6 ms·

There have been hundreds of millions of vaccinations. What unforseen danger is there at this point? Be precise.

LifeIsThermal 5y ago
See my post below.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Be precise about something that is unknowable? We take a risk with this plain and simple. It might be small, but so is risk from the disease itself.
AYBABTME 5y ago
What if there's unpredictable long term consequences? Like, turns out XYZ compounds gives cancer but that only become detectable after 18+ months. Although I admit I don't know if regular trials would uncover these either. I have no dog in this fight, I'm just providing a possible answer.
- Nursie 5y ago
  All of the components have been used before, these things aren't that new. mRNA tech itself has been in development since the 80s, and for immunisation since about 2012. It's gone from the body within a few hours AFAICT. If you're that worried, go for the J&J or AZ vaccines, which are more 'traditional' and don't use mRNA.
  - AYBABTME 5y ago
    I'm not worried at all, I'm eager to be able to get a mRNA vaccine, but no vaccine at all is available to my age group where I live. I envy y'all.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
    Being new or not is not the crucial point. What matters is that it's in the interest of the society at large that as many people as possible are vaccinated quickly. This might present certain incentives to treat possible side effects in a political way, basically downplaying them. I'm not saying this is what is happening now, but it has definitely happened in the past. When you read the history of Pandemrix[0][1], you will note that: > In August 2010 the Swedish MPA issued a statement which included the following: "An investigation is ongoing, but any relationship between the vaccination and the reported symptoms can not be concluded." and: > In the Irish parliament, TD Clare Daly commented that, “The Health Service Executive (HSE) decided to purchase Pandemrix and continued to distribute it even after they knew it was dangerous and untested, and before most of the public in Ireland received it.” [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix [1] https://www.thelocal.se/20201126/why-some-young-swedes-are-wary-of-new-vaccines-after-swine-flu-campaign/ https://www.thelocal.se/20201126/why-some-young-swedes-are-w...
    - Nursie 5y ago
      > Being new or not is not the crucial point. When we're talking about "we don't know the long term effects", it's certainly a crucial point, because it shows that we can have a good idea of the long term effects already. I agree there's likely to be huge political pressure to downplay side effects, however the scale of this rollout and the attention it's getting worldwide mean that it's going to be very unlikely such things sneak through, simply due to the size of the vaccinated population.
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        Downplaying the side effects is a negative influence in that case. On the contrary, you should transparent with it.
        Nursie 5y ago
        Downplaying the side effects is always a negative, people should be informed. The fear is that people are irrational, and when informed will overreact and not get vaccinated. This fear is not unfounded, so they downplay the side effects. Then people notice this downplaying, lose confidence anyway, and don't get vaccinated. It's a bizarre and ridiculous game.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  > What if there's unpredictable long term consequences? That same question can be asked about covid so I don't understand how this single point brings anything to the discussion. We don't know the future. We don't know the future vaccine effects just like we don't know the future for covid effects. We do definitely know that the effects of covid (even if you discount them by the fact that not everyone gets covid) are much worse than the vaccines. Everything points to the vaccines being much better than the disease.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    That was my point from the beginning, but you still cannot exclude risk completely. This is why manufacturers are explicitly exempt from responsibility of damages. Why would that be needed then? Why do people getting the vaccine need to wait a while before being released? Because of the unknowns that I meant. And it doesn't even have to be intrinsic to the vaccine, it could be a manufacturing error like there was with Polio. As I said, I am vaccinated, but this reaction and militancy really puts me off and frankly, I think it is a bit stupid. Not your comment though.
    - CogitoCogito 5y ago
      Of course you can't exclude the risk, but there is _no_ usable information in that fear. Just because something can happen down the line, doesn't mean it's actionable. What if these vaccines start giving us super human strength in a few years? Can we discount that possibility? Why or why not? Should I act on that possibility today? All we can consider is _actionable_ information. All information so far points to the side-effects of the vaccines causing problems at negligible levels compared to the the side-effects of getting covid. That is information we can use and it really only supports one conclusion.
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        I believe this to be actionable enough that the decision to take it or not should remain an individual decision and I believe that is the extend what people demand. Nobody is talking about throwing it off the market because it isn't deemed safe.
- basch 5y ago
  That's traditionally not how vaccines work. The side effects and consequences are short term, as in less than one month. The substance is broken down by you body, and all that remains is immunity. Off the top of my uneducated head, the one theoretical concern would be giving yourself an autoimmune disease, where your immune system attacks something it shouldnt. Like mistraining a model. Barring that, it seems general consensus is that long term consequences are infinitely unlikely.
  - forcry 5y ago
    >The side effects and consequences are short term, as in less than one month. The substance is broken down by you body, and all that remains is immunity. I am not sure this idea of "traditional vaccine" is true. The contents of Vaccines can be drastically different. And you cannot generalise that. > substance is broken down by you body, and all that remains is immunity. It is quite misleading, to say the least.
    - basch 5y ago
      >quite misleading Possibly. Or accurate.
      - forcry 5y ago
        So can't generalize. Which was the point.
        basch 5y ago
        You can generalize that traditionally vaccines don't last in the body. In this specific case, you can argue the lipid layer throws a wrench in assumptions, and then the onus is on you to prove some proposed mechanism for long term effect. Because the protein the vaccine targets is not human, the risk of the immune system turning on the body after training was rhetorical, because if the antibodies were targeting our body, it would have come up by now. Another theoretical concern that has not manifested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement#Coronavirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement...
- forcry 5y ago
  >What if there's unpredictable long term consequences? This is actually a smaller issue. The big issue is that measures based on science that is tainted with trust issues must not be mandated. Have written about this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817926 Basically, I think science require a global change in its perception that is updated to modern times.
khazhoux 5y ago
I don't believe there is a risk, but I'll defend the commenter: Unforeseen by definition means yet-unknown. How can one be precise?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hrjfkfnf 5y ago
Some toxins take years, or decades to manifest themselves. As an example, see lead, asbestos, mercury, or other heavy metals poisonings. As Taleb says, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As a specific point regarding these vaccines, we don't really know the long term effect of the lipid nano particles used in them. And we do know that it took 20 years to create them, because all previous lipid nano particles tried were proven to be highly toxic.
- Nursie 5y ago
  AFAICT this applies only to Pfizer and Moderna, which are mRNA vaccines. The J&J and Astra vaccines are more 'traditional' and use adenovirus as a delivery mechanism.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  Does that mean you are a proponent of the more traditional vaccines like AZ and J&J, or the NovaVax one?
  - hrjfkfnf 5y ago
    No, I find those even more risky. The Novovax one in particular has a unique set or risks (circulating spike protein), combined with lower efficacy (because it doesn't stimulate T cell immunity). After thorough analysis I took the Moderna one. If you're above 25, the risk from Covid is bigger than any vaccine risk. But I do assume I also took some risk with the Moderna shot. It's basically choosing the lesser evil.
forcry 5y ago
> There have been hundreds of millions of vaccinations. People have been smoking for a very long time without noticing any apparent problem. Vioxx is estimated to have caused a 100000 additional heart attacks in US alone, but no one noticed. This is why we do systematic research. Point is "There have been millions of vaccines administrated", is not a proof for safety. That is not even considering the censorship of Vaccine adverse effects, and how that can skew the perception of safety. https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/vcc-open-letter-dr-hoffe-to-dr-henry-april-5-2021.pdf https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/vcc-open-... https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-doctor-removed-from-hospital-duty-after-speaking-out-about-covid-vaccine-side-effects https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-doctor-removed-fr...
- Nursie 5y ago
  > Point is "There have been millions of vaccines administrated", is not a proof for safety. No, but with a larger population, any adverse effects are likely to be noticed.
  - forcry 5y ago
    Just in my comment I showed cases where it didn't
    - Nursie 5y ago
      Indeed, and these stand out. The current vaccination run is under constant, global scrutiny though, so I would hope that such things are unlikely to sneak through this time.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    > but with a larger population, any adverse effects are likely to be noticed. With time. Not every problem shows up immediately. I'm vaccinated but I respect some people who decided against it. My logic is easy enough to explain: the virus have bigger known side effects than the vaccine and I have personally no reason to belive that there won't be even more and bigger unknown unknowns with the virus than with the vaccine. Not blindly trusting governments, media and big pharma however doesn't sound crazy to me. After all the worst crimes and crimes against humanity haven't been done by catholic inquisitors or the armed neighbor next door but by governments, and typically not in active war but in steady state after occupation or even typically by the country people belong to. As for media: how anyone here can trust anyone of them blindly is beyond me. I actively support some of them but I always try to ask myself what really happened.
johnisgood 5y ago
It needs time to manifest. Sometimes it takes decades. Not every side-effect is going to immediately manifest.

See my post below.

Be precise about something that is unknowable? We take a risk with this plain and simple. It might be small, but so is risk from the disease itself.

AYBABTME 5y ago

What if there's unpredictable long term consequences? Like, turns out XYZ compounds gives cancer but that only become detectable after 18+ months. Although I admit I don't know if regular trials would uncover these either. I have no dog in this fight, I'm just providing a possible answer.

Nursie 5y ago
All of the components have been used before, these things aren't that new. mRNA tech itself has been in development since the 80s, and for immunisation since about 2012. It's gone from the body within a few hours AFAICT. If you're that worried, go for the J&J or AZ vaccines, which are more 'traditional' and don't use mRNA.
- AYBABTME 5y ago
  I'm not worried at all, I'm eager to be able to get a mRNA vaccine, but no vaccine at all is available to my age group where I live. I envy y'all.
- dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
  Being new or not is not the crucial point. What matters is that it's in the interest of the society at large that as many people as possible are vaccinated quickly. This might present certain incentives to treat possible side effects in a political way, basically downplaying them. I'm not saying this is what is happening now, but it has definitely happened in the past. When you read the history of Pandemrix[0][1], you will note that: > In August 2010 the Swedish MPA issued a statement which included the following: "An investigation is ongoing, but any relationship between the vaccination and the reported symptoms can not be concluded." and: > In the Irish parliament, TD Clare Daly commented that, “The Health Service Executive (HSE) decided to purchase Pandemrix and continued to distribute it even after they knew it was dangerous and untested, and before most of the public in Ireland received it.” [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix [1] https://www.thelocal.se/20201126/why-some-young-swedes-are-wary-of-new-vaccines-after-swine-flu-campaign/ https://www.thelocal.se/20201126/why-some-young-swedes-are-w...
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > Being new or not is not the crucial point. When we're talking about "we don't know the long term effects", it's certainly a crucial point, because it shows that we can have a good idea of the long term effects already. I agree there's likely to be huge political pressure to downplay side effects, however the scale of this rollout and the attention it's getting worldwide mean that it's going to be very unlikely such things sneak through, simply due to the size of the vaccinated population.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Downplaying the side effects is a negative influence in that case. On the contrary, you should transparent with it.
      - Nursie 5y ago
        Downplaying the side effects is always a negative, people should be informed. The fear is that people are irrational, and when informed will overreact and not get vaccinated. This fear is not unfounded, so they downplay the side effects. Then people notice this downplaying, lose confidence anyway, and don't get vaccinated. It's a bizarre and ridiculous game.
CogitoCogito 5y ago
> What if there's unpredictable long term consequences? That same question can be asked about covid so I don't understand how this single point brings anything to the discussion. We don't know the future. We don't know the future vaccine effects just like we don't know the future for covid effects. We do definitely know that the effects of covid (even if you discount them by the fact that not everyone gets covid) are much worse than the vaccines. Everything points to the vaccines being much better than the disease.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  That was my point from the beginning, but you still cannot exclude risk completely. This is why manufacturers are explicitly exempt from responsibility of damages. Why would that be needed then? Why do people getting the vaccine need to wait a while before being released? Because of the unknowns that I meant. And it doesn't even have to be intrinsic to the vaccine, it could be a manufacturing error like there was with Polio. As I said, I am vaccinated, but this reaction and militancy really puts me off and frankly, I think it is a bit stupid. Not your comment though.
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    Of course you can't exclude the risk, but there is _no_ usable information in that fear. Just because something can happen down the line, doesn't mean it's actionable. What if these vaccines start giving us super human strength in a few years? Can we discount that possibility? Why or why not? Should I act on that possibility today? All we can consider is _actionable_ information. All information so far points to the side-effects of the vaccines causing problems at negligible levels compared to the the side-effects of getting covid. That is information we can use and it really only supports one conclusion.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      I believe this to be actionable enough that the decision to take it or not should remain an individual decision and I believe that is the extend what people demand. Nobody is talking about throwing it off the market because it isn't deemed safe.
basch 5y ago
That's traditionally not how vaccines work. The side effects and consequences are short term, as in less than one month. The substance is broken down by you body, and all that remains is immunity. Off the top of my uneducated head, the one theoretical concern would be giving yourself an autoimmune disease, where your immune system attacks something it shouldnt. Like mistraining a model. Barring that, it seems general consensus is that long term consequences are infinitely unlikely.
- forcry 5y ago
  >The side effects and consequences are short term, as in less than one month. The substance is broken down by you body, and all that remains is immunity. I am not sure this idea of "traditional vaccine" is true. The contents of Vaccines can be drastically different. And you cannot generalise that. > substance is broken down by you body, and all that remains is immunity. It is quite misleading, to say the least.
  - basch 5y ago
    >quite misleading Possibly. Or accurate.
    - forcry 5y ago
      So can't generalize. Which was the point.
      - basch 5y ago
        You can generalize that traditionally vaccines don't last in the body. In this specific case, you can argue the lipid layer throws a wrench in assumptions, and then the onus is on you to prove some proposed mechanism for long term effect. Because the protein the vaccine targets is not human, the risk of the immune system turning on the body after training was rhetorical, because if the antibodies were targeting our body, it would have come up by now. Another theoretical concern that has not manifested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement#Coronavirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement...
forcry 5y ago
>What if there's unpredictable long term consequences? This is actually a smaller issue. The big issue is that measures based on science that is tainted with trust issues must not be mandated. Have written about this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817926 Basically, I think science require a global change in its perception that is updated to modern times.

khazhoux 5y ago

I don't believe there is a risk, but I'll defend the commenter: Unforeseen by definition means yet-unknown. How can one be precise?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hrjfkfnf 5y ago

Some toxins take years, or decades to manifest themselves. As an example, see lead, asbestos, mercury, or other heavy metals poisonings. As Taleb says, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As a specific point regarding these vaccines, we don't really know the long term effect of the lipid nano particles used in them. And we do know that it took 20 years to create them, because all previous lipid nano particles tried were proven to be highly toxic.

Nursie 5y ago
AFAICT this applies only to Pfizer and Moderna, which are mRNA vaccines. The J&J and Astra vaccines are more 'traditional' and use adenovirus as a delivery mechanism.
Pyramus 5y ago
Does that mean you are a proponent of the more traditional vaccines like AZ and J&J, or the NovaVax one?
- hrjfkfnf 5y ago
  No, I find those even more risky. The Novovax one in particular has a unique set or risks (circulating spike protein), combined with lower efficacy (because it doesn't stimulate T cell immunity). After thorough analysis I took the Moderna one. If you're above 25, the risk from Covid is bigger than any vaccine risk. But I do assume I also took some risk with the Moderna shot. It's basically choosing the lesser evil.

forcry 5y ago

> There have been hundreds of millions of vaccinations. People have been smoking for a very long time without noticing any apparent problem. Vioxx is estimated to have caused a 100000 additional heart attacks in US alone, but no one noticed. This is why we do systematic research. Point is "There have been millions of vaccines administrated", is not a proof for safety. That is not even considering the censorship of Vaccine adverse effects, and how that can skew the perception of safety. https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/vcc-open-letter-dr-hoffe-to-dr-henry-april-5-2021.pdf https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/vcc-open-... https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-doctor-removed-from-hospital-duty-after-speaking-out-about-covid-vaccine-side-effects https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-doctor-removed-fr...

Nursie 5y ago
> Point is "There have been millions of vaccines administrated", is not a proof for safety. No, but with a larger population, any adverse effects are likely to be noticed.
- forcry 5y ago
  Just in my comment I showed cases where it didn't
  - Nursie 5y ago
    Indeed, and these stand out. The current vaccination run is under constant, global scrutiny though, so I would hope that such things are unlikely to sneak through this time.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  > but with a larger population, any adverse effects are likely to be noticed. With time. Not every problem shows up immediately. I'm vaccinated but I respect some people who decided against it. My logic is easy enough to explain: the virus have bigger known side effects than the vaccine and I have personally no reason to belive that there won't be even more and bigger unknown unknowns with the virus than with the vaccine. Not blindly trusting governments, media and big pharma however doesn't sound crazy to me. After all the worst crimes and crimes against humanity haven't been done by catholic inquisitors or the armed neighbor next door but by governments, and typically not in active war but in steady state after occupation or even typically by the country people belong to. As for media: how anyone here can trust anyone of them blindly is beyond me. I actively support some of them but I always try to ask myself what really happened.

johnisgood 5y ago

It needs time to manifest. Sometimes it takes decades. Not every side-effect is going to immediately manifest.