Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?

[Katy]

Just now, PeterPan said:

So with Pfizer and Moderna, wasn't the gig that they ran the dna of the virus through a computer, developed the vaccine, and boom that's what we're using? So wouldn't they just do that and update the vaccine annually? So no new studies or FDA approval should be needed, just the update.

I don’t know the legality of updating vaccines approved under emergency exemptions. 

[Pen]

42 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Ok, I have a theory or assumption on this. In traditional (cautious/anti vaccine) theory the concern about vaccine safety usually centers around inflammation. So you have inflammation in the brain stem, inflammation here or there causing the vaccine reaction. Those are with attenuated or virus containing vaccines. What I'm not sure about is whether the mRNA vaccines are also said to be causing inflammation. They're saying if you take the vaccine when you already have or have recently had the virus, there will be a lot of inflammation. But I'm not sure whether they're saying the mRNA vaccines by themselves cause inflammation. I really don't know. 

So my dad's back, which has a non operable lesion, became inflamed and worse (more painful, so he could hardly walk). I'm quite aware that it occurred after he had the vaccine. But you tell me, how do I not then go ahead and give the 2nd vaccine??? Get real. He has NO QUALITY OF LIFE if he doesn't get it. If he stays there and doesn't get it, he cannot come and go. I can't handle his care to bring him out. The vaccine was already done, the risk is theoretical, and he has never had a reaction (known) to any other vaccine. 

So to me, sometimes life sucks and you do it anyway. You've got a vulnerable population and they ahve a lot of problems. If it's causing ANY inflammation, that's not astonishing to say an existing problem reacted to the inflammation. Does it change the reality that to live in congregate settings and get their lives back they have to have it? Did it cause the pre-existing condition? Did it mean there was no treatment? It just means it sucks. Having covid sucks too. Being locked up in a 394 sq ft room (do the math on that, that's really small) repeatedly for a year sucks.

I think they can make data and be honest, but I don't think anecdotes are going to give us data. We got my dad care. He went to the hospital, got treatment for the inflammation, is getting PT and OT. Reality is at the same time there were other contributing factors for the inflammation (lock downs, etc.). I'm not saying the vaccine didn't cause *some effect* of increasing inflammation, but I couldn't change the fact that it was still THE BETTER CHOICE to get the 2nd vaccine. And if my dad succombs to some consequences (he was in bed coughing last night, it's on my mind) it was still the better choice. He made the choice to get the first and it was taking a chance to get his freedom.

Remember, it's all you happy people walking around who go to your houses every night who get to say oh I'll just not take it and "wait" and have no consequence. People in congregate settings are taking big risks hoping to get their freedom back.

that was more or less my father’s concept for himself as a reason to go ahead and get it — he isn’t in a NH, but has been somewhat isolated at home for a year .    (His idea of somewhat isolated might fit my idea of fairly social.)  Anyway, we will see; it’s fairly new experimental .  At least my father (and sounds like yours too) is of an age where immediate and short term life quality is of greater concern than whether there might be long term harm from it. That consideration is probably going in opposite direction for conclusion though when considered by some younger health care workers.  
 

Allergic or related reactions is another reason why some HCW aren’t getting it 

 

I think logic for older residents of nh thinking short term may be quite different than for younger workers    thinking long term

and as much as people towards right may not trust Bill Gates or things he’s involved with due to his ties to Epstein etc, people towards left may have same reactions due to different things such as his ties to Monsanto - Vandana Shiva type concerns and so on

Edited February 21, 2021 by Pen

[Corraleno]

30 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm not really an expert on the immune system by any stretch of the imagination, but does the immune system always destroy infected cells, or does it have other way to deal with pathogens without destroying the cell entirely? 

Well I'm definitely not an expert either, I've been learning a lot of this stuff as I go, but I think once the virus invades a cell and hijacks it to make more viruses, the cell is useless (for it's original purpose) and will die anyway, so the function of killer T cells is to destroy infected cells and stop the replication as quickly as possible.

[Pen]

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

Well I'm definitely not an expert either, I've been learning a lot of this stuff as I go, but I think once the virus invades a cell and hijacks it to make more viruses, the cell is useless (for it's original purpose) and will die anyway, so the function of killer T cells is to destroy infected cells and stop the replication as quickly as possible.

But is it always killer T-cells dealing with invaders? I thought that sometimes, there were less invasive measures. I mean, your cells still do stuff even when they've been hijacked... 

I've also been learning as I go, so I'd love to know if you look this up and figure it out. 

[Corraleno]

49 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

So with Pfizer and Moderna, wasn't the gig that they ran the dna of the virus through a computer, developed the vaccine, and boom that's what we're using? So wouldn't they just do that and update the vaccine annually? So no new studies or FDA approval should be needed, just the update.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-fda/u-s-fda-gearing-up-for-rapid-review-of-potential-covid-19-booster-shots-idUSKBN2A5086

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is planning a rapid review process for quick turnaround of new COVID-19 booster shots if variants of the coronavirus emerge against which the vaccines do not provide protection, the agency’s top official said on Thursday.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, acting commissioner of the FDA, said that if new variants of the coronavirus emerge that require booster shots or changes to vaccines, the agency will not require the type of large trials that were required for emergency use authorization or approval.

The agency plans to issue a proposal on the process for public comment in a few weeks, she said during a press briefing. That process will likely require safety information as well as, if possible, the convening of an outside committee of experts to review the booster shot."

[PeterPan]

The term booster seems a little odd if they're redoing the shot to fit the mutations. They don't call the readministration of the flu shot each year a booster.

In other words, it seems like a mental game. They're saying 3 months of no masking and now saying boosters because the thing is mutating so much they'll have to keep redoing the shots each year. Is that where it's going?

Edited February 21, 2021 by PeterPan

[Corraleno]

31 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

 

This is an interview with an Indian environmental activist who is mostly ranting against Monsanto and also criticizes Bill Gates for supporting GMO crops and makes vague allegations about him "stealing" knowledge about Indian seeds. The French interviewer repeatedly tries to get her to clarify and provide details, and he even mentions several times that "this sounds like conspiracy theories," but she just rambles on about Monsanto and Gates and Zuckerburg trying to steal information from India. 

Is there a reason you posted this video in a thread about covid vaccines? Is this supposed to support the idea that Bill Gates is some Deep State mastermind with nefarious plans to take over the world? Are you suggesting that if he supports the use of GMOs in developing countries, then he's probably also putting microchips in vaccines?

I'm totally lost as to what this video has to with covid vaccines? 

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Oh please — this exact "talking point" is all over RW media and anti-vaxx sites, and it's pure propaganda.

Does anyone really expect that nursing home deaths will cease as vaccines are rolled out? When you're vaccinating medically fragile people in their 70s, 80s, and 90s, some percentage of those people are naturally going to pass away in the next month or so whether they get a vaccine or not. If the cohort of vaccinated patients actually has a lower death rate than the unvaccinated patients, how does that square with the claim that the vaccine is killing nursing home residents? 

As of October 3rd, the US had 300,000 excess deaths — that's 85,000 more than the official covid count at that time, so we have almost certainly been undercounting deaths caused by covid. Anyone arguing that huge numbers of deaths attributed to covid were really just normal heart attacks, or cancer, or car accidents, or whatever, is listening to too much propaganda and ignoring all the actual data. Ditto with repeating bogus talking points about how the vaccine is killing hundreds of elderly people in nursing homes, when the actual stats show no such thing.

 

I did not say what you imply I said.

I am simply pointing out that different standards of government reporting do not look like objectivity and do not build trust.

A lack of trust is an issue here, or is it not?

Edited February 21, 2021 by SKL

[Katy]

25 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

The term booster seems a little odd if they're redoing the shot to fit the mutations. They don't call the readministration of the flu shot each year a booster.

In other words, it seems like a mental game. They're saying 3 months of no masking and now saying boosters because the thing is mutating so much they'll have to keep redoing the shots each year. Is that where it's going?

That's what Fauci speculated a year ago, yes.  And the longer it takes to get worldwide vaccination the more likely we'll have this virus indefinitely. The more people it infects the more it mutates, creating new strains.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

And are you surprised to hear it repeated, lol? 

 

This kind of reasoning requires someone to think about how you might check whether the vaccine is hurting nursing home residents. As soon as you think about how this question might be studied, you realize that you're right. 

But if people are more interested in political points than in answering the questions, then there's nothing you can do, no matter how clearly you explain. 

FTR, I would rather the elderly be vaccinated, but I also live in reality.  Trust is an issue and trust is not built by manipulating facts.

[ktgrok]

56 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

But is it always killer T-cells dealing with invaders? I thought that sometimes, there were less invasive measures. I mean, your cells still do stuff even when they've been hijacked... 

I've also been learning as I go, so I'd love to know if you look this up and figure it out. 

I'm picturing these really polite Canadian cells just asking the virus to leave, saying, "So um, think you could move on now, eh?" rather than killing the cells. 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yeah. Our choices affect others. People who work in nursing homes and don't get vaccinated endanger the residents. They really do 😞 .

We need information about whether vaccinations prevent people from passing the virus.  Science, not emotions.

[katilac]

 

10 hours ago, Pen said:

 Robert “Kennedy Jr said that Dr. Fauci owns a number of vaccine patents, including one that is being trialed to fight coronavirus by some of America's biggest vaccine manufacturers. 

The idea that Dr. Fauci will be profiting from vaccines is so easily checked! You will watch all these lengthy videos, but you won't do 30 seconds of research before savaging someone's reputation? 

 

13 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

They're saying 3 months of no masking and now saying boosters because the thing is mutating so much they'll have to keep redoing the shots each year. Is that where it's going?

I don't understand what you're asking here. Are you talking about the proposed 3-month mask mandate, or did you mean to say no masking? There's no contradiction between calling for the mandate and still needing vaccines and boosters; no one is saying that the three months' mandate would eradicate covid, but that it would save lives. 

20 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

This is an interview with an Indian environmental activist who is mostly ranting against Monsanto and also criticizes Bill Gates for supporting GMO crops and makes vague allegations about him "stealing" knowledge about Indian seeds. <snip>

I'm totally lost as to what this video has to with covid vaccines? 

I believe it relates to her saying that many people who lean left politically don't trust Bill Gates because of his ties to Monsanto, which leads to GMO crops and this video. 

[AbcdeDooDah]

9 hours ago, SKL said:

I find it interesting how the messaging differs with people who died "with Covid" or "presumed Covid" vs people who died or had severe reactions shortly after a vaccine.

On one hand, it's a Covid death even if you had fatal non-Covid problems, and also, even if there was no Covid test but some Covid symptoms.  (And practically everything is a Covid symptom.)

On the other hand, pretty much nothing is a result of the vaccine unless the person was previously young and free of prior health conditions, allergies, etc.  And even then, they will only say they are investigating.

This does not look like objectivity and does not build trust.

This. I don’t watch or listen to right-wing media. I thought of it all by myself in my higher-educated head. 

[SKL]

Just now, AbcdeDooDah said:

This. I don’t watch or listen to right-wing media. I thought of it all by myself in my higher-educated head. 

Same.  😛

My dad had the vax (second dose coming soon), and he would like my mom to have it, but she isn't ready yet.  I haven't discussed it with her at all, but I have known her for 54 years, so ....   Also she is not stupid nor uneducated and she is not on social media at all.  She does like to base her decisions on facts.

[Frances]

45 minutes ago, SKL said:

FTR, I would rather the elderly be vaccinated, but I also live in reality.  Trust is an issue and trust is not built by manipulating facts.

Neither is trust built by repeatedly telling people not to trust the experts, straight up lying repeatedly, and feeding people a steady diet of propaganda and misinformation with some occasional conspiracy theories thrown in for good measure.

I think perhaps you are focusing on the wrong data and facts. Excess deaths is really the key here.

[SKL]

16 minutes ago, kand said:

I thought all that stuff about Covid deaths not really being Covid deaths was long put to bed. There’s simply no reality to it. As @Corraleno said, it’s clear from excess deaths that we have been undercounting. Covid deaths haven’t been classified in the way you state. And yes, it’s a Covid death if you die from Covid even if you had other health conditions that otherwise wouldn’t have caused you to die at that time. If you’re obese and get Covid, obesity may be listed as a secondary factor on the death certificate. It’s still Covid that caused the death. If you’re a healthy 35 year old woman with hypertension and you die of Covid, the hypertension will be listed as a factor. That does not mean the cause of death isn’t Covid. That’s crazy. 

And I don’t know how someone thinks they’re not repeating baseless conspiracy theories based on having heard them elsewhere. They can’t be based on facts, because they aren’t facts. All these people repeating them just all independently made up the same conspiracy theory? (And why? That’s what I keep coming back to. Why are people so bent on their Covid conspiracy theories?  Those conspiracy theories have done nothing but led to this being worse and lasting longer.)

It is a fact that the criteria for attributing death to Covid are different from the criteria for attributing death to vaccines.

If they were the same, then trust would increase IMO.

[SKL]

20 minutes ago, Frances said:

Neither is trust built by repeatedly telling people not to trust the experts, straight up lying repeatedly, and feeding people a steady diet of propaganda and misinformation with some occasional conspiracy theories thrown in for good measure.

I think perhaps you are focusing on the wrong data and facts. Excess deaths is really the key here.

I think we all agree that lies about the vaccine doing more damage than it does, and lies about Covid not being serious in some populations, are also bad.

Pointing out the other problem does not equal feeding people lies.

People should be able to go to the government sources to fact check the BS they hear elsewhere, but the government sources have not earned their trust, so this is what happens.

Edited February 21, 2021 by SKL

[frogger]

11 minutes ago, SKL said:

It is a fact that the criteria for attributing death to Covid are different from the criteria for attributing death to vaccines.

If they were the same, then trust would increase IMO.

Are they? Can you give me some evidence? 

 

 

[AbcdeDooDah]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think we all agree that lies about the vaccine doing more damage than it does, and lies about Covid not being serious in some populations, are also bad.

Pointing out the other problem does not equal feeding people lies.

But it’s so much easier if those that refuse the vaccine are ignorant Trump supporters on a steady diet of right-wing media.

Here’s a head scratcher. My husband, a Trump supporter with no higher education, just got his second shot on Thursday. I am a college-educated NOT Trump supporter and will not be getting the vaccine, for now, if ever.

We both weighed the risks individually. Both came to different conclusions for ourselves.

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

But it’s so much easier if those that refuse the vaccine are ignorant Trump supporters on a steady diet of right-wing media.

Here’s a head scratcher. My husband, a Trump supporter with no higher education, just got his second shot on Thursday. I am a college-educated NOT Trump supporter and will not be getting the vaccine, for now, if ever.

We both weighed the risks individually. Both came to different conclusions for ourselves.

And this says... precisely zero about whether statistically education is correlated to vaccine refusal. People are individuals. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

I'm picturing these really polite Canadian cells just asking the virus to leave, saying, "So um, think you could move on now, eh?" rather than killing the cells. 

Hahahah!! OK, I was visualizing killing the virus without destroying the cells, lol. But maybe asking nicely would do it! 

[AbcdeDooDah]

6 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

And this says... precisely zero about whether statistically education is correlated to vaccine refusal. People are individuals. 

I don’t claim it is “data.” In this thread and many others here, those that refuse the vaccine are ignorant, low-education, etc.

Where do I see that there is “no link” between COVID vaccinations and death? MSM. It’s not hard to think about what we already know about vaccines and that yes, some people will die from them and feel there is an interest in pretending that Not One Death is from the vaccine. It’s too soon to know about “excess deaths.”

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I don’t claim it is “data.” In this thread and many others here, those that refuse the vaccine are ignorant, low-education, etc.

Most people have only noted a correlation. Not that every single person who refuses a vaccine is ignorant. Those are different. 

 

2 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Where do I see that there is “no link” between COVID vaccinations and death? MSM. It’s not hard to think about what we already know about vaccines and that yes, some people will die from them and feel there is an interest in pretending that Not One Death is from the vaccine. It’s too soon to know about “excess deaths.”

I mean, people will die from anything. People will die from standing on corners because a brick falls on their head and kills them. Apparently, MANY people per year die of stairs. Some people have allergic reactions to foods and die from that. 

The question is always: do more people die from it or are more people saved by it? With this vaccine, it's almost certain the answer will be that more people are saved. 

[AbcdeDooDah]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

 

The question is always: do more people die from it or are more people saved by it? With this vaccine, it's almost certain the answer will be that more people are saved. 

Of course. But be upfront about the fact that people will die from the vaccine. Not you specifically.

The same question can be asked of Covid. The ones who are the loudest about waiting for data and following science are not waiting for the data on this. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, AbcdeDooDah said:

Of course. But be upfront about the fact that people will die from the vaccine. Not you specifically.

But if one person dies and 100 are saved... then it's worth it as a public health initiative, right? 

 

Just now, AbcdeDooDah said:

The same question can be asked of Covid. The ones who are the loudest about waiting for data and following science are not waiting for the data on this. 

What question can be asked about COVID? Whether more people will die from it or be saved by it? We have about half a million worth of answers for that one 😞. 

[Frances]

17 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

And this says... precisely zero about whether statistically education is correlated to vaccine refusal. People are individuals. 

And also zero about whether statistically political affiliation is correlated to vaccine uptake. 

[AbcdeDooDah]

12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

But if one person dies and 100 are saved... then it's worth it as a public health initiative, right? 

If one death from Covid is too many(which I’ve heard many times here), is one death from a vaccine too many? Yes, more people will die from achieving herd immunity from Covid than herd immunity from the vaccine. 

I think, again IMO, more people’s would get on board if there was transparency and honesty about the risks of the vaccine. This whole thing has been a shit-show from the beginning with confusing messaging and backtracking. Why? Because  we don’t know enough about it yet. Same with the vaccine, that’s all.

Some people, including me, want more long-term data on the vaccine before deciding. That’s okay. 

Edited February 21, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

If one death from Covid is too many(which I’ve heard many times here), is one death from a vaccine too many?

I think saying "one death from ____ is too many" is absurd, no matter what you fill in the blank. Public health never works like that, no matter what anonymous internet posters say. 

 

1 minute ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

This while thing has been a shit-show from the beginning with confusing messaging and backtracking. Why? Because  we don’t know enough about it yet. Same with the vaccine, that’s all.

In the best of all possible worlds, I'd like the vaccine studied longer. But as I keep stealing from @maize, the vaccine has a much better safety record than the virus 😉 . 

[PeterPan]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

I don't understand what you're asking here. Are you talking about the proposed 3-month mask mandate, or did you mean to say no masking? There's no contradiction between calling for the mandate and still needing vaccines and boosters; no one is saying that the three months' mandate would eradicate covid, but that it would save lives. 

I've completely stopped watching the news, so I know zilch about a mask mandate. If it's being proposed, it's overreach and should be a state decision. 

What I was referring to was the current CDC guidelines about quarantining after your doses of the vaccine. So I get that they need data, but what it logically means is they're going to say your vaccine is 40-60% worthless after a year and has to be repeated. It's not going to be like say a chicken pox vaccine or something where they expect it to work a long time. (long as in pick a number of years even if a booster is advised) 

So I can see where people are getting cynical if they've pieced together that this is going to be an over and over thing.

[AbcdeDooDah]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

I think saying "one death from ____ is too many" is absurd, no matter what you fill in the blank. Public health never works like that, no matter what anonymous internet posters say. 

 

In the best of all possible worlds, I'd like the vaccine studied longer. But as I keep stealing from @maize, the vaccine has a much better safety record than the virus 😉 . 

It’s been said here. Many times.

To your second statement: Of course it does. But we know nothing about long-term effects, etc. or other reasons why people want to wait. Doesn’t make them ignorant.

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

It’s been said here. Many times.

To your second statement: Of course it does. But we know nothing about long-term effects, etc. or other reasons why people want to wait. Doesn’t make them ignorant.

But we don't know those for the virus, either. In fact, we're sure they exist, just not how long they last. 

[PeterPan]

8 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

If one death from Covid is too many(which I’ve heard many times here), is one death from a vaccine too many?

The big issue there is if it's voluntary or forced. 

8 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Some people, including me, want more long-term data on the vaccine before deciding. That’s okay. 

Absolutely! I totally support that. And at the same time if you're working at my dad's AL and choose that then I expect you to be repositioned away from direct exposure (that would get him quarantined if you test positive) to my dad.

[AbcdeDooDah]

7 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

The big issue there is if it's voluntary or forced. 

Absolutely! I totally support that. And at the same time if you're working at my dad's AL and choose that then I expect you to be repositioned away from direct exposure (that would get him quarantined if you test positive) to my dad.

I totally understand that frustration. It’s a tragic situation for those in AL. 

We don’t have enough data, though, to say that those that are vaccinated are not transmitting it.

[katilac]

54 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Of course. But be upfront about the fact that people will die from the vaccine.  

Where have you seen it officially stated that no one will die from the vaccine? 

39 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

I've completely stopped watching the news, so I know zilch about a mask mandate. If it's being proposed, it's overreach and should be a state decision. 

What I was referring to was the current CDC guidelines about quarantining after your doses of the vaccine. So I get that they need data, but what it logically means is they're going to say your vaccine is 40-60% worthless after a year and has to be repeated. It's not going to be like say a chicken pox vaccine or something where they expect it to work a long time. (long as in pick a number of years even if a booster is advised) 

So I can see where people are getting cynical if they've pieced together that this is going to be an over and over thing.

I personally don't see why the possibility of an annual covid vaccine would cause cynicism. Obviously, we'd prefer a one-and-done, but the flu vaccine is annual and it takes me about 5 minutes per year (or 30 seconds if it happens to be available while I'm at the doctor). 

Also, can you point me to the CDC guidelines you're talking about? I still don't quite understand what you're getting at or what your reference to 3 months means. Are you just saying that it seems like the covid vaccine might need to be repeated? 

35 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

It’s been said here. Many times.

If anyone can link to a thread where this is stated, I'd be interested in reading it. 

Edited February 21, 2021 by katilac

[teachermom2834]

I know a highly educated health care worker who got tested for and has antibodies even though she never experienced a single symptom and worked in close proximity with patients the entire pandemic. She will eventually get the vaccine but for now is sitting it out letting people more in need get the shot ahead of her. I suspect she would share her situation with anyone who truly had a reason to need to know but she isn’t advertising it. 
 

But she isn’t really disclosing her reasoning and her whole story to anyone that asks. So in addition to the many reasons people may have for refusing the vaccine, some people may just not to tell everyone all the reasons. 
 

I’m kind of an open book to a fault but I know many people who value privacy and don’t want to tell anyone anything. Obviously employers are going to have different standards but I know a lot of people not interested in sharing their status in casual conversation or to a reporter who might ask. 
 

People are complicated.

[AbcdeDooDah]

10 minutes ago, katilac said:

Where have you seen it officially stated that no one will die from the vaccine?  

I did not say that. I have not seen deaths attributed to the vaccine, though, only denials. We don’t know that yet until we see data on excess deaths. 

 

I’m neglecting my Criminology homework so I have to go.

Peter Pan, I hope the AL situation gets worked out with your dad, and he does not keep getting quarantined. It seems really unfair. I’m sad for him. 

[katilac]

5 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I did not say that. I have not seen deaths attributed to the vaccine, though, only denials. We don’t know that yet until we see data on excess deaths. 

 You said But be upfront about the fact that people will die from the vaccine and I have seen no credible person or agency stating that no one will die from the vaccine. Anyone who has ever been to the doctor has signed paperwork acknowledging that any medical procedure or medicine has the possibility of causing death.

The fact that deaths have not been attributed to the vaccine yet only means that no causation between vaccine and a specific death has been found; very few people die from any and all vaccines combined, so it would be a big assumption to think that there must have been deaths that are being falsely denied. 

[PeterPan]

32 minutes ago, teachermom2834 said:

who got tested for and has antibodies even though she never experienced a single symptom and worked in close proximity with patients the entire pandemic.

Total aside, but what is the state of current antibodies testing (cost, ease of getting it done, etc.) if someone wants that?

[katilac]

Just now, PeterPan said:

Total aside, but what is the state of current antibodies testing (cost, ease of getting it done, etc.) if someone wants that?

That's going to have huge variations by location and insurance. 

[teachermom2834]

1 minute ago, PeterPan said:

Total aside, but what is the state of current antibodies testing (cost, ease of getting it done, etc.) if someone wants that?

My dh had it done a few months ago at urgent care and insurance paid for it. Most places around here that do blood donations are testing for antibodies for free. So donating blood is one way. 

[ieta_cassiopeia]

2 hours ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

We don’t have enough data, though, to say that those that are vaccinated are not transmitting it.

We have some for Pfizer, though, thanks to the in-field test that Israel has become, as well as for the Pfizer/OxfordAstrazeneca/Moderna options in preliminary data for the UK (due to a sudden shift from mostly over-75s in hospital for COVID to almost equal amounts over- and under-70s, along with a large reduction in deaths for over-80s).

Also, as far as can be ascertained, none of the 15 million+ people who have been vaccinated in the UK have died of the vaccination - something that has to be checked rigourously due to vaccine reporting laws, People have ended up in hospital (including a few people with anaphylaxis who'd had anaphylaxis from previous vaccines). So if there is a risk of death from the vaccine, it's likely to be below 1 in 15 million,

 

Note that the first study I linked showed that 60% of a population had to be vaccinated for the effect to show up, which meant that on a national level, it was only possible to evaluate this information recently (since no nation had got a population to 60% vaccinated until about 6 weeks ago). Clearly, if all rational people are waiting for that level of proof, the 60% is never hit and the proof never comes, making the whole thing a self-fulfilling rejection.

[ktgrok]

4 hours ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

This. I don’t watch or listen to right-wing media. I thought of it all by myself in my higher-educated head. 

Ok, but thinking something, without basing it on facts, doesn't make it true. 

4 hours ago, SKL said:

It is a fact that the criteria for attributing death to Covid are different from the criteria for attributing death to vaccines.

If they were the same, then trust would increase IMO.

How?

[sassenach]

18 hours ago, Liz CA said:

I cannot answer for your area or for the pop you are questioning, however, it seems there are several people who are waiting to see how this vaccine works out. I can hear that you are upset because you are worried about your father. Health care workers are also worried about a myriad of issues. I will not comment on the "low education people who don't know better" part. I hope this comes from a point of agitation and not from a deep set belief. Part of COVID and what this has taught us is that everyone makes decisions for themselves and we cannot force anyone to make the decision we would make. As far as I know, no employer right now can demand people be vaccinated - and if you think about this, it would be a huge liability issue. All it would take is one person becoming ill or worse. 

Specifically, because these vaccines are all emergency approved, employers definitely cannot require it. Down the road, once the vaccines are fully approved and the supply has evened out with the demand, it's technically possible but I doubt it will come to that. 

[Corraleno]

9 hours ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Of course. But be upfront about the fact that people will die from the vaccine. Not you specifically.

The same question can be asked of Covid. The ones who are the loudest about waiting for data and following science are not waiting for the data on this. 

No, actually, the people who advocate waiting for data and following science are actually reading the data and following science, instead of ignoring the data and listening to propaganda from the same sources that assured us that the covid cases and deaths were vastly exaggerated, covid was no more dangerous than the flu, and it would "disappear like magic."

We have data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials, in which tens of thousands of people were vaccinated, including large numbers of elderly, with zero vaccine-related deaths. The person in the AstraZeneca trial who died was in the placebo group. We have data from a study on nursing homes that found vaccinated patients had a lower death rate than unvaccinated patients. Where is the data showing that hundreds of elderly are dying from the vaccine? FB posts and anti-vaxx websites are not "data."

We also have clear and abundant data on excess deaths. We know that hundreds of thousands more Americans died last year than would have been expected compared to the previous 5 years, and we know how many of those deaths were officially attributed to covid. If it were true that many people who died of normal causes, like heart attacks or cancer or whatever, were falsely listed as covid deaths, then the number of covid deaths would be much higher than the number of excess deaths. The actual data show the exact opposite: the number of excess deaths is higher than the number of covid deaths, indicating that we are undercounting not overcounting. We don't have to "wait for the data" on this, we have the data. 

No one is claiming that there will never be a single death caused by the covid vaccine. It is statistically likely that if you inject hundreds of millions of people with any vaccine, that a tiny number of those people may have an unanticipated reaction that could prove fatal. That is a risk that everyone takes any time they receive any vaccine, but most people understand that the risk of vaccine injury is vastly lower, by orders of magnitude, than the risk of severe illness or death from the disease they're being vaccinated against. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Corraleno

[KathyBC]

The fact that some of you can't see the similarities in language that SKL pointed out is ... baffling.
She is not "on the other side". Maintaining credibility would be helped by less defensiveness and more acknowledgement of inherent reality - essentially adding some nuance to your speaking points.

ETA: I don't think I'm communicating all that clearly. To rephrase, a couple of Corraleno's posts acknowledge that medically fragile people are likely to expire of health issues unrelated to the vaccine, yet that reality has been wholesale rejected when brought up wrt the virus. I think a year's worth of statistics are helpful here, but some nuance over the past 12 months would have bought a lot less polarization. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by KathyBC

[Pen]

6 hours ago, kand said:

I agree it’s okay for people to want more data. There isn’t enough vaccine for everyone who eagerly wants the vaccine at this point anyway, so people have time. That’s separate from whether businesses have the right to reduce the risk on their premises by requiring vaccines. Do you have particular things you’re worried about with these vaccines that is different from other vaccines?

We don’t know yet if it will require regular boosters, but it looks likely that will be a good idea. It would be ideal if it could be like chicken pox, but not all vaccines are like that. What’s the alternative though? To stay stuck with things as they are forever? I’m willing to get a vaccine and occasional boosters if that means we can start having a more normal life. I just don’t see a viable alternative right now. (We could have done it differently with super hard lockdown worldwide early on, so the virus never took hold, but that ship has long sailed. I would have loved to be in the position of New Zealand at this point.)

One problem seems to be (taking this with grain of salt as I have not delved deeply into the statistics) that some places have different approaches to dealing with cv19——yet when populations are age adjusted (or maybe even if not) places like California (substantial lockdown, mandates) and Florida (substantially not locked down, less mask and other mandates) are seeming to be doing about the same.  
 

While, otoh, in some places with robust vaccine programs (Tennessee, Israel) mortality has increased.   or so I’ve heard. 

 

[wathe]

9 hours ago, ktgrok said:

I'm picturing these really polite Canadian cells just asking the virus to leave, saying, "So um, think you could move on now, eh?" rather than killing the cells. 

You forgot the Sorry.  Fixed that for you:

"Sorry! So um, think you could move on now, eh?"

[wathe]

6 hours ago, katilac said:

Where have you seen it officially stated that no one will die from the vaccine? 

I personally don't see why the possibility of an annual covid vaccine would cause cynicism. Obviously, we'd prefer a one-and-done, but the flu vaccine is annual and it takes me about 5 minutes per year (or 30 seconds if it happens to be available while I'm at the doctor). 

Also, can you point me to the CDC guidelines you're talking about? I still don't quite understand what you're getting at or what your reference to 3 months means. Are you just saying that it seems like the covid vaccine might need to be repeated? 

If anyone can link to a thread where this is stated, I'd be interested in reading it. 

I think @PeterPan means this guidance from the CDC about vaccinated individuals being excused from quarantine after exposure if they meed these criteria:

"However, vaccinated persons with an exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine if they meet all of the following criteria^†:

• Are fully vaccinated (i.e., ≥2 weeks following receipt of the second dose in a 2-dose series, or ≥2 weeks following receipt of one dose of a single-dose vaccine)
• Are within 3 months following receipt of the last dose in the series
• Have remained asymptomatic since the current COVID-19 exposure

Persons who do not meet all 3 of the above criteria should continue to follow current quarantine guidance after exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19."

I think she's mistakenly conflated not having to quarantine with not masking.  Maybe?  Or @PeterPan did you mean something else and I'm way off base?