4 ms·

> Cite or you get a downvote. Relax I just wrote from memory - I remembed the number, not the source, but someone gave an actual source. Happy? > Would I take

by 1996 6y ago

> Cite or you get a downvote. Relax I just wrote from memory - I remembed the number, not the source, but someone gave an actual source. Happy? > Would I take one of the Russian or Chinese vaccines that have had questionable data releases? Probably not. I will happily take any vaccine that has been tested over 10M peoplefor over 1 year - even better if it's a tried and true old technology (not mRNA) like at least Astra Zeneca. Until then, I will wait and let the other find out the potential dangers for me. I am young and healthy, almost no risk, so waiting won't change my plans or behaviours. And I don't presume to tell anyone what they should do (even if I really prefer if everybody got vaccinated, for herd immunity) - just what I am doing for myself.

stickfigure 6y ago
You'd rather take your chances with the virus? Or do you plan on hibernating for another 12 months? I hope you don't imagine that any of the rest of us are going to share your caution.
bsder 6y ago
And quoting the cite: > One reason for the scepticism is that those recommending the vaccine are the same people - the French state - whom care home workers blame for their low pay and tough working conditions, said Malika Belarbi, a care worker and trade union official. So, basically, this has nothing to do with whether the vaccines are or are not medically okay but everything to do with the fact that the workers don't trust the people who have crapped on them. And, when you say care workers, normally those people are NOT medical professionals (most, in fact, are probably immigrant labor). The downvote stays.
- Bancakes 6y ago
  >The downvote stays. You're not a hacker news celebrity. You have no authority here. You need an ego check. I just upvoted him for no reason other than to demonstrate 1=1.
  - bsder 6y ago
    The fact that you would assign authority and credibility based upon celebrity rather than factuality is, in fact, the fundamental problem of social media. Thanks for the example in a nutshell.
    - Bancakes 6y ago
      No, I responded to the way you talk, as if one downvote or one upvote is a deciding factor when it clearly isn't. Yet you seem to put nonzero weight to it when 99% of votes usually stay anonymous.
oezi 6y ago
> I will happily take any vaccine that has been tested over 10M people for over 1 year But that is bullshit. A.) Because we did already vaccinated more than 10 m people with each vaccine. B.) We already did phase 2 trials to know it is safe! Repeat after me: Vaccines are at least 1000x to 100000x safer than going unvaccinated.
- oezi 6y ago
  To those that are downvoting: To give you some numbers after over 25m doses of vaccine delivered in the US. The current stats of severe allergic reaction to vaccines (which is the most severe adverse advent reported) stands at 4.7 cases of 1 million (!) doses administered. Even though these are severe reactions, they are still temporary/transient. It might be hard to comprehend, but vaccines are very safe.

by 1996 6y ago

stickfigure 6y ago

You'd rather take your chances with the virus? Or do you plan on hibernating for another 12 months? I hope you don't imagine that any of the rest of us are going to share your caution.

bsder 6y ago

And quoting the cite: > One reason for the scepticism is that those recommending the vaccine are the same people - the French state - whom care home workers blame for their low pay and tough working conditions, said Malika Belarbi, a care worker and trade union official. So, basically, this has nothing to do with whether the vaccines are or are not medically okay but everything to do with the fact that the workers don't trust the people who have crapped on them. And, when you say care workers, normally those people are NOT medical professionals (most, in fact, are probably immigrant labor). The downvote stays.

Bancakes 6y ago
>The downvote stays. You're not a hacker news celebrity. You have no authority here. You need an ego check. I just upvoted him for no reason other than to demonstrate 1=1.
- bsder 6y ago
  The fact that you would assign authority and credibility based upon celebrity rather than factuality is, in fact, the fundamental problem of social media. Thanks for the example in a nutshell.
  - Bancakes 6y ago
    No, I responded to the way you talk, as if one downvote or one upvote is a deciding factor when it clearly isn't. Yet you seem to put nonzero weight to it when 99% of votes usually stay anonymous.

oezi 6y ago

> I will happily take any vaccine that has been tested over 10M people for over 1 year But that is bullshit. A.) Because we did already vaccinated more than 10 m people with each vaccine. B.) We already did phase 2 trials to know it is safe! Repeat after me: Vaccines are at least 1000x to 100000x safer than going unvaccinated.

oezi 6y ago
To those that are downvoting: To give you some numbers after over 25m doses of vaccine delivered in the US. The current stats of severe allergic reaction to vaccines (which is the most severe adverse advent reported) stands at 4.7 cases of 1 million (!) doses administered. Even though these are severe reactions, they are still temporary/transient. It might be hard to comprehend, but vaccines are very safe.