4 ms·

I understand this approach, however as there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclu

I understand this approach, however as there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path. Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster. Moreover people feeling very threatened by the COVID can extra-protect themselves, and even refuse contact with non-vaccinated people (I'm OK with this). Another take: I want everyone to stop driving because I want to walk exactly as I wish (without taking cars into account), and also people emitting exhaust gas are threatening my health. If all this leads to coerce some into taking a risk because others want to reduce the impact on their lives of another risk, I can see some social long-term problem. "Coercing into solidarity" should ring a bell.

scrollaway 5y ago
This is very true: > Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster. … but given that COVID is a risk, as GP was saying, then a world without vaccines is indeed a recipe for disaster. I want to stress how little sense your post makes if you consider that COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine (and it UNARGUABLY IS -- COVID is known to be a risk, and is known to cause illness and death to several magnitudes more than even the less severe side effects we're getting from vaccines). Your last paragraph for example argues against itself: If you're not taking the vaccine, you're forcing a (much larger) risk onto others because you want to avoid taking a (much smaller) risk yourself. COVID is a bigger risk. Period. Not just "to the elderly", but to you, too. The potential issues with COVID vaccines, even if they've been around less long than most other ones, cannot come close to the risks of COVID, no matter how fit, young and healthy you are. Hundreds of millions have been infected with COVID. Billions have taken the vaccine. The former has resulted in a worldwide shitshow. The latter has allowed us to start reopening things. You say "but there's a risk!" like it's some kind of gotcha. There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot. For example, driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking. Getting vaccinated is a negligible risk, and its upshot is significant, for you AND EVERYONE ELSE too.
- natmaka 5y ago
  I never advocated against any vaccine, only against mandatory vaccination. In my opinion it is for each person to decide for himself. > COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine Maybe. Probably, in my opinion. But this is not a fact. Thalidomide was considered OK. As a baby (in the 60's) I drank thanks to baby-bottles containing bisphenol-A, then at 40 years of age I was sterile. Consider all drugs approved, sold, then withdrawn because they proven too dangerous ('Mediator' and the undergoing 'opioid crisis' are well-known cases, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs lists some other ones). Consider phtalates, asbestos, DDT, ... many things were OK, then became disasters. You answer in good faith, and thank you for doing so! My point is: I doubt you can read the future and, right now, know for sure how to balance risk. Nobody knows. Therefore I maintain: there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path. Moreover mandatory vaccination will be interpreted as an aggression/oppression by many and is therefore dangerous. > There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot. I agree, and as nobody reads the future each one has to decide for himself. We may advocate, however stating "facts" about long-term effects is at best naive. > driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking. Some may disagree. Consider, for example, non-drivers rarely (if even) using a car: they breath exhaust gas and, as pedestrians, may be hurt by a car. Consider future generations, probably unable to drive ICE cars but 'enjoying' the effects of their exhausts. Anyone can adopt any opinion, including "the upshot makes it worth taking", but it isn't a justification when it comes to coerce people into taking a risk they refuse.
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    > mandatory vaccination will be interpreted as an aggression/oppression by many and is therefore dangerous. I wouldn't go as far as calling it "dangerous", but … it might be reckless, yes. I've been myself during COVID very vocally opposed to over-cautious rules that didn't take into account political climate (because overly aggressive rules may create future antivax advocates). I wrote about this here if you'd like to read: https://tildes.net/~health.coronavirus/ve8/covid_19_in_belgium_february_2021_edition https://tildes.net/~health.coronavirus/ve8/covid_19_in_belgi... > Therefore I maintain: there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path. It sounds like the main thing we're disagreeing on is how much weight is given to an unknown risk of an unknown chance, that may or may not happen in the future. This is all weighted against the fact that COVID has known risks, today, and further unknown risks, today as well. Furthermore, you don't seem to take into account the fact that catching COVID may in fact do all the things you dread from a vaccine and then more. It's a virus. A disease that rewrites your DNA, fucks with your blood, spreads, mutates, comes back for more. I don't see how you can possibly put this on the same scale as a vaccine which, while I grant you has unknowns and has risks, still has been thoroughly both in clinical trials (I'm myself part of a clinical trial for a vaccine, CureVac) and in the real world. I cannot read the future, no. But your argument essentially relies on you reading the future for the virus, rather than the vaccine. Since neither of us can read the future, it makes sense to make decisions based on what is more likely to happen: Long-term issues from the vaccine vs long-term issues from COVID. The latter is more likely to happen, because there are both known short and long term issues from COVID as well as unknown ones. Whereas the vaccine only has unknown ones of any significance, at this point.

scrollaway 5y ago

This is very true: > Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster. … but given that COVID is a risk, as GP was saying, then a world without vaccines is indeed a recipe for disaster. I want to stress how little sense your post makes if you consider that COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine (and it UNARGUABLY IS -- COVID is known to be a risk, and is known to cause illness and death to several magnitudes more than even the less severe side effects we're getting from vaccines). Your last paragraph for example argues against itself: If you're not taking the vaccine, you're forcing a (much larger) risk onto others because you want to avoid taking a (much smaller) risk yourself. COVID is a bigger risk. Period. Not just "to the elderly", but to you, too. The potential issues with COVID vaccines, even if they've been around less long than most other ones, cannot come close to the risks of COVID, no matter how fit, young and healthy you are. Hundreds of millions have been infected with COVID. Billions have taken the vaccine. The former has resulted in a worldwide shitshow. The latter has allowed us to start reopening things. You say "but there's a risk!" like it's some kind of gotcha. There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot. For example, driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking. Getting vaccinated is a negligible risk, and its upshot is significant, for you AND EVERYONE ELSE too.

natmaka 5y ago
I never advocated against any vaccine, only against mandatory vaccination. In my opinion it is for each person to decide for himself. > COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine Maybe. Probably, in my opinion. But this is not a fact. Thalidomide was considered OK. As a baby (in the 60's) I drank thanks to baby-bottles containing bisphenol-A, then at 40 years of age I was sterile. Consider all drugs approved, sold, then withdrawn because they proven too dangerous ('Mediator' and the undergoing 'opioid crisis' are well-known cases, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs lists some other ones). Consider phtalates, asbestos, DDT, ... many things were OK, then became disasters. You answer in good faith, and thank you for doing so! My point is: I doubt you can read the future and, right now, know for sure how to balance risk. Nobody knows. Therefore I maintain: there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path. Moreover mandatory vaccination will be interpreted as an aggression/oppression by many and is therefore dangerous. > There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot. I agree, and as nobody reads the future each one has to decide for himself. We may advocate, however stating "facts" about long-term effects is at best naive. > driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking. Some may disagree. Consider, for example, non-drivers rarely (if even) using a car: they breath exhaust gas and, as pedestrians, may be hurt by a car. Consider future generations, probably unable to drive ICE cars but 'enjoying' the effects of their exhausts. Anyone can adopt any opinion, including "the upshot makes it worth taking", but it isn't a justification when it comes to coerce people into taking a risk they refuse.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  > mandatory vaccination will be interpreted as an aggression/oppression by many and is therefore dangerous. I wouldn't go as far as calling it "dangerous", but … it might be reckless, yes. I've been myself during COVID very vocally opposed to over-cautious rules that didn't take into account political climate (because overly aggressive rules may create future antivax advocates). I wrote about this here if you'd like to read: https://tildes.net/~health.coronavirus/ve8/covid_19_in_belgium_february_2021_edition https://tildes.net/~health.coronavirus/ve8/covid_19_in_belgi... > Therefore I maintain: there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path. It sounds like the main thing we're disagreeing on is how much weight is given to an unknown risk of an unknown chance, that may or may not happen in the future. This is all weighted against the fact that COVID has known risks, today, and further unknown risks, today as well. Furthermore, you don't seem to take into account the fact that catching COVID may in fact do all the things you dread from a vaccine and then more. It's a virus. A disease that rewrites your DNA, fucks with your blood, spreads, mutates, comes back for more. I don't see how you can possibly put this on the same scale as a vaccine which, while I grant you has unknowns and has risks, still has been thoroughly both in clinical trials (I'm myself part of a clinical trial for a vaccine, CureVac) and in the real world. I cannot read the future, no. But your argument essentially relies on you reading the future for the virus, rather than the vaccine. Since neither of us can read the future, it makes sense to make decisions based on what is more likely to happen: Long-term issues from the vaccine vs long-term issues from COVID. The latter is more likely to happen, because there are both known short and long term issues from COVID as well as unknown ones. Whereas the vaccine only has unknown ones of any significance, at this point.