Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

Minier81

plodder wrote: »

Maybe they qualify as "key workers" which is the sixth group in what I've seen. You can argue the rights and wrongs of that, but if they were to secretly get it ahead of that prioritisation, it would be some scandal in my opinion.

And if they don't get it early they will be criticised for not leading by example against the anti vaxxer. I think they will and probably should get it early for public confidence.

plodder

Minier81 wrote: »

And if they don't get it early they will be criticised for not leading by example against the anti vaxxer. I think they will and probably should get it early for public confidence.

Then they should update whatever official list of categories there is, such as that was used on this page:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/covid-19-vaccination-programme-could-begin-before-new-year-1.4437412

If they are going to get it first or second, then say so.

I agree it would be good for some politicians to get it early for PR reasons, but all of them? Not so sure.

JJayoo

Anti vaxers = my family will get it quicker

expectationlost

Minier81 wrote: »

And if they don't get it early they will be criticised for not leading by example against the anti vaxxer. I think they will and probably should get it early for public confidence.

what about the confidence of people who have to continue on without a vaccine for another 8 months before they are due to get it?

schmoo2k

plodder wrote: »

Then they should update whatever official list of categories there is, such as that was used on this page:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/covid-19-vaccination-programme-could-begin-before-new-year-1.4437412

If they are going to get it first or second, then say so.

I agree it would be good for some politicians to get it early for PR reasons, but all of them? Not so sure.

From a PR point, probably most important for Sinn Fein et al to get it publicly...

Minier81

expectationlost wrote: »

what about the confidence of people who have to continue on without a vaccine for another 8 months before they are due to get it?

In fairness they would be key workers which is 6th in line so would get it ahead of most on age anyway.of course it would be great if everyone could get it quickly but just not logistically possible.

is_that_so

PhantomHat wrote: »

Even if a vaccine has trained your immune cells to kick the butt of any SARS-CoV-2 viruses they spot, they might not be able to neutralize the ones resting in your nose, on the other side of your mucous barriers.
Those COVID-19 viruses may not hurt you, but they still might be able to replicate and shed — coughed back out of your nose and mouth and into the community.

For at most 10 days and vaccines will protect others from your evil germs.

expectationlost

schmoo2k wrote: »

From a PR point, probably most important for Sinn Fein et al to get it publicly...

politicians should get it only due to their age or health conditions, they don't need to show people their own age that they need to get the vaccine in January because it will be many months before people their own age get the vaccine, it would have better impact at that time then in the next month.

GreeBo

I love how those against the vaccine are worried about the potential for unknown long-term effects of the man made and heavily tested vaccine, but are perfectly willing to expose themselves to a freely mutating virus that has been already shown to have bad long term effects and could turn out to have even worse ones.

Where's the logic here?

schmoo2k

GreeBo wrote: »

I love how those against the vaccine are worried about the potential for unknown long-term effects of the man made and heavily tested vaccine, but are perfectly willing to expose themselves to a freely mutating virus that has been already shown to have bad long term effects and could turn out to have even worse ones.

Where's the logic here?

To be fair the extreme goes both directions, there are folks who would take a vaccine in the morning (any of the 16+) without even waiting for approvals.

Luckily, those in the middle are the majority and:
* People opting out are just volunteering to get natural immunity
* People opting in no matter what are just volunteering to test un approved vaccines.

richardw001

schmoo2k wrote: »

To be fair the extreme goes both directions, there are folks who would take a vaccine in the morning (any of the 16+) without even waiting for approvals.

Luckily, those in the middle are the majority and:
* People opting out are just volunteering to get natural immunity
* People opting in no matter what are just volunteering to test un approved vaccines.

I for one going to take the vaccine when it's available.

It's a matter of weighing the odds for me - when you look at the risks of comming down with something serious with covid (or being responsible for infecting someone else with it) - it seems like the thing to do.

Volunteering to get natural immunity is one thing - but putting other people at risk is another. Are people that choose not to take it - prepared to restrict their movements indefinitely?

Re the unapproved vaccines comment - I think you probably mean unproven long-term? They are being approved and these covid vaccines have had more money, resources and expertise thrown at them then other vaccines have had - The US alone have spent 5 billion.

Compare that with the cost of vaccines developed in the past

https://www.passporthealthusa.com/2018/02/how-much-does-it-cost-to-develop-a-new-vaccine/

schmoo2k

richardw001 wrote: »

I for one going to take the vaccine when it's available.

It's a matter of weighing the odds for me - when you look at the risks of comming down with something serious with covid (or being responsible for infecting someone else with it) - it seems like the thing to do.

Volunteering to get natural immunity is one thing - but putting other people at risk is another. Are people that choose not to take it - prepared to restrict their movements indefinitely?

Re the unapproved vaccines comment - I think you probably mean unproven long-term? They are being approved and these covid vaccines have had more money, resources and expertise thrown at them then other vaccines have had - The US alone have spent 5 billion.

Compare that with the cost of vaccines developed in the past

https://www.passporthealthusa.com/2018/02/how-much-does-it-cost-to-develop-a-new-vaccine/

1. At least the other people they put at risk will be other folks who have opted out AND will be predominantly low risk groups. (For people who are unable to take a vaccine, they need to play it safe until heard immunity is a thing no matter how this plays out).
2. Nope - my point is that some folks are already committing to vaccines that have not been approved, which is just as crazy as refusing to take any vaccine IMO (granted they can't physically get the vaccine, but from a "persuasion" point of view its equally daft)...

robinph

schmoo2k wrote: »

To be fair the extreme goes both directions, there are folks who would take a vaccine in the morning (any of the 16+) without even waiting for approvals.

Luckily, those in the middle are the majority and:
* People opting out are just volunteering to get natural immunity
* People opting in no matter what are just volunteering to test un approved vaccines.

There is far more known about the vaccines and what its potential to do to us is, than for the virus. These versions of each have both been around for about the same amount of time, give or take a month.

I'd definitely take my chances with a new vaccine ahead of a new virus. We know what the purpose of one of them is and have years of experience in making them do that, the other one has millions of years of trying to kill us in unpleasant ways*.




*Time span and life goals of the virus may not be accurate.

schmoo2k

robinph wrote: »

There is far more known about the vaccines and what its potential to do to us is, than for the virus. These versions of each have both been around for about the same amount of time, give or take a month.

I'd definitely take my chances with a new vaccine ahead of a new virus. We know what the purpose of one of them is and have years of experience in making them do that, the other one has millions of years of trying to kill us in unpleasant ways*.




*Time span and life goals of the virus may not be accurate.

Let me correct you there "There is far more known about the some of the vaccines".

Which is just consolidating my point - on the one extreme you have folks who refuse to take any vaccines and want to convince others why and on the other extreme you have folks saying that we should all blindly take the vaccines even before they have even been approved in this country.

Thankfully the majority of folks are in the middle and don't feel the need to validate their decision by influencing others to do the same.

Disclaimer - I am pro vaccine but will wait for one which has been approved from a scientific body that I trust.

Thought exercise:
1. Would you take a vaccine not approved by the WHO? - Today there are none approved
2. Would you take the Sinopharm vaccine? Currently approved by 4+ countries
3. Would you take any vaccine approved by the FDA + EU? (this is where I feel comfortable)
...

plodder

I was listening to Christy Moore talk to Miriam O'Callaghan yesterday, and he was describing how it affected his gigging work (brought it to a complete halt obviously). At the end she asked him would he be taking the vaccine, and he says - I'd take the five of them .. in both arms

This isn't in response to the previous post. I presume like everyone else, he will take it if/when approved by the EMA and FDA. I don't see the point in asking if you would take it before such approval, because it's not going to be available until and unless it is approved.

robinph

schmoo2k wrote: »

Let me correct you there "There is far more known about the some of the vaccines".

...

We know 100% about where the vaccines came from, how they were made and how they get into our bodies. We don't know everything about how they may interact with every person on the planet, or whatever other combination of drugs they may be taking but can take a fairly safe guess in most cases from years of closely studying previous incarnations of virtually identical vaccines.

The virus we still don't know where it came from, how it is spread in all cases, what affects it has on people, why it does not affect some people or what any longterm results will be. We know bits about bits, but I think there is far more unknown about the virus than we knew about any of the vaccines, even when they were first produced back in April we knew more about the vaccines.

But as said, nobody is taking them until they are approved anyway so it's academic in reality.

schmoo2k

robinph wrote: »

We know 100% about where the vaccines came from, how they were made and how they get into our bodies. We don't know everything about how they may interact with every person on the planet, or whatever other combination of drugs they may be taking but can take a fairly safe guess in most cases from years of closely studying previous incarnations of virtually identical vaccines.

The virus we still don't know where it came from, how it is spread in all cases, what affects it has on people, why it does not affect some people or what any longterm results will be. We know bits about bits, but I think there is far more unknown about the virus than we knew about any of the vaccines, even when they were first produced back in April we knew more about the vaccines.

But as said, nobody is taking them until they are approved anyway so it's academic in reality.

The mRNA vaccines are brand new, there are no previous vaccines to compare with...

Now personally I do think they are the future for vaccine development based on what I have read and the Pfizer trials + documentation were very good, the -70 storage requirement is bit of an issue in the future though.

robinph

schmoo2k wrote: »

The mRNA vaccines are brand new, there are no previous vaccines to compare with...

Now personally I do think they are the future for vaccine development based on what I have read and the Pfizer trials + documentation were very good, the -70 storage requirement is bit of an issue in the future though.

Were they note previously loaded with the SARS/ MERS payloads, just never completed the trials past the initial rounds?

I'd seen something before that the -70 requirement is mostly just an admin issue. In that all trials normally start with them doing things at -70, then the next round once they have got round to it a year or so later they then run at -28...then next round a bit more normal fridge temperatures again... just Pfizer took the extra cautious approach and stuck with the -70 in order to make give it a bit more chance of being successful in getting at least something out and Moderna went with -28. No technical reason for the Pfizer one to require -70 whilst the others don't, just that is what they ran the trials at so are stuck with until they run some more.

Not sure if intentional between the companies to have spread their bets like that between them, would be nice to think they were working together. If they flipped a coin before the start to decide who went with which temperature would be an entirely sensible way of speeding up the trials and leaving out unnecessary stages.

runawaybishop

schmoo2k wrote: »

The mRNA vaccines are brand new, there are no previous vaccines to compare with...

Now personally I do think they are the future for vaccine development based on what I have read and the Pfizer trials + documentation were very good, the -70 storage requirement is bit of an issue in the future though.

We have had mRNA medicine for years, mainly for cancer treatment. It wasn't cost effective to use them for a vaccine previously.

expectationlost

this answer from thejournal about how are things different now compared to the swine flu which triggered narcolepsy in some people https://www.thejournal.ie/swine-flu-vaccine-covid-5296381-Dec2020/ it doesn't make the swine flu process look good, and thus doesn't make you trust vaccines more...

antiskeptic

richardw001 wrote: »

Are people that choose not to take it - prepared to restrict their movements indefinitely?

Bar they are forced to do so (which I think unlikely) there is no particular reason why people who chose not to avail of the vaccine need restrict their movements.

They haven't an obligation to protect someone else from a risk .. by exposing themselves to risk. A mother might push her baby out of the way and sacrifice herself to the oncoming bus. But those cases are special cases.

In this realm, it is as much the perogative of a person to suppose a vaccine safe as it is the perogative of a person to suppose it isn't.

-

"My body my choice" was a refrain that broached no dissent recently. It could well be wheeled out again.

Russman

antiskeptic wrote: »

"My body my choice" was a refrain that broached no dissent recently. It could well be wheeled out again.

"My aeroplane my choice" or "my stadium my choice" could equally be wheeled out though.

Plumbthedepths

There's going to be alot of disappointed people if a vaccination cert is not mandatory.

Quazzie

Will the vaccine be a yearly thing, or is it a once off thing like the MMR?

Traficante

Quazzie wrote: »

Will the vaccine be a yearly thing, or is it a once off thing like the MMR?

IMO because the virus is starting to mutate I think it will have to be a yearly Vaccine similar to the Flu Vaccine. No quick fix here I don't think.

Traficante

antiskeptic wrote: »

My body my choice" was a refrain that broached no dissent recently. It could well be wheeled out again.

That mantra will only limit your choice, choice of airline and other places where ppl mingle, although it appears most if not all airlines appear to be signing up to the "No Vaccine, No Fly" way of thinking which is odd as the people that are vacinated will be fine, it is only those that are not Vacinated that will be at risk so their choice is their risk. Either way imo any forced or coerced vaccinating is a slippery slope.

schmoo2k

Traficante wrote: »

That mantra will only limit your choice, choice of airline and other places where ppl mingle, although it appears most if not all airlines appear to be signing up to the "No Vaccine, No Fly" way of thinking which is odd as the people that are vacinated will be fine, it is only those that are not Vacinated that will be at risk so their choice is their risk. Either way imo any forced or coerced vaccinating is a slippery slope.

I can see countries mandating a vaccine / negative test, but not the airlines themselves (makes zero financial sense).

Government buildings

Imagine being in a nursing home and saying you didn't want to take the vaccine.

schmoo2k

Government buildings wrote: »

Imagine being in a nursing home and saying you didn't want to take the vaccine.

I could imagine anyone who has had and recovered from Covid saying that?

Quazzie

schmoo2k wrote: »

I could imagine anyone who has had and recovered from Covid saying that?

Why? They are still able to get COVID again