Covid-19 vaccines: excitement or fear?

[Mayhem]

I'm sorry, but that's just a cop-out. It's equivalent to the statement "because we don't know everything we don't know anything."

If you want to be taken seriously on a science forum, you will have to be much more specific. For example, the following statements can be discussed in a less woolly way than your statement:

• I don't believe Covid-19 exists.
• I don't believe that the vaccines provide any protection.
• I believe that the risk of side effects is larger than being reported, and here is my evidence.
• I believe I am in such a low-risk category it's not worth my time or trouble.

I definitely believe it exists. I also think it has been blown out of proportion by the media. That doesn't mean it isn't serious. It just means that we are not viewing it particularly objectively.

I think the vaccines continue to be poorly understood and our desire to end this mess is clouding our judgement.

I believe that the side effects are not properly understood as new findings associated with vaccines are reported regularly.

Yes. I also spend most of my time alone and I am tested regularly and so far all tests have been negative. If I get sick with anything, I stay home like a normal person and I only go out for essentials unless someone else can provide for me.

 

[George Jones]

I have a vaccination appointment on Thursday with my provincial health authority. I do not know what will be offered, but I will accept whatever is offered. My wife, who is younger than me, also has registered with the provicial health authority, but no appointment has been booked. I suspect this is two to three weeks away. She has also registered with local pharmacies for AstraZeneca, but supplies have run out in my small, isolated city. She will accept whatever offer happens the quickest.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I definitely believe it exists. I also think it has been blown out of proportion by the media.

It has. So what? You can choose to view it objectively.

I think the vaccines continue to be poorly understood

Again, you're going to have to be more specific if you want a serious discussion on a science forum.

Is it how effective they are? We know that: it varies between a factor of 5 and 20, depending on the exact vaccine.

Is it short term side effects? We know that too. Tens of percent of the population gets tired, achy or has a light fever or chills. Serious side effects? About four cases per million for the "worst" vaccine. If you are female If you are male, the effects are too small to see.

Is it long term side effects? How do you know that in a decade the vaccine won't cause your skin to turn purple and your nether regions to shrivel? You don't. By the same token, how do you know the same thing won't happen if you get infected? You don't. We will never have perfect knowledge.

new findings associated with vaccines are reported regularly.

Yes, at the 10^-6 to 10^-7 level.

 

[Mayhem]

It has. So what? You can choose to view it objectively.Again, you're going to have to be more specific if you want a serious discussion on a science forum.

Is it how effective they are? We know that: it varies between a factor of 5 and 20, depending on the exact vaccine.

Is it short term side effects? We know that too. Tens of percent of the population gets tired, achy or has a light fever or chills. Serious side effects? About four cases per million for the "worst" vaccine. If you are female If you are male, the effects are too small to see.

Is it long term side effects? How do you know that in a decade the vaccine won't cause your skin to turn purple and your nether regions to shrivel? You don't. By the same token, how do you know the same thing won't happen if you get infected? You don't. We will never have perfect knowledge.
Yes, at the 10^-6 to 10^-7 level.

What do you define as serious side effects? I know people personally who were bedridden for weeks after taking the vaccine and then were fine afterwards. I'd say that's a serious side effect.

 

[pinball1970]

What do you define as serious side effects? I know people personally who were bedridden for weeks after taking the vaccine and then were fine afterwards. I'd say that's a serious side effect.

Did they end up in ICU?
Anecdotal evidence only gets you so far in terms of decision making. There are studies involving large numbers regarding the vaccines, Lancet, BMJ and others here is one on side effects.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n363
One from the Lancet

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltextDid you look at the other paper?

 

[Vanadium 50]

What do you define as serious side effects?

I would define it as "requiring hospitalization". That draws the line in arguably about the right place, and has the advantage that it is more likely to have statistics tracked than other definitions. I would also say that anyone who is bedridden for multiple weeks should see a doctor, and if the doctor decided a hospital is not appropriate we have a professional judgment as to severity. (By the way, you say you know multiple people who were bedridden for multiple weeks. How many people? How many weeks?)

But let's turn it around - at what threshold for hospitalization do you draw the line? 50%? 10%? 1%? 10^-3? 10^-4?10^-10? In your opinion, how safe does it need to be?

 

[Mayhem]

I would define it as "requiring hospitalization". That draws the line in arguably about the right place, and has the advantage that it is more likely to have statistics tracked than other definitions. I would also say that anyone who is bedridden for multiple weeks should see a doctor, and if the doctor decided a hospital is not appropriate we have a professional judgment as to severity. (By the way, you say you know multiple people who were bedridden for multiple weeks. How many people? How many weeks?)

But let's turn it around - at what threshold for hospitalization do you draw the line? 50%? 10%? 1%? 10^-3? 10^-4?10^-10? In your opinion, how safe does it need to be?

You're right. I guess it's pretty arbitrary where we draw the line. I suppose the logical place to draw it is where the vaccines are not more dangerous than the virus (which it doesn't seem to be on AVERAGE).

 

[russ_watters]

I'm probably not getting the vaccine...I'm in an age group and demographic that has 0% chance of getting seriously ill from this disease...

[separate post] ...blown out of proportion by the media.

The claim of 0% chance of getting seriously ill is false and a person who has viewed enough media over the past 14 months to conclude the pandemic is overblown has to know it's false. One of the more significant storylines that was played-up by the media is spotlighting that young, seemingly healthy people can die from COVID. So now we have to dig into why you would say this. I see three possibilities:

1. You're so eyes-open anti-vax that you are willing to lie to promote the beliefs (still begs a why? question though).
2. You're so eyes-closed anti-vax that you are incapable of processing and storing facts that don't support your beliefs.
3. You're just messing with us and don't believe these things you are saying.

The first type can't be helped. The second, maybe, by jamming reality down their throat until they have no choice but to swallow it. But in either case, nothing that you say can be taken at face value because anything could be a lie or misunderstanding of reality. Take this for example:

I know people personally who were bedridden for weeks after taking the vaccine and then were fine afterwards. I'd say that's a serious side effect.

If such a side effect existed, it would have been recorded in the clinical trials. More likely - if you aren't just plain making it up - you know people who received a dose of the vaccine but got sick with COVID before it took hold and your brain has twisted that into the vaccine causing COVID. Just in case it needs to be said: the vaccine isn't effective instantly and isn't 100% effective in preventing people from getting COVID.

... I also spend most of my time alone and I am tested regularly...

Why would someone who spends most of their time alone be tested regularly? That makes no sense and raises further questions about whether you are being forthcoming with us or are just messing with us.

 

[Mayhem]

Why would someone who spends most of their time alone be tested regularly? That makes no sense and raises further questions about whether you are being forthcoming with us or are just messing with us.

I'm doing some lab assistant work for a research group so I have to get tested.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm doing some lab assistant work for a research group so I have to get tested.

So...you were lying/purposely misleading when you said you spend most of your time alone?

 

[Mayhem]

So...you were lying/purposely misleading when you said you spend most of your time alone?

No, the majority of my hours are still spent alone.

 

[russ_watters]

No, the majority of my hours are still spent alone.

So that eliminates option 2 and means you are being openly dishonest. Why?

 

[Mayhem]

So that eliminates option 2 and means you are being openly dishonest. Why?

I'm not being dishonest. You misconstrued what I said. Most of my time does not mean all of my time.

 

[russ_watters]

No, the majority of my hours are still spent alone.

Honesty is an affirmative duty to the truth. There are no loopholes where you can say something purposely misleading and still consider it honesty. If nobody taught you this before, now you know.

You are saying things that are purposely misleading and that is dishonest. So my question is why are you doing this?

 

[Mayhem]

Honesty is an affirmative duty to the truth. There are no loopholes where you can say something purposely misleading and still consider it honesty. If nobody taught you this before, now you know.

You are saying things that are purposely misleading and that is dishonest. So my question is why are you doing this?

Nothing I said was purposely misleading. If you were misled by it, that's on you. Anyway I'll stop it here because you're just making dang up now.

 

[russ_watters]

You're right. I guess it's pretty arbitrary where we draw the line. I suppose the logical place to draw it is where the vaccines are not more dangerous than the virus (which it doesn't seem to be on AVERAGE).

It's much better than that, and you do know that, right? I just want to make sure this isn't just another of your honesty loopholes.

 

[russ_watters]

Nothing I said was purposely misleading. If you were misled by it, that's on you. Anyway I'll stop it here because you're just making dang up now.

Nobody could have payed attention during the pandemic and believe that what you do constitutes low risk behavior. It's not the 'spending most of my time alone' that makes it low risk, it's 'I spend 8hrs a day in a lab with other people' that makes it high risk. You HAVE to know that. So deflecting could only be intentionally misleading.

 

[Vanadium 50]

No, the majority of my hours are still spent alone.

I realize that others have responded to this, but still...what the...?

I have a friend who spends 128 hours a week alone. The other 40 she spends working as a customer service rep. At the airport. In the international terminal.

This is low risk? Because the majority of her hours are alone? I don't think so. And I think you don't really think so either.

 

[Mayhem]

I realize that others have responded to this, but still...what the...?

I have a friend who spends 128 hours a week alone. The other 40 she spends working as a customer service rep. At the airport. In the international terminal.

This is low risk? Because the majority of her hours are alone? I don't think so. And I think you don't really think so either.

I work in an organic chemistry lab where we:

* All get tested frequently
* Wear visors or masks
* Wear gloves 95% of the time and change them regularly.
* Work in an extremely well ventilated area
* Wash hands all the time thoroughly.
* 95% of our time is also spent looking directly into a fume hood and we work with chemicals that could kill you, me, your dog, and most definitely corona virus.

And I'm not even in 8 hours a day lol. Most weeks I'm only in a few days a week and as such my tests are also completely fresh, meaning I literally tested negative on the day.

My behavior with regards to COVID-19 is extremely low risk.

 

[pinball1970]

I work in an organic chemistry lab where we:

* All get tested frequently
* Wear visors or masks
* Wear gloves 95% of the time and change them regularly.
* Work in an extremely well ventilated area
* Wash hands all the time thoroughly.
* 95% of our time is also spent looking directly into a fume hood and we work with chemicals that could kill you, me, your dog, and most definitely corona virus.

And I'm not even in 8 hours a day lol. Most weeks I'm only in a few days a week and as such my tests are also completely fresh, meaning I literally tested negative on the day.

My behavior with regards to COVID-19 is extremely low risk.

All sounds good, a vaccine would reduce your risk considerably further.
On the age/risk question this was on another thread.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/kansas-ci...italizations-rise-135-young/story?id=77436780
Perhaps all the older people are vaccinated now or perhaps something else.

 

[russ_watters]

User Mayhem will not be contributing further to this thread and I've deleted the last post in order to avoid responses to it. Thanks.

 

[Vanadium 50]

All sounds good

Not to me:

* All get tested frequently --> good, but testing doesn't prevent contraction
* Wear visors or masks --> sometimes don't wear masks
* Wear gloves 95% of the time and change them regularly --> sometimes don't wear gloves
* Work in an extremely well ventilated area --> is it? Or is the HVAC blowing a lot of air from person to person
* Wash hands all the time thoroughly --> good
* 95% of our time is also spent looking directly into a fume hood and we work with chemicals that could kill you, me, your dog, and most definitely corona virus. --> not really relevant how nasty the chemicals are if a co-worker comes in infected.

To me, this looks like average risk. Maybe a little bit better than an office, maybe a little worse.

My estimate is Mayhem's risk is a few times 10^-5. That's about the risk of a severe allergic reaction to a vaccine ingredient. Which is why they ask you if you are allergic to any of them. And of course, this isn't Covid-specific. His next tetanus booster would have the same risk.