3 ms·

It’s not experimental. It was. It was given emergency approval which sounds dramatic - but isn’t. Now the vaccines have been given to hundreds of millions with

It’s not experimental. It was. It was given emergency approval which sounds dramatic - but isn’t. Now the vaccines have been given to hundreds of millions with few adverse effects. An expert (can’t remember) explain why one shouldn’t be afraid of long term adverse effects of the vaccine: basically it has only two periods of operation: short term you can be affected by anything in the shot which contains all kinds of lipids and stuff used to create a vaccine. You can be allergic to one of these substances, for example. But if you didn’t have a short term effect from the vaccine, the long term effect is just the immune response. Nothing else. That immune response would come from the disease too. There is just no mechanism that would create a long term adverse effect. BUT there are tons of ways in which the virus could! You should ask the vaccine sceptic which long term effect they would rather have: the virus or the vaccine. Because it’s not about getting vaccine or not at this point. It’s about getting immune from the vaccine or from the disease. There just is no benefit of getting immune from the disease.

tialaramex 5y ago
> It was given emergency approval which sounds dramatic - but isn’t. In New Zealand since they had elimination they didn't do emergency approval. They expedited their normal process, but since there were literally no people dying in New Zealand of COVID-19 they weren't losing anybody by waiting for their medicines agency to complete all the steps it would usually take at the pace necessary. They're currently vaccinating their general population, having at first prioritised health workers and those at the border who might meet infected people in the course of their duties. Obviously things look a bit different when you've got people dying every day, but the vaccine is the same, so if you'd be more confident that it was assessed without worrying about all the people dying meanwhile, New Zealand did that. Months ago.
- rco8786 5y ago
  My understanding of the US process is the same, that the “emergency” approval was just an expediation of the normal process.
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    Emergency Use Authorization is not an approval. The vaccines aren't approved medicines in the US. They have Emergency Use Authorization so that they don't need approval. If the US wants to continue using these vaccines after declaring the emergency over (perhaps months or even years from now), the FDA would need to approve them. The standard (reasonable belief that the medicine "may" be effective) for EUA is lower than for approval (satisfactory proof that the medicine is effective) reflecting the emergency situation. Hydroxychloroquine had EUA for COVID-19 until it was withdrawn. It remains an FDA approved medicine for malaria prevention, because the evidence showed it works for that and that did not change, but it did not have proof that it was effective when it received EUA for COVID-19, and it still didn't have such proof when the EUA was withdrawn. New Zealand's medicines authority did not need an emergency process because New Zealand's civil government had resolved the emergency, albeit at considerable cost. They concluded that the vaccine under consideration (the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine) did by that point have proof of effectiveness. In one sense our loss is their gain, they were able to guage the effectiveness of the vaccines on other people, who were in danger of death from COVID-19, to establish that it was safe to use on their own people who faced much less danger.
taf2 5y ago
I really like this line of reasoning. The aspect of it that plays into a question I have is if we get immunity from both the vaccine and the virus - what is the total percentage of population that has had both? Also lots of fear about the variants - seems vaccinated or infected - the new virus can infect… I’m really curious to know whether an updated vaccine is in the works- not just a booster of the same vaccine ?
optimiz3 5y ago
Have we resolved why a cohort of younger folks were getting myocarditis? That is not something you want to get as a teenager when your body is developing. Have gotten the shot, but have heard this question from parents and it is completely reasonable IMO.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  Has there really been more occurrences of myocarditis from vaccine than disease in any age group? A year ago when we though a fraction would be infected it was understandable to be cautious with giving vaccines to young people that probably wouldn’t even be infected (and not severely ill if they did get infected). But now chances are good that nearly everyone will be infected, which changes the risk balance.
azth 5y ago
It doesn't help that people are not only discouraged from asking questions (the whole premise of science), but are dubbed labels and ostracized when they have genuine concerns. This, in the face of evidence of actual side effects like myocarditis and other effects, doesn't help the cause at all.
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  There's a big difference between asking questions in good faith and being open to answers, and JAQing off. And I encounter a lot more of the latter than the former...
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    Most good faith questions have easily accessible answers (which are repeated by trustworthy sources 24/7). At this point adults who question whether they should get the vaccine are most likely doing so in bad faith is my perception.
    - ithkuil 5y ago
      Unfortunately there are people whose information bubble makes them doubtful of the easily accessible answers by trustworthy sources because their social environment has cast doubts on whoever happens to be the authority in their country. It's very hard to reach them. I have trouble reaching my otherwise reasonable friends and family. They are not flat-earthers nor alt-right or whatever. Most were not even anti-vax before this. The most common argument is that since their government is full of incompetent and corrupt people (and they adduce a dozen of examples about anything random that happened before and after the pandemic, including bridges collapsing to whatever scandal du-jour happened five years ago or some illogical covid rules they made in the past years, or that some expert is scaremongering everybody in TV every day and acts a bit like a jerk), then "it follows" that the whole thing cannot be trusted and perhaps whoever is saying the opposite may be right (which easily becomes "must be right").
      - 5y ago

tialaramex 5y ago

> It was given emergency approval which sounds dramatic - but isn’t. In New Zealand since they had elimination they didn't do emergency approval. They expedited their normal process, but since there were literally no people dying in New Zealand of COVID-19 they weren't losing anybody by waiting for their medicines agency to complete all the steps it would usually take at the pace necessary. They're currently vaccinating their general population, having at first prioritised health workers and those at the border who might meet infected people in the course of their duties. Obviously things look a bit different when you've got people dying every day, but the vaccine is the same, so if you'd be more confident that it was assessed without worrying about all the people dying meanwhile, New Zealand did that. Months ago.

rco8786 5y ago
My understanding of the US process is the same, that the “emergency” approval was just an expediation of the normal process.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Emergency Use Authorization is not an approval. The vaccines aren't approved medicines in the US. They have Emergency Use Authorization so that they don't need approval. If the US wants to continue using these vaccines after declaring the emergency over (perhaps months or even years from now), the FDA would need to approve them. The standard (reasonable belief that the medicine "may" be effective) for EUA is lower than for approval (satisfactory proof that the medicine is effective) reflecting the emergency situation. Hydroxychloroquine had EUA for COVID-19 until it was withdrawn. It remains an FDA approved medicine for malaria prevention, because the evidence showed it works for that and that did not change, but it did not have proof that it was effective when it received EUA for COVID-19, and it still didn't have such proof when the EUA was withdrawn. New Zealand's medicines authority did not need an emergency process because New Zealand's civil government had resolved the emergency, albeit at considerable cost. They concluded that the vaccine under consideration (the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine) did by that point have proof of effectiveness. In one sense our loss is their gain, they were able to guage the effectiveness of the vaccines on other people, who were in danger of death from COVID-19, to establish that it was safe to use on their own people who faced much less danger.

taf2 5y ago

I really like this line of reasoning. The aspect of it that plays into a question I have is if we get immunity from both the vaccine and the virus - what is the total percentage of population that has had both? Also lots of fear about the variants - seems vaccinated or infected - the new virus can infect… I’m really curious to know whether an updated vaccine is in the works- not just a booster of the same vaccine ?

optimiz3 5y ago

Have we resolved why a cohort of younger folks were getting myocarditis? That is not something you want to get as a teenager when your body is developing. Have gotten the shot, but have heard this question from parents and it is completely reasonable IMO.

alkonaut 5y ago
Has there really been more occurrences of myocarditis from vaccine than disease in any age group? A year ago when we though a fraction would be infected it was understandable to be cautious with giving vaccines to young people that probably wouldn’t even be infected (and not severely ill if they did get infected). But now chances are good that nearly everyone will be infected, which changes the risk balance.

azth 5y ago

It doesn't help that people are not only discouraged from asking questions (the whole premise of science), but are dubbed labels and ostracized when they have genuine concerns. This, in the face of evidence of actual side effects like myocarditis and other effects, doesn't help the cause at all.

CarelessExpert 5y ago
There's a big difference between asking questions in good faith and being open to answers, and JAQing off. And I encounter a lot more of the latter than the former...
- alkonaut 5y ago
  Most good faith questions have easily accessible answers (which are repeated by trustworthy sources 24/7). At this point adults who question whether they should get the vaccine are most likely doing so in bad faith is my perception.
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    Unfortunately there are people whose information bubble makes them doubtful of the easily accessible answers by trustworthy sources because their social environment has cast doubts on whoever happens to be the authority in their country. It's very hard to reach them. I have trouble reaching my otherwise reasonable friends and family. They are not flat-earthers nor alt-right or whatever. Most were not even anti-vax before this. The most common argument is that since their government is full of incompetent and corrupt people (and they adduce a dozen of examples about anything random that happened before and after the pandemic, including bridges collapsing to whatever scandal du-jour happened five years ago or some illogical covid rules they made in the past years, or that some expert is scaremongering everybody in TV every day and acts a bit like a jerk), then "it follows" that the whole thing cannot be trusted and perhaps whoever is saying the opposite may be right (which easily becomes "must be right").
    - 5y ago