When the vaccine arrives

Meltdown99

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.

Spiritual_Chaos

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.

Meltdown99

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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...

Zod

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.

Zod

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

mcgruff10 said:

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.

PJNB

I am in no rush to get it but if I am restricted on doing things like travel I will be getting it as soon as they let me. 

Meltdown99

Zod said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

mcgruff10 said:

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...-

oftenreading

Meltdown99 said:

Zod said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

mcgruff10 said:

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. 

Meltdown99

oftenreading said:

Meltdown99 said:

Zod said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

mcgruff10 said:

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.  

dignin

Meltdown99 said:

oftenreading said:

Meltdown99 said:

Zod said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

mcgruff10 said:

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.

Spiritual_Chaos

dignin said:

Meltdown99 said:

oftenreading said:

Meltdown99 said:

Zod said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

mcgruff10 said:

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

Meltdown99

dignin said:

Meltdown99 said:

oftenreading said:

Meltdown99 said:

Zod said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

mcgruff10 said:

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.

You really oughta quit day drinking...

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...

Spiritual_Chaos

Meltdown99 said:

My body. My choice.  

Not if your body are to be out and about in a society that is not just yours, and your body can cause other people's deaths.

Highly selfish if so.

FiveBelow

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

My body. My choice.  

Not if your body are to be out and about in a society that is not just yours, and your body can cause other people's deaths.

Highly selfish if so.

This coming from someone who is just now mask shopping 8 months into a pandemic and going to the movies while cases are skyrocketing...

OnWis97

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.

Halifax2TheMax

OnWis97 said:

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?

hedonist

OnWis97 said:

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.

Totally with you on your second paragraph. 

rgambs

SPEEDY MCCREADY said:

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...

No
Yes
Maybe
Yes 
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Sure, why not? 

OnWis97

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

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.

HughFreakingDillon

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

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. 

it's all kinds.