Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

bloopy

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

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

There would be a not insignificant pushback if government attempted to make the vaccines mandatory. In addition, some the power/vengeance fantasies being promoted by some on this forum regarding the exclusion of those not vaccinated from society will also not be happening - polls consistently show up to 30% not willing to immediately get the vaccine.
It would not be possible to exclude potentially 1.5m people from society without serious repercussions legally, economically, politically, etc. The infrastructure required for such a plan also relies on the creation of a massive and pervasive system of surveillance to make it work raising privacy issues never seen before in the West.

Most likely scenario is that elderly and vulnerable will be vaccinated leading to reduced deaths and hospitalisations. Health workers will be offered the vaccine next, further reducing deaths. Once deaths and hospitalisations are reduced to a manageable level, restrictions will be gradually eased and the country reopened.
Vaccine will then be offered to those that want it. Likely to be a largish enough uptake which may further reduce cases and allow for the country to reopen fully.
Eventually, the vaccine becomes similar to the flu vaccine with people who want it getting it and those who don't want it choosing not to get it.

Neither the conspiracy scenario nor the 'exclude non-participants' scenario will come to pass (ironically, both are the same idea just differing viewpoints on its desirability).

xhomelezz

buzzerxx wrote: »

Absolutely No. Nor any of my family.

Don't be so quick, there might be free lollipops..

Johnboy1951

bloopy wrote: »

There would be a not insignificant pushback if government attempted to make the vaccines mandatory. In addition, some the power/vengeance fantasies being promoted by some on this forum regarding the exclusion of those not vaccinated from society will also not be happening - polls consistently show up to 30% not willing to immediately get the vaccine.
It would not be possible to exclude potentially 1.5m people from society without serious repercussions legally, economically, politically, etc. The infrastructure required for such a plan also relies on the creation of a massive and pervasive system of surveillance to make it work raising privacy issues never seen before in the West.

Most likely scenario is that elderly and vulnerable will be vaccinated leading to reduced deaths and hospitalisations. Health workers will be offered the vaccine next, further reducing deaths. Once deaths and hospitalisations are reduced to a manageable level, restrictions will be gradually eased and the country reopened.
Vaccine will then be offered to those that want it. Likely to be a largish enough uptake which may further reduce cases and allow for the country to reopen fully.
Eventually, the vaccine becomes similar to the flu vaccine with people who want it getting it and those who don't want it choosing not to get it.

Neither the conspiracy scenario nor the 'exclude non-participants' scenario will come to pass (ironically, both are the same idea just differing viewpoints on its desirability).

Why the difference?
Do you propose to vaccinate the 'elderly and vulnerable' without their permission?

I suspect this is just a slipup in the way it is written ...... hopefully that is correct.

Galwayguy35

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Why the difference?
Do you propose to vaccinate the 'elderly and vulnerable' without their permission?

I suspect this is just a slipup in the way it is written ...... hopefully that is correct.

Well they have been whinging for the last few months about not being able to go anywhere so let them take it now.

Johnboy1951

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well they have been whinging for the last few months about not being able to go anywhere so let them take it now.

You have been hearing the vulnerable and elderly whinging?

Where? They have had meetings about this, contrary to the lockdown rules?

...... you really are in the camp of forced vaccination on people.

bloopy

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Why the difference?
Do you propose to vaccinate the 'elderly and vulnerable' without their permission?

I suspect this is just a slipup in the way it is written ...... hopefully that is correct.

Yes. It was a slip-up.
Now that you mention it, there is a sense that the elderly getting the vaccination is a done deal (I must admit that I fell into the same frame of mind when typing the comment). There is no talk about whether some might not actually want it. Same with the health care workers.
Could get interesting over the next week or so as the UK rolls it out.

Skyfloater

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.

Like everything else, it's just an educated guess about how the next six months will pan out, never claimed otherwise.

Skyfloater

bloopy wrote: »

There would be a not insignificant pushback if government attempted to make the vaccines mandatory. In addition, some the power/vengeance fantasies being promoted by some on this forum regarding the exclusion of those not vaccinated from society will also not be happening - polls consistently show up to 30% not willing to immediately get the vaccine.
It would not be possible to exclude potentially 1.5m people from society without serious repercussions legally, economically, politically, etc. The infrastructure required for such a plan also relies on the creation of a massive and pervasive system of surveillance to make it work raising privacy issues never seen before in the West.

Most likely scenario is that elderly and vulnerable will be vaccinated leading to reduced deaths and hospitalisations. Health workers will be offered the vaccine next, further reducing deaths. Once deaths and hospitalisations are reduced to a manageable level, restrictions will be gradually eased and the country reopened.
Vaccine will then be offered to those that want it. Likely to be a largish enough uptake which may further reduce cases and allow for the country to reopen fully.
Eventually, the vaccine becomes similar to the flu vaccine with people who want it getting it and those who don't want it choosing not to get it.

Neither the conspiracy scenario nor the 'exclude non-participants' scenario will come to pass (ironically, both are the same idea just differing viewpoints on its desirability).

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that you may have more fully formed ideas on vaccines than most people. I think that if young people who through apathy/couldn't be arsed haven't had the vaccine find that they can't book say Electric Picnic or whatever without a cert, that that will be a bigger driver than any number of government advertisements.

ExMachina1000

Astra zenica exempt from future liability if side effects present themselves "down the line "

"This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... four years the vaccine is showing side effects," Ruud Dobber, a member of Astra's senior executive team, told Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccine-liability-idUSKCN24V2EN

eagle eye

ExMachina1000 wrote:

Astra zenica exempt from future liability if side effects present themselves "down the line "

Is this all not for profit? I've no issue with that if it's not for profit.

suicide_circus

I'll be taking it but if it fooks me up in some way i'm going on a fooking rampage

schmoo2k

We should stop holding up "herd immunity" as being the only way we can return to normality - once the at risk folks have been offered (and taken) the vaccine, then we will be left with the folks who will be predominantly asymptomatic or minor symptoms.

At which point we can return to normality and if / when the virus spreads it won't really matter.

Ironically you still end up with herd immunity due to natural immunity.

For high risk folks who are unable to take the vaccine they will need to continue to self-isolate and take precautions, but at least that will be the few and not the many (and it would be daft to say that's not fair and everyone should self isolate if the few have to isolate).

josip

brisan wrote: »

If one gets away with it then some more will follow

Qantas can get away with this because Australia has taken a very hardline isolationist approach to Covid 19.
These are the people who locked down all of South Australia because a pizza worker lied on a form.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55011790

They are already culturally well disposed to keeping out invasive biothreats, so the airline would feel they have the full support of the government to require such measures.
That won't be the case in other parts of the world, especially Europe.

Russman

josip wrote: »

Qantas can get away with this because Australia has taken a very hardline isolationist approach to Covid 19.
These are the people who locked down all of South Australia because a pizza worker lied on a form.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55011790

They are already culturally well disposed to keeping out invasive biothreats, so the airline would feel they have the full support of the government to require such measures.
That won't be the case in other parts of the world, especially Europe.

I'd say its open to debate. I can definitely see some form of restrictions for a while anyway. Especially if, down the line, there were a few random superspreader events (albeit at a lower scale than when nobody was vaccinated). If it means companies can get back to profitability quicker, they'll do it IMO.

bobbysands81

lawrencesummers wrote: »

No

Amazing that you can just have a blanket “No” like that.

Seweryn

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Astra zenica exempt from future liability if side effects present themselves "down the line "

Lovely. Another company you can trust .

Call me Al

He is going to be a very very busy man.

https://twitter.com/ConMend/status/1336249743182327808?s=20

monkeybutter

Seweryn wrote: »

Lovely. Another company you can trust .

what do you fear this vaccine is going to do exactly? What exactly do people have against Bill Gates, he just happens to have too much money and is trying to do some good with it

ThewhiteJesus

The list of who will get the vaccine first is on the journal,
i will see the effects of this before i decide if i'll take it or not, leaning towards not taking it but time will tell.

begbysback

monkeybutter wrote: »

what do you fear this vaccine is going to do exactly? What exactly do people have against Bill Gates, he just happens to have too much money and is trying to do some good with it

Well he is responsible for Internet Explorer, which we sometimes still have to use and have never received an apology.

Seweryn

monkeybutter wrote: »

what do you fear this vaccine is going to do exactly?

How do I (and anybody) know when the tests have not been finished and long term effects are unknown?

monkeybutter wrote: »

What exactly do people have against Bill Gates

There is no point in listing all his sins, nobody would be interested in reading it, as the list is very long...

monkeybutter wrote: »

he just happens to have too much money and is trying to do some good with it

Good with the money? Are you for real ...

It would have been possible for Gates to have used his vast wealth to change poor countries in a very straightforward and positive way by, for example, using his billions to help with road building programmes or to help poor farmers to improve their land and their farms by digging wells. Using $10 billion to set up water supplies would have saved many lives in a simple, honest way. Or by feeding hungry people. There are 9 million people that die every year just from hunger, a lot, lot more than from the Cov. thing. He could feed some of them and save their lives. It would be a much easier task, straightforward, very effective and with clear results.
But you can’t control the world quite as easily simply by doing practical, honest things which save lives. And Gates seems to be keen to take control of every aspect of our lives.

I don’t believe any of Gates’ projects have anything to do with philanthropy. There is too much intermixing of donations and business.

ELM327

Seweryn wrote: »

How do I (and anybody) know when the tests have not been finished and long term effects are unknown?


There is no point in listing all his sins, nobody would be interested in reading it, as the list is very long...


Good with the money? Are you for real ...

It would have been possible for Gates to have used his vast wealth to change poor countries in a very straightforward and positive way by, for example, using his billions to help with road building programmes or to help poor farmers to improve their land and their farms by digging wells. Using $10 billion to set up water supplies would have saved many lives in a simple, honest way. Or by feeding hungry people. There are 9 million people that die every year just from hunger, a lot, lot more than from the Cov. thing. He could feed some of them and save their lives. It would be a much easier task, straightforward, very effective and with clear results.
But you can’t control the world quite as easily simply by doing practical, honest things which save lives. And Gates seems to be keen to take control of every aspect of our lives.

I don’t believe any of Gates’ projects have anything to do with philanthropy. There is too much intermixing of donations and business.

What part of your (or my) mundane life do you think Bill is interested in?

eagle eye

schmoo2k wrote:

Ironically you still end up with herd immunity due to natural immunity.

Yeah, no concerns about long covid or even longer term affects from this virus. Let's not concern ourselves with any of that.

Antares35

What's the difference between a key worker and frontline staff in the context of priority for the vaccine? Are frontline staff medical? What's a key worker then?

average_runner

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

The list of who will get the vaccine first is on the journal,
i will see the effects of this before i decide if i'll take it or not, leaning towards not taking it but time will tell.

The time effects take place alot of us will be pretty old by then.

If there are effects, its the kids that would have a greater concern.

average_runner

Seweryn wrote: »

Lovely. Another company you can trust .

You do know, every vaccine we give the same agreement?
Did you not take any of them?


Also the same applies for the jabs when you go to Asia etc.

VonLuck

I have a strong feeling that those in the 18-64 category will be reluctant to take the vaccine. They are significantly less at risk than the other categories and by the time the vaccine is rolled out to their group, restrictions may be significantly reduced and they'll see the vaccine as non-essential.

I think it's comparable to the flu vaccine. I don't know any of my friends in their twenties or thirties who would even consider taking a flu vaccine in the winter.

average_runner

VonLuck wrote: »

I have a strong feeling that those in the 18-64 category will be reluctant to take the vaccine. They are significantly less at risk than the other categories and by the time the vaccine is rolled out to their group, restrictions may be significantly reduced and they'll see the vaccine as non-essential.

I think it's comparable to the flu vaccine. I don't know any of my friends in their twenties or thirties who would even consider taking a flu vaccine in the winter.

That is fair enough, not sure if i will/won't.


But its a decision I will make but if I don't take the vaccine, then my health insurance should go up and hospital should only treat you if you can pay for it.

eagle eye

Antares35 wrote:

What's the difference between a key worker and frontline staff in the context of priority for the vaccine? Are frontline staff medical? What's a key worker then?

I'm guessing key workers encompasses TD's, Senators, senior civil servants and county council figures etc. and then emergency services to keep them happy.

Plumbthedepths

average_runner wrote: »

That is fair enough, not sure if i will/won't.


But its a decision I will make but if I don't take the vaccine, then my health insurance should go up and hospital should only treat you if you can pay for it.

Similarly if you're obsese, a smoker, a drinker you should also only get treatment if you pay for it. I assume your self righteous suggestion also applies to those that don't get the flu vaccine and if not why not?

I have stated here I will get the vaccine but I will wait , there does however seem to be a certain cohort that wish to put on the jackboots.