4 ms·

The people resistant to taking them are concerned with potential “long term”effects so by definition argue that it wouldn’t be known by now.

azangru 5y ago
> The people resistant to taking them are concerned with potential “long term”effects Not necessarily long-term. I would suggest that short-term effects such as thrombosis of myocarditis, however rare, are also a valid cause for concern.
- astura 5y ago
  This concern must be taken in context, myocarditis is also a side effect of COVID-19 infection. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666337620300469 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266633762... Last year a Red Sox pitcher missed an entire season due to myocarditis caused by COVID-19 infection. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30929594/red-sox-p-eduardo-rodriguez-fully-recovered-covid-19-bout-myocarditis https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30929594/red-sox-p-eduar...
- Arnt 5y ago
  I computed that on the day when I got my vaccine (the first dose was AZ) and the risk of thrombosis from the vaccine was comparable to that of that of thrombosis from corona in the next few weeks, assuming that my risk of being infected was the average for the city and that the incidence would be stable over the next weeks. Three weeks I think? So the vaccine raised my chance of thrombosis in the next two weeks by 50%, but cut my chance of thrombosis in the next six weeks by 50%. Pick a number according to the conclusion you'd like to see.
Arnt 5y ago
Serious question: Is anyone putting up a real argument that the vaccines may have long-term harm that outweighs the harm done by the risk of the disease in the same timeframe? Say 20 years. Compute the risk of getting covid over 20 years based on, say, the risk seen in North Dakota over the last year and estimate a health outcome based on that. Is anyone putting up a real argument that any of the vaccines might have a comparable outcome?
- IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
  I don't think I find most people saying there is an argument that tilts one way or the other. what i hear is, they genuinely not know.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    I hear lots of people say there's an argument that tilts one way, specifically that the risk to the vaccinated is >1 orders of magnitude smaller than that to the unvaccinated. (I also hear lots of non-argument, such as "I don't know what's in…" from people who didn't say that about aspartame or other additives. My question was strictly about whether anyone is advancing a real argument that the risks may be comparable.)

azangru 5y ago

> The people resistant to taking them are concerned with potential “long term”effects Not necessarily long-term. I would suggest that short-term effects such as thrombosis of myocarditis, however rare, are also a valid cause for concern.

astura 5y ago
This concern must be taken in context, myocarditis is also a side effect of COVID-19 infection. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666337620300469 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266633762... Last year a Red Sox pitcher missed an entire season due to myocarditis caused by COVID-19 infection. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30929594/red-sox-p-eduardo-rodriguez-fully-recovered-covid-19-bout-myocarditis https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30929594/red-sox-p-eduar...
Arnt 5y ago
I computed that on the day when I got my vaccine (the first dose was AZ) and the risk of thrombosis from the vaccine was comparable to that of that of thrombosis from corona in the next few weeks, assuming that my risk of being infected was the average for the city and that the incidence would be stable over the next weeks. Three weeks I think? So the vaccine raised my chance of thrombosis in the next two weeks by 50%, but cut my chance of thrombosis in the next six weeks by 50%. Pick a number according to the conclusion you'd like to see.

Arnt 5y ago

Serious question: Is anyone putting up a real argument that the vaccines may have long-term harm that outweighs the harm done by the risk of the disease in the same timeframe? Say 20 years. Compute the risk of getting covid over 20 years based on, say, the risk seen in North Dakota over the last year and estimate a health outcome based on that. Is anyone putting up a real argument that any of the vaccines might have a comparable outcome?

IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
I don't think I find most people saying there is an argument that tilts one way or the other. what i hear is, they genuinely not know.
- Arnt 5y ago
  I hear lots of people say there's an argument that tilts one way, specifically that the risk to the vaccinated is >1 orders of magnitude smaller than that to the unvaccinated. (I also hear lots of non-argument, such as "I don't know what's in…" from people who didn't say that about aspartame or other additives. My question was strictly about whether anyone is advancing a real argument that the risks may be comparable.)