12 ms·
I'll take it but only later in the year when it is more widely available. People at high risk should go first, then people who are super social (or stupid + sp
by radicalbyte 6y ago
I'll take it but only later in the year when it is more widely available.
People at high risk should go first, then people who are super social (or stupid + spreading the plague).
Especially younger people, they need to get pricked. Do you really think they're going to avoid drinking close physical contact in spring? Me neither.
- nostromo 6y agoNo need to worry about who should go first. They will be rolling it out based on need. When it's available to you, go get it.
- setpatchaddress 6y agoYou'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.
- dustinmoris 6y agoYou’re assuming that everyone talks about the USA, but they probably don’t.
- imdsm 6y agoI find this on the internet, though usually reddit rather than here. I am forever asking folks if they mean the US, and trying to explain to them that there is... a rest of world
- tpxl 6y agoAmerica is the largest (primarily) English speaking community in the world and both Reddit and YC are US companies. It's not surprising some assume the whole audience is American.
- Tijdreiziger 6y agoThe US accounts only for about 10% of English speakers in the world.
- sixothree 6y agoHonestly it's kind of hard to know what the audience for a site might be. If people are active during your hours and in your language, the assumption is easy to make.
- 495636483 6y agoOh boy, do I hope we don't talk about the US in 2021, anymore. It's been like a slightly different, ever the same car crash you drive by, every day. For four fucking years. I am sure my dopamine receptors look like old, all dries up raisins by now. I wish we as a species could agree stop all news for year or ten. Detox and heal, form new habits like life has value and shit.
- srcno 6y agoIt will be overseen by the individual states in the US.
- throwaway201103 6y agoYou mean the admin that funded and fast-tracked the development and trials?
- pmiller2 6y agoYou mean the admin that encouraged people not to wear masks? The one that downplayed the virus at every opportunity? The one that held rallies without masks required, but still had people sign waivers in case they got sick? Is it that one, or some other administration you’re thinking of?
- exclusiv 6y agoYou have a good counter. To add to "don't wear masks" though - WHO, CDC, Fauci all had poor and inaccurate guidance as well. It's like none of these experts have sane defaults when they don't know about something. Kind of hard to believe, really. Then when they're wrong - they say "oh yeah we lied, we didn't want a run on masks for health workers". Such BS. They didn't know non-surgical/non-(k)n95 masks could be useful. It's ok to admit when you're wrong. Better than saying you lied. Especially when there's enough distrust of government. The US administration is culpable. But so are the experts. People need to be able to trust their experts. Separately - I find it ridiculous we have people that are all about science, except when their agenda conflicts. We end up with exceptions for religion. Exceptions for protests. Exceptions for filming movies. Whatever. If you have enough influence or can cause enough outrage about something you can get your way. Nobody has the balls to take hard stances. They create these illogical plans based on who is influencing them. Is there any official who was consistent and pragmatic with their pandemic plan?
- Rapzid 6y agoThe CDC officially recommended the use of face masks in public places on April 3. That was forever ago and only a few weeks into the US crises(couple weeks after first lockdowns started). There absolutely was a PPE shortage at the time, and there absolutely was new information coming in about the efficacy of wearing non N95 masks. That's a lot of attribution to malice or incompetence for such a dynamic situation that shaped up in such a relatively short amount of time.. Meanwhile the current admin had their last maskless rally what, just in the past week or so?
- tamaharbor 6y agoYawn.
- bird_monster 6y agoNot sure why you would think a vaccine being managed by the government will be rolled out in a sane and consistent manner? edit As was correctly pointed out, I should mention I'm speaking purely about the US and not any other country.
- Barrin92 6y agobecause believe it or not some people live in countries where the government manages to do just that.
- JumpCrisscross 6y agoI have already watched wealthy people in Germany and France and China skip the queue.
- Kliment 6y agoOutside clinical trials nobody in Germany or France has been vaccinated as there are no approved vaccines in those countries.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> nobody in Germany or France has been vaccinated as there are no approved vaccines Which creates a force field around the warehouses in which it sits? Come on. I guess I’ll revise to I know of people with substantial resources, hundreds of millions and billions at their disposal, who have been injected with something they believe to be the Pfizer vaccine.
- Kliment 6y agoI'm sure it's possible, but that means effectively that said person is now an undocumented trial participant. They have gotten injected with an unapproved medical product. That's a risk they've taken in order to get in early. The physician that administered it has also committed a crime that can cost them their license to practice. There are easier ways for people in power to get vaccines. In China, the government has granted exceptional permissions to vaccinate a number of people with a vaccine that has not yet completed phase 3 trials. The list of people who qualify for that vaccine is said to be several million people long. It's much easier to get on said list in China than it is anywhere else. A number of other governments have also made exceptions for political leaders and such, treating them with non-approved medication or vaccines. For example, the sheikh of Dubai has been vaccinated with the Sinopharm vaccine before approval (in a very public display of faith in said vaccine, in order to promote vaccination to the population). Some countries are saying they won't bother waiting for phase 3 trials to end on some products and will make vaccines generally available based on current data. This is the case for Russia (with Sputnik-V) and Morocco (with the Sinopharm vaccine). I consider it highly likely that their heads of state are vaccinated under an exceptional authorization.
- notatoad 6y agothis 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.
- dmix 6y agoThe other half of it, for the early days at least, is the fear of lining up with hundreds of people who are more likely to be high risk people. Putting yourself in higher risk. My pharmacy does COVID testing but only if you show no symptoms. The gov health networks tell symptomatic people to be tested in hospital set up centers. But high risk people are still high risk people, whether they are showing symptoms or not.
- tmhrtly 6y agoIt's worth separating the two types of 'high risk': There's 'high risk of having a severe response to COVID' and 'high risk of getting COVID'. The former (e.g. elderly) are not always the same as the latter (healthcare workers) - but there are some overlaps (e.g. care homes). My hunch is most of the queues for vaccines will be type A e.g. the elderly. Not necessarily more likely to have COVID, but more likely to be at risk of severe symptoms if they were to get it.
- notatoad 6y agoI have enough faith in my local health authorities to assume that the line won't be a literal lineup with hundreds of people. If my local bike shop has figured out the concept of no-contact service appointments by now, I'm pretty sure the health department can do it.
- dmix 6y agoidk about where you live but in Toronto 3+ million people will have to be vaccinated. It's going to be a chaotic mass experiment in the first few weeks. Which I intend to wait out.
- kortilla 6y ago> avoid drinking close physical contact I’ve gone whole months without drinking close physical contact!
- dave_4_bagels 6y agoIt's been glorious!
- throwaway9980 6y agoBut I’m very nearby to thirsty now!
- dave_4_bagels 6y agoFor the record, I mean not having to be social and abstaining from consuming alcohol. You people are no fun.
- 1996 6y ago> 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!!!
- mvanbaak 6y agoOk. So you will stay in quarantine in tour home that whole time you wait
- Smaug123 6y agoEveryone keeps saying this like it's a bad thing! I didn't leave the house for three months back in March, and it was great. The ability to work from home, a functioning Internet, and a pre-existing Brexit stockpile which came in handy unexpectedly early. I would happily be dropped to the bottom of the vaccine queue.
- mvanbaak 6y agoOh dont get me wrong, i am also ok with quarantine and all. And if others in a more risky position than me need the vaccin they get it before me. But i was talking about the ppl that dont trust the first batches. If it’s your turn to get the vaccin, take it or you stay in quarantine until you get it. That’s my take
- seamyb88 6y agoYou really get to see who isn't happy with their lives at home. Many for reasons I'm sympathetic to, but a comparable many who really need to reevaluate their shit.
- alfon 6y agoWhat 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”
- mrkramer 6y ago> People who are super social (or stupid + spreading the plague) What if somebody has asymptomatic covid infection? He or she spreads it without intent, you can not blame them.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> 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.
- h3cate 6y agoHarsh. Would you be comfortable convicting those people with attempted murder?
- input_sh 6y agoNot who you're replying to, but not for ignorance. On the other hand, if someone knows they've been exposed and still behave carelessly, I'm absolutely fine with charging people with attempted murder, endangering the public health, or something similar.
- h3cate 6y agoI completely agree if you test positive and don't follow the isolation period then that's a problem. However op seems to be saying that if you go shopping (could be classed as high risk?), don't know you have the virus, and pass it on then that's a problem too? What's the difference between passing this on unintentionally and passing any other virus or disease unintentionally?
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Would you be comfortable convicting those people with attempted murder? No, attempted murder requires specific intent. For the most egregious conduct when they know they are at particularly high risk of being a spreader, even without intent, if someone actually dies, it might arguably be close to depraved-indifference rather than intent-to-kill murder, but more generally negligent homicide if they actually kill people and reckless endangerment, otherwise, would be closer selections from the generically-common American set of crimes. But I’m not arguing they should be criminally liable; saying that an act is not beyond moral blame is not the same that it technically fits — or, even if it does, should necessarily be prosecuted as — a crime.
- Guthur 6y agoSo 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.
- christkv 6y agoThere will be other more traditional vaccines in the next couple of months
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chapium 6y agoWhile 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.
- michaelt 6y agoI 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.
- rimliu 6y agoDepends 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.
- modmans2nd 6y agoThat only makes sense if you don't know anything about who is most at risk.
- 867-5309 6y agoneeds an edit for the assumption. also, half of the planet is already in Spring
- Reason077 6y ago> ”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.
- daave 6y agoHaving antibodies does not guarantee immunity. 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/antibody-tests.html 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/antibody-tests-guidelines.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/anti...
- Reason077 6y ago> "Having antibodies does not guarantee immunity." Sure, but it seems to have worked so far. And if having natural antibodies doesn't give long-term immunity, then will vaccine-induced antibodies? We don't know. > "How long IgM and IgG antibodies remain detectable following infection is not known." Having detectable antibodies is not the same thing as immunity.
- ketamine__ 6y agoFauci says reinfection isn't an issue he is concerned about.
- ipqk 6y agoThere'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.
- radium3d 6y agoIt still helps the at risk people to take it asap as you won't be a carrier, doesn't it?
- maverick2007 6y agoFeel 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?
- andyjohnson0 6y agoThis is my understanding. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03441-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03441-8
- chki 6y agoAs far as I can tell this is currently unknown, it has not been studied. My complete layman understanding would be that it should at least somewhat prevent the spreading because replication has to be limited if a vaccine works and replication is also an important part of giving the disease to others? If less cells are infected you can't cough out the virus as much? But the exact timeline is important here, obviously. Again, complete layman, I know basically nothing about this.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rmk 6y agoI predict that public employees will wrangle their way to the front of the line, needs be damned. They are very powerful in CA.
- hanselot 6y agoI don't understand this statement. Are you suggesting that public employees in these jurisdictions can use their influence to grant them favourable circumstances? My understanding was always that public employees everywhere in the United States, especially the traditionally blue places, are impervious to corruption. When has there ever been a record in history where a public employee in CA was found to be corrupt? If the media are to be believed, these people are humble, simple people, without any nefarious bones in their bodies.
- modmans2nd 6y agoI predict cynicism will predict silly things.
- rmk 6y agoYour opinion is not grounded in fact or reality. Bizarrely, Prison Officers' unions are arguing that prisoners should get ahead of people who haven't committed crime to get the Coronavirus Vaccine. See this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/2020/12/11/heres-why-inmates-should-get-covid-19-vaccine-before-rest-us-column/3871449001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/2020/12/11/h... This is just the beginning. There will be plenty of such public employee unions that will be jockeying for access over private citizens. And these unions spend huge amounts of money on their preferred candidates in elections to the State Legislatures, among other governments.