produces robust immunity in most people, which is expected to last several years.
Having recovered completely from such an infection, I should be fine without it, and vaccines generally don't feel great and are not, in fact, without risk.
I think vaccines are a wonderful technology, to be clear. I'll get one for COVID only if it's standing between me and, say, getting on an airplane or entering a foreign country, which, let's be real: it probably will. States see like a state, after all; you can't just be immune to infection, you have to be legibly immune.
My parents just recovered from COVID and were told by their doctor that the current thinking is getting COVID gives you immunity for at least 90 days. Could be more, but they are not telling people to rely on it beyond 90.
Where did you get the information that it was several years?
Like many others (from reading the sister comments) I voted "NO" because I already had Covid-19, not because I don't trust the vaccination or vaccinations in general.
I've had Covid-19. As far as I know we still don't know if having it leads to immunity but wouldn't having it and recovering be "better" than a vaccine?
If so, why get a vaccine for something you are immune to?
I’m in the same boat. I had it and it was super mild so I already...
- have very likely immunity or at least a much better response the next time
- despite having been exposed to it the first time having had super mild symptoms so I don’t need protection from a non threat
- coronaviruses mutate a lot slower and people who had sars-cov-1 still had a t-cell immunity even 10 years after their infection and there is little reason to believe that sars-cov-2 couldn’t be similar
Given that I won’t be offered the vaccine for a long time I luckily don’t have to decide and know that I won’t have it at least until enough production testing was done.
Having it and recovering from it still occasionally leaves your body altered/damaged in a way we're not sure how to predict/treat. As far as we can tell, the vaccine does not cause the same amount of damage that actually suffering from the disease can cause.
Getting it early and getting immunity works great for fairly mild things like chicken pox, which is less likely to leave permanent/long term damage. But not for something where so many people report that they've still never fully recovered from even months later.
I see immunologists stating that the immunity from the vaccine is likely to be better than from infection (even saying directly that people that have been infected should still get vaccinated).
I elected "NO" because I have already have had COVID-19 and verified antibodies, and an mRNA vaccine is unlikely to provide any additional level of protection. I believe this should have been a separate option.
I abstained from voting for the same reason. It seems likely that people with a high enough level of antibodies will at least be at the very back of the line for vaccination.
There are barely 80 votes at the moment of writing this comment, of which barely 10 are a "NO", so it's a bit early for "high percentage". (Edit: Now it's 73/(798 + 279 + 73), less than 7%, so the point stands.) But I'm a "NO", FWIW. And while I'm not surprised by the "high percentage" of "YES" votes because of HN demographics, I do not approve. I mean, I don't really care what other people do with their lives, but this shouldn't be expected to be the default choice.
For the record, vaccines are not a controversial topic in my country like they seem to be in the USA. Kids are vaccinated at school, I received numerous vaccines during my life, some of them totally optional and quite expensive, which I paid for anyway, because it felt like a safer way to be. And of course I do not think vaccines are an evil plan of Bill Gates to... I'm not even sure what the crazy conspiracy theory about that is supposed to be, but I'm pretty sure there is some.
But I am a crazy conspiracy theorist in a sense that I firmly believe that COVID-19 is hugely overhyped. Of course, I'm scared and ashamed of saying that, because nowadays this seems to be a stronger version of saying "Hitler did nothing wrong", but you are asking about "why no", so here we are.
Basically, it's a trade off between reasons to do it and reasons not to (as always).
Is there a reason to avoid doing it? Well, yes. Basically, expectation that everyone should do it is that reason: the topic is insanely hot, and it's never a good thing. This is a huge business opportunity for every pharmaceutical company that gets to push their vaccine right now, and this is some hastily cooked shit you expect me to take. Some of these vaccines are quite a novelty, which is not a bad thing on its own, but this is unlike most vaccines I have ever taken, which are basically decades old and literally millions of people have taken them before me. Maybe it's totally safe, maybe it isn't. No couple-months-long trial will ever answer that.
Is there a reason to take it? Well, sure. Like there is a reason to take a flu vaccine. Which I don't do, because there are new mutations every year, and there are countless more versions of "common cold". Yes, people die of that, and it's never a pleasant experience, and I live in a cold climate, where this is a very common seasonal thing, but it's just how things are. It's ok. And I'm not going to elaborate on all "Hitler did nothing wrong" thing, because what I've said so far is more than enough to trigger someone, but, well, I know people that had been sick with COVID-19. I contacted them in person when they were already sick, and it just so happens that neither of us was wearing any mask. I wasn't really a responsible citizen all the time. It doesn't seem that the stakes are much higher than with a flu. For some of people it seemed to be more like a really light version of a common cold.
So there's a little of "no" vs a little of "yes" and it just so happens that "no" overweights quite confidently.
Maybe it is fair to say that I should've voted "I'll wail", because this "no" isn't final. But then no "yes" is final either, anything can happen, the last year should've taught us that if anything. And I don't have any specific date I have to wait for. The point is, currently I'm not going to do that, and I hope it stays this way.
> I firmly believe that COVID-19 is hugely overhyped
I've read your concerns and take the gravest possible offense to this. It's not just about the new coronavirus, but what comes next. Tools like crispr are now within the means of the nuclear boyscout, who can unleash an airborne pathogen upon humanity that performs genetic engineering at scale. All that's required is the will to do so. Stuff like that frightens me far more. If the reaction to this new coronavirus is what's needed to help humanity prepare, then we're likely to be far safer and healthier down the road.
Thanks for your post and FWIW I don't think your views are crazy, selfish, unsympathetic or offensive at all.
If only the global attention and resources that have gone into the covid crisis could be channelled into the many equally, or more serious issues affecting humanity and the planet today (e.g poverty, oppression, war, over population, pollution, tuberculosis etc.). But they are not the new hot shiny problem, just our boring, faulty and irreplaceable legacy system.
It's not about what happens to you or to your healthy friends. The major difference here is the long incubation period. You catch the virus, you become contagious, you pass it on, and a few days later you develop your mild cold symptoms. You go through it and you are fine. But by allowing yourself to get infected in the first place, you have spread the virus to an unknown number of people. Down the road, perhaps months later, if not enough people have vaccinated to end the pandemic, you may have indirectly caused deaths among the more vulnerable.
I feel reasonably confident my overall health is good enough that if I got COVID it would be OK.
The vaccine, while probably fine, seems like more of a wildcard to me. It seems like a low-probability lottery ticket to bad news, whereas COVID seems like a lower-probability lottery ticket to bad news.
(Of course, the government may force the issue. I hope not, though. My body, my choice and all that.)
You should be adding up the probability of complications to all your loved ones that you unknowingly spread it to should you get infected, too.
(The same reason I usually get a flu shot: it's not that I can't withstand the flu, it's that there are those around me who might not withstand it. I don't want to be responsible for having passed that on to someone.)
I'm young, I was in good overall health, I took precautions, I developed covid symptoms 2 weeks ago and I'm fighting it off in a hospital right now. I came in with partially collapsed lungs and pneumonia. I'm expected to be here until next week. This virus is something from hell. It is a miserable and scary experience that I wouldn't wish on anyone.
I would take a vaccine (only Pfizer or Moderna) and the associated risks over the experience I'm having now 10/10.
Reckless disregard for normal bioethics is likely what created and released novel COVID19 in the first place, and the "fast-tracked" vaccine is the same thing again. Just get a tan instead.
I voted NO and here's my reasons: I believe there's enough science to support my expectation that if/when I get covid it will be mild to no symptoms case - my body can take care of it without a vaccine. And for the vaccine - so far I don't like the odds - reportedly 0.6% of population have allergic reaction to it. I'm not a big fan of auto-immune issues so I'll take my chances elsewhere.
Young and healthy, don't really care to get covid as risk is very low. But the vaccine is new we never know what we could discover about its effect in 10 years
There's nothing particularly special about this vaccine (EDIT: okay, the mRNA is a little special), and we data information about long-term negative effects of past vaccines ([0] has positive events, plus several false positives[0]). Overall, sure looks like the risk is substantially lower than the risk of COVID-19 is, including for a young, healthy person.
From a community perspective, no, because AFAIK no vaccine confers sterilising immunity, so my being vaccinated isn't likely to help reduce transmission. I will be very happy to see human studies that prove otherwise. It's be shown that AZD1222-vaccinated macaques still spread virus, with upper respiratory viral loads the same as controls.
From a personal perspective, no, because my age-based health risk, and my local community transmission rates approach zero, so vaccination has negligible upside at this point in time and space for me.
I might see data that could change either perspective and my willingness to be vaccinated. Also if I need to travel internationally I may be willing or forced to do so.
I’m no anti-vaxxer, but the current situation feels like a scam to me. “Hurry, take this vaccine, save lives!” I’m being asked to suspend critical thinking and accept a chemical into my body under duress and time constraints. “Take it now, this is your time! It’s finally available to you. Don’t you want to resume your normal life?” I’d rather wait and see, even if waiting carries a small, known amount of infection risk. That’s much better than the unknown risk of taking a brand new vaccine in hurry. “While supplies last!”
I ignore all of the COVID vaccine messaging histrionics. The level of ignorance and political maneuvering out there is astounding.
When I'm afforded the option to get the vaccine, I'll make an assessment of risks based upon data we have at that time vs the risks of contracting COVID.
If I had to make that decision today, I'd take the vaccine. But by the time I'll likely be able to get it in February or so, we'll have millions more data points that I'll be able to consider.
It has been through human testing for 10 months or something like that? We've also had stay at home and social distancing guidelines for about the same amount of time and I think we've had the opportunity to see what effect that's had.
I think in this case what you're highlighting is number of people vaccinated, so you'd like to see more people vaccinated first, rather than increasing the duration of analysis of the existing people that have been vaccinated.
Now that the vaccine is rolling out, all I hear is that only select groups are getting it now, and that the majority of people must wait. By the time most people even get the option to take it, thousands of others will have tried it. There is no rush.
Dito on this.
Also what happens after the vaccine? Is there even something like "after" the vaccine, we are supposed to get this vaccine every 4-6 months until what?
This sums it up pretty well. I'm not opposed to vaccines, and probably have had a lot more than the average HNer, but I feel like I'm being "sold" this a bit too hard... question everything, as they say.
I will take it after a year or two. The US did a great job at politicizing the virus such that I don't really trust that pharma companies actually did their due diligence with regard to testing and safety measures. I accept that doctors and scientists will take it under the guise of them "knowing it's safe", and I accept that lots of people will say "If they're doing it, you should too", but I think this strategy just generally ignores common sense. Doctors use and prescribe drugs all the time with unintended adverse side effects, the difference here is that those side effects are known and well studied. A vaccine that showed up to save the world (and also start a culture war in some countries)? I do not accept that the powers at be have verified this drug's safety.
I think that this vaccine is a choice, and once it's readily available it is still a choice. If you choose not to get it, you are accepting the possibility that you might get COVID and die. Once the vaccine becomes available to my age group and health demographic, the people that actually need it will have been given the option to make their choice as well.
I suggest that Western culture's understanding of risk is immature. Is it the case that driving at the speed limit is safe and driving 5% faster is dangerous? Of course not. Driving at any speed carries risk; driving faster, on a given road, in given conditions, is usually more dangerous; and society needs to decide the degree of risk it will accept. (This applies especially in cases such as driving, where the benefit of speeding accrues to the driver, but much of the risk is imposed on others without their consent.)
A better approach to the safety of the vaccine is to ask whether it's safer to take it or to abstain, and who bears the risk in each case. I accept that the numbers won't be the same for everyone: they depend on age, sex, gregariousness, medical condition, culture, job, and perhaps (I don't know) ethnicity. However, people I know who've had Covid-19 say it's brutal: even if it doesn't kill you, it can give you a really rough time. I know of four friends of friends who've died of it, including one in his twenties. And let's not forget long Covid, which can strike at any age. Set against that the clinical trials that the vaccine has undergone, with trials halted if even one person became seriously ill. Finally, there seems to be at least a reasonable possibility that being vaccinated will reduce a person's ability to infect others.
All in all, any of the leading vaccines available in the West look like a better bet, for me and the people around me, than just crossing my fingers and hoping.
Should I take it now or wait? There seems little doubt that vaccines will be refined over the coming years. A vaccine taken in 2023 will probably be safer, and certainly better understood, than one taken in 2021. But someone who waits two years has endured two extra years' risk of suffering, spreading and possibly dying from Covid. You would have to think that vaccines are much more dangerous than I do for that to be a reasonable trade-off.
Hey, we don't really know how safe it is to the extent we understand other drugs. But we've bounded the risk to be much, much less than COVID in almost all populations. (This may not end up being true of adolescents, but there's substantial reasons for adolescents to get vaccinated even if we cannot yet prove that the risk is lower than COVID.
> I think that this vaccine is a choice, and once it's readily available it is still a choice. If you choose not to get it, you are accepting the possibility that you might get COVID and die.
Generally, a whole lot of the reasons why we take vaccines is to provide collective protection. E.g. it's not critical that I be vaccinated for pertussis because of my own risk of whooping cough.
These things aren't cut and dry, but probably what you mean is that without the vaccine you're increasing the possibility of passing the disease on to at risk groups.
Well, dunno if I should explain my reasoning but here goes...
For the same reason I never got a rabies vaccine until having to work in close proximity with rabid animals. Up until that point, my chances of dying from rabies were pretty slim to none.
Likewise, my chances of severe complications, death, or even experiencing any symptoms at all are slim to none. The at risk people around me will be likely vaccinated, so i'm not putting them at risk.
Now, the rabies vaccine came with some known risk, a bit higher than others, hence why it's only given to people who request it or need it.
This covid vaccine is brand new, rushed, the manufacturers are legally exempt from liability for damages the vaccines cause most places in the world and it's a mostly new technology not really tested or used before.
There are potential side effects, these side effects are potentially long term and severely debilitating and despite being a low risk, it's still a higher risk for me than experiencing anything terrible from covid.
So, why put myself at some unknown risk from some unknown thing over something that, is more than likely not, going to cause me severe problems?
> There are potential side effects, these side effects are potentially long term and severely debilitating and despite being a low risk, it's still a higher risk for me than experiencing anything terrible from covid.
Your risk perception is way off. Like orders of magnitude off. You're also assuming the risks of catching COVID are known and minor, but the risks of a vaccine are unknown and possibly off.
In reality it's the inverse. We have well over a hundred years of research into how vaccines interact with our bodies, as well as similar knowledge of things like manufacturing safety, injection best-practices, etc. While the exact mechanism of the mRNA vaccines is new to vaccines, it's been studied very closely in tens of thousands of people over several years (there have been several mRNA vaccines in the pipeline, but due to less immediate advantages their approval is slower going). It's mechanism is new for vaccines, but well understood.
COVID on the other hand is a virus where some of the immediate, worst effects are known and feel safer. But that's completely not true. The immediate effects we know are very dangerous (As a 39yr old male, I stand a 1/2000 chance of dying if I get the disease) and you're not factoring the risk of unknown long-term effects, which are unknown. It's entirely possible that damage done from the virus could have long-term hidden consequences that we won't know for many years.
So then you're left with your risk of catching the virus. Of course, this varies greatly based on behavior and region. You may feel safe, and you may indeed be relatively so, but of the hundreds of thousands of people who found out they tested positive today I'm willing to bet a good chunk of them felt just as safe as you.
There are potential side effects, these side effects are potentially long term and severely debilitating and despite being a low risk, it's still a higher risk for me than experiencing anything terrible from covid.
It's not known with any kind of certainty which carries more risk of long term side effects. Or aggregate harm if you want to look at it that way.
The vaccines do seem to reduce risk of severe Covid, across age groups (One didn't have any severe disease in the vaccine group).
So what is the reason given for it being unethical? Of course I realize there is a tradeoff involved in delaying the rollout of a vaccine but I don't see how that is related to the way vaccines are made, specifically.
This is some real forest for the trees bullshit here.
It likely would have been good to do challenge trials with the vaccine groups (to speed up the testing). It would of course not be nice to do it with the placebo group.
But you are plucking a single evidentiary standard out of some dark place and then asserting that it is the only useful one. Of course it is not, and Phase 3 vaccine trials are well designed to provide clear evidence of effectiveness. Go look up the Pfizer result going around on the memes if you don't believe that.
I will get it, but once higher risk individuals have gotten their needs. I'm healthy, not immunocompromised, and WFH by myself. There won't be enough to go around at first, and others like front-line-workers, elder, and at-risk-patients need it before I do.
I can continue to keep the travel to zero, and only leave home for the bare needs until then. I consider it my civic duty.
I'll not going to rush out and get one. I have no interest in being a beta tester for something like this. The stories of how bad the test kits were is enough to keep me away from v1. Fortunately I'm not in a high risk group and I'm not forced into a situation where I have little choice.
We could have knocked this way down by wearing masks. As a long distance truck driver I see few people wearing masks, mostly counter workers who want to keep their jobs. A few truckers who want to get into the store, a few more "civilians." I see a lot of freedom fighters daring anyone to say something to them.
California is about the best I've seen.
I always wear a mask except when I'm in the truck, regardless of signs, and regardless of whatever a state's rules are at the moment.
Since we're not going to wear masks, the vaccine is our only hope.
I want to prevent my infection, for myself obviously, but equally so that I don't spread to anyone.
If a problem is discovered ... I'm old, and I've lived long enough. I'd be happy to contribute that bit of data.
Readit News
He's alone. All those other people were always hanging out together, chasing stuff, hiding from the sun.
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.
When it's available to you, go get it.
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 to sort them out.
edit As was correctly pointed out, I should mention I'm speaking purely about the US and not any other country.
I’ve gone whole months without drinking close physical contact!
Dead Comment
Many such people will have antibodies already. As do I. I’ll get the vaccine if it becomes a requirement to travel or whatever, but I see no need for it in the short term if you’re low risk and already had Covid.
We don’t have enough information yet to say how protected someone might be from being infected again if they have antibodies to the virus.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/anti...
How long IgM and IgG antibodies remain detectable following infection is not known.
...
it remains uncertain to what degree and for how long individuals with antibodies (neutralizing or total) are protected against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 or what concentration of antibodies may be needed to provide such protection.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/anti...
What if somebody has asymptomatic covid infection? He or she spreads it without intent, you can not blame them.
Yes, given what is widely publicly known about the disease, I can very easily blame people who are involved engaging in high-spread-risk behavior despite being a-(or, more likely if they are actually spreading it, pre-)symptomatic and who are thereby spreading the virus they don’t know they have.
Mingling with other people at a similar comfort level of contract Covid - that’s just adults being adults. That’s freedom.
But if those people then go to unavoidable places like grocery stores, they’re putting people at risk who don’t have much of a choice.
This virus has been primarily spread by people who are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic, particularly indoors and maskless.
At this point, if you're indoors and maskless with anyone outside your family or "pod" you are completely culpable if you spread the disease. Probably not legally, but morally.
If you are spreading COVID in the US, whether or not you're symptomatic, it's a conscious choice.
Same. Just like first generation Apple hardware, even if looks as good as the M1, I'd rather have other people take the plunge before I do.
In about a year, I may. By then, we'll have 2 years worth of data from the test group - good enough!
If I perceive any serious risk, I won't. Being young and with no risk factors, I have little to gain - so the rational move for me is to leech off the group herd immunity effect.
So people, please, do the right thing and get vaccinated!! Protect your parents and your neighbors!!!
That said, I'll likely be towards the end of the line given my health and occupation.
Getting the virus under control is how we help the economy. It's not a trade-off between the two, it's both or neither.
Because even going to the grocery store has risk.
So yes: never leave your home and never have company, or get a vaccine.
Think about it like one of the many vaccines you got as a kid and never, ever worried about because they never took up any mental space for you to be concerned about it.
* because there are many people out of work whose livelihoods depend on the types of establishments closed or restricted by COVID (restaurants, theaters, etc)
* because safely interacting with other human beings in-person is generally good for mental health
Edit: correction to better reflect the mRNA vaccine mechanism.
"What will you having this vaccine do for anybody but yourself ?"
COVID is contagious meaning it's as much about those around you as it is yourself.
Second, in order to beat COVID we have to have a certain immunity threshold i.e. 75% or whatever, meaning, your participation in that effort matters.
It is our 'civic duty' and I'm proud that the top commenter (at the moment I write this) has put it in those terms because that's a good way to put it.
Their only chance is never coming into contact with a contagious person, so that means as many of us need to get the vaccine as possible to ensure that doesn't happen.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
I honestly think I would have said otherwise a year ago. But after seeing the mishandling of COVID-19, I no longer have faith in my countries ability to use emergency powers scientifically.
I fully support people’s right to opt out of social goods like the vaccine, but I’m afraid you should be refused access to many social services your presence would threaten: schools, transit, libraries, etc.
We accept that we have to get a license to legally drive a car on public streets, why not accept a vaccine to access public spaces during a pandemic?
Societies already compel a number of behaviors for unrestricted participation, I don’t see vaccines during a pandemic as being particularly onerous.
> no longer have faith in my country
I don’t know what country you live in, but many countries have the same assessment of many vaccines. Even if you distrust one country there are likely many more positive assessments you can turn to.
Thankfully, if we have enough rational adults who do their civic duty, then we'll be ok to let the tin-foil hats not take it.
I don't think our politicians generally have the balls to do something that controversial though.
Feels a bit like not letting the taxpayer-funded fire department turn their hoses on your burning house because you're worried about "socialism".
COVID is your house burning down while your family and friends are still inside it. Maybe get on with solving that problem first and then worry about the (currently totally speculative) spectre of mandatory vaccines later.
I have invested in big-tech and bio-pharma companies, so I should be happy, but I am not. I cannot be happy when so many people are closing their small businesses and so many others die because of how the whole situation was handled.
I do not have a problem with the masks or the fact that we eventually will all have to take a vaccine.
However, the problem starts before that and doesn't end with the first vaccine we are going to get:
- Phase 1: Governments fail to protect the people during February-March by not banning travel from the infected areas.
- Phase 2: People should wear masks, socially distance, close their shops, self-isolate, etc. At the same time medical stuff should overwork and over-risk their lives.
- Phase 3: People should take the vaccine. At a low price initially, but big pharma will increase it at some point, (when they are done with the mass beta testing).
- Phase 4: People should keep taking the vaccine (at least that's the main story for the moment). They might end up having to prove that with a "vaccine passport".
I don't have problem with Phase 2. I follow the guidelines, since February, before they were guidelines of any Western government. Apparently, Eastern countries have faced similar outbreaks and there was plenty of information on what people there do.
I don't have a problem with Phase 3, either. I want to do as much to protect myself and others.
However, the current narrative is that people who do follow Phase 3 and then 4 (assuming they can take the vaccine but chose not to) are the "bad" people who do not care about the others. And they should be marginalized and even ostracized from the society.
>>> Where is the accountability for the governments?
They, before everyone else, put peoples' health at risk.
But I forgot. They "saved" the economy (only of some big tech companies and, eventually, the big pharma).
“Despite the categorization of pregnancy as a high-risk condition for severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and mortality, pregnancy remains an exclusion for participation in vaccine trials. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) and other leading organizations, including the National Academy of Medicine, have consistently advocated for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in vaccination trials, particularly when the following criteria are met: (1) pregnancy poses increased susceptibility to or severity of a disease; (2) the best approach to protect the infant is through passive placental antibody transfer, which provides the most efficient and direct protection to the newborn before an infant can be vaccinated, and (3) there is an active outbreak.”
“In general, SMFM strongly recommends that pregnant women have access to COVID-19 vaccines in all phases of future vaccine campaigns, and that she and her healthcare professional engage in shared decision-making regarding her receipt of the vaccine. Counseling should balance available data on vaccine safety, risks to pregnant women from SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a woman’s individual risk for infection and severe disease. As data emerge, counseling will likely shift, as some vaccines may be more suitable for pregnant women. mRNA vaccines, which are likely to be the first vaccines available, do not contain a live virus but rather induce humoral and cellular immune response through the use of viral mRNA. Healthcare professionals should also counsel their patients that the theoretical risk of fetal harm from mRNA vaccines is very low.”
[1]: https://www.smfm.org/covidclinical
[2]: https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.smfm.org/media/2591/SMFM_Vaccin...
The poll’s intent is to understand why one would not want to take it, not whether they should. The government already makes that choice for you. See “People with allergies should avoid the vaccine.”
Will you quit drinking alcohol?
Also, ballpark 20% of Americans already had the disease, and the benefit for them (while still there) is lower. Also pregnancy. So multiple reasons why 10% is probably not crazy. For what it was worth, I was also a bit confused by the order, as I think they randomize it or something and almost tapped the wrong one.
any other reasons?
If I'm not mistaken, some countries like France still remember such vaccines that went wrong. Russians have zero trust in their government and its Sputnik vaccine.
I will get the vaccine eventually, but I don't mind not being in front of the queue.
1. This is an mRNA vaccine and is the first of it's kind to be widely offered. This appears to be different than the rest of the vaccines out there for other illnesses.
2. There isn't a perceived benefit for many people: the vast majority of people won't get sick or be impacted in any way.
3. It apparently doesn't stop people from getting or becoming transmissions vectors. So, if you get the vaccine and it makes you less sick, then you may take "riskier" actions than if you were to get it and actually have some symptoms. (IOW, why take it?)
4. Some people can't take it due to allergy concerns?
This is just what I've found in my online research.
From what I've seen this is not established at all. They are careful to say that they don't have conclusive proof that the people who were in their study were not ever contagious - but that doesn't mean that they were contagious either.
They have simply called out that further studies will be needed before we can say whether and to what degree.
2. It's really curious to see people saying, on the one hand, that they're uncertain about a vaccine because of some unexpected long-term impacts, and then saying on the other hand that they're unconcerned about unexpected long-term impacts from a brand new and as-yet-poorly-understood disease. There are still a lot of question marks about covid-19 and researchers are still discovering far more "quiet" impacts in apparently healthy individuals, including blood clots and pericarditis.
2a. Overall though I'm in favor of anybody avoiding this vaccine that wishes to. The disease would continue to disproportionately affect the populations of people who believe it's a hoax, or believe it's not a serious health risk, or believe it's a conspiracy, or believe the vaccine is a conspiracy, or believe that vaccines in general are conspiracies -- and we could do with fewer of those people.
3. As two other people have already pointed out, the researchers have only been cautious about not stating something that they don't know to be factual. It's funny: when researchers are cautious, people read too much into it and draw bad conclusions, and that leads to the kinds of research press releases that other people then criticize for making statements unsupported by evidence. Researchers have repeatedly stated in various media that there's no reason for them to expect people to be infectious after taking the vaccine, they merely haven't tested for this specifically.
4. The people they're talking about here are the sort that need to carry an epi-pen with them wherever they go. If you are one of those people, then yes, at this time there's an uncertain amount of risk associated with these vaccines. The situation is still developing and there should be better information available as the vaccines are distributed.
Vaccinated people can spread the virus on a (there's a better term for this) surface level, which is why it's still important for them to wear masks and wash hands.
Hypothetical example of how it can spread: an infected person sneezes on a vaccinated person right in the face. That vaccinated person then rubs his face all over an non-vaccinated person. Really high chance the non-vaccinated person is infected.
I also want to emphasize that a vaccinated person that came in contact with the corona virus is far less contagious than an asymptomatic person.
- The rushed nature of the vaccines. “Fastest approved vaccine” is not re-assuring if you don’t understand what trade was made for that accelerated timeline.
- “I’ll just stay isolated until it dies off”
- “I don’t trust western medicine”
- “I don’t trust the FDA or big pharma”
- “I don’t care if I get covid . People at risk can take the vaccine”
Don’t forget how many people don’t even take the flu shot.
The specifics of the Moderna vaccine took 2 days once they had the genome of the virus. But there was an awful lot of work done before then.
- "These are the first mRNA vaccines ever released. We don't yet know the long term effects."
That's a funny comparison from a UK perspective where the flu shot isn't even offered to the general population (only the elderly, vulnerable or those whose work in healthcare or similar). I'd say there is much more reason to take the COVID vaccine than the flu shot.
Having recovered completely from such an infection, I should be fine without it, and vaccines generally don't feel great and are not, in fact, without risk.
I think vaccines are a wonderful technology, to be clear. I'll get one for COVID only if it's standing between me and, say, getting on an airplane or entering a foreign country, which, let's be real: it probably will. States see like a state, after all; you can't just be immune to infection, you have to be legibly immune.
Where did you get the information that it was several years?
Tetanus is the most well-known example here. That's why it makes sense to vaccinate you even after potential exposure.
- have very likely immunity or at least a much better response the next time
- despite having been exposed to it the first time having had super mild symptoms so I don’t need protection from a non threat
- coronaviruses mutate a lot slower and people who had sars-cov-1 still had a t-cell immunity even 10 years after their infection and there is little reason to believe that sars-cov-2 couldn’t be similar
Given that I won’t be offered the vaccine for a long time I luckily don’t have to decide and know that I won’t have it at least until enough production testing was done.
Getting it early and getting immunity works great for fairly mild things like chicken pox, which is less likely to leave permanent/long term damage. But not for something where so many people report that they've still never fully recovered from even months later.
Edit, here ya go: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-12-covid-survivors-immun...
For the record, vaccines are not a controversial topic in my country like they seem to be in the USA. Kids are vaccinated at school, I received numerous vaccines during my life, some of them totally optional and quite expensive, which I paid for anyway, because it felt like a safer way to be. And of course I do not think vaccines are an evil plan of Bill Gates to... I'm not even sure what the crazy conspiracy theory about that is supposed to be, but I'm pretty sure there is some.
But I am a crazy conspiracy theorist in a sense that I firmly believe that COVID-19 is hugely overhyped. Of course, I'm scared and ashamed of saying that, because nowadays this seems to be a stronger version of saying "Hitler did nothing wrong", but you are asking about "why no", so here we are.
Basically, it's a trade off between reasons to do it and reasons not to (as always).
Is there a reason to avoid doing it? Well, yes. Basically, expectation that everyone should do it is that reason: the topic is insanely hot, and it's never a good thing. This is a huge business opportunity for every pharmaceutical company that gets to push their vaccine right now, and this is some hastily cooked shit you expect me to take. Some of these vaccines are quite a novelty, which is not a bad thing on its own, but this is unlike most vaccines I have ever taken, which are basically decades old and literally millions of people have taken them before me. Maybe it's totally safe, maybe it isn't. No couple-months-long trial will ever answer that.
Is there a reason to take it? Well, sure. Like there is a reason to take a flu vaccine. Which I don't do, because there are new mutations every year, and there are countless more versions of "common cold". Yes, people die of that, and it's never a pleasant experience, and I live in a cold climate, where this is a very common seasonal thing, but it's just how things are. It's ok. And I'm not going to elaborate on all "Hitler did nothing wrong" thing, because what I've said so far is more than enough to trigger someone, but, well, I know people that had been sick with COVID-19. I contacted them in person when they were already sick, and it just so happens that neither of us was wearing any mask. I wasn't really a responsible citizen all the time. It doesn't seem that the stakes are much higher than with a flu. For some of people it seemed to be more like a really light version of a common cold.
So there's a little of "no" vs a little of "yes" and it just so happens that "no" overweights quite confidently.
Maybe it is fair to say that I should've voted "I'll wail", because this "no" isn't final. But then no "yes" is final either, anything can happen, the last year should've taught us that if anything. And I don't have any specific date I have to wait for. The point is, currently I'm not going to do that, and I hope it stays this way.
I've read your concerns and take the gravest possible offense to this. It's not just about the new coronavirus, but what comes next. Tools like crispr are now within the means of the nuclear boyscout, who can unleash an airborne pathogen upon humanity that performs genetic engineering at scale. All that's required is the will to do so. Stuff like that frightens me far more. If the reaction to this new coronavirus is what's needed to help humanity prepare, then we're likely to be far safer and healthier down the road.
If only the global attention and resources that have gone into the covid crisis could be channelled into the many equally, or more serious issues affecting humanity and the planet today (e.g poverty, oppression, war, over population, pollution, tuberculosis etc.). But they are not the new hot shiny problem, just our boring, faulty and irreplaceable legacy system.
Information on contagion: https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/10/exposed-to-...
The vaccine, while probably fine, seems like more of a wildcard to me. It seems like a low-probability lottery ticket to bad news, whereas COVID seems like a lower-probability lottery ticket to bad news.
(Of course, the government may force the issue. I hope not, though. My body, my choice and all that.)
(The same reason I usually get a flu shot: it's not that I can't withstand the flu, it's that there are those around me who might not withstand it. I don't want to be responsible for having passed that on to someone.)
I would take a vaccine (only Pfizer or Moderna) and the associated risks over the experience I'm having now 10/10.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
From a personal perspective, no, because my age-based health risk, and my local community transmission rates approach zero, so vaccination has negligible upside at this point in time and space for me.
I might see data that could change either perspective and my willingness to be vaccinated. Also if I need to travel internationally I may be willing or forced to do so.
When I'm afforded the option to get the vaccine, I'll make an assessment of risks based upon data we have at that time vs the risks of contracting COVID.
If I had to make that decision today, I'd take the vaccine. But by the time I'll likely be able to get it in February or so, we'll have millions more data points that I'll be able to consider.
I think that this vaccine is a choice, and once it's readily available it is still a choice. If you choose not to get it, you are accepting the possibility that you might get COVID and die. Once the vaccine becomes available to my age group and health demographic, the people that actually need it will have been given the option to make their choice as well.
Most people in this thread seems to be forgetting that second part.
A better approach to the safety of the vaccine is to ask whether it's safer to take it or to abstain, and who bears the risk in each case. I accept that the numbers won't be the same for everyone: they depend on age, sex, gregariousness, medical condition, culture, job, and perhaps (I don't know) ethnicity. However, people I know who've had Covid-19 say it's brutal: even if it doesn't kill you, it can give you a really rough time. I know of four friends of friends who've died of it, including one in his twenties. And let's not forget long Covid, which can strike at any age. Set against that the clinical trials that the vaccine has undergone, with trials halted if even one person became seriously ill. Finally, there seems to be at least a reasonable possibility that being vaccinated will reduce a person's ability to infect others.
All in all, any of the leading vaccines available in the West look like a better bet, for me and the people around me, than just crossing my fingers and hoping.
Should I take it now or wait? There seems little doubt that vaccines will be refined over the coming years. A vaccine taken in 2023 will probably be safer, and certainly better understood, than one taken in 2021. But someone who waits two years has endured two extra years' risk of suffering, spreading and possibly dying from Covid. You would have to think that vaccines are much more dangerous than I do for that to be a reasonable trade-off.
> I think that this vaccine is a choice, and once it's readily available it is still a choice. If you choose not to get it, you are accepting the possibility that you might get COVID and die.
Generally, a whole lot of the reasons why we take vaccines is to provide collective protection. E.g. it's not critical that I be vaccinated for pertussis because of my own risk of whooping cough.
For the same reason I never got a rabies vaccine until having to work in close proximity with rabid animals. Up until that point, my chances of dying from rabies were pretty slim to none.
Likewise, my chances of severe complications, death, or even experiencing any symptoms at all are slim to none. The at risk people around me will be likely vaccinated, so i'm not putting them at risk.
Now, the rabies vaccine came with some known risk, a bit higher than others, hence why it's only given to people who request it or need it.
This covid vaccine is brand new, rushed, the manufacturers are legally exempt from liability for damages the vaccines cause most places in the world and it's a mostly new technology not really tested or used before.
There are potential side effects, these side effects are potentially long term and severely debilitating and despite being a low risk, it's still a higher risk for me than experiencing anything terrible from covid.
So, why put myself at some unknown risk from some unknown thing over something that, is more than likely not, going to cause me severe problems?
Get it for the sake of other people. Someday the tables may be turned and you'll be hoping others make a sacrifice for you.
Your risk perception is way off. Like orders of magnitude off. You're also assuming the risks of catching COVID are known and minor, but the risks of a vaccine are unknown and possibly off.
In reality it's the inverse. We have well over a hundred years of research into how vaccines interact with our bodies, as well as similar knowledge of things like manufacturing safety, injection best-practices, etc. While the exact mechanism of the mRNA vaccines is new to vaccines, it's been studied very closely in tens of thousands of people over several years (there have been several mRNA vaccines in the pipeline, but due to less immediate advantages their approval is slower going). It's mechanism is new for vaccines, but well understood.
COVID on the other hand is a virus where some of the immediate, worst effects are known and feel safer. But that's completely not true. The immediate effects we know are very dangerous (As a 39yr old male, I stand a 1/2000 chance of dying if I get the disease) and you're not factoring the risk of unknown long-term effects, which are unknown. It's entirely possible that damage done from the virus could have long-term hidden consequences that we won't know for many years.
So then you're left with your risk of catching the virus. Of course, this varies greatly based on behavior and region. You may feel safe, and you may indeed be relatively so, but of the hundreds of thousands of people who found out they tested positive today I'm willing to bet a good chunk of them felt just as safe as you.
It's not known with any kind of certainty which carries more risk of long term side effects. Or aggregate harm if you want to look at it that way.
The vaccines do seem to reduce risk of severe Covid, across age groups (One didn't have any severe disease in the vaccine group).
Q: Does all medicine go through a rigorous efficacy testing that is certified by the FDA?
A: Yes.
Q: Do vaccines?
A: No.
Q: Why?
A: It would be unethical.
This is surprising to people who don't know how vaccines are made.
edit: removed hyperbole
It likely would have been good to do challenge trials with the vaccine groups (to speed up the testing). It would of course not be nice to do it with the placebo group.
But you are plucking a single evidentiary standard out of some dark place and then asserting that it is the only useful one. Of course it is not, and Phase 3 vaccine trials are well designed to provide clear evidence of effectiveness. Go look up the Pfizer result going around on the memes if you don't believe that.
I can continue to keep the travel to zero, and only leave home for the bare needs until then. I consider it my civic duty.
We could have knocked this way down by wearing masks. As a long distance truck driver I see few people wearing masks, mostly counter workers who want to keep their jobs. A few truckers who want to get into the store, a few more "civilians." I see a lot of freedom fighters daring anyone to say something to them.
California is about the best I've seen.
I always wear a mask except when I'm in the truck, regardless of signs, and regardless of whatever a state's rules are at the moment.
Since we're not going to wear masks, the vaccine is our only hope.
I want to prevent my infection, for myself obviously, but equally so that I don't spread to anyone.
If a problem is discovered ... I'm old, and I've lived long enough. I'd be happy to contribute that bit of data.