6 ms·

> For some people, it’s not so much the known risks that have them worried as the unknown. They ask, What if the mRNA vaccines alter our DNA, threatening our he

> For some people, it’s not so much the known risks that have them worried as the unknown. They ask, What if the mRNA vaccines alter our DNA, threatening our health far in the future? Will they affect our bodies in other, as yet undiscovered, ways? After all, some say, this is brand-new technology, and the F.D.A. has only fully approved the Pfizer vaccine. > As it turns out, though, mRNA technology isn’t especially new. Scientists have been developing it since the nineteen-nineties. A lot of the anti-vaxxer claims about mRNA vaccines are incredulous, but this common approach to dismissing concerns about them is a bit disingenuous and not very convincing. Yes, mRNA technology has been in development for decades. So what? We went from having 0 mRNA vaccines in use to injecting hundreds of millions of people around the world with them all at once. The sales pitch: if enough people get vaccinated, we'll stop the spread of the virus and life can return to normal. The reality: people fully vaccinated less than a year ago are becoming infected, with the data showing clearly in the case of Delta that vaccinated people have similar viral loads to unvaccinated people and can spread the virus to others too. Now we're being told that we'll have to have booster shots, perhaps as soon as every 5-6 months, something that we don't do for any other disease. I'm fully vaccinated with Pfizer and not particularly concerned about the risk of undiscovered long-term side effects, but to pretend that what we're doing really isn't novel is far from convincing and I think arguments along these lines are having the opposite of the intended effect.

redis_mlc 5y ago
> not particularly concerned about the risk of undiscovered long-term side effects We don't know the long-term effects of corona or corona vaccines on the female reproductive system, especially eggs. Considering that if eggs are attacked, that's the end of us, so we should learn more and fast.
- dham 5y ago
  More than likely Covid-19 will have the same long term side effects of any other Coronavirus or the Flu. None of the long term side effects seem particularly surprising, other than they are publicized more. More than likely Covid-19 viral vector vaccine's (Johnson and Johnson) or Live-attenuated vaccines will have the same long term side effects of any other vaccine in these categories.
- learc83 5y ago
  There is no realistic theoretical mechanism for a delayed attack on the female reproductive system, and billions of mRNA doses have been administered over the last year with no measurable drop in female fertility.
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    Sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about. There are actually papers on the initial effects on the female reproductive system. What they don't know yet is what the long-term effects are, especially eggs. And vaccines have not been available for a year. It's sad how anti-science HN readers are.
Izkata 5y ago
> Yes, mRNA technology has been in development for decades. So what? We went from having 0 mRNA vaccines in use to injecting hundreds of millions of people around the world with them all at once. IMO their argument works against them: Three decades of nothing, then two at once from different companies? What's the catch?
noduerme 5y ago
There's one really simple, mechanical principle at work here. If you get an mRNA shot your body will generate a snippet of spike protein which your immune system will learn to attack and destroy. If you get a live sars2-cov virus, your body will also generate that protein, but orders of magnitude more of it and without automatically ceasing generation once the original mRNA breaks down... because the virus generates more mRNA. Your immune system will also learn to attack it but by the time it does the virus may be dozens of generations of exponential growth in which means there is simply so much to attack by that point that you will never generate enough antibodies before it overwhelms you. The only argument for not getting the vaccine would be if you thought you had a better than average chance of never encountering the live virus. If given a choice between a vax and the live virus, no sane person would choose the live virus. So everything else here is BS. People don't want to get the vaccine because they're scared. I understand that. But the probability of them encountering the virus is so high that taking the vaccine is clearly orders of magnitude less risky than not doing so, since in both cases you almost certainly will end up with the spike protein in your system and the only decision you really have is whether that will be self-administered and self-limiting, or wild and replicating uncontrolledly.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  > The only argument for not getting the vaccine would be if you thought you had a better than average chance of never encountering the live virus. Of course nobody reasonable is saying "Go out and try to get the virus! It's better than the vaccine!" But your comment overlooks a significant and growing population: the people who have already been infected. Last year, a WHO official estimated that as much as 10% of the world population might have already been infected. A year later, given the spread of Delta, it would not be surprising if that estimate was substantially higher. What do you advise the previously infected to do? It is scientifically dishonest to dismiss the strong and growing evidence we now have that natural immunity is robust and likely in some respects superior to that provided by the vaccines. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-no-infection-parties https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-on... https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/30919-natural-infection-versus-vaccination-differences-in-covid-antibody-responses-emerge/ https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/30919-natural-infection-ver... > ...the only decision you really have is whether that will be self-administered and self-limiting, or wild and replicating uncontrolledly. Yes, the risks of a natural infection in an unvaccinated person causing severe illness are undoubtedly higher, but let's not slander the human immune system. Young, apparently healthy people do get sick and die, and some report debilitating symptoms that linger, but if you look at the overall numbers honestly, you have to acknowledge that the vast, vast majority of people who are not old and who don't have metabolic disease don't get seriously ill and die from COVID, they recover just fine. And a double-digit percentage of people never even display symptoms. This thing isn't Ebola and vaccination marketing that presents it as such is, not surprisingly, proving to be less than persuasive to lots of people.

redis_mlc 5y ago

> not particularly concerned about the risk of undiscovered long-term side effects We don't know the long-term effects of corona or corona vaccines on the female reproductive system, especially eggs. Considering that if eggs are attacked, that's the end of us, so we should learn more and fast.

dham 5y ago
More than likely Covid-19 will have the same long term side effects of any other Coronavirus or the Flu. None of the long term side effects seem particularly surprising, other than they are publicized more. More than likely Covid-19 viral vector vaccine's (Johnson and Johnson) or Live-attenuated vaccines will have the same long term side effects of any other vaccine in these categories.
learc83 5y ago
There is no realistic theoretical mechanism for a delayed attack on the female reproductive system, and billions of mRNA doses have been administered over the last year with no measurable drop in female fertility.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  Sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about. There are actually papers on the initial effects on the female reproductive system. What they don't know yet is what the long-term effects are, especially eggs. And vaccines have not been available for a year. It's sad how anti-science HN readers are.

Izkata 5y ago

> Yes, mRNA technology has been in development for decades. So what? We went from having 0 mRNA vaccines in use to injecting hundreds of millions of people around the world with them all at once. IMO their argument works against them: Three decades of nothing, then two at once from different companies? What's the catch?

noduerme 5y ago

There's one really simple, mechanical principle at work here. If you get an mRNA shot your body will generate a snippet of spike protein which your immune system will learn to attack and destroy. If you get a live sars2-cov virus, your body will also generate that protein, but orders of magnitude more of it and without automatically ceasing generation once the original mRNA breaks down... because the virus generates more mRNA. Your immune system will also learn to attack it but by the time it does the virus may be dozens of generations of exponential growth in which means there is simply so much to attack by that point that you will never generate enough antibodies before it overwhelms you. The only argument for not getting the vaccine would be if you thought you had a better than average chance of never encountering the live virus. If given a choice between a vax and the live virus, no sane person would choose the live virus. So everything else here is BS. People don't want to get the vaccine because they're scared. I understand that. But the probability of them encountering the virus is so high that taking the vaccine is clearly orders of magnitude less risky than not doing so, since in both cases you almost certainly will end up with the spike protein in your system and the only decision you really have is whether that will be self-administered and self-limiting, or wild and replicating uncontrolledly.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago
> The only argument for not getting the vaccine would be if you thought you had a better than average chance of never encountering the live virus. Of course nobody reasonable is saying "Go out and try to get the virus! It's better than the vaccine!" But your comment overlooks a significant and growing population: the people who have already been infected. Last year, a WHO official estimated that as much as 10% of the world population might have already been infected. A year later, given the spread of Delta, it would not be surprising if that estimate was substantially higher. What do you advise the previously infected to do? It is scientifically dishonest to dismiss the strong and growing evidence we now have that natural immunity is robust and likely in some respects superior to that provided by the vaccines. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-no-infection-parties https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-on... https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/30919-natural-infection-versus-vaccination-differences-in-covid-antibody-responses-emerge/ https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/30919-natural-infection-ver... > ...the only decision you really have is whether that will be self-administered and self-limiting, or wild and replicating uncontrolledly. Yes, the risks of a natural infection in an unvaccinated person causing severe illness are undoubtedly higher, but let's not slander the human immune system. Young, apparently healthy people do get sick and die, and some report debilitating symptoms that linger, but if you look at the overall numbers honestly, you have to acknowledge that the vast, vast majority of people who are not old and who don't have metabolic disease don't get seriously ill and die from COVID, they recover just fine. And a double-digit percentage of people never even display symptoms. This thing isn't Ebola and vaccination marketing that presents it as such is, not surprisingly, proving to be less than persuasive to lots of people.