No.

Based on my age and risk factors (male, mid-40s, no co-morbidities), I feel that the unknown long-term risks of an experimental mRNA vaccine outweigh my risk¹ of death or long-term disability from SARS-CoV-2.

Nope. I get a flu shot every year, and I have had a Tdap shot recently (Sep 2021). In the past, I've also had vaccinations against yellow fever, hepatitis A/B, MMR, and some others that I can't recall.

If a "live, attenuated" or an "inactivated" vaccine, such as Sinovac (CoronaVac), were available in the USA for emergency use, I would likely take it to reduce the severity and/or duration of infection. These types of vaccines involve no genetic jiggery-pokery and the associated, unknown long-term risks.

One study suggests¹⁸ that the common vaccination against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) may provide some protection for males against SARS-CoV-2. Since I am a male, that's good news for me.

Another study³³ also suggests recent Tdap vaccination (or MMR) might offer some protection, as well.

As an engineer and a scientist, I continuously evaluate the best data at hand and determine if I should change my decision on vaccination. It is entirely possible that I may decide to take the vaccine in the future.

This is not "hesitancy", this is a cautious, fully-informed decision.

Not unless I'm forced to do so. Surgical-style masks are ineffective²⁵, and walking around with a P100 respirator is just a bit too far for me²⁷.

Note that your eyes are an infection route for many virii, likely including SARS-CoV-2²⁶. Do you also wear safety glasses or a face-shield with your mask? (I'm an eyeglass -or- contacts wearer. Maybe that makes me more protected already?)

I respect the decision of those adults who have chosen to take the vaccine, but observational evidence^2,31 suggests that viral load, even when asymptomatic, is approximately equal in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. As viral load drives the spread^3,4 of the disease, there is no protection afforded to others by taking the vaccine.

My opinion: These asymptomatic, vaccinated people may be just as much of a breeding ground for new SARS-CoV-2 mutations as the unvaccinated population. So, no, I don't believe the unvaccinated "caused" the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant.

Psychologically, a person who is vaccinated may be emboldened to have closer interaction with the older or more vulnerable population. I have often heard, from both friends and colleagues, "I'm protecting my parents/grandparents/etc." given as the reason why they were vaccinated. This, in my mind, is now a dubious claim.

"First, do no harm."⁵

I am completely opposed to minors receiving the experimental mRNA or viral-vector vaccines, as their risk of serious illness or death is vanishingly small^6,7,25. As I've said before, the long-term risks of these experimental vaccines are unknown. We should not risk our children's future health for near-zero benefit.

Since the elderly or those with co-morbidities are at higher risk of death, and the vaccine does provide essential protection for these groups, the risk/reward ratio may favor them taking the vaccine.

First and foremost, I practice good hygiene through regular hand-washing. The impact^8,25 of this simple action cannot be understated; the lack of basic sanitation was a prime driver of disease in ages past.

My wife and I pride ourselves on eating a wholesome, balanced diet consisting of fresh vegetables and fruit, whole grains, healthy fats, protein, and nearly zero added sugar or fruit juices. Diabetes, and its precursor "Metabolic syndrome", is prevalent in the West and has been shown⁹ to drastically increase the odds of death and disability from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

I exercise²⁰ regularly to avoid two more co-morbidities⁹, namely: obesity and hypertension. 45 minutes, four days a week, of cardio and strength training is a small price to pay for the dividends one reaps in long-term health. How much time do you waste glued to Netflix? Reclaim some of that to improve your body.

Finally, and by no means a "magic bullet", I take 4000 IU of Vitamin D daily as a supplement. This is the maximum advised dose^10,11. Being lactose-intolerant and an office worker, my avenues for obtaining this essential immune-system-boosting hormone are few. Approximately 5 years ago, my tested level was low (23.6 ng/mL or 59 nmol/mL). Since then, I've raised it above 35 ng/mL with daily 2000 IU supplementation. At the start of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, my initial research¹² indicated that Vitamin D might bolster my body's natural immune response to the new virus and reduce my chances of serious illness. This effect is supported by recent study publications^{13, 14}, and induced me to increase my daily dosage to the maximum safe limit. I also take 100 mcg of Vitamin K2 to ensure that any excess calcium ends up in my bones, not in my tissues.

Update: My level was re-checked at my annual physical (Mar-2022) and the result was 59 ng/mL. This is well below the maximum "safe" level of 80 ng/mL and comfortably above the 50 ng/mL threshold shown to reduce negative outcomes of a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In all likelihood¹⁵, I'll survive.

Update (5-Aug-2022): I survived. While in France, I contracted what was likely BA.4 or BA.5 at a large family gathering. I was down for a few days in bed and another couple of days of extreme tiredness, but I had what I'll call mild symptoms. Certainly milder than some of the flu episodes I've experienced. I executed my plan, including 3 days of Ivermectin (30mg/day), as detailed below.

After recovery, research indicates that I will have excellent immunity to future infection from SARS-CoV-2³², perhaps even better than that conferred by any vaccine.

I'll irrigate my sinuses with a nasal spray, perhaps with a povidone-iodine additive.³⁴ I will also start a regiment of low-dose Aspirin.³⁵

I also plan to obtain a prescription for Ivermectin¹⁶ and take it as directed by a physician for off-label use.

Update: Strong evidence exists for the use of this life-saving drug. As Dr. John Campbell states, the suppression of Ivermectin as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 will be "one of the huge scandals of this pandemic."³⁸

Ivermectin, like Amoxicillin and many other drugs, are used in both human and animal settings. To quote Wikipedia: "In humans, this includes head lice, scabies, river blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis, and lymphatic filariasis."

If you read the FDA article²¹ closely, you'll see that they're subtly mis-leading you: They're talking about going to the local feed store to get animal-sized doses of Ivermectin, not the appropriate 0.2mg/kg (or, in another study, 0.6mg/kg) human dose²². "The dose makes the poison", as the man said (Paracelsus). Acetaminophen, commonly known as Tylenol, has a narrower theraputic index (2:1) than Ivermectin (> 10:1)^28,29. Tylenol is responsible for many deaths and liver transplants per year²⁹, but it is still widely used -- and the sole OTC pain reliever deemed safe for use during pregnancy.

As to the FDA's statement "Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses).", they should really say "is not yet recognized as an anti-viral". Recent studies do show anti-viral activity²³, but this needs to be validated by additional research.³⁷

Ivermectin has an excellent safety profile¹⁷. It has been in medical use for over 40 years, and is widely available as a generic formulation.

The FDA could not benefit³⁰ by backing this cheap and safe potential treatment.

Television news isn't news; it's entertainment. They want to keep you engaged so that their sponsors, the advertisers, can peddle their wares in front of your eyeballs during the commercial breaks. It is in the TV station's best interests to present a few facts and a lot of opinion, the latter designed to stir your emotions up.

Food for thought: Big Pharma doesn't make money on generic drugs.³⁶

How many commercials did you see during the break which tout the best new drug to treat condition "X"?

Vaccines are made by drug companies.

Need me to draw you a picture?

Of course, they are completely ethical ..³⁹

I don't think you understand the scientific method¹⁹. Disagreement and skepticism are the hallmarks of scientific progress.

There is no one "authority" on any scientific subject. There may be a preponderance of evidence, collected during experiments designed to validate a hypothesis and create a theory, but there will always be the possibility that another scientist may disprove the theory.

No.

"But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night."²⁴

All joking aside; I hold a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Engineering and am currently pursing a Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering (Comm. Systems). Separating signal from noise, using statistical methods, is my training.

I consider myself to be logical and try to consider all viewpoints on an issue, even if that causes occasional cognative dissonance.

You're welcome to your opinion, but don't expect me to agree -- or waste time arguing with you.

Logical, well-elaborated arguments supporting or to the contrary of any views expressed on this page are welcome. Incoherent ranting will likely be deleted without further thought or response.