Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

brisan

PhantomHat wrote: »

I understand what you are saying however you cannot substitute that period of time that may or may not reveal potential side effects.

If you are worried about your sperm count / egg production have them frozen or do not take the vaccine
If you decide to not take the vaccine then you may have to live with a certain level of restriction in your daily life
Vaccinations will not be compulsory
You have the choice

seamus

VonLuck wrote: »

It's strange to see the poll results so high for 'Yes'. Most people in my circle of friends and work colleagues have said they're not sure and will wait to see. They're from a wide range of backgrounds and different ages and would have thought it was a good representation of the general public's view, but maybe not.

That's not the same as being a skeptic though. People just generally don't want to be the first to do things that they don't realy understand.

Where something like this is non-mandatory, it generally requires social buy-in to become something that everyone does, which means it largely follows the "Diffusion of innovations" model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

This is slightly different because it's something that people know they want, but the theory is the same. As social animals we place a massive level of trust in the opinions of those we know personally. We want to go along with herd, not lead it.

It doesn't really matter if the world's foremost expert on the subject tells us it's a good idea and explains to us in details why it's a good idea.

If our mates all have their doubts - even though they're utterly clueless and their opinions are baseless - then we will also have our doubts.

So instead we want to "know people" who've gotten the vaccine before we jump ourselves.

B.A._Baracus

seamus wrote: »

That's not the same as being a skeptic though. People just generally don't want to be the first to do things that they don't realy understand.

Where something like this is non-mandatory, it generally requires social buy-in to become something that everyone does, which means it largely follows the "Diffusion of innovations" model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

This is slightly different because it's something that people know they want, but the theory is the same. As social animals we place a massive level of trust in the opinions of those we know personally. We want to go along with herd, not lead it.

It doesn't really matter if the world's foremost expert on the subject tells us it's a good idea and explains to us in details why it's a good idea.

If our mates all have their doubts - even though they're utterly clueless and their opinions are baseless - then we will also have our doubts.

So instead we want to "know people" who've gotten the vaccine before we jump ourselves.

For me, it's quite simple
I don't care what anyone who I know thinks. Everyone has a choice.
But since so many appear to want to take it so bad, and I am cautious of any potential side-effects, I'll sit on the side line and let thousands take it.

Detritus70

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

For me, it's quite simple
I don't care what anyone who I know thinks. Everyone has a choice.
But since so many appear to want to take it so bad, and I am cautious of any potential side-effects, I'll sit on the side line and let thousands take it.

If you're not in the risk category and if you're not in close, daily contact with people in the risk category, it's understandable to wait for a while.

Skyfloater

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Honestly I'd rather wait and see how it works out before taking it myself.

That's all going to melt away when life becomes awkward for those without a vaccine cert. We could well have a period of apartheid between vaccers who can return to normal life, and non-vaccers who have to sit in socially distanced areas and pay a supplement for the privilege. If you want to get onto that flight to the sun next summer, no problem, just join the other non-vaccers at the back of the plane with the empty middle seats(which you will be paying for) while those with certs are in the fully loaded front.
The government won't need to coerce anybody, just make sure that the vaccine certs aren't easily forged, and let society and businesses take care of the rest.

Spudman_20000

Skyfloater wrote: »

That's all going to melt away when life becomes awkward for those without a vaccine cert. We could well have a period of apartheid between vaccers who can return to normal life, and non-vaccers who have to sit in socially distanced areas and pay a supplement for the privilege. If you want to get onto that flight to the sun next summer, no problem, just join the other non-vaccers at the back of the plane with the empty middle seats(which you will be paying for) while those with certs are in the fully loaded front.
The government won't need to coerce anybody, just make sure that the vaccine certs aren't easily forged, and will society and businesses take care of the rest.

:rolleyes:

PhantomHat

"Pfizer chairman: We're not sure if someone can transmit virus after vaccination."

Looks like further testing is needed.

https://t.co/WKXi2tnjzp

hmmm

PhantomHat wrote: »

"Pfizer chairman: We're not sure if someone can transmit virus after vaccination."

Looks like further testing is needed.

The vaccine testing criteria was to see if it prevented severe disease (Covid), not the virus itself. But you know that.

brisan

hmmm wrote: »

The vaccine testing criteria was to see if it prevented severe disease (Covid), not the virus itself. But you know that.

I think they are more worried about becoming infertile than spreading the virus

padraig737

I'll be taking the vaccine if advised. As someone who has to take Humira to live a normalish life, it's a lot worse than what could be in a vaccine.

seamus

brisan wrote: »

I think they are more worried about becoming infertile than spreading the virus

Ah. It's like that.

There are more important questions about the impact of COVID itself on fertility.

The entry point into cells for Covid is ACE2, which is very prevalent in the testes. So it stands to reason that in an infected patient, the testes are at risk of cellular damage, whether or not they're symptomatic.

In the event that there was a link, the mRNA vaccine would in fact be protective of fertility by limiting the damage that Covid can do when it gets into a man's body.

The vaccine itself is no more likely to impact fertility than an apple, unless there's a specific reason why we should suspect an interaction with the reprodutive system.

I'm surprised this wasn't heavily investigated early on. If you want to scare the **** out of young men, tell them that a disease could render them infertile.

B.A._Baracus

Skyfloater wrote: »

That's all going to melt away when life becomes awkward for those without a vaccine cert. We could well have a period of apartheid between vaccers who can return to normal life, and non-vaccers who have to sit in socially distanced areas and pay a supplement for the privilege. If you want to get onto that flight to the sun next summer, no problem, just join the other non-vaccers at the back of the plane with the empty middle seats(which you will be paying for) while those with certs are in the fully loaded front.
The government won't need to coerce anybody, just make sure that the vaccine certs aren't easily forged, and will society and businesses take care of the rest.

I thought the idea of a cert was only for travel on a plane?

Not like every day life like going to a pub and getting asked to pull it out of your pocket

PhantomHat

seamus wrote: »

Ah. It's like that.

There are more important questions about the impact of COVID itself on fertility.

The entry point into cells for Covid is ACE2, which is very prevalent in the testes. So it stands to reason that in an infected patient, the testes are at risk of cellular damage, whether or not they're symptomatic.

In the event that there was a link, the mRNA vaccine would in fact be protective of fertility by limiting the damage that Covid can do when it gets into a man's body.

The vaccine itself is no more likely to impact fertility than an apple, unless there's a specific reason why we should suspect an interaction with the reprodutive system.

I'm surprised this wasn't heavily investigated early on. If you want to scare the **** out of young men, tell them that a disease could render them infertile.

That's a lot of conjecture there. Despite that I like your positivity.

PhantomHat

hmmm wrote: »

The vaccine testing criteria was to see if it prevented severe disease (Covid), not the virus itself. But you know that.

Yes you are absolutely right. Supposedly the vaccine is around 90% effective at reducing the symptoms...not at protecting you from infection! So yes, you will still get sick and you will still be able to spread the virus...

Sconsey

PhantomHat wrote: »

Yes you are absolutely right. Supposedly the vaccine is around 90% effective at reducing the symptoms...not at protecting you from infection! So yes, you will still get sick and you will still be able to spread the virus...

You are contradicting yourself there.

brisan

PhantomHat wrote: »

That's a lot of conjecture there. Despite that I like your positivity.

If you are really worried about fertility (and I am assuming you are a male here ) knock out a few samples and have them frozen
That way you can be guaranteed that only those females you wish to impregnate do actually become pregnant

Sconsey

PhantomHat wrote: »

"Pfizer chairman: We're not sure if someone can transmit virus after vaccination."

Looks like further testing is needed.

https://t.co/WKXi2tnjzp

Where have you been the last few months? this is not new news.

PalLimerick

I'd be interested to know, how random posters on here are in the know when it comes to people facing restrictions from flying if they're not vaccinated against the Virus.

Simple answer is, nobody knows yet. Stop pretending to have inside information.

brisan

PalLimerick wrote: »

I'd be interested to know, how random posters on here are in the know when it comes to people facing restrictions from flying if they're not vaccinated against the Virus.

Simple answer is, nobody knows yet. Stop pretending to have inside information.

https://www.euronews.com/2020/11/24/international-travellers-could-soon-require-covid-19-vaccination-qantas-chief-says

brisan

PalLimerick wrote: »

I'd be interested to know, how random posters on here are in the know when it comes to people facing restrictions from flying if they're not vaccinated against the Virus.

Simple answer is, nobody knows yet. Stop pretending to have inside information.

https://www.euronews.com/2020/11/24/international-travellers-could-soon-require-covid-19-vaccination-qantas-chief-says

https://www.google.com/search?q=quantas+will+need+vaccine+cert+for+travellers&rlz=1C1GCEB_enGB889GB889&oq=quantas+will+need+vaccine+cert+for+travellers+&aqs=chrome..69i57.18179j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Plumbthedepths

The chief executive of Qantas doesn't speak for the whole airline industry.https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/travel/covid-jab-ryanair-will-not-ask-for-proof-of-vaccination-within-eu-1.4417851

Jimi H

I’m not anti vaccination. I believe we need a vaccine for this thing but I have some reservations. Obviously we don’t know any long term impact as yet and that’s understandable. I’m just uneasy about these large pharma companies. An ideal world to them would surely to have the entire population as repeat customers. Am I wrong? I haven’t followed the thread.

brisan

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The chief executive of Qantas doesn't speak for the whole airline industry.https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/travel/covid-jab-ryanair-will-not-ask-for-proof-of-vaccination-within-eu-1.4417851

If one gets away with it then some more will follow

Sconsey

Jimi H wrote: »

I’m not anti vaccination. I believe we need a vaccine for this thing but I have some reservations. Obviously we don’t know any long term impact as yet and that’s understandable. I’m just uneasy about these large pharma companies. An ideal world to them would surely to have the entire population as repeat customers. Am I wrong? I haven’t followed the thread.

I don't think anyone can prove you are wrong, you probably have to make your own call on that particular issue. Don't let anyone tell you it is the case either though!
Personally I think it is absolutely not the case for many reasons.

Plumbthedepths

brisan wrote: »

If one gets away with it then some more will follow

Doubtful, unless governments make vaccines mandatory private business will not go down a route which may cause them legal consequences.

Jimi H

Sconsey wrote: »

I don't think anyone can prove you are wrong, you probably have to make your own call on that particular issue. Don't let anyone tell you it is the case either though!
Personally I think it is absolutely not the case for many reasons.

Thanks. I’m delighted that the scientists have come up with a vaccination. I have elderly relatives and I want some sort of normality as much as the next person. I suppose the question I’m asking (myself) is - Am I signing up to take this vaccination from company A every 4/6/12 months for the rest of my life? Is that what we’re looking at?

jackofalltrades

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Doubtful, unless governments make vaccines mandatory private business will not go down a route which may cause them legal consequences.

What legal consequences do you envisage?

Plumbthedepths

jackofalltrades wrote: »

What legal consequences do you envisage?

Discrimination.

brisan

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Discrimination.

So an alcoholic who is refused boarding because he is drunk can sue for discrimination
Alcoholism is a recognized addiction /illness
Airlines can refuse boarding to anybody they think may pose a health risk to other passengers

buzzerxx

Absolutely No. Nor any of my family.