6 ms·

It's dishonest to conflate people who are hesitant about covid vaccines with anti-vaxxers. No amount of "listening" will change the fact that all three vaccines

It's dishonest to conflate people who are hesitant about covid vaccines with anti-vaxxers. No amount of "listening" will change the fact that all three vaccines are untested (it will take time for manifestation and detection of possible long term side effects), and the two primary vaccines are novel technologies. The truth of the matter is that covid vaccination has its risks and they need to be weighed against those of the virus. And when you make an honest effort to perform such an evaluation, the choice is not quite so clear cut.

bawolff 5y ago
> No amount of "listening" will change the fact that all three vaccines are untested They've had significant testing, similar to other medications of a similar type. Do you have an actual threshold you think would be a reasonable amount of "testing" and a reasonable argument as to why that is an appropriate amount as oposed to just picked at random? Or is this the sort of thing where someone could run a 100 year study, and you would still object, because what-if i live to a ripe ole' 150 and the long term effects only start 110 years later?
- totony 5y ago
  Not parent, but I think it's pretty clear (at least) mRNA vaccines have not had "[testing] similar to other medications of a similar type," because they are quite novel and the first of their kind that has been approved for widespread use. (Aka they had testing, but not as strong historical real-world testing as others) As for the other available vaccines, I'm not as familiar, but they seem more tested (although less efficient afaik). Although they also have their risks, especially for younger people, which one may want to factor in their risk/cost analysis.
  - hilbertseries 5y ago
    You know that before covid only two adenovirus vectored vaccines had been approved? And neither Ebola vaccines have really reached wide adoption.
- Izkata 5y ago
  > Do you have an actual threshold you think would be a reasonable amount of "testing" and a reasonable argument as to why that is an appropriate amount as oposed to just picked at random? Personally, because the risks of the virus are so low, I'm likely going to wait until the long term safety studies are complete: Oct 2022 and Apr 2023 for Pfizer and Moderna (I forget which is which), and early 2023 for both AstraZeneca and J&J. And if it turns out I did get the virus already, any vaccine has risk for no reward. Naturally gained immunity seems to be as good or better than vaccine immunity.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    Fwiw, i think people downvoting you is unfair. I may disagree with your risk assesment, but i asked the question and you gave your answer, so it seems unfair for people to downvote you when you appear to have answered in good faith. That said though - i'd point out that https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427 isn't solely a safety study. They are also checking things like how long the immunity lasts.
la6471 5y ago
With all due respect , Only people who have not seen how quickly a COVID case can turn dangerous , can be worried about the risks of COVID vaccine. Please take your COVID vaccines.
- tobesure 5y ago
  With all do respect, this occurs in a tiny fraction of cases and almost exclusively in the obese/elderly. The risk to a healthy person is overstated, while the potential risk of a vaccine is understated. Why should healthy people be forced to take on risk to protect those who do not take care of their bodies? Would you feel the same if the virus affected primarily smokers?
Dylan16807 5y ago
Somewhat hesitant people who are not anti-vaxxers are not the problem.
- throwaway3699 5y ago
  Isn't that the vast majority of people that are concerned?
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    Without antivaxxers spearheading and spreading lies, everyone else gets a much more accurate picture.
- Natsu 5y ago
  Don't be so sure, there are a lot of people who are on the fence and just keep quiet. I know enough of them that I'm pushing them towards getting vaccinated with some success, but on average I find more are merely hesitant than outright anti-vax and I think the raw numbers may tip things because very few are completely anti-vax if you really talk things over with them. The modal vaccine 'skeptic' with respect to covid mostly complies with things while people are watching and is worried about something in their life forcing them to take the vaccine and putting off the choice as long as they can. Some are combing through VAERS data, reading stuff from scientists about how this stuff works, etc. so I think what we really know is more accessible stuff to relay what we do and do not know as factually as possible without trying to directly convince anyone, instead making an honest best effort to put the 'informed' into 'informed consent'. Yeah, there will always be a few who don't go for it, but if you want to help the most people who are nervous, that's the best approach to take as someone who has managed to convince a few nervous people to get vaccinated. I'm doing my best to help people in that vein, but I'm only one person.
Natsu 5y ago
Yeah, vaccine denial is a spectrum and not all of the concerns are easily dismissed nonsense, even if the far end of it is. My experience in talking to vaccine-hesitant people is that the most important thing is honesty, including honesty about what we don't know, what various authorities (e.g. the WHO) got wrong, the actual magnitude of both the risks (e.g. comparing long Covid to VAERS data), the science backing/not backing various regulations (6 ft is a guess based on the inverse square law and honestly kinda suspect, etc.), and discussion over how the risks are not evenly distributed in all populations. There's plenty of room in there for questioning things and I say that as someone who got fully vaccinated as soon as possible. Lately I've been spending some of my time trying to help various vaccine-hesitant online populations better understand the actual science on the subject and what we do/don't know. I find that some of the most prominent misconceptions are things like assuming that the vaccinations are 100% effective (Sinovac is what, maybe 60%?) or that mRNA vaccines are "gene therapy" (only in the sense that all viruses are, and at least the vaccine goes away in ~3 days instead of replicating inside you). Better resources that explain what we do and don't know focused on those points specifically and accessible to a lay audience would probably help the most people, preferably linking to scientific papers and primary sources to let the more scientifically minded dig in. After all, many people are not going to believe you if you tell them the vaccines are 100% safe. But they might believe you if you're honest that there are 1 in a million risks that are better on average than taking the same risk with a Covid infection and that the damn virus is likely to exist at least within outbreaks if not in community spread for several more years and talk about how the profile for long Covid vs. long-term vaccine side-effects is similar, but you get a smaller exposure from the vaccine because it breaks down and goes away. And if somehow it doesn't, someone posted the sequences on Github so it could be tested for specifically if that ever became necessary.
- version_five 5y ago
  Your approach seems pretty reasonable. Personally I think the scientific part of the debate is a bit of a red herring. People do things and take medicines all the time that they dont fully understand the risks and consequences of. I think a lot of the wariness comes from the obvious doctrinal viewpoint of a lot of vocal advocates of covid measures - making it an ultimatum where you're either fully on board or a "denier", anti-masker, whatever is not a way to win people over. It's an interesting problem, because in one respect you don't to encourage apathy or laziness, but on the other hand, people are rightly wary of any kind of zealotry or promotion - in most cases I see heavy advertising as an obvious red flag that something isn't what it seems. So like you say, having an honest discussion seems like the best approach (and respecting people's choices once you've given them the information). But that's probably true of most controversial things.
rkk3 5y ago
> The truth of the matter is that covid vaccination has its risks and they need to be weighed against those of the virus. And when you make an honest effort to perform such an evaluation, the choice is not quite so clear cut. What risks from vaccination make it not clear cut?
brlewis 5y ago
I made what I thought was an honest effort to evaluate the risks of vaccination versus the risks of the virus, but I ended up with a clear cut answer. Could you please point out the dishonest part? https://en.howtruthful.com/o/remaining_unvaccinated_against_covid-19_is_more_risky_than_getting_vaccinated_in_the_usa/769bb2a6911ae09ac0c60ead658ed412 https://en.howtruthful.com/o/remaining_unvaccinated_against_...
- rubyskills 5y ago
  Just to be clear, any deaths reported by VAERS database does not necessarily mean it was related to the vaccine. Interesting article on the topic: https://www.newsweek.com/covid-vaccine-deaths-cause-pfizer-moderna-fact-check-966-died-1574447 https://www.newsweek.com/covid-vaccine-deaths-cause-pfizer-m...
  - brlewis 5y ago
    How is that more clear than "True: A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link from deaths to COVID-19 vaccines"? Please don't say "Just to be clear" and say something agreeing with what I posted. That's actually less clear because casual readers will think you're arguing against me.
lmilcin 5y ago
If you go to a doctor with some kind of pain and she prescribes you some pills, are you hesitant to take them? Are you questioning the science behind these pills? Are you accusing companies the pills are a fraud and government for peddling them for corporate enrichment? Are you looking at list of side effects and say, because it has potential sideffects you are not going to take it? No, you just take the pill because you trust your doctor, you trust the process is providing you reasonable safety. Have there been issues in the past? Of course there have been, but the idea is to fix the system rather than deny its value. Peddling FUD is exactly what anti vaccine movement does where there is no reason to fear it. Just do the best job we can running the process correctly (ie holding "big pharma" to be responsible for what they produce).
- tobesure 5y ago
  >If you go to a doctor with some kind of pain and she prescribes you some pills, are you hesitant to take them? Are you questioning the science behind these pills? Are you accusing companies the pills are a fraud and government for peddling them for corporate enrichment? Are you looking at list of side effects and say, because it has potential sideffects you are not going to take it? Absolutely, yes to all of these, why wouldn't you in 2021? Are you not aware of the irresponsible over prescription which led to the opioid crisis? Are you aware that you can request alternative prescriptions? >Are you questioning the science behind these pills? Science is not beyond reproach, is never 100% certain, and doctors are especially fallible. It would be irresponsible not to conduct your own research, particularly when you can typically find all manner of studies, including trial results, for most medications. It's irresponsible to blindly consume whatever a doctor prescribes without awareness for side effects. >Just do the best job we can running the process correctly You put far too much blind faith in bureaucracy. >Peddling FUD is exactly what anti vaccine movement does where there is no reason to fear it. That's just not true. The medical establishment makes mistakes all the time, both at large scale and individual scale. There are hundreds of different drugs which were discontinued after years of use permanently harmed or disabled patients who later sued. Frankly, your optimism is toxic. Further, it is not up to my doctor to decide what an acceptable level of risk is for an me. None of this even touches upon the perverse incentives, political and financial, to get a "working" vaccine shipped ASAP. There's no reason to believe that the establishment, which has been granted legal immunity for this vaccine, will be entirely and rapidly forthcoming if there are severe negative side effects.

bawolff 5y ago

> No amount of "listening" will change the fact that all three vaccines are untested They've had significant testing, similar to other medications of a similar type. Do you have an actual threshold you think would be a reasonable amount of "testing" and a reasonable argument as to why that is an appropriate amount as oposed to just picked at random? Or is this the sort of thing where someone could run a 100 year study, and you would still object, because what-if i live to a ripe ole' 150 and the long term effects only start 110 years later?

totony 5y ago
Not parent, but I think it's pretty clear (at least) mRNA vaccines have not had "[testing] similar to other medications of a similar type," because they are quite novel and the first of their kind that has been approved for widespread use. (Aka they had testing, but not as strong historical real-world testing as others) As for the other available vaccines, I'm not as familiar, but they seem more tested (although less efficient afaik). Although they also have their risks, especially for younger people, which one may want to factor in their risk/cost analysis.
- hilbertseries 5y ago
  You know that before covid only two adenovirus vectored vaccines had been approved? And neither Ebola vaccines have really reached wide adoption.
Izkata 5y ago
> Do you have an actual threshold you think would be a reasonable amount of "testing" and a reasonable argument as to why that is an appropriate amount as oposed to just picked at random? Personally, because the risks of the virus are so low, I'm likely going to wait until the long term safety studies are complete: Oct 2022 and Apr 2023 for Pfizer and Moderna (I forget which is which), and early 2023 for both AstraZeneca and J&J. And if it turns out I did get the virus already, any vaccine has risk for no reward. Naturally gained immunity seems to be as good or better than vaccine immunity.
- bawolff 5y ago
  Fwiw, i think people downvoting you is unfair. I may disagree with your risk assesment, but i asked the question and you gave your answer, so it seems unfair for people to downvote you when you appear to have answered in good faith. That said though - i'd point out that https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427 isn't solely a safety study. They are also checking things like how long the immunity lasts.

la6471 5y ago

With all due respect , Only people who have not seen how quickly a COVID case can turn dangerous , can be worried about the risks of COVID vaccine. Please take your COVID vaccines.

tobesure 5y ago
With all do respect, this occurs in a tiny fraction of cases and almost exclusively in the obese/elderly. The risk to a healthy person is overstated, while the potential risk of a vaccine is understated. Why should healthy people be forced to take on risk to protect those who do not take care of their bodies? Would you feel the same if the virus affected primarily smokers?

Dylan16807 5y ago

Somewhat hesitant people who are not anti-vaxxers are not the problem.

throwaway3699 5y ago
Isn't that the vast majority of people that are concerned?
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Without antivaxxers spearheading and spreading lies, everyone else gets a much more accurate picture.
Natsu 5y ago
Don't be so sure, there are a lot of people who are on the fence and just keep quiet. I know enough of them that I'm pushing them towards getting vaccinated with some success, but on average I find more are merely hesitant than outright anti-vax and I think the raw numbers may tip things because very few are completely anti-vax if you really talk things over with them. The modal vaccine 'skeptic' with respect to covid mostly complies with things while people are watching and is worried about something in their life forcing them to take the vaccine and putting off the choice as long as they can. Some are combing through VAERS data, reading stuff from scientists about how this stuff works, etc. so I think what we really know is more accessible stuff to relay what we do and do not know as factually as possible without trying to directly convince anyone, instead making an honest best effort to put the 'informed' into 'informed consent'. Yeah, there will always be a few who don't go for it, but if you want to help the most people who are nervous, that's the best approach to take as someone who has managed to convince a few nervous people to get vaccinated. I'm doing my best to help people in that vein, but I'm only one person.

Natsu 5y ago

Yeah, vaccine denial is a spectrum and not all of the concerns are easily dismissed nonsense, even if the far end of it is. My experience in talking to vaccine-hesitant people is that the most important thing is honesty, including honesty about what we don't know, what various authorities (e.g. the WHO) got wrong, the actual magnitude of both the risks (e.g. comparing long Covid to VAERS data), the science backing/not backing various regulations (6 ft is a guess based on the inverse square law and honestly kinda suspect, etc.), and discussion over how the risks are not evenly distributed in all populations. There's plenty of room in there for questioning things and I say that as someone who got fully vaccinated as soon as possible. Lately I've been spending some of my time trying to help various vaccine-hesitant online populations better understand the actual science on the subject and what we do/don't know. I find that some of the most prominent misconceptions are things like assuming that the vaccinations are 100% effective (Sinovac is what, maybe 60%?) or that mRNA vaccines are "gene therapy" (only in the sense that all viruses are, and at least the vaccine goes away in ~3 days instead of replicating inside you). Better resources that explain what we do and don't know focused on those points specifically and accessible to a lay audience would probably help the most people, preferably linking to scientific papers and primary sources to let the more scientifically minded dig in. After all, many people are not going to believe you if you tell them the vaccines are 100% safe. But they might believe you if you're honest that there are 1 in a million risks that are better on average than taking the same risk with a Covid infection and that the damn virus is likely to exist at least within outbreaks if not in community spread for several more years and talk about how the profile for long Covid vs. long-term vaccine side-effects is similar, but you get a smaller exposure from the vaccine because it breaks down and goes away. And if somehow it doesn't, someone posted the sequences on Github so it could be tested for specifically if that ever became necessary.

version_five 5y ago
Your approach seems pretty reasonable. Personally I think the scientific part of the debate is a bit of a red herring. People do things and take medicines all the time that they dont fully understand the risks and consequences of. I think a lot of the wariness comes from the obvious doctrinal viewpoint of a lot of vocal advocates of covid measures - making it an ultimatum where you're either fully on board or a "denier", anti-masker, whatever is not a way to win people over. It's an interesting problem, because in one respect you don't to encourage apathy or laziness, but on the other hand, people are rightly wary of any kind of zealotry or promotion - in most cases I see heavy advertising as an obvious red flag that something isn't what it seems. So like you say, having an honest discussion seems like the best approach (and respecting people's choices once you've given them the information). But that's probably true of most controversial things.

rkk3 5y ago

> The truth of the matter is that covid vaccination has its risks and they need to be weighed against those of the virus. And when you make an honest effort to perform such an evaluation, the choice is not quite so clear cut. What risks from vaccination make it not clear cut?

brlewis 5y ago

I made what I thought was an honest effort to evaluate the risks of vaccination versus the risks of the virus, but I ended up with a clear cut answer. Could you please point out the dishonest part? https://en.howtruthful.com/o/remaining_unvaccinated_against_covid-19_is_more_risky_than_getting_vaccinated_in_the_usa/769bb2a6911ae09ac0c60ead658ed412 https://en.howtruthful.com/o/remaining_unvaccinated_against_...

rubyskills 5y ago
Just to be clear, any deaths reported by VAERS database does not necessarily mean it was related to the vaccine. Interesting article on the topic: https://www.newsweek.com/covid-vaccine-deaths-cause-pfizer-moderna-fact-check-966-died-1574447 https://www.newsweek.com/covid-vaccine-deaths-cause-pfizer-m...
- brlewis 5y ago
  How is that more clear than "True: A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link from deaths to COVID-19 vaccines"? Please don't say "Just to be clear" and say something agreeing with what I posted. That's actually less clear because casual readers will think you're arguing against me.

lmilcin 5y ago

If you go to a doctor with some kind of pain and she prescribes you some pills, are you hesitant to take them? Are you questioning the science behind these pills? Are you accusing companies the pills are a fraud and government for peddling them for corporate enrichment? Are you looking at list of side effects and say, because it has potential sideffects you are not going to take it? No, you just take the pill because you trust your doctor, you trust the process is providing you reasonable safety. Have there been issues in the past? Of course there have been, but the idea is to fix the system rather than deny its value. Peddling FUD is exactly what anti vaccine movement does where there is no reason to fear it. Just do the best job we can running the process correctly (ie holding "big pharma" to be responsible for what they produce).

tobesure 5y ago
>If you go to a doctor with some kind of pain and she prescribes you some pills, are you hesitant to take them? Are you questioning the science behind these pills? Are you accusing companies the pills are a fraud and government for peddling them for corporate enrichment? Are you looking at list of side effects and say, because it has potential sideffects you are not going to take it? Absolutely, yes to all of these, why wouldn't you in 2021? Are you not aware of the irresponsible over prescription which led to the opioid crisis? Are you aware that you can request alternative prescriptions? >Are you questioning the science behind these pills? Science is not beyond reproach, is never 100% certain, and doctors are especially fallible. It would be irresponsible not to conduct your own research, particularly when you can typically find all manner of studies, including trial results, for most medications. It's irresponsible to blindly consume whatever a doctor prescribes without awareness for side effects. >Just do the best job we can running the process correctly You put far too much blind faith in bureaucracy. >Peddling FUD is exactly what anti vaccine movement does where there is no reason to fear it. That's just not true. The medical establishment makes mistakes all the time, both at large scale and individual scale. There are hundreds of different drugs which were discontinued after years of use permanently harmed or disabled patients who later sued. Frankly, your optimism is toxic. Further, it is not up to my doctor to decide what an acceptable level of risk is for an me. None of this even touches upon the perverse incentives, political and financial, to get a "working" vaccine shipped ASAP. There's no reason to believe that the establishment, which has been granted legal immunity for this vaccine, will be entirely and rapidly forthcoming if there are severe negative side effects.