6 ms·

> "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 v

> "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.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    > 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. I have trouble following your line of argument. You think that adenovirus based vaccines are proven to be safe and effective at scale. You don't think that mRNA has. But covid was the first time adenovirus vaccines have been used at scale. They're probably a reasonable risk tradeoff for people during a pandemic, but they have rare side effect causing blood clots that are fatal if not immediately treated, so i wouldn't say they have the ideal safety profile. I think it would be logically consistent (even if i disagreed) to say neither mRNA nor adenovirus had enough testing. It would also be consistent to say both are ok or even mrna is ok but adeno isn't. However it makes no sense to me to say, of two vaccine types that have had the same amount of testing, the one that has worse safety & efficacy is great, the one with the better safety results needs more testing. Like, is their something i'm missing about your argument? What basis are you making this judgement on? > Now that is a strawman if I've ever heard one, How so? I'm pretty sure its not. A straw man is a specific type of invalid argument. To recap, you said > 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. And i said (ad absurdum) that the same could be said of flat earth. Flat earth is nuts, so if your argument applies equally to them, it must be incorrect. Therefore that line of reasoning should be discarded. > There are provable ways to show that the earth is round based on physical laws Indeed that was my point: flat earth is nuts. If your argument could be used to support a patently false position than there is almost certainly a mistake in your logic > Before you strawman this argument again by saying that you can apply this logic to anything Again that's very literally the opposite of what a straw man argument is. Wikipedia has an article on the topic if you are curious. > The smallpox vaccine today is understood to be both safe and efficacious This is kind of besides the point. But no that's not true. The smallpox vaccine is understood to be high risk and is not reccomended for most people. Risk is cost vs reward, so it was a very different story in the 1800s. My main argument here is not that its safe or not safe (even though i believe it is). I'm claiming that you're evaluating its safety irrationally and inconsistently (or perhaps without researching the underlying topic), and i guess more generally if you're not going to be consistent in your own evaluation you should just listen to experts.

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.
- bawolff 5y ago
  > 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. I have trouble following your line of argument. You think that adenovirus based vaccines are proven to be safe and effective at scale. You don't think that mRNA has. But covid was the first time adenovirus vaccines have been used at scale. They're probably a reasonable risk tradeoff for people during a pandemic, but they have rare side effect causing blood clots that are fatal if not immediately treated, so i wouldn't say they have the ideal safety profile. I think it would be logically consistent (even if i disagreed) to say neither mRNA nor adenovirus had enough testing. It would also be consistent to say both are ok or even mrna is ok but adeno isn't. However it makes no sense to me to say, of two vaccine types that have had the same amount of testing, the one that has worse safety & efficacy is great, the one with the better safety results needs more testing. Like, is their something i'm missing about your argument? What basis are you making this judgement on? > Now that is a strawman if I've ever heard one, How so? I'm pretty sure its not. A straw man is a specific type of invalid argument. To recap, you said > 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. And i said (ad absurdum) that the same could be said of flat earth. Flat earth is nuts, so if your argument applies equally to them, it must be incorrect. Therefore that line of reasoning should be discarded. > There are provable ways to show that the earth is round based on physical laws Indeed that was my point: flat earth is nuts. If your argument could be used to support a patently false position than there is almost certainly a mistake in your logic > Before you strawman this argument again by saying that you can apply this logic to anything Again that's very literally the opposite of what a straw man argument is. Wikipedia has an article on the topic if you are curious. > The smallpox vaccine today is understood to be both safe and efficacious This is kind of besides the point. But no that's not true. The smallpox vaccine is understood to be high risk and is not reccomended for most people. Risk is cost vs reward, so it was a very different story in the 1800s. My main argument here is not that its safe or not safe (even though i believe it is). I'm claiming that you're evaluating its safety irrationally and inconsistently (or perhaps without researching the underlying topic), and i guess more generally if you're not going to be consistent in your own evaluation you should just listen to experts.