Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, KSera said:

It seems the research has been there for a long time now (relatively speaking) that illness plus one shot is sufficient. I definitely think that should be taken into account. I think the logistics of it is the hardest part. On the plus side, more people might get tested if they knew they were going to need those test results to prove they have acquired immunity. 

Yup, for months and months I've been saying that there should be an antibody card, or something. Some form like the vaccine card that proves you had Covid, maybe based on PCR testing or antibodies. I think it would get more people to test when ill, so they aren't walking around sick thinking it is "allergies" and those who "might have had it" would get tested for antibodies and confront that nope, they didn't have it. 

Plus better able to make public health decisions based on more data. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear. I hate all these decisions. We had COVID in June, and the kids and I got our first vaccination doses last week. I'm torn whether or not to get the second dose on schedule, wait a longer period (6-8 weeks, which was my initial thought), or skip it altogether (at least for the two of us who had a positive test). 

At this point, I feel that no matter our choice, it'll be the wrong one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, alisoncooks said:

Oh dear. I hate all these decisions. We had COVID in June, and the kids and I got our first vaccination doses last week. I'm torn whether or not to get the second dose on schedule, wait a longer period (6-8 weeks, which was my initial thought), or skip it altogether (at least for the two of us who had a positive test). 

At this point, I feel that no matter our choice, it'll be the wrong one. 

There was a recent TWIV podcast with Shane Crotty where he was talking about the vaccinations and immunity from infection. It was really informative I thought.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/this-week-in-virology/id300973784?i=1000534769639

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

 

Neither of those statements is correct. People who have active cancer do NOT have to be on any particular type of treatment(s). They do have to currently be receiving some type of treatment. Many, many people on the cancer board I belong to are on immunotherapy or targeted drugs as treatment--no chemotherapy--and have gotten the third dose.

What the CDC guideline says is ""been receiving active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood". That's it. There is no requirement to be on a specific type of treatment.

To the CDC's credit their guidelines for who qualifies for a third dose is really very clear. I don't understand why there's so much confusion, especially by pharmacists. It's not hard to understand. The only thing in that link that's even a little unclear is the reference to "high-dose corticosteroids or other drugs that may suppress your immune response." If you delve into the CDC site more buried somewhere is a list of the "other drugs that may suppress your immune response" that qualifies one for a third dose. It's not a long list, so I think they should have included those right in the bulleted guidelines, and I think they should have defined what constitutes "high dose" steroids. But other than those two things the guidelines really are very, very clear.

That's interesting, but still confusing (not how CDC words it, but with what we're being told).  The person I referred to doctors at Mayo Clinic, and according to his oncologist, he does not meet the requirements even though he is currently receiving immunotherapy for cancer.  His doctor explained that it's because the immunotherapy doesn't actually cause him to be immunocompromised like chemo does.   Maybe that has changed since he last saw him?  (Two weeks ago.)  Or maybe they're assuming that the cancer is no longer "active."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Yup, for months and months I've been saying that there should be an antibody card, or something. Some form like the vaccine card that proves you had Covid, maybe based on PCR testing or antibodies. I think it would get more people to test when ill, so they aren't walking around sick thinking it is "allergies" and those who "might have had it" would get tested for antibodies and confront that nope, they didn't have it. 

Plus better able to make public health decisions based on more data. 

I wonder if an antibody card is enough, though? We know that actually having a confirmed infection is protective. I have no idea how protective having "some antibodies" is. I'd guess those aren't the same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Plum said:

I beg to differ. That is some serious generalization coming from someone in public health. 

Right. That's just silly. I mean, I understand why they think people with medical conditions ought to get vaccinated, but there obviously aren't ZERO effects, lol. 

We already know that the vaccine allows herpes-type viruses to reactivate, for example. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2021 at 6:50 AM, Not_a_Number said:

I didn’t say it’d keep you from being infected. That doesn’t work with this variant. But it’d probably keep you from getting super sick.

But this wasn’t the promise of the vaccines, right? I am so pissed at everything - supposedly 95% efficacy they promised that turned out to be a pile of garbage, people refusing to get vaccinated, constant fear of being locked up, not being able to see my mom…. I can keep on going. 
I am sorry, but a vaccine that wanes in 6 months and can’t protect me from an infection just isn’t good enough. Today it’s delta, tomorrow it’s gamma, day after tomorrow it’s zeta… sick of it all.

now I am glad I am vaccinated because I have some unique challenges, and will get a booster, but damn it, those companies made billions on promises they couldn’t keep. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Roadrunner said:

But this wasn’t the promise of the vaccines, right?

I actually disagree with that. The point of most vaccines is to keep you from getting too sick. We were darn lucky that it had such a high efficacy against infection at the beginning -- no one expected that. 

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

I am so pissed at everything - supposedly 95% efficacy they promised that turned out to be a pile of garbage. 

Actually, when people were testing the vaccines, they were hoping for like 70%. The fact that it was really 95% was amazingly good news and was a huge surprise. No one was 'promising' anything -- those were simply the numbers in the trials, and everyone basically knew that we had no clue how long immunity lasts.

The fact that it wanes is honestly not surprising. I was checking data on waning immunity basically ever since I got the shot. I would have been delighted if the vaccines provided lasting immunity, but I had no expectation of that, given how immunity to coronaviruses seems to mostly work. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

The point of most vaccines is to keep you from getting too sick. 

Yes, my friend's sister just posted this:

I was vaccinated but sadly got Covid last week. I have been down for a week but finally feeling better. Thankful I got the vaccine as it could of been alot worse. I have been very careful wearing a mask, social distance and washing my hands. Not sure where I picked it up but sadly I did.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kassia said:

Yes, my friend's sister just posted this:

I was vaccinated but sadly got Covid last week. I have been down for a week but finally feeling better. Thankful I got the vaccine as it could of been alot worse. I have been very careful wearing a mask, social distance and washing my hands. Not sure where I picked it up but sadly I did.

I'm expecting to get COVID post-vaccine. Frankly, I'm happy about it -- it looks like it's not a very scary disease after vaccination (commensurate with the flu), and it looks like natural immunity is quite effective, so... bring it on 😛 . 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

I actually disagree with that. The point of most vaccines is to keep you from getting too sick. We were darn lucky that it had such a high efficacy against infection at the beginning -- no one expected that. 

That’s not how I understand vaccines. I get a polio vaccine to prevent getting polio,  not to prevent getting too sick from polio. I think lots of people think like me. Lots. We all understand that flu shots don’t work like that and I distinctly remember they telling us it wasn’t going to be like flu. 
I feel lied to. Super lied to. And completely unprotected even though I am vaccinated. 
And yes, I will continue to get boosters, because I have to, but damn it, they should have been straight with is. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Roadrunner said:

That’s not how I understand vaccines. I get a polio vaccine to prevent getting polio,  not to prevent getting too sick from polio. I think lots of people think like me. Lots. We all understand that flu shots don’t work like that and I distinctly remember they telling us it wasn’t going to be like flu. 
I feel lied to. Super lied to. And completely unprotected even though I am vaccinated. 
And yes, I will continue to get boosters, because I have to, but damn it, they should have been straight with is. 

I don't think people CAN lie when they don't know!! You understand that when people were saying "we're aiming for 70% efficacy" early on, they meant that your chance of getting COVID with the vaccine was going to be a third of what it would have been otherwise, right? That's nowhere near "it stops you from getting sick." 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I actually disagree with that. The point of most vaccines is to keep you from getting too sick. We were darn lucky that it had such a high efficacy against infection at the beginning -- no one expected that. 

I agree. 

The fact is that delta is really almost like a new pandemic even though it isn't being talked about that way.  It just completely changed the game.  The fact that is still very good at preventing serious infection is good news.  

I get the frustration and being fed up and I wish our feds had some budget for communications so their messaging and information was better.   With regular reminders this is the best information but data is being processed in real time.

Part of public health is driving transmission down far enough that it offers an additional layer of protection.  None of our vaccines are 100% affective.  

Edited by FuzzyCatz
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I wonder if an antibody card is enough, though? We know that actually having a confirmed infection is protective. I have no idea how protective having "some antibodies" is. I'd guess those aren't the same thing. 

Well, I mean, having antibodies shows you were infected, so if you consider infection protective....

21 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

That’s not how I understand vaccines. I get a polio vaccine to prevent getting polio,  not to prevent getting too sick from polio. I think lots of people think like me. Lots. We all understand that flu shots don’t work like that and I distinctly remember they telling us it wasn’t going to be like flu. 
I feel lied to. Super lied to. And completely unprotected even though I am vaccinated. 
And yes, I will continue to get boosters, because I have to, but damn it, they should have been straight with is. 

Pertussis is the same way. And chicken pox as well - lots of people still get chicken pox but a very mild case. 

And it isn't lying - the data changed. They told us what the data was at the time, but we knew variants could happen that could change things. No one lied. Stuff changed. 

In the beginning they hoped for anything over 50% reduction in death and hospitalization and serious illness. When it proved better than that - before Delta - they shared those numbers. When Delta hit, the efficacy was lower, and they shared those numbers. That's not lying. 

Edited by ktgrok
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it does bug me that certain people are getting very rich over something that doesn't perform as advertised.  IMO credibility doesn't improve now that (a) the government is attempting to force skeptics to make these companies far richer, (b) boosters are being discussed as if they are a given for all [probably more than one], (c) there is more Covid circulating now than before the vax EUAs, and (d) anyone who questions any of this is treated like public enemy number 1.

My household is fully vaxed, and we still can't see my folks.  We're still asked to mask and avoid people just as if we weren't vaxed.  The only thing we avoid is quarantines if we get exposed ... and a lot of people here think we shouldn't have that benefit either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

I feel lied to. Super lied to. 

Nobody lied. A vaccine teaches the immune system to recognize an evader and train. That does not mean every person's immune system will do that perfectly, or that the trained response will work if the virus has mutated significantly. That's simply biology.


Viruses that are left to spread uncontrolled through millions of people constantly mutate, and nobody can predict in which way. The fact that the vaccine continues to protect to a very high degree is great. It is not the vaccine makers' fault that delta developed. It will not be their fault if a mutation develops that evades the current vaccine altogether.

Maybe we could have squashed delta if enough people had gotten vaccinated fast enough - but with a global scale of the pandemic and the production and distribution challenges, that would probably not have happened even without the vaccine refusers.

ETA: It is a freaking MIRACLE that they developed a vaccine so quickly that protects to a very high degree against severe illness and death. It is an unbelievably huge scientific accomplishment.

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

That’s not how I understand vaccines. I get a polio vaccine to prevent getting polio,  not to prevent getting too sick from polio.

This is not a fair comparison because the vaccination rates against polio (or measles, etc) are so incredibly high that there is basically no virus circulating in the community, which means the virus cannot mutate. Herd immunity accomplishes that. 

In contrast, the fraction of people vaccinate against Covid is far too small to prevent the virus from mutating, which means it can (partially or wholly) evade the vaccine. 
 

You get the polio vaccine not just so that you don't get polio, but so that the polio virus cannot spread and the disease remains extinct in your community.

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much immunity does previous infection give? Good (not perfect) protection against serious illness and death, like the vax? 
 

We know MANY people who have had the wretched virus twice (early 2020, early 2021,) and still got delta. Some vaxed, some partially, some not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

That’s not how I understand vaccines. I get a polio vaccine to prevent getting polio,  not to prevent getting too sick from polio. I think lots of people think like me. Lots. We all understand that flu shots don’t work like that and I distinctly remember they telling us it wasn’t going to be like flu. 
I feel lied to. Super lied to. And completely unprotected even though I am vaccinated. 
And yes, I will continue to get boosters, because I have to, but damn it, they should have been straight with is. 

Honestly I was very surprsied they came up with ANYTHING as a vaccine for a coronavirus. The old joke is "Never found a vaccine for the common cold"  -- so while I was super excited at the beginning, the waning immunity? Okay it's more like I thought at the beginning.

I honestly thought the flu vaccine was (usually) more protective than I've discovered it is since all of this started. (50%? No wonder my success rate during the years I got it looks very similar to the years I didn't!)

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ScoutTN said:

How much immunity does previous infection give? Good (not perfect) protection against serious illness and death, like the vax? ...

I feel that there isn't enough incentive for this to be studied, since nobody stands to make money off of proving natural immunity.

I feel this is a huge hole when we're talking about vax mandates.  Where is the scientific justification for requiring 2 (maybe more, eventually) mRNA shots given to people who already have natural antibodies?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Well, I mean, having antibodies shows you were infected, so if you consider infection protective....

It actually kind of doesn't. It means your body has encountered the virus, but it's not clear if that's as good as having had a recorded infection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, vonfirmath said:

honestly thought the flu vaccine was (usually) more protective than I've discovered it is since all of this started. (50%? No wonder my success rate during the years I got it looks very similar to the years I didn't!)

I mean, 50% would still half your risk. And it also does decrease illness severity. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm expecting to get COVID post-vaccine. Frankly, I'm happy about it -- it looks like it's not a very scary disease after vaccination (commensurate with the flu), and it looks like natural immunity is quite effective, so... bring it on 😛 . 

Yes, a friend of mine just had a breakthrough case and said it was like a bad flu.  Then he said he'd feel better for a day or two and it would hit him hard again.  Poor guy had to evacuate New Orleans for the hurricane when he was sick.  Bad timing! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I feel this is a huge hole when we're talking about vax mandates.  Where is the scientific justification for requiring 2 (maybe more, eventually) mRNA shots given to people who already have natural antibodies?

J&J is acceptable and is not an mRNA vaccine.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Yeah, it does bug me that certain people are getting very rich over something that doesn't perform as advertised. 

What advertising are you talking about? I have yet to see an advertisement for a vaccine for this. I've seen news reports. Where information was shared. It performed very well against the strains we had at the time. It performs less well, but still very well, against the Delta strain. They never "advertised" how it would work against Delta, they reported how it worked against the strains we have. That's all they COULD do. 

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

It actually kind of doesn't. It means your body has encountered the virus, but it's not clear if that's as good as having had a recorded infection. 

I'm not sure I'm getting your distinction - you do mean actually got sick, or? You develop antibodies by it infecting you, and your body fighting back against that infection. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

That’s better messaging than what they did.

Where are you getting this messaging?

From the beginning, it was constantly said that it is still being studied or we are unsure. The problem is that it is like trying to hear one voice over a thousand others spewing random garbage. Yes, the journalists who were covering these things also spewed garbage and I'm not meaning a particular side. Journalism just seems to have super low standards now so you have to go straight to sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am finding (locally) more and more people getting vaccinated because they have to, not because they've been convinced. They've made a rule here that certain places such as pubs can open up when vax rate is 70% - but only vaccinated people can work and only vaccinated people can attend. They've hinted that for more workplaces to open up, you'll have to be vaccinated. There will probably be some legal challenges, but for the average person, they need to work - they're going to just go ahead and get vaccinated. And then I'm noticing that once they're done, actually it wasn't such a huge big deal and they're not so concerned any longer . ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do not understand people's idea that a vaccine should prevent infection when it is all over the place. It doesn't create some magic force field so the virus can't come near you. It just trains your immune system to fight the virus that has actually entered your body. It can't fight until you are infected! 

There was hope that your body would fight it off fast enough that the virus wouldn't have time to replicate much thus preventing you from shedding virus onto others. This is why they originally asked vaccinated people to continue to mask and distance in the hope that more people would have time to vaccinate before infection. It WAS their messaging. It is NOT their fault that the average American has no biology education and that includes journalists.

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I'm not sure I'm getting your distinction - you do mean actually got sick, or? You develop antibodies by it infecting you, and your body fighting back against that infection. 

I suppose I mean "get sick enough for it to be somehow detectable" -- symptoms, or a positive PCR test, or something. 

I guess I don't know if people who are studying natural immunity are studying people who simply have had a positive antibody test. The study out of Israel looked at a population who had a COVID-19 infection on the record, if I remember correctly? That might mean a higher viral load or more involvement with your immune symptoms than simply having some antibodies. 

I suppose I'm wondering if there are dosage effects here. I'd like to see a study on people with antibodies specifically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I suppose I mean "get sick enough for it to be somehow detectable" -- symptoms, or a positive PCR test, or something. 

I guess I don't know if people who are studying natural immunity are studying people who simply have had a positive antibody test. The study out of Israel looked at a population who had a COVID-19 infection on the record, if I remember correctly? That might mean a higher viral load or more involvement with your immune symptoms than simply having some antibodies. 

I suppose I'm wondering if there are dosage effects here. I'd like to see a study on people with antibodies specifically. 

I'm still not sure if my daughter was officially "infected" because she took her test too close to being in a room of virus. She had a positive PCR test but if you were just breathing it in, then of course it will be in your nose.  She took another test on day 4 from exposure (should have been three) and it was negative. Do I say she was infected or not? No idea. 

She never had symptoms. 

Edited by frogger
Forgot an important preposition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, frogger said:

I really do not understand people's idea that a vaccine should prevent infection when it is all over the place. It doesn't create some magic force field so the virus can't come near you. It just trains your immune system to fight the virus that has actually entered your body. It can't fight until you are infected! 

There was hope that your body would fight it off fast enough that the virus wouldn't have time to replicate much thus preventing you from shedding virus onto others. This is why they originally asked vaccinated people to continue to mask and distance in the hope that more people would have time to vaccinate before infection. It WAS their messaging. It is NOT their fault that the average American has no biology education and that includes journalists.

Truth! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, frogger said:

I really do not understand people's idea that a vaccine should prevent infection when it is all over the place. It doesn't create some magic force field so the virus can't come near you. It just trains your immune system to fight the virus that has actually entered your body. It can't fight until you are infected! 

There was hope that your body would fight it off fast enough that the virus wouldn't have time to replicate much thus preventing you from shedding virus onto others. This is why they originally asked vaccinated people to continue to mask and distance in the hope that more people would have time to vaccinate before infection. It WAS their messaging. It is NOT their fault that the average American has no biology education and that includes journalists.

https://www.immune.org.nz/vaccines/efficiency-effectiveness
 

not 55% after 6 months. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

I have no idea what that has to do with my quote.

I'm not even sure what connection you are trying to make between your statement and the link. I'm not saying you don't have one but sometimes other people don't follow our logic especially when you don't really explain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, frogger said:

I have no idea what that has to do with my quote.

I'm not even sure what connection you are trying to make between your statement and the link. I'm not saying you don't have one but sometimes other people don't follow our logic especially when you don't really explain. 

It links efficacy and effectiveness rates of various vaccines. That’s the “standard” general population thinks vaccine should deliver. 
Inak glad so many of you don’t think 55% efficacy rate after 6 months is OK. Sure, it’s better than nothing. Anything is better than nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

It links efficacy and effectiveness rates of various vaccines. That’s the “standard” general population thinks vaccine should deliver. 
Inak glad so many of you don’t think 55% efficacy rate after 6 months is OK. Sure, it’s better than nothing. Anything is better than nothing. 

As explained before,  all these vaccines in your link are against viruses that do not circulate widely in the population and hence don't have a chance to mutate into vaccine evading forms.

None of these vaccines was developed in the middle of an unfolding pandemic against a novel virus that had been known for less than two years, and that was rapidly mutating.

While a higher efficacy would be great, it's fantastic they created a vaccine at all. Are you blaming them for not foreseeing delta?

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

It links efficacy and effectiveness rates of various vaccines. That’s the “standard” general population thinks vaccine should deliver. 
Inak glad so many of you don’t think 55% efficacy rate after 6 months is OK. Sure, it’s better than nothing. Anything is better than nothing. 

I read the link and it gave some vaccines and what is believed to be true about them but nothing about what the general population thinks. I have no idea what the general population thinks. It doesn't think for one thing. You think one thing, I think another thing, George Foreman might think something entirely different. In fact, the vast majority of the time, the majority of the population doesn't think about vaccines at all until it becomes political. There have certainly been years of my life where I didn't think much about vaccines. So we need to quit throwing that term around.

We don't know for certain how effective each specific vaccine is  down to a very specific percentage after a time but they are still helping a lot. It is the unvaccinated that are flooding the hospitals though there are some vaccinated in there. It certainly complicates the data that those with weaker immune systems were the ones vaccinated 6 months ago other than healthcare workers. 

I'm still not sure what your goal was in saying 55% isn't good enough. Good enough for what? Are you saying if it isn't a certain percentage that Americans shouldn't take it? 

I can see a doctor talking to a patient about a drug being 55% likely to cure you of cancer and the patient going "Nah, call me back when you have something that is 100% likely to help." I mean that makes no sense to me.

Or were you again implying they lied? I mean, I'm pretty sure they couldn't foresee the future so I don't know what you expect from "them". Whoever you are including in "them". 

 

I still haven't figured out how the whole thing relates to my quote.

It seemed to have nothing to do with infection versus symptoms and damage to your body. 🤷

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest Tim Spector Zoe video, mostly about vaccines.

https://youtu.be/3Jj8Nplg1NI

The most striking chart is UK incidence of death compared to vaccination status - official government figures including some Delta. There's also a country comparison for hospital admissions. Most European countries are using some combination of masking, distancing, vaccine passports.

Screenshot_20210916-080422_YouTube.jpg

Screenshot_20210916-081053_YouTube.jpg

Edited by Laura Corin
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, frogger said:

I really do not understand people's idea that a vaccine should prevent infection when it is all over the place. It doesn't create some magic force field so the virus can't come near you. It just trains your immune system to fight the virus that has actually entered your body. It can't fight until you are infected! 

There was hope that your body would fight it off fast enough that the virus wouldn't have time to replicate much thus preventing you from shedding virus onto others. This is why they originally asked vaccinated people to continue to mask and distance in the hope that more people would have time to vaccinate before infection. It WAS their messaging. It is NOT their fault that the average American has no biology education and that includes journalists.

I was so incredibly angry at this post. Didn't have time to respond yesterday as I had a paper due. Sorry. Guess I am one of the thousands of people who feel duped and betrayed.  AND THIS IS A JAWM. Please, please, please don't tell me again how stupid I am and how bad my education was or whatever. 

I had the idea I would get the vaccine and I could live a normal life. I WANT A NORMAL LIFE.  I don't care if it is better than nothing. I don't care whether they lied or whether they didn't. Fact is, I want normalcy and expected the vaccine to give it to me.  Now, because I am taking care of my dying mom, ( thought it may take years...don't know yet), I will be isolated for the forseeable future. I am mad and disappointed. Before Covid, in this situation, I would not have stopped my normal interactions. Because of Covid I have to. I thought the vaccine would prevent it.

I guess I am just stupid and gullible that I didn't understand it.  I guess I still would have gotten it, but I wouldn't have gotten my hopes up that I could have a life again. I may never have it back.  AGAIN. I cannot handle you telling me what else did I expect. How stupid I was for not understanding the science.  I am dumb, what  can I say.

Edited by TexasProud
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

I was so incredibly angry at this post. Didn't have time to respond yesterday as I had a paper due. Sorry. Guess I am one of the thousands of people who feel duped and portrayed.  AND THIS IS A JAWM. Please, please, please don't tell me again how stupid I am and how bad my education was or whatever. 

I had the idea I would get the vaccine and I could live a normal life. I WANT A NORMAL LIFE.  I don't care if it is better than nothing. I don't care whether they lied or whether they didn't. Fact is, I want normalcy and expected the vaccine to give it to me.  Now, because I am taking care of my dying mom, ( thought it may take years...don't know yet), I will be isolated for the forseeable future. I am mad and disappointed. Before Covid, in this situation, I would not have stopped my normal interactions. Because of Covid I have to. I thought the vaccine would prevent it.

I guess I am just stupid and gullible that I didn't understand it.  I guess I still would have gotten it, but I wouldn't have gotten my hopes up that I could have a life again. I may never have it back.  AGAIN. I cannot handle you telling me what else did I expect. How stupid I was for not understanding the science.  I am dumb, what  can I say.

Honestly, before Delta I hoped that enough people were getting vaccinated in the UK that something like normal life would be possible.  Then Delta, and it all went to hell in a handbasket.  I'm sorry.

I don't know if this would work for you, but each time I go to see my mum, I do a lateral flow (quick) test in the morning.  It's not a perfect system, but it eases my worries a bit.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...