What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Will you get a Covid vaccine when available? (3 Viewers)

Will you get a Covid vaccine when available?

  • Yes, as soon as it comes out

    Votes: 236 55.4%

  • Yes, but not for a while until some time passes

    Votes: 93 21.8%

  • No, I don't think it will be safe

    Votes: 19 4.5%

  • No, I don't think it will be effective

    Votes: 5 1.2%

  • No, I already had Covid

    Votes: 13 3.1%

  • Unsure, but leaning yes

    Votes: 32 7.5%

  • Unsure, but leaning no

    Votes: 28 6.6%
  • Total voters
    426
matuski said:
Again - you don't seem genuine here.  This isn't how this goes logically.

More like you have already spent a year with the lion in your bed.  And now the lion isnt even in your bed, its been all but exterminated.
Click to expand...
This exactly equals "COVID, as presented to the American public, has been a hoax" IMHO.

Do these nurses generally think "protect the vulnerable" and COVID should've run freely through the "unvulnerable" of American society?

...

I brought my wife to the emergency room in March. A nurse practitioner** treated her. While we were in the room, right in front of my wife and I, the N.P. was talking to another staffer about how COVID is no danger to anyone and was saying "... I can't believe people are worried about a 98% chance of nothing happening ..."

Well. She was speaking off the cuff, of course. But let's take her percentage and knock it down an order of magnitude. From one in 50 to one in 500. It's not ridiculous for someone to feel they have to mitigate against a novel virus that's got a one in 500 chance of "something happening". Heck, still not ridiculous IMHO if you knock it down 100-fold more, down to a one in 50,000 chance.
 

** I realize an N.P. and an R.N. are different things.

 
matuski said:
More like you have already spent a year with the lion in your bed.  And now the lion isnt even in your bed, its been all but exterminated.
Click to expand...
So ... these COVID nurses were only wearing PPE because their employers required it? They'd have been willing to treat COVID patients without PPE? The lion of COVID was so tame that these nurses had absolutely no concerns with catching the virus?

 
matuski said:
It is more like arguing for kids to wear bullet proof vests.  
Click to expand...
No. Tens Millions of infectious people moving about.. Somewhat unlikely to get in an accident bad enough to be hurt, but still Hundreds of thousands dead. Simple precaution with a miniscule downside apart from trivial discomfort that is proven to all but eliminate risk. 

 
I have had the “long term effects of vaccines” argument with my wife many times. Essentially we have no idea what the long term effects of even a mild COVID infection may be, but data suggests there is a risk of “long-haul” issues.

With vaccines, we are very aware of the short-term effects, and oddly enough we are fairly well versed in the long term effects, most notably a good chance of being free of that disease for the duration of the vaccine’s efficacy. That is pretty much it. Even the mRNA vaccines are not known to have any lasting side effects. They have been studied since the early 90’s. Yes, this is a technology that is new to human use, but the technology is 30 years old.

 
[icon] said:
No. Tens Millions of infectious people moving about.. Somewhat unlikely to get in an accident bad enough to be hurt, but still Hundreds of thousands dead. Simple precaution with a miniscule downside apart from trivial discomfort that is proven to all but eliminate risk. 
Click to expand...
Yes.

The numbers.  Black and white.  Young healthy people simply don't have much to worry about with covid.  It is hilarious for the world to try and lecture healthcare workers who were literally there on the front line... unvaccinated.

And you don't know the downside.. because there isn't long term data.  Most likely correct, but this cannot be stated as fact.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cold Dead Hands said:
I have had the “long term effects of vaccines” argument with my wife many times. Essentially we have no idea what the long term effects of even a mild COVID infection may be, but data suggests there is a risk of “long-haul” issues.

With vaccines, we are very aware of the short-term effects, and oddly enough we are fairly well versed in the long term effects, most notably a good chance of being free of that disease for the duration of the vaccine’s efficacy. That is pretty much it. Even the mRNA vaccines are not known to have any lasting side effects. They have been studied since the early 90’s. Yes, this is a technology that is new to human use, but the technology is 30 years old.
Click to expand...
There isn't an argument.

There is no long term data on the new vaccines.

More than likely your logic is correct... but you have no leg to stand on regarding the long term data - there isn't any.

 
[icon] said:
No. Tens Millions of infectious people moving about.. Somewhat unlikely to get in an accident bad enough to be hurt, but still Hundreds of thousands dead. Simple precaution with a miniscule downside apart from trivial discomfort that is proven to all but eliminate risk. 
Click to expand...
Young people literally 5x-8x more likely to die by gunshot than covid. 

Not in the abstract.. in the actual.

eta - these comparisons and metaphors are stupid.  But while we are at it lets use highly highly highly unlikely scenarios to compare, to more realistically represent the risk.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski said:
And you don't know the downside.. because there isn't long term data.  Most likely correct, but this cannot be stated as fact.
Click to expand...
This will always be true. There's no cutoff date when this argument goes away, is there?

"We only have 20 years of data ... what happens in year 21? We don't know."

 
Doug B said:
This will always be true. There's no cutoff date when this argument goes away, is there?

"We only have 20 years of data ... what happens in year 21? We don't know."
Click to expand...
I have never heard anyone argue 20 year data wasn't long term in my career of using data clinically.... have you?  In fact 1-2 year data is usually the bar we have to cross to show short to mid term... we don't even have that.

The need to use unrealistic examples to argue the point kind of makes the point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski said:
I have never heard anyone argue 20 year data wasn't long term in my career of using data clinically.... have you?
Click to expand...
That's fine. Pinpoint "long term," then. Scratch "pinpoint" -- a ballpark figure is helpful, too.

Do you know anyone personally that is actually waiting for, say, two or three years to pass and then will likely be eager to take the COVID vaccine? Are you quite sure it's not politics/worldview first, politics/worldview second, and then ... "oh yeah, no long term data! ... that's the ticket ..."?

 
Doug B said:
That's fine. Pinpoint "long term," then. Scratch "pinpoint" -- a ballpark figure is helpful, too.

Do you know anyone personally that is actually waiting for, say, two or three years to pass and then will likely be eager to take the COVID vaccine? Are you quite sure it's not politics/worldview first, politics/worldview second, and then ... "oh yeah, no long term data! ... that's the ticket ..."?
Click to expand...
It’s tough for any of us to honestly differentiate our own views between logic-driven decisions vs pure rationalization.

 
matuski said:
Yes.

The numbers.  Black and white.  Young healthy people simply don't have much to worry about with covid.  It is hilarious for the world to try and lecture healthcare workers who were literally there on the front line... unvaccinated.

And you don't know the downside.. because there isn't long term data.  Most likely correct, but this cannot be stated as fact.
Click to expand...
All the health care workers I know were concerned about it and gladly used PPE and got the vaccine as early as possible. It’s not like the health care workers universally didn’t think it was a big deal. 

 
matuski said:
Yes.

The numbers.  Black and white.  Young healthy people simply don't have much to worry about with covid.  It is hilarious for the world to try and lecture healthcare workers who were literally there on the front line... unvaccinated.

And you don't know the downside.. because there isn't long term data.  Most likely correct, but this cannot be stated as fact.
Click to expand...
Absolutely untrue. Tell that to all those suffering with long Covid. You can't just focus on death numbers here. Quality of life means something too. It appears there is some question on the number affected. I was seeing 30% for a while. I've also recently seen 10%. So split the difference at 20% of infections. A 1/5 chance if you get infected with Covid your quality of life could take a pretty nasty turn and we don't know if we are talking weeks, months, years, indefinitely. I'll take my chances with the vaccine.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cap'n grunge said:
Absolutely untrue. Tell that to all those suffering with long Covid. You can't just focus on death numbers here. Quality of life means something to most of us.
Click to expand...
If I were talking to someone with long covid, would the numbers change?

You pick the numbers, feel free to go look at whatever covid metric you want.  Watch what happens when you get below 50.  Then look at below 20.... what risk?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s said:
All the health care workers I know were concerned about it and gladly used PPE and got the vaccine as early as possible. It’s not like the health care workers universally didn’t think it was a big deal. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:

Having a linear conversation here has never been less possible.

Thanks for taking this tangent... maybe someone else can follow you there.

eta - im gonna go on a limb and suggest I know more people in healthcare.  Many did what you describe.  Many did not and have not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug B said:
That's fine. Pinpoint "long term," then. Scratch "pinpoint" -- a ballpark figure is helpful, too.

Do you know anyone personally that is actually waiting for, say, two or three years to pass and then will likely be eager to take the COVID vaccine? Are you quite sure it's not politics/worldview first, politics/worldview second, and then ... "oh yeah, no long term data! ... that's the ticket ..."?
Click to expand...
No - they are saying they don't see the risk to themselves or their kids from covid.  For them it is something they have quantified personally over the last year+.  They then take that known (to them) quantity and weigh it versus the vaccine.

If you fear covid, you view it as a risk, you see a larger need for the vaccine.  

If you don't have a fear of it, if you don't view it as a risk, you see less need.  You may even see the small risk of side effects from the vaccine as the greater risk.

I'll be in a procedure where everyone is vaccinated, that same afternoon a case where only one or two in the room are.  Those vaccinated are no more credible than those who are not... they simply came to a different conclusion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski said:
Young people literally 5x-8x more likely to die by gunshot than covid. 
Click to expand...
Are They? 
So you're saying (Total u18 kids / u18 Kids murdered (remove suicides) > (Total u18 kids who have or had COVID / u18 Kids died of Covid)? 

You sure? I think you might want to check your math again. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[icon] said:
Are They? 
So you're saying (Total u18 kids / u18 Kids murdered (remove suicides) > (Total u18 kids who have or had COVID / u18 Kids died of Covid)? 

You sure? I think you might want to check your math again. 
Click to expand...
That is not what I said.

You might want to go back and start over.

 
Death isn't the only downside of a disease, and Covid-19 is showing some pretty harsh long-term effects.   "Young people probably won't die" is a pretty flimsy excuse to avoid vaccination.   

 
Plus side, I got some pretty awesome seats behind home plate for a Mariner's game next week in a fully-vaccinated section.   It probably has more to do with the fact that they suck, but whatever.

 
Doug B said:
Depends on who's asking.
Click to expand...
That day was not hypothetical.

Two tenured vascular surgeons.  Two sets of tenured staff in the room.

Your criteria for measuring the credibility of MDs is based on their choice to be vaccinated or not?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski said:
:lmao:

Having a linear conversation here has never been less possible.

Thanks for taking this tangent... maybe someone else can follow you there.

eta - im gonna go on a limb and suggest I know more people in healthcare.  Many did what you describe.  Many did not and have not.
Click to expand...
Many were peer pressured into getting it.

 
matuski said:
That day was not hypothetical.

Two tenured vascular surgeons.  Two sets of tenured staff in the room.

Your criteria for credibility in medical decisions is based on their choice to be vaccinated or not?
Click to expand...
I would not accept treatment from a physician of any kind who refuses to vaccinate.   I would strongly question their credibility and decision-making.

 
matuski said:
Your criteria for credibility in medical decisions is based on their choice to be vaccinated or not?
Click to expand...
These days? Absolutely -- I would not trust their judgment. I do not want to be treated by any medical professional that doesn't believe in COVID, doesn't believe in vaccination (for any reason), etc.

Realistically, in most cases -- especially with emergency care -- the patient will be agnostic of a caregiver's opinion. However, if I were visiting a doctor for the first, second, third time -- where a relationship was new and developing -- and that doctor was vocal and strident about "Plandemic!" and "no long term data!" ... yes, I'd seek out another provider if I had any other option at all.

 
-fish- said:
I would not accept treatment from a physician of any kind who refuses to vaccinate.   I would strongly question their credibility and decision-making.
Click to expand...
That would be your choice.

But that is not a measure of a surgeon or nurse or tech's credibility in regard to their professions.

 
matuski said:
That is not what I said.

You might want to go back and start over.
Click to expand...
Actually that's exactly what you said. 

But then again, you and Shady have literally been on "wrong island" about this entire thing since the start of it all, so why should you attempt to build any credibility through accuracy now. Amirite? :lol:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug B said:
These days? Absolutely -- I would not trust their judgment. I do not want to be treated by any medical professional that doesn't believe in COVID, doesn't believe in vaccination (for any reason), etc.

Realistically, in most cases -- especially with emergency care -- the patient will be agnostic of a caregiver's opinion. However, if I were visiting a doctor for the first, second, third time -- where a relationship was new and developing -- and that doctor was vocal and strident about "Plandemic!" and "no long term data!" ... yes, I'd seek out another provider if I had any other option at all.
Click to expand...
Again a ridiculous example.

Of course your doctor wouldn't be strident about it... what?

Lets try a real example.  You would be seeing one of these surgeons because they are the regional experts in endo AAA procedures.  You aren't going to "seek another provider" because they aren't vaccinated.  Your credibility would be the one in question.  You are in front of them because the surgeon down the hall does 2 of these procedures a year, usually the ones the guys you walked away from turned down. 

 
matuski said:
Again a ridiculous example.

Of course your doctor wouldn't be strident about it... what?

Lets try a real example.  You would be seeing one of these surgeons because they are the regional experts in endo AAA procedures.  You aren't going to "seek another provider" because they aren't vaccinated.  Your credibility would be the one in question.  You are in front of them because the surgeon down the hall does 2 of these procedures a year, usually the ones the guys you walked away from turned down. 
Click to expand...
If the woman that testified in front of the Ohio Legislature was the best brain surgeon in the world and I needed brain surgery, I'd seek out the second best.   Because I'm not going to let an insane person who thinks that vaccines cause 5G transmissions that magnetize my body come anywhere near me.  I also won't see a doctor that believes in voodoo or aromatherapy, but that's just me.

 
I do not want the best surgeon for my needs because he isn't vaccinated.... what the hell? 

Yea - I think it is safe to say we have turned the whole concept of risk on its head.  :lmao:

 
-fish- said:
If the woman that testified in front of the Ohio Legislature was the best brain surgeon in the world and I needed brain surgery, I'd seek out the second best.   Because I'm not going to let an insane person who thinks that vaccines cause 5G transmissions that magnetize my body come anywhere near me.  I also won't see a doctor that believes in voodoo or aromatherapy, but that's just me.
Click to expand...
And of course nothing in this post would ever be a real situation.  Would never happen.  Which makes for wonderful discussion.

 
I’ll gladly take the best surgeon available but it is puzzling to me how a medical professional who deals with at risk people wouldn’t see that being vaccinated is about protecting their at risk patients. 

 
matuski said:
Lets try a real example.  You would be seeing one of these surgeons because they are the regional experts in endo AAA procedures.  You aren't going to "seek another provider" because they aren't vaccinated.  Your credibility would be the one in question.  You are in front of them because the surgeon down the hall does 2 of these procedures a year, usually the ones the guys you walked away from turned down. 
Click to expand...
I admit that for a narrow specialty, I might have to grin and bear it.

But, say, for a GP or for someone I'm seeing for (I dunno) pharmaceutical maintenance? Someone who signs off on HBP medicine or something? A dentist? Yep -- no problem switching providers.

And you're right that few providers would be uncouth enough to just volunteer their COVID opinions to all and sundry. But doctors are people, too ... and some percentage just won't be able to help themselves. Plus, it's not all that uncommon to learn someone's opinions though social channels (social media as well as old-school degrees of separation, plain ol' nosiness, etc.).

 
-fish- said:
You can have medical expertise and still have no credibility.

Like this person.   She's actually a practicing doctor.
Click to expand...
Tenpenny graduated with a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Toledo in 1980 and received a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degree from the Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine in Missouri in 1984.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and her lack of credibility can be sourced to her training.  CV's are hugely relevant to credibility.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug B said:
I admit that for a narrow specialty, I might have to grin and bear it.

But, say, for a GP or for someone I'm seeing for (I dunno) pharmaceutical maintenance? Someone who signs off on HBP medicine or something? A dentist? Yep -- no problem switching providers.

And you're right that few providers would be uncouth enough to just volunteer their COVID opinions to all and sundry. But doctors are people, too ... and some percentage just won't be able to help themselves. Plus, it's not all that uncommon to learn someone's opinions though social channels (social media as well as old-school degrees of separation, plain ol' nosiness, etc.).
Click to expand...
Thank you for this.

The conversation can be civil and based on real situations.

I too cringe at the above example of a nutcase doctor.  But those aren't who we are talking about... the reality is you will go in and get treatment and choose your doctors/surgeons based on reputation and credibility.  Not on their vaccine stance.  And you likely won't have a clue if they are vaccinated or not.

 
[icon] said:
Actually that's exactly what you said. 

But then again, you and Shady have literally been on "wrong island" about this entire thing since the start of it all, so why should you attempt to build any credibility through accuracy now. Amirite? :lol:  
Click to expand...
I have definitely been wrong about some things and right about others but the same can be said about the people who locked themselves in their homes for 18 months and baked their mail in the oven. Two sides to a coin :shrug:

 
-fish- said:
You mean because skilled, credible surgeons aren't anti-vaxxers?
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean by antivaxxer... certainly I can tell you the best surgeon I know has no plans to get vaccinated.  Really has no bearing on his credibility that I can see.

The second best has been vaccinated.  Also has made no difference in his credibility that I can see.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Inherited IRA and RMD question
Replies
11
Views
344
Schmeabs
S
gianmarco
Hexclad (and cookware thread)
2
Replies
56
Views
1K
Kanil
Kanil
M
  • Poll
Tested positive for Covid debating how to handle disclosure at work
2
Replies
65
Views
2K
nirad3
nirad3

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top