4 ms·

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 quic

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.

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.