[tF73d78kq8t3R6n]

I’m no anti-vaxxer, but the current situation feels like a scam to me. “Hurry, take this vaccine, save lives!” I’m being asked to suspend critical thinking and accept a chemical into my body under duress and time constraints. “Take it now, this is your time! It’s finally available to you. Don’t you want to resume your normal life?” I’d rather wait and see, even if waiting carries a small, known amount of infection risk. That’s much better than the unknown risk of taking a brand new vaccine in hurry. “While supplies last!”

[_wwz4]

I ignore all of the COVID vaccine messaging histrionics. The level of ignorance and political maneuvering out there is astounding.

When I'm afforded the option to get the vaccine, I'll make an assessment of risks based upon data we have at that time vs the risks of contracting COVID.

If I had to make that decision today, I'd take the vaccine. But by the time I'll likely be able to get it in February or so, we'll have millions more data points that I'll be able to consider.

[ayroblu]

It has been through human testing for 10 months or something like that? We've also had stay at home and social distancing guidelines for about the same amount of time and I think we've had the opportunity to see what effect that's had. I think in this case what you're highlighting is number of people vaccinated, so you'd like to see more people vaccinated first, rather than increasing the duration of analysis of the existing people that have been vaccinated.

[makeworld]

Now that the vaccine is rolling out, all I hear is that only select groups are getting it now, and that the majority of people must wait. By the time most people even get the option to take it, thousands of others will have tried it. There is no rush.

[crusso]

If you're not in one of the early target groups, I would assume that tens of millions will have received it before you - in the USA alone. We should have a lot of data to look at in a short amount of time.

[dosenbrot]

Dito on this. Also what happens after the vaccine? Is there even something like "after" the vaccine, we are supposed to get this vaccine every 4-6 months until what?

[parliament32]

This sums it up pretty well. I'm not opposed to vaccines, and probably have had a lot more than the average HNer, but I feel like I'm being "sold" this a bit too hard... question everything, as they say.

[mombul]

Well, there IS a pandemic. So there IS a good reason for "selling it" "a bit hard". It will literally save lives and end a world-wide economy-crippling disease.

Now I agree the process was quicker than usual, that it brings up a lot of questions. But it's the studies we should question, the efficiency, the long term effects. The way it's sold and "advertised" is just equally as dramatic as the disease it's trying to stop, in my opinion.

[parliament32]

"It will" is a strong choice of words. The root of the matter is I don't, personally, trust the people doing the selling.

It varies by region but where I'm from, back in April-ish, we were sold: "just two weeks of lockdowns and the virus will die out! everything will be back to normal!". So we did. Businesses shut down, transit basically stopped running, our downtown core was a wasteland. Everyone parroted "stay safe, stay home" back and forth at each other and sat at home for a few weeks. It sucked, everyone had a bad time, lots of busineses had to go out of business, but we all were told it was for the greater good and it'll be worth it. And... it didn't do shit.

Now here we are again. Odds on, in a few months, it'll be either "turns out this vaccine doesn't protect you as well as we thought", or "turns out it only protects you for six months", or "turns out the virus mutated so the vaccine isn't effective at all anymore"? In exchange for, what, testing not only a new vaccine, but a whole new method of vaccination on yourself? Whether that's worth it to you or not is a personal choice, but "it will literally save lives and end [the disease]" is firmly TBD.

[mthoms]

Out of curiosity, where are you from, that you were told the virus would "die out" after just two weeks of lockdowns?

And also, can you back your claims that the spring lockdowns "didn't do shit"? That's not at all what the numbers show.

[mombul]

I don't know where you're from that you heard that. But from where I'm from, we were told that:

- it was just only the beginning of a massive sh*tstorm, not just "2 weeks of lockdown and we'll be ok"

- the lockdown in April was to mitigate as much as possible the first wave

- a second wave would almost definitely arrive in the winter (hello! it's here! we're in lockdown again, pretty much as planned)

- nothing will be back to normal before we get the vaccine, and even then, it would take months if not years for it to be a thing of the past, and that until then we'd have to do our best to follow the guidelines.

You can't compare scientific proof that something works vs. a government decision taken to "mitigate things".

The spring lockdown helped free beds in hospital and ultimately it saved thousands if not millions of lives worldwide. Period. This is UNDENIABLE.

Also, maybe if some people weren't so doubtful that these decisions were for their own good and stopped throwing tantrums about their "fundamental right to breathe air", we wouldn't have had a second wave at all. Maybe.

[choward]

That doesn't make any sense. The worse the virus is the less you should need to "sell" the vaccine.

If it was a rushed vaccine to prevent you from becoming a zombie you wouldn't need to sell it.

If it was a vaccine for the common cold you would need to sell it.

[mombul]

Of course, you're right, it doesn't make sense and that's not how it should work. Unfortunately, science and medicine are fields that are largely driven by money. Laboratories don't really care about a vaccine for a disease in Africa that nobody will be able to afford or invest in. They will turn to better markets. There are multiple reasons, the most obvious one is that they're private companies, their goal is to make profit. The second one is that it's a field that requires a lot of resources. So you need a big ROI.

One of the reasons the vaccine for COVID-19 was produced so quickly is not because of some sort of conspiracy, like they had the antidote all along or something. It's just that when there's a real buck to make, it becomes a race between these big pockets companies.

That's one side of it and I don't know enough to cover every aspect of it. Also, it's just my opinion of course and how I see this.

Edit: I'm doubtful about a zombie vaccine being given for free. Most likely in a Walking Dead type scenario, where the economy would completely go down, there wouldn't be any financial incentive to keep the searches going, and no money to back up the researches either. So we'd be scr*wed I think. :o)

[makeworld]

There is an obvious reason you are being "sold hard". Because this vaccine will save lives and end the pandemic. Just because some person or group conveys urgency doesn't mean you're being scammed or that they're lying.

It's both sad and funny to me that this is the reaction people are having.

[AmericanChopper]

There’s been far too much ‘noble lying’ going on during the pandemic for me to have trust in any of these institutions anymore. Aside from the fact that I’d be skeptical of any drug that was rushed to market (especially if it was the first of its type to ever be brought to market), I simply don’t trust anybody involved to be honest about its safety. Even the reporting on how the roll out is going is highly questionable. All reports of potential side effects are disclaimed with weasely statements “no evidence it’s linked to the vaccine”.

If I were in an at risk group I might have a different perspective, but as it stands I’m happy to wait and see how it goes. If I end up never having to take it, even better.

[IfOnlyYouKnew]

[flagged]

[dang]

Please don't post flamebait or unsubstantive comments, and especially not personal attacks, to HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html