3 ms·

Thanks. I only hovered over mRNA on a wikipedia page[0] and saw the word "fragment", so I knew it wasn't live or attenuated viruses, but didn't realize how nove

Thanks. I only hovered over mRNA on a wikipedia page[0] and saw the word "fragment", so I knew it wasn't live or attenuated viruses, but didn't realize how novel this vaccine type is. That said, I'd still rush out and get it. I'm more concerned about the unknowns of Long Covid than I am about the unknowns of the vaccine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Covid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Covid [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine#Clinical_trials_started_in_2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine#Clinical_tria...

zaroth 6y ago
When the first sentence of a Wikipedia article has a large ”Citation Needed” flag, it’s a good indication you should probably stop reading. Medical science is really hard and often unintuitive. There was a great study that came out last week about statins and the nocebo effect [1] which I think is a great example of how hard it is to get good data on clinical symptoms. But this is exactly the calculus that people will try to perform based on their own perspective on the relative risks. There’s certainly plenty of unknowns and cause for uncertainty. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54951648 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54951648
timr 6y ago
"I'm more concerned about the unknowns of Long Covid than I am about the unknowns of the vaccine." Unless you are in a high-risk group, this should not be a serious concern. There is almost no evidence for "long covid". The vast majority of the evidence is anecdotal, self-reported clusters of symptoms that resemble other common illnesses: https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/11/17/what-is-long-covid/ https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/11/17/what-is-long-covid... When you look for higher-quality evidence for the syndrome, you find studies like this one, from the CDC, which defined "long-term" as "symptoms lasting longer than two weeks", where "symptoms" mostly resemble the aftermath of any mild respiratory illness -- fatigue, cough and headache were the most common: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm As for more specific studies, there have been a few papers about heart inflammation that have been widely circulated, but nearly all of these have been shown to have serious statistical flaws: https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfDFrancis/status/1298514453642739712 https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfDFrancis/status/1298514453642... The narrative about athletes with heart damage have been shown to be exaggerated, at best, and physicians no longer MRI recommend screening of athletes without outward symptoms: https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2020/11/04/Heart-inflammation-from-COVID-19-less-common-than-thought/4441604499783/ https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2020/11/04/Heart-inflammatio... https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/28/big-ten-covid-protocol-21-days-heart-screening https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/28/big-ten-covid-protocol... https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/cs_srgb/MTc2NDI1MTI4ODc0MjIyNzY1/hsc200003_annotatedproof.pdf https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/cs_srgb/MTc2NDI1M... More generally, physicians are recommending that these sorts of MRI-based fishing expeditions play no role in screening of otherwise healthy people who have recovered from Covid-19: https://cvctcardiobrief.com/?p=20977 https://cvctcardiobrief.com/?p=20977 Covid-induced strokes also appear to be a case where cherry-picking statistics has driven a narrative of fear: https://academic.oup.com/neurosurgery/advance-article/doi/10.1093/neuros/nyaa419/5901854 https://academic.oup.com/neurosurgery/advance-article/doi/10... There are currently two clinical trials registered to investigate the question. The earliest we will have any high-quality data on this subject is 2022: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04411147 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04411147 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT04362150 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT04362150
- brlewis 6y ago
  > The vast majority of the evidence is anecdotal True. But how does that compare to evidence that the vaccine will have serious adverse effects?
  - timr 6y ago
    I don't know. It has nothing to do with my comment. I'm simply pointing out that the evidence for "long covid" is incredibly weak. One should use that to adjust their priors for any outcome.
- bart_spoon 6y ago
  There's even less evidence for a negative outcome from taking the vaccine.
  - timr 6y ago
    This has nothing to do with my comment.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Vaccines have to be proven safe, versus “Long Covid” has to be proven real. It’s just a different standard of proof for an elective treatment.

zaroth 6y ago

When the first sentence of a Wikipedia article has a large ”Citation Needed” flag, it’s a good indication you should probably stop reading. Medical science is really hard and often unintuitive. There was a great study that came out last week about statins and the nocebo effect [1] which I think is a great example of how hard it is to get good data on clinical symptoms. But this is exactly the calculus that people will try to perform based on their own perspective on the relative risks. There’s certainly plenty of unknowns and cause for uncertainty. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54951648 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54951648

timr 6y ago

"I'm more concerned about the unknowns of Long Covid than I am about the unknowns of the vaccine." Unless you are in a high-risk group, this should not be a serious concern. There is almost no evidence for "long covid". The vast majority of the evidence is anecdotal, self-reported clusters of symptoms that resemble other common illnesses: https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/11/17/what-is-long-covid/ https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/11/17/what-is-long-covid... When you look for higher-quality evidence for the syndrome, you find studies like this one, from the CDC, which defined "long-term" as "symptoms lasting longer than two weeks", where "symptoms" mostly resemble the aftermath of any mild respiratory illness -- fatigue, cough and headache were the most common: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm As for more specific studies, there have been a few papers about heart inflammation that have been widely circulated, but nearly all of these have been shown to have serious statistical flaws: https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfDFrancis/status/1298514453642739712 https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfDFrancis/status/1298514453642... The narrative about athletes with heart damage have been shown to be exaggerated, at best, and physicians no longer MRI recommend screening of athletes without outward symptoms: https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2020/11/04/Heart-inflammation-from-COVID-19-less-common-than-thought/4441604499783/ https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2020/11/04/Heart-inflammatio... https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/28/big-ten-covid-protocol-21-days-heart-screening https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/28/big-ten-covid-protocol... https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/cs_srgb/MTc2NDI1MTI4ODc0MjIyNzY1/hsc200003_annotatedproof.pdf https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/cs_srgb/MTc2NDI1M... More generally, physicians are recommending that these sorts of MRI-based fishing expeditions play no role in screening of otherwise healthy people who have recovered from Covid-19: https://cvctcardiobrief.com/?p=20977 https://cvctcardiobrief.com/?p=20977 Covid-induced strokes also appear to be a case where cherry-picking statistics has driven a narrative of fear: https://academic.oup.com/neurosurgery/advance-article/doi/10.1093/neuros/nyaa419/5901854 https://academic.oup.com/neurosurgery/advance-article/doi/10... There are currently two clinical trials registered to investigate the question. The earliest we will have any high-quality data on this subject is 2022: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04411147 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04411147 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT04362150 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT04362150

brlewis 6y ago
> The vast majority of the evidence is anecdotal True. But how does that compare to evidence that the vaccine will have serious adverse effects?
- timr 6y ago
  I don't know. It has nothing to do with my comment. I'm simply pointing out that the evidence for "long covid" is incredibly weak. One should use that to adjust their priors for any outcome.
bart_spoon 6y ago
There's even less evidence for a negative outcome from taking the vaccine.
- timr 6y ago
  This has nothing to do with my comment.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Vaccines have to be proven safe, versus “Long Covid” has to be proven real. It’s just a different standard of proof for an elective treatment.