Traveler

Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine (shot/s)

Recommended Posts

Bell County Comic-Con is coming up on the 7th and 8th in Belton, Texas. 

Mom is after me to get my first shot before this happens because of the sheer number of people who are likely going to be there. 

What I'm looking at is that one of my brothers had a reaction to the vaccines he got (he never said which one), and when my dad got his first shot he was exhausted for several days. 

In addition to working for the newspaper, I also do a *lot* for other people IRL in addition to handling my own things. For example, I just now got notice that one of my fellow couriers is going to be out this week, and so they'll have a substitute in his place. 

I simply don't have the downtime available to me in case I have an issue with the vaccine. 

Rock and a hard place here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

What was said:

What some believe they actually heard:

 

I am genuinely curious.  Of the forum members here who have decided not to get the COVID vaccine, did you consult a medical professional?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ironhold said:

I simply don't have the downtime available to me in case I have an issue with the vaccine. 

Out of all the reasons to not get vaccinated, this is one of the harder to understand.   Since 'downtime' and 'issues' with catching COVID are orders of magnitude higher than vaccine side effects, it sort of begs the question.   If downtime is something you don't want, why not decrease your odds of having it by like 288X?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, dprh said:

I am genuinely curious.  Of the forum members here who have decided not to get the COVID vaccine, did you consult a medical professional?

Equally curious. If a doctor said, "You don't need the vaccine"... would you even listen to their advice or would you try to perhaps, lets say, discredit them instead?

Also, what happened to the rest of the handbook guidance... "and also seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost."?
So... what should an individual do if a medical professional says 'get the vaccine', but the Holy Ghost says 'not now'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Equally curious. If a doctor said, "You don't need the vaccine"... would you even listen to their advice or would you try to perhaps, lets say, discredit them instead?

Also, what happened to the rest of the handbook guidance... "and also seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost."?
So... what should an individual do if a medical professional says 'get the vaccine', but the Holy Ghost says 'not now'?

I think I have a healthy relationship with my doctor, someone I trust.  If he'd told me it was best to not get vaccinated, I probably would have gotten a second opinion, but if it was the same, I'd followed the advice.  That's a hypothetical question though.  You are the one who quoted the handbook.  I'm simply asking if you (generic, or specific, I'm not sure if you (NeedleinA) have received the shots) followed the handbook and sought advice from a physician.

On the other question, definitely follow the Holy Ghost.  

It may seem like I'm attacking or condescending and I'm not trying to.  I'm actually trying to avoid that.  I really am wondering if the people who aren't getting the shot are following that guidance to get advice from a medical professional.

Edit:  Oh, just thought this might be relevant.  My wife was pregnant when the vaccine became available for her.  Her OB/GYN told her to wait.  There weren't enough studies yet on the vaccine for pregnant women.  So she waited until three weeks after the baby was delivered as recommended by the doctor to get her first shot. 

Edit2: As I read my edit, I can see it can be read sarcastically or condescendingly.  I didn't mean it like that.  I honestly hadn't thought of my wife's experience when first replying and when I did remember it, I thought it would be relevant. :) 

Edited by dprh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dprh said:

On the other question, definitely follow the Holy Ghost. 

I agree. 
With that in mind, here I remain unvaccinated.

I have spoken with medical professionals inside our stake, with a bag of mixed answers, speculation and best guesses... none of which are virologist.
The Church suggests speaking not just to a medical professional but a 'competent' one. Does that mean, like actual virologist competent or just primary care physician competent? What about Lab Technician competent? What about Walgreens/CVC pharmacy competent?  Or milk, eggs and the jab at the grocery store competent?

I wonder how many people went and got the vaccine without consulting an actual competent medical professional first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

I agree. 
With that in mind, here I remain unvaccinated.

I have spoken with medical professionals inside our stake, with a bag of mixed answers, speculation and best guesses... none of which are virologist.
The Church suggests speaking not just to a medical professional but a 'competent' one. Does that mean, like actual virologist competent or just primary care physician competent? What about Lab Technician competent? What about Walgreens/CVC pharmacy competent?  Or milk, eggs and the jab at the grocery store competent?

I wonder how many people went and got the vaccine without consulting an actual competent medical professional first?

I believe the Church expects everyone to follow that guidance as best they can, and I doubt they think everyone has access to a virologist.  I took it to mean my family's doctor.  I think as long as it's someone that has an education in medicine and successful in their practice at it, you're good. 

For me, the availability of the vaccine was an answer to prayer.  I struggle to see it from another view point.  Thank you for sharing yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

I wonder how many people went and got the vaccine without consulting an actual competent medical professional first?

You're a good arguing buddy.

I not only got the vaccine without consulting a competent medical professional, I signed up for the Moderna phase III trial without even asking anyone.  I suppose competent medical professionals were involved, as my age and medical history would have prevented me from being in Phase I or II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dprh said:

I am genuinely curious.  Of the forum members here who have decided not to get the COVID vaccine, did you consult a medical professional?

My father is high-risk, his medical professional told him and my mother not to take the vaccine despite him being high risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.  I never take flu shots.  I don't need to talk to a doctor about flu shots.  Covid-19 is a flu.  I have never yet heard a doctor say not to take the flu shots.  They always say take it.  In my 54 years of not taking flu shots, I've had the flu maybe 3 times.

Neither did I receive any promptings from the spirit to take the shot.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dprh said:

I think as long as it's someone that has an education in medicine and successful in their practice at it, you're good.

As someone who has worked with doctors in grad school, I can say that the very best doctors are wonderfully intelligent and highly trained. But even they don't know everything, are well aware of their deficiencies, and do not pretend to knowledge and specialization they don't have.

Medical doctors get approximately the same level of training in virology as biology graduate students who take a graduate-level virology course with lab. That is to say, they get a good, thorough introduction to the field and are generally familiar with the principles involved, but they would not dream to then call themselves experts in virology. That is a specialty unto itself.

Then how do medical doctors make their recommendations in such things? Simple. They read up to see what the standard medical practices are, and they follow those. This is the blunt fact about how modern American medicine works. A doctor cannot possibly be expert in all things, and a family doctor (what used to be called a "general practitioner") usually cannot be expert in pretty much anything—possibly pediatrics or some such thing. Such doctors are generalists, almost by definition. They simply follow the standard practice, not because they're expert, but because they trust that the experts have done the thinking for them.

Not sure the world can work in a different way when people are hyperspecialized. But it certainly makes the idea that "any doctor who says so is perfectly believable" (or, in dprh's words, "as long as it's someone that has an education in medicine and successful in their practice at it, you're good") simply untrue.

COVID has a death rate of under 1.5% for those who get infected. Looking at a chart of death rate vs. age—an alarmist chart, to be sure, one that seeks to maximize the perception of danger* (blue bar is lower bound, black bar is upper bound)—we see that children and young adults are virtually immune from fatal effects of COVID. Those in middle age experience a death rate greater than that of an average flu, but not worthy of the worldwide panic that has gripped those who have allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by a sensationalist media. According to the chart below—a biased chart, remember—it is only those over 75 years of age that stand a really alarming chance of dying from COVID.

 

image.png.b18a68e9ce419b7808bbb6321ad747eb.png

*This chart is obviously biased. Those over the age of 65 comprise less than 10% of the world population, meaning those under 65 are 90% of the population. The very oldest, whose death rate bars are the scariest, constitute no more than about 1% of the world population. Yet the "Total" death rate given is substantially higher even than that of the oldest group under 65. Assuming reasonable numbers for the various age groups, how is this high "Total" death rate statistically possible? It is possible only if we assume that young people simply don't get COVID at much of a rate, and that only old people get it. Even if you believe such nonsense, you can't claim that's what the media scare tells you on a daily basis. It's not only the death of very old people that the media pass around.

The bottom line is that the media feed us misinformation on a daily basis. The only question is whether they (1) are doing it intentionally as part of a dark, evil conspiracy, or (2) are simply too stupid to understand what's involved, or (3) are blinded by their own sociopolitical opinions and trying to play the hero by selectively portraying the numbers that they themselves believe (or that they think are necessary to get the population to act as they should), or (4) are themselves at the mercy of information providers, and are not (and cannot reasonably be expected to be) expert enough or intelligent enough to see how they are being manipulated. I'm sure it will be some combination of those four. What is absolutely beyond dispute is that, whatever you choose to believe, only a fool will take the media's coverage and analysis at face value.

(For the record, I assume about 40% #3, 30% #2, 20% #4, and 10% #1.)

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Vort said:

Not sure the world can work in a different way when people are hyperspecialized. But it certainly makes the idea that "any doctor who says so is perfectly believable" (or, in dprh's words, "as long as it's someone that has an education in medicine and successful in their practice at it, you're good") simply untrue.

I think you might have misunderstood me.  That was in reference to the Church's handbook's reference to "counsel with competent medical professional."  Needle asked if it needed to be a virologist or if a lab tech would be sufficient.  I just gave my opinion of what the church meant by "competent medical professional." 

Who would you suggest the average member to counsel with?

Edited by dprh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vort said:

As someone who has worked with doctors in grad school, I can say that the very best doctors are wonderfully intelligent and highly trained. But even they don't know everything, are well aware of their deficiencies, and do not pretend to knowledge and specialization they don't have.

Medical doctors get approximately the same level of training in virology as biology graduate students who take a graduate-level virology course with lab. That is to say, they get a good, thorough introduction to the field and are generally familiar with the principles involved, but they would not dream to then call themselves experts in virology. That is a specialty unto itself.

Then how do medical doctors make their recommendations in such things? Simple. They read up to see what the standard medical practices are, and they follow those. This is the blunt fact about how modern American medicine works. A doctor cannot possibly be expert in all things, and a family doctor (what used to be called a "general practitioner") usually cannot be expert in pretty much anything—possibly pediatrics or some such thing. Such doctors are generalists, almost by definition. They simply follow the standard practice, not because they're expert, but because they trust that the experts have done the thinking for them.

Not sure the world can work in a different way when people are hyperspecialized. But it certainly makes the idea that "any doctor who says so is perfectly believable" (or, in dprh's words, "as long as it's someone that has an education in medicine and successful in their practice at it, you're good") simply untrue.

COVID has a death rate of under 1.5% for those who get infected. Looking at a chart of death rate vs. age—an alarmist chart, to be sure, one that seeks to maximize the perception of danger* (blue bar is lower bound, black bar is upper bound)—we see that children and young adults are virtually immune from fatal effects of COVID. Those in middle age experience a death rate greater than that of an average flu, but not worthy of the worldwide panic that has gripped those who have allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by a sensationalist media. According to the chart below—a biased chart, remember—it is only those over 75 years of age that stand a really alarming chance of dying from COVID.

 

image.png.b18a68e9ce419b7808bbb6321ad747eb.png

*This chart is obviously biased. Those over the age of 65 comprise less than 10% of the world population, meaning those under 65 are 90% of the population. The very oldest, whose death rate bars are the scariest, constitute no more than about 1% of the world population. Yet the "Total" death rate given is substantially higher even than that of the oldest group under 65. Assuming reasonable numbers for the various age groups, how is this high "Total" death rate statistically possible? It is possible only if we assume that young people simply don't get COVID at much of a rate, and that only old people get it. Even if you believe such nonsense, you can't claim that's what the media scare tells you on a daily basis. It's not only the death of very old people that the media pass around.

The bottom line is that the media feed us misinformation on a daily basis. The only question is whether they (1) are doing it intentionally as part of a dark, evil conspiracy, or (2) are simply too stupid to understand what's involved, or (3) are blinded by their own sociopolitical opinions and trying to play the hero by selectively portraying the numbers that they themselves believe (or that they think are necessary to get the population to act as they should), or (4) are themselves at the mercy of information providers, and are not (and cannot reasonably be expected to be) expert enough or intelligent enough to see how they are being manipulated. I'm sure it will be some combination of those four. What is absolutely beyond dispute is that, whatever you choose to believe, only a fool will take the media's coverage and analysis at face value.

(For the record, I assume about 40% #3, 30% #2, 20% #4, and 10% #1.)

One serious problem with charts and stats like this is that they are lacking information which makes them also unreliable. Specifically...what percentage of the people who die from Covid had underlying health issues? The chart implies that if you're over 75 you might have a 10-30% change of death. But what if you're 75 but in really good health? Then is your chance of dying from it 10%+? Or is it more line with, say, a 30 yr old with no underlying health issues? It strikes me that the underlying health issues might well be the primary reason for the age differences...in that the older you get the more likely you are to have underlying health issues. But they neglect to include that information in the stats for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Competent medical professional on the subject of COVID might be hard to find.  COVID is new and science takes awhile to settle.  Competent medical professional on the subject of YOU should be within the realms of your main doctor (assuming you have one).  The doctor that knows you best would be the most competent to advise you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Competent medical professional on the subject of COVID might be hard to find.  COVID is new and science takes awhile to settle.  Competent medical professional on the subject of YOU should be within the realms of your main doctor (assuming you have one).  The doctor that knows you best would be the most competent to advise you.

Thank you :) That's what I was trying to get at!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something fascinating: those not getting the shot are largely republicans. So, they have a better chance of dying. Which will lead to less of them voting. Which will lead to liberal values being advanced. 
 

So, every liberal will open up champagne, and they should. @Godless, your side will win this battle. You are welcome, and be sure to thank them later. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Which will lead to less of them voting.

If 'voting' made a difference any longer in our country, you might have a point.

IMO we are well past the 'Righteousness & Prosperity' stage of the pride cycle.
Rather we are now simply transitioning from the 'Pride & Wickedness' stage into the 'Destruction & Suffering' stage. If my unvaccinated family and I are passed on and serving in the Spirit World,  while the mortal world is run by liberals and their champagne, I'll take it as a win.
 

Side note: I just spent the weekend at Adam-ondi-Ahman, wonderful place. I'm 100% fine if the 2nd coming happens later today, or I'm even willing to wait until tomorrow. Just sayin.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

If 'voting' made a difference any longer in our country, you might have a point.

IMO we are well past the 'Righteousness & Prosperity' stage of the pride cycle.
Rather we are now simply transitioning from the 'Pride & Wickedness' stage into the 'Destruction & Suffering' stage. If my unvaccinated family and I are passed on and serving in the Spirit World,  while the mortal world is run by liberals and their champagne, I'll take it as win.
 

Side note: I just spent the weekend at Adam-ondi-Ahman, wonderful place. I'm 100% fine if the 2nd coming happens later today, or I'm even willing to wait until tomorrow. Just sayin.

Well, I tried. 
 

As someone who generally wants to advance the conservative side through elections, guess I have to play the Cassandra card. Thanks. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Something fascinating: those not getting the shot are largely republicans. So, they have a better chance of dying. Which will lead to less of them voting. Which will lead to liberal values being advanced. 
 

So, every liberal will open up champagne, and they should. @Godless, your side will win this battle. You are welcome, and be sure to thank them later. 

Assuming this was true....then sure.

But... ...conversely, liberals are the ones who aren't having babies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Assuming this was true....then sure.

But... ...conversely, liberals are the ones who aren't having babies.

That is true, but it’s complicated. Just having kids doesn’t ensure they’ll be conservatives. The odds might be higher, but it’s still not certain by any stretch. If it was, we wouldn’t have the trouble with keeping kids active in the church that we do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Well, I tried. 

I'm not worried about things in the grand scheme of the eternities.
Though I'm a good arguing buddy from time to time, and I get on my hobby horse like we all do occasionally, I'm not worried about the battles that are won by the 'other' side.
I ultimately only care about the eternal perspective and find comfort in knowing the Savior wins the actual war.

As much as vaccines, liberals, loss of freedoms, etc. pull me into the storm, I'll continue to do my best to focus on what matters.

9f16d45aa8da04f86a68d7bfc2f4d241.jpg.bba83aa8ab5bad1a80e860ef6c8c1e17.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But... ...conversely, liberals are the ones who aren't having babies.

...and who kill their babies who dare to give life a try.

But of course, the abortion situation is messy and infinitely complicated, and it's unforgivably judgmental of people to say that aborting your babies is killing them. Unlike laughing that, oh, I don't know, let's say, all the conservative Covid deniers are going to die off from catching a disease because of their own repugnant stupidity. This is an obvious and very clever truth worthy of belly laughs and sage nods from those smart enough to perceive conservative idiocy.

It's always okay to mock stupid, self-destructive conservatives. But let's never hear a word against those poor, brave, enlightened souls on the left who suffer so bitterly for their sanity in a mad, Republican-ruled world. Please, just shut up and mask up. If you're not smart enough to do it for yourself, then do it for the protection of your betters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

That is true, but it’s complicated. Just having kids doesn’t ensure they’ll be conservatives. The odds might be higher, but it’s still not certain by any stretch. If it was, we wouldn’t have the trouble with keeping kids active in the church that we do. 

Statistically (I believe) that doesn't hold up though. A "conservative" family with 10 kids might have 2 or 3 go liberal. More likely, even if said family was LDS and 2 or 3 left the church, they'd mostly likely still be politically conservative for the most part. But even if those 2 or 3 went liberal -- that's still 7 or 8 solid conservatives.

I don't know for sure the actual numbers, but I've heard that is the case before. And I can speak from my own family that this is VERY true. I come from a family of 9 kids. We are all conservative. My older sister has 10 kids. So far the adult children are all conservative (very, very conservative). I have another brother who has 10 kids. They all lean conservative. Etc. This is also true for my cousins, uncles, aunts, etc. We are ALL conservative, because our parents all taught us these values. There are (in the cousins) here and there a few that went off the rails in one way or another and have, indeed, left the church. Politically, for the most part, they're still conservative (though they do tend towards liberal ideas when it comes to morality issues like gay marriage or something).

It will be interesting to see. But I think in a few decades we may see some interesting things happening politically. But then again....Satan is working hard. And the corrupting forces at work are extreme. So....yes. It is complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
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