I'm really interested in the people who are saying 'no.'
What principle?
- They think it will be bad for their health or public health
- They think it is some UN microchip plot
- They have a moral objection to how it was developed
- They think it is the actual “mark of the beast” from the Bible
The people who decline will be in the minority (at least visibly), and they will be bullied relentlessly by the visible majority, so to protect our rights I have to stand with them.
If you don't want to take it for any reason whatsoever, fair enough. It's your right. But at least be honest and defend your choice on its own instead of hiding behind some "principle" that doesn't really exist.
In a different circumstance, I would probably only get it for convenience, because I don’t really believe in messing with peoples’ immune systems without a much clearer benefit. I’m not convinced about the long-term public health benefit of flu shots either. You may disagree, which would not surprise me.
But again, that thinking is irrelevant in this case, because exercising liberty is FAR more important than “staying safe”.
The point I'm trying to understand is that you are basically saying "I am not getting because I don't want to and it is within my rights to not take it", which is totally fine. But I am failing to see how this is a "principled" statement. It's like saying "I will smoke a pack of cigarettes in my bathtub because I am free to do so". Claiming any "principle" stand there is based at best in circular logic.
Like it or not, this is a political issue, and your choice has a political effect.
So no, I won’t take it until I see how it plays out in society. And if I am persuaded by the evidence, I might take it. I’ve taken only 1 flu shot. As someone in mid-20s, I have low risk and honestly would prefer getting the flu to injecting myself with a vaccine. So I’ve elected to stop getting flu shots and take the risk. For now, I think 18 hours of suffering isn’t that bad. When I’m over the age of 40, or over 60, or at whatever age I decide, then maybe I’ll reconsider if I prefer to get sick or take a vaccine that may or may not work, given the multitude of strains of the flu.
For now, I wash my hands, wash my food, keep shoes outside, and stay home if I’m sick. Responsible self-quarantining and healthy diet are my strategies to avoid contracting or spreading sickness.
This is a very selfish take. Unless you're living your life without any human interaction, then you're contributing to the spread of the flu and soon to be covid which impacts people who are at risk.
Are these the people downvoting me?
- It's too new - not Lindy.
- I am reasonably convinced that I had it back in February, when people were not talking about it. It was very different from every year that I got the 'flu and I experienced anosmia, which never happened before. I still take all the precautions possible, but for all intents and purposes, I consider myself already immunized.
- I'm already working from home, my social life is the one of a parent of two small kids - i.e, almost non-existent, occasionally meeting small groups of either family or close friends. My parents are on the other side of the ocean and aside from them I haven't much interaction with people that could be at-risk.
- If herd immunity is achieved with ~60-70% vaccination, why take the risk when the social butterflies and those with key activities (health care workers, teachers, people working in retail) will likely be rushed to take it?
(Okay, I try to avoid complaining about downvotes, but downvoting a comment from someone that is just providing personal opinion? You can do better than that, HN...)