[kybernetyk]

For me I'm waiting $N years till I consider getting a covid shot.

According to the oxford calculator[0] my risk of hospitalization is microscopic so I take that chance over trying out new under-tested vaxines.

[0] https://qcovid.org/

[kennywinker]

I for one value keeping my sense of smell and taste higher than the risks i’m seeing from vaccines - eliminating the risk of hospitalization is just a bonus

[squarefoot]

I don't agree on waiting years for a vaccine, however the loss/alteration of sense of smell and taste is temporary. It can last more than the other symptoms, but usually after a few weeks it gets back to normal again.

I got symptomatic Covid last October and the spike protein test taken at the end of March reports I still have several hundreds u/ml of anti-rbd antibodies, so I'll be reasonably safe for some time, but wouldn't recommend waiting to not immunized people. I had people dying next to my bed, and that is something I can't unsee for the rest of my life.

[op00to]

I think TV programming should be occasionally replaced with deidentified Covid ward footage.

[rangoon626]

You wanna force this on everyone? Cool. Then I get to enforce outlawing fast food consumption… especially things like Krispy Kreme donuts.

[squarefoot]

Forcing maybe not, but as educational tool, not unlike trips to WWII concentration camps for schools, I would offer a free visit to Covid wards to denialists and similar idiots. Once they see someone taken into a bed with a simple oxygen mask, then given a respirator helmet, then intubated, then pronounced dead in a few days, they probably change their perspective.

[op00to]

Apparently perspective = “I get to ban fast food”.

[op00to]

Krispy Kreme is gross.

[agildehaus]

I hope you continue to social distance for $N years, because vaccination isn't just about you -- its about protecting those who would be at risk.

It's also about reducing the risk of mutation. The more people it can infect, the greater the risk. We don't want to be dealing with a new variant that the vaccines don't protect against, and go back to square one.

Being scared of a well-tested vaccine over a virus that has killed 3.5 million worldwide and continues to do so is ridiculous. The vaccine is why things are slowly starting to return to normal.

[incrudible]

> I hope you continue to social distance for $N years, because vaccination isn't just about you -- its about protecting those who would be at risk.

Those "at risk" should already have been vaccinated before the people "not at risk" have been.

> It's also about reducing the risk of mutation. The more people it can infect, the greater the risk.

It goes both ways: the more people that are vaccinated, the higher the selection pressure to evade the vaccination.

> Being scared of a well-tested vaccine over a virus that has killed 3.5 million worldwide and continues to do so is ridiculous.

Spare us your shaming, it has the opposite effect of what you intend it to have.

> The vaccine is why things are slowly starting to return to normal.

Notice how the narrative is slowly drifting from "protect the vulnerable, prevent the collapse of health care" to "every child needs to be vaccinated as soon as possible"? This is not "normal".

[tehwebguy]

Actually, vaccinating all kids is normal

[Traubenfuchs]

Yes, with proven vaccines against debiliating diseases.

[bingbong70]

Newly developed vaccines for debilitating diseases aren't given to children indiscriminately en masse. We are dealing with a completely different scale here and we should be more careful about it.

Rushing the medical feedback process has huge potential downsides.

[bingbong70]

>Actually, vaccinating all kids is normal

Vaccinating children with 20-100 year old (~1-4 generations of human feedback/testing) vaccines is normal, vaccinating them with 1 year old experimental vaccines is not.

In my opinion, people in high risk groups (elderly/preexisting conditions) should take the vaccine, but low risk healthy individuals should wait as long as possible for more feedback about the potential downsides.

Older at risk age groups have lived a full life and will mostly die in 20 years, so side effects are less of an issue but having otherwise healthy kids potentially live 70-80 years with permanent side effects is criminal.

Waiting N years is the correct approach like somebody else stated. Don't rush to be a guinea pig if you are not high risk.

[maxerickson]

What is high risk and what is low risk?

We have about as much information about the effects of the vaccines now as we have about the effects of Covid-19, and they are generally better in each age group.

(this includes the blood clotting that has been attributed to the vaccines; the incidence is higher in people that have been infected)

[bingbong70]

>What is high risk and what is low risk?

At high risk are the elderly (65+ years old), the obese, and people of any age that are diabetic and/or have preexisting cardiovascular issues (which accounts for the majority of covid deaths). I also include people that have excessive and unavoidable human contact with 100± people as part of their daily lives/work (nurses, teachers, customer-facing service workers, etc).

At low risk are all healthy people under 40, especially healthy children. They have the capacity to fight these viruses and develop antibodies the old fashioned way without intervention.

The low risk don't necessarily have to avoid the vaccines completely but would be better served with an additional 2-5± years of vaccine testing before taking the plunge. In the meantime, the low risk should prioritize exercise, eating well, avoiding immunosuppressive drugs (hard street drugs, antibiotics, etc) and buying as much time as possible by avoiding high risk behaviors.

I believe this approach drastically reduces iatrogenesis (disease brought on by the healer), which is a leading cause of death in most developed countries.

[rangoon626]

You guys are brave posting this kind of thinking here, but you do have support for presenting this view.

[bingbong70]

I appreciate your support. I've noticed my favorite science-related publications (ArsTechnica was especially surprising) completely suppressing and deleting these kinds of discussions in the comment sections.

Unfortunately this topic has been heavily politicized and dissenting opinions are no longer seen through a science-based lens.

As a person that generally dislikes both political parties, I get hit from both sides.... for being pro-mask/pro-temporary-lockdown (attacked from the right) and for being vaccine-cautious/anti-vaccine-passports (attacked from the left).

[calvano915]

My fiance and I are holding out for same reasons.

[op00to]

Your fiancé and yourself are selfish, then. Your risk pales to the cost of spreading the disease to those more vulnerable.

[dang]

Please make your substantive points without personal attacks. Crossing into the flamewar style like this is guaranteed to make the discussion nastier and more predictable, which are two things we're trying to avoid on HN.

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

[overallduka]

Vulnerable people are being vaccinated for that reason. Everyone has the right to choose what they will inject in their body or not.

[greenwich26]

Is your behaviour in this thread a coping mechanism intended to relieve your own anxieties and make you feel good about yourself? Or is it a genuine attempt to convince vaccine skeptics by shaming and scorning them with appeals to emotion and ad hominem attacks?

In any case, your arguments, if they can be called that, are very doubtful, in light of emerging evidence about the risks of the vaccine (see OP), and the diminishing infection rates in many countries.

[op00to]

What’s your risk of killing someone by catching COVID and spreading it?

[kybernetyk]

What’s our risk of killing someone in a car crash? Yet we still all drive.

[bsder]

So were the chances of two MMA fighters. And yet Covid ended the career of them both.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[kybernetyk]

I’d say that MMA is a pretty stupid game to play in itself.

[incrudible]

Which ones?

[bsder]

Apparently they have unretired: https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/5-ufc-fighters-suffered-badl...

However, as you can see, young and fit is no protection.

It's a roll of the dice.

[incrudible]

> It's a roll of the dice.

So is getting the vaccine. It is a risk-reward calculation with many unknowns.

The following must be kept in mind: For the younger population, there a strong incentive to exaggerate the risk of the virus and to downplay the risk of the vaccine, in order to maximize vaccinations and (hopefully) minimize overall mortality. I must assume that public health authorities act in the collective interest, not mine.

Personally, I am unwilling to sacrifice myself for the "greater good", even if it's a really small risk. My individual risk of contracting COVID must exceed the individual risk of taking the vaccine. As long as that remains in question, I will remain hesitant.