10 ms·

Some effects may take a long time to develop. Not related but a very slow biological process (prions): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27982991 https://ne

by lixtra 5y ago

Some effects may take a long time to develop. Not related but a very slow biological process (prions): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27982991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27982991

BurningFrog 5y ago
You can always make a "you never know, something completely unforeseen may happe", and you will be right. Of course, people tend to only make those arguments for things they don't really want to be done.
- artursapek 5y ago
  Not really. This has been the argument against pesticides and GMO foods for years, and it’s completely valid in hindsight.
  - yongjik 5y ago
    GMO is a good example why such concerns are not always right. (See also: cell phone radiation.)
  - nawgz 5y ago
    Are pesticides and GMO foods - two things which are reapplied on a frequent basis, relatively speaking - actually comparable to an instance in time where someone received one or two shots once? I think the most famous/deadly instances of drugs having side effects which discovered after mass deployment have generally been for medicines one ingests continuously, no? I, as an untrained and uneducated individual, find it almost impossible to imagine a drug / technology / mechanism which could be applied "once" (i.e. only one time, even if over a few doses spaced out in time) that would not present any population effects after 1y / 1billion people that would then proceed to be even within one order of magnitude as deadly as COVID. Hell, two or three even...
    - effie 5y ago
      1) Prions: kuru has asymptomatic incubation period 10-13 years; 2) various carcinogens, it takes time for the cancer to develop.
      - nawgz 5y ago
        Prions are an obvious exception, but I don't think I agree with carcinogens. Perhaps I'm unaware. Can you point to any carcinogen which a single exposure to would result in a >0.05% death rate in the exposed population?
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    I don't think people who really wanted pesticides and GMO foods made those arguments.
artursapek 5y ago
Most vaccine side effects do take a long time to develop, and as a result are concluded to be plain ol’ “bad luck” health problems
ajross 5y ago
So, clearly you're just making a nitpicky point about whether we can say there are "no side effects" and ignoring context. But the context here is a vaccine against a very dangerous disease, and the need to make a risk analysis decision as to whether to use it. Broadly: you seem to be implying that you think a ~0.5% fatality rate just "takes a long time to develop". Even if you posit 100% infections in the US (laughably wrong given the trajectory of outbreak, but whatever), you have to accept an IFR almost 0.2%. Given the ~170M Americans already vaccinated, any side effect worth discussing would need to be at least as bad as killing 334000 of them. And needless no vaccine in history, maybe no widely prescribed drug of any kind, has turned up a long tail side effect analysis like that. Remember when everyone lost their shit about Vioxx? Best estimates are that 38k people died; an order of magnitude lower.
- effie 5y ago
  > against a very dangerous disease Ebola or smallpox are very dangerous disease. COVID has much lower negative impact on lives/health, it is more like flu or risk of stroke, very dangerous only for specific subpopulations, mostly old / unhealthy people with preexisting conditions.
  - ajross 5y ago
    Ebola spreads poorly and never achieved anything larger than a regional outbreak (but yes, it's very dangerous). Smallpox is extinct. Covid is a pandemic, literally killing millions of people. You don't think that's relevant to a discussion about vaccination policy? BTW: that "smallpox" idea you threw out? Give you two guesses as to how it was eradicated.
    - effie 5y ago
      You said it is very dangerous, but I say it is not in that category. It is very dangerous to specific subpopulations, that's it.
      - ajross 5y ago
GekkePrutser 5y ago
True but the same goes for covid itself. In fact we already know of long covid. Which we still don't know much about. We don't even know if it ever goes away. So there's a known long-term effect already. The vaccines are a lot better understood than the virus. We don't know of any long-term issues so far. It's still a much safer bet to get the vaccine IMO. And it will also help with the societal problem around the covid measures. We can't keep going on lockdowns for years to come. It will destroy the economy which has its own associated health risks.
- effie 5y ago
  These vaccines are not going to solve societal problems; they do not prevent spreading, and efficiency decreases as the virus mutates. COVID measures will stop when critical body of people finally realizes they are inefficient/too costly and not necessary.

by lixtra 5y ago

Some effects may take a long time to develop. Not related but a very slow biological process (prions): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27982991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27982991

BurningFrog 5y ago

You can always make a "you never know, something completely unforeseen may happe", and you will be right. Of course, people tend to only make those arguments for things they don't really want to be done.

artursapek 5y ago
Not really. This has been the argument against pesticides and GMO foods for years, and it’s completely valid in hindsight.
- yongjik 5y ago
  GMO is a good example why such concerns are not always right. (See also: cell phone radiation.)
- nawgz 5y ago
  Are pesticides and GMO foods - two things which are reapplied on a frequent basis, relatively speaking - actually comparable to an instance in time where someone received one or two shots once? I think the most famous/deadly instances of drugs having side effects which discovered after mass deployment have generally been for medicines one ingests continuously, no? I, as an untrained and uneducated individual, find it almost impossible to imagine a drug / technology / mechanism which could be applied "once" (i.e. only one time, even if over a few doses spaced out in time) that would not present any population effects after 1y / 1billion people that would then proceed to be even within one order of magnitude as deadly as COVID. Hell, two or three even...
  - effie 5y ago
    1) Prions: kuru has asymptomatic incubation period 10-13 years; 2) various carcinogens, it takes time for the cancer to develop.
    - nawgz 5y ago
      Prions are an obvious exception, but I don't think I agree with carcinogens. Perhaps I'm unaware. Can you point to any carcinogen which a single exposure to would result in a >0.05% death rate in the exposed population?
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  I don't think people who really wanted pesticides and GMO foods made those arguments.

artursapek 5y ago

Most vaccine side effects do take a long time to develop, and as a result are concluded to be plain ol’ “bad luck” health problems

ajross 5y ago

So, clearly you're just making a nitpicky point about whether we can say there are "no side effects" and ignoring context. But the context here is a vaccine against a very dangerous disease, and the need to make a risk analysis decision as to whether to use it. Broadly: you seem to be implying that you think a ~0.5% fatality rate just "takes a long time to develop". Even if you posit 100% infections in the US (laughably wrong given the trajectory of outbreak, but whatever), you have to accept an IFR almost 0.2%. Given the ~170M Americans already vaccinated, any side effect worth discussing would need to be at least as bad as killing 334000 of them. And needless no vaccine in history, maybe no widely prescribed drug of any kind, has turned up a long tail side effect analysis like that. Remember when everyone lost their shit about Vioxx? Best estimates are that 38k people died; an order of magnitude lower.

effie 5y ago
> against a very dangerous disease Ebola or smallpox are very dangerous disease. COVID has much lower negative impact on lives/health, it is more like flu or risk of stroke, very dangerous only for specific subpopulations, mostly old / unhealthy people with preexisting conditions.
- ajross 5y ago
  Ebola spreads poorly and never achieved anything larger than a regional outbreak (but yes, it's very dangerous). Smallpox is extinct. Covid is a pandemic, literally killing millions of people. You don't think that's relevant to a discussion about vaccination policy? BTW: that "smallpox" idea you threw out? Give you two guesses as to how it was eradicated.
  - effie 5y ago
    You said it is very dangerous, but I say it is not in that category. It is very dangerous to specific subpopulations, that's it.
    - ajross 5y ago

GekkePrutser 5y ago

True but the same goes for covid itself. In fact we already know of long covid. Which we still don't know much about. We don't even know if it ever goes away. So there's a known long-term effect already. The vaccines are a lot better understood than the virus. We don't know of any long-term issues so far. It's still a much safer bet to get the vaccine IMO. And it will also help with the societal problem around the covid measures. We can't keep going on lockdowns for years to come. It will destroy the economy which has its own associated health risks.

effie 5y ago
These vaccines are not going to solve societal problems; they do not prevent spreading, and efficiency decreases as the virus mutates. COVID measures will stop when critical body of people finally realizes they are inefficient/too costly and not necessary.