Seriously thoughtful The NEW Covid Vaccination Poll

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by haertig

And you are following the pattern of the USA very closely. When the vaccine was not readily available, the ones (in the USA) claiming they would not get it were similar to your 20%. But then, after the vaccine became readily available, for some reason the number of people claiming that they wouldn't get it rose. Since right now, in Canada, you guys are having trouble getting the vaccine one would expect you to be at that 20% hesitancy point. But eventually you will have easy access to the vaccine. It will be interesting to see what your hesitancy numbers are then.

Contrary to your assumption, the hesitancy numbers for Canada were higher and have dropped as the vaccines are being more readily available. To quote myself:

As more people get vaccinated, the non-fanatic "I'm not going to get vaccinated" crowd seems to be shrinking.

As of the evening of May 21, 2021, the numbers say that 49.3% of Canadians have received their first dose of a Covid-19 vaccine in comparison to 48.6% in the USA. Demand for vaccine is still outrunning supply in Canada while the USA has a good supply of vaccine but is having trouble locating the arms to inject. Several studies in the last week have shown vaccine hesitancy in Canada has dropped to 10% though like all such studies, the numbers depend on region and will likely change over time. Another difference is that the Canadian vaccine hesitancy does not seem to follow political lines—whether a person leans to the Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic Party, Parti Québécois, Green, etc. seems to have little effect.

It must be admitted that since Canada is attempting to make the best use of the vaccine supply by following an as many first doses as possible policy, we trail the USA in the percentage who have had a second dose.

Originally Posted by haertig

And as I'm sure you know, catching covid after being vaccinated is a nothing-burger. Most don't even know they caught it. That's what the vaccine does. You may be in that 5% who still catch it. With the majority of those not even realizing that they have caught it. The goal of the vaccines is not to make sure you don't get an asymptomatic case, the goal is to make sure you don't get really sick and die.

Ummm... you seem to have left out "with the original Covid-19 virus". At this point, there seems to be several variants that may or may not be equally affected by the existing vaccines and more variants seem to popping up. Much as the AstraZeneca vaccine ran into issues with the South African variant B.1.351 with the protection level dropping to 25%. The AZ vaccine seemed to be effective in preventing severe cases leading to death but the number of cases requiring hospitalization was far more than most of the studies I've seen considered acceptable. So I am unable to consider catching Covid-19 after being immunized as a "nothing-burger".

Originally Posted by haertig

Was it not clear that I was talking about long term unknown effects? Not short term stuff like reactions and death? I stated that in the paragraph you quoted. I will state it more clearly now, "I think that the risk of long term effects of the vaccines - which is unknown - presents a potentially greater problem than the risk of a vaccinated person catching covid, since most vaccinated people who catch covid never even know they have it." If you prefer your opinion over mine, that's fine (and expected). But I still get to have my opinion, despite yours.

Opinions are fine. And thanks for clearing up your meaning about long term effects. Though I tend to the belief that most of those "worrying" about the long term effects are not expressing an opinion that they have put any thought or study into.

Originally Posted by haertig

They are spewing a ton of crap, aren't they? I agree. But they are correct on one point - we really don't know the long term effects. I personally was not swayed by the long term effects point. I got the vaccine. And for people who say "we don't know the long term effects" I often times respond jokingly and say, "Yeah, but we do know the long term effects of death." Despite joking around like that, I do acknowledge their concern as legitimate.

A lot of the expressed concerns are hard to give any legitimacy to since they often seem to based on the a level of evidence that doesn't meet even anecdotal. Hmmm.... "scientists has shown that any of the Covid-19 vaccines will destroy your DNA", "people who get vaccinated become a public health hazard as they are spewing viruses from every square centimetre of their body", "Covid-19 vaccines are proven to cause reduced fertility and increased chance of a baby having genetic defects" (see the destroying your DNA meme), "Covid-19 can be prevented/cured by a proper diet and use of herbal remedies", "they were putting Covid-19 vaccines into other paediatric vaccines", etc. Then there was recent chuckle where I ran into "Covid-19 vaccines are proven to increase the number of autistic children" as a rewrite of the golden oldie vaccine of your choice has been proven to increase the prevalence of autism in children

Then we get into the real lunatic fringe where Covid-19 vaccines contain nanomachines allowing the government/big corporations/the Illuminati/etc. to track and/or control anyone who get vaccinated and do a deep dive into tinfoil hat territory from there.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Barbara1955

So Both say the Same thing ... What is your point?

The point, if any, is phrases in the CDC item such as "rates of myocarditis reports in the window following COVID-19 vaccination have not differed from expected baseline rates." In the MSN report you linked to, the relevant phrase would be "The vaccine safety group says the “relatively few” reports of myocarditis “appear to be mild” and are below the expected baseline rates".

In other words, the CDC says the percentage of vaccine recipients showing symptoms of myocarditis is not noticeably different from the percentage for non-vaccine recipients while the MSN report states the cases are mild and below the expected baseline rates.

So having read both of those items, I have to ask why are you attempting to cause unthinking reactions (aka panic)?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Forget it. the Grand Mouse beat me to it. I'd just edit his post to say "by helping to keep the vaccine virus circulating (and mutating)."

Fixed. (Thanks)

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by haertig

And you are following the pattern of the USA very closely. When the vaccine was not readily available, the ones (in the USA) claiming they would not get it were similar to your 20%. But then, after the vaccine became readily available, for some reason the number of people claiming that they wouldn't get it rose. Since right now, in Canada, you guys are having trouble getting the vaccine one would expect you to be at that 20% hesitancy point. But eventually you will have easy access to the vaccine. It will be interesting to see what your hesitancy numbers are then.

Vaccine "hesitancy" in the UK is well under 10%. And dropping. Percentages who have had at least one dose of vaccine by age:

65+: 99%+
50-64: 97%+
35-49: about 60%
16-34: about 45%

The reason for the lower numbers at the lower ages is, of course, that the UK started vaccinating the oldest first.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Vaccine "hesitancy" in the UK is well under 10%. And dropping. Percentages who have had at least one dose of vaccine by age:

65+: 99%+
50-64: 97%+
35-49: about 60%
16-34: about 45%

The reason for the lower numbers at the lower ages is, of course, that the UK started vaccinating the oldest first.

And you didn't have people at the highest levels of government hesitating at first, then suggesting that the vaccine mandate was unmanly and a restriction on freedom, because they conflated a systematic rollout with political power issues. That didn't happen in the U.S. alone, of course. But once it did happen in the U.S., getting everyone vaccinated remained a political power issue in the House and Senate. One doesn't want to mention skirmishes between parties and between politicians, but it's difficult to account for the numbers in the U.S. if you don't. And many people in the rest of the world watched it happen.

What I do find worrisome is the CDC's lifting of meaningful precautions without the U.S. reaching a higher level of vaccination. The honor system can't be expected to work during a pandemic, and when complications such as the failure of antibodies in blood cancer patients put people at risk even after vaccination. That isn't a matter of panicking, but of choosing to be humane despite the inconvenience.

[haertig]

I think part of the issue with vaccine hesitancy here in the USA is that people are starting to see for themselves contradictions to what they've been told. e.g., a few months back the state of Texas rolled back restrictions and reopened for business. At the time, they were called Neanderthals for thinking like that. They were reportedly going to kill off a large chunk of their population. But guess what, that didn't happen. Their case counts went down, and they just recently celebrated a day with zero covid deaths. And closer to my home, they up until recently had restrictions on groups of over ten (?) people. Then they opened the floodgates and about two weeks ago I attended an indoor NHL hockey game. The stadium was about half full due to lingering capacity restrictions, but still, half full is about 10,000 people. There have been no reports of increased covid cases from that event.

So people are rightfully starting to ask themselves, "Have we been told the entire truth about this disease?" And once people start coming to the conclusion that government has been lying, at least partially, about some of this stuff then you are going to see more defiance and rebellion to information presented by the government. It's a "loss of credibility" scenario. I am not a government conspiracy nut. I think covid is bad and not a hoax or conspiracy. However, I do think the government (here in the USA at least) took advantage of the crisis to pursue other agendas - to what end, I don't know - and have lost some credibility because of that. And you see this reflected in increased vaccine hesitancy. Which I don't personally think is the brightest way to respond to that, but that's apparently what people are doing. People tend to see things in black and white - "the government was not totally forthcoming, therefore this whole covid thing is a hoax". I don't believe that. My personal opinions: The government was not forthcoming. Covid is bad. The vaccines are good. Masks are helpful in some circumstances, useless in others. These differing thoughts can all coexist. But - you do have to take what the government says with a grain of salt. Questioning is good in this circumstance. People are questioning, "Do we really need this experimental vaccine that the government is pushing so hard?" Is it as safe as they say it is? Do masks really do much?" These are normal (and good) questions to ask when the government has not been entirely honest in the past. The end result is vaccine hesitancy and mask aversion - like it or not.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by haertig

Specifically, HOW are they putting others at risk?

Just because you have gotten the vaccine, it does not mean you are suddenly IMMUNE to the virus - just that it has less chance of killing you if you get it. In an older population specifically, any increase to the risk that is there is potentially very dangerous. And out in the world, you have no idea if the person next you is immunocompromised or unable to get vaccinated due to a medical condition. An unmasked, vaccinated person raises real health dangers to those folks.

I realize that literally zero minds are likely to be changed here, but I do think it is fair to point out that the personal decision on getting the shot does not just affect that one person. And I'm sure we will still be having the same, tired fight when booster shots start coming.

I'm also unsubscribing from this thread as I do enough bashing my head against brick walls in my day job. I did not want that to be perceived as me refusing to respond should someone respond to this.

[Deskisamess]

An unmasked, vaccinated person raises real health dangers to those folks.

Not any more risk than would be normally there, pre-covid. But very little risk from covid, given that that a vaccinated person who may get covid carries a low viral load, and is much less contagious because of that. Especially in casual contact type of instances. Most of us don't go through our daily lives breathing on strangers in the grocery store.

If someone is immunocompromised, they know already that they need to be more careful when in public. Unless they carry a sign to keep people away, the responsibility is on them, as it always has been. Covid hasn't changed that.

[pdurrant]

One interesting thing that's happened in the USA is that infections and deaths with influenza for the 2020/2021 influenza season are way down.

This is, I suspect, because the precautions taken to reduce the incidence of COVID (with an R0 about 3) worked even better against seasonal influenza, which has an R0 or about 1.3 (range 0.9-2.0).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vid-pandemic1/

The same thing's happened in the UK and elsewhere.

[Deskisamess]

I know 2 gals who both deal with asthma and breathing related illness. Neither of them got the typical fall/winter bronchitis that is almost normal for them. Both feel it had to do with their not going out to stores etc. and mask wearing and distancing in general.

One is very active in our church, and normally hosts small groups twice a month in her home, as well as just being in church and at other activities. Since those things weren't taking place, it all played in to her not getting sick last winter. When they did start small groups back up, they were doing them in a large hall at the church, and not in peoples homes, so they could be spread out, and they didn't offer food etc. Typically their group was 30+.

If nothing else, people need to stay home when sick, or wear a mask when you know you're ill but must go out in public.

[haertig]

My opinion on what worked best to slow covid and pretty much stop flu in its tracks was the isolation that people forced upon themselves. Many/most people avoided contact with others. And when they did make contact, they stayed back and limited the time. Masks probably helped some, but my gut feeling is not as much as the self-imposed isolation.

That will stop many diseases. You just don't mingle with other people that can get you sick. However, that is not a lifestyle that people will want to engage in long term. Some people may feel relief at the isolation we have had - possibly the chronically immune-compromised, and others with medical conditions. They may not want a return to more human contact. But in general, society will accept a greater risk to have more human contact with others. A return to where we were just two years ago. That is what we are seeing now. Masks are going by the wayside, people are getting together again. Will sickness go up now that we are doing this? Probably. But that is something that society (in general) is now deciding is better than the alternative of isolation.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by haertig

People are questioning, "Do we really need this experimental vaccine that the government is pushing so hard?"

Experimental? As in, less studied than, say, the diphtheria vaccine? Maybe I'm not supposed to ask that, because older pharmaceuticals were approved when standards were lower, and yet I strongly recommend taking everything advised by your family physician, or, if you do not have one, some leading governmental, or non-governmental, health organization.

I should say: It could well be that one or more available diphtheria vaccines is more studied than any COVID jab. But, and you may be an exception, I think that most people who say the COVID vaccines are more experimental than others have put zero effort into finding out if that is really true.

I read the study in the New England Journal of Medicine before taking the Moderna vaccine. If you can't do that, call your doctor and ask what he/she thinks.

And, if you are going to rely on a government for health advice, what government? California? Chicago? New Jersey? United Kingdom? Taiwan? South Africa? United Nations?

I think the health ministries and equivalents around the world are almost all doing their best. If you don't like yours, find another one. Just keep away from any where the advice rarely changes.

As for any supposed need to study government edicts to avoid prison, I just do what most other people do, in terms of masking, and have not been arrested yet.

If I had to suggest a government who gives good health advice, I would say the UK. Just a personal opinion.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

J And out in the world, you have no idea if the person next you is immunocompromised or unable to get vaccinated due to a medical condition. An unmasked, vaccinated person raises real health dangers to those folks.

I'm just going to put in a clarification here, that the conversation this came from was about UNvaccinated people putting others at risk, not just themselves, by their choice to avoid vaccination.

At this stage I wouldn't be super comfortable being close to an unmasked vaccinated person in an area with COVID transmission, but that's just because I think we need a little more data (the existing data is encouraging on low viral load, which is great).

But I sure as hell wouldn't be AT ALL comfortable being near an unmasked unvaccinated person, which is what we were talking about. I'm "fully vaccinated", but the meds I'm on reduce humoral immunity (the only data we have so far) to 22% of normal after Pfizer vaccination. Until we have more data demonstrating that that level is actually protective, or come up with some strategy to deal with that (more boosters? Different adjuvants? No one knows yet), people who choose to stay unvaccinated put people like me at risk. Maybe that problem will be solved, but this is early days.

That data on COVID being a "nothingburger" after vaccination comes from trial data that did not include people like me.

And we're not vanishingly rare unicorns and therefore dispensable, as haertig implies. Autoimmune conditions, cancer, post-transplant state, and other conditions involving lowered immunity are common. (Heck, I have one in my immediate family, for completely different reasons, and at least half a dozen, maybe more, in my friend group.) And yes, we obviously try to protect ourselves as much as is feasible. I'm probably keeping at least one hand sanitiser company in business! But airborne viruses are harder for a single individual to avoid - that takes collective action. Part of that attempt to protect outselves involves advocating for good public health policy, including vaccination that is as universal as possible, rapid effective contact tracing, etc.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Experimental? As in, less studied than, say, the diphtheria vaccine?

No. Experimental, as in the paperwork I received before I got the injection that said "This is an experimental vaccine".

[haertig]

Originally Posted by meeera

And we're not vanishingly rare unicorns and therefore dispensable, as haertig implies.

I never said you were dispensable. I never implied you were dispensable. Where do you come up with this dramatic crap? Every time you spout off this insulting nonsense you move a step lower on the respect ladder.