Depends on where you live (urban or rural). One thing is for certain: The Pfizer vaccine is better than getting actual covid, which is a strong possibility for both her and the baby. Yes, the covid spike proteins formed by the vaccine have some minute potential to cause injury, but the same spike proteins are present in 100s of times the potency in the event of an actual infection, on top of the infection itself.
A decision not to vax is very hard to justify with a disease this contagious. My aunt and uncle decided not to vax. My uncle died because of it. Suffocated in front of us while on 100% oxygen. He died half from Covid and half from anti-vax hysteria.
There's no reason for the paranoia over such a simple mechanism: the strip of rna that encodes the spike protein encased in a chemical shell - the rna is eliminated as soon as it is used, and the single batch of spike proteins that result are cleared in 2 days.
You missed the point. The only harm vector with the Pfizer vaccine is the spike proteins, which is orders of magnitude more severe in the event of covid. So suffice it to say that someone who exhibits adverse effects after getting the shot would necessarily react far worse to actual covid.
There is 1 confirmed death from the Pfizer shot. It's safer than Tylenol. People who quote death stats don't realize that those numbers are baseline for the time window and population sample being analyzed.
I'd probably agree with you if I didn't understand the vaccine, which I do; or if I had a worldview that branded large swaths of the scientific community as liars, which I don't.
There's no model for how it would even be possible for the Pfizer vaccine to be worse than covid. Find a vector other than the spike proteins to justify the theory.
With the J&J vaccine you have the adenovirus to add another variable (which has its own spike proteins and causes your body to react to two perceived infections.
Ironically, people on the fence favor J&J because it's older technology, even though an adenovirus is obviously more dangerous than the chemical shell used with mRNA.
I am one of the guys on here who has "tried" to see the nuance and I am not saying you are 100% wrong. I agree that to a large extent, the bottom line is that I really doubt the vaccine is going to end up resulting in 600,000+ people dead in the next 18 months.
I agree that the vaccine is most likely considerably safer than contracting covid, and the chance of getting covid for almost everyone right now, is 100%. It's just a matter of time.
Having said that, it's a complete guess and I have no data to support that view and it is still reasonable to question the vax.
For one thing, the vax seems, to me, to be a lot less effective than projected at protecting against getting the virus, we really don't have enough data to reasonably know if it prevents deaths or to what rate precisely, and we don't have data to support the long term safety of the vaccine, but mRNA in particular.
You have a loose grasp of the vaccine, more so than a lot of people, but not complete. You ignore the dangers of mRNA and then gloss over exactly what the molecule it is encased in is. Let me ask you this, can you tell me exactly how you would cause an organism to experience a cytokine storm in a lab if you wanted to study it? I know of what seems to be a well-known way to reliably induce a cytokine storm - lipopolysaccharides. Not to mention mRNA itself has been shown to increase cytokines. A major cytokine in question is IL-6 and this combo WILL increase IL-6 without a doubt (which actually should make it more effective generally - a vax that doesn't do this would be pretty worthless).
Having said that, people who have autoimmune diseases, diabetes, and other issues with appropriately managing cytokines - are at risk and I believe this is being glossed over. It is not specific to the covid vax - it is any vax, but you have to also consider the questionable deployment of a platform that was 10-20 years in the making still. NO ONE thought mRNA vaccines were right around the corner here until Covid hit. They have some advantages but we lack the science to even know what to expect. When is the last time you tried ANYTHING new in your life and it went exactly as planned? Have you ever done your own housework or car work? Nothing new ever rolls out as planned and most of the time you don't even know what you should have expected until you get the experience.
Ironically, the people most at risk of dying from the vax are most at risk of dying from Covid...so it's not like I'm saying "don't vaccinate!" - but everyone acting like someone who has hesitation is stupid or part of the problem is really just being a bully with no intellectual ground to stand on. Meanwhile there are cases of people having actual issues with the vaccine in pubmed with the mainstream media not even reporting on it.
So, ultimately there is "only harm vector" is really the only one you know of, I just provided a second, and I'm not under the impression I know them all. Is that vector as bad as Covid? Unlikely...although it only takes one vector to cause serious, long-term consequences.
And maybe you are right that the adenovirus is more dangerous than lipopolysaccharides and mRNA - there is certainly the potential. But at least it's a known factor/danger.
I mean, the mere fact we now need booster shots is an admission that the mRNA platform failed - so let's inject more LPS and cause more cytokine increases. That's honestly very questionable IMO as well. If the mRNA platform worked as well as implied, the spike proteins would be inocculated against and we would be seeing immunity against all variants from it.
It is also foolish hubris to put so much unquestioned faith in a vaccine that was developed in 9 months. How many vaccines have we come up with in the last 100 years? We had 50+ attempts in the works, and we got the first 3 out and those just happened to be the best? We cannot do any better? Not saying it wasn't an unheard of success to get there - but it's still reasonable to expect there should be improvements and adjustments that we missed.
You made a risk assessment, I mostly agree with it in all actuality, I'm just trying to point out the nuance and avoid the extremes on both ends. Your decision to get or not get the vaccine is a complicated risk assessment and there is no clear cut answer IMO. I fall on the side of it being a good decision to get vaccinated, but I understand the hesitation of many.
Also, not trying to single you out. Just latched on because you kind of encapsulated some of the ideas in my mind that I think require more nuance and it may be more to do with my experience with others than what you are actually trying to say.