3 ms·

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 spreadi

by 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.

by 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.