5 ms·

I am unvaccinated and probably will remain so for this particular vaccination. I don't truly believe that the risk of the vaccine outweighs the risk of the viru

I am unvaccinated and probably will remain so for this particular vaccination. I don't truly believe that the risk of the vaccine outweighs the risk of the virus to me. It's more that I weigh the risk of covid at around zero, and the risk of vaccine at a question mark. I cannot trust the institutions pushing this vaccine at all. At worst, I trust the opposite of what they say about anything politicized. But let's just say I don't trust them. In the absence of a trusted authority, I can only make this decision based on my own research. Unfortunately I am not qualified to interpret the data meaningfully, and I truly believe that if there was data suggesting that the vaccine was equally dangerous to the virus, it would be suppressed. What remains is essentially a total vacuum of information. I then have to make decisions based on intuition and the error bars I perceive. What I expect is that the publicized covid numbers are better or equal to the reality, and the vaccine danger is worse or equal. The publicized numbers for covid give me essentially a zero risk of any problems, because I am young, fit and healthy. The real numbers are going to be even better. Meanwhile, the vaccine problems don't seem to be fewer for young people, but just kind of random. I also know what to expect from a respiratory virus, because I've had those a number of times. I have no idea what to expect from a MRNA vaccine, whether there could be problems that appear years later, etc, and I cannot trust any authority that says there is no risk. There is also the aspect of direct action. If I get covid, darn that sucks but people get sick and that's life. If I get some bad side effects from an untrusted injection, I did that to myself and it will feel mentally much worse. All of this is to say, I don't care at all if I get covid, because I'll be fine. I won't inject myself with an untrusted medicine to avoid that.

aeternum 5y ago
One amazing thing about this vaccine is that it is basically open-source. We can look at the genetic code so you know exactly what is going into your body if you choose to take it. This guy does an amazing job of breaking it down in detail: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source-code-of-the-biontech-pfizer-vaccine/ https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source... I agree the CDC has done a terrible job of representing science and establishing trust, but the virus is less politicized in other countries. Look at what those health institutions with better track-records are recommending.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  How is it open source?
ithkuil 5y ago
Thanks. Anecdotally I've noticed that most people around me who refuse the vaccine more or less follow your argument, but you articulated it very well. We humans certainly suffer from omission bias, it was probably safer in our selection environment. Our everyday life is full of cases where we do dangerous stuff which we don't feel as dangerous because, everybody is doing that, since forever, so yeah you know some things may be dangerous but c'mon, it's not that bad, you don't want to miss out on life by being the only crazy person who doesn't get in a car or something. When something totally new happens like covid vaccines, it's hard to get the right intuitions, and probably each will have their own, using their own biases. My personal rules of thumb are: 1. I don't trust authorities to pull off a major conspiracy (and hide the data of bad vaccine effects). 2. I don't trust governments ability to effectively coordinate among themselves to pull off a conspiracy 3. I don't trust journalists to obey to the conspiracy; money in media is about attention grabbing, if there were serious side effects they would have ridden the tide (and probably even inflated it) 4. I personally know a few people who died of covid; I don't know anybody that had serious side effects of vaccines. Even if the media is hiding the problem, I would expect it to be visible in my direct experience (as it was for covid)
- murgindrag 5y ago
  I don't take issue with your conclusions, but I do with your arguments. I think precision and correctness are important, since a lot of vaccine skepticism comes from people making incorrect arguments. > 1. I don't trust authorities to pull off a major conspiracy (and hide the data of bad vaccine effects). I do trust the authorities to be incompetent enough not to collect such data. > 2. I don't trust governments ability to effectively coordinate among themselves to pull off a conspiracy I do trust governments to engage in groupthink. That's kind of like the idiot's version of coordinating a conspiracy. In the process, I trust authorities to "message" and dishonestly manipulate information going out in ways which appear coordinated.
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    Groupthink is indeed a real problem, but if you really believe all it takes is groupthink to hide severe side effects (possibly deaths) of vaccines that would compete in magnitude with covid causalities, you should entertain the possibility you're engaging in a groupthink of another polarity. I mean, sure. Governments have been and will be dishonest and lying and have been and will be again caught red handed. They also have been and will be accidentally right about various things. If whatever a government says is always the opposite of true, then it would be super easy to have certainties! I wish that were true. Unfortunately I don't think that works that way.
oezi 5y ago
This all makes sense if you are - less than 18 years old. For everyone older, all countries in the world have come to the conclusion that vaccination is safer than staying without vaccination. - only considering yourself and not the risk that you are part of the reason it spreads. What lies at the foundation of all this is your distrust and I would suggest you consider how to deal with that. If you can't trust the media and governments (and you actually should trust them to a large part), how about following role-models or friends? Or best how about following data and science? If a whole nation such as Israel goes for a vaccine such as Pfizer don't you think they do their homework?
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  > If you can't trust the media and governments Up until December we had the Pres/VP candidates saying they would not take any vaccine that Trump endorsed. Then they won, and were faced with convincing everyone to take those very vaccines. Do you believe them now, or then?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 5y ago
    That’s out of context, the VP said she would take a Vaccine endorsed by medical professional not the president. It was and attack on Trumps trying to reduce red tape / rush things depending on perspective, not any specific or hypothetical vaccine. It’s perfectly reasonable to agree or disagree with rushing vaccine deployment even further, but don’t attack a straw man.
simonh 5y ago
That may be a reasonable decision as an individual. I disagree because I think the risks from the vaccines are near zero (not actually, but near), while here in the UK most hospital admissions now are young people so clearly the risk to them is not at all zero. Still, you'll probably be fine. The problem with that calculation though is that it doesn't take into account the increased risk to other people. If you do catch it you'll become a vector for infecting other people, some of which might be a lot more vulnerable or less lucky than yourself. Even if you only pass it on to other younger people, the odds of someone having a bad reaction still go up with infections.
omegaworks 5y ago
The amount of cognitive dissonance here is intense. >I can only make this decision based on my own research. >Unfortunately I am not qualified to interpret the data meaningfully, You do your own research but admit that you are unqualified to do that research. > and I truly believe that if there was data suggesting that the vaccine was equally dangerous to the virus, it would be suppressed. You believe institutions are untrustworthy yet somehow all of them are able to perfectly coordinate to suppress data. >The publicized numbers for covid give me essentially a zero risk of any problems, because I am young, fit and healthy. Nothing about your youth or fitness reduces your risk of transmitting this virus. >I also know what to expect from a respiratory virus, because I've had those a number of times. It's clear you either do not know nor desire to know how to protect yourself and others from respiratory viruses. This is a new virus that seems like it jumped to us from bats. >There is also the aspect of direct action. If I get covid, darn that sucks but people get sick and that's life. If I get some bad side effects from an untrusted injection, I did that to myself and it will feel mentally much worse. All of this is to say, I don't care at all if I get covid, because I'll be fine. You live in a society. Delta is looking to have an R0 of 4-9, that means if you are infected, on average, you will infect 4-9 new people with the virus. If you are infected and suffer long-term damage to your brain and lungs that makes you unable to work, you will qualify for disability, which is paid for by everyone.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  No one can deny that it would be very hard, almost impossible at this stage to admit the existence of a problem should one be identified. If a problem was identified A lot of people would be humiliated and there would be major fallout as many people would no longer trust Governments at all. It would be absolutely unprecedented and unthinkable after over a billion doses administered. It could almost lead to a type of dystopian anarchy overnight. I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, but there sure would be some pretty strong incentive to create one if more serious long term effects were discovered.
  - omegaworks 5y ago
    > No one can deny that it would be very hard, almost impossible at this stage to admit the existence of a problem should one be identified. On the contrary, publications would salivate at the prospect of dropping a bombshell like this. People love reading and watching salacious, outrageous coverups and how they unravel. You would need a multi-national conspiracy with various state and private actors coordinating and suppressing information about negative effects of the vaccine for it to be at a scale "equally dangerous" to the extent of the deaths and injuries caused by actual infection. And it's not like we have no data about negative side effects. We have data on side effects: getting them is literally a handful in a million chance and they're manageable when they occur[1]. 1. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/07/13/more-on-vaccine-side-effects https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/07/13/mo...
basementcat 5y ago
It might not be a big deal if you get COVID but it would suck to be the immunocompromised individual (or a friend/family relation to the individual) who might get COVID from you.
- blindmute 5y ago
  Yep, that would suck for them. Anyone who is fearful of getting covid should get the vaccine. If they get vaccinated and I still end up transmitting it to them, then that sucks, but again, people get sick and that's life. I'm willing to acknowledge my selfishness in this matter.
  - objectivetruth 5y ago
    What a fascinating response! I'd love it if you would answer a few follow-up questions... You're aware that there ARE people who can't get vaccinated, due to age or immune status, right? If you transmit it to them and they get very sick or die, do you stand by your assertion that "that's life?" I guess it's "OK" because nobody will be able to prove that you, specifically, were the selfish person who spread it? I find it very interesting that you're willing to say that you're OK with other people dying purely because of your own selfishness, represented in a refusal to endure 60 seconds of pain and a potential day of fatigue and malaise. A lot of people would hide that sentiment, not even revealing it pseudonymously, for fear that others would think they're sociopaths. I guess that's what makes certain people such "independent free thinkers."
- bwship 5y ago
  That person would presumably be vaccinated, thus they wouldn't get the virus from him. Why does everyone talk about how the vaccine works, but then use this argument against people that don't want to get the vaccine?
  - objectivetruth 5y ago
    basementcat CLEARLY said: "but it would suck to be the immunocompromised individual" (my emphasis) Some immunocompromised people can't be vaccinated. For others, the vaccine is much less effective than for people with healthy immune systems. Those are two groups of people that lots of us care about. Also, nobody in the US under 12 is supposed to have gotten the jab yet. That's another very large group of people that many of us care about.
murgindrag 5y ago
I empathize with most of what you wrote, but there are two errors: "I also know what to expect from a respiratory virus, because I've had those a number of times." No one whom I know who has had COVID describes it like any normal respiratory virus, and it attacks multiple systems. I'm terrified of brain damage, and before-and-after MRIs shows brain damage in >10% of people who contract COVID19. "If I get covid, darn that sucks but people get sick and that's life" And if you kill a loved one by sharing COVID19? Or give them brain fog? That's not something I could live with. The deeper argument, though, is about herd immunity. If we don't stop the spread, really bad things happen. I'll mention: Do you use proper masks? N95 and proper nanofiber masks are widely available, and appear to do more to stop the spread than the vaccine. They're also risk-free.
- blindmute 5y ago
  >And if you kill a loved one by sharing COVID19? Or give them brain fog? That's not something I could live with. The odds of this are far less than the odds of me killing my wife by taking a drive with her. In the same way that I can live with the risk of driving a car with her in it, I can live with this risk. Of course if that actually happened I would feel terrible, in both cases. But life is about weighing risks, and for now I'm comfortable with the risk of remaining unvaccinated. No, I don't wear masks. That's a different ethical discussion. I don't feel or accept a moral burden for potentially spreading a virus in any case. I wouldn't walk about while sick of course, or have uninformed sex if I had an STD, but if I'm asymptomatic and end up accidentally giving someone an illness in the course of normal life, sorry, but that's just life. People who spread the flu accidentally are not immoral people, whether they get the flu shot or not. Likewise here.
  - murgindrag 5y ago
    Your numbers are way off, as is your moral compass. I hope I never meet you, or anyone like you. To use your driving analogy, the way I respond to your message is if someone told me they drove around drunk and high, without headlights, and without really doing any car maintenance, and didn't accept any moral responsibility if they hit someone because car accidents happen, and sorry, that's life. As a baseline number, about a half-million Americans died of COVID already. For comparison, there were about 40k car deaths in the US. For someone like yourself, taking no precautions, the odds of catching COVID19 are way more than 10x of a fatal car accident. The more critical problem is a systemic one. If no one takes precautions, nearly 10 million people in the US will die. If everyone does, virtually no ones needs to die. It's like polluting or littering. And COVID19 isn't flu. The flu doesn't leave a quarter of people with brain fog 9 months later.

aeternum 5y ago

One amazing thing about this vaccine is that it is basically open-source. We can look at the genetic code so you know exactly what is going into your body if you choose to take it. This guy does an amazing job of breaking it down in detail: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source-code-of-the-biontech-pfizer-vaccine/ https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source... I agree the CDC has done a terrible job of representing science and establishing trust, but the virus is less politicized in other countries. Look at what those health institutions with better track-records are recommending.

bamboozled 5y ago
How is it open source?

ithkuil 5y ago

Thanks. Anecdotally I've noticed that most people around me who refuse the vaccine more or less follow your argument, but you articulated it very well. We humans certainly suffer from omission bias, it was probably safer in our selection environment. Our everyday life is full of cases where we do dangerous stuff which we don't feel as dangerous because, everybody is doing that, since forever, so yeah you know some things may be dangerous but c'mon, it's not that bad, you don't want to miss out on life by being the only crazy person who doesn't get in a car or something. When something totally new happens like covid vaccines, it's hard to get the right intuitions, and probably each will have their own, using their own biases. My personal rules of thumb are: 1. I don't trust authorities to pull off a major conspiracy (and hide the data of bad vaccine effects). 2. I don't trust governments ability to effectively coordinate among themselves to pull off a conspiracy 3. I don't trust journalists to obey to the conspiracy; money in media is about attention grabbing, if there were serious side effects they would have ridden the tide (and probably even inflated it) 4. I personally know a few people who died of covid; I don't know anybody that had serious side effects of vaccines. Even if the media is hiding the problem, I would expect it to be visible in my direct experience (as it was for covid)

murgindrag 5y ago
I don't take issue with your conclusions, but I do with your arguments. I think precision and correctness are important, since a lot of vaccine skepticism comes from people making incorrect arguments. > 1. I don't trust authorities to pull off a major conspiracy (and hide the data of bad vaccine effects). I do trust the authorities to be incompetent enough not to collect such data. > 2. I don't trust governments ability to effectively coordinate among themselves to pull off a conspiracy I do trust governments to engage in groupthink. That's kind of like the idiot's version of coordinating a conspiracy. In the process, I trust authorities to "message" and dishonestly manipulate information going out in ways which appear coordinated.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  Groupthink is indeed a real problem, but if you really believe all it takes is groupthink to hide severe side effects (possibly deaths) of vaccines that would compete in magnitude with covid causalities, you should entertain the possibility you're engaging in a groupthink of another polarity. I mean, sure. Governments have been and will be dishonest and lying and have been and will be again caught red handed. They also have been and will be accidentally right about various things. If whatever a government says is always the opposite of true, then it would be super easy to have certainties! I wish that were true. Unfortunately I don't think that works that way.

oezi 5y ago

This all makes sense if you are - less than 18 years old. For everyone older, all countries in the world have come to the conclusion that vaccination is safer than staying without vaccination. - only considering yourself and not the risk that you are part of the reason it spreads. What lies at the foundation of all this is your distrust and I would suggest you consider how to deal with that. If you can't trust the media and governments (and you actually should trust them to a large part), how about following role-models or friends? Or best how about following data and science? If a whole nation such as Israel goes for a vaccine such as Pfizer don't you think they do their homework?

throwawayboise 5y ago
> If you can't trust the media and governments Up until December we had the Pres/VP candidates saying they would not take any vaccine that Trump endorsed. Then they won, and were faced with convincing everyone to take those very vaccines. Do you believe them now, or then?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 5y ago
  That’s out of context, the VP said she would take a Vaccine endorsed by medical professional not the president. It was and attack on Trumps trying to reduce red tape / rush things depending on perspective, not any specific or hypothetical vaccine. It’s perfectly reasonable to agree or disagree with rushing vaccine deployment even further, but don’t attack a straw man.

simonh 5y ago

That may be a reasonable decision as an individual. I disagree because I think the risks from the vaccines are near zero (not actually, but near), while here in the UK most hospital admissions now are young people so clearly the risk to them is not at all zero. Still, you'll probably be fine. The problem with that calculation though is that it doesn't take into account the increased risk to other people. If you do catch it you'll become a vector for infecting other people, some of which might be a lot more vulnerable or less lucky than yourself. Even if you only pass it on to other younger people, the odds of someone having a bad reaction still go up with infections.

omegaworks 5y ago

The amount of cognitive dissonance here is intense. >I can only make this decision based on my own research. >Unfortunately I am not qualified to interpret the data meaningfully, You do your own research but admit that you are unqualified to do that research. > and I truly believe that if there was data suggesting that the vaccine was equally dangerous to the virus, it would be suppressed. You believe institutions are untrustworthy yet somehow all of them are able to perfectly coordinate to suppress data. >The publicized numbers for covid give me essentially a zero risk of any problems, because I am young, fit and healthy. Nothing about your youth or fitness reduces your risk of transmitting this virus. >I also know what to expect from a respiratory virus, because I've had those a number of times. It's clear you either do not know nor desire to know how to protect yourself and others from respiratory viruses. This is a new virus that seems like it jumped to us from bats. >There is also the aspect of direct action. If I get covid, darn that sucks but people get sick and that's life. If I get some bad side effects from an untrusted injection, I did that to myself and it will feel mentally much worse. All of this is to say, I don't care at all if I get covid, because I'll be fine. You live in a society. Delta is looking to have an R0 of 4-9, that means if you are infected, on average, you will infect 4-9 new people with the virus. If you are infected and suffer long-term damage to your brain and lungs that makes you unable to work, you will qualify for disability, which is paid for by everyone.

bamboozled 5y ago
No one can deny that it would be very hard, almost impossible at this stage to admit the existence of a problem should one be identified. If a problem was identified A lot of people would be humiliated and there would be major fallout as many people would no longer trust Governments at all. It would be absolutely unprecedented and unthinkable after over a billion doses administered. It could almost lead to a type of dystopian anarchy overnight. I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, but there sure would be some pretty strong incentive to create one if more serious long term effects were discovered.
- omegaworks 5y ago
  > No one can deny that it would be very hard, almost impossible at this stage to admit the existence of a problem should one be identified. On the contrary, publications would salivate at the prospect of dropping a bombshell like this. People love reading and watching salacious, outrageous coverups and how they unravel. You would need a multi-national conspiracy with various state and private actors coordinating and suppressing information about negative effects of the vaccine for it to be at a scale "equally dangerous" to the extent of the deaths and injuries caused by actual infection. And it's not like we have no data about negative side effects. We have data on side effects: getting them is literally a handful in a million chance and they're manageable when they occur[1]. 1. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/07/13/more-on-vaccine-side-effects https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/07/13/mo...

basementcat 5y ago

It might not be a big deal if you get COVID but it would suck to be the immunocompromised individual (or a friend/family relation to the individual) who might get COVID from you.

blindmute 5y ago
Yep, that would suck for them. Anyone who is fearful of getting covid should get the vaccine. If they get vaccinated and I still end up transmitting it to them, then that sucks, but again, people get sick and that's life. I'm willing to acknowledge my selfishness in this matter.
- objectivetruth 5y ago
  What a fascinating response! I'd love it if you would answer a few follow-up questions... You're aware that there ARE people who can't get vaccinated, due to age or immune status, right? If you transmit it to them and they get very sick or die, do you stand by your assertion that "that's life?" I guess it's "OK" because nobody will be able to prove that you, specifically, were the selfish person who spread it? I find it very interesting that you're willing to say that you're OK with other people dying purely because of your own selfishness, represented in a refusal to endure 60 seconds of pain and a potential day of fatigue and malaise. A lot of people would hide that sentiment, not even revealing it pseudonymously, for fear that others would think they're sociopaths. I guess that's what makes certain people such "independent free thinkers."
bwship 5y ago
That person would presumably be vaccinated, thus they wouldn't get the virus from him. Why does everyone talk about how the vaccine works, but then use this argument against people that don't want to get the vaccine?
- objectivetruth 5y ago
  basementcat CLEARLY said: "but it would suck to be the immunocompromised individual" (my emphasis) Some immunocompromised people can't be vaccinated. For others, the vaccine is much less effective than for people with healthy immune systems. Those are two groups of people that lots of us care about. Also, nobody in the US under 12 is supposed to have gotten the jab yet. That's another very large group of people that many of us care about.

murgindrag 5y ago

I empathize with most of what you wrote, but there are two errors: "I also know what to expect from a respiratory virus, because I've had those a number of times." No one whom I know who has had COVID describes it like any normal respiratory virus, and it attacks multiple systems. I'm terrified of brain damage, and before-and-after MRIs shows brain damage in >10% of people who contract COVID19. "If I get covid, darn that sucks but people get sick and that's life" And if you kill a loved one by sharing COVID19? Or give them brain fog? That's not something I could live with. The deeper argument, though, is about herd immunity. If we don't stop the spread, really bad things happen. I'll mention: Do you use proper masks? N95 and proper nanofiber masks are widely available, and appear to do more to stop the spread than the vaccine. They're also risk-free.

blindmute 5y ago
>And if you kill a loved one by sharing COVID19? Or give them brain fog? That's not something I could live with. The odds of this are far less than the odds of me killing my wife by taking a drive with her. In the same way that I can live with the risk of driving a car with her in it, I can live with this risk. Of course if that actually happened I would feel terrible, in both cases. But life is about weighing risks, and for now I'm comfortable with the risk of remaining unvaccinated. No, I don't wear masks. That's a different ethical discussion. I don't feel or accept a moral burden for potentially spreading a virus in any case. I wouldn't walk about while sick of course, or have uninformed sex if I had an STD, but if I'm asymptomatic and end up accidentally giving someone an illness in the course of normal life, sorry, but that's just life. People who spread the flu accidentally are not immoral people, whether they get the flu shot or not. Likewise here.
- murgindrag 5y ago
  Your numbers are way off, as is your moral compass. I hope I never meet you, or anyone like you. To use your driving analogy, the way I respond to your message is if someone told me they drove around drunk and high, without headlights, and without really doing any car maintenance, and didn't accept any moral responsibility if they hit someone because car accidents happen, and sorry, that's life. As a baseline number, about a half-million Americans died of COVID already. For comparison, there were about 40k car deaths in the US. For someone like yourself, taking no precautions, the odds of catching COVID19 are way more than 10x of a fatal car accident. The more critical problem is a systemic one. If no one takes precautions, nearly 10 million people in the US will die. If everyone does, virtually no ones needs to die. It's like polluting or littering. And COVID19 isn't flu. The flu doesn't leave a quarter of people with brain fog 9 months later.