This, to me, is a very good question!
And in my case, No.
Mainly because I plan to ctb before the end of the month if my money does not run out before hand, I live alone and rarely venture outside, supplies for the vaccine are limited, and IMO the vaccine should go to those who want to live (unlike me) and first responders prior to anyone else.
However, say for the moment that I am not planning to ctb in the near future or at all (as is the case for many here).
Under this scenario, I would still wait as long as I could for many reasons. The primary one?
I worked in big-Pharma for many, many years, and while a Covid vaccine is essential, it has been approved for administration in the general population under an unprecedented and extremely expedited timeline relative to any medication I have ever seen.
For those not familiar with the approval process of a medication, this typically takes many, many years - from conception of a new molecular entity, to in vitro studies, pre-clinical studies in animals, and finally, if it makes it that far, Phase 1 through 3 clinical studies in humans.
Overall, the total sample size across all studies in humans(Phases 1 through 3), is infinitesimal relative to the general population (talking about 1000's of patients here relative to post-approval where that medication becomes available to the general population comprised of millions or more).
We can create predictive models and extrapolate expected outcomes based on these model onto a wider population; however, these analyses, while good, are not infallible. Once a medication hits the open market, there have been many cases where that medication has caused significant harm up to and including death due to causes not seen in clinical trials prior to approval of that medication.
One med that I worked on many, many years ago was a new antibiotic being developed by one of the top 10 Pharma companies that is still going strong today. Keep in mind that at this time there was a plethora of other antibiotics already on the market that had been administered for decades, and at that time, resistance to antibiotics had not yet been a thing - I am so dating myself here - ha!!)
With respect to the medication I worked on, during the pre-approval process, there was no indication of significant safety concerns such that this medication should not hit the open market or be administered as other than first line therapy for common infections (such as ear infections, sinus infections, bronchitis, etc.). Note that it too was conducted on an experimental expedited timeline (and at that time - expedited meant 2 years of studies in humans).
It was approved and because of extensive marketing, 100,000 scripts or samples were given out in the 1st month post-approval.
Among the patients who received the med, there was one known case of a 26-year-old man who was otherwise extremely healthy and who was given samples of this new antibiotic from his doc for a sinus infection. Within 2 days of starting treatment, he died of multi-organ failure. There was no other apparent cause of death except the newly prescribed antibiotic.
The Pharma company in question elected to pull the medication from the market - not for moral/ethical reasons or because the FDA required that they do so - but because they had another antibiotic in the pipeline that showed even more promising results, and they wanted to maintain a benevolent public image to promote that newer antibiotic.
Their strategy worked and that 2nd antibiotic in the pipeline is one of the most widely prescribed antibiotics worldwide. In fact, I would not be surprised if the vast majority of people here who have ever had an otherwise minor infection have received this antibiotic at some point in their life - that is how widely it has been prescribed.
Alla that being said, the risk of a medication must always be evaluated in balance with its potential benefit (called the risk/benefit ratio of a med in the industry). Here is an example, the benefit of administering insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes far outweighs the risks of not administering insulin.
With this in mind, I believe that those at highest risk of exposing themselves and/or transmitting Covid to others should receive it first (ie, first responders) note that they should also be fully apprised that receiving the inoculation may be a risk based on the rapidity of development and approval. At the same time, for those who are able to stay at home and wait, there is great benefit to waiting to receive the inoculation in order to gather additional safety data prior to being innoculated.
Of course, this is my opinion only based on what I have previously seen.
I could go on and on and on about the horrors I have seen in the Pharma industry. It is truly appalling.
Oh wow - I just had a total soap box moment... ::blushes:: ... ok... stepping off my soap-box now and putting the megaphone down.
Apologies for the rant, this has always been a pet-peeve of mine!