9 ms·

The problem is that the perception of public trust is eroding significantly the more we learn and the more fervent the mandates become. We pulled the swine flu

The problem is that the perception of public trust is eroding significantly the more we learn and the more fervent the mandates become. We pulled the swine flu vaccine for way less back in 2010, I think it was 12 cases of GBS only! The fact that I know of people who have either had mycarditis AND clots tells me the rate is much higher then reported by VAERS. The reason damn near everyone except for adamant anti-vax have the perception that VACCINE=SAFE/GOOD is that 93% of experimental candidates are rejected and it takes 10-15 years of trails and data to get full approval. It's the reason you are confident giving it to your own children the safety standards are so stringent. These comparisons to your chances of car accidents and being struck by lighting are totally bogus, you need to compare the data to past vaccines! And yet we think we got this mRNA/Adenovirus vector formula right on the first try times 3 different brands with 2 years of reduced trials? That's all gone out the window for the sake of the pandemic emergency and that's fine as long as the choice is clear and consensual, let those who want it take the risk, but don't mandate it. The VAERS data is abysmal, worse then the past 50 years of all vaccine combined, and yet people are now in the mode of dismissing the VAERS system entirely because its self reported, with no alternative to fall back to! The FDA even had the option of setting up a separate system for covid vaccine adverse event reporting and rejected it. Fine, then VAERS it is! The only system we have ever had to judge this by. At what point is it ethical to hand someone a long list of side effects that occur at x50+ higher rates then past vaccines and then say "but you must take this or you can't work". I think in 10 years, we will see this technology as higher risk but much faster turn around times compared to traditional vaccines. Just be up front about it and let people choose.

AndrewBissell 5y ago
Actually what happened with the 2010 swine flu vaccine was that people developed narcolepsy starting about a year after the first shots were administered (many of them to people who were never at particularly high risk from the swine flu itself). It took about another year after those symptoms first arose for authorities to acknowledge the link to Pandemrix.
iratewizard 5y ago
Here's my vaccine anecdata. My wife and I are at the age when everyone we know is starting to have kids. My wife and I got pregnant on the first try, and 3 of her other friends had similar easy success. All 4 unvaccinated. On the vaccinated side of her friends there are two miscarriages, one stillbirth, one who has been trying since June, one trying much longer than that, and one that we think has been trying for a while but hasn't announced it to the group. If these were caveman times and those people were drinking from a different stream, we would tell them not to drink from it. 3/3 success stories vs. 3 traumatic failures and two or three infertility issues.
- timothycrosley 5y ago
  While we are sharing meaningless anecdotes, almost everyone I know (since I live in Seattle) has been vaccinated. No one has reported any issues, a couple have since successfully had a child. None have even gotten a breakthrough infection of covid. Among friends I know from back east, who haven't gotten vaccinated, one had just turned 30, only health issue was obesity. He died. One was 35, best shape of any of my friends, was in ICU for 7 days with double pneumonia. And one miscarriage. But hey, the good thing is, we also have data. And the data, shows no correlation between vaccination and these problems you're referring to, and yet a VERY HIGH correlation (and some good reasons to say causation) between getting covid and having these issues.
  - iratewizard 5y ago
    What's the hospitalization rate for 20s - 40s for getting the vaccine? What's the hospitalization rate for covid?
    - pyronik19 5y ago
      Do we even know the real number? VAERS is highly underreported and how many vaccine cases are just getting labeled as "covid cases"... I love the southpark skit about this "covid related"... worth a watch.
      - 5y ago
tguvot 5y ago
>And yet we think we got this mRNA/Adenovirus vector formula right on the first try times 3 different brands with 2 years of reduced trials? Actually mRNA vaccines/tech been in development and trials for a long time (decades). What was done in last year is to encode specific mRNA and trial it. Not the entire "envelope". Nice historical overview: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  > Actually mRNA vaccines/tech been in development and trials for a long time (decades). Obviously the parent was not referring to the entire development history of mRNA tech, any more than one would include the initial work on inventing the internal combustion engine when talking about how much safety testing had been carried out for a new model car. The usual safety trials were not carried out for these vaccines, full stop.
  - tguvot 5y ago
    >Obviously the parent was not referring to the entire development history of mRNA tech, any more than one would include the initial work on inventing the internal combustion engine when talking about how much safety testing had been carried out for a new model car Not obviously. Many people think that tech only appeared for first time "yesterday" >The usual safety trials were not carried out for these vaccines, full stop. Kinda yes and kinda no. They were trialing technology for a long time to know overall safety profile. In a moment that it's clear, it's not much different than early flu vaccine updates that don't go through "usual safety trial"
  - nojokes 5y ago
    Yes, they were. Each of the vaccines used around 40000 people in their trials. It is an equal to series of crash tests. But there are effects that are so rare that do not come out unless the medicine is administered to larger group of people. This is the reason why every approved medicine is kept under extended surveillance.
cletus 5y ago
> The problem is that the perception of public trust is eroding significantly ... There are many problems. That's not one of them. Here is a better list of problems: 1. People don't understand what "research" means. Hint: watching a Youtube video with no peer-reviewed research is not "research"; 2. People fundamentally don't understand and assess risk correctly. This long predates the anti-vaxxer hyseria. It's why, for example, people are afraid to fly but not (usually) afraid to drive when the chances of dying while driving are significantly higher; 3. We've had 700,000 deaths of Covid-19 in the US. According to the CDC, 1% of those are for people aged under 30. It's also likely the Covid deaths are underreported (eg New York not attributing nursing home deaths to Covid last year) but let's take the conservative view. That's 7,000 Americans under 30 who have died from Covid. Roughly 120M/330M people are under 30 so that puts the death rate at roughly 6 per 100,000 people. Even the most pessimistic view of negative side effects of vaccines rooted in reality is significantly less than that. Thus the correct risk response is to take the vaccine; 4. I've long held the view that climate change won't be fixed by collective altruism. The only option (IMHO) is for the solution to be economic. Covid has done nothing but confirm this for me. Climate change involves massive collective cost and inconvenience. Taking a vaccine involves the mildest inconvenience and, at best, one in a million odds of serious negative results yet people won't even do that. 5. The deep-rooted idea that unfettered selfishness if a virtue combined with anti-intellectualism is a pervasive and dangerous problem. 6. This idea that the whole world is in on this conspiracy to hide the truth is farcical narcissism. Occam's Razor tells you this is wrong. People just aren't competent enough to keep secrets. It's what gives me confidence there are no aliens in Area 51 and that pretty much every conspiracy theory is bullshit. 7. People conflate long-term drug side effects with vaccine side effects. Drugs have complicated interactions with pretty much every part of body chemistry and these can take years to surface. Immune responses are entirely different and very quick with a narrower risk profile. It's why we already know of issues like clotting with AZ and (allegedly) slightly elevated mycarditis risk with young people and Moderna, mere months into their usage; 8. We've now administered billions of doses of Covid vaccines. If there were serious problems they'd be evidence by now; 9. People don't understand what "emergency authorization" (from the CDC) actually means. It's essentially an administrative not medical issue. The Covid vaccines still went through Phase 3 clinical trials; 10. All the while claiming the true dangers are hidden, the VAERS data is confused and misstated. For one, it's reporting of what could be potential side effects to those who have had the vaccine. That data is mined for patterns to identify issues. Those issues have largely not been identified as you and others have claimed. It's sad to me how many people who supposedly have a science education are able to fall for this crap. I mean just look at the vaccination rates of nurses (/sigh). It's hard not to look at all this and think that humanity is screwed. It may seem macabre (and it is) it's that the unvaccinated now are ~99% of Covid deaths and one can view this as evolution in action.
floor2 5y ago
> let those who want it take the risk This is the fallacy in your argument. It's an infectious disease that spreads through the air. An infected individual will emit particles of the virus which will cause other people to become sick, permanently disabled or potentially die. The rules of society are generally built around preventing and minimizing harm to other people. Sometimes that harm is intentional and obvious, like person A punching person B. Many times that harm is unintentional and non-obvious, which is why we need regulations to make buildings have safety-codes for how they're wired to the electric grid or controlling what chemicals can be emitted into the air or groundwater. We don't let people say "it's my choice to drive drunk at 100mph (160km/h), if you want to drive slower and sober that's your choice" because when a drunk driver kills someone it's obvious to everyone the cause-effect and responsibility. Spreading a disease that kills someone is fundamentally the same thing, it's just not as obviously observable.
- pyronik19 5y ago
  >This is the fallacy in your argument. It's an infectious disease that spreads through the air. An infected individual will emit particles of the virus which will cause other people to become sick, permanently disabled or potentially die. This argument would be stronger if a) People who wanted to be vaccinated couldn't get the vaccine that protects them and b) if vaccinated people themselves weren't able to spread the virus too. All in all you are cramming down a rushed vaccine down peoples throat at the risk of their livelihoods for marginal impacts in the virus's ability to spread and little significant risk to those who are already vaccinated.
- bjourne 5y ago
  We don't live in the society you describe. If it is fair to force people to take vaccines so that they wont spread the virus then it damn sure is fair to redistribute all the billionaires wealth to poor people. Because doing so would save many more lives than any vaccines ever could. We let the billionaires have their money, despite the cost to society so we must let people decide over their own bodies, despite the cost to society.
Certhas 5y ago
Anecdote. Fear mongering. Misleading statistic. Misleading/demonstrably wrong information presented with an air of "obviously". Conspiracy... What is eroding trust in vaccines are narratives like this. You pretend like every single point you raise (accelerated development, VAERS) doesn't have a clear explanation that is readily available with a single search. You pretend as if these "issues" you identify are swept under the rug to push unsafe vaccines on people, when in fact they are openly and frequently discussed. It's a (sadly common) argumentative sleight of hand. Back when the virus was less infectious and it was plausible to get to herd immunity with 60% of the adults vaccinated, I thought a good information campaign can get you there. In the US about a third of the population believes that Biden won through Voter fraud. Factual information, no matter how well presented or corroborated, only gets you so far if someone with a megaphone has a narrative to push.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mythrwy 5y ago
  Is it "factual" Biden didn't win through voter fraud? How exactly did you determine this? (to be clear I'm not suggesting he did, only questioning your methods of determining truth). "Back when it was plausible to get to herd immunity with 60% of adults vaccinated". That was never possible with these series of vaccines which don't prevent transmission, don't give full protection, and don't last very long. It's frankly stunning to me someone would make such a statement at this point in time.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    > Is it "factual" Biden didn't win through voter fraud? Yes. > How exactly did you determine this? By waiting for all the people who did assert voter fraud to present their hard evidence in court. There wasn't any. It's like asking whether it's "factual" that Obama is a human man instead of a secret lizard person wearing an advanced nanotech disguise. I can't affirmatively prove the non-existence of something, but that doesn't mean it's less of a fact.
sethammons 5y ago
> The fact that I know of people who have either had mycarditis AND clots tells me the rate is much higher then reported by VAERS My daughter's bf's friend's mom died of a stroke two days after getting the vaccine. Two of my brother-in-laws where hospitalized for heart issues after the vaccine. Another friend of ours now has bad tinnitus after getting the vaccine. A guy at my dad's work stroked out within 48 hours of getting the vaccine. I have a small social circle and I can think of 5 cases off the top of my head of negative reactions to the vaccines. This is not to say the vaccine is bad. This make me think we are not properly tracking and reporting all the side effects. I want more time and more data. A couple of years at the minimum I'd think.
- nojokes 5y ago
  Time does not give you anything beneficial. Administering more doses with better tracking does. If we just waited for some years and started to use the vaccine, we would be still in similar situation.
- tim333 5y ago
  A couple of data points from the UK. I know more people who have had vaccine issues than some of the 1 in 400,000 have problems stats would suggest. On the other hand the national death rates vs cases are about 1/10 what they were before the vaccines so they definitely improve your chances.
nojokes 5y ago
You can hone your vaccines as long as you want when the disease prevalence is low. For example when you have archived a large enough immunity by unfortunate natural infection or by previous vaccines. During pandemic, vaccines are quickly developed like happened with H1N1 in 2009 that was last modern pandemic before SARS-Cov-2. Before that was Hong-Kong flu pandemic and before that Asian. In all cases the vaccine development was very fast. For Hong-Kong flu it was 4 months. For Asian flu it was a little longer. Development a vaccine for Swine flu took also few months but rapid production failed and the vaccine was delayed.

AndrewBissell 5y ago

Actually what happened with the 2010 swine flu vaccine was that people developed narcolepsy starting about a year after the first shots were administered (many of them to people who were never at particularly high risk from the swine flu itself). It took about another year after those symptoms first arose for authorities to acknowledge the link to Pandemrix.

iratewizard 5y ago

Here's my vaccine anecdata. My wife and I are at the age when everyone we know is starting to have kids. My wife and I got pregnant on the first try, and 3 of her other friends had similar easy success. All 4 unvaccinated. On the vaccinated side of her friends there are two miscarriages, one stillbirth, one who has been trying since June, one trying much longer than that, and one that we think has been trying for a while but hasn't announced it to the group. If these were caveman times and those people were drinking from a different stream, we would tell them not to drink from it. 3/3 success stories vs. 3 traumatic failures and two or three infertility issues.

timothycrosley 5y ago
While we are sharing meaningless anecdotes, almost everyone I know (since I live in Seattle) has been vaccinated. No one has reported any issues, a couple have since successfully had a child. None have even gotten a breakthrough infection of covid. Among friends I know from back east, who haven't gotten vaccinated, one had just turned 30, only health issue was obesity. He died. One was 35, best shape of any of my friends, was in ICU for 7 days with double pneumonia. And one miscarriage. But hey, the good thing is, we also have data. And the data, shows no correlation between vaccination and these problems you're referring to, and yet a VERY HIGH correlation (and some good reasons to say causation) between getting covid and having these issues.
- iratewizard 5y ago
  What's the hospitalization rate for 20s - 40s for getting the vaccine? What's the hospitalization rate for covid?
  - pyronik19 5y ago
    Do we even know the real number? VAERS is highly underreported and how many vaccine cases are just getting labeled as "covid cases"... I love the southpark skit about this "covid related"... worth a watch.
    - 5y ago

tguvot 5y ago

>And yet we think we got this mRNA/Adenovirus vector formula right on the first try times 3 different brands with 2 years of reduced trials? Actually mRNA vaccines/tech been in development and trials for a long time (decades). What was done in last year is to encode specific mRNA and trial it. Not the entire "envelope". Nice historical overview: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w

AndrewBissell 5y ago
> Actually mRNA vaccines/tech been in development and trials for a long time (decades). Obviously the parent was not referring to the entire development history of mRNA tech, any more than one would include the initial work on inventing the internal combustion engine when talking about how much safety testing had been carried out for a new model car. The usual safety trials were not carried out for these vaccines, full stop.
- tguvot 5y ago
  >Obviously the parent was not referring to the entire development history of mRNA tech, any more than one would include the initial work on inventing the internal combustion engine when talking about how much safety testing had been carried out for a new model car Not obviously. Many people think that tech only appeared for first time "yesterday" >The usual safety trials were not carried out for these vaccines, full stop. Kinda yes and kinda no. They were trialing technology for a long time to know overall safety profile. In a moment that it's clear, it's not much different than early flu vaccine updates that don't go through "usual safety trial"
- nojokes 5y ago
  Yes, they were. Each of the vaccines used around 40000 people in their trials. It is an equal to series of crash tests. But there are effects that are so rare that do not come out unless the medicine is administered to larger group of people. This is the reason why every approved medicine is kept under extended surveillance.

cletus 5y ago

> The problem is that the perception of public trust is eroding significantly ... There are many problems. That's not one of them. Here is a better list of problems: 1. People don't understand what "research" means. Hint: watching a Youtube video with no peer-reviewed research is not "research"; 2. People fundamentally don't understand and assess risk correctly. This long predates the anti-vaxxer hyseria. It's why, for example, people are afraid to fly but not (usually) afraid to drive when the chances of dying while driving are significantly higher; 3. We've had 700,000 deaths of Covid-19 in the US. According to the CDC, 1% of those are for people aged under 30. It's also likely the Covid deaths are underreported (eg New York not attributing nursing home deaths to Covid last year) but let's take the conservative view. That's 7,000 Americans under 30 who have died from Covid. Roughly 120M/330M people are under 30 so that puts the death rate at roughly 6 per 100,000 people. Even the most pessimistic view of negative side effects of vaccines rooted in reality is significantly less than that. Thus the correct risk response is to take the vaccine; 4. I've long held the view that climate change won't be fixed by collective altruism. The only option (IMHO) is for the solution to be economic. Covid has done nothing but confirm this for me. Climate change involves massive collective cost and inconvenience. Taking a vaccine involves the mildest inconvenience and, at best, one in a million odds of serious negative results yet people won't even do that. 5. The deep-rooted idea that unfettered selfishness if a virtue combined with anti-intellectualism is a pervasive and dangerous problem. 6. This idea that the whole world is in on this conspiracy to hide the truth is farcical narcissism. Occam's Razor tells you this is wrong. People just aren't competent enough to keep secrets. It's what gives me confidence there are no aliens in Area 51 and that pretty much every conspiracy theory is bullshit. 7. People conflate long-term drug side effects with vaccine side effects. Drugs have complicated interactions with pretty much every part of body chemistry and these can take years to surface. Immune responses are entirely different and very quick with a narrower risk profile. It's why we already know of issues like clotting with AZ and (allegedly) slightly elevated mycarditis risk with young people and Moderna, mere months into their usage; 8. We've now administered billions of doses of Covid vaccines. If there were serious problems they'd be evidence by now; 9. People don't understand what "emergency authorization" (from the CDC) actually means. It's essentially an administrative not medical issue. The Covid vaccines still went through Phase 3 clinical trials; 10. All the while claiming the true dangers are hidden, the VAERS data is confused and misstated. For one, it's reporting of what could be potential side effects to those who have had the vaccine. That data is mined for patterns to identify issues. Those issues have largely not been identified as you and others have claimed. It's sad to me how many people who supposedly have a science education are able to fall for this crap. I mean just look at the vaccination rates of nurses (/sigh). It's hard not to look at all this and think that humanity is screwed. It may seem macabre (and it is) it's that the unvaccinated now are ~99% of Covid deaths and one can view this as evolution in action.

floor2 5y ago

> let those who want it take the risk This is the fallacy in your argument. It's an infectious disease that spreads through the air. An infected individual will emit particles of the virus which will cause other people to become sick, permanently disabled or potentially die. The rules of society are generally built around preventing and minimizing harm to other people. Sometimes that harm is intentional and obvious, like person A punching person B. Many times that harm is unintentional and non-obvious, which is why we need regulations to make buildings have safety-codes for how they're wired to the electric grid or controlling what chemicals can be emitted into the air or groundwater. We don't let people say "it's my choice to drive drunk at 100mph (160km/h), if you want to drive slower and sober that's your choice" because when a drunk driver kills someone it's obvious to everyone the cause-effect and responsibility. Spreading a disease that kills someone is fundamentally the same thing, it's just not as obviously observable.

pyronik19 5y ago
>This is the fallacy in your argument. It's an infectious disease that spreads through the air. An infected individual will emit particles of the virus which will cause other people to become sick, permanently disabled or potentially die. This argument would be stronger if a) People who wanted to be vaccinated couldn't get the vaccine that protects them and b) if vaccinated people themselves weren't able to spread the virus too. All in all you are cramming down a rushed vaccine down peoples throat at the risk of their livelihoods for marginal impacts in the virus's ability to spread and little significant risk to those who are already vaccinated.
bjourne 5y ago
We don't live in the society you describe. If it is fair to force people to take vaccines so that they wont spread the virus then it damn sure is fair to redistribute all the billionaires wealth to poor people. Because doing so would save many more lives than any vaccines ever could. We let the billionaires have their money, despite the cost to society so we must let people decide over their own bodies, despite the cost to society.

Certhas 5y ago

Anecdote. Fear mongering. Misleading statistic. Misleading/demonstrably wrong information presented with an air of "obviously". Conspiracy... What is eroding trust in vaccines are narratives like this. You pretend like every single point you raise (accelerated development, VAERS) doesn't have a clear explanation that is readily available with a single search. You pretend as if these "issues" you identify are swept under the rug to push unsafe vaccines on people, when in fact they are openly and frequently discussed. It's a (sadly common) argumentative sleight of hand. Back when the virus was less infectious and it was plausible to get to herd immunity with 60% of the adults vaccinated, I thought a good information campaign can get you there. In the US about a third of the population believes that Biden won through Voter fraud. Factual information, no matter how well presented or corroborated, only gets you so far if someone with a megaphone has a narrative to push.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mythrwy 5y ago
Is it "factual" Biden didn't win through voter fraud? How exactly did you determine this? (to be clear I'm not suggesting he did, only questioning your methods of determining truth). "Back when it was plausible to get to herd immunity with 60% of adults vaccinated". That was never possible with these series of vaccines which don't prevent transmission, don't give full protection, and don't last very long. It's frankly stunning to me someone would make such a statement at this point in time.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  > Is it "factual" Biden didn't win through voter fraud? Yes. > How exactly did you determine this? By waiting for all the people who did assert voter fraud to present their hard evidence in court. There wasn't any. It's like asking whether it's "factual" that Obama is a human man instead of a secret lizard person wearing an advanced nanotech disguise. I can't affirmatively prove the non-existence of something, but that doesn't mean it's less of a fact.

sethammons 5y ago

> The fact that I know of people who have either had mycarditis AND clots tells me the rate is much higher then reported by VAERS My daughter's bf's friend's mom died of a stroke two days after getting the vaccine. Two of my brother-in-laws where hospitalized for heart issues after the vaccine. Another friend of ours now has bad tinnitus after getting the vaccine. A guy at my dad's work stroked out within 48 hours of getting the vaccine. I have a small social circle and I can think of 5 cases off the top of my head of negative reactions to the vaccines. This is not to say the vaccine is bad. This make me think we are not properly tracking and reporting all the side effects. I want more time and more data. A couple of years at the minimum I'd think.

nojokes 5y ago
Time does not give you anything beneficial. Administering more doses with better tracking does. If we just waited for some years and started to use the vaccine, we would be still in similar situation.
tim333 5y ago
A couple of data points from the UK. I know more people who have had vaccine issues than some of the 1 in 400,000 have problems stats would suggest. On the other hand the national death rates vs cases are about 1/10 what they were before the vaccines so they definitely improve your chances.

nojokes 5y ago

You can hone your vaccines as long as you want when the disease prevalence is low. For example when you have archived a large enough immunity by unfortunate natural infection or by previous vaccines. During pandemic, vaccines are quickly developed like happened with H1N1 in 2009 that was last modern pandemic before SARS-Cov-2. Before that was Hong-Kong flu pandemic and before that Asian. In all cases the vaccine development was very fast. For Hong-Kong flu it was 4 months. For Asian flu it was a little longer. Development a vaccine for Swine flu took also few months but rapid production failed and the vaccine was delayed.