Anyway, some will view all of this through tomciara's lens: "... The internet world has no interest in truth, only vindication for preconceived assumptions."
|
Point taken and accepted. “Sore arms and broken ankles” are not the first few I scanned. Thrombosis, respiratory failures, myocarditis… there is plenty there.
I think it is fair to note at this juncture that there are anti-vaxxers, meant to pejorative term, and vax-hesitants. Most fall in the second category.
Personally, I think that older folks and compromised folks should be first in line and this could save their lives. But knowing their are some risks, as with all medicines, this is where blanket pejoratives and name calling does not open up any understanding.
If you had a 15 year old son, and knew of widespread reports of myocarditis in young men, this is where you start to weigh the risk/benefit equation. Other than kids with preexisting conditions, the odds on significant symptoms is low, and odds of death are in the 0.00xx per cent range. In other words, he is more likely to die of a lightning strike than of covid. There is not a consensus that kids carry and spread it, so I’d be likely to avoid giving him a shot. His 80 year old grandma on the other hand, you bet.
I know when we dig into political discussion (which covid has become, sadly) it is hard to get any consensus. It does not seem unreasonable to me to make two statements and still be fair. 1) This is not a traditional vaccine, using dead virus cells to trigger immunity. It is a much newer mRNA product. And 2) we do not know long term effects on this mRNA product.
#2 is where a vax-hesitant person should at least be given a nod and an “I get it” from reasonable folks.
Even Fauci said early on it could take years to get a vaccine. That is because there is no substitute for time in assessing long-term trouble. A typical vaccine takes 5 or 10 years for full development and approval.
Going back to the 15 year old boy, it is impossible to know if he will have cardiac issues as a young adult or during full adulthood. What other issues could he face, in comparison to having zero chance of death from the virus itself? Is it not reasonable to be cautious?
I go back to my example of a woman in her 20’s or 30’s who wants to have a family. You know that even drug users and drinkers will cut off the intake when they find themselves pregnant. They are protecting a child they have not yet met, and that is a passion for a woman.
With plenty of reports of the shot upsetting their cycles, not knowing if a child’s development could be affected, is it not reasonable to be hesitant? Especially when she is again, 0.00xx likely to have major symptoms or die from the virus?
Note also that omicron and later variants seem to be able to be passed along freely but seem also to barely be a threat to mortality - they act more and more like a bad case of the flu. As I write this, I know of 3 young people suffering the symptoms and they are significant, but recovery is underway. 2 of 3 are vaxxed. Symptoms and recovery time are practically identical for all three. (Why did they get it?)
I think hesitation is a reasonable response. I don’t agree with an anti-vax stance and don’t know people who do. I know you will disagree with my points. I have tried to be reasonable to keep the discussion going.
Last edited by tomciara on January 8, 2022 11:58.
There is no truth anymore. Only assertions. The internet world has no interest in truth, only vindication for preconceived assumptions.
