Maybe neither option is great? Have you ever considered that possibility?
It's funny because your post really offers nothing new, just another opinion of your own.
I've said before, I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I've taken vaccines before and if the Pfizer vaccine proves safe longer term, we know more about reported heart problems in younger males, I won't need to mix and match vaccines and have booster shots and all that type of rot, then yeah, I'll likely participate.
I'm just not prepared to jump right in because Internets tell me they feel it's safe to do so.
What's actually wrong with that? I don't see the issue?
I don't know how I've implied that any option was "great" ?
My post is pointing out that your previous framing is discounting the possible effects from doing nothing, while emphasizing the possible effects from doing something. This is not scientific.
In general you seem to be attaching a high weighting to not taking the vaccine, including repeating common logical fallacies. Most likely you've gotten that from the "Internets", so it's fallacious to invoke it as if it's some singular party instructing you to do something. The Internet is generally malicious noise, it's up to you to pull signal out of it.
At the basic level, there is no "all that type of rot". I got two shots, had cold symptoms for a day on the first one, and was otherwise fine. It has allowed me to reduce my Covid precautions substantially, and has drastically increased my quality of life. If there end up being variants that require boosters, then I can make another decision to get those or not.
I wasn't chomping at the bit for the vaccine since it was announced, rather I too figured I'd wait and see what the larger scale effects were. But by the time spring rolled around I had considered 6 months enough time to shake out most unknown unknowns at scale.
What's you're deal then? You just feel strongly I should take the vaccine?
Where I live, what I do for work has really made no impact on my quality of life, so I don't give a fish about the virus or the vaccine.
It's funny to me that you say you deliberated, then you took it, and now I'm being "unscientific" for deliberating in the same way. But somehow you've made the scientific choice because you felt 6 months was long enough to wait. Not very scientific ?
I'm not going to argue that you, Internet Stranger, should get the vaccine. I will tell my friends they need to be vaccinated if they want to hang out.
I respect people's right to make their own informed decisions, but not to repeat disinformation. I've pointed out exactly how your framing is unscientific for privileging one option ("do nothing") above the rest, but you keep brushing past that.
I shared my story in the hopes that you would see there are deliberate decisions by the people getting vaccinated as well, not just the "Internets". Six months of time felt like a reasonable period of caution to me. If you wanted to wait a year or a "little longer", I wouldn't say we disagree. But rather you're putting forth reasoning that implies needing to wait 10 years which might as well be forever.
If you yourself really don't come into contact with other people - ie you live alone, work at home, get groceries delivered, and don't visit friends - then sure, continue on isolating. But for the vast majority of people this path is inapplicable, and for them your incorrect framing is actively harmful.
If we’re planning on vaccinating the entire population of the human race I think it would’ve been better give the vaccine to the most vulnerable and at least have a 3 year study done and focus on treatments in the meantime before giving it to younger people.
I’ve read good things about Ivermectin for example, where’s the rushed controlled clinical trial of that ? A drug we do know is safe, cheap and widely available ?
Also if you look into it, there are actually valid questions being asked such as, what causes heart inflammation and attacks? Why isn’t that more understood. How was it missed in initial trials ? What is the mechanism causing that? [1]
Doesn’t seem right we should give young otherwise healthy men heart troubles ?
It's funny because your post really offers nothing new, just another opinion of your own.
I've said before, I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I've taken vaccines before and if the Pfizer vaccine proves safe longer term, we know more about reported heart problems in younger males, I won't need to mix and match vaccines and have booster shots and all that type of rot, then yeah, I'll likely participate.
I'm just not prepared to jump right in because Internets tell me they feel it's safe to do so.
What's actually wrong with that? I don't see the issue?