8 ms·

I'm not sure I care where people get their antibodies from as long as they're effective, but since you're here, mind my asking what the aversion is to the vacci

I'm not sure I care where people get their antibodies from as long as they're effective, but since you're here, mind my asking what the aversion is to the vaccine now? Is it a convenience factor, or not wanting to deal with being sick, or something else? The risks seem fairly well established at this point, from what I've been able to see. Even if there's no proven benefit, there's plenty of things in life we almost all do because of possible benefit, so this just seems like another one of those case. We buy insurance in case we might need it. We wear seat belts even though the crash might be such that they provide no benefit. What's the point that tips you over the edge of not wanting the vaccine in this case? My understanding is that for a short inconvenience (in both time and physical well being) and zero cost you get something that might prove extremely beneficial later.

hunterb123 5y ago
It's not zero cost, there is some risk. Maybe someone could do the math but the chances of catching covid again with natural immunity should be lower than the chance of a side effect from the vaccine. More so, the effects of covid with immunity are much more diminished. The side effects of the vaccine range from very mild to very severe (death). https://openvaers.com/covid-data https://openvaers.com/covid-data I don't see a good reason for a person with natural immunity to get the vaccine if there is no benefit and some, even if slight, risk. "Because everyone else is doing it" is not a good reason for people to do it because the more you scale the more side effects you get, the more absolute deaths and critical conditions.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  I have absolutely no idea why you're being downvoted, other than group-think. It's weird. And it's everywhere.
  - ajkdhcb2 5y ago
    There is no doubt that society is in a state of hysteria. This reaches through the scientific process too, so there is reason to question everything
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      At the heart of science you are taught to question everything. It is a more honest state.
  - cromwellian 5y ago
    Because the serious proven cases of side effects from the vaccine are astronomically low compared to infection by actual COVID, and vaccines don't result in spread to other people, but natural infections do. It's just that simple.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      What's simple is that if my natural-immunity levels are better than your vaccine-only immunity levels, then you are the greater risk to the public. And that's whether I decide to get vaccinated or not.
      - cromwellian 5y ago
        The jury is still out on that, but the question is, how did you attain your natural immunity levels? If it was a breakthrough infection, or because it happened before vaccinations, sure. If it was because you purposely infected yourself, you are a risk to the public, because while your were infected, you spread the disease, and moreover, if you had serious symptoms, you consumed hospital resources and risked frontline workers that would have been better utilized for people were had other illnesses or unavoidable COVID (e.g. immunocompromised) All I see is a bunch of selfish people with incredibly weak excuses not to get vax'ed or wear masks, often for ostensibly stupid political reasons (e.g. "I'm a libertarian/conservative and no one tells me what to do! Freedom!!!!!" As in, I know motorcycle helmets will save my life, but I refuse to wear one if you tell me I need to, so there!), or based on astronomically rare vaccine complications well below the risk of the disease complications themselves. Antivaccination beliefs are on par with moon landing hoaxers and flat earthers and deepak chopra followers IMHO. It's intellectual snake oil.
        beerandt 5y ago
        >The jury is still out on that Lol- any other result and it'd be plastered on billboards along with the hospital population scare numbers. >motorcycle helmets will save my life Do you wear a helmet, fire-retardant suit, and 5-point harness in a car? It will save your life. >based on astronomically rare vaccine complications well below the risk of the disease complications themselves. Oh- we're saying the jury isn't still out on this one? Even though we've got less than a year of data? And besides the fact that it ignores individual risk factors, including age, weight, and natural immunity? My family got it when the cdc said it couldn't possibly be here yet, that masks were worse than no masks, and back before Trump was called xenophobic for wanting to shut down international travel and Nancy said we should go spend money in Chinatown. And we got it because family members are the front line, dealing with "safe-side" idiots who are the infected ones, but are more worried about catching it "again" from hospital staff with 3 layers of uncomfortable ppe on because they heard that 4 layers is safer. So take your conspiracy theory projections and shove it. Some people still value autonomy, even if you don't. You have no problem with unnecessary mandated medical treatments, but probably were part of the choir on here last week complaining about "muh device privacy! and muh software freedom!" with apple scanning for blacklisted hashes, and government wanting e2ee backdoors. Why are you worried if you have nothing to hide? >Antivaccination beliefs are on par with moon landing hoaxers and flat earthers and deepak chopra followers IMHO. It's intellectual snake oil. LOL- you forgot "Think of the Children!"
- cromwellian 5y ago
  VAERS is a flawed data set, because it is pure correlation, not causation. Quoting VAERS: "When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event." You could get the vaccine, and then days later, you get diarrhea, or a headache, or a charlie horse in your calf, and you reason "oh, it must have been the vaccine", and boom it goes into VAERS: garbage in, garbage out. VAERS is best realized as a regulatory capture of the personal injury lawyer industry.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    It's not perfect, but there's some use to it, are you saying we should not collect and analyze adverse reactions after vaccination? The reported adverse reactions are very serious and only occurred after the vaccine a lot of times in an otherwise healthy individual. It should be used as a canary of safety and each report should be evaluated to see if the vaccine is the causation, especially when the individual was healthy. Ignoring reports of adverse reactions is not proper science. Sure, we could dismiss ALL of the reports as coincidences, but is that right? VAERS also states the data is under-reported, because not all side effects are reported to VAERS. This means for all false reports there could be true side effects not reported, this evens out the cases to some extent. > You could get the vaccine, and then days later, you get diarrhea, or a headache, or a charlie horse in your calf, Look at the side effects listed, it's full paralysis, death, miscarriages, etc. These are serious events that should be looked into. Those are much more rare cases than a "headache", or "diarrhea". Headaches are not reported to VAERS.
    - mapme 5y ago
      You have to compare it to the background rate to tease out signal from noise. That said any intervention (including a vaccine) carries non-zero risk. Taking aspirin, Zantac, laxatives, NyQuil etc., all can destroy you, but it’s rare. The safety monitoring is actually pretty good as well. We caught a 1 in ~100k issue with AZ/JnJ vaccine very early on in the rollout. We caught mild myocarditis (though COVID risk > vaccine for myocarditis). There was even a massive preprint today from Israel around vaccine side effects. Few were concerning. Link to study + summary https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1430636357626466307?s=21 https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1430636357626466307?s=2... > “ Bob Wachter of UCSF had a very good thread on Twitter about vaccine rollouts the other day, and one of the good points he made was this one. We’re talking about treating very, very large populations, which means that you’re going to see the usual run of mortality and morbidity that you see across large samples. Specifically, if you take 10 million people and just wave your hand back and forth over their upper arms, in the next two months you would expect to see about 4,000 heart attacks. About 4,000 strokes. Over 9,000 new diagnoses of cancer. And about 14,000 of that ten million will die, out of usual all-causes mortality. No one would notice. That’s how many people die and get sick anyway”
- kbenson 5y ago
  I was referring to actual monetary cost. Immediately prior to saying "zero cost" I outlined some other costs (time, physical well being). I'm open to discussions that try to explain other costs (that's why I asked).
phkahler 5y ago
It might prove to be bad too. There have been adverse reactions to the vaccine. Is that likely to happen to me? Probably less likely than a person chosen at random given prior exposure to the virus, but why risk it? My Covid experience was not life threatening, but it was no walk in the park either. I've had more than enough of that crap in my body, thank you very much. (Yes, I understand the difference between the virus and the vaccine, in fact that's why the real deal is thought to offer better immunity.) There really is no argument in favor of getting it at this time, just peoples cognitive bias.
- jtchang 5y ago
  You should risk it because the risk really is minimal and the greater benefit for society is enormous. I don't think people have cognitive bias. There are plenty of arguments in favor of getting it.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    Dude! The risk may be small, but it is not zero. For someone who already has natural immunity, that matters. If serious adverse events are 1 in 100,000 - and I believe they are higher the younger you are - then that's significantly better odds than playing the lottery to end up hurt. And for what? "The greater benefit for society" is actually negative if you've been confirmed to have natural immunity. If there's any point that you have to argue against this, I'd hope you make it instead of throwing out assertions.
    - ukj 5y ago
      Ask these exact questions to the person who originally hesitated to vaccinate and got COVID. The risk of hospitalisation/death wasn’t zero. And yet… they chose COVID through inaction. And for what? “I am not an anti-vaxxer but was holding out” spells “I am an anti-vaxxer but I lucked out”.
      - mandmandam 5y ago
        _Nobody_ chose COVID. And, in the early days, there was no vaccine. In the middle days, the vaccines that were made were used. Now, those who shun a free vaccine - and haven't already caught COVID - are choosing not to lower their risk of contracting COVID in that one way... But that doesn't really help your argument.
nradov 5y ago
There's more to immunity than antibodies. When comparing the effects of vaccines versus prior infections we also need to look at memory T cell activity over an extended period of time. So far I don't think we have any conclusive evidence on that one way or the other.

hunterb123 5y ago

It's not zero cost, there is some risk. Maybe someone could do the math but the chances of catching covid again with natural immunity should be lower than the chance of a side effect from the vaccine. More so, the effects of covid with immunity are much more diminished. The side effects of the vaccine range from very mild to very severe (death). https://openvaers.com/covid-data https://openvaers.com/covid-data I don't see a good reason for a person with natural immunity to get the vaccine if there is no benefit and some, even if slight, risk. "Because everyone else is doing it" is not a good reason for people to do it because the more you scale the more side effects you get, the more absolute deaths and critical conditions.

mandmandam 5y ago
I have absolutely no idea why you're being downvoted, other than group-think. It's weird. And it's everywhere.
- ajkdhcb2 5y ago
  There is no doubt that society is in a state of hysteria. This reaches through the scientific process too, so there is reason to question everything
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    At the heart of science you are taught to question everything. It is a more honest state.
- cromwellian 5y ago
  Because the serious proven cases of side effects from the vaccine are astronomically low compared to infection by actual COVID, and vaccines don't result in spread to other people, but natural infections do. It's just that simple.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    What's simple is that if my natural-immunity levels are better than your vaccine-only immunity levels, then you are the greater risk to the public. And that's whether I decide to get vaccinated or not.
    - cromwellian 5y ago
      The jury is still out on that, but the question is, how did you attain your natural immunity levels? If it was a breakthrough infection, or because it happened before vaccinations, sure. If it was because you purposely infected yourself, you are a risk to the public, because while your were infected, you spread the disease, and moreover, if you had serious symptoms, you consumed hospital resources and risked frontline workers that would have been better utilized for people were had other illnesses or unavoidable COVID (e.g. immunocompromised) All I see is a bunch of selfish people with incredibly weak excuses not to get vax'ed or wear masks, often for ostensibly stupid political reasons (e.g. "I'm a libertarian/conservative and no one tells me what to do! Freedom!!!!!" As in, I know motorcycle helmets will save my life, but I refuse to wear one if you tell me I need to, so there!), or based on astronomically rare vaccine complications well below the risk of the disease complications themselves. Antivaccination beliefs are on par with moon landing hoaxers and flat earthers and deepak chopra followers IMHO. It's intellectual snake oil.
      - beerandt 5y ago
        >The jury is still out on that Lol- any other result and it'd be plastered on billboards along with the hospital population scare numbers. >motorcycle helmets will save my life Do you wear a helmet, fire-retardant suit, and 5-point harness in a car? It will save your life. >based on astronomically rare vaccine complications well below the risk of the disease complications themselves. Oh- we're saying the jury isn't still out on this one? Even though we've got less than a year of data? And besides the fact that it ignores individual risk factors, including age, weight, and natural immunity? My family got it when the cdc said it couldn't possibly be here yet, that masks were worse than no masks, and back before Trump was called xenophobic for wanting to shut down international travel and Nancy said we should go spend money in Chinatown. And we got it because family members are the front line, dealing with "safe-side" idiots who are the infected ones, but are more worried about catching it "again" from hospital staff with 3 layers of uncomfortable ppe on because they heard that 4 layers is safer. So take your conspiracy theory projections and shove it. Some people still value autonomy, even if you don't. You have no problem with unnecessary mandated medical treatments, but probably were part of the choir on here last week complaining about "muh device privacy! and muh software freedom!" with apple scanning for blacklisted hashes, and government wanting e2ee backdoors. Why are you worried if you have nothing to hide? >Antivaccination beliefs are on par with moon landing hoaxers and flat earthers and deepak chopra followers IMHO. It's intellectual snake oil. LOL- you forgot "Think of the Children!"
cromwellian 5y ago
VAERS is a flawed data set, because it is pure correlation, not causation. Quoting VAERS: "When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event." You could get the vaccine, and then days later, you get diarrhea, or a headache, or a charlie horse in your calf, and you reason "oh, it must have been the vaccine", and boom it goes into VAERS: garbage in, garbage out. VAERS is best realized as a regulatory capture of the personal injury lawyer industry.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  It's not perfect, but there's some use to it, are you saying we should not collect and analyze adverse reactions after vaccination? The reported adverse reactions are very serious and only occurred after the vaccine a lot of times in an otherwise healthy individual. It should be used as a canary of safety and each report should be evaluated to see if the vaccine is the causation, especially when the individual was healthy. Ignoring reports of adverse reactions is not proper science. Sure, we could dismiss ALL of the reports as coincidences, but is that right? VAERS also states the data is under-reported, because not all side effects are reported to VAERS. This means for all false reports there could be true side effects not reported, this evens out the cases to some extent. > You could get the vaccine, and then days later, you get diarrhea, or a headache, or a charlie horse in your calf, Look at the side effects listed, it's full paralysis, death, miscarriages, etc. These are serious events that should be looked into. Those are much more rare cases than a "headache", or "diarrhea". Headaches are not reported to VAERS.
  - mapme 5y ago
    You have to compare it to the background rate to tease out signal from noise. That said any intervention (including a vaccine) carries non-zero risk. Taking aspirin, Zantac, laxatives, NyQuil etc., all can destroy you, but it’s rare. The safety monitoring is actually pretty good as well. We caught a 1 in ~100k issue with AZ/JnJ vaccine very early on in the rollout. We caught mild myocarditis (though COVID risk > vaccine for myocarditis). There was even a massive preprint today from Israel around vaccine side effects. Few were concerning. Link to study + summary https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1430636357626466307?s=21 https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1430636357626466307?s=2... > “ Bob Wachter of UCSF had a very good thread on Twitter about vaccine rollouts the other day, and one of the good points he made was this one. We’re talking about treating very, very large populations, which means that you’re going to see the usual run of mortality and morbidity that you see across large samples. Specifically, if you take 10 million people and just wave your hand back and forth over their upper arms, in the next two months you would expect to see about 4,000 heart attacks. About 4,000 strokes. Over 9,000 new diagnoses of cancer. And about 14,000 of that ten million will die, out of usual all-causes mortality. No one would notice. That’s how many people die and get sick anyway”
kbenson 5y ago
I was referring to actual monetary cost. Immediately prior to saying "zero cost" I outlined some other costs (time, physical well being). I'm open to discussions that try to explain other costs (that's why I asked).

phkahler 5y ago

It might prove to be bad too. There have been adverse reactions to the vaccine. Is that likely to happen to me? Probably less likely than a person chosen at random given prior exposure to the virus, but why risk it? My Covid experience was not life threatening, but it was no walk in the park either. I've had more than enough of that crap in my body, thank you very much. (Yes, I understand the difference between the virus and the vaccine, in fact that's why the real deal is thought to offer better immunity.) There really is no argument in favor of getting it at this time, just peoples cognitive bias.

jtchang 5y ago
You should risk it because the risk really is minimal and the greater benefit for society is enormous. I don't think people have cognitive bias. There are plenty of arguments in favor of getting it.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Dude! The risk may be small, but it is not zero. For someone who already has natural immunity, that matters. If serious adverse events are 1 in 100,000 - and I believe they are higher the younger you are - then that's significantly better odds than playing the lottery to end up hurt. And for what? "The greater benefit for society" is actually negative if you've been confirmed to have natural immunity. If there's any point that you have to argue against this, I'd hope you make it instead of throwing out assertions.
  - ukj 5y ago
    Ask these exact questions to the person who originally hesitated to vaccinate and got COVID. The risk of hospitalisation/death wasn’t zero. And yet… they chose COVID through inaction. And for what? “I am not an anti-vaxxer but was holding out” spells “I am an anti-vaxxer but I lucked out”.
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      _Nobody_ chose COVID. And, in the early days, there was no vaccine. In the middle days, the vaccines that were made were used. Now, those who shun a free vaccine - and haven't already caught COVID - are choosing not to lower their risk of contracting COVID in that one way... But that doesn't really help your argument.

nradov 5y ago

There's more to immunity than antibodies. When comparing the effects of vaccines versus prior infections we also need to look at memory T cell activity over an extended period of time. So far I don't think we have any conclusive evidence on that one way or the other.