I'm honestly curious if you would apply this reason to other types of infections? or is it something about covid and the covid vaccine that has the risk/reward ratio tilted in favor of not vaccinating for it? When I do my own assessment, I look at the tremendous success of the vaccines (efficacy and low serious side-effect rate) and compare it to the risk and consequences of getting the disease, it seems a very easy call for me. So I'm really curious what you are evaluating differently - what am I missing?
Your risk from the vaccine is lower than your risk from Covid lol - because you know the Covid disease creates fully functional viruses whereas the vaccine only incorporates a small subset that cannot reproduce. Why you would want the fully functional version is beyond me.
Do you think it is worth getting the vaccine if you’ve already had covid and it wasn’t a big deal?
As in if you have firsthand experience that covid didn’t affect you much, wouldn’t that maybe be a valid reason to just say I’m not going to get vaccinated even though the risks of adverse short term effects are small (still don’t know about long term but probably small is my guess)
because you can still get covid even with the vaccine... so if you are not in an at risk group, why bother injecting yourself with stuff you probably don't need?
The risk of suffering long-term damage from getting covid unvaccinated is way higher than the risk of any long-term side effects from the vaccine or getting Covid vaccinated. Even if the former is low, there's no downside to getting the vaccine anyways.
I can kind of understand if someone is avoiding the vaccine and also isolating themselves to protect against the virus, but I really just don't understand the risk-benefit analysis where the vaccine is too risky but catching Covid isn't.
Also, the risk of catching Covid unvaccinated may not be that low. But, the risk of any serious vaccine side-effects, or catching Covid vaccinated, is super low. IIRC Israel did a study and, the amount of breakthrough cases requiring hospitalization for under 40 was 0.3 per 100k, and the amount of people suffering myocarditis and other vaccine complications is in the double-digits, despite vaccinations being in the billions.
We know little about the vaccine, but we also know little about the effects of social media, random pollutants, etc. And that stuff is applied without your consent, and unlike the vaccine that stuff probably is harmful long-term.
That's not the only reasons people wouldn't want to take the vaccine. For instance lots of people already had covid (particularly in NYC), and developed a natural immunity, which from the low reinfection rate, seems to be rock solid. It doesn't make a lot of sense to require that population to take a vaccine.
As for the vaccine being more or less dangerous than the virus, I think for any population over 40 or in poor health, the trade off is clearly in favour of the vaccine. But if you are 20 and in good health, I am not sure it is that obvious.
I am not overly concerned about the vaccine myself, and I got vaccinated even though I had covid (mostly to be able to travel), but I have some sympathy for people who decline to be vaccinated, particularly when all the population at risk had a chance to get vaccinated. At this point this is them managing their own risk. Their life, their decision.
Your number 2 answer does not fit the individual taken in consideration here, which is a 29 yo electronic engineer who probably has seen the stats of COVID lethality and hospitalization by age and has taken a completely normal and valid decision to not take it. He’s most likely going to get COVID and, with all the stats in his favor, he’s going to recover from it and gain much more stronger antivirals from what the vaccine could get him. On the other hand there is a valid alternative too which is the vaccine. Both decisions look good to me
I think the “why take chances” logic can be applied in multiple ways though. The risks from COVID are incredibly low for the young and healthy, and even lower if you consider just those with balanced diets (without VDD). It’s difficult to compare the tradeoffs between multiple competing low risk choices. Why take chances with a new vaccine that could prove to have some long term effect? Why take chances with shutting down schools and impacting children for a lifetime? Why take chances with the lower oxygen and breathing difficulties of masks? And so on. It makes more sense for individuals to evaluate their risk tolerance and circumstances to decide which tradeoffs they are willing to take on.
> And especially is there studies showing that people under the age of 40 in healthy condition have any benefit regarding long covid by taking the vaccine ?
If you mean risk of long-covid after getting covid with vs. without the vaccine: of course we don't know, but it's pretty likely the vaccine significantly decreases the chance of long covid. Since long-covid correlates well with infection severity, and the vaccine is particularly good at preventing severe infections.
If you mean the chance of people who already have long-covid recovering after getting vaccinated - it's pretty low.
> Well, some people don't like to take drugs, so if they know that their immune system can cope with it (even if that means difficult time for a short time) they would prefer it.
Ok. But still, "drug" is an arbitrary label, the vaccine consists of mRNA and other compounds which are in your body. I get taking risks and not being over-careful, like I definitely get why lockdowns / even masking in some situations is a bad idea. But the risk of not getting vaccinated is an unnecessary risk, kind of like driving without a seatbelt or riding without a helmet, except you only have to wear the helmet initially (idk I can't think of a better analogy).
The issue is that you don't know whether you're going to be in the "recovered" group before you get COVID (which is why the vaccine is preferable, you get good immunity without the pesky dying).
The vaccine does carry the risk of side effects and adverse reactions. That risk, for most, is VERY small.
But if the person in question also has very low risk of contracting or spreading Covid (works from home, rarely goes out, young, healthy) and if being vaccinated doesn’t actually enable you to live any differently than you already are, then there’s no compelling reason to get vaccinated and assume the risk of side effects, no matter how small.
I agree that's an important part - BUT there's more to this all than the risk to ourselves as individuals.
For older people, getting the vaccine is a no brainer. The risk of covid is high, they can't see their grand kids etc, so they're lining up to get vaccinated.
For young people, the risk from Covid is low, but we need everyone to get vaccinated anyway because that's the only way to stop it spreading, infecting more vulnerable people, maybe even mutating enough to escape the vaccine.
So what this is about is asking people who might not be at that much risk from covid, to get a vaccine that they're also not that much at risk from (but might worry about with all the negative headlines), in order to save all the other people and the economy and country / world as a whole.
Can't believe we're still having this debate. There are indeed risks to the vaccine. There are also risks to covid (both immediate and longer term). My understanding based on the research is that for the vast majority of the population the sum of the risks of vaccine plus (usually) a milder case of covid are materially lower than the risks of getting covid if you're unvaccinated.
A vaccine doesn't have to stop you getting something to reduce your risk of serious illness, death and possibly long covid.
Even if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks for society you cannot make that calculation. You cannot administer a vaccine to a healthy person just because it doesn't increase their risk of dying as much as it decreases someone else's risk of surviving. Young healthy men should not be coerced into accepting an elevated risk because getting to herd immunity or whatever might save old and at risk persons.
For children and healthy young people below the age of 30, Covid is mostly harmless (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717). The risk of vaccination may actually be higher since the vaccines currently used aren't fully researched nor fully approved yet. The situation is not black or white. Vaccination may be very useful for people aged 50 and above but at the same time counterproductive for children.
I’ve already been diagnosed with covid and it was fine, a little worse than an average cold. Why should I take a vaccine and risk side effects for a disease with a 99.9% survival rate, when I’m not even bothered by it? Doesn’t make sense to me.
> Hard to take much meaning away from that without understanding the risk posed by not vaccinating.
What's the benefit from vaccinating otherwise healthy young men against Covid? Not people in risk groups, but healthy young men.
It should be obvious that if your clinical trials cannot rule out major adverse events in 1 in N, you shouldn't vaccinate populations in which the benefit occurs in less than 1 in N.
> If vaccines can prevent long COVID or "post viral syndrome, that's another potential cost benefit analysis.
> Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster.
… but given that COVID is a risk, as GP was saying, then a world without vaccines is indeed a recipe for disaster.
I want to stress how little sense your post makes if you consider that COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine (and it UNARGUABLY IS -- COVID is known to be a risk, and is known to cause illness and death to several magnitudes more than even the less severe side effects we're getting from vaccines). Your last paragraph for example argues against itself: If you're not taking the vaccine, you're forcing a (much larger) risk onto others because you want to avoid taking a (much smaller) risk yourself.
COVID is a bigger risk. Period. Not just "to the elderly", but to you, too. The potential issues with COVID vaccines, even if they've been around less long than most other ones, cannot come close to the risks of COVID, no matter how fit, young and healthy you are.
Hundreds of millions have been infected with COVID. Billions have taken the vaccine. The former has resulted in a worldwide shitshow. The latter has allowed us to start reopening things.
You say "but there's a risk!" like it's some kind of gotcha. There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot. For example, driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking. Getting vaccinated is a negligible risk, and its upshot is significant, for you AND EVERYONE ELSE too.
If there's an effective vaccine, those who do not want to risk infection from COVID can make the choice to take the vaccine. Those who feel that the risk that they will become infected is one that they are willing to take can do that. Nobody is put into danger that they do not choose to accept.
From societal perspective, why would you do it if you can transmit it in the same amount as if you are not vaccinated?
Doesn't makes sense to me, but well..
I do think that it's a good thing for people that have disease that can complicate covid recovery and older generations.
reply