6 ms·

I know quite of a few of these people and I’m consistently surprised at how little is understood about their motives from comments like this. People pretend lik

I know quite of a few of these people and I’m consistently surprised at how little is understood about their motives from comments like this. People pretend like they’re some alien race immune to logic. If that’s what you want to believe about your countrymen than that’s on you. Which is a shame because there’s things we could do to change vaccine rates among these groups. For example find alternatives to aborted fetal stem cells for testing and research (or worse, ingredients).

api 6y ago
I’m afraid I will need references for the ingredients comment.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
planet-and-halo 6y ago
I'm vaccinated, but it's also remarkable to me that people think that not taking a drug developed on an emergency use basis with no long term studies is somehow irrational or ridiculous. Some reasons are clearly silly, but being nervous about being a guinea pig for a new medical treatment is surely reasonable. I got it because I decided it made sense for me, but I still feel some anxiety about it and definitely am not going to judge other people for feeling the same way.
- jghn 6y ago
  The mRNA vaccines are expected to achieve full FDA approval over the next few months. For all of the people claiming the EUA as their reason to avoid these shots, how many of them do we believe are going to suddenly change their tune when this happens? In contrast, how many will find some new excuse?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - planet-and-halo 6y ago
    Totally fair, and there's certainly a lot of irrational skepticism. Nonetheless, this is people's health. They're allowed to be protective of it, and it's still true that we have no long term studies because they simply haven't existed long enough.
- barbazoo 6y ago
  I'm not saying you're wrong but the feeling about being a guinea pig feels to me like it must be rooted in either ignorance or disinformation because while this whole thing is definitely sped up (pipelining), there have been trials with a lot of people that were the actual guinea pigs.
  - plank_time 6y ago
    No one picked up the blood clot issue in the trials. What other long term issues could come up? Being skeptical is rational. I have a close friend who runs clinical trials for a biotech company. This is her area of expertise. She has had entire trials cancelled when 1 person has died from the drug. So the tact they are taking with AZ and J&J is a lot more lenient than normal. Not that I disagree with it, but understand that there are drugs that have been cancelled for less than what these drugs are exhibiting.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      The risk of a blood clot after the vaccine (which may or may not be causally linked) appears to be about 20 per million. The risk of randomly dying from a fall in a given year appears to be on the order of 120 per million. The most likely way to fall and die if you are in decent health is probably from a ladder. Therefore I feel like owning a ladder is probably (conservatively) on the order of five times as dangerous as getting the vaccine every year. Also, Covid killed on the order of 1600 people per million in the US in the past year. I just don't understand what risk-reward calculation people think they are doing.
      - bingbong70 6y ago
        There is the problem of unknown unknowns that makes it hard to define the risk of experimental medical intervention. The risk calculations you are attempting to make have important variables that are undefinable.
      - plank_time 6y ago
        The blood clot issue was completely unexpected after the clinical trials. Who’s to say that more issues won’t come up as time goes on? You don’t know if the blood clot issue will get worse over time or new things crop up. That’s the problem with short clinical trials, many of the long term effects aren’t found.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  >with no long term studies Covid also doesn't have long term studies determining its safety. On the contrary, it seems like some people have serious consequences that don't go away, even though they survive. People keep repeating that the death rate for younger people is very low, as though death is the only bad thing that can happen. Furthermore, it sounds plausible to me that as people get vaccinated, before reaching "herd immunity", the virus is going to be forced to evolve to get nastier and infect younger people more severely. So maybe millions of people being vaccinated is actually increasing the urgency. There have been some reports supporting this theory, that severe cases in young people are rapidly increasing coincident with most of the elderly getting their shots.
montroser 6y ago
(Genuinely) Help me understand the logic arriving at the conclusion that it's a bad idea to get vaccinated.
- brandmeyer 6y ago
  Its not just about the vaccination. If the end product is developed unethically, what avenues do you have to protest against those methods? Choosing not to buy or support the product is the most fundamental economic freedom we've got. Here's an example that used to be farther removed from today's social touchstones: Premarin. Premarin is manufactured by keeping mares continuously pregnant in stalls for the continuous collection of their urine. Should you be free to protest those methods by avoiding the product? Should a pharmacist be free to avoid stocking those products entirely if it conflicts with their ethics? Before she passed away, my grandma boycotted premarin for those reasons. That was decades ago, before transitioning became more common. Now it's more of a hot button topic, since premarin is one of the commonly prescribed drugs for transitioning women in addition to post-menopausal women. Should a pharmacist still be allowed to avoid stocking those products?
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    They always have the option of not working in the field. Depending on how licensing is done, it may not be unreasonable to expect people to make the decision about whether they want to work in a profession with state requirements for service before they enter the profession. Of course it's messier if the requirements change after they have invested the time to become licensed, but it isn't that different, they shouldn't enter the regulated profession if they want autonomy.
    - brandmeyer 6y ago
      Closely related: Should an engineer be obligated to work on weapons projects? How about weaponized machine inference? Individual practitioners within their field should have some level of autonomy, especially when it comes to ethics. I'm not willing to yank that away from someone just because their ethics disagree with mine. Same thing with consumers. Some of the reasons for avoiding GMO foods are absolutely bonkers in my opinion, but I still believe in the right of consumers to make their own choices. How would the pharma landscape change if prescription drugs were obligated to carry a label that they were developed and tested with human fetal tissue or cell cultures?

api 6y ago

I’m afraid I will need references for the ingredients comment.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

planet-and-halo 6y ago

I'm vaccinated, but it's also remarkable to me that people think that not taking a drug developed on an emergency use basis with no long term studies is somehow irrational or ridiculous. Some reasons are clearly silly, but being nervous about being a guinea pig for a new medical treatment is surely reasonable. I got it because I decided it made sense for me, but I still feel some anxiety about it and definitely am not going to judge other people for feeling the same way.

jghn 6y ago
The mRNA vaccines are expected to achieve full FDA approval over the next few months. For all of the people claiming the EUA as their reason to avoid these shots, how many of them do we believe are going to suddenly change their tune when this happens? In contrast, how many will find some new excuse?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- planet-and-halo 6y ago
  Totally fair, and there's certainly a lot of irrational skepticism. Nonetheless, this is people's health. They're allowed to be protective of it, and it's still true that we have no long term studies because they simply haven't existed long enough.
barbazoo 6y ago
I'm not saying you're wrong but the feeling about being a guinea pig feels to me like it must be rooted in either ignorance or disinformation because while this whole thing is definitely sped up (pipelining), there have been trials with a lot of people that were the actual guinea pigs.
- plank_time 6y ago
  No one picked up the blood clot issue in the trials. What other long term issues could come up? Being skeptical is rational. I have a close friend who runs clinical trials for a biotech company. This is her area of expertise. She has had entire trials cancelled when 1 person has died from the drug. So the tact they are taking with AZ and J&J is a lot more lenient than normal. Not that I disagree with it, but understand that there are drugs that have been cancelled for less than what these drugs are exhibiting.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    The risk of a blood clot after the vaccine (which may or may not be causally linked) appears to be about 20 per million. The risk of randomly dying from a fall in a given year appears to be on the order of 120 per million. The most likely way to fall and die if you are in decent health is probably from a ladder. Therefore I feel like owning a ladder is probably (conservatively) on the order of five times as dangerous as getting the vaccine every year. Also, Covid killed on the order of 1600 people per million in the US in the past year. I just don't understand what risk-reward calculation people think they are doing.
    - bingbong70 6y ago
      There is the problem of unknown unknowns that makes it hard to define the risk of experimental medical intervention. The risk calculations you are attempting to make have important variables that are undefinable.
    - plank_time 6y ago
      The blood clot issue was completely unexpected after the clinical trials. Who’s to say that more issues won’t come up as time goes on? You don’t know if the blood clot issue will get worse over time or new things crop up. That’s the problem with short clinical trials, many of the long term effects aren’t found.
perl4ever 6y ago
>with no long term studies Covid also doesn't have long term studies determining its safety. On the contrary, it seems like some people have serious consequences that don't go away, even though they survive. People keep repeating that the death rate for younger people is very low, as though death is the only bad thing that can happen. Furthermore, it sounds plausible to me that as people get vaccinated, before reaching "herd immunity", the virus is going to be forced to evolve to get nastier and infect younger people more severely. So maybe millions of people being vaccinated is actually increasing the urgency. There have been some reports supporting this theory, that severe cases in young people are rapidly increasing coincident with most of the elderly getting their shots.

montroser 6y ago

(Genuinely) Help me understand the logic arriving at the conclusion that it's a bad idea to get vaccinated.

brandmeyer 6y ago
Its not just about the vaccination. If the end product is developed unethically, what avenues do you have to protest against those methods? Choosing not to buy or support the product is the most fundamental economic freedom we've got. Here's an example that used to be farther removed from today's social touchstones: Premarin. Premarin is manufactured by keeping mares continuously pregnant in stalls for the continuous collection of their urine. Should you be free to protest those methods by avoiding the product? Should a pharmacist be free to avoid stocking those products entirely if it conflicts with their ethics? Before she passed away, my grandma boycotted premarin for those reasons. That was decades ago, before transitioning became more common. Now it's more of a hot button topic, since premarin is one of the commonly prescribed drugs for transitioning women in addition to post-menopausal women. Should a pharmacist still be allowed to avoid stocking those products?
- maxerickson 6y ago
  They always have the option of not working in the field. Depending on how licensing is done, it may not be unreasonable to expect people to make the decision about whether they want to work in a profession with state requirements for service before they enter the profession. Of course it's messier if the requirements change after they have invested the time to become licensed, but it isn't that different, they shouldn't enter the regulated profession if they want autonomy.
  - brandmeyer 6y ago
    Closely related: Should an engineer be obligated to work on weapons projects? How about weaponized machine inference? Individual practitioners within their field should have some level of autonomy, especially when it comes to ethics. I'm not willing to yank that away from someone just because their ethics disagree with mine. Same thing with consumers. Some of the reasons for avoiding GMO foods are absolutely bonkers in my opinion, but I still believe in the right of consumers to make their own choices. How would the pharma landscape change if prescription drugs were obligated to carry a label that they were developed and tested with human fetal tissue or cell cultures?