4 ms·

> What rational person would refuse a lifesaving medicine offered to them for free? Somebody who has already had covid. They've already taken on risk - why exp

> What rational person would refuse a lifesaving medicine offered to them for free? Somebody who has already had covid. They've already taken on risk - why expose themselves to more? Your argument of people acting rational breaks down in a lot of cases. Plenty of people have self destructive behaviors (many with externalities that affect others) that we are ok with.

Daishiman 5y ago
What risk? You literally expose yourself to more risk driving to work than with getting any vaccine.
fanf2 5y ago
If you've had COVID, a vaccine can help with Long COVID symptoms, and it can reduce the risk of reinfection, so it's still better to be vaccinated than to catch COVID a second time.
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  The vaccine reportedly can also trigger a more severe immune response in people who already have naturally-acquired antibodies. Try to find good statistics on the rates and severity of adverse reactions for people who have already have COVID. I've had very little success.
  - herbst 5y ago
    This. And generally the possibility of more severe immune responses after vaxing. (Like with dengue for example) It is obvious these are a problem, and it's obvious we do not talk a out that right now. Saying the vaccine is a perfect solution that will solve all our issues is just dellusional
    - enkid 5y ago
      There is no evidence of that with this vaccine, and with the number of people who have received it we would have collected that evidence by now, so stop spreading hypotheticals.
      - herbst 5y ago
        This is not something you usually notice until years into using it. Even the heart inflammation thing did not show in studies and only months after vaxing, and instead of more severe immune responses on infection this is something that happens immediately and not years later. This is all just loud thinking at this point. But it's something you regularly find new studies too because it seems to be a concern.
        enkid 5y ago
        The reason the heart inflammation think didn't show up is because of how rare it is, not the amount of time passed. If the issue you are talking about is that rare, than my argument still stands. As to something appearing years later, that seems extremely rare and could happen without getting the vaccine, just being exposed again to the virus. Oh, and neither of us are the people that should be evaluating that because we aren't medical researchers who have closely studied the incidents of vaccines causing reactions years later. I will trust the people who have extensively studied the problem.
        acdha 5y ago
        By now, the COVID vaccines have been given to an extremely large sample size so even very rare side-effects would be known by now. Similarly, because vaccines train your own immune system without staying in your body, it’s extremely unlikely for a side-effect to be delayed in time for more than weeks. Note the timeframes on the relevant historical examples: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
      - foolinaround 5y ago
        https://logfall.wordpress.com/absence-of-evidence-fallacy/ https://logfall.wordpress.com/absence-of-evidence-fallacy/ The questions to ask are -- how do we define rare? how do we define time to elapse before results show up? When that rare or time-lapsed event occurs, what is its severity? Most importantly, what is the severity of the original event (covid infection) to the particular individual? This risk varies widely between individuals, and parts of it are very much subjective. For an external entity to make an objective judgement without even considering all the factors is the sign of tyranny.
  - enkid 5y ago
    All evidence is that it still is a greater risk to not get vaccinated if you've had COVID than to get vaccinated. A lot of bullshit "reportedly" happens. That's why the CDC sets guidelines based on the based scientific evidence available and says you should get the vaccine whether or not you had COVID. Stop spreading disinformation.
    - Ancapistani 5y ago
      To be a bit blunt - I made an unsupported assumption, which I called out explicitly by the use of scare quotes. You have responded with an unsupported dismissal. I am most assuredly not spreading disinformation.
    - foolinaround 5y ago
      > All evidence is that it still is a greater risk to not get vaccinated if you've had COVID than to get vaccinated. Source for the above?
UncleMeat 5y ago
The additional risk is nearly-zero and vaccination provides additional protection even in cases of prior infection.

Daishiman 5y ago

What risk? You literally expose yourself to more risk driving to work than with getting any vaccine.

fanf2 5y ago

If you've had COVID, a vaccine can help with Long COVID symptoms, and it can reduce the risk of reinfection, so it's still better to be vaccinated than to catch COVID a second time.

Ancapistani 5y ago
The vaccine reportedly can also trigger a more severe immune response in people who already have naturally-acquired antibodies. Try to find good statistics on the rates and severity of adverse reactions for people who have already have COVID. I've had very little success.
- herbst 5y ago
  This. And generally the possibility of more severe immune responses after vaxing. (Like with dengue for example) It is obvious these are a problem, and it's obvious we do not talk a out that right now. Saying the vaccine is a perfect solution that will solve all our issues is just dellusional
  - enkid 5y ago
    There is no evidence of that with this vaccine, and with the number of people who have received it we would have collected that evidence by now, so stop spreading hypotheticals.
    - herbst 5y ago
      This is not something you usually notice until years into using it. Even the heart inflammation thing did not show in studies and only months after vaxing, and instead of more severe immune responses on infection this is something that happens immediately and not years later. This is all just loud thinking at this point. But it's something you regularly find new studies too because it seems to be a concern.
      - enkid 5y ago
        The reason the heart inflammation think didn't show up is because of how rare it is, not the amount of time passed. If the issue you are talking about is that rare, than my argument still stands. As to something appearing years later, that seems extremely rare and could happen without getting the vaccine, just being exposed again to the virus. Oh, and neither of us are the people that should be evaluating that because we aren't medical researchers who have closely studied the incidents of vaccines causing reactions years later. I will trust the people who have extensively studied the problem.
      - acdha 5y ago
        By now, the COVID vaccines have been given to an extremely large sample size so even very rare side-effects would be known by now. Similarly, because vaccines train your own immune system without staying in your body, it’s extremely unlikely for a side-effect to be delayed in time for more than weeks. Note the timeframes on the relevant historical examples: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
    - foolinaround 5y ago
      https://logfall.wordpress.com/absence-of-evidence-fallacy/ https://logfall.wordpress.com/absence-of-evidence-fallacy/ The questions to ask are -- how do we define rare? how do we define time to elapse before results show up? When that rare or time-lapsed event occurs, what is its severity? Most importantly, what is the severity of the original event (covid infection) to the particular individual? This risk varies widely between individuals, and parts of it are very much subjective. For an external entity to make an objective judgement without even considering all the factors is the sign of tyranny.
- enkid 5y ago
  All evidence is that it still is a greater risk to not get vaccinated if you've had COVID than to get vaccinated. A lot of bullshit "reportedly" happens. That's why the CDC sets guidelines based on the based scientific evidence available and says you should get the vaccine whether or not you had COVID. Stop spreading disinformation.
  - Ancapistani 5y ago
    To be a bit blunt - I made an unsupported assumption, which I called out explicitly by the use of scare quotes. You have responded with an unsupported dismissal. I am most assuredly not spreading disinformation.
  - foolinaround 5y ago
    > All evidence is that it still is a greater risk to not get vaccinated if you've had COVID than to get vaccinated. Source for the above?

UncleMeat 5y ago

The additional risk is nearly-zero and vaccination provides additional protection even in cases of prior infection.