7 ms·

This is great and all, and I'm not against vaccinations, but is this safe long term? Am I the only one here who doesn't want to get inoculated in basically the

This is great and all, and I'm not against vaccinations, but is this safe long term? Am I the only one here who doesn't want to get inoculated in basically the first batch?

TulliusCicero 6y ago
Have there historically been issues with vaccines causing problems for the long term that didn't show initially? I've never heard of such a thing, but then again I have only a surface understanding of vaccines.
- charlesdm 6y ago
  I have no idea, that's why I am asking. I'm hoping someone could clarify with decent knowledge on the matter. I vaguely remember this story (from years ago) about a drug or vaccine during the 70s, where apparently everything was fine but then kids (or kids of kids, can't remember) ended up with birth defects.
  - _Microft 6y ago
    You might be thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal The name of the drug was "Contergan" in german which german-speaking readers might recognize more easily.
    - abainbridge 6y ago
      Or Primodos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primodos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primodos). Or Sodium Valproate (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39657139 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39657139). These cases really undermine my confidence in the system.
      - _Microft 6y ago
        Be aware of availability bias here. If a medication did not make it into the news because of problems, we are a lot less likely to have ever heard of it.
        abainbridge 6y ago
        Agreed. But in the case of Primodos, there were cover-ups with government involvement for decades. The end result was that Matt Hancock apologized. That was it. No holding to account. No fixing the system so it wouldn't happen again. That's what undermines my confidence in the system.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    That's Thalidomide which wasn't a vaccine. A more relevant example is Pandemrix, a flu vaccine launched in the EU in 2009. A year later it was discovered that it seems to increase the risk of narcolepsy in teenagers sixfold. The vaccine was produced and licensed in an expedited fashion because of a "pandemic" (of swine flu), which used a then-new and slightly experimental technique (adjuvants) which interestingly, German doctors flagged up as a risk and suggested the German government use a different H1N1 vaccine that was less experimental.
- bluGill 6y ago
  There have been a few cases. However we think we understand why they happened and so it won't. Anything is possible. If you are a doctor/nurse working in a covid ward we know for sure that the risk whatever happens long term is a lot less than the risk of getting covid. For someone like me who has no reason to go anywhere (I'm not even allowed in the office until this pandemic passes) I can afford to wait until there is more data - and I also have to because I'm low on the list of those who will be vaccinated because I'm relatively low risk of getting it.
- adamjb 6y ago
  The 1976 Swine Flu outbreak and subsequent bungled vaccination campaign comes to mind
  - aphextron 6y ago
    >The 1976 Swine Flu outbreak and subsequent bungled vaccination campaign comes to mind Given that viral genome sequencing didn't even exist in 1976, I don't think it's a meaningful comparison.
- howlgarnish 6y ago
  Pandemrix causing narcolepsy comes to mind: https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/influenza/pandemic/h1n1_safety_assessing/narcolepsy_statement/en/ https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/influenz...
dbancajas 6y ago
Risk of COVID19 long term effects is far worse than mRNA side effects IMO.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  We do not know yet.
  - aphextron 6y ago
    >We do not know yet. Sure we do. mRNA vaccines have been under development for over a decade now. And while none have been approved for human use yet, it's not for lack of safety data. There have been zero serious adverse events reported in the Moderna or Pfizer phase 1, 2, and 3 trials. The only side effects are mild fatigue, headache, and soreness that you would associate with an immune response. Furthermore there is no possible way that the vaccine can even cause long term effects; the mRNA breaks down naturally in the body almost immediately. Any side effects will be immediately present and related to acute immune response. Worrying about some vague long term "what if" problems that have no mechanism for action is just non-scientific magical thinking.
    - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
      This is not how drug approval works. This will be distributed on a planetary scale. Even 0.001% of side effects can be a big issue at these scales. history actually has lots of evidence of "unquestionably safe" drugs, causing lots of pain eventually - read about Thalidomide, Aspirin and Reye syndrom etc. There is also chance of ADE, a very complex unpredictable phenomenon, which was present with the original SARS vaccines.
      - aphextron 6y ago
        >There is also chance of ADE, a very complex unpredictable phenomenon, which was present with the original SARS vaccines. Again, apples and oranges. This is a completely different class of drugs compared to SARS vaccines from a decade ago. Those were based on live viruses, which the mRNA vaccines are not.
317070 6y ago
> but is this safe long term Is getting COVID safe long term? There are plenty of viruses that cause issues in the long term. HIV causes AIDS, HPV and Hepatitis cause cancers years later. We have no clue on the long term effects of SARS-Cov-2, other than that it causes COVID-19 in the short term. It's a choice between the pest and the cholera at this point.
- lm28469 6y ago
  > Is getting COVID safe long term? For most people yes edit: so the whole world is studying this virus 24/7 for almost a year and nobody detected anything, yet you think it might give us aids v2 ? Feel free to link any study that hints to anything remotely going in that direction because I couldn't find anything at all.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    We cannot be sure. Like, we have no idea.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      It's amazing how people have consistently acted throughout 2020 as if coronaviruses are entirely new, never seen before and everything known about the immune system or viruses has to be thrown out. People have been getting infected with coronaviruses of various kinds for millennia. Nobody has ever linked a low severity cold-like infection with long term severe consequences, and given the sort of longitudinal study that would be required to establish such a link, any such claims would need to be treated very carefully.
      - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        It is amazing how wannabe public health experts, with zero expertise in virology, are failing to understand that difference just in handful of nucleotides may make the pathogen a completely different beast compared to its nearest relative. And we are not even talking about the nearest relatives, common cold coronaviruses diverged like many thousands years ago from the SARS1 and similar viruses. Nonetheless, the original SARS-1 (which is way closer to SARS-2 than say OC43), is known to be causing long term, debilitating health complication among significant number of survivors.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mancerayder 6y ago
A tricky odds calculation. It's kind of annoying to have to be fearful on public transport, having to avoid infecting older family members and therefore not seeing them, and much else. Then there's the risk to yourself with COVID, which varies based on your lifestyle, age, and good/bad genes. Clearly some percentage of the population die, and a bigger have long-term very unpleasant effects. On the other hand, the vaccine can be discovered, 12 months from now, to cause an autoimmune reaction in some people and their immune systems attack their joints or something. I think this pandemic teaches us all one thing - almost the entire world of understanding can be boiled down to probability.
foolfoolz 6y ago
the people in the trial are the first batch. these vaccines are following all the standards we have set for vaccines just at an accelerated pace and with accelerated funding. i know a lot of people who are hesitant about this shot, but it does sound antivax to say you aren’t sure it’s safe id get this today if i could
- charlesdm 6y ago
  I'm definitely not antivax. I've gotten pretty much every common vaccination. In my view there is a difference between antivax and a new drug or vaccine that has not been widely tested.
- FooHentai 6y ago
  That 'just' is where the valid concern lies. Nine women cannot make a baby in one month, and one important reason vaccine trials take the time that they do is to observe for side effects within the test population. You can't give ten people a shot, watch them for a month, and draw conclusions on the effects that will show up in an individual in ten months time. There is no shortcut for that, and there is an obviously huge pressure to cut corners. It's fair to be concerned, not anti-Vax.

This is great and all, and I'm not against vaccinations, but is this safe long term? Am I the only one here who doesn't want to get inoculated in basically the first batch?

TulliusCicero 6y ago

Have there historically been issues with vaccines causing problems for the long term that didn't show initially? I've never heard of such a thing, but then again I have only a surface understanding of vaccines.

charlesdm 6y ago
I have no idea, that's why I am asking. I'm hoping someone could clarify with decent knowledge on the matter. I vaguely remember this story (from years ago) about a drug or vaccine during the 70s, where apparently everything was fine but then kids (or kids of kids, can't remember) ended up with birth defects.
- _Microft 6y ago
  You might be thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal The name of the drug was "Contergan" in german which german-speaking readers might recognize more easily.
  - abainbridge 6y ago
    Or Primodos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primodos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primodos). Or Sodium Valproate (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39657139 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39657139). These cases really undermine my confidence in the system.
    - _Microft 6y ago
      Be aware of availability bias here. If a medication did not make it into the news because of problems, we are a lot less likely to have ever heard of it.
      - abainbridge 6y ago
        Agreed. But in the case of Primodos, there were cover-ups with government involvement for decades. The end result was that Matt Hancock apologized. That was it. No holding to account. No fixing the system so it wouldn't happen again. That's what undermines my confidence in the system.
- thu2111 6y ago
  That's Thalidomide which wasn't a vaccine. A more relevant example is Pandemrix, a flu vaccine launched in the EU in 2009. A year later it was discovered that it seems to increase the risk of narcolepsy in teenagers sixfold. The vaccine was produced and licensed in an expedited fashion because of a "pandemic" (of swine flu), which used a then-new and slightly experimental technique (adjuvants) which interestingly, German doctors flagged up as a risk and suggested the German government use a different H1N1 vaccine that was less experimental.
bluGill 6y ago
There have been a few cases. However we think we understand why they happened and so it won't. Anything is possible. If you are a doctor/nurse working in a covid ward we know for sure that the risk whatever happens long term is a lot less than the risk of getting covid. For someone like me who has no reason to go anywhere (I'm not even allowed in the office until this pandemic passes) I can afford to wait until there is more data - and I also have to because I'm low on the list of those who will be vaccinated because I'm relatively low risk of getting it.
adamjb 6y ago
The 1976 Swine Flu outbreak and subsequent bungled vaccination campaign comes to mind
- aphextron 6y ago
  >The 1976 Swine Flu outbreak and subsequent bungled vaccination campaign comes to mind Given that viral genome sequencing didn't even exist in 1976, I don't think it's a meaningful comparison.
howlgarnish 6y ago
Pandemrix causing narcolepsy comes to mind: https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/influenza/pandemic/h1n1_safety_assessing/narcolepsy_statement/en/ https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/influenz...

dbancajas 6y ago

Risk of COVID19 long term effects is far worse than mRNA side effects IMO.

SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
We do not know yet.
- aphextron 6y ago
  >We do not know yet. Sure we do. mRNA vaccines have been under development for over a decade now. And while none have been approved for human use yet, it's not for lack of safety data. There have been zero serious adverse events reported in the Moderna or Pfizer phase 1, 2, and 3 trials. The only side effects are mild fatigue, headache, and soreness that you would associate with an immune response. Furthermore there is no possible way that the vaccine can even cause long term effects; the mRNA breaks down naturally in the body almost immediately. Any side effects will be immediately present and related to acute immune response. Worrying about some vague long term "what if" problems that have no mechanism for action is just non-scientific magical thinking.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    This is not how drug approval works. This will be distributed on a planetary scale. Even 0.001% of side effects can be a big issue at these scales. history actually has lots of evidence of "unquestionably safe" drugs, causing lots of pain eventually - read about Thalidomide, Aspirin and Reye syndrom etc. There is also chance of ADE, a very complex unpredictable phenomenon, which was present with the original SARS vaccines.
    - aphextron 6y ago
      >There is also chance of ADE, a very complex unpredictable phenomenon, which was present with the original SARS vaccines. Again, apples and oranges. This is a completely different class of drugs compared to SARS vaccines from a decade ago. Those were based on live viruses, which the mRNA vaccines are not.

317070 6y ago

> but is this safe long term Is getting COVID safe long term? There are plenty of viruses that cause issues in the long term. HIV causes AIDS, HPV and Hepatitis cause cancers years later. We have no clue on the long term effects of SARS-Cov-2, other than that it causes COVID-19 in the short term. It's a choice between the pest and the cholera at this point.

lm28469 6y ago
> Is getting COVID safe long term? For most people yes edit: so the whole world is studying this virus 24/7 for almost a year and nobody detected anything, yet you think it might give us aids v2 ? Feel free to link any study that hints to anything remotely going in that direction because I couldn't find anything at all.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  We cannot be sure. Like, we have no idea.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    It's amazing how people have consistently acted throughout 2020 as if coronaviruses are entirely new, never seen before and everything known about the immune system or viruses has to be thrown out. People have been getting infected with coronaviruses of various kinds for millennia. Nobody has ever linked a low severity cold-like infection with long term severe consequences, and given the sort of longitudinal study that would be required to establish such a link, any such claims would need to be treated very carefully.
    - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
      It is amazing how wannabe public health experts, with zero expertise in virology, are failing to understand that difference just in handful of nucleotides may make the pathogen a completely different beast compared to its nearest relative. And we are not even talking about the nearest relatives, common cold coronaviruses diverged like many thousands years ago from the SARS1 and similar viruses. Nonetheless, the original SARS-1 (which is way closer to SARS-2 than say OC43), is known to be causing long term, debilitating health complication among significant number of survivors.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mancerayder 6y ago

A tricky odds calculation. It's kind of annoying to have to be fearful on public transport, having to avoid infecting older family members and therefore not seeing them, and much else. Then there's the risk to yourself with COVID, which varies based on your lifestyle, age, and good/bad genes. Clearly some percentage of the population die, and a bigger have long-term very unpleasant effects. On the other hand, the vaccine can be discovered, 12 months from now, to cause an autoimmune reaction in some people and their immune systems attack their joints or something. I think this pandemic teaches us all one thing - almost the entire world of understanding can be boiled down to probability.

foolfoolz 6y ago

the people in the trial are the first batch. these vaccines are following all the standards we have set for vaccines just at an accelerated pace and with accelerated funding. i know a lot of people who are hesitant about this shot, but it does sound antivax to say you aren’t sure it’s safe id get this today if i could

charlesdm 6y ago
I'm definitely not antivax. I've gotten pretty much every common vaccination. In my view there is a difference between antivax and a new drug or vaccine that has not been widely tested.
FooHentai 6y ago
That 'just' is where the valid concern lies. Nine women cannot make a baby in one month, and one important reason vaccine trials take the time that they do is to observe for side effects within the test population. You can't give ten people a shot, watch them for a month, and draw conclusions on the effects that will show up in an individual in ten months time. There is no shortcut for that, and there is an obviously huge pressure to cut corners. It's fair to be concerned, not anti-Vax.