There are many things in the US that are incomprehensible to me, but your health care situation is the most baffling. Why are you guys unable to make health care affordable?
Good news for a change: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00160-0/fulltext
Greed and corruption
Definitely seems 100% legitimate.
well just caught the rona. So far, it’s not to bad. Had a headache for a couple days and some chills. On the bright side though, there’s no need to get a vaccine now.
There is, I’ve got at least two friends / acquaintances who got it twice. They also both told me the second time is worse 
Also, get well soon!
well I’ve heard of people getting corona even after the vaccine. so I guess there’s no win win.
and thanks 
That usually happens when people get infected either before the jab, or within the first weeks after the first jab.
Getting infected later is quite unlikely, although not impossible. But if it happens, the sickness should be very mild.
Whereas having had an infection before afaik only protects you for a maximum of six months, and provides not nearly as much protection as a (full!) vaccination.
Btw, here is again an article about what has basically been known for a year:
I’m surprised that there seems to be this misconception in the US about sanitizing everything. 
Guess what, we’ve stopped vaccinating those under 60 with AstraZeneca already, now our government is postponing vaccinating with Johnson & Johnson as well.
Seriously, one week of waiting with vaccinating is the same timespan that roughly 150 people die in the hospitals. Each of them could’ve survived that if they would be vaccinated…
What’s worse, is that because of this also a huge percentage of people is refusing to get vaccinated. They’re literally playing cards into the hand of the antivax group.
Every medicine has risks. You weigh them against the rewards. Coronavaccine outweigh the risks by a factor 1000 to 10000 (not even including that vaccination is our only way to get out of this lockdown)…
I do agree with you basically, but to be fair ignoring side effects of vaccines would do the same in this respect. It’s a tough call. (Personally I think they should at least give Astrazeneca to men below 60 as well, since the problems seem to occur predominantly with women.)
They’re not ignoring it if it is acknowledged but clearly mentioned that not taking the vaccine is several orders of magnitudes more deadly than taking it.
“OMG there’s a Microsoft minichip in the vaccine and the government will track my thoughts” and “there might be something wrong with the vaccine, because some people die and I am a bit skeptical that there are some side effects” are not the same thing.
I understand you want to go on with your life and travel and stuff, we all do. But throwing numbers around people that have a legitimate fear for their lives is not fair. We are all asked to take a risk for the greater good and I too believe it’s worth taking, but let’s not pretend there is absolutely nothing wrong with anything, because we just can’t know that.
And it’s better to not be so absolute if we are not doctors. Data is out there for all to read and take our decisions, but AFAIK you are not a doctor. I understand the frustration, I feel it too, but between being able to decipher the numbers and “do no harm” there is a huge gap. I would like some more consideration for the numbers that will go in the “side effects” column, these are lives as well.
Are we saying “well, it’s OK for 100 people to die from side effects, if the rest of us can go on”? Can we nonchalantly do that trade without doing our absolute best on working on minimizing the risk?
And, no, “but more will die if we don’t” is not the answer to what I’m saying.
Well, if someone died from side effects that’s it, there were no magnitudes to consider, dead is dead.
I won’t post recent media posts from my country, because I know they are not very welcome, but there was a very obvious push that the AZ vaccines are A-OK just before many EU countries banned them. That tells me that, even if the risks are slightly higher, there is a deal in place that nobody wants it to go south and that’s the vaccine I’m taking, whether I like it or not.
Will I take it? Yes, because I think even if it doesn’t work when we finally reach that magic number of %vaccines/ population our government will lay off us and chase the HORECA money.
Do I think it would be shoved in me even if it were tap water just to open the market? Eh, I wouldn’t rule it out.
And if someone tells me “I’m allergic and I’m afraid to take the vaccine” or “I’m worried because I have some health conditions and it might kill me” I won’t just brush them off as antivaxxers just because I’ve missed the dating scene.
Legitimate worry and antivax paranoia are different things, I think people deserve some time to process the first one, it’s not a small thing what we are going through.
I’m just saying the same thing I hear most doctors say, though, that our government shouldn’t shut down a vaccine that has been tested on millions of people if only a handful got a nasty side-effects. It’s to be expected that there are these extremely rare side-effect.
I can also look up side-effects of different drugs that are prescribed on a regular basis without any problems, like certain contraceptives, and the risks for these vaccines are similar.
Furthermore, I don’t need to look these up, since even agencies like the EMA declare that the damage of stopping vaccination is going to be far larger than the damage of continuing it.
Finally, vaccination is not mandatory. It’s a choice people can make themselves. Why is my mother not allowed to take the vaccination, even if she’s willing to take the risks herself, and her doctor would recommend it? Why prohibit it?
I think so far 7 people worldwide have been confirmed to have died of thrombosis due to vaccine, after a couple of months of vaccinations.
Also, in my tiny country alone 24 people have died today alone. And yesterday. And the day before. And the week before. And the whole month before. Dead is dead.
Why is the death of these people hundreds of times less valuable than the death of people who voluntarily take the risk of getting vaccinated?
Now, I agree that we shouldn’t use this vaccine if there is an alternative. But there is no alternative, we’re literally dying by bunches of this virus. Time’s ticking!
But it’s a comparison between the following groups: people who died after they were vaccinated, versus people who died without being vaccinated.
The latter group is significantly larger. Fear of getting thrombosis as one in a million is an irrational fear compared to the fear people should have for getting covid. I understand that it’s there, but it’s irrational: we got used to covid, but it’s still there, and it’s still killing people. Governments shouldn’t make decisions based on irrational fear, but on expert opinions, taking the decision that is best for the country.
OFF-TOPIC
I won’t open this discussion, just in case anyone’s interested, but the dangers are there. The dangers for women’s contraceptives are much higher than similar men’s drugs that never take off commercially, because it is a societal issue and the choice made is for the women to take the burden. That’s a sidenote, so I won’t go into research papers and data and stuff, but it’s a common secret that women’s heart attacks are less valuable than men’s.
As someone wrote a year ago “if Covid made dicks fall off, we would have a vaccine in a month and quarantines worldwide until then” (or sth)
Because there are not enough doses, because money has to be made and some people take priority (and I don’t mean the right people).
That’s not what I’m saying, at all. I’m taking that this is a figure of speech and not that you somehow read that I value those lives differently.
I’m just saying that it’s not out of the question for some people to have a legitimate worry. As I said, some people have allergies or health conditions, and they don’t have to share them with everyone (we are not doing this here, but you certainly know all those internet specialists who say “I don’t believe you have X, I have X and my doctor says this and my symptoms are these, so you are lying!!!”).
I’m trying to say there is a line between too far gone antivaxxers and people who are afraid to die. Antivaxxers aren’t driven by fear of death, they are driven by ego, stupidity, selfishness and other words that will get me banned.
And for what’s worth, I’m not going to get a vaccine for months. I’d rather have one and go on with my life, but I can’t.
Yes people who refuse to vaccinate are a problem, but I don’t think we should let the criminally inept governments slip through the cracks.
Even if everyone here wanted to get a vaccine, we can’t because we don’t have enough. That’s a beast too big to take on, though, no?
In return, I have no problem with these people either. If someone for whatever reason doesn’t want to get vaccinated, that’s (moderately) fine with me (moderately, because it’s not fine if the group becomes too large).
The problem is that there’s health care workers who are supposed to receive J&J this week, who now don’t. There’s people who are under 60 and belong to a risk group that is supposed to get AZ, but now don’t. There’s also news of extra doses of AZ that are left after going through the 60+ group (since there’s multiple doses per bottle) and previously would be used to vaccinate random people below 60 who happen to be present, since why waste it? And now it’s being wasted.
And I’m not saying that anybody who is afraid of these vaccine is an antivaxxer, All I’m saying that suddenly and irrationally stopping the vaccinations has the additional effect that it gives more munition to them. It’s hard enough to prevent the growth of antivaxxers with rational arguments, but if the side that’s supposed to be reasonable becomes unreasonable, it’s hard to uphold your argument.
Exactly, all the more reason that holding vaccines back is a bad idea.
(Other countries are stopping them due to overreaction, I don’t think our government would stop them even if they turned out to be liquid lead.
So, I don’t know who has it worse 
)
Just think of the cost of all the detergents and cleaning products used. There is a lot of money involved in “deep cleaning” ergo there is “inertia” in changing that approach. Science itself doesn’t have to do much about that, I am afraid. 
Ehm, it might seem like that to us on paper, but if they thought it was an issue that with such few cases merited such a strong response, then that is not a very good sign.
The factor of 1000+ is also just a number.
To a hypothetical 70+ year old that has slight problems with diabetes, cholesterol, blood pressure and the veins at their legs (which is most 70+ year olds) the odds seem more like 50-50 than a huge favorable number like the one you mentioned.
Also you need to take into account that even if something is 1 in a million, a lot of people are used to thinking “maybe it will be me” … granted, marketing and ads always bombard people about that “it could be you” mentality for positive stuff they want to sell, like lottaries and what-not, but decades of conditioning cannot be outdone in weeks.
And then you have the people that are just not feeling lucky in life. There are quite a lot of them, actually. Being in that group I can tell you that even if the chances were astronomically low, the feeling of “this is just going to be another unlucky incident” is something that you cannot really uproot.
I agree that these kinds of concepts are not something a government should take into account when making decisions, but it helps us, as normal people, to understand the different points of view that clash in this matter.
Good point that one. Some medication have list of possible side-effects that are more akin to medieval scrolls read by a town-crier in a movie 
Well, maybe they have more medical data that we, the public, are not aware of yet. There are other medical parameters than a boolean “dead” or “not dead” state of the patients, so maybe there is more to this issue and we just don’t know it.
Well, not all of them. To continue with the example of some of the 70+ year olds, if they refuse to vaccinate, but they follow the guidelines, stay at home, wear masks in the rare occassions they go out and generally live a quiet secluded life, who are they endangering? Noone, really.