
One in Three Americans Would Not Get Covid-19 Vaccine - gootdude
https://news.gallup.com/poll/317018/one-three-americans-not-covid-vaccine.aspx
======
odshoifsdhfs
1 in 4 in Portugal:
[https://www.publico.pt/2020/08/08/sociedade/noticia/quatro-p...](https://www.publico.pt/2020/08/08/sociedade/noticia/quatro-
portugueses-nao-quer-vacinado-covid-indeciso-1927469)

I personally will probably not do it as well for a while as I am not an at-
risk group and don't fully trust the 'speedy' trials.

~~~
nojito
The only ‘speedy’ aspect is starting the trials quicker There’s no way to
speed up the actual results of the trials.

~~~
akvadrako
Of course there is. It’s a lot easier to say something has no harmful side
effects if patients are observed for longer after taking it.

~~~
rawfan
There is no base to this being done. What they are doing is starting phase 2
and phase 3 trials on vaccines that haven’t survived phase 1, yet. Under
normal circumstances this would be extremely uneconomical.

------
beerandt
1) If ~10% of the population has already had it, and 30-40% have some pre-
existing immunity in the form of useful, relevant corona antibodies, then
40-50% of the population _doesn 't need_ a vaccine at this point (until
immunity wears off, whenever that is). I know that likely isn't the reasoning
going into many people's decision making, but we shouldn't be surprised based
solely off of the numbers.

2) Then there's studies like this one from 2012 about original SARS vaccine
development (with almost a decade of research after the initial outbreak) that
shows 4 completely different approaches to vaccination all made subsequent
exposure to the virus _worse_.

Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology
on Challenge with the SARS Virus

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/)

We _should_ be skeptical of a vaccine for any disease where one of the major
complication risks is basically a form of autoimmune disease.

We don't want to encourage a strong autoimmune response when a major existing
risk is an overly aggressive immune response.

This is a reason that steroids seem to be emerging as a beneficial treatment:
they actually _suppress_ immune system response.

I'm not suggesting an effective vaccine won't ever be developed, but we
shouldn't judge people in what may be a valid concern. Even if they have
different than the relevant reasons for that concern.

------
biswaroop
> Such resistance is not unprecedented. When Gallup in 1954 asked U.S. adults
> who had heard or read about the then-new polio vaccine, "Would you like to
> take this new polio vaccine (to keep people from getting polio) yourself?"
> just 60% said they would, while 31% said they would not. So far, willingness
> to adopt a new vaccine looks similar today.

Interesting that attitudes haven't changed. I read a bit more about the
history of the polio vaccine.

In 1938, FDR founded the March of Dimes, a nonprofit to help people with
polio. Incidentally, this is why the US 10 cent coin has FDR's face on it.
That nonprofit funded Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin, the researchers who
developed two different kinds of Polio vaccines in the 50s. Salk published in
1953, and large scale trials began in '54 and concluded in '55\. Note, the
Gallup poll was made in 1954, when the vaccine was still in trials. The
successful vaccine was then licensed, and promoted by March of Dimes. "The
annual number of polio cases fell from 35,000 in 1953 to 5,600 by 1957. By
1961 only 161 cases were recorded in the United States."[1]

In 1955, a manufacturer of the Salk polio vaccine had failed to properly
inactivate the virus, leading to the deaths of 11 children, and 250 cases of
paralysis. This led to a temporary drop in vaccine confidence, and the
adoption of Sabin's less dangerous oral vaccine across the USSR and other non-
US countries. Despite opposition from the March of Dimes, Sabin's vaccine
replaced Salk's vaccine in the 60s.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#1935](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#1935)

~~~
drewcoo
But it did change. There was a time when things like childhood immunizations
were ubiquitous in the US. There was a time when STEM education was heavily
funded.

Then the cold war started to wrap up. And the anti-vaxxers came on the scene.
And now everything about vaccinations is political. So we've seen a drastic
change again.

Consider the CDC's data on pertussis over the last century to see an
illustration of the outcomes. Note that death rates are still down, these are
reported infections:

[https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting/cases-by-
year.h...](https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting/cases-by-year.html)

------
walterbell
What percentage of the population uses v1.0 software or hardware in a
situation where they have zero recourse for possible non-performance?

------
hirundo
My recently retired brother thinks that he will die soon. He's in excellent
health. He believes that there will soon be a mandatory vaccine that will
include nano-microchips to track and control people, and that he will be
killed while resisting its administration.

I don't even vaguely believe the microchip thing, but if it is mandatory and
they do try to force it on him, I believe he is actually prepared to die
fighting it.

Yes, he's a conspiracy nut. But he's far from alone. I've met several people
with the same attitude here, in a different state. They are uniformly serious
and well armed. We should consider if the cost of widespread armed resistance
outweighs the health benefits of universal vaccination. Even if you don't care
much about the lives of the resisters, consider that deaths among those tasked
with enforcing such a mandate would be high.

I'm an advocate for vaccines to my brother and to these other people. If it is
optional I will likely take it, even seek it out. But I may well resist if it
isn't optional, though not violently. It isn't clear to me that the difference
between the herd immunity we've developed so far, and the immunity we can
reach with a vaccine starting in several months is that great. Like protesters
that aren't social distancing, I believe that the threat to civil rights is a
greater danger than the virus at this point.

~~~
Doxin
Luckily we don't need a 100% compliance rate to have vaccination be effective.
As long as vaccination pushes the reproduction number below 1 the virus should
more or less peter out.

How many people need vaccinating depends on many factors. It'll be dependent
on how effective the vaccine is, how many people _can 't_ get vaccinated due
to nonfunctional immune systems or allergies etc, how many people will keep
washing their hands diligently after the worst has passed, and many many other
factors.

So with any luck mandatory vaccinations won't be necessary to beat corona
virus allowing everyone to keep their bodily autonomy intact as far as
vaccinations go.

------
mountainboy
Vaccine Debate - Kennedy Jr. vs Dershowitz
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfnJi7yLKgE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfnJi7yLKgE)

------
haspoken
Vaccines are not without a risk, and the current versions are being rushed. I
am not anti-vaccine, but I am cautious about untested politicized medicine. I
also am not a fan of a poll that over simplifies the situation for a cheap bit
of attention.

    
    
        - How effective is the vaccine. The influenza vaccine only reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine.
        - New vaccine - How has it been tested? The Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program exists for a reason, and these vaccines are being rushed.
        - Why this particular vaccine? There are at least 120 in development.
        - Article indicates the vaccine is free.  No vaccine is free.  Even if there is no direct financial cost to the person getting the vaccine, there will be costs and expenses to getting it. If your not upfront about this, what else are you not mentioning?  Perhaps the vaccine is free, but not the administration of it?
        - How is this vaccine administered? A recent Phizer vaccine requires two doses 21 days apart.  It was not clear what form it was, but I suspect an injection which the article uses for illustration.  This means dealing with some medical office twice, likely during the day and requiring an appointment and taking time off work and getting to the site and it is not stated how much that 21 days can vary.
        - Look at the governments reactions and responses to date.  There have been issues politicizing the response and many failures to date and this poll wants me to blindly trust them.
    

Some Resources:

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risks-of-
rush...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risks-of-rushing-a-
covid-19-vaccine/)

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/bill-gates-on-
covid-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/bill-gates-on-
covid-19-most-tests-are/)

[https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200515/pfizer-says-
covid-1...](https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200515/pfizer-says-
covid-19-vaccine-could-arrive-in-october)

[https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/08/07/fact-sheet-
explain...](https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/08/07/fact-sheet-explaining-
operation-warp-speed.html)

[https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-
work/vaccineeffect.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-
work/vaccineeffect.htm)

------
aaronbrethorst
A vaccine approved by the FDA on November 2 - not a chance

A vaccine approved on November 4 - sure, I’d trust it.

Trump’s down by a huge margin in polls. If the election was held today, he’d
lose. If he thinks he can help himself win by forcing approval of a vaccine,
then he’ll do it. A vaccine approved after the election has zero electoral
upside for him.

 _There is virtually no chance that the U.S. will have a proven vaccine by
Election Day, several top vaccine experts told POLITICO...But while the Trump
administration has insisted that it won’t cut corners on safety — a vow the
vaccine developers have taken as well — it’s left the door open to short-
circuiting the process before those trials are complete_

[https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/22/trump-october-
vacci...](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/22/trump-october-vaccine-
surprise-coronavirus-379278)

------
mlthoughts2018
This is completely understandable. You may not like it, but you absolutely
cannot fault average people for feeling this way.

The president has been hammering Warp Speed to make a vaccine solely for the
purpose of an October surprise for months. Everyone, even his core voter base,
knows this and knows he wouldn’t hesitate to throw anyone under the bus with
it. That voter base was fine with it when it was nameless immigrant children
suffering at the border, on vague unfounded ideas that it would bolster
American jobs. But they are not going to put their own bodies or their
children’s on the line for Trump impulsiveness.

The vaccine may well be safe and may well be developed on a late 2020
timetable with sufficient rigor in FDA approval - does not matter one bit
because Trump’s politicization has already deeply undermined it.

You simply cannot restore confidence without straight up removing Trump, so I
would look to this to take time after the election.

------
pmdulaney
People gathering indoors in violation of government regulations are clearly
harming the public, because they invariably will increase the number of
infections and deaths.

What are the ethics, though, of refusing to get a vaccine? if Alex Honnold had
fallen off the face of El Capitan, he would have killed only himself. Is it
not the same in the case of someone refusing to be vaccinated, given that the
vaccination is available to everyone who does want it?

There is one difference, I suppose. The person who refuses vaccination and
subsequently gets a serious case of COVID-19 causes society to spend a good
deal of money treating them in the hospital. (Even if they have insurance they
are needlessly increasing the costs of care for everyone.)

~~~
Joeri
If vaccination rates are too low you don’t get herd immunity, and people who
are unable to be vaccinated are more at risk.

~~~
pmdulaney
What is a typical reason someone wouldn't be able to be vaccinated?

~~~
barabba
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunosuppression](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunosuppression)

    
    
      Non-deliberate immunosuppression can occur in, for example, ataxia–telangiectasia, complement deficiencies, many types of cancer, and certain chronic infections such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

------
sushshshsh
Considering I had the damn thing in January, why would I?

The notion that this virus wasn't here until March is not proven.

~~~
Pfhreak
Because it's unclear how long antibodies last. Unless you've had a positive
antibody test it seems like a reasonable measure to protect people around you.

~~~
s9w
Immunity is more than just antibodies

~~~
Pfhreak
Yeah? You are suggesting you could be immune but show negative on an antibody
test? How?

~~~
akvadrako
T-cells. Or genetic differences that make you naturally immune.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
Or just false negative of the test itself.

------
helge9210
Last time I checked, there was no data about COVID-19. Just guesses.

For example, in Israel, people die with COVID-19, not from it.

