There were problems with the swine flu vaccine. But I don't know what percentage.had problems. But was a big story at the time here in Sweden. Kids getting narcolepsy
But if you live in society, you are to respect society. That's the deal. Which taking a vaccine to stop a pandemic is a part of.
Because I live in society I should take something just because big pharma and government say so.
lol.
No that’s not how society works.
I and only I will choose what goes in my body whenever possible.
There were problems with the swine flu vaccine. But I don't know what percentage.had problems. But was a big story at the time here in Sweden. Kids getting narcolepsy
But if you live in society, you are to respect society. That's the deal. Which taking a vaccine to stop a pandemic is a part of.
Because I live in society I should take something just because big pharma and government say so.
lol.
No that’s not how society works.
I and only I will choose what goes in my body whenever possible.
Well if you are so scared of both "big pharma" and the "government", then cook up your own vaccine. Start googling to get a hang of it. You'll make one in no time Meltdown.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
There were problems with the swine flu vaccine. But I don't know what percentage.had problems. But was a big story at the time here in Sweden. Kids getting narcolepsy
But if you live in society, you are to respect society. That's the deal. Which taking a vaccine to stop a pandemic is a part of.
Because I live in society I should take something just because big pharma and government say so.
lol.
No that’s not how society works.
I and only I will choose what goes in my body whenever possible.
Well if you are so scared of both "big pharma" and the "government", then cook up your own vaccine. Start googling to get a hang of it. You'll make one in no time Meltdown.
LMFAO. Not scared. Just don’t trust either. Besides, if, and that’s a big if, if the vaccine is actually delivered to us in Ontario...we are only getting 2 million doses...there are 15 million of us in Ontario...
I think I would lean towards taking a vaccine sooner or later. Covid19 itself seems to have lingering side effects for at least a percentage of those that get it. Seems like it's half of one, one of the other? Don't take a vaccine, get Covid19, and risk long term side effects. Take the vaccine, and risk being in the few percent that react negatively to it.
At this point I think I'd rather get a vaccine, then deal with getting the disease. I assumed they'll distribute it to older folks, health care works, people at risk, first.. so it'll probably take a bit to work it's way down to 40+ year olds who work in the investment industry. I do have have asthma, so maybe that bumps me up the list.
I ll definitely get the vaccine but I sure as hell won’t be first.
My feeling exactly.
One of my sister's best friends is a fairly recently retired, highly respected doctor and he is advising us to not be the first to get the vaccine. I'll wait until he thinks it is safe and then get right on it. I'll keep anyone posted who is interested.
Well, therein lies the problem. If no one agrees to be “first”, what next? This is one of the issues that will drive down vaccination rates.
Looked at one way, there is a similar argument of selfishness as with the mask debate, lockdowns, etc - everyone wants someone else to make a sacrifice.
I understand what you are saying and have thought of that. But first of all, there are many people eager to be first, and for good reason- they are on the front lines. And secondly, I'm an older, mostly retired adult with a compromised immune system, so my first line of defense is to stay home and stay away from people, so I'm not nearly in as great a need to receive the vaccine. If I were where I was at earlier in my life- young, strong, healthy, working full time- I would be much more apt to vaccinate early. It isn't about letting someone else make the sacrifice.
The older, immune compromised population is exactly the population being targeted for the first wave of vaccinations, as they are most at risk of bad outcomes (mortality or significant morbidity) if they get sick. The young, strong and healthy are probably going to be back of the line, except where they work in health care, are first responders, or are otherwise essential workers.
Vaccinating those most at risk first helps to alleviate much of the weight on the health system, particularly hospitals.
That makes some sense. But if the vaccine proves to have detrimental side-effects, will older, immune compromised people be more able to deal with them or less? I'm not eager to find out. Thus, I am being very careful about how I go about the task of living and will get the vaccine as soon as can reasonably (not 100% sure, just reasonably) believe it is safe.
I think people's definition of older varies. Because it's a long ass gap in time between retirement and dying of old age. 65 isn't that old, when lots of people live past 90.. etc..
I assumed they'd give it to 80+ year old's first. The ones that have a fairly high percentage chance of dying from it. Then maybe 70+ after that? At that point isn't it either "the virus is going to get you" or the "vaccine might get you"?. I'm half that age, and I'm still leaning towards the I'd rather deal with a vaccine then getting the thing.
I ll definitely get the vaccine but I sure as hell won’t be first.
My feeling exactly.
One of my sister's best friends is a fairly recently retired, highly respected doctor and he is advising us to not be the first to get the vaccine. I'll wait until he thinks it is safe and then get right on it. I'll keep anyone posted who is interested.
Well, therein lies the problem. If no one agrees to be “first”, what next? This is one of the issues that will drive down vaccination rates.
Looked at one way, there is a similar argument of selfishness as with the mask debate, lockdowns, etc - everyone wants someone else to make a sacrifice.
I understand what you are saying and have thought of that. But first of all, there are many people eager to be first, and for good reason- they are on the front lines. And secondly, I'm an older, mostly retired adult with a compromised immune system, so my first line of defense is to stay home and stay away from people, so I'm not nearly in as great a need to receive the vaccine. If I were where I was at earlier in my life- young, strong, healthy, working full time- I would be much more apt to vaccinate early. It isn't about letting someone else make the sacrifice.
The older, immune compromised population is exactly the population being targeted for the first wave of vaccinations, as they are most at risk of bad outcomes (mortality or significant morbidity) if they get sick. The young, strong and healthy are probably going to be back of the line, except where they work in health care, are first responders, or are otherwise essential workers.
Vaccinating those most at risk first helps to alleviate much of the weight on the health system, particularly hospitals.
That makes some sense. But if the vaccine proves to have detrimental side-effects, will older, immune compromised people be more able to deal with them or less? I'm not eager to find out. Thus, I am being very careful about how I go about the task of living and will get the vaccine as soon as can reasonably (not 100% sure, just reasonably) believe it is safe.
I think people's definition of older varies. Because it's a long ass gap in time between retirement and dying of old age. 65 isn't that old, when lots of people live past 90.. etc..
I assumed they'd give it to 80+ year old's first. The ones that have a fairly high percentage chance of dying from it. Then maybe 70+ after that? At that point isn't it either "the virus is going to get you" or the "vaccine might get you"?. I'm half that age, and I'm still leaning towards the I'd rather deal with a vaccine then getting the thing.
No, it should go to health care workers, LTC workers, and education workers first...-
I ll definitely get the vaccine but I sure as hell won’t be first.
My feeling exactly.
One of my sister's best friends is a fairly recently retired, highly respected doctor and he is advising us to not be the first to get the vaccine. I'll wait until he thinks it is safe and then get right on it. I'll keep anyone posted who is interested.
Well, therein lies the problem. If no one agrees to be “first”, what next? This is one of the issues that will drive down vaccination rates.
Looked at one way, there is a similar argument of selfishness as with the mask debate, lockdowns, etc - everyone wants someone else to make a sacrifice.
I understand what you are saying and have thought of that. But first of all, there are many people eager to be first, and for good reason- they are on the front lines. And secondly, I'm an older, mostly retired adult with a compromised immune system, so my first line of defense is to stay home and stay away from people, so I'm not nearly in as great a need to receive the vaccine. If I were where I was at earlier in my life- young, strong, healthy, working full time- I would be much more apt to vaccinate early. It isn't about letting someone else make the sacrifice.
The older, immune compromised population is exactly the population being targeted for the first wave of vaccinations, as they are most at risk of bad outcomes (mortality or significant morbidity) if they get sick. The young, strong and healthy are probably going to be back of the line, except where they work in health care, are first responders, or are otherwise essential workers.
Vaccinating those most at risk first helps to alleviate much of the weight on the health system, particularly hospitals.
That makes some sense. But if the vaccine proves to have detrimental side-effects, will older, immune compromised people be more able to deal with them or less? I'm not eager to find out. Thus, I am being very careful about how I go about the task of living and will get the vaccine as soon as can reasonably (not 100% sure, just reasonably) believe it is safe.
I think people's definition of older varies. Because it's a long ass gap in time between retirement and dying of old age. 65 isn't that old, when lots of people live past 90.. etc..
I assumed they'd give it to 80+ year old's first. The ones that have a fairly high percentage chance of dying from it. Then maybe 70+ after that? At that point isn't it either "the virus is going to get you" or the "vaccine might get you"?. I'm half that age, and I'm still leaning towards the I'd rather deal with a vaccine then getting the thing.
No, it should go to health care workers, LTC workers, and education workers first...-
Zod is correct that it should go first to those at highest risk of death or serious illness. That’s the most efficient way to reduce both mortality and morbidity and the burden on the health care system, including hospitalizations and ICU stays.
Health care workers, first responders and other essential workers are up there next.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I ll definitely get the vaccine but I sure as hell won’t be first.
My feeling exactly.
One of my sister's best friends is a fairly recently retired, highly respected doctor and he is advising us to not be the first to get the vaccine. I'll wait until he thinks it is safe and then get right on it. I'll keep anyone posted who is interested.
Well, therein lies the problem. If no one agrees to be “first”, what next? This is one of the issues that will drive down vaccination rates.
Looked at one way, there is a similar argument of selfishness as with the mask debate, lockdowns, etc - everyone wants someone else to make a sacrifice.
I understand what you are saying and have thought of that. But first of all, there are many people eager to be first, and for good reason- they are on the front lines. And secondly, I'm an older, mostly retired adult with a compromised immune system, so my first line of defense is to stay home and stay away from people, so I'm not nearly in as great a need to receive the vaccine. If I were where I was at earlier in my life- young, strong, healthy, working full time- I would be much more apt to vaccinate early. It isn't about letting someone else make the sacrifice.
The older, immune compromised population is exactly the population being targeted for the first wave of vaccinations, as they are most at risk of bad outcomes (mortality or significant morbidity) if they get sick. The young, strong and healthy are probably going to be back of the line, except where they work in health care, are first responders, or are otherwise essential workers.
Vaccinating those most at risk first helps to alleviate much of the weight on the health system, particularly hospitals.
That makes some sense. But if the vaccine proves to have detrimental side-effects, will older, immune compromised people be more able to deal with them or less? I'm not eager to find out. Thus, I am being very careful about how I go about the task of living and will get the vaccine as soon as can reasonably (not 100% sure, just reasonably) believe it is safe.
I think people's definition of older varies. Because it's a long ass gap in time between retirement and dying of old age. 65 isn't that old, when lots of people live past 90.. etc..
I assumed they'd give it to 80+ year old's first. The ones that have a fairly high percentage chance of dying from it. Then maybe 70+ after that? At that point isn't it either "the virus is going to get you" or the "vaccine might get you"?. I'm half that age, and I'm still leaning towards the I'd rather deal with a vaccine then getting the thing.
No, it should go to health care workers, LTC workers, and education workers first...-
Zod is correct that it should go first to those at highest risk of death or serious illness. That’s the most efficient way to reduce both mortality and morbidity and the burden on the health care system, including hospitalizations and ICU stays.
Health care workers, first responders and other essential workers are up there next.
It really does not matter to me who gets it anyway. I have no intention of taking it.
I ll definitely get the vaccine but I sure as hell won’t be first.
My feeling exactly.
One of my sister's best friends is a fairly recently retired, highly respected doctor and he is advising us to not be the first to get the vaccine. I'll wait until he thinks it is safe and then get right on it. I'll keep anyone posted who is interested.
Well, therein lies the problem. If no one agrees to be “first”, what next? This is one of the issues that will drive down vaccination rates.
Looked at one way, there is a similar argument of selfishness as with the mask debate, lockdowns, etc - everyone wants someone else to make a sacrifice.
I understand what you are saying and have thought of that. But first of all, there are many people eager to be first, and for good reason- they are on the front lines. And secondly, I'm an older, mostly retired adult with a compromised immune system, so my first line of defense is to stay home and stay away from people, so I'm not nearly in as great a need to receive the vaccine. If I were where I was at earlier in my life- young, strong, healthy, working full time- I would be much more apt to vaccinate early. It isn't about letting someone else make the sacrifice.
The older, immune compromised population is exactly the population being targeted for the first wave of vaccinations, as they are most at risk of bad outcomes (mortality or significant morbidity) if they get sick. The young, strong and healthy are probably going to be back of the line, except where they work in health care, are first responders, or are otherwise essential workers.
Vaccinating those most at risk first helps to alleviate much of the weight on the health system, particularly hospitals.
That makes some sense. But if the vaccine proves to have detrimental side-effects, will older, immune compromised people be more able to deal with them or less? I'm not eager to find out. Thus, I am being very careful about how I go about the task of living and will get the vaccine as soon as can reasonably (not 100% sure, just reasonably) believe it is safe.
I think people's definition of older varies. Because it's a long ass gap in time between retirement and dying of old age. 65 isn't that old, when lots of people live past 90.. etc..
I assumed they'd give it to 80+ year old's first. The ones that have a fairly high percentage chance of dying from it. Then maybe 70+ after that? At that point isn't it either "the virus is going to get you" or the "vaccine might get you"?. I'm half that age, and I'm still leaning towards the I'd rather deal with a vaccine then getting the thing.
No, it should go to health care workers, LTC workers, and education workers first...-
Zod is correct that it should go first to those at highest risk of death or serious illness. That’s the most efficient way to reduce both mortality and morbidity and the burden on the health care system, including hospitalizations and ICU stays.
Health care workers, first responders and other essential workers are up there next.
It really does not matter to me who gets it anyway. I have no intention of taking it.
Ahhh, the selfish generation. Everyone else can take the risk (which is virtually zero), but not me. So brave.
I ll definitely get the vaccine but I sure as hell won’t be first.
My feeling exactly.
One of my sister's best friends is a fairly recently retired, highly respected doctor and he is advising us to not be the first to get the vaccine. I'll wait until he thinks it is safe and then get right on it. I'll keep anyone posted who is interested.
Well, therein lies the problem. If no one agrees to be “first”, what next? This is one of the issues that will drive down vaccination rates.
Looked at one way, there is a similar argument of selfishness as with the mask debate, lockdowns, etc - everyone wants someone else to make a sacrifice.
I understand what you are saying and have thought of that. But first of all, there are many people eager to be first, and for good reason- they are on the front lines. And secondly, I'm an older, mostly retired adult with a compromised immune system, so my first line of defense is to stay home and stay away from people, so I'm not nearly in as great a need to receive the vaccine. If I were where I was at earlier in my life- young, strong, healthy, working full time- I would be much more apt to vaccinate early. It isn't about letting someone else make the sacrifice.
The older, immune compromised population is exactly the population being targeted for the first wave of vaccinations, as they are most at risk of bad outcomes (mortality or significant morbidity) if they get sick. The young, strong and healthy are probably going to be back of the line, except where they work in health care, are first responders, or are otherwise essential workers.
Vaccinating those most at risk first helps to alleviate much of the weight on the health system, particularly hospitals.
That makes some sense. But if the vaccine proves to have detrimental side-effects, will older, immune compromised people be more able to deal with them or less? I'm not eager to find out. Thus, I am being very careful about how I go about the task of living and will get the vaccine as soon as can reasonably (not 100% sure, just reasonably) believe it is safe.
I think people's definition of older varies. Because it's a long ass gap in time between retirement and dying of old age. 65 isn't that old, when lots of people live past 90.. etc..
I assumed they'd give it to 80+ year old's first. The ones that have a fairly high percentage chance of dying from it. Then maybe 70+ after that? At that point isn't it either "the virus is going to get you" or the "vaccine might get you"?. I'm half that age, and I'm still leaning towards the I'd rather deal with a vaccine then getting the thing.
No, it should go to health care workers, LTC workers, and education workers first...-
Zod is correct that it should go first to those at highest risk of death or serious illness. That’s the most efficient way to reduce both mortality and morbidity and the burden on the health care system, including hospitalizations and ICU stays.
Health care workers, first responders and other essential workers are up there next.
It really does not matter to me who gets it anyway. I have no intention of taking it.
Ahhh, the selfish generation. Everyone else can take the risk (which is virtually zero), but not me. So brave.
Yup.
THIS IS SWEDEN IN WW2 ALL OVER AGAIN
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I ll definitely get the vaccine but I sure as hell won’t be first.
My feeling exactly.
One of my sister's best friends is a fairly recently retired, highly respected doctor and he is advising us to not be the first to get the vaccine. I'll wait until he thinks it is safe and then get right on it. I'll keep anyone posted who is interested.
Well, therein lies the problem. If no one agrees to be “first”, what next? This is one of the issues that will drive down vaccination rates.
Looked at one way, there is a similar argument of selfishness as with the mask debate, lockdowns, etc - everyone wants someone else to make a sacrifice.
I understand what you are saying and have thought of that. But first of all, there are many people eager to be first, and for good reason- they are on the front lines. And secondly, I'm an older, mostly retired adult with a compromised immune system, so my first line of defense is to stay home and stay away from people, so I'm not nearly in as great a need to receive the vaccine. If I were where I was at earlier in my life- young, strong, healthy, working full time- I would be much more apt to vaccinate early. It isn't about letting someone else make the sacrifice.
The older, immune compromised population is exactly the population being targeted for the first wave of vaccinations, as they are most at risk of bad outcomes (mortality or significant morbidity) if they get sick. The young, strong and healthy are probably going to be back of the line, except where they work in health care, are first responders, or are otherwise essential workers.
Vaccinating those most at risk first helps to alleviate much of the weight on the health system, particularly hospitals.
That makes some sense. But if the vaccine proves to have detrimental side-effects, will older, immune compromised people be more able to deal with them or less? I'm not eager to find out. Thus, I am being very careful about how I go about the task of living and will get the vaccine as soon as can reasonably (not 100% sure, just reasonably) believe it is safe.
I think people's definition of older varies. Because it's a long ass gap in time between retirement and dying of old age. 65 isn't that old, when lots of people live past 90.. etc..
I assumed they'd give it to 80+ year old's first. The ones that have a fairly high percentage chance of dying from it. Then maybe 70+ after that? At that point isn't it either "the virus is going to get you" or the "vaccine might get you"?. I'm half that age, and I'm still leaning towards the I'd rather deal with a vaccine then getting the thing.
No, it should go to health care workers, LTC workers, and education workers first...-
Zod is correct that it should go first to those at highest risk of death or serious illness. That’s the most efficient way to reduce both mortality and morbidity and the burden on the health care system, including hospitalizations and ICU stays.
Health care workers, first responders and other essential workers are up there next.
..Ahhh, the selfish generation. Everyone else can take the risk (which is virtually zero), but not me. So brave.
I hate to say it but I don't think there's any way around it. The government cannot force people to take a vaccine. There can be some mandates, perhaps (having certain jobs, maybe going to school). But I can't support the US government or the State of (State) saying "all citizens will take this."
That said, I'm going to. I might not be first in line but after seeing success with those who are (I'm guessing hospital workers, etc.), I'm going to be on it. To be effective, it's going to need to have some threshold (75% or the population?) and I'm not going to be one of the people holding that back.
I'm nervous about the overall using impacting the efficacy. Someone on the first page of the thread was talking about how basically everyone took the polio vaccine. Well, times have changed. There are a lot more people that don't want to vaccinate for whatever reason (primarily religion and misinformation in my opinion). I anticipate people not getting vaccinated to own the libs.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I hate to say it but I don't think there's any way around it. The government cannot force people to take a vaccine. There can be some mandates, perhaps (having certain jobs, maybe going to school). But I can't support the US government or the State of (State) saying "all citizens will take this."
That said, I'm going to. I might not be first in line but after seeing success with those who are (I'm guessing hospital workers, etc.), I'm going to be on it. To be effective, it's going to need to have some threshold (75% or the population?) and I'm not going to be one of the people holding that back.
I'm nervous about the overall using impacting the efficacy. Someone on the first page of the thread was talking about how basically everyone took the polio vaccine. Well, times have changed. There are a lot more people that don't want to vaccinate for whatever reason (primarily religion and misinformation in my opinion). I anticipate people not getting vaccinated to own the libs.
And maybe those folks will eventually get sick and die, or not?
I hate to say it but I don't think there's any way around it. The government cannot force people to take a vaccine. There can be some mandates, perhaps (having certain jobs, maybe going to school). But I can't support the US government or the State of (State) saying "all citizens will take this."
That said, I'm going to. I might not be first in line but after seeing success with those who are (I'm guessing hospital workers, etc.), I'm going to be on it. To be effective, it's going to need to have some threshold (75% or the population?) and I'm not going to be one of the people holding that back.
I'm nervous about the overall using impacting the efficacy. Someone on the first page of the thread was talking about how basically everyone took the polio vaccine. Well, times have changed. There are a lot more people that don't want to vaccinate for whatever reason (primarily religion and misinformation in my opinion). I anticipate people not getting vaccinated to own the libs.
So, here in America, when the vaccine is ready and available for mass distribution? Should we all be forced to get it? Anyone who refuses the vaccine? Are their repercussions? Should not getting the vaccine effect your employment? Can employers be allowed to hire someone if they have not gotten the vaccine? Should places of business be allowed to deny service to people who can not show proof that they have been vaccinated?
Is it insane to say we can tie the proof of being vaccinated in to our drivers license or state ID? Or can we be issued a "covid card" by the government proving we have been vaccinated? If every person here in America can get a social security card, then we should also have no problem getting a "covid card".
Can we have scanners at all places of business, including restaurants, bars, etc. etc. ? Before you enter any public establishment you must scan your "covid card" in order to be allowed in? If we can have a billion credit card scanners at every Walgreens and gas station, then why not have a covid scanner as well?
Yes, I realize this all sounds insane, but how insane have our lives been in the last 8 months?
If we want this to finally come to and end, and we truly want to get back to our NORMAL LIVES, how far do we need to go once the vaccine is available?
In the order in which the questions were asked...hypothetical answers...
I hate to say it but I don't think there's any way around it. The government cannot force people to take a vaccine. There can be some mandates, perhaps (having certain jobs, maybe going to school). But I can't support the US government or the State of (State) saying "all citizens will take this."
That said, I'm going to. I might not be first in line but after seeing success with those who are (I'm guessing hospital workers, etc.), I'm going to be on it. To be effective, it's going to need to have some threshold (75% or the population?) and I'm not going to be one of the people holding that back.
I'm nervous about the overall using impacting the efficacy. Someone on the first page of the thread was talking about how basically everyone took the polio vaccine. Well, times have changed. There are a lot more people that don't want to vaccinate for whatever reason (primarily religion and misinformation in my opinion). I anticipate people not getting vaccinated to own the libs.
And maybe those folks will eventually get sick and die, or not?
They might. The anti-vax movement puzzles me.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I hate to say it but I don't think there's any way around it. The government cannot force people to take a vaccine. There can be some mandates, perhaps (having certain jobs, maybe going to school). But I can't support the US government or the State of (State) saying "all citizens will take this."
That said, I'm going to. I might not be first in line but after seeing success with those who are (I'm guessing hospital workers, etc.), I'm going to be on it. To be effective, it's going to need to have some threshold (75% or the population?) and I'm not going to be one of the people holding that back.
I'm nervous about the overall using impacting the efficacy. Someone on the first page of the thread was talking about how basically everyone took the polio vaccine. Well, times have changed. There are a lot more people that don't want to vaccinate for whatever reason (primarily religion and misinformation in my opinion). I anticipate people not getting vaccinated to own the libs.
And maybe those folks will eventually get sick and die, or not?
They might. The anti-vax movement puzzles me.
smartest guy in my graduating class who ended up becoming a well respected dentist went all anti-vax on me on facebook in a crazy fucking tirade.
I ll definitely get the vaccine but I sure as hell won’t be first.
My feeling exactly.
One of my sister's best friends is a fairly recently retired, highly respected doctor and he is advising us to not be the first to get the vaccine. I'll wait until he thinks it is safe and then get right on it. I'll keep anyone posted who is interested.
Well, therein lies the problem. If no one agrees to be “first”, what next? This is one of the issues that will drive down vaccination rates.
Looked at one way, there is a similar argument of selfishness as with the mask debate, lockdowns, etc - everyone wants someone else to make a sacrifice.
I understand what you are saying and have thought of that. But first of all, there are many people eager to be first, and for good reason- they are on the front lines. And secondly, I'm an older, mostly retired adult with a compromised immune system, so my first line of defense is to stay home and stay away from people, so I'm not nearly in as great a need to receive the vaccine. If I were where I was at earlier in my life- young, strong, healthy, working full time- I would be much more apt to vaccinate early. It isn't about letting someone else make the sacrifice.
The older, immune compromised population is exactly the population being targeted for the first wave of vaccinations, as they are most at risk of bad outcomes (mortality or significant morbidity) if they get sick. The young, strong and healthy are probably going to be back of the line, except where they work in health care, are first responders, or are otherwise essential workers.
Vaccinating those most at risk first helps to alleviate much of the weight on the health system, particularly hospitals.
That makes some sense. But if the vaccine proves to have detrimental side-effects, will older, immune compromised people be more able to deal with them or less? I'm not eager to find out. Thus, I am being very careful about how I go about the task of living and will get the vaccine as soon as can reasonably (not 100% sure, just reasonably) believe it is safe.
I think people's definition of older varies. Because it's a long ass gap in time between retirement and dying of old age. 65 isn't that old, when lots of people live past 90.. etc..
I assumed they'd give it to 80+ year old's first. The ones that have a fairly high percentage chance of dying from it. Then maybe 70+ after that? At that point isn't it either "the virus is going to get you" or the "vaccine might get you"?. I'm half that age, and I'm still leaning towards the I'd rather deal with a vaccine then getting the thing.
No, it should go to health care workers, LTC workers, and education workers first...-
Zod is correct that it should go first to those at highest risk of death or serious illness. That’s the most efficient way to reduce both mortality and morbidity and the burden on the health care system, including hospitalizations and ICU stays.
Health care workers, first responders and other essential workers are up there next.
..Ahhh, the selfish generation. Everyone else can take the risk (which is virtually zero), but not me. So brave.
Personally, I plan on getting the vaccine. I have a pretty good immune system. Last thing that took me out of work for multiple days was the pig flu in '09. I am somewhat concerned that the odd time I get a cold, it goes for my lungs (most likely because I have mild asthma). Covid19 seems like it could be rough with a moderate percentage of people developing longer lasting issue. I'd prefer to take my chances with the vaccine.
It will be interesting, if people en masse don't take it, and it we don't get herd immunity. If a solution is available, should people be able to taking covid19 government benefits, or expecting the government to pay covid19 related bills. At some point once the vaccine is readily available, that people not getting it should be left to their own devices (once it's because of choice and not limited supply).
Personally, I plan on getting the vaccine. I have a pretty good immune system. Last thing that took me out of work for multiple days was the pig flu in '09. I am somewhat concerned that the odd time I get a cold, it goes for my lungs (most likely because I have mild asthma). Covid19 seems like it could be rough with a moderate percentage of people developing longer lasting issue. I'd prefer to take my chances with the vaccine.
It will be interesting, if people en masse don't take it, and it we don't get herd immunity. If a solution is available, should people be able to taking covid19 government benefits, or expecting the government to pay covid19 related bills. At some point once the vaccine is readily available, that people not getting it should be left to their own devices (once it's because of choice and not limited supply).
Personally, I plan on getting the vaccine. I have a pretty good immune system. Last thing that took me out of work for multiple days was the pig flu in '09. I am somewhat concerned that the odd time I get a cold, it goes for my lungs (most likely because I have mild asthma). Covid19 seems like it could be rough with a moderate percentage of people developing longer lasting issue. I'd prefer to take my chances with the vaccine.
It will be interesting, if people en masse don't take it, and it we don't get herd immunity. If a solution is available, should people be able to9 government benefits, or expecting the government to pay covid19 related bills. At some point once the vaccine is readily available, that people not getting it should be left to their own devices (once it's because of choice and not limited supply).
Why? And how do you think they would enforce that?
Personally, I plan on getting the vaccine. I have a pretty good immune system. Last thing that took me out of work for multiple days was the pig flu in '09. I am somewhat concerned that the odd time I get a cold, it goes for my lungs (most likely because I have mild asthma). Covid19 seems like it could be rough with a moderate percentage of people developing longer lasting issue. I'd prefer to take my chances with the vaccine.
It will be interesting, if people en masse don't take it, and it we don't get herd immunity. If a solution is available, should people be able to9 kbenefits, or expecting the government to pay covid19 related bills. At some point once the vaccine is readily available, that people not getting it should be left to their own devices (once it's because of choice and not limited supply).
Why? And how do you think they would enforce that?
Because there's a solution to problem and people are opting not to take it? If a solution is readily available why should people who took the vaccine have to pay employment benefits/health care costs for those who refused.
Pretty easy to implement. Once everyone who wants a vaccine gets a vaccine you simply turn off the covid spending taps.
Personally, I plan on getting the vaccine. I have a pretty good immune system. Last thing that took me out of work for multiple days was the pig flu in '09. I am somewhat concerned that the odd time I get a cold, it goes for my lungs (most likely because I have mild asthma). Covid19 seems like it could be rough with a moderate percentage of people developing longer lasting issue. I'd prefer to take my chances with the vaccine.
It will be interesting, if people en masse don't take it, and it we don't get herd immunity. If a solution is available, should people be able to9 kbenefits, or expecting the government to pay covid19 related bills. At some point once the vaccine is readily available, that people not getting it should be left to their own devices (once it's because of choice and not limited supply).
Why? And how do you think they would enforce that?
Because there's a solution to problem and people are opting not to take it? If a solution is readily available why should people who took the vaccine have to pay employment benefits/health care costs for those who refused.
Pretty easy to implement. Once everyone who wants a vaccine gets a vaccine you simply turn off the covid spending taps.
Personally, I plan on getting the vaccine. I have a pretty good immune system. Last thing that took me out of work for multiple days was the pig flu in '09. I am somewhat concerned that the odd time I get a cold, it goes for my lungs (most likely because I have mild asthma). Covid19 seems like it could be rough with a moderate percentage of people developing longer lasting issue. I'd prefer to take my chances with the vaccine.
It will be interesting, if people en masse don't take it, and it we don't get herd immunity. If a solution is available, should people be able to9 kbenefits, or expecting the government to pay covid19 related bills. At some point once the vaccine is readily available, that people not getting it should be left to their own devices (once it's because of choice and not limited supply).
Why? And how do you think they would enforce that?
Because there's a solution to problem and people are opting not to take it? If a solution is readily available why should people who took the vaccine have to pay employment benefits/health care costs for those who refused.
Pretty easy to implement. Once everyone who wants a vaccine gets a vaccine you simply turn off the covid spending taps.
except there is a segment of thr population who cant take vaccines due to medical conditions
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Personally, I plan on getting the vaccine. I have a pretty good immune system. Last thing that took me out of work for multiple days was the pig flu in '09. I am somewhat concerned that the odd time I get a cold, it goes for my lungs (most likely because I have mild asthma). Covid19 seems like it could be rough with a moderate percentage of people developing longer lasting issue. I'd prefer to take my chances with the vaccine.
It will be interesting, if people en masse don't take it, and it we don't get herd immunity. If a solution is available, should people be able to9 kbenefits, or expecting the government to pay covid19 related bills. At some point once the vaccine is readily available, that people not getting it should be left to their own devices (once it's because of choice and not limited supply).
Why? And how do you think they would enforce that?
Because there's a solution to problem and people are opting not to take it? If a solution is readily available why should people who took the vaccine have to pay employment benefits/health care costs for those who refused.
Pretty easy to implement. Once everyone who wants a vaccine gets a vaccine you simply turn off the covid spending taps.
except there is a segment of thr population who cant take vaccines due to medical conditions
A very small segment, and for whom documentation of medical contraindication should be very doable.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Comments
lol.
No that’s not how society works.
I and only I will choose what goes in my body whenever possible.
THIS IS SWEDEN IN WW2 ALL OVER AGAIN
My body. My choice. There is no such thing as zero risks with any pharmaceutical...
Trudeau warns COVID-19 vaccine will come later to Canada than other countries | National Post
Besides, there is no vaccine coming to Canada in January.
Probably if I lived in the republic of Alberts i might have re-think it...
Highly selfish if so.
I'm nervous about the overall using impacting the efficacy. Someone on the first page of the thread was talking about how basically everyone took the polio vaccine. Well, times have changed. There are a lot more people that don't want to vaccinate for whatever reason (primarily religion and misinformation in my opinion). I anticipate people not getting vaccinated to own the libs.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
No
Yes
Maybe
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Sure, why not?
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
it's all kinds.
www.headstonesband.com
This is dividing people more than politics
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
except there is a segment of thr population who cant take vaccines due to medical conditions
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
A very small segment, and for whom documentation of medical contraindication should be very doable.