Who exactly are the COVID vaccine skeptics?

[GuitarStv]

Elaine, I  will happily be a guinea pig for you.  Most of my social circle is in the high risk age group.  DD and SiL will probably be in one of the last groups (30s, healthy) so if I want to see them I'm the one who will need to be vaccinated.

The risk of covid radically ramps up with age, so the potential downside of the vaccine dwindles and quickly becomes outweighed by the benefit.  There's no reason that someone in their late 60s or up should hesitate.

[HPstache]

We are Canadian though so personally, this is a debate in theory only. The US and UK will be our guinea pigs as we won't have vaccine access for some months anyway. And by the time it trickles down to me (40s with no risk factors), there should be a lot more info on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.

Sent from my VCE-AL00 using Tapatalk

This is still the "too fast" argument though.  You feel comfortable doing it after all those people, but let's say you are up for your chance next fall.  That's only 18 months since COVID hit... still the fastest developed vaccine ever!  Aren't we still waiting to see if there's "long term" side affects?  I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I just don't see why "it was developed too fast" is a good argument if 10 months = not OK, but 18 months with lots already having taken it = SAFE .

[GuitarStv]

We are Canadian though so personally, this is a debate in theory only. The US and UK will be our guinea pigs as we won't have vaccine access for some months anyway. And by the time it trickles down to me (40s with no risk factors), there should be a lot more info on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.

Sent from my VCE-AL00 using Tapatalk

This is still the "too fast" argument though.  You feel comfortable doing it after all those people, but let's say you are up for your chance next fall.  That's only 18 months since COVID hit... still the fastest developed vaccine ever!  Aren't we still waiting to see if there's "long term" side affects?  I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I just don't see why "it was developed too fast" is a good argument if 10 months = not OK, but 18 months with lots already having taken it = SAFE .

There's no switch that turns on and says 'safe'.

The more people who are given the vaccine, the greater confidence we have that there are no weird edge/corner cases that were missed in development and early testing.  The longer people have had the vaccine with no problems, the greater confidence we have that there are no long term effects.

18 months and many samples given out is much better than 10 on both fronts.  Not perfect, but you're significantly increasing the test population and almost doubling the time we have to see weird problems appear.

[meghan88]

I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html

Vaccine makers are usually given indemnity for their vaccines. Otherwise every single pharmaceutical corp would be driven into bankruptcy with frivolous "well i got a vaccine and then <insert bad thing that may or may not be related but is impossible to disprove> happened" lawsuits, and that's before we even add in the anti-vaxxer "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy theorists. A quick google tells me that Canada is one of the only developed countries that doesn't do this, so I guess you probably legitimately didn't know, however this is not at all unusual.

Canadians are not as litigious as our neighbours to the south.  Anyway, the indemnity makes sense to me if the benefits outweigh the risks by a lot because the potential legal risks could slow, or paralyze, the development and roll-out.  Seems to me that getting vaccines to market as soon as reasonably practicable is our best shot (no pun intended) of getting things back to some semblance of normal.

Re. the flu shot:  it helps to ensure that flu cases won't be mistaken for COVID, and vice-versa.  Plus, getting sick with the flu and COVID at the same time might create a serious cytokine storm that would wallop the immune system.  I don't really need the flu shot but got one anyway this year for the foregoing reasons.

[Travis]

I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html

Vaccine makers are usually given indemnity for their vaccines. Otherwise every single pharmaceutical corp would be driven into bankruptcy with frivolous "well i got a vaccine and then <insert bad thing that may or may not be related but is impossible to disprove> happened" lawsuits, and that's before we even add in the anti-vaxxer "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy theorists. A quick google tells me that Canada is one of the only developed countries that doesn't do this, so I guess you probably legitimately didn't know, however this is not at all unusual.

Canadians are not as litigious as our neighbours to the south.  Anyway, the indemnity makes sense to me if the benefits outweigh the risks by a lot because the potential legal risks could slow, or paralyze, the development and roll-out.  Seems to me that getting vaccines to market as soon as reasonably practicable is our best shot (no pun intended) of getting things back to some semblance of normal.

Re. the flu shot:  it helps to ensure that flu cases won't be mistaken for COVID, and vice-versa.  Plus, getting sick with the flu and COVID at the same time might create a serious cytokine storm that would wallop the immune system.  I don't really need the flu shot but got one anyway this year for the foregoing reasons.

I wonder if the increased interest in the flu vaccine is a larger realization that we've been neglecting available preventative measures in general. The memes were all over the place in April that suddenly in the 21st century people had to be lectured that washing your hands and cleaning surfaces was a thing.  Now that a lot of us are rightly afraid of this COVID thing we remembered that we're near flu season and while we're waiting for the COVID vaccine there's another one we should probably go ahead and get.

[PDXTabs]

I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html

Vaccine makers are usually given indemnity for their vaccines. Otherwise every single pharmaceutical corp would be driven into bankruptcy with frivolous "well i got a vaccine and then <insert bad thing that may or may not be related but is impossible to disprove> happened" lawsuits, and that's before we even add in the anti-vaxxer "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy theorists. A quick google tells me that Canada is one of the only developed countries that doesn't do this, so I guess you probably legitimately didn't know, however this is not at all unusual.

At least in the USA, I think that all vaccines come with indemnity. If you get sick you get to go through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

[RetiredAt63]

When I got my flu vaccine I was asked if I usually get it.  I do, for several reasons, but now I am wondering if they were seeing a lot of people who usually don't.

And yes, this is definitely not the year to get the flu.

[scottish]

I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html

Vaccine makers are usually given indemnity for their vaccines. Otherwise every single pharmaceutical corp would be driven into bankruptcy with frivolous "well i got a vaccine and then <insert bad thing that may or may not be related but is impossible to disprove> happened" lawsuits, and that's before we even add in the anti-vaxxer "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy theorists. A quick google tells me that Canada is one of the only developed countries that doesn't do this, so I guess you probably legitimately didn't know, however this is not at all unusual.

At least in the USA, I think that all vaccines come with indemnity. If you get sick you get to go through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Remember that case with the Lyme disease vaccine back around 2000?   Some personal injury lawyer successfully sued the manufacturer for giving vaccine recipients Lyme related arthritis.  And now we have no lyme disease vaccine!?!   Meanwhile incidents of lyme disease continue to climb year after year.

I wonder if that kick-started the practice of indemnification.

[Villanelle]

I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html

Vaccine makers are usually given indemnity for their vaccines. Otherwise every single pharmaceutical corp would be driven into bankruptcy with frivolous "well i got a vaccine and then <insert bad thing that may or may not be related but is impossible to disprove> happened" lawsuits, and that's before we even add in the anti-vaxxer "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy theorists. A quick google tells me that Canada is one of the only developed countries that doesn't do this, so I guess you probably legitimately didn't know, however this is not at all unusual.

Canadians are not as litigious as our neighbours to the south.  Anyway, the indemnity makes sense to me if the benefits outweigh the risks by a lot because the potential legal risks could slow, or paralyze, the development and roll-out.  Seems to me that getting vaccines to market as soon as reasonably practicable is our best shot (no pun intended) of getting things back to some semblance of normal.

Re. the flu shot:  it helps to ensure that flu cases won't be mistaken for COVID, and vice-versa.  Plus, getting sick with the flu and COVID at the same time might create a serious cytokine storm that would wallop the immune system.  I don't really need the flu shot but got one anyway this year for the foregoing reasons.

I wonder if the increased interest in the flu vaccine is a larger realization that we've been neglecting available preventative measures in general. The memes were all over the place in April that suddenly in the 21st century people had to be lectured that washing your hands and cleaning surfaces was a thing.  Now that a lot of us are rightly afraid of this COVID thing we remembered that we're near flu season and while we're waiting for the COVID vaccine there's another one we should probably go ahead and get.

I suspect this is more or less the explanation for the flu vaccine surge.

I almost forgot last year.  (Didn't get it until February, when I was at urgent care  and they asked if I'd had it.  I had totally forgotten so I got it that day.)  I get it most years, but once in a while life gets busy and I forget.  But with health and illness such a big part of our everyday lives, it would have been nearly impossible to forget this year. 

[NotJen]

I started getting the flu vaccine after I got the flu about 5 years ago.  My actual version of the flu was really not that bad - I did not feel like I was going to die, but I had a fever for a few days, and then was very very tired for about a week.  But the flu test!  OMG that was awful, so I get the flu vaccine in the hope that I never have to get a flu test ever again.  (Also, I realized that I was visiting my elderly grandmother and immune-compromised niece every winter, and did not want to risk getting them sick.)

[Fomerly known as something]

I picked the simply anti-van, as that is the woman they keep showing on my local news.

[LennStar]

I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html

Vaccine makers are usually given indemnity for their vaccines. Otherwise every single pharmaceutical corp would be driven into bankruptcy with frivolous "well i got a vaccine and then <insert bad thing that may or may not be related but is impossible to disprove> happened" lawsuits, and that's before we even add in the anti-vaxxer "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy theorists. A quick google tells me that Canada is one of the only developed countries that doesn't do this, so I guess you probably legitimately didn't know, however this is not at all unusual.

It's normal for all emergency medication - which means all Covid vaccines will be.
I don't think this is the case for "normal" vaccines though, or why would there be that exception rule?

And by the time it trickles down to me (40s with no risk factors), there should be a lot more info on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.

That's my stance exactly. I won't get it for quite some time, and I won't try to be faster, but when it is time, I likely will get my shot. Objectivly I am in the last group who should get it, so I will wait. And when it is time, we also know a lot better about risks.
It may even be that the virus has died out by then because of near-herd-immunity (Ha! Still you can dream).

[Sibley]

So if you were in the shoes of whatever Canadian has to make the decision as to whether the vaccine should start being administered in your country in the next month or two... what would you do?  If you say no, thousands will likely die while waiting for the vaccine to be approved.  And if no, what is the actual proper amount of time before you feel comfortable saying yes?  I agree with other posters that "time" should not be a factor... because that's kind of arbitrary.  You could do 4 years of phase 3 trials and someone could still say that we don't know the long term effects of the vaccine.  Are we really ever sure?  Isn't that kind of what pre COVID anti vaxxers would say?  Are anti vaxxers going to be justified in the future by simply saying that they don't want to take vaccines because the long term side effects are unknown?

I don't know.  At some point people who have the enormous weight of making big decisions are going to have to make some.  When does the trade off of what seems to be a tiny amount of risk overcome the almost guaranteed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lost human lives if you delay for an arbitrary 6mo, 1yr, 4yrs, etc?  Who wants to be the person who didn't listen to the science that says this vaccine is safe and decided to delay and accept that loss of life while other countries that do have great success?  And also at some point we as individuals are going to have to make our own decision, and it will be (as one poster said in another thread), "the biggest put up or shut up for people who have said 'believe the science' in the past"

There's no easy answer to these questions.  It's a very tough choice, and I don't have the answers.  We're choosing between a partially tested vaccine and a partially known disease.

I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html

FIFY. We don't actually know everything about Covid. We know more than we did in January, or March, or May. But we don't know what can happen 2 years down the line, or 5, or 50. And while we may know for example that some people become "long haulers", we don't necessarily know why or what to do about it.

[GuitarStv]

So if you were in the shoes of whatever Canadian has to make the decision as to whether the vaccine should start being administered in your country in the next month or two... what would you do?  If you say no, thousands will likely die while waiting for the vaccine to be approved.  And if no, what is the actual proper amount of time before you feel comfortable saying yes?  I agree with other posters that "time" should not be a factor... because that's kind of arbitrary.  You could do 4 years of phase 3 trials and someone could still say that we don't know the long term effects of the vaccine.  Are we really ever sure?  Isn't that kind of what pre COVID anti vaxxers would say?  Are anti vaxxers going to be justified in the future by simply saying that they don't want to take vaccines because the long term side effects are unknown?

I don't know.  At some point people who have the enormous weight of making big decisions are going to have to make some.  When does the trade off of what seems to be a tiny amount of risk overcome the almost guaranteed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lost human lives if you delay for an arbitrary 6mo, 1yr, 4yrs, etc?  Who wants to be the person who didn't listen to the science that says this vaccine is safe and decided to delay and accept that loss of life while other countries that do have great success?  And also at some point we as individuals are going to have to make our own decision, and it will be (as one poster said in another thread), "the biggest put up or shut up for people who have said 'believe the science' in the past"

There's no easy answer to these questions.  It's a very tough choice, and I don't have the answers.  We're choosing between a partially tested vaccine and a partially known disease.

I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html

FIFY. We don't actually know everything about Covid. We know more than we did in January, or March, or May. But we don't know what can happen 2 years down the line, or 5, or 50. And while we may know for example that some people become "long haulers", we don't necessarily know why or what to do about it.

This is very true, and very concerning.

[Joel]

The New York Times put together a simple tool that helps estimate vaccine priority.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/03/opinion/covid-19-vaccine-timeline.html?fbclid=IwAR14Sy0CE9gBxKUU341bu3LxH_WFl6WzakjklzCeyMAQ481yu-DCDtM2USU

As I expected, I’m way down the priority list and by the time it’s my turn, I’ll certainly get the vaccine. I don’t think I’ll be rushing to get it early though.

[HPstache]

Would $1,500, AKA $5/mo FIRE money (using 4% rule) be enough to sway anyone? 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/03/1500-stimulus-checks-for-covid-19-shots-how-one-plan-would-work.html

[elaine amj]

Would $1,500, AKA $5/mo FIRE money (using 4% rule) be enough to sway anyone? 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/03/1500-stimulus-checks-for-covid-19-shots-how-one-plan-would-work.html

Interesting proposal.

Sent from my VCE-AL00 using Tapatalk

[PDXTabs]

Would $1,500, AKA $5/mo FIRE money (using 4% rule) be enough to sway anyone? 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/03/1500-stimulus-checks-for-covid-19-shots-how-one-plan-would-work.html

LOL, I'd be willing to pay $1,500 for a good vaccine.

[Zikoris]

Would $1,500, AKA $5/mo FIRE money (using 4% rule) be enough to sway anyone? 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/03/1500-stimulus-checks-for-covid-19-shots-how-one-plan-would-work.html

I would do it in a heartbeat.

[Cranky]

I’d be willing to shove the other old ladies out of the way and PAY $1500 if dh and I could be vaccinated at the end of the month!

Oddly, my 27yo dd will probably be at the head of the line, as she works “in a healthcare setting”.

[wenchsenior]

I'd also pay 1500 to get vaccinated, if that was what was necessary.

[partgypsy]

My wife works for the largest health care system in the state, where vaccines will be rolling out this month to front line workers, providers and high risk groups. There is quite a bit of concern among providers and other front line workers, who will be forced to take the vaccine. Some of them are saying they will quit instead of being test subjects for the vaccines.

I think the majority are concerned about the quick development timeline and risks such as the swine-flu vaccine narcolepsy link.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-shot-caused-narcolepsy

30 million people got the vaccine. Over 1300 got narcolepsy, which while it sucks, is not fatal. Something like that would not dissuade me from taking a vaccine.

[RetiredAt63]

That is 0.0043%. 

Given how they think the flu vaccine caused that, the mRNA based vaccines work on a totally different mechanism.

[Padonak]

Ill let other people be Guinea pigs for the vaccine. By the time it's my turn to get it it will be pretty clear if it's safe or not.

[Just Joe]

My wife works for the largest health care system in the state, where vaccines will be rolling out this month to front line workers, providers and high risk groups. There is quite a bit of concern among providers and other front line workers, who will be forced to take the vaccine. Some of them are saying they will quit instead of being test subjects for the vaccines.

I think the majority are concerned about the quick development timeline and risks such as the swine-flu vaccine narcolepsy link.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-shot-caused-narcolepsy

30 million people got the vaccine. Over 1300 got narcolepsy, which while it sucks, is not fatal. Something like that would not dissuade me from taking a vaccine.

Narcolepsy would make it difficult to drive, work, do anything that is dangerous and requires steady attention - no?

[dblaace]

I am not an anti-vaxxer by no means, I got the flu and shingles vaccines earlier this year. This is the first Mrna vaccine to ever be tried and no one knows what kind of long term effects it will have.
 
I immunocompromised so I am at high risk and could be in a 2nd or 3rd grouping but it's not clear if it's safe because there were no trials done on high risk  subjects.

So I'm conflicted, as of now it has not yet been cleared for my condition though.

[PDXTabs]

I am not an anti-vaxxer by no means, I got the flu and shingles vaccines earlier this year. This is the first Mrna vaccine to ever be tried and no one knows what kind of long term effects it will have.

Actually, it isn't the first mRNA vaccine. But the non-mRNA Oxford vaccine should be available soon-ish if you are worried.

[JetBlast]

Personally I think my taking the vaccine and timeline for it will end up being dictated by the FAA and my employer. As of now none of the vaccines are approved for use by the FAA and until that happens it’s a deal breaker for someone that makes their living as a pilot. Once approved I expect my employer will likely require it within a reasonable timeframe due to some nations making it a requirement for entry. Even if FAA approved and required by my company, the timeline may still be dictated more by my company than state health officials.

Why? 

Because the FAA may require a grounding of one or two weeks after each injection to watch for side effects. Obviously this could cause a problem for airlines if too many pilots are vaccinated at once and aren’t permitted to fly.  They need to control the timeline to ensure staffing in the event of onerous FAA restrictions. It seems that the most likely way to control that timeline will be to directly purchase the vaccine from manufacturers. So I’ll probably get voluntold to get vaccinated, and maybe at best get to try and sign up for a preferred period in which to get it.

[Dollar Slice]

I immunocompromised so I am at high risk and could be in a 2nd or 3rd grouping but it's not clear if it's safe because there were no trials done on high risk  subjects.

They definitely tested the vaccine on thousands of people who are high risk for COVID, not just healthy people. From a Moderna press release (for example) "The COVE study includes more than 7,000 Americans over the age of 65. It also includes more than 5,000 Americans who are under the age of 65 but have high-risk chronic diseases that put them at increased risk of severe COVID-19, such as diabetes, severe obesity and cardiac disease. These medically high-risk groups represent 42% of the total participants in the Phase 3 COVE study."

They do exclude some people with immune-compromising diseases from the trials, but not all - I remember reading that they were recruiting people with HIV for the phase 3 trials, for example. But there are some conditions where you are fragile or unpredictable enough that you don't want to test a brand new drug on them, either. Maybe you have one of those conditions, I don't know. Hopefully they will sort you out pretty soon one way or another!

[GuitarStv]

I am not an anti-vaxxer by no means, I got the flu and shingles vaccines earlier this year. This is the first Mrna vaccine to ever be tried and no one knows what kind of long term effects it will have.

Actually, it isn't the first mRNA vaccine. But the non-mRNA Oxford vaccine should be available soon-ish if you are worried.

The covid vaccine is the first mRNA vaccine approved for use in humans (some other mRNA vaccines have been tried in small clinical studies).  It will be the first mRNA vaccine to receive widespread human use.

Both the mRNA and Oxford vaccines have been seriously fast tracked and have had reduced safety testing (regarding long term complications) in comparison to a normal vaccine because of the covid emergency.

[Metta]

I am not an anti-vaxxer by no means, I got the flu and shingles vaccines earlier this year. This is the first Mrna vaccine to ever be tried and no one knows what kind of long term effects it will have.

Actually, it isn't the first mRNA vaccine. But the non-mRNA Oxford vaccine should be available soon-ish if you are worried.

The covid vaccine is the first mRNA vaccine approved for use in humans (some other mRNA vaccines have been tried in small clinical studies).  It will be the first mRNA vaccine to receive widespread human use.

Both the mRNA and Oxford vaccines have been seriously fast tracked and have had reduced safety testing (regarding long term complications) in comparison to a normal vaccine because of the covid emergency.

My concerns match these concerns. But it is very much a balancing act for me because my exposure to Covid is fairly low since I am not doing much that puts me in front of people. If the vaccine were available to me right now, I’d wait a few months to see if everything looked ok unless I had to travel or similar acts that bring me into contact with other humans. Right now my contact with people is pretty minimal.

I have recommended that my 84 year old mother get the vaccination as soon as it is offered because the balance is different for her. She is in a vulnerable age group and her boyfriend is diabetic. The balance shifts hard toward them needing the vaccine as soon as possible.

The reality is that the vaccine is not universally available. Instead it is going to be given to people in a phased approach with me very much late in the line. So I will take the vaccine when my time comes up for it.

My concerns are basically that we don’t know what we don’t know with any new vaccine until a year or so passes. But on the other hand Covid is a deadly disease.

My biggest concern about the vaccine right now is that while it may protect me, I’ve heard reports that they don’t know whether it protects the people around me. And protecting people around me who are immune compromised or likely to be injured severely with Covid is my primary reason for vaccination. It is why I get the flu vaccine every single year. I could survive a flu. I’m not sure my husband could.

Also some of the discussion here has modified my stance by adding extra knowledge.

[bacchi]

There is a UK advisory about the Pfizer vaccine and those with serious allergic reactions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pfizer-allergic-warnings-vaccine/2020/12/09/4e79ec72-3a16-11eb-aad9-8959227280c4_story.html

British regulators on Wednesday ordered hospitals not to inject people who have a history of “significant” allergic reactions.

I can't find the original advisory so it's unclear whether it applies to just those who carry around an epi.

This allergic reaction, of course, may also be a problem with some of the other vaccines until they figure out which component/preservative/stabilizer is causing it.

[scottish]

This is an example of the test escapes GuitarStv and I were mentioning.   Small phase 3 trial moving to millions of vaccinations, there are bound to be a couple of surprises.

If all we have are some allergic reactions, that's still a pretty good outcome!

[PDXTabs]

There is a UK advisory about the Pfizer vaccine and those with serious allergic reactions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pfizer-allergic-warnings-vaccine/2020/12/09/4e79ec72-3a16-11eb-aad9-8959227280c4_story.html

British regulators on Wednesday ordered hospitals not to inject people who have a history of “significant” allergic reactions.

I can't find the original advisory so it's unclear whether it applies to just those who carry around an epi.

This allergic reaction, of course, may also be a problem with some of the other vaccines until they figure out which component/preservative/stabilizer is causing it.

Both NHS workers have a history of serious allergies and carry adrenaline pens around with them. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122

I'm one of those people, you carry the pen because you know that you might have to use it. At a Dr's office is literally the best case scenario.

[Steeze]

I’m definitely in the “this is happening too fast” camp. I would be last in line if I could be, or wait to be the 1,000,000,000th person to try it. BUT - wife is pregnant, has a chronic illness, and I travel all over the city and meet with dozens of random people a week for work at construction sites and offices. So ... I will get it as soon as it is available, for better or worse. If there are serious long term consequences, at least I was trying to do the right thing for my family at the time.

[Cranky]

So, it’s not that there were soooo many side effects from the swine flu vaccine considering how many doses were given (and it is hotly debated as to what side effects were actually attributable to the vaccine), it’s that it turned out that there weren’t a significant number of swine flu cases after all.

I can’t even remember whether I got that vaccine that year, but there has been a LOT of progress in vaccine development since then.

[MudPuppy]

I have my vaccine date and I am internally those ten lords a-leaping!

[Villanelle]

My dad was at a routine appointment with his cardiologist yesterday and the doctor told him that unless his employer (hospital group) requires it, he would like to wait at least a few months.  And that's a doctor!

[LennStar]

If you are a doctor or anyone else in constant contact to people, take it now. :(

This is an example of the test escapes GuitarStv and I were mentioning.   Small phase 3 trial moving to millions of vaccinations, there are bound to be a couple of surprises.

If all we have are some allergic reactions, that's still a pretty good outcome!

Yeah. Still, as someone with a big allergy (albeit no pen), I prefer to wait. This is exactly what I meant when I talked about 1:10000 cases. There is bound to be something cropping up, and not everything is as fast as an allergic reaction.

Still, 99% or more of people should take the vaccine when it becomes available to them. As I will very likely when it comes around to me and Covid-19 is still a thing by that time (unfortunately seems to be that way).

[Fireball]

My dad was at a routine appointment with his cardiologist yesterday and the doctor told him that unless his employer (hospital group) requires it, he would like to wait at least a few months.  And that's a doctor!

My doctor told me he thinks that herd immunity is the way to go. No masks, shutdowns or the like. That's widely accepted to be pretty much insane at this point. A cardiologist nor a general MD are experts in vaccines or 100 year pandemics.  They're very specialized in their specific line of work.

[BudgetSlasher]

My dad was at a routine appointment with his cardiologist yesterday and the doctor told him that unless his employer (hospital group) requires it, he would like to wait at least a few months.  And that's a doctor!

When I went to the pharmacy to get a flu shot the pharmacist was chatting about the vaccine and said he was going to wait.

I suspect many of us will have the "luxury" of waiting a few months. I fully expect that it will be late-spring to summer before my demographic will have the opportunity to get the vaccine.

What I cannot understand from the it happened too fast/wait a few months crowd is how a couple extra months will help. There is data for 10k+ vaccines during the trial, but limited longer term data on mRNA vaccines and no long term data on this vaccine. A couple extra months is not going to make tons of long term data appear.

[RetiredAt63]

Will the news that Covid can possibly cause erectile disfunction* encourage vaccination?

* not surprising given the micro-clot issues.

[GuitarStv]

Will the news that Covid can possibly cause erectile disfunction* encourage vaccination?

* not surprising given the micro-clot issues.

Could depend on the nature of the dysfunction.  You might get different results if the dysfunction is not getting up vs not going down.

:P

[PDXTabs]

Will the news that Covid can possibly cause erectile disfunction* encourage vaccination?

* not surprising given the micro-clot issues.

Could depend on the nature of the dysfunction.  You might get different results if the dysfunction is not getting up vs not going down.

:P

After the first hour priapism gets old.

[PDXTabs]

My dad was at a routine appointment with his cardiologist yesterday and the doctor told him that unless his employer (hospital group) requires it, he would like to wait at least a few months.  And that's a doctor!

My doctor told me he thinks that herd immunity is the way to go. No masks, shutdowns or the like. That's widely accepted to be pretty much insane at this point. A cardiologist nor a general MD are experts in vaccines or 100 year pandemics.  They're very specialized in their specific line of work.

But also, when did he tell you that, and with what information? Because if we were looking at an 80 year vaccine timeline that might have made sense.

[Fireball]

My dad was at a routine appointment with his cardiologist yesterday and the doctor told him that unless his employer (hospital group) requires it, he would like to wait at least a few months.  And that's a doctor!

My doctor told me he thinks that herd immunity is the way to go. No masks, shutdowns or the like. That's widely accepted to be pretty much insane at this point. A cardiologist nor a general MD are experts in vaccines or 100 year pandemics.  They're very specialized in their specific line of work.

But also, when did he tell you that, and with what information? Because if we were looking at an 80 year vaccine timeline that might have made sense.

It was August and was in the context that he didn't like wearing a mask. I assume he had the information that a vaccine was being developed.  Even if it had been 8 months ago, the herd immunity angle was never given much weight to my knowledge. 

[fuzzy math]

Other emerging issues with the vaccine since the FDA made their info public on the 8th (for 2 days of public review before being voted on today the 10th)

Trial recipients developed Bells palsy
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9030943/Four-volunteers-got-Pfizers-vaccine-developed-Bells-palsy.html

[EvenSteven]

Other emerging issues with the vaccine since the FDA made their info public on the 8th (for 2 days of public review before being voted on today the 10th)

Trial recipients developed Bells palsy
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9030943/Four-volunteers-got-Pfizers-vaccine-developed-Bells-palsy.html

Is this actually an emerging issue with the vaccine, though?

The FDA says this is in line with normal background rate of Bell's palsy. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?

[fuzzy math]

Other emerging issues with the vaccine since the FDA made their info public on the 8th (for 2 days of public review before being voted on today the 10th)

Trial recipients developed Bells palsy
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9030943/Four-volunteers-got-Pfizers-vaccine-developed-Bells-palsy.html

Is this actually an emerging issue with the vaccine, though?

The FDA says this is in line with normal background rate of Bell's palsy. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?

It was posted for public consumption 2 days ago, so as far as the public being aware, yes it is emerging. And it was reported as a possible side effect. There have been other vaccines that have cause Bell's palsy. They said they would keep monitoring for the signal, which means they simply do not have enough evidence to say that it doesn't cause it.

[EvenSteven]

Other emerging issues with the vaccine since the FDA made their info public on the 8th (for 2 days of public review before being voted on today the 10th)

Trial recipients developed Bells palsy
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9030943/Four-volunteers-got-Pfizers-vaccine-developed-Bells-palsy.html

Is this actually an emerging issue with the vaccine, though?

The FDA says this is in line with normal background rate of Bell's palsy. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?

It was posted for public consumption 2 days ago, so as far as the public being aware, yes it is emerging. And it was reported as a possible side effect. There have been other vaccines that have cause Bell's palsy. They said they would keep monitoring for the signal, which means they simply do not have enough evidence to say that it doesn't cause it.

Sure, I can see that with low incidence events that they don't have enough evidence to definitely rule it out, but I don't think it accurate to say that Bell's palsy is an issue with this vaccine. If you see health problems occur in the treatment groups at the same rate as the background population, that would be evidence that there is not an issue with the vaccine.

It would be more accurate to say that these trials have produced no evidence that this vaccine causes Bell's palsy.