Will you take the Coronavirus Vaccine when it's first available or wait or never?

PJ:  They might vacillate about the EFFICACY of the flu vaccine in any year, which is retrospective information known only after the vaccine is developed and the flu shows up.  Still there is a good chance the vaccine will help even if they miss the mark. 

But no 10 doctors (or 10 million) will vacillate about whether or not you or anybody should get a flu shot.  10 of 10 will say get the shot, unless the "exceptions" on the information sheet apply to you: allergic to eggs, have a fever on the day you present for the shot, look it up.  Your healthy life style, though congratulations for that, is not applicable.   You said you've had it and it was awful.  Isn't that enough to want to do anything you can to avoid getting it again, or having a less vicious case if you are exposed?  "Side effects" are minimal, such as a little soreness in the arm for a day or two, and nobody dies or is permanently harmed by those.

A flu shot...is a vaccination...that's what it is...

"Taking good care of yourself," while obviously a good strategy overall, doesn't make you immune from the coronavirus--or the flu, for that matter. And whatever you may know (or believe!) about flu shots, none of that will apply when the coronavirus vaccine comes out.

Here's why it's different. You may indeed have a strong enough immune system to fight off the virus. Bully for you! But first you'll get infected, then your body will react and develop antibodies, then the virus will slowly be killed off--over the course of two weeks or more. During that time, you'll be contagious. And you might not even be aware of it. In contrast, if you've already been vaccinated, the virus will be attacked by your body's antibodies immediately. The time when you are a disease vector will be dramatically shortened. Societal benefit, and all that.

I have a friend who thinks like you. She takes care of herself, eats only organic free-range sustainably harvested non-GMO food that volunteers to be eaten, etc. etc.--and never gets a flu shot. She was down for the count for three weeks last year. She thought that her lifestyle made her immune.

The reason that these viruses have been around for so long is that they've developed a perfect way to use humans to perpetuate. One way is that infected humans wander around, often oblivious, and infect many others. I prefer not to abet that strategy, even if I do mimimize my own risk by living a healthy lifestyle.

In some countries, it's being floated that if and when an effective Covid-19 vaccination comes out, it will be mandatory to be vaccinated. Period. In other countries, there are proposals to make having been vaccinated a prerequisite for such things as going to work, riding public transit, etc.

Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. etc. would explode in outrage if we did that--they'd chant "FREEDUMB" while frantically waving the flag back and forth. And a LOT of people would refuse to get vaccinated for no better reason than "You can't make me!!!" There is no vaccine, or treatment, for selfish idiocy.

We see this already with mask wearing and social distancing. Some people just don't want to be told what to do. Even in a national emergency. Even if not following instructions means killing people. We're a stupid, selfish nation, and our current leaders encourage such behavior. We lead the world in infections. 4% of the world's population and 20% of the world's infections. We should be so proud.

So I expect that we'll have tens of millions of people refusing to be vaccinated. I'm given to understand that that's essentially OK in other contexts; that herd immunity develops at some point well short of universal vaccination. But whatever vaccine we get may last only a short while, and/or the virus still being carried by the no-vaccinate crowd may mutate. The behavior of the idiots heightens the risk for us all.

Yes, it does. 

So should we continue to allow it? After all, other actions that endanger the public are very much illegal.

Problem is, there is this informed consent thing in American medicine whereby an adult has jurisdiction over his own body and nobody can force treatments even if determined medically necessary and in the best interest.  Only when the person is determined to lack decision making capacity can another individual, i.e. NOK can intervene to give approval so a treatment can be given.  And even then there is the possibility of requiring restraint if the person is combatively resisting.  So, for a flu shot?  Nobody is going to that extreme without a court order.   I'm sure you know all this, but ask me the time and I'll build you a clock.  LOL

We once had a patient, physically incapacitated including an infected sacral ulcer.  He refused being bathed, turned, cleaned after BM, having his sacral wound dressings changed.  Refused tube feeings (I forget why he couldn't or wouldn't eat), told the nurses not to hang the antibiotic IVs.  They had to obey him or it could be considered assault.   You can imagine how odorous his room and the whole hallway became after days of this, not to mention the harm to his sacral ulcer from laying in his own waste (and who wants do do that anyway?!).  They called the ethics committee of which I was consultation coordinator.  We had him evaluated by psychiatry who determied he did NOT have capacity to refuse these treatments (turning, bathing, sacral care, tube feedings, antibiotics).   Next was to obtain consent from his brother, his NOK, to perform these specific treatments even against his wishes.  The attending MD then explained to the patient that these specific treatment WILL be performed against his wishes because they were necessary to his well being.  Everything extensively documented in case it went to court, and instructions for nurses to procede in case he refused.  Actually, after all that he didn't put up much of a fight.  It could be deduced that this was the only way this poor soul could be in control, to refuse treatments and have everyone in a dither about it, since he couldn't do much else.   But that's the extreme end of forcing treatments on a person who wouldn't give consent for treatments in his best interest.  There were others, this one was just memorable.

Where I worked we were given flu shots every year.  The Infection Control nurses came around with their carts to every unit and office to give the shot.  How much more convenient could it be?  And every patient admitted to the hospital was offered the shot.  Always in the fall, flu shot season.  Anyway, there were always those who refused the shot.  There was a time when some hospitals in the area mandated everyone had to take the shot OR had to wear a mask while at work.   That fizzled after a while, I think.  They didn't want to have to take it to the Supreme Court or something.  Anyway, you can lead a horse to water, but in the US you can't make him take a flu shot. 

Maybe some private businesses can do their own thing, like terminating anyone who won't take the shot, but again you have employement laws up against you, which we know are not in the best interest of the business or its customers.  I've lately seen "No mask, no entry, no service" signs on some eateries just lately.  At least a few are getting it.  

JHMO.

Well, let's consider the common decency argument for a bit. You may truly believe that a vaccination will make you grow antlers or turn your children autistic or cause your satellite receiver to stop getting HBO. FINE. But the consequences of your not getting a vaccination are not suffered by you alone.

One analogy, not a perfect one by any means, is traffic safety laws, speed limits, seat belts, etc. For some, these restrictions cramp their style; they maybe wouldn't, for example, put on a seat belt if it wasn't for the fact that they might get a ticket. Or they would go 90 on the freeway. Should we worry about their freedumb?

I fantasize about a future way to cut the Gordian knot, wherein it would be possible to identify who had infected another person. Then charge that disease carrier with involuntary manslaughter/reckless endangerment/assault/etc. if he/she had not gotten vaccinated against the disease he/she was carrying.

I think that's one major problem with American society. Freedumb takes precedence over social responsibility. So MANY people want to behave as if they were 1830s fur trappers, fondling their guns, answering to nobody. The rugged individual in the Marlboro commercial has been a myth for some time, but a lot of people still want to be him. But despite the mythos, you do not, in fact, have the right to be an irresponsible asshole, unless you live alone on an island somewhere. At least IMHO.