7 ms·

On top of that, we wouldn't even yet know if there were any long term side effects from Pfizer, etc.

shlant 6y ago
although we do not have data yet to show if there are any side effects 1+ years after vaccination, it would be very unlikely that there would be. Serious side effects from vaccines are almost always immediate and seen within a few weeks after administration, not months or years later. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
- bmj 6y ago
  Except this particular vaccination mechanism (mRNA) has never been licensed for use in humans. Yes, there has been research, but never any sort of trial on the scale of what is happening right now. So, we really don't know what the long term effects of this particular type of vaccine are. I'm not trying to cast doubt on the efficacy of the vaccines that have been approved. Rather, I'm simply pointing out we don't have much data on the long term effects on humans.
  - shishy 6y ago
    edited because its not worth
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - srswtf123 6y ago
      By saying "I'm not trying to cast doubt" they in fact acknowledge their statement casts doubt. Surely you can see how...?
  - shlant 6y ago
    yes you are correct that we don't really know until we know, but there is good reason to believe that mRNA vaccines are actually safer than traditional methods https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/multimedia-article/were-better-off-with-mrna-vaccines/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/multimedia-article/were-be... This seems to be at least partially supported by the current risks in regards to currently available non-mRNA vaccines (such as AZ). Also I'm not really sure what saying "we don't know the long term effect are" accomplishes. It's not really adding much to the conversation.
    - cm2187 6y ago
      The conversation is about the respective merits of one vaccine over another. The fact that one is a new approach with no long term data on humans whether the other is a traditional approach is relevant.
      - selectodude 6y ago
        J&J and AZ adenovirus-vector covid vaccines are highly novel vaccines that are very similar to mRNA vaccines, just with a different delivery mechanism.
        hef19898 6y ago
        Adeno virus based vector vaccines are a pretty old idea.
        Imnimo 6y ago
        I was under the impression that adenovirus vaccines have only been been approved in the past year or two - a few for Ebola and the new ones for Covid. Are there others that have been around before that? It doesn't seem like it really matters if adenovirus vector vaccines is an "old idea" - after all, the idea of using MRNA has also been around for a long time. But if we've only started actually using them recently, how different is our knowledge of long-term effects?
  - ac29 6y ago
    mRNA is rapidly degraded once in the body (really anywhere that isnt cold storage), existing for hours to days at most after injection. There isnt a really plausible reason why there would be no serious short term side effects reported after hundreds of millions of shots, but a hidden risk of long term serious side effects.
- imchillyb 6y ago
  Almost one-third of new drugs approved by the FDA ended up years later with warnings about unexpected, sometimes life-threatening side effects. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-drugs-found-cause-side-effects-years-after-approval-n757526 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-drugs-found-c... Your supposition about likelihood bears no resemblance to reality. It's almost as if you're misleading people on purpose. I certainly hope that's not the case. Fully 1/3 of all medications approved by the FDA turn out to have serious, and some life-threatening, side effects YEARS after the medication was approved. ______ You realize that this new 'vaccine' bears no resemblance whatsoever to any prior vaccinations? This new Covid Vaccine is not a true vaccine. This is a drug that modifies the inner workings of cells. That is not a vaccine but a 'new drug'. I repeat: 1/3 of all new drugs have serious, and sometimes life threatening, reactions attributed to them between 1-5 years after the drug's approval and release to the public. 1/3... That is not an insignificant number, and it is HIGHLY LIKELY that this new drug will have similar issues.
  - tempestn 6y ago
    You can't compare vaccines to the overall universe of drugs like that. The main difference is that drugs that are intended to be taken over the long term can develop long term side effects. Vaccines are taken once or a few times, and then they're done. The parent is correct that complications arising from vaccines years after they're taken just isn't something that should be expected to happen.
    - throwawayboise 6y ago
      Would your feeling change if we discover that yearly boosters of the COVID vaccine will be required indefinitely?
      - mynameisvlad 6y ago
        The flu vaccine is still called a vaccine and it’s delivered yearly and while not required is highly recommended indefinitely. Why would this be any different?
josiea 6y ago
The publication to follow is the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) monthly reports. There's a report from January and one latest is from March 1. So far no statistically significant adverse events have occured for either pfizer or moderna vaccines. I follow them closely.

although we do not have data yet to show if there are any side effects 1+ years after vaccination, it would be very unlikely that there would be. Serious side effects from vaccines are almost always immediate and seen within a few weeks after administration, not months or years later. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....

bmj 6y ago
Except this particular vaccination mechanism (mRNA) has never been licensed for use in humans. Yes, there has been research, but never any sort of trial on the scale of what is happening right now. So, we really don't know what the long term effects of this particular type of vaccine are. I'm not trying to cast doubt on the efficacy of the vaccines that have been approved. Rather, I'm simply pointing out we don't have much data on the long term effects on humans.
- shishy 6y ago
  edited because its not worth
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - srswtf123 6y ago
    By saying "I'm not trying to cast doubt" they in fact acknowledge their statement casts doubt. Surely you can see how...?
- shlant 6y ago
  yes you are correct that we don't really know until we know, but there is good reason to believe that mRNA vaccines are actually safer than traditional methods https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/multimedia-article/were-better-off-with-mrna-vaccines/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/multimedia-article/were-be... This seems to be at least partially supported by the current risks in regards to currently available non-mRNA vaccines (such as AZ). Also I'm not really sure what saying "we don't know the long term effect are" accomplishes. It's not really adding much to the conversation.
  - cm2187 6y ago
    The conversation is about the respective merits of one vaccine over another. The fact that one is a new approach with no long term data on humans whether the other is a traditional approach is relevant.
    - selectodude 6y ago
      J&J and AZ adenovirus-vector covid vaccines are highly novel vaccines that are very similar to mRNA vaccines, just with a different delivery mechanism.
      - hef19898 6y ago
        Adeno virus based vector vaccines are a pretty old idea.
        Imnimo 6y ago
        I was under the impression that adenovirus vaccines have only been been approved in the past year or two - a few for Ebola and the new ones for Covid. Are there others that have been around before that? It doesn't seem like it really matters if adenovirus vector vaccines is an "old idea" - after all, the idea of using MRNA has also been around for a long time. But if we've only started actually using them recently, how different is our knowledge of long-term effects?
- ac29 6y ago
  mRNA is rapidly degraded once in the body (really anywhere that isnt cold storage), existing for hours to days at most after injection. There isnt a really plausible reason why there would be no serious short term side effects reported after hundreds of millions of shots, but a hidden risk of long term serious side effects.
imchillyb 6y ago
Almost one-third of new drugs approved by the FDA ended up years later with warnings about unexpected, sometimes life-threatening side effects. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-drugs-found-cause-side-effects-years-after-approval-n757526 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-drugs-found-c... Your supposition about likelihood bears no resemblance to reality. It's almost as if you're misleading people on purpose. I certainly hope that's not the case. Fully 1/3 of all medications approved by the FDA turn out to have serious, and some life-threatening, side effects YEARS after the medication was approved. ______ You realize that this new 'vaccine' bears no resemblance whatsoever to any prior vaccinations? This new Covid Vaccine is not a true vaccine. This is a drug that modifies the inner workings of cells. That is not a vaccine but a 'new drug'. I repeat: 1/3 of all new drugs have serious, and sometimes life threatening, reactions attributed to them between 1-5 years after the drug's approval and release to the public. 1/3... That is not an insignificant number, and it is HIGHLY LIKELY that this new drug will have similar issues.
- tempestn 6y ago
  You can't compare vaccines to the overall universe of drugs like that. The main difference is that drugs that are intended to be taken over the long term can develop long term side effects. Vaccines are taken once or a few times, and then they're done. The parent is correct that complications arising from vaccines years after they're taken just isn't something that should be expected to happen.
  - throwawayboise 6y ago
    Would your feeling change if we discover that yearly boosters of the COVID vaccine will be required indefinitely?
    - mynameisvlad 6y ago
      The flu vaccine is still called a vaccine and it’s delivered yearly and while not required is highly recommended indefinitely. Why would this be any different?

josiea 6y ago

The publication to follow is the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) monthly reports. There's a report from January and one latest is from March 1. So far no statistically significant adverse events have occured for either pfizer or moderna vaccines. I follow them closely.