Would you take the vaccine for COVID if it became available?

[weltonn]

I'm undecided. Would you?

@Pluckedpencil

I don't like rush jobs on anything. I also worry about something that "needs" to work. With the best will in the world, the people running these clinical trials are humans and are going to be rather biased right now. However, I do trust a very long standing method and if the evidence is strong enough that it is safe and it works, then I would have the vaccine.

The trials are double blind and protocols and safeguards are rigorous. The findings will be published and peer reviewed, so I feel confident that the Oxford vaccine won't be open to bias. I suppose the question is, will the MHRA rush emergency approval. But they've said they won't and with everything published and analysed, they'll want to maintain the highest standards to keep the public on board.

However, I wouldn't be confident about the Vaccines the Chinese and Russians have rushed out without phase III trials.

No

Of course I will! Not just for myself but also to help create heard immunity for those who can not have the vaccine for medical reasons.

Taking a vaccine is not just about self-protection. It the the route to the much discussed herd immunity, and protects everybody. With a high enough level of immunisation, transmission is suppressed. Vaccines do not prevent people from getting infections, nor do they eliminate infections. They build the herd immunity whereby the ability of a virus to transmit is disrupted. So those who say "I'm not at risk so I won't" are really selfish, and far worse than the people I am sure they attack for not wearing masks or breaking lockdown rules. They are hypocrites.

I am certainly not in favour of forcing people to do anything. But anyone refusing the vaccine when it is available to them should not have the protection of society either - they should have to continue to wear masks, they should have to socially distance and not visit or mix with people indoors. Because they become to the risk to everyone else. Since they are so happy for everyone to have to continue to live like that for their own selfish ends, it shouldn't be too hard for them to continue to do so.

And in answer, not only will I, but I already have. I volunteered the minute it was possible, and was called up a few weeks ago. Because even a trial vaccine is far safer, and the odds far better, than many other things that are risky about life, and I happen to believe that contributing to knowledge and the welfare of the whole human race is worth something. Our ability to be selfless is supposed to be one of the factors that raise us above other animals. What a shame that it is in such short supply. Not surprising, but shameful.

Amazed at some of the opinions on here. To want to under the nature of the trials and be satisfied they are rigorous is one thing, a flat out ‘no’ is ridiculous.

No. Which I suspect will mean no foreign travel for me ever. Which is effectively a force

No that would be a choice.

Yes. DP's in the Imperial College trial and has already had it.

It's not clear from Kate Bingham whether they're going for a measles/type herd immunity approach, or a annual flu protect the vulnerable approach.

I suppose it will depend on the results of the trials and the time scale .

I will as soon as I can.

I must admit I get really cross at people who say no to vaccines but expect everyone else to take it so they can take advantage of here immunity.

My aunt was like that. She refused to vaccinate my cousins but thought everyone else should so her kids didn't catch the diseases 🤬

My husband is part of the novavax trial (USA vaccine) and I am hoping they accept my application as well (I applied a week after him so hoping I do get called up).

Obviously we don't know if its the vaccine or placebo he has had, but, we are hoping its the vaccine.

These vaccines have not been rushed for safety. They have been pushed through will billions of pounds/dollars worth of funding, which is normally the sticking point with normal vaccines. They need to apply for funding after every trial stage which increases the length of the project. Everyone that says it takes 10 years, a lot of that can be just literally waiting for funding.

Yes. 1st in line if I could be.

Definitely yes. It wouldn’t be released until it’s safe and been through rigorous testing.

Sooner the better.

Yes, because I think those who have it will be the first allowed to travel without quarantine. I'll be first in the queue! (Though obviously, rationally, it will be offered to vulnerable people first, as it should be)

Yes

Your body, your choice and all that, but I don’t want to be around unvaccinated people. They’ll prevent us from achieving herd immunity.

How are you going to know who has been vaccinated or not, are you going to ask everyone you come into contact with?

NO!!

I'd be first in the queue. But I think it's fine if people dont want it, just as long as those that do have access.

‘I really can’t understand the mindset that is happy to risk the possible long term serious effects of the disease but not the very small risk of vaccine side effects. It’s completely illogical.’

This!
If we were confident there were no after effects from covid it would make sense but not only are we not certain there aren’t, we know that even a mild illness comes with a serious risk of long covid, which I would not wish on anyone.

Yes.

I volunteered for several trials but heard nothing so assume I’m in an oversubscribed demographic.

I dont understand it either but also I dont care. Enough is know about the virus and its possible side effects to know it can cause serious long term effects. If people are willing to keep catching it, let them.

Not if I had to pay for it. Unless it was a condition to be able to travel abroad, then I would.

Yes, I'm ECV so it would depend on advice and various factors but absolutely yes if I can.

@WiseUpJanetWeiss

The vaccines are not being rushed. They are following the normal regulatory process, without all the hanging around waiting for funding between the stages. Batches have already been made “at risk”, which will significantly speed up availability.

I really can’t understand the mindset that is happy to risk the possible long term serious effects of the disease but not the very small risk of vaccine side effects. It’s completely illogical.

Your body, your choice and all that, but I don’t want to be around unvaccinated people. They’ll prevent us from achieving herd immunity.

What she said!

The "rushed" part of the process simply means that the waiting has been removed from the process. Whether that's waiting for funding for the next stage, or waiting for the data to be read by the right regulatory bod to approve the next stage, waiting for the lab to have time to fit in your request, waiting for enough volunteers etc.

So yes, immediately it's available to me.

@OatcakeCravings:

My gut instinct is that the Oxford one isn’t going to work well

There’s your gut instinct.... and then there are the trials currently being conducted to find out how well it works. And when (if) it is licensed, the results of those trials will be known. Plus, the Oxford vaccine is not the only game in town - scores of others are in trials and the UK has dibs on 5 of them.

and I can’t find any information about how long the protective effects of it will last,

That’s because nobody knows yet. And they won’t know until more time has elapsed. You bet your life they will continue to monitor at least some of the trial participants longer term. At some point in the future there will be newspaper headlines such as “Vaccine protection wanes after 18 months” or “Vaccine still effective after 5 years!!!!”

And as for all the “it’s been rushed”, please, please listen to one of the excellent interviews with scientists such as Dr Sarah Gilbert talking about how this works. None of the steps have been missed. The reason it usually takes longer is financial and practical, nothing to do with risk. As for “long term effects of having the vaccine” - new problems showing up months or years after a vaccine has been given are just not a thing, it doesn’t happen. If there are going to be adverse reactions, there are signs soon after administration. The only possible thing that could be missed would be if a side effect was so rare as to not occur within the trial group - which is tens of thousands.

The overall infection fatality rate is now thought to be around 1 in 400, with around 1 in 20 still having symptoms after 2 months, and a proportion of those having damage which may turn out to be permanent. My personal risk of both of those is much higher due to age and health factors. So, for me, even if the vaccine turned out to have a serious adverse effect in 1 in 50,000, it is worth it.

Do you know what risk you take of dying every time you get in a car? It is far higher than the risk from any vaccine which has ever been licensed.

Yes absolutely, I volunteered for the studies but didn't get contacted. I think the people saying 'it can't be safe because it's been rushed' haven't really understood how the process has worked and which parts have happened more quickly and why.

Based on what we have seen so far, I don't expect first generation vaccines to be 100% effective or confer lifelong immunity, but I do think that as soon as we have a real tool to start slowing transmission, it will be 'good enough' to make a huge difference to how we deal with the virus.