Will you take the Covid Vaccine?

[Hoosierdood]

I'm asking the question of those who do not take it: do you intend to avoid Covid? because Covid has a far higher side effect rate than the vaccine. And Covid kills 1 in 200 people it infects. (more frequent if you are over 50, less frequent if you are under 50)

So I'm legitimately wondering if those individuals that won't take the vaccine are taking steps to avoid Covid.

The risk discussion would change if other side effects are found. The vaccine has been given to tens of thousands. There might be some more rare effects, when we get to millions.

By the way it's not "experimental". It went through all of the normal vaccine trials. It's "emergency use authorization" is until it's been around for 3 years, the way I understand it.

I would agree with waiting if Covid would agree to sit on the sidelines for a couple of years.

1. I may get Covid.
2. There is a chance that it may kill me.
3. I refuse to live my life in fear due to Covid.

I would prefer not to change anything. But I have to wear a mask because my employer says I have to, and our Governor has ordered all businesses to require masks. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't wear a mask. Before restaurants were shut down, I had zero concerns about going out to eat with my wife and kids. If I had a choice, I would go back to the way we were living a year ago.

Every day that I wake up, there is a chance that "something" may injure or kill me. If it is my time, then I'm ready to go. Living life in fear isn't living at all. It is merely existing/surviving. That's just not good enough for me.

So to answer your question... No, I don't intend to avoid Covid. I plan on living my life and playing the cards that I'm dealt.

 

[dusty88]

1. I may get Covid.
2. There is a chance that it may kill me.
3. I refuse to live my life in fear due to Covid.

I would prefer not to change anything. But I have to wear a mask because my employer says I have to, and our Governor has ordered all businesses to require masks. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't wear a mask. Before restaurants were shut down, I had zero concerns about going out to eat with my wife and kids. If I had a choice, I would go back to the way we were living a year ago.

Every day that I wake up, there is a chance that "something" may injure or kill me. If it is my time, then I'm ready to go. Living life in fear isn't living at all. It is merely existing/surviving. That's just not good enough for me.

So to answer your question... No, I don't intend to avoid Covid. I plan on living my life and playing the cards that I'm dealt.

Fair enough. But then why not get the vaccine? You aren't afraid of Covid but current risk assessment is that Covid is far more dangerous than the vaccine.

I hope I'm not coming across as saying you are wrong. I'm truly curious about the motivations.

 

[Hoosierdood]

Fair enough. But then why not get the vaccine? You aren't afraid of Covid but current risk assessment is that Covid is far more dangerous than the vaccine.

This is where I get hung up. "Current risk assessment" has had less than a year to gather data on Covid, and less than 6 months to collect data on the vaccine. Current risk assessment isn't good enough for me. The risks associated with the virus are within an acceptable range.

 

[dusty88]

This is where I get hung up. "Current risk assessment" has had less than a year to gather data on Covid, and less than 6 months to collect data on the vaccine. Current risk assessment isn't good enough for me. The risks associated with the virus are within an acceptable range.

I completely agree that "current" risk assessment may not be everything.

That's also true for viruses. We have no idea what long term or even permanent organ damage or immune-mediated disease might result from SARSCov2.

It's an uncomfortable situation though, I'll admit, having to make a measured choice with limited data. Thank you for answering

 

[Bennettjh]

My wife got word today that she'll be required to take it. PTA at a nursing home.

 

[DRob]

Wife is "scheduled" by her employer (Franciscan Health) for the first dose right after Christmas. My DIL, also a nurse, has been told they will not be required to take it but is it suggested they do.

Even at age 75, I'm so far down the pecking order there should be plenty of data to rely upon by the time I can get it. If I was offered it now, I would take it.

 

[smokingman]

“Resuscitation facilities should be available at all times for all vaccinations. Vaccination should only be carried out in facilities where resuscitation measures are available,” the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said, offering “precautionary advice.”

A health worker in Alaska experienced a “serious reaction” and was subsequently hospitalized after receiving a dose of Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved last week, according to reports.
The worker had what the New York Times described as a “serious reaction” after receiving the vaccination and remained in the hospital as of Wednesday morning, according to the paper. The worker had “no history of drug allergies,” the Times reported

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...serious-reaction-pfizers-coronavirus-vaccine/

 

[Vigilant]

Here’s the first I’ve seen of what can go wrong with rushing something. Luckily, it came out ok in the end.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alaska-health-worker-had-serious-012800134.html

i see it’s already been posted.

 

[jamil]

I guess it’s news.

why would it’s newsworthiness be in question? Should they scuttle everything negative and only report positives. I say it often enough, act like you’re hiding something, people think you’re hiding something. With that story reported, we know that they’re aware of the issues and locations are equipped to deal with it. Any news about the vaccine is news.

 

[mechmc17]

The real fact in that case is that there has been NO significant studies of good size to tell us whether masks help or not. NONE!

Yes, there is a published randomized controlled trial of providing people with masks who were told to wear them versus people not given masks and not told to wear any if their own, with thousands of people in the study. Providing masks and directives to wear them did not make a significant difference in coronavirus infections. You can find it referenced in some places as the Danish mask study. Here’s a link to the publication:

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

 

[mechmc17]

I completely agree that "current" risk assessment may not be everything.

That's also true for viruses. We have no idea what long term or even permanent organ damage or immune-mediated disease might result from SARSCov2.

It's an uncomfortable situation though, I'll admit, having to make a measured choice with limited data. Thank you for answering

I’ve heard rumors that the Pfizer vaccine may only be effective for 6-12 months. How much would your risk assessment change if you had to factor in getting the vaccine once or twice a year, indefinitely?

 

[avboiler11]

Allergic reactions to injections aren't unique to the Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 vaccines...this isn't the smoking gun for skeptics to point to and say "AH HA! PROOF IT ISN'T SAFE!"

 

[dusty88]

I’ve heard rumors that the Pfizer vaccine may only be effective for 6-12 months. How much would your risk assessment change if you had to factor in getting the vaccine once or twice a year, indefinitely?

Again that's in the category of "things we might find out later"

It isn't certain if immunity is durable when you actually get an infection either. Some of the "reinfection" cases appear to be people that probably have prolonged illness and are still testing positive again later due to viral fragments in their cells, not actual reinfections. A few are probably real, but are they common or rare? One paper I saw followed a few cases that were definitely reinfections (based on viral genetics) but no one got seriously ill more than once (IOW if there first infection was serious, the second was very minor).

A vaccine with a booster (ie 2 doses) can sometimes produce better immunity than natural infection.

But if short-term immunity is the biggest problem with the vaccine, I would still take it for now. We might have to do this all over again in 6-12 mo, but it's better than the medical and economic effects of the pandemic. Another possibility is the vaccines will continue to get better. Certainly, we will have more information about them.

Again, you have to work with what you know today. You can speculate bad things about the vaccine but you also must speculate bad things about the virus if you're being honest.

I have my emotional reactions to things. But then I look past the emotion and do a risk assessment. Even IF the vaccine turns out to be a bad choice when I have hindsight one year from now, I'll not have made the wrong decision. It's like choosing whether or not to have a surgery. You don't get the benefit of knowledge of actual outcome. You get the likely outcome based on what information you have. And failing to make a decision (ie not deciding on a surgery or not deciding on a vaccine) IS a decision. And you have to live with that outcome also.

 

[dusty88]

Allergic reactions to injections aren't unique to the Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 vaccines...this isn't the smoking gun for skeptics to point to and say "AH HA! PROOF IT ISN'T SAFE!"

Exactly

Giving an injection is super-easy. But whomoever is giving vaccines should always have training in what to do and whom to call if someone shows signs of a reaction.

If the reaction rate of this is higher than (for example) the flu vaccine, it may slow down the vaccine rollout if they need to be given at a medical facility.

 

[wagyu52]

I’ve heard rumors that the Pfizer vaccine may only be effective for 6-12 months. How much would your risk assessment change if you had to factor in getting the vaccine once or twice a year, indefinitely?

[video=youtube_share;9uC4bXmcUvw]https://youtu.be/9uC4bXmcUvw[/video]





Same thing right?
First you take the vaccine, then we find out what it can do.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

1. I may get Covid.
2. There is a chance that it may kill me.
3. I refuse to live my life in fear due to Covid.

I would prefer not to change anything. But I have to wear a mask because my employer says I have to, and our Governor has ordered all businesses to require masks. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't wear a mask. Before restaurants were shut down, I had zero concerns about going out to eat with my wife and kids. If I had a choice, I would go back to the way we were living a year ago.

Every day that I wake up, there is a chance that "something" may injure or kill me. If it is my time, then I'm ready to go. Living life in fear isn't living at all. It is merely existing/surviving. That's just not good enough for me.

So to answer your question... No, I don't intend to avoid Covid. I plan on living my life and playing the cards that I'm dealt.

I mean this with all due respect, but this argument, IMO, is EXACTLY the one I hear from anti-gunners ad nauseam. It goes something like, "the risk of violence is so miniscule that only hysterical fear would drive one to arm oneself for self-defense."

In both cases (violence and virus), the threat is both real and unlikely, and I chose to prepare for and protect against either eventuality for myself and my loved ones.

Neither means I live my life "in fear".

 

[HoughMade]

I mean this with all due respect, but this argument, IMO, is EXACTLY the one I hear from anti-gunners ad nauseam. It goes something like, "the risk of violence is so miniscule that only hysterical fear would drive one to arm oneself for self-defense."

In both cases (violence and virus), the threat is both real and unlikely, and I chose to prepare for and protect against either eventuality for myself and my loved ones.

Neither means I live my life "in fear".

This is a point I tried to make months ago. I would like to see what the likelihood of being killed by violence in a situation which could be prevented by being armed versus the likelihood of dying by COVID. I'm betting that death by violence is not more likely on a grand scale...also, our own weapons could​ be turned against us, yet....the overwhelming majority of people here are armed regularly.

 

[lovemachine]

Taking this brand new, nothing ever made like this before, vaccine, is like buying a brand new model gun. I’d rather wait and make sure all the kinks are worked out before I buy one.

If people don’t die, no side effects and zombies, seems perfectly safe and actually works like it’s suppose to do, then I’ll buy, take the vaccine.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

This is a point I tried to make months ago. I would like to see what the likelihood of being killed by violence in a situation which could be prevented by being armed versus the likelihood of dying by COVID. I'm betting that death by violence is not more likely on a grand scale...also, our own weapons could​ be turned against us, yet....the overwhelming majority of people here are armed regularly.

Given that most of us here on INGO (no offense to the younger guys and the ladies) are old farts, we are likely on the short end of that stick.

With regard to COVID, for me it's more about those close to me who are vulnerable and who care for the vulnerable more so than just me, myself, personally.

Back to the post I responded to, life comes with dangers. Some you can avoid, some you can prevent, some you can prepare for and some, there's nothing you can do or reasonably do anything about... IMO, the virus and COVID fit into those first three categories, not the last.

IMO, donning a mask and keeping a curtesy distance from strangers is FAR easier, takes FAR less time and cost pennies compared to the range time and costs necessary to competently carry. Ditto owning and being competent with a home defense firearm. I do all three, because within my thresholds, they are all reasonable.

To the topic of the thread, whether to take the vaccine or not, that is a decision... and decisions always are made with the information available. And NOT making a decision, is a decision. People who have decision-making jobs know that...

So, for people close to me who are, say in their 80's, or have conditions that make this illness very life and health threatening, I would advise them to take it. For someone, say who's 18 and doesn't share a household with one of those in the first category, I would advise against. IMO, those are pretty clear-cut, slam dunk decisions given what we know today.

For those of us, like me, who are in the middle, neither extremely vulnerable nor mostly invulnerable to COVID, it's not clear what the "right" decision is... but thankfully, I don't have to make that decision for myself now, but will have to at some future time when there will be more information available to make that decision... and I'll make it a continue on.

 

[d.kaufman]

This Is just 1 of the many reasons I will not take a vaccine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html