Covid Vaccination

[Lilllabettt]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

If you think it is safe go for it. I have no issues with that.

It's not that simple however.

We know that vaccines are not 100% effective by themselves.  Diseases are eradicated when so much of a population is vaccinated that the 10-15% of times the vaccine is ineffective don't matter, the disease can't find vulnerable hosts fast enough, runs out of fuel and dies (see: smallpox).

People who are vaccinated can and do get the illness they are vaccinated against - and of course there is a portion of the population, usually among the most vulnerable, who can't take the vaccination at all and rely totally on those who can take the vaccine, getting it.

This is a complex moral issue, not as simple as "my body, my choice." In it's guidance on vaccines, the Vatican suggests that people who refuse the MMR vaccine bear moral responsibility for the horrific fetal defects in pregnant women who fall victim to the German measles. That's a lot to weigh. It's a matter of conscience though, and I strongly support the legal right to conscientious objection. 

 

 

[Peace]

57 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

It's not that simple however.

We know that vaccines are not 100% effective by themselves.  Diseases are eradicated when so much of a population is vaccinated that the 10-15% of times the vaccine is ineffective don't matter, the disease can't find vulnerable hosts fast enough, runs out of fuel and dies (see: smallpox).

People who are vaccinated can and do get the illness they are vaccinated against - and of course there is a portion of the population, usually among the most vulnerable, who can't take the vaccination at all and rely totally on those who can take the vaccine, getting it.

This is a complex moral issue, not as simple as "my body, my choice." In it's guidance on vaccines, the Vatican suggests that people who refuse the MMR vaccine bear moral responsibility for the horrific fetal defects in pregnant women who fall victim to the German measles. That's a lot to weigh. It's a matter of conscience though, and I strongly support the legal right to conscientious objection. 

 

 

I don't take issue with the general idea there can be a moral obligation to vaccinate, depending on the specific circumstances and risks involved.

But whatever moral obligation there may be, I don't think it would extend to sacrificing one's personal safety for the good of another. For example, if we knew for certain that the polio vaccine gave 49% of the population polio and immunized the other 51% of the population, it's not like the 49% have a moral obligation to live with polio so that the 51% do not.

I think you would agree with that, so the only thing that we really need to debate is the question of what the true numbers are under the current circumstances. In my opinion, we have no idea what the true numbers are, what the risks of this new vaccine are, because it was rushed to the market with speed that we have NEVER seen before. I don't have confidence in the safety of the vaccine (let alone its efficacy). I don't know what risks the vaccine entails. That is why I will wait before taking it.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

This is a complex moral issue, not as simple as "my body, my choice."

For me, it is not at all a question of "my body, my choice", rather that I have confidence in our Australian government to make sound decisions - that is not to state that they always do so. Just yesterday I think it was (alternatively last couple days)that a vaccine in which the government had invested millions was found to be unreliable re results and research stopped and back to the drawing board.  There was nothing intrinsically wrong with the vaccine, but it was anticipated that the result of the vaccine, though false readings all the way, would spook many in the community - especially with incorrect facts spreading and being embraced.  Stopping the vaccine, though really promising, was a PR move and a sound choice to keep the community on side.

Those with young children especially need to take other matters into consideration, same for those who may be pregnant etc. etc.  There could be many reasons a person makes the choice that they do in regard to any COVID vaccination.  I don't think there is a sole moral choice.

[Peace]

5 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

For me, it is not at all a question of "my body, my choice", rather that I have confidence in our Australian government to make sound decisions - that is not to state that they always do so. Just yesterday I think it was (alternatively last couple days)that a vaccine in which the government had invested millions was found to be unreliable re results and research stopped and back to the drawing board.  There was nothing intrinsically wrong with the vaccine, but it was anticipated that the result of the vaccine, though false readings all the way, would spook many in the community - especially with incorrect facts spreading and being embraced.  Stopping the vaccine, though really promising, was a PR move and a sound choice to keep the community on side.

Those with young children especially need to take other matters into consideration, same for those who may be pregnant etc. etc.  There could be many reasons a person makes the choice that they do in regard to any COVID vaccination.  I don't think there is a sole moral choice.

Yeah I don't have nearly the same level of confidence in the US government and these big companies. That's cool.

[elizabeth09]

I think that the vaccination should be where the covid is on the rise, still.  If we can get it under control, at least, let do it then.

[Lilllabettt]

21 hours ago, Peace said:

I don't take issue with the general idea there can be a moral obligation to vaccinate, depending on the specific circumstances and risks involved.

But whatever moral obligation there may be, I don't think it would extend to sacrificing one's personal safety for the good of another. For example, if we knew for certain that the polio vaccine gave 49% of the population polio and immunized the other 51% of the population, it's not like the 49% have a moral obligation to live with polio so that the 51% do not.

I think you would agree with that, so the only thing that we really need to debate is the question of what the true numbers are under the current circumstances. In my opinion, we have no idea what the true numbers are, what the risks of this new vaccine are, because it was rushed to the market with speed that we have NEVER seen before. I don't have confidence in the safety of the vaccine (let alone its efficacy). I don't know what risks the vaccine entails. That is why I will wait before taking it.

 

I have 99% confidence in the vaccine. It's not really a new disease, it's a coronavirus. They are common. Do you remember the SARS epidemic in 2003. I was just getting out of high-school at that time, but I vaguely recall the upset. That virus also is suspected of coming from Chinese eating exotic animal croutons. 

Anyway, SARS is a coronavirus. COVID-19 is a close relative of it, actually in the formal name for covid19 it says "SARS #2" because they are so closely related. The CDC developed a prototype vaccine for SARS, but it never went into trials because the epidemic petered out. Trialing a vaccine is extremely costly and it's a loss leader for pharmaceutical industries. That's why the government indemnifies vaccine manufacturers - it's a national security issue. If you added liability to all the downsides of vaccine research and production none would ever get made.

A lot of people don't know this: an eff ton of vaccines would exist - we have the know how to do it - but there isn't the political will to do it. No company is interested in spending billions of dollars trialing a vaccine and then convincing people to take it, and making 2 cent overhead on each shot. 

But my point is, the infectious disease community has a 20 year history with SARS. The mechanism for triggering an immune response against it is well known; there are in fact multiple ways to do it and the only debate is, which is more effective. Scientists knew on day 1 how to vaccinate against it, the only reason it's taken a year to get out is because of the need for clinical testing. The clinical testing has been arranged faster than is typical for new drugs because governments all over the world are putting billions and billions of dollars on the table for it. 

 

 

 

[Ash Wednesday]

I'm in the UK and will likely be getting the vaccine at some point. By the time the rest of the public in the UK is receiving it, I will be on immunosuppressants or biologics in the near future at an elevated risk status and I expect the doctor will advise that I get vaccinated and have any previous ones up to date. 

There is a window of time where we will know of any issues with it before it reaches the general public here, so I'm taking the wait and see approach for now, crossing the bridge when I need to.

[Guest]

On 12/12/2020 at 6:15 AM, Peace said:

Yeah I don't have nearly the same level of confidence in the US government and these big companies. That's cool.

I am very concerned about the overall situation in the US.

[Peace]

9 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

 

I have 99% confidence in the vaccine. It's not really a new disease, it's a coronavirus. They are common. Do you remember the SARS epidemic in 2003. I was just getting out of high-school at that time, but I vaguely recall the upset. That virus also is suspected of coming from Chinese eating exotic animal croutons. 

Anyway, SARS is a coronavirus. COVID-19 is a close relative of it, actually in the formal name for covid19 it says "SARS #2" because they are so closely related. The CDC developed a prototype vaccine for SARS, but it never went into trials because the epidemic petered out. Trialing a vaccine is extremely costly and it's a loss leader for pharmaceutical industries. That's why the government indemnifies vaccine manufacturers - it's a national security issue. If you added liability to all the downsides of vaccine research and production none would ever get made.

A lot of people don't know this: an eff ton of vaccines would exist - we have the know how to do it - but there isn't the political will to do it. No company is interested in spending billions of dollars trialing a vaccine and then convincing people to take it, and making 2 cent overhead on each shot. 

But my point is, the infectious disease community has a 20 year history with SARS. The mechanism for triggering an immune response against it is well known; there are in fact multiple ways to do it and the only debate is, which is more effective. Scientists knew on day 1 how to vaccinate against it, the only reason it's taken a year to get out is because of the need for clinical testing. The clinical testing has been arranged faster than is typical for new drugs because governments all over the world are putting billions and billions of dollars on the table for it.

Well if the SARS vaccine was never trialed that does not really do much for me. Sure, it may be effective in stopping the virus, but it is going to cause me to die from a seizure a month later? My primary concern with it is the harm that it may do. Let's say it has some terrible side effect that manifests after 6 months. If you started your trials three months ago, you ain't gonna know about that today. Now what the actual numbers are I don't know, but obviously the shorter the thing has been tested, the greater the risk.

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I am very concerned about the overall situation in the US.

Trump will save us. He's got a whole 17 days left.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Peace said:

Trump will save us. He's got a whole 17 days left.

                              

[elizabeth09]

Trump may save us.  One person cannot just save everyone at once in under three weeks.  Only God can save someone. 

[Guest]

I truly hope that God will save America.  President Elect Joe Biden and his administration will have tremendous obstacles to stabilize America bringing it back from the brink of critical situations.  That could be even frighteningly difficult, but not impossible.   "But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew Ch 19)

Catholic Dictionary: "Hope is ... " : "Yet it (Hope) recognizes that the object wanted is not easily obtained and that it (Hope) requires effort to overcome whatever obstacles stand in the way." 

I do need, with all, to consider: "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot" (Matthew Ch5)   

Where there is failure in our world, the salt is loosing its taste - a process.  Where things have failed, there is finality.

Collective responsibility and accountability.

Edit: "Where there is failure in our world,"  Should read "Where there is failing in our world"

Edited December 13, 2020 by BarbaraTherese

[elizabeth09]

I am more worried about the side effects of the vaccine then anything.  I want to wait to see what happens before getting it.

[Lilllabettt]

On 12/11/2020 at 1:05 PM, Peace said:

I don't take issue with the general idea there can be a moral obligation to vaccinate, depending on the specific circumstances and risks involved.

But whatever moral obligation there may be, I don't think it would extend to sacrificing one's personal safety for the good of another. For example, if we knew for certain that the polio vaccine gave 49% of the population polio and immunized the other 51% of the population, it's not like the 49% have a moral obligation to live with polio so that the 51% do not.

I think you would agree with that, so the only thing that we really need to debate is the question of what the true numbers are under the current circumstances. In my opinion, we have no idea what the true numbers are, what the risks of this new vaccine are, because it was rushed to the market with speed that we have NEVER seen before. I don't have confidence in the safety of the vaccine (let alone its efficacy). I don't know what risks the vaccine entails. That is why I will wait before taking it.

Your logic does not quite apply in this situation, however. It applies in situations, like when a pregnant mother develops cancer and she must choose whether to be treated (and lose her baby) or continue with pregnancy.  The outcome of her refusing treatment to continue growing the baby, are advised to her as likely, by experts.

Another example: The world is coming to an end. We know this with certainty. We could make decisions and refuse to do certain things based on the idea that the world will come to an end next Tuesday. There is a possibility it could happen. However that is not a good moral foundation for decision making - the mere possibility, and rather unlikely outcome that may happen in the future.

All vaccines have side effects, some quite serious. But they are exceedingly rare and unlikely to occur. Consider the MMR vaccine. It does have potentially serious side effects. However the Church seems to come down on there being a moral obligation to take it, if one is able, to protect the most vulnerable. Because the severe risks to oneself are very small.

This particular vaccine has already been tested in hundreds of thousands of people, beginning last May. So, almost 6 months have gone by. The people in a position to know have said the most common side effects are mild. There may be some very rare severe side effects (like with all vaccines); if they occurred even 5% of the time we would have seen them in around 5,000 people.

12 hours ago, elizabeth09 said:

 I want to wait to see what happens before getting it.

"I want to wait to see what happens [to other people] before getting it."
 

It sounds bad, doesn't it?

[elizabeth09]

Do you know my past?