3 ms·
Exactly my thinking as well. Mandates (and other forms of "encouragement") should be by BMI, age, and comorbidities. I'd be covered by a mandate myself, if one
by m0zg 5y ago
Exactly my thinking as well. Mandates (and other forms of "encouragement") should be by BMI, age, and comorbidities. I'd be covered by a mandate myself, if one existed: high BMI, (treated) high blood pressure, haven't had COVID (yet, that I know of). That's why I chose to vaccinate myself and that's also why my wife chose to vaccinate. I don't have to do it, I'm self employed, I've done it voluntarily. Moreover, if it were required at the time, in early May, I would not do it at all. Instead we've chosen the most idiotic criteria available - whether or not you work for (or with) the federal government, or whether your employer is woke enough. Google, for example, is woke enough: it even requires vax for _remote_ employees.
Another utterly idiotic thing is that we're not considering 190 million people who are already immune by having had COVID.
For kids or healthy younger adults, looking at the stats, I just don't see the need at all. Feel free to persuade me otherwise, but with data, not sermons or "mandates".
My 17 y/o son who is healthy, and has no comorbidities, won't be getting the vaccine unless he himself decides to get it. I told him we will support him whichever way he chooses, but if he is harmed by vaccintation, he will have no legal recourse, which is true. I'm not sure he understands what that means. For us that could mean up to several hundred thousand dollars in hospital costs, and potentially the loss of the only child.
I just don't think a little over 2800 kids in the 5-11 y/o trial, _none of which got severe disease_ is a sufficient indication of anything, let alone long term safety. Sounds to me like the only person who abstained from the FDA vote [1] concurs, and the rest just don't have the balls to say what needs to be said. They literally said "we won't know if it's safe until we start giving it". I'm sorry, I'm not willing to take that chance. That's for kids 5-11, but I think the reasoning holds for young adults as well. I didn't raise him for 17 years just so someone at Pfizer could make 30 bucks by giving him myocarditis with zero legal consequences.
[1] https://twitter.com/emilyakopp/status/1453136997309198345 https://twitter.com/emilyakopp/status/1453136997309198345
- GhettoComputers 5y agoThe issue is that the most vulnerable elderly people get terrible effects or die from the immune response. They need to be healthy enough to receive the vaccine, if they’re old and sickly it’s better to vaccinate everyone around them and continue to keep their immune response up. The second most vulnerable elderly people are prime candidates for vaccination though. They’re not as old, more healthy and less likely to have complications from the vaccine. It can be very dangerous for very old or sickly people and those are the people that others vaccinate for so they don’t get it themselves. The heart problems aren’t common but I didn’t get vaccinated myself, I was waiting for the novavax which they kept delaying. Hopefully by next year it’ll be released, I’ll be first in line since it doesn’t have the same issues that concern me about mRNA or adenovirus.
- m0zg 5y ago> elderly people get terrible effects or die from the immune response. I'm not convinced this is true. As far as I can tell after looking at the data (as thoroughly fucked up and obfuscated as it is) the vaccine is well tolerated in the elderly. Certainly much better tolerated than COVID itself, especially for people 65 and over.
- GhettoComputers 5y agoDepends on how poor their heath is. I am not sure if you remember, but they said that everyone should get vaccinated so they can prevent the most vulnerable from getting sick.