Once Covid Vaccine comes out, would you be 1st in line?

[sverigecruiser]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

responsible societies may impose conditions on those wishing to opt out-   such as not permitting entering schools, utilizing public transportation, etc. 

 

Has that ever happened in the US? 

[sanger727]

6 hours ago, new_cruiser said:

The form I filled out to be considered for trials asked questions about what my exposure was. E.g. questions about how many people outside your home you interact with, how many people are in your household, similar questions about the exposure of the other people in your household. I expect that they will be likely to chose the people who's current jobs/habits/activities already give them more exposure. Since we are able to be very socially distanced, I doubt that I'll be chosen.

 

I don't expect that they will tell people in the trial to change what they are doing to get more exposure. Since some will get the placebo, it wouldn't be responsible to put them at risk. While antibody tests provide some indication of immunity, they don't tell the whole story so the trials require people that have some exposure. 

 

I would participate in a trial given the opportunity and I will get a vaccine as soon as one is available. 

thanks for the info. That’s interesting that they asked those questions. So they may be trying to find people who aren’t entirely socially distanced already. 

[navybankerteacher]

8 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Has that ever happened in the US? 

Yes - children whose parents wish to opt out of immunizations for smallpox may not attend public schools.  And now, in a different -yet related fashion- entire student bodies have been sent home from schools when too many of them failed to comply with social distancing requirements.  Certainly any students who individually fail to comply are not welcome.

 

Freedom of choice is to be valued - but logical consequences of those choices must be accepted.

[whogo]

2 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Yes - children whose parents wish to opt out of immunizations for smallpox may not attend public schools.

You would be hard pressed to find a child that has been immunized against smallpox in 2020. Smallpox was declared eradicated in 1979.

 

School immunization rules are set by the individual states and vary considerably in the USA.

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Yes - children whose parents wish to opt out of immunizations for smallpox may not attend public schools.  And now, in a different -yet related fashion- entire student bodies have been sent home from schools when too many of them failed to comply with social distancing requirements.  Certainly any students who individually fail to comply are not welcome.

 

Freedom of choice is to be valued - but logical consequences of those choices must be accepted.

NY State had both a religious exemption and a medical exemption allowed for a child to opt out of the measles vaccine and still attend school. When the abuse of this led to outbreaks of measles in some communities, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed a bill taking away the religious exemption. Naturally this was challenged in court, and it was upheld as the court ruled that the state had a overriding concern with public health.

 

Other states may vary.😉

[navybankerteacher]

45 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

NY State had both a religious exemption and a medical exemption allowed for a child to opt out of the measles vaccine and still attend school. When the abuse of this led to outbreaks of measles in some communities, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed a bill taking away the religious exemption. Naturally this was challenged in court, and it was upheld as the court ruled that the state had a overriding concern with public health.

 

Other states may vary.😉

I believe a number of other states have been applying such responsible regulations - and the fact that NY’s effort survived the challenge is a good indication that the absurd

  “ I KNOW MY RIGHTS”   idiots are not going to continue being able to threaten the health of everyone around them

[sverigecruiser]

4 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Yes - children whose parents wish to opt out of immunizations for smallpox may not attend public schools.  And now, in a different -yet related fashion- entire student bodies have been sent home from schools when too many of them failed to comply with social distancing requirements.  Certainly any students who individually fail to comply are not welcome.

 

Freedom of choice is to be valued - but logical consequences of those choices must be accepted.

 

I'm surprised about that. I doubt that could happen here in Sweden. One reason is that a child shall not be punished because of the parents bad decision.

[navybankerteacher]

16 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I'm surprised about that. I doubt that could happen here in Sweden. One reason is that a child shall not be punished because of the parents bad decision.

That sounds like a warm and loving point of view —- but how does it justify jeopardizing the health of the children of other parents?   There are some who cannot take measles vaccine because of legimate health problems - should they be “punished”?  And exposing them to a serious disease is much harsher than denying them school attendance.   After all, if parents demand the right to refuse vaccine for their children, they should be willing to educate those children at home.

Edited September 1, 2020 by navybankerteacher

[donaldsc]

Nope.  I don't cruise to cruise but to get to interesting places.  In other words, the ship is basically a big bus.  If the ships are sailing but the interesting places are not open, I ain't going.

 

DON 

[sverigecruiser]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

That sounds like a warm and loving point of view —- but how does it justify jeopardizing the health of the children of other parents?   There are some who cannot take measles vaccine because of legimate health problems - should they be “punished”?  And exposing them to a serious disease is much harsher than denying them school attendance.

 

I didn't said if I think it's right or not, I just say how it is.

 

Very few people here say no just because they can. If we are recommended to vaccinate, most people will do it. 

[sverigecruiser]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

After all, if parents demand the right to refuse vaccine for their children, they should be willing to educate those children at home.

 

Maybe but if they don't their children shall not be punished because of that.

 

Homeschooling is not an option here so even if someone wants to they can't do that. (There might be rare exceptions, for example if a child is extremely sensitive for infections, but otherwise, NO.) 

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

That sounds like a warm and loving point of view —- but how does it justify jeopardizing the health of the children of other parents?   There are some who cannot take measles vaccine because of legimate health problems - should they be “punished”?  And exposing them to a serious disease is much harsher than denying them school attendance.   After all, if parents demand the right to refuse vaccine for their children, they should be willing to educate those children at home.

As an example of what you are referring to, there is a young child who is our son's Godson in every way except by name. He should be exempted from the measles vaccine because he has a compromised immunity system. In the time where the measles became a threat where he lived, his parents decided that the shot was less of a threat than exposing him to measles once herd immunity was not there because of the anti-vaxxers.

[iancal]

We certainly are not in the least bit exited about vaccines and see no reason to be.

 

-they have not yet been tested thoroughly

-they have not been approved

-we have no idea when they will be available to the general public post approval

-we have no idea how effective they will be

-we do not know if, post release, there will be issues that did not surface during the testings OR if subsequent, more effective vaccines will be released OR if there will be any restrictions based on medical conditions.

 

I have the impression that some people believe that cruising will start 10 minutes after a vaccine is approved.   I doubt that it will happen that way.  There are simply too many unknowns at this time.

[navybankerteacher]

3 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Maybe but if they don't their children shall not be punished because of that.

 

Homeschooling is not an option here so even if someone wants to they can't do that. (There might be rare exceptions, for example if a child is extremely sensitive for infections, but otherwise, NO.) 

Of course no child should be punished for the selfish or irresponsible actions of an adult — but if push comes to shove and SOME child is going to be punished, is it not more appropriate that it be the child of the selfish or irresponsible adult - and not some one else’s child.?

 

Perhaps your society should consider the option of home schooling  — or is every child now more the property of the state than of his/her parents? (I realize that this must be an awkward question for a state education professional.)

[slidergirl]

non-US-based folks, my apologies,  but this is a US based answer.

As the Head of the FDA was pressured to say that the FDA may approve an EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) for one or more vaccines before Phase 3 trials are finished, there would be no way I would want to be near the front of the line for the vaccination.  The reason to have the large Phase 3 trials is to have verifiable proof that the vaccine is safe and effective.  To cut that short is a major dice roll.   Plus "ordinary" folks will be at the far end of the line: it's going to be first responders, Federal Executives (Pres, VP, Cabinet members), nursing homes, people in prison, highly compromised people.  

 

BUT, for US folks:  flu shots are now available.  GET IT NOW!!!   At least then you may only have to deal with 1 problem this fall/winter.  Me - I'm also just got my pneomonia shot.  I just wish they also had a bronchitis vaccination - that one gets me every freakin' winter. 

[navybankerteacher]

16 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

non-US-based folks, my apologies,  but this is a US based answer.

As the Head of the FDA was pressured to say that the FDA may approve an EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) for one or more vaccines before Phase 3 trials are finished, there would be no way I would want to be near the front of the line for the vaccination.  The reason to have the large Phase 3 trials is to have verifiable proof that the vaccine is safe and effective.  To cut that short is a major dice roll.   Plus "ordinary" folks will be at the far end of the line: it's going to be first responders, Federal Executives (Pres, VP, Cabinet members), nursing homes, people in prison, highly compromised people.  

 

BUT, for US folks:  flu shots are now available.  GET IT NOW!!!   At least then you may only have to deal with 1 problem this fall/winter.  Me - I'm also just got my pneomonia shot.  I just wish they also had a bronchitis vaccination - that one gets me every freakin' winter. 

Seconded - we got ours last week.  It always amazes me to hear how many do not “bother” with flu shots — often commenting that they are only 50% effective.  Even if that were the case, cutting my chances of getting the flu in half is worth the effort.  Beyond that - if more other people get the shot they improve my (and everyone else’s) chances of not getting the flu.  Even if the shot not effective in protecting me directly, every other person who is protected is one less person who might infect me. 

[2wheelin]

17 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Seconded - we got ours last week.  It always amazes me to hear how many do not “bother” with flu shots — often commenting that they are only 50% effective.  Even if that were the case, cutting my chances of getting the flu in half is worth the effort.  Beyond that - if more other people get the shot they improve my (and everyone else’s) chances of not getting the flu.  Even if the shot not effective in protecting me directly, every other person who is protected is one less person who might infect me. 

Definitely always get the flu shot but it is at least a month too early to get it now. Mid Oct is ideal for protection throughout the season and gives time for vaccine refinement for the strains prominent this year.

Have also read that having had more immunizations might help in the effectiveness of a Covid vaccine.

[Host Jazzbeau]

Today's Wall Street Journal had an article about the current state of Covid vaccine testing – several vaccines are currently well into Phase 3 and will apply for certification in October when that phase is complete.  The three phases test for side effects, effectiveness, and proper dose level – what more do you need?  Who asked these questions about the pneumonia vaccines – we seniors are advised to get them [over and over, currently there are three vaccines each more effective than the prior one] and DW and I follow that advice.  We also get a flu shot every year.  And I note that the flu shot is different every year – do they do 3-phase testing of the new shots?  I don't think so, but we still get them.  So why should the Covid vaccine have to go through impossible layers of testing before it's considered safe?

[Host Jazzbeau]

33 minutes ago, 2wheelin said:

Definitely always get the flu shot but it is at least a month too early to get it now. Mid Oct is ideal for protection throughout the season and gives time for vaccine refinement for the strains prominent this year.

Have also read that having had more immunizations might help in the effectiveness of a Covid vaccine.

 

Wrong.  Mid-September is the ideal time.  And the flu vaccine you get in October will be the same formula as the one they are using now – no change during the flu season.

[Host Jazzbeau]

OTOH, I won't be in line to get a Covid vaccine.  Nobody else in that line will be vaccinated yet, so I might catch it from them!  I WILL be the first to get an appointment for the vaccine, in a socially-distanced environment...

[sverigecruiser]

7 hours ago, ontheweb said:

As an example of what you are referring to, there is a young child who is our son's Godson in every way except by name. He should be exempted from the measles vaccine because he has a compromised immunity system. In the time where the measles became a threat where he lived, his parents decided that the shot was less of a threat than exposing him to measles once herd immunity was not there because of the anti-vaxxers.

 

Here we defenitely have herd immunity for measels because very few decide not to vaccinate their children.

[sverigecruiser]

5 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Perhaps your society should consider the option of home schooling  — or is every child now more the property of the state than of his/her parents? (I realize that this must be an awkward question for a state education professional.)

 

A child is not the property of the state and a child is not the property of their parents either. A child is not anyones property, you can't own a person.

 

I often think that parents shall have the option to decide more about "their" children but in this case I don't.

 

Lots of things are different to learn at home without interaction with other children, for example social skills and cooperation. Lots of children can handle that and grew up just fine but not every child. Children in school are also regularly checked by other adults than their parents and some children needs that. (I do understand that homeschooled children aren't completely "off" but it's not the same thing as seeing them in school every day.)

 

Children in school also get a real meal every day and even in Sweden some children really need that meal. Noone has to starve in Sweden but every parent isn't responsible enough to make sure that their children get everything they need.

 

No homeschooling is one way to protect every child. 

[sverigecruiser]

10 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

Lots of things are different to learn at home without interaction with other children

 

It should have been difficult, not different.

[slidergirl]

13 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

Today's Wall Street Journal had an article about the current state of Covid vaccine testing – several vaccines are currently well into Phase 3 and will apply for certification in October when that phase is complete.  The three phases test for side effects, effectiveness, and proper dose level – what more do you need?  Who asked these questions about the pneumonia vaccines – we seniors are advised to get them [over and over, currently there are three vaccines each more effective than the prior one] and DW and I follow that advice.  We also get a flu shot every year.  And I note that the flu shot is different every year – do they do 3-phase testing of the new shots?  I don't think so, but we still get them.  So why should the Covid vaccine have to go through impossible layers of testing before it's considered safe?

A lot is known about flu.  Somehow, they find what permutation it will be this season and base the vaccine off of that.  That is why it is not 100% effective.  Somewhere, they've agreed that we can protect with a lesser efficacy.  And, the vaccines have gone though testing for years.  Pneumonia is pneumonia - they don't have to develop a new forumulation year after year.  It's gone through testing.  

COVID is a new virus.  We have no idea what is going on.  Look at long haulers - still having issues months after having COVID.  First thought only respiratory, now, it's also vascular.  It also re-animates other viruses - finding more COVID long haulers getting shingles, vision issues.  You have to do a thorough investigation of a new vaccine for novel virus - different sexes, ages, races, co-morbidities.  Humans are not binary.  You have to have thousands of that mix.  You have to figure out what dosage is enough and not too much.  A dosage may be OK for a 40 year old white man but deadly for a 40 year old Native Amercan.  You have to send them out into the world and have them mix with the socially undistanced and unmasked.  
Do you want to short cut that?

[ontheweb]

12 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

A child is not the property of the state and a child is not the property of their parents either. A child is not anyones property, you can't own a person.

 

I often think that parents shall have the option to decide more about "their" children but in this case I don't.

 

Lots of things are different to learn at home without interaction with other children, for example social skills and cooperation. Lots of children can handle that and grew up just fine but not every child. Children in school are also regularly checked by other adults than their parents and some children needs that. (I do understand that homeschooled children aren't completely "off" but it's not the same thing as seeing them in school every day.)

 

Children in school also get a real meal every day and even in Sweden some children really need that meal. Noone has to starve in Sweden but every parent isn't responsible enough to make sure that their children get everything they need.

 

No homeschooling is one way to protect every child. 

Home schooling is big and getting bigger in the United States. But you have made the proper and convincing arguments why it should not be.