5 ms·

I’m happy to get the vaccine in ~March 2022 if they are shown to be safe and effective having been deployed for more than one year. At the moment I see rather m

by Tycho 5y ago

I’m happy to get the vaccine in ~March 2022 if they are shown to be safe and effective having been deployed for more than one year. At the moment I see rather mixed signals about safety and efficacy.

acdha 5y ago
That’s because you’re getting your news from partisan sources who are misleading you for political or financial reasons. The vaccines have been in testing since the spring of 2020 and have repeatedly been shown to be both safe and effective at reducing your risk and ability to spread to others. At this point they’ve been given to a billion people – because of the way vaccines work you’re not making yourself safer by waiting a second year and you are far more at risk from getting COVID in the meantime than any reported side effects.
- Tycho 5y ago
  No actually it’s because I use my common sense to know that a vaccine that didn’t even begin testing before spring 2020 does not have a long enough track record to assure safety. I don’t care what you heard on your news.
  - acdha 5y ago
    What scientific education and experience is your common sense based on? If you haven't studied this area, why do you feel more qualified to say it's unsafe than the people who have spent their entire careers focused on it? For example, what is the longest recorded delay between a vaccine being administered and a side-effect being observed? Vaccines trigger an immune response but aren't in your body for a long period of time, so you typically see reactions within a few hours or days — the record is something like 6 weeks, so multiple years would be quite the outlier. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.... The other key thing to remember is that this isn't some hypothetical question about risks in absolute: your odds of being one of the very few people who have a significant vaccine side-effect has to be weighed against the much higher probability of having significant health impacts from COVID-19. “Neither” is not an option any of us get to pick.
    - dennis_jeeves 5y ago
      >What scientific education and experience is your common sense based on? What you are effectively telling him is, shut up and listen to the "experts". That's not how freedom of choice works.
    - Randosaurus 5y ago
      yet interestingly, if they weigh those odds and come down on the side of waiting for more information, you come after them and tell them they're wrong while simultaneously telling them they must weigh the odds. You don't actually want them weighing the odds, you just want to imply they're wrong without being histrionic about it.
      - acdha 5y ago
        No, I want them to weigh the odds in a rational manner. We have a ton of data and it's been well analyzed at this point, consistently supporting the vaccines being safe and effective. When asked, the person I was responding to admitted that they didn't do that but were instead relying on “common sense”. If they had some real data, a concern based on some real mechanism which would explain why it's risky for them personally in a way that doesn't show up in the population-level statistics, etc. that could be something to discuss because there would be a claim which could be evaluated scientifically.
        Randosaurus 5y ago
        > When asked, the person I was responding to admitted that they didn't do that but were instead relying on “common sense”. If they had some real data, a concern based on some real mechanism which would explain why it's risky for them personally in a way that doesn't show up in the population-level statistics, etc. that could be something to discuss because there would be a claim which could be evaluated scientifically. They did exactly that, to quote them: "I use my common sense to know that a vaccine that didn’t even begin testing before spring 2020 does not have a long enough track record to assure safety." No reasonable person is going to interpret this as "they admitted they didn't weigh the risks". My favorite part is how you set the bar to "something that can be evaluated scientifically", without also admitting that __"SCIENCE", IS IN THE MIDDLE OF EVALUATING__. This is the reason no one trusts people like you, your willingness to dishonesty and misrepresentation makes you untrustworthy. Nothing anyone says will change anything other than the bar you claim others should be clearing, said bar just so happening to cause everyone to land on your opinion. Not even the CDC takes a stance as strong as yours.
  - Randosaurus 5y ago
    The worst part is the other poster claiming you only believe that because of the misinformation of your news sources, not realizing they also have news sources which could be misinforming them. It's reasonable to be leery of a vaccine produced in such a small amount of time when most vaccines go through much more rigor. And making claims such as "it's been thoroughly tested" is balderdash. It's like claiming your software has been thoroughly tested because you push straight to production with minimal testing after someone says they won't use your software because they don't want to be the testers of your software. We're still learning about both the virus and the vaccine. In 10 years we'll be a lot more confident in our knowledge, and what's "known" about it will be a lot more trustworthy.
bellyfullofbac 5y ago
So, what's the over/under that you'll soon move your goalpost to say "I'm going to wait until there's 2/5/10 years of data" as March 2022 approaches?
- scohesc 5y ago
  Considering it's none of your (or society's) business if they choose to get vaccinated or not, you shouldn't be asking those questions. Also, I'm sure by 2/5/10 years the virus will have mutated down to the point it's endemic and similar enough in nature to the common cold and we won't be needing these experimental vaccines.
  - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
    Ah yeah, trying to get out of this pandemic is none of society's business, except for the last 18 months...
    - scohesc 5y ago
      The only thing you can do to protect yourself is get vaccinated. That's the only thing you can control - encouraging governments and employers to force rushed medical treatments upon their citizens, through threats and acts of violence will only further vaccine hesitancy or put a damper on vaccine uptake. Covid will be around forever and there's nothing anybody can do about it.
      - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
        > Covid will be around forever I agree. > and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Nope, with a vaccination it'll be finally comparable to a bad flu (like all those deniers said in the beginning). Portugal has 98% vaccination and has now dropped most of its restrictions. As someone who's vaccinated I do wish the governments would drop all the restrictions and let all the refusers deal with their own mess, but luckily for us governments have a duty of care* for all of society, including the beligerent members, and overfull hospitals disadvantage the vaccinated too. * Although some politicians in power seem to be sacrificing the lives and health of their citizens to sabotage their "enemies", e.g. in Florida and Texas.

by Tycho 5y ago

acdha 5y ago

That’s because you’re getting your news from partisan sources who are misleading you for political or financial reasons. The vaccines have been in testing since the spring of 2020 and have repeatedly been shown to be both safe and effective at reducing your risk and ability to spread to others. At this point they’ve been given to a billion people – because of the way vaccines work you’re not making yourself safer by waiting a second year and you are far more at risk from getting COVID in the meantime than any reported side effects.

Tycho 5y ago
No actually it’s because I use my common sense to know that a vaccine that didn’t even begin testing before spring 2020 does not have a long enough track record to assure safety. I don’t care what you heard on your news.
- acdha 5y ago
  What scientific education and experience is your common sense based on? If you haven't studied this area, why do you feel more qualified to say it's unsafe than the people who have spent their entire careers focused on it? For example, what is the longest recorded delay between a vaccine being administered and a side-effect being observed? Vaccines trigger an immune response but aren't in your body for a long period of time, so you typically see reactions within a few hours or days — the record is something like 6 weeks, so multiple years would be quite the outlier. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.... The other key thing to remember is that this isn't some hypothetical question about risks in absolute: your odds of being one of the very few people who have a significant vaccine side-effect has to be weighed against the much higher probability of having significant health impacts from COVID-19. “Neither” is not an option any of us get to pick.
  - dennis_jeeves 5y ago
    >What scientific education and experience is your common sense based on? What you are effectively telling him is, shut up and listen to the "experts". That's not how freedom of choice works.
  - Randosaurus 5y ago
    yet interestingly, if they weigh those odds and come down on the side of waiting for more information, you come after them and tell them they're wrong while simultaneously telling them they must weigh the odds. You don't actually want them weighing the odds, you just want to imply they're wrong without being histrionic about it.
    - acdha 5y ago
      No, I want them to weigh the odds in a rational manner. We have a ton of data and it's been well analyzed at this point, consistently supporting the vaccines being safe and effective. When asked, the person I was responding to admitted that they didn't do that but were instead relying on “common sense”. If they had some real data, a concern based on some real mechanism which would explain why it's risky for them personally in a way that doesn't show up in the population-level statistics, etc. that could be something to discuss because there would be a claim which could be evaluated scientifically.
      - Randosaurus 5y ago
        > When asked, the person I was responding to admitted that they didn't do that but were instead relying on “common sense”. If they had some real data, a concern based on some real mechanism which would explain why it's risky for them personally in a way that doesn't show up in the population-level statistics, etc. that could be something to discuss because there would be a claim which could be evaluated scientifically. They did exactly that, to quote them: "I use my common sense to know that a vaccine that didn’t even begin testing before spring 2020 does not have a long enough track record to assure safety." No reasonable person is going to interpret this as "they admitted they didn't weigh the risks". My favorite part is how you set the bar to "something that can be evaluated scientifically", without also admitting that __"SCIENCE", IS IN THE MIDDLE OF EVALUATING__. This is the reason no one trusts people like you, your willingness to dishonesty and misrepresentation makes you untrustworthy. Nothing anyone says will change anything other than the bar you claim others should be clearing, said bar just so happening to cause everyone to land on your opinion. Not even the CDC takes a stance as strong as yours.
- Randosaurus 5y ago
  The worst part is the other poster claiming you only believe that because of the misinformation of your news sources, not realizing they also have news sources which could be misinforming them. It's reasonable to be leery of a vaccine produced in such a small amount of time when most vaccines go through much more rigor. And making claims such as "it's been thoroughly tested" is balderdash. It's like claiming your software has been thoroughly tested because you push straight to production with minimal testing after someone says they won't use your software because they don't want to be the testers of your software. We're still learning about both the virus and the vaccine. In 10 years we'll be a lot more confident in our knowledge, and what's "known" about it will be a lot more trustworthy.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago

So, what's the over/under that you'll soon move your goalpost to say "I'm going to wait until there's 2/5/10 years of data" as March 2022 approaches?

scohesc 5y ago
Considering it's none of your (or society's) business if they choose to get vaccinated or not, you shouldn't be asking those questions. Also, I'm sure by 2/5/10 years the virus will have mutated down to the point it's endemic and similar enough in nature to the common cold and we won't be needing these experimental vaccines.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  Ah yeah, trying to get out of this pandemic is none of society's business, except for the last 18 months...
  - scohesc 5y ago
    The only thing you can do to protect yourself is get vaccinated. That's the only thing you can control - encouraging governments and employers to force rushed medical treatments upon their citizens, through threats and acts of violence will only further vaccine hesitancy or put a damper on vaccine uptake. Covid will be around forever and there's nothing anybody can do about it.
    - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
      > Covid will be around forever I agree. > and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Nope, with a vaccination it'll be finally comparable to a bad flu (like all those deniers said in the beginning). Portugal has 98% vaccination and has now dropped most of its restrictions. As someone who's vaccinated I do wish the governments would drop all the restrictions and let all the refusers deal with their own mess, but luckily for us governments have a duty of care* for all of society, including the beligerent members, and overfull hospitals disadvantage the vaccinated too. * Although some politicians in power seem to be sacrificing the lives and health of their citizens to sabotage their "enemies", e.g. in Florida and Texas.