4 ms·

I think your premise is greatly flawed. The risk from getting a little piece of Covid mRNA is infinitesimal compared to the risk of getting Covid and having th

I think your premise is greatly flawed. The risk from getting a little piece of Covid mRNA is infinitesimal compared to the risk of getting Covid and having the whole genome replicated, all the proteins, and actually maybe dying to Covid or suffering long Covid after. I don’t know of any risks that have been shown to be associated with the vaccine.

aguacate 5y ago
If I had to argue against your assessment of the risk, I would reframe or reiterate part of my premise which is really that you cannot measure the risk of what you don't know. That being said, if I'm a betting man, I suspect someone strictly avoiding vaccines through my original line of reasoning would end up like a prepper who never lives through doom's day.
- wolfram74 5y ago
  While my personal energies are geared towards physics, there are some underlying mechanisms in biology we collectively do have a solid grasp on. We're far away being from always being able do the X that results in Y, but we are getting to the point where we can rule out some actions. Like if you drive a ford pinto into a tree, it might crumple, it might combust, but it will almost certainly not undergo nuclear fission. Since we're not replicating the entirety of the virus, just a segment with a particular geometry, we can say with some confidence what kinds of things it /can't/ do.
- kmos17 5y ago
  Yes but what is known is the number of deaths from covid, currently standing at 4.4 millions worldwide and 600k and counting in the US vs. very few if any attributable to taking the vaccine. So I would argue any reasonable measure of risk is pointing to the vaccine being absolutely the safer alternative (also taking into account that vaccines have been around a very long time, the long term risk is not likely to be high). And thats is before taking into account the fact that no matter how isolated you are, unless you never interact with anyone, you will likely come into contact with the virus sooner or later.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
jtbayly 5y ago
Are you claiming the vaccine has zero known risks? Surely not.
- jeromegv 5y ago
  There is no such thing as zero risk. With anything. But you can compare risks with the alternative (not getting a vaccine). There’s already been billions of doses administered and millions of Covid patients. We know risks pretty well.
  - johnnyApplePRNG 5y ago
    Not over the long term (multiple years, decades), we don't.
    - boxed 5y ago
      What are you talking about now? The vaccine or the virus? Because that's literally true for both! And the mRNA vaccine has a fraction of the code compared to the full virus.
      - johnnyApplePRNG 5y ago
        You have been infected with Coronavirus before. Coronavirus causes the common cold, and has been around for at least 10,000 years. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus#Origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus#Origin
        boxed 5y ago
        You seem quite confused. Nothing you say is relevant. Also many different viruses cause the common cold. Several are not coronavirus.
  - BobJackienine 5y ago
    No we don't I almost died from the vaccination nobody told me that was an option
sureglymop 5y ago
I agree with you. The one thing I will say though is, it is necessary to look at the vaccines more in depth to make a judgement. For example, I would vastly prefer the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA based vaccines over the AstraZeneca DNA based vaccine. That is because the AstraZeneca vaccine uses a "harmless" carrier virus to carry the DNA. The problem I see with that is that your immune system also builds resilience against said carrier virus, rendering future shots of the vaccine more ineffective. Because of that, they might have to "update" the vaccine if more booster shots in the future are required.

aguacate 5y ago

If I had to argue against your assessment of the risk, I would reframe or reiterate part of my premise which is really that you cannot measure the risk of what you don't know. That being said, if I'm a betting man, I suspect someone strictly avoiding vaccines through my original line of reasoning would end up like a prepper who never lives through doom's day.

wolfram74 5y ago
While my personal energies are geared towards physics, there are some underlying mechanisms in biology we collectively do have a solid grasp on. We're far away being from always being able do the X that results in Y, but we are getting to the point where we can rule out some actions. Like if you drive a ford pinto into a tree, it might crumple, it might combust, but it will almost certainly not undergo nuclear fission. Since we're not replicating the entirety of the virus, just a segment with a particular geometry, we can say with some confidence what kinds of things it /can't/ do.
kmos17 5y ago
Yes but what is known is the number of deaths from covid, currently standing at 4.4 millions worldwide and 600k and counting in the US vs. very few if any attributable to taking the vaccine. So I would argue any reasonable measure of risk is pointing to the vaccine being absolutely the safer alternative (also taking into account that vaccines have been around a very long time, the long term risk is not likely to be high). And thats is before taking into account the fact that no matter how isolated you are, unless you never interact with anyone, you will likely come into contact with the virus sooner or later.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

jtbayly 5y ago

Are you claiming the vaccine has zero known risks? Surely not.

jeromegv 5y ago
There is no such thing as zero risk. With anything. But you can compare risks with the alternative (not getting a vaccine). There’s already been billions of doses administered and millions of Covid patients. We know risks pretty well.
- johnnyApplePRNG 5y ago
  Not over the long term (multiple years, decades), we don't.
  - boxed 5y ago
    What are you talking about now? The vaccine or the virus? Because that's literally true for both! And the mRNA vaccine has a fraction of the code compared to the full virus.
    - johnnyApplePRNG 5y ago
      You have been infected with Coronavirus before. Coronavirus causes the common cold, and has been around for at least 10,000 years. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus#Origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus#Origin
      - boxed 5y ago
        You seem quite confused. Nothing you say is relevant. Also many different viruses cause the common cold. Several are not coronavirus.
- BobJackienine 5y ago
  No we don't I almost died from the vaccination nobody told me that was an option

sureglymop 5y ago

I agree with you. The one thing I will say though is, it is necessary to look at the vaccines more in depth to make a judgement. For example, I would vastly prefer the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA based vaccines over the AstraZeneca DNA based vaccine. That is because the AstraZeneca vaccine uses a "harmless" carrier virus to carry the DNA. The problem I see with that is that your immune system also builds resilience against said carrier virus, rendering future shots of the vaccine more ineffective. Because of that, they might have to "update" the vaccine if more booster shots in the future are required.