[Swoop]

Originally Posted by LiverpoolWalrus

Hi Coffee, with all due respect, in my opinion:

...refusing (or undecided about) getting get an experimental unapproved vaccine whose long term consequences are currently being studied for possible significant adverse reaction is not a lack of bravery.

...refusing (or undecided about) about getting vaccinated when the unvaccinated, if infected, have an 80-90% of no or mild symptoms and the vaccine confers only a 5% upgrade in those chances, against a backdrop of an experimental unapproved vaccine whose long term consequences are currently being studied for possible significant adverse reaction is not a lack of bravery.

As an "undecided" I do struggle with the possibility that the anti-vaxxers might be hindering herd immunity. That's why I started this thread, and I appreciate all the thoughtful responses (this is soooo much better than Facebook!).

I'm trying to come up with an analogy about choosing not to walk headlong into a situation that can kill you. OBB's "Russian Roulette" is the closest to that mark. Maybe someone can come up with something.

If one makes a measured, rational choice not to be exposed to something potentially deadly, even if it hinders herd immunity, that person is choosing to protect him or herself from death or severe illness - the risk of which appears to be greater than infection with Covid. Further, Covid is projected to die out, as viruses do, after it runs its course of two to three years, with or without mass vaccination. So how is all this a lack of bravery? It seems quite sensible to me, but maybe I'm biased.

And as for the "selfish" tag - same line of thought. Is it really selfish to choose not to run headlong into something that can kill or cause severe illness? Isn't that what all of us have been choosing for at least the last year?

How about if undecideds just want to wait until the vaccines receive full FDA approval? Are they still the scum of the earth?

Great post!!