Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

monkeybutter

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.

some people believe the earth is flat, doesn't mean they are right

runawaybishop

Shane Driscoll wrote: »

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.

That's great, but irrelevant.

I'll ask again, 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?

polesheep

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.

I have already stated that I only medicate when absolutely necessary and that, for myself, I will not take the Covid vaccine. I am prepared to take it for the benefit of others if it eliminates transmission. You mention 67% but that figure is yet to be proven and it is still 33% away from preventing transmission.

monkeybutter

polesheep wrote: »

I have already stated that I only medicate when absolutely necessary and that, for myself, I will not take the Covid vaccine. I am prepared to take it for the benefit of others if it eliminates transmission. You mention 67% but that figure is yet to be proven and it is still 33% away from preventing transmission.

what if it was 99%

polesheep

runawaybishop wrote: »

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

Please speak solely for yourself. You have no right to speak on another poster's behalf.

I don't want or intend to take it for myself, but I will take it for others if it eliminates transmission, as I am aware that there are vulnerable people who will not be able to take the vaccine.

polesheep

robinph wrote: »

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.

Why, when the poster made a very specific point, did you generalise about vaccine safety?

polesheep

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.

Depending on your age and health there could be more risk of feeling unwell from the vaccine than from contracting the virus.

I think a big issue in this pandemic is that some people are only seeing things from their own perspective. The risk levels differ hugely for different cohorts, therefore the feeling of being in danger also differs hugely.

robinph

polesheep wrote: »

I have already stated that I only medicate when absolutely necessary and that, for myself, I will not take the Covid vaccine. I am prepared to take it for the benefit of others if it eliminates transmission. You mention 67% but that figure is yet to be proven and it is still 33% away from preventing transmission.

Why are you so bothered about the missing 33% regarding onward transmission?

That has no negative on you, only the 67% chance that you don't pass it on to your friends and family matters of that statistic.

The other statistic which IS of relevance to you personally is that 99.997% of people have no symptoms from taking the vaccine. Why are you placing more importance on wanting to see a higher level in the reduction of transmission (any reduction in transmission is a massive benefit and zero cost to you, hence hand washing/ masks/ social distancing) but the virtually 100% lack of anyone having any symptoms you seem to be ignoring.

I guess you are just clinging to wanting the 100% stopping of transmission as you know that is unlikely, so want to hide behind that as your excuse for not taking the vaccine rather than admitting to having no logic or facts behind your refusal.

runawaybishop

polesheep wrote: »

Depending on your age and health there could be more risk of feeling unwell from the vaccine than from contracting the virus.

I think a big issue in this pandemic is that some people are only seeing things from their own perspective. The risk levels differ hugely for different cohorts, therefore the feeling of being in danger also differs hugely.

You are referring to issues with people that are extremely frail? Yes, vaccines in general are risky for them. So are many normal everyday activities due to their extreme frailty. That's not what we are discussing here.

Vaccination data shows them to be very safe, more so than the risk of contracting covid.

Personally I am going off scientifically tested data, not my feelings. It's a pity people are unable to look at this objectively.

polesheep

seamus wrote: »

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.

Where did I say that I was worried? I didn't. I gave the example in response to a statement dismissing any side effects. I also made it clear that those mild side effects would not stop me taking a vaccine.

I'm not making any excuses to not take the vaccine. I am crystal clear that I will not take it for my own safety as I don't feel threatened but that I will take it for the benefit of others if it eliminates transmission.

Some people just want everyone to take the vaccine even if it doesn't eliminate transmission. I cannot understand this point of view.

monkeybutter

polesheep wrote: »

Where did I say that I was worried? I didn't. I gave the example in response to a statement dismissing any side effects. I also made it clear that those mild side effects would not stop me taking a vaccine.

I'm not making any excuses to not take the vaccine. I am crystal clear that I will not take it for my own safety as I don't feel threatened but that I will take it for the benefit of others if it eliminates transmission.

Some people just want everyone to take the vaccine even if it doesn't eliminate transmission. I cannot understand this point of view.

what percentage would you take it at

polesheep

robinph wrote: »

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.

How are things in the pantheon of the gods? All good I hope.

runawaybishop

polesheep wrote: »

Some people just want everyone to take the vaccine even if it doesn't eliminate transmission. I cannot understand this point of view.

Even a small reduction in transmission means the importance of getting vaccinated rises. A drop of 2/3rds is huge. It's the difference between no restrictions and level 3.

robinph

polesheep wrote: »

Please speak solely for yourself. You have no right to speak on another poster's behalf.

I don't want or intend to take it for myself, but I will take it for others if it eliminates transmission, as I am aware that there are vulnerable people who will not be able to take the vaccine.

If there is no risk to you from the vaccine then why do you want to see 100% in it stopping onward transmission?

Even if the vaccine was only half as good as the numbers are expected to currently show, 33% effective in stopping onward transmission would have a massive impact on the spread of the virus within the community. 33% less people catching it from you means they are then not passing it onto any of the other people they may encounter in their lives regardless of if they have been vaccinated or not. If the majority of people are vaccinated and also have that same reduced chance of onward transmission the effect of that is multiplied massively.

polesheep

polesheep wrote: »

Depending on your age and health there could be more risk of feeling unwell from the vaccine than from contracting the virus.

Theres some rubbish being passed off as fact here

,i know plenty young and old,who have been mild to v.sick with this virus....several who have died(youngest being early 50s).....uhw have had to hire a 2nd freezer lorry to handle deaths


Other than one person having a mild reaction (sore arm),noone i know has been unwel with this vaccine

polesheep

robinph wrote: »

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".

Not that any of the side effects are in any way significant, but your 3 out of every 1,000 is rubbish. Most people receiving their second dose of vaccine are experiencing some form of mild side effects.

polesheep

monkeybutter wrote: »

some people believe the earth is flat, doesn't mean they are right

What has that got to do with the discussion? Are you suggesting that anyone who doesn't want to take a vaccine is a flat-earther?

polesheep

runawaybishop wrote: »

That's great, but irrelevant.

I'll ask again, 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?

Why are you using that word. The poster never said that he/she is afraid.

runawaybishop

polesheep wrote: »

Why are you using that word. The poster never said that he/she is afraid.

Stop trying to move the goalposts. These are simple questions.

aido79

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.

Name one thing in this substance that is not fully understood that isn't either naturally produced in the human body or in some food that people consume daily.

polesheep

monkeybutter wrote: »

what if it was 99%

More than good enough. I would take the vaccine in that case for the benefit of those who are vulnerable and cannot.

runawaybishop

polesheep wrote: »

More than good enough. I would take the vaccine in that case for the benefit of those who are vulnerable and cannot.

The R value is estimated to naturally be between 2 and 3. A 50-67% reduction means the case numbers will trend towards 0.

polesheep

robinph wrote: »

Why are you so bothered about the missing 33% regarding onward transmission?

That has no negative on you, only the 67% chance that you don't pass it on to your friends and family matters of that statistic.

The other statistic which IS of relevance to you personally is that 99.997% of people have no symptoms from taking the vaccine. Why are you placing more importance on wanting to see a higher level in the reduction of transmission (any reduction in transmission is a massive benefit and zero cost to you, hence hand washing/ masks/ social distancing) but the virtually 100% lack of anyone having any symptoms you seem to be ignoring.

I guess you are just clinging to wanting the 100% stopping of transmission as you know that is unlikely, so want to hide behind that as your excuse for not taking the vaccine rather than admitting to having no logic or facts behind your refusal.

If the vaccine stops transmission I will take it. And you are wrong about that 99.997%. Check the thread about post-vaccine side-effects.

monkeybutter

polesheep wrote: »

More than good enough. I would take the vaccine in that case for the benefit of those who are vulnerable and cannot.

whats your bottom number

polesheep

Deleted User wrote: »

Theres some rubbish being passed off as fact here

,i know plenty young and old,who have been mild to v.sick with this virus....several who have died(youngest being early 50s).....uhw have had to hire a 2nd freezer lorry to handle deaths


Other than one person having a mild reaction (sore arm),noone i know has been unwel with this vaccine

The bulk of your post proves the first line of your post.

polesheep

runawaybishop wrote: »

Stop trying to move the goalposts. These are simple questions.

You insert the concept of fear where there was none and you accuse me of moving the goal posts, really?

robinph

polesheep wrote: »

Not that any of the side effects are in any way significant, but your 3 out of every 1,000 is rubbish. Most people receiving their second dose of vaccine are experiencing some form of mild side effects.

Try reading the article, and learn the meaning of the word "most".

It clearly mentions that there were 3 in 1000 reports of any reaction to the vaccines, and 1 in 100,000 allergic reactions.

Even adding in the list of extremely mild reactions from the bottom of the article, it's still only 1 in 10 who have a sore arm for example, and they have just had a needle stuck in their arms. I have experience of sticking needles into myself up to 6+ times a day, sometimes it hurts, most of the time it doesn't.

aido79

Shane Driscoll wrote: »

And the risk from covid to me is also tiny.

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

How confident are you that covid would not affect you? Would you be willing to volunteer in a covid ward without any ppe for a week or two?

polesheep

monkeybutter wrote: »

whats your bottom number

Anything over 90% is close enough to 100% for me to be satisfied.

As I said earlier, some people just want everyone to take the vaccine regardless.

robinph

polesheep wrote: »

If the vaccine stops transmission I will take it. And you are wrong about that 99.997%. Check the thread about post-vaccine side-effects.

What thread?

The article that I linked to was based on data from 7million people who had been vaccinated by 24th January in the UK. Does the thread you mention have a better scientific basis behind it?




If there is no risk to you, then why do you need higher than 67% reduction in transmission before offering up your arm in order to help reduce that transmission to the rest of your community?