4 ms·

I’m not aware of any vaccine that had long term side effects that were not also apparent in the short term. E.g. I believe it was the swine flu vaccine that ca

by graeme 6y ago

I’m not aware of any vaccine that had long term side effects that were not also apparent in the short term. E.g. I believe it was the swine flu vaccine that caused narcolepsy in a small percentage of people receiving it. But that was apparent immediately. To my knowledge no one has identified any slow acting consequences of a vaccine that would not have been obvious from the first rollout of a vaccine. So this question is mostly academic. Unless you’re someone in the UK slated to get the first dose, you probably won’t even have an opportunity to get the vaccine before the effects in early groups become known. And for those in high risk early groups, the risk of covid surely outweighs the risk of vaccine. Nothing has shown up in trials so far so I’m not expecting side effects beyond the known effect of short term flu like symptoms for a couple days.

CJefferson 6y ago
What do you mean by short term? That swine flu vaccine is my main concern. It wasn't clear in trials, and it took a couple of years before anyone took the problem seriously as far as I can tell -- by that point a significant chunk of the world could have a COVID vaccine.
- graeme 6y ago
  I mean the effects would have been immediate, rather than say “develops cancer in 20 years”. Though I guess the narcolepsy took about a month to develop. I suspect there will be much more monitoring and speed with these vaccines than with the swine flu vaccine. The mechanism for the narcolepsy was a protein present in the virus itself. So actually getting the flu would have been much worse for those with the genes that made them susceptible. It doesn’t sound like mRNA vaccines would have this vulnerability. Though I do take your point that it’s possible something like the swine flu narcolepsy event would only be found after the fact. However that would be a pretty small consequence since in this case the flu also would have caused worse narcolepsy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562845/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562845/
  - CJefferson 6y ago
    Thanks, that reference is useful. I found it hard to find solid stuff on this.
djsumdog 6y ago
The 1976 Swine Flu? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bOHYZhL0WQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bOHYZhL0WQ Vaccines are also very young. We've had them for 185 years, and there were probably a lot of side effects from people getting stabbed with Horse Pox, but a lot of them probably just died and we didn't collect data back then they way we do today. It's not comparable.
- graeme 6y ago
  No the 2009 one. Caused narcolepsy in a small number of people. Notably the mechanism was the same one as in the flu itself, so actually getting the flu would have caused worse narcolepsy.
AuryGlenz 6y ago
Even if we just vaccinated those at greatest risk the death rate would plummet to an acceptable level, and for those people the benefits far outweigh any potential risks.

by graeme 6y ago

CJefferson 6y ago

What do you mean by short term? That swine flu vaccine is my main concern. It wasn't clear in trials, and it took a couple of years before anyone took the problem seriously as far as I can tell -- by that point a significant chunk of the world could have a COVID vaccine.

graeme 6y ago
I mean the effects would have been immediate, rather than say “develops cancer in 20 years”. Though I guess the narcolepsy took about a month to develop. I suspect there will be much more monitoring and speed with these vaccines than with the swine flu vaccine. The mechanism for the narcolepsy was a protein present in the virus itself. So actually getting the flu would have been much worse for those with the genes that made them susceptible. It doesn’t sound like mRNA vaccines would have this vulnerability. Though I do take your point that it’s possible something like the swine flu narcolepsy event would only be found after the fact. However that would be a pretty small consequence since in this case the flu also would have caused worse narcolepsy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562845/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562845/
- CJefferson 6y ago
  Thanks, that reference is useful. I found it hard to find solid stuff on this.

djsumdog 6y ago

The 1976 Swine Flu? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bOHYZhL0WQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bOHYZhL0WQ Vaccines are also very young. We've had them for 185 years, and there were probably a lot of side effects from people getting stabbed with Horse Pox, but a lot of them probably just died and we didn't collect data back then they way we do today. It's not comparable.

graeme 6y ago
No the 2009 one. Caused narcolepsy in a small number of people. Notably the mechanism was the same one as in the flu itself, so actually getting the flu would have caused worse narcolepsy.

AuryGlenz 6y ago

Even if we just vaccinated those at greatest risk the death rate would plummet to an acceptable level, and for those people the benefits far outweigh any potential risks.