16 ms·

> until more is known about long term effects I'm curious about this line of reasoning. We've been testing mRNA treatments for other diseases for about 25 year

by ch4s3 5y ago

> until more is known about long term effects I'm curious about this line of reasoning. We've been testing mRNA treatments for other diseases for about 25 years now. The approach was abandoned for gene therapy because the effects weren't long lasting. We have follow up data on people who participated in those studies, and to my knowledge there aren't any documented negative long term effects. We know what the vaccine encodes, a spike protein, which is produced for a few weeks and the the mRNA wears out and is cleaned up by the cells. The proteins also don't persist in the body for very long. The other ingredients in the vaccine aren't anything special. History also demonstrated that negative vaccine reactions typically happen quickly, and not years down the line. With all of that in mind, why would one be concerned with long term effects? Is there something I'm missing? Is the position one of maximalist caution? If so, are you applying that to other areas of your life?

krona 5y ago
The other ingredients in the vaccine aren't anything special. Polyethylene glycol, for one, has never been used before in an approved vaccine. It is thought to be the cause of some rare anaphylactic reactions. There are dozens of other compounds in the Pfizer vaccine; the reason for them being there and their effects are, for the most part, a trade secret.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  It seems like the amount of PEG in the vaccine is two orders of magnitude than the levels in existing drugs[1]. [1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-grow-nanoparticles-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine-trigger-rare-allergic-reactions https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-grow-nano...
dukeofdoom 5y ago
Not caution. Willingness to accept death should it come. I'm part of the natural world, and viruses are a natural way that keep population in balance. All these vaccines are keeping more kindling for a bigger fire down humanity's timeline. I would probably reconsider if the odds where much worse than 1%.
- justapassenger 5y ago
  If you truly believe that viruses are here to keep our population in balance and we should be part of natural world, why would higher chances of dying affect your decision? Following your logic it just means that nature have much stronger reasons to decimate humanity. Shouldn’t you accept it?
- mekkkkkk 5y ago
  But the thing is that getting vaccinated isn't just a matter of individual safety. It's a way to minimize the spread throughout the whole of society. Even if the death rate would be only 1%, it's a whole lot of unnecessary death when dealing with a large population. Not to mention all the non-lethal yet life altering conditions that may follow full blown COVID. Regarding your naturalistic argument, I doubt that you have the same outlook when it comes to other aspects of life. There is no shortage of natural causes of death that we try to avoid in our everyday lives. Unless you are proposing that we use COVID as an opportunity to literally and explicitly cull the human population, I don't think that reasoning holds water.
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    Here's an article of odds of dying from various things. https://robertroybritt.medium.com/odds-of-dying-what-you-should-really-worry-about-cc761901565b https://robertroybritt.medium.com/odds-of-dying-what-you-sho... Car Accidents are around 1/103. I've been to India car Pollution probably kills more. Will you give up driving to make the roads safer for others? How about just give up google, because apparently they paid for some of the GOF research labs.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  This doesn't make a lot of logical sense to me. > natural way that keep population in balance This is essentially a faith based belief, and not something rooted in personal risk as you previously mentioned. > All these vaccines are keeping more kindling for a bigger fire down humanity's timeline. Viral infections don't just kill you or you'll be fine. There are expensive (to society) effects of lots of people having diminished physical and cognitive capacity after infection. More over, by not being vaccinated you are imposing extra risk on anyone you contact who is unlucky enough to be in the narrow slice of people who are vaccinated but still susceptible to infection. I don't see how you can argue from a perspective of unknown vaccine risk and some sort of concept of needing a virus to kill "excess population." That just seems perverse to me.

by ch4s3 5y ago

krona 5y ago

The other ingredients in the vaccine aren't anything special. Polyethylene glycol, for one, has never been used before in an approved vaccine. It is thought to be the cause of some rare anaphylactic reactions. There are dozens of other compounds in the Pfizer vaccine; the reason for them being there and their effects are, for the most part, a trade secret.

ch4s3 5y ago
It seems like the amount of PEG in the vaccine is two orders of magnitude than the levels in existing drugs[1]. [1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-grow-nanoparticles-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine-trigger-rare-allergic-reactions https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-grow-nano...

dukeofdoom 5y ago

Not caution. Willingness to accept death should it come. I'm part of the natural world, and viruses are a natural way that keep population in balance. All these vaccines are keeping more kindling for a bigger fire down humanity's timeline. I would probably reconsider if the odds where much worse than 1%.

justapassenger 5y ago
If you truly believe that viruses are here to keep our population in balance and we should be part of natural world, why would higher chances of dying affect your decision? Following your logic it just means that nature have much stronger reasons to decimate humanity. Shouldn’t you accept it?
mekkkkkk 5y ago
But the thing is that getting vaccinated isn't just a matter of individual safety. It's a way to minimize the spread throughout the whole of society. Even if the death rate would be only 1%, it's a whole lot of unnecessary death when dealing with a large population. Not to mention all the non-lethal yet life altering conditions that may follow full blown COVID. Regarding your naturalistic argument, I doubt that you have the same outlook when it comes to other aspects of life. There is no shortage of natural causes of death that we try to avoid in our everyday lives. Unless you are proposing that we use COVID as an opportunity to literally and explicitly cull the human population, I don't think that reasoning holds water.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  Here's an article of odds of dying from various things. https://robertroybritt.medium.com/odds-of-dying-what-you-should-really-worry-about-cc761901565b https://robertroybritt.medium.com/odds-of-dying-what-you-sho... Car Accidents are around 1/103. I've been to India car Pollution probably kills more. Will you give up driving to make the roads safer for others? How about just give up google, because apparently they paid for some of the GOF research labs.
ch4s3 5y ago
This doesn't make a lot of logical sense to me. > natural way that keep population in balance This is essentially a faith based belief, and not something rooted in personal risk as you previously mentioned. > All these vaccines are keeping more kindling for a bigger fire down humanity's timeline. Viral infections don't just kill you or you'll be fine. There are expensive (to society) effects of lots of people having diminished physical and cognitive capacity after infection. More over, by not being vaccinated you are imposing extra risk on anyone you contact who is unlucky enough to be in the narrow slice of people who are vaccinated but still susceptible to infection. I don't see how you can argue from a perspective of unknown vaccine risk and some sort of concept of needing a virus to kill "excess population." That just seems perverse to me.