4 ms·

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emerg

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emerge... Sure, fair as well. It's under emergency use authorization--not technically experimental. Experimental may be strong, but it at least somewhat aptly describes a vaccine that uses a novel technology that still does not yet have FDA approval. > pure, unadulterated conspiracy nonsense My use of experimental seems a bit logical to me, but I understand if you disagree. That said, your dismissal is quite shallow and leads me to believe you're unwilling to have a real discussion on the topic as my opinion is just `unadulterated conspiracy nonsense`. I believe more speech is the solution to bad speech. If you disagree with me please engage in an honest non-dismissive manner and we'll both become more informed even if you're right, you'll at least understand why I'm misinformed.

helen___keller 5y ago
For the sake of good faith discussion, I do have two questions if you don't mind (1) I believe both Moderna and Pfizer are in the process of seeking full FDA approval for their mRNA vaccines. Assuming they succeed, is it safe to say your opinion of the vaccines will change accordingly to a less-contrarian view? (2) My understanding (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that your view is one looking to protect against tail risk, which can be summarized with the following statement: 'Absence of evidence of risk is not sufficient'. In other words, you want sufficient evidence that mRNA vaccines are safe, rather than accepting an EUA based on demonstrated effectiveness and lack of known risk[0]. My question is whether you're willing to reconsider the above statement as the absence of evidence of risk continues in the face of overwhelming distribution of the vaccine? For example, J&J was paused after just 8 million doses. Pfizer and Moderna are an order of magnitude higher on doses (on the order of about 100 million doses). Even if we're modelling against the risk of a side-effect that takes many months, or even somehow years, on average to materialize, on a bell curve many many vaccine recipients would already have materialized the side effects. (IE if materializing under 3 months is a 5 sigma event, we would have had enough adverse effects materializing to halt the use of the vaccines, similar to how J&J was halted after something like 6 or 8 observed blood clottings) Furthermore, my understanding is that FDA approval is based on having 6 months of phase 3 clinical trial safety data (and EUA based on 2 months of the same). The number of people enrolled in phase 3 clinical trials of mRNA vaccines is so few compared to the total number of vaccines (I think 40,000 in pfizer phase 3 trials), it is absurd to consider that new issues could show up in phase 3 trials that had not already demonstrated en masse in the hundreds of MILLIONS of doses given out in the public. It's statistically impossible. With that in mind, I would suggest that waiting until FDA full approval is basically pointless; if you're worried about side effects that take decades on average, the FDA won't be able to save you from that, and if you're worried about side effects that take months on average, we would already know about it from the hundreds of millions of willing volunteers. [0] Lack of known risk: the J&J vaccine was halted and investigated immediately when there was a potential blood clotting issue. No such potential risks have yet been uncovered with Pfizer and Moderna, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  Regarding (1)... I would feel better, but I would still not get the vaccine having had COVID myself, and I would still be completely against any form of restriction of those without the vaccine. I believe my views will be contrarian as long as I live under a large government. The biggest issue for me though is being told to obey without being convinced. The more persecuted I feel, the more I have a desire to backlash. When Alex Jones was de-platformed I was like, huh, guy's crazy, so why would they want to remove him. He's a joke, not a real threat right? Then suddenly Youtube included a CDC banner on its home page and started removing content that was at all critical of the CDC's authority. I then started finding more and more evidence of control that frankly scares me. So, yeah I would maybe be a bit more measured if it was FDA approved, but at this point the degree of cooperation between tech/media/government on this messaging has me actually terrified. Regarding (2), yes I would like proof of absence of harm--which is what I believe you're asking. Unfortunately, I do want that over the long term. I see the point you're making, but for my age group, I'm just as safe to get COVID itself and self isolate while I have it (which I did inadvertently). From all evidence, having had COVID is better than the vaccines themselves, but that's not at all considered when people are requiring a card to eat at a restaurant or go to a gym. @helen___keller IDK if there's a thread depth limit or something, but it's been 15mins and I still can't reply, so I'm writing here. In my area, there are limitations at gyms such that you cannot workout without a mask unless you've got a vaccine card. Restaurants just require a mask unless you've been vaccinated--thought I've not seen them check. I personally don't try to skate around the requirement (lie). I just wear the mask. I admit, that's not the same as not allowing admission, but I've only seen these sort of restrictions pick up, but not back down. As such, I am afraid further restrictions for un-vaccinated are coming. I'm jealous that you don't have the restrictions in your area, and we are looking at moving.
  - helen___keller 5y ago
    > I believe my views will be contrarian as long as I live under a large government. The biggest issue for me though is being told to obey without being convinced. The more persecuted I feel, the more I have a desire to backlash. I understand how you feel, although I don't personally relate. I'd urge you to consider that whatever truth exists in the world is independent of your government. There are countries with more free and less free governments, places with vaccine passport systems and places where vaccines are basically nonexistent. The truth of whether mRNA vaccines are safe and effective is the same in all of these places. > the degree of cooperation between tech/media/government on this messaging has me actually terrified Again, this is understandable, but at the end of the day this is just, for lack of a better phrase, how the world works. It's capitalism, basically. Tech/media control the vast vast majority of marketing. Government wanted to do marketing to make people more confident in the vaccine or encourage people to wear masks or whatever. Obviously the marketing was not effective on you. But at the end of the day the truth of whether these things were effective, useful, or needed is completely orthogonal to the fact that government got buddy with tech/media to promote them. > that's not at all considered when people are requiring a card to eat at a restaurant or go to a gym Is this happening for you? Just wondering. Where I am, pandemic rules are gone entirely except for requiring masks on public transit and in medical settings.
enraged_camel 5y ago
>>I believe more speech is the solution to bad speech. If you disagree with me please engage in an honest non-dismissive manner and we'll both become more informed even if you're right, you'll at least understand why I'm misinformed. The reason I didn't assume good faith, and still don't, is that you described people who stayed indoors for a year as "obedient shut-ins" and attributed their behavior to them being on the "government control side of things." And now you're complaining about how you cannot post anything without getting downvoted and are trying to turn the tables by pretending to be someone who just wants to have an honest conversation.

helen___keller 5y ago

For the sake of good faith discussion, I do have two questions if you don't mind (1) I believe both Moderna and Pfizer are in the process of seeking full FDA approval for their mRNA vaccines. Assuming they succeed, is it safe to say your opinion of the vaccines will change accordingly to a less-contrarian view? (2) My understanding (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that your view is one looking to protect against tail risk, which can be summarized with the following statement: 'Absence of evidence of risk is not sufficient'. In other words, you want sufficient evidence that mRNA vaccines are safe, rather than accepting an EUA based on demonstrated effectiveness and lack of known risk[0]. My question is whether you're willing to reconsider the above statement as the absence of evidence of risk continues in the face of overwhelming distribution of the vaccine? For example, J&J was paused after just 8 million doses. Pfizer and Moderna are an order of magnitude higher on doses (on the order of about 100 million doses). Even if we're modelling against the risk of a side-effect that takes many months, or even somehow years, on average to materialize, on a bell curve many many vaccine recipients would already have materialized the side effects. (IE if materializing under 3 months is a 5 sigma event, we would have had enough adverse effects materializing to halt the use of the vaccines, similar to how J&J was halted after something like 6 or 8 observed blood clottings) Furthermore, my understanding is that FDA approval is based on having 6 months of phase 3 clinical trial safety data (and EUA based on 2 months of the same). The number of people enrolled in phase 3 clinical trials of mRNA vaccines is so few compared to the total number of vaccines (I think 40,000 in pfizer phase 3 trials), it is absurd to consider that new issues could show up in phase 3 trials that had not already demonstrated en masse in the hundreds of MILLIONS of doses given out in the public. It's statistically impossible. With that in mind, I would suggest that waiting until FDA full approval is basically pointless; if you're worried about side effects that take decades on average, the FDA won't be able to save you from that, and if you're worried about side effects that take months on average, we would already know about it from the hundreds of millions of willing volunteers. [0] Lack of known risk: the J&J vaccine was halted and investigated immediately when there was a potential blood clotting issue. No such potential risks have yet been uncovered with Pfizer and Moderna, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

reedjosh 5y ago
Regarding (1)... I would feel better, but I would still not get the vaccine having had COVID myself, and I would still be completely against any form of restriction of those without the vaccine. I believe my views will be contrarian as long as I live under a large government. The biggest issue for me though is being told to obey without being convinced. The more persecuted I feel, the more I have a desire to backlash. When Alex Jones was de-platformed I was like, huh, guy's crazy, so why would they want to remove him. He's a joke, not a real threat right? Then suddenly Youtube included a CDC banner on its home page and started removing content that was at all critical of the CDC's authority. I then started finding more and more evidence of control that frankly scares me. So, yeah I would maybe be a bit more measured if it was FDA approved, but at this point the degree of cooperation between tech/media/government on this messaging has me actually terrified. Regarding (2), yes I would like proof of absence of harm--which is what I believe you're asking. Unfortunately, I do want that over the long term. I see the point you're making, but for my age group, I'm just as safe to get COVID itself and self isolate while I have it (which I did inadvertently). From all evidence, having had COVID is better than the vaccines themselves, but that's not at all considered when people are requiring a card to eat at a restaurant or go to a gym. @helen___keller IDK if there's a thread depth limit or something, but it's been 15mins and I still can't reply, so I'm writing here. In my area, there are limitations at gyms such that you cannot workout without a mask unless you've got a vaccine card. Restaurants just require a mask unless you've been vaccinated--thought I've not seen them check. I personally don't try to skate around the requirement (lie). I just wear the mask. I admit, that's not the same as not allowing admission, but I've only seen these sort of restrictions pick up, but not back down. As such, I am afraid further restrictions for un-vaccinated are coming. I'm jealous that you don't have the restrictions in your area, and we are looking at moving.
- helen___keller 5y ago
  > I believe my views will be contrarian as long as I live under a large government. The biggest issue for me though is being told to obey without being convinced. The more persecuted I feel, the more I have a desire to backlash. I understand how you feel, although I don't personally relate. I'd urge you to consider that whatever truth exists in the world is independent of your government. There are countries with more free and less free governments, places with vaccine passport systems and places where vaccines are basically nonexistent. The truth of whether mRNA vaccines are safe and effective is the same in all of these places. > the degree of cooperation between tech/media/government on this messaging has me actually terrified Again, this is understandable, but at the end of the day this is just, for lack of a better phrase, how the world works. It's capitalism, basically. Tech/media control the vast vast majority of marketing. Government wanted to do marketing to make people more confident in the vaccine or encourage people to wear masks or whatever. Obviously the marketing was not effective on you. But at the end of the day the truth of whether these things were effective, useful, or needed is completely orthogonal to the fact that government got buddy with tech/media to promote them. > that's not at all considered when people are requiring a card to eat at a restaurant or go to a gym Is this happening for you? Just wondering. Where I am, pandemic rules are gone entirely except for requiring masks on public transit and in medical settings.

enraged_camel 5y ago

>>I believe more speech is the solution to bad speech. If you disagree with me please engage in an honest non-dismissive manner and we'll both become more informed even if you're right, you'll at least understand why I'm misinformed. The reason I didn't assume good faith, and still don't, is that you described people who stayed indoors for a year as "obedient shut-ins" and attributed their behavior to them being on the "government control side of things." And now you're complaining about how you cannot post anything without getting downvoted and are trying to turn the tables by pretending to be someone who just wants to have an honest conversation.