6 ms·

what's wrong with the other 3/4? Unless I was at major risk from Covid, I'd never do it unless it was tested for many years. No, I'm not anti-vaccine

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dan_can_code 6y ago
I am in the same boat. For some reason I feel anxious about getting vaccinated for COVID knowing the development of the vaccine has likely taken short cuts to get to people. I am also not anti-vaccine.
credit_guy 6y ago
I personally perceive vaccination as a moral duty. For many vaccines nowadays (polio, chickenpox, diphtheria, rubella,etc), the chance to get the disease is lower than the chance to have a severe allergic reaction. For example, according to the CDC, the US has been polio free starting in 1979, but the chance of a severe allergic reaction to the polio vaccine is about 1 in 1 million. Why would you take a 10^(-6) risk to counter a zero risk? Because if you don't, and nobody else does, we lose the herd immunity and polio makes a comeback, and we are all worse off. Classic prisoner dilemma. Nature's way of solving prisoner's dilemma is morality. If something feels immoral to you, it's an underlying evolutionary solution to a prisoner's dilemma problem. So here we are. I will personally take the Covid19 vaccine when it becomes available, knowing that I trade a smaller risk for a larger one, but also knowing that if everyone does the same we are all better off.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  Just commenting so people scanning don't miss the logical error. You're comparing established vaccines with an untested one, so your argument doesn't make any sense. > Why would you take a 10^(-6) risk to counter a zero risk? Nobody knows the risk of a new vaccine in advance. We're more likely to reach herd immunity before a vaccine is approved, sooner the better.
  - credit_guy 6y ago
    > with an untested one Not sure where you got the idea that the Covid19 vaccines will not be tested. On the contrary, they will be the most tested and scrutinized vaccines in history. Even now you can find countless articles/blog posts explaining every little detail of the progress of the testing so far. In a few months there will be even more. Then the FDA will give the Emergency Use Authorization, and millions of people will be vaccinated under that. By the time the FDA provides the actual approval, there will hundreds of times more testing data than for other vaccines. There will be enough data to have statistical power to identify side effects with a prevalence rate of 1 in 100k or 1 in 1 million. >We're more likely to reach herd immunity before a vaccine is approved, sooner the better. That's possible. That doesn't mean we won't need a vaccine. Herd immunity diminishes in time, and then you have new bouts of the disease. This virus will not simply go away. The only way for it to be wiped out, like the smallpox virus was, is to have a very determined vaccination campaign.
    - throwaway92848 6y ago
      Tests take time. You don’t know what side effects may present themselves one year, two years, five years down the line until you’ve monitored the vaccine for one, two, five years. This is one reason vaccines take a long time to test and is why people familiar with vaccines are hesitant to inject themselves with something that hasn’t been tested over a normal period.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      credit_guy: you're either a shill, or overly trusting. There have been several medications in US history that turned out very badly, like thalidomide. And Emergency Use Authorization implies less testing, not more. > The only way for it to be wiped out, like the smallpox virus was, is to have a very determined vaccination campaign. I disagree. Around 5% of the population has had corona and survived. They seem to be doing fine. Sounds like you're one of those guys who believes everything you read, and thinks hope is a strategy, and a short-term one at that. That's the second epidemic - hope is not a strategy.
      - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dan_can_code 6y ago

I am in the same boat. For some reason I feel anxious about getting vaccinated for COVID knowing the development of the vaccine has likely taken short cuts to get to people. I am also not anti-vaccine.

credit_guy 6y ago

I personally perceive vaccination as a moral duty. For many vaccines nowadays (polio, chickenpox, diphtheria, rubella,etc), the chance to get the disease is lower than the chance to have a severe allergic reaction. For example, according to the CDC, the US has been polio free starting in 1979, but the chance of a severe allergic reaction to the polio vaccine is about 1 in 1 million. Why would you take a 10^(-6) risk to counter a zero risk? Because if you don't, and nobody else does, we lose the herd immunity and polio makes a comeback, and we are all worse off. Classic prisoner dilemma. Nature's way of solving prisoner's dilemma is morality. If something feels immoral to you, it's an underlying evolutionary solution to a prisoner's dilemma problem. So here we are. I will personally take the Covid19 vaccine when it becomes available, knowing that I trade a smaller risk for a larger one, but also knowing that if everyone does the same we are all better off.

redis_mlc 6y ago
Just commenting so people scanning don't miss the logical error. You're comparing established vaccines with an untested one, so your argument doesn't make any sense. > Why would you take a 10^(-6) risk to counter a zero risk? Nobody knows the risk of a new vaccine in advance. We're more likely to reach herd immunity before a vaccine is approved, sooner the better.
- credit_guy 6y ago
  > with an untested one Not sure where you got the idea that the Covid19 vaccines will not be tested. On the contrary, they will be the most tested and scrutinized vaccines in history. Even now you can find countless articles/blog posts explaining every little detail of the progress of the testing so far. In a few months there will be even more. Then the FDA will give the Emergency Use Authorization, and millions of people will be vaccinated under that. By the time the FDA provides the actual approval, there will hundreds of times more testing data than for other vaccines. There will be enough data to have statistical power to identify side effects with a prevalence rate of 1 in 100k or 1 in 1 million. >We're more likely to reach herd immunity before a vaccine is approved, sooner the better. That's possible. That doesn't mean we won't need a vaccine. Herd immunity diminishes in time, and then you have new bouts of the disease. This virus will not simply go away. The only way for it to be wiped out, like the smallpox virus was, is to have a very determined vaccination campaign.
  - throwaway92848 6y ago
    Tests take time. You don’t know what side effects may present themselves one year, two years, five years down the line until you’ve monitored the vaccine for one, two, five years. This is one reason vaccines take a long time to test and is why people familiar with vaccines are hesitant to inject themselves with something that hasn’t been tested over a normal period.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    credit_guy: you're either a shill, or overly trusting. There have been several medications in US history that turned out very badly, like thalidomide. And Emergency Use Authorization implies less testing, not more. > The only way for it to be wiped out, like the smallpox virus was, is to have a very determined vaccination campaign. I disagree. Around 5% of the population has had corona and survived. They seem to be doing fine. Sounds like you're one of those guys who believes everything you read, and thinks hope is a strategy, and a short-term one at that. That's the second epidemic - hope is not a strategy.
    - 6y ago