4 ms·

> because of your feelings, not because of science. For the unaware, there are multitudes of highly acclaimed scientists and academics around the world from to

> because of your feelings, not because of science. For the unaware, there are multitudes of highly acclaimed scientists and academics around the world from top institutions including Nobel prize winners that are advising caution against the vaccine. You don't just get to choose which "science" you listen to. These voices are massively censored so the public doesn't really get to hear both sides of the argument. The whole "don't talk bad about the vaccine lest `vaccine hesitancy`" is evil and plain anti-science.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
criticaltinker 5y ago
Yes this is a great point. The primary concerns & warnings are generally around vaccine induced immune escape, which is a realistic consequence of indiscriminate compulsory mass vaccination [1][2][3][4][5][6]. That said, there is general consensus in the literature that the vaccines are mostly safe for adults in the short term. However for certain sub-populations (eg pediatrics and pregnant women) there isn't enough evidence yet from clinical trials and longitudinal studies to conclude with certainty that the benefits of compulsory mass vaccination outweigh the risks. [1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ [2] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and their phenotypic consequences? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evolution-of-sars-cov-2-26-july-2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evoluti... [3] Why does drug resistance readily evolve but vaccine resistance does not? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016.2562 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016... [4] The adaptive evolution of virulence: a review of theoretical predictions and empirical tests https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26302775/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26302775/ [5] Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002198 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fj... [6] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  Lots of down-votes and no replies tells me this is striking some nerves - anyone care to articulate why you disagree with or do not support these statements?
  - yupper32 5y ago
    Almost no one on HN is qualified to take a group of medical journal articles/research papers and form an accurate opinion on the subject. In fact, trying to do so for most on this forum would probably result in inaccurate views due to misunderstanding the articles and papers. So people probably downvoted because you have a view on the subject, but no one is qualified to back or oppose it. And we don't know who you are, so how are we supposed to vet your view, or even begin to have a conversation about it? I didn't downvote (or upvote), but that's my guess.
    - _flagged_ 5y ago
      In that case almost all of the comments here should be downvoted or flagged.
yupper32 5y ago
You're going to get some number of people against anything. 96% of doctors were fully vaccinated by June [1], for example. Does the 4% holdout actually worry anyone? It shouldn't. You also have to double check beyond headlines. For example, I saw people talking about how the FDA EUA panel wasn't a consensus for Pfizer 16+ back in the day. Turns out, most of the people who were hesitant just wanted to start with 18+, not 16+. That's a huge difference from what some of the headlines were saying. [1] https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-survey-shows-over-96-doctors-fully-vaccinated-against-covid-19 https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-sur...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

criticaltinker 5y ago

Yes this is a great point. The primary concerns & warnings are generally around vaccine induced immune escape, which is a realistic consequence of indiscriminate compulsory mass vaccination [1][2][3][4][5][6]. That said, there is general consensus in the literature that the vaccines are mostly safe for adults in the short term. However for certain sub-populations (eg pediatrics and pregnant women) there isn't enough evidence yet from clinical trials and longitudinal studies to conclude with certainty that the benefits of compulsory mass vaccination outweigh the risks. [1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ [2] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and their phenotypic consequences? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evolution-of-sars-cov-2-26-july-2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evoluti... [3] Why does drug resistance readily evolve but vaccine resistance does not? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016.2562 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016... [4] The adaptive evolution of virulence: a review of theoretical predictions and empirical tests https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26302775/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26302775/ [5] Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002198 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fj... [6] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...

criticaltinker 5y ago
Lots of down-votes and no replies tells me this is striking some nerves - anyone care to articulate why you disagree with or do not support these statements?
- yupper32 5y ago
  Almost no one on HN is qualified to take a group of medical journal articles/research papers and form an accurate opinion on the subject. In fact, trying to do so for most on this forum would probably result in inaccurate views due to misunderstanding the articles and papers. So people probably downvoted because you have a view on the subject, but no one is qualified to back or oppose it. And we don't know who you are, so how are we supposed to vet your view, or even begin to have a conversation about it? I didn't downvote (or upvote), but that's my guess.
  - _flagged_ 5y ago
    In that case almost all of the comments here should be downvoted or flagged.

yupper32 5y ago

You're going to get some number of people against anything. 96% of doctors were fully vaccinated by June [1], for example. Does the 4% holdout actually worry anyone? It shouldn't. You also have to double check beyond headlines. For example, I saw people talking about how the FDA EUA panel wasn't a consensus for Pfizer 16+ back in the day. Turns out, most of the people who were hesitant just wanted to start with 18+, not 16+. That's a huge difference from what some of the headlines were saying. [1] https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-survey-shows-over-96-doctors-fully-vaccinated-against-covid-19 https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-sur...