The question of whether to get vaccinated against COVID-19 has indeed been highly politicised and in some circles is even used as means of identitarian virtue signalling.
There might also be ulterior motives at play, such as continued non-pharmaceutical interventions being justified by a lack in vaccine uptake or politicians whose views on the matter hinge on demonstrably false statements such as the claim that vaccines will provide long-term protection against contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
However, all that doesn't mean that mRNA vaccines don't work or that one shouldn't get vaccinated for these reasons. mRNA vaccines are a tremendous technological achievement, generally very safe, and a boon for mankind.
Getting vaccinated shouldn't be a political decision, but entirely depend on an individual's personal decision and be motivated by medical and individual risk considerations alone.
For by far the most people that simply means getting vaccinated, much more so for individuals who are at a higher risk of severe complications from a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Interestingly, as a side note and since you mentioned that particular risk factor, obesity is associated with a similarly increased risk (about ten times) of severe COVID-19 symptoms as not being vaccinated.
However, very little is being done to motivate people to lose weight to improve their potential outcome when contracting COVID-19. That, in turn, tells a lot about our healthcare systems and the political decisions driving those.
entirely depend on an individual's personal decision and be motivated by medical and individual risk considerations alone
The problem is that they are entirely unqualified to make medical risk considerations. If they were capable of making them, they would already know the answer.
They won't learn anything from asking us. Most of the people replying are themselves not qualified. Even for those who give the right answer, the asker isn't in a position to tell.
The best advice I could give is to ask their doctor, who knows both their specific case and the latest information on the state of the disease. They're not an epidemiological expert, but they're far more qualified in both the general case and this instance.
Except that you and I already know what their doctor is going to tell them: get the vaccine. It's the only answer that makes even the tiniest bit of sense: very low risk, very high reward, and no amount of "maybe I'm an edge case" is anywhere near enough to overcome that very basic answer.
And therefore my advice would automatically be dismissed by those who disagree. It would amount to saying "Don't believe me, believe that other person, who I happen to know will agree with me." Those who disagree will challenge me on that, and I don't really have a reply that they will accept.
My doctor almost warned me about getting vaccinated - said it was untested, long term side effects wholly unknown and said it could have complications regarding the autoimmune system.
But now doctors can't even tell you their opinion in some states.
https://archive.ph/x62lm - "California Approves Bill to Punish Doctors Who Spread False Information" [NYTIMES]
I'm all for stopping the spread of false information - but who decides what is false information ? Before you answer - think about how often the first answer that came to mind have been wrong in the past.
My doctor almost warned me about getting vaccinated - said it was untested, long term side effects wholly unknown and said it could have complications regarding the autoimmune system.
>
> But now doctors can't even tell you their opinion in some states.
In most jurisdictions, physicians are certainly allowed and able to state their personal opinion on a medical matter when talking to their patients personally. There just may be limitations as to what they can say publicly, especially when evoking the impression that their opinion represents an official guideline or scientifically accepted fact.
Sometimes, doctors aren't even that well-informed themselves either. Your doctor's statement that Covid vaccines are untested and long-term side effects are largely or even wholly unknown is patently false, for example.
COVID-19 vaccines have been thoroughly tested before having been administered to the general public. Furthermore, since COVID-19 vaccines are among the most widely used drugs in medical history, any long-term side effects would be known by now due to the huge sample size.
'Long-term effect' in this respect doesn't mean "effect that will only occur in the long run" but "effect that will manifest relatively shortly after administration but have a lasting effect on the patient".
Comments
The question of whether to get vaccinated against COVID-19 has indeed been highly politicised and in some circles is even used as means of identitarian virtue signalling.
There might also be ulterior motives at play, such as continued non-pharmaceutical interventions being justified by a lack in vaccine uptake or politicians whose views on the matter hinge on demonstrably false statements such as the claim that vaccines will provide long-term protection against contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
However, all that doesn't mean that mRNA vaccines don't work or that one shouldn't get vaccinated for these reasons. mRNA vaccines are a tremendous technological achievement, generally very safe, and a boon for mankind.
Getting vaccinated shouldn't be a political decision, but entirely depend on an individual's personal decision and be motivated by medical and individual risk considerations alone.
For by far the most people that simply means getting vaccinated, much more so for individuals who are at a higher risk of severe complications from a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Interestingly, as a side note and since you mentioned that particular risk factor, obesity is associated with a similarly increased risk (about ten times) of severe COVID-19 symptoms as not being vaccinated.
However, very little is being done to motivate people to lose weight to improve their potential outcome when contracting COVID-19. That, in turn, tells a lot about our healthcare systems and the political decisions driving those.
entirely depend on an individual's personal decision and be motivated by medical and individual risk considerations alone
The problem is that they are entirely unqualified to make medical risk considerations. If they were capable of making them, they would already know the answer.
They won't learn anything from asking us. Most of the people replying are themselves not qualified. Even for those who give the right answer, the asker isn't in a position to tell.
The best advice I could give is to ask their doctor, who knows both their specific case and the latest information on the state of the disease. They're not an epidemiological expert, but they're far more qualified in both the general case and this instance.
Except that you and I already know what their doctor is going to tell them: get the vaccine. It's the only answer that makes even the tiniest bit of sense: very low risk, very high reward, and no amount of "maybe I'm an edge case" is anywhere near enough to overcome that very basic answer.
And therefore my advice would automatically be dismissed by those who disagree. It would amount to saying "Don't believe me, believe that other person, who I happen to know will agree with me." Those who disagree will challenge me on that, and I don't really have a reply that they will accept.
My doctor almost warned me about getting vaccinated - said it was untested, long term side effects wholly unknown and said it could have complications regarding the autoimmune system.
But now doctors can't even tell you their opinion in some states.
https://archive.ph/x62lm - "California Approves Bill to Punish Doctors Who Spread False Information" [NYTIMES]
I'm all for stopping the spread of false information - but who decides what is false information ? Before you answer - think about how often the first answer that came to mind have been wrong in the past.
In most jurisdictions, physicians are certainly allowed and able to state their personal opinion on a medical matter when talking to their patients personally. There just may be limitations as to what they can say publicly, especially when evoking the impression that their opinion represents an official guideline or scientifically accepted fact.
Sometimes, doctors aren't even that well-informed themselves either. Your doctor's statement that Covid vaccines are untested and long-term side effects are largely or even wholly unknown is patently false, for example.
COVID-19 vaccines have been thoroughly tested before having been administered to the general public. Furthermore, since COVID-19 vaccines are among the most widely used drugs in medical history, any long-term side effects would be known by now due to the huge sample size.
'Long-term effect' in this respect doesn't mean "effect that will only occur in the long run" but "effect that will manifest relatively shortly after administration but have a lasting effect on the patient".