Covid vaccination status?

[Rothman]

My strong suspicion is that not all of them are stupid people.

If they are simply refusing to get the vaccine, then it is hard to see how they aren't.

Well, it's more complex than that. A large percentage of people refusing to get vaccinated are racial minorities, who for quite understandable reasons have a culturally ingrained distrust of government. There is, in fact, some specific baggage with the government offering what they claim to be free medical treatment to minorities...

But regardless, it is because of this that New York (55.1% non-hispanic white) will have a lower voluntary vaccine uptake rate than Connecticut (71.2% non-hispanic white), and at this point therefore really has no chance of catching up to Connecticut.


Even within Connecticut, the effect is visible. On a town by town basis, how many people have gotten vaccinated most obviously correlates with what percentage of the town voted for whom in recent elections. However, towns with large minority populations (e.g. Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven) jump out as clear exceptions to this trend.

I think you've undercounted stupid white anti-vaxxers.

[CoreySamson]

Of the people I know  (myself included) who aren't planning to get it, their reasoning generally falls into one or both of these categories:

1. Unsure of the safety of them. mRNA vaccines have not been used outside of trials before these vaccines were developed, so there is little data on the long-term effects of this kind of vaccine. The Covid vaccines were all developed within the last year, which means there's no data on long-term effects of them specifically either.

2. Don't see the need to get it. They aren't concerned about getting sick because they're young and healthy, and according to the statistics therefore have an extremely low chance of serious illness/death. Additionally, most people in the country are planning to get vaccinated, meaning the spread will be greatly decreased, further lowering the risks of not being vaccinated.

Bingo. That's my train of thought. It should be noted that the Covid vaccines were only approved by emergency authorization, not by long-term testing for efficacy and side effects.

[Rothman]

Of the people I know  (myself included) who aren't planning to get it, their reasoning generally falls into one or both of these categories:

1. Unsure of the safety of them. mRNA vaccines have not been used outside of trials before these vaccines were developed, so there is little data on the long-term effects of this kind of vaccine. The Covid vaccines were all developed within the last year, which means there's no data on long-term effects of them specifically either.

2. Don't see the need to get it. They aren't concerned about getting sick because they're young and healthy, and according to the statistics therefore have an extremely low chance of serious illness/death. Additionally, most people in the country are planning to get vaccinated, meaning the spread will be greatly decreased, further lowering the risks of not being vaccinated.

Bingo. That's my train of thought. It should be noted that the Covid vaccines were only approved by emergency authorization, not by long-term testing for efficacy and side effects.

Get vaccinated.

[jakeroot]

Poll question:

For those that voted "priority group not yet eligible", please update your vote if that's not the case anymore.

For everyone else: update your vote if you haven't already.

I'm just curious where we stand.

[bm7]

Of the people I know  (myself included) who aren't planning to get it, their reasoning generally falls into one or both of these categories:

1. Unsure of the safety of them. mRNA vaccines have not been used outside of trials before these vaccines were developed, so there is little data on the long-term effects of this kind of vaccine. The Covid vaccines were all developed within the last year, which means there's no data on long-term effects of them specifically either.

2. Don't see the need to get it. They aren't concerned about getting sick because they're young and healthy, and according to the statistics therefore have an extremely low chance of serious illness/death. Additionally, most people in the country are planning to get vaccinated, meaning the spread will be greatly decreased, further lowering the risks of not being vaccinated.

Bingo. That's my train of thought. It should be noted that the Covid vaccines were only approved by emergency authorization, not by long-term testing for efficacy and side effects.

Get vaccinated.

I'd wager telling people "get vaccinated" in response to a valid concern is going to make them even less likely to do it.

[Rothman]

Of the people I know  (myself included) who aren't planning to get it, their reasoning generally falls into one or both of these categories:

1. Unsure of the safety of them. mRNA vaccines have not been used outside of trials before these vaccines were developed, so there is little data on the long-term effects of this kind of vaccine. The Covid vaccines were all developed within the last year, which means there's no data on long-term effects of them specifically either.

2. Don't see the need to get it. They aren't concerned about getting sick because they're young and healthy, and according to the statistics therefore have an extremely low chance of serious illness/death. Additionally, most people in the country are planning to get vaccinated, meaning the spread will be greatly decreased, further lowering the risks of not being vaccinated.

Bingo. That's my train of thought. It should be noted that the Covid vaccines were only approved by emergency authorization, not by long-term testing for efficacy and side effects.

Get vaccinated.

I'd wager telling people "get vaccinated" in response to a valid concern is going to make them even less likely to do it.

The concern is not valid, precisely because the confidence in the reviews and tests caused officials to authorize its use.  The vaccine is safe.

If you don't think it's safe, you're listening to the wrong people.

So, don't be stupid: Get vaccinated.

[1995hoo]

Who is keeping people from getting the vaccine?

Anti-vax caretakers. Bosses who overwork employees and won't let them take off for side effects. Officials who refuse to provide accessible sites.

But, but, but, kernals12 has told us that "overwork" is a myth because technology means we can get our jobs done in less time so we have more time off, which in this case would mean no problem taking off for side effects.

(Yesterday I didn't ask: I sent a message saying I was signing off to go take a nap and I explained why. My boss's reaction was along the lines of that I should have signed off sooner.)

[Roadgeekteen]

Of the people I know  (myself included) who aren't planning to get it, their reasoning generally falls into one or both of these categories:

1. Unsure of the safety of them. mRNA vaccines have not been used outside of trials before these vaccines were developed, so there is little data on the long-term effects of this kind of vaccine. The Covid vaccines were all developed within the last year, which means there's no data on long-term effects of them specifically either.

2. Don't see the need to get it. They aren't concerned about getting sick because they're young and healthy, and according to the statistics therefore have an extremely low chance of serious illness/death. Additionally, most people in the country are planning to get vaccinated, meaning the spread will be greatly decreased, further lowering the risks of not being vaccinated.

Bingo. That's my train of thought. It should be noted that the Covid vaccines were only approved by emergency authorization, not by long-term testing for efficacy and side effects.

Get vaccinated.

I'd wager telling people "get vaccinated" in response to a valid concern is going to make them even less likely to do it.

I trust the health experts over random people on the internet.

[kphoger]

This line of discussion has become like talking to Fritz.

– People who elect not to get vaccinated are stupid, selfish anti-vaxxers.

– The people I know who are electing not to get vaccinated have the following concerns, which are neither selfish, stupid, nor anti-science.

– People who elect not to get vaccinated are stupid, selfish anti-vaxxers.

– The people I know who are electing not to get vaccinated are intelligent, spend their lives dedicated to the well-being of others, and are not anti-vaxxers.

– Get vaccinated.  I think this is needed.

[hotdogPi]

This line of discussion has become like talking to Fritz.

I would compare it more to dzlsabe or HighwayStar. FritzOwl doesn't even acknowledge criticism; dzlsabe and HighwayStar push back.

However, I'm on the "you do need to get vaccinated" side of the debate, just without the insults.

[hbelkins]

Stupid New Yorkers have caused a plateau.

My strong suspicion is that not all of them are stupid people.

If they are simply refusing to get the vaccine, then it is hard to see how they aren't.

If they are medically unable to get it or can't get to a location, then that is another matter.

I know plenty of intelligent people who don't plan to be vaccinated–a set of people that includes teachers and nurses, by the way, successful college-graduate professionals.  Your inability to "see how they aren't" stupid doesn't enter into it.  The fact is that not every intelligent person has the same opinion, nor does every intelligent person believe the same thing, nor does every intelligent person do the same thing.  At least that's the way it is in Wichita.  I'm assuming the same holds true in New York.

Smearing everyone who isn't getting vaccinated as "stupid" is just juvenile.

Stupid is an intellectual failing. Not getting vaccinated is more of a moral failing. They aren't too stupid to help protect others' lives, they just don't care.

I chose this post for a reply instead of the original post or Kyle's rebuttal.

I reject both arguments. Not getting the shot is not an unintelligent decision, nor is it an immoral decision.

I have weighed the pros and cons and for various reasons, have determined that I will not be taking the shot. I'm not an "anti-vaxxer" by any stretch, but I'm skeptical of this particular one. I got all the popular childhood shots as a kid growing up in the 1960s, but I have no memories of ever being vaccinated for anything. I couldn't tell you the last time I got a tetanus shot. Maybe in five years, if covid is still around and causing major problems and no long-term issues have manifested themselves among the vaccinated, I will reconsider. But I have never taken a flu shot and I've never had the flu -- including last year, when in February I had close contact with someone who tested positive for the flu later that day; contact close enough that if he'd had covid and not the flu, the government would have tried to imprison me in my own home for two weeks.

I have my doubts about the long-term safety of the shot, since it is so new and relatively untested, and also do not see an individual need for me to take the shot. There are a number of other factors that led to my decision. My risk of contracting covid as I go about my normal life -- meaning life prior to February 2020 -- is relatively low. Which means that I'm not at risk of spreading it to others, especially since it's been stated that you can still catch and transmit covid even after having taken the shot. And my taking the shot would do nothing to protect others since the vaccinated can still spread the virus; others can choose to get the shot, wear masks, keep distance, stay home, or whatever else they feel they need to do.

I would neither encourage nor discourage anyone to get the shot. Contrary to popular belief here, it's not the right decision for everyone. I would instead hope that they evaluate their own individual situations and come to a decision with which they're comfortable. I'm perfectly comfortable with my decision. I'd hope the "tolerance and understanding" crowd would respect that. My not taking the shot doesn't affect you in the least, especially if you do take it.

[NWI_Irish96]

Stupid New Yorkers have caused a plateau.

My strong suspicion is that not all of them are stupid people.

If they are simply refusing to get the vaccine, then it is hard to see how they aren't.

If they are medically unable to get it or can't get to a location, then that is another matter.

I know plenty of intelligent people who don't plan to be vaccinated–a set of people that includes teachers and nurses, by the way, successful college-graduate professionals.  Your inability to "see how they aren't" stupid doesn't enter into it.  The fact is that not every intelligent person has the same opinion, nor does every intelligent person believe the same thing, nor does every intelligent person do the same thing.  At least that's the way it is in Wichita.  I'm assuming the same holds true in New York.

Smearing everyone who isn't getting vaccinated as "stupid" is just juvenile.

Stupid is an intellectual failing. Not getting vaccinated is more of a moral failing. They aren't too stupid to help protect others' lives, they just don't care.

I chose this post for a reply instead of the original post or Kyle's rebuttal.

I reject both arguments. Not getting the shot is not an unintelligent decision, nor is it an immoral decision.

I have weighed the pros and cons and for various reasons, have determined that I will not be taking the shot. I'm not an "anti-vaxxer" by any stretch, but I'm skeptical of this particular one. I got all the popular childhood shots as a kid growing up in the 1960s, but I have no memories of ever being vaccinated for anything. I couldn't tell you the last time I got a tetanus shot. Maybe in five years, if covid is still around and causing major problems and no long-term issues have manifested themselves among the vaccinated, I will reconsider. But I have never taken a flu shot and I've never had the flu -- including last year, when in February I had close contact with someone who tested positive for the flu later that day; contact close enough that if he'd had covid and not the flu, the government would have tried to imprison me in my own home for two weeks.

I have my doubts about the long-term safety of the shot, since it is so new and relatively untested, and also do not see an individual need for me to take the shot. There are a number of other factors that led to my decision. My risk of contracting covid as I go about my normal life -- meaning life prior to February 2020 -- is relatively low. Which means that I'm not at risk of spreading it to others, especially since it's been stated that you can still catch and transmit covid even after having taken the shot. And my taking the shot would do nothing to protect others since the vaccinated can still spread the virus; others can choose to get the shot, wear masks, keep distance, stay home, or whatever else they feel they need to do.

I would neither encourage nor discourage anyone to get the shot. Contrary to popular belief here, it's not the right decision for everyone. I would instead hope that they evaluate their own individual situations and come to a decision with which they're comfortable. I'm perfectly comfortable with my decision. I'd hope the "tolerance and understanding" crowd would respect that. My not taking the shot doesn't affect you in the least, especially if you do take it.

It most certainly can. The more people who do not get vaccinated, the longer the virus can spread, and the longer it spreads, the greater chance that a vaccine-resistant strain emerges and kills me even though I got vaccinated.

[Rothman]

This line that "I am not an anti-vaxxer but I have the same concerns of anti-vaxxers regarding this vaccination" is an interesting position.  It's like signing up for the losing team.

[citrus]

Since my spouse is, in fact, an infectious disease doctor at a hospital that participated in clinical trials.... thought I'd weigh in on a few things here. In her opinion, the CDC / government entities are being very conservative about vaccines and their effect on covid-19, mostly because they are still waiting for real-world data (which has started to come in, from Israel) to corroborate what the scientists and clinicians strongly believe based on biology and theory.

relatively untested

These vaccines have been tested at least as much as previous vaccines were before rolling out to the general public.

it's been stated that you can still catch and transmit covid even after having taken the shot

You are right, that has been definitely stated by the CDC, the news, etc. Based on how the vaccines are supposed to work (from a biological perspective), this is unlikely, and data from places where vaccines rolled out very quickly (i.e. Israel) are starting to show that while this is technically true, the probability of catching and transmitting is significantly lowered for people who have been vaccinated, and people who do catch it are having significantly less severe outcomes. See Myth #2 in https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/6-myths-about-covid-19-vaccines-debunked

greater chance that a vaccine-resistant strain emerges and kills me even though I got vaccinated

This is also unlikely. The virus mutates extremely slowly compared with influenza. The vaccines target the very part of the virus that attaches to human cells, so a mutation that evades the vaccine will also be unable to attach to human cells. Also see Myth #6 in https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/6-myths-about-covid-19-vaccines-debunked

I have my doubts about the long-term safety of the shot

Fair enough, but there have basically never been long-term safety problems with any vaccine that don't show up within the first couple months. At this point, we've given the vaccines to enough people, long enough ago, that we would have discovered them by now. For example: https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-side-effects-covid-19-vaccine

IMO, the biggest problem with choosing not to get the vaccine is the risk of contracting the disease as an unvaccinated person, and transmitting it to someone who has an immune system weak enough that the vaccine was ineffective. At some point, an unvaccinated person getting covid or transmitting to another unvaccinated person is on them.

Oh, and I got to change my answer to the poll today was finally my turn for my first shot. I didn't even have to leave the car for it!

[NWI_Irish96]

greater chance that a vaccine-resistant strain emerges and kills me even though I got vaccinated

This is also unlikely. The virus mutates extremely slowly compared with influenza. The vaccines target the very part of the virus that attaches to human cells, so a mutation that evades the vaccine will also be unable to attach to human cells. Also see Myth #6 in https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/6-myths-about-covid-19-vaccines-debunked

From the article you referenced:

The so-called South African variant, technically known as B.1.351, and the Brazilian variant, known as P.1, are similar and do not seem to be as easily neutralized by the vaccines, Sette says. But that doesn't mean the vaccines are completely useless. "We have been doing some calculations and it seems that most of the pieces that the T cells recognize are not changed in the variants,"  he says. "What that means is that the T cell response [induced by the vaccine] may not prevent infection, but it can impact disease severity."  

We already have two variants that have better vaccine resistance than the original. While these may not be able to cause severe disease, the fact that they can infect vaccinated people at all means there is definitely the possibility of a more potent variant in the future. We need to get to 60-70% of adults vaccinated ASAP.

[Duke87]

You might think differently once vaccine passports are needed to go to most major events.

Well so far, that idea hasn't really been implemented anywhere. And if it is, it would increase vaccinations for people in the second category, but wouldn't do anything to the first.

It has in New York. State guidelines require you provide a recent negative test or proof of vaccination in order to attend any large event. Of course, that's New York - most states are not doing this.

And my taking the shot would do nothing to protect others since the vaccinated can still spread the virus

Thank you for providing a great example of why I've been banging my head against walls for months enraged at the fact that afraid-of-their-own-shadow public health officials and fearmongering media outlets alike keep repeating this.

This whole "vaccinated people can still spread the virus so still need to exercise all precautions" business needs to stop. It is actively damaging to public health efforts because of exactly what is seen here - it is a flawed premise which encourages people to arrive at flawed conclusions such as "getting vaccinated does nothing to protect others, therefore I have no social responsibility to do so since this decision only affects me" or "why should I bother getting vaccinated if it doesn't enable me to return to living like normal".

The actual fact of the matter is... because clinical trials were expedited for the sake of emergency use, how effective the vaccines are at presenting a vaccinated person from transmitting the virus was not studied. Thus, when vaccines were first approved for emergency use, the risk-averse bureaucracy we have said "since we don't have data on this, we need to play it safe and assume that vaccinated people may still be able to spread". The media and the general public, however, aren't good with nuance and just heard "vaccinated people are still able to spread", even though if you listen closely that's not actually what the experts said.

Meanwhile, in the months since, a fair body of data has been collected which suggests that yes, in fact, vaccines are fairly effective at preventing the vaccinated individual from transmitting to others, though exactly how effective has still yet to be firmly quantified.

Nonetheless, it was far-fetched from the beginning that a vaccine which is 95% effective at preventing illness would somehow be 0% effective at preventing transmission. This is not consistent with how any other vaccine works, and it fails a basic sanity check besides. All it ever actually was was advice to, out of abundance of caution in the face of lack of data, assume the worst case theoretically possible. It was never a statement of confirmed science.

[Ketchup99]

Stupid New Yorkers have caused a plateau.

My strong suspicion is that not all of them are stupid people.

If they are simply refusing to get the vaccine, then it is hard to see how they aren't.

If they are medically unable to get it or can't get to a location, then that is another matter.

I know plenty of intelligent people who don't plan to be vaccinated–a set of people that includes teachers and nurses, by the way, successful college-graduate professionals.  Your inability to "see how they aren't" stupid doesn't enter into it.  The fact is that not every intelligent person has the same opinion, nor does every intelligent person believe the same thing, nor does every intelligent person do the same thing.  At least that's the way it is in Wichita.  I'm assuming the same holds true in New York.

Smearing everyone who isn't getting vaccinated as "stupid" is just juvenile.

Stupid is an intellectual failing. Not getting vaccinated is more of a moral failing. They aren't too stupid to help protect others' lives, they just don't care.

I chose this post for a reply instead of the original post or Kyle's rebuttal.

I reject both arguments. Not getting the shot is not an unintelligent decision, nor is it an immoral decision.

I have weighed the pros and cons and for various reasons, have determined that I will not be taking the shot. I'm not an "anti-vaxxer" by any stretch, but I'm skeptical of this particular one. I got all the popular childhood shots as a kid growing up in the 1960s, but I have no memories of ever being vaccinated for anything. I couldn't tell you the last time I got a tetanus shot. Maybe in five years, if covid is still around and causing major problems and no long-term issues have manifested themselves among the vaccinated, I will reconsider. But I have never taken a flu shot and I've never had the flu -- including last year, when in February I had close contact with someone who tested positive for the flu later that day; contact close enough that if he'd had covid and not the flu, the government would have tried to imprison me in my own home for two weeks.

I have my doubts about the long-term safety of the shot, since it is so new and relatively untested, and also do not see an individual need for me to take the shot. There are a number of other factors that led to my decision. My risk of contracting covid as I go about my normal life -- meaning life prior to February 2020 -- is relatively low. Which means that I'm not at risk of spreading it to others, especially since it's been stated that you can still catch and transmit covid even after having taken the shot. And my taking the shot would do nothing to protect others since the vaccinated can still spread the virus; others can choose to get the shot, wear masks, keep distance, stay home, or whatever else they feel they need to do.

I would neither encourage nor discourage anyone to get the shot. Contrary to popular belief here, it's not the right decision for everyone. I would instead hope that they evaluate their own individual situations and come to a decision with which they're comfortable. I'm perfectly comfortable with my decision. I'd hope the "tolerance and understanding" crowd would respect that. My not taking the shot doesn't affect you in the least, especially if you do take it.

The one concern here that I think is valid is that we haven't had enough time to test the long-term safety data. We don't know for sure that the shot is 100% safe long-term, because the first person was only injected with it thirteen months ago. And I'd also agree that your personal risk is your personal decision, and that your weighing your risk of getting sick from Covid against your risk from the vaccine is up to you alone.

But the issue, the way I see it, is that your decision on taking the shot does affect other people. "My shot won't help others because the vaccinated can still transmit" - that's not entirely true. The Pfizer and Moderna shots have around 90% efficacy at preventing transmission, and Anthony Fauci or anyone else who says the research suggesting that "isn't enough" is hedging his bets so hard that he'll probably be wearing a mask until the day he dies. (This is part of what bothers me about those suggesting that a vaccine shouldn't mean the end of masking and distancing - it totally disincentivizes people from getting a shot by being quiet about the fact that it really does protect against spread.) Getting a shot nearly entirely eliminates your chance of spreading the virus. To be honest, despite CDC guidance to the contrary, I'll be hard-pressed to avoid going back to 2019-type life - unmasked hangouts and the like - once I have my second shot and know that the odds of my contracting or spreading Covid are near zero.

As to the risk of long-term health impacts - it's worth noting that almost no vaccine on the market has a history of frequent unanticipated long-term effects, and nothing in mRNA research suggests that this shot would be any different.

(EDIT: Duke87 said exactly what I said, only better. I second everything in the above post.)

[Rothman]

People are ignoring citrus' rebuttal to the idea that long-term safety data hasn't been collected.

[Jim]

This whole "vaccinated people can still spread the virus so still need to exercise all precautions" business needs to stop.

+100000000 to this and the reasoning that followed.

[vdeane]

Who is keeping people from getting the vaccine?

Anti-vax caretakers. Bosses who overwork employees and won't let them take off for side effects. Officials who refuse to provide accessible sites.

Caretakers and employees I see, health officials are generally pro-vax.

That doesn't necessarily contradict what |NE2| said.  They can be pro-vax but still fail to provide accessible sites.

(Edited to add:  Such does not make them stupid, however.)

Plus vaccination site locations aren't necessarily decided by health experts.  Something that high profile, you can bet that elected officials are involved.

Stupid New Yorkers have caused a plateau.

My strong suspicion is that not all of them are stupid people.

If they are simply refusing to get the vaccine, then it is hard to see how they aren't.

If they are medically unable to get it or can't get to a location, then that is another matter.

I know plenty of intelligent people who don't plan to be vaccinated–a set of people that includes teachers and nurses, by the way, successful college-graduate professionals.  Your inability to "see how they aren't" stupid doesn't enter into it.  The fact is that not every intelligent person has the same opinion, nor does every intelligent person believe the same thing, nor does every intelligent person do the same thing.  At least that's the way it is in Wichita.  I'm assuming the same holds true in New York.

Smearing everyone who isn't getting vaccinated as "stupid" is just juvenile.

Stupid is an intellectual failing. Not getting vaccinated is more of a moral failing. They aren't too stupid to help protect others' lives, they just don't care.

I chose this post for a reply instead of the original post or Kyle's rebuttal.

I reject both arguments. Not getting the shot is not an unintelligent decision, nor is it an immoral decision.

I have weighed the pros and cons and for various reasons, have determined that I will not be taking the shot. I'm not an "anti-vaxxer" by any stretch, but I'm skeptical of this particular one. I got all the popular childhood shots as a kid growing up in the 1960s, but I have no memories of ever being vaccinated for anything. I couldn't tell you the last time I got a tetanus shot. Maybe in five years, if covid is still around and causing major problems and no long-term issues have manifested themselves among the vaccinated, I will reconsider. But I have never taken a flu shot and I've never had the flu -- including last year, when in February I had close contact with someone who tested positive for the flu later that day; contact close enough that if he'd had covid and not the flu, the government would have tried to imprison me in my own home for two weeks.

I have my doubts about the long-term safety of the shot, since it is so new and relatively untested, and also do not see an individual need for me to take the shot. There are a number of other factors that led to my decision. My risk of contracting covid as I go about my normal life -- meaning life prior to February 2020 -- is relatively low. Which means that I'm not at risk of spreading it to others, especially since it's been stated that you can still catch and transmit covid even after having taken the shot. And my taking the shot would do nothing to protect others since the vaccinated can still spread the virus; others can choose to get the shot, wear masks, keep distance, stay home, or whatever else they feel they need to do.

I would neither encourage nor discourage anyone to get the shot. Contrary to popular belief here, it's not the right decision for everyone. I would instead hope that they evaluate their own individual situations and come to a decision with which they're comfortable. I'm perfectly comfortable with my decision. I'd hope the "tolerance and understanding" crowd would respect that. My not taking the shot doesn't affect you in the least, especially if you do take it.

The one concern here that I think is valid is that we haven't had enough time to test the long-term safety data. We don't know for sure that the shot is 100% safe long-term, because the first person was only injected with it thirteen months ago. And I'd also agree that your personal risk is your personal decision, and that your weighing your risk of getting sick from Covid against your risk from the vaccine is up to you alone.

But the issue, the way I see it, is that your decision on taking the shot does affect other people. "My shot won't help others because the vaccinated can still transmit" - that's not entirely true. The Pfizer and Moderna shots have around 90% efficacy at preventing transmission, and Anthony Fauci or anyone else who says the research suggesting that "isn't enough" is hedging his bets so hard that he'll probably be wearing a mask until the day he dies. (This is part of what bothers me about those suggesting that a vaccine shouldn't mean the end of masking and distancing - it totally disincentivizes people from getting a shot by being quiet about the fact that it really does protect against spread.) Getting a shot nearly entirely eliminates your chance of spreading the virus. To be honest, despite CDC guidance to the contrary, I'll be hard-pressed to avoid going back to 2019-type life - unmasked hangouts and the like - once I have my second shot and know that the odds of my contracting or spreading Covid are near zero.

As to the risk of long-term health impacts - it's worth noting that almost no vaccine on the market has a history of frequent unanticipated long-term effects, and nothing in mRNA research suggests that this shot would be any different.

(EDIT: Duke87 said exactly what I said, only better. I second everything in the above post.)

Regarding masking and distancing, I agree with respect to private gatherings, but in public, one has no way of knowing if a random stranger has the vaccine or not.  Even if the random stranger says they're vaccinated, you do you know they're telling the truth?  You can't.  Hence the need to still take precautions even when vaccinated, at least in public.

I'm pretty sure even CDC guidance allows for private, unmasked, social distancing-free gatherings among fully vaccinated people, or with up to one household not fully vaccinated if the non-vaccinated people are low risk.

[Ketchup99]

To the above post: It does. And for sure, once I'm fully vaccinated in two weeks, I'll still wear a mask in the store and whatnot, mostly as a means to make people feel better. (Other people don't know who has their shots and who doesn't, and since I don't have a big "I'm Vaccinated!" sticker, I'll keep the mask on.) But since it's just for show, when I'm in a private circumstance - with, really, any number of unvaccinated or vaccinated people who know I have my shots - I can let my guard down. My 90% protection in that setting against spreading is better than anything I could have had with a mask and no vaccine.

[Scott5114]

(Other people don't know who has their shots and who doesn't, and since I don't have a big "I'm Vaccinated!" sticker, I'll keep the mask on.)

Oklahoma actually did hand out a big "I'm Vaccinated!" sticker at the site where I got my first dose. Except the nurse that vaccinated my wife forgot to give her one, so she dug around in her purse and put on an "I Voted!" sticker she had in there instead.

[Roadgeekteen]

Maybe we should pay people to get the vaccine.

[Scott5114]

Maybe we should pay people to get the vaccine.

I've seen that studies from past vaccines have actually shown that paying people lowers vaccination rates, because then people think "if it was any good they wouldn't have to pay us to get it".

[Max Rockatansky]

Maybe we should pay people to get the vaccine.

I've seen that studies from past vaccines have actually shown that paying people lowers vaccination rates, because then people think "if it was any good they wouldn't have to pay us to get it".

Amusingly I more or less was in a backhanded way.  My employer provided the vaccine site in a convenient location and allotted time for me to go get it.  It sure motivated me to deal with a potentially long line that I would have otherwise might have chose to avoid given I was working.  Granted I also think we will require the vaccine soon unless there is a justifiable medical exemption.