4 ms·

Ignoring the higher risk of major long-term damage incurred by letting yourself get sick when you could've been vaccinated, I don't understand how this thought

by OzyM 5y ago

Ignoring the higher risk of major long-term damage incurred by letting yourself get sick when you could've been vaccinated, I don't understand how this thought process accounts for anyone else. What if my main reason for getting vaccinated is to lower my chance of infecting an immunocompromised person I care about? Even if I could somehow be 100% certain that if I were to be infected it'd be fully asymptomatic, the vaccine still helps me avoid spreading COVID-19 further. Do you imagine young people who get flu shots do so only because they're worried about dying from influenza at 20?

bamboozled 5y ago
But you can still infect other people? It's a non-sterilizing vaccine?
- ashtonbaker 5y ago
  The vaccines do reduce the chances of transmission quite significantly, so it makes sense to get vaccinated if your goal is to protect others. It doesn't need to be 100 percent sterilizing to be helpful in this regard.
- OzyM 5y ago
  Non-sterilizing vaccines still reduce viral load, decreasing the amount of active viral particles in circulation. There are plenty of vaccines we use to curb epidemics that aren't full sterilizing vaccines. For the COVID-19 U.S. vaccines in particular: > Preliminary data from the clinical trials among adults ≥18 years old suggest COVID-19 vaccination may also protect against asymptomatic infection.[0] [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    Cool, so if everyone else takes it, I won't really need to and I'll likely be safe? Everyone seems absolutely hell bent on taking it immediately, so if that's the case, it's pretty good news for those who'd like some more time to evaluate.
    - OzyM 5y ago
      You're right, if everyone around you is vaccinated to the point of virtual herd immunity (afaik not currently true anywhere, but perhaps given more time / incentives / information that may change), you being the only unvaccinated person wouldn't be a major concern (except insofar as it indicates less concern for other people in other contexts). The main issue is that there are still plenty of people with your same mindset. See the measles resurgence as less people got vaccinated: Even if you accept the personal effects of getting major illnesses, it comes with an increase in danger to the immunocompromised, people who medically cannot be vaccinated, and people whose vaccines don't protect them 100% of the time. You're free to choose whether or not to get a vaccine, but the consequences of your decision affect more than just you. [Edit: Additional note - while it seems preferable that everyone who can get vaccinated do so, I suppose if you're sticking with the face masks, hand washing, and social distancing you could still protect others without getting vaccinated. I'd respect that as a viable alternative. However, based on anecdata, the overlap of "people who won't get vaccinated" and "people careful about preventing disease spread" doesn't seem to be a huge section.]
      - bamboozled 5y ago
        I've had many vaccines before, I'm not opposed to vaccines. I'm opposed to this particular vaccines because: * There are reports of dangerous side effects after taking it. * It's a new vaccine and the effects of the spike proteins it forces your body to produce have been found in places we were told they wouldn't be found. * No long term studies have been done, even though lipids from the vaccine have been found in reproductive tissues (we don't know what this means yet). * The vaccine is still only under emergency use authorization. * I'm not in a high risk category, high risk people should be vaccinated if they're the ones primarily at risk? * People are being pressured and coerced into taking it even though they are scared to do so. This is wrong, people should feel comfortable to take it, not as if it's their duty to mankind to protect elderly people (who could just take the vaccine).
        OzyM 5y ago
        All the major side effects I've heard of have been very small in scope, i.e. the chance of a healthy person developing one of the dangerous side effects is extremely small, and certainly orders of magnitude smaller than their chance of proportionally damaging side-effects from the disease itself. As every vaccine currently developed has a small side-effect risk, this seems reasonable, unless you have a major piece of data I'm missing. As far as I can tell, any variables about the vaccines seem extremely safe compared to the unknown variables incurred by those with symptomatic infections. I agree that people in high risk categories who can be vaccinated should do so. However, the vaccine is only mostly effective, not 100% effective, so to some extent their health is still influenced by the health of those around them. As far as social pressure, pushing (but not forcing) people toward decisions that benefit everyone seems like the entire point of social pressure. People should be given all of the relevant information and should be free to make their own medical decisions. However, there should be some expectation that one tries not to spread deadly diseases to vulnerable populations, and schools / businesses / etc. should absolutely feel free to require vaccination (of those capable of being vaccinated). But re: your other comment about wearing a mask, if you're one of the rare people who won't be vaccinated but still keep your mask on in all public places, wash your hands frequently, and stay 6 feet apart from everyone not in your household, you not getting vaccinated isn't a major concern. But the people who use these justifications (disclaimer: anecdata) aren't usually taking those precautions.
ElectronCharge 5y ago
But you’re ignoring the risk of these experimental vaccines. It is definitely well above zero, with around 6,000 deaths reported on the CDC website, not to mention many other adverse side effects. Again, effective treatments (which have sadly been heavily suppressed for various reasons) greatly mitigate the need for vaccination. If your concern is about a vulnerable individual, perhaps vaccination is for you. You could also consider a prophylactic drug (likely Ivermectin), or both. Young people mostly get flu shots because a) they’ve been told to, and b) they don’t want to get a nasty illness. Same as older people for the most part.
- simonh 5y ago
  Those deaths reported through VAERS are just the number of people who died after being vaccinated, not that died because of vaccination. Those are two different things, which if you've read the CDC source you cite I'm sure you're aware. The CDC investigates these report and say they have only established a causal link to a handful of blood clotting cases as a result of the J&J vaccine. All the other deaths were unrelated to vaccination. We have a similar reporting system in the UK. Their investigation of deaths following vaccination says that “review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccine played a role in the death”, again with the caveat that a small number of deaths are associated with blood clotting.
  - ElectronCharge 5y ago
    Your belief in the accuracy and thoroughness of the CDC investigations is touching. Please provide a link for your claim that “all the other deaths were unrelated to vaccination”. Thanks!
    - OzyM 5y ago
      You cited the CDC, but now that the figure you used has been cleared up, you no longer like the CDC as a source? > Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.[0][emphasis mine] [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...

by OzyM 5y ago

bamboozled 5y ago

But you can still infect other people? It's a non-sterilizing vaccine?

ashtonbaker 5y ago
The vaccines do reduce the chances of transmission quite significantly, so it makes sense to get vaccinated if your goal is to protect others. It doesn't need to be 100 percent sterilizing to be helpful in this regard.
OzyM 5y ago
Non-sterilizing vaccines still reduce viral load, decreasing the amount of active viral particles in circulation. There are plenty of vaccines we use to curb epidemics that aren't full sterilizing vaccines. For the COVID-19 U.S. vaccines in particular: > Preliminary data from the clinical trials among adults ≥18 years old suggest COVID-19 vaccination may also protect against asymptomatic infection.[0] [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
- bamboozled 5y ago
  Cool, so if everyone else takes it, I won't really need to and I'll likely be safe? Everyone seems absolutely hell bent on taking it immediately, so if that's the case, it's pretty good news for those who'd like some more time to evaluate.
  - OzyM 5y ago
    You're right, if everyone around you is vaccinated to the point of virtual herd immunity (afaik not currently true anywhere, but perhaps given more time / incentives / information that may change), you being the only unvaccinated person wouldn't be a major concern (except insofar as it indicates less concern for other people in other contexts). The main issue is that there are still plenty of people with your same mindset. See the measles resurgence as less people got vaccinated: Even if you accept the personal effects of getting major illnesses, it comes with an increase in danger to the immunocompromised, people who medically cannot be vaccinated, and people whose vaccines don't protect them 100% of the time. You're free to choose whether or not to get a vaccine, but the consequences of your decision affect more than just you. [Edit: Additional note - while it seems preferable that everyone who can get vaccinated do so, I suppose if you're sticking with the face masks, hand washing, and social distancing you could still protect others without getting vaccinated. I'd respect that as a viable alternative. However, based on anecdata, the overlap of "people who won't get vaccinated" and "people careful about preventing disease spread" doesn't seem to be a huge section.]
    - bamboozled 5y ago
      I've had many vaccines before, I'm not opposed to vaccines. I'm opposed to this particular vaccines because: * There are reports of dangerous side effects after taking it. * It's a new vaccine and the effects of the spike proteins it forces your body to produce have been found in places we were told they wouldn't be found. * No long term studies have been done, even though lipids from the vaccine have been found in reproductive tissues (we don't know what this means yet). * The vaccine is still only under emergency use authorization. * I'm not in a high risk category, high risk people should be vaccinated if they're the ones primarily at risk? * People are being pressured and coerced into taking it even though they are scared to do so. This is wrong, people should feel comfortable to take it, not as if it's their duty to mankind to protect elderly people (who could just take the vaccine).
      - OzyM 5y ago
        All the major side effects I've heard of have been very small in scope, i.e. the chance of a healthy person developing one of the dangerous side effects is extremely small, and certainly orders of magnitude smaller than their chance of proportionally damaging side-effects from the disease itself. As every vaccine currently developed has a small side-effect risk, this seems reasonable, unless you have a major piece of data I'm missing. As far as I can tell, any variables about the vaccines seem extremely safe compared to the unknown variables incurred by those with symptomatic infections. I agree that people in high risk categories who can be vaccinated should do so. However, the vaccine is only mostly effective, not 100% effective, so to some extent their health is still influenced by the health of those around them. As far as social pressure, pushing (but not forcing) people toward decisions that benefit everyone seems like the entire point of social pressure. People should be given all of the relevant information and should be free to make their own medical decisions. However, there should be some expectation that one tries not to spread deadly diseases to vulnerable populations, and schools / businesses / etc. should absolutely feel free to require vaccination (of those capable of being vaccinated). But re: your other comment about wearing a mask, if you're one of the rare people who won't be vaccinated but still keep your mask on in all public places, wash your hands frequently, and stay 6 feet apart from everyone not in your household, you not getting vaccinated isn't a major concern. But the people who use these justifications (disclaimer: anecdata) aren't usually taking those precautions.

ElectronCharge 5y ago

But you’re ignoring the risk of these experimental vaccines. It is definitely well above zero, with around 6,000 deaths reported on the CDC website, not to mention many other adverse side effects. Again, effective treatments (which have sadly been heavily suppressed for various reasons) greatly mitigate the need for vaccination. If your concern is about a vulnerable individual, perhaps vaccination is for you. You could also consider a prophylactic drug (likely Ivermectin), or both. Young people mostly get flu shots because a) they’ve been told to, and b) they don’t want to get a nasty illness. Same as older people for the most part.

simonh 5y ago
Those deaths reported through VAERS are just the number of people who died after being vaccinated, not that died because of vaccination. Those are two different things, which if you've read the CDC source you cite I'm sure you're aware. The CDC investigates these report and say they have only established a causal link to a handful of blood clotting cases as a result of the J&J vaccine. All the other deaths were unrelated to vaccination. We have a similar reporting system in the UK. Their investigation of deaths following vaccination says that “review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccine played a role in the death”, again with the caveat that a small number of deaths are associated with blood clotting.
- ElectronCharge 5y ago
  Your belief in the accuracy and thoroughness of the CDC investigations is touching. Please provide a link for your claim that “all the other deaths were unrelated to vaccination”. Thanks!
  - OzyM 5y ago
    You cited the CDC, but now that the figure you used has been cleared up, you no longer like the CDC as a source? > Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.[0][emphasis mine] [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...