Corona Vaccine - Anyone getting it?

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

Nope.  Not in the slightest.  Absolutely no desire to be combative whatsoever.

It was a legitimate question, because your post was not clear.  Just conversing, my friend...

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

Reversing the "calling out"...

Try not to be defensive when someone asks for clarification of your position.  Don't assume the worst.

I don't think it is inconsistent to have thought that general economic shutdowns were and remain bad and yo also think that caution is warranted when using a drug, medicine, treatment, or vaccine that has not been approved by the FDA.  It's been mentioned at least a week ago if not sooner that there wasn't yet evidence to definitively say that the Pfizer candidate could prevent transmission.  Not in the sense that you could get it on your hands and move it around but in these sense that you might be an asymptomatic carrier.  And the way that you are spreading this virus before you feel sick - or might not feel sick at all - is one of the things that makes this spread so rapidly.  So if this vaccine only prevents symptoms the whole "take it to protect my grandma" argument doesn't hold up.  That's all an "if" right now, though - we don't know yet.  We only know that we can't prove that it prevents spread but we can't prove that it doesn't prevent spread. 

For those people that are at risk of serious cases or for those people who are uniquely positioned to be exposed, the risks of issues with the vaccine are likely outweighed by the risks associated with covid.  For those of me that are not at risk and don't have jobs or lifestyles that require us to lick doorknobs all day, I think the risk of vaccine complications is greater than the risks associated with covid for now.  As a greater number of people are injected and we can study them, I fully expect that we'll find that -  other than the normal vaccine side-effects of minor fevers and itchiness and little stuff that is basically irrelevant - the vaccine has basically no side-effects.  That said, I would rather not be the first guy on my street to take any new pharmaceutical product.

There's no difference there than if you told me that they just released a new drug that we'll call Provasic.  It isn't fully approved, but they think it can cure a sudden aneurism.  They also think that it will make a migraine headache better.  While it's brand new and operating under an EUA, I would take Provasic in a heartbeat if I was about to die of a burst blood vessel in my brain.  Whatever side-effects would happen would likely be better than dying.  But if you offered me some Provasic for my migraine, I would rather deal with the debilitating headache than potentially serious effects that are as-yet unknown.

In both cases - lockdowns and vaccines - the desire is to focus on the most at-risk while taking a cautious approach with applying things to those who do not have a great risk.  I don't see much contradiction in those.

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

Clarification...

When you said "putting on the brakes", I thought you meant pushing back against distribution of the vaccine and suggesting others resist it.  Being opposed to general public distribution of a product that might not be ready.  Essentially, an anti-vaxer.

It wasn't clear to me that "putting on the brakes" meant hesitating or delaying choosing to receive it on a personal level.

I think my question was completely reasonable.

Let's back off the little pas de deux here, Paul. You are doing yourself, this thread, and this forum no favors by continuing it. Thank you.

Margie

In reply to Marjorie Suddard :

No battle here, Margie. Just trying to help a friend understand what part I was not understanding. 

Thanks.

I just want to say that I love the way this place is moderated and that the phrase " pas de deux " can be effectively used in that moderation.

In reply to wae :

I can certainly see how there is some logical overlap. And you make some good points about 'does this apply immediately to me vs does this apply generally to folks around me'. 

A: If someone is advocating against a lockdown they are essentially saying that the lockdown itself creates a bigger risk than the virus (this may be true, but as we all know, it is hard to compare the apples of the economics and the oranges of public health, even though they are closely tied).

B: If someone is advocating that they want to delay getting the vaccine personally, they are saying that the vaccine presents a greater risk than the virus (this also may be true, but based on what we know seems unlikely for many people). 

Statements A and B can logically co-exist, but really only if the risks of the vaccine and of the lockdown are greater than the risks of the virus. This is quite possible especially in the case where the virus doesn't present a big risk to the individual. 

A lockdown is a crude, poorly-tested, and incredibly costly way to stop a virus. I can easily see the arguments that lockdowns are worse than the virus. A vaccine, on the other hand, is by almost all measures a perfect way to stop a virus. What I assumed was that everyone wants to stop the virus somehow, and if you are presented with only two options (lockdown or vaccine), then the people who oppose lockdowns should be thrilled with the opportunity to try vaccine instead. That's the part that strikes me as odd, that so many people seem to oppose both. 

If there is a 3rd option that happens to be better than lockdowns and vaccines, I think we're all ears!

I don't really disagree with you Robbie, but just want to point out that in case A), many oppose a lockdown not for the economic damage, but because they percieve it as government over-reach.

ProDarwin said:

I don't really disagree with you Robbie, but just want to point out that in case A), many oppose a lockdown not for the economic damage, but because they percieve it as government over-reach.

That's an important point. The risk of a government over-reach can be perceived in both the lockdown and the vaccine solutions. That's probably another logical situation where A and B co-exist, where the risk of over-reach is larger than the risk of the virus. 

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

There's a graphic on page 17 that sums it up

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

ProDarwin said:

I don't really disagree with you Robbie, but just want to point out that in case A), many oppose a lockdown not for the economic damage, but because they percieve it as government over-reach.

That's an important point. The risk of a government over-reach can be perceived in both the lockdown and the vaccine solutions. That's probably another logical situation where A and B co-exist, where the risk of over-reach is larger than the risk of the virus. 

I don't see overreach existing in B.  The government is not mandating the vaccine.  Unless you percieve funding it as overreach, which would be a whole different (and silly) discussion.

Just out of curiosity and because I did not feel like doing an oil change, I went through the whole thread and gathered some information to create the graph below. I am happy with the results being so early in the game.

Total number of users that posted is 117.
A few I never could figure what their answer was. Some of those, base on their views I could guess the answer, but given they had not stated it I placed them in the "Not clear Column"

If you guys want me to post a list of names and how I cataloged their answer, let me know.

In reply to Slippery (Forum Supporter) :

I don't believe I was explicitly clear, but in the words of Burrito, I'll take it so hard.

Thanks for compiling that. It makes things much clearer.

In reply to wheelsmithy (Joe-with-an-L) (Forum Supporter) :

Yep, you were one of the ones I could not guess. I changed your answer to yes.

Below are the users I placed in the "Not clear to me column".

This is all info that is out there in the thread, so I doubt any will care. If you do not want your name mentioned here, let me know and I will remove it. Same if you want me to move you to another column.

AngryCorvair
barefootskater
chandler
Duke
engiekev
newrider3
preach
Robbie
Stefan
Toyman01
Toymanswife
wvumtnbkr
z31maniac

In reply to Slippery (Forum Supporter) :

I'm pretty much wait and see, only because no one here is high risk, we don't see many people and are careful when we do. There's 3 of us here, and if we've seen 10 people since March between us, I'd be surprised, so I don't see any reason to rush. 

In reply to Steve_Jones :

Thanks! Updated:

Thanks Slippery, actual data!

I have to admit my impression in reading the thread would have been a bit different.  (OK, a lot different)

(obligatory statement about selection bias in the poling, not necessarily representative etc.), still an interesting data point.

In reply to aircooled :

So let's say we all get the vaccine. No telling how long that'll take, 330 million X 2 is a lot. But after the vaccination we all are still possible carriers of the virus. How long is it going to take to kill off the virus? If it is indeed transmitted after vaccination I feel we are going to be stuck in very long circulation of this E36 M3.

Here's my quasi-educated guess.  If the vaccine is a true vaccine (as in, prevents you from getting the infection and thereby prevents the spread), then we will only get ahead of the virus (like we did with Polio, Measles, etc) if nearly everyone gets it.  If a significant number of people don't get it, we wont ever get control of the virus and it will continue to cause death in the future.

If the vaccine is (as some outlets report) just a means of not having the symptoms, but still lets you get the infection (which technically isn't a vaccine at all), then not only will we never get ahead of the virus, but we'll be just shifting the deaths and illnesses to those who refuse to take the vaccine... or those who want to get it but have allergies or logistical difficulty getting it in time.

The way other countries who have been more successful at controlling the virus have generally reported their modus operandi as:

- had an economy more suited to not crashing and more able to support those affected most by shutdowns
- determined that the economic impact of a hard, full shutdown for a few weeks was far less than multiple, soft shutdowns
- determined that the overall viral spread and death rate was more beneficially impacted by one hard, full shutdown compared to multiple/soft

The numbers suggest that we are losing hardcore in the US.  I feel like America is this guy:

Subscriber-unavailabile said:

In reply to aircooled :

So let's say we all get the vaccine. No telling how long that'll take, 330 million X 2 is a lot. But after the vaccination we all are still possible carriers of the virus. How long is it going to take to kill off the virus? If it is indeed transmitted after vaccination I feel we are going to be stuck in very long circulation of this E36 M3.

One of my concerns as well.  I'm digging for some references to see if it's an actual vaccine (prevents infection) or just a therapeutic (prevents symptoms).

If its the latter, all good.  If its the former, it at least prevents massive deaths until a true vaccine can be formulated. If it prevents the disease and prevents the dying, it's a great middle ground.   If we all get the current vaccine to prevent symptoms, we could theoretically prevent nearly all the deaths, economic impact, and some of the social issues we're having until we get something that actually curbs the viral infection - thereby getting it under control.

And we'll never get rid of it.  It's here to stay.  Polio still exists, Measles still exists.  Its just that such a massive portion of the world is vaccinated against it that the virus can never cause another pandemic.  It has to do with vectoring.  Right now, we're all succeptible, so if C19 wants to go to the next person, it just goes.  Vaccinating half of the population means that half the roads are closed and they have to detour.  If you successfully close nearly all the roads, it has to stay put.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Another questions is how long the vaccine is effective for. If it's not effective for atleast a year then we're stuck in a circle.