Corona Vaccine - Anyone getting it?

In reply to OHSCrifle :

He didn't give a lot of details, but he has concerns.  He said to wait a few months to see what happens.

In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :

Generally, I concur. 

I think conspiracies are probably minimal (as in maybe 0) but the mis/disinformation did much more damage. Without going into the 5 W's, I think that most people here can agree that there has been, and is still, a lot of bad and outright wrong information being endorsed as truth. Say what you will about the proper correction, or what/who is at fault, the bad information has killed people. I understand wanting to believe that people act with good intent and I can assure you that everyone has acted with the best of intentions since before Patient Zero, the best of intentions that benefit them/fit their beliefs. 

The problem with covid, from an american standpoint, is that it's a respiratory disease that our "work at all costs" system is powerless to prevent. Think back to pre-2020, when have you called out of work because of a fever that you didn't want to spread? How sick do you have to be to justify missing work for even a day? There's your framework for the current covid numbers, outside of obvious political slant in the 'wrong" direction.

On a side note, it could be my holiday state of mind but I seem to be triggering (yea, I said it) some indignation with the tone and content of my posts. I fully acknowledge that this holiday season has me being a little more brutally confrontational, rather than my usual 'smile and nod' approach to disagreement, and I ackonowledge that that might be uncomfortable for some people. I honestly, truly, don't care. However, because I was 'raised right' I'm not gonna sit in this thread and ruin it for people that don't agree with me. I don't do this all well as Curtis. Happy holidays everyone!

Edit; @SVreX, Have you sought a second opinion? It seems a bit odd that he won't commit to an answer, or doesn't have anything to cite, but is advising against a potentially lifesaving vaccination. I'm not a doctor so he certainly knows all sorts of things that I don't but it's weird that your doctor is giving you such vagueries, that can't be a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Curtis, you are an excellent debater.  That's not always the point.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

Not to mention, restaurants can still operate with takeout and delivery.  It sucks for the servers and isn't usually as profitable, but they can physically function.  Airlines can't do that.  

I'm not sure the "science" agrees with that statement.

40% of restaurant owners currently believe their business could be permanently closed in the next 6 months.  I've never heard anyone suggest any airline closings.

I think the more accurate statement is that restaurants can't physically function without sit-down service and 40% may close, while airlines are getting by and slowly recovering.  (Airlines also have the ability to cancel unprofitable flights and routes.  Restaurants can't do that.)

In reply to infinitenexus :

There has been no testing on pregnant women.  There has also been no testing on children.

There has also been no testing on very ill elderly people or populations like residents of nursing homes.

It's important to roll out this vaccine, and get it to as many people as possible as quickly as possible.  But some of this information should be more transparent.

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

  They make rules that they think (notice I said think) will benefit the greatest number of people while screwing the least.

I used to believe that.  I honestly do not anymore.

I used to believe there was an altruistic and good streak in politicians that wanted the best for everyone, and sometimes unintended consequences happen, and sometimes the system needs to be tweaked again when unforeseen things don't go according to plan.

I don't believe that anymore.

I believe the vast majority of governmental leaders are largely in it for themselves (and their cronies, which is the same thing), and that the rules they pass are the ones they think will benefit themselves the most.  To hell with the greatest number of people.

I don't believe there were any conspiracies related to coronavirus, but it's on shaky footing.  I'm forcing myself to stand on that position, because I desperately want to believe everyone has acted with good intent.

I will mostly agree with your assessment of government and how they make rules that benefit themselves, however I disagree with the motivation.  I don't think (for the most part) that they are actively saying "to hell with the plebeian population, let's get rich!"  I think they're just so removed and clueless from what plebeian populations actually need that they can't effectively govern a population that they don't know anything about.  Along the way, they throw in some self-serving legislation, a few $2500-a-plate benefits, and skim from the taxpayers, but I believe they are simply ignorant...  either willfully or accidentally.

I don't believe they are actively denying the needs of us, I believe they haven't the slightest clue of what those needs are.  Either way, the result is the same, we get screwed.

I'm reminded of a board member at the theater whom, after I directly requested funding for a new miter saw from the money guy, she instead donated a new refrigerator for the concessions bar... which we didn't need, didn't ask for, and in fact asked for something completely different.  The left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. She thought she was being helpful and generous.  She was instead doing the opposite, but it was due to her ignorance, not malice.

In reply to Error404 :

It's important to pay attention to the subgroups.

Recommendations have been to get the vaccine to the elderly.  Testing has been done on healthy elderly populations.

Nursing home residents are a subset of the elderly.  They are much sicker and more frail as a group than "the elderly".  This subset has NOT been tested.

My concern with this is it could have a very strong negative impact.  "My grandmother got the vaccine and died anyway" could easily undermine the integrity of the process, and erode public trust of the vaccine.  It won't make any difference that the grandmother was very frail, and may have likely died from other related or non-related issues.

We are getting crappy information, and therefore making crappy decisions.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

  They make rules that they think (notice I said think) will benefit the greatest number of people while screwing the least.

I used to believe that.  I honestly do not anymore.

I used to believe there was an altruistic and good streak in politicians that wanted the best for everyone, and sometimes unintended consequences happen, and sometimes the system needs to be tweaked again when unforeseen things don't go according to plan.

I don't believe that anymore.

I believe the vast majority of governmental leaders are largely in it for themselves (and their cronies, which is the same thing), and that the rules they pass are the ones they think will benefit themselves the most.  To hell with the greatest number of people.

I don't believe there were any conspiracies related to coronavirus, but it's on shaky footing.  I'm forcing myself to stand on that position, because I desperately want to believe everyone has acted with good intent.

I will mostly agree with your assessment of government and how they make rules that benefit themselves, however I disagree with the motivation.  I don't think (for the most part) that they are actively saying "to hell with the plebeian population, let's get rich!"  I think they're just so removed and clueless from what plebeian populations actually need that they can't effectively govern a population that they don't know anything about.  Along the way, they throw in some self-serving legislation, a few $2500-a-plate benefits, and skim from the taxpayers, but I believe they are simply ignorant...  either willfully or accidentally.

I don't believe they are actively denying the needs of us, I believe they haven't the slightest clue of what those needs are.  Either way, the result is the same, we get screwed.

I'm reminded of a board member at the theater whom, after I directly requested funding for a new miter saw from the money guy, she instead donated a new refrigerator for the concessions bar... which we didn't need, didn't ask for, and in fact asked for something completely different.  The left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. She thought she was being helpful and generous.  She was instead doing the opposite, but it was due to her ignorance, not malice.

So what?  The result is the same. The motivation is completely irrelevant.

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Error404 :

It's important to pay attention to the subgroups.

Recommendations have been to get the vaccine to the elderly.  Testing has been done on healthy elderly populations.

Nursing home residents are a subset of the elderly.  They are much sicker and more frail as a group than "the elderly".  This subset has NOT been tested.

My concern with this is it could have a very strong negative impact.  "My grandmother got the vaccine and died anyway" could easily undermine the integrity of the process, and erode public trust of the vaccine.  It won't make any difference that the grandmother was very frail, and may have likely died from other related or non-related issues.

We are getting crappy information, and therefore making crappy decisions.

Not trying to be snarky but what do you mean by paying attention to the sub groups? Genuine question. The governor is on video repeatedly iterating that  a young person will not get the vaccine before a 65+ Premium (TM) citizen

In reply to Error404 :

I have no reason to distrust my doctor, and it's pretty irrelevant for me.  It's not a life saving treatment FOR ME.  I am healthy, and in a low risk category.  By the time I move up the priority list, enough time will have passed for me to have a better sense of security.  There is no point in a second opinion from a random doctor who does not know me or my health history well.

My point was simply that there are doctors who have concerns, and at the moment I am following the advice of my doctor.

In reply to Error404 :

When people say "Vaccinate the elderly", they fail to consider that "frail elderly" or "sick elderly", or "nursing home residents" are subsets of "elderly".  These subsets have not been tested, and no one knows how they will react to the vaccine.

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Error404 :

I have no reason to distrust my doctor, and it's pretty irrelevant for me.  It's not a life saving treatment for me.  I am healthy, and in a low risk category.  By the time I move up the priority list, enough time will have passed for me to have a better sense of security.  There is no point in a second opinion from a random doctor who does not know me or my health history well.

My point was simply that there are doctors who have concerns, and at the moment I am following the advice of my doctor.

The lifesaving part is not just your own health but the health of people you could infect if you were to become a carrier. If you can't build up viral load, it becomes very difficult to transmit. I question, for the sake of knowing, why your doctor is basically disrecommending a vaccination.

Edit: As to our other topic, ronny boy has specified that he means the 4.4 million 65+ voter-citizens, not just high risk elderly. This is to the exclusion of anyone else. No one else in FL is likely to see a vaccine, barring political connection, until spring. He has referenced the J&J approval that should be due in Feb. and at <500,000 doses a week it will take a couplemonths to vaccinate all the condo retirees. If there are other wrinkles here, they were not covered in his press conference (from The Villages)

In reply to Error404 :

Because it is not proven to his satisfaction.

For the record, I am an essential worker.  I have not missed a day of work throughout the entire pandemic, and no one around me has gotten sick.  Including the elderly and ill people I have been in contact with.  You are making assumptions that are not necessarily accurate.

In reply to Error404 :

And your assumption that vaccinated people cannot infect those around them has still not been proven.  It is believed to be true, but has not been proven.  That's a huge problem.

In reply to Error404 :

It's quite a stretch to get from hold off and see how it goes to disrecommending a vaccination. 

In reply to Error404 :

I am respectfully requesting you stop interjecting commentary about "Ronny Boy".  It's clearly political, and against the policies of this forum.

I don't give a damn about your governor, or your dislike of him.  Take it to the voting booth.

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

 

Curtis, you are an excellent debater.  That's not always the point.

 

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

Not to mention, restaurants can still operate with takeout and delivery.  It sucks for the servers and isn't usually as profitable, but they can physically function.  Airlines can't do that.  

I'm not sure the "science" agrees with that statement.

40% of restaurant owner believe their business could be permanently closed in the next 6 months.  I've never heard anyone suggest any airline closings.

I think the more accurate statement is that restaurants can't physically function without sit-down service and 40% may close, while airlines are getting by and slowly recovering.  (Airlines also have the ability to cancel unprofitable flights and routes.  Restaurants can't do that.)

I think your numbers are probably accurate, but they don't resonate with the bigger picture.  This will sound callous, but imagine I'm a Senator or Representative when I say these things.

40% of restaurants close, but the process of limiting indoor seating saves a quarter of a million lives, and when the pandemic is over those restaurants will re-open with new owners

If air travel stops, the entire economy is incredibly stressed, a massive part of global infrastructure is damaged, planes atrophy, and it won't prevent very many COVID cases according to the numbers.

Even if every single restaurant permanently closes, they will reopen.  People will still have access to food, they just have to cook it themselves.  If the airlines close, we're far more humped.  You're trying to equate 50 massive corporations responsible for a huge section of the global economy and transportation infrastructure to millions of small businesses that will rebound overnight with someone else's money as soon as the pandemic is over.

This is like the difference between a forest fire and a nuclear bomb.  Forest fires suck, but there are actually benefits to it.  Nuclear bombs just suck, and in a lot bigger way.

It's important to reiterate, those aren't MY thoughts.  I really hate seeing my friends who own restaurants struggle.  Some of them have adapted and doing OK, others have thrived by restructuring their approach.  The whole thing sucks, but airlines failing is not an economic option I want to see happen.

Good luck Curtis, keep fighting the good fight.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

The government doesn't give crap bout us, have you read the current stimulus bill? They're trying to send Billions of our tax dollars to foreign countries. 

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I don't disagree with your logic.  Except it's fabricated.  There is nothing scientific about it.

If I was a Senator and presented with facts that showed that, I'd close restaurants.  You are offering me a THEORY with MADE UP numbers claiming 250,000 lives saved  because restaurants close.  I'm not even sure it qualifies as a theory.

It's a lovely little metaphor.

It was intended to be a metaphor.  I was simply saying (again... made up numbers) that even 10% of airlines going bankrupt is far more detrimental to the economy than 100% of the restaurants.

Here's an alternate theory...

Maybe its alcohol.  Perhaps when people drink, they make bad decisions.  Maybe the exact same results could have been accomplished  by restricting alcohol sales, instead of assuming all restaurants are automatically petri dishes.

Oh, but airlines would then have to limit alcohol... 

There's MUCH more info in the details than any fabricated generalizations.

(NOTE: This is completely fabricated.  I made it up.)

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I don't disagree with your logic.  Except it's fabricated.  There is nothing scientific about it.

If I was a Senator and presented with facts that showed that, I'd close restaurants.  You are offering me a THEORY with MADE UP numbers claiming 250,000 lives saved  because restaurants close.  I'm not even sure it qualifies as a theory.

It's a lovely little metaphor.

It was intended to be a metaphor.  I was simply saying (again... made up numbers) that even 10% of airlines going bankrupt is far more detrimental to the economy than 100% of the restaurants.

Right.  But its STILL fabricated.

I would counter that by proposing that it is very likely airline capacity will DECREASE by more than 20%, and a 10% reduction in the airline industry would be HEALTHY.

Businesses are learning new ways every day, and we will NOT EVER return to "business as usual" like it was before the pandemic.

You are proposing metaphors to try to win a debate.  I am suggesting real life scientific studies to develop a plan for moving forward.

Subscriber-unavailabile said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

The government doesn't give crap bout us, have you read the current stimulus bill? They're trying to send Billions of our tax dollars to foreign countries. 

It's not surprising to me at all.  That has been our M.O. since the 50s.  The last stimulus included much of the same stuff.  It's the same reason why arguments about "taking my taxes to pay for lazy people" doesn't hold water.  The majority of your taxes goes to pork barrel stuff like that.  It's a known entity.

If I am inferring from your posts correctly, I think we agree that those spending things suck, though.

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I don't disagree with your logic.  Except it's fabricated.  There is nothing scientific about it.

If I was a Senator and presented with facts that showed that, I'd close restaurants.  You are offering me a THEORY with MADE UP numbers claiming 250,000 lives saved  because restaurants close.  I'm not even sure it qualifies as a theory.

It's a lovely little metaphor.

It was intended to be a metaphor.  I was simply saying (again... made up numbers) that even 10% of airlines going bankrupt is far more detrimental to the economy than 100% of the restaurants.

Right.  But its STILL fabricated.

I would counter that by proposing that it is very likely airline capacity will DECREASE by more than 20%, and a 10% reduction in the airline industry would be HEALTHY.

Businesses are learning new ways every day, and we will NOT ever return to "business as usual" like it was before the pandemic.

You are proposing metaphors to try to win a debate.  I am suggesting real life scientific studies to develop a plan for moving forward.

Oy... I'm not trying to win a debate.  I'm debating.

The real life scientific studies are being done, just not by my while I'm preparing for a holiday. :)

I have a ton of respect for you, Paul, and I'm loving the respectful debate.

As far as airline vs restaurant. 
Airlines go bankrupt all the time and get bailed out. There's no way they'll just go bankrupt and close for good, mine as well be an extension of the govt. 

Restaurants, specifically mom and pop owned ones, barely get any assistance during this time. If they close people's livelihoods are gone. That's it.

The way I look at this, we should be allow to take the risk of going out to eat or fly. If you are that concerned of contracting the virus then stay at home and have Amazon send you groceries.