4 ms·

I am not sure that this is accurate. For me it is like a coin: - One side shows the benefits of the vaccine, and let's not forget that this side is promoted by

I am not sure that this is accurate. For me it is like a coin: - One side shows the benefits of the vaccine, and let's not forget that this side is promoted by the vaccine sellers. No problem with that, they do their job, in a few months we will see a 3rd and 4th dose being promoted to ensure immunity. - The other side shows the cons of the vaccine, but as you said it is not sufficiently studied. It seems to me insufficient to make decisions.

fsh 5y ago
This is not at all what I said! Before conditional approval, possible risks have been extensively studied in very large phase 3 trials with a few ten thousand participants. For reference, the phase 3 study of the conventional TBE vaccine I recently got had just a few thousand participants. Like for any other medication, regulatory agencies have used this safety and efficacy data to judge whether the vaccine is beneficial or not. I strongly suggest you look up the corresponding reports for the various COVID-19 vaccines if you are interested in the details. Most countries' agencies post them publicly on their websites. Due to the limited number of participants, is not possible to detect extremely rare side effects in a clinical trial. This is why most countries have adverse effect reporting systems. If they detect statistically significant anomalies (e.g. rare thromboses in vector vaccines), they then update their recommendations taking into account the new data. This is again standard procedure for all medications.
- kaskakokos 5y ago
  Thank you for your response, it seems you know a lot about this, no irony :) I understand your point, and I have read some papers (not recently, but in the first months of the vaccines invention). Also I understood your words (probably my bad) "One needs to do a proper statistical analysis to determine if there is any causal link to the vaccination" as "not sufficiently studied". Lets be clear, I am not antiVax (I have all of their recommended / required vaccinations and am very aware & grateful for the protection they provide), I have questions (the same kind of critical questions I do my self when choosing between mortgages or where spend my holidays). Then, which are my doubts? - This vaccines has been manufactured within a fraction of the normal time frame, I understand they may be used within vulnerable groups, but for the healthy ones... I am not in a hurry, let allow the test of time... - Pharmaceutical companies are seeking indemnification against any adverse consequences from vaccines... It will be not the first time the seller of a drug hide adverse hide-effects. It looks like asymmetric to me, no responsibilities in one side, my health on the other. - Without looking into details (details=lives), vaccination as a strategy has as little regard for human life / well-being and is just as reckless as herd immunity. Lets put 3 examples: 1) I have 2 kids, almost zero possibilities of being badly affected by covid, should I vaccine them bearing in mind the points above? 2) My wife has a rare disease, should she vaccine? 3) I am an healthy 37 man, should I vaccine? Do you see the grey areas?

fsh 5y ago

This is not at all what I said! Before conditional approval, possible risks have been extensively studied in very large phase 3 trials with a few ten thousand participants. For reference, the phase 3 study of the conventional TBE vaccine I recently got had just a few thousand participants. Like for any other medication, regulatory agencies have used this safety and efficacy data to judge whether the vaccine is beneficial or not. I strongly suggest you look up the corresponding reports for the various COVID-19 vaccines if you are interested in the details. Most countries' agencies post them publicly on their websites. Due to the limited number of participants, is not possible to detect extremely rare side effects in a clinical trial. This is why most countries have adverse effect reporting systems. If they detect statistically significant anomalies (e.g. rare thromboses in vector vaccines), they then update their recommendations taking into account the new data. This is again standard procedure for all medications.

kaskakokos 5y ago
Thank you for your response, it seems you know a lot about this, no irony :) I understand your point, and I have read some papers (not recently, but in the first months of the vaccines invention). Also I understood your words (probably my bad) "One needs to do a proper statistical analysis to determine if there is any causal link to the vaccination" as "not sufficiently studied". Lets be clear, I am not antiVax (I have all of their recommended / required vaccinations and am very aware & grateful for the protection they provide), I have questions (the same kind of critical questions I do my self when choosing between mortgages or where spend my holidays). Then, which are my doubts? - This vaccines has been manufactured within a fraction of the normal time frame, I understand they may be used within vulnerable groups, but for the healthy ones... I am not in a hurry, let allow the test of time... - Pharmaceutical companies are seeking indemnification against any adverse consequences from vaccines... It will be not the first time the seller of a drug hide adverse hide-effects. It looks like asymmetric to me, no responsibilities in one side, my health on the other. - Without looking into details (details=lives), vaccination as a strategy has as little regard for human life / well-being and is just as reckless as herd immunity. Lets put 3 examples: 1) I have 2 kids, almost zero possibilities of being badly affected by covid, should I vaccine them bearing in mind the points above? 2) My wife has a rare disease, should she vaccine? 3) I am an healthy 37 man, should I vaccine? Do you see the grey areas?