It's most likely nothing serious, but if those symptoms are not listed as usual side-effects, you probably should seek medical advice. Take care.

r
It's most likely nothing serious, — Janus

Just for your knowledge, what he's describing are the symptoms of a heart attack. If you get those, go to the emergency dept. of your local hospital.

I believe @baker is a woman. I had Astra Zeneca yesterday and I feel my skin is sensitive and muscles aching. These are listed as common side effects. If Baker got her shot in the left arm that could explain the slight numbness, I'm not sure what "hot flashes" are, and I don't think palpitations are that uncommon; they can be brought on by anxiety for example. But you have more medical experience than I. and I agree with you that it's best to err on the side of caution.

Status?

I vote if you have certain symptoms, go to the hospital. That's how it works. Symptoms? Go! Sometimes your body is the boss and you're allowed no discretion whatsoever in the matter.

I don't think palpitations are that uncommon — Janus

Palpitations along with left arm numbness could be runs of ventricular tachycardia, a sign that the heart muscle is lacking oxygen.

Women tend to have odd symptoms.

My point to you was that since you didn't realize she was describing heart attack symptoms, you might want to read up on it. In America, you can easily avoid death or permanent heart damage by getting to a cardiac cath lab in a timely manner.

Good advice; thanks Frank.

What are you on about? I don't think you have a right to do whatever you want. Talk about straw man. But you are not violating another's rights if all you are doing is deciding to expose yourself to a risk. You are not violating another's rights if you go skydiving, are you? Or if you decide to eat unhealthily.

But you are not violating another's rights if all you are doing is deciding to expose yourself to a risk. — Bartricks

But, that's not all you're doing. But if this is the best you can do as argument, I've kind of learned not to waste my time on stupid. You have anything of substance to add, I'll read. Or if not, grow up!

Ooo, good reply! Calling me stupid - excellent! Are you 6? What are you going to do for a follow up - make a fart noise with your mouth? Run to teacher?

Do try and show your reasoning. The vaccine protects against the virus. So, the unvaccinated are exposing only themselves and others who have made the same choice to a risk.

Now, do what others do and desperately scrabble around trying to find some hugely remote risk and decide that it is on that basis that you think it is ok to violate people's rights. Then realize that this would justify quarantining people for the common cold; then realize this would mean forcing everyone to take Prep so that we don't catch HIV from one another. And so on. Realize, in other words, that you have a childishly ignorant view, wholly unnuanced and uninformed by any understanding of rights and how they work.

Answer my questions, Xtrix - what about sex? Should everyone be made to wear condoms if having sex? I mean, you can catch things from it. Should everyone be made to take Prep?

Ethics: it's what I am an expert in and you're not. Now, experts in subjects other than ethics will typically only be able to tell you about the consequences of things. So that's all they do. The economic consequences; the medical consequences; the psychological consequences and so forth. That's what their expertise gives them authority to pronounce on. And that's fine - but it isn't ethics and when they make a normative judgement - a judgement about what we ought to do - they're stepping outside their area of expertise.

If you knew anything at all about ethics, you'd know that ethics is not all about securing optimal consequences (even after one has figured out what those may be). It is about respecting people's rights in the process. That's why if the only way to stop covid was to torture a child, it'd be wrong to do that. It's why it is wrong to shove a fat person off a bridge onto some tracks below in order to stop a runaway train trolley from running over five innocents further down the line. People have rights and those rights put restrictions on what you can do to other people to further your own - and their - ends.

Now, those who take the vaccine are free to do so. Nobody is arguing that people should be prevented from taking the vaccine. But people should also be free not to take the vaccine if they do not wish to. Yes, it's dumb. But people are free to be dumb (see, I'm on your side - you just don't realize it). They're not exposing others to a risk apart from those who have themselves made the same choice.

And if you don't want to work with unvaccinated people for whatever irrational reason, that's your right - stay home. Resign. Lose your job. Up to you.

And if you run a business and don't want unvaccinated people working for you, sack them. That's your right too - it's your business, not theirs and they're not entitled to their job.

But what you're not entitled to do is say to another business owner "sack your unvaccinated employees".
Stay in your lane. Other people matter and other people have their own lives to lead. Let them lead them in the way they see fit. They way 'they' see fit - not you. You're not them. It's a very simple idea - an idea J.S.Mill (someone you think was a great intellectual, despite obviously never having read him) championed. Read J.S.Mill's On Liberty. And stay out of other people's lives until or unless the way they're living them threatens your rights.

The vaccine protects against the virus. So, the unvaccinated are exposing only themselves and others who have made the same choice to a risk. — Bartricks

No— this seems right, but is completely wrong. Which you would know if you deigned to read what doctors and the CDC say about this. Completely open to everyone to learn— simple google search would do.

You’re not only risking your own life. The protection rate for vaccines is 90+ %, which is very good, but still people can get it. That’s one fact.

More importantly, there are other people who are unvaccinated (like children, and those who can’t get vaccinated for reasons beyond refusal) who will be impacted.

There is also the fact of overwhelming hospital ICUs, which is happening in Idaho and across the south— which has wide ranging effects on heath care personnel as well as people with other health concerns.

Less people get vaccinated, less chance of reaching herd immunity.

Lastly, there’s the greater possibility of mutation as the virus continues to spread— mutations which will effect everyone, as the delta variant is — only with the possibility of being vaccine resistant.

There are thousands of deaths every week. This effects everyone. We have a vaccine which can stop it, as every major medical organization has stated and is why they are pushing for people to receive them.

There’s simply no excuse anymore, and no time to keep debating with people who don’t want to change their minds anyway. Hence the mandates, which are not only legitimate but overdue.

Answer my questions, Xtrix - what about sex? Should everyone be made to wear condoms if having sex? I mean, you can catch things from it. Should everyone be made to take Prep? — Bartricks

It’s hard to believe you can call yourself an “expert” in anything, with such embarrassing questions like this.

Safe sex has been encouraged for decades. Besides instances of rape, sex is a choice undertaken by individuals— with known risks of AIDS, STDs, and pregnancy.

COVID can be caught through the air, so the more appropriate analogy is to smoking. If COVID could be caught through sexual contact, the story would be different. That’s not the reality. COVID effects the entire community.

Ethics: it's what I am an expert in and you're not. — Bartricks

This is laughable. In my experience, anyone who has to go on about what experts they are, or their credentials, rather than letting their arguments speak for themselves, are usually just betraying their insecurities. In your case it’s so transparent its cringe-inducing. I’m glad this is the internet, for your sake.

If you knew anything at all about ethics, you'd know that ethics is not all about securing optimal consequences (even after one has figured out what those may be). It is about respecting people's rights in the process. That's why if the only way to stop covid was to torture a child, it'd be wrong to do that. — Bartricks

You have a shallow understanding of ethics. Why? Because ethics is a branch of philosophy, and of which there are many perspectives. To simply declare that the field of ethics isn’t “all about” consequences is saying almost nothing whatever. Neither I, nor anyone else so far, has stated that we’re concerned only with consequences.

Secondly, the tired example of sacrificing a child for the sake of saving many other lives— which is something out of any undergraduate philosophy course — is irrelevant here. Why? Because we’re talking about the real world. You want to ignore the real world so you can go on about thought experiments, but that’s simply a deflection.

The reason medical authorities, medical ethicists, and most of the country agree with mandates is because they understand something that you, with your self-proclaimed “expertise,” can’t seem to — which is why you come to ridiculous conclusions: vaccines are safe, they’re effective, they help stop the spread, and they will get us out of this pandemic. With those facts as a basis, the rest becomes fairly easy to determine.

I’ve quoted an actual medical ethicist on this topic. I can quote others. I take them seriously— in contrast, I think you’re a joke. You’d do well to listen to them.

People have rights and those rights put restrictions on what you can do to other people to further your own - and their - ends. — Bartricks

Brilliant insight.

Now, those who take the vaccine are free to do so. Nobody is arguing that people should be prevented from taking the vaccine. But people should also be free not to take the vaccine if they do not wish to. Yes, it's dumb. But people are free to be dumb (see, I'm on your side - you just don't realize it). — Bartricks

They are free to be dumb to themselves. Smokers are dumb. When you smoke next to me, it’s not longer about you being dumb to your own body, but mine as well. You simply refuse to understand this, despite it being raised over and over again…for example:

They're not exposing others to a risk apart from those who have themselves made the same choice. — Bartricks

This is completely wrong, as my other response shows, and also fails to consider other effects of these choices.

If people want to refuse the vaccine and isolate themselves from others— I have no issue with that. If people want to smoke in their homes, or never wash their hands when they make a meal (at home), that’s their choice. But we live in a society — these choices effect others, whether you refuse to see this or not.

Kind of odd you don’t, for someone who pretends to care about “ethics.”

And the mark I give that reply is "E" (that's a fail).

@Bartricks
JS Mill's harm and offense principle might help here. In favor of @Xtrix due to the nature of harm being considered in this thread.

Explain.

Evidently, meeting SARS-CoV-2 armed, i.e. vaccinated, beats meeting the virus unarmed. (y)
The unarmed has a higher chance of becoming a virus replication/propagation/mutation factory affecting others. ☣
And higher risk of getting sick (up to and including death). :death:
Anyway, it seems there are some emerging efforts to find vaccine exemptions, whatever may come of that.

The Harm Principle -- others can restrict your rights to certain things or activities if those things and activities can physically harm them. Second-hand smoking inside a room with other people, for example, is one of those offenses. It's called negative rights -- one's freedom can be ethically restricted to prevent harm to others. For example covid infection.

That's not an explanation. First, Mill's harm principle outlines a 'necessary' not 'sufficient' ground for restricting the liberty of others. Second, the whole point is that the unvaccinated are not a risk to the vaccinated. They are posing a risk to themselves, not others.

Imagine Tim wants to hit Jones in the face, and Jones wants Tim to hit him in the face. Would Mill think we could intervene?

@Bartricks note that JS Mill does not condone stretching the Harm Principle to ridiculousness or absurdity. It's called the Common Sense principle. We trust that people who use the Harm Principle are those who also posses common sense.

What's your point?

I see. Maybe you're one of those with no common sense.

No, I have gobs of it.

Once more: what risk are the unvaccinated posing to the vaccinated?

I am now vaccinated (today, in fact!). Why should I give a damn whether you are?

Once more: what risk are the unvaccinated posing to the vaccinated? — Bartricks

I did not actually cite that particular issue here -- the unvaccinated. After all, using the HP means employing it on a case by case basis. Slowly now -- it means, if it's about smoking, smoking is an activity that harms, then we go on and explain what the harm is, citing scientific studies. etc. Now when it comes to covid, I meant people who are careless, not wearing masks, or not washing hands, those sort of eeek things.

Can you actually address something I've said?

If Tim wants to thump Jones and Jones wants Tim to thump him, what business is it of yours? Whose rights are they violating? Yours?

Now, baby steps......if two people want to remain unvaccinated then they....are....posing.....a.....risk....to.....each....other. Of their own free will. So butt out and let them pose that risk to each other if that's what they want to do! It's nothing to do with you. Lead your life how you want - let them lead theirs how they want. Sheesh. You busy-bodies really annoy me. Covid has put so much wind in your bossy sails hasn't it?

They are posing a risk to themselves, not others. — Bartricks

Imagine being such an imbecile that you keep repeating this nonsense. :lol:

Maybe you're one of those with no common sense. — Caldwell

No ethical sense, either.

Apparently been beaten out by years of scholarly study.

Again, no need to cry. Now, explain how I'm wrong. Do that without making recourse to sick little tiny Tim.

Remember Xtrix, I'm in favour of allowing dumb people to live the dumb lives they want to live. I'm on your side, Xtrix.

Once more: what risk are the unvaccinated posing to the vaccinated? — Bartricks

See above. Has been explained several times now.

My advice to others here: it’s about time to ignore this imbecile.

No it hasn't. Explain.

Now, explain how I'm wrong. — Bartricks

I have. So have many others here. I won’t be doing it again. You can re-read. That’s all you deserve, and it’s generous at that.

Better advice: learn something about ethics. Perhaps start by reading those who know what they’re talking about (i.e., can understand basic medical facts).