COVID VACCINE - The Megathread

Would you get the Pfizer vaccine if it were available to you?


  • Total voters
    72

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
10,593
1,212
113
The issue, I believe, isn't New Zealand; it's compliance with public health initiatives in the U.S. I don't have the tools to measure it. All I have is pre-2020 memories of employer-mandated vaccinations treated as routine by me and my coworkers. We didn't over-think the premise that it's bad for healthcare workers to infect their patients. There was no option not to get vaccinated and remain employed. Were we wrong then? Should we have had rights to opt out of public health initiatives and remain members of our communities? What about now?
That's the question that remains to be answered.

I agree the issue is not about New Zealand, I was pointing out that comparing their compliance with ours is like comparing apples to oranges.

Also, I've never had to provide proof of vaccination for any job, hospital, ambulance or law enforcement included.
 

E tank

Caution: Paralyzing Agent
1,363
1,156
113
The issue, I believe, isn't New Zealand; it's compliance with public health initiatives in the U.S. I don't have the tools to measure it. All I have is pre-2020 memories of employer-mandated vaccinations treated as routine by me and my coworkers. We didn't over-think the premise that it's bad for healthcare workers to infect their patients. There was no option not to get vaccinated and remain employed. Were we wrong then? Should we have had rights to opt out of public health initiatives and remain members of our communities? What about now?
Employer/school mandated vaccines for stuff like MMR, polio etc. are not even in the same class as covid vaccines. Those have been utilized for decades and provide reliable, predictable and demonstrable long term immunity. The covid vaccines don't come even vaguely near to meeting any of those criteria yet have been hyped to be in the same category by some very dishonest people that have no trouble lying by omission.
 

E tank

Caution: Paralyzing Agent
1,363
1,156
113
@Carlos Danger

Which one of those ailments that we might hold others responsible for is currently taking up 57% of Colorado's ICU beds? Oh... COVID.

Which one of those ailments is in pandemic state but can be almost entirely mitigated in terms of health system effects with two cheap shots? Ah... COVID.

You can't give obesity, smoking, or illicit substance based diseases to someone who sits next to you for 15 minutes. But you can transmit COVID.

Please stop comparing communicable disease to chronic nontransmissible conditions. It is nonsense to say they of the same principle in honest debate.

I know you are a Libertarian. Well, at heart I am too. The Libertarian adage is: Your right to swing your arm ends before my nose.

So, society has always reasonably placed some requirements on behavior to be part of a free society.

Even the Founding Fathers understood the need for public health measures such as quarantine and immunization (variolation), and the right of society to command such things from unwilling members.

Do you have the right to be drunk? Yes. In Public? If you do not disturb others. While driving? That is hazarding others.

I equate choosing to be unvaccinated with being drunk while driving. Yea you might make it home from the bar without hitting anyone. Or you might cause a multicar pileup. You are hazarding others, society, and yourself much more than if sober and society has decided to restrict your liberty to behave in such a manner so that they can be free and safe from such unjustifiable danger.

No man is an island when it comes to communicable disease.
Where will you stop the healthcare 'do the crime, pay the time' mentality?

To suggest that Covid anywhere near approaches the consumption of resources than do say obesity and smoking (to name 2) just because there has been a very recent and visible (and temporary) spike in ICU admissions is absurd. That kind of bill is retribution against a very specific group for having the temerity to question government policy that has yet to provide consistently reliable, demonstrable and repeatable results.

Covid will be long gone while these two entities will continue to need management. And most will never be admitted to the ICU.
 

mgr22

Forum Deputy Chief
1,461
638
113
Employer/school mandated vaccines for stuff like MMR, polio etc. are not even in the same class as covid vaccines. Those have been utilized for decades and provide reliable, predictable and demonstrable long term immunity. The covid vaccines don't come even vaguely near to meeting any of those criteria yet have been hyped to be in the same category by some very dishonest people that have no trouble lying by omission.
I don't think dishonesty about hyping the vaccine is as prevalent as dishonesty associated with (1) some hyped "cures" for COVID, (2) some risks of vaccination, (3) the existence of COVID, and (4) the consequences of COVID, including death and disability. But that's not what I was commenting about. I was questioning the value of public health initiatives without some sort of enforced compliance.

The vaccines you mentioned wouldn't have been as effective if a third of the population had declined them because they didn't like being told what to do. I think regard for others and a willingness to compromise should be high priorities in any society. Part of that is to accept, as individuals, that we're not all qualified to make the best decisions for others, or even for ourselves. We have to trust some people based on criteria other than political party -- e.g., training and experience.

I think we've strayed pretty far from those principles, and I'm questioning whether we were wrong before or wrong now.
 

Carlos Danger

Forum Deputy Chief
Premium Member
4,380
3,086
113
The vaccines you mentioned wouldn't have been as effective if a third of the population had declined them because they didn't like being told what to do. I think regard for others and a willingness to compromise should be high priorities in any society. Part of that is to accept, as individuals, that we're not all qualified to make the best decisions for others, or even for ourselves. We have to trust some people based on criteria other than political party -- e.g., training and experience.

I think we've strayed pretty far from those principles, and I'm questioning whether we were wrong before or wrong now.
The COVID vaccines have been widely available to the general public for less than a year, and in that time well over 60% of the population has become fully vaccinated and 75% has received at least one dose. Are you confident that there was not comparable skepticism when the polio vaccine was first rolled out and that similar penetrance was achieved as rapidly? Different time, different disease, different situation, I know, but I highly doubt that progress was as fast with public acceptance of the polio vaccine as it has been with the COVID vaccines. Right or wrong, skepticism about the necessity and safety of vaccines is not a new phenomenon.

Maybe read that first line again: in well under a year, 3/4 of the population has at least begun the process of becoming vaccinated, and for the most part done so completely voluntarily. Anyone who is at high risk of becoming seriously ill with COVID has been vaccinated already for many months already, if they choose. Yet here we are, acting as though we can't get anyone on the same page about this thing; acting as though we thought this would all happen overnight.

It is easy to say that everyone ought to choose to become vaccinated for the greater good even if they don't want to or don't feel like it's necessary for their own protection. But with the possible / probable exception of health care workers and a few other occupational roles, I just don't see a successful argument that every individual has an ethical obligation to become vaccinated when others have access to relatively easy and convenient and very effective ways of protecting themselves.
 

Jim37F

Forum Deputy Chief
4,042
2,605
113
Wellp, especially since I was travelling, went and got my Moderna Booster (and had them do my Flu shot at the same time).

Kaiser kind of did a double take with me being out of region lol but wasn't a big deal
 

CCCSD

Forum Deputy Chief
1,266
786
113
“I just don't see a successful argument that every individual has an ethical obligation to become vaccinated when others have access to relatively easy and convenient and very effective ways of protecting themselves”

Except that if everyone thought that, no one would do it.
 

SandpitMedic

Crowd pleaser
2,291
1,241
113
If you get the vid are you going to get boosted/vaxxed?
 

Carlos Danger

Forum Deputy Chief
Premium Member
4,380
3,086
113
“I just don't see a successful argument that every individual has an ethical obligation to become vaccinated when others have access to relatively easy and convenient and very effective ways of protecting themselves”

Except that if everyone thought that, no one would do it.
My guess is that the vast majority of people who get vaccinated do so to protect themselves, not others.

These newer variants are being contracted and transmitted by fully vaccinated people like crazy, so I don't think there's even much of an argument to be made right now that getting getting vaccinated to protect others even works. You get vaccinated so that when (not if) you are exposed to the virus, your illness is mild rather than requiring an ICU admission.
 

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,596
1,197
113
Employer/school mandated vaccines for stuff like MMR, polio etc. are not even in the same class as covid vaccines. Those have been utilized for decades and provide reliable, predictable and demonstrable long term immunity. The covid vaccines don't come even vaguely near to meeting any of those criteria yet have been hyped to be in the same category by some very dishonest people that have no trouble lying by omission.
Yea just because you parrot a bunch of total BS doesn't make the false parts true or the true-but-irrelevant parts relevant.

This is the problem with smart people who are experts in their own subfield often have some preconceived concept that predispose them to believe inaccurate things about other fields without proper critical thinking.

The lack of long term is not really true (there is universal knowledge about long term effects of vaccination and no reason to believe this would be different) and given that is not relevant given short and medium term critical realities. You can not even apply a reductio to check your (il)logic: such thinking would prevent the application of vaccine in any pandemic by your reason.

You want to talk about lying by omission as you then omit the fact that there is apparent long term protection, well demonstrated so far, by the vaccines against severe illness, and against previous variants for infection, and some lower level of immunity against symptomatic infection with the new variant.

You have no real excuse to ignorance, real or feigned, to exclude the knowledge of all the previous discussions having been a long participant in this thread. I sincerely doubt you would vehemently espouse such opinions in care conference at hospital with others who you realize are actually knowledgeable in this subject. You should act with the same level of professionalism here despite the lack of face to face and first person familiarity. But I should not be surprised since you actually stated that you believe that vaccine refusers are merely bold objectors to dishonest government.
 
Last edited:

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,596
1,197
113
And they'll tell us that it isn't a problem with the interventions or just the nature of a highly potent virus in the age of globalization, but its all the fault of the drooling, uneducated masses for being too stubborn and uncooperative to do exactly what they are told by "the officials" despite the fact that those officials have proven themselves time and again to be incompetent and dishonest.
Oh it is a pandemic virus in the age of globalization that is the genesis of the problems difficulty. Solutions, imperfect, and are hard and based on evolving information. However, the fight is made all the harder when well crafted disinformation campaigns originating from various malactors: enemy states, the power hungry, and the ignorant combine in to a maelstrom that raises the confusion of even intelligent non-experts.

Casting public health have indeed acted with the best information available, but are then unfairly cast as incompetent and dishonest for it, despite also having more successes and many of their failures are failures in application due to groups of individuals acting "stupidly" driven by disinformation and human nature. Have there been some examples of individual officials who were consistently incompetent and/or dishonest, hell yes. Have there been incompetent and dishonest actions that are not characteristic of the whole? YES.

Do you get to characterize all public health officials as inherently incompetent and dishonest? ABSOLUTELY NOT and it is irresponsible to do so.

We as health professionals should vigorously attack poor policies while vigorously supporting the good and sensible ones. Unfairly coloring all PH negative plays directly into the hands of the malactors. Be better than that.
 

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,596
1,197
113
Are you confident that there was not comparable skepticism when the polio vaccine was first rolled out and that similar penetrance was achieved as rapidly? Different time, different disease, different situation, I know
You cannot identify the situations as apples vs snickers bars but then say the Polio situation is worth considering for relevant skepticism for today. Vaccine skepticism has always been present going back to Jenner! Modes of transmission and prevalence, case doubling times... I'll just leave with peak annual incidence of paralytic polio myelitis was "only" 20K. Flu kills more than Polio paralyzed at its peak! 6.7 million COVID hospitalizations in the USA. So, the level of skepticism should be scaled to the threat.

Maybe read that first line again: in well under a year, 3/4 of the population has at least begun the process of becoming vaccinated, and for the most part done so completely voluntarily. Anyone who is at high risk of becoming seriously ill with COVID has been vaccinated already for many months already, if they choose. Yet here we are, acting as though we can't get anyone on the same page about this thing; acting as though we thought this would all happen overnight.
The problem is that simply saying "3/4" or "most" might feel good, but epidemiology tells us what is "enough." The problem with public health and extremely contagious disease is that it cannot be solely about free choice. Measles, smallpox, typhoid, the list of epidemics and pandemics is replete with examples of why pure voluntary compliance is not sufficient. You don't have to like that fact. In fact, I will join you in greatly disliking that fact. But I won't dismiss it.

It is easy to say that everyone ought to choose to become vaccinated for the greater good even if they don't want to or don't feel like it's necessary for their own protection. But with the possible / probable exception of health care workers and a few other occupational roles, I just don't see a successful argument that every individual has an ethical obligation to become vaccinated when others have access to relatively easy and convenient and very effective ways of protecting themselves.
In so many vaccine preventable illnesses, the protection of those who cannot be vaccinated or who don't seroconvert is the decisive argument for compelling vaccination above voluntary levels. So you ask, if you have a vaccine that is 0% effective in controlling transmission or mild disease? In other diseases, the compelling argument is not abrogated by incomplete effectiveness of vaccines, a known issue... in fact, it makes higher rates all the more necessary. The current vaccines, even with Omicron, are significantly better than 0% against transmission and mild illness... but there is no hope for herd immunity. So how do you argue for compelling levels beyond voluntary? As with influenza, and drastically more so than influenza, you must not ignore second and third order effects when thinking through your statements? The effects of inevitably overwhelmed healthcare due to the unvaccinated absolutely substantiates the ethical argument to protect others.
 

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,596
1,197
113
These newer variants are being contracted and transmitted by fully vaccinated people like crazy, so I don't think there's even much of an argument to be made right now that getting getting vaccinated to protect others even works. You get vaccinated so that when (not if) you are exposed to the virus, your illness is mild rather than requiring an ICU admission.
Your latter sentence is the most correct, but doesn't fully capture the rationale: Again, being vaccinated to protect others is now about protecting others by ensuring hospitals are functioning, and also at this point we are literally considering the widespread sick staff issues disrupting the economy and society, so you are literally doing your part for society by having a milder course so the country can run. Maybe less important if you are a circus clown, maybe more important if you are a truck driver.

The first sentence, despite Omicron's partial immune escape against previous immunity from vaccination or previous infection, there are still markedly lower symptomatic rates in the previously vaccinated population. So some infections and thus transmission are prevented... and we have evidence of shorter shedding periods of replication competent virus in those with previous immunity.

We also have some studies suggesting that if you are infected after vaccination (or vice versa) appears to offer better cross-variant immunity for the future.
 
Last edited:

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,596
1,197
113
If you get the vid are you going to get boosted/vaxxed?
It makes sense to get at least one dose of mRNA vaccine some time after your infection if you were not vaccinated prior to infection. It is the same prime-boost model and there is evidence for increase cross variant protection. Further, we have evidence out of South Africa that the reinfection of previous COVID patients by Omicron is about 10x the rate of previous variants. In terms of personal goals, the risk is extremely low and the inconvenience is a day of your choosing feeling crummy vs the risk of an unplanned week of feeling crummy. In terms of societal goals, yea almost everyone who hasn't had infection or vaccine will get sick, many of those who just had vaccine will get it, and some who got boosted will still get it, but the goal right now is to not have everyone get it at the same time so that the hospitals stay staff, businesses stay open, and society functions more smoothly.
 
Last edited:

MackTheKnife

BSN, RN-BC, EMT-P, TCRN, CEN
602
157
43
My guess is that the vast majority of people who get vaccinated do so to protect themselves, not others.

These newer variants are being contracted and transmitted by fully vaccinated people like crazy, so I don't think there's even much of an argument to be made right now that getting getting vaccinated to protect others even works. You get vaccinated so that when (not if) you are exposed to the virus, your illness is mild rather than requiring an ICU admission.
Bravo!
 

MackTheKnife

BSN, RN-BC, EMT-P, TCRN, CEN
602
157
43
I think DesertMedic66 is addressing compliance with public health measures. I don't think he's saying the U.S. is like New Zealand.
I would hope that we are nothing like NZ. And here goes, #Tigger, straight up left-wing liberal society that issues edicts banning guns, issuing mandates, etc. I'm injecting a political response because COVID is totally political.
 

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,596
1,197
113
NZ... What works in terms of disease prevention and control for NZ, a small 1st world population on extremely remote islands with a bit more communitarian attitude of society (than some other western nations, but far more individualist than many East Asian nations) doesn't necessarily work elsewhere. For them, "COVID Zero" made sense when it didn't in other nations... for a while... and let them function within their nation without most of the restrictions the rest of the non-island world imposed. That's because they could drop draconian measures once at COVID zero, except for border controls which are relatively easy to do. When they had an outbreak, they could tamp it down quickly: Being a smaller population bodes well for a more collectivist (thinking of good of your neighbor, your community).

They could until the bug got to wild then no more COVID zero, then it's vaccinate into the endemic.

(NZ would consider me ultra-conservative in my politics and I abhor their government rules on firearms, but I loved the country and folks I met there, I have friends there).
 

E tank

Caution: Paralyzing Agent
1,363
1,156
113
Yea just because you parrot a bunch of total BS doesn't make the false parts true or the true-but-irrelevant parts relevant.

This is the problem with smart people who are experts in their own subfield often have some preconceived concept that predispose them to believe inaccurate things about other fields without proper critical thinking.

The lack of long term is not really true (there is universal knowledge about long term effects of vaccination and no reason to believe this would be different) and given that is not relevant given short and medium term critical realities. You can not even apply a reductio to check your (il)logic: such thinking would prevent the application of vaccine in any pandemic by your reason.

You want to talk about lying by omission as you then omit the fact that there is apparent long term protection, well demonstrated so far, by the vaccines against severe illness, and against previous variants for infection, and some lower level of immunity against symptomatic infection with the new variant.

You have no real excuse to ignorance, real or feigned, to exclude the knowledge of all the previous discussions having been a long participant in this thread. I sincerely doubt you would vehemently espouse such opinions in care conference at hospital with others who you realize are actually knowledgeable in this subject. You should act with the same level of professionalism here despite the lack of face to face and first person familiarity. But I should not be surprised since you actually stated that you believe that vaccine refusers are merely bold objectors to dishonest government.
Weird...getting a toxic vibe...not looking to trade hostile jabs. If it's too intense, just tap out. Its cool.

What is clear to me in this conversation (not just on this forum but everywhere) is that it has been reduced to an ideological one where folks take it personally when they are challenged on an element they consider to be dogma. I'm not saying your god doesn't exist...I am challenging the narrative that covid vaccines and the covid virus are in anyway nearly in the same category as other pathogens and their legitimately mandated vaccines. Studies are coming fast and furious and are almost as valuable in demonstrating bias confirmation error as guiding public health policy.

Just to be clear...do I think adults should be vaccinated? Of course I do. It clearly reduces severity of disease in most people. I think that there are high risk groups and specific occupational exposure risk groups that are looking for trouble if they don't get vaccinated. I, like you, have witnessed their deaths first hand.

Vaccinated people get covid. Boosted vaccinated people get covid. People that get covid, that have been vaccinated get covid again in less than one year. Now a fourth shot is being advocated for some groups. Name another pathogen/vaccine that has that distinction. A vaccination by the commonly accepted definition produces immunity. What do you call a shot that reduces the severity of symptoms?

Do I think it should be mandatory? No. For anyone, much less children. There are well intentioned bureaucrats that, in their earnestness to contain the disease, run their mouths with the rationale that even though what they're saying has no reliable evidence behind it, in an over abundance of caution, it won't hurt people to hear. Should I have insinuated that they're lying? You got me. No. At least not all of them.

But that is an undeniable and demonstrable phenomenon in this epidemic and it only serves to fuel dismissive attitudes once the statements are proven to be inaccurate. Claims about the effectiveness of the vaccine early on are just one example.

I have healthy family members that have not been vaccinated and have not (as far as they know) been infected. Were they to be infected, they are extremely unlikely to require hospitalization let alone ICU admission as they are very fit with zero co-morbidities. They continue to mask and distance when appropriate.

To your charge that I would not express these sentiments in a public forum at my hospital, you're unfortunately absolutely correct about that for the reasons I've stated above. This has become a pseudo-religious conversation and to suggest even in some isolated, extraordinary setting that it might be ok to not question the decision of some folks not to be vaccinated or that their medical insurance should be as good as anyone else's, is to risk being burned at the stake professionally. So, again, you got me. I feel safe here. Sue me.

Peace.

ps...thanks for saying I'm smart (albeit illogical)! 😁
 

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
10,593
1,212
113
Yea just because you parrot a bunch of total BS doesn't make the false parts true or the true-but-irrelevant parts relevant.

This is the problem with smart people who are experts in their own subfield often have some preconceived concept that predispose them to believe inaccurate things about other fields without proper critical thinking.

The lack of long term is not really true (there is universal knowledge about long term effects of vaccination and no reason to believe this would be different) and given that is not relevant given short and medium term critical realities. You can not even apply a reductio to check your (il)logic: such thinking would prevent the application of vaccine in any pandemic by your reason.

You want to talk about lying by omission as you then omit the fact that there is apparent long term protection, well demonstrated so far, by the vaccines against severe illness, and against previous variants for infection, and some lower level of immunity against symptomatic infection with the new variant.

You have no real excuse to ignorance, real or feigned, to exclude the knowledge of all the previous discussions having been a long participant in this thread. I sincerely doubt you would vehemently espouse such opinions in care conference at hospital with others who you realize are actually knowledgeable in this subject. You should act with the same level of professionalism here despite the lack of face to face and first person familiarity. But I should not be surprised since you actually stated that you believe that vaccine refusers are merely bold objectors to dishonest government.
No reason to believe this vaccine would be any different than compared to other vaccines means two things:
1) there is no proof either way yet
2) just because you see no reason to question it does not mean everyone else must see no reason to question it
 
Top