Vaccine

[blingo]

It is worth repeating that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine does nothing to protect other people from infection by you if you catch Covid-19 and are asymptomatic by virtue of the vaccine.  Crazy but true.

I understood that it has yet to be determined whether or not the vacine would prevent re transmission by carriers but that there is hope that it will.

that was my understanding also

So immunisation jab on something they cant say wont necessarily stop re-transmission? Have we all been brainwashed that badly?

First they have produced vaccines in record time, secondly, the vaccines produced, reportedly, are twice as effective as any brought out before. The more I look at it, the less chance I will take it. For the record I'm 64 Diabetic and have High blood pressure.

The next thing they will try to convince me of is that if my aunty had a pair or nuts, she'd be my uncle. UNBELIEVABLE

ok Blingo ,what do you intend doing if you don't take the vaccine and the pubs and football grounds restaurants etc go back to some normality.Stay indoors?

They can't force you to take this vaccine. The Governments will have to decide what is right or not. Why are the govs of the world not then making it compulsory to take it?

I am not suggesting it should be compulsory just asking someone like you goodself how you intend to carry on whilst resisting taking the Vaccine when restrictions ease.

Exactly as I did before all this scaremongering started

[Huxley]

It is worth repeating that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine does nothing to protect other people from infection by you if you catch Covid-19 and are asymptomatic by virtue of the vaccine.  Crazy but true.

I understood that it has yet to be determined whether or not the vacine would prevent re transmission by carriers but that there is hope that it will.

that was my understanding also

So immunisation jab on something they cant say wont necessarily stop re-transmission? Have we all been brainwashed that badly?

First they have produced vaccines in record time, secondly, the vaccines produced, reportedly, are twice as effective as any brought out before. The more I look at it, the less chance I will take it. For the record I'm 64 Diabetic and have High blood pressure.

The next thing they will try to convince me of is that if my aunty had a pair or nuts, she'd be my uncle. UNBELIEVABLE

ok Blingo ,what do you intend doing if you don't take the vaccine and the pubs and football grounds restaurants etc go back to some normality.Stay indoors?

They can't force you to take this vaccine. The Governments will have to decide what is right or not. Why are the govs of the world not then making it compulsory to take it?

I am not suggesting it should be compulsory just asking someone like you goodself how you intend to carry on whilst resisting taking the Vaccine when restrictions ease.

Exactly as I did before all this scaremongering started

There is no point trying to convince someone who has made up their mind. But i noticed you raised some points to justify your position which is fair. With the "flu" vaccine for the influenza virus, it's pretty much a best guess if the vaccine combination will work for that years dominant strain/mutation. Most of the Covid 19 vaccines are aimed at the spike protein and use a genetic approach rather than an immune response to parts of the virus. This technology is being used for Cancer treatment etc and is pretty ground breaking. Virus insert their DNA into ours all the time, so in that respect it's nothing to be worried about. It has a high response rate because it is such good technology. Traditional vaccine use ancient technology in comparison. They managed to do in less than 12 months because all of these vaccines were already in development for other diseases eg Ebola, cancer etc.
Masks, you mention you used the same mask all the time to avoid fines. Hope you wash it daily just for personal hygiene. Mask don't protect you, they protect others from you. If two people wear masks properly, there is a 98% or so chance of not transmitting the virus. Way less if only one person. They are not designed to prevent you getting the virus but to slow down the spread.
So you may choose not to take the vaccine. Your choice (at this stage). There is anecdotal evidence that it may confer some protection from transmission. The reason why Covid 19 is such a pain is that you can be carrier for quiet some time before the immune system kicks in. If you are vaccinated there is good chance that your immune system can detect it earlier and mount a controlled response. the problem is when the body mounts a very aggressive uncontrolled response. With your age and conditions, you have a higher risk of this. Think of it like a seat belt. You don't really need it most of the time. It can dig into your neck and be a bit of pain. you keep having to take it off and put it on again. Would you still wear it if if was not a legal requirement? in the very small chance you have a serious car accident it will safe your life, but in an extremely small chance the seat belt could actually hinder you getting out of the car. As someone else mentioned, getting pneumonia because of Covid will tie up an intensive care bed. So if a kid was in a car crash and it's during the flu season when health services are stretched, it could mean that you or the kid cannot get the care needed as there is only one bed....
So i don't think that i changed your mind, but hopefully helped you understand that the new vaccines work and are quick because the already existed. For your sake, i hope you change your mind and get vaccinated.

[mrmicawbers]

It is worth repeating that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine does nothing to protect other people from infection by you if you catch Covid-19 and are asymptomatic by virtue of the vaccine.  Crazy but true.

I understood that it has yet to be determined whether or not the vacine would prevent re transmission by carriers but that there is hope that it will.

that was my understanding also

So immunisation jab on something they cant say wont necessarily stop re-transmission? Have we all been brainwashed that badly?

First they have produced vaccines in record time, secondly, the vaccines produced, reportedly, are twice as effective as any brought out before. The more I look at it, the less chance I will take it. For the record I'm 64 Diabetic and have High blood pressure.

The next thing they will try to convince me of is that if my aunty had a pair or nuts, she'd be my uncle. UNBELIEVABLE

ok Blingo ,what do you intend doing if you don't take the vaccine and the pubs and football grounds restaurants etc go back to some normality.Stay indoors?

They can't force you to take this vaccine. The Governments will have to decide what is right or not. Why are the govs of the world not then making it compulsory to take it?

I am not suggesting it should be compulsory just asking someone like you goodself how you intend to carry on whilst resisting taking the Vaccine when restrictions ease.

Exactly as I did before all this scaremongering started

There is no point trying to convince someone who has made up their mind. But i noticed you raised some points to justify your position which is fair. With the "flu" vaccine for the influenza virus, it's pretty much a best guess if the vaccine combination will work for that years dominant strain/mutation. Most of the Covid 19 vaccines are aimed at the spike protein and use a genetic approach rather than an immune response. This technology is being used for Cancer treatment etc and is pretty ground breaking. Virus insert their DNA into ours all the time, so in that respect it's nothing to be worried about. It has a high response rate because it is such good technology. Traditional vaccine use ancient technology in comparison. They managed to do in less than 12 months because all of these vaccines were already in development for other diseases eg Ebola, cancer etc.
Masks, you mention you used the same mask all the time to avoid fines. Hope you wash it daily just for personal hygiene. Mask don't protect you, they protect others from you. If two people wear masks properly, there is a 98% or so chance of transmitting the virus. Way less if only one person. They are not designed to prevent you getting the virus but to slow down the spread.
So you may choose not to take the vaccine. Your choice (at this stage). There is anecdotal evidence that it may confer some protection from transmission. The reason why Covid 19 is such a pain is that you can be carrier for quiet some time before the immune system kicks in. If you are vaccinated there is goof chance that your immune system can detect it earlier and mount a controlled response. the problem is when the body mounts a very aggressive uncontrolled response. With your age and conditions, you have a higher risk of this. Think of it like a seat belt. You don't really need it most of the time. It can dig into your neck and be a bit of pain. you keep having to take it off and put it on again. Would you still wear it if if was not a legal requirement? in the very small chance you have a serious car accident it will safe your life, but in an extremely small chance the seat belt could actually hinder you getting out of the car. As someone else mentioned, getting pneumonia because of Covid will tie up an intensive care bed. So if a kid was in a car crash and it's during the flu season when health services are stretched, it could mean that you or the kid cannot get the care needed as there is only one bed....
So i don't think that i changed your mind, but hopefully helped you understand that the new vaccines work and are quick because the already existed. For your sake, i hope you change your mind and get vaccinated.

I would think the 50000 plus families who had a loved one die would call it scaremongering.

[Logicalman]

Quick question to anybody say over 70 who doesn't want to have the Vaccine.Are you going to take a risk and go out when the restrictions diminish or wait until enough people have taken the Vaccine before going out?Or something else?

Would that matter though?

If you get the vaccine, does it inhibit you from spreading the virus, even if you are immune to it?

What I mean is: Doesn't the vaccine simply protect YOU should the virus get into your system, or does it kill it immediately, considering one can be infectious prior to symptoms appearing?

I thought it was a pretty simple Question to the over70's on this board who decide not to take the vaccine when offered.There were some but can't find the original thread.

I get what you're asking, but I'm asking would it matter whether they stayed indoors until you point of "wait until enough people have taken the Vaccine before going out", because if a person can still transmit the virus even following immunity to themselves, then the risk to those who have not had the jab remains until the virus is wiped out completely, notwithstanding how ever many have had the jab.

[bill taylors apprentice]

It is worth repeating that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine does nothing to protect other people from infection by you if you catch Covid-19 and are asymptomatic by virtue of the vaccine.  Crazy but true.

I understood that it has yet to be determined whether or not the vacine would prevent re transmission by carriers but that there is hope that it will.

that was my understanding also

So immunisation jab on something they cant say wont necessarily stop re-transmission? Have we all been brainwashed that badly?

First they have produced vaccines in record time, secondly, the vaccines produced, reportedly, are twice as effective as any brought out before. The more I look at it, the less chance I will take it. For the record I'm 64 Diabetic and have High blood pressure.

The next thing they will try to convince me of is that if my aunty had a pair or nuts, she'd be my uncle. UNBELIEVABLE

ok Blingo ,what do you intend doing if you don't take the vaccine and the pubs and football grounds restaurants etc go back to some normality.Stay indoors?

They can't force you to take this vaccine. The Governments will have to decide what is right or not. Why are the govs of the world not then making it compulsory to take it?

I am not suggesting it should be compulsory just asking someone like you goodself how you intend to carry on whilst resisting taking the Vaccine when restrictions ease.

Exactly as I did before all this scaremongering started

There is no point trying to convince someone who has made up their mind. But i noticed you raised some points to justify your position which is fair. With the "flu" vaccine for the influenza virus, it's pretty much a best guess if the vaccine combination will work for that years dominant strain/mutation. Most of the Covid 19 vaccines are aimed at the spike protein and use a genetic approach rather than an immune response. This technology is being used for Cancer treatment etc and is pretty ground breaking. Virus insert their DNA into ours all the time, so in that respect it's nothing to be worried about. It has a high response rate because it is such good technology. Traditional vaccine use ancient technology in comparison. They managed to do in less than 12 months because all of these vaccines were already in development for other diseases eg Ebola, cancer etc.
Masks, you mention you used the same mask all the time to avoid fines. Hope you wash it daily just for personal hygiene. Mask don't protect you, they protect others from you. If two people wear masks properly, there is a 98% or so chance of transmitting the virus. Way less if only one person. They are not designed to prevent you getting the virus but to slow down the spread.
So you may choose not to take the vaccine. Your choice (at this stage). There is anecdotal evidence that it may confer some protection from transmission. The reason why Covid 19 is such a pain is that you can be carrier for quiet some time before the immune system kicks in. If you are vaccinated there is goof chance that your immune system can detect it earlier and mount a controlled response. the problem is when the body mounts a very aggressive uncontrolled response. With your age and conditions, you have a higher risk of this. Think of it like a seat belt. You don't really need it most of the time. It can dig into your neck and be a bit of pain. you keep having to take it off and put it on again. Would you still wear it if if was not a legal requirement? in the very small chance you have a serious car accident it will safe your life, but in an extremely small chance the seat belt could actually hinder you getting out of the car. As someone else mentioned, getting pneumonia because of Covid will tie up an intensive care bed. So if a kid was in a car crash and it's during the flu season when health services are stretched, it could mean that you or the kid cannot get the care needed as there is only one bed....
So i don't think that i changed your mind, but hopefully helped you understand that the new vaccines work and are quick because the already existed. For your sake, i hope you change your mind and get vaccinated.

So well put Huxley but there are none so blind as those who will not see!

[Twig]

Imagine being threatened with societal ostracization for not taking an experimental vaccine for a virus that has a ~+99% survival rate, when it's not even known whether the vaccine will prevent contagiousness.

Well more than 30 poor souls are dying every day in the UK and the global death toll is horrible.  However I think arguments like these miss a key point. The pandemic has shut down or contracted large parts of both our economy and the global one. Economic hardship is rife and 100's of thousands in the UK alone have lost their jobs.  Vaccination is the key hope of restoring conditions in which the economy can reboot and global growth restart. The slower we are to achieve this the greater the long term hardship.
I'm lucky to be in a relatively secure financial position but billions around the world are less fortunate. Economic contraction means huge hardship but even if you don't care about that, ponder the impact of an inexorable rise in economic migrancy!

[Holders]

Imagine being threatened with societal ostracization for not taking an experimental vaccine for a virus that has a ~+99% survival rate, when it's not even known whether the vaccine will prevent contagiousness.

Well more than 30 poor souls are dying every day in the UK and the global death toll is horrible.  However I think arguments like these miss a key point. The pandemic has shut down or contracted large parts of both our economy and the global one. Economic hardship is rife and 100's of thousands in the UK alone have lost their jobs.  Vaccination is the key hope of restoring conditions in which the economy can reboot and global growth restart. The slower we are to achieve this the greater the long term hardship.
I'm lucky to be in a relatively secure financial position but billions around the world are less fortunate. Economic contraction means huge hardship but even if you don't care about that, ponder the impact of an inexorable rise in economic migrancy!

Good question, Twig - where shall we go?

[MikeTheCubed]

Imagine being threatened with societal ostracization for not taking an experimental vaccine for a virus that has a ~+99% survival rate, when it's not even known whether the vaccine will prevent contagiousness.

Well more than 30 poor souls are dying every day in the UK and the global death toll is horrible.  However I think arguments like these miss a key point. The pandemic has shut down or contracted large parts of both our economy and the global one. Economic hardship is rife and 100's of thousands in the UK alone have lost their jobs.  Vaccination is the key hope of restoring conditions in which the economy can reboot and global growth restart. The slower we are to achieve this the greater the long term hardship.

In the best case scenario, yes.

A possible worst-case scenario would be for ~50 million people to take the vaccine, and 1% of those to suffer severe adverse reactions in the following years, for which they would be liable to claim compensation of £120,000 each from the UK government (not the vaccine manufacturers; they have a legal indemnity). That would cost £60 billion before factoring in potential lost tax revenue or cost of treatment etc.

https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-add-covid-19-to-vaccine-damage-payments-scheme

Selective vaccination which weighs up risks/gains and only targets the elderly/vulnerable could still come a good distance towards achieving the desired outcome, but without the risk of the above scenario unfolding on a disastrous scale. Furthermore if no such scenario as the above does unfold there will be many people happy to be vaccinated at a later date.

[mrmicawbers]

Imagine being threatened with societal ostracization for not taking an experimental vaccine for a virus that has a ~+99% survival rate, when it's not even known whether the vaccine will prevent contagiousness.

Well more than 30 poor souls are dying every day in the UK and the global death toll is horrible.  However I think arguments like these miss a key point. The pandemic has shut down or contracted large parts of both our economy and the global one. Economic hardship is rife and 100's of thousands in the UK alone have lost their jobs.  Vaccination is the key hope of restoring conditions in which the economy can reboot and global growth restart. The slower we are to achieve this the greater the long term hardship.

In the best case scenario, yes.

A possible worst-case scenario would be for ~50 million people to take the vaccine, and 1% of those to suffer severe adverse reactions in the following years, for which they would be liable to claim compensation of £120,000 each from the UK government (not the vaccine manufacturers; they have a legal indemnity). That would cost £60 billion before factoring in potential lost tax revenue or cost of treatment etc.

https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-add-covid-19-to-vaccine-damage-payments-scheme

Selective vaccination which weighs up risks/gains and only targets the elderly/vulnerable could still come a good distance towards achieving the desired outcome, but without the risk of the above scenario unfolding on a disastrous scale. Furthermore if no such scenario as the above does unfold there will be many people happy to be vaccinated at a later date.

Yes that may help if all the group's you talk about take the vaccine but as you can see from some on here they are not willing to do so.

[Jim©]

Yes that may help if all the group's you talk about take the vaccine but as you can see from some on here they are not willing to do so.

I agree with taking the vaccine and will do as soon as I'm offered (low risk group as still south of 50), however...
If those that chose not to take it contract the disease, thankfully they won't be able to pass it on to the most at risk people (who've been vacc'd) but can and will to those that won't yet have been vacc'd. It's a huge issue as it'll serve only to prolong the health hardships that people face, but also the economic ones too.

[Twig]

Imagine being threatened with societal ostracization for not taking an experimental vaccine for a virus that has a ~+99% survival rate, when it's not even known whether the vaccine will prevent contagiousness.

Well more than 430 poor souls are dying every day in the UK and the global death toll is horrible.  However I think arguments like these miss a key point. The pandemic has shut down or contracted large parts of both our economy and the global one. Economic hardship is rife and 100's of thousands in the UK alone have lost their jobs.  Vaccination is the key hope of restoring conditions in which the economy can reboot and global growth restart. The slower we are to achieve this the greater the long term hardship.

In the best case scenario, yes.

A possible worst-case scenario would be for ~50 million people to take the vaccine, and 1% of those to suffer severe adverse reactions in the following years, for which they would be liable to claim compensation of £120,000 each from the UK government (not the vaccine manufacturers; they have a legal indemnity). That would cost £60 billion before factoring in potential lost tax revenue or cost of treatment etc.

https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-add-covid-19-to-vaccine-damage-payments-scheme

Selective vaccination which weighs up risks/gains and only targets the elderly/vulnerable could still come a good distance towards achieving the desired outcome, but without the risk of the above scenario unfolding on a disastrous scale. Furthermore if no such scenario as the above does unfold there will be many people happy to be vaccinated at a later date.

To be accurate all bar one manufacturer has legal indemnity. And your figures are pure speculation. But to be frank £60 bil is chicken poo compared to the damage to the global economy. Global debt crises, pension funds underfunded, unit funds underperforming, corporate debt and bankruptcies, rising unemployment, long term stagflation. And then the dire social impact of all that economic disaster. That's what scares me. And that broader picture is part of the reason (alongside the health benefits), why I argue we have a social responsibility to take the vaccine.

[Southcoastffc]

Yes that may help if all the group's you talk about take the vaccine but as you can see from some on here they are not willing to do so.

I agree with taking the vaccine and will do as soon as I'm offered (low risk group as still south of 50), however...
If those that chose not to take it contract the disease, thankfully they won't be able to pass it on to the most at risk people (who've been vacc'd) but can and will to those that won't yet have been vacc'd. It's a huge issue as it'll serve only to prolong the health hardships that people face, but also the economic ones too.

What is to stop the 'most at risk people' declining if they wish to?

[Jim©]

Yes that may help if all the group's you talk about take the vaccine but as you can see from some on here they are not willing to do so.

I agree with taking the vaccine and will do as soon as I'm offered (low risk group as still south of 50), however...
If those that chose not to take it contract the disease, thankfully they won't be able to pass it on to the most at risk people (who've been vacc'd) but can and will to those that won't yet have been vacc'd. It's a huge issue as it'll serve only to prolong the health hardships that people face, but also the economic ones too.

What is to stop the 'most at risk people' declining if they wish to?

Nothing at all. But from people in that age group that I've spoken to, they're more keen than anyone to get their lives moving again and they see a vaccine as a huge boost toward doing just that.

[rebel]

Yes that may help if all the group's you talk about take the vaccine but as you can see from some on here they are not willing to do so.

I agree with taking the vaccine and will do as soon as I'm offered (low risk group as still south of 50), however...
If those that chose not to take it contract the disease, thankfully they won't be able to pass it on to the most at risk people (who've been vacc'd) but can and will to those that won't yet have been vacc'd. It's a huge issue as it'll serve only to prolong the health hardships that people face, but also the economic ones too.

What is to stop the 'most at risk people' declining if they wish to?

It's an invitation, I think a lot of the 'vulnerable' people will have it, the risks of not having it are just too great. My elderly dad had it yesterday, he just had a sore arm that you get with any inoculation.

[MikeTheCubed]

To be accurate all bar one manufacturer has legal indemnity.

AstraZeneca and Pfizer have both reportedly been granted legal indemnity, the latter of which having already been rolled out and the former still under consideration.

And your figures are pure speculation.

I don't deny that those figures are speculation, it is something which nonetheless is within the realms of possibility slim as that may be. It also demonstrates that these manufacturers are not comfortable with shouldering the risk of their product, despite being in line to make tens of billions profit out of it.

But to be frank £60 bil is chicken poo compared to the damage to the global economy.

I am talking within the context of Britain, for which that would represent a significant figure on top of existing Covid related expenditure.

Global debt crises, pension funds underfunded, unit funds underperforming, corporate debt and bankruptcies, rising unemployment, long term stagflation. And then the dire social impact of all that economic disaster. That's what scares me. And that broader picture is part of the reason (alongside the health benefits), why I argue we have a social responsibility to take the vaccine.

As desperate as we are to curtail the problems Covid has caused, the aforementioned scenario could be equally disastrous. For the elderly & vulnerable the health benefit of the vaccine eclipses the risk, but as you go down the age groups that benefit gradually dwindles to nothing, with no guarantee that the vaccine will even prevent them from becoming contagious. Do we not have a social responsibility to weigh up the balance of risk & reward?

[Statto]

For the elderly & vulnerable the health benefit of the vaccine eclipses the risk, but as you go down the age groups that benefit gradually dwindles to nothing, with no guarantee that the vaccine will even prevent them from becoming contagious.

But at any age, there's a risk, of dying or ending up in ICU or developing long Covid. At the age of say 25, that risk may be lower, say 1 in 10,000 or something like that, but the risk of dying from taking the vaccine is clearly even lower still, given tens of thousands of people have had it without it killing them already. It seems totally inconsistent to me to say, on the one hand, "I don't care about the virus because it has a 99.5% survival rate', but on the other hand, 'I'm scared of taking a vaccine because there's a 0.000001% chance it will harm me.'

I also agree with Twig above - in the "possible" (query the use of that term) worst case scenario of 500,000 vaccine recipients getting sick from it and suing the UK taxpayer for £60 billion, that figure does indeed pale in comparison to the amount Covid has cost so far, even just looking at the UK. The current bill just for us is still already in the hundreds of billions.

[MikeTheCubed]

But at any age, there's a risk, of dying or ending up in ICU or developing long Covid. At the age of say 25, that risk may be lower, say 1 in 10,000 or something like that, but the risk of dying from taking the vaccine is clearly even lower still, given tens of thousands of people have had it without it killing them already. It seems totally inconsistent to me to say, on the one hand, "I don't care about the virus because it has a 99.5% survival rate', but on the other hand, 'I'm scared of taking a vaccine because there's a 0.000001% chance it will harm me.'

The key difference is that the risks attached to the virus can be reliably quantified at this time, whereas potential long-term risks attached to the vaccine are still a relative unknown. It is acknowledged that this will require follow-up analysis & live reporting. Hopefully by the time people in my age group are offered it (rough guess 8-9 months from now) it'll be definitive.

[rebel]

These 'vaccines' would normally take 15 years to develop, everything has been 'fast tracked', so there is a greater risk then if the 'vaccine' had gone through the normal processes of development (the Government has been clear about that). The benefits to everyone i.e. the individual, society, healthcare etc outweigh the risks. As of yet nobody has had the second jab, another couple of weeks.

[blingo]

2014 on vaccines for FLU.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/12/novartis-flu-vaccine-hold-italy-after-suspicious-deaths.

Why are the number of flu cases not reported everyday? How many people have died from flu since this started?

Protect the elderly and the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with life. The Governments have ROYALLY screwed up and the WHO worse.
You can not prosecute the firms making the vaccines? Why not? If they are so sure that its safe? Government inadequacies will kill far more people than this virus will. They will also leave many mentally scarred, many in abject poverty, and the world economies in tatters.

My daughter in law caught covid, yet my son living in the same house did not. So I too have first hand experience of c19.

Why did the Chinese and WHO not shut down international borders last December?

Why did the WHO say that masks were not needed then change their mind?

Why are there curfews in place, does c19 switch off after say 6pm?

So many questions without answers here and no one takes responsability for any of it. If you want to have a go at anyone, blame world governments for failing to act sooner allowing the spread and for destroying their countries economies over a virus with a 99.7% survival rate.

I can't believe more people do not question these actions.

There are far more questions than answers here and im sorry but im not convinced at all.

[Statto]

The key difference is that the risks attached to the virus can be reliably quantified at this time, whereas potential long-term risks attached to the vaccine are still a relative unknown.

Sorry but how do you come to that conclusion?

All we know at the moment is that if 10,000 people catch the virus, around 50 will die and several hundred will be severely ill in the near term. As to long-term effects (long Covid, permanent lung damage etc) we don't know anything for sure, because it's a novel virus. We'll know more in time.

Whereas if 10,000 take the vaccine, none will die or be severely ill in the near term. As to the long-term effects, there's no evidence or reasoning that it'll have any, but of course we can't know for sure because again, it's a novel treatment.

Now I could perhaps understand some mild concern about the vaccine but there is no way you can bend logic or numbers to make taking it seem more risky than catching the virus.