12 ms·
Vaccines Are the Safest Medical Procedure We Have. Make Your Wager Wisely
- ch4s3 6y agoI think people vastly overestimate the danger of vaccines vs thing they do on a daily basis. Even aspirin is more dangerous.
- kfrzcode 6y agoSource citation needed.
- jimktrains2 6y agoIts not quite apples to oranges as many of the dangers of aspirin (e.g. stomach ulcers or liver damage) are due to long term exposure or over dosing, neither of which can easily happen with a vaccine.
- AnHonestComment 6y agoWhat? I can’t make sense of what you’re even trying to say: 1. That the mechanism of harm is different tells us nothing about the relative risks. I don’t OD on cars, but cars are riskier than Asprin. 2. You can have long term negative impacts from, eg, vaccine carriers. (Which is why we stopped using some....) 3. Overdosing a live virus vaccine happens all the time, the result being you get the illness. A flu shot can kill you by giving you a deadly flu.
- jimktrains2 6y agoRisk is proportional to usage. My point was that using aspirin (or driving, since you brought it up) is more common and more easily to use incorrectly than a vaccine.
- jimktrains2 6y agoCars still weird me out. Cars are incredibly dangerous, even with all of the safety that goes into them. People don't treat them with the respect they deserve or demand. Edit: I was specifically referring to how the danger of everyday things are under estimated by people. That people e.g. text while driving a 1½ ton vehicle at 55+ mph is a great example of that. The danger isn't high enough to be "common" but definitely higher than people estimate it to be.
- HPsquared 6y agoTo the user, the benefits of car use are immediately obvious, but the risks are more remote and abstract.
- zbrozek 6y agoI don't know where the fear comes from. They seem like amazeballs ROI and like everyone should be champing at the bit to get them.
- kjsthree 6y agoEvery time I see “champing at the bit”, I consider it a victory for humanity. People correctly assessing vaccine risk would just be gravy.
- Consultant32452 6y agoI'm pro vaccine. I hope everyone who can gets one. These are just my thoughts on why we see skepticism. The more the media treats covid vaccines like they're marketing the latest iphone release the more skeptical I become. It's very unsettling to me personally. Black people in this country have the Tuskeegee experiment as a huge reason to be skeptical of vaccines. Over the course of the last year the sense-making organizations have lost a ton of credibility by lying to get the outcome they wanted instead of educating us. The most blatant examples are probably when the surgeon general and WHO told us wearing masks would kill us because they didn't want us to buy masks that would save our lives, they wanted to save those for healthcare workers. Fauci has recently admitted he lied about his estimates for herd immunity because he believed it would aid compliance. Birx told us not to mix family and then had a mixed family Thanksgiving. The list of governors/congress/media personalities hypocritically breaking the rules they push feels unending. Fourteen days to slow the spread turned into shut down everything until there's a cure. These things have a cost, and we are seeing it.
- mgamache 6y ago"safest medical procedure' is not a very high bar....
- ABCLAW 6y agoGiven that I have a higher likelihood of getting killed by a bolt of lightning than by undergoing a number of medical procedures, I'd say the bar is pretty high.
- Triv888 6y agoSo you are saying that you have a better chance of dying if you get hit by lightning then if you get a few medical procedures? I hope so.
- vntok 6y agoHe's wrong. Any procedure involving any invasive (derm-piercing) tool, you're one human/process mistake away from getting exposed to super-resistant bacteria via contaminated tooling. Any procedure involving body manipulation/massages, you're one human/process mistake away from getting paralyzed neck to toe or worse. Any procedure involving anesthesia, you're one human/process mistake away from dying right here and there due to OD or allergy. If your life comprises undergoing a million medical procedures involving any kind of invasive tools, anesthesia or surgery, you'll die from human-caused complications way before you get randomly hit by lightning.
- ABCLAW 6y ago>He's wrong. Nah, the numbers are pretty firmly on my side. I picked a fairly 'risky' procedure as far as the routine ones go to make the comparison really conservative. I'm still more likely to get fried to a crisp by Lightning than die by the procedure. That should give you an idea for how safe most procedures are.
- ABCLAW 6y agoNo, I'm not saying I have a higher chance of dying IF I get hit by a bolt of lightning. I'm saying I have a higher chance of dying by getting hit by lightning going about my life as normal than dying by getting a whole slew of routine medical procedures done.
- ouid 6y agoVaccines are very safe because they are required to be very safe by law, if a vaccine is not shown to be very safe, it is pulled from production. They are not intrinsically safe.
- wesleywt 6y agoIsn't this the case for all medicines? Vaccines mechanism of action makes it safer than any other medicine as they are harnessing the bodies own immune response system.
- ouid 6y agoNo, FDA standards for the safety of medicine that you give to healthy people are much more rigorous than for medicine that you give to sick people.
- another_kel 6y agoHow many precedents we have of a potential vaccine found out to cause serious harm? Asking seriously. Is there any studies/stats?
- thisiscorrect 6y agoI don't know how often this occurs. I know a specific case was Pandemrix, the vaccine administered in a few European nationas during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, which seems to have increased the risk of narcolepsy especially for children [1,2]. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28847694/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28847694/ [2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps...
- bryanlarsen 6y agoIIRC, getting that variant of the flu also increased the risk of narcolepsy.
- nradov 6y ago
- mgamache 6y ago"Every other treatment we use medically is aimed at some existing pathology—from a cold to cancer" Really? prenatal care, circumcisions, postnatal care, colonoscopies, x-rays, ultrasounds (to name a few) Are all preventative/diagnostic procedures that may not accompany a disease.
- Nursie 6y agoSeveral of those aren't treatments (colonoscopies, x-rays, ultrasounds don't actually aim to treat or change anything) and actually the whole statement could be considered tautological - Every treatment is aimed at an existing pathology, by definition, otherwise can we really call it a "treatment"? For what does it treat? Circumcision is not really preventative of anything much, it's a cultural thing at this point.
- maxerickson 6y agoColonoscopies do create an opportunity for treatment, the removal of polyps. It's among the most effective anti-cancer interventions we have, so worth being clear that there is potential to benefit from treatment during a colonoscopy.
- Nursie 6y agoDidn't mean to imply they weren't useful :)
- mgamache 6y agoVaccines are not treatments ether if you want to be strict about the definition. You can't treat something you don't have, right? They are medical procedures that have a risk/benefit ratio.
- TheAceOfHearts 6y agoCircumcisions are unethical and offer no significant health benefits.
- 6y ago
- jasode 6y agoJust a random but surprising statistic I found out last week: Most healthcare workers do not get annual flu shots. And 2 articles from a quick Google search coincidentally show the same ~60% skip flu shots for both USA and UK: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ColdandFluNews/story?id=6418974&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ColdandFluNews/story?id=641897... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-42634781 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-42634781 If I didn't see the above, my intuition would have made me guess that 90%+ of medical professionals get flu shots. It turns out I was way off. However, the reasons don't appear to be safety like this thread's article. One doctor said he doesn't get flu shots because the CDC makes a guess for what goes into the next season's flu shot and they're only ~50% correct. Since he got sick from the flu shot (even with the weakened virus) many years ago, he now avoids them. He still believes in the science of flu shot and not anti-vaxx but he personally chooses to not take it. EDIT: Apologize for posting bad statistic. Is the UK NHS statistic accurate? If so, why do most UK health workers avoid it?
- Veraticus 6y agoThis is because the MLM/anti-vaccine market penetration into healthcare professionals (nurses especially) is unfortunately really high. As it turns out, not even a lifetime of training and knowledge can prevent being suckered by grifters.
- lmilcin 6y agoSee another commenter. Somehow you can make the same answer without denigration. I don't believe in "anti-vaccine market penetration". My model I use is that ALL people are ignorant of most things that happen around them and only SOME people are knowledgeable about SOME of the things.
- ChefboyOG 6y agoTo be clear, over 90% of healthcare workers working in hospitals are vaccinated against the flu every year: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/healthcareworkers.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/healthcareworkers.htm
- 6y ago
- mlang23 6y agoA dilemma. Years and years of propaganda towards capitalism have trained people that individualism is the holy grail. Even the american dream basically says that you as an individual can change things because your perspective is unique. And now, pieces like this need to be written to re-educate people about group behaviour and essentially socialism. The very thing that america even went to war against. Weird world. And everyone not agreeing immediately is a heretic. Yeah. Talk about confusing messages.
- MauranKilom 6y ago> essentially socialism In what way did this article allude to anything remotely describable as "socialism"? Literally the only part of the article that is not 100% directed at the individual reader is "(and others)" in the very last paragraph. It is mind-boggling to me that parenthetically mentioning the single word "others" is enough to provoke "but that's socialism" responses. And let me be clear that there is a mile-wide gap between "socialism" and "the opposite of pure individualism".
- mlang23 6y agoWait, "just go with the flow and at least pretend you believe what the masses are supposed to believe" is not socialism? C'mon. The whole "better fake believe then be sorry" thing is pretty much the antithesis to individualism.
- MauranKilom 6y ago> "just go with the flow and at least pretend you believe what the masses are supposed to believe" is not socialism? No, it is not? And - while it certainly doesn't help this discussion to point this out - the irony of you being led to believe so is incredible.
- waihtis 6y agoOne thing that makes me nervous is the mRNA vaccine which, to my close to zero understanding, is a completely novel way of administering a vaccine. Anyone have a good writeup or similar to relieve a bit of fear?
- LinuxBender 6y agoThis [1] may not alleviate fear, but it may help you understand mRNA vaccines. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK0C5tFHze8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK0C5tFHze8
- jvzr 6y agoThis did it for me: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source-code-of-the-biontech-pfizer-vaccine/ https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source...
- tonfa 6y agohttps://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-... https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source-code-of-the-biontech-pfizer-vaccine/ https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source... Not going into the safety side that much, but a lot of background and technical details.
- waihtis 6y agoThe second article was golden, and I would say it cleared the concept very well. I do feel more confident about the mRNA method now. Thanks!
- yodsanklai 6y agoYou shouldn't be downvoted. It's reasonable to be anxious. A few weeks ago, a prominent and "mainstream" French doctor said that he wouldn't get an mRNA vaccine shot until he had access to the corresponding scientific publications (not available at the time). In the meantime, he said he wouldn't be able to make an informed decision. https://www.sortiraparis.com/news/coronavirus/articles/237986-pfizer-vaccine-a-worrying-level-of-adverse-effects-professor-caumes-says/lang/en https://www.sortiraparis.com/news/coronavirus/articles/23798... Personally, I mostly trust the medical institutions of my country and I'll probably follow their recommendations without second-thoughts. Yet, it never hurts to have some doubts, especially in this context. EDIT: It's one of these topics where you're not allowed to express the slightest, tiniest, doubt.
- mynegation 6y agoPersonally I do not have a question whether to vaccinate, for me it is more like when COVID-19 is going to be available for me (non-essential worker, no underlying conditions, middle-aged) and the differences between specific vaccines. In Canada, if all goes well, I should be able to get access to vaccine around middle of 2021 (unclear which one). As a Russian citizen - if pus really comes to shove - I can go there and get their adenoviral vector vaccine with unclear efficiency pretty much right now - but is it wise? That is my wager.
- UncleOxidant 6y agoFlying to Russia from Canada would increase your risk of getting covid prior to receiving the vaccine (and the 10 days or so that is needed to build any kind of immunity).
- scotty79 6y agoI head that availability or russian vaccine is not that high.
- mynegation 6y agoThey are supposed to vaccinate essential workers and seniors first, but the interest is so underwhelming they basically vaccinate everyone with Russian health insurance (Russia is single-payer).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- EGreg 6y agoOne of the only reliable ways I know to convince people of anything is: 1. Make them implicitly commit to finish the conversation and not run away 2. Explain how the X thing works and how it doesn’t, to eliminate strawmen and educate (eg mRNA vaccines inject RNA into cell, not DNA into nucleus... masks reduce R0 by massively reducing the momentum of the airflow that carries particles going out, they don’t prevent particles from coming into your eyes etc.) 3. Ask them, given the information in 2, what they are still worried about. Really listen and understand their points. 4. Present them with a double standard where in other areas they do Y but here they do the opposite where the criteria are met at least as much 5. When they say “it’s totally different”, explore how, and be prepared to genuinely have your own mind changed if it turns out they don’t have a double standard Use the seat belts analogy for example, when asking about vaccines. Seat belts can harm in certain rare cases, but if the “bad” stats are higher for seatbelts, why do you use them?
- citelao 6y agoWhat do you mean by getting people to implicitly commit to finish the conversation? Do you just ask them explicitly to spend the time with you? I’m confused by the word “implicit.” Intuitively that seems a great way to reach a productive point of the conversation, since it forces both of you to seek resolution so that you can go do your laundry after.
- scotty79 6y agoI think posts about covid vaccines should be written with Mr. Rodgers level of caution. I think this post fails here and there despite trying really hard.
- threwawasy1228 6y agoI was under the impression that adverse reactions to vaccines are pretty common actually? Many of the times I have gotten shots I had to wait in the room for 10-20 minutes afterwards so the nurse could verify I wasn't allergic. I think everyone should get vaccines, and they are more than safe enough for most people, but they aren't as safe as this article is implying. There are also historical examples of vaccines that caused non-trivial medical issues with segments of the population (the narcolepsy issue that occurred with a vaccine in Sweden a few years back comes to mind).
- scotty79 6y agoSerious adverse reaction are incredibly rare. And the fact that they keep you for a moment after giving you a dose just shows how seriouse even very minor risk of serious reaction is treated in context of vaccines. But you took it as indication of highly probable danger. I wonder if there are parallels with flying. All those behaviors that ensure incredible safety of traveling just make people think it's dangerous.
- zamalek 6y agoThe Moderna and BioNTech COVID vaccines doesn't have any adjuvants, which is what cause the adverse reactions. You can experience symptoms (fever etc.) the next day, which are a good sign that the vaccine is working. An allergic reaction to a vaccine is extremely rare but extremely serious. They don't have you stick around for 20 minutes because of the likelihood, only because of the consequences of something going wrong.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y agoYou seriously don't consider fever an adverse reaction?
- zamalek 6y agoYou don't consider sore muscles after coming back from the gym an adverse reaction? I don't consider it an adverse reaction, nor do doctors/scientists, because it is part of the exact process that vaccines aim to encourage: building immunity. It is anticipated, expected and, frankly, desirable.
- 99_00 6y agoWhat's the difference between what's in these vaccine and what is in the seasonal flu shot?
- Erlich_Bachman 6y agoThey are basically completely different substances? Unless you wish to reduce your model to such an extreme low-resolution view of the facts as to call all substances sharing the name "vaccine" as being the same thing. For Moderna and Phizer, even the technology of producing the vaccine is completely new and different. The specific genetic contents are different regardless of the technology anyway.
- 99_00 6y agoIn terms of ingredients, other than genetic materials, is there a large difference? Other than genetic material is there anything in these vaccines that doesn't have a long history of being injected into huge numbers of human beings?
- Exmoor 6y agoDifficult to say broadly, since there are quite a few different vaccines each with their own ingredient. The biggest difference is probably the lack of ingredients in the mRNA vaccines. They're incredibly simple and contain basically mRNA, some fat to encase it in, and a few substances that allow it to survive. This article breaks up the ingredients pretty well, although you'll have to scroll down a bit. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/what-e2-80-99s-in-the-covid-19-vaccines-we-asked-experts-to-explain-the-ingredients/ar-BB1c12ow https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/what-e2-80-99s-in-t...
- h_anna_h 6y agoIs there an open source covid vaccine? One that publishes the commented mRNA code for example. I don't use proprietary software on my computer so the notion that I would inject some in my body seems weird to me.
- GBiT 6y agoI want to ask. You don't eat by proprietary recipes made food and drinks too?
- h_anna_h 6y agoEating something is different to putting it directly in your blood. Kinda like the difference between running a program as an unprivileged user and as root. Regarding your question I avoid them, and it is surprisingly easy to do so, most chefs seemed happy to share their recipes with me. As for drinks the ones that I drink tend to be simple (water, carbonated water, alcohol, etc).
- scotty79 6y agoVaccines don't go into your blood. Just into the muscle tissue.
- vuciv1 6y agoWhile I appreciate having healthy doubt, I'm concerned with the amount of people who would say "no" if they were offered a vaccine. Everyone has been eagerly waiting for a vaccine, but now that it's here, most people don't want it?
- h_anna_h 6y agoMost that were eager will probably go on to use it. I suspect that some were eager so that others would vaccinate and that they themselves would be protected due to "herd immunity" but I doubt that there are many of them. I personally was eager for an open source vaccine, not any vaccine at all. Saying that everyone has been eagerly waiting for a vaccine is not very accurate, after all there are also the antivax people and these that simply do not care.
- ocdtrekkie 6y agoThe wager I am making here: If I'm in the first hundred million doses somewhere as an essential worker, if it has an unintended side effect, there's going to be 100 million reasons for them to fix the damage. This will likely be the best most widely distributed medical treatment in history, so if something is wrong with it, the medical industry will be pushed as hard to develop a treatment as it was to develop the vaccine in the first place. The riskiest treatment you can take is one for a rare disease or narrow use case. Because there's less financial incentive to fix it. When trying to divine any businesses' priorities, follow the money.
- cavisne 6y agoThis is the problem with the CDC’s plan. 40% of people said they will get the vaccine but “wait a bit”. So starting in phase 1 (demand exceeded supply) is the wrong strategy. That’s one reason why states have administered so few vaccines, even doctors and nurses don’t want it. Start with administering to anyone who wants it, and restrict once demand exceeds supply.
- daenz 6y ago>even doctors and nurses don’t want it. What's the source on this?
- cavisne 6y agoCommon sense (if 40 percent of the general population don’t want to go first, why would medical personnel be much different). It seems the truth is even worse “The National Association of Healthcare Assistants surveyed more than 3,100 Certified Nursing Assistants last month. Around 71-percent indicated they wouldn't take a COVID-19 vaccine, while just over 22-percent said they would.” https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-survey/8872362 https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-survey/887...
- ler_ 6y ago>What's the source on this? Created an account just to answer this. I'm a nurse. Most nurses and nursing aides that I work with do not wish to take the vaccine, worried about it being "rushed". There is also worry about the claims that vaccine recipients developed Bells palsy. Even though a good number of healthcare workers have the option to take the vaccine right now, few are doing so -- at least from what I'm seeing.
- epistasis 6y agoI find this absolutely insane, and I know that you are right because there is a cluster of nurses in a nearby county with the same attitude. It is a sever cultural problem with the nurses. They should be more educated than this. Specifically if they have been snowed about Bells Palsy, that's just them believing BS anti-vaxxers bad data interpretation.
- _nickwhite 6y agoSince this article is written from a COVID-19 perspective on vaccines, and since I had a pretty nasty case of Coronavirus this past summer, I thought I would give my opinion. 1) Most (all?) humans on planet Earth are going to produce antibodies to COVID-19, or die. It's highly contagious and getting worse with new variants. 2) Given this, we have a choice: get the antibodies the easy way (take the vaccine), or get the antibodies the hard way (catch the virus). For some people, the virus is no big deal. For me, it meant suffering for 2 weeks, and to others it is way worse, getting sent to the hospital, and some (a tiny percentage) not surviving it at all. Given the risk of a new vaccine vs the risk of getting COVID and suffering, I would take the new vaccine 100 out of 100 times. I tell people that had I known how bad catching the virus was, I would have taken BOTH vaccines at the same time to avoid having to go through that. (Also, I'm under 40 and very healthy/athletic.) I'm also highly averse to "optional vaccines" in the first place, and only give my children the absolute required vaccines to keep society and themselves safe. Just my perspective on this, but I come across so many people who do not see things the same. In the end, a lot of people are going to suffer with the virus due to applying their fears to the wrong thing.
- yodsanklai 6y agoLet say I'm a healthy 20 years old. What are the odds of me getting infected from covid and suffering bad consequences (death or chronically ill). How does it compare with a "bad" vaccine in recent history? I'm curious about the order of magnitude of risks involved.
- MauranKilom 6y agoAccording to this [0] recent (Dec 8) meta-analysis, infection fatality rate at 20 years is around 0.01%, with prediction interval about 0.003% to 0.03%. See Fig. 3 (note logarithmic scaling). That is only fatality rate. I don't see a good way to aggregate vaccination harm, especially with qualifiers such as "bad" and given the priors we have about the particular vaccines in question. However, let's take the narcolepsy issue that has been mentioned multiple times in this thread. According to [1]: > During the first year after vaccination, the relative risk of narcolepsy was increased 5 to 14-fold in children and adolescents and 2 to 7-fold in adults. The vaccine attributable risk in children and adolescents was around 1 per 18,400 vaccine doses. That puts the rate at 0.005% for a prominent "bad" vaccine. I will note that this disease is not exactly comparable to death. Considering that ~70% of e.g. the US population are older than 20 (with COVID-19 infection fatality rate increasing exponentially with age, e.g. 1% at age 60) and that you are expected to pass it to about one person, you may want to include the assessment of risks not only to yourself but to everyone around you in your considerations. [0]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28847694/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28847694/
- mynegation 6y agoChances of you getting Covid are very hard to estimate because there are so many factors (where you live, your personal health history, your behaviour, your workplace...), but contingent on getting it, you can estimate IFR (fatality rate for all infections, approximate, as it tries to account for conversion rate to known cases) or CFR (fatality for known detected cases) from many sources. Here is one [1]. Probability of chronically illness - I do not think anyone has enough data yet. [1] https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/2020/06/covid19-epi-case-identification-age-only-template.pdf?la=en https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/ep...
- ajitkrsingh0786 6y agogood
- l0b0 6y agoCan we change the link to https://nautil.us/blog/vaccines-are-the-safest-medical-procedure-we-have-make-your-wager-wisely https://nautil.us/blog/vaccines-are-the-safest-medical-proce...?
- neosenate 6y agoWould anyone be able to point me to research about how the body reacts to the vaccination if it has already come into contact with the virus (assuming survival)? For example, from a layman pov I'm assuming if I've had an asymptomatic case of covid-19, and get injected with an mRNA vaccine, my body would simply fight it off in the same way it would to any other exposure to the virus, and this wouldn't count towards an increased amount of "viral-load" that's been spoken about online.
- 99_00 6y agoOne reason people are suspicious of the vaccine is because major network and cable news told them that the government's time line for getting a vaccine was a lie. Now that the government's time line is proven true, people have to figure out if the news lies or the vaccine is a fraud. https://streamable.com/i4ziur https://streamable.com/i4ziur (October)
- javagram 6y ago> major network and cable news told them that the government's time line for getting a vaccine was a lie. The White House and Trump repeatedly claimed, publicly, that the vaccine would be available before the election in November 2020. That turned out to be very false. The media called out the lies and now you’re blaming the media for the administration’s lies and empty hope? Here is a link to remind you. * https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/516855-meadows-disputes-cdc-directors-vaccine-timeline https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/516855-meadows-d... The administration was attacking its own expert timelines from the CDC and FDA. Of course that made the media and other observers suspicious. “Meadows told reporters that the Trump administration is aiming to have 100 million vials ready for distribution to vulnerable populations, namely the elderly, by the end of October” * https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/519929-trump-lashes-out-after-fda-shares-vaccine-guidelines https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/519929-trump-las... “ New FDA Rules make it more difficult for them to speed up vaccines for approval before Election Day. Just another political hit job! @SteveFDA” - Donald Trump tweet In the end, the vaccine came out on the FDA timeline, rather than Trump and Mark Meadows successfully pressuring the FDA to release the vaccine early like Russia did with Sputnik V. Edit: added another supporting link.
- just_nutt 6y agoYes, the first vaccine was found to be effective on November 9th, 6 days after the election making it clear that anyone that believed it would be released before the election was a fringe crackpot lunatic that deserved to be derided by the media.
- Cyberthal 6y agoSo because heavily tested, well-established vaccines are mostly quite safe, this experimental rushed vaccine is trustworthy. If this is their best argument, I'm alarmed rather than reassured. If we're betting, I want to know the odds. Where's the latest adverse reaction data? cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-12/slides-12-19/05-COVID-CLARK.pdf 2.3% had significant side effects from the vaccine. If new data isn't being released, that suggests the news is bad.