3 ms·

>I see it's getting downvoted a lot: do you really belive that you can just eliminate a completely harmless to young people disease and assume you've done so in

>I see it's getting downvoted a lot: do you really belive that you can just eliminate a completely harmless to young people disease and assume you've done so in complete isolation of all other factors? You're getting downvoted because you're fearmongering based on nothing more than "Everything is connected!" That's not an argument, that's handwaving things away in a panic.

OneGuy123 6y ago
That's not fearmongering: you belive that it's easy to determine that "not getting the flu ever won't cause issues". Such a thing cannot be determined easily and effects can start showing after many years of the body not getting the flu. You belive that it's easy to see how the body works: modern science can tell that only in isolation, but the body as a whole is not something we can predict the longterm effects for. Why do you think vaccines need 10-15 years of testing before getting approved (except the covid one, which tells you a lot about how much they know about the side effects....)
- elcomet 6y ago
  > Why do you think vaccines need 10-15 years of testing before getting approved Because most diseases are much slower to propagate than covid. So you need to wait very long to have enough people that got it in your control group to have significant statistical results.
  - OneGuy123 6y ago
    You do realize 6 months is not "long term"?
    - elcomet 6y ago
      Yes, but the wait for 10 years is not there only to test for side effects. It is needed to test the effectiveness of the vaccine. For COVID, you don't need this long term period to test for effectiveness. Of course I agree about the risk for long-term side effects, but we're in a situation of risk-benefits calculation here. And I don't think waiting 10 years is the right move.
- deegles 6y ago
  > the body as a whole is not something we can predict the longterm effects for I'm no doctor but I feel like modern medicine can make some pretty darn good predictions. Besides, your arguments are not sound. If your premise of "the body is too complex to predict" is true, then you can't immediately follow that with a prediction of a long term effect (e.g. eliminating a "harmless" disease will have ill effects.) I can just as easily make something up like, "the immune system can only respond to a finite amount of disease, therefore getting vaccinated leaves more capacity for future infections." (which is not true)
  - OneGuy123 6y ago
    No you cannot make that up because the body can naturaly fight it as it's naturaly designed for that: but when you artificaly induce something in the body there is no guarantee that you won't just break the natural protection. And no modern medicine cannot predict anything on a global level of the body: if it could then we could've simulate billion of virtual humans using supercomputers and go for real human trials only after that. But such simulations would be innacurate just like how weather prediction is innacurate for more than a few days in the future: the problem is that the body (just like the weather) is a complex system where the butterfly effects becaomes a real thing. So it's not a question of "models" or "compute power": even the slightest devition in the model will break all predictions results in a cascading manner over time.
- pjc50 6y ago
  > Why do you think vaccines need 10-15 years of testing before getting approved Bureaucratic delay and running trials in series, mostly.
pkphilip 6y ago
Well, everything is connected - especially when it comes to injecting things into the blood stream consisting of bits of pieces of viruses and RNA. Is that even up for debate? and how is that fear mongering when it is just the most obvious truth?
- ben_w 6y ago
  That things are connected does not imply that an action designs specifically to train the immune system (which is what vaccines are) is something to fear may actual harm the immune system (which is the claim), especially given that it has been tested. While it is not impossible for things to go wrong, the rational belief is that it will — to a higher standard than most people would consider “certain” — be both safe and protective.
- viraptor 6y ago
  > injecting things into the blood stream consisting of bits of pieces of viruses and RNA The alternative scenario here is having those same viruses and RNA inhaled in an active form with lungs helping to transfer them into the blood stream. What are you actually advocating for/against here?

OneGuy123 6y ago

That's not fearmongering: you belive that it's easy to determine that "not getting the flu ever won't cause issues". Such a thing cannot be determined easily and effects can start showing after many years of the body not getting the flu. You belive that it's easy to see how the body works: modern science can tell that only in isolation, but the body as a whole is not something we can predict the longterm effects for. Why do you think vaccines need 10-15 years of testing before getting approved (except the covid one, which tells you a lot about how much they know about the side effects....)

elcomet 6y ago
> Why do you think vaccines need 10-15 years of testing before getting approved Because most diseases are much slower to propagate than covid. So you need to wait very long to have enough people that got it in your control group to have significant statistical results.
- OneGuy123 6y ago
  You do realize 6 months is not "long term"?
  - elcomet 6y ago
    Yes, but the wait for 10 years is not there only to test for side effects. It is needed to test the effectiveness of the vaccine. For COVID, you don't need this long term period to test for effectiveness. Of course I agree about the risk for long-term side effects, but we're in a situation of risk-benefits calculation here. And I don't think waiting 10 years is the right move.
deegles 6y ago
> the body as a whole is not something we can predict the longterm effects for I'm no doctor but I feel like modern medicine can make some pretty darn good predictions. Besides, your arguments are not sound. If your premise of "the body is too complex to predict" is true, then you can't immediately follow that with a prediction of a long term effect (e.g. eliminating a "harmless" disease will have ill effects.) I can just as easily make something up like, "the immune system can only respond to a finite amount of disease, therefore getting vaccinated leaves more capacity for future infections." (which is not true)
- OneGuy123 6y ago
  No you cannot make that up because the body can naturaly fight it as it's naturaly designed for that: but when you artificaly induce something in the body there is no guarantee that you won't just break the natural protection. And no modern medicine cannot predict anything on a global level of the body: if it could then we could've simulate billion of virtual humans using supercomputers and go for real human trials only after that. But such simulations would be innacurate just like how weather prediction is innacurate for more than a few days in the future: the problem is that the body (just like the weather) is a complex system where the butterfly effects becaomes a real thing. So it's not a question of "models" or "compute power": even the slightest devition in the model will break all predictions results in a cascading manner over time.
pjc50 6y ago
> Why do you think vaccines need 10-15 years of testing before getting approved Bureaucratic delay and running trials in series, mostly.

pkphilip 6y ago

Well, everything is connected - especially when it comes to injecting things into the blood stream consisting of bits of pieces of viruses and RNA. Is that even up for debate? and how is that fear mongering when it is just the most obvious truth?

ben_w 6y ago
That things are connected does not imply that an action designs specifically to train the immune system (which is what vaccines are) is something to fear may actual harm the immune system (which is the claim), especially given that it has been tested. While it is not impossible for things to go wrong, the rational belief is that it will — to a higher standard than most people would consider “certain” — be both safe and protective.
viraptor 6y ago
> injecting things into the blood stream consisting of bits of pieces of viruses and RNA The alternative scenario here is having those same viruses and RNA inhaled in an active form with lungs helping to transfer them into the blood stream. What are you actually advocating for/against here?