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

Will you get the covid vaccine when offered?

  • Yes

    Votes: 216 83.7%
  • No

    Votes: 46 17.8%

  • Total voters
    258

Dre

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 18, 2000
Messages
16,765
Reaction score
4,951
Age
41
Online
Sticky Post
About half of the people I know, including nurses, seem very reluctant to get the vaccination. Surprisingly, this includes different political demographics. What better way to settle it than by coming to a Saints message board.

edit: Geez I somehow allowed people to pick more than one answer on a yes/no poll. Doh!
 

efil4stnias

Play at your own risk
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
34,375
Reaction score
34,466
Location
Covington
Offline
I don't know if the V Safe tracker is adequate or near equivalent to VAERS, but they're getting a lot of people to easily self report. They recently followed up with me again, and it's been over a month since my second shot.


I hope they're going to use that data for more than just checking up on people.

V-safe is an offshoot of VAERS i believe.
 

tomwaits

Frontier Psychiatrist
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Messages
16,476
Reaction score
6,500
Age
45
Location
Pflugerville, TX
Offline
you continue to say "there is a risk with vaccines..." yet never define. You leave it to interpretation without any concrete risk defined.

What risk exactly other than being a new vaccine? Risk that it doesnt work? Risk that it causes cancer? Risk that it causes infertility? What risk?

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.
 

where yat brah

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
11,206
Location
Gulf Breeze, FL via NOLA via Donaldsonville/Frankl
Offline
I know. Kinda like driving to work everyday.

Good thing there are measures to mitigate and minimize the risk including but not limited to: government mandated speed limits, gov't mandated seat belt laws, gov't mandated license and multiple safety measures taken in the construction of the vehicle.
 

Arathrael

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Apr 23, 2014
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
3,247
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
Then they should have no problem taking on the liability, but that's not what happened.

Worth reading the background section there to understand why the manufacturers don't take liability.

But it basically comes down to, in a litigious society, that has a bad habit of seeing causality where there is no causality, if you want vaccines, you end up needing to limit the manufacturers' liability. Or they stop making vaccines.
 

efil4stnias

Play at your own risk
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
34,375
Reaction score
34,466
Location
Covington
Offline

Worth reading the background section there to understand why the manufacturers don't take liability.

But it basically comes down to, in a litigious society, that has a bad habit of seeing causality where there is no causality, if you want vaccines, you end up needing to limit the manufacturers' liability. Or they stop making vaccines.

and we simply rely on Darwinism to sort it all out.

But the same vaccine detractors will cry " why didnt anyone save us??!?!?"

its a no-win situation.
 

efil4stnias

Play at your own risk
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
34,375
Reaction score
34,466
Location
Covington
Offline
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.
 

tomwaits

Frontier Psychiatrist
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Messages
16,476
Reaction score
6,500
Age
45
Location
Pflugerville, TX
Offline
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?
 

Mr. Sparkle

Disrespectful to dirt
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
12,449
Reaction score
11,367
Offline
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.
 

tomwaits

Frontier Psychiatrist
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Messages
16,476
Reaction score
6,500
Age
45
Location
Pflugerville, TX
Offline
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.
 

efil4stnias

Play at your own risk
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
34,375
Reaction score
34,466
Location
Covington
Offline
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.
 

tomwaits

Frontier Psychiatrist
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Messages
16,476
Reaction score
6,500
Age
45
Location
Pflugerville, TX
Offline
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.
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
38,083
Reaction score
22,339
Age
49
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
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.
 

faceman

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
6,502
Reaction score
6,873
Age
59
Online
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.
 

Mr. Sparkle

Disrespectful to dirt
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
12,449
Reaction score
11,367
Offline
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.
 

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

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom