One in Three Americans Would Not Get Covid-19 Vaccine(news.gallup.com)
news.gallup.com
One in Three Americans Would Not Get Covid-19 Vaccine
https://news.gallup.com/poll/317018/one-three-americans-not-covid-vaccine.aspx
31 comments
The only ‘speedy’ aspect is starting the trials quicker There’s no way to speed up the actual results of the trials.
Of course there is. It’s a lot easier to say something has no harmful side effects if patients are observed for longer after taking it.
There is no base to this being done. What they are doing is starting phase 2 and phase 3 trials on vaccines that haven’t survived phase 1, yet. Under normal circumstances this would be extremely uneconomical.
1) If ~10% of the population has already had it, and 30-40% have some pre-existing immunity in the form of useful, relevant corona antibodies, then 40-50% of the population doesn't need a vaccine at this point (until immunity wears off, whenever that is). I know that likely isn't the reasoning going into many people's decision making, but we shouldn't be surprised based solely off of the numbers.
2) Then there's studies like this one from 2012 about original SARS vaccine development (with almost a decade of research after the initial outbreak) that shows 4 completely different approaches to vaccination all made subsequent exposure to the virus worse.
Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/
We should be skeptical of a vaccine for any disease where one of the major complication risks is basically a form of autoimmune disease.
We don't want to encourage a strong autoimmune response when a major existing risk is an overly aggressive immune response.
This is a reason that steroids seem to be emerging as a beneficial treatment: they actually suppress immune system response.
I'm not suggesting an effective vaccine won't ever be developed, but we shouldn't judge people in what may be a valid concern. Even if they have different than the relevant reasons for that concern.
2) Then there's studies like this one from 2012 about original SARS vaccine development (with almost a decade of research after the initial outbreak) that shows 4 completely different approaches to vaccination all made subsequent exposure to the virus worse.
Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/
We should be skeptical of a vaccine for any disease where one of the major complication risks is basically a form of autoimmune disease.
We don't want to encourage a strong autoimmune response when a major existing risk is an overly aggressive immune response.
This is a reason that steroids seem to be emerging as a beneficial treatment: they actually suppress immune system response.
I'm not suggesting an effective vaccine won't ever be developed, but we shouldn't judge people in what may be a valid concern. Even if they have different than the relevant reasons for that concern.
> Such resistance is not unprecedented. When Gallup in 1954 asked U.S. adults who had heard or read about the then-new polio vaccine, "Would you like to take this new polio vaccine (to keep people from getting polio) yourself?" just 60% said they would, while 31% said they would not. So far, willingness to adopt a new vaccine looks similar today.
Interesting that attitudes haven't changed. I read a bit more about the history of the polio vaccine.
In 1938, FDR founded the March of Dimes, a nonprofit to help people with polio. Incidentally, this is why the US 10 cent coin has FDR's face on it. That nonprofit funded Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin, the researchers who developed two different kinds of Polio vaccines in the 50s. Salk published in 1953, and large scale trials began in '54 and concluded in '55. Note, the Gallup poll was made in 1954, when the vaccine was still in trials. The successful vaccine was then licensed, and promoted by March of Dimes. "The annual number of polio cases fell from 35,000 in 1953 to 5,600 by 1957. By 1961 only 161 cases were recorded in the United States."[1]
In 1955, a manufacturer of the Salk polio vaccine had failed to properly inactivate the virus, leading to the deaths of 11 children, and 250 cases of paralysis. This led to a temporary drop in vaccine confidence, and the adoption of Sabin's less dangerous oral vaccine across the USSR and other non-US countries. Despite opposition from the March of Dimes, Sabin's vaccine replaced Salk's vaccine in the 60s.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#1935
Interesting that attitudes haven't changed. I read a bit more about the history of the polio vaccine.
In 1938, FDR founded the March of Dimes, a nonprofit to help people with polio. Incidentally, this is why the US 10 cent coin has FDR's face on it. That nonprofit funded Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin, the researchers who developed two different kinds of Polio vaccines in the 50s. Salk published in 1953, and large scale trials began in '54 and concluded in '55. Note, the Gallup poll was made in 1954, when the vaccine was still in trials. The successful vaccine was then licensed, and promoted by March of Dimes. "The annual number of polio cases fell from 35,000 in 1953 to 5,600 by 1957. By 1961 only 161 cases were recorded in the United States."[1]
In 1955, a manufacturer of the Salk polio vaccine had failed to properly inactivate the virus, leading to the deaths of 11 children, and 250 cases of paralysis. This led to a temporary drop in vaccine confidence, and the adoption of Sabin's less dangerous oral vaccine across the USSR and other non-US countries. Despite opposition from the March of Dimes, Sabin's vaccine replaced Salk's vaccine in the 60s.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#1935
But it did change. There was a time when things like childhood immunizations were ubiquitous in the US. There was a time when STEM education was heavily funded.
Then the cold war started to wrap up. And the anti-vaxxers came on the scene. And now everything about vaccinations is political. So we've seen a drastic change again.
Consider the CDC's data on pertussis over the last century to see an illustration of the outcomes. Note that death rates are still down, these are reported infections:
https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting/cases-by-year.h...
Then the cold war started to wrap up. And the anti-vaxxers came on the scene. And now everything about vaccinations is political. So we've seen a drastic change again.
Consider the CDC's data on pertussis over the last century to see an illustration of the outcomes. Note that death rates are still down, these are reported infections:
https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting/cases-by-year.h...
What percentage of the population uses v1.0 software or hardware in a situation where they have zero recourse for possible non-performance?
My recently retired brother thinks that he will die soon. He's in excellent health. He believes that there will soon be a mandatory vaccine that will include nano-microchips to track and control people, and that he will be killed while resisting its administration.
I don't even vaguely believe the microchip thing, but if it is mandatory and they do try to force it on him, I believe he is actually prepared to die fighting it.
Yes, he's a conspiracy nut. But he's far from alone. I've met several people with the same attitude here, in a different state. They are uniformly serious and well armed. We should consider if the cost of widespread armed resistance outweighs the health benefits of universal vaccination. Even if you don't care much about the lives of the resisters, consider that deaths among those tasked with enforcing such a mandate would be high.
I'm an advocate for vaccines to my brother and to these other people. If it is optional I will likely take it, even seek it out. But I may well resist if it isn't optional, though not violently. It isn't clear to me that the difference between the herd immunity we've developed so far, and the immunity we can reach with a vaccine starting in several months is that great. Like protesters that aren't social distancing, I believe that the threat to civil rights is a greater danger than the virus at this point.
I don't even vaguely believe the microchip thing, but if it is mandatory and they do try to force it on him, I believe he is actually prepared to die fighting it.
Yes, he's a conspiracy nut. But he's far from alone. I've met several people with the same attitude here, in a different state. They are uniformly serious and well armed. We should consider if the cost of widespread armed resistance outweighs the health benefits of universal vaccination. Even if you don't care much about the lives of the resisters, consider that deaths among those tasked with enforcing such a mandate would be high.
I'm an advocate for vaccines to my brother and to these other people. If it is optional I will likely take it, even seek it out. But I may well resist if it isn't optional, though not violently. It isn't clear to me that the difference between the herd immunity we've developed so far, and the immunity we can reach with a vaccine starting in several months is that great. Like protesters that aren't social distancing, I believe that the threat to civil rights is a greater danger than the virus at this point.
Luckily we don't need a 100% compliance rate to have vaccination be effective. As long as vaccination pushes the reproduction number below 1 the virus should more or less peter out.
How many people need vaccinating depends on many factors. It'll be dependent on how effective the vaccine is, how many people can't get vaccinated due to nonfunctional immune systems or allergies etc, how many people will keep washing their hands diligently after the worst has passed, and many many other factors.
So with any luck mandatory vaccinations won't be necessary to beat corona virus allowing everyone to keep their bodily autonomy intact as far as vaccinations go.
How many people need vaccinating depends on many factors. It'll be dependent on how effective the vaccine is, how many people can't get vaccinated due to nonfunctional immune systems or allergies etc, how many people will keep washing their hands diligently after the worst has passed, and many many other factors.
So with any luck mandatory vaccinations won't be necessary to beat corona virus allowing everyone to keep their bodily autonomy intact as far as vaccinations go.
Vaccine Debate - Kennedy Jr. vs Dershowitz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfnJi7yLKgE
Vaccines are not without a risk, and the current versions are being rushed.
I am not anti-vaccine, but I am cautious about untested politicized medicine. I also am not a fan of a poll that over simplifies the situation for a cheap bit of attention.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risks-of-rush...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/bill-gates-on-covid-...
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200515/pfizer-says-covid-1...
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/08/07/fact-sheet-explain...
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm
- How effective is the vaccine. The influenza vaccine only reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine.
- New vaccine - How has it been tested? The Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program exists for a reason, and these vaccines are being rushed.
- Why this particular vaccine? There are at least 120 in development.
- Article indicates the vaccine is free. No vaccine is free. Even if there is no direct financial cost to the person getting the vaccine, there will be costs and expenses to getting it. If your not upfront about this, what else are you not mentioning? Perhaps the vaccine is free, but not the administration of it?
- How is this vaccine administered? A recent Phizer vaccine requires two doses 21 days apart. It was not clear what form it was, but I suspect an injection which the article uses for illustration. This means dealing with some medical office twice, likely during the day and requiring an appointment and taking time off work and getting to the site and it is not stated how much that 21 days can vary.
- Look at the governments reactions and responses to date. There have been issues politicizing the response and many failures to date and this poll wants me to blindly trust them.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risks-of-rush...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/bill-gates-on-covid-...
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200515/pfizer-says-covid-1...
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/08/07/fact-sheet-explain...
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm
A vaccine approved by the FDA on November 2 - not a chance
A vaccine approved on November 4 - sure, I’d trust it.
Trump’s down by a huge margin in polls. If the election was held today, he’d lose. If he thinks he can help himself win by forcing approval of a vaccine, then he’ll do it. A vaccine approved after the election has zero electoral upside for him.
There is virtually no chance that the U.S. will have a proven vaccine by Election Day, several top vaccine experts told POLITICO...But while the Trump administration has insisted that it won’t cut corners on safety — a vow the vaccine developers have taken as well — it’s left the door open to short-circuiting the process before those trials are complete
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/22/trump-october-vacci...
A vaccine approved on November 4 - sure, I’d trust it.
Trump’s down by a huge margin in polls. If the election was held today, he’d lose. If he thinks he can help himself win by forcing approval of a vaccine, then he’ll do it. A vaccine approved after the election has zero electoral upside for him.
There is virtually no chance that the U.S. will have a proven vaccine by Election Day, several top vaccine experts told POLITICO...But while the Trump administration has insisted that it won’t cut corners on safety — a vow the vaccine developers have taken as well — it’s left the door open to short-circuiting the process before those trials are complete
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/22/trump-october-vacci...
This is completely understandable. You may not like it, but you absolutely cannot fault average people for feeling this way.
The president has been hammering Warp Speed to make a vaccine solely for the purpose of an October surprise for months. Everyone, even his core voter base, knows this and knows he wouldn’t hesitate to throw anyone under the bus with it. That voter base was fine with it when it was nameless immigrant children suffering at the border, on vague unfounded ideas that it would bolster American jobs. But they are not going to put their own bodies or their children’s on the line for Trump impulsiveness.
The vaccine may well be safe and may well be developed on a late 2020 timetable with sufficient rigor in FDA approval - does not matter one bit because Trump’s politicization has already deeply undermined it.
You simply cannot restore confidence without straight up removing Trump, so I would look to this to take time after the election.
The president has been hammering Warp Speed to make a vaccine solely for the purpose of an October surprise for months. Everyone, even his core voter base, knows this and knows he wouldn’t hesitate to throw anyone under the bus with it. That voter base was fine with it when it was nameless immigrant children suffering at the border, on vague unfounded ideas that it would bolster American jobs. But they are not going to put their own bodies or their children’s on the line for Trump impulsiveness.
The vaccine may well be safe and may well be developed on a late 2020 timetable with sufficient rigor in FDA approval - does not matter one bit because Trump’s politicization has already deeply undermined it.
You simply cannot restore confidence without straight up removing Trump, so I would look to this to take time after the election.
People gathering indoors in violation of government regulations are clearly harming the public, because they invariably will increase the number of infections and deaths.
What are the ethics, though, of refusing to get a vaccine? if Alex Honnold had fallen off the face of El Capitan, he would have killed only himself. Is it not the same in the case of someone refusing to be vaccinated, given that the vaccination is available to everyone who does want it?
There is one difference, I suppose. The person who refuses vaccination and subsequently gets a serious case of COVID-19 causes society to spend a good deal of money treating them in the hospital. (Even if they have insurance they are needlessly increasing the costs of care for everyone.)
What are the ethics, though, of refusing to get a vaccine? if Alex Honnold had fallen off the face of El Capitan, he would have killed only himself. Is it not the same in the case of someone refusing to be vaccinated, given that the vaccination is available to everyone who does want it?
There is one difference, I suppose. The person who refuses vaccination and subsequently gets a serious case of COVID-19 causes society to spend a good deal of money treating them in the hospital. (Even if they have insurance they are needlessly increasing the costs of care for everyone.)
Some people are unable to get a vaccine for reasons other than personal choice. The CDC lays out certain conditions for each vaccine where a person should not get vaccinated. [0]
For example, someone who is pregnant or has a weakened immune system should not get the MMR vaccine. It's possible there will be certain conditions for any COVID-19 vaccine as well. These people will have to rely on herd immunity (ideally attained mostly through vaccinations) to ensure they stay healthy. If someone is eligible to get a vaccine but chooses not to, that would be putting others at risk.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html
For example, someone who is pregnant or has a weakened immune system should not get the MMR vaccine. It's possible there will be certain conditions for any COVID-19 vaccine as well. These people will have to rely on herd immunity (ideally attained mostly through vaccinations) to ensure they stay healthy. If someone is eligible to get a vaccine but chooses not to, that would be putting others at risk.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html
People who choose not to vaccinate can impact others by spreading the virus to others who cannot vaccinate for medical or religious reasons. They also spread to other people who choose not to vaccinate.
Vaccines are also not 100% effective, some people who get vaccinated are not themselves fully immune. If you choose not to vaccinate you also put those people at risk.
Finally, if you choose not vaccinate and end up in the ICU, you are taking resources in a critical ward that might be needed for patients with other serious medical conditions.
Vaccines are also not 100% effective, some people who get vaccinated are not themselves fully immune. If you choose not to vaccinate you also put those people at risk.
Finally, if you choose not vaccinate and end up in the ICU, you are taking resources in a critical ward that might be needed for patients with other serious medical conditions.
If vaccination rates are too low you don’t get herd immunity, and people who are unable to be vaccinated are more at risk.
What is a typical reason someone wouldn't be able to be vaccinated?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunosuppression
Non-deliberate immunosuppression can occur in, for example, ataxia–telangiectasia, complement deficiencies, many types of cancer, and certain chronic infections such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html
It varies by vaccine, but allergies, health conditions, and age are all factors.
Some people also practice religions that forbid them.
It varies by vaccine, but allergies, health conditions, and age are all factors.
Some people also practice religions that forbid them.
One example, babies too young to receive vaccines or pregnant mothers.
Considering I had the damn thing in January, why would I?
The notion that this virus wasn't here until March is not proven.
The notion that this virus wasn't here until March is not proven.
Because it's unclear how long antibodies last. Unless you've had a positive antibody test it seems like a reasonable measure to protect people around you.
Immunity is more than just antibodies
Yeah? You are suggesting you could be immune but show negative on an antibody test? How?
T-cells. Or genetic differences that make you naturally immune.
Or just false negative of the test itself.
Did you test positive for covid in Jan?
If not, it's not proven you had it but you supremely confident.
If not, it's not proven you had it but you supremely confident.
Last time I checked, there was no data about COVID-19. Just guesses.
For example, in Israel, people die with COVID-19, not from it.
For example, in Israel, people die with COVID-19, not from it.
I personally will probably not do it as well for a while as I am not an at-risk group and don't fully trust the 'speedy' trials.