Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

MacDanger

Hector Savage wrote: »

Stop!

It's not anti vax, it's being cautious to a new vaccine, I and my boys have all the regular vaccines, anti vaxxers are against ALL vaccinations, I am 100% in favour of vaccines that have gone through proper safety trials.

These have been rushed, no matter what way you look at it, vaccines usually take the best part of a decade to develop.

This started development in February.

What additional safety data would you like to be made available to you before you would take the vaccine?

MacDanger

titan18 wrote: »

Think of the wide range of existing drugs out there that people take. Has the vaccine been tested for any adverse interactions with those drugs? Why take a chance when you can wait, and likely will have to wait when more at risk people get vaccinated.

I'm not anti vax at all, I've taken flu vaccines this year and previous years, but I'm still not rushing into taking this one. Give it a few months and when everything is fine, grand.

How much data will you need to make this determination? 6 months? 12 months?

How many adverse reactions in people who have taken the vaccine during that period would be acceptable to you to consider the vaccine safe?

titan18

lbj666 wrote: »

Does every permutation of medication someone is on get trialled before the new flu vaccine everyyear

Probably not but that's an existing vaccine that's likely iterated upon rather than being something brand new tbf. I doubt it's a brand new vaccine and design every year

titan18

MacDanger wrote: »

How much data will you need to make this determination? 6 months? 12 months?

How many adverse reactions in people who have taken the vaccine during that period would be acceptable to you to consider the vaccine safe?

I'd give it 3-4 months of a strong rollout. I'm thinking I won't be asked to take it before then anyway so if rollout is December, I'd be going by late March/early April, I'd accept it. I'd assume at that point we'd have tens or hundreds of millions vaccinated, and people with all manner of illnesses in that. Likely will be side effects, but as long as nothing major is discovered and incident rate of the side effect is low, I'd have no issue taking it. If someone handed it to me tomorrow, I wouldn't be.

Spudmonkey

Yeah I probably would. I'm not in an at risk group but doesn't mean that getting the virus wouldn't affect me. Plenty of young fit people have been left with seemingly minor side-effects like a lack of smell or taste. If taking the vaccine would spare me those then absolutely.

Like most people I'd have a little trepidation as to any possible side-effects but as time goes on I think I'd be less worried about those, especially as more independent experts given their blessing to it. Besides the vaccine needs volunteers in order to prove it's worth. Of course I'd leave people who need it most get it first.

I'd love to be able to go back to a pub, have a pint with someone (anyone!) and listen to a bit of live music!

MacDanger

titan18 wrote: »

I'd give it 3-4 months of a strong rollout. I'm thinking I won't be asked to take it before then anyway so if rollout is December, I'd be going by late March/early April, I'd accept it. I'd assume at that point we'd have tens or hundreds of millions vaccinated, and people with all manner of illnesses in that. Likely will be side effects, but as long as nothing major is discovered and incident rate of the side effect is low, I'd have no issue taking it. If someone handed it to me tomorrow, I wouldn't be.

So is it the number of people in the trial that you have concerns about? Or the length of time the trial has been running for i.e. long term side effects?

titan18

MacDanger wrote: »

So is it the number of people in the trial that you have concerns about? Or the length of time the trial has been running for i.e. long term side effects?

Both, but I can't do much on the long term side effects. I won't be waiting years to take the vaccine like to see that. It'd be great to know but not much you can do about it.

I can wait a few months to see when more people get them how it goes though. Imo, until a sizable portion get vaccinated life won't be changing too much for me, so I can wait. It's not like if I took it tomorrow, I'd be able to back to 2019 behavior, so I see no reason to take it until I'm going to be back to a normal life anyway. As that also happens to lessen the risk I feel there is, it seems sensible for me.

Fodla

As another poster pointed out, why have the vaccine makers asked to be indemnified in Europe if their COVID-19 shots cause unexpected side-effects? Is that supposed to reassure people?

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2020/09/22/583555.htm

Fodla

Fodla wrote: »

As another poster pointed out, why have the vaccine makers asked to be indemnified in Europe if their COVID-19 shots cause unexpected side-effects? Is that supposed to reassure people?

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2020/09/22/583555.htm

To keep the costs down

josip

Akrasia wrote: »

...

The 'Wait and see' approach is unscientific and cowardly. The vaccines have gone through safety trials, and they have been deemed as safe

Pandermix was also deemed safe in 2009.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090929111101/http://www.gsk.com/media/pressreleases/2009/2009_pressrelease_10089.htm

The Belly

Deleted User wrote: »

To keep the costs down

Its because of the number of people intended to be vaccinated and to offset the risk due to mRNA technology which has never been used in humans before and the speed at which it has been developed tested and rolled out.

No insurance underwriters would touch it from a public liability standpoint so the governments are the underwriters to protect the pharma companies from bankruptcy if it goes pear-shaped.

The pharma companies don't know the medium to long-term side effects if there are any.

We are told it's to reduce the price but if that's the case why haven't the details of the agreements with the pharma companies been released by the EU?

MacDanger

titan18 wrote: »

Both, but I can't do much on the long term side effects. I won't be waiting years to take the vaccine like to see that. It'd be great to know but not much you can do about it.

I can wait a few months to see when more people get them how it goes though. Imo, until a sizable portion get vaccinated life won't be changing too much for me, so I can wait. It's not like if I took it tomorrow, I'd be able to back to 2019 behavior, so I see no reason to take it until I'm going to be back to a normal life anyway. As that also happens to lessen the risk I feel there is, it seems sensible for me.

It's true that as more data becomes available, the risk decreases but with the huge numbers involved (sample size of ~22k in the Pfizer trial for example), the risk of side effects is extremely low.

As regards the piece in bold, that strikes me as an "I'm alright Jack" approach

Fodla

The Belly wrote: »

Its because of the number of people intended to be vaccinated and to offset the risk due to mRNA technology which has never been used in humans before and the speed at which it has been developed tested and rolled out.

No insurance underwriters would touch it from a public liability standpoint so the governments are the underwriters to protect the pharma companies from bankruptcy if it goes pear-shaped.

The pharma companies don't know the medium to long-term side effects if there are any.

We are told it's to reduce the price but if that's the case why haven't the details of the agreements with the pharma companies been released by the EU?

Yes, another reason to avoid the vaccine.

ELM327

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You seem so sure of yourself. Already Aer Lingus and RA have stated vaccination will not be a requirement to fly.
I find it amusing the intolerance in display.
I have already stated I will take a vaccine but I won't be in a rush.
Will businesses also turn away those for various reasons who cannot take a vaccine? Genuine question as you seem confident in your reply.

Ah sure go off and infect everyone.



No mask no entry, will soon transition to, no vaccine no entry.

ELM327

MacDanger wrote: »

What additional safety data would you like to be made available to you before you would take the vaccine?

If he doesnt accept 3rd stage clinical trials and peer review papers, he's an antivaxxer and needs a nutjob on youtube to tell him to accept it.

Plumbthedepths

ELM327 wrote: »

Ah sure go off and infect everyone.

That's an idiotic comment.

No mask no entry, will soon transition to, no vaccine no entry.

So no answer to what I asked you. No mask is visual, proof of vaccine is personal GDPR will play a part.

plodder

Fodla wrote: »

Yes, another reason to avoid the vaccine.

Would you take the Oxford vaccine then? Which is not based on this new mRNA technology.

ELM327

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So no answer to what I asked you. No mask is visual, proof of vaccine is personal GDPR will play a part.

GDPR is a nonsense analogy, trotted out by those who need something to hide behind.


You may already have to provide identification to purchase alcohol. Providing identification showing vaccine record is perfectly fine.


PS: GDPR does not apply, as you are not submitting your data to be retained and thus a data controller is not crreated.

josip

Vaccinations won't be mandatory in most countries, so evidence of vaccination won't be required at borders.Is there an internationally recognized vaccination regulator who will provide certificates accepted by the various airlines?
I doubt if airlines such as Qantas will be able to enforce their new regulations.
Nothing like that has ever been attempted before.
Won't 'fly', except maybe in China.

The no-vaccination no-entry knee jerkers will quickly lose interest in their crusade as soon as the pandemic is under control and societal restrictions are lifted.

Plumbthedepths

ELM327 wrote: »

GDPR is a nonsense analogy, trotted out by those who need something to hide behind.


You may already have to provide identification to purchase alcohol. Providing identification showing vaccine record is perfectly fine.


PS: GDPR does not apply, as you are not submitting your data to be retained and thus a data controller is not crreated.

ID to purchase alcohol is a legal requirement enforced by state law. As I said unless vaccination is mandatory any business wishing to refuse service based on a unilateral decision will be on very shaky ground.

MacDanger

I'm going to check out of this discussion shortly tbh.

Here are the reasons I'll be taking any vaccine that's approved:

1. I don't want to catch Covid and either suffer the side effects of it or pass it on to someone I love, a vaccine will help with this

2. I want life to get back to normal, a vaccine will help with this

3. Over 20k people have received each of these vaccines already with no reported side effects. That's a statistically significant number of people

4. "Wait for someone else to get it first and then see" - that doesn't work if everyone takes that stance.

For anyone who's hesitant but object to being labelled as "anti-vax" (I don't think they should because it makes people defensive) - consider why being anti-vax is a a bad thing? Because their choices (in refusing a vaccine) put others at risk; its not a major problem mostly because very few people are like this.

Now consider what happens if many people are hesitant about taking this vaccine; what effect does that have? It's not much different to the effect of those people being anti-vaxxers.

ELM327

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

ID to purchase alcohol is a legal requirement enforced by state law. As I said unless vaccination is mandatory any business wishing to refuse service based on a unilateral decision will be on very shaky ground.

What shaky ground? Given it's not one of the 7, and GDPR does not apply?

Plumbthedepths

ELM327 wrote: »

What shaky ground? Given it's not one of the 7, and GDPR does not apply?

It will fall under discrimination dude. Do we stop people who are not vaccinated against the flu participating in society? If we don't stop one group of unvaccinated individuals you can't stop another group of unvaccinated individuals . That's where the discrimination comes in. Let me guess you're a fan of the health passport concept.

Deeper Blue

josip wrote: »

Vaccinations won't be mandatory in most countries, so evidence of vaccination won't be required at borders.Is there an internationally recognized vaccination regulator who will provide certificates accepted by the various airlines?
I doubt if airlines such as Qantas will be able to enforce their new regulations.
Nothing like that has ever been attempted before.
Won't 'fly', except maybe in China.

The no-vaccination no-entry knee jerkers will quickly lose interest in their crusade as soon as the pandemic is under control and societal restrictions are lifted.

It's an unprecedented situation though.

I think governments will do what they can to stop covid being brought into their countries. If it's a choice between that and upsetting a few anti-vaxxers I'm fairly sure which option they'll pick.

ELM327

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

It will fall under discrimination dude. Do we stop people who are not vaccinated against the flu participating in society? If we don't stop one group of unvaccinated individuals you can't stop another group of unvaccinated individuals . That's where the discrimination comes in. Let me guess you're a fan of the health passport concept.

Discrimination is only, I repeat, only, for the recognised groups. Outside of that you cannot be discriminated against legally. I understand you may hold a different moral opinion and that's your right, but legally it is unenforceable. To illustrate this, read from citizens information
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/law_and_rights/irish_human_rights_commission.html#l5e352

Under equality legislation discrimination based on any one of the following distinct grounds is unlawful. These grounds are:

• Gender
• Civil status
• Family status
• Sexual orientation
• Religion
• Age (does not apply to a person under 18)
• Disability
• Race
• Membership of the Traveller community

melekalikimaka

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

It will fall under discrimination dude. Do we stop people who are not vaccinated against the flu participating in society? If we don't stop one group of unvaccinated individuals you can't stop another group of unvaccinated individuals . That's where the discrimination comes in. Let me guess you're a fan of the health passport concept.

Are you sure you know how this works, there is only a few legal types of discrimination that is an issue, differentiating people based on vaccine is perfectly legal

ELM327

melekalikimaka wrote: »

Are you sure you know how this works, there is only a few legal types of discrimination that is an issue, differentiating people based on vaccine is perfectly legal

Yes, and I posted the applicable law above.
There are no grounds to claim discrimination based on vaccine status, thankfully.

LeeroyJ.

Id take any of the 3 pending approval right now if I could.

The Belly

ELM327 wrote: »

Discrimination is only, I repeat, only, for the recognised groups. Outside of that you cannot be discriminated against legally. I understand you may hold a different moral opinion and that's your right, but legally it is unenforceable. To illustrate this, read from citizens information
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/law_and_rights/irish_human_rights_commission.html#l5e352

As the European Commission and the academic community have stated, any public health monitoring systems are high-risk measures that must be shown to be lawful and necessary in a democratic society. These should be adopted with legal safeguards put in place by design and default in order to counter or mitigate such risks.

These conflicts with human rights particularly include high levels of interference with the rights to private life, data protection, and non-discrimination which are protected by Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).


Full article here.

https://blogdroiteuropeen.com/2020/10/08/covid-19-and-immunity-passports-the-way-forward-by-nora-ni-loideain/

ELM327

The Belly wrote: »

As the European Commission and the academic community have stated, any public health monitoring systems are high-risk measures that must be shown to be lawful and necessary in a democratic society. These should be adopted with legal safeguards put in place by design and default in order to counter or mitigate such risks.

These conflicts with human rights particularly include high levels of interference with the rights to private life, data protection, and non-discrimination which are protected by Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).


Full article here.

https://blogdroiteuropeen.com/2020/10/08/covid-19-and-immunity-passports-the-way-forward-by-nora-ni-loideain/

Requiring a vaccine to fly or travel is not a public health monitoring system.
Freedom to life is a nonsense anti vax rhetoric.
GDPR does not apply here, a data controller is not created as the info is not stored, merely displayed.