Ignoring the higher risk of major long-term damage incurred by letting yourself get sick when you could've been vaccinated, I don't understand how this thought process accounts for anyone else.

What if my main reason for getting vaccinated is to lower my chance of infecting an immunocompromised person I care about? Even if I could somehow be 100% certain that if I were to be infected it'd be fully asymptomatic, the vaccine still helps me avoid spreading COVID-19 further.

Do you imagine young people who get flu shots do so only because they're worried about dying from influenza at 20?

I don't doubt that the vaccines come with risk. Every vaccine created to date has a small chance of side effects. But even as someone youngish, healthy, and with a strong immune system, any risk from the vaccine seems orders of magnitude less likely than comparable risks from the coronavirus.

That 6,000 figure you use is 0.0018% percent of people that got the vaccine, and that's only people that died after getting it, not people whose death was caused by the vaccine. [0]

Vaccination seems sensible from any concern for personal health (again, unless you have access to some data I've not seen). Even for very healthy individuals at low rist of death from COVID-19, you're taking on not only higher personal risk but also exposing other people to much larger risk, as well.

Also, I've gotten the flu shot every year I could since age 16 primarily to avoid infecting others. (There was no family or peer pressure to get the flu shot, at least where I'm from.) I'll grant that I'm a bit more invested in public health / disease spread than the average individual, but I doubt my motivations are that uncommon.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...

Those deaths reported through VAERS are just the number of people who died after being vaccinated, not that died because of vaccination. Those are two different things, which if you've read the CDC source you cite I'm sure you're aware.

The CDC investigates these report and say they have only established a causal link to a handful of blood clotting cases as a result of the J&J vaccine. All the other deaths were unrelated to vaccination.

We have a similar reporting system in the UK. Their investigation of deaths following vaccination says that “review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccine played a role in the death”, again with the caveat that a small number of deaths are associated with blood clotting.

You cited the CDC, but now that the figure you used has been cleared up, you no longer like the CDC as a source?

> Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.[0][emphasis mine]

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...

Come on. You must see that believing and quoting the VAERS numbers, but choosing not to believe the review of clinical information, even though both come from the same source is clearly picking and choosing to fit a pre-conceived narative. I mean we all know people do this, in fact we all do, and here’s one if the clearest examples I’ve ever seen.

Either the US health care system is a reliable source or it’s not. Unless you have an actual informed reason that isn’t post-hoc construction, based on reliable information about both processes, for believing the VAERS reports but not the clinical review process?

Yes of course I’m choosing to trust both. I believe in the checks and balances in the system, that these organisations contain people with a variety of political beliefs, that freedom of speech and the press is an effective counter to deception. But at least I’m applying that trust consistently. If you distrust them then fine, I’m sure you have your reasons, but please at least be consistent about it.

Yes, of the 177 million doses of vaccine given in the U.S., there have been ~1000 reports of heart issues. Amounts to ~0.000006% of people who receive the vaccine (in the U.S.) having inflammation of the heart after. [0] As far as I can tell, no heart-related deaths have been evidentially linked to any COVID-19 vaccine.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 itself also causes heart problems with higher severity and on a much larger scale. In children, this usually is multisystem inflammatory syndrome that can cause severe damage and death. In adults, severe heart attacks are a known (albeit rare) side-effect of COVID-19. [1] There is also early, but not conclusive, evidence that the coronavirus can cause longer-term heart damage in some cases, such as scarring.

You're welcome to make your own medical decisions such as whether you'd like to get vaccinated, but all of the data I'm aware of suggests that by any measure, vaccination is probably a good choice for the vast majority of people (barring those with allergies to the vaccine, or other known issues).

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my...

[1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...

But you can still infect other people? It's a non-sterilizing vaccine?

Non-sterilizing vaccines still reduce viral load, decreasing the amount of active viral particles in circulation. There are plenty of vaccines we use to curb epidemics that aren't full sterilizing vaccines.

For the COVID-19 U.S. vaccines in particular:

> Preliminary data from the clinical trials among adults ≥18 years old suggest COVID-19 vaccination may also protect against asymptomatic infection.[0]

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

Surely you understand that you are surrounded by millions of others acting the same as you are, so you remain at high risk of catching COVID.

You're right, if everyone around you is vaccinated to the point of virtual herd immunity (afaik not currently true anywhere, but perhaps given more time / incentives / information that may change), you being the only unvaccinated person wouldn't be a major concern (except insofar as it indicates less concern for other people in other contexts).

The main issue is that there are still plenty of people with your same mindset. See the measles resurgence as less people got vaccinated: Even if you accept the personal effects of getting major illnesses, it comes with an increase in danger to the immunocompromised, people who medically cannot be vaccinated, and people whose vaccines don't protect them 100% of the time.

You're free to choose whether or not to get a vaccine, but the consequences of your decision affect more than just you.

[Edit: Additional note - while it seems preferable that everyone who can get vaccinated do so, I suppose if you're sticking with the face masks, hand washing, and social distancing you could still protect others without getting vaccinated. I'd respect that as a viable alternative. However, based on anecdata, the overlap of "people who won't get vaccinated" and "people careful about preventing disease spread" doesn't seem to be a huge section.]

More than happy to wear a mask, less than happy to take emergency vaccines.

I've had many vaccines before, I'm not opposed to vaccines. I'm opposed to this particular vaccines because:

* There are reports of dangerous side effects after taking it.

* It's a new vaccine and the effects of the spike proteins it forces your body to produce have been found in places we were told they wouldn't be found.

* No long term studies have been done, even though lipids from the vaccine have been found in reproductive tissues (we don't know what this means yet).

* The vaccine is still only under emergency use authorization.

* I'm not in a high risk category, high risk people should be vaccinated if they're the ones primarily at risk?

* People are being pressured and coerced into taking it even though they are scared to do so. This is wrong, people should feel comfortable to take it, not as if it's their duty to mankind to protect elderly people (who could just take the vaccine).

All the major side effects I've heard of have been very small in scope, i.e. the chance of a healthy person developing one of the dangerous side effects is extremely small, and certainly orders of magnitude smaller than their chance of proportionally damaging side-effects from the disease itself. As every vaccine currently developed has a small side-effect risk, this seems reasonable, unless you have a major piece of data I'm missing.

As far as I can tell, any variables about the vaccines seem extremely safe compared to the unknown variables incurred by those with symptomatic infections.

I agree that people in high risk categories who can be vaccinated should do so. However, the vaccine is only mostly effective, not 100% effective, so to some extent their health is still influenced by the health of those around them.

As far as social pressure, pushing (but not forcing) people toward decisions that benefit everyone seems like the entire point of social pressure. People should be given all of the relevant information and should be free to make their own medical decisions. However, there should be some expectation that one tries not to spread deadly diseases to vulnerable populations, and schools / businesses / etc. should absolutely feel free to require vaccination (of those capable of being vaccinated).

But re: your other comment about wearing a mask, if you're one of the rare people who won't be vaccinated but still keep your mask on in all public places, wash your hands frequently, and stay 6 feet apart from everyone not in your household, you not getting vaccinated isn't a major concern. But the people who use these justifications (disclaimer: anecdata) aren't usually taking those precautions.

> You’re doing it again, just stop, it’s not your job to convince people :)

> “It’s ok to make a choice, but here’s the consequences asshole”

> It’s exactly what I’m opposed too.

You're opposed to... people pointing out the consequences of your actions? Social pressure to protect the well-being of others?

I got all vaccinations and took basic safety precautions (washing hands regularly during flu season, etc) pre-COVID. I have always balanced the health of others with pragmatic limitations on my ability to take precautions. Now is no different; there's just extra weight on the "caution" side of the scale while a novel and dangerous pathogen spread around. I will continue to take as many precautions as are practical and necessary given world events.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything. But I don't see how it's unfair to have a social standard of caring for others.

The vaccines do reduce the chances of transmission quite significantly, so it makes sense to get vaccinated if your goal is to protect others. It doesn't need to be 100 percent sterilizing to be helpful in this regard.

Prior to this pandemic, were you getting the yearly flu vaccine?