Jump to content

Safer for a healthy 32 year old: contracting COVID or getting the vaccine?


Recommended Posts

I work from home so during this whole ordeal the world's been having with COVID, I've been blissfully and irresponsibly ignoring it, but now I've been called up to take the Pfizer vaccine, so I actually have to educate myself a bit.

I've been watching this video on data from Israel about side effects associated with the Pfizer vaccine (which I'll link to at the bottom) and they mention severe side effects (but don't specify beyond that), albeit very rare.

Now, I'm thinking, the vaccine has at this point been tested on a large number of people, but without long term followup, whereas the virus has been "tested" on an enormous amount of people and been given a decent amount of time to see what happens longish-term, so perhaps data on the virus is more reliable.

My understanding is that for anyone younger than 60 with no comborbidities, any kind of problems from the virus are extremely rare. So should the decision here come down to what is rarer - serious vaccine side effects or bad outcomes from the virus?

I suppose there's the additional danger of a more lethal mutation of the virus appearing which the vaccine might potentially protect from.

Is my reasoning here sound? What do you think I should do and why?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking the vaccine is always safer than contracting the virus.

Also, if you've already had covid, you'd still want the vaccine and that would make you even more protected.

Why is this even a question? Get vaccinated. Run, don't walk to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alfred001 said:

My understanding is that for anyone younger than 60 with no comborbidities, any kind of problems from the virus are extremely rare.

This understanding is very wrong. As you mentioned the overall goal of vaccinations is to limit spread of the disease and thereby the creation of new variants that could increase morbidity in younger folks. This is happening right now, B.1.1.7 has resulted in much higher hospitalizations among younger folks. In many areas half the ICU cases are now under 40. 

However, even ignoring that, the risk of death drops with younger age, but even in the 30s it is still estimated at around 0.2%. This is way higher (orders of magnitudes) than any risk (i.e. not only counting death) from any vaccine. 

Taken together, individual as well as population risk suggest that vaccinations will improve both outcomes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the answer was "it's marginal" (Let's be clear; it is not marginal because the vaccine is way safer) then they should take the vaccine.

It's a good idea not to spread diseases.


Partly because it's antisocial.
Partly because the more people get the virus, the more likely it is that the virus will mutate into something that does do lots of  harm to the under 50s.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alfred001If I may express what is implicit in the foregoing responses in a much more vigorous form: go ahead. Don't take the vaccine. Let people know you have not taken the vaccine. Wear a badge clearly stating you have not taken the vaccine. This will allow the rest of us to identify you as ignorant and anti-social. We can then respond accordingly.

Alternatively, take the vaccine, thereby improving your chances of avoiding problems, showing your grasp of reality and making an important contribution to community welfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you no family ?
Have you no social life ?
Is there no-one you wish to protect from getting infected by you ?
If so, you have bigger problems than Covid-19 or the vaccines.

One thing I have never understood ...
They publish the numbers of people ( out of millions ) who get blood clots from the vectorRNA vaccines, Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson, which have now gotten a bad name as 'second best',but no one has ever given numbers of how many people get blood clots from Covid-19.
I would bet good money it is orders of magnitude higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

They publish the numbers of people ( out of millions ) who get blood clots from the vectorRNA vaccines, Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson, which have now gotten a bad name as 'second best',but no one has ever given numbers of how many people get blood clots from Covid-19.
I would bet good money it is orders of magnitude higher.

There are values actually published and circulated in various news (I could try to find them, but it was maybe a few weeks ago). There is a bit of a problem with how the reporting should be done, as there are different thromboses risks. 

 Looking at the published numbers The result was about a 10 fold higher level in COVID-19 patients. In the study the calculated rate was about 40 per million CVST (the form of thrombosis associated with AZ and J&J) in COVID-patients and about 7 per million for mRNA vaccines. However that study did not (to my knowledge) include AZ and J&J vaccines (i.e. adenovirus-vaccines). We cannot simply compare raw numbers as the cohort need to be matched and it appears that there is significant gender effect there. However, they also looked at PVT, which is a more frequent type of thrombosis found in COVID-19 patients (~400 per million), whereas the rate for the vaccinated group was again only ~7 per million.

There is another pre-print out suggesting that CVST is actually not statistically significantly higher in a vaccinated cohort compared to baseline incidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

so I actually have to educate myself a bit.

Is my reasoning here sound? What do you think I should do and why?

A good start in that education, and obviously sound reasoning, would be to take the medical advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, beecee said:

would be to take the medical advice.

Yup  +1

I say this because all the figures for adverse reactions are out of date by a long way.

The number of such reactions has been reducing (quite dramatically although the numbers are very small anyway) because as the vaccine programme has progressed so has the method of vaccination.

The UK is well ahead of the curve (apart from Israel which is a special case) because it started early and got on with the job.

At the beginning there was little screening and sevaral reaction cases occurred.
Subsequently the vaccinators started asking more questions designed to weed out those most likely to present a reaction.

There was a marked difference between the screening discussion immediately prior to my first Pfizer shot and my second one 12 weeks later.

 

So yes go for the shots, but make sure you discuss known allergies and other conditions (I take it you are not pregnant) with the medics.
Then your chances of something really bad happening will be virtually zero.
They just did a survey in the UK and most people (like me) found no reaction to the jab.
The commonest reaction was a slightly sore arm for up to a few days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

They just did a survey in the UK and most people (like me) found no reaction to the jab.
The commonest reaction was a slightly sore arm for up to a few days.

I had a slight fever that night which was gone by morning...funnily enough no soreness whatsoever. The nurse giving me the jab was though very pretty!😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

I had a slight fever that night which was gone by morning...funnily enough no soreness whatsoever. The nurse giving me the jab was though very pretty!😊

I got the full flu symptoms. Lasted 3 days in varying intensities of discomfort and wasn't nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I got the full flu symptoms. Lasted 3 days in varying intensities of discomfort and wasn't nice.

If your nurse looked like Danny DeVito, there may be a pattern here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Area54 said:

@Alfred001If I may express what is implicit in the foregoing responses in a much more vigorous form: go ahead. Don't take the vaccine. Let people know you have not taken the vaccine. Wear a badge clearly stating you have not taken the vaccine. This will allow the rest of us to identify you as ignorant and anti-social. We can then respond accordingly.

Alternatively, take the vaccine, thereby improving your chances of avoiding problems, showing your grasp of reality and making an important contribution to community welfare.

 

18 hours ago, MigL said:

Have you no family ?
Have you no social life ?
Is there no-one you wish to protect from getting infected by you ?
If so, you have bigger problems than Covid-19 or the vaccines.

One thing I have never understood ...
They publish the numbers of people ( out of millions ) who get blood clots from the vectorRNA vaccines, Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson, which have now gotten a bad name as 'second best',but no one has ever given numbers of how many people get blood clots from Covid-19.
I would bet good money it is orders of magnitude higher.

I'm genuinely curious as to what the cause is for the hostility? I've asked for information in the interest of educating myself, am I not allowed to hear all the evidence before making a decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

 

I'm genuinely curious as to what the cause is for the hostility? I've asked for information in the interest of educating myself, am I not allowed to hear all the evidence before making a decision?

Well I'm sorry I can't see any hostility in my response.

I even suggested you do exactly that - hear and evaluate the evidence, but from the medical professionals directly concerned.

Ultimately the decision is yours alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

Now, I'm thinking, the vaccine has at this point been tested on a large number of people, but without long term followup, whereas the virus has been "tested" on an enormous amount of people and been given a decent amount of time to see what happens longish-term, so perhaps data on the virus is more reliable.

No, the virus has not been tested "longish-term"

We already have seen that there are issues with people who have had COVID in the short time it's been around. We don't have a handle on what will happen in the years to come. We know, for example, that chicken pox virus can live in you for decades and flare up as shingles, which is nasty. I don't think we have assurances that COVID will not pose a danger long-term

What we do know is that the longer the virus is around and the more it gets transmitted, the greater the opportunity for it to mutate into another variant that will continue propagating.

edit: you might help avoid situations like this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/07/oregon-peoples-church-covid-outbreak/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

"An Oregon church sued over covid-19 restrictions. Now, an outbreak there has sickened 74"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

 

I'm genuinely curious as to what the cause is for the hostility? I've asked for information in the interest of educating myself, am I not allowed to hear all the evidence before making a decision?

There are a lot of anti-vaxxers and nutjobs about at the moment, as you may be aware, that like to cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of vaccination. It looks as though some of the people here have got burnt by this in the past and may have thought you could be one of them, rather than just someone who is not well informed.

Risks from the vaccines are small compared to the risks from the disease, even for younger people. Aside from the risk of death or emergency hospitalisation if you are fat, there's a lot of long Covid about. I have a nephew who is very fit (got a half blue at Oxford, rowing for the Lightweights), whose sense of taste has been permanently altered by the virus.  I lost my sense of taste and smell totally for a fortnight, which became a bit frightening, though luckily it has come back. 

The risk of blot clots with the Oxford/AstraZeneca one seems to be about one in half a million: about a fiftieth of the annual risk of blood clots run by a woman on the pill. Nevertheless for those under 40, it is recommended to get one of the other vaccines if possible, for preference, just to avoid even this small risk.

As others have pointed out, by getting vaccinated you also help reduce the incidence of Covid in the population as a whole, which reduces the chance of more, nastier, mutations coming along and setting us all back to square one.   

So yes, get vaccinated. I had my second shot last week (AstraZeneca).  

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

 

I'm genuinely curious as to what the cause is for the hostility? I've asked for information in the interest of educating myself, am I not allowed to hear all the evidence before making a decision?

The self righteous attitude you seemed to have adopted focused entirely on the risk to you and completely ignored the benefit to the community at large that was not something I found attractive. My post placed the option you seemed to be leaning to wards in stark terms in an effort to make clear to you, what you seemed to be finding obscure in the hope you would see your error.  The second part of my post suggested what action I thought you should take. It was the one I was 95% certain you would take once oyu had refelcted.  If the structure of my post was not clear I'll try harder next time, however, I won't apologise for using strong wording to get your attention. You seemed to need it.

I'm not in a position to say if the neg rep you seemingly gave me was warranted. I'm sure the one to @MigL was not, so I've cancelled that out with a Like. Neg rep this post if it makes you feel better.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Area54 said:

The self righteous attitude you seemed to have adopted focused entirely on the risk to you and completely ignored the benefit to the community at large that was not something I found attractive. My post placed the option you seemed to be leaning to wards in stark terms in an effort to make clear to you, what you seemed to be finding obscure in the hope you would see your error.  The second part of my post suggested what action I thought you should take. It was the one I was 95% certain you would take once oyu had refelcted.  If the structure of my post was not clear I'll try harder next time, however, I won't apologise for using strong wording to get your attention. You seemed to need it.

I'm not in a position to say if the neg rep you seemingly gave me was warranted. I'm sure the one to @MigL was not, so I've cancelled that out with a Like. Neg rep this post if it makes you feel better.

 

There was nothing self righteous about my attitude, nor anything that justified the hostility with which you responded. There are plenty people who responded here and save for one other person, you were the only one who couldn't do it in civil fashion.

But anyway, let's drop it, I would rather get more good information than debate whether you should respond to people politely on internet forums.

Edited by Alfred001
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could shorten the discussion by simply stating that a) there is no age group where providing the vaccine does not benefit the population as a whole and b) with the potential exception of under 20 year olds there is no age group where vaccination does not significantly reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes. And even then in younger folks it would depend a lot on active case numbers and other factors, which goes back to a).

I mean, theoretically you can avoid those risks altogether by isolating alone indefinitely in a bunker, but that likely carries other health risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

There was nothing self righteous about my attitude, nor anything that justified the hostility with which you responded.

On 5/6/2021 at 10:21 AM, Alfred001 said:

I work from home so during this whole ordeal the world's been having with COVID, I've been blissfully and irresponsibly ignoring it,

It was your very first sentence, where you admit taking pleasure in ignoring something others are highly concerned about. That's a dictionary definition of self-righteous. It may not have been your intention, but it certainly came off that way to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to what Phi and exchemist said, there are folks who have lost loved ones or know of folks who did. 

The whole outbreak was perpetuated by the inability of us to pull together and do the right thing. The fact that even now, when the chance of herd immunity is slipping away, there are folks who cannot think beyond their own benefit is galling, to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point in the pandemic, anyone still consciously deciding NOT to get vaccinated is a) not acting like a responsible citizen, b) being informed by horribly inaccurate sources, c) a complete moron, or d) some combination of the above.

As you can tell, none of those are terribly positive. Go get vaccinated. There's literally zero good reason not to. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies if I came across as hostile.
I was simply trying to stress the risks you pose to those you come in contact with, or care about,  if you don't get vaccinated.
In your commendable quest for more information, trying to find out how your decisions affect only you, and not everyone else around you, might give people a valid reason for thinking you are selfish.

Thanks for the info, CharonY.
I remember reading about it much more often about a year ago, where people who contracted Covid had their blood turn to a jelly consistency. I haven't heard much about this symptom/effect lately..
    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, iNow said:

At this point in the pandemic, anyone still consciously deciding NOT to get vaccinated is a) not acting like a responsible citizen, b) being informed by horribly inaccurate sources, c) a complete moron, or d) some combination of the above.

As you can tell, none of those are terribly positive. Go get vaccinated. There's literally zero good reason not to. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. 

The roll out of the vaccine in Australia and those getting the jab, is actually still rather slow,  and while we are in a far more advantagious position in being an Island nation and being able to, and have closed borders when necessary. In that respect we seem to be behind the UK and USA in their roll outs and efforts to get vaccinated. Perhaps having succeeded in controling the outbreak from the beginning, we have become complacent? A recent  "outbreak" in Sydney [two people] have seen restrictions again applied...compulsory wearing of masks on public transport, no singing ]church choirs etc] no dancing, and a limited number of people allowed in your home at any one time.

Sometimes over the past 18 months or so, we have gone 40 to 50 days without a recorded positive case, and then inevitably that run is broken. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

My apologies if I came across as hostile.    

Sometimes hostility is needed against anti vaxxers. In much of Australia, with regard to the run of the mill, normal childhood vaccinations, we have reacted in refusing to let the children of such anti vaxxers, from attending Kindergarten and learning classes, and they are automatically refused government welfare in some cases. Sad for the children in such situations, but necessary to stop and/or contain many of those childhood virus'

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MigL said:

I remember reading about it much more often about a year ago, where people who contracted Covid had their blood turn to a jelly consistency. I haven't heard much about this symptom/effect lately..

It got highlighted in the news for a while as fatal cases (often strokes) occurred also in younger (below 55) hospitalized patients. There are follow-up studies indicating that even after discharge COVID-19 patients were at a higher risk to suffer from thrombembolic events, so the numbers I provided above might actually underestimate the risk, if they only looked at the time during hospitalization (I honestly cannot recall the details, there is just so much being published and quite a bit of it is somewhat useless).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.