7 ms·

I don't have numbers, but there's a substantial population of people wary of the covid vaccines that aren't wary of polio, measles, or even flu vaccines.

mod 5y ago
I don't know why this is downvoted, because I have also found it to be true (within my immediate family). It's hard for me to dig to the actual reasoning, but I've poked and prodded, and I think it might just be some rationalizing to help them cope with the idea that they are, in fact, vaccinated against certain diseases. Also they're just ignorant in some cases. I got a response to the tune of "yeah (I'm vaccinated against some things)--against diseases, not viruses." Which clearly fundamentally misunderstands some things. I've also heard people who are just against mRNA vaccines. And some who are (somewhat reasonably IMO) against mRNA vaccines until they've had a reasonable time period to let side effects etc play out.
- weaksauce 5y ago
  side effects of a two dose vaccine are almost certainly going to show up in the near term of less than 6 weeks. it's not something like a drug you take daily for years and years and get a side effect from years down the line due to prolonged use. These are, by nature, very ephemeral due to them being mRNA and either being transformed into an instruction to make a small protein that then gets the body trained to neutralize or it gets neutralized on their own because they are not long lasting in the first place. There is no instruction inside the mRNA to make anything like the long lasting effects of a retrovirus. it's simply not there to do that. vaccines like this are more like the effects of taking a Tylenol or aspirin once... yeah you can get side effects from it but there is no long lasting effect because it's gone from your system.
  - hajile 5y ago
    This is a very disingenuous argument. The alpha gal carbohydrate introduced by a lone Star tick trains your immune system to reject it in the future resulting in the inability to eat red meats. The alpha gal leaves your system very quickly, but the result of the (mis)-training of your immune system lasts forever. Researchers are very clear that mRNA therapy may be useful for permanent treatment of a wide variety of conditions in the future. The material may not persist, but the effects certainly will. The Israeli study indicates that natural immunity use up to 27x more effective than the vaccine against Delta. This indicates that something about the synthetic solution is inferior. What other differences exist? Will any other immune abnormalities appear over time? That wouldn't be unusual. Were other systems altered due to unknown interactions? We still discover very important natural interactions every year, so this isn't far fetched. What about your body only making limited, synthetic antigen antibodies instead of the better, more flexible natural ones in response to even more out of band gamma or mu strains? These are entirely unknown problems we're in the process of researching and for better or worse, we're the guinea pigs. I don't see why those perspective is hard to understand. People with low openness personalities who tend to be risk adverse are going to respond very differently from those with high openness and lower risk aversion (not to mention differing knowledge). It should be telling that doctors and nurses who have been watching covid patients die still often come to the conclusion that the vaccine isn't for them and is too risky. I've been reading about coronavirus vaccine attempts since SARS. I've watched one attempt after another fail -- often in spectacular ways. The idea that a long string of failures suddenly meets with absolute success just at the correct moment defies belief. Those of us who took the vaccine should at least admit to ourselves that there's a non-zero chance things are wrong this time too (though hopefully not so spectacularly) but that those effects and effect rates are still lower on aggregate than the problems from covid.
    - allturtles 5y ago
      > The alpha gal leaves your system very quickly, but the result of the (mis)-training of your immune system lasts forever. But does it take years for the effect to show up after the alpha gal leaves your system? We are now 9 months into mass vaccination, and still no sign of these ominous long-term side effects that people seem so worried about.
      - twofornone 5y ago
        >But does it take years for the effect to show up after the alpha gal leaves your system? For this specific change, no. But the point is that there is ample chance for mRNA to induce semipermanent and/or permanent changes and there's no guarantee that they'll be detected early, especially when the vast majority of clinicians aren't even looking for them. If these vaccines do indeed, say, increase long term risk of cancer or heart problems, it will likely take years or even decades to detect especially when there is a rigid, top down enforced taboo around questioning the safety/efficacy of the vaccine. Yet another reason that censorship like this is dangerous. Researchers also get some of their ideas through free exchange on social media. Especially when the academic establishment develops a rigid orthodoxy around a topic; when all of the institutions align behind a single preemptive conclusion and then collude to suppress even rational, science based dissent across all platforms, your society stumbles down the false path of one sided research.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        Jenda_ 5y ago
        Sure, all of this is possible. Really improbable, but possible. But what are these chances compared to a real infection with coronavirus, which has more proteins than the spike protein and causes more havoc in the body?
      - weaksauce 5y ago
        they aren't even sure that the tick is the cause of that syndrome. they suspect it but there hasn't been a definitive link yet. also, people are allergic to all sorts of things like almonds or bees and can get new allergies later on in life.
  - bit_razor 5y ago
    Regardless of why this was downvoted, it deserves an upvote for being correct. "Are there long-term side effects caused by mRNA COVID-19 vaccines? How do we know?" Basically, no because we've studied them. mRNA vaccines are notoriously easily destroyed. https://immunizebc.ca/ask-us/questions/are-there-long-term-side-effects-caused-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-how-do-we-know#:~:text=Decades%20of%20studying%20mRNA%20have,long%2Dterm%20side%2Deffects https://immunizebc.ca/ask-us/questions/are-there-long-term-s.... Is there some common knowledge that counters this that I'm missing?
    - pigeonhole123 5y ago
      Check out Pfizer’s own RCT study where all cause mortality was unaffected by the vaccine at six months.
      - weaksauce 5y ago
        bold claims require evidence and not a one off comment like yours. if you want people to believe that you have to show your work.
        SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        Technically not a "one off comment" - their comment history ( https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=pigeonhole123 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=pigeonhole123 ) trots out this "fact" over and over. Despite being rubbished repeatedly. And it's utter BS in the real world - did they even stop to think that some countries have given out millions of doses of Pfizer over the last 8 months, and if "all cause mortality was unaffected" compared to the pandemic situation in 2020, it would be obvious as hell. It's therefor a very extra-ordinary claim, no proof whatsoever. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28699864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28699864 Why are they pushing this disinformation?
        weaksauce 5y ago
        Yeah it's complete bullshit... vaccines are working and working well. the only people dying and taking up the ICU beds right now in any large numbers are the unvaccinated. > Why are they pushing this disinformation? either one of the following groups: russian/china disinformation bots or paid shills. people that like to be "in on the know" and take contrary viewpoints that are not mainstream. people that have fully bought into the above misinformation schemes. people that have taken to it like a political fight where reason goes out the window unless you are "winning". I ultimately think that a lot of people "broke" during the pandemic looking for some "enemy" to fight since the reality of a wild virus that just happened was too scary a thought. many people need the world to make sense and want control. some control of that is making up enemies like china releasing the virus intentionally and all the world governments working together in tandem to somehow control everyone.
- usrusr 5y ago
  It's funny how people seem to be far more wary of their cells being subjected to a controlled dose of a carefully selected strand of mRNA than they are wary of their cells being subjected to a much larger bundle of mRNA that happens to include some variation of that carefully selected strand amongst many other things that together turn the cell into a weapon producing more copies of itself, and that will eventually kill every carrier whose immune system does not come up with a countermeasure fast enough. If the mRNA vaccine that contains a tiny subset of the virus is scary, how can the full version not be far more scary?
  - mlindner 5y ago
    Actually that's what convinced me to get the vaccine, the fact of how the new bioengineering for mRNA worked. I was convinced that it would be highly successful and effective. And I honestly don't believe the theories that it's effectiveness is somehow wearing off. It's much more likely that it's just not effective against Delta+mutations as that is so far from the original variant the vaccine was designed for. I don't plan to get any booster shots until a new delta variant vaccine is available.
  - dudeman13 5y ago
    Don't forget the obvious merely logical counter argument: How does one come up with "being vaccinated could potentially be a time bomb" without naturally coming up with "being unvaccinated could potentially be a time bomb"? If you don't even know what mRNA stands for without Googling it, surely you couldn't possibly guess that one of these is more likely to be true than the other.
    - mod 5y ago
      I don't think the average person can (or will, especially) really source reliable information on how mRNA works, let alone think through the potential risks. It's a very technical question that involves a ton of knowledge about how our body works etc. Despite reading up about it, I wouldn't personally feel confident enough to explain it at any level of technical detail. I don't think we can expect the majority of people to understand it and then make decisions based on that--ever. It's very unclear, without deep knowledge of both the vaccine tech and the virus, which time bomb is worse. I know what the experts say, and I personally believe them, but it's not surprising to me that others don't. When politicians are the folks in charge of our personal health (to any degree), it's always going to immediately sew distrust-- as it should.
- wincy 5y ago
  I drove for an hour into the countryside to get the Johnson and Johnson vaccine for this reason. I got it three days before the blood clots thing came out, and was in the ER the day before the news came out with the most terrible headache I’ve ever had in my life. I’m fine now but it was scary.
beebmam 5y ago
Agitative propaganda is a hell of a drug
user-the-name 5y ago
And are they wary because they are vaccine experts, or is it because they have been constantly exposed to anti-vaxx propaganda for a year and a half?
- sigmar 5y ago
  I think his point very much means youtube should have done this sooner. There are tons of ppl that are 'anti- this vax only' because of the misinformation of youtube.

mod 5y ago

I don't know why this is downvoted, because I have also found it to be true (within my immediate family). It's hard for me to dig to the actual reasoning, but I've poked and prodded, and I think it might just be some rationalizing to help them cope with the idea that they are, in fact, vaccinated against certain diseases. Also they're just ignorant in some cases. I got a response to the tune of "yeah (I'm vaccinated against some things)--against diseases, not viruses." Which clearly fundamentally misunderstands some things. I've also heard people who are just against mRNA vaccines. And some who are (somewhat reasonably IMO) against mRNA vaccines until they've had a reasonable time period to let side effects etc play out.

weaksauce 5y ago
side effects of a two dose vaccine are almost certainly going to show up in the near term of less than 6 weeks. it's not something like a drug you take daily for years and years and get a side effect from years down the line due to prolonged use. These are, by nature, very ephemeral due to them being mRNA and either being transformed into an instruction to make a small protein that then gets the body trained to neutralize or it gets neutralized on their own because they are not long lasting in the first place. There is no instruction inside the mRNA to make anything like the long lasting effects of a retrovirus. it's simply not there to do that. vaccines like this are more like the effects of taking a Tylenol or aspirin once... yeah you can get side effects from it but there is no long lasting effect because it's gone from your system.
- hajile 5y ago
  This is a very disingenuous argument. The alpha gal carbohydrate introduced by a lone Star tick trains your immune system to reject it in the future resulting in the inability to eat red meats. The alpha gal leaves your system very quickly, but the result of the (mis)-training of your immune system lasts forever. Researchers are very clear that mRNA therapy may be useful for permanent treatment of a wide variety of conditions in the future. The material may not persist, but the effects certainly will. The Israeli study indicates that natural immunity use up to 27x more effective than the vaccine against Delta. This indicates that something about the synthetic solution is inferior. What other differences exist? Will any other immune abnormalities appear over time? That wouldn't be unusual. Were other systems altered due to unknown interactions? We still discover very important natural interactions every year, so this isn't far fetched. What about your body only making limited, synthetic antigen antibodies instead of the better, more flexible natural ones in response to even more out of band gamma or mu strains? These are entirely unknown problems we're in the process of researching and for better or worse, we're the guinea pigs. I don't see why those perspective is hard to understand. People with low openness personalities who tend to be risk adverse are going to respond very differently from those with high openness and lower risk aversion (not to mention differing knowledge). It should be telling that doctors and nurses who have been watching covid patients die still often come to the conclusion that the vaccine isn't for them and is too risky. I've been reading about coronavirus vaccine attempts since SARS. I've watched one attempt after another fail -- often in spectacular ways. The idea that a long string of failures suddenly meets with absolute success just at the correct moment defies belief. Those of us who took the vaccine should at least admit to ourselves that there's a non-zero chance things are wrong this time too (though hopefully not so spectacularly) but that those effects and effect rates are still lower on aggregate than the problems from covid.
  - allturtles 5y ago
    > The alpha gal leaves your system very quickly, but the result of the (mis)-training of your immune system lasts forever. But does it take years for the effect to show up after the alpha gal leaves your system? We are now 9 months into mass vaccination, and still no sign of these ominous long-term side effects that people seem so worried about.
    - twofornone 5y ago
      >But does it take years for the effect to show up after the alpha gal leaves your system? For this specific change, no. But the point is that there is ample chance for mRNA to induce semipermanent and/or permanent changes and there's no guarantee that they'll be detected early, especially when the vast majority of clinicians aren't even looking for them. If these vaccines do indeed, say, increase long term risk of cancer or heart problems, it will likely take years or even decades to detect especially when there is a rigid, top down enforced taboo around questioning the safety/efficacy of the vaccine. Yet another reason that censorship like this is dangerous. Researchers also get some of their ideas through free exchange on social media. Especially when the academic establishment develops a rigid orthodoxy around a topic; when all of the institutions align behind a single preemptive conclusion and then collude to suppress even rational, science based dissent across all platforms, your society stumbles down the false path of one sided research.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - Jenda_ 5y ago
        Sure, all of this is possible. Really improbable, but possible. But what are these chances compared to a real infection with coronavirus, which has more proteins than the spike protein and causes more havoc in the body?
    - weaksauce 5y ago
      they aren't even sure that the tick is the cause of that syndrome. they suspect it but there hasn't been a definitive link yet. also, people are allergic to all sorts of things like almonds or bees and can get new allergies later on in life.
- bit_razor 5y ago
  Regardless of why this was downvoted, it deserves an upvote for being correct. "Are there long-term side effects caused by mRNA COVID-19 vaccines? How do we know?" Basically, no because we've studied them. mRNA vaccines are notoriously easily destroyed. https://immunizebc.ca/ask-us/questions/are-there-long-term-side-effects-caused-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-how-do-we-know#:~:text=Decades%20of%20studying%20mRNA%20have,long%2Dterm%20side%2Deffects https://immunizebc.ca/ask-us/questions/are-there-long-term-s.... Is there some common knowledge that counters this that I'm missing?
  - pigeonhole123 5y ago
    Check out Pfizer’s own RCT study where all cause mortality was unaffected by the vaccine at six months.
    - weaksauce 5y ago
      bold claims require evidence and not a one off comment like yours. if you want people to believe that you have to show your work.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        Technically not a "one off comment" - their comment history ( https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=pigeonhole123 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=pigeonhole123 ) trots out this "fact" over and over. Despite being rubbished repeatedly. And it's utter BS in the real world - did they even stop to think that some countries have given out millions of doses of Pfizer over the last 8 months, and if "all cause mortality was unaffected" compared to the pandemic situation in 2020, it would be obvious as hell. It's therefor a very extra-ordinary claim, no proof whatsoever. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28699864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28699864 Why are they pushing this disinformation?
        weaksauce 5y ago
        Yeah it's complete bullshit... vaccines are working and working well. the only people dying and taking up the ICU beds right now in any large numbers are the unvaccinated. > Why are they pushing this disinformation? either one of the following groups: russian/china disinformation bots or paid shills. people that like to be "in on the know" and take contrary viewpoints that are not mainstream. people that have fully bought into the above misinformation schemes. people that have taken to it like a political fight where reason goes out the window unless you are "winning". I ultimately think that a lot of people "broke" during the pandemic looking for some "enemy" to fight since the reality of a wild virus that just happened was too scary a thought. many people need the world to make sense and want control. some control of that is making up enemies like china releasing the virus intentionally and all the world governments working together in tandem to somehow control everyone.
usrusr 5y ago
It's funny how people seem to be far more wary of their cells being subjected to a controlled dose of a carefully selected strand of mRNA than they are wary of their cells being subjected to a much larger bundle of mRNA that happens to include some variation of that carefully selected strand amongst many other things that together turn the cell into a weapon producing more copies of itself, and that will eventually kill every carrier whose immune system does not come up with a countermeasure fast enough. If the mRNA vaccine that contains a tiny subset of the virus is scary, how can the full version not be far more scary?
- mlindner 5y ago
  Actually that's what convinced me to get the vaccine, the fact of how the new bioengineering for mRNA worked. I was convinced that it would be highly successful and effective. And I honestly don't believe the theories that it's effectiveness is somehow wearing off. It's much more likely that it's just not effective against Delta+mutations as that is so far from the original variant the vaccine was designed for. I don't plan to get any booster shots until a new delta variant vaccine is available.
- dudeman13 5y ago
  Don't forget the obvious merely logical counter argument: How does one come up with "being vaccinated could potentially be a time bomb" without naturally coming up with "being unvaccinated could potentially be a time bomb"? If you don't even know what mRNA stands for without Googling it, surely you couldn't possibly guess that one of these is more likely to be true than the other.
  - mod 5y ago
    I don't think the average person can (or will, especially) really source reliable information on how mRNA works, let alone think through the potential risks. It's a very technical question that involves a ton of knowledge about how our body works etc. Despite reading up about it, I wouldn't personally feel confident enough to explain it at any level of technical detail. I don't think we can expect the majority of people to understand it and then make decisions based on that--ever. It's very unclear, without deep knowledge of both the vaccine tech and the virus, which time bomb is worse. I know what the experts say, and I personally believe them, but it's not surprising to me that others don't. When politicians are the folks in charge of our personal health (to any degree), it's always going to immediately sew distrust-- as it should.
wincy 5y ago
I drove for an hour into the countryside to get the Johnson and Johnson vaccine for this reason. I got it three days before the blood clots thing came out, and was in the ER the day before the news came out with the most terrible headache I’ve ever had in my life. I’m fine now but it was scary.

beebmam 5y ago

Agitative propaganda is a hell of a drug

user-the-name 5y ago

And are they wary because they are vaccine experts, or is it because they have been constantly exposed to anti-vaxx propaganda for a year and a half?

sigmar 5y ago
I think his point very much means youtube should have done this sooner. There are tons of ppl that are 'anti- this vax only' because of the misinformation of youtube.