11 ms·

It's also possible that its approval will result in more people getting the vaccine due to those people now having an out from their initial reaction that it wa

• cbg0 5y ago
  More likely than not, they'll just move the goalposts farther and find a different excuse for not getting it.
  • giantg2 5y ago
    Or continue an existing reason: "Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes."
    • bart_spoon 5y ago
      Which still wouldn't be a logical argument, given that the same applies regarding long-term health outcomes regarding getting sick with Covid. But I suspect you are right.
      • formerly_proven 5y ago
        "But Covid is something natural, while the vaccine is man-made."
        • bart_spoon 5y ago
          HIV and Ebola are natural. Your point has no merit.
          • cmrdporcupine 5y ago
            It's in quotes, I don't think it's their point.
        • throwawayboise 5y ago
          COVID may be man-made as well. Or at least enhanced.
        • antattack 5y ago
          There's a possibility that COVID-19 was made in a lab, as a result of gain of function research.
        • tedunangst 5y ago
          Do people not understand quotation marks?
        • saalweachter 5y ago
          I mean, technically, while there may be animal reservoirs, ~all of the coronavirus you will ever be exposed to is made by human cells. Although probably only 50-50 on being made inside a man's cells.
      • anonymouse008 5y ago
        100% this. Which is why the only group of people I will not question their vaccine hesitancy are those already recovered from Covid direct infection.
        • jaywalk 5y ago
          Thank you. Studies have shown that people who were previously infected with Covid tend to experience worse side-effects from the vaccines than those who were not, and the actual benefits from the vaccine for those people are questionable at best. Natural immunity is a thing, just like it always has been. I've heard all of the arguments about why nobody wants to widely acknowledge it, but I just can't agree with them.
      • giantg2 5y ago
        I think that depends on the theories that one has. Either choice would be based on missing or incomplete data. For example, one could question the potential for autoimmune conditions due to the way the mRNA vaccine works and how the immune system typically targets multiple proteins on the cell. There's no data or studies our there about this longterm possibility or even the incidence of autoimmune antibodies produced by vaccination. This likely isn't a problem for the elderly since it can take years or decades to present/progress, and their value proposition is different than for younger people. It starts to get more questionable as the value proposition changes dramatically in the youngest age groups. The question of vaccinating one's child for covid is certainly a topic with a diverse set of opinions and very little data to perform a thorough longterm cost/benefit analysis.
        • Pyramus 5y ago
          Could you explain what you mean by that? We already know Covid can cause autoimmune issues in some patients, so are you saying the effect you describe is just a subset of these, or different?
          • giantg2 5y ago
            It's it's that there are known and unknown/suspected risks with both actions. We know that some vaccine recipients develop Graves disease. Some autoimmune diseases take years to develop. So we have risks on both sides, but there's not a lot of information about how common those risks are, especially for longer term effects. So all I'm saying is that the value proposition for an individual is based on the risks associated with vaccination or infection, and that the decision for people in age groups with the lowest known (short term) risks associated with infection have lower known benefits putting more emphasis on the unknown (longer term) risks or benefits. So for someone over 70 with about a 5% IFR, it's easy to say there is more benefit than risk because it's easy to see if a serious side effect is happening at a 5% rate or higher and the time horizon for longterm issues developing is limited by natural lifespan. With the quality of the VAERS data and the much longer time horizon, it's more difficult to discern a benefit for someone with an IFR of .002%. Of course we can't even look at the rates of many of the side effects to compare something other than IFR because the data data quality doesn't allow for that level of sensitivity. Edit: why downvote?
      • mdp2021 5y ago
        It is not illogical: those people have two fears instead of one. Some chance of high probability of damages, vs full chance of low probability of damages. This is why numbers are important... Fuzzy equation members like 'some', 'high' and 'low' are inadequate for this decision making.
        • bob33212 5y ago
          Where do you draw the line? Should we wait 50 years to find out if the vaccine or Covid have worse long term effects?
          • mdp2021 5y ago
            No, I meant differently: 9 months are plenty. Chances of infection given behavioural patterns, to be defined, × probability of damages post-infection, given demographics etc., to be defined¹ vs 100% for the chance of vaccination, × probability of damages post-vaccine (post 1 week, post 1 month, post 3 months etc.), given demographics etc., to be defined. Probably you meant that according to available data, the probability of damages post-vaccine seem very low. Some people are concerned because those numbers do not seem to match the anecdotal they have around, so they would like to have better data - because some possible consequences are much more than nuisances. I say, if some entity kept an active monitoring ongoing, of the adverse side effects, much stronger reassurances - or less hesitance owing to confusion - could be given. I could only find passive monitoring around - USA, Europe, Australia, Canada etc. ¹The vagueness is such that in the context of this line, the last article I read mentioned values between 2.3% and 40%.
            • bob33212 5y ago
              The whole point of clinical trials is to get statically significant numbers so that you can understand if the vaccine is safe, months after administration. It was done before the vaccine was approved. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 Now you can debate the meaning of "safe". And you can make decisions based on anecdotes. And you can say it would be nice to have better data. But that is true for most things in life. Most people go to restaurants and drive their cars on roads with reviewing far less evidence that their car and restaurant they are going to are truly safe.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • tasogare 5y ago
    Exactly like governments are moving goalposts with their measures: one lockdown... second one... wait no, a third one is necessary; herd immunity will be reached at 70% vaccination + infected, ah no actually only vaccinated count and it's 90%... did I say 99%? No, it will be 100%! Meanwhile in Japan: people living freely their lives with no lockdowns, no forced vaccination, no vaccine pass. Another model is possible but the Western governments are addicted to their power trip.
    • bluGill 5y ago
      > herd immunity will be reached at 70% vaccination + infected, ah no actually only vaccinated count and it's 90%... did I say 99%? No, it will be 100%! 70% is enough for the original Covid. Covid moved the goalposts to Delta which needs different numbers. This is not experts moving the goalposts, this is Covid changing on us - as was always expected to happen and why experts said we don't know what % is required until Israel showed 70% was enough for the original Covid strain.
      • defaultprimate 5y ago
        Mutations were obviously going to happen from the get go. When questioned about this exact thing "experts" still stated that 70% would prevent this from happening, until they were wrong.
        • JulianMorrison 5y ago
          70% of non receptive surrounding people is enough to stifle any virus. What changed was whether the surrounding people were receptive to infection and capable of spreading it.
          • defaultprimate 5y ago
            Weird how the least receptive populations were dominated by delta first.
  • peakaboo 5y ago
    Even if true, so what? It's their bodies. They should be allowed to choose, just like you are.
    • cbg0 5y ago
      Nobody's saying they're not allowed to choose, this is more of a discussion about how some people may never really be truly satisfied with the safety of a vaccine regardless of how many studies are published and how much information on the subject is available. While I'm a big fan of people having a choice, due to the large amount of misinformation out there people are dying. We have people in my country that could have gotten the vaccine but didn't because of Facebook conspiracies and are now refusing oxygen in hospitals because they're afraid their lungs will explode - due to Facebook conspiracies.
    • delecti 5y ago
      I can absolutely judge someone for a decision that I want them to have the right to make. It's absurd to suggest I shouldn't be able to. There's no good reason for the majority * of people to avoid the COVID vaccines. They're making a dumb decision. * Of course there are exceptions, but it's a small percent
    • enumjorge 5y ago
      Again with this argument. This particular decision with their bodies is harming others. Getting really drunk and driving home is also a decision about your body. So is smoking inside restaurants. Those have been illegal for a while. For those of us who got the vaccine, we’re still having to take precautions because of the delta variant spikes, largely from people who didn’t get a vaccine. Where is our choice?
      • defaultprimate 5y ago
        There is a great chasm between direct action resulting in tragedy and inaction for the preservation of autonomy having an infinitesimally small probability of directly resulting in tragedy. Comparing choosing to drive drunk with not choosing to take a particular action that has an infinitesimally small probability of directly causing tragedy are not remotely comparable.
  • zamalek 5y ago
    We're having a vaccinated wedding. Unvaccinated/uninvited guests are now employing the base rate fallacy: "there are more breakthroughs than unvaccinated cases."
    • rootusrootus 5y ago
      It sure is clear we don't teach statistics well enough in secondary school.
    • makomk 5y ago
      The thing is, it's not actually a fallacy when you're working out how much benefit getting rid of the remaining unvaccinated people would have. Think about it this way: if there are say 20 vaccinated people and 5 unvaccinated people with Covid, vaccinating all the remaining people or banning them from whatever event won't do anything about the 20 vaccinated breakthrough cases. So the ratio of unvaccinated cases to vaccinated breakthrough cases effectively imposes a hard cap on how effective this kind of policy could ever be.
      • kelnos 5y ago
        Except that in reality there aren't 20 vaccinated people and 5 unvaccinated people with COVID. There is 1 vaccinated person and 49 unvaccinated people with COVID. Regardless, your argument doesn't make any sense. If anyone -- vaccinated or not -- has COVID, they should be required to stay home. If an unvaccinated person does not yet have COVID, we should push them to get vaccinated, because then they will be much less likely to get the disease, and if they do get it, serious illness or hospitalization will be vanishingly unlikely. Vaccination also reduces the "breeding ground" for mutations. At this point it's critical that we slow down the creation and spread of new variants that might do a better job of getting around our existing vaccines.
  • mlang23 5y ago
    The vaccination is still not mandatory, right? Why do you write "excuse"? Are you really so full of yourself that you can not accept that people make different decisions from yours? Why do you even care? I assume you got the vaccine for yourself. So what is the issue? Why do you have to speak about your fellow humans in such a derogatory tone?
    • walls 5y ago
      > I assume you don't drink and drive yourself. So what is the issue? See how silly that sounds?
      • GenerocUsername 5y ago
        It only sounds silly because no one would say that. You cannot change the argument and pretend you won a fight
      • mlang23 5y ago
        This is no quote, so please dont make it look like one. Also, the comparison is nonsense. If someone drinks and drives, they did intake something into their system which made them a risk to others. What you want is the reverse. Everyone is by default a risk to the society, and only if the get a biannual shot from the latest and greatest experimental medicine, you deem them no danger to society. You are trying to outlaw the human condition. There are people who think this is a big deal and needs to be opposed. I agree.
        • saiya-jin 5y ago
          Can you please briefly explain to us your negative emotions towards covid vaccination if you don't mind? There is no scientific reason good enough to not have it for most of the population. Making it a stance about personal freedoms is often used but it detracts discussion about facts of approved vaccinations, positive or negative they may be.
    • lovecg 5y ago
      I personally don’t have an issue with this decision if they also opt out of any (btw also experimental, not approved) treatments for Covid in case they do get it. You know, to be consistent. Will keep the hospitals from becoming overcrowded.
  • jesusohchrist 5y ago
    Just like fauci 2 Shots of vaccine to end covid -> Most Americans will have to take booster shots -> Booster shots may not be one time thing
    • kelnos 5y ago
      The difference is that Fauci's words here are based on the available science and medical understanding at the time, and that changes rapidly as more studies are done and we are able to observe how new virus variants behave in the wild. The vaccine hesitant's tendency to move the goalposts when their reason du jour for refusing vaccination is invalidated is based on misinformation and unfounded fear. The exact opposite of good reasons to change your mind about something.
      • rajin444 5y ago
        Health leaders and politicians entire job is to build and maintain trust. Mistakes like this only reinforce vaccine hesitancy. Those that are hesitant know that the science is settled - until it isn't. The only method to account for unknown unknowns is time. It would have been entirely possible for Fauci et. al to say "The vaccine data appears to show 95%+ efficacy, but we will be waiting to lift lockdown mandates be sure". That kind of messaging shows both a respect for science and a commitment to everyone's health. However, it was an unpopular political decision, so mandates were lifted. This isn't the first time they've changed their course after making a decision prematurely. To the vaccine hesitant, why is this FDA approval any different? There's massive political pressure to approve these vaccines.
    • acdha 5y ago
      What changed? The Delta variant arose and started spreading more effectively. This is why getting spread under control is so important: each time the virus replicates there’s a chance of a new advantageous mutation making the problem harder. Wearing masks and vaccination are how we break that cycle.
    • bob33212 5y ago
      Plenty of people said on day 1 that this was very similar to the 1918 pandemic, which resulted in the "seasonal flu". It wouldn't be crazy for the same thing to happen here.
• Unklejoe 5y ago
  You make a good point. Sure, some will just move their goalposts, but I personally know at least one person who initially voiced skepticism about the vaccine, and sort of locked himself into a position where he can't get it now without looking like he's "submitting to the man" or whatever. We have all known people who will double down on their arguments after being proven wrong because they've gone too far. This could give them an out.