• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Would you vaccinate?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1,250 79.7%
  • No

    Votes: 319 20.3%

  • Total voters
    1,569

ninnanuam

Member
Nov 24, 2017
1,956
I voted no. I live in a place with no community transmission.

I am not in immediate danger and I can wait to see how effective all the prospective vaccines will be and weigh up any potential negatives.

Also others in harder hot areas need it more than I do.
 

Couleurs

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,350
Denver, CO
If Dr. Fauci and other respected scientists/doctors think it's safe and effective, without question

edit - this is also assuming the people who are at higher risk have access as well, since it should go to those with greater need first
 
Last edited:

ScatheZombie

Member
Oct 26, 2017
398
Not surprised by that vote. A lot more "vaccine hesitancy"/anti vax on era than people might think. Despite 2 high profile clinically trialled highly effective vaccines, 1 in 5 here wouldn't take it 🤦‍♂️

The irony of this type of dismissiveness is that you don't know what you are talking about either.

My wife is immunocompromised, and specifically in a way that makes her one of the most vulnerable to potential deadly complications with COVID. We've been in basically complete lockdown at our house for months. And we'd likely be first in line for any type of vaccine.

And yet, every single one of her dozen specialist doctors we've had tele-med appoints during this time has cautioned to wait and not run out get the first vaccine the day it's available. For a number of actual medical reasons, which I will try to explain as it was explained to me.

First, 'approval' during this time doesn't really mean anything. Everyone, US and abroad, is slamming their vaccine through approvals just to get it out. The actual medical ratings/gradings for any vaccine won't come for a couple months, after it's initially available to the public. Only then will her doctors - not us - review the medical rating/grading and make the call. This isn't a flu shot. There's serious consideration to potential side effects - and more importantly adverse reactions with her other medications. And that information won't be widely available for several months after 'approval' and initial release.

Neither of the top vaccines confer immediate or guaranteed immunity. So anyone in my wife's position couldn't really bet on 'returning to normal' until there is enough widespread adoption of a vaccine to dramatically reduce infection rates anyway (i.e. herd immunity that people have been talking out their ass about for the past 9+ months). That also won't happen until months after the vaccine is available (we've been told, if everything works out perfectly, we will see that happen sometime in Fall 2021). So if we're going to have to remain in relative isolation anyway, it may make more sense to avoid potential side effects and remain in lockdown until more people have been vaccinated.

On top of that, just because one or two vaccines are released doesn't mean all the other trials just stop and throw in the towel. More vaccines will continue to finalize trials, get approvals, be reviewed and medically rated/graded, and have different protocols, effectiveness and side effects over the next year. What are the chances that the very first one is the 'best' one? The one that has the best effectiveness, the highest rating/grading, the least potential side effects, the least adverse reactions with other medications? According to our doctors... basically zero chance. The first version of any vaccine will likely be the least effective and have the worst potential side-effects/medication complications, especially under these circumstances. And since we will be isolated for months anyway... might as well wait and see what comes down the line if it ends up being better for her medical situation.

So no, there's a lot of people following actual medical advice to not immediately run out and get a vaccine. That said, I understand the knee-jerk reaction and why it's unpopular to talk about the real medical issues and concerns with a COVID vaccine. Because I guarantee their will be some idiot who reads this and uses it as fuel for some bullshit anti-vax conspiracy. We just shouldn't let those people dictate the conversation. It shouldn't be a conversation where anything considered 'negative' about the vaccines is seen as some crazy anti-vax rhetoric or reinforcing their 'beliefs'.
 

tabris

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,235
Only reason I wouldn't vaccinate right away is prioritizing vaccine for high risk individuals. Luckily Canadian government already has the plan and I'll be one of the last groups since I have no pre-existing conditions, and I'm in a fine age group (30s).

I expect to get my vaccine shots between March and June.
 

BigWeather

Member
Nov 4, 2017
1,426
What does the vaccine prevent? Catching it (and thus also feeling it and spreading it)? Feeling it (and doing nothing for to stop the spread)? Worry that if the latter people vaccinated will stop making and the spread will continue.
 

MrCibb

Member
Dec 12, 2018
5,349
UK
I voted yes, but as someone who's not at risk, works from home and lives out in the sticks I'd rather others get vaccinated before me. I'm alright chilling at home a while longer, let others at risk get it first.
 

ty_hot

Banned
Dec 14, 2017
7,176
If it is approved it means they know the side effects.

I would be first in line.

In fact I would be down to be a test subject as well.
 

Bigkrev

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,307
No, because there are people who actually have to leave their houses to work/are at higher risk than me that should be getting the it before I do. I will get the vaccine, but i'm not going to skip to the front of the line before people that need it more than me
 

shinobi602

Verified
Oct 24, 2017
8,329
I might wait a month or two just to see how things shake out in the general populace but for the most part yeah absolutely.

My wife's an RN and she's a little hesitant on it because she says vaccines usually take years and years of research and clinical trials to study long term effects while this one's been developed in the span of, I don't know, 8 months or so? She feels like it's really being rushed. We're very much a pro-vax family so it's not like that, but anyone have some knowledge on that particular point I can share with her?
 

Typhoon20

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,568
I saw a recommendation video on youtube (Dave Chappelle on Rogans podcast). It was about the vaccine. Now I'm not a fan anymore of Dave but I thought, is he going to say some stupid shit again ? I was curious. I honestly regret watching it. Dave seems like just another one of these anti-vaxxer, conspiracy nutjobs.
The depressing part wasn't the video, it was, once again, the comment section. I know 99% of comment sections on the internet wether it's facebook or twitter or whatever is filled with so many nutjobs, ignorant, dumb, vile, toxic people. But it's sad how many of them are out there. It's sad how it's not just a small minority. Many of them think the corona virus has a 99.4% recovery rate vs the 95% vaccine, many of them think they should let nature do its thing and eliminate the weak (WTF !), many of them are conspiracy nutjobs, think doctors are evil etc like the list goes on and on.

If we want to get rid of this virus, we have to have a very high % of vaccinated people. Problem is, we won't achieve that with so many anti-vaxx people out there. That has me depressed.
Governments have done such a poor job of communiting the importance of a vaccine as well. And all these popular social personas on the internet with massive followers are IDIOTS who brainwash so many people into their own absurd views. I find that so scary. Seeing so many kids, at home, watching these people. . They should come with incentives worldwide to make sure we reach a >% of vaccination needed to slowly kill this virus over the upcoming years. If half the population takes it and the other half doesn't...this virus will never go away.
 

DrROBschiz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,472
Yes absolutely without question

Never had an allergic reaction to a vaccine and its just modified fake live viruses

It does provoke an immune response either way (basically giving your body training for the real thing) so even if it was a rushed vaccine I wouldn't be worried it would be based on anything dangerous

Its really time to put vaccine fears to rest for pretty much anyone outside of exceptions for allergic reactions or auto immune diseases
 

tobascodagama

Member
Aug 21, 2020
1,358
Approved by the EU? Yes. Approved by the Biden FDA (after they've had a few months to clean house)? Yes. Approved by the Trump FDA? No.

I'm assuming for the sake of this hypothetical that there's enough of the vaccine for everyone. In reality, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines will be rationed for front-line medical workers and high-risk individuals for quite a while before they're available to the general public. I'm only in a moderate risk (asthma) category, and maintaining isolation is not difficult for me, so I can afford to wait a little longer just to let higher-priority people get access to it first.
 

Lobster Roll

signature-less, now and forever
Member
Sep 24, 2019
34,318
If it's approved by anybody in the science community with a good reputation then hell yeah, let 'er rip. One in each arm.
 

tangeu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,229
I'm not in a risk group, I don't interact with risk groups, I'm happily isolated and will happily stay as such. Life won't be back to "normal" until after months and months months of folks taking it, no need for me to be in the fist wave. So yes I'll get it, but no, not immediately.
 

Tohsaka

Member
Nov 17, 2017
6,791
No, I already never go out and I'm not in one of the high risk groups. I'll let other people who need it more get it.
 

Necromanti

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,546
It does provoke an immune response either way (basically giving your body training for the real thing) so even if it was a rushed vaccine I wouldn't be worried it would be based on anything dangerous
I wouldn't worry about it in this case, but I wouldn't say that's a good line of thinking as a general rule since the immune system is very complex. One example would be choosing a target that might be close to something also found in healthy tissues, risking the induction of an autoimmune response. There's a reason testing for safety is so extensive and important.
 

Tallshortman

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,623
Yes I'll be signing up as soon as it's open to the general public.

If it was the safer eu or uk one? For sure

What makes you think the oxford vaccine is any safer than pfizer or moderna?

I might wait a month or two just to see how things shake out in the general populace but for the most part yeah absolutely.

My wife's an RN and she's a little hesitant on it because she says vaccines usually take years and years of research and clinical trials to study long term effects while this one's been developed in the span of, I don't know, 8 months or so? She feels like it's really being rushed. We're very much a pro-vax family so it's not like that, but anyone have some knowledge on that particular point I can share with her?

This vaccine is based on entirely different technology (mRNA) than traditional vaccine research. That's a big part of why they've been able to develop it so quickly. Of course they still will not have run the same number of trials a traditional vaccine would but the late stage clinical trials were extremely promising in terms of side effects.
 

Rune Walsh

Too many boners
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,019
Hell yes. I'm around kids all day and my family has several immuno-compromised members. PUT IT IN MY VEINS!
 

shinobi602

Verified
Oct 24, 2017
8,329
This vaccine is based on entirely different technology (mRNA) than traditional vaccine research. That's a big part of why they've been able to develop it so quickly. Of course they still will not have run the same number of trials a traditional vaccine would but the late stage clinical trials were extremely promising in terms of side effects.
Yeah that's another part too, we discussed that, or at least to the extent of our own knowledge about vaccines. That they've always been DNA based or something and this one targets mRNA that puts it even more into uncharted territory and 'how did they do all this in the span of months?', etc.
 

CatAssTrophy

Member
Dec 4, 2017
7,611
Texas
I'm getting a rapid test today, so no, I'd personally hold off, but once they give more info on the side effects I'd go and get one.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,161
I'm fine with the vaccine but, just like with the new Macs, I'll let someone beta test the release first.
 

Dragoon

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
11,231
Why is it a yes or no? What about, wait 1-2 months to see and then do it which is what I would choose. I would let others be beta testers first.
 

Helmholtz

Member
Feb 24, 2019
1,131
Canada
Yeah I would. I won't lie I'd have some slight apprehension/nerves about how fast tracked it was. But those feelings are vastly outnumbered by the fact that we already know how bad COVID itself is. I trust the medical community, who are certainly way more knowledgeable/intelligent than my dumb ass.
The 'let others test it' rhetoric is dangerous, too. That sort of thinking can catch on like wildfire, and is not much different than anti-vax. Because lo and behold, you'll start seeing 'my kid got the vaccine and he has autism!' shit popping up, and some of those 'wait and see' people will say 'see! I told you!' and continue to refuse the vaccine.
 

DontHateTheBacon

Unshakable Resolve
Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,320
Nope. I'm fine staying at home for a few more months until they work out all the kinks.
This. I've never left home without a mask to go out into public spaces. I don't stop and chat with folks. I don't loiter.

It's hard not to be nervous about fast, new medicine. I work from home so I can afford to just stay home and wait a bit.


The 'let others test it' rhetoric is dangerous, too. That sort of thinking can catch on like wildfire, and is not much different than anti-vax. Because lo and behold, you'll start seeing 'my kid got the vaccine and he has autism!' shit popping up, and some of those 'wait and see' people will say 'see! I told you!' and continue to refuse the vaccine.
This is a wild take. Extremely presumptuous. Suffice to say, disagree with it.

Do you live in the USA?
 

Drek

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,231
I have to travel for work (environmental professional, so the sites/systems I manage not working is a bigger issue to health/human safety than my travel) so I'd get it for sure. We (wife and I) would likely agree for her and our daughter to hold off until it has a bit more time in the wild.
 
Oct 30, 2017
1,719
I might wait a month or two just to see how things shake out in the general populace but for the most part yeah absolutely.

My wife's an RN and she's a little hesitant on it because she says vaccines usually take years and years of research and clinical trials to study long term effects while this one's been developed in the span of, I don't know, 8 months or so? She feels like it's really being rushed. We're very much a pro-vax family so it's not like that, but anyone have some knowledge on that particular point I can share with her?
Part of those "years and years" of research isn't actually research and safety testing, it's manufacturing and production.

Most of the Big Players already started to build factories for their COVID-vaccines before they had the approval to use it, they are basically waiting/hoping that it works out.


Another thing: These studies usually have to wait until someone actually gets the illness you are fighting against, you can't just give them COVID. Imagine how long a HIV-trial takes until someone actually contracts it randomly. But COVID is everywhere, therefore the propability that someone contracts it is pretty high and you can test everything faster (efficacy / safety)

All that said, long term safety is still up in the air (like some side effects that occur years after you take the vaccine, but I actually don't know if this is even a thing)


Yeah that's another part too, we discussed that, or at least to the extent of our own knowledge about vaccines. That they've always been DNA based or something and this one targets mRNA that puts it even more into uncharted territory and 'how did they do all this in the span of months?', etc.
Reuters Graphics gives you an overview about the vaccine technologies:

graphics.reuters.com

Vaccine bootcamp

The global race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine is on. Here are the different types of vaccines and how your body uses them to develop immunity.


Regarding mRNA-vaccines, basically: mRNA acts as blueprint for cells, it usually has the instructions that tell your cells to produce a certain protein.

The mRNA-vaccine injects mRNA into your cells that has the instructions to produce the spike protein of the COVID-virus. The mRNA naturally dissolves after this, it's a bit fragile anyway. (important: mRNA doesn't enter the nucleus of the cell, it can't mess around with your DNA).

Your immune system scans your cells and notices that your cells are not how they should be and creates antibodies based on that spike protein and attacks it (one reason why you can feel shitty after getting a vaccine). If the real virus enters your system, you already trained your immune system to attack the spike protein of the virus and that's how your body kills it.
 

MadScientist

Member
Oct 27, 2017
917
I don't get the wait a couple months. Between Pfeizer and Moderna, over 70,000 people were vaccinated in their phase 3 trials with very few adverse events. Front line and most at risk (nursing homes) people will get the first batch. That will probably take a month or two...at that point what's stopping people from getting it.

The slight risk from getting the vaccine is greater than the risk of getting COVID. We still don't have a handle on the type of long term effects getting this virus is going to have on people, even young healthy people.
 

Helmholtz

Member
Feb 24, 2019
1,131
Canada
This is a wild take. Extremely presumptuous. Suffice to say, disagree with it.

Do you live in the USA?
No, I don't. I live in Canada, and I've already heard from several friends and family here that they'll be 'waiting' to get theirs, and letting others 'test it' for them. What do people expect to learn in a couple months? Will they be satisfied that the vaccine is safe enough when everyone is still alive and well? Or will they dig deep and go down the classic anti-vax rabbit hole of looking for bullshit articles and reports of adverse effects by a miniscule number of people to justify holding off on it longer?

If you actually NEVER leave your house EVER, then sure, whatever, you don't apply. But if you leave, refuse the vaccine, and are at all within the vicinity of other human beings, you're part of the problem.
 

zero2000

Member
Oct 28, 2017
262
No. I am working from home until June at the earliest. So I would make sure that people who need it more get it first. Unless this hypothetical assumes that supply constraint is not an issue.

If no supply issues in this scenario, then probably.
 

shinobi602

Verified
Oct 24, 2017
8,329
Part of those "years and years" of research isn't actually research and safety testing, it's manufacturing and production.

Most of the Big Players already started to build factories for their COVID-vaccines before they had the approval to use it, they are basically waiting/hoping that it works out.


Another thing: These studies usually have to wait until someone actually gets the illness you are fighting against, you can't just give them COVID. Imagine how long a HIV-trial takes until someone actually contracts it randomly. But COVID is everywhere, therefore the propability that someone contracts it is pretty high and you can test everything faster (efficacy / safety)

All that said, long term safety is still up in the air (like some side effects that occur years after you take the vaccine, but I actually don't know if this is even a thing)



Reuters Graphics gives you an overview about the vaccine technologies:

graphics.reuters.com

Vaccine bootcamp

The global race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine is on. Here are the different types of vaccines and how your body uses them to develop immunity.


Regarding mRNA-vaccines, basically: mRNA acts as blueprint for cells, it usually has the instructions that tell your cells to produce a certain protein.

The mRNA-vaccine injects mRNA into your cells that has the instructions to produce the spike protein of the COVID-virus. The mRNA naturally dissolves after this, it's a bit fragile anyway. (important: mRNA doesn't enter the nucleus of the cell, it can't mess around with your DNA).

Your immune system scans your cells and notices that your cells are not how they should be and creates antibodies based on that spike protein and attacks it (one reason why you can feel shitty after getting a vaccine). If the real virus enters your system, you already trained your immune system to attack the spike protein of the virus and that's how your body kills it.
Much appreciated.
 

J_ToSaveTheDay

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
18,789
USA
Since contextually we're saying it's backed by medical and scientific authorities first and foremost, then yes without question.

If it were a "Trump vaccine" here in the US, hell no. I feel like that asshole peddles nothing but snake oil.
 

Gawge

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,625
I would and should be near the bottom of the list of vaccine recipients as a fairly young/healthy remote office worker.
 

DarkLegion

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
1,679
Part of those "years and years" of research isn't actually research and safety testing, it's manufacturing and production.

Most of the Big Players already started to build factories for their COVID-vaccines before they had the approval to use it, they are basically waiting/hoping that it works out.


Another thing: These studies usually have to wait until someone actually gets the illness you are fighting against, you can't just give them COVID. Imagine how long a HIV-trial takes until someone actually contracts it randomly. But COVID is everywhere, therefore the propability that someone contracts it is pretty high and you can test everything faster (efficacy / safety)

All that said, long term safety is still up in the air (like some side effects that occur years after you take the vaccine, but I actually don't know if this is even a thing)



Reuters Graphics gives you an overview about the vaccine technologies:

graphics.reuters.com

Vaccine bootcamp

The global race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine is on. Here are the different types of vaccines and how your body uses them to develop immunity.


Regarding mRNA-vaccines, basically: mRNA acts as blueprint for cells, it usually has the instructions that tell your cells to produce a certain protein.

The mRNA-vaccine injects mRNA into your cells that has the instructions to produce the spike protein of the COVID-virus. The mRNA naturally dissolves after this, it's a bit fragile anyway. (important: mRNA doesn't enter the nucleus of the cell, it can't mess around with your DNA).

Your immune system scans your cells and notices that your cells are not how they should be and creates antibodies based on that spike protein and attacks it (one reason why you can feel shitty after getting a vaccine). If the real virus enters your system, you already trained your immune system to attack the spike protein of the virus and that's how your body kills it.


Great information, thanks.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,733
I'd wait, but that's not a "no." Just a "not right now." I feel voting no is a stern response against the vaccine. I'm not.

My concerns would be of an administration or a company hot shotting this. While the worries of the former appears to be not an issue anymore, it's the latter I worry about. I do not doubt the current assertions of its effectiveness, but we're talking about a vaccine that needs to be delivered on a scale never before seen, to a virus we're still learning more about. I imagine there's some risk, however little it may be, that there are variables outside of the testing trials that could play a role. That's what I'm waiting on. We also have to consider priority groups due to its distribution, as we're all probably unconsciously aware at present that America will look like a caste system as soon as this vaccine is distributed.

At present, my only social interactions are with stray cats outside, so this isn't me saying no while engaging in a way that puts others at risk. If that was the case I'd probably jump on board sooner despite my reservations. I'd wait at the worst, six months, but that was my take when Trump was hotshotting this as a panacea to normalcy (we're never getting our terrible normal back anyway y'all) so my views probably haven't changed shape as he's not out of office at this moment in time. I wouldn't even be surprised if it's because of his attitude that I've conditioned myself to be so withdrawn about it, and I am probably not alone in that collective brain rot.

All of this is me. Thanks for putting it in words. I had quite the reaction when I said 'No' in a different thread that asked this same question and people painted me as anti-vaxx rather than having concerns with how it has all been handled.