10 ms·

It’s not a pivot for me, particularly since I got the vaccine, but I think there are legitimate reasons to be hesitant and removing one reason doesn’t invalidat

It’s not a pivot for me, particularly since I got the vaccine, but I think there are legitimate reasons to be hesitant and removing one reason doesn’t invalidate other reasons people may bring up. The big one in my mind is how do Pfizer, BioNTech, or the FDA validate safety of the vaccine over the long term? For instance what if it turns out that something approved today turns out to be carcinogenic twenty years from now? This is one reason I feel mandating vaccines or coercing people using other means (like creating great inconveniences) is not okay. It also does seem like the approval process may be influenced by political pressure to remove barriers to hesitancy or to support vaccine mandates. My understanding is that the approval timeline here is faster than any previous one. Did the FDA really review the over 300,000 pages submitted for this approval and scrutinize it to the extent necessary? Maybe. But from the outside it seems suspiciously quick based on relative terms.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> The big one in my mind is how do Pfizer, BioNTech, or the FDA validate safety of the vaccine over the long term? By looking at other vaccines historically and seeing that side effects tend to happen in the first few weeks. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/after.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/af... > Vaccine monitoring has historically shown that side effects generally happen within six weeks of receiving a vaccine dose.
- sithlord 5y ago
  I'll start by saying I am vaccinated, got it the first week immunocompromised people could: But I do not believe that this is valid at all, being that this is the very first mRNA vaccine. >By looking at other vaccines historically and seeing that side effects tend to happen in the first few weeks. I feel like what you are saying is basically like someone asking "How do we know that self driving cars will be safe on the road" and you responding with, "well obviously by looking at the history of cars, we have been doing them for a century!"
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    This is not the first mRNA vaccine. It's the first to reach full approval, but we've been testing them in humans for a decade now. https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/five-things-you-need-know-about-mrna-vaccine-safety https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-maga...
    - superdisk 5y ago
      And they have failed every time until now.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    I actually think your analogy of self-driving cars is a good one. If a billion people had safely rode in self-driving cars in the last year, and it saved hundreds of thousands of lives, I think we'd be approving them too.
- jerf 5y ago
  "By looking at other vaccines historically and seeing that side effects tend to happen in the first few weeks." "Other vaccines historically" work on fundamentally different principles. We can not use that data to assume that mRNA vaccines are going to work the same way.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    mRNA vaccines have been tested in humans since 2011. https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/five-things-you-need-know-about-mrna-vaccine-safety https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-maga...
    - jerf 5y ago
      That data can be relevant. "Other historical vaccines" can not.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        Nah. Historical vaccines effectively cover "what happens when we train the immune system to react to something via vaccination", which is still quite relevant with mRNA vaccines. mRNA's short half-life - on the matter of a few dozens of minutes - and pre-existence in our bodies helps us not worry too much about the differences in delivery mechanism.
        jerf 5y ago
        That's not how science works. We may have various bits of logic that can tweak our initial probability analysis, but we have to do the testing. When we change something fundamental, it must be tested, and things in the past that are similar, but not identical, are not sufficient. This is especially true for something that is being injected into the entire general population, which calls for the highest level of scientific certainty before proceeding. "We think based on biochemistry that mRNA acts like this, and we hope it does that, and we think it probably does the other" doesn't carry much weight here. The probability of any element of that chain of logic being wrong is too high. I'm not saying that testing wasn't done. I'm saying "eh, it's probably OK, mRNA looks pretty safe" is not a useful contribution to this sort of discussion.
bluGill 5y ago
mRNA is a basic building block of life. Your body makes and breaks it down constantly. If there was any worry about it life itself wouldn't be possible.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  The vaccine contains other ingredients as well.
  - rrock 5y ago
    As does the virus itself. Many, many ingredients.
    - wombatpm 5y ago
      But the virus is “organic” and vegan
  - bluGill 5y ago
    If you read them, they are equally part of life and so if they are a problem life isn't possible. I'm talking about the mRNA vaccines. Others are more complex. They are also more studied though so your objection seems to be to the mRAN ones.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    "Ingredients" are a boogeyman now?
- peakaboo 5y ago
  That's like saying water is a building block of life so any product with water is safe.
deeg 5y ago
I understand the long-term concern but it needs to be balanced out with the known dangers of contracting COVID. While it's possible--if extremely unlikely--that the vaccine will have detrimental effects we <know> that COVID causes serious problems. Over 600k Americans have died, millions more have been hospitalized, and some people who have recovered still have long-term problems. People who avoid the vaccine are akin to people who don't wear seat belts because they might drown if their car falls into the water.
davrosthedalek 5y ago
(I'm fully vaxxed, and will get a booster shot if I can) It's a complicated risk assessment situation. My thought process was like this: a) Realization: No strategy will be risk-free. COVID will not magically disappear. b) Because of my work and my preferred way of living, I will interact with a lot of people, including international travel on planes, etc. c) I am therefore very likely to be in contact with COVID infected people, of which I cannot guarantee they will be masked, or considerate. d) It is therefore very likely that sooner or later I will contract COVID. It is likely, indeed, that I would contract it more than once, as long-term protection from infection seems lower than vaccination. e) I'm not super likely to die from it, but the likelihood of short, mid and long term consequences is high. f) I do not want to be the reason somebody else gets it (parents, friends,...) Because of e and f, I think the risk of a vaccine is much lower. By now, we see very small risks for serious short and mid term effects. We know how long the mRNA survives in the body (I don't think we know that from the COVID virus, that could potentially hide for a very long time, as other viruses demonstrate), virtually eliminating direct long-term effects. What remains are the unkown unknowns. Can it trigger something? Sure, we have observed that in other vaccines. But it is very, very rare, not only that vaccine can cause it, but also that if the vaccine can cause it, one is affected. Additionally: It is very likely that a COVID infected person would have a similar risk -- much of the immuno-response is the similar to a vaccination (but maybe broader). Since I assume a close to 100% prob to get infected at some point if unvaccinated, it's not an additional risk. To explain the last point a little: A way you can construct a long term effect goes like this: If the presented spike protein is close enough to a natural,i.e. normally expressed, protein, the antibodies could affect both, and potentially destroy an important body function. That risk, I think, is actually higher with a full infection, since the antibodies learn not only the spike protein, but potentially more of the virus, so there is more chance of similarity with something else. In any case, as far as we know, the chance for something is remote. RE approval process: What calms my mind there is that all countries for which I normally trust the approval process gave their OK, including those which went with a different strategy, or where it was less of a political issue. While it's possible that they all got corrupted by political pressure, that's less likely.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> The big one in my mind is how do Pfizer, BioNTech, or the FDA validate safety of the vaccine over the long term? By looking at other vaccines historically and seeing that side effects tend to happen in the first few weeks. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/after.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/af... > Vaccine monitoring has historically shown that side effects generally happen within six weeks of receiving a vaccine dose.

sithlord 5y ago
I'll start by saying I am vaccinated, got it the first week immunocompromised people could: But I do not believe that this is valid at all, being that this is the very first mRNA vaccine. >By looking at other vaccines historically and seeing that side effects tend to happen in the first few weeks. I feel like what you are saying is basically like someone asking "How do we know that self driving cars will be safe on the road" and you responding with, "well obviously by looking at the history of cars, we have been doing them for a century!"
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  This is not the first mRNA vaccine. It's the first to reach full approval, but we've been testing them in humans for a decade now. https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/five-things-you-need-know-about-mrna-vaccine-safety https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-maga...
  - superdisk 5y ago
    And they have failed every time until now.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  I actually think your analogy of self-driving cars is a good one. If a billion people had safely rode in self-driving cars in the last year, and it saved hundreds of thousands of lives, I think we'd be approving them too.
jerf 5y ago
"By looking at other vaccines historically and seeing that side effects tend to happen in the first few weeks." "Other vaccines historically" work on fundamentally different principles. We can not use that data to assume that mRNA vaccines are going to work the same way.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  mRNA vaccines have been tested in humans since 2011. https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/five-things-you-need-know-about-mrna-vaccine-safety https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-maga...
  - jerf 5y ago
    That data can be relevant. "Other historical vaccines" can not.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Nah. Historical vaccines effectively cover "what happens when we train the immune system to react to something via vaccination", which is still quite relevant with mRNA vaccines. mRNA's short half-life - on the matter of a few dozens of minutes - and pre-existence in our bodies helps us not worry too much about the differences in delivery mechanism.
      - jerf 5y ago
        That's not how science works. We may have various bits of logic that can tweak our initial probability analysis, but we have to do the testing. When we change something fundamental, it must be tested, and things in the past that are similar, but not identical, are not sufficient. This is especially true for something that is being injected into the entire general population, which calls for the highest level of scientific certainty before proceeding. "We think based on biochemistry that mRNA acts like this, and we hope it does that, and we think it probably does the other" doesn't carry much weight here. The probability of any element of that chain of logic being wrong is too high. I'm not saying that testing wasn't done. I'm saying "eh, it's probably OK, mRNA looks pretty safe" is not a useful contribution to this sort of discussion.

bluGill 5y ago

mRNA is a basic building block of life. Your body makes and breaks it down constantly. If there was any worry about it life itself wouldn't be possible.

throwawaysea 5y ago
The vaccine contains other ingredients as well.
- rrock 5y ago
  As does the virus itself. Many, many ingredients.
  - wombatpm 5y ago
    But the virus is “organic” and vegan
- bluGill 5y ago
  If you read them, they are equally part of life and so if they are a problem life isn't possible. I'm talking about the mRNA vaccines. Others are more complex. They are also more studied though so your objection seems to be to the mRAN ones.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  "Ingredients" are a boogeyman now?
peakaboo 5y ago
That's like saying water is a building block of life so any product with water is safe.

deeg 5y ago

I understand the long-term concern but it needs to be balanced out with the known dangers of contracting COVID. While it's possible--if extremely unlikely--that the vaccine will have detrimental effects we <know> that COVID causes serious problems. Over 600k Americans have died, millions more have been hospitalized, and some people who have recovered still have long-term problems. People who avoid the vaccine are akin to people who don't wear seat belts because they might drown if their car falls into the water.

davrosthedalek 5y ago

(I'm fully vaxxed, and will get a booster shot if I can) It's a complicated risk assessment situation. My thought process was like this: a) Realization: No strategy will be risk-free. COVID will not magically disappear. b) Because of my work and my preferred way of living, I will interact with a lot of people, including international travel on planes, etc. c) I am therefore very likely to be in contact with COVID infected people, of which I cannot guarantee they will be masked, or considerate. d) It is therefore very likely that sooner or later I will contract COVID. It is likely, indeed, that I would contract it more than once, as long-term protection from infection seems lower than vaccination. e) I'm not super likely to die from it, but the likelihood of short, mid and long term consequences is high. f) I do not want to be the reason somebody else gets it (parents, friends,...) Because of e and f, I think the risk of a vaccine is much lower. By now, we see very small risks for serious short and mid term effects. We know how long the mRNA survives in the body (I don't think we know that from the COVID virus, that could potentially hide for a very long time, as other viruses demonstrate), virtually eliminating direct long-term effects. What remains are the unkown unknowns. Can it trigger something? Sure, we have observed that in other vaccines. But it is very, very rare, not only that vaccine can cause it, but also that if the vaccine can cause it, one is affected. Additionally: It is very likely that a COVID infected person would have a similar risk -- much of the immuno-response is the similar to a vaccination (but maybe broader). Since I assume a close to 100% prob to get infected at some point if unvaccinated, it's not an additional risk. To explain the last point a little: A way you can construct a long term effect goes like this: If the presented spike protein is close enough to a natural,i.e. normally expressed, protein, the antibodies could affect both, and potentially destroy an important body function. That risk, I think, is actually higher with a full infection, since the antibodies learn not only the spike protein, but potentially more of the virus, so there is more chance of similarity with something else. In any case, as far as we know, the chance for something is remote. RE approval process: What calms my mind there is that all countries for which I normally trust the approval process gave their OK, including those which went with a different strategy, or where it was less of a political issue. While it's possible that they all got corrupted by political pressure, that's less likely.