3 ms·

> The author is unwilling to attempt that. That makes her... an anti-vaxxer.

• OJFord 5y ago
  It makes her... an anti-second-vax-after-first-could've-killed-her-er. Not all places are keeping people for 15mins or whatever for observation afterwards, she's lucky they did. (And obviously also unlucky there was a reason for that to be lucky.)
  • coryrc 5y ago
    That you're allergic to one does not make you allergic to all. That's what the evidence shows. If you're denying the scientific consensus, either you're a researcher who just ran a well-designed experiment showing opposite conclusions, or you're an anti-vaxxer. Anaphylaxis is dangerous. The vaccination sites in the US require 1 hour waits if you've had a reaction to a previous different vaccine. They're prepared. You don't get to "opt out" because you think you know better than the professionals.
    • OJFord 5y ago
      > You don't get to "opt out" because you think you know better than the professionals. You get to opt-in or not for whatever reason (good or not) you want. Most people have bad reasons. I (had both doses myself fwiw, not that it's any of your business) think this is a decent reason, and doesn't deserve to be painted with the same brush.
      • coryrc 5y ago
        Luckily, not for long with the US mandates. Hopefully they are good at blocking scam exemptions.
        • OJFord 5y ago
          Neither I nor the submission have anything to do with the US.