The 'vaccine' - will you have it? And why/why not?

[Munroast]

it is all a balance of risk; risk of covid versus risk of side effects.

The way the vaccine will be doled out addresses this really well. Those most at risk from covid go first, those least at risk go last. thus always keeping the risks from covid greater than the risks from the vaccine.

If I had health problems and was in my 70s I would take the vaccine today. If I was in my prime then no I wouldn't want it but then I wouln't be offered it for about a year when risks will be well understood.

As it is I'm just under 60, fit, retired, little social contact, live in a very low infected area. So no I wouldn't risk the vaccine today, but by the time they get round to me in 4 months time then if the doctors are still recommending it then I will be taking it.

New Vaccines may have some risks, but covid is one serious illness that has massive risks.

 

[Notch7]

I will let Ellal have it first -if he goes purple and his skin falls off I might need to reconsider

 

[motorbiking]

Since I'm under 50 and fit, I won't be offered it anyway. I believe I'm priority 10/10

 

[Ian H]

I don’t want it at 42 years old.

They pushed through in 10 months a drug that would usually take 10 years to test. Are they saying they usually mess about for 9 years?

 

[Deleted member 18243]

I say NO to the vaccine because:

1) It could harm me (but I doubt that it would). It's too new and un-proved.
2) Coronavirus isn't as bad as is widely believed
3) I usually don't do what everybody else does, and I've usually been better off for it.
4) I don't trust money-grabbing scientists and I certainly don't trust politicians; I trust only my own instincts and past experience.

 

[Brigadier]

I don’t want it at 42 years old.

They pushed through in 10 months a drug that would usually take 10 years to test. Are they saying they usually mess about for 9 years?

I'm not disagreeing with your right to choose conny, before we start.

Re :the (lack of) "years of testing" argument, and the oft - quoted ten years for a normal vaccine, this was debunked by some scientist on R5L a few days ago.
Basically, it takes about ten years because :
- money is limited
- you spend months writing funding proposals, and having them assessed and rejected
- you don't have the world leaning on you for results
- you're expected to take ten years.


While some things are probably beyond solution, things that aren't can be significantly accelerated with effectively limitless funds and brain power, married with lots of "encouragement", shifts in conventional process and thinking, and luck.

 

[Ian H]

Yeah, still don’t want it but see what you are saying.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

They pushed through in 10 months a drug that would usually take 10 years to test. Are they saying they usually mess about for 9 years?

On a less urgent quest for a drug or vaccine, the cannot afford the massive investment in facilities and manpower to create and test it. With such an urgent need as Covid 19, causing the deaths world wide financial destruction, it is worthwhile investing massive sums and manpower needed to find a solution. We can always do most things quicker, but speed costs much more than natural progression.

 

[Brigadier]

Yeah, still don’t want it but see what you are saying.

There was a report in Nature earlier this week, regarding "protein folding" (basically, proteins are strings of amino acids, folded in a very particular way ; their folding shape dictates their behaviours, and mis - folded proteins either don't work at all, or are harmful. Knowing how proteins fold enables researchers to develop drugs, as an example).

DeepMind (Google AI project) has been being trained to predict protein folding. It has become spectacularly effective at this.
As an example, a leading research team has failed to sort out one protein in over a decade of trying.
DeepMind did it in 30 minutes.

 

[Notch7]

I say NO to the vaccine because:

1) It could harm me (but I doubt that it would). It's too new and un-proved.
2) Coronavirus isn't as bad as is widely believed
3) I usually don't do what everybody else does, and I've usually been better off for it.
4) I don't trust money-grabbing scientists and I certainly don't trust politicians; I trust only my own instincts and past experience.

Lucky for you enough other people will take it leading to herd immunity which will protect you.

you don't trust your own instincts, you trust your confirmation bias.

 

[Munroast]

I don’t want it at 42 years old.

They pushed through in 10 months a drug that would usually take 10 years to test. Are they saying they usually mess about for 9 years?

At 42 I wouldn't want it either, would rather take my chances with Covid

If I were 80 I would be shouting for it, the sooner the better.

I'm nearly half way between those two, so would rather wait a little to see how it develops, wait at least until some other countries approve it, and wait until some of the other vacs have been approved - some will be better than others.

I'm keeping my head down and well out of the way this xmas so no need for a vacs just yet.

 

[ellal]

Lucky for you enough other people will take it leading to herd immunity which will protect you.

you don't trust your own instincts, you trust your confirmation bias.

Thus you believe people should be sheeple?

What does that say about your 'confirmation bias'?

You've admitted you've been badly wrong recently, so what's different this time?

 

[ellal]

So no I wouldn't risk the vaccine today, but by the time they get round to me in 4 months time then if the doctors are still recommending it then I will be taking it.

New Vaccines may have some risks, but covid is one serious illness that has massive risks.

So how would you actually make your judgement?

And would you sign a waiver about not claiming against any side effects?

 

[Brigadier]

At 42 I wouldn't want it either, would rather take my chances with Covid

If I were 80 I would be shouting for it, the sooner the better.

I'm nearly half way between those two, so would rather wait a little to see how it develops, wait at least until some other countries approve it, and wait until some of the other vacs have been approved - some will be better than others.

I'm keeping my head down and well out of the way this xmas so no need for a vacs just yet.

In your personal circumstances @Munroist, I don't blame you.

Unless you are at risk, have a strong desire to lick things / others, or are liable to have close contact with those that do, there's no rush.
Like I am in no personal rush for anti - malaria tablets, nor the coil.

 

[Munroast]

So how would you actually make your judgement?

And would you sign a waiver about not claiming against any side effects?

as I said, if the vast amount of doctors (99%ish) are still recommending it in the spring (when my turn comes around) then I would take their advice.

when it comes to my health money is my very last consideration, so probably would sign, but obviously would need to read first.