5 ms·

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

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.

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.