Would you take a Coronavirus Vaccine

[Cooperdog]

Question... what are your thoughts on a Coronavirus vaccine? Would you take a Coronavirus vaccine if it were offered to you?

Thanks

I had Covid19 and also got the vaccine. I probably wouldn't have taken the vaccination but it allowed me to dump the mask. I never believed in the mask mandate but I did comply.

 

[brandonkick]

mRNA technology, and the idea of using it as a vehicle for vaccinations is not some new idea. Granted, this is the first time we've ever used it on humans, but I think one would agree the nature of the pandemic warranted expedited testing and rollout.

Tens of thousands of people have undergone clinical trials. The vaccines were tested for months before they were started to be distributed.

Do I know for a fact their won't be long term side effects? No. But people still smoke cigarettes every single day, known to cause all sorts of cancers and other conditions. People still drink in excess. People still walk around morbidly obese. Shoot drugs into their arms. The list goes on and on... but the vaccine is a NOPE because there "could be" long term negative effects. Sureee.......

Their could be. I agree. I bet far more people are going to die from things they were guaranteed had a high chance of killing them eventually, then those who will die from vaccine side effects.

 

[Blues]

I just want to say this was a fun read from page 1

 

[callthatgirl]

So at this point, shot or not, if you get it it's just like the flu?

 

[lan101]

So at this point, shot or not, if you get it it's just like the flu?

I'm sticking with vitamin D, zinc, quercetin, etc. Too many unknowns on the shot that we won't know for a while.

 

[Computer Bloke]

So at this point, shot or not, if you get it it's just like the flu?

Like a 96% preventable, highly contagious flu with a ~1% mortality rate which you're likely to spread to many others before even noticing your own symptoms.

Not cool.

 

[sapphirescales]

But people still smoke cigarettes every single day, known to cause all sorts of cancers and other conditions. People still drink in excess. People still walk around morbidly obese. Shoot drugs into their arms. The list goes on and on... but the vaccine is a NOPE because there "could be" long term negative effects. Sureee.......

Not everyone's an idiot. I do none of those risky things and I'm not risking taking an mRNA vaccine either. Once a live attenuated vaccine becomes available to me I'll take it in a heartbeat, but there isn't enough real life data on the long term effects of mRNA vaccines for me to be willing to risk it. Why would I? I'll just wait for the safe one. Taking an mRNA vaccine is like turning out of a blind intersection. Why not just go another direction and avoid that intersection completely? Yeah, there's probably not a car there, but I'm sure not pulling out there to find out when I can just turn around and go the other way. I'm not risking my life to shave 30 seconds off my trip.

 

[lan101]

Not everyone's an idiot. I do none of those risky things and I'm not risking taking an mRNA vaccine either. Once a live attenuated vaccine becomes available to me I'll take it in a heartbeat, but there isn't enough real life data on the long term effects of mRNA vaccines for me to be willing to risk it. Why would I? I'll just wait for the safe one. Taking an mRNA vaccine is like turning out of a blind intersection. Why not just go another direction and avoid that intersection completely? Yeah, there's probably not a car there, but I'm sure not pulling out there to find out when I can just turn around and go the other way. I'm not risking my life to shave 30 seconds off my trip.

I'm concerned about blood clot issues etc. from long term effects of these spike proteins.

 

[callthatgirl]

@lan101 I have a trip to NY booked in Oct and I knew the shot would be required at this event.

 

[britechguy]

but there isn't enough real life data on the long term effects of mRNA vaccines

The latest in your wholly inaccurate and information starved list of claims. mRNA is a technology that dates back several decades and has been used in other vaccines before.

Stop spreading disinformation and being willfully stupid!

 

[Sky-Knight]

So much "Citation Needed" in this thread.

The mRNA vaccines have horrendously expensive storage and transport requirements because the vaccine is so simple. It literally contains only two components. A lipid (fat), and a hormone (mRNA strand / protein). There aren't even preservatives in there!

Once injected the fat is absorbed by your cells, and the hormone processed. It instructs your cells to cast off protein garbage your immune system goes to clean up. This is a process our bodies do all the time on their own. We've just co-opted that process to give our immune system a leg up on a specific pathogen. The nature of this process precludes any long term effects. In fact, it's such a short term impact we've never had a vaccine use it before because it was assumed the effect on the immune response would be equally short lived.

Anyone that claims there are long term effects with mRNA technology simply does not understand what the technology is, or how it works. Furthermore their constant drum beat of "wait and see" reeks of the same stupidity associated with demanding evidence that God exists or Santa... if you prefer, it's the same thought experiment. There will be no long term effects, and you cannot prove a negative. So they'll continue whining about it forever and more.

That's stupid, and stupid in a specific way that indicates you're not qualified to do the jobs those of us on these forums are supposed to be doing. It's base fear of the unknown, wrapped up in a special ignorance that's career ending for anyone here. Stop it... please. You're hurting yourself, and while you're at it holding a gun to three members of this household's heads. Not to mention countless others. It's our responsibility as citizens of our respective nations to protect our neighbors from threats foreign and domestic. So there's a civic responsibility angle here too. We've reached a point where financially, morally, ethically, and professionally... there's only one decision that makes sense. Which is bonkers because those competing drives almost always argue with each other.

But if you want the attenuated virus vaccine, you're never going to get it because it's not effective in this sort of thing. The closest you will get is the J&J shot. Which has a horde of problems associated with it, because it like the AstraZeneca uses older more failure prone technology. But even those shots are statistically safe. But they are substantially less safe than the mRNA shots. That is, unless you have an anaphylactic reaction to the lipid suspension. And there are allergy tests you can have done to check that safely. Ask your doctor.

Bonus points for providing the irony, anti-vaxers usually hate the MMR shot the most. And it's an attenuated virus based shot. Which is of course safe, but asking for that when you have a more modern option is like pining for Windows XP when we all should be planning for Windows 11. Neither product is perfect, but the latter is an objective improvement over the former.

 

[gadgetfixup]

So much "Citation Needed" in this thread.

The mRNA vaccines have horrendously expensive storage and transport requirements because the vaccine is so simple. It literally contains only two components. A lipid (fat), and a hormone (mRNA strand / protein). There aren't even preservatives in there!

Once injected the fat is absorbed by your cells, and the hormone processed. It instructs your cells to cast off protein garbage your immune system goes to clean up. This is a process our bodies do all the time on their own. We've just co-opted that process to give our immune system a leg up on a specific pathogen. The nature of this process precludes any long term effects. In fact, it's such a short term impact we've never had a vaccine use it before because it was assumed the effect on the immune response would be equally short lived.

Anyone that claims there are long term effects with mRNA technology simply does not understand what the technology is, or how it works. Furthermore their constant drum beat of "wait and see" reeks of the same stupidity associated with demanding evidence that God exists or Santa... if you prefer, it's the same thought experiment. There will be no long term effects, and you cannot prove a negative. So they'll continue whining about it forever and more.

That's stupid, and stupid in a specific way that indicates you're not qualified to do the jobs those of us on these forums are supposed to be doing. It's base fear of the unknown, wrapped up in a special ignorance that's career ending for anyone here. Stop it... please. You're hurting yourself, and while you're at it holding a gun to three members of this household's heads. Not to mention countless others. It's our responsibility as citizens of our respective nations to protect our neighbors from threats foreign and domestic. So there's a civic responsibility angle here too. We've reached a point where financially, morally, ethically, and professionally... there's only one decision that makes sense. Which is bonkers because those competing drives almost always argue with each other.

But if you want the attenuated virus vaccine, you're never going to get it because it's not effective in this sort of thing. The closest you will get is the J&J shot. Which has a horde of problems associated with it, because it like the AstraZeneca uses older more failure prone technology. But even those shots are statistically safe. But they are substantially less safe than the mRNA shots. That is, unless you have an anaphylactic reaction to the lipid suspension. And there are allergy tests you can have done to check that safely. Ask your doctor.

Bonus points for providing the irony, anti-vaxers usually hate the MMR shot the most. And it's an attenuated virus based shot. Which is of course safe, but asking for that when you have a more modern option is like pining for Windows XP when we all should be planning for Windows 11. Neither product is perfect, but the latter is an objective improvement over the former.

So do you carry a gun to protect me and my family? I can't believe how opinionated and insulting your post is in light that 74% of C-19 cases hospitalized in Massachusetts recently were fully vaccinated, patients. Media in the UK report about half of the hospitalized patients with C-19 were fully vaccinated. The CDC says the infected were delta variants which they found much more contagious than C-19, as contagious as the chickenpox and common cold. The CDC went on to say vaccinated people carrying delta are likely to infect 7-8 other people. It isn't known if those that have the C-19 antibodies will be protected from vaccinated people spreading delta, most signal probably not. So thank you vaccinated people for endangering me, someone that had C-19 and has C-19 antibodies with delta. You didn't make the world a safer place, you made it as dangerous and some say more dangerous. My age group has a 99.4% survival rate. I'm not obese, don't have hypertension nor diabetes, my immune system has beat every virus for 60 years, keep your hyperbole and guilt to yourself. If you believe your Government and Big Pharma have your best interest in their decisions, you're already too far gone for reasonable discussion.

 

[britechguy]

I can't believe how opinionated and insulting your post is in light that 74% of C-19 cases hospitalized in Rhode Island recently were fully vaccinated, patients. Media in the UK report about half of the hospitalized patients with C-19 were fully vaccinated.

Citations, please.

There is absolutely no doubt that the breakthrough infection numbers with the delta variant exist, but I have yet to hear of any hospitalizations reported among the vaccinated. The biggest concern, in fact, is that the vaccinated with breakthrough infections are generally very minimally or entirely asymptomatic.

There have been no reports of large numbers of hospitalizations for those who have had breakthrough infections and were vaccinated. One of the great graces of the vaccination (regardless of which type) is that the probability of progression to full-blown, hospitalization-requiring Covid has so far been zero.

 

[Sky-Knight]

@inbargains Citation Needed

 

[britechguy]

The closest you will get is the J&J shot. Which has a horde of problems associated with it, because it like the AstraZeneca uses older more failure prone technology.

A bit of an overstatement, the "horde of problems" part. The number of incidents of any serious nature (and those blood clotting incidents are absolutely serious) occur in a number of recipients that have not as yet, and are not likely to, ever come close to rising to the level of statistical significance. I hope that they can figure out what it is that triggers the reactions in the infinitesimally small number of folks in whom it is triggered so that "not recommended" screening can be done.

But when it comes right down to it, any objective risk analysis, regardless of the vaccine technology employed, very clearly indicates that the risks from the vaccines themselves are just so low compared to the risks from Covid that it should literally be a no-brainer to go for the vaccines. Take your pick of which one.

By the way, I'm 100% in agreement with your opinion on the "wait and see" crowd. mRNA isn't new, for starters, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that there are any long term (as in years later) after effects associated with this technology. And, as you said, you can't prove a negative. How many millions have to be vaccinated with no ill effects, for months, and how long must they remain "just fine" for the "wait and seers" to be satisfied? And how many people have to die, unnecessarily, because we are not taking the simple measure of being vaccinated? I am really hoping that mandated vaccination is coming, and soon. We did it for smallpox, it was effectively done for polio and MMR, and it works. Vaccines as a technology have proven nothing short of a public health miracle and have such a well established track record of safety and efficacy that I really cannot understand, at all, why anyone who looks at the facts would decide against with the very rarest of exceptions (and those due to very rare medical risks).

 

[Sky-Knight]

@britechguy It is an overstatement, but it is "a horde" on comparison to the issues associated with the two mRNA shots available.

The reality is both populations are statistically almost immeasurable, because they're so small. Yes, they need studied so we can figure out what went wrong, work that's ongoing. But I think it's quite telling when you compare the J&J / AstraZeneca shops to PFizer / Moderna and see such a stark difference in negative outcomes.

It's a wide enough gulf that I couldn't fault anyone for demanding the mRNA option over the alternative. It's the inverse decision making that's bonkers to me.

For the rest, well... it's spawned all sorts of fun things on YouTube, like this:

Though for those of the conspiracy mindset... the raw version by the same guy on a different channel may speak your language more completely:

In short, if you think any of these shots are dangerous, you do so because you're consuming media written by people specifically to manipulate you into buying something. In this case, he's going over an OpEd in the Wall Street Journal written by guys that are trying to convince the world they're experts in both medicine and climate? WTF? That's like letting a plumber argue with anyone on this board about how a computer boots. We all have our areas of expertise, and being able to see clearly who has actual expertise, and who doesn't is rather important.

 

[nlinecomputers]

I can't believe how opinionated and insulting your post is in light that 74% of C-19 cases hospitalized in Rhode Island recently were fully vaccinated, patients.

Link to that please. Because I can’t find any reference to that figure. If it’s accurate prove it. I call bullsh-t. And I will gladly eat crow if you can show me a verified source. No QAnonn bs.

 

[Sky-Knight]

Link to that please. Because I can’t find any reference to that figure. If it’s accurate prove it. I call bullsh-t. And I will gladly eat crow if you can show me a verified source. No QAnonn bs.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm with you on this too. I will HAPPILY eat ALL of the crow on this. Because it would mean critical data has evaded my BS detector, something I need to fix. AND the medial professionals I'm stuck working with on a near daily basis thanks to chronic illnesses in my home... something I need to fix too. Lives are on the line here, so if @inbargains can put up the proof. I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[nlinecomputers]

In case it wasn't clear, I'm with you on this too. I will HAPPILY eat ALL of the crow on this. Because it would mean critical data has evaded my BS detector, something I need to fix. AND the medial professionals I'm stuck working with on a near daily basis thanks to chronic illnesses in my home... something I need to fix too. Lives are on the line here, so if @inbargains can put up the proof. I would greatly appreciate it.

Any person who claims to be a man of science, and working in high tech ought to qualify, should be able to take in data that disproves a scientific theory. That’s part of the scientific method.

 

[britechguy]

We all have our areas of expertise, and being able to see clearly who has actual expertise, and who doesn't is rather important.

Amen to that!! I've frequently said that it's stupid to question (not discuss to learn more, but question the expertise as though you have more) any subject matter expert you may hire, be it a doctor, lawyer, mechanic, plumber, etc. If you really have doubts about what's being offered, stop, and seek a second opinion. A third if you need to. But when the subject matter experts in a given arena are telling you precisely the same thing, you're a fool if you don't trust them over anyone else, including yourself, who has way less basis than they do upon which to have come to an informed opinion.

There are lots of other people, in lots of arenas (including sub-specialties of computing), that know much, much more than I ever will about those respective arenas. If I don't trust them then who, really, should I trust? Certainly not the man/woman on the street or YouTube.