Will you take the Covid Vaccine?

[jamil]

Full approvals will come easily. Too much money invested and having to admit the vaccines are harmful is not going to happen.

I have no doubt that the rubber stamp will smash upon the applications promptly when they're submitted. Of course with money on the line that's a factor but with 100's of millions of shots in arms now, it's all moot. Short a major discovery getting out about dangers/efficacy, it's a done deal I think.

 

[jamil]

I would specify that in my view full FDA approval of anything is less than convincing as evidenced by the number of approved meds that are mired in lawsuits a few years after they are introduced. Consequently, anything with even less, coupled with specific exemption from civil liability is a truly terrifying thought.

Well sure, but that's separate from the discussion about whether the vaccines are "experimental" at this point. I guess in one sense you might say they are just because they're not approved, but they have all the data they need to get approvals.

 

[nonobaddog]

I would specify that in my view full FDA approval of anything is less than convincing as evidenced by the number of approved meds that are mired in lawsuits a few years after they are introduced. Consequently, anything with even less, coupled with specific exemption from civil liability is a truly terrifying thought.

Exactly. I don't think of FDA approval as indicating something is not still experimental. It is more like continued, wide-spread experimentation is now approved.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well sure, but that's separate from the discussion about whether the vaccines are "experimental" at this point. I guess in one sense you might say they are just because they're not approved, but they have all the data they need to get approvals.

Exactly. I don't think of FDA approval as indicating something is not still experimental. It is more like continued, wide-spread experimentation is now approved.

My point is that FDA approval with the open option for legal action later if necessary is an awfully low bar. If we don't even get that much, it seems like there is an expectation for bad things to come being preemptively addressed.

 

[ditcherman]

Oh, jeez we could open a YUGE Trumpain sized can-o-wormz. But the situation isn't exactly the same.

On the one hand is the idea that a woman has a right to do with her body what she pleases. The morality of that hangs on the objective truth of whether or not another person also has an existential stake in that decision. The pro life side insists that there is. The pro-abortion side insists that there is not.

With the covid vaccine, the skeptics say they have a right to do with their body as they please. The morality of that hangs on the objective truth of whether or not other people have an existential stake in that decision to a significant degree with no other remedy. The people wanting to force other people to make the decision they want believe that it's a dire existential threat to everyone. The people who think it should be a free choice think it's not.

So one can have a "pro-choice" opinion on one side, and not on the other and not be a hypocrite, because in both subjects, belief drives the side one takes.

Ok, leave Trump out of it because its way bigger than that even.
Of course, it all has to do with "how" a person believes, about two different things, as you've said here and gone on to say further down. A great person once said "two different things can be true at once", I think just last week.
My argument is that there is a baseline irony, or hypocrisy, in some that state "don't even think about controlling my body" and then switch right to "we can tell you what to do". This supersedes (or comes before, I dunno) all the moral arguments, all the details.
I see my bias in it (there is another with a stake in the decision), but just want to hold those to "you can't have it both ways", which is superseding my bias.

 

[jamil]

Ok, leave Trump out of it because its way bigger than that even.
Of course, it all has to do with "how" a person believes, about two different things, as you've said here and gone on to say further down. A great person once said "two different things can be true at once", I think just last week.
My argument is that there is a baseline irony, or hypocrisy, in some that state "don't even think about controlling my body" and then switch right to "we can tell you what to do". This supersedes (or comes before, I dunno) all the moral arguments, all the details.
I see my bias in it (there is another with a stake in the decision), but just want to hold those to "you can't have it both ways", which is superseding my bias.

Well, this is one of those claims of hypocrisy that work both ways. I'm talking about what hypocrisy actually is. Hypocrisy is claiming to have a belief that one doesn't actually hold, or one's behavior doesn't support. So it would be more like a pro-choice "my body my choice" person working to get R v W overturned. Hypocrisy doesn't translate to completely different subjects like this without a detail like that being apparent.

There is an underlying reason for a pro-choice person to think everyone should be vaccinated. And that is driven by belief. So then the behavior would be consistent with both beliefs. That's not hypocrisy. But it does suggest that "my body, my choice" is not a terrifically consistent slogan, because there are clearly conditions under which that person would disagree with the slogan.

 

[jamil]

My point is that FDA approval with the open option for legal action later if necessary is an awfully low bar. If we don't even get that much, it seems like there is an expectation for bad things to come being preemptively addressed.

I suspect that the protections will not change.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I suspect that the protections will not change.

I would think that a foregone conclusion. I am not sure they can revoke the immunity from liability, much less would I suppose they would if they could.

 

[avboiler11]

What did you see with your own eyes that led you to believe you would be sick?

A colleague of mine who had COVID in March 2020, who was still dealing with lingering respiratory symptoms in mid-June 2020. I had another colleague who was hospitalized with it after passing out at urgent care with saturated O2 of 83(!!!) whose personal physician recommended he not be more than 30 minutes from an ER for four months due to heightened risk of embolism.

"and not because I’m a sheep" "...and a safe/effective vaccine was available to prevent me from getting sick"

What is a sheep? A docile creature that can be led by both sheepdogs and wolves. What led you to believe what you to believe about the vaccine? What did you see personally, not delivered by the government, media, and pharmaceutical companies, that have all been caught lying to the public many times, that made your decision?

A science-based college degree and personal analysis of data led me to my conclusion.

I'm not predisposed to think I'm always and consistently being lied to by "the government, media, and pharmaceutical companies". Could they? Yes, but as a skeptic I don't immediately distrust - I personally verify.

This is what I process in my mind, what have I seen that would lead me to believe I need a vaccine? To date for me, nothing. I have seen that good hygiene needed to be stepped up during the high transmission phase and worked to boost my immune system and still believe I had it, was down a few days but nothing to cause me to want to take a vaccine for. Likewise there have been few cases, in my sphere of life, where outcomes were unexpected.

I have not seen with my own eyes anywhere near the hype we were sold, have you?

I know people who have been completely asymptomatic, people who only had "allergy symptoms", people who had "a cold" or "the flu", people who had a "bad flu", and people who were hospitalized. I know people dealing with long COVID symptoms months after their infection, people who pass a FAA medical every six months and aren't in obese type II diabetic two packs a day shape. I've known people who have had COVID more than once. I've known people who have tested positive for COVID more than a month later (due to dead, non-contagious virus remaining in nasalpharyx). I know dozens of people who have been quarantined overseas by foreign governments after testing positive, sometimes in conditions a half-step above that of prison.

My evaluation is being sick sucks (regardless of cause) and if a safe/effective vaccine minimizes my odds of being sick, then give me the needle. This is true of influenza now, chicken pox for my kids, and shingles when I get older.

YMMV, and that's perfectly fine...vaccine shaming doesn't exactly win 'hearts and minds'.

 

[jamil]

I'm not predisposed to think I'm always and consistently being lied to by "the government, media, and pharmaceutical companies". Could they? Yes, but as a skeptic I don't immediately distrust - I personally verify.

I'll say that differently for me. I'm not predisposed to think I'm lied to by government, or anyone. But when they have a reason to lie, I try to suspend my belief until I can verify they're not lying. As a human with biases I'm not always able to suspend belief.

I'd also say the other people aren't predisposed to think they're being lied to by government. They're predisposed to assuming that the people they don't trust are lying. For example, Trump, while the head of government's executive branch, could say just about anything and the ardent supporters would not question it because they trust him. But they'll question everything Biden says because he's literally Satan, but with dementia.

 

[Ingomike]

It's from an internal cost/benefit analysis of the information available. And even if the information is inaccurate, that still does not make one afraid or sheep.

That was my question rephrased, what were his decision points?

I'm afraid of falling off the top of extreme heights that is fear that informs my actions. My interpretation is you are defining fear as a weakness it is not. I fear there may be greater negatives from the vaccine than the virus for me, a view formed looking with my own eyes at what is going on. The same process that I used to determine I don't want flu shots also.

If one is getting a vaccine based only on what the liars say what would they be other than followers AKA, sheep?

 

[nonobaddog]

But it does suggest that "my body, my choice" is not a terrifically consistent slogan, because there are clearly conditions under which that person would disagree with the slogan.

And THAT is hypocrisy.

 

[ditcherman]

Well, this is one of those claims of hypocrisy that work both ways. I'm talking about what hypocrisy actually is. Hypocrisy is claiming to have a belief that one doesn't actually hold, or one's behavior doesn't support. So it would be more like a pro-choice "my body my choice" person working to get R v W overturned. Hypocrisy doesn't translate to completely different subjects like this without a detail like that being apparent.

There is an underlying reason for a pro-choice person to think everyone should be vaccinated. And that is driven by belief. So then the behavior would be consistent with both beliefs. That's not hypocrisy. But it does suggest that "my body, my choice" is not a terrifically consistent slogan, because there are clearly conditions under which that person would disagree with the slogan.

And I would argue that the slogan is actually a good one, because it represents consistency in belief. Sure, a pro choice person is going to say "because life matters", (abortion or virus) but a good conservative/libertarian belief system is going to hold "leave others alone" in higher esteem, that overrules any ability to force one's will upon another. But as you have stated, it comes back to belief (fetus is person vs my body, my virus) and that's when its hard to see past the bias.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm not predisposed to think I'm always and consistently being lied to by "the government, media, and pharmaceutical companies". Could they? Yes, but as a skeptic I don't immediately distrust - I personally verify.

As I see it, given that in every verifiable point associated with COVID up to this point, we HAVE been lied to, information from the .gov/CDC/Fauci is false until proven otherwise.

 

[ditcherman]

A colleague of mine who had COVID in March 2020, who was still dealing with lingering respiratory symptoms in mid-June 2020. I had another colleague who was hospitalized with it after passing out at urgent care with saturated O2 of 83(!!!) whose personal physician recommended he not be more than 30 minutes from an ER for four months due to heightened risk of embolism.



A science-based college degree and personal analysis of data led me to my conclusion.

I'm not predisposed to think I'm always and consistently being lied to by "the government, media, and pharmaceutical companies". Could they? Yes, but as a skeptic I don't immediately distrust - I personally verify.



I know people who have been completely asymptomatic, people who only had "allergy symptoms", people who had "a cold" or "the flu", people who had a "bad flu", and people who were hospitalized. I know people dealing with long COVID symptoms months after their infection, people who pass a FAA medical every six months and aren't in obese type II diabetic two packs a day shape. I've known people who have had COVID more than once. I've known people who have tested positive for COVID more than a month later (due to dead, non-contagious virus remaining in nasalpharyx). I know dozens of people who have been quarantined overseas by foreign governments after testing positive, sometimes in conditions a half-step above that of prison.

My evaluation is being sick sucks (regardless of cause) and if a safe/effective vaccine minimizes my odds of being sick, then give me the needle. This is true of influenza now, chicken pox for my kids, and shingles when I get older.

YMMV, and that's perfectly fine...vaccine shaming doesn't exactly win 'hearts and minds'.

I think this great big fat "if" is what we're all talking around.
ETA: to be fair, most of us, not all. Not trying to lump everybody in the same two different pots.

 

[nonobaddog]

I'd also say the other people aren't predisposed to think they're being lied to by government. They're predisposed to assuming that the people they don't trust are lying. For example, Trump, while the head of government's executive branch, could say just about anything and the ardent supporters would not question it because they trust him. But they'll question everything Biden says because he's literally Satan, but with dementia.

I think I see some twisting and confusion here.
I remember people, myself included, questioning some of Trump's overstatements. At the same time a lot of what he said was right. I supported his policies, but give him a free ride on everything he said? No. That sounds more like the obummer worshipers to me.
And the "literally satan" crap? That is from the TDS crowd. I don't remember anybody saying that about bidet, except for you now.

 

[avboiler11]

I think this great big fat "if" is what we're all talking around.

There's been about two BILLION doses of various COVID vaccine given around the world over the last 13+ months (trials started April 2020).

There's been very little in the way of statistically significant, substantially adverse side effects, especially compared to vaccines for other diseases. Looking at available data shows the incidence of adverse disease impact is SUBSTANTIALLY higher than incidence of adverse vaccine side effect across population, with the delta skewing greater as demographic age increases.

At what point will those who wonder "if" a COVID vaccine is "safe" have their concern satiated?

 

[JCSR]

At what point will those who wonder "if" a COVID vaccine is "safe" have their concern satiated?

I will repost my response.

Rand Paul said it best. I'm going with this attitude.

Speaking with a conservative host on WABC radio in New York, Paul, an ophthalmologist, said he won't change his mind unless "they show me evidence that people who have already had the infection are dying in large numbers or being hospitalized or getting very sick."


"I just made my own personal decision that I'm not getting vaccinated, because I've already had the disease, and I have natural immunity," Paul said.

 

[ditcherman]

There's been about two BILLION doses of various COVID vaccine given around the world over the last 13+ months (trials started April 2020).

There's been very little in the way of statistically significant, substantially adverse side effects, especially compared to vaccines for other diseases. Looking at available data shows the incidence of adverse disease impact is SUBSTANTIALLY higher than incidence of adverse vaccine side effect across population, with the delta skewing greater as demographic age increases.

At what point will those who wonder "if" a COVID vaccine is "safe" have their concern satiated?

For me, at a point in time when we know the long term side effects, and at a point in time when the real motivations can be judged fairly, those motivations going clear back to lockdown, masking, unemployment benefits, all the cloudiness surrounding every bit of it.

 

[avboiler11]

Senator Paul’s point about infection-conferred immunity is valid, and unfairly downplayed by public health policymakers.

That said, it doesn’t address the question of when people will believe COVID vaccines are “safe”.