Would you vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2?

Question

To achieve the goal of creating possible vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 asap, the procedure of testing given vaccine needs to be done in a much smaller time-frame. This could lead to possible side effects (especially long-term) of the drug not being discovered. Even Bill Gates acknowledged in his Interview with the BBC that there may be compromises in the safety measures.As a reminder, the vaccine Pandemrix, which was developed as a treatment for the swine flu, caused narcolepsy in over 1000 patients.Would you be willing to put up with possible side effects or would you rather take the risk of possibly getting infected with SARS-CoV-2? Also, what would be your stance regarding a mandatory vaccination against SARS-CoV-2?

rayhendricks · Accepted Answer

Not until the risks are understood, I foresee people really trying to jump the gun in getting this to market. Also I probably have antibodies to covid due to riding the light rail in Seattle for most of Dec/Jan/Feb.
Also we know the gov is not the most truthful or correct right now[0]. I’d trust UW and other large research universities medical guidance on Covid much more than the feds.
[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/preventing-coronavirus-facemask...

potta_coffee · Answer

No thank you. I'd like to see Bill Gates test it on his children first.

gccxsse · Answer

I refuse to be vaccinated with anything not throughly tested. You cannot test for longterm side effects during an active pandemic. I would rather get covid19 than be vaccinated for it.

mcintyre1994 · Answer

> As a reminder, the vaccine Pandemrix, which was developed as a treatment for the swine flu, caused narcolepsy in over 1000 patients.Another comment expanded on this that it's 3.6 additional cases per 100,000 vaccinated. For people like me lacking context and knowledge in this area, what's the 'gold standard'? Is the expectation that a vaccine has no long lasting impacts beyond the immunity it gives, and any increase at all in anything would be considered unacceptable? Or is there some complexity in that calculation?

bzb3 · Answer

>As a reminder, the vaccine Pandemrix, which was developed as a treatment for the swine flu, caused narcolepsy in over 1000 patients.That number without a % is meaningless

pcunite · Answer

I would rather take the risk of infection. Naturally, opposed to mandatory.

gshdg · Answer

Are you asking who&rsquo;s willing to be part of the clinical trials? Who&rsquo;s willing to be vaccinated without a trial? Who&rsquo;s willing to be vaccinated after appropriate trials?Personally I fall into the third set. I fear, tho, that this may be a disease for which (as is common with other coronaviruses like the common cold) exposure grants immunity for only a few months.

a3n · Answer

> To achieve the goal of creating possible vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 asap, the procedure of testing given vaccine needs to be done in a much smaller time-frame.Why?

p1esk · Answer

It depends on what we know about covid-19 by the time the vaccine is available.

alt_f4 · Answer

absolutely, it'd be incredibly dumb not to