5 ms·

> If the vaccine is as effective as it seems, then this decision feels positively nanny state to me. It takes away an individual's agency to inform themselves o

> If the vaccine is as effective as it seems, then this decision feels positively nanny state to me. It takes away an individual's agency to inform themselves of the risks on both sides and make an informed decision. Do people feel the same way about schools requiring vaccines, or children getting the MMR, Hep B, or Polio vaccines?

SirensOfTitan 5y ago
As I clearly mentioned, this vaccine is not FDA approved. We have no idea of the long term effects. I find it fairly reasonable to not want to be a test subject.
- bingidingi 5y ago
  So if the FDA approved it you’d be ok with it?
- standardUser 5y ago
  "We have no idea of the long term effects" Perhaps you have no idea, but the people closest to this science, including the countless government agencies around the world that have given authorization, have a pretty good idea. The design and length of clinical trials is not arbitrary, but your personal idea of "long term" is arbitrary.
  - textgel 5y ago
    Just as they had a good idea that vaccinating would effectively make the virus transmissible, just as they had a good idea about masks working and not working, just as they...
    - standardUser 5y ago
      Not sure what point you are making, but vaccines work and are neutralizing the pandemic in places with sufficient coverage. The Delta variant does spread more aggressively to recovered or vaccinated people, but very, very rarely sends them to the hospital.
  - mrfusion 5y ago
    Have we seen a vaccinated person conceive and have a healthy birth? I’m not at all saying that’s a risk but just that it’s an example of something we haven’t had time to test.
    - standardUser 5y ago
      Right, I am only arguing that we are not flying totally blind here. Is the risk 0%? No, never. But the people who know the science best think the risk of something occurring beyond the timeframe we have good data for is very, very low. And the idea that there is a certain amount of years or decades, or a certain life event that changes the expectations of how this impacts human health, is something that we are only guessing about. Whereas the people with the knowledge and background to make educated guesses generally have little to no concern.
      - chitowneats 5y ago
        Higher or lower than the chance of hospitalization for women of childbearing age for covid-19? Many people suspect that the answer to this question is "we don't really know". But public health agencies are trying to boost vaccination rates, period. So they say "just get the vax". It's getting exhausting trying to parse out the truth from the various "noble lies". This leads many people who already mistrust "the system" to tune out future guidance and legitimate information. Black Americans, and Republicans, for example.
        standardUser 5y ago
        I upvoted this. I strongly agree that public health communication has been awful at times and has absolutely diminished trust. Especially the recent f*ck up at the CDC where they spread disinformation about vaccinated people and their ability to spread the Delta variant.
        chitowneats 5y ago
        Thank you. I have appreciated your engagement. Referring to unsettled science as "disinformation" seems premature. Is it not the case that we have some preliminary evidence that this may be the case? I've seen lots of criticism of the study that led to their updated guidance about this. Confounding variables, etc. But these are experts giving us their expert opinion. Surely it should at least be considered a possibility worthy of more study? Does referring to it as "disinformation" create a chilling effect around truth seeking? Are there other studies, or a "preponderance of evidence", so to speak, that refutes their position? I'm not aware of any. Most often I hear people make "common sense" or "just so" arguments about vaccines in general and how they work. Nothing specific about the covid vaccines. The majority of which, at least in USA, utilize novel tech.
  - rajin444 5y ago
    Do we have data on 5, 10 years after usage? I'm fairly certain that there won't be anything either (based on what experts have said), but we should withhold making assertions without data to back it up, right?
    - standardUser 5y ago
      Why do you think 5 or 10 years are important metrics? Why not 40 or 60 years?
      - desine 5y ago
        You start climbing ladders at the bottom rung. Do you have 40 to 60 year data? Or are you just avoiding the 5-10 year scale by redirecting?
        standardUser 5y ago
        Well, mRNA vaccines have been in human clinical trials for over 10 years now, so if 10 years is your metric you may want to look in to that. My greater point is that to you and I - people who do not research the human immune system - 5 or 20 or 40 years may all seem like reasonable metrics. The people closest to the science disagree with us, at least in part because they cannot identify any mechanism for these vaccines to possess stealth side effects that only emerge decades later.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        busymom0 5y ago
        To be fair, vast majority of those scientists also claimed the lab leak theory was impossible and a conspiracy theory and 1.5 year later flip flopped. If it was so easy to silence scientists on such an obvious issue, what else were the dissenting scientists silenced on?
        desine 5y ago
- bart_spoon 5y ago
  FDA approval for Pfizer is expected in a matter of weeks.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    Israel is reporting the vaccine efficacy goes down by 50 percent in 3 months and down to 16 percent in 6 months. Now they are talking about a 3rd shot. If despite all this, the FDA somehow approves this, I doubt it will convince people. This is especially relevant for millions of people who have already gotten immunity via infection itself.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Do vaccines being approved by government make the government not a nanny state? Isn't that still a matter of government knowing what's good for you, as a parent would?
  - Covzire 5y ago
    With full FDA approval at least there would be documentation that tech platforms might not ban someone for discussing.
- _ph_ 5y ago
  If it makes you feel safer, come to Europe and recieve a shot with fully approved vaccines.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  It is definitely not reasonable for a healthy young person who hasn't had COVID yet to skip out on the vaccine, given that the long term complications from COVID are almost certainly going to be worse than any (if that) associated with a vaccine, and getting COVID eventually is pretty much guaranteed now.
mrfusion 5y ago
For one thing those are policies that were carefully developed over decades not in a few weeks in the middle of a mass panic. Also those policies usually have religious and medical exemptions.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Does cautious science make the state less of a nanny? Isn't the critique of nanny state about whether the state is acting like a parent, knowing what's good for you?
  - mrfusion 5y ago
    Good point for sure.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    People who have already gotten covid infection are extremely unlikely to get it again and some reports are saying that they have stronger immunity than vaccinated ones. This is not the case for things like polio. Plus based on Israel, the vaccine is also losing efficacy after 3-6 months so they are giving a 3rd shot now. That's not the case with polio vaccines.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- ok123456 5y ago
  We didn't get this vaccine out of nothing in 9 months. Every time there was a corona virus scare in the past (i.e., SARS and MERS) there was research into vaccines. After the panic dies down, these got shelved, but they served as a starting point. We've been developing this vaccine on-and-off-again for the past 20 years.

SirensOfTitan 5y ago

As I clearly mentioned, this vaccine is not FDA approved. We have no idea of the long term effects. I find it fairly reasonable to not want to be a test subject.

bingidingi 5y ago
So if the FDA approved it you’d be ok with it?
standardUser 5y ago
"We have no idea of the long term effects" Perhaps you have no idea, but the people closest to this science, including the countless government agencies around the world that have given authorization, have a pretty good idea. The design and length of clinical trials is not arbitrary, but your personal idea of "long term" is arbitrary.
- textgel 5y ago
  Just as they had a good idea that vaccinating would effectively make the virus transmissible, just as they had a good idea about masks working and not working, just as they...
  - standardUser 5y ago
    Not sure what point you are making, but vaccines work and are neutralizing the pandemic in places with sufficient coverage. The Delta variant does spread more aggressively to recovered or vaccinated people, but very, very rarely sends them to the hospital.
- mrfusion 5y ago
  Have we seen a vaccinated person conceive and have a healthy birth? I’m not at all saying that’s a risk but just that it’s an example of something we haven’t had time to test.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    Right, I am only arguing that we are not flying totally blind here. Is the risk 0%? No, never. But the people who know the science best think the risk of something occurring beyond the timeframe we have good data for is very, very low. And the idea that there is a certain amount of years or decades, or a certain life event that changes the expectations of how this impacts human health, is something that we are only guessing about. Whereas the people with the knowledge and background to make educated guesses generally have little to no concern.
    - chitowneats 5y ago
      Higher or lower than the chance of hospitalization for women of childbearing age for covid-19? Many people suspect that the answer to this question is "we don't really know". But public health agencies are trying to boost vaccination rates, period. So they say "just get the vax". It's getting exhausting trying to parse out the truth from the various "noble lies". This leads many people who already mistrust "the system" to tune out future guidance and legitimate information. Black Americans, and Republicans, for example.
      - standardUser 5y ago
        I upvoted this. I strongly agree that public health communication has been awful at times and has absolutely diminished trust. Especially the recent f*ck up at the CDC where they spread disinformation about vaccinated people and their ability to spread the Delta variant.
        chitowneats 5y ago
        Thank you. I have appreciated your engagement. Referring to unsettled science as "disinformation" seems premature. Is it not the case that we have some preliminary evidence that this may be the case? I've seen lots of criticism of the study that led to their updated guidance about this. Confounding variables, etc. But these are experts giving us their expert opinion. Surely it should at least be considered a possibility worthy of more study? Does referring to it as "disinformation" create a chilling effect around truth seeking? Are there other studies, or a "preponderance of evidence", so to speak, that refutes their position? I'm not aware of any. Most often I hear people make "common sense" or "just so" arguments about vaccines in general and how they work. Nothing specific about the covid vaccines. The majority of which, at least in USA, utilize novel tech.
- rajin444 5y ago
  Do we have data on 5, 10 years after usage? I'm fairly certain that there won't be anything either (based on what experts have said), but we should withhold making assertions without data to back it up, right?
  - standardUser 5y ago
    Why do you think 5 or 10 years are important metrics? Why not 40 or 60 years?
    - desine 5y ago
      You start climbing ladders at the bottom rung. Do you have 40 to 60 year data? Or are you just avoiding the 5-10 year scale by redirecting?
      - standardUser 5y ago
        Well, mRNA vaccines have been in human clinical trials for over 10 years now, so if 10 years is your metric you may want to look in to that. My greater point is that to you and I - people who do not research the human immune system - 5 or 20 or 40 years may all seem like reasonable metrics. The people closest to the science disagree with us, at least in part because they cannot identify any mechanism for these vaccines to possess stealth side effects that only emerge decades later.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        busymom0 5y ago
        To be fair, vast majority of those scientists also claimed the lab leak theory was impossible and a conspiracy theory and 1.5 year later flip flopped. If it was so easy to silence scientists on such an obvious issue, what else were the dissenting scientists silenced on?
        desine 5y ago
bart_spoon 5y ago
FDA approval for Pfizer is expected in a matter of weeks.
- busymom0 5y ago
  Israel is reporting the vaccine efficacy goes down by 50 percent in 3 months and down to 16 percent in 6 months. Now they are talking about a 3rd shot. If despite all this, the FDA somehow approves this, I doubt it will convince people. This is especially relevant for millions of people who have already gotten immunity via infection itself.
threatofrain 5y ago
Do vaccines being approved by government make the government not a nanny state? Isn't that still a matter of government knowing what's good for you, as a parent would?
- Covzire 5y ago
  With full FDA approval at least there would be documentation that tech platforms might not ban someone for discussing.
_ph_ 5y ago
If it makes you feel safer, come to Europe and recieve a shot with fully approved vaccines.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fighterpilot 5y ago
It is definitely not reasonable for a healthy young person who hasn't had COVID yet to skip out on the vaccine, given that the long term complications from COVID are almost certainly going to be worse than any (if that) associated with a vaccine, and getting COVID eventually is pretty much guaranteed now.

mrfusion 5y ago

For one thing those are policies that were carefully developed over decades not in a few weeks in the middle of a mass panic. Also those policies usually have religious and medical exemptions.

threatofrain 5y ago
Does cautious science make the state less of a nanny? Isn't the critique of nanny state about whether the state is acting like a parent, knowing what's good for you?
- mrfusion 5y ago
  Good point for sure.
- busymom0 5y ago
  People who have already gotten covid infection are extremely unlikely to get it again and some reports are saying that they have stronger immunity than vaccinated ones. This is not the case for things like polio. Plus based on Israel, the vaccine is also losing efficacy after 3-6 months so they are giving a 3rd shot now. That's not the case with polio vaccines.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
ok123456 5y ago
We didn't get this vaccine out of nothing in 9 months. Every time there was a corona virus scare in the past (i.e., SARS and MERS) there was research into vaccines. After the panic dies down, these got shelved, but they served as a starting point. We've been developing this vaccine on-and-off-again for the past 20 years.