Quote:
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?
|
See, people who try to think things through, such as yourself, I respect your hesitation. I don't agree with it. But I absolutely respect it. Because we get differing information regularly from the CDC, because this IS a new thing, because the vaccine IS a new vaccine, because we know, that there's a lot we still DON'T know...you are hesitant. And I respect that.
I would ask you though, to consider the philosophical side of the equation, and put science vs. evidence aside for a minute. I'll talk about me. Feel free to fill it in with yourself, as applicable.
I'll be 60 next week. I have no children. I was a Girl Scout. I was taught that it is our duty as human beings to at least TRY to leave this world in a better place than we found it. Even if we fail, it's up to us to try.
My generation has done a bang-up job in helping and hindering the human race. We've thoroughly scorched it, and we've run ourselves ragged to heal it. Right now, we are faced with a quandry.
We can take what we _believe_ to be a very minimal risk, in order to eradicate a virus that has already killed around 3 million people worldwide in just one year, sent tens of millions to hospitals, put hundreds of millions out of work, and affected several billion families in one way or another. All in a single year. We can take a leap of faith that a vaccine will drastically reduce, if not completely eliminate, this particular threat against the next generations.
Or, we can take what we _believe_ to also be a somewhat minimal risk, and take a leap of faith that we won't get sick, and the virus won't mutate as a result of our lack of immunity, and that future generations won't be affected anyway.
I have no personal dog in the fight of future generations. Its not, as they say, my problem. But as a human being whose generation has created this and other traumas on this planet, I feel it my responsibility to choose the risk that is most likely to help the majority, rather than the risk that is most likely to help only myself.
Both are small risks. Both of these risks have unknown outcomes. The difference is that one might save millions in the future, and the other one might only save me.