3 ms·

>That it went faster doesn't mean it's less safe No, but it does the mean the long term risk are not defined as well. What if, for example, this causes reprodu

by noobly 5y ago

>That it went faster doesn't mean it's less safe No, but it does the mean the long term risk are not defined as well. What if, for example, this causes reproductive harm, or some harm to the offspring? I personally believe this is very unlikely, but it's too early to know at the moment. Or, what if the ADE risk is real, and vaccinated individuals aren't able to combat variants as effectively, perhaps even reacting worse to reinfection? It's simply too early to evaluate so many risk here. On the other hand, I can be pretty sure COVID won't cause birth defects, given that no coronaviruses do. >hospitalization rates are 15-200X higher in the unvaccinated and death rates are 8-87X higher Well, of course - there's a lot more unvaccinated people and cases, what else would you expect? And I'm not at risk of being hospitalized anyway, so I still see no reason to try and mitigate that risk. My time would be better spent ensuring my car is operating safely, or a million other things that could decrease my chance of harm more substantially. Regardless, taking the vaccine is pointless beyond self-preservation if it doesn't reduce spread, and at the moment that's unknown, and complicated by the fact that some 'variants' seem to side-step the vaccine. Sitting on the side lines and waiting for more data seems reasonable to me.

arcticbull 5y ago
> No, but it does the mean the long term risk are not defined as well. That's why we have 32 years of study on mRNA vaccines are almost 50 years of study on viral vector vaccines. > What if, for example, this causes reproductive harm, or some harm to the offspring? You have no basis for that. What if it causes some people to grow a third arm? A fourth testicle? Again, we've studied the vaccine and know that it does not affect the germ line. > Or, what if the ADE risk is real, and vaccinated individuals aren't able to combat variants as effectively, perhaps even reacting worse to reinfection? The data that I linked you shows otherwise? > It's simply too early to evaluate so many risk here. On the other hand, I can be pretty sure COVID won't cause birth defects, given that no coronaviruses do. No mRNA vaccine has caused that either lol, nor has any viral vector vaccine. So why would it start now? It's as likely to do that as it is to grow in a bonus nut. [1] Note that the CDC does not specifically cover my bonus nut theory, so who knows? I'll keep an eye out for it tho. "There is currently no evidence that any vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, cause fertility problems in women or men." [1] I mean why would they? A viral vector vaccine is a virus, just like COVID (well, more specifically, an adenovirus) which doesn't infect germ cells. > Well, of course - there's a lot more unvaccinated people and cases, what else would you expect? That's up to 200X higher per capita in the un-vaccinated population vs the vaccinated population. > And I'm not at risk of being hospitalized anyway, so I still see no reason to try and mitigate that risk. Everyone is, at different rates, and your rate is strictly higher than after vaccination. > Regardless, taking the vaccine is pointless beyond self-preservation if it doesn't reduce spread, and at the moment that's unknown, and complicated by the fact that some 'variants' seem to side-step the vaccine. Sitting on the side lines and waiting for more data seems reasonable to me. The infections from variants are still hundreds of times less severe in the vaccinated. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/pregnancy.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommend...
- noobly 5y ago
  >That's why we have 32 years of study on mRNA vaccines Yes, in which they were largely viewed as non-viable and a shelfed idea at least in part due to issues like ADE. The research here was not extremely active, nor was it done on humans to the extent it is now. >You have no basis for that. Correct, but I have no basis to believe that some unseen risk is not present too. Given that I'm not personally at risk for COVID, I think there's wisdom in waiting a couple years (at least) to see how it unfolds. And there is a basis for ADE fears, which you ignored in favor of joking about growing a spontaneous third testicle. >do you not think anyone has had a child since they were vaccinated? One child would not imply it's impossible for _some_ child to have a defect. >The data that I linked you shows otherwise? Can you point me to where this was? The 'data' is still very immature regardless. I'm sure I could source data that comes to the opposite conclusion. It's important to view these things in aggregate, not lean on the studies you agree with. Right now, I'm finding studies that disagree often, so I think waiting for the data to mature a bit is reasonable assuming I'm not harming anyone by doing so. >The infections from variants are still hundreds of times less severe in the vaccinated You missed my point here - the point is that they can still get infected, not that they aren't expressing symptoms as severely. ... Birth defects were just an example, like I said I view it as unlikely. The point is that there's a potential for unseen risk here. You've devolved into being a bit rude now, and I found your lack of skepticism tiring anyway. The data is all over the map currently, yet you seem rigid in your position - that's bad practice. You keep making arguments about the vaccines being effective at symptom reduction, but that's never been the point I'm trying to engage, since I agree with that and there is pretty conclusive data there. I will say that you can find data to the contrary (see Israel's recent stats), but mostly I'm saying that a) as someone who's already _not_at_risk_, there's arguably no net benefit to society in me taking the vaccine, so long as transmission rate reduction is largely an unknown (and even in that case, I'd prefer natural immunity) and b) there's a possibility of unforeseen and unwanted side effects / repercussions due to the vaccine - this is true despite you belittling this idea. I'm not at risk, so I don't care about minimizing it or how effective it is. There is a possibility I may be a host to transmit COVID to people at risk though, so I care about that. As of now, natural immunity looks much more enticing than vaccination for someone like me. Why are you so opposed to this? I won't be hospitalized, so you don't have to worry about me, and I presumably will spread it similarly to how vaccinated individuals will.

by noobly 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

> No, but it does the mean the long term risk are not defined as well. That's why we have 32 years of study on mRNA vaccines are almost 50 years of study on viral vector vaccines. > What if, for example, this causes reproductive harm, or some harm to the offspring? You have no basis for that. What if it causes some people to grow a third arm? A fourth testicle? Again, we've studied the vaccine and know that it does not affect the germ line. > Or, what if the ADE risk is real, and vaccinated individuals aren't able to combat variants as effectively, perhaps even reacting worse to reinfection? The data that I linked you shows otherwise? > It's simply too early to evaluate so many risk here. On the other hand, I can be pretty sure COVID won't cause birth defects, given that no coronaviruses do. No mRNA vaccine has caused that either lol, nor has any viral vector vaccine. So why would it start now? It's as likely to do that as it is to grow in a bonus nut. [1] Note that the CDC does not specifically cover my bonus nut theory, so who knows? I'll keep an eye out for it tho. "There is currently no evidence that any vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, cause fertility problems in women or men." [1] I mean why would they? A viral vector vaccine is a virus, just like COVID (well, more specifically, an adenovirus) which doesn't infect germ cells. > Well, of course - there's a lot more unvaccinated people and cases, what else would you expect? That's up to 200X higher per capita in the un-vaccinated population vs the vaccinated population. > And I'm not at risk of being hospitalized anyway, so I still see no reason to try and mitigate that risk. Everyone is, at different rates, and your rate is strictly higher than after vaccination. > Regardless, taking the vaccine is pointless beyond self-preservation if it doesn't reduce spread, and at the moment that's unknown, and complicated by the fact that some 'variants' seem to side-step the vaccine. Sitting on the side lines and waiting for more data seems reasonable to me. The infections from variants are still hundreds of times less severe in the vaccinated. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/pregnancy.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommend...

noobly 5y ago
>That's why we have 32 years of study on mRNA vaccines Yes, in which they were largely viewed as non-viable and a shelfed idea at least in part due to issues like ADE. The research here was not extremely active, nor was it done on humans to the extent it is now. >You have no basis for that. Correct, but I have no basis to believe that some unseen risk is not present too. Given that I'm not personally at risk for COVID, I think there's wisdom in waiting a couple years (at least) to see how it unfolds. And there is a basis for ADE fears, which you ignored in favor of joking about growing a spontaneous third testicle. >do you not think anyone has had a child since they were vaccinated? One child would not imply it's impossible for _some_ child to have a defect. >The data that I linked you shows otherwise? Can you point me to where this was? The 'data' is still very immature regardless. I'm sure I could source data that comes to the opposite conclusion. It's important to view these things in aggregate, not lean on the studies you agree with. Right now, I'm finding studies that disagree often, so I think waiting for the data to mature a bit is reasonable assuming I'm not harming anyone by doing so. >The infections from variants are still hundreds of times less severe in the vaccinated You missed my point here - the point is that they can still get infected, not that they aren't expressing symptoms as severely. ... Birth defects were just an example, like I said I view it as unlikely. The point is that there's a potential for unseen risk here. You've devolved into being a bit rude now, and I found your lack of skepticism tiring anyway. The data is all over the map currently, yet you seem rigid in your position - that's bad practice. You keep making arguments about the vaccines being effective at symptom reduction, but that's never been the point I'm trying to engage, since I agree with that and there is pretty conclusive data there. I will say that you can find data to the contrary (see Israel's recent stats), but mostly I'm saying that a) as someone who's already _not_at_risk_, there's arguably no net benefit to society in me taking the vaccine, so long as transmission rate reduction is largely an unknown (and even in that case, I'd prefer natural immunity) and b) there's a possibility of unforeseen and unwanted side effects / repercussions due to the vaccine - this is true despite you belittling this idea. I'm not at risk, so I don't care about minimizing it or how effective it is. There is a possibility I may be a host to transmit COVID to people at risk though, so I care about that. As of now, natural immunity looks much more enticing than vaccination for someone like me. Why are you so opposed to this? I won't be hospitalized, so you don't have to worry about me, and I presumably will spread it similarly to how vaccinated individuals will.