I think there's a difference between:
(a) I WILL WAIT because I don't trust it yet, and
(b) I WILL WAIT because I want to let the more at-risk people to have access it to first
That seems to be lost in the poll
(a) I WILL WAIT because I don't trust it yet, and
(b) I WILL WAIT because I want to let the more at-risk people to have access it to first
That seems to be lost in the poll
(d) telling myself that (c) is how I feel is how I assuage my feelings of disappointment at being old enough decision makers believe I'm likely to behave responsibly, but young enough + no apparent extra risk factors enough that I'm likely to be near last to get access.
Edit: I feel like some people didn’t notice the mink culling in Denmark which was caused by fears that version of the virus would make the vaccines useless.
I'm not telling anyone else to get it, I'm just stating I am going to wait and see if the problem is actually solved before acting like it.
I haven't seen anything about the current vaccines not being effective to what is already out there. If that is true then what you are saying is wrong, because the fact that the vaccines can treat what is now filling up hospitals and killing thousands per day means they are the opposite of useless and in fact one of the most valuable things in existence right now.
Even the regular flu shot was recommended as being more important this year so that there would be less spread and less to deal with.
> I'm just stating I am going to wait and see if the problem is actually solved before acting like it.
No, that isn't what you said. That might be what you are trying to claim now that you said something ridiculous.
Yea... That's what the experts are saying, you know the scientists. Are we not to believe them now? And the experts have said if it mutates alot that a vaccine could only ve good againist a certain amount for a certain amount of time. You see a vaccine could work againist strain 1-8 but then stop working on strain 9+.
> I haven't seen anything about the current vaccines not being effective to what is already out there. If that is true then what you are saying is wrong, because the fact that the vaccines can treat what is now filling up hospitals and killing thousands per day means they are the opposite of useless and in fact one of the most valuable things in existence right now.
Overall, this paragraph is moot because you failed to understand my original point, which I'll explain further down when responding to another line. But the fact you haven't heard anything about how a brand new vaccine just being rolled out this week. And I believe there were thoughts it wouldn't work againist the mink strain that Denmark had to cull it's entire mink population to stop.
> Even the regular flu shot was recommended as being more important this year so that there would be less spread and less to deal with.
Who said that? Last I read, they were expecting the flu to be pretty much non exsistant this year due to all the measures to stop corona stopping the flu. They seen this in the south and expect it to be true for the north.
> No, that isn't what you said. That might be what you are trying to claim now that you said something ridiculous.
Ok... I said something ridiculous? I repeated something the experts said. The flu vaccine is needed to be done every year, why? Because the virus mutates so much that it's only good for one year and then useless.
My original comment was merely there was another option. It didn't advocate for anything, didn't state any opinion, etc. You seemed to misunderstand a rather simple thing and on a massive scale.
You seem uninformed on this matter. The experts have been saying for a while, even if we get a vaccine (which we have) it may not to stop it as it may only work for a short period of time. And the fact they won't be able to vaccinate everyone in a timely fashion due to production limits, means corona could be around for decades.
And if you're going to carry on saying I said something come back with the quotes or please keep your thoughts to yourself.
> Assumption: it is available to everyone at the same time
This reads like "everyone who wants it will get it"
I WILL WAIT because I have severe allergies and people say not to take it...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25358753 UK has warned people with allergies not to take the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine.
Is it no because you don’t need it because you already had the virus? Is it no because you’re allergic to vaccines? Is it no because the virus is a hoax?
> There is not enough information currently available to say if or for how long after infection someone is protected from getting COVID-19 again; this is called natural immunity. Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this. Until we have a vaccine available and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices makes recommendations to CDC on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines, CDC cannot comment on whether people who had COVID-19 should get a COVID-19 vaccine. [1]
Suffice it to say, I'll do whatever the CDC recommends. I've already had COVID, so I'm guessing I'll go last. But at the same time, I'll get the vaccine if it is recommended.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html
If infection with the actual virus doesn't confer immunity, I don't see much reason to think that the vaccine will work any better.
Has there been medical advice anywhere that people who've had COVID don't need to get vaccinated?