3 ms·

The details are the important part here. If you understand why people are against the vaccine, it is because they are not convinced that the vaccine results in

The details are the important part here. If you understand why people are against the vaccine, it is because they are not convinced that the vaccine results in the greatest public health. Whether this is right or wrong, trying to gloss over the differences in the details doesn't work here since the conflict is at the level of details. And no I don't agree with your point about vaccines being "different for every contagion". That is patently untrue, most vaccines developed in the recent past have either been recombinant, attenuated/inactivated viruses or adenovirus vectored vaccines that have undergone extensive FDA approval by now. This is especially true for the vaccines required for schooling.

bawolff 5y ago
> most vaccines developed in the recent past have either been recombinant, attenuated/inactivated viruses or adenovirus vectored vaccines If you list every other type of vaccine other than mRNA, then yes the majority of vaccines are one of those. I mean, you even listed adenovirus which is extremely new and only used in covid & ebola vaccines, which makes me suspect you don't actually care about the underlying technology or know much about it. > This is especially true for the vaccines required for schooling. The start of that movement was with the smallpox vaccine, which was quite a dangerous vaccine as far as vaccines go. Seems a weird comparison to make.
- machinelearning 5y ago
  > "adenovirus which is extremely new and only used in covid & ebola vaccines" So you are agreeing with me that there is prior evidence that adenovirus vector vaccines are safe and efficacious? Because that is exactly what I am trying to say. If you feel that there isn't enough evidence, feel free to omit that from the list and the point still stands. Perhaps even more so for OP's point about school-mandated vaccines. > The start of that movement was with the smallpox vaccine, which was quite a dangerous vaccine as far as vaccines go. Seems a weird comparison to make. You completely lost me here. No one is making the claim that the covid vaccines are net bad nor that it will always be so. From what I understand the vaccine hesitant population includes medical professionals and many well informed people who are simply waiting for more evidence about its safety. The smallpox vaccine today is understood to be both safe and efficacious and has been approved by many advisory administrations including the FDA. So if you are trying to make the point that vaccines can initially start off being unsafe and further developments can make them safer over time, you are basically voicing the perspective of those who would rather wait it out than rush to take the vaccine.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    > So you are agreeing with me that there is prior evidence that adenovirus vector vaccines are safe and efficacious I mean, the evidence isn't as strong as it is with mRNA vaccines, but nonetheless they are effective and reasonably safe. I just think your division of categories is totally arbitrary and not grounded in any evidence. > From what I understand the vaccine hesitant population includes medical professionals and many well informed people who are simply waiting for more evidence about its safety You could describe the flat earth movement the same way. The world has a lot of people in it, the set of beliefs contained within run the gamuet. Some people think X is true for all X. I don't think that says much about the answer to the question one way or another.
    - machinelearning 5y ago
      > I just think your division of categories is totally arbitrary and not grounded in any evidence. You just agreed that adenoviruses are proven to be safe and effective at scale. I don't think anyone can argue conclusively that mRNA vaccines are, though there is mounting evidence that the incidence of short-time side effects is low. If you follow that rule, it should be obvious what rule the division of categories take and why they are grounded in evidence. > You could describe the flat earth movement the same way. Now that is a strawman if I've ever heard one, not sure if you actually intend to be taken seriously with that. There are provable ways to show that the earth is round based on physical laws. There is not enough evidence that the covid mRNA vaccine is safe and effective. One could argue about what would constitute evidence for safe and effective, but pick any reasonable metric (e.g. full FDA approval, long term studies). In fact, I would argue that to think that the COVID vaccines are completely safe without enough evidence to conclusively prove that falls under the kind of beliefs that you describe. There are always going to be people who are non-rigorous and choose to believe what they want to but I hazard a guess that a large portion of the vaccine hesitant crowd falls under the category of people who want to see a rigorous analysis of the long term side effects of the vaccine before taking it. Before you strawman this argument again by saying that you can apply this logic to anything, do some research about the history of mRNA vaccines and its associated risks (autoimmune disorders, myocardial inflammation, all the anecdotal reports of persistent side effects, etc.). The point is not that mRNA vaccines produce these side effects with high probability but that there is high uncertainty as to whether they do or not because of the lack of long term studies.
novaRom 5y ago
Both Google and Facebook are very powerful in delivering any information. Why they cannot convince people with simply pure data that vaccines are: 1) necessary, because here is the data: ... 2) safe, because here is the data: ... They create all kinds of funny web sites on any topic but not on this very important thing today. Just make a good web site and convince all the remaining skeptics with scientific arguments and data! Put it in one place, make it clear and fair.
- machinelearning 5y ago
  Google and Facebook are primarily platforms for user generated conent. When content is something that's monetizable, people of all kinds are going to use this chaotic opportunity to make a quick buck. The more attention grabbing the title the greater the likelihood people will click on the link. So its entirely unsurprising that a corp marketing team within google or facebook would be entirely powerless in creating a repo that cuts through the noise. Certainly they could censor all information except their official statement, however people would be highly mistrustful of that and will take any change in narrative as a signal of incompetence.

bawolff 5y ago

> most vaccines developed in the recent past have either been recombinant, attenuated/inactivated viruses or adenovirus vectored vaccines If you list every other type of vaccine other than mRNA, then yes the majority of vaccines are one of those. I mean, you even listed adenovirus which is extremely new and only used in covid & ebola vaccines, which makes me suspect you don't actually care about the underlying technology or know much about it. > This is especially true for the vaccines required for schooling. The start of that movement was with the smallpox vaccine, which was quite a dangerous vaccine as far as vaccines go. Seems a weird comparison to make.

machinelearning 5y ago
> "adenovirus which is extremely new and only used in covid & ebola vaccines" So you are agreeing with me that there is prior evidence that adenovirus vector vaccines are safe and efficacious? Because that is exactly what I am trying to say. If you feel that there isn't enough evidence, feel free to omit that from the list and the point still stands. Perhaps even more so for OP's point about school-mandated vaccines. > The start of that movement was with the smallpox vaccine, which was quite a dangerous vaccine as far as vaccines go. Seems a weird comparison to make. You completely lost me here. No one is making the claim that the covid vaccines are net bad nor that it will always be so. From what I understand the vaccine hesitant population includes medical professionals and many well informed people who are simply waiting for more evidence about its safety. The smallpox vaccine today is understood to be both safe and efficacious and has been approved by many advisory administrations including the FDA. So if you are trying to make the point that vaccines can initially start off being unsafe and further developments can make them safer over time, you are basically voicing the perspective of those who would rather wait it out than rush to take the vaccine.
- bawolff 5y ago
  > So you are agreeing with me that there is prior evidence that adenovirus vector vaccines are safe and efficacious I mean, the evidence isn't as strong as it is with mRNA vaccines, but nonetheless they are effective and reasonably safe. I just think your division of categories is totally arbitrary and not grounded in any evidence. > From what I understand the vaccine hesitant population includes medical professionals and many well informed people who are simply waiting for more evidence about its safety You could describe the flat earth movement the same way. The world has a lot of people in it, the set of beliefs contained within run the gamuet. Some people think X is true for all X. I don't think that says much about the answer to the question one way or another.
  - machinelearning 5y ago
    > I just think your division of categories is totally arbitrary and not grounded in any evidence. You just agreed that adenoviruses are proven to be safe and effective at scale. I don't think anyone can argue conclusively that mRNA vaccines are, though there is mounting evidence that the incidence of short-time side effects is low. If you follow that rule, it should be obvious what rule the division of categories take and why they are grounded in evidence. > You could describe the flat earth movement the same way. Now that is a strawman if I've ever heard one, not sure if you actually intend to be taken seriously with that. There are provable ways to show that the earth is round based on physical laws. There is not enough evidence that the covid mRNA vaccine is safe and effective. One could argue about what would constitute evidence for safe and effective, but pick any reasonable metric (e.g. full FDA approval, long term studies). In fact, I would argue that to think that the COVID vaccines are completely safe without enough evidence to conclusively prove that falls under the kind of beliefs that you describe. There are always going to be people who are non-rigorous and choose to believe what they want to but I hazard a guess that a large portion of the vaccine hesitant crowd falls under the category of people who want to see a rigorous analysis of the long term side effects of the vaccine before taking it. Before you strawman this argument again by saying that you can apply this logic to anything, do some research about the history of mRNA vaccines and its associated risks (autoimmune disorders, myocardial inflammation, all the anecdotal reports of persistent side effects, etc.). The point is not that mRNA vaccines produce these side effects with high probability but that there is high uncertainty as to whether they do or not because of the lack of long term studies.

novaRom 5y ago

Both Google and Facebook are very powerful in delivering any information. Why they cannot convince people with simply pure data that vaccines are: 1) necessary, because here is the data: ... 2) safe, because here is the data: ... They create all kinds of funny web sites on any topic but not on this very important thing today. Just make a good web site and convince all the remaining skeptics with scientific arguments and data! Put it in one place, make it clear and fair.

machinelearning 5y ago
Google and Facebook are primarily platforms for user generated conent. When content is something that's monetizable, people of all kinds are going to use this chaotic opportunity to make a quick buck. The more attention grabbing the title the greater the likelihood people will click on the link. So its entirely unsurprising that a corp marketing team within google or facebook would be entirely powerless in creating a repo that cuts through the noise. Certainly they could censor all information except their official statement, however people would be highly mistrustful of that and will take any change in narrative as a signal of incompetence.