in full agreement

I wonder how many opinions on the vaccine were changed (meaning indifferent to heck no will not take) by the way covid was politicized/weaponized this past year.

The anti-vaxxer BS was on Facebook and in the media well before Covid. It's just carried over and grown since.

Agree entirely. A good example of this is how J&J results were treated for 65% protection and 100% reduction in severe disease.

So much negativity about a single dose, effective covid vaccine about a year out from discovery of the it . Insanity.

I am not anti-vaccination but my entire family, less me, gets their flu shot, every year. I have not had the flu in 15-20 years but two of my kids have...

This comes down to a simple risk evaluation:

1) take a vaccine that may or may not prevent me from contracting COVID-19, with unknown long-term side effects

2) don't take the vaccine and accept that I have a 99.98% chance of survival if I contract it...

No that difficult of a decision

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

I am not anti-vaccination but my entire family, less me, gets their flu shot, every year. I have not had the flu in 15-20 years but two of my kids have...

This comes down to a simple risk evaluation:

1) take a vaccine that may or may not prevent me from contracting COVID-19, with unknown long-term side effects

2) don't take the vaccine and accept that I have a 99.98% chance of survival if I contract it...

No that difficult of a decision

---

The flu shot sucks. I don't get it either.

I don't want something repeatedly injected into me every year just to lower my risk of getting the flu by 30% when I don't get the flu anyway or if I do get the flu I think it is a cold because I don't get anything but the sniffles.

Covid is a different situation. I now know personally more than 20 people that have been in the hospital with Covid in the last year. I'm not aware of anyone I know ending up in the hospital with the flu in my lifetime. I have an uncle in the hospital with Covid as I type this.

The Covid vaccine I took in the trial was 95% effective at preventing symptomatic Covid and 100% effective at preventing death from Covid. It also reduced hospitalization by 9x%. I don't know how well those numbers will hold up in the real world but I think these vaccines are going to save millions of lives and several times that in hospital stays around the world this year.

I totally understand being worried about the long-term safety of a new vaccine and that is a valid reason to choose not to take it, but don't compare it to the flu vaccine. It is apples and oranges at best.

I'm not comparing it to the flu vaccine, I was simply providing context to the anti-vaccination stance. My family and kids receive vaccines.

My choice for not receiving the COVID vaccine is a simple, risk based evaluation, as stated above.

And yes, I know people that have been hospitalized from COVID, too. None of them are within 25 years of age of me or my family.

Our household (wife, two daughters, and myself) all had Covid and not much to it. I have known many who have died from it - we'll all be getting the vaccine for them.

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

I am not anti-vaccination but my entire family, less me, gets their flu shot, every year. I have not had the flu in 15-20 years but two of my kids have...

This comes down to a simple risk evaluation:

1) take a vaccine that may or may not prevent me from contracting COVID-19, with unknown long-term side effects

2) don't take the vaccine and accept that I have a 99.98% chance of survival if I contract it...

No that difficult of a decision

---

This sentiment, broadly applied to many people, is potentially dangerous. You might be fine contracting the disease, but if/when you do get it, you have become part of a network of carriers that elongates the lifetime and increases the spread of the disease. Sure, you and all of the people who choose not to get vaccinated might be fine, or you get sick and have to live (or die) with your personal decision. But the longer this disease lasts, the more likely we as a society are to flirt with the chance that it will still be significantly spreading and mutating until the efficacy of vaccines decreases.

Just asking that you consider adding other people to your "simple risk evaluation."

tomtomdrumdrum said:

---

This sentiment, broadly applied to many people, is potentially dangerous. You might be fine contracting the disease, but if/when you do get it, you have become part of a network of carriers that elongates the lifetime and increases the spread of the disease. Sure, you and all of the people who choose not to get vaccinated might be fine, or you get sick and have to live (or die) with your personal decision. But the longer this disease lasts, the more likely we as a society are to flirt with the chance that it will still be significantly spreading and mutating until the efficacy of vaccines decreases.

Just asking that you consider adding other people to your "simple risk evaluation."

---

This is just a bunch of malarkey.

Now we are shaming people because if they don't take the vaccine, then people who choose to take the vaccine might have to continue to take a vaccine?

Again, simple risk evaluation that everyone should do and it should account for the possibility that you will be around other people that will not be taking the vaccine.

Our primary concern is the long term health of our family. If anyone else is at risk, they should absolutely get the vaccine.

tomtomdrumdrum said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

might have to continue to take a vaccine?

---

This means a more than you are simplifying it to mean.

if the disease mutates significantly enough, might we have to develop new vaccines? What is the cost of that? The cost we have had to pay in waiting for the current vaccines has been pretty significant, I'd say.

when do we determine the cadence for re-vaccinating people? After x number of people who were previously vaccinated get infected and die?

---

grasping at straws

Pretty sure the goalposts have always been to vaccinate the public so we can stop the spread of covid. This thread is about public messaging, and I'm trying to talk about a pervasive public sentiment that puts us at risk of not stopping the spread.

tomtomdrumdrum said:

---

Pretty sure the goalposts have always been to vaccinate the public so we can stop the spread of covid. This thread is about public messaging, and I'm trying to talk about a pervasive public sentiment that puts us at risk of not stopping the spread.

---

Stopping the spread has always been the goal. Whether that is accomplished via vaccine, herd immunity or any other means...

This thread is about public sentiment and everyone's ability to make decisions for themselves and their families. I'm not watching some conspiracy news network or reading anything that has persuaded me I'm better off not taking the vaccine.

We made a decision, as a family, that we will not be taking the vaccine based on the risks of contracting the virus vs long term effects of the vaccine. I'm sorry our rational explanation doesn't align with your personal beliefs, but it is our decision to make, not yours.

No? The original goal post was "15 days to flatten the curve."

Sure, I believe you aren't persuaded by misinformation. But the article wasn't about misinformation, it was about how public messaging should center around the reasons why people should get vaccinated.

Your message is a common message that I have heard from others, and it dissuades people from getting vaccinated. I'm not trying to tell you personally what to do, I'm just trying to have a conversation about the basis of your decision so that you or someone else who reads this thread might be able to think or talk about whether to get vaccinated with a little more nuance than "we don't know the long term effects, so we aren't doing it." There are other things to consider.

There is nothing goalpost moving about saying people should get a vaccine. That was always the end goal.

I'm not sure it's clear what the repercussions of people not getting vaccinated is. I think it could range from "not a big deal at all" to "mutant strain that kills us all", but probably settle more around "making this all last a little longer for everyone".

No I'm pretty sure what I'm insinuating is exactly what I wrote. People not getting the vaccine will probably end up making this all last a little longer for everyone.

But sometimes actual black and white text is hard to make out....

I am vaccinated and yes if all decisions were up to me I would be living my 100% 2019 life right now. I don't think vaccinated people should have any restrictions, and I'm hopeful as cases and deaths continue to decline that restrictions will follow.

Something we can all hopefully agree on!

Old Buffalo said:

---

No? The original goal post was "15 days to flatten the curve."

---

This.

And no, this isn't likely to mutate into something worse where we need further vaccine research and trying to keep up with the virus. The virus isn't smarter than the human body. Obviously to some extent we need continued research, but nothing like the other poster is describing. If anything, the human body develops over time quicker than diseases. This is far more likely to get less and less severe over time through natural and vaccinated immunities / people becoming naturally stronger.(unless we continue to mask up and social distance and try to play god, which we've never done at any point in our evolution as long as we have here)

Wakesurfer817 said:

---

Pretend for the moment that you know it's effective - both in preventing you from contracting the virus AND from transmitting the virus. Would you still decline to be vaccinated? This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the vaccine - see comment below

What would make you comfortable that the vaccine was effective? See comment below

What long term side effects are you concerned about?

---

Please point to any of my posts suggesting that I don't believe the vaccine to be effective...

You're attempted "jab" using "AND from transmitting the virus" is pretty pathetic... As I mentioned in an earlier response, it is not my job to mitigate your risk from contracting Covid. That is your responsibility as an individual.

If you chose not to receive the vaccine and are still willing to carry on with your life and venture out into society, you're accepting the risk (as we're doing) that you may still contract the virus. If the vaccine is effective (which I believe it is), you should be able to carry on life as you knew it, as you have mitigated your risk from contracting it.

Wakesurfer817 said:

---

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

Wakesurfer817 said:

---

Pretend for the moment that you know it's effective - both in preventing you from contracting the virus AND from transmitting the virus. Would you still decline to be vaccinated? This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the vaccine - see comment below

What would make you comfortable that the vaccine was effective? See comment below

What long term side effects are you concerned about?

---

Please point to any of my posts suggesting that I don't believe the vaccine to be effective...

You're attempted "jab" using "AND from transmitting the virus" is pretty pathetic... As I mentioned in an earlier response, it is not my job to mitigate your risk from contracting Covid. That is your responsibility as an individual.

If you chose not to receive the vaccine and are still willing to carry on with your life and venture out into society, you're accepting the risk (as we're doing) that you may still contract the virus. If the vaccine is effective (which I believe it is), you should be able to carry on life as you knew it, as you have mitigated your risk from contracting it.

---

My apologies. Perhaps I misinterpreted this from you earlier: (Forgive my clumsy quoting, I'm new here.)

"This comes down to a simple risk evaluation:

1) take a vaccine that may or may not prevent me from contracting COVID-19, with unknown long-term side effects"

With respect to "whose job it is to mitigate your risk from Covid." This is an interesting question. I'll respond for myself first. As a person of faith, I'm required to love my neighbor as myself. Thus - again, as a Christian - it is actually my job to mitigate your risk from Covid. (Perhaps even take some personal risk to do so (even if I don't like my neighbor) - see "The Good Samaritan")

For non-Christians, I think the question is perhaps easier to answer as you have, although there is an aspect of civil responsibility in there somewhere.

In any case, I wasn't trying to insult you or jab you. I am genuinely curious as to what is required to get a vaccine widely accepted these days. It seems it's not enough for the medical profession to approve.

---

As a Christian, I have a serious problem with the fact that aborted fetal tissue was used in the development of the vaccines. I have an obligation to those who cannot defend themselves. I should be able to refuse the vaccine on those grounds alone.

Also, something not discussed in this thread, is the fact that there will be a NATURAL immunity that will evolve. The vaccine is not the only way we will come out of this, and it's the height of human hubris to think that is the case. Look at the 1918-1919 pandemic. They did not develop a vaccine to get us out of it...the plague ran its course. I think to tell people who refuse the vaccine and rather wait for the natural immunity to develop that they would be the reason we don't overcome it is dishonest.