4 ms·

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

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
mlyle 6y ago
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.
- bird_monster 6y ago
  First, I appreciate you having a legitimate conversation about this stuff instead of dismissing my arguments for the aforementioned political issues. I think skepticism is fair on both sides. > But we've bounded the risk to be much, much less than COVID in almost all populations. Are you sure? And by sure I mean, there is enough data to prove this statement to be true? How? > Generally, a whole lot of the reasons why we take vaccines is to provide collective protection. This makes, sense, but is "collective protection" a right now thing? Or is collective protection the goal of a vaccination program over the course of 5-10 years? If the latter is true, is the stance of "I will wait 1-2 years until there is actual data" even at odds with this idea?
  - mlyle 6y ago
    > Are you sure? And by sure I mean, there is enough data to prove this statement to be true? How? Reasonably sure. Even looking at the low death rate 25-34 population, deaths have been about 4 per 100,000 population with only 15% infected so far; a natural trek to herd immunity will presumably kill 6-12 more per 100k. There will be even greater amounts of morbidity and hospitalization, too, than outright death. Compare to ~22000 dosed in trials; two of the vaccinated died from causes that don't look related to the vaccine, and four of the placebo group died. This mostly lets us exclude a high death rate from the vaccine. Several in the placebo group ended up hospitalized from severe COVID; none in the vaccine group ended up hospitalized from COVID or vaccine related side effects. Indeed, the entire judgment call made in emergency use authorization is exactly that: the benefits of the vaccines appear to conclusively outweigh the risks. > This makes, sense, but is "collective protection" a right now thing? Or is collective protection the goal of a vaccination program over the course of 5-10 years? It's a "right now" thing. We can get all the way there in 6 months, and get significant benefit in 3 months. To be clear, the former doesn't mean "cases knocked down to zero", but instead infections knocked down by >95%.
oldie 6y ago
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.
NikolaeVarius 6y ago
No, you are accepting the possibility that you may get COVID and die and that you may be spreading it to other people who may contract it. Most people in this thread seems to be forgetting that second part.
- bird_monster 6y ago
  > that you may be spreading it to other people who may contract it. Yes, but, given my age/health, wouldn't the people already at risk already have been offered the vaccine? And if they opted against it, they also made their choice? And for the people that are unable to get the vaccine for whatever reason, isn't that a scenario in which I feel it's either me putting my safety at risk instead of them putting theirs? I am sympathetic towards people that are allergic or for whatever other reason cannot get the vaccine, but in the same way that they opted to not take the vaccine to protect their health, is that not exactly what I'm suggesting? I do not feel the vaccine is verified safe and am attempting to protect my health? Curious what you think.

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

mlyle 6y ago

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.

bird_monster 6y ago
First, I appreciate you having a legitimate conversation about this stuff instead of dismissing my arguments for the aforementioned political issues. I think skepticism is fair on both sides. > But we've bounded the risk to be much, much less than COVID in almost all populations. Are you sure? And by sure I mean, there is enough data to prove this statement to be true? How? > Generally, a whole lot of the reasons why we take vaccines is to provide collective protection. This makes, sense, but is "collective protection" a right now thing? Or is collective protection the goal of a vaccination program over the course of 5-10 years? If the latter is true, is the stance of "I will wait 1-2 years until there is actual data" even at odds with this idea?
- mlyle 6y ago
  > Are you sure? And by sure I mean, there is enough data to prove this statement to be true? How? Reasonably sure. Even looking at the low death rate 25-34 population, deaths have been about 4 per 100,000 population with only 15% infected so far; a natural trek to herd immunity will presumably kill 6-12 more per 100k. There will be even greater amounts of morbidity and hospitalization, too, than outright death. Compare to ~22000 dosed in trials; two of the vaccinated died from causes that don't look related to the vaccine, and four of the placebo group died. This mostly lets us exclude a high death rate from the vaccine. Several in the placebo group ended up hospitalized from severe COVID; none in the vaccine group ended up hospitalized from COVID or vaccine related side effects. Indeed, the entire judgment call made in emergency use authorization is exactly that: the benefits of the vaccines appear to conclusively outweigh the risks. > This makes, sense, but is "collective protection" a right now thing? Or is collective protection the goal of a vaccination program over the course of 5-10 years? It's a "right now" thing. We can get all the way there in 6 months, and get significant benefit in 3 months. To be clear, the former doesn't mean "cases knocked down to zero", but instead infections knocked down by >95%.

oldie 6y ago

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.

NikolaeVarius 6y ago

No, you are accepting the possibility that you may get COVID and die and that you may be spreading it to other people who may contract it. Most people in this thread seems to be forgetting that second part.

bird_monster 6y ago
> that you may be spreading it to other people who may contract it. Yes, but, given my age/health, wouldn't the people already at risk already have been offered the vaccine? And if they opted against it, they also made their choice? And for the people that are unable to get the vaccine for whatever reason, isn't that a scenario in which I feel it's either me putting my safety at risk instead of them putting theirs? I am sympathetic towards people that are allergic or for whatever other reason cannot get the vaccine, but in the same way that they opted to not take the vaccine to protect their health, is that not exactly what I'm suggesting? I do not feel the vaccine is verified safe and am attempting to protect my health? Curious what you think.