There’s likely going to be a stampede for it. 
I gave up on the flu vaccine in France as the pharmacies were always out of it. That’s going to change now my son’s a pharmacist. 
3 Likes
1 Like
If you like a few too many drinks or a smoke or 2 every hour, aren’t you taking risks with your health that all those who pay tax end up paying for?. Stretching health services to the point that others cannot get visits and/or operations for other non self inflicted conditions.
1 Like
Sure, but those are not contagious. I actually do think that smokers in public health systems should be paying more into the system - or at the very least, a significant amount of the price of a cigarette should be hypothecated to health care. But provided I am not forced to endure your second hand smoke, any externalities from your drinking and smoking can be compensated.
3 Likes
Second hand smoke has been causing problems for years, gas guzzling cars have been spewing shite into the air we breathe for decades.The end result is similar to a contaigen, it’s either causing huge health problems or killing us.
Once the majority have received their vaccine and are then protected then the odd individual who chooses not to get vaccinated shouldn’t really pose a risk to an already vaccinated society.
In the case of these new vacinnes we don’t yet know if there will be any long term effects from their use, they should be fine, but we should never make anyone take these or any other vaccine,either through force or coersion.
1 Like
We don’t know yet if the vaccine(s) stop people from being contagious to others. I think we’ll get fairly different debates depending on how that goes.
3 Likes
Yes, the differing trial claims of Moderna and Pfizer make that unclear.
2 Likes
Right, but where I live, we have fairly rigorous rules about second-hand smoke. You have the right to smoke, but not indoors, not within 9 meters of an entrance, and not within 20 meters of any school or sportsfield. There is no truer testament to the addictive properties of tobacco than the willingness of smokers to go outside in -35C weather to smoke. The smoker has no rights to impose those problems on others. That to me seems to be an equitable model.
Once the virus is eradicated, yes, being vaccinated will not have the same consequence - at which point employers will no longer care either, and likely drop it as a consideration. However, in the interim, those who choose to refuse do not seem to me to be entitled to any civil protections from that choice. Where I think things get potentially very complex is that at least here, estimates are that only about 50% of the population will be able to be vaccinated by September. That transitional period is difficult to handle, because we can reasonably expect the ongoing threat of contagion, but the opportunity to protect oneself will not be universally available.
2 Likes
If only 50% can be done by September then we should concentrate on vaccinating those who want it rather than waste time trying go push those who don’t want it.
There will be people who are nervous about the speed at which this has been done and they are well within their right to put themselves at the back of the queue. I have no problem with that.Once they see how this is working in the medium term, if it is a success with only minor adverse effects if any, then they’ll get on board.
There will only be a tiny minority who won’t ever take it, not enough to cause the rest of the world problems in the long run.
3 Likes
I think that is reasonable, but there will be some professions where not only will it be mandatory, but there are already precedents for such policy. For instance, most hospital employees are required to get an annual flu shot. It’s a case of “you are not mandated to get it, you just are if you want to work here.” I think we’ll see something similar here.
3 Likes
Yes, refusal is definitely not a today problem.
2 Likes
And if it is true that you’ll have to vaccinate yourself every three months because of a lack of persisting antibodies, then it could easily become an unsolvable problem…
Anyway, the first people to receive it should be all those who are most likely to suffer from it: high-risk groups and old people. Then of course, the people working in the health services, and beyond that, those who work with a lot of people.
Young and healthy people under 60 shouldn’t be on the list yet imo, as the risk for them is near to zero.
2 Likes
The flu jab has been around for a long time and the majority of people see no problem with it, they either get it or they don’t, that has come with time. Those working in the health services are always first to jump on board as well but the ordinary Joe soap take a little longer to get on board.
In time maybe we will see the same thing with a covid vaccine but right now and probably for a year or 2 there will be an ever decreasing level of scepticism until people see it’s fine, or not.
1 Like
I’ve worked in the pharma /chem industry for over 30 years and I hate taking medication of any type. I’ve seen how they have been made and what goes into them and while I know they do good, my go to is still to refuse where possible,even now when there is daily medication I need, I try to stretch out taking it.
2 Likes
I don’t think they have any data on that anyway? Maybe I’m wrong.
1 Like
I am a complete weenie when it comes to injections. Hate them, always have, as long as I can remember. As a fairly big person, I have had nurses half my weight be shocked at the ritual I use to take an injection. I generally duck the flu vaccine, because when I get it I have a day or so of feeling crap, whereas when I get the flu, I have about two days of feeling crap. But most years I don’t get the flu, so come out ahead by avoiding it - especially the years when the vaccine doesn’t actually do anything against the strain in circulation.
This year, I did want to get the flu vaccine, essentially because it is more of a social responsibility to ensure one stays out of the healthcare system if possible. Ironically, the shortages so far have prevented me from getting it - though the rest of my family has.
2 Likes
The Pfizer trials were testing the ‘protect from’ case, with the results suggesting 95% protection.
The Moderna trials claim 94% protection, 100% against serious cases. I am not clear if that means the Moderna one produces a different result, i.e. can have a period where the patient is infected and contagious or not.
2 Likes
Yeah. But that says nothing about contagiousness.
1 Like
The Pfizer result would seem to indicate that no cases = no transmission. I just don’t know enough about the trial-test process beyond the statistics to interpret what the difference between the two tested hypotheses means.
1 Like
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you or haven’t heard about new data that has been made available, but so far I hadn’t heard Biontech/Phizer making claims about contagiousness so far, even if they are asymptomatic.
1 Like