What duration is required for us to determine its ‘shown’ safe.
I was vaccinated
I’m not an anti vaxxer. I think vaccinations are a form of evolution that demonstrate humans ability to overcome our biological short falls.
My rationale for not getting it is: the chances of me getting COVID and dying are less than .5%. My chances of getting COVID and not knowing is quite high. My chances of injecting a substance that has no known negative effects and was rushed to market is higher. It’s an odds game. I’m comfortable with the odds.
Gotcha. I would imagine most anti-vaxxers won’t get it unless them or their family members die or get it.
I don’t think the way you are looking at it is surprising or irrational at all. If I take the risk it will be more for my parents than myself. I’m fairly young and in pretty good shape. I’m more fearful of giving it to someone who is vulnerable than I am of getting it.
If all we needed to be worried about was our own personal health and safety, then i would not follow a single piece of restrictive policy put forth during this crisis. The point of the vaccine is to make sure that you dont carry the virus and give it to someone else who is susceptible to serious consequences. Also, if it is anything like the flu vaccine, it is not a guarantee against catching the virus, so elderly folks who do get vaccinated might still be able to catch a strain of the virus from some young healthy person like yourself… which is why you would want to reduce your chances of becoming infected as much as possible. Its the same logic that applies to retirement home workers getting the flu shot to reduce the chance of spreading the flu to the sick and elderly.
Also, you must have a crazy high risk tolerance if you are okay with a 1/200 shot of dying in the next year from going about daily life. FUCK THOSE ODDS hah.
What would have to be done for you to believe the vaccine was safe? Do you think that the full FDA testing process is really necessary, or can the redtape be cut out and the timeline condensed?
More than a hasty 6-9 month of study that’s for sure. I’m not giving my 2-year-old a vaccine for a virus that almost certainly won’t affect him.
Those at high risk, go for it. The elderly, go for it. You’re scared of the virus even if you’re not high risk, go for it.
Like what? I’ll do what I do to avoid most other viruses including washing my hands, not breathing in people’s faces, and avoiding crowds (I do that to avoid the worst virus on the planet anyway…).
No it isn’t. A vaccine is specifically to keep ME from getting something. The at risk can get it or not. If they are vaccinated they cannot catch it from me either way. No chance would I get this vaccine, just like there is zero chance that I will ever get a flu vaccine. I am not anti-vaccine, I even keep up my tetanus shot. But at some point, I just need to adapt to what’s out there and this thing is not likely to kill me.
I do believe social distancing works. And i think it works really well. But social distancing is disregarded by a huge percentage of the population if not enforced, and it also hurts the economy (restaraunts, bars, events all at less than full capacity).
I guess my point is predicated on the idea of the vaccine being similar to the seasonal flu vaccine- it doesn’t guarantee immunity. So, giving the vaccine to high-risk folks is a good step, but someone not inoculated would then have a much greater chance of catching and then giving the virus to the at-risk than if they were vaccinated as well.
IMO, it comes down to reducing risk as much as possible across society so society can function at full capacity. It seems like folks think the risk of the vaccine to themselves, outweighs the benefits their vaccination would provide society.
Thats simply not true. There is a reason that kids are required to have certain vaccinations to enroll in public schools- its because some folks cannot get he vaccines, or have conditions that make them unusually susceptible, but the general “herd immunity” of the school population does not allow for those viruses to get a foothold and spread. Vaccines are meant to protect yourself, but also to create her immunity which protects everyone else.
If you honestly believe in this this argument, you are flat out stupid. If doing it to make a point, its completely disingenuous. I dont think you are stupid. So im out of here for today.
Thats a fair distinction, and i agree with your better wording.
I think that a safe vaccine will accomplish the reduction in risk to an acceptable level in the quickest manner with the least harm done to the economy. I guess we will have to wait and see what comes down the pipeline.
We have no idea if this is applicable to Covid-19 and any possible vaccines or not. I wear a mask in public and carry and use sanitizer, but I’m not doing a yearly “Gamble” vaccine like the flu vaccine - which is what this would most likely be. No chance.
It’s not an unfair argument. The chances of dying from a car accident are 1/77 (according to Cars.com). That’s a fair comparison because someone else’s decision impacts your life. The discussion, imo, has been centered around emotion, and you can’t have an honest discussion when emotion is the driver. An example is leaders stating that they won’t open states until there is no risk of COVID infection and stating no death is acceptable. On an individual instance, I completely agree, but it’s disingenuous to state a narrative that legislation doesn’t use statistics to determine an acceptable rate of death, downside, etc.
Reduce the speed limit to 20mph and the odds will decrease, but that isn’t something that is discussed.
