Castanza Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 Not a plausible staement Castanza as the second shots to most have not been administered as of yet! What is not plausible? And for the record, I’m not against the vaccine. I will gladly take it. I’m asking what the benefit is health wise for a low risk individual. I work from home, my wife already had it (three days of symptoms). I tested negative towards the end of her 14 day quarantine and I quarantined for an additional 14 days. Didn’t bother getting tested again. I’m young and healthy. Seems selfish to take the vaccine when it’s in scarce supply. But I guess to the “bUh mY OuTDOOr COncERt” crowd; I’m the selfish one? My wife is a nurse. If I go get tested for covid and test positive she has to quarantine. If I get the flu and test negative for covid, she has to quarantine. If I get the vaccine and experience symptoms of covid, she has to quarantine. If I get covid, have symptoms, and self isolate away from her....she still has to quarantine. If I get covid and have no symptoms she doesn’t have to quarantine because it’s unknown if I have it. If I get the vaccine and don’t get covid symptoms I could still spread it and be contagious. (Per CDC) Effectively she has to quarantine for everything and the vaccine provides no benefit to me or her (if I take). I simply take a dose from someone else when the vaccine is in short supply.
SharperDingaan Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 Most places will be rolling out their vaccines in a similar fashion to the below. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadians-vaccinated-covid-19-1.5854325 For the first phase of the vaccine rollout plan, NACI advised that initial doses should go to these four groups: (1) Residents and staff of long-term care homes. (2) Adults 70 and older, beginning with people 80 and older, then decreasing by five-year increments to 70 as supply becomes available. (3) Health-care workers, including all those who work in clinical settings, and personal support workers who come in direct contact with patients. (4) Adults in Indigenous communities, where infection can have disproportionate consequences. For Phase 2 of the vaccination rollout, NACI recommended that recipients include: (1) Health-care workers who are not part of the initial rollout. (2) Residents and staff of all other congregate settings (e.g., living quarters for migrant workers, correctional facilities, homeless shelters). (3) Essential workers, including police, firefighters and those in food production. So the choice as to WHEN you get vaccinated is entirely up to you. If you are < 70 and this is important to you, do something useful in either healthcare, a congregate setting, or essential services. Of course, you just have to get past your sh1tty 'ranking' in society first ;D SD
bizaro86 Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 Most places will be rolling out their vaccines in a similar fashion to the below. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadians-vaccinated-covid-19-1.5854325 For the first phase of the vaccine rollout plan, NACI advised that initial doses should go to these four groups: (1) Residents and staff of long-term care homes. (2) Adults 70 and older, beginning with people 80 and older, then decreasing by five-year increments to 70 as supply becomes available. (3) Health-care workers, including all those who work in clinical settings, and personal support workers who come in direct contact with patients. (4) Adults in Indigenous communities, where infection can have disproportionate consequences. For Phase 2 of the vaccination rollout, NACI recommended that recipients include: (1) Health-care workers who are not part of the initial rollout. (2) Residents and staff of all other congregate settings (e.g., living quarters for migrant workers, correctional facilities, homeless shelters). (3) Essential workers, including police, firefighters and those in food production. So the choice as to WHEN you get vaccinated is entirely up to you. If you are < 70 and this is important to you, do something useful in either healthcare, a congregate setting, or essential services. Of course, you just have to get past your sh1tty 'ranking' in society first ;D SD I would have ranked paramedics, who end up transporting covid patients fairly often, higher than adults in indigenous communities. I think race based decision making is generally a bad idea.
DooDiligence Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 Not a plausible staement Castanza as the second shots to most have not been administered as of yet! What is not plausible? And for the record, I’m not against the vaccine. I will gladly take it. I’m asking what the benefit is health wise for a low risk individual. I work from home, my wife already had it (three days of symptoms). I tested negative towards the end of her 14 day quarantine and I quarantined for an additional 14 days. Didn’t bother getting tested again. I’m young and healthy. Seems selfish to take the vaccine when it’s in scarce supply. But I guess to the “bUh mY OuTDOOr COncERt” crowd; I’m the selfish one? My wife is a nurse. If I go get tested for covid and test positive she has to quarantine. If I get the flu and test negative for covid, she has to quarantine. If I get the vaccine and experience symptoms of covid, she has to quarantine. If I get covid, have symptoms, and self isolate away from her....she still has to quarantine. If I get covid and have no symptoms she doesn’t have to quarantine because it’s unknown if I have it. If I get the vaccine and don’t get covid symptoms I could still spread it and be contagious. (Per CDC) Effectively she has to quarantine for everything and the vaccine provides no benefit to me or her (if I take). I simply take a dose from someone else when the vaccine is in short supply. Just stop while you're not too far behind.
gfp Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 I love the responses from the holier than thou assholes on this forum. Overly emotional individuals like yourselves are cancer to society. Scream louder.
Castanza Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 What is the benefit of taking the vaccine for healthy individuals under the age of 30? Not being selfish and spreading it to the community and potentially harming / killing those at risk. I also know a healthy 30 year old who died... so there's that too. Americans are way too skeptical of their government. Just take the damn vaccine to help yourself out and those around you. Be a good neighbor.
Castanza Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 Not a plausible staement Castanza as the second shots to most have not been administered as of yet! What is not plausible? And for the record, I’m not against the vaccine. I will gladly take it. I’m asking what the benefit is health wise for a low risk individual. I work from home, my wife already had it (three days of symptoms). I tested negative towards the end of her 14 day quarantine and I quarantined for an additional 14 days. Didn’t bother getting tested again. I’m young and healthy. Seems selfish to take the vaccine when it’s in scarce supply. But I guess to the “bUh mY OuTDOOr COncERt” crowd; I’m the selfish one? My wife is a nurse. If I go get tested for covid and test positive she has to quarantine. If I get the flu and test negative for covid, she has to quarantine. If I get the vaccine and experience symptoms of covid, she has to quarantine. If I get covid, have symptoms, and self isolate away from her....she still has to quarantine. If I get covid and have no symptoms she doesn’t have to quarantine because it’s unknown if I have it. If I get the vaccine and don’t get covid symptoms I could still spread it and be contagious. (Per CDC) Effectively she has to quarantine for everything and the vaccine provides no benefit to me or her (if I take). I simply take a dose from someone else when the vaccine is in short supply. Just stop while you're not too far behind. Behind on what? Do explain.
Castanza Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 What a strange reaction to my quoted answer to your question. Did I seem to be screaming and emotional to you? You asked about benefits for the under 30 set. Perhaps I missed where you were not really asking. What is the benefit of taking the vaccine for healthy individuals under the age of 30? Attending live concerts, international travel, admittance to in-person university classes, contributing to the greater good as it relates to herd immunity. And, you know, Gates and Soros whispering in your ear through the chip You can still spread and carry covid even after receiving the vaccine (per CDC). Edit: I love the responses from the holier than thou assholes on this forum. Neither asked me why. Neither answered the question from a health perspective on an individual basis. Here is a question for you two. Why should a young person take the vaccine which is in limited supply over and elderly high risk individual or frontline worker? Overly emotional individuals like yourselves are cancer to society. Scream louder. You didn’t list health benefits. And you equated me to an anti Baxter conspiracy theorist for asking a rational question. Which ironically nobody has answered as of yet.
gfp Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 You didn't ask for the health benefits. You asked for the benefits.
tede02 Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 My wife, who is in healthcare, is getting hers today. I'll get one as soon as it's available. I understand some who have legitimate concerns regarding the newness of the vaccine. But there is real risk in contracting COVID too and the long-term effects of the virus will not be known for years either.
Gregmal Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 Why wouldn't we apply the same scrutiny we do to others, to the government officials who held this up for so long? Its like they're still, with some of these, dicking around and wasting time because "despite 95% efficiency, oh, 1/50,000 might get temporary Bells Palsy or have an allergic reaction", meanwhile, they continue to tell us how dangerous the world is with covid, bc 300k(1/1,000) folks have actually died. The bigger picture of all of this is utterly insane and disgraceful.
SharperDingaan Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 Indigenous communities primarily means those North of 60 where it is all dense community living, isolation isn't really practical, and everything is either 'fly-in' or a once/yr 'sea-lift'. An infection in one of these, would spread even faster than in a Mennonite community (Manitoba). Sure, not all indigenous communities/reserves are the same, but a great many communities are not in great shape. Similar to a northern community, Covid gets into one of these, and a lot of folks are going to die. There is a reason why many of the remoter communities have closed off road access. Hard to argue against. SD
StubbleJumper Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 Indigenous communities primarily means those North of 60 where it is all dense community living, isolation isn't really practical, and everything is either 'fly-in' or a once/yr 'sea-lift'. An infection in one of these, would spread even faster than in a Mennonite community (Manitoba). Sure, not all indigenous communities/reserves are the same, but a great many communities are not in great shape. Similar to a northern community, Covid gets into one of these, and a lot of folks are going to die. There is a reason why many of the remoter communities have closed off road access. Hard to argue against. SD If the concern is remote communities, then why not simply create a definition of "remote" and then prioritize the vaccination of remote communities irrespective of the race of the residents? It is perfectly legitimate to question the wisdom of governments offering race-based privileges. SJ
DooDiligence Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 Not a plausible staement Castanza as the second shots to most have not been administered as of yet! What is not plausible? And for the record, I’m not against the vaccine. I will gladly take it. I’m asking what the benefit is health wise for a low risk individual. I work from home, my wife already had it (three days of symptoms). I tested negative towards the end of her 14 day quarantine and I quarantined for an additional 14 days. Didn’t bother getting tested again. I’m young and healthy. Seems selfish to take the vaccine when it’s in scarce supply. But I guess to the “bUh mY OuTDOOr COncERt” crowd; I’m the selfish one? My wife is a nurse. If I go get tested for covid and test positive she has to quarantine. If I get the flu and test negative for covid, she has to quarantine. If I get the vaccine and experience symptoms of covid, she has to quarantine. If I get covid, have symptoms, and self isolate away from her....she still has to quarantine. If I get covid and have no symptoms she doesn’t have to quarantine because it’s unknown if I have it. If I get the vaccine and don’t get covid symptoms I could still spread it and be contagious. (Per CDC) Effectively she has to quarantine for everything and the vaccine provides no benefit to me or her (if I take). I simply take a dose from someone else when the vaccine is in short supply. Just stop while you're not too far behind. Behind on what? Do explain. Living up to your username. George was frequently obtuse as well.
Castanza Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 Not a plausible staement Castanza as the second shots to most have not been administered as of yet! What is not plausible? And for the record, I’m not against the vaccine. I will gladly take it. I’m asking what the benefit is health wise for a low risk individual. I work from home, my wife already had it (three days of symptoms). I tested negative towards the end of her 14 day quarantine and I quarantined for an additional 14 days. Didn’t bother getting tested again. I’m young and healthy. Seems selfish to take the vaccine when it’s in scarce supply. But I guess to the “bUh mY OuTDOOr COncERt” crowd; I’m the selfish one? My wife is a nurse. If I go get tested for covid and test positive she has to quarantine. If I get the flu and test negative for covid, she has to quarantine. If I get the vaccine and experience symptoms of covid, she has to quarantine. If I get covid, have symptoms, and self isolate away from her....she still has to quarantine. If I get covid and have no symptoms she doesn’t have to quarantine because it’s unknown if I have it. If I get the vaccine and don’t get covid symptoms I could still spread it and be contagious. (Per CDC) Effectively she has to quarantine for everything and the vaccine provides no benefit to me or her (if I take). I simply take a dose from someone else when the vaccine is in short supply. Just stop while you're not too far behind. Behind on what? Do explain. Living up to your username. George was frequently obtuse as well. What did I say that was wrong? If you’re young and healthy you are very unlikely to experience any adverse symptoms. The vaccine is in limited supply. The vaccine does not prevent you from carrying covid, nor does it prevent you from being contagious and spreading covid. So far from what I’ve read, there is no additional benefit to getting the vaccine for individuals who have already contracted covid and gotten over it (unknown for me). Longterm studies on vaccine: none Longterm studies on covid: none Is there any significant health benefit for young healthy individuals from the vaccine to warrant getting it before high risk individuals? As it stands if I get covid the worst I’m am likely to experience is bad flu like symptoms for 14 days max. For me personally, it’s easy enough to self quarantine if I get it. Why would I want to take a rushed to market vaccine if I am extremely low risk? If weighing current risk vs current reward is obtuse.....well, I guess I’m obtuse.
DooDiligence Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 Not a plausible staement Castanza as the second shots to most have not been administered as of yet! What is not plausible? And for the record, I’m not against the vaccine. I will gladly take it. I’m asking what the benefit is health wise for a low risk individual. I work from home, my wife already had it (three days of symptoms). I tested negative towards the end of her 14 day quarantine and I quarantined for an additional 14 days. Didn’t bother getting tested again. I’m young and healthy. Seems selfish to take the vaccine when it’s in scarce supply. But I guess to the “bUh mY OuTDOOr COncERt” crowd; I’m the selfish one? My wife is a nurse. If I go get tested for covid and test positive she has to quarantine. If I get the flu and test negative for covid, she has to quarantine. If I get the vaccine and experience symptoms of covid, she has to quarantine. If I get covid, have symptoms, and self isolate away from her....she still has to quarantine. If I get covid and have no symptoms she doesn’t have to quarantine because it’s unknown if I have it. If I get the vaccine and don’t get covid symptoms I could still spread it and be contagious. (Per CDC) Effectively she has to quarantine for everything and the vaccine provides no benefit to me or her (if I take). I simply take a dose from someone else when the vaccine is in short supply. Just stop while you're not too far behind. Behind on what? Do explain. Living up to your username. George was frequently obtuse as well. What did I say that was wrong? If you’re young and healthy you are very unlikely to experience any adverse symptoms. The vaccine is in limited supply. The vaccine does not prevent you from carrying covid, nor does it prevent you from being contagious and spreading covid. So far from what I’ve read, there is no additional benefit to getting the vaccine for individuals who have already contracted covid and gotten over it (unknown for me). Longterm studies on vaccine: none Longterm studies on covid: none Is there any significant health benefit for young healthy individuals from the vaccine to warrant getting it before high risk individuals? As it stands if I get covid the worst I’m am likely to experience is bad flu like symptoms for 14 days max. For me personally, it’s easy enough to self quarantine if I get it. Why would I want to take a rushed to market vaccine if I am extremely low risk? If weighing current risk vs current reward is obtuse.....well, I guess I’m obtuse. confirmed
Gregmal Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 Personally, after Joe won, I felt that I could trust the science again and therefor get the vaccine. Whew!
SharperDingaan Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 A fishing lodge on a far-away lake somewhere is 'remote' - but not quite the same thing as a Rankin Inlet. https://rankininlet.ca/ Inuit, or Indian is no different to English, French, or Newfoundlander. They are just different people, not different races … ‘though sometimes you have to wonder! A great many women also claim that men are from Mars, and women from Venus. Names matter of course, but to most; ‘indigenous’ is relatively neutral. In times past, we called these people ‘wards of the state’ – incredibly insulting by 2020 standards. SD
Gregmal Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 Agree on giving it first to indigenous. People really dont seem to understand how far removed from the general population and societal norms most are. I remember awhile back an issue with a Bible thumper getting murdered by the Sentinelese and how they didnt even want to bother retrieving the body because of the risk of exposing these people(I think 2-3 dozen remain) to normal disease/bacteria.
drzola Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 Here is some well written words on a Pandemic for the Uninformed one's beaking off today here fyi Lol! Consequences of Pandemics Health Impacts The direct health impacts of pandemics can be catastrophic. During the Black Death, an estimated 30–50 percent of the European population perished (DeWitte 2014). More recently, the HIV/AIDS pandemic has killed more than 35 million persons since 1981 (WHO Global Health Observatory data, http://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en). Pandemics can disproportionately affect younger, more economically active segments of the population (Charu and others 2011). During influenza pandemics (as opposed to seasonal outbreaks of influenza), the morbidity and mortality age distributions shift to younger populations, because younger people have lower immunity than older people, which significantly increases the years of life lost (Viboud and others 2010). Furthermore, many infectious diseases can have chronic effects, which can become more common or widespread in the case of a pandemic. For example, Zika-associated microcephaly has lifelong impacts on health and well-being. The indirect health impacts of pandemics can increase morbidity and mortality further. Drivers of indirect health impacts include diversion or depletion of resources to provide routine care and decreased access to routine care resulting from an inability to travel, fear, or other factors. Additionally, fear can lead to an upsurge of the “worried well” seeking unnecessary care, further burdening the health care system (Falcone and Detty 2015). During the 2014 West Africa Ebola epidemic, lack of routine care for malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis led to an estimated 10,600 additional deaths in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone (Parpia and others 2016). This indirect death toll nearly equaled the 11,300 deaths directly caused by Ebola in those countries (WHO 2016a). Additionally, diversion of funds, medical resources, and personnel led to a 30 percent decrease in routine childhood immunization rates in affected countries (UNDP 2014). During the 2009 influenza pandemic, a greater surge in hospital admissions for influenza and pneumonia was associated with statistically significant increases in deaths attributable to acute myocardial infarction and stroke (Rubinson and others 2013). However, during a pandemic, distinguishing which deaths are attributable to the pandemic itself and which are merely coincidental may be impossible. During the 2014 West Africa Ebola epidemic, facilities closures as a result of understaffing and fear of contracting the disease played a large role in lack of access to or avoidance of routine health care. One study of 45 public facilities in Guinea found that the Ebola outbreak led to a 31 percent decrease in outpatient visits for routine maternal and child health services (Barden-O’Fallon and others 2015). Among children under age five years, hospitals witnessed a 60 percent decrease in visits for diarrhea and a 58 percent decrease in visits for acute respiratory illness (ARI), while health centers saw a 25 percent decrease in visits for diarrhea and a 23 percent decrease in visits for ARI. In Sierra Leone, visits to public facilities for reproductive health care fell by as much as 40 percent during the outbreak (UNDP 2014). The availability of health care workers also decreases during a pandemic because of illness, deaths, and fear-driven absenteeism. Viral hemorrhagic fevers such as Ebola take an especially severe toll on health care workers, who face significant exposure to infectious material: During the first Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1976 (then called Zaire), the Yambuku Mission Hospital—at the epicenter of the outbreak—was closed because 11 out of the 17 staff members had died of the disease (WHO 1978). During the Kikwit Ebola outbreak in 1995 in the same country, 24 percent of cases occurred among known or possible health care workers (Rosello and others 2015). During the 2014 West Africa Ebola epidemic, health care workers experienced high mortality rates: 8 percent of doctors, nurses, and midwives succumbed to Ebola in Liberia, 7 percent in Sierra Leone, and 1 percent in Guinea (Evans, Goldstein, and Popova 2015). Even if health care workers do not die, their ability to provide care may be reduced. At the peak of a severe influenza pandemic, up to 40 percent of health care workers might be unable to report for duty because they are ill themselves, need to care for ill family members, need to care for children because of school closures, or are afraid (Falcone and Detty 2015; U.S. Homeland Security Council 2006) Stay Safe and Sane all!
drzola Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 The full citation for the uninformed pandemic Dorks around here posting their uninformed opinionated thoughts in a field their ignorant in very much so today here my guess here only tho eh ha! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK525302/?report=reader Go World Junior CDNS'sgainst Fin's today to finish off preliminaries' in EDm P.S PAC vs Steeler's would be a classic.
StubbleJumper Posted December 31, 2020 Posted December 31, 2020 A fishing lodge on a far-away lake somewhere is 'remote' - but not quite the same thing as a Rankin Inlet. https://rankininlet.ca/ There are many remote communities. Some of those are indigenous communities and some are not. The characteristics of those communities (fly-in, fly out, hospitals quite distant) are what matters, not the genetic or cultural background of the people who happen to live there. Inuit, or Indian is no different to English, French, or Newfoundlander. They are just different people, not different races … ‘though sometimes you have to wonder! A great many women also claim that men are from Mars, and women from Venus. Names matter of course, but to most; ‘indigenous’ is relatively neutral. In times past, we called these people ‘wards of the state’ – incredibly insulting by 2020 standards. SD Agreed, people are people and all should have equal rights and equal protection under law. But once governments start giving people privileges based uniquely on their ancestry, you have shifted drastically away from the principles of a pluralist society in a liberal democracy. Some of those race based (or if you prefer, ancestry based) privileges are historical artifacts created by our forebears 300 years ago and are thus entrenched in law, but to the extent possible, let's not create new ones. If you start providing preferential access to vaccination on the basis of ancestry, do you finish in a world where hospital beds, waiting lists and organ transplants are not provided to all equally, but rather preferentially to certain groups because of their genetic make-up? That's certainly not a world that I would want to live in. SJ
bizaro86 Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 A fishing lodge on a far-away lake somewhere is 'remote' - but not quite the same thing as a Rankin Inlet. https://rankininlet.ca/ There are many remote communities. Some of those are indigenous communities and some are not. The characteristics of those communities (fly-in, fly out, hospitals quite distant) are what matters, not the genetic or cultural background of the people who happen to live there. Inuit, or Indian is no different to English, French, or Newfoundlander. They are just different people, not different races … ‘though sometimes you have to wonder! A great many women also claim that men are from Mars, and women from Venus. Names matter of course, but to most; ‘indigenous’ is relatively neutral. In times past, we called these people ‘wards of the state’ – incredibly insulting by 2020 standards. SD Agreed, people are people and all should have equal rights and equal protection under law. But once governments start giving people privileges based uniquely on their ancestry, you have shifted drastically away from the principles of a pluralist society in a liberal democracy. Some of those race based (or if you prefer, ancestry based) privileges are historical artifacts created by our forebears 300 years ago and are thus entrenched in law, but to the extent possible, let's not create new ones. If you start providing preferential access to vaccination on the basis of ancestry, do you finish in a world where hospital beds, waiting lists and organ transplants are not provided to all equally, but rather preferentially to certain groups because of their genetic make-up? That's certainly not a world that I would want to live in. SJ Exactly. Remote communities should rank high on the list, although maybe not above paramedics, who I really do believe should be high on the list. As a work-from-home young-ish person I'm way down the list, which is completely fine. But I'm not sure that the people who live on the reserve near my house (the one closer to a major hospital than my house in the suburbs, the reserve that has a Costco) need to be getting first dibs based on race.
Spekulatius Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 If you’re young and healthy you are very unlikely to experience any adverse symptoms. The vaccine is in limited supply. The vaccine does not prevent you from carrying covid, nor does it prevent you from being contagious and spreading covid. So far from what I’ve read, there is no additional benefit to getting the vaccine for individuals who have already contracted covid and gotten over it (unknown for me). Longterm studies on vaccine: none Longterm studies on covid: none If weighing current risk vs current reward is obtuse.....well, I guess I’m obtuse. Gheez Castanza, we are 9 month into this, your wife is a nurse and that’s how well you are informed? You are correct, there are no LT studies on the vaccine and there is Little known a out the LT effects of COVID-19 either, except indications that there are some that could be a problem. Most importantly, the vaccine will absolutely absolutely prevents you from carrying COVID-19 and infecting others - in fact that’s one of the main benefits of vaccination.
Castanza Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 If you’re young and healthy you are very unlikely to experience any adverse symptoms. The vaccine is in limited supply. The vaccine does not prevent you from carrying covid, nor does it prevent you from being contagious and spreading covid. So far from what I’ve read, there is no additional benefit to getting the vaccine for individuals who have already contracted covid and gotten over it (unknown for me). Longterm studies on vaccine: none Longterm studies on covid: none If weighing current risk vs current reward is obtuse.....well, I guess I’m obtuse. Gheez Castanza, we are 9 month into this, your wife is a nurse and that’s how well you are informed? You are correct, there are no LT studies on the vaccine and there is Little known a out the LT effects of COVID-19 either, except indications that there are some that could be a problem. Most importantly, the vaccine will absolutely absolutely prevents you from carrying COVID-19 and infecting others - in fact that’s one of the main benefits of vaccination. https://abc7news.com/covid-vaccine-masks-mask-wearing-pfizer/9139874 “Here's what the studies don't yet show. They haven't looked at whether the vaccine prevents someone from carrying COVID-19 and spreading it to others. It's possible that someone could get the vaccine but could still be an asymptomatic carrier. They may not show symptoms, but they have the virus in their nasal passageway so that if they're speaking, breathing, sneezing and so on, they can still transmit it to others.” Obviously if you don’t have symptoms you’re far less likely to spread it since you aren’t sneezing and coughing all over. Yes, the vaccine helps reduce spread but it is t an end all solution. Hence the requirement to continue wearing masks and social distancing. As I said before....I will take it...but currently there are others who should get it first. That’s why my original question was....are there any SIGNIFICANT benefits for a person under 30 to justify getting the vaccine early over those who are high risk or work on the front line.
Recommended Posts