6 ms·

Young people shouldn't be getting the vaccine period. There is no reason to give every single person who will have children in the future an experimental vaccin

Young people shouldn't be getting the vaccine period. There is no reason to give every single person who will have children in the future an experimental vaccine for a virus they are at no serious risk from. The long tail risk on that is absolutely insane.

fastball 5y ago
Not exactly sure what procreation has to do with anything. Also pretty sure risk of death outweighs literally any possible long-tail risk, so still seems sensible for the young to get the vax. Also don't think the long-tail risk of an mRNA vaccine can be worse then COVID's long-tail risk.
- throwaway8581 5y ago
  We have never deployed an mRNA vaccine before. We don't know what effect it might have on gametes.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Yes we do? The mRNA vaccines cause your body to produce the coronavirus spike protein. That is the beauty of an mRNA vaccine – the cure literally cannot be worse than the disease, because the cure is just a subset of the disease. Anything these mRNA vaccines do to your gametes would also be done (and worse) by COVID-19 itself, so... definitely get vaxxed with an mRNA vaccine if you're worried about long-tail risk. Also this is the J&J vaccine which is viral vector, not mRNA (Moderna/Pfizer).
    - throwaway8581 5y ago
      We don't know that it has no other effect. We don't know all of the circumstances where reverse transcription can happen in the human body. This kind of epistemic arrogance is dangerous and is how we ended up with thalidomide causing mass birth defects and other such disasters.
      - fastball 5y ago
        This is not, in any way, similar to thalidomide. Thalidomide was an issue because it is enantiomeric and different effects were caused by each enantiomer, only one of which was noticed. That is not an issue here, as we are talking about proteins. The primary difference though is that there was no treatment imperative with thalidomide, but there is with this. Again, we are talking about introducing something that is guaranteed to be in your body anyway if you contract COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 is viral to the point where, without perpetual lockdowns/mask-wearing/vaccinations, you will get it. So it is still definitely better to get vaccinated, at least with an mRNA vaccine – please stop spreading FUD. Your concerns could be more warranted for vaccines like J&J which use modified viral vectors, but again, exceedingly unlikely that this could be any worse than the virus itself.
        throwaway8581 5y ago
        You're talking what we learned after the fact about thalidomide. And I'm obviously not saying thalidomide and the mRNA vaccines are similar in their actions in any way. I'm just saying we don't know what injecting a bunch of synthetic spike protein mRNA (a huge percent of which has errors) into your body might do. The same way we didn't know what thalidomide might do, we don't know what this might do. We are not at the level of knowledge about the human body where we can rule out unexpected effects. That is why we have a very stringent drug and vaccine testing regime.
        Pyramus 5y ago
        I think the point parent is making is slightly different. Let me try to re-phrase it negatively: What we don't know about mRNA vaccines we don't know about SARS-CoV-2 either. Our state of knowledge of the effects of SARS-Cov-2 will soon be eclipsed by our knowledge of the effects of mRNA vaccines. SARS-Cov-2 is only 6 months older than the mRNA vaccines. There will always be unknown unknowns for both mRNA vaccines and SARS-Cov-2.
        throwaway8581 5y ago
  - gnfargbl 5y ago
    I'm not qualified to comment on whether or not that is a valid concern, but the vaccine we're discussing here (J&J) uses a modified viral vector, as do the AstraZeneca and Gamaleya vaccines.
    - throwaway8581 5y ago
      Correct. I meant the mRNA vaccines. The AZ & J&J vaccines don't have that same concern, but I'd still worry about an untested vaccine. There is really no good reason for the young and healthy to get the vaccine yet or any time soon.
      - gnfargbl 5y ago
        At the moment we're shitting on the younger generation even harder than usual, by denying them the opportunity to go out, meet people and generally enjoy their youth. Doing that for a year was maybe justified, but it is just totally unfair to carry on for an extended period. To open up again we need to bring the demand on healthcare services down and we need to do it sustainably, i.e. in a way which prevents another exponential spike. If we can achieve that aim without mass vaccination of healthy young people then great, of course, let's do that. But: if the only way to squash this thing and return everyone to a somewhat normal life turns out to be to keep vaccinating until we get right down to the twenty year olds, shouldn't we do so -- for their sake as much as everyone else's?
        throwaway8581 5y ago
        False dichotomy. If the 20 year olds all get covid, almost nothing bad will happen. So just let them catch it. If the at-risk people are all vaccinated, then it's not a big deal.
        fastball 5y ago
        > If the 20 year olds all get covid, almost nothing bad will happen. How exactly are you so confident about the long-tail risks of contracting COVID-19? Sounds like epistemic arrogance to me.
  - mahogany 5y ago
    Do you have reason to believe that it can affect gametes? In other words, do you know of any hypothesized mechanism by which this could happen?
    - throwaway8581 5y ago
      No, and no one had any reason to think that thalidomide would cause mass birth defects. This is why we have such long testing periods for vaccines and drugs in general. We also go through extra testing before approving things for pregnant women. We don't know what we don't know. Modern medicine is impressive, but we must maintain epistemic humility.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    I doubt they have, but plenty enough time has passed to evaluate your concern by examining trial participants. The mRNA in the vaccine lasts a matter hours.
  - pvarangot 5y ago
    Probably none, the tricky part is how it affects an embryo because that's an known unknown of a lot of this molecular biology/medicine things. It's already counter-indicated for pregnant women though.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  Total COVID deaths for people aged 0-17 in the USA are 246 so far. That's not that many. Despite my wife and I getting vaccinated, I'm not completely sure what the correct answer is for our kids. To put those numbers into perspective, more kids die from the flu in any given year (despite vaccination!). And far more kids die from car related accidents, and cars are a daily fact of life here. I'm also interested in the other longer term effects of COVID on kids, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of information out there about it. You talk as if it's a clear cut answer. Given the numbers involved I don't see how it can be.
  - waterheater 5y ago
    Here are some more relative risk assessments as well as stronger statistics when you're comparing to deaths by COVID-19: A college-enrolled 18-24 year old is 3.67x more likely to die of suicide [1][2][3]. A college-enrolled 18-24 year old is 6.08x more likely to die of alcohol [3][4]. A child (0-14 years) is 6.75x more likely to die by motor vehicles [5]. A child (0-14 years) is 3.93x more likely to die of drowning in a pool [6]. All fatalities are compared to present CDC numbers [7]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809451/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809451/ [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enroll... [3] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_302.60.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_302.60.a... [4] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sh... [5] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-by-age-group/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatalit... [6] https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/w... [7] https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku/data https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-...
    - fastball 5y ago
      Do you have a point, or?
- ryankemper 5y ago
  > Also don't think the long-tail risk of an mRNA vaccine can be worse then COVID's long-tail risk. It absolutely could, and that should be self-evident. > Also pretty sure risk of death outweighs literally any possible long-tail risk, so still seems sensible for the young to get the vax. This is just not true. The risk of death in children from COVID-19 is so low you literally should not ever worry about it. If you want to compare numbers in an academic sense go ahead, but the fact that actual adults are wasting valuable cognitive and emotional energy worrying about their kids is a great tragedy. The recorded COVID-19 deaths in children are, by the way, using the absurd definition of a COVID-19 case/death that most of the western world is using; a definition where having PCR-confirmed SARS-2 infection means that ANY death is classified as a COVID death. This is not how this is supposed to work; there is supposed to be a distinction between the virus and the disease, but we define the disease as merely having the virus! It's completely absurd. Indeed I'm writing an article about this concept (pathological vs physiological) right now

fastball 5y ago

Not exactly sure what procreation has to do with anything. Also pretty sure risk of death outweighs literally any possible long-tail risk, so still seems sensible for the young to get the vax. Also don't think the long-tail risk of an mRNA vaccine can be worse then COVID's long-tail risk.

throwaway8581 5y ago
We have never deployed an mRNA vaccine before. We don't know what effect it might have on gametes.
- fastball 5y ago
  Yes we do? The mRNA vaccines cause your body to produce the coronavirus spike protein. That is the beauty of an mRNA vaccine – the cure literally cannot be worse than the disease, because the cure is just a subset of the disease. Anything these mRNA vaccines do to your gametes would also be done (and worse) by COVID-19 itself, so... definitely get vaxxed with an mRNA vaccine if you're worried about long-tail risk. Also this is the J&J vaccine which is viral vector, not mRNA (Moderna/Pfizer).
  - throwaway8581 5y ago
    We don't know that it has no other effect. We don't know all of the circumstances where reverse transcription can happen in the human body. This kind of epistemic arrogance is dangerous and is how we ended up with thalidomide causing mass birth defects and other such disasters.
    - fastball 5y ago
      This is not, in any way, similar to thalidomide. Thalidomide was an issue because it is enantiomeric and different effects were caused by each enantiomer, only one of which was noticed. That is not an issue here, as we are talking about proteins. The primary difference though is that there was no treatment imperative with thalidomide, but there is with this. Again, we are talking about introducing something that is guaranteed to be in your body anyway if you contract COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 is viral to the point where, without perpetual lockdowns/mask-wearing/vaccinations, you will get it. So it is still definitely better to get vaccinated, at least with an mRNA vaccine – please stop spreading FUD. Your concerns could be more warranted for vaccines like J&J which use modified viral vectors, but again, exceedingly unlikely that this could be any worse than the virus itself.
      - throwaway8581 5y ago
        You're talking what we learned after the fact about thalidomide. And I'm obviously not saying thalidomide and the mRNA vaccines are similar in their actions in any way. I'm just saying we don't know what injecting a bunch of synthetic spike protein mRNA (a huge percent of which has errors) into your body might do. The same way we didn't know what thalidomide might do, we don't know what this might do. We are not at the level of knowledge about the human body where we can rule out unexpected effects. That is why we have a very stringent drug and vaccine testing regime.
        Pyramus 5y ago
        I think the point parent is making is slightly different. Let me try to re-phrase it negatively: What we don't know about mRNA vaccines we don't know about SARS-CoV-2 either. Our state of knowledge of the effects of SARS-Cov-2 will soon be eclipsed by our knowledge of the effects of mRNA vaccines. SARS-Cov-2 is only 6 months older than the mRNA vaccines. There will always be unknown unknowns for both mRNA vaccines and SARS-Cov-2.
        throwaway8581 5y ago
- gnfargbl 5y ago
  I'm not qualified to comment on whether or not that is a valid concern, but the vaccine we're discussing here (J&J) uses a modified viral vector, as do the AstraZeneca and Gamaleya vaccines.
  - throwaway8581 5y ago
    Correct. I meant the mRNA vaccines. The AZ & J&J vaccines don't have that same concern, but I'd still worry about an untested vaccine. There is really no good reason for the young and healthy to get the vaccine yet or any time soon.
    - gnfargbl 5y ago
      At the moment we're shitting on the younger generation even harder than usual, by denying them the opportunity to go out, meet people and generally enjoy their youth. Doing that for a year was maybe justified, but it is just totally unfair to carry on for an extended period. To open up again we need to bring the demand on healthcare services down and we need to do it sustainably, i.e. in a way which prevents another exponential spike. If we can achieve that aim without mass vaccination of healthy young people then great, of course, let's do that. But: if the only way to squash this thing and return everyone to a somewhat normal life turns out to be to keep vaccinating until we get right down to the twenty year olds, shouldn't we do so -- for their sake as much as everyone else's?
      - throwaway8581 5y ago
        False dichotomy. If the 20 year olds all get covid, almost nothing bad will happen. So just let them catch it. If the at-risk people are all vaccinated, then it's not a big deal.
        fastball 5y ago
        > If the 20 year olds all get covid, almost nothing bad will happen. How exactly are you so confident about the long-tail risks of contracting COVID-19? Sounds like epistemic arrogance to me.
- mahogany 5y ago
  Do you have reason to believe that it can affect gametes? In other words, do you know of any hypothesized mechanism by which this could happen?
  - throwaway8581 5y ago
    No, and no one had any reason to think that thalidomide would cause mass birth defects. This is why we have such long testing periods for vaccines and drugs in general. We also go through extra testing before approving things for pregnant women. We don't know what we don't know. Modern medicine is impressive, but we must maintain epistemic humility.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  I doubt they have, but plenty enough time has passed to evaluate your concern by examining trial participants. The mRNA in the vaccine lasts a matter hours.
- pvarangot 5y ago
  Probably none, the tricky part is how it affects an embryo because that's an known unknown of a lot of this molecular biology/medicine things. It's already counter-indicated for pregnant women though.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bcrosby95 5y ago
Total COVID deaths for people aged 0-17 in the USA are 246 so far. That's not that many. Despite my wife and I getting vaccinated, I'm not completely sure what the correct answer is for our kids. To put those numbers into perspective, more kids die from the flu in any given year (despite vaccination!). And far more kids die from car related accidents, and cars are a daily fact of life here. I'm also interested in the other longer term effects of COVID on kids, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of information out there about it. You talk as if it's a clear cut answer. Given the numbers involved I don't see how it can be.
- waterheater 5y ago
  Here are some more relative risk assessments as well as stronger statistics when you're comparing to deaths by COVID-19: A college-enrolled 18-24 year old is 3.67x more likely to die of suicide [1][2][3]. A college-enrolled 18-24 year old is 6.08x more likely to die of alcohol [3][4]. A child (0-14 years) is 6.75x more likely to die by motor vehicles [5]. A child (0-14 years) is 3.93x more likely to die of drowning in a pool [6]. All fatalities are compared to present CDC numbers [7]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809451/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809451/ [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enroll... [3] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_302.60.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_302.60.a... [4] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sh... [5] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-by-age-group/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatalit... [6] https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/w... [7] https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku/data https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-...
  - fastball 5y ago
    Do you have a point, or?
ryankemper 5y ago
> Also don't think the long-tail risk of an mRNA vaccine can be worse then COVID's long-tail risk. It absolutely could, and that should be self-evident. > Also pretty sure risk of death outweighs literally any possible long-tail risk, so still seems sensible for the young to get the vax. This is just not true. The risk of death in children from COVID-19 is so low you literally should not ever worry about it. If you want to compare numbers in an academic sense go ahead, but the fact that actual adults are wasting valuable cognitive and emotional energy worrying about their kids is a great tragedy. The recorded COVID-19 deaths in children are, by the way, using the absurd definition of a COVID-19 case/death that most of the western world is using; a definition where having PCR-confirmed SARS-2 infection means that ANY death is classified as a COVID death. This is not how this is supposed to work; there is supposed to be a distinction between the virus and the disease, but we define the disease as merely having the virus! It's completely absurd. Indeed I'm writing an article about this concept (pathological vs physiological) right now