It boils down to a really muddy mix of small things that all sum up to a decision against it.

For instance, I'm not the risk group and, due to being super medically conservative for _everything_ (to a fault!), I tend to not take medical interventions I don't strictly require.

I think that the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe from an absolute risk perspective, but among the least safe things we've deployed into wide usage from a relative risk perspective. It's tough for me to convince myself to take an intervention I don't need. Stack onto this things like the PREP act, guaranteed orders, big pharma's history, this being the first mRna vaccine to get through Phase III, and more hesitancy gets added on my side. As data from other countries rolls in, the efficacy side is also interesting, but that's a different topic.

Finally, there's just general disposition. Whether lockdowns, restrictions, or vaccinations, people seem to fall into one of two groups: those who favor public heath above all else, and those who favor personal liberty above all else. Due to some wrongthink, I fall into the latter camp. The behavior of those in the former camp pushes me away from my medically hesitant "wait and see" position, into one of, frankly, staunch dismissal out of pure curiosity to see how willing society is to marginalize those who made a 'wrong' medical decision.

Also, do keep in mind the premise here is that if enough of us get vaccinated as fast as possible, we can, among possibly other things, stop the spread of the disease, stop variants from forming and also lighten the load of hospitals so they can treat more people, including those without COVID. I'm all for curiosity, but is it worth it in this case? Also, you can still observe other peoples' behaviors if you get the vaccine. Even if you want to just observe the people you're close with interact with you directly, you can get it and not tell them.

I'm not sure what you mean? I have no control over how another group chooses to discriminate.

>is there someone you trust with a credentialed medical opinion you can talk to about this instead, like your family physician?

There's this presumption that people who are making the 'wrong' choice are simply uninformed or haven't sought 'qualified' medical advice. It's a bit condescending tbh.

To answer the question directly, yep. I've spoken to my doctor about it. We'll probably talk about it again next time I go in for blood work. His recommendation is his recommendation.

You said you were less likely to get the vaccine because of how people in an out group were behaving. That's what I mean.

The issue is that the behavior of this other group isn't benign. It comes with a very real "comply or else", which already affects my ability to participate in society due to a particular transient medical choice. It's a tough sell that medical decisions are best made under threats of harm (legal, livelihood, societal participation, etc..).

I think it's fairly natural when someone tries to coerce you into something to reject it on principle alone. There's big difference from "you should stop eating so much McDonalds because of downstream effects on the medical system" and "you WILL stop eating McDonalds or we will take away your autonomy to do so." I will not be forced into medical decisions by a mob threatening harm. If/when I get the vaccine, it will because my view of the risks/need ticked in favor of it (in theory anyways).

Eric Clapton took both doses. He suffered some severe adverse reactions. What’s the misinfo?

I haven't had the second jab. I've had nothing but pressure from almost everyone I know to get the second shot, and am still on the fence.

Instead, they are treated as if they are a threat. As if they are the ones who are overstressing the health care systems. When often instead they are the frontline workers these systems depend on. Many give care in nursing homes and at hospitals (in the case of nurses, a large percentage of whom still refuse the vax).

How many health care resources does the average unvaxxed healthy 26 year old consume? A lot less than the chronic smoker, the morbidly obese, the elderly, etc.

I'm sorry that people in your family are being treated like a threat. Can you elaborate on that? I also feel for those if there are issues at work, and I really think US should mandate paid leave to take the vaccine (at a minimum), but that's another discussion. :)

This report details the findings of a case-control evaluation of the association between vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in Kentucky during May–June 2021 among persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020. Kentucky residents who were not vaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

I understand that you believe that unvaxxed are where the mutations happen. Do you have any peer reviewed studies showing this to be the case? We know from experience with antibiotics that the opposite is true. Humans devise a treatment, the pathogen encounters that treatment, then mutates to circumvent it. Of course I'm a layman so if anyone knows why the opposite would be the case for COVID-19 or viruses in general, I'm happy to be educated on the matter.

I do believe the carrot works better than the stick, but I don't think this goes as far as being "treated like a threat".

I understand that you believe that unvaxxed are where the mutations happen.

I didn't say this and this is not my full belief :( . Mutations can happen at any new infection (including breakthrough infections, yes). So, the premise is to reduce new infections as much and as fast as possible. I think we're on the same page that vaccination greatly reduces your chance of infection (even more than having previously been infected before). Getting the most people vaccinated, as fast as possible, is the most efficient way to achieve that.

Overall, though, you've gotten pretty far away from the original question, "Well, what would it take for you to change your mind [to get the vaccine]?"

I will continue to disagree with your one size fits all prescription. It would be trivial to allow an antibody test in lieu of vaccination.

Responding to your edit: I already answered the original question. Allow an antibody test to prove immunity. Stop demanding vax as if it's the only way to acquire immunity.

It's quite funny to me how presumptuous covid vaxx advocates are. They seem to be saying, "you're going to have to relent eventually. What do I need to say to speed that up?". As if there aren't people who will listen to what they have to say yet continue to refuse and have perfectly valid reasons to do so.

That's not an answer to the original question. That's an excuse to not take the vaccine, and I've already addressed how these two things aren't the same.

If 999/1000 of vaccinated people were uninfected while only 998/1000 unvaccinated (but recovered) people were uninfected that would amount to that 2x improvement.

When you look at the error bars on those numbers (due to the ridiculously low statistics of the study) the conclusion becomes even more suspect.

Frankly a study involving less than a thousand participants is pretty poor justification to strip others of their rights.

"The key to unlock NYC" just reeks of cheesy marketing department brainstorming doesnt it?

All that being said, I don't think scare mongering about social credit systems is helpful in this discussion. Most I've talked to who support vax pass are resolutely opposed to China-style social credit systems and I believe such a system would be difficult to implement in the U.S.

I've been living normally without lockdowns or masks for about 18 months now. So has the rest of my country Sweden. So excuse me if I'm not running around fearing for my life anymore. I'm pretty much convinced we all have natural antibodies by now.

What convinced you? Because the upward trend of new cases worldwide (including Sweden) doesn't convince me.