5 ms·

I think the problem is that 1) we don't know the long-term effects 2) There is no FDA approval (although there is now!) and 3) There is no recompense for people

I think the problem is that 1) we don't know the long-term effects 2) There is no FDA approval (although there is now!) and 3) There is no recompense for people hurt by the vaccine - even if that number is 0. 2 & 3 are easily fixable and we should do it now. We don't have hold pharma liable, but we can setup funds for people with side-effects. 1 is an argument from ignorance. There is no long-term data so we can't refute it. It's literally an unfalsifiable premise. I don't know how you fix this one.

citizenpaul 5y ago
> There is no FDA approval Yet you still have to sign a liability waiver........
ericmay 5y ago
> 1) we don't know the long-term effects Of what? Vaccines? > 2) There is no FDA approval (although there is now!) Which is just a matter of bureaucracy. The emergency authorization and deployment is a de-facto approval. > 3) There is no recompense for people hurt by the vaccine - even if that number is 0. And? There's also no recompense for many things. > but we can setup funds for people with side-effects. The problem is that this makes no sense. Why would you set up funds for people with side-effects? What about funds for people who die in car wrecks on the way to get their vaccines or trip and fall down a flight of stairs? > 1 is an argument from ignorance. Ain't that the truth. Can you articulate the exact long-term effects that you're worried about or that anybody should be worried about? Why are you (or anybody) concerned about these specific unknown and unknowable long-term effects? What's the likelihood of those effects and how do they compare against the likelihood of contracting and dying from COVID-19? It's like all of a sudden there's these spooky and mysterious "but what about the long term effects!1!" without any scientific justification. Even if there were potentially long-term effects, those effects are equally likely to be of no-consequence as they are to have us all turned into zombies or something. The search space of "effects" are unknown and have an unknown probability distribution. The only purpose of talking about "long-term effects" by any pundit or layperson who can't even describe the mechanics of an mRNA vaccine (why not take the JnJ one if you're worried about that anyway?) is to introduce fear, uncertainty, and doubt either out of ignorance or malice. If you're a virologist, by all means educate us. If not, stop spouting bullshit and hurting people.
- MrYellowP 5y ago
  > Of what? Vaccines? You respond as if it they were all the same. No. > It's like all of a sudden there's these spooky and mysterious "but what about the long term effects!1!" without any scientific justification. Are you being serious? Without studies about long term effects of anything, there is no information about long term effects of anything. The scientific justification for looking for long term effects is to look for long term effects, so we know if there are any! Stop being unreasonable.
  - chownie 5y ago
    I think there's a misunderstanding here about what parts of the study process got fast forwarded, leading to speculation that "long term effects" did not get tested in the way they would normally during vaccine development. Vaccinations do not get long term effect testing like drugs do because your immune system typically finishes responding within 5 weeks of inoculation. The reason the covid vaccines were approved so quickly is because there was political will to fast forward the funding bureaucracy, none of the clinical investigation takes a long time here.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    So when we developed new vaccines over the years you sit on the sidelines, refuse to get them until it's been "long enough"? C'mon. Nobody was questioning any vaccines for any reason except some fringe leftists until COVID-19 all of a sudden and now that is the vaccine you want to wait for to see if it's ok? How long is long enough? How do you determine it's been long enough? What scientific process are you using? In exactly what way are these COVID-19 vaccines "different" enough for you to question them versus other routine vaccines that you're getting? And now compare these made up scary boogeyman "long term effects" versus the actual boogeyman right outside your front door that has killed at least half a million people in the United States alone. Sorry, I'm going to listen to the entire medical community and the heroes that work at these pharmaceutical companies. Ya know, the people who actually know and understand how these things work and who have also taken them. Being unreasonable is sitting around from the comfort of your home talking about some nebulous made up "long term effects" bullshit. You weren't worrying about that in October of 2019, why start now without any evidence or reason to?
curryst 5y ago
> 3) There is no recompense for people hurt by the vaccine - even if that number is 0. There are a couple of government funds, but they rarely pay out. They require you to prove your issues are the result of a vaccine, which is extremely difficult to do. Did this person have a thrombosis because of COVID or because of some other genetic or environmental reason? It's really hard to rule out "everything that isn't the vaccine".

citizenpaul 5y ago

> There is no FDA approval Yet you still have to sign a liability waiver........

ericmay 5y ago

> 1) we don't know the long-term effects Of what? Vaccines? > 2) There is no FDA approval (although there is now!) Which is just a matter of bureaucracy. The emergency authorization and deployment is a de-facto approval. > 3) There is no recompense for people hurt by the vaccine - even if that number is 0. And? There's also no recompense for many things. > but we can setup funds for people with side-effects. The problem is that this makes no sense. Why would you set up funds for people with side-effects? What about funds for people who die in car wrecks on the way to get their vaccines or trip and fall down a flight of stairs? > 1 is an argument from ignorance. Ain't that the truth. Can you articulate the exact long-term effects that you're worried about or that anybody should be worried about? Why are you (or anybody) concerned about these specific unknown and unknowable long-term effects? What's the likelihood of those effects and how do they compare against the likelihood of contracting and dying from COVID-19? It's like all of a sudden there's these spooky and mysterious "but what about the long term effects!1!" without any scientific justification. Even if there were potentially long-term effects, those effects are equally likely to be of no-consequence as they are to have us all turned into zombies or something. The search space of "effects" are unknown and have an unknown probability distribution. The only purpose of talking about "long-term effects" by any pundit or layperson who can't even describe the mechanics of an mRNA vaccine (why not take the JnJ one if you're worried about that anyway?) is to introduce fear, uncertainty, and doubt either out of ignorance or malice. If you're a virologist, by all means educate us. If not, stop spouting bullshit and hurting people.

MrYellowP 5y ago
> Of what? Vaccines? You respond as if it they were all the same. No. > It's like all of a sudden there's these spooky and mysterious "but what about the long term effects!1!" without any scientific justification. Are you being serious? Without studies about long term effects of anything, there is no information about long term effects of anything. The scientific justification for looking for long term effects is to look for long term effects, so we know if there are any! Stop being unreasonable.
- chownie 5y ago
  I think there's a misunderstanding here about what parts of the study process got fast forwarded, leading to speculation that "long term effects" did not get tested in the way they would normally during vaccine development. Vaccinations do not get long term effect testing like drugs do because your immune system typically finishes responding within 5 weeks of inoculation. The reason the covid vaccines were approved so quickly is because there was political will to fast forward the funding bureaucracy, none of the clinical investigation takes a long time here.
- ericmay 5y ago
  So when we developed new vaccines over the years you sit on the sidelines, refuse to get them until it's been "long enough"? C'mon. Nobody was questioning any vaccines for any reason except some fringe leftists until COVID-19 all of a sudden and now that is the vaccine you want to wait for to see if it's ok? How long is long enough? How do you determine it's been long enough? What scientific process are you using? In exactly what way are these COVID-19 vaccines "different" enough for you to question them versus other routine vaccines that you're getting? And now compare these made up scary boogeyman "long term effects" versus the actual boogeyman right outside your front door that has killed at least half a million people in the United States alone. Sorry, I'm going to listen to the entire medical community and the heroes that work at these pharmaceutical companies. Ya know, the people who actually know and understand how these things work and who have also taken them. Being unreasonable is sitting around from the comfort of your home talking about some nebulous made up "long term effects" bullshit. You weren't worrying about that in October of 2019, why start now without any evidence or reason to?

curryst 5y ago

> 3) There is no recompense for people hurt by the vaccine - even if that number is 0. There are a couple of government funds, but they rarely pay out. They require you to prove your issues are the result of a vaccine, which is extremely difficult to do. Did this person have a thrombosis because of COVID or because of some other genetic or environmental reason? It's really hard to rule out "everything that isn't the vaccine".