Covid Vaccine Poll - How Long Will You Wait?

When WIll You And Your Family Get Vaccinated?

  • Sign Me Up!!! (First 3 Months)

    Votes: 23 34.8%

  • Ensure No Zombie Apocalypse (3 months ...6 months)

    Votes: 11 16.7%

  • Need Way More Guinea Pigs (6 months ... 12 months)

    Votes: 12 18.2%

  • Eventually But Want To Wait A Full Year (12 months or longer)

    Votes: 5 7.6%

  • Never (Any reason)

    Votes: 15 22.7%
  • Total voters
    66
Status
Not open for further replies.
misteryan said:
And Monday was not a good day for the FDA's trustworthiness.
Click to expand...

There is more than one pharmaceutical-regulating government agency in the world that will be looking at the vaccine trial data. The FDA isn't high on my list of the one's I'll be trusting either.

I'll take my chances with a reasonably-well test vaccine vs. the known destruction of bodily functions COVID can cause in many cases where it doesn't kill you. I'm not that worried about getting killed by COVID, I am concerned about getting a permanently-debilitating illness from it.
 
If I do, it won’t be for awhile, 2-5 years. The rush to approval and all.

my concern will be the specter of ‘compulsory’ action. I.e. work, airlines, schools and such.
 
ok, I understand avoiding politics... but how about a hint. I'm pretty sure that the FDA announces all sorts of things every single day
 
Jeff Oslick said:
There is more than one pharmaceutical-regulating government agency in the world that will be looking at the vaccine trial data. The FDA isn't high on my list of the one's I'll be trusting either.

I'll take my chances with a reasonably-well test vaccine vs. the known destruction of bodily functions COVID can cause in many cases where it doesn't kill you. I'm not that worried about getting killed by COVID, I am concerned about getting a permanently-debilitating illness from it.
Click to expand...
No argument from me on anything you say here. I won't be waiting until phase 3 results are available. I will be waiting until it's reasonably clear that the vaccine isn't going to kill or maim half the people that take it. In other words, I'll wait a bit to make sure it's a disaster.

And I will not under any circumstances take anything that's approved before November. Ever.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
For those of you in the "I'm young and healthy and so is my family" camp, I urge you to better understand how herd immunity works with vaccines. I have people close to me who are immunocompromised and can't be vacinated. That is a legitimate reason to not get vaccinated. But those people rely on everyone around them, and every one around those people, etc., to get vaccinated. No vaccine is 100% effective either, so some who get vaccinated still won't be protected, or may be protected from getting very sick but can still pass the virus others. The vaccine (or, more than likely there will be more than one available) don't need to be 100% effective if enough people get vaccinated. If only half the population get's vaccinated, that may not be enough to protect the immunocompromised.

Is there a chance that you might have a sore arm or a mild fever for a few days after vaccination? Yes. But by the time a properly vetted vaccine is released from Phase III trials, any reaction more severe than that will be a "lottery win" 1:100,000 chance.
Click to expand...

That is a valid point. But the risk is not zero, and when there is a non-zero risk, individuals should evaluate their own tolerances to that risk and make a responsible decision. Some people don't fly in airplanes, even though the probability of a mishap is around 1:5,400,000 (for commercial carriers). Personally, I choose far riskier endeavors, but I don't try to convince everyone that they are perfectly safe and they should do the same.

The federal vaccine injury fund has handed out over $4.4B in compensation for victims. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/data-statistics-report.pdf
 
Bob Noel said:
ok, I understand avoiding politics... but how about a hint. I'm pretty sure that the FDA announces all sorts of things every single day
Click to expand...
Google “proven to reduce mortality by 35 percent.” The news stories will come up. Not even remotely true, and the FDA admitted so afterwards.
 
misteryan said:
Google “proven to reduce mortality by 35 percent.” The news stories will come up. Not even remotely true, and the FDA admitted so afterwards.
Click to expand...

thank you
 
I’m pretty sure nobody wants to believe any good news anymore. If it’s good, it must not be factual. Only bad news is true nowadays.
 
Ugh, this is really frustrating to hear. People believe whatever they want to believe, and love a good conspiracy theory. Who here knows someone that has been directly harmed by a vaccine?

It's okay, I'll keep risking my own (and my family's) health taking care of you when you end up in the hospital.
 
Ryanb said:
I’m pretty sure nobody wants to believe any good news anymore. If it’s good, it must not be factual. Only bad news is true nowadays.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true, though I get your point. I just refuse to join the post-truth world. I got admonished by a friend yesterday for wanting context before being outraged about something. Who needs context? :rolleyes:
 
Unsure.

I didn't even receive the immunizations that were required in the mid '60s for children to be allowed in public school.
 
sarangan said:
That is a valid point. But the risk is not zero, and when there is a non-zero risk, individuals should evaluate their own tolerances to that risk and make a responsible decision.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but only to a point. This works fine when an individual's decisions don't effect others. Drunk drivers and all that. The problem is we have allowed a system to develop where any random person's google search has equal weight in public health decision making as a team of scientists with hundreds of years of combined experience among them. Humans have really poor risk assessment skills beyond fight-or-flight decisions. Fortunately, we have science and mathematics to help us make rational decisions for society as a whole, which sometimes means individuals have to suppress irrational fear to benefit the larger population.
 
samiamPA said:
Ugh, this is really frustrating to hear. People believe whatever they want to believe, and love a good conspiracy theory. Who here knows someone that has been directly harmed by a vaccine?
Click to expand...

For that matter, I don't know anyone who was harmed by covid19. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
The problem is we have allowed a system to develop where any random person's google search has equal weight in public health decision making as a team of scientists with hundreds of years of combined experience among them.
Click to expand...
Or, a system where people can inform themselves and evaluate the potential motivations of those whose decision making affects the population.
 
misteryan said:
No argument from me on anything you say here. I won't be waiting until phase 3 results are available. I will be waiting until it's reasonably clear that the vaccine isn't going to kill or maim half the people that take it. In other words, I'll wait a bit to make sure it's a disaster.

And I will not under any circumstances take anything that's approved before November. Ever.
Click to expand...

Late adopter here, but an adopter for sure. I have no interest in being part of a Phase 3 trial.

Once the safety and efficacy of the vaccine are proven, I'll roll up my sleeve and take the needle. Too many thumbs on the scales of FDA and CDC right now to get health info we can trust.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
For those of you in the "I'm young and healthy and so is my family" camp, I urge you to better understand how herd immunity works with vaccines. I have people close to me who are immunocompromised and can't be vacinated. That is a legitimate reason to not get vaccinated. But those people rely on everyone around them, and every one around those people, etc., to get vaccinated. No vaccine is 100% effective either, so some who get vaccinated still won't be protected, or may be protected from getting very sick but can still pass the virus others. The vaccine (or, more than likely there will be more than one available) don't need to be 100% effective if enough people get vaccinated. If only half the population get's vaccinated, that may not be enough to protect the immunocompromised.

Is there a chance that you might have a sore arm or a mild fever for a few days after vaccination? Yes. But by the time a properly vetted vaccine is released from Phase III trials, any reaction more severe than that will be a "lottery win" 1:100,000 chance.
Click to expand...

I think everyone understands how herd immunity works. However the question is "What level of risk am I willing to expose myself to to protect others, if I am not concerned for myself?" That's a value proposition that's different for all of us. The assumption that many make (on both sides) is that if someone has a different value proposition from you that they're stupid (not saying that's what you said, just that many are saying it). However I've rarely found that to be actually true.
 
misteryan said:
That's not the case. Phase III trials provide most of the safety data. Phase II trials asses short-term side-effects; phase III trials asses long-term side effects. You might wind up not getting a sore arm, but getting cancer, heart problems, liver or kidney problems, etc., instead.

And Monday was not a good day for the FDA's trustworthiness.
Click to expand...

Phase III are mid-term toxicity. Long term assessment comes in the marketplace after the drugs are approved. Remember Vioxx? Thalidomide? Fen-phen? And a whole host of others. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

Long-term toxicity (aka side effects) cannot be fully evaluated in a Phase III, especially one on a compressed timeline like the Covid vaccine.
 
Wow! I never expected so many would take it in the first 6 months.

bnt83 said:
I'm still waiting for a West Nile vaccine, I know some people who got really messed up from that who are probably better off dead. One of them was a 24 year old woman with no significant previous medical history.
Click to expand...
Funny you mention this...I got West Nile about 8yrs ago...friggin' brutal for about 4 days. Started with almost instant crazy pain in upper back / neck. I thought it was because I was sitting funny and crinked my neck or something. Then the fever rolled in about 3hrs later and I just remember sweating and massive headache for 3 days until it broke on the 4th day. If Covid is worse I'll risk the vaccine but prefer to wait at least 6 months.

The FAA medical stuff w/r to the vaccine was not something I expected when thinking up the poll.

Thanks for all the responses so far!
 
This vaccine or any new drug cannot be proven safe for at least 72 years.
Zeldman said:
Unsure.

I didn't even receive the immunizations that were required in the mid '60s for children to be allowed in public school.
Click to expand...

Wow! I know there are millions in the country in that boat, and still go to school.
 
wsuffa said:
Remember Vioxx? Thalidomide? Fen-phen? And a whole host of others. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs
Click to expand...

Certainly worth remembering, although the FDA refused to approve thalidomide even after other countries had. Fen(fluramine) and Phen(termine) were made by different companies, and so never tested together. Problems only became apparent when diet centers started pushing the untested use of both diet drugs together.
 
Sinistar said:
The FAA medical stuff w/r to the vaccine was not something I expected when thinking up the poll.
Click to expand...
I saw Dr. Bruce respond in either this thread or a similar one that the FAA doesn't care about vaccines, although they would care about someone participating in a trial because the drug isn't approved yet. I don't recall ever putting vaccines on my medical application.
 
bnt83 said:
:rolleyes: Recently a 71 year old drug was declared too dangerous to let a doctor prescribe it.
Click to expand...

I assume something better came along to replace it? That happens all the time. A lot of first-generation drugs had high toxicities and/or severe side effects, but found use when no other treatment was available. Such drugs are quickly dropped when a better alternative hits the market.

Salvarsan was once the most prescribed drug in the world. It worked pretty well against syphilis. The fact that it was 40% arsenic by weight could be overlooked when there was no effective alternative treatment, but it was taken of the market pretty quickly after penicillin was discovered.
 
Whilst the current sample size is small, the results indicate that this group of pilots is a bit more risk taking than I would have thought.
 
wsuffa said:
Phase III are mid-term toxicity. Long term assessment comes in the marketplace after the drugs are approved. Remember Vioxx? Thalidomide? Fen-phen? And a whole host of others. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

Long-term toxicity (aka side effects) cannot be fully evaluated in a Phase III, especially one on a compressed timeline like the Covid vaccine.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely correct that evaluation continues after approval, but not every serious adverse event relates to toxicity. Phase 3 trials are (mostly) to assess long-term safety.
 
misteryan said:
Phase 3 trials are (mostly) to assess long-term safety.
Click to expand...
It depends what you mean by 'long term'. If we're talking years, I don't think you are correct. The perfect is the enemy of the good. That applies to the way many people think, not just about various aspects of the virus, but life in general.
 
Everskyward said:
It depends what you mean by 'long term'. If we're talking years, I don't think you are correct. The perfect is the enemy of the good. That applies to the way many people think, not just about various aspects of the virus, but life in general.
Click to expand...
Phase 3 trials generally last several years.
 
Everskyward said:
Then they're useless in this context.
Click to expand...
Essentially, yes. Absolutely correct. There are some drugs that are being tested for use against covid that have been thoroughly tested and approved for other uses, like HIV meds. They're anti-virals. So some have a track record. But any of the Operation Warp Speed drugs are "fingers crossed".
 
misteryan said:
Essentially, yes. Absolutely correct. There are some drugs that are being tested for use against covid that have been thoroughly tested and approved for other uses, like HIV meds. They're anti-virals. So some have a track record. But any of the Operation Warp Speed drugs are "fingers crossed".
Click to expand...
Right, so some people are making a different risk/reward calculation than others. Is that so surprising?
 
Everskyward said:
Right, so some people are making a different risk/reward calculation than others. Is that so surprising?
Click to expand...
Sure, so long as they understand what the risks and rewards are. I have strong doubts that many people will. Then again, it could certainly be argued that we essentially have no choice as a society.
 
I'd wait a year or so. My question is not only "is it safe", but "is it effective?". Seems the threshold is whether the vaccine creates antibodies, but I seriously question if we human can gain lasting immunity to Covid naturally or via vaccine. I've heard reports that some who've recovered are getting reinfected.

And if the rate of mutations makes this into another annual flu shot type thing you can count me out. I'm from a group that's kinda distrustful of many treatments for of historical reasons.
 
misteryan said:
Sure, so long as they understand what the risks and rewards are. I have strong doubts that many people will. Then again, it could certainly be argued that we essentially have no choice as a society.
Click to expand...
You think your own judgement is superior to those who may disagree, so you want the government to enforce your view. So much for live and let live.
 
Boone said:
You think your own judgement is superior to those who may disagree, so you want the government to enforce your view. So much for live and let live.
Click to expand...
I don't know what leads you to that conclusion. When a national leader and the head of the FDA stand in front of a bank of TV cameras and tell the world something that is patently untrue, it is not only misinforming people, but it also undermines peoples' confidence in anything else they have to say in the future. In other words, it's hard for people to make informed decisions when they're being (deliberately) misinformed. Contrary to what you say here, I want people to get correct information so that they can make the best decisions for themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top