17 ms·

I'm surprised to see such a high percentage of "NO" responses. I'm genuinely curious to understand why

• kortilla 6y ago
  Reasons I’ve heard: - 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.
  • nicoburns 6y ago
    > 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.
    • outoftheabyss 6y ago
      Are you sure about that? I know you can easily get it in a local chemist for about a tenner, I’m nearly sure you can book it with your GP if you’re willing to wait a bit longer
    • Dayshine 6y ago
      What are you talking about? Most companies offer the flu jab to their employees for free, and otherwise it's like a tenner to save yourself the risk of 2/3 days of feeling horrible.
      • csa 6y ago
        Fwiw, every time I have taken a flu shot, it has guaranteed 2/3 days of feeling horrible. That said, I don’t get the flu every year (iirc, I’ve had it twice in the past 20 years).
  • zmix 6y ago
    You forgot: - "There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature"
  • maxerickson 6y ago
    They spent 2 decades building technology platforms that enable rapid development of vaccines for specific diseases. 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.
    • polishdude20 6y ago
      Can you elaborate on what you mean it took 2 days? is this akin to a programmer creating a simulation for weeks and then taking an hour to ingest the input data into the simulation?
      • maxerickson 6y ago
        They got the genome (and I imagine other data) from scientists in China, identified what they believed would be a good target for the immune system and designed the mRNA sequence that would trigger immunity to that target. https://globalnews.ca/news/7492076/moderna-coronavirus-vaccine-technology-how-it-works/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7492076/moderna-coronavirus-vacci...
      • gen220 6y ago
        It’s very similar to your analogy. Basically, they have a ginormous database of how genes express themselves in various cell types, and they can run fancy queries against this database to identify which cells are most likely to be compromised by a virus of COVID’s shape. From there, the process of developing the vaccine is training the body to fight blobs that function like COVID does. The first shot introduces some COVID-shaped blobs, and your body develops some antibody factories to fight them, and keeps some around just in case the scary blobs come back. The second shot introduces some more blobs, and your body reacts by producing even more antibody factories. “Trick me twice, shame on me”, in nature. The hard work was building the database. Which was only possible because of the genome project and cell project.
    • bsder 6y ago
      They were also working on SARS and MERS vaccines prior to this so they had a really good head start that they should target the spike protein.
  • Anon4Now 6y ago
    Plus: - "These are the first mRNA vaccines ever released. We don't yet know the long term effects."
    • gen220 6y ago
      To biologists in this field, I suspect this statement reads something like “this is the first Python client for our Node gRPC service, we have no idea if the language interop will work”. It ignores all of the hard work over literal decades that has gone into the work of developing mRNA-based medicine (gRPC and protobufs), which was developed literally for situations like Covid-19 (polyglot services communicating over network interfaces). Yes, mRNA is basically magic from a distance. So is all of modern technology. But it’s built on and hardened by iterative experiments, not conjured from thin air.
• nvahalik 6y ago
  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.
  • zwily 6y ago
    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.
    • nvahalik 6y ago
      Not sure about the testing, but as someone else pointed out to me, if you touch someone with dirty gloves, dirt will rub off. I am not sure if asymptomatic transmission has been confirmed or not. I kept hearing that if you didn't have symptoms then you couldn't transfer it, but given the uptick in cases, it wouldn't seem like that is the case.
      • mlyle 6y ago
        > I am not sure if asymptomatic transmission has been confirmed or not. It's been confirmed, from early experience e.g. with the Diamond Princess and USS Theodore Roosevelt. It seems to be rare. But paucisymptomatic transmission -- transmission before symptoms have manifested in people who will eventually be symptomatic -- is much less rare. So just quarantining people with symptoms doesn't work.
        • dragonwriter 6y ago
• markkanof 6y ago
  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.
  • bognition 6y ago
    Why would getting the vaccine increase your risk at all?
    • tux1968 6y ago
      The vaccine is not field tested, so there is a risk in the unknown. The Canadian government at least is warning that some people may have an allergic reaction and are creating a tracking database to find out who is most at risk to such. Also, people are not perfect, so the entire supply chain poses some risk in delivering a bad batch of vaccine. In short, you should not be injecting things into your system unless you really need them.
      • blueline 6y ago
        > The vaccine is not field tested what exactly would you call phase 3 trials for the various vaccines that were done on thousands/tens of thousands of people?
        • tux1968 6y ago
          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 not worth the risk. The point of my post was that there is real and legitimate risk, be it ever so small. Anyone who pretends there is zero risk to the vaccine is misrepresenting the truth and doing a disservice in the effort of persuading rational adults that vaccine delivery is being lead in an honest and forthright way.
• kylebenzle 6y ago
  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?
  • asutekku 6y ago
    There has been people in several countries who have got Covid twice so having it does not equal immunity.
    • crispyporkbites 6y ago
      No. You’re talking about 2 or 3 cases out of millions. It’s very rare to get it twice.
      • asutekku 6y ago
        As far as i know, there has been multiple cases in Finland alone. There has been multiple news reports regarding to it. We just don’t know the extent of it yet.
    • derekp7 6y ago
      If your immune system failed to get trained by the virus, wouldn't that apply to the vaccine also?
      • NikolaeVarius 6y ago
        No. The vaccine is a concentrated flood of the proteins that are necessary for the immune system to target the virus. There are vaccines that cause better immune response than the disease it protects against.
    • throwaway201103 6y ago
      Those "repositives" are not infectious cases though. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w "There was a low repositive rate in recovered COVID-19 patients in Wuhan. Results of virus culturing and contract tracing found no evidence that repositive cases in recovered COVID-19 patients were infectious, which is consistent with evidence from other sources." Same paper also states that asymptomatic cases are much less likely to be infectious.
• tF73d78kq8t3R6n 6y ago
  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!”
  • parliament32 6y ago
    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.
    • makeworld 6y ago
      There is an obvious reason you are being "sold hard". Because this vaccine will save lives and end the pandemic. Just because some person or group conveys urgency doesn't mean you're being scammed or that they're lying. It's both sad and funny to me that this is the reaction people are having.
    • mombul 6y ago
      Well, there IS a pandemic. So there IS a good reason for "selling it" "a bit hard". It will literally save lives and end a world-wide economy-crippling disease. Now I agree the process was quicker than usual, that it brings up a lot of questions. But it's the studies we should question, the efficiency, the long term effects. The way it's sold and "advertised" is just equally as dramatic as the disease it's trying to stop, in my opinion.
      • parliament32 6y ago
        "It will" is a strong choice of words. The root of the matter is I don't, personally, trust the people doing the selling. It varies by region but where I'm from, back in April-ish, we were sold: "just two weeks of lockdowns and the virus will die out! everything will be back to normal!". So we did. Businesses shut down, transit basically stopped running, our downtown core was a wasteland. Everyone parroted "stay safe, stay home" back and forth at each other and sat at home for a few weeks. It sucked, everyone had a bad time, lots of busineses had to go out of business, but we all were told it was for the greater good and it'll be worth it. And... it didn't do shit. Now here we are again. Odds on, in a few months, it'll be either "turns out this vaccine doesn't protect you as well as we thought", or "turns out it only protects you for six months", or "turns out the virus mutated so the vaccine isn't effective at all anymore"? In exchange for, what, testing not only a new vaccine, but a whole new method of vaccination on yourself? Whether that's worth it to you or not is a personal choice, but "it will literally save lives and end [the disease]" is firmly TBD.
• RobertRoberts 6y ago
  A series of questions/answers I've had with doctors and nurses and quite a few intelligent and educated people. (PhD's, MD's and RN's included) 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
  • bondarchuk 6y ago
    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.
    • RobertRoberts 6y ago
      To truly prove the efficacy of a vaccine you would have to intentionally give a test subject the virus to see if the vaccine actually works. It's not been done once by modern western medicine because it would be unethical by modern medical practices to intentionally infect a person.
      • crusso 6y ago
        Efficacy is still tested with vaccines because there is a statistical expectation of contracting a given disease. If you give 40,000 people a random mix of placebo and vaccines and then monitor whether or not they contract the target disease, you get an indication of efficacy by comparing the vaccinated group to the placebo group.
      • mombul 6y ago
        If it's never been done then I don't understand how this is specifically problematic for the covid vaccine then.
      • yreg 6y ago
        What, why would you need to do that? That's not how preventive medicine is tested. Please explain how would your proposal be any more valid than a proper controlled study where you do the treatment on portion of your participants and wait how it works out for them.
• bird_monster 6y ago
  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.
  • ayroblu 6y ago
    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.
    • bird_monster 6y ago
      Not sure why you're telling me what I mean? At risk populations have the same choices I have. I will choose to wait because I am not at risk. The risk level is obviously a factor that should play a part in making an individual's choice. Now, for the people that _cannot_ get the vaccine for whatever reason, ultimately my decision is definitely more selfish, in that I am taking precautions in favor of my own safety as opposed to theirs. I guess I don't think this is unreasonable though?
      • ayroblu 6y ago
        Yes, emphasis is sometimes not clear, so just highlighting that you yourself are unlikely to die as you highlighted, but the increased likelihood of passing the disease on to those who can't take the vaccine is of greater emphasis
• kthxbye123 6y ago
  There are a lot of half-wits, especially in tech, who think reflexive contrarianism is a sure sign of intelligence and wisdom.
  • tootie 6y ago
    I'm imagining an anti-vaxx Bill Gates conspiracy theorist whose day job is a distinguished engineer at Microsoft.
  • slg 6y ago
    Why do I need the vaccine? I can just just setup rsync on a Linux box instead.
• anonu 6y ago
  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.
  • rwcarlsen 6y ago
    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.
  • ayroblu 6y ago
    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
  • mchusma 6y ago
    Some of this can always be explained by the "lizardman constant": https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and... 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.
    • IgorPartola 6y ago
      Immunity from having COVID lasts about 3 months, it seems. Immunity from the vaccine will last for a year or more and will still work as expected even if you had COVID. “I’ve had COVID” is a bad reason to refuse the vaccine.
      • samatman 6y ago
• dustinmoris 6y ago
  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.
  • hezag 6y ago
    Or a pretty good reason to click "I WILL WAIT"
    • StavrosK 6y ago
      "FOR NINE MONTHS"
      • edanm 6y ago
        I think you're also not supposed to take it while breastfeeding. So it could be 9 months plus a year or more.
  • h3cate 6y ago
    Also people with allergies. This was found out after two people that got the vaccine had allergic reactions to it (no idea how severe)...
    • hedora 6y ago
      Those two had severe pre-existing allergies (to the point where they carry epi pens), and had non-fatal reactions to the vaccine. If you’re in the 0.1% of the population with severe allergies, you should skip most vaccines. Herd immunity is a thing, and (most — probably these) vaccines will protect you by making the people around you stop spreading it. If you’re in this category, you’d have already been told so by your doctor.
      • vl 6y ago
        If they were “said so by their doctors”, how come they still were injected by the doctors? Also, most people carrying epi-pens don’t know full severity of their allergies since there is no way to test it.
• grawprog 6y ago
  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?
  • maxerickson 6y ago
    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).
  • arpyzo 6y ago
    Here's my answer the to "why". We need to achieve herd immunity and you're part of that. 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.
    • grawprog 6y ago
      Why? It's a disease with a 97% survival rate. A huge majority of cases are asymptomatic. As in zero symptoms, zero negative health effects, none. Why does it even matter either way? 3% of the population is severely at risk from this. 3%. If those 3% of people are vaccinated, then why does it even matter if anyone else is?
• polote 6y ago
  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
  • jwcrux 6y ago
    We also don't know what the effects of covid are in 10 years.
    • gorkish 6y ago
      This argument, while technically true, is relatively dismissive of all that we have learned about the virus. Of primary importance, COVID-19 appears to be easily and completely cleared by the human immune system and does not appear to become latent by settling in immune privileged areas or by integrating itself into the human genome or body in any other way (like Epstein-Barr, Herpesvirus, HIV, etc.) Outside of the mainstream media and in the medical research literature COVID-19 has been thought to be easily "curable" since early on in the pandemic. In my opinion there appeared to be more uncertainty around the FDA and the rapid development timelines than there ever was around whether or not an effective and complete treatment could be developed. A severe infection or cytokine storm may obviously cause lasting damage. I do not mean to suggest that everyone will be off the hook in the future!
      • Exmoor 6y ago
        You're correct in principle, but when weighing the "unknown long term risks" of a vaccine versus the "unknown long term risks" of COVID itself it really needs to be an apple to apples comparison. We know both the virus and the vaccine will be out of your system within a short period of time. So any long term effects would have to be derived from what happens while they're in your system. The vaccine generates a few proteins, which your immune system learns to fight off in short order. The virus generates similar proteins, but continues to replicate many times over, attacking your cells and triggering a much more severe immune response as it goes. So while there are unknown long-term risks for both, I think it is pretty safe to say the number of vectors for long term consequences are much more numerous with the virus.
• innomatics 6y ago
  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.
• devmunchies 6y ago
  maybe they're environmentalists? seems like a deadly virus is good for global warming and habitat extinction. any other reasons?
  • choward 6y ago
    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.
    • jjeaff 6y ago
      Running the AC or heat all day as people work from home probably isn't helping.
  • nicbou 6y ago
    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.
• krick 6y ago
  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.
• samatman 6y ago
  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.
  • codingdave 6y ago
    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?
    • copperx 6y ago
      Even 90 days is a bit optimistic; people have been reinfected soonwr than that. You can rely on 30 days pretty safely. 90 days is stretching it.
      • rimliu 6y ago
        This again. When will it stop? Yes some people get reinfected. These are extremely rare. Usually it is because of the weakened immune system. Others should be fine for months: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6521/1227 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6521/1227 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4257 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4257
        • samatman 6y ago
          I just keep pointing out that this is, in fact, how vaccines work, and hoping for the best. To whom it may concern: vaccines simulate the process triggered in the immune system by recovery from infection. They don't float around in your body for years: they create immunity the same way the disease itself does. More or less: obviously you don't get sick! Which is great, I hadn't been that sick in ten years, it was pretty awful. Please get vaccinated if you haven't gotten COVID. If you have, well, maybe you want to do it just in case? I do not. A lot of misinformation out there...
• gorkish 6y ago
  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.
  • thomasahle 6y ago
    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.
  • theflyinghorse 6y ago
    How were you able to verify that you have developed anti-bodies?
    • wincy 6y ago
      There’s a blood test you can pay for.
    • gorkish 6y ago
      Two nasal swabs taken when I had symptoms did not give a positive result (Abbott Labs IDNOW test), so after I recovered I requested an antibody panel and was tested for COV-2 IgG and IgM. Tests were done on Abbott Labs equipment (though the results sheet did not specify the particular assay - there are 2). My results were a high multiple of what would be considered 'positive' for both and were consistent with the timeframe of my illness. More info here: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019... My insurance covered the cost of all my testing as it was done in conjunction with a televisit with my GP. I hear that it is available for approximately $60 if you just pay retail for it. If you give blood at your local blood bank, many are offering the antibody test as an incentive to donate.
• dEnigma 6y ago
  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.
• dilap 6y ago
  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.)
  • jm4 6y ago
    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.
    • dilap 6y ago
      Sorry to hear that; wishing you a speedy and full recovery.
  • deathanatos 6y ago
    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.)
    • dilap 6y ago
      I'm not telling anyone I had the vaccine when I didn't. They're free to avoid me if they want. Many things we selfishly do endanger others. Ever driven a car? But honestly, in my gut, I don't feel like I'm endangering people. I'm doing the thing that I think will most likely make me healthy, and that will most likely result in best outcomes for others, too. I may have some bias here because the only 2 times I've gotten the flu as an adult are the two times I got the the flu shot, like you're supposed to do. So maybe that's just coincidence, but my operating theory now is, no more flu shots until I get the flu again. If I do, then I'll reconsider.
• seryukov 6y ago
  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.
• dcolkitt 6y ago
  The no response isn't that much higher than the Lizardman constant. https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...
• notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  If you are genuinely curious, I'm worried about long term effects from this vaccine. It's one of the most quickly developed vaccines ever. Being rushed by everyone in society and everyone is guilting people into getting it. They did trials but long term effects take decades to discover. Doctors used to recommend specific brands of cigarettes for example. It's not illogical or unintelligent to be skeptical of the long term adverse effects of this vaccine. Plus I can stay avoiding crowds. I've been working remotely for years and don't have travel plans for a while.
• Cyberthal 6y ago
  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.
• sgfyd 6y ago
  I know it's not the answer you're hoping for, but some people have medical issues which make taking any kind of vaccine too dangerous.
• filipkersey 6y ago
  Because vaccines are pseudoscience. A modern form of homeopathy with bad science justifying its existence.