Will you (and family) get the Covid-19 vaccine once it comes out? (2 Viewers)

Will you get the COVID-19 vaccine once it comes out?


  • Total voters
    115
I voted no, but not because of any of the stuff you hear about vaccinations. I voted no because with my age (or lack thereof) and current physical condition I don't need it. There are plenty of people who do need it, I don't.

You being young only means that you are less likely to suffer dire consequences than those in at risk groups.

It does not mean you can’t be a carrier, ergo you can still infect others.

In other words: unless there is a limited supply of Covid vaccines, I don’t really get the point you’re making.
 
I will get a COVID vaccine (regularly if need be) the same reason I get the available flu vaccine. I'm not particularly worried about myself, because I haven't been sick for years (other than the last time I got stupid norovirus). I get it because as a front-line health worker I am constantly at risk of exposure to infectious disease, and/or I am at high risk of being an infectious disease vector to everybody else I know. Nothing is ever 100% safe, nor 100% effective. To me, it just has to safe and effective *enough*.
 
You being young only means that you are less likely to suffer dire consequences than those in at risk groups.

It does not mean you can’t be a carrier, ergo you can still infect others.

In other words: unless there is a limited supply of Covid vaccines, I don’t really get the point you’re making.
Yeah you are right - because the laws of supply and demand won't be used to maximize profits, cause all these companies are working on this vaccine out of the kindness of their hearts. High risk people get it first. I don't need it they do.
 
Yeah you are right - because the laws of supply and demand won't be used to maximize profits, cause all these companies are working on this vaccine out of the kindness of their hearts. High risk people get it first. I don't need it they do.

If you think that these companies won’t push for a global total roll out, you’re wrong.
This is one of those cases where supply and demand won’t be manipulated, for the very simple reason that demand right now is higher than it will ever be.

You need it too.

Stop assuming things.
 
Yeah, vaccine is much too risky. I think I'll just apply rays of light internally, inside my body, and see how that works out.

Actually, I'm totally fine with people not getting vaccinated against this thing. I just hope that the people I care about do.
In other news: Mel, that is an uncanny avatar likeness! :tup: And I knew we were sibs—TRKs and Cubbies?!?
 
Last edited:
Voted no I won't be getting it.

I have zero proof I've had Covid (as far as being tested) but I'm fairly confident I did as I've stated multiple times here in the past. Wife and I got sicker than we've ever been in our lives end of January. Took a week to feel human again, and another week after that for all the symptoms to disappear. About a month and a half later I came down with the same symptoms again, but much less severe and only lasted 3-4 days (my wife did not show symptoms again)

There's a gazillion different "tests" out there and many of them are flawed. They fast-tracked test approval and they aren't always producing accurate results, I expect the vaccine will be rushed as well. I don't intend to be a Guinee Pig for the vaccine so I can find out all the side effects years down the road.

"Trusting people smarter" isn't always the best course of action either. Remember the "Food Pyramid" we were all supposed to follow so we could be healthy and properly nourished? We were supposed to trust those folks too and it turned out it was extremely flawed in its guidance.

I'll take my chances with my own immune system over big pharma that's primary goal is revenue generation. They want us hooked on expensive drugs for the rest of our lives to line their pockets, rather than cured.
 
If there's one thing I've learned from threads like these it's how little people actually know about "Big Pharma" and how those companies work.
 
I'll take my chances with my own immune system over big pharma that's primary goal is revenue generation. They want us hooked on expensive drugs for the rest of our lives to line their pockets, rather than cured.
This just isn't accurate. I've worked for a big pharma company for the last 15 years, the the focus of EVERY SINGLE conference we go to is patient centered. Of course profits are important, but I can assure you that what you stated isn't the goal.
 
I won't be first in line, but I won't wait a year. Vaccines = Good. It would be ideal, if they could just mix it in with the flu shot.

For the longest time I never got a flu shot. I wasn't very young or old and figured if I got it, I'd just be sick; not a big deal. Then my PCP sat me down during one of my visits and told me, "You really need to think about protecting the herd. Sure you might get it and be fine, but you'll probably spread it around some, and the someone else who picks it up might be impacted worse than you." So now I do it every year.
 
This just isn't accurate. I've worked for a big pharma company for the last 15 years, the the focus of EVERY SINGLE conference we go to is patient centered. Of course profits are important, but I can assure you that what you stated isn't the goal.

I'd love to fully believe this...and mostly do...I run on the assumption that most humans are generally good people until proven otherwise.

Unfortunately we have real life examples like "Pharma Bro" to provide a pretty strong counter argument. I don't know of any other examples specifically, but just the general idea of "generic" vs "brand name" life saving medications makes me tend to believe that there is plenty of greed and a lack of altruism at the top levels of many big pharma companies. I wouldn't even say I disagree with their actions, given the capitalist system that we live in these companies are (I assume) fully within their rights to protect their patents and investments. If the system we've set up encourages it, why wouldn't they?

Back on topic - it depends. If this is a one-time vaccine my family and I are much more likely to get it. We've had varying luck with the flu vaccine - more often than not it seems to make us sick, and neither my wife or I (or any of the kids) have been anything more than mildly sick in the years we have NOT received it. We got it when our kids were infants and/or my wife was pregnant, but now that we are lower risk we tend not to unless there are other circumstances that would lead us towards it (such as a high risk family member or loved one/friend that we are regularly in contact with).

In any case I am in the camp of waiting for a short period of time (some measure of months) to see how effective the vaccine is and also if there are any adverse side effects. If it proves itself effective with minor side effects we would get it. I don't believe that the vaccine is going to contain any "Gates microchips" or any of that nonsense, I just think it's prudent to wait a bit.
 
If you think that these companies won’t push for a global total roll out, you’re wrong.
This is one of those cases where supply and demand won’t be manipulated, for the very simple reason that demand right now is higher than it will ever be.

You need it too.

Stop assuming things.
If there's one thing I've learned from threads like these it's how little people actually know about "Big Pharma" and how those companies work.
Well said by a man who enjoys the main benefits of a single payer health care system. Here in the United States, the exact opposite is true.
Now look, I am not saying "big pharma" will try to hurt us. I am saying people who need it will get it before I will. That means they will have to either give it away for free, or make a deal with the government so everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) gets it. Other people need it WAY more than I do.
 
I’m a little surprised more people didn’t select B. The anti-vaxxer movement has some support even for proven vaccines against high-risk (for children) diseases. I’m not an anti-vaxxer by any stretch but I’m certainly not rushing my daughter out to get a covid shot

No judgments meant, I’m just surprised
 
I'd love to fully believe this...and mostly do...I run on the assumption that most humans are generally good people until proven otherwise.

Unfortunately we have real life examples like "Pharma Bro" to provide a pretty strong counter argument. I don't know of any other examples specifically, but just the general idea of "generic" vs "brand name" life saving medications makes me tend to believe that there is plenty of greed and a lack of altruism at the top levels of many big pharma companies. I wouldn't even say I disagree with their actions, given the capitalist system that we live in these companies are (I assume) fully within their rights to protect their patents and investments. If the system we've set up encourages it, why wouldn't they?

Back on topic - it depends. If this is a one-time vaccine my family and I are much more likely to get it. We've had varying luck with the flu vaccine - more often than not it seems to make us sick, and neither my wife or I (or any of the kids) have been anything more than mildly sick in the years we have NOT received it. We got it when our kids were infants and/or my wife was pregnant, but now that we are lower risk we tend not to unless there are other circumstances that would lead us towards it (such as a high risk family member or loved one/friend that we are regularly in contact with).

In any case I am in the camp of waiting for a short period of time (some measure of months) to see how effective the vaccine is and also if there are any adverse side effects. If it proves itself effective with minor side effects we would get it. I don't believe that the vaccine is going to contain any "Gates microchips" or any of that nonsense, I just think it's prudent to wait a bit.
Honestly, it's a little of both profit and patient care.

Pharmaceutical companies, especially public ones, are inherently driven to some degree by profit. They have to be, otherwise they cease to exist.

On the other hand, I think that the vast majority of folks in the industry have a genuine motivation to provide quality products that help people. Obviously I'm not talking about the guys like Shkreli and others who buy patents on cheap existing drugs and increase the cost 100-fold. I'm talking about companies that do active R&D on the development of new drugs and the improvement of existing ones.

Sure, they all play games to extend profitability and generate new patents through minor reformulations, changes in delivery mechanism, etc. I'm not saying they're angels - but I do believe that the motivation to do good work is strong.

Also, rushing a product in this industry is a good way to get yourself sued out of existence, so there is definitely a financial motive to not screw it up.
 
I'll take my chances with my own immune system over big pharma that's primary goal is revenue generation. They want us hooked on expensive drugs for the rest of our lives to line their pockets, rather than cured.
You're not just taking chances with yourself. Herd immunity is a thing, and it benefits all of us.
 
Well said by a man who enjoys the main benefits of a single payer health care system. Here in the United States, the exact opposite is true.
Now look, I am not saying "big pharma" will try to hurt us. I am saying people who need it will get it before I will. That means they will have to either give it away for free, or make a deal with the government so everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) gets it. Other people need it WAY more than I do.

That seems fair.

On the single payer healthcare system: can recommend. You guys should try it. It's fun.
 
Now look, I am not saying "big pharma" will try to hurt us.

It is ironic to be having a discussion about whether or not large pharmaceutical companies are benevolent in the midst of an opioid epidemic. Pharmaceutical companies are not different than any other company who have as their primary goal maximizing profits for stakeholders.
 
Interesting declaration in April by HHS, regarding liability immunity for vaccine manufacturers, as well as others in the medical field, particularly related to Covid-19. I’ve linked the article, but this is the most pertinent bit:



“The declaration provides liability immunity to certain individuals and entities — referred to as “covered persons” — against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, and/or use of COVID-19 medical countermeasures (covered countermeasures).”

https://www.marsh.com/us/insights/research/covid-19-liability-immunity-under-prep-act.html
 
Interesting declaration in April by HHS, regarding liability immunity for vaccine manufacturers, as well as others in the medical field, particularly related to Covid-19. I’ve linked the article, but this is the most pertinent bit:



“The declaration provides liability immunity to certain individuals and entities — referred to as “covered persons” — against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, and/or use of COVID-19 medical countermeasures (covered countermeasures).”

https://www.marsh.com/us/insights/research/covid-19-liability-immunity-under-prep-act.html
Ugh. Well, that seems to remove one of the main financial incentives for not screwing it up.

Still, it's not really going to change my approach: look at every scrap of data available on the vaccine, and barring any big red flags, get myself and my family vaccinated reasonably soon.
 
Ugh. Well, that seems to remove one of the main financial incentives for not screwing it up.

Still, it's not really going to change my approach: look at every scrap of data available on the vaccine, and barring any big red flags, get myself and my family vaccinated reasonably soon.

Some might view manufacturers avoiding any legal liability prior to the release of the vaccine as a "big red flag". If there wasn't a significant perceived risk then they wouldn't bother covering themselves in this manner.

It is a bit like financial advisors that sell mutual funds. They get paid whether your investments make money or not so they don't have any real skin in the game. When people don't have skin in the game it is often a good indicator that your interests are not aligned with theirs.
 
Some might view manufacturers avoiding any legal liability prior to the release of the vaccine as a "big red flag". If there wasn't a significant perceived risk then they wouldn't bother covering themselves in this manner.

It is a bit like financial advisors that sell mutual funds. They get paid whether your investments make money or not so they don't have any real skin in the game. When people don't have skin in the game it is often a good indicator that your interests are not aligned with theirs.
They aren't avoiding all liability, there are limitations that seem to provide some protection against negligence. This is one example from the link provided by @Beakertwang:
Under the PREP ACT and the HHS secretary’s declaration, immunity from liability is limited and does not apply to liability for death or serious physical injury caused by willful misconduct.
 
That seems fair.

On the single payer healthcare system: can recommend. You guys should try it. It's fun.
I have been in that camp since I became old enough and wise enough to form an opinion on it. Problem is here in the USA the dollar is king, and insurance companies have more of them than anyone else
 
@Schmendr1ck
Not exactly setting the bar high are we with the threshold being "willful misconduct". Like I said, they have thoroughly covered their asses here and don't have any skin in the game as they will make their money regardless of how the global experiment turns out.

These companies are not stupid, trying to prove "willful misconduct" will be pretty damn hard in a court save for some whistle blower coming forward.
 
In the same way as the flu jab, I'd be very surprised if employers will be able to refuse an employee being able to work if they haven't had the covid vaccine.

That is to say, if a supermarket, for example, wouldn't allow employees to work there without a vaccine, would they legally be able to turn away customers, too? I'll be getting the vaccine, granted, but it still seems discriminatory to me.
 
would they legally be able to turn away customers, too? I'll be getting the vaccine, granted, but it still seems discriminatory to me.

Commercial venues reserve the right not to serve clients at their discretion, only limited when we're talking actual discrimination (eg. gender, race)
Refusing to vaccinate doesn't qualify as being discriminated against.

Note: not a lawyer, this is how it works here and how I think it works in most developed countries.
 
I was planning to get the vaccine when it's available, but I really don't want to be part of a test group. The way things are going, that's what I think its going to be during the first year or so.
 
I was planning to get the vaccine when it's available, but I really don't want to be part of a test group. The way things are going, that's what I think its going to be during the first year or so.

Colleen was just asking about you yesterday. How you were doing and whatnot. Its nice to see you post :)
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom