Are you vaccinated against COVID 19?

[ApprihensivSoul]

I'm not excited about it, that's for sure! XD

[silentzorah]

No, and I plan not to.  I have an underlying health condition that prevents me from doing so.  Family history kinda thing.

[Korozive]

Fully Vaccinated, Moderna 2 shots and zero side effects both times. :o)

[Nine Inch Heels]

Fully vaxxed for a pretty long time by now, turns out working for the right kinds of people means you'll be taken care of quite well when it comes to things like this...

 

As for some of the stuff I've been reading here: Unless you have a very damn good reason not to get vaccinated (that being conflicts with other medicines you may need to take, or any other medical complications that may make a vaccination too dangerous), you should drag your ass to the doc and get your shots like the rest of the sane population... "Hmm, well, I just don't know how I feel about the shots just yet" isn't an argument, you'll never know how you feel about it, because you're not an expert on the subject, which is why you should listen to people who know their shit, and the common consensus is: get vaxxed ASAP, if you can...

 

Vaccines have always been one of the safest and least "cash grabby" pharmaceutical products, and the fact that pfizer/BioNtech managed to rush out a vaccine just like moderna and J&J doesn't mean there is a lack of quality or safety... They didn't throw all known standards out the window to make a covid-19 vaccine happen...

 

And I also have to scoff at this idea that the vaccine is not worth taking because somebody has heard of one person who died... If you get to choose between a chance to die that is 1 out of several million versus something between 2 and 3 percent, it would be pretty absurd to go with worse odds when you're given the option, and that's not even accounting for people you may spread the disease to, should you not be vaccinated...

[kinker31]

I'm not vaccinated myself, and I'm a little reluctant to do so.

 

Now, I'd be pretty dumb to think it's a microchip ^{(mostly because the theory's too vague and ignorant about human biology to be anywhere near plausible)}, but I think the vaccines were kinda rushed onto the market for a disease that a lot of people thought was gonna be the Black Death 2, but as far as I know, wasn't. Plus, I have heard of a mix of studies and stories of varying legitimacies about some people catching more side effects than usual when getting the vaccine doses themselves, maybe even far more than what happens with most vaccines developed. I technically do have a few more reasons than that, but to go into detail about them would derail the forum post and most likely piss people off.

 

My findings and observations about this could be faulty, though.

[Skeletonpatch]

8 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

And I also have to scoff at this idea that the vaccine is not worth taking because somebody has heard of one person who died... If you get to choose between a chance to die that is 1 out of several million versus something between 2 and 3 percent, it would be pretty absurd to go with worse odds when you're given the option, and that's not even accounting for people you may spread the disease to, should you not be vaccinated...

 

A lot of people just seem to be bad with math. I've never understood people who see a 2-3% mortality and think that's too low to be worried about. That's 2-3 out of 100 people. It wouldn't be such a problem if it chance of infective transmission was low, but a disease with a 3% mortality that spreads quickly enough to infect 1000000 people will kill 30000. Obviously Covid-19 has spread to a lot more than 1000000 people.

 

So please, if vaccines are available and you have no preexisting medical reasons that would make a Covid-19 vaccine dangerous to you, roll up you're sleeve and take the shot.

[Skeletonpatch]

1 minute ago, kinker31 said:

I'm not vaccinated myself, and I'm a little reluctant to do so.

 

Now, I'd be pretty dumb to think it's a microchip ^{(mostly because the theory's too vague and ignorant about human biology to be anywhere near plausible)}, but I think the vaccines were kinda rushed onto the market for a disease that a lot of people thought was gonna be the Black Death 2, but as far as I know, wasn't. Plus, I have heard of a mix of studies and stories of varying legitimacies about some people catching more side effects than usual when getting the vaccine doses themselves, maybe even far more than what happens with most vaccines developed. I technically do have a few more reasons than that, but to go into detail about them would derail the forum post and most likely piss people off.

 

My findings and observations about this could be faulty, though.

 

If you are questioning the validity of these findings and observations, why are you letting them prevent you from getting the vaccine? Why not look at proper sources to verify whether or not those questionable ones are reliable? Most governments have a heavy investment in keeping as much of their population alive as possible, so most government sources on vaccines can be expected to contain reliable information.

[RDETalus]

6 minutes ago, Skeletonpatch said:

 

I've never understood people who see a 2-3% mortality and think that's too low to be worried about.

2-3% isn't the mortality rate, that would be pretty insane.

 

4 minutes ago, kinker31 said:

I'd be pretty dumb to think it's a microchip

The whole microchip thing was a misunderstanding of Bill Gate's idea to give vaccinated people microscopic infrared fluorescent tattoos that when scanned and compared to a medical database, would tell you what vaccine you got and when you were vaccinated. I don't like that idea regardless, I don't want QR codes printed on my body

[SlayerOGames666]

Don't have it, but want it immensely. Australia's not rolling out this stuff to more people, and I'm pissed off about that LMAO

[Nine Inch Heels]

2 minutes ago, Skeletonpatch said:

A lot of people just seem to be bad with math

It's not just being bad at maths, it's also being bad at "doing the responsible thing in a society where somebody's tomfoolery can cost somebody else their health or even their life"...

 

I am supportive of people who went to their doc, got themselves checked, and came back with a bill of health which states that taking the vaccine is too much of a risk to be worth it... Not only did they do what they could, it's even more of a reason for everybody else to get a shot, so that the people who are at risk from just the vaccination alone are at risk just a bit less...

 

Nobody would ever ask anybody to put their lives at risk, but if the choices you're given are:

"being mildly inconvenienced for a few days in exchange for being less likely to contract and spread the virus"
or
"taking the easy way out while putting other people in harm's way even to the point where their lives may be at risk just because they're near you"

What even is there to actually think about..? If you're scared of needles take your mommy along, so you have a shoulder to cry on...

[Skeletonpatch]

6 minutes ago, RDETalus said:

2-3% isn't the mortality rate, that would be pretty insane.

 

I was mostly using that as an example, probably should have clarified that. I don't know what the actual percentage is but I feel the point still stands.

 

6 minutes ago, RDETalus said:

The whole microchip thing was a misunderstanding of Bill Gate's idea to give vaccinated people microscopic infrared fluorescent tattoos that when scanned and compared to a medical database, would tell you what vaccine you got and when you were vaccinated. I don't like that idea regardless, I don't want QR codes printed on my body

 

I did not know that, I assumed the microchip thing was some sort of misunderstanding of a thing that Bill Gates said but I didn't know what. I do agree, I would not want tiny QR codes on my skin. Assuming your country keeps good medical records that sort of thing shouldn't be needed anyway.

[RDETalus]

6 minutes ago, Skeletonpatch said:

I don't know what the actual percentage is but I feel the point still stands.

It's probably ten times less than the 2% CFR (case fatality rate) you commonly see reported in the news, so around 0.2%. NYC had found that for every single known COVID case, there were likely 10 unknown COVID cases.

Regardless, COVID would still be a 100 times higher mortality rate than the vaccine adjacent deaths

[Nine Inch Heels]

11 minutes ago, RDETalus said:

2-3% isn't the mortality rate, that would be pretty insane

It's the case mortality rate in quite a few countries.... obviously the virus doesn't just wipe 2-3% of the world's population, but even when I look at deaths per X population (regardless of infected or not, just "raw population") that's still worse than "1 in however many million"...

[kinker31]

5 minutes ago, Skeletonpatch said:

If you are questioning the validity of these findings and observations, why are you letting them prevent you from getting the vaccine? Why not look at proper sources to verify whether or not those questionable ones are reliable? Most governments have a heavy investment in keeping as much of their population alive as possible, so most government sources on vaccines can be expected to contain reliable information.

Now, I'm no expert on virus biology and statistician stuff, so don't take what I say entirely at face value, but my reasoning lies in that I don't think COVID was really enough of a threat at any point to warrant the stuff that happened in 2020 and an ASAP-priority-level development on a vaccine. It most likely was an actual threat at some point, but I think the great panic that happened in 2020 caused the vaccines in question to take a bit of a dip in quality, thus being more unreliable than most other vaccines. It is hard to do your job properly when it feels like that any next day could be your last, after all, no matter if it actually was or wasn't.

 

As for proper government sources, while I don't think they'd outright lie to their populace that much to make up data wholecloth, I do think that some of the figures that cropped up during 2020 had more than a few half-truths, "better safe than sorry"s, and "I'd rather not take my chance with a disease I was told would wipe out a whole chunk of the world"s^{(, though to be honest I'm not exactly sure where or how they came to be, so I wouldn't be very useful telling you anything specific)}. I wouldn't mind taking a look at a few actual governmental sources that contain just the stats 'n stuff... if I knew where to look.

[Nine Inch Heels]

3 minutes ago, kinker31 said:

the great panic that happened in 2020 caused the vaccines in question to take a bit of a dip in quality, thus being more unreliable than most other vaccines.

Efficacy of pfizer's covid-19 vaccine after the second shot is estimated to be well over 90%, that's not just good, it is an excellent efficacy, since not even some vaccines we've seen in use for well over decade manage to accomplish that... Anybody who tells you it is any less than good doesn't know what they're talking about...

[kinker31]

21 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Efficacy of pfizer's covid-19 vaccine after the second shot is estimated to be well over 90%, that's not just good, it is an excellent efficacy, since not even some vaccines we've seen in use for well over decade manage to accomplish that... Anybody who tells you it is any less than good doesn't know what they're talking about...

I'm sure it's a good estimate, but it's still an estimate, and that's after second shot, and I haven't had any shots yet. Plus, although I could be wrong about this, if the first/second shot's estimated to be somewhere around 80% to 60%, then the vaccine's total efficacy estimate's lying somewhere in the 57% to 32% range. Even if the other two's shots were estimated to have an exellect efficacy rate of 90%, that still leaves a 72% estimate total.

EDIT: Keep in mind, I'm not trying to say that I'd never get the vaccine, I'd just rather wait until the 3+ shots are consolidated down to one with an efficacy rate of about 75-80% and if there's good proof that side effects are minimal at worst.

Edited July 1, 2021 by kinker31
Clarification

[leodoom85]

17 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Efficacy of pfizer's covid-19 vaccine after the second shot is estimated to be well over 90%

Definitely better than like....zero percent or ten. I'd take that 90% gladly.

[Skeletonpatch]

1 minute ago, kinker31 said:

I'm sure it's a good estimate, but it's still an estimate, and that's after second shot, and I haven't had any shots yet. Plus, although I could be wrong about this, if the first/second shot's estimated to be somewhere around 80% to 60%, then the vaccine's total efficacy estimate's lying somewhere in the 57% to 32% range. Even if the other two's shots were estimated to have an exellect efficacy rate of 90%, that still leaves a 72% estimate total.

 

Dude, what is this logic? I'd still be getting the vaccine if it was only proven to be 20% effective after the second dose. Any boost in my immune response is worth it if it means I'm less likely to get it and spread it to others. All of the estimates are well above 50%, which should not warrant this amount of mental gymnastics to justify your hesitance.

 

I suspect you have another reason to be hesitant, which you either aren't admitting to yourself or you simply aren't comfortable with disclosing. I am not that concerned about it since it's your business, but whatever the case maybe don't announce that you are hesitant to get it and then fail to provide sound reasons in a thread where most participants are likely going to try convincing you to get vaccinated.

[Nine Inch Heels]

30 minutes ago, kinker31 said:

I'm sure it's a good estimate, but it's still an estimate, and that's after second shot, and I haven't had any shots yet. Plus, although I could be wrong about this, if the first/second shot's estimated to be somewhere around 80% to 60%, then the vaccine's total efficacy estimate's lying somewhere in the 57% to 32% range. Even if the other two's shots were estimated to have an exellect efficacy rate of 90%, that still leaves a 72% estimate total.

Nothing you said here so far makes any sense whatsoever, you say you are no expert, but somehow you think that getting to look at government sources would give you any clarity about anything, even though you already fail at the most basic levels of logic... Many vaccines require more than a single shot for their full efficacy, that's nothing new, so of course the numbers after the second shot are what matters... and when the CDC eyeballs the efficacy of pfizer's covid-19 vaccine, it's as close to a government source as you could possibly hope to get...

 

According to the CDC, pfizer's second shot, which everybody who gets pfizer's stuff is meant to have anyway it's at around 95% efficacy, that is pretty damn close to a 3-shot tetanus vaccination that makes you virtually immune... It is ridiculous to come around with some mental gymnastics numbers such as 57% or 32%, which only ever apply to people who would fail/refuse to get the second shot in a timely manner...

 

If you get 2 pfizer shots within the time frame that is medically ideal, you can expect no less than something above 90% efficacy, unless the vaccine has been compromised during transportation, for example due to "thermovolatility"...

 

I'm sure we can keep going back and forth here until kingdom come, but one thing I wanna know is where your "I'm no expert, but I guess 32% - 57% efficacy is what happens, even though all known statistics say otherwise" comes from... A lot of this smells like anti-vaxx BS to me, if I'm being perfectly honest...

Edited July 1, 2021 by Nine Inch Heels

[Murdoch]

37 minutes ago, kinker31 said:

but my reasoning lies in that I don't think COVID was really enough of a threat at any point to warrant the stuff that happened in 2020 and an ASAP-priority-level development on a vaccine.

 

The reason why it turned out "relatively" OK is because medical professionals worked their asses off. Many countries hospital systems were completely overloaded. Had we not gone into lockdown here in New Zealand, for example, our medical system would almost certainly have collapsed completely. Also the flow on effect of deaths caused by prioritsing Covid patients would have been significant too. Also, with 604K deaths in the US and 398K in India to name but two examples where their efforts were less than ideal at containment then I shudder to think what you would classify as being "enough of a threat".

 

The Black Death was what it was cause medicine was still very much in it's infancy and really had no clue what to do. So it's not really valid to compare death tolls from both pandemics.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Murdoch

[INfront95]

I have my appointment on 17th to get vaccine, even thou that i still have antibodies after covid.

But i dont want to get sick again, i still have side effects.

Thats enough motivation for me to get a shot.

I want go get Sputnik V but people say that it ran out in our city , so we probably will get 'EpiVakKorona'

[Skeletonpatch]

6 minutes ago, Murdoch said:

The Black Death was what it was cause medicine was still very much in it's infancy and really had no clue what to do. So it's not really valid to compare death tolls from both pandemics.

 

Even the Black Death had lockdowns and quarantines, once people actually knew what was going on. I can guarantee that if some monk somewhere developed a vaccine for the Black Death people would have lined up to take it.

[Murdoch]

Just now, Skeletonpatch said:

 

Even the Black Death had lockdowns and quarantines, once people actually knew what was going on. I can guarantee that if some monk somewhere developed a vaccine for the Black Death people would have lined up to take it.

 

Yes definitely on both points.

[kinker31]

15 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

I'm sure we can keep going back and forth here until kingdom come, but one thing I wanna know is where your "I'm no expert, but I guess 32% - 57% efficacy is what happens, even though all known statistics say otherwise" comes from... A lot of this smells like anti-vaxx BS to me, if I'm being perfectly honest...

I put those in as theoretical figures/guesses and calculated them as I would an independent trial, I didn't know that was what the statistics said until you told me. Had you told me as well that the first two were actually in the 95% earlier, maybe we could've avoided this whole argument entirely. Admittedly, I haven't had much vaccines myself, having had the flu myself in my early life, never really having to go in for any flu vaccine for most of my life because of it, but I was still trying to use some form of logic here, so that "failed every basic form of logic" comment was... a little uncalled for? I won't pursue this argument any further, but I don't think you went about trying to prove your point in a good way.

[Skeletonpatch]

2 minutes ago, kinker31 said:

I put those in as theoretical figures/guesses and calculated them as I would an independent trial, I didn't know that was what the statistics said until you told me. Had you told me as well that the first two were actually in the 95% earlier, maybe we could've avoided this whole argument entirely. Admittedly, I haven't had much vaccines myself, having had the flu myself in my early life, never really having to go in for any flu vaccine for most of my life because of it, but I was still trying to use some form of logic here, so that "failed every basic form of logic" comment was... a little uncalled for? I won't pursue this argument any further, but I don't think you went about trying to prove your point in a good way.

 

So, you were arguing about statistics you didn't even understand the meaning of? I will agree that saying you "failed every basic form of logic" was a little uncalled for, but with what you've just admitted I wouldn't say it was entirely uncalled for. That doesn't change the fact that your arguments made little sense even removing that cognitive error.

[Nine Inch Heels]

2 minutes ago, kinker31 said:

I didn't know that was what the statistics said until you told me.

Now that's just ridiculous, where do you think would I have those numbers from, and why didn't you even bother doing the easy thing, which is to fire up google, and putting "pfizer vaccine efficacy" into the search bar instead of doing trials with imaginary numbers which are lacking context..? Did you really think questioning a vaccine's efficacy without ever having looked at the actual numbers wasn't going to raise eyebrows when you calculate a +90% efficacy vaccine down to 32%..? What did you think was gonna happen, really..?

[kinker31]

3 minutes ago, Skeletonpatch said:

So, you were arguing about statistics you didn't even understand the meaning of? I will agree that saying you "failed every basic form of logic" was a little uncalled for, but with what you've just admitted I wouldn't say it was entirely uncalled for. That doesn't change the fact that your arguments made little sense even removing that cognitive error.

In my (probably somewhat poor) defense, I wasn't even initially trying to argue about statistics, I just gave my reasons for my reluctance and only tried arguing because it was brought to me. Had I been told "Hey, the stories you heard aren't entirely true anymore, one of the manufacturers actually has a pretty good efficacy rate through all shots, so you don't to need to worry much about that anymore" to begin with, I wouldn't have had to do all that.

 

As I've said earlier, I'm not interested pursuing this argument any further, so this will be the last post I make on this specific topic thread. I wish you, and Nine Inch Heels a great day/night, which hopefully extends to the rest of your week, if not longer than that.

[Asphalt]

16 hours ago, NoXion said:

 

They work now. They might stop working if the virus evolves resistance. Which it is more likely to do the more people it infects.



 

Uhm... I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure "vaccine resistance" is actually a thing. We are not talking antibiotics, it's something different. Vaccines work by making YOUR immune system more resilient to the infection, so the virus will have lesser effects on your organism, but you can still be infected and virus will replicate inside your cells as if you were not vaccinated at all. It's just that the reaction will be stronger and you'll heal quicker.

 

One thing that can happen, and most virologists are worried about, is the emerging of newer strains that are significantly different from the original Covid-19, so they can develop different symptoms and making the current vaccines ineffective, because your immune system would still be unprepared to them. This will eventually happen if too many people refuse to get their shots, which I hope is not the case, because I've had enough of this situation, like everybody else I think. :-(

 

Anyways, I'm from Italy and got my first shot a couple weeks ago. I'll have the second one mid-July. Moderna. No side effects.

[printz]

Got fully vaccinated 15 May with Moderna. My parents and sister as well, from even longer ago, with Pfizer. But they're still not trusting that the vaccine will really protect them from the new strands, which means I'm getting a bit nervous visiting them in the weekends, and as such I'm taught to continue wearing masks when going shopping (which is still mandatory indoors anyway), avoiding public transport and avoiding touching my face, despite cases being at an all time low. The whole country has top quality vaccines in abundance for everyone, but got slumped at about 25% fully vaccinated. Cities are a bit better, like 45%. I totally expect my mom to give me desperate phone calls to go away from my place (where I have to take the elevator 30 seconds, or unventilated stairs) back to my parent's countryside home, when delta cases start surging.

 

I'm practically trying to resume my normal life, but not everything feels right yet...

[Redneckerz]

I think a small explanation of what each vaccine does may help:

• Pfizer/Moderna: MRNA vaccine. Essentially this is a blueprint/signature/description of how the Covid virus acts and behaves. Your immune system gets told about this, which leads to the creation of memory cells: cells that will store this signature. You usually get minor by-effects from the second shot, because you feed the same signature twice. Because your immune system is aware of how it looks like, it will trigger a response.
• Astrazeneca/Johnson&Johnson/Sputnik: Viral vector vaccines. Unlike MRNA, these use a modified virus adhesive designed to mimic the workings of Covid. Because the immune system considers this as unknown, it triggers a response. As a result it carries slightly more risk (but less than say the flu), is less effective, but can be intermixed with MRNA vaccines.
• Novovax: Subunit vaccine. Currently in testing, Novovax takes a engineered virus with a modified SARS-COV2 spike protein, rendered harmless. Because this is essentialized a neutralized variant of the agent causing Covid, it is thusfar reporting good effiency, over 90% in two doses.