4 ms·

I hope so. I would be upset if I got the vaccine and people who didn't have it were allowed to work near me, but I would just keep WFH. I would be outraged if I

I hope so. I would be upset if I got the vaccine and people who didn't have it were allowed to work near me, but I would just keep WFH. I would be outraged if I were forced to work with them

unnouinceput 6y ago
Why would you be upset for? It's their life, not yours. Once you get vaccinated, ideally, you get immune to the virus. You neither can develop the disease nor spread it. It's the same as saying you don't want to work with people who didn't got vaccinated by any other number of vaccines (let you search wiki for full list as exercise) and I'm pretty sure it already happened.
- macintux 6y ago
  * the vaccine is not 100% effective * we don’t yet know whether the vaccine prevents transmission. You can probably be a carrier and spreader even if vaccinated Those two facts alone mean we’re going to be wearing masks for quite some time, things won’t go back to normal for a while, and people are justified in being upset with others who refuse to protect everyone around them.
  - unnouinceput 6y ago
    You really missed my point. Read again my above comment.
  - bamboozled 6y ago
    If we don’t even know a basic facts about the vaccine (whether people vaccinated can still transmit, how long it lasts), isn’t it natural for people too feel concerned about what else we don’t know ? Seems to be a few unknowns still ?
    - floatingatoll 6y ago
      It’s natural for people to want perfect certainty before making health care decisions. That’s why public health policy exists: because there is never perfect certainty in vaccination, and yet we’ll be required to all the same.
- vharuck 6y ago
  >It's their life, not yours It's a lot of people's lives, not just theirs. Like with most vaccines, there'll be a fraction of the population who cannot safely get vaccinated. We need to think of this from a public health perspective: more unvaccinated people in spreading-prone situations means more risk to others (including those beyond the immediate situation) and more burden on health systems.
  - unnouinceput 6y ago
    Dude, read my point again. I was asking why would he get upset if is his colleagues decide not to vaccinate. Not anything else.
    - just-juan-post 6y ago
      isn't in insane how over the last few months people just assume their fellow man is a murderer for BREATHING? this virus is causing more insanity than health effects.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Because it is only 95% effective. If everyone around me is also vaccinated it is likely that even if my vaccine doesn't work I'm still protected. This is what herd immunity is about. Note that we don't know if vaccinated people can spread covid or not. It seems unlikely, but if it turns out being vaccinated means you become a non-symptomatic super spreader I reserve the right to change my stance based on that information.
  - anonuser123456 6y ago
    The 95% effective is not a cliff function. The 5% that ‘get it’ have mild symptoms. We won’t know how effective it at preventing serious disease until millions have been inoculated, but it will likely be 99%+ effective with that outcome.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      We know that in one of the trials one of the serious cases was in the intervention group. We will of course need a lot more data to figure out what the real reduction in rate of serious events is.
- prh8 6y ago
  > It's their life, not yours This attitude is why the pandemic rages on with such intensity in so many places
- strombofulous 6y ago
  Because I don't want to be around people with a disease that's serious enough to shut down our society, if I am only 95% resistant to it
  - fuzxi 6y ago
    The 95% effective figure refers to the percentage of people who develop full immunity, not how resistant an individual is. A more accurate way of phrasing that would be "[...] if I only have a 95% chance of immunity". I don't mean to split hairs; the distinction is important.

I hope so. I would be upset if I got the vaccine and people who didn't have it were allowed to work near me, but I would just keep WFH. I would be outraged if I were forced to work with them

unnouinceput 6y ago

Why would you be upset for? It's their life, not yours. Once you get vaccinated, ideally, you get immune to the virus. You neither can develop the disease nor spread it. It's the same as saying you don't want to work with people who didn't got vaccinated by any other number of vaccines (let you search wiki for full list as exercise) and I'm pretty sure it already happened.

macintux 6y ago
* the vaccine is not 100% effective * we don’t yet know whether the vaccine prevents transmission. You can probably be a carrier and spreader even if vaccinated Those two facts alone mean we’re going to be wearing masks for quite some time, things won’t go back to normal for a while, and people are justified in being upset with others who refuse to protect everyone around them.
- unnouinceput 6y ago
  You really missed my point. Read again my above comment.
- bamboozled 6y ago
  If we don’t even know a basic facts about the vaccine (whether people vaccinated can still transmit, how long it lasts), isn’t it natural for people too feel concerned about what else we don’t know ? Seems to be a few unknowns still ?
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    It’s natural for people to want perfect certainty before making health care decisions. That’s why public health policy exists: because there is never perfect certainty in vaccination, and yet we’ll be required to all the same.
vharuck 6y ago
>It's their life, not yours It's a lot of people's lives, not just theirs. Like with most vaccines, there'll be a fraction of the population who cannot safely get vaccinated. We need to think of this from a public health perspective: more unvaccinated people in spreading-prone situations means more risk to others (including those beyond the immediate situation) and more burden on health systems.
- unnouinceput 6y ago
  Dude, read my point again. I was asking why would he get upset if is his colleagues decide not to vaccinate. Not anything else.
  - just-juan-post 6y ago
    isn't in insane how over the last few months people just assume their fellow man is a murderer for BREATHING? this virus is causing more insanity than health effects.
bluGill 6y ago
Because it is only 95% effective. If everyone around me is also vaccinated it is likely that even if my vaccine doesn't work I'm still protected. This is what herd immunity is about. Note that we don't know if vaccinated people can spread covid or not. It seems unlikely, but if it turns out being vaccinated means you become a non-symptomatic super spreader I reserve the right to change my stance based on that information.
- anonuser123456 6y ago
  The 95% effective is not a cliff function. The 5% that ‘get it’ have mild symptoms. We won’t know how effective it at preventing serious disease until millions have been inoculated, but it will likely be 99%+ effective with that outcome.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    We know that in one of the trials one of the serious cases was in the intervention group. We will of course need a lot more data to figure out what the real reduction in rate of serious events is.
prh8 6y ago
> It's their life, not yours This attitude is why the pandemic rages on with such intensity in so many places
strombofulous 6y ago
Because I don't want to be around people with a disease that's serious enough to shut down our society, if I am only 95% resistant to it
- fuzxi 6y ago
  The 95% effective figure refers to the percentage of people who develop full immunity, not how resistant an individual is. A more accurate way of phrasing that would be "[...] if I only have a 95% chance of immunity". I don't mean to split hairs; the distinction is important.