Now that the FDA has approved the vaccine has it changed your mind?

[Friend of Mara]

I saw a ton of people on this site that said they would get the vaccine if it was FDA approved or at least rather said they wouldn't if it wasn't approved.

Has the new approval changed anyone's mind to get the vaccine.

If it was your position before that it needed approval but you still aren't getting the vaccine please explain why?

 

[Moonjuice]

I wish there was a 4th option, so I could vote. If you decided not to get the vaccine and it has nothing to do with FDA approval, that would be the box I would have to select. I'm guessing FDA approval means little in this case, but I am anxious to see the results.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I saw a ton of people on this site that said they would get the vaccine if it was FDA approved or at least rather said they wouldn't if it wasn't approved.

Has the new approval changed anyone's mind to get the vaccine.

If it was your position before that it needed approval but you still aren't getting the vaccine please explain why?

No. I believe all meds, vax, etc should be out for ten years about (so normal time frame) for some to be comfortable with possible long term affects.

Me. If my risk is higher than benefits (risk catching COVID is higher than not catching it, I'd consider it). The only way I'd take it would be by forced so I won't be homeless,in the hospital, jobless, and won't have money to pat for 10,000 worth of meds. I don't believe people forced would just be happy they gave up their support to possibility that no stat so far has calculated the risk based on location and population density (unless I overlooked. People need to assess their own risk...herd immunity would have better affect to those with constant people contact. Those around the world who do not should not loose their job over this. They can't contribute to herd immunity.

No. If I had COVID and didn't stay home that would be my fault. If not, it's all on some vax who assume people's situation because of vaccination status only.

No.

 

[Friend of Mara]

I wish there was a 4th option, so I could vote. If you decided not to get the vaccine and it has nothing to do with FDA approval, that would be the box I would have to select. I'm guessing FDA approval means little in this case, but I am anxious to see the results.

I thought of having 2 no's but in the end they mean the same thing. If you don't want the vaccine because you distrust the science then you distrust the science. How would the two be different really?

My personal guess is that we will continue to see "0" in the middle section because the people who were waiting on an FDA approval despite the already universal approval of the medical community were merely using that as a crutch or justification for their position. For them it was never really about the FDA approval.

 

[Moonjuice]

I thought of having 2 no's but in the end they mean the same thing. If you don't want the vaccine because you distrust the science then you distrust the science. How would the two be different really?

I don't think not trusting this FDA approval is the same thing as "distrusting the science". If your government gives 100% immunity to the companies who are manufacturing this drug (profiting billions from it), and then the same government says it is safe to take, its the government that is sowing the seeds of distrust, not science. IMO. But again, the FDA and "science" have nothing to do with why I have not been vaccinated yet. I'm not getting it, because I don't need it. It's the same reason I don't get the flu shot.

 

[SomeRandom]

No. I believe all meds, vax, etc should be out for ten years about (so normal time frame) for some to be comfortable with possible long term affects.

Me. If my risk is higher than benefits (risk catching COVID is higher than not catching it, I'd consider it). The only way I'd take it would be by forced so I won't be homeless,in the hospital, jobless, and won't have money to pat for 10,000 worth of meds. I don't believe people forced would just be happy they gave up their support to possibility that no stat so far has calculated the risk based on location and population density (unless I overlooked. People need to assess their own risk...herd immunity would have better affect to those with constant people contact. Those around the world who do not should not loose their job over this. They can't contribute to herd immunity.

No. If I had COVID and didn't stay home that would be my fault. If not, it's all on some vax who assume people's situation because of vaccination status only.

No.

Well in fairness, the current COVID vaccines did borrow from research of previous related illnesses such as SARS as far back as 2002 and something called MERS in 2012.
So it’s not like they were starting from scratch. So you could make the argument that because they had a head start, 10 years is a bit unfair to demand from them. Maybe 5

 

[Friend of Mara]

I don't think not trusting this FDA approval is the same thing as "distrusting the science". If your government gives 100% immunity to the companies who are manufacturing this drug (profiting billions from it), and then the same government says it is safe to take, its the government that is sowing the seeds of distrust, not science. IMO. But again, the FDA and "science" have nothing to do with why I have not been vaccinated yet. I'm not getting it, because I don't need it. It's the same reason I don't get the flu shot.

But the government is in sync with the scientific community. In fact it might be said that the government is just facilitating what the science is saying. Not the other way around. So I still don't see a meaningful difference between the two positions.

 

[Revoltingest]

But the government is in sync with the scientific community. In fact it might be said that the government is just facilitating what the science is saying. Not the other way around. So I still don't see a meaningful difference between the two positions.

Big Science & the FDA are in bed with Big Pharma & the
Democrats' plot using Covid 19 to train us to be obedient (IMO).

Disclaimer:
Sarcasm above.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well in fairness, the current COVID vaccines did borrow from research of previous related illnesses such as SARS as far back as 2002 and something called MERS in 2012.
So it’s not like they were starting from scratch. So you could make the argument that because they had a head start, 10 years is a bit unfair to demand from them. Maybe 5

It's some unvax people's argument. It's not mine anymore. I looked up the process of ER (rather) approval and normal and it just means so far remembered they "okayed" it sooner. But I don't know if the first vaccines caused breakthroughs. I'd think the risks of breakthrough is not enough to outweigh benefits if someone had a loved one with COVID, in a condense environment, etc. For those people who'se risk is lower say no people contact it would be silly for them to risk that small percent breakthrough. Why take it if you don't need it type if thing.

I'm speaking of a few on RF whose situation is worse than mine in regards to no people contact and loosing a job.

But even though they can't contribute to herd immunity and spread the virus, no one cares.

But I have a couple of loved ones who won't get vaccinated. One I don't think she has good knowledge of FDA and believes conspiracy theories. My coworker does too weirdly enough.

For me it's a health issue. But the politics ruin people's lives and anti/pro thing is political.

Anyway. Time will tell.

 

[We Never Know]

Big Science & the FDA are in bed with Big Pharma & the
Democrats' plot using Covid 19 to train us to be obedient (IMO).

Disclaimer:
Sarcasm above.

Its an orgy!!

 

[Kenny]

I saw a ton of people on this site that said they would get the vaccine if it was FDA approved or at least rather said they wouldn't if it wasn't approved.

Has the new approval changed anyone's mind to get the vaccine.

If it was your position before that it needed approval but you still aren't getting the vaccine please explain why?

I'm not getting it because I am naturally vaccinated.

 

[SomeRandom]

It's some unvax people's argument. It's not mine anymore. I looked up the process of ER (rather) approval and normal and it just means so far remembered they "okayed" it sooner. But I don't know if the first vaccines caused breakthroughs. I'd think the risks of breakthrough is not enough to outweigh benefits if someone had a loved one with COVID, in a condense environment, etc. For those people who'se risk is lower say no people contact it would be silly for them to risk that small percent breakthrough. Why take it if you don't need it type if thing.

I'm speaking of a few on RF whose situation is worse than mine in regards to no people contact and loosing a job.

But even though they can't contribute to herd immunity and spread the virus, no one cares.

But I have a couple of loved ones who won't get vaccinated. One I don't think she has good knowledge of FDA and believes conspiracy theories. My coworker does too weirdly enough.

For me it's a health issue. But the politics ruin people's lives and anti/pro thing is political.

Anyway. Time will tell.

I couldn’t really tell you. I’m a literature nerd not a science one.

Risk analysis is not just about a singular person and their circumstances. At least not when there’s a global pandemic. Unless you have a bubble or live in the outskirts of the Himalayas, you still have to factor in everyone else. Even if you don’t see other people that often. But I suppose that’s more math orientated. Again a bit out of my wheelhouse.

I don’t know if anti/pro is political though. At least it’s not here. You can be either and be anywhere on (our) political spectrum. But American politics is odd and I think overall leans right compared to similar countries, so I dunno .

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Lol.

I laughed when I saw the responses.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Risk analysis is not just about a singular person and their circumstances. At least not when there’s a global pandemic. Unless you have a bubble or live in the outskirts of the Himalayas, you still have to factor in everyone else. Even if you don’t see other people that often. But I suppose that’s more math orientated. Again a bit out of my wheelhouse.

I always get extremely irritated with this reasoning (not you just the argument).

We don't know everyone around the world. Where I live there are remote towns that may have ten or so houses and mom and pop shops tucked in the woods and mountains (not exaggerating. We used to go on nature trips and just ride). Of course there are hospitals nearby but since we don't know everyone's living condition, we just can't generalize.

Then those who do go out of the area to go shopping, like most of us, we're not so close that even with a hard sneeze we wouldn't get sprayed. Early mornings there are only three or four people in our grocery store. No one is near each other.

This is a fact.

Now. How on earth can they

1. Spread the virus? Who would they spread it to?
Since masks are effective (assuming they don't go in the self-checkout line), the glass barrier and the cashiers wearing masks (and some shields too) would definitely stop the virus-well, any virus actually.

2. Since they don't go out their risk is low. Not impossible but low-not enough to get anzy over.

3. Since they are not around people they can't contribute to herd immunity and they can't kill people with the possibility of spreading the virus.

The facts doesn't take this lifestyle into consideration. They just blanket the entire unvaxxed population and people just follow along with it.

Now my situation is different, but to those I know and come across who are in this situation do not need to vaccinate.

They can just in case.
They can because of what they see on the tv and internet (even on RF). Though with me internet, RF, and television news isn't the same as facing it personally-loved ones, strangers, environment, etc.
They can because everyone else is doing it.

There are many reasons why they may choose to "and" there are many reasons why they may not.

--

Since the facts doesn't take into consideration these things above, how are they in danger to others and why would they need to take the vaccine?

Why would they need to suffer loosing a job over this and why would they need to pay higher insurance premiums (if the insurance companies don't assess risk factors when determining premium costs)?

What's the justification?


(Anyone can quote facts but to analyze those facts and apply it to this situation above, whats the reasoning?)

 

[SomeRandom]

I always get extremely irritated with this reasoning (not you just the argument).

We don't know everyone around the world. Where I live there are remote towns that may have ten or so houses and mom and pop shops tucked in the woods and mountains (not exaggerating. We used to go on nature trips and just ride). Of course there are hospitals nearby but since we don't know everyone's living condition, we just can't generalize.

Then those who do go out of the area to go shopping, like most of us, we're not so close that even with a hard sneeze we wouldn't get sprayed. Early mornings there are only three or four people in our grocery store. No one is near each other.

This is a fact.

Now. How on earth can they

1. Spread the virus? Who would they spread it to?
Since masks are effective (assuming they don't go in the self-checkout line), the glass barrier and the cashiers wearing masks (and some shields too) would definitely stop the virus-well, any virus actually.

2. Since they don't go out their risk is low. Not impossible but low-not enough to get anzy over.

3. Since they are not around people they can't contribute to herd immunity and they can't kill people with the possibility of spreading the virus.

The facts doesn't take this lifestyle into consideration. They just blanket the entire unvaxxed population and people just follow along with it.

You’d honestly have to ask an immunologist. I don’t know the nitty gritty outside of “more masks = less spread.”

I do know that vaccination (including COVID) is still the norm out in very rural regions. At least it is in my country. Even in towns with like 10 people. So clearly there is enough of a risk for experts to still recommend it.
Also ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and all that

Now my situation is different, but to those I know and come across who are in this situation do not need to vaccinate.

They can just in case.
They can because of what they see on the tv and internet (even on RF). Though with me internet, RF, and television news isn't the same as facing it personally-loved ones, strangers, environment, etc.
They can because everyone else is doing it.

When faced with this affecting loved ones, there will always be higher emotions at play. I’m for limiting suffering as much as possible. So if one does not vaccinate, then they should still follow all the proper hygiene and social distancing protocols. And test regularly if they have to. That I can live with.
But I live in a country with universal (ish) health care. Given the recent threads on RF, I can only conclude that this is treated differently in US culture since your healthcare seemingly works on different parameters.

There are many reasons why they may choose to "and" there are many reasons why they may not.

--

Since the facts doesn't take into consideration these things above, how are they in danger to others and why would they need to take the vaccine?

Why would they need to suffer loosing a job over this and why would they need to pay higher insurance premiums (if the insurance companies don't assess risk factors when determining premium costs)?

Well like I said, that’s a unique US thing. That’s how your healthcare works, regardless of our personal feelings on the matter. It is what it is. You guys will have to sort out that reality yourselves and I doubt the outcome will be pleasant.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When faced with this affecting loved ones, there will always be higher emotions at play. I’m for limiting suffering as much as possible. So if one does not vaccinate, then they should still follow all the proper hygiene and social distancing protocols. And test regularly if they have to. That I can live with.

Wouldn't that be enough proper hygiene and social distancing (and masks by technicity)?

I don't know how their situation would warrant the need for a vaccine. As their risk of getting COVID is low its pretty much useless. Why would a provaxxer show them the same scrutiny than one who doesn't get the vaccine in a high traffic area?

Is there logical reasoning behind that?

 

[SomeRandom]

Wouldn't that be enough proper hygiene and social distancing (and masks by technicity)?

I mean it certainly helps and I think any medical pro would be pleased to see this enforced in society. At my work we have to sanitise surfaces like every hour or so. And I think I’ve washed my hands raw lol
But that limits the spread only so much. In isolated areas I suppose you could argue that it’s better risk management than only doing that in highly populated areas. But it’s still going to come second place to the vaccine rollout strategy. That’s the best solution that we have.

Perhaps they will be able to develop a cure or medication further down the line. Maybe they won’t be able to. I don’t know. How did we treat SARS way back in the day, do you know?
Even if they are, prevention will always be given preference in medical advice. That’s true for all illnesses.

I don't know how their situation would warrant the need for a vaccine. As their risk of getting COVID is low its pretty much useless. Why would a provaxxer show them the same scrutiny than one who doesn't get the vaccine in a high traffic area?

Clearly health professionals seem to disagree. Just going by their advised strategies.

Though in saying that there is also an initiative to “bridge the gap” by emphasising prevention and medical cures for Aboriginal Australians to help bring down their high stats with regards to preventable illnesses.
It’s more of a general initiative but it did mean they were among the high priority group when the rollout began, regardless of whether or not they lived in high density areas.

Is there logical reasoning behind that?

Prevention > cure.
Preventative measures will always rely on what is the most optimum solution. Right now and for the foreseeable future, that optimum solution is vaccination rollouts. Not even for herd immunity’s sake but to limit the scope of suffering the most. (Talking more on a global scale.) Hygiene is good practice and strongly encouraged, but it’s an overall weaker solution. Not that it’s bad of course

But it’s like comparing antibiotics to eating oranges when having like a bad cold or the flu. Sure, eating oranges is healthy and can help. But antibiotics will likely give you the best recovery. And likely faster. Not that you shouldn’t still eat oranges, of course.

Somewhat unrelated but this just amused me. You say you don’t want people to pay more if they’re unvaccinated (by choice.) Something which I agree with on principle.
In Fiji, due to the reluctance to get the jab, the PM offered people 300 bucks to spend on necessities (supposedly) if you got the jab. The rates skyrocketed. What are your thoughts?

 

[Friend of Mara]

I'm not getting it because I am naturally vaccinated.

What is "naturally vaccinated"? You caught it and lived?

 

[Kenny]

What is "naturally vaccinated"? You caught it and lived?

Yes. Either that or I have risen from the dead and am posting.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes. Either that or I have risen from the dead and am posting.

Neither is very likely.