Why I’ll be getting a COVID-19 vaccine
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the American Nuclear Society.
I should state up front that I am not an expert in matters of dealing with communicable diseases, although like most of us, I am much more knowledgeable in the area than I was a year ago.
In COVID-19, the world is dealing with a disease that has killed more than a quarter-million Americans in less than a year and, when all is said and done, will have led to the deaths of millions worldwide. Beyond the immediate fatalities, there are the aftereffects on the health of survivors and immensely adverse economic, psychological, and social impacts on the human race. It doesn’t even stop there—other species on our planet are similarly impacted. It’s not quite Stephen King’s The Stand or a zombie apocalypse, but “it could be worse” is cold comfort when you look at the reality of the situation. Like everyone, I have experienced indirectly the effects of COVID-19. I have lost friends and colleagues to the disease, but fortunately, so far, no close family members.
Have you heard frustration on the part of members of the nuclear professional community when policymakers and members of the general public seem to ignore our voices on matters related to nuclear policy? I hear this all the time. Does it bother you when people advocate shutting down perfectly good nuclear power plants like Indian Point and Diablo Canyon while at the same time calling for extraordinary measures to minimize greenhouse gas emissions? How about opposing nuclear-related projects because of potential radiation exposures that are small fractions of natural background radiation? Shying away from proven and needed diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures that involve ionizing radiation? Raising alarms about the risk of transporting nuclear materials when the data clearly show it is one of the safest industrial endeavors known to mankind? Wouldn’t it be a better world if people made decisions based on real risks rather than on fearmongering and hyperbole?
If we want others to listen to us on matters of nuclear policy because we have studied these matters and have valuable facts and insights to share, we must give similar weight to the voices of technical experts in other fields. Notwithstanding unsubstantiated concerns raised by anti-vaxxers, the general efficacy of vaccinations in combatting communicable diseases is undeniable. Through vaccines we have eradicated smallpox and, on most continents, polio. Other diseases are much less prevalent and harmful as a result of vaccinations.
COVID-19 vaccines have been developed at unprecedented speed, thanks to a huge investment of public and private resources and the ingenuity and dedication of researchers and technology professionals worldwide. The vaccines are undergoing extensive testing and regulatory scrutiny prior to approval for general use. Beyond the protection these vaccines will provide to individuals, immunizing large fractions of the population is the only viable near-term way to turn the corner on COVID-19.
Whether or not to get a COVID-19 vaccine is a matter of individual choice in our country. You can bet I will be getting a vaccine when my turn in line comes up. I am encouraging others, and particularly my colleagues in the nuclear professional community, to base their decisions about vaccination on real data, real risks, and the consensus opinion of experts in the medical and public health professions.
Steven P. Nesbit is the vice president/president-elect of the American Nuclear Society.
