Or (c) I will tell everyone that I'm waiting so that more at-risk people can have access it to first, but secretly I'll be happy others are field-testing it for me...

That's similar to mine. I will get it as soon as I can, but I'm also glad that "when I can" is not "first".

The incentives seem to align: if I were a front-line at-risk worker I'd be much more accepting of possible risk than in my present situation of staying at home all day.

Speaking as someone who already has some (but not all) well-understood vaccines contraindicated and has to figure out which category covid vaccines will fall in...

(d) telling myself that (c) is how I feel is how I assuage my feelings of disappointment at being old enough decision makers believe I'm likely to behave responsibly, but young enough + no apparent extra risk factors enough that I'm likely to be near last to get access.

nailed it! Don't tell anyone..

^

Or (d) I will wait to see if Corona mutates so much over the next year that the vaccine is a yearly process.

Edit: I feel like some people didn’t notice the mink culling in Denmark which was caused by fears that version of the virus would make the vaccines useless.

Even if there was another strain, why would it make the current vaccine useless when the current strain still exists?

So if the strains change every year because the virus mutates so much then the current strain wouldn't be so common. It's basically what happens with the flu. Also a new strain can be more infectious, which I believe was the case with the mink strain.

The current strain is very common. If you haven't noticed, it's actually a pretty big problem.

There are multiple strains. And in various parts of the world it's a differents strain that is common.

I'm not telling anyone else to get it, I'm just stating I am going to wait and see if the problem is actually solved before acting like it.

But you did say it would be "useless" if there were different strains and now you are saying "there are multiple strains".

I haven't seen anything about the current vaccines not being effective to what is already out there. If that is true then what you are saying is wrong, because the fact that the vaccines can treat what is now filling up hospitals and killing thousands per day means they are the opposite of useless and in fact one of the most valuable things in existence right now.

Even the regular flu shot was recommended as being more important this year so that there would be less spread and less to deal with.

> I'm just stating I am going to wait and see if the problem is actually solved before acting like it.

No, that isn't what you said. That might be what you are trying to claim now that you said something ridiculous.

> But you did say it would be "useless" if there were different strains and now you are saying "there are multiple strains".

Yea... That's what the experts are saying, you know the scientists. Are we not to believe them now? And the experts have said if it mutates alot that a vaccine could only ve good againist a certain amount for a certain amount of time. You see a vaccine could work againist strain 1-8 but then stop working on strain 9+.

> I haven't seen anything about the current vaccines not being effective to what is already out there. If that is true then what you are saying is wrong, because the fact that the vaccines can treat what is now filling up hospitals and killing thousands per day means they are the opposite of useless and in fact one of the most valuable things in existence right now.

Overall, this paragraph is moot because you failed to understand my original point, which I'll explain further down when responding to another line. But the fact you haven't heard anything about how a brand new vaccine just being rolled out this week. And I believe there were thoughts it wouldn't work againist the mink strain that Denmark had to cull it's entire mink population to stop.

> Even the regular flu shot was recommended as being more important this year so that there would be less spread and less to deal with.

Who said that? Last I read, they were expecting the flu to be pretty much non exsistant this year due to all the measures to stop corona stopping the flu. They seen this in the south and expect it to be true for the north.

> No, that isn't what you said. That might be what you are trying to claim now that you said something ridiculous.

Ok... I said something ridiculous? I repeated something the experts said. The flu vaccine is needed to be done every year, why? Because the virus mutates so much that it's only good for one year and then useless.

My original comment was merely there was another option. It didn't advocate for anything, didn't state any opinion, etc. You seemed to misunderstand a rather simple thing and on a massive scale.

You seem uninformed on this matter. The experts have been saying for a while, even if we get a vaccine (which we have) it may not to stop it as it may only work for a short period of time. And the fact they won't be able to vaccinate everyone in a timely fashion due to production limits, means corona could be around for decades.

And if you're going to carry on saying I said something come back with the quotes or please keep your thoughts to yourself.

I think the implication is, if it's available to you, the at-risk people have already had a chance to get it. At least that's what I've heard from the rollout strategy.

It looks like some people in the comments are interpreting it differently

Isn't that covered by the prompt?

> Assumption: it is available to everyone at the same time

This reads like "everyone who wants it will get it"

ITT: people who leave comments without reading past the title.

And there's another option:

I WILL WAIT because I have severe allergies and people say not to take it...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25358753 UK has warned people with allergies not to take the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine.

People could be conflating those two reasons.

I'm not aware of any localities or nations that are just dumping the vaccines off at a pharmacy and letting people do what they want. Everywhere has a roll-out plan, with healthcare workers and high-risk individuals prioritized over the totally healthy mid-20's athlete. So (b) in your list isn't really a concern. If you have access to it, you should get it.

And many people claiming (b) also feel (a). Practically there is no difference between those options.

I agree. This is a bad poll that can be used to derive whatever meaning you want to derive from it. There’s no reason we can’t have fifteen more specific options listed.

Is it no because you don’t need it because you already had the virus? Is it no because you’re allergic to vaccines? Is it no because the virus is a hoax?

Depends on how people read the line saying that it's available to everyone and no wait lines. The way I read it was, yay!, vaccines for EVERYONE.

Also you might split up the "No" answer as "No, because I've already had COVID and recovered" vs. "No, I'm an anti-vaxxer" (or something).

It might be a good idea to get the vaccine even if you've already had COVID. There's not been any CDC recommendations about it, but here's what they do say.

> There is not enough information currently available to say if or for how long after infection someone is protected from getting COVID-19 again; this is called natural immunity. Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this. Until we have a vaccine available and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices makes recommendations to CDC on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines, CDC cannot comment on whether people who had COVID-19 should get a COVID-19 vaccine. [1]

Suffice it to say, I'll do whatever the CDC recommends. I've already had COVID, so I'm guessing I'll go last. But at the same time, I'll get the vaccine if it is recommended.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html

Surely there is also not enough information on how long after vaccination someone is protected. This doesn't seem like a strong argument to me.

If infection with the actual virus doesn't confer immunity, I don't see much reason to think that the vaccine will work any better.

Everything I've read has suggested that people who've had COVID should still get the vaccine anyway, as it could act as a booster. And that, whether through natural immunity or a vaccine it looks likely that we'll need to get it 'topped up' after awhile.

Has there been medical advice anywhere that people who've had COVID don't need to get vaccinated?

The vaccine is still indicated for those who have had Covid.