If a COVID vaccine is available by the first of 2021 and the CDC assures us it is safe....will you take the vaccine? Also, considering the vast amount of misinformation and resulting conspiracy dialog how many will never take the vaccine? These are questions we will be dealing with soon.

Will you take the vaccine?
What percentage of the general public will take the vaccine?

I'll get it as soon as I can, as I'm sure will my wife and kids (although the choice is ultimately theirs).

I'll get it as soon as I can, as I'm sure will my wife and kids (although the choice is ultimately theirs).

Do you think health care workers will be mandated to take the vaccine? I have a son who is an RN for the government. I can imagine the vaccine being mandatory for him?

this might be a situation/turning point where people have to decide if they want to be a functional part of society or lose access to many things. I don't see the government under any party mandating one, but many employers may go that route. The only way forward for many industries may be even for patrons to have a proof of vaccine. Concerts, sporting events, and movie theaters are good examples of functions that simply cannot profitably operate under social distancing guidelines. It may have to be that if you want to enjoy those things you may have to provide proof of your vaccine.

for me, I won't be running to the front of the line for the vaccine but I imagine I will go get it in a reasonably short order after it is released. Again, you may not have a choice if you want to do things in the future that you did in the past. it sucks but the world has never been a static ecosystem. we have to adapt to survive.

I would once it is proven effective and safe (on MASS quantities of people). So maybe not the first batch that gets distributed, but the second. I am not anti-vaxx, at all (quite the opposite). I just think this whole process has been sped up, and definitely will be if one comes out 1Q 2021. So I would like to see its efficacy on mass #s of people.

Depends on when and if i have anything planned. If one comes out Nov 1st which is possible and the NBA wants to start the season mid dec than I'll probably get it around Dec 1st. I have Thunder Tickets. If I have nothing planned and no place really to go like now then I'll wait a bit.

Do you think health care workers will be mandated to take the vaccine? I have a son who is an RN for the government. I can imagine the vaccine being mandatory for him?

So I'm not sure I see employers or the government requiring a vaccine. I think that might be too far for most people. But they'll definitely strongly encourage it, and I could see work schedule alterations for those not wanting to get the vaccine.

"Will you take the vaccine?" - yes, with some of the same caveats as the other posters.

"What percentage of the general public will take the vaccine? " - probably not nearly as many as should.

So I'm not sure I see employers or the government requiring a vaccine. I think that might be too far for most people. But they'll definitely strongly encourage it, and I could see work schedule alterations for those not wanting to get the vaccine.

Healthcare workers are mandated on several items, including flu vaccine, TB testing, hepatitis titers, etc. Trying to ask for exemptions from any of the required items will usually result in you being reassigned to non-clinical care.

Most definitely.

I'll happily take it as soon as possible.


The real issue is going to be concerning kids and university students. There are reasons certain vaccines are required by schools and you can just see how this is going to be a massive battleground.

Probably not right away. I'm willing to wait to make sure it's effective and not harmful on a large population size before I'd do it. Eventually, it will be perfected and I imagine it will be like requiring MMR shots for your kids before they are allowed in school.

I'll happily take it as soon as possible.


The real issue is going to be concerning kids and university students. There are reasons certain vaccines are required by schools and you can just see how this is going to be a massive battleground.

I can see this issue being another division in an already divided nation. The anti-vaxxers and 'don't trust the government' folks with amp up their rhetoric against any introduction of new vaccine. After a vaccine is introduced some will applaud it and say, "good, things will return to normal". Others will say, "its all part of government control and a step toward a 'one world government". I suspect it's going to be a crazy ride one way or the other.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/07/coronavirus-vaccine-dr-fauci-says-chances-of-it-being-highly-effective-is-not-great.html

Then you have stuff like this...

Probably not right away. I'm willing to wait to make sure it's effective and not harmful on a large population size before I'd do it. Eventually, it will be perfected and I imagine it will be like requiring MMR shots for your kids before they are allowed in school.

Same here. I'll much more likelier to be prompt about getting a flu vaccine. Last year's flu vaccine was painless with no after effects.

I'll take the Oxford one, but not anything made here domestically in the US in the first round. The political pressure to cut corners and get a vaccine out quick makes me a bit leery of the Moderna vaccine (especially since it's using mRNA, which we've never seen successfully used in *any* vaccine before). I'd also wait as long as is feasible (maybe March or so) but it depends on the requirements of my university. If they require it (which I hope they ultimately do), I'll take it. I probably won't immunize my boys (both under 9) for another year or so, since they're very low risk.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/07/coronavirus-vaccine-dr-fauci-says-chances-of-it-being-highly-effective-is-not-great.html

Then you have stuff like this...

I think it's important for people to understand this, though. It's very unlikely that any vaccine will be a silver bullet and completely remove the need for other mitigation behavior or treatment development. If it's in the 50-60% range, that's about the same as the flu shot.

If they can get the R0 factor down (or even know what it is) combined with better treatment and a vaccine, then you're looking at returning to what people mean by "normal". Key to all of that is testing. Rapid and cheap testing. One thing that helps contain the flu, relative to this coronavirus, is that if one is symptomatic, they can step into an urgent care office and know in 5 minutes if they have it. Then they (hopefully) don't go to school, work, or bars and restaurants, while they have a fever and are known to be contagious. And even with all that, we still have 12k to 60k die a year from it or complications caused by it.

But none of that is to say that a vaccine is useless and shouldn't be taken if it's not shown to provide 100% efficacy and completely wipe it out in three months. If it's shown to be safe and effective at mitigating spread and/or the harmful effects of the virus, I'm on board. While it would be faster than ever before, there will still be a lot of information and peer review before it comes to market. I think if it is recklessly rushed by politics, there will be enough intelligent experts in the US sounding that alarm to make one skeptical.

In the end, I'm not taking any medical advice from a politician anyway. So, the politics don't matter to me as far as the personal decisions I make, especially when it comes to health. The science is and will be there along the way.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/07/coronavirus-vaccine-dr-fauci-says-chances-of-it-being-highly-effective-is-not-great.html

Then you have stuff like this...

Meh. 50-75% is better than 0%. Being over 65. I'll be in the first group of people offered, and I' take it.

I’ll get as soon as I can get one. I inquired about the trial when they were asking for volunteers on the news a few weeks ago. But I couldn’t because I’m already positive for antibodies.

As soon as possible. Assuming it passes the standard trials all vaccines do prior to approval.

Probably not right away. I'm willing to wait to make sure it's effective and not harmful on a large population size before I'd do it. Eventually, it will be perfected and I imagine it will be like requiring MMR shots for your kids before they are allowed in school.

There’s definitely going to be a “free rider” problem, especially with an mRNA vaccine since it is so new. If most people are going to wait and see, they might have to incentivize the early adopters with cash payments, tax credits or other fringe benefits — like a subsidized Tesla Model 3.

There’s definitely going to be a “free rider” problem, especially with an mRNA vaccine since it is so new. If most people are going to wait and see, they might have to incentivize the early adopters with cash payments, tax credits or other fringe benefits — like a subsidized Tesla Model 3.
With enough subsidies I might consider a Tesla Model 3.

I'll be taking it as soon as I can along with my wife and child.

I have bets the Oxford/Astra Zenca vaccine will be the first to market. We should see that widespread by Jan/Feb. Moderna's vaccine should be next if they can keep the side effects down (I think it was just a fever but they also give really high doses in Phase II so I expect that to diminish in Phase III with proper dosage).

I’ll just wait for the Doctors in my family to give me the Green Light. Definitely will not take Big Pharma’s word for it. Those dudes have an agenda, obviously.

I would like to take it reasonably early, but I don't have health insurance at the moment, so it will depend on cost. I wonder how much of a barrier that will end up being for full immunization in the United States.

^

I bet it will be similar to a flu shot...

Inexpensive and even free for many.

^

I bet it will be similar to a flu shot...

Inexpensive and even free for many.
I agree. It with almost certainly be highly subsidized for uninsured people.

I’ll just wait for the Doctors in my family to give me the Green Light. Definitely will not take Big Pharma’s word for it. Those dudes have an agenda, obviously.

Yeah, an agenda like producing a vaccine that works against the coronavirus.

I would like to take it reasonably early, but I don't have health insurance at the moment, so it will depend on cost. I wonder how much of a barrier that will end up being for full immunization in the United States.

You will get it for free once it is available. The federal government is currently considering how to make it free to everyone. The only cost associated will likely be the cost to administer it, and insurers and government payers will pay that fee to the provider.

An NPR report today stated there is a possibility COVID will never go away. That's reassuring :-/

An NPR report today stated there is a possibility COVID will never go away. That's reassuring :-/
Of course there’s a possibility. The flu never goes away but it is very well controlled. I listen to NPR a lot but sometimes I think I’m just a glutton for punishment. There isn’t a more negative media outlet on the planet. Mostly so when conservatives are in power.

... There isn’t a more negative media outlet on the planet. Mostly so when conservatives are in power.

I think I see a correlation there. :)

Of course there’s a possibility. The flu never goes away but it is very well controlled. I listen to NPR a lot but sometimes I think I’m just a glutton for punishment. There isn’t a more negative media outlet on the planet. Mostly so when conservatives are in power.

That’s an interesting take. Most independent media watchdogs consider NPR as one of the most middle of the road unbiased news sources, along with the AP, Reuter’s and BBC News. However, it’s like going to a ballgame... have you ever noticed that the refs are always unfair to the team you are rooting for? It’s human nature. Reporting the news is different than making the news. Don’t shoot the messenger because you don’t like what they are saying.

That’s an interesting take. Most independent media watchdogs consider NPR as one of the most middle of the road unbiased news sources, along with the AP, Reuter’s and BBC News. However, it’s like going to a ballgame... have you ever noticed that the refs are always unfair to the team you are rooting for? It’s human nature. Reporting the news is different than making the news. Don’t shoot the messenger because you don’t like what they are saying.
I really don’t root for either side. I’m about as apolitical as can be. But listen to almost any NPR interview and if the person being interviewed says anything positive about the current administration the interviewer will interrupt and talk over the interviewee. That’s not unbiased.

Interesting discussion on 1A tomorrow. What would you be willing to pay for an effective vaccine? Demand will be extremely high and will pharma companies take advantage of that? Insurance companies willing to pay how much?

An interesting discussion for American healthcare.

^

I bet it will be similar to a flu shot...

Inexpensive and even free for many.

I still highly doubt this. If there is money to be made, it will be made. So I wonder if the doses won't be fairly expensive. And insurance companies can use the rush on vaccines, especially due to political pressures, to possibly not fully cover a vaccine.

We don't know, and I hope you are right. I could very much be wrong, of course. But I know that capitalism and healthcare don't mix. It hurts only the consumers, not the companies themselves.

Money can be made and the vaccination can still be free or close to it.

Money can be made and the vaccination can still be free or close to it.

Make it free to those who need it to be free. If it works l'm willing to pay some so it can be.

There is no way they could mandate it nationally. (My Body My Choice) I could see it be a condition of employment for healthcare or for public schools since that is voluntary.

There is no way they could mandate it nationally. (My Body My Choice) I could see it be a condition of employment for healthcare or for public schools since that is voluntary.

the US Supreme Court disagrees with that assessment in Jacobson V Massachusetts.

the US Supreme Court disagrees with that assessment in Jacobson V Massachusetts.

Either you didn't read the ruling or totally disregarded the actual post I made.

Jacobson V Massachusetts said the states have the police powers to enforce public safety. The federal government does not. (National mandate)

Smallpox has a mortality rate 10 times COVID. I still stand by my assertion that you may need it for certain jobs or to put kids in public schools but there will not be a requirement nationally.

Either you didn't read the ruling or totally disregarded the actual post I made.

Jacobson V Massachusetts said the states have the police powers to enforce public safety. The federal government does not. (National mandate)

Smallpox has a mortality rate 10 times COVID. I still stand by my assertion that you may need it for certain jobs or to put kids in public schools but there will not be a requirement nationally.

sorry. i did miss the "nationally" part... but it can be mandated by the States and i have no clue what smallpox as anything to do with the current discussion. Jacobson v Massachusetts didn't limit giving this authority to the States only for things with a certain mortality rate. But i fully expect many states to institute state wide mandates.. and would be willing to bet that those mandates would apply to anyone passing through the borders of, not just citizens of said state.

sorry. i did miss the "nationally" part... but it can be mandated by the States and i have no clue what smallpox as anything to do with the current discussion. Jacobson v Massachusetts didn't limit giving this authority to the States only for things with a certain mortality rate. But i fully expect many states to institute state wide mandates.. and would be willing to bet that those mandates would apply to anyone passing through the borders of, not just citizens of said state.

Actually its very relevant. The ruling was specific to the smallpox epidemic that was killing roughly 1 in 3 people who contracted it. Its much easier to get support for something like that publicly than forcing vaccinations on an unwilling population for a virus that has a low mortality rate.

And exactly how are they to verify if someone has taken a mandated vaccine when moving in public? Are you suggesting that people should carry papers proving this? Or maybe having people who refuse to vaccine wear bright yellow V stars on their shirts that have an X through the V? Sounds reasonable doesn't it?

Actually its very relevant. The ruling was specific to the smallpox epidemic that was killing roughly 1 in 3 people who contracted it. Its much easier to get support for something like that publicly than forcing vaccinations on an unwilling population for a virus that has a low mortality rate.

And exactly how are they to verify if someone has taken a mandated vaccine when moving in public? Are you suggesting that people should carry papers proving this? Or maybe having people who refuse to vaccine wear bright yellow V stars on their shirts that have an X through the V? Sounds reasonable doesn't it?

actually it doesn't... the ruling stated that it was within the States police power to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and that it was for the legislature of the state to determine when and how.

as for how they will verify, yes, they probably will find a way for you to verify vaccination has taken place, whether that is something that is held in paper form, or kept electronically that can be quickly accessed by those enforcing, well that would be up to that state legislature to determine... which is exactly what Jacobson V Massachusetts deals with. while this case was specifically about a law involving smallpox... the opinion that comes out of it repeatedly talks about vaccinations and public health with respect to being a vested interest of the state... not specifically the smallpox vaccine alone.

if you actually go and read the opinion. the explanation of police powers by the state is two paragraphs long and doesn't mention smallpox once... smallpox is then mentioned in the next paragraph of the opinion that starts with this sentence.... "Applying these principles to the present case,"... meaning that they talked about the principles that allowed for the vaccination law are able to be determined regardless of the disease at hand. and they only mention smallpox with regards to how that opinion applied to the case that was specifically about smallpox.

as for your last part... we must have a photo id as proof that we can drive... is that also unreasonable? we need some form of photo id in order to enter most state and US office buildings.. yet these are publicly owned. is that unreasonable? so no, i don't think being required for a short time during a pandemic to have proof of vaccination as described by a state legislature under an order for mandatory vaccinations is unreasonable. and guess what... the US Supreme Court agreed with that.

sorry. i did miss the "nationally" part... but it can be mandated by the States and i have no clue what smallpox as anything to do with the current discussion. Jacobson v Massachusetts didn't limit giving this authority to the States only for things with a certain mortality rate. But i fully expect many states to institute state wide mandates.. and would be willing to bet that those mandates would apply to anyone passing through the borders of, not just citizens of said state.

they likely would not be able to require it for people from other states as that effects interstate commerce

they likely would not be able to require it for people from other states as that effects interstate commerce

they are currently able to limit or restrict travel into and out of the state. and even require quarantine in some cases of people coming into the state. they absolutely could make it a requirement that pertains to the state and is required for those entering it.

as for the current quarantines... that would be Oregon-Washington Railroad v Washington (1926) that establishes quarantines as being a states right under police powers and even allows to set conditions for ending said quarantines (i.e. in the case we are talking about would be a required vaccination in order to end quarantine, or you must leave the state).

if it would affect interstate commerce would have to be held against the Pike Test (the results of the opinion of Pike v Bruce Church (1970). this test is whether the negative effect on commerce is incidental to an evenhanded effort to address a legitimate public interest. thus under that test, travel restrictions placed on those who have yet to be vaccinated would stand up to scrutiny.

and also remember that Saenz v Roe (1999) stated that the right to guaranteed travel by the privileges and communities clause is not absolute. stating that travel restrictions only violate these protected rights if the law "unreasonably burden or restrict" travel. as the Supreme Court has already previously rules that the state has the ability for mandatory vaccines, quarantines, setting requirements to end those quarantines, and travel restrictions under the police powers reserved to the state in cases of public health. none of these would be unreasonable as stated in Saenz v Roe.

The mindset of Dixie and some outliers is no mask=freedom. So to think that a majority or even a significant number of states would employ this regardless of legality is wishful thinking. Some governors are anti vaxxers, not naming names.
Of course any employer could make this a condition of employment regardless of the sector.

The mindset of Dixie and some outliers is no mask=freedom. So to think that a majority or even a significant number of states would employ this regardless of legality is wishful thinking. Some governors are anti vaxxers, not naming names.
Of course any employer could make this a condition of employment regardless of the sector.

but a mandatory vaccine mandate might bring an end to mask mandates... so wouldn't that be helping their "freedom"? but yes, i think the south will continue to be the south and doing things against their own interests.

but as the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again... the legality of such a mandate isn't really in question.

Dawn is Breaking in Vaccine Race (https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/health/2020/08/25/covid-vaccine-race-experts-steady-progress-worry-logistics-distribution/3389988001/)

You will get it for free once it is available. The federal government is currently considering how to make it free to everyone. The only cost associated will likely be the cost to administer it, and insurers and government payers will pay that fee to the provider.

I thought the federal government already pre-bought millions of dozes of from various pharmaceuticals. The virus could go away tomorrow and they wouldn't have to worry about not making money.

An NPR report today stated there is a possibility COVID will never go away. That's reassuring :-/

Well no, it will never go away. Just like how measles never went away. It already made the multi species jump, if we eliminate it from humans it could still jump from another species back into humans again.

In reality, the vaccine will only save the small percentage of the vulnerable population who actually managed to avoid Covid for over a year. Maybe more if it comes out early in flu season as opposed to late flu season.

An NPR report today stated there is a possibility COVID will never go away. That's reassuring :-/

A flu vaccine made the flu go away...oh, wait.

Things that most people don't even think about regarding a coronavirus vaccine.

Keeping coronavirus vaccines at subzero temperatures during distribution will be hard, but likely key to ending pandemic (https://theconversation.com/keeping-coronavirus-vaccines-at-subzero-temperatures-during-distribution-will-be-hard-but-likely-key-to-ending-pandemic-146071)

I guess I'm a little confused. But will the vaccine prevent COVID or if you already have COVID does the vaccine restore your health? So is the vaccine 'pre' or 'post' to fight the virus?

I guess I'm a little confused. But will the vaccine prevent COVID or if you already have COVID does the vaccine restore your health? So is the vaccine 'pre' or 'post' to fight the virus?

It's preventative.

People will take it to make them more immune to catching Covid-19, just like a flu shot.

It's preventative.

People will take it to make them more immune to catching Covid-19, just like a flu shot.

Ah, ok. With that in mind if you had a positive test for COVID but no symptoms -do you get the vaccine or no? Just wondering....

Ah, ok. With that in mind if you had a positive test for COVID but no symptoms -do you get the vaccine or no? Just wondering....

Yes, you should take it.

Whatever immunity you have from having the disease once will not last.

Ah, ok. With that in mind if you had a positive test for COVID but no symptoms -do you get the vaccine or no? Just wondering....

Yes! Take it. I had antibodies for about 4 months. Then got the damn thing again and it is worse for me the second time. I'll get the shot the second I can get it.

Side-note: I've been searching like mad the past month for information on people getting it 3 or more times but I haven't found much. I'm not letting my guard down but I'm hoping a second, worse case will build more immunity.

Bill - have you had it confirmed that it's a second case via another test?

Bill - have you had it confirmed that it's a second case via another test?
No but all the month long symptoms fit. I broke my collarbone in 1980 during a bike race and I wouldn't have to have an x-ray to know if I ever broke it again. I know what it felt like. When I have been fever free for 14 days per OBI guidelines I'll donate blood and I'm 99.9% sure I'll test positive for antibodies again.