5 ms·

>I have an appointment to get my first jab in 43 hours from now and I am bouncing back and forth between getting it and cancelation. Sorry, what is the downsid

>I have an appointment to get my first jab in 43 hours from now and I am bouncing back and forth between getting it and cancelation. Sorry, what is the downside to getting the vaccine in your mind?

dnautics 5y ago
I advocate getting vaccinated (I am myself) but if people don't want to put foreign substances into their bodies, we should respect their choices, especially since the long-term risk profile is unknown (we are pretty sure it's safe, but who can know?)
- adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
  We can. There have been hundreds of millions of doses administered and we are keeping track of the side effects.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    there are some things you can't know without time travel. what happens after having the vaccine for 5 years? 10? The immune system is strange. There are very few mRNA vaccines that have been deployed to date. Can you be sure you aren't, for example, at elevated risk for something like MS? You can't. Again, I say this as someone who made the choice to get the vaccine. The worst thing about conspiracy theories is that some of them are true. If you don't like people being "anti-science", then the one thing you CANNOT do is shove scientifically irresponsible stuff down their throat in the name of expediency.
- loxias 5y ago
  > we should respect their choices Honestly, why should I do that? I would if their choices only affected themselves. People have a right to control their own destiny. But their choices affect me, and, more importantly, those I care about. So no, I don't respect anyone's "choice" to be an unvaccinated asshole, increasing the chance that people I care about will die. I don't respect the "choice" to aide a foreign microbe in evolving in its ability to hurt me and our species. Why are we thinking of this as some sort of delicate "choice" we need to respect, instead of recognizing it for what it is? Treason.
  - greg5green 5y ago
    > But their choices affect me, and, more importantly, those I care about. So no, I don't respect anyone's "choice" to be an unvaccinated asshole, increasing the chance that people I care about will die I only respect those that choose to be unvaccinated if they: 1. have had adverse effects to a previous vaccination (like the Anthrax garbage they injected into military personnel or have allergies to PEG) I really thought I had more than one
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - yonaguska 5y ago
      What about people that personally know those military personnel? By that extension, what about those who know of those military personnel? Can we extend the range of people that are allowed to be skeptical to those that know of the many failed medical experiments done on people? Are we allowed to be skeptical because pfizer and co are making record breaking profits on an emergency authorized vaccine. That, in the USA, can only be authorized if there are no other approved treatments for covid-19.. meanwhile, the rest of the world is using ivermectin, hcq, etc to successfully treat symptoms? Can we be skeptical of the fact that the pharmaceutical companies clearly have some political influence over the medical field, and have been using that to push this vaccine? Am I allowed to be skeptical of something that is being pushed by companies that have all paid millions in fines over other previous actions? Or am I allowed to have issue with the fact that these same pharmaceutical companies have been caught paying social media influencers to promote the vaccine, while social media companies actively ban people for expressing doubt? How about expectant mothers and women planning on having kids? There have been reports that menstruation cycles of women and women that have been in close proximity to people recently vaccinated have been adversely affected.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    Let's recognize your comment for what it is: unhelpful internet toughguy-ism. You need to regain some perspective. Calling others "treasonous" for this pretty clearly violates HN community guidelines.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  Cars and certain power plants dump toxic chemicals into the air and occasionally the water supply. Society doesn't give anyone the option to opt out of putting these known toxins in their bodies because we can't. Society either has electricity & cars, thus poisons everyone, or it doesn't. The best we can do is work to mitigate the negative impacts. We are at the the point where society needs people to receive a vaccine, or it will stop functioning. How much are you willing to personally sacrifice so that someone near you has the option to avoid getting a couple of shots that a billion other people have already received? Factories can't run at full capacity until people are vaccinated. Our food supplies, specifically meat, are at risk until people are vaccinated. We are going to keep this society of scarcity until ~90% of people are willing to get two shots.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    your assumption is that threatening mandatory compliance is better than voluntary compliance. Humans are irrational and sometimes resist doing the right thing when force them to. Surely you have had the experience that being forced to read a book for school has ruined it, or resisted doing something you wanted to do just because your parent made you do it. If instead you work harder to get assent and consent, your vaccination rate might be higher than if you threaten to hammer it in. Especially in a society where voluntary compliance and resistance to authority is in its social DNA, like the united states.

>I have an appointment to get my first jab in 43 hours from now and I am bouncing back and forth between getting it and cancelation. Sorry, what is the downside to getting the vaccine in your mind?

dnautics 5y ago

I advocate getting vaccinated (I am myself) but if people don't want to put foreign substances into their bodies, we should respect their choices, especially since the long-term risk profile is unknown (we are pretty sure it's safe, but who can know?)

adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
We can. There have been hundreds of millions of doses administered and we are keeping track of the side effects.
- dnautics 5y ago
  there are some things you can't know without time travel. what happens after having the vaccine for 5 years? 10? The immune system is strange. There are very few mRNA vaccines that have been deployed to date. Can you be sure you aren't, for example, at elevated risk for something like MS? You can't. Again, I say this as someone who made the choice to get the vaccine. The worst thing about conspiracy theories is that some of them are true. If you don't like people being "anti-science", then the one thing you CANNOT do is shove scientifically irresponsible stuff down their throat in the name of expediency.
loxias 5y ago
> we should respect their choices Honestly, why should I do that? I would if their choices only affected themselves. People have a right to control their own destiny. But their choices affect me, and, more importantly, those I care about. So no, I don't respect anyone's "choice" to be an unvaccinated asshole, increasing the chance that people I care about will die. I don't respect the "choice" to aide a foreign microbe in evolving in its ability to hurt me and our species. Why are we thinking of this as some sort of delicate "choice" we need to respect, instead of recognizing it for what it is? Treason.
- greg5green 5y ago
  > But their choices affect me, and, more importantly, those I care about. So no, I don't respect anyone's "choice" to be an unvaccinated asshole, increasing the chance that people I care about will die I only respect those that choose to be unvaccinated if they: 1. have had adverse effects to a previous vaccination (like the Anthrax garbage they injected into military personnel or have allergies to PEG) I really thought I had more than one
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - yonaguska 5y ago
    What about people that personally know those military personnel? By that extension, what about those who know of those military personnel? Can we extend the range of people that are allowed to be skeptical to those that know of the many failed medical experiments done on people? Are we allowed to be skeptical because pfizer and co are making record breaking profits on an emergency authorized vaccine. That, in the USA, can only be authorized if there are no other approved treatments for covid-19.. meanwhile, the rest of the world is using ivermectin, hcq, etc to successfully treat symptoms? Can we be skeptical of the fact that the pharmaceutical companies clearly have some political influence over the medical field, and have been using that to push this vaccine? Am I allowed to be skeptical of something that is being pushed by companies that have all paid millions in fines over other previous actions? Or am I allowed to have issue with the fact that these same pharmaceutical companies have been caught paying social media influencers to promote the vaccine, while social media companies actively ban people for expressing doubt? How about expectant mothers and women planning on having kids? There have been reports that menstruation cycles of women and women that have been in close proximity to people recently vaccinated have been adversely affected.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  Let's recognize your comment for what it is: unhelpful internet toughguy-ism. You need to regain some perspective. Calling others "treasonous" for this pretty clearly violates HN community guidelines.
mywittyname 5y ago
Cars and certain power plants dump toxic chemicals into the air and occasionally the water supply. Society doesn't give anyone the option to opt out of putting these known toxins in their bodies because we can't. Society either has electricity & cars, thus poisons everyone, or it doesn't. The best we can do is work to mitigate the negative impacts. We are at the the point where society needs people to receive a vaccine, or it will stop functioning. How much are you willing to personally sacrifice so that someone near you has the option to avoid getting a couple of shots that a billion other people have already received? Factories can't run at full capacity until people are vaccinated. Our food supplies, specifically meat, are at risk until people are vaccinated. We are going to keep this society of scarcity until ~90% of people are willing to get two shots.
- dnautics 5y ago
  your assumption is that threatening mandatory compliance is better than voluntary compliance. Humans are irrational and sometimes resist doing the right thing when force them to. Surely you have had the experience that being forced to read a book for school has ruined it, or resisted doing something you wanted to do just because your parent made you do it. If instead you work harder to get assent and consent, your vaccination rate might be higher than if you threaten to hammer it in. Especially in a society where voluntary compliance and resistance to authority is in its social DNA, like the united states.