You're cherry-picking, Peter. Packs asked a very specific question and I gave a specific answer. My position has not changed, but you seem to be trying to change it for me. So, let's review
again, because we already had to do it once in post 278.
Post 190 - I can't speak for everyone that declines the vaccine, but I think most of us are not antivaxxers. We're just not convinced that enough research and testing has gone into the vaccine to inject ourselves with it. I'm grateful for the previous administration's decision to start working on a vaccine immediately without delay (in January of last year), but it's just way too soon. It hasn't even been approved by the FDA yet. If within a couple of years or so it's determined there are no long term side effects, I'll probably get it myself.
Post 229 - Because it's new. I've said (and others have said too) once it's been around for a while and it's been determined there are no long term side effects, I'll more than likely get it.
Post 269 - Here's where I'm losing you, Peter, and I'm not sure why because you're smarter than that. There hasn't been enough testing on the vaccine to know all the possible side effects. I think most people that decline the vaccine aren't antivaxxers, they're just concerned with the lack of testing and not knowing long term side effects. As I've already mentioned (multiple times now), I'll probably get the vaccine in 2-3 years if there are no known side effects. And, if there are side effects, I'll weigh my options and decide if the benefits outweigh the risks.
You're trying to make something out of nothing. My position has been clear from the very beginning. But I'm sure we'll be having this discussion again and, once again, I'll refer to the same posts.
