4 ms·

A vaccine that is tested for around 6 months. Actually it's multiple vaccines with two new approaches which are not tested at all for long-term side effects. F

A vaccine that is tested for around 6 months. Actually it's multiple vaccines with two new approaches which are not tested at all for long-term side effects. From that perspective it's not really desirable to get "people" vaccinated as quickly as possible. PS.: Was the validation somehow 4 years? You can't cope with facts.

hezag 6y ago
About "long-term side effects"[0]: "For most people, Covid-19 is a brief and mild disease but some are left struggling with symptoms including lasting fatigue, persistent pain and breathlessness for months. The condition known as "long Covid" is having a debilitating effect on people's lives, and stories of being left exhausted after even a short walk are now common. So far, the focus has been on saving lives during the pandemic, but there is now a growing recognition that people are facing long-term consequences of a Covid infection. Yet even basic questions - such as why people get long Covid or whether everyone will fully recover - are riddled with uncertainty." 0. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54296223 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54296223
- antibuddy 6y ago
  What's your point?
  - otachack 6y ago
    Think the point is you either roll the dice with COVID or roll the dice with a vaccine. We have evidence of long-term COVID effects while with any of the vaccines not enough time has passed.
    - antibuddy 6y ago
      You are always rolling the dice when you get a cold. The important part is how likely the side effects really are and this is proven for neither. In addition to this, vaccine side effects can be way more severe than that especially for otherwise healthy people. Given the lethality is <0.1% for people under 60 and sterile immunity (with the vaccine) is neither proven nor targeted, there doesn't seem to be a hurry to get the vaccine really.
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        Why are you all over this thread fear mongering about sterilizing immunity? The vaccine trials indeed did not collect data about it, but the starting assumption (based on the mechanism of action of the vaccines) is that they are likely to result in sterilizing immunity. They may not! But the lack of data doesn't mean we should expect there to not be sterilizing immunity.
JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
Explain to me how it is preferable to get all the Covid mRNA from an infection instead of a tiny piece that codes for nothing that will kill you and primes your immune system. What long term side effect do you see from a tiny piece of foreign mRNA, something our bodies encounter continually throughout our lifetimes?
- antibuddy 6y ago
  I am supposed to know what nobody does. Nobody knows the long-term side effects of either vaccines against COVID and that is exactly my point. Btw: What was not tested at all was if this leads to sterile immunity. So vaccinated ppl could still be transmitting COVID.
  - JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
    >So vaccinated ppl could still be transmitting COVID. What are you proposing as an alternative? Transmission to people without vaccination so everyone gets COVID and millions more die?
    - antibuddy 6y ago
      >What are you proposing as an alternative? Testing the vaccine and the new approaches properly. The average age of COVID deaths is around 82 years (at least in Germany), so I'd say many of these people would have died in the next few months anyway. Also COVID is not the only cause of death and act in panic might cause more deaths than not acting at all. With a lethality of around 0.4% and the average age of death, COVID is no reason to hurry a vaccine that might have abysmal side effects. You could maybe argue that the spanish flu was (at that time), but COVID is really several orders of magnitude less lethal and also not with as prevalent and severe side effects as the measles (especially among the young and otherwise healthy). We learned nothing of the Pandemrix fiasco.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > that codes for nothing that will kill you and primes your immune system Just because people apparently aren't immediately dying doesn't mean the mRNA vaccine can't introduce some unapparent immune system pathology. It seems like the vaccine is good, but I also don't need it as a younger person with a healthy immune system. I'd rather wait to see evidence of long-term safety...which doesn't happen until a vaccine is studied in many people who've taken it and observed after years.
elindbe3 6y ago
You mean the vaccine against the virus that has already killed 300k people in the US? Its very clearly desirable to get all of the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions vaccinated as quickly as possible since they have such a high probability of dying of the virus. Even if we did just that we could cut the death rate way down.
- antibuddy 6y ago
  Using a vaccine which is tested exclusively on young men (which is the normal procedure) on elderly first is yet another inconsistency in the "holy vaccine"-narrative.
  - itcrowd 6y ago
    The comment: > vaccine which is tested exclusively on young men is COMPLETELY wrong. 1. The trials have been performed on both men and women 2. Age groups <65 AND >= 65 3. Also included chronically ill From Moderna: > As of today, the COVE study includes more than 7,000 Americans over the age of 65. It also includes more than 5,000 Americans who are under the age of 65 but have high-risk chronic diseases that put them at increased risk of severe COVID-19, such as diabetes, severe obesity and cardiac disease. These medically high-risk groups represent 42% of the total participants in the Phase 3 COVE study. https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-completes-enrollment-phase-3-cove-study-mrna-vaccine https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-d...
LatteLazy 6y ago
If you don't want it, that's your business. But no one should be standing on the hose for the rest of us.
- antibuddy 6y ago
  That's okay. We need guinea pigs. Let's just hope it's not the next Pandemrix (whatever you are getting).
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    I'm a little confused. The worst case scenario for Pandemrix is a tiny chance of developing narcolepsy. Literally a few tens of people for a country. Is that wrong? It seems that would be a very acceptable risk compared to 1% of people dying and 5 years of lockdown...
    - antibuddy 6y ago
      The lockdown is not a consequence of COVID. The fact that (especially) young people were affected means you need to compare the lethality of these younger groups and that one is below 0.1% (under the age of 60 in Sweden). Is it still worth the risk then for these groups?
      - LatteLazy 6y ago
        Objectively YES. A 0.1% chance of dying is much worse than a 0.0001% chance of narcolepsy. And that's without adding "Long Covid" damage or the lockdown or anything else.
tomjen3 6y ago
You are only going to get those long term tests if you give the vaccines to people. I want the vaccine now, but can't get it. Shoot me up with it and if I die from it, I will let you know.

hezag 6y ago

About "long-term side effects"[0]: "For most people, Covid-19 is a brief and mild disease but some are left struggling with symptoms including lasting fatigue, persistent pain and breathlessness for months. The condition known as "long Covid" is having a debilitating effect on people's lives, and stories of being left exhausted after even a short walk are now common. So far, the focus has been on saving lives during the pandemic, but there is now a growing recognition that people are facing long-term consequences of a Covid infection. Yet even basic questions - such as why people get long Covid or whether everyone will fully recover - are riddled with uncertainty." 0. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54296223 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54296223

antibuddy 6y ago
What's your point?
- otachack 6y ago
  Think the point is you either roll the dice with COVID or roll the dice with a vaccine. We have evidence of long-term COVID effects while with any of the vaccines not enough time has passed.
  - antibuddy 6y ago
    You are always rolling the dice when you get a cold. The important part is how likely the side effects really are and this is proven for neither. In addition to this, vaccine side effects can be way more severe than that especially for otherwise healthy people. Given the lethality is <0.1% for people under 60 and sterile immunity (with the vaccine) is neither proven nor targeted, there doesn't seem to be a hurry to get the vaccine really.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Why are you all over this thread fear mongering about sterilizing immunity? The vaccine trials indeed did not collect data about it, but the starting assumption (based on the mechanism of action of the vaccines) is that they are likely to result in sterilizing immunity. They may not! But the lack of data doesn't mean we should expect there to not be sterilizing immunity.

JohnJamesRambo 6y ago

Explain to me how it is preferable to get all the Covid mRNA from an infection instead of a tiny piece that codes for nothing that will kill you and primes your immune system. What long term side effect do you see from a tiny piece of foreign mRNA, something our bodies encounter continually throughout our lifetimes?

antibuddy 6y ago
I am supposed to know what nobody does. Nobody knows the long-term side effects of either vaccines against COVID and that is exactly my point. Btw: What was not tested at all was if this leads to sterile immunity. So vaccinated ppl could still be transmitting COVID.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
  >So vaccinated ppl could still be transmitting COVID. What are you proposing as an alternative? Transmission to people without vaccination so everyone gets COVID and millions more die?
  - antibuddy 6y ago
    >What are you proposing as an alternative? Testing the vaccine and the new approaches properly. The average age of COVID deaths is around 82 years (at least in Germany), so I'd say many of these people would have died in the next few months anyway. Also COVID is not the only cause of death and act in panic might cause more deaths than not acting at all. With a lethality of around 0.4% and the average age of death, COVID is no reason to hurry a vaccine that might have abysmal side effects. You could maybe argue that the spanish flu was (at that time), but COVID is really several orders of magnitude less lethal and also not with as prevalent and severe side effects as the measles (especially among the young and otherwise healthy). We learned nothing of the Pandemrix fiasco.
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> that codes for nothing that will kill you and primes your immune system Just because people apparently aren't immediately dying doesn't mean the mRNA vaccine can't introduce some unapparent immune system pathology. It seems like the vaccine is good, but I also don't need it as a younger person with a healthy immune system. I'd rather wait to see evidence of long-term safety...which doesn't happen until a vaccine is studied in many people who've taken it and observed after years.

elindbe3 6y ago

You mean the vaccine against the virus that has already killed 300k people in the US? Its very clearly desirable to get all of the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions vaccinated as quickly as possible since they have such a high probability of dying of the virus. Even if we did just that we could cut the death rate way down.

antibuddy 6y ago
Using a vaccine which is tested exclusively on young men (which is the normal procedure) on elderly first is yet another inconsistency in the "holy vaccine"-narrative.
- itcrowd 6y ago
  The comment: > vaccine which is tested exclusively on young men is COMPLETELY wrong. 1. The trials have been performed on both men and women 2. Age groups <65 AND >= 65 3. Also included chronically ill From Moderna: > As of today, the COVE study includes more than 7,000 Americans over the age of 65. It also includes more than 5,000 Americans who are under the age of 65 but have high-risk chronic diseases that put them at increased risk of severe COVID-19, such as diabetes, severe obesity and cardiac disease. These medically high-risk groups represent 42% of the total participants in the Phase 3 COVE study. https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-completes-enrollment-phase-3-cove-study-mrna-vaccine https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-d...

LatteLazy 6y ago

If you don't want it, that's your business. But no one should be standing on the hose for the rest of us.

antibuddy 6y ago
That's okay. We need guinea pigs. Let's just hope it's not the next Pandemrix (whatever you are getting).
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I'm a little confused. The worst case scenario for Pandemrix is a tiny chance of developing narcolepsy. Literally a few tens of people for a country. Is that wrong? It seems that would be a very acceptable risk compared to 1% of people dying and 5 years of lockdown...
  - antibuddy 6y ago
    The lockdown is not a consequence of COVID. The fact that (especially) young people were affected means you need to compare the lethality of these younger groups and that one is below 0.1% (under the age of 60 in Sweden). Is it still worth the risk then for these groups?
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      Objectively YES. A 0.1% chance of dying is much worse than a 0.0001% chance of narcolepsy. And that's without adding "Long Covid" damage or the lockdown or anything else.

tomjen3 6y ago

You are only going to get those long term tests if you give the vaccines to people. I want the vaccine now, but can't get it. Shoot me up with it and if I die from it, I will let you know.