you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Click-bait news, especially if we do not know the reasons these frontline workers chose to let someone else take the vaccine, rather than take it themselves. At issue:

fewer than half of the 700 hospital workers eligible for the vaccine were willing to take the shot when it was first offered.

If you're covered in PPE regularly and would rather that the people around you - who are not covered in PPE - get the vaccine first, then pass up the opportunity. A number of these 350 professionals will have easy access to the vaccine later, and will soon take it, most likely. Some will not want to take it. Nothing surprising here.

[–]StrategicTactic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

While every person can make up their own reasons, and what you say may be true for some, I dont think it stands up to any scrutiny. Do doctors regularly refuse medication for a disease they are actively fighting? If you really believed you had risk of catching something that you think could kill everyone you loved close to you, would you hold off on getting a treatment now, because of easier access later? I think it more likely that people are personally judging the risks of catching it and getting through vs taking a vaccine that is not fully tested and accepting all liability.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

if we do not know the reasons these frontline workers chose to let someone else take the vaccine, rather than take it themselves.

My own personal estimate is that the majority don't want to be guinea pigs (that's mentioned in the article, many people don't want to be first) although it's quite possible some believe the need is else where. Or both, they're not mutually exclusive.

My wife didn't volunteer to be one of the preferential first. It wasn't like an order or anything people declined but rather you had the option if you wanted it. The expectation was, also mentioned in the article, there'd be more takers than vaccines.

To be fair to the article, the relevant info is there, it's just propagandized to support a certain narrative.