7 ms·

I think there's a difference between: (a) I WILL WAIT because I don't trust it yet, and (b) I WILL WAIT because I want to let the more at-risk people to have

by jkw 6y ago

I think there's a difference between: (a) I WILL WAIT because I don't trust it yet, and (b) I WILL WAIT because I want to let the more at-risk people to have access it to first That seems to be lost in the poll

rob74 6y ago
Or (c) I will tell everyone that I'm waiting so that more at-risk people can have access it to first, but secretly I'll be happy others are field-testing it for me...
- delecti 6y ago
  That's similar to mine. I will get it as soon as I can, but I'm also glad that "when I can" is not "first".
  - flatline 6y ago
    The incentives seem to align: if I were a front-line at-risk worker I'd be much more accepting of possible risk than in my present situation of staying at home all day.
- wwweston 6y ago
  Speaking as someone who already has some (but not all) well-understood vaccines contraindicated and has to figure out which category covid vaccines will fall in... (d) telling myself that (c) is how I feel is how I assuage my feelings of disappointment at being old enough decision makers believe I'm likely to behave responsibly, but young enough + no apparent extra risk factors enough that I'm likely to be near last to get access.
- throwaway888abc 6y ago
  nailed it! Don't tell anyone..
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  Or (d) I will wait to see if Corona mutates so much over the next year that the vaccine is a yearly process. Edit: I feel like some people didn’t notice the mink culling in Denmark which was caused by fears that version of the virus would make the vaccines useless.
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    Even if there was another strain, why would it make the current vaccine useless when the current strain still exists?
    - that_guy_iain 6y ago
      So if the strains change every year because the virus mutates so much then the current strain wouldn't be so common. It's basically what happens with the flu. Also a new strain can be more infectious, which I believe was the case with the mink strain.
      - CyberDildonics 6y ago
        The current strain is very common. If you haven't noticed, it's actually a pretty big problem.
        that_guy_iain 6y ago
        There are multiple strains. And in various parts of the world it's a differents strain that is common. I'm not telling anyone else to get it, I'm just stating I am going to wait and see if the problem is actually solved before acting like it.
        CyberDildonics 6y ago
        But you did say it would be "useless" if there were different strains and now you are saying "there are multiple strains". I haven't seen anything about the current vaccines not being effective to what is already out there. If that is true then what you are saying is wrong, because the fact that the vaccines can treat what is now filling up hospitals and killing thousands per day means they are the opposite of useless and in fact one of the most valuable things in existence right now. Even the regular flu shot was recommended as being more important this year so that there would be less spread and less to deal with. > I'm just stating I am going to wait and see if the problem is actually solved before acting like it. No, that isn't what you said. That might be what you are trying to claim now that you said something ridiculous.
- ryanSrich 6y ago
  ^
freehunter 6y ago
I think the implication is, if it's available to you, the at-risk people have already had a chance to get it. At least that's what I've heard from the rollout strategy.
- jkw 6y ago
  It looks like some people in the comments are interpreting it differently
throwaway201103 6y ago
Also you might split up the "No" answer as "No, because I've already had COVID and recovered" vs. "No, I'm an anti-vaxxer" (or something).
- cogman10 6y ago
  It might be a good idea to get the vaccine even if you've already had COVID. There's not been any CDC recommendations about it, but here's what they do say. > There is not enough information currently available to say if or for how long after infection someone is protected from getting COVID-19 again; this is called natural immunity. Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this. Until we have a vaccine available and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices makes recommendations to CDC on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines, CDC cannot comment on whether people who had COVID-19 should get a COVID-19 vaccine. [1] Suffice it to say, I'll do whatever the CDC recommends. I've already had COVID, so I'm guessing I'll go last. But at the same time, I'll get the vaccine if it is recommended. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    Surely there is also not enough information on how long after vaccination someone is protected. This doesn't seem like a strong argument to me. If infection with the actual virus doesn't confer immunity, I don't see much reason to think that the vaccine will work any better.
- another-dave 6y ago
  Everything I've read has suggested that people who've had COVID should still get the vaccine anyway, as it could act as a booster. And that, whether through natural immunity or a vaccine it looks likely that we'll need to get it 'topped up' after awhile. Has there been medical advice anywhere that people who've had COVID don't need to get vaccinated?
- zebrafish 6y ago
postalrat 6y ago
And many people claiming (b) also feel (a). Practically there is no difference between those options.
lambdasquirrel 6y ago
Depends on how people read the line saying that it's available to everyone and no wait lines. The way I read it was, yay!, vaccines for EVERYONE.
waiseristy 6y ago
Isn't that covered by the prompt? > Assumption: it is available to everyone at the same time This reads like "everyone who wants it will get it"
- bamboleo 6y ago
  ITT: people who leave comments without reading past the title.
vulcan01 6y ago
And there's another option: I WILL WAIT because I have severe allergies and people say not to take it... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25358753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25358753 UK has warned people with allergies not to take the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine.
pc86 6y ago
I'm not aware of any localities or nations that are just dumping the vaccines off at a pharmacy and letting people do what they want. Everywhere has a roll-out plan, with healthcare workers and high-risk individuals prioritized over the totally healthy mid-20's athlete. So (b) in your list isn't really a concern. If you have access to it, you should get it.
jimbob45 6y ago
I agree. This is a bad poll that can be used to derive whatever meaning you want to derive from it. There’s no reason we can’t have fifteen more specific options listed. Is it no because you don’t need it because you already had the virus? Is it no because you’re allergic to vaccines? Is it no because the virus is a hoax?
anonu 6y ago
People could be conflating those two reasons.

by jkw 6y ago

rob74 6y ago

Or (c) I will tell everyone that I'm waiting so that more at-risk people can have access it to first, but secretly I'll be happy others are field-testing it for me...

delecti 6y ago
That's similar to mine. I will get it as soon as I can, but I'm also glad that "when I can" is not "first".
- flatline 6y ago
  The incentives seem to align: if I were a front-line at-risk worker I'd be much more accepting of possible risk than in my present situation of staying at home all day.
wwweston 6y ago
Speaking as someone who already has some (but not all) well-understood vaccines contraindicated and has to figure out which category covid vaccines will fall in... (d) telling myself that (c) is how I feel is how I assuage my feelings of disappointment at being old enough decision makers believe I'm likely to behave responsibly, but young enough + no apparent extra risk factors enough that I'm likely to be near last to get access.
throwaway888abc 6y ago
nailed it! Don't tell anyone..
that_guy_iain 6y ago
Or (d) I will wait to see if Corona mutates so much over the next year that the vaccine is a yearly process. Edit: I feel like some people didn’t notice the mink culling in Denmark which was caused by fears that version of the virus would make the vaccines useless.
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  Even if there was another strain, why would it make the current vaccine useless when the current strain still exists?
  - that_guy_iain 6y ago
    So if the strains change every year because the virus mutates so much then the current strain wouldn't be so common. It's basically what happens with the flu. Also a new strain can be more infectious, which I believe was the case with the mink strain.
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      The current strain is very common. If you haven't noticed, it's actually a pretty big problem.
      - that_guy_iain 6y ago
        There are multiple strains. And in various parts of the world it's a differents strain that is common. I'm not telling anyone else to get it, I'm just stating I am going to wait and see if the problem is actually solved before acting like it.
        CyberDildonics 6y ago
        But you did say it would be "useless" if there were different strains and now you are saying "there are multiple strains". I haven't seen anything about the current vaccines not being effective to what is already out there. If that is true then what you are saying is wrong, because the fact that the vaccines can treat what is now filling up hospitals and killing thousands per day means they are the opposite of useless and in fact one of the most valuable things in existence right now. Even the regular flu shot was recommended as being more important this year so that there would be less spread and less to deal with. > I'm just stating I am going to wait and see if the problem is actually solved before acting like it. No, that isn't what you said. That might be what you are trying to claim now that you said something ridiculous.
ryanSrich 6y ago
^

freehunter 6y ago

I think the implication is, if it's available to you, the at-risk people have already had a chance to get it. At least that's what I've heard from the rollout strategy.

jkw 6y ago
It looks like some people in the comments are interpreting it differently

throwaway201103 6y ago

Also you might split up the "No" answer as "No, because I've already had COVID and recovered" vs. "No, I'm an anti-vaxxer" (or something).

cogman10 6y ago
It might be a good idea to get the vaccine even if you've already had COVID. There's not been any CDC recommendations about it, but here's what they do say. > There is not enough information currently available to say if or for how long after infection someone is protected from getting COVID-19 again; this is called natural immunity. Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this. Until we have a vaccine available and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices makes recommendations to CDC on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines, CDC cannot comment on whether people who had COVID-19 should get a COVID-19 vaccine. [1] Suffice it to say, I'll do whatever the CDC recommends. I've already had COVID, so I'm guessing I'll go last. But at the same time, I'll get the vaccine if it is recommended. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  Surely there is also not enough information on how long after vaccination someone is protected. This doesn't seem like a strong argument to me. If infection with the actual virus doesn't confer immunity, I don't see much reason to think that the vaccine will work any better.
another-dave 6y ago
Everything I've read has suggested that people who've had COVID should still get the vaccine anyway, as it could act as a booster. And that, whether through natural immunity or a vaccine it looks likely that we'll need to get it 'topped up' after awhile. Has there been medical advice anywhere that people who've had COVID don't need to get vaccinated?
zebrafish 6y ago

postalrat 6y ago

And many people claiming (b) also feel (a). Practically there is no difference between those options.

lambdasquirrel 6y ago

Depends on how people read the line saying that it's available to everyone and no wait lines. The way I read it was, yay!, vaccines for EVERYONE.

waiseristy 6y ago

Isn't that covered by the prompt? > Assumption: it is available to everyone at the same time This reads like "everyone who wants it will get it"

bamboleo 6y ago
ITT: people who leave comments without reading past the title.

vulcan01 6y ago

And there's another option: I WILL WAIT because I have severe allergies and people say not to take it... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25358753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25358753 UK has warned people with allergies not to take the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine.

pc86 6y ago

I'm not aware of any localities or nations that are just dumping the vaccines off at a pharmacy and letting people do what they want. Everywhere has a roll-out plan, with healthcare workers and high-risk individuals prioritized over the totally healthy mid-20's athlete. So (b) in your list isn't really a concern. If you have access to it, you should get it.

jimbob45 6y ago

I agree. This is a bad poll that can be used to derive whatever meaning you want to derive from it. There’s no reason we can’t have fifteen more specific options listed. Is it no because you don’t need it because you already had the virus? Is it no because you’re allergic to vaccines? Is it no because the virus is a hoax?

anonu 6y ago

People could be conflating those two reasons.