Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

polesheep

Deleted User wrote: »

There are no guarantees in life. If everybody had the same concerns as you, we would be wearing masks for years.

Of course there are guarantees, that's just a silly cliche. I didn't mention any concerns so I don't know where you are getting that from. And I stated very clearly, in case you missed it, that if the vaccine prevents me from passing on the virus then I will take it.

robinph

polesheep wrote: »

Of course there are guarantees, that's just a silly cliche. I didn't mention any concerns so I don't know where you are getting that from. And I stated very clearly, in case you missed it, that if the vaccine prevents me from passing on the virus then I will take it.

Why wouldn't you take it to reduce your chances, however small they may be at the moment, of getting ill and ending up in hospital so taking up a bed that you wouldn't have needed if you had taken the vaccine?

You want a guarantee that it will stop you passing covid onto someone else. Why doesn't having a higher guarantee of not ending up in hospital personally also work for you?

Are you trying to save the dose to be used by someone else? Or are you scared of the vaccine?

polesheep

robinph wrote: »

Why wouldn't you take it to reduce your chances, however small they may be at the moment, of getting ill and ending up in hospital so taking up a bed that you wouldn't have needed if you had taken the vaccine?

You want a guarantee that it will stop you passing covid onto someone else. Why doesn't having a higher guarantee of not ending up in hospital personally also work for you?

Are you trying to save the dose to be used by someone else? Or are you scared of the vaccine?

Statistically I'm more likely to be hit by a bus this morning. I have always limited the medication I take to the absolute minimum possible. That said, once again, if the vaccine can prevent my passing the virus to someone else who is vulnerable to it, then I have no problem taking it.

We all judge risks differently and I have calculated that the virus poses little or no risk to me. Obviously, it is extremely risky for some people and that's why I would be prepared to take a vaccine that prevents transmission.

8kczg9v0swrydm

Interesting CDC figures on the vaccines in the US:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/at-least-273-deaths-9845-adverse-events-after-covid-vaccination-so-far-cdc-data

schmoo2k

polesheep wrote: »

As I said, if the vaccine prevents me from passing the virus on to vulnerable people I will take it.

Still waiting peer review:

Researchers said that the first dose of the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab offers protection of 76% up to three months and may reduce transmission by 67% – with efficacy rising to 82.4% after the second dose 12 weeks later.

The data from the study by the University of Oxford, which has not yet been peer reviewed, supports the four to 12-week prime-boost dosing interval that many global regulators, including the UK’s, have recommended.

polesheep

schmoo2k wrote: »

Still waiting peer review:

Precisely.

Red Silurian

Yes, I will take it into the nerve endings of my teeth or the inside of my prostate if it means we can finally have an open debate and discuss whether it was all a hoax or not from the pub

schmoo2k

polesheep wrote: »

Precisely.

I would expect the review to be complete before I get offered one...

Assuming it passes peer review will you take it? (just curious as IMO it won't really matter especially now an estimated 19% of the Irish Population have already been infected with Covid).

robinph

NaFirinne wrote: »

Although there have been some reports of bad reactions.

The main reactions that I heard of were some early vaccinations which were given to a couple of NHS nurses who had severe allergic reactions to "something" such that they always carried epi-pens on them, and some mass outbreak of stupidity occurred between them and the other nurses giving them the injections so that they all ignored the fact the vaccines were not to be given to people with sever allergies. Unsurprisingly they both had allergic reactions and should never have been offered that vaccine at all.

That then resulted in the vaccination program for the rest of the population now requires everyone to hang around for 15 minutes after getting the jab incase more stupid people who have sever allergies also don't tell the people giving the injections that they have severe allergies.

There isn't anything else much I've heard of so far about any reactions, doesn't mean there aren't any... just the main reaction so far was due to stupidity from people who should have known better.

polesheep

schmoo2k wrote: »

I would expect the review to be complete before I get offered one...

Assuming it passes peer review will you take it? (just curious as IMO it won't really matter especially now an estimated 19% of the Irish Population have already been infected with Covid).

At 67% I'm unlikely to take it tbh. It would have to much higher than that.

polesheep

robinph wrote: »

The main reactions that I heard of were some early vaccinations which were given to a couple of NHS nurses who had severe allergic reactions to "something" such that they always carried epi-pens on them, and some mass outbreak of stupidity occurred between them and the other nurses giving them the injections so that they all ignored the fact the vaccines were not to be given to people with sever allergies. Unsurprisingly they both had allergic reactions and should never have been offered that vaccine at all.

That then resulted in the vaccination program for the rest of the population now requires everyone to hang around for 15 minutes after getting the jab incase more stupid people who have sever allergies also don't tell the people giving the injections that they have severe allergies.

There isn't anything else much I've heard of so far about any reactions, doesn't mean there aren't any... just the main reaction so far was due to stupidity from people who should have known better.

I know of two people who had to take to the bed for a couple of days after the second dose. Although I wouldn't let that put me off if there is a guarantee that the vaccine will prevent transmission.

robinph

polesheep wrote: »

At 67% I'm unlikely to take it tbh. It would have to much higher than that.

Why are you so concerned about it being "guaranteed" to stop transmission to others? It reducing your chance of passing it onto others by 67% is massive.

Assuming no side effects to yourself from taking the vaccine, why are you so bothered about the onward transmission being better? If at the moment there is a 0% chance of you naturally stopping transmission to others, why wouldn't you take a measure that reduces that chance of you being the transmission vector between others by 67%?

Your reasoning makes no sense.

runawaybishop

robinph wrote: »

Why are you so concerned about it being "guaranteed" to stop transmission to others? It reducing your chance of passing it onto others by 67% is massive.

Assuming no side effects to yourself from taking the vaccine, why are you so bothered about the onward transmission being better? If at the moment there is a 0% chance of you naturally stopping transmission to others, why wouldn't you take a measure that reduces that chance of you being the transmission vector between others by 67%?

Your reasoning makes no sense.

He doesn't want to take it. The rest is just excuses to justify that to himself.

Quantum Baloney

robinph wrote: »

Why are you so concerned about it being "guaranteed" to stop transmission to others?
[...]
Your reasoning makes no sense.

I think it is fairly clear. Some people, myself included, do not want to be injected with a substance that is not fully understood and for which there are no long term studies, unless, at a bare minimum, it proven to have substantial power in stopping transmission. Why? Because we consider the risk of Covid to ourselves to be vanishingly small and because we consider it prudent to 'wait and see' with respect to the vaccine. Do you understand now? I would have thought this was a perfectly reasonable and easily understood position.

robinph

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

I think it is fairly clear. Some people, myself included, do not want to be injected with a substance that is not fully understood and for which there are no long term studies, unless, at a bare minimum, it proven to have substantial power in stopping transmission. Why? Because we consider the risk of Covid to ourselves to be vanishingly small and because we consider it prudent to 'wait and see' with respect to the vaccine. Do you understand now? I would have thought this was a perfectly reasonable and easily understood position.

So why not come out directly and say that you don't believe vaccines are safe then? Rather than trying to hide that opinion behind saying you'll only take it if its guaranteed to prevent transmission?

Rather than arguing about what level of reduced transmission is worthy or not, we could have been finding out what exactly it is that you are afraid of about vaccines.

Shane Driscoll

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You'd want to hope that statement doesn't come back to haunt you.

The statistics are massively in my favour.

Shane Driscoll

TheChizler wrote: »

I know someone perfectly healthy in the prime of their life, no underlying conditions, nearly died on a ventilator the week before last.

And I knew a healthy young man who ended up in hospital with severe pneumonia a couple of years back.

Life is random and chaotic.

runawaybishop

Shane Driscoll wrote: »

The statistics are massively in my favour.

Statistically, vaccines are safe. The stats are far more in favour of vaccination. There is more risk from covid than there is from a vaccine.

robinph

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

I think it is fairly clear. Some people, myself included, do not want to be injected with a substance that is not fully understood and for which there are no long term studies, unless, at a bare minimum, it proven to have substantial power in stopping transmission. Why? Because we consider the risk of Covid to ourselves to be vanishingly small and because we consider it prudent to 'wait and see' with respect to the vaccine. Do you understand now? I would have thought this was a perfectly reasonable and easily understood position.

New data just out today shows that only 3 out of 1000 people have had any mild symptoms, and then is normally just a sore arm or feeling a bit of flu for a couple of days.

BBC News - Covid vaccines 'extremely safe' finds UK regulator
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55946912

Is 99.997% of people not getting any symptoms good enough for you to take a vaccine which will reduce your chances of transmission to others by 67%?

runawaybishop

robinph wrote: »

New data just out today shows that only 3 out of 1000 people have had any mild symptoms, and then is normally just a sore arm or feeling a bit of flu for a couple of days.

BBC News - Covid vaccines 'extremely safe' finds UK regulator
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55946912

Is 99.997% of people not getting any symptoms good enough for you to take a vaccine which will reduce your chances of transmission to others by 67%?

I don't blame people for being wary. The media has spent years telling us, sensationally, about the issues vaccines have caused without putting it in context. It's not unexpected that people have reservations.

Shane Driscoll

runawaybishop wrote: »

Statistically, vaccines are safe. The stats are far more in favour of vaccination. There is more risk from covid than there is from a vaccine.

And the risk from covid to me is also tiny.

Phew! There was me thinking were dealing plague or smallpox.

runawaybishop

Shane Driscoll wrote: »

And the risk from covid to me is also tiny.

Phew! There was me thinking were dealing plague or smallpox.

Settle down, it's just a discussion.

The risk from covid is small, the risk from a vaccine is smaller. Setting aside transmission rates for a second, it makes no logical sense to be worried about a vaccine but not worried about covid.

seamus

polesheep wrote: »

I know of two people who had to take to the bed for a couple of days after the second dose. Although I wouldn't let that put me off if there is a guarantee that the vaccine will prevent transmission.

People who "had to take to bed" would worry you about the vaccine, but ending up ventilated in ICU doesn't worry you about the virus.

As said above, you just don't want to take the vaccine and you're coming up with convenient excuses to justify it to yourself. If that makes you happy with yourself, then off you go.
But it's flimsy and transparent to the rest of us that you just don't want to admit you're a skeptic with no rational basis.

robinph

runawaybishop wrote: »

I don't blame people for being wary. The media has spent years telling us, sensationally, about the issues vaccines have caused without putting it in context. It's not unexpected that people have reservations.

Which is why more needs to be done regarding how the messages are put out there to a public with a short attention span and no knowledge of most things.

If that BBC headline had gone with "22820 people had reaction to vaccines" it's a totally different story and reaction to the 3 in 1000 top statistic they decided to go with. Unfortunately it takes more effort to undo the problems caused by inaccurate scary headlines which is what we are left fighting against here now with people hiding behind the excuse of wanting to see guarantee of no transmission before they will take a vaccine shown to have 99.997% of people showing no symptoms.

Just in the UK they have now vaccinated twice the population of Ireland, but people are still not convinced.

Shane Driscoll

runawaybishop wrote: »

Settle down, it's just a discussion.

The risk from covid is small, the risk from a vaccine is smaller. Setting aside transmission rates for a second, it makes no logical sense to be worried about a vaccine but not worried about covid.

I'm just putting it into perspective.

There's a serious group think going on. Plenty will be saying no to the vaccine..I'm afraid you will have to deal with it.

trixi001

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

I think it is fairly clear. Some people, myself included, do not want to be injected with a substance that is not fully understood and for which there are no long term studies, unless, at a bare minimum, it proven to have substantial power in stopping transmission. Why? Because we consider the risk of Covid to ourselves to be vanishingly small and because we consider it prudent to 'wait and see' with respect to the vaccine. Do you understand now? I would have thought this was a perfectly reasonable and easily understood position.

I agree with you, and this is my thinking around the vaccines too - the risk of covid to me is very small, so I would not be getting a jab just to protect myself - it would be to stop me passing it to others..

The vaccine does seem to have side effects - most people are experiencing fatigue, some a few days in bed with what is basically a cold - why would I want to give myself the cold, to protect myself from something that poses minimal risk?

Also - The Pfixer/Moderna vaccines uses new technology - so never mind the short term effects, what are the long term effects? Its just too uncertain for me to take without it being proven to reduce transmission.

If i am offered the Oxford one, and trials are still showing it reduces transmission then I might take it..

runawaybishop

Shane Driscoll wrote: »

I'm just putting it into perspective.

There's a serious group think going on. Plenty will be saying no to the vaccine..I'm afraid you will have to deal with it.

I don't care if you take it or not tbh, work away. You are incorrectly stating the vaccine is more risk than covid, it is not. Statistically the vaccines are safer than covid.

Group think? What do you mean by this? It is medically advised to take the vaccine, that is not groupthink.

You are more afraid of a vaccine transparently developed to help you than you are of a disease that's goal is to make you sick. How does that logic get squared away for you?

Shane Driscoll

runawaybishop wrote: »

I don't care if you take it or not tbh, work away. You are incorrectly stating the vaccine is more risk than covid, it is not. Statistically the vaccines are safer than covid.

Group think? What do you mean by this? It is medically advised to take the vaccine, that is not groupthink.

You are more afraid of a vaccine transparently developed to help you than you are of a disease that's goal is to make you sick. How does that logic get squared away for you?

Have a look the pub thread I'm posting on where I'm being told my passport will be seized and I'll be denied health insurance because I'm refusing the vaccine.

You have lads over there pulling themselves raw at the thought of some kind of tolitarian sate compelling us to take the vaccine. It's hysterical.

runawaybishop

trixi001 wrote: »

Also - The Pfixer/Moderna vaccines uses new technology - so never mind the short term effects, what are the long term effects? Its just too uncertain for me to take without it being proven to reduce transmission.

I don't understand this argument. You are not sure of the long term risks of the vaccines, even though most issues arise in the first couple of weeks and they have undergone massive scrutiny, yet you are totally fine with the long term risks of covid?

FYI mRNA isn't new, we've been using it for over 30 years.

robinph

trixi001 wrote: »

The vaccine does seem to have side effects - most people are experiencing fatigue, some a few days in bed with what is basically a cold - why would I want to give myself the cold, to protect myself from something that poses minimal risk?

Most people are not experiencing side effects. 3 out of every 1000 people reported mild side effects, mostly sore arms.

Only 1 out of 100,000 reports of any allergic reactions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55946912

That is a long way from "most".