Covid-19 vaccines: excitement or fear?

In summary: I heard from a reliable friend of mine. But I will be glad if it's not mandatory.I heard from a reliable friend of mine. But I will be glad if it's not mandatory.
  • #106
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
  • Sad
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK and Motore
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo, pinball1970 and Motore
  • #108
Mayhem said:
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.

Mayhem said:
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.

Mayhem said:
new findings associated with vaccines are reported regularly.

Yes, at the 10-6 to 10-7 level.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo and Choppy
  • #109
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
  • #110
Mayhem said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Evo, BillTre and russ_watters
  • #111
Mayhem said:
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?
 
  • Like
Likes Evo, BillTre, russ_watters and 1 other person
  • #112
Vanadium 50 said:
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).
 
  • #113
Mayhem said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo and pinball1970
  • #114
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #115
Mayhem said:
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?
 
  • #116
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #117
Mayhem said:
No, the majority of my hours are still spent alone.
So that eliminates option 2 and means you are being openly dishonest. Why?
 
  • #118
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #119
Mayhem said:
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?
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #120
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #121
Mayhem said:
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.
 
  • #122
Mayhem said:
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.
 
  • Like
  • Skeptical
Likes Vanadium 50, Mayhem, Evo and 1 other person
  • #123
Mayhem said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and russ_watters
  • #124
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
  • #125
Mayhem said:
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.
 
  • #126
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.
 
  • #127
pinball1970 said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
859
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
932
  • Biology and Medical
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top