When the vaccine arrives

Meltdown99 said:

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...

lastexitlondon said:

Mind blowing the vast difference in duty/self and opinion. 
This is dividing people more than politics

Zod said:

Meltdown99 said:

Zod said:

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.

Zod said:

Meltdown99 said:

Zod said:

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.

Meltdown99 said:

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...

Zod said:

Meltdown99 said:

Zod said:

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.