3 ms·
The response to this, of course, will be "well the risks of the virus are still higher than those of the vaccine so you should still get it," but I think that m
by AndrewBissell 5y ago
The response to this, of course, will be "well the risks of the virus are still higher than those of the vaccine so you should still get it," but I think that misses an important point here. In the absence of long-term safety data on these vaccines, we have engaged in a priori deduction instead: "there's no known mechanism by which mRNA could cause any complications, so it should be fine." The appearance of any significantly higher than expected rate of complications potentially calls that reasoning into question.
- thenaturalist 5y agoI suggest your interpretation of such reasoning is questionable? I would posit any serious medical and or regulatory body is fully aware that an absolute statement like "no known mechanism" resulting in complications isn't worth much in the face of highly complex and sometimes still little understood mammal bio-chemistry? What can be asserted with confidence though, is that in the presence of vaccines, severe effects of a infectious disease like COVID are significantly reduced - to the great benefit of the health system and society overall - and that, due to the quite different biological responses to vaccine vs. actual infection, severe effects in general are reduced massively. See lame-robot-hoax's comments. Nothing in life and certainly with regards to COVID is entirely risk free.
- briefcomment 5y ago> "to the great benefit of the health system and society overall" I don't think we can say anything about what the net effect will be, seeing as the mRNA vaccines are novel in significant ways.