3 ms·

> anti-vax "side" has been shifting goalposts since day n-1. (claimer/disclaimer: I'm a hard-science type (famous university or rather, institute) and got vacc

> anti-vax "side" has been shifting goalposts since day n-1. (claimer/disclaimer: I'm a hard-science type (famous university or rather, institute) and got vaccinated as soon as I could; I am from a very healthy family that does not suffer from outlier symptoms (like flu, but eh it's not bad, no allergies, no side effects etc.) so overall I just didn't worry about it, but I didn't worry about Covid before I got vaccinated either.) but the biggest goalpost that got moved was, we have government regulations and protocols that concern drug approvals to make sure that the general population is not exposed to unnecessary risks. The Covid vaccines were fast tracked and unleashed untested: that's a huge goalpost shifted a huge distance. And nor was the administering of the vaccine accompanied by a notification of the major risks inherent in this approach, like for example, perhaps the viral spike protein was causing all the tissues' damage and the vaccine included the spike protein. so, in my book the pro vax side has behaved reprehensibly and is doing even deeper damage to the body politic by normalizing censorship. I'd still urge everybody to get vaccinated.

Denvercoder9 5y ago
> The Covid vaccines were fast tracked and unleashed untested: Can you name one test that was mandatory for other vaccines, but skipped for the COVID vaccines?
- fsckboy 5y ago
  yes, trials that take time.
  - Denvercoder9 5y ago
    That's a very big step from "the trials didn't run as long as I'd like" to "untested".
    - fsckboy 5y ago
      it's not a big step at all. you're doing the reprehensible thing, "nothing to see here, folks, nothing to see". Just be honest in a forthright way.
      - _moof 5y ago
        Ok then. What specific test ("taking time" is not specific) do you think was skipped?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    There were trials. They took time. Again, what specifically did not follow the EUA and approval rules in place prior to the pandemic?
- Kretinsky 5y ago
  My government (France) ordered pregnant women to get vaccinated while it wasn't tested for this kind of population. Kind of funny when basically 99% of medications are usually forbidden for child-bearing people.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> but the biggest goalpost that got moved was, we have government regulations and protocols that concern drug approvals to make sure that the general population is not exposed to unnecessary risks. That's not a goalpost that got shifted. We have standards for both normal approvals and emergency use authorizations. Both were followed for the vaccines (which got EUAs followed by, in some cases/uses, full approval.) > The Covid vaccines were fast tracked and unleashed untested No, they weren't, vaccine candidates were developed within a few weeks of sequencing the virus and basically the entire time between then and release was spent in clinical trials. > accompanied by a notification of the major risks inherent in this approach, like for example, perhaps the viral spike protein was causing all the tissues' damage and the vaccine included the spike protein. Pretty sure “this vaccine causes all the damaging effects of COVID” side effect would have shown up somewhere in Phase I-III trials.
- fsckboy 5y ago
  > We have standards for both normal approvals and emergency use authorizations. so, since you are implying that emergency use approval protocols are just as safe as normal protocols, why don't we follow emergency use protocols all the time? they're quicker!
  - handoflixue 5y ago
    There's a cost-benefit tradeoff. If the product cures an itchy rash, then a chance that it kills even one in a million users is a horrible side-effect and we need to know about. If the product prevents a deadly disease, then we should be taking it even if we know for sure that it kills one in a million (because Covid is killing two in every thousand, and you're 2,000x safer taking the vaccine).
    - fsckboy 5y ago
      are you saying there's no cost benefit tradeoff in individuals deciding whether they want the vaccine? oh, they'll clog up all the hospitals? then are you advocating illegalizing obesity and type 2 diabetes? I just think the discussion and polity is varied and nuanced, and I don't trust all the people who want to shut down all discussion in favor of a weird monoculture
Jenda_ 5y ago
> perhaps the viral spike protein was causing all the tissues' damage and the vaccine included the spike protein Yes, but without the vaccine, most people will get infected by real COVID, which introduces the same spike protein (in an uncontrolled quantity, as the virus is replicating) and several other proteins, causing even more damage. Is this a better outcome? > we have government regulations and protocols that concern drug approvals to make sure that the general population is not exposed to unnecessary risks These protocols are tuned to be super-safe when there is little at stake. With a raging pandemic, with a nontrivial mortality/long-term effects/economic and societal effects, you are going to change this.
- Kretinsky 5y ago
  Let's remind ourselves that many, many people are not at risk of covid[0]. It's just like asking everyone to wear hip airbags because falls can cause death when you're 90+. [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...
  - YossarianFrPrez 5y ago
    If I may use your metaphor, falls aren't infectious. And because they aren't infectious, they don't overwhelm the medical system. Yes, it's true that many people who get covid will have a mild case. Broadly speaking, the younger someone is, the better their chances. And it is just as true that hospital systems in hotspot areas are overwhelmed, causing emergency standards of care, burnout among medical staff, long waits, and the postponement of things like surgery for cancer patients.
    - Kretinsky 5y ago
      I understand that covid is infectious, however, for the people at risk for whom the risk-benefit balance is clearly in favor of benefit, then they can get vaccinated, right?
      - 5y ago
gmnash 5y ago
The mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that causes your body to produce part of the spike protein, not the whole thing. Therefore it is not cytotoxic. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna.html
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

Denvercoder9 5y ago

> The Covid vaccines were fast tracked and unleashed untested: Can you name one test that was mandatory for other vaccines, but skipped for the COVID vaccines?

fsckboy 5y ago
yes, trials that take time.
- Denvercoder9 5y ago
  That's a very big step from "the trials didn't run as long as I'd like" to "untested".
  - fsckboy 5y ago
    it's not a big step at all. you're doing the reprehensible thing, "nothing to see here, folks, nothing to see". Just be honest in a forthright way.
    - _moof 5y ago
      Ok then. What specific test ("taking time" is not specific) do you think was skipped?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  There were trials. They took time. Again, what specifically did not follow the EUA and approval rules in place prior to the pandemic?
Kretinsky 5y ago
My government (France) ordered pregnant women to get vaccinated while it wasn't tested for this kind of population. Kind of funny when basically 99% of medications are usually forbidden for child-bearing people.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> but the biggest goalpost that got moved was, we have government regulations and protocols that concern drug approvals to make sure that the general population is not exposed to unnecessary risks. That's not a goalpost that got shifted. We have standards for both normal approvals and emergency use authorizations. Both were followed for the vaccines (which got EUAs followed by, in some cases/uses, full approval.) > The Covid vaccines were fast tracked and unleashed untested No, they weren't, vaccine candidates were developed within a few weeks of sequencing the virus and basically the entire time between then and release was spent in clinical trials. > accompanied by a notification of the major risks inherent in this approach, like for example, perhaps the viral spike protein was causing all the tissues' damage and the vaccine included the spike protein. Pretty sure “this vaccine causes all the damaging effects of COVID” side effect would have shown up somewhere in Phase I-III trials.

fsckboy 5y ago
> We have standards for both normal approvals and emergency use authorizations. so, since you are implying that emergency use approval protocols are just as safe as normal protocols, why don't we follow emergency use protocols all the time? they're quicker!
- handoflixue 5y ago
  There's a cost-benefit tradeoff. If the product cures an itchy rash, then a chance that it kills even one in a million users is a horrible side-effect and we need to know about. If the product prevents a deadly disease, then we should be taking it even if we know for sure that it kills one in a million (because Covid is killing two in every thousand, and you're 2,000x safer taking the vaccine).
  - fsckboy 5y ago
    are you saying there's no cost benefit tradeoff in individuals deciding whether they want the vaccine? oh, they'll clog up all the hospitals? then are you advocating illegalizing obesity and type 2 diabetes? I just think the discussion and polity is varied and nuanced, and I don't trust all the people who want to shut down all discussion in favor of a weird monoculture

Jenda_ 5y ago

> perhaps the viral spike protein was causing all the tissues' damage and the vaccine included the spike protein Yes, but without the vaccine, most people will get infected by real COVID, which introduces the same spike protein (in an uncontrolled quantity, as the virus is replicating) and several other proteins, causing even more damage. Is this a better outcome? > we have government regulations and protocols that concern drug approvals to make sure that the general population is not exposed to unnecessary risks These protocols are tuned to be super-safe when there is little at stake. With a raging pandemic, with a nontrivial mortality/long-term effects/economic and societal effects, you are going to change this.

Kretinsky 5y ago
Let's remind ourselves that many, many people are not at risk of covid[0]. It's just like asking everyone to wear hip airbags because falls can cause death when you're 90+. [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...
- YossarianFrPrez 5y ago
  If I may use your metaphor, falls aren't infectious. And because they aren't infectious, they don't overwhelm the medical system. Yes, it's true that many people who get covid will have a mild case. Broadly speaking, the younger someone is, the better their chances. And it is just as true that hospital systems in hotspot areas are overwhelmed, causing emergency standards of care, burnout among medical staff, long waits, and the postponement of things like surgery for cancer patients.
  - Kretinsky 5y ago
    I understand that covid is infectious, however, for the people at risk for whom the risk-benefit balance is clearly in favor of benefit, then they can get vaccinated, right?
    - 5y ago

gmnash 5y ago

The mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that causes your body to produce part of the spike protein, not the whole thing. Therefore it is not cytotoxic. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna.html

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]