Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (5 Viewers)

Will you get the covid vaccine when offered?

  • Yes

    Votes: 278 73.2%
  • No

    Votes: 106 27.9%

  • Total voters
    380
There can be unknown risks. We don't know what the long-term effects of the vaccine could be, that is a risk.
Vaccine proponents are open to saying that they don't know the long-term effects of the vaccine, just like we really don't know the long-term effects of COVID.

like what? What long term effects do YOU think possible from taking the vaccine? any?

I mean, if you are home and issued a Tornado Warning, but cant see it, do you stand on your porch looking for confirmation or rely on science ( doppler radar ) to tell you its headed your way and seek shelter?

The risk from NOT seeking shelter could be from nothing to death. The RISK FROM seeking shelter could be nothing to death. So why do you choose shelter?

To mitigate your risk. Science told you about the tornado ( covid ) and you know its destructive power ( covid stories for over a year now ) and while you take sciences' word for it ( better to be safe than sorry ) for a tornado, you question science for covid?

I just cant seem to understand the leap from one edge to the other.
 
like what? What long term effects do YOU think possible from taking the vaccine? any?

I mean, if you are home and issued a Tornado Warning, but cant see it, do you stand on your porch looking for confirmation or rely on science ( doppler radar ) to tell you its headed your way and seek shelter?

The risk from NOT seeking shelter could be from nothing to death. The RISK FROM seeking shelter could be nothing to death. So why do you choose shelter?

To mitigate your risk. Science told you about the tornado ( covid ) and you know its destructive power ( covid stories for over a year now ) and while you take sciences' word for it ( better to be safe than sorry ) for a tornado, you question science for covid?

I just cant seem to understand the leap from one edge to the other.
Have you ever been watching daytime TV and seen a commercial from a law firm about their class action suite against a pharmaceutical company because there was a long-term effect of a drug? I have, and those drugs were FDA approved.

Would you have told those people they should not have been afraid of unknown long-term consequences of a drug they were looking at taking?
 
I agree, and I am not saying that. I am saying there is a risk with vaccines and if these companies are negligent, part of the risk is there is not the usual legal recourse that most every other industry would have. It would be foolish to not weigh this in when making the decision to get vaccinated.

EDIT: I also want to add that I am hearing the vaccine is more effective than skeptics thought it would be. I am overall positive on the vaccine, but risks should always be weighed.

Keep in mind that many, many industries have some type of liability protection under Federal law. Sometimes its because of public policy and sometimes its because of effective lobbying. But, for example there is a reason Congress created a special fund to pay 9/11 victims - under federal law the airlines would have legally been able to limit their liability to 10s of thousands per victim (can't remember the exact number). Same reason you only receive a limited refund for lost/destroyed baggage. (read the back of your ticket - its not pretty) And yet despite the legal protections they enjoy, airlines have maintained an excellent safety record.

Sometimes we (through Congress) decide that its worth giving an industry protection from lawsuits in order to incentive activity that might be cost prohibitive if they were open to unlimited damages in court. A few decades ago we decided that vaccines were important enough that we wanted Big Pharma to be able to produce them in a streamlined legal environment. The fact that this limitation only applies to vaccines and not therapeutic drugs of every kind speaks to the relative importance of vaccines and not any real question about legal liabilities.

Also FWIW in the history of vaccines almost every major side effect has been discovered within the first year of use. The odds of everyone growing a third ear in 10 years is extremely remote.
 
Keep in mind that many, many industries have some type of liability protection under Federal law. Sometimes its because of public policy and sometimes its because of effective lobbying. But, for example there is a reason Congress created a special fund to pay 9/11 victims - under federal law the airlines would have legally been able to limit their liability to 10s of thousands per victim (can't remember the exact number). Same reason you only receive a limited refund for lost/destroyed baggage. (read the back of your ticket - its not pretty) And yet despite the legal protections they enjoy, airlines have maintained an excellent safety record.

Sometimes we (through Congress) decide that its worth giving an industry protection from lawsuits in order to incentive activity that might be cost prohibitive if they were open to unlimited damages in court. A few decades ago we decided that vaccines were important enough that we wanted Big Pharma to be able to produce them in a streamlined legal environment. The fact that this limitation only applies to vaccines and not therapeutic drugs of every kind speaks to the relative importance of vaccines and not any real question about legal liabilities.

Also FWIW in the history of vaccines almost every major side effect has been discovered within the first year of use. The odds of everyone growing a third ear in 10 years is extremely remote.

Understand that my main point is there are risks to vaccines and they should be weighed when taking one even if the risks are unknown.
I don't see how this is a controversial statement.
 
Have you ever been watching daytime TV and seen a commercial from a law firm about their class action suite against a pharmaceutical company because there was a long-term effect of a drug? I have, and those drugs were FDA approved.

Would you have told those people they should not have been afraid of unknown long-term consequences of a drug they were looking at taking?

all the time. Ever research exactly how many took vs how many had adverse effects?

Suits dont necessarily mean that if 12 million took, 12 million suffered.

Furthermore, FDA approval is only as good as the information they are presented. For some of those drugs, the FDA was not given ALL the info and that is, imo, criminal.

But there is a vast divide between withholding data to get a "designer drug" to market for pure profit than what we have all seen with the development of a COVID 19 vaccine.
 
all the time. Ever research exactly how many took vs how many had adverse effects?

Suits dont necessarily mean that if 12 million took, 12 million suffered.

Furthermore, FDA approval is only as good as the information they are presented. For some of those drugs, the FDA was not given ALL the info and that is, imo, criminal.

But there is a vast divide between withholding data to get a "designer drug" to market for pure profit than what we have all seen with the development of a COVID 19 vaccine.
Your goal is to strawman me with every reply, so you do you I guess.
 
Have you ever been watching daytime TV and seen a commercial from a law firm about their class action suite against a pharmaceutical company because there was a long-term effect of a drug? I have, and those drugs were FDA approved.

Would you have told those people they should not have been afraid of unknown long-term consequences of a drug they were looking at taking?

I mean, there have been legitimate issues with some drugs and there legitimate suits for bad side effects from drugs but honestly, most of the ones that require a TV ad to get enough clients to make it profitable are bullshirt. As Athereal notes, we as a society tend to see causality where no causality exists. We forget that correlation is not causation. Lots of those suits either have no scientific basis or are based on a few studies specifically funded to have evidence to file lawsuits.
 
We eradicated Polio with a vaccine. The only difference between then and now? Internet and misinformation.
Same with smallpox. We didn't have a choice nor did our parents when I received mine.
 
Understand that my main point is there are risks to vaccines and they should be weighed when taking one even if the risks are unknown.
I don't see how this is a controversial statement.

I agree that there is always some risk with taking a vaccine but I have seen the "You can't sue Pfizer so they must be hiding something" talking point used to downplay/discourage use of the vaccines and it is pretty much a red herring IMO.

Personally I believe it is well established that the risks from COVID (both to individuals but especially to the greater population) are much greater than the risks from vaccines - I think that's pretty much true for almost everyone outside of a narrow band who have compromised immune systems, specific allergies, etc.
 
Understand that my main point is there are risks to vaccines and they should be weighed when taking one even if the risks are unknown.
I don't see how this is a controversial statement.

its not that its controversial, its that i dont quite understand you keep referring to "risk" but without defining said "risk". There currently are no risks published with regards to Covid 19 Vaccines

From John Hopkins:

 
Understand that my main point is there are risks to vaccines and they should be weighed when taking one even if the risks are unknown.
I don't see how this is a controversial statement.

Well, fwiw, we've been weighing the risks and discussing such here for several months now. I think those risks have been well-considered and most sensible people who have been paying attention understand that getting a large percentage of the population vaccinated is our best chance of fighting off the pandemic and returning to some sense of normalcy. Everyone ultimately has to make their own decisions, but ideally based on sound science and facts rather than emotional hysteria that permeates some significant parts of the population.

And so far, the risks associated with vaccines are incredibly small. Reactions have been quite rare, and it's apparent that it's very effective in warding off the virus.
 
Understand that my main point is there are risks to vaccines and they should be weighed when taking one even if the risks are unknown.
I don't see how this is a controversial statement.

FWIW I would not take the Russian or Chinese vaccines based on my own risk assessment of their processes/transparency/testing processes. And even then its more that I'm not sure they will be effective, not that they will harm me.

But between Pfizer, J&J, Moderna and AstraZeneca I would be comfortable with my family taking any one of them (and as it happens we have 1 J&J, 2 Pfizers, and a Moderna in our family of 4).
 
I agree that there is always some risk with taking a vaccine but I have seen the "You can't sue Pfizer so they must be hiding something" talking point used to downplay/discourage use of the vaccines and it is pretty much a red herring IMO.

Personally I believe it is well established that the risks from COVID (both to individuals but especially to the greater population) are much greater than the risks from vaccines - I think that's pretty much true for almost everyone outside of a narrow band who have compromised immune systems, specific allergies, etc.
We still don't know if the vaccination causes a death. Anaphylaxis is very rare. that's why there is a 15 minute wait period,and medical professionals on hand to treat it if it does happen.

If a 70 year old person with a bad heart receives the vaccine and dies a week later, is it the vaccine or natural causes? I lean to the latter
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom