Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

Options
24567…86

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Lux23
    Registered Users Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    Yes, but reckon I will be at the back of the queue!


  • Options
    #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Yes....im stressed off me bulb trying to keep my folks safe and dont want em to die




    I can understand peoples reluctance to take it,

    but find the notion of people who supported a herd ìmmunity approach,and now suddently fearful of a live vaccine....pure hypocrites


  • Options
    #34
    Jafin
    Registered Users Posts: 772 ✭✭✭Jafin


    Murph_D wrote: »
    What are the side effects of catching the virus in the wild?

    Uh...you get the virus? I was talking about side effects of the vaccine, not the virus. I'm not saying I'm going to be out in the pub living it up or jetsetting across the world without a vaccine. I'm going to continue being as careful as I can in the meantime until it gets to a stage where people like me are offered the vaccine, and then I will make the decision. I will very likely be at the bottom of the queue for a vaccine given my age and I am in good health with no underlying conditions.

    I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxxer or anything of that nature and I don't think I know better than scientists who have developed this, but things can have unforeseen side effects and everybody's body is unique and has the potential to react differently.


  • Options
    #35
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    Murph_D wrote: »
    What are the side effects of catching the virus in the wild?
    It's still a very new virus, and we really don't know what the side effects will be in 5/10/20 years. It now looks it might primarily be a vascular/blood vessel disease, and who knows what damage is done even in "mild" Covid.


  • Options
    #36
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users Posts: 5,462 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Murph_D wrote: »
    What are the side effects of catching the virus in the wild?

    Well most likely you'll be perfectly fine.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,154 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yes....im stressed off me bulb trying to keep my folks safe and dont want em to die

    While I get what you're saying, wouldn't it make more sense for your folks to take it?

    My mother is at risk and wants to take it when it comes out. Once she does that, I won't take it. My main worry is that she catches it. After she's vaccinated, I won't be so worried.


  • Options
    #38
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    My mother is at risk and wants to take it when it comes out. Once she does that, I won't take it. My main worry is that she catches it. After she's vaccinated, I won't be so worried.
    Vaccines are not perfect, although thankfully the vaccines are showing really high effectiveness. Some of the people in the vaccine group on the trial did get the disease. If your mother is in an at-risk group you should seriously consider getting a vaccination.


  • Options
    #39
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users Posts: 5,462 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    simongurnick wrote: »
    Not going to start telling you what to do or anything, but I think people such as yourself, fall into the grouping of "it's worth taking the vaccine for the greater good". You, yourself, may be in a low risk demographic, but ultimately the more people that vaccinate, the more effective it is globally, so you would be helping the vulnerable in the community.

    As for me, sign me up. I know it was quick to develop, but there has also never been the amount of money and resources thrown at developing a vaccine before and some groundwork had already been done with Sars and Mers.
    Also think they will need to be very direct in how it is provided. I think all three involve two does a month apart. It would be a mess if people took the first dose, thought they were all good and continued to spread the virus.

    Yes I'm aware of the greater good thing. And like I said that may sway me. For now the plan seems to be to vaccinate the risk groups first and that may all we need to do.

    A lot depends also on what vaccine I'm being asked to take I guess. Conventional dead virus vaccine or the new RNA DNA stuff. The latter I wouldnt be rushing into. The former I'd be more likely to be an early taker.

    Edit: Just answered the poll with 'yes'. Its not an unconditional yes maybe even a hesitant yes but definitely not a principled no.


  • Options
    #40
    Seweryn
    Registered Users Posts: 4,487 ✭✭✭Seweryn


    DeeperThinker wrote: »
    Yes...absolutely. There is no reason why not, at least not any based on hard factual science which should be what counts.
    What hard actual science are you referring to? If there is an independent long term test completed and published, please post a link so we can also educate ourselves.


  • Options
    #41
    The Belly
    Registered Users Posts: 572 ✭✭✭The Belly


    Up until November 2020, no mRNA vaccine, drug, or technology platform, had ever been approved for use in humans, and before 2020, mRNA was only considered a theoretical or experimental candidate for human use.

    Normally a vaccine takes 10 years and costs about half a billion to be proven safe before rolled out this has been done in less then a year. It does make you wonder just how safe it will be in the long term.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,619 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Tig98 wrote: »
    Its not all anti-mask quacks who wont get the vaccine. Im actually doing a science undergraduate course and Im uncomfortable at the rate in which the vaccine has been rushed through. Instead of being conducted over a few years they're doing huge amounts of testing in a few months. No matter how much testing they do now, it wont be any good to determine long term side effects (enter Swine Flu vaccine and narcolepsy)

    It's going to be rolled out en-masse at such speed that if there's any immediate adverse effects then we should see deaths occurring...If there's no immediate number of deaths then do we take it the vaccine is either safe for all to take or the side effects are more long term?

    Personally I don't want the Vaccine, I'd rather wear a mask/social distance/carry sanitizer with me for as long as required.
    Apart from vaccinations as a child I've never taken the flu vaccine either.


  • Options
    #43
    Psychedelic Hedgehog
    Registered Users Posts: 427 ✭✭Psychedelic Hedgehog


    Yes, I'll be taking it. I'm not a selfish so-and-so.


  • Options
    #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    While I get what you're saying, wouldn't it make more sense for your folks to take it?

    My mother is at risk and wants to take it when it comes out. Once she does that, I won't take it. My main worry is that she catches it. After she's vaccinated, I won't be so worried.

    My folks are relatively poor health and help on elderly relatives farm aswell

    Like,i have no doubt,id be way down list of getting it (reasonably healthy,despite having a quiet poor chest/lungs anyway)

    I just want to go back to normal,literally have some of physical signs of stress by now aswell,havnt seen most my mates in over a year (just cant warm to zoom/phonecalls)

    most of all,i really want to attend hurling matches again


  • Options
    #45
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,439 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Used to think I'd prefer to not be one of the first, but realistically if someone offered it I wouldn't say no. I think the fear of risks of vaccines is out of proportion in our minds, we take way bigger risks just leaving the house.


  • Options
    #46
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,845 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    ironingbored wrote: »
    Death?

    Or cake


  • Options
    #47
    Hellrazer
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,603 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hellrazer


    Deleted User wrote: »
    but find the notion of people who supported a herd ìmmunity approach,and now suddently fearful of a live vaccine....pure hypocrites

    I dont think they can really be compared - A "live" vaccine is only in one of the 3 - The Oxford one. The other 2 are "engineered" with mrna..not live viruses.


    Who knows what these engineered vaccines could do to someone further down the line?

    The Oxford one would probably be the most "safe" so to speak as its more of a traditional vaccine.


  • Options
    #48
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    The Belly wrote: »
    Normally a vaccine takes 10 years and costs about half a billion to be proven safe before rolled out this has been done in less then a year. It does make you wonder just how safe it will be in the long term.
    Most of that 10 years was delays between phases, regulatory approvals and getting manufacturing agreements and production lines in place.

    There has been no change in the safety trials. What has changed is that manufacturing has been stood up (at the cost of billions) in parallel, and regulators are reviewing the data as the trial is ongoing.

    The Oxford vaccine has been in development since SARS1 which was 17 years ago.

    What's also different is that the phase 3 trials are huge & very expensive - 30,000 people for Pfizer & Moderna, 60,000 for J&J.


  • Options
    #49
    Deeper Blue
    Registered Users Posts: 7,650 ✭✭✭Deeper Blue


    Tig98 wrote: »
    Its not all anti-mask quacks who wont get the vaccine. Im actually doing a science undergraduate course and Im uncomfortable at the rate in which the vaccine has been rushed through. Instead of being conducted over a few years they're doing huge amounts of testing in a few months. No matter how much testing they do now, it wont be any good to determine long term side effects (enter Swine Flu vaccine and narcolepsy)


    It's not been rushed


  • Options
    #50
    wildwillow
    Registered Users Posts: 1,130 ✭✭✭wildwillow


    I would be happier with the dead virus vaccine Cambridge are developing, but it has a lower effectiveness than the new type which uses gene therapy.


  • Options
    #51
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,845 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    wildwillow wrote: »
    I would be happier with the dead virus vaccine Cambridge are developing, but it has a lower effectiveness than the new type which uses gene therapy.

    Oxford? Or is there a Cambridge one coming too


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    MacDanger
    Registered Users Posts: 2,432 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    For those who want to wait and see what the "long term effects" are - how long would you wait?

    A year?
    2 years?
    10 years?

    How did you come to the conclusion that a vaccine would be safe after that amount of time?


  • Options
    #53
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    dashoonage wrote: »
    Atari Jaguar

    Blast her with... antibodies.


  • Options
    #54
    Hellrazer
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,603 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hellrazer


    El Sueño wrote: »
    It's not been rushed

    8-10 months is a rush in terms of vaccine development.

    That could bite us in the ass.


  • Options
    #55
    False Prophet
    Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭False Prophet


    People saying that they wont take it as they are "young" and dont need it as wont die.


    Isn't the problem/risk going to be that you would spread it to a person who cant take the vaccine for medical reasons, no? Or will you continue to wear masks and take precautions when out?


  • Options
    #56
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    I will, but I will also allow many thousands go before me.


  • Options
    #57
    Jafin
    Registered Users Posts: 772 ✭✭✭Jafin


    False Prophet wrote: »
    People saying that they wont take it as they are "young" and dont need it as wont die.


    Isn't the problem/risk going to be that you would spread it to a person who cant take the vaccine for medical reasons, no? Or will you continue to wear masks and take precautions when out?

    Speaking for myself only, yes I will continue to take precautions the same as I am now. Like I said in a previous post I will still be as careful as I possibly can and absolutely will not be out socialising unvaccinated if I am putting others at risk by possibly carrying the virus without knowing it. I work in a shop where I am on my own 99% of the time and I only allow one customer in at a time (when we're open). There is plexiglass between me and the customers, and I sanitise before and after each transaction. As far as I am aware there is a very low chance of me contracting it while at work. I only really leave to house to go to work, and it's a very short walk, so chances of me contracting it and/or passing it on to others is very low.

    My stance isn't about keeping myself healthy at all (although of course I want to stay healthy), I don't want to put others at risk either and will continue wearing a mask and using hand sanitiser as much as I can. I understand that that's at odds with me deciding to wait to take the vaccination, but that's just how I feel about it at the moment. That could all change when it's offered to me. It's definitely a "wait and see" approach as to me making the decision. I'm not saying I won't take it all, I'm just saying that I'm not going to be rushing to get it as soon as I can.


  • Options
    #58
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,154 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    False Prophet wrote: »
    People saying that they wont take it as they are "young" and dont need it as wont die.


    Isn't the problem/risk going to be that you would spread it to a person who cant take the vaccine for medical reasons, no? Or will you continue to wear masks and take precautions when out?

    Are there people who can't take it for medical reasons? I was unaware.


  • Options
    #59
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,845 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    I will, but I will also allow many thousands go before me.

    A true hero.

    You would have made a great British army general in WW1


  • Options
    #60
    MacDanger
    Registered Users Posts: 2,432 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    Hellrazer wrote: »
    8-10 months is a rush in terms of vaccine development.

    That could bite us in the ass.

    Part of the reason (other than the obvious massive resources allocated to it) for the reduced development time is the prevalence of the virus in the community.

    For the Phase 3 trials, you give X people the vaccine and X the placebo and you need to wait for Y people (say 100) to get contract the virus - then you see how many of those 100 people got the vaccine and how many got the placebo and that tells you how effective the vaccine is. For most viruses, you might have to wait years for 100 people to contract the virus but with Covid, it's very prevalent so that waiting time is greatly reduced.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Deeper Blue
    Registered Users Posts: 7,650 ✭✭✭Deeper Blue


    Hellrazer wrote: »
    8-10 months is a rush in terms of vaccine development.

    That could bite us in the ass.

    See MacDanger's post above

    As I say, it's not been rushed

    Done quickly? Absolutely

    But that does not mean it was rushed


Advertisement