3 ms·

Many people are wary of the newness of mRNA technology. They think a long term affect has been overlooked or is unknown. Although some people make up long term

Many people are wary of the newness of mRNA technology. They think a long term affect has been overlooked or is unknown. Although some people make up long term effects, many other people are just acknowledging the absence of history to tell, and thats valid. (Very few of the people opting out are distinguishing between any vaccine technology though. But some are.)

Pfhreak 6y ago
Isn't "the mRNA technology" decades old at this point? Yes, this might be the first wide spread human deployment, but they've been researching the technique in animals for over thirty years. What's the bar for when a technology is no longer "new"?
- symlinkk 6y ago
  You’re joking right? This reads like a parody
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    No? The first mRNA tests were conducted in 1990 in mice -- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1690918/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1690918/ We figured out the basics in 2005, specifically two scientists Karikó and Weissman. A decade ago there were discussions about how to develop more complex vaccines -- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/rna.22269 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/rna.22269 Given the immense potential to address everything from parasites (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963228/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963228/) to cancer (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28101688/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28101688/) to allergies (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30063806/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30063806/), tons of research is being done on this technology. Scientists have been working on and reporting on dosing strategies, managing immune responses, monitoring long term effects on animals, etc. for a long time now. Which part is parody? Just because something is new to you doesn't mean it's new.
    - symlinkk 6y ago
      I mean you literally typed “yeah it’s only been widely tested in animals and this is the first large scale human application of it, why are people thinking this is new?”
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        Sure, if you want to get into a semantic argument. The point is that the mechanism isn't complex, there is decades of research and multiple studies showing us it's likely safe, and still people are out here saying things like, "It's totally untested!" Like, at some point we have to trust science and accept that studies and test groups will give us some reliable safety guesses. People generally have no idea how much research has already gone into this vaccine because they've been taken in by all the media coverage around the mRNA vaccines claiming the technology is new. Let me try explaining via an analogy. It's like the folks who are really worried about 5G signals because they are new. On the one hand, yes, humankind has not had long term exposure to 5G signals. On the other hand science has a fairly complete understanding of various electromagnetic spectrums and is the phenomena of using electromagnetic phenomena is hardly new. So yes, mRNA vaccines are 'new', but only in the way 5G is 'new'. We may not have deployed it widely before, but we're pretty dang sure we understand it.
- xwolfi 6y ago
  Come on, I did it last week but after weeks of hesitancy between mrna and the chinese deactivated alternative (I live in China). Im a scientific, rational, atheist moderate person, I fight all day long against idiots spouting conspiracy theories, but still. This vaccine is the first time I get an mrna vaccine, and I just have this one life. I understand why vaccination is important but in a world where people lie and cheat, I have only one shot. Be nice about it. This is new.
nyokodo 6y ago
> Many people are wary of the newness of mRNA technology. > They think a long term affect has been overlooked or is unknown. To be a reasonable concern it has to be weighed against the alternatives. People have essentially four options assuming the virus does't just go away soon: get vaccinated using a new technology, wait for an older technology vaccine to be available, mask/isolate until the new vaccines have sufficient long-term data for their ill-defined concerns, get COVID. Well COVID has high risk for long-term effects for all age-groups including death so any reasonable person will exclude that option. Older technology vaccines for many regions of the world may never be available or be sufficiently efficacious so that and masking/isolating indefinitely and maybe even getting COVID are the same option. Plus, there is no data showing any long-term effects for vaccines that don't become apparent in the first year or 100 million people receiving them. COVID vaccine hesitancy is no longer a reasonable position to hold.
- ixacto 6y ago
  The Johnson & Johnson vaccine does not use mRNA and it is currently available in the United States. There were adult women under the age of 50 who had some medical problems with it but, it is much better than getting COVID. If the mRNA vaccine are the obstacle in getting vaccinated I’d go with the J&J. (Note: I am not a medical doctor and this is not medical advice)
  - nyokodo 6y ago
    > The Johnson & Johnson vaccine does not use mRNA It uses DNA delivered via a non-replicating adenovirus vector, it's the first vaccine of its kind to be given any form of approval in humans in the United States and maybe the fourth in the world all in the last year. It is still "new technology" in a similar fashion to the mRNA vaccines. For the new=scary=bad crowd it isn't much of an improvement.

Pfhreak 6y ago

Isn't "the mRNA technology" decades old at this point? Yes, this might be the first wide spread human deployment, but they've been researching the technique in animals for over thirty years. What's the bar for when a technology is no longer "new"?

symlinkk 6y ago
You’re joking right? This reads like a parody
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  No? The first mRNA tests were conducted in 1990 in mice -- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1690918/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1690918/ We figured out the basics in 2005, specifically two scientists Karikó and Weissman. A decade ago there were discussions about how to develop more complex vaccines -- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/rna.22269 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/rna.22269 Given the immense potential to address everything from parasites (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963228/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963228/) to cancer (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28101688/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28101688/) to allergies (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30063806/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30063806/), tons of research is being done on this technology. Scientists have been working on and reporting on dosing strategies, managing immune responses, monitoring long term effects on animals, etc. for a long time now. Which part is parody? Just because something is new to you doesn't mean it's new.
  - symlinkk 6y ago
    I mean you literally typed “yeah it’s only been widely tested in animals and this is the first large scale human application of it, why are people thinking this is new?”
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      Sure, if you want to get into a semantic argument. The point is that the mechanism isn't complex, there is decades of research and multiple studies showing us it's likely safe, and still people are out here saying things like, "It's totally untested!" Like, at some point we have to trust science and accept that studies and test groups will give us some reliable safety guesses. People generally have no idea how much research has already gone into this vaccine because they've been taken in by all the media coverage around the mRNA vaccines claiming the technology is new. Let me try explaining via an analogy. It's like the folks who are really worried about 5G signals because they are new. On the one hand, yes, humankind has not had long term exposure to 5G signals. On the other hand science has a fairly complete understanding of various electromagnetic spectrums and is the phenomena of using electromagnetic phenomena is hardly new. So yes, mRNA vaccines are 'new', but only in the way 5G is 'new'. We may not have deployed it widely before, but we're pretty dang sure we understand it.
xwolfi 6y ago
Come on, I did it last week but after weeks of hesitancy between mrna and the chinese deactivated alternative (I live in China). Im a scientific, rational, atheist moderate person, I fight all day long against idiots spouting conspiracy theories, but still. This vaccine is the first time I get an mrna vaccine, and I just have this one life. I understand why vaccination is important but in a world where people lie and cheat, I have only one shot. Be nice about it. This is new.

nyokodo 6y ago

> Many people are wary of the newness of mRNA technology. > They think a long term affect has been overlooked or is unknown. To be a reasonable concern it has to be weighed against the alternatives. People have essentially four options assuming the virus does't just go away soon: get vaccinated using a new technology, wait for an older technology vaccine to be available, mask/isolate until the new vaccines have sufficient long-term data for their ill-defined concerns, get COVID. Well COVID has high risk for long-term effects for all age-groups including death so any reasonable person will exclude that option. Older technology vaccines for many regions of the world may never be available or be sufficiently efficacious so that and masking/isolating indefinitely and maybe even getting COVID are the same option. Plus, there is no data showing any long-term effects for vaccines that don't become apparent in the first year or 100 million people receiving them. COVID vaccine hesitancy is no longer a reasonable position to hold.

ixacto 6y ago
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine does not use mRNA and it is currently available in the United States. There were adult women under the age of 50 who had some medical problems with it but, it is much better than getting COVID. If the mRNA vaccine are the obstacle in getting vaccinated I’d go with the J&J. (Note: I am not a medical doctor and this is not medical advice)
- nyokodo 6y ago
  > The Johnson & Johnson vaccine does not use mRNA It uses DNA delivered via a non-replicating adenovirus vector, it's the first vaccine of its kind to be given any form of approval in humans in the United States and maybe the fourth in the world all in the last year. It is still "new technology" in a similar fashion to the mRNA vaccines. For the new=scary=bad crowd it isn't much of an improvement.