4 ms·

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

by 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.
      - acdha 5y ago
        > No reasonable person is going to interpret this as "they admitted they didn't weigh the risks". You know, you can see what I actually wrote in the quote — note the key word missing from this paraphrase: rational. I am certain that they made a subjective assessment of the risks — my point was that they hadn't critically analyzed that decision but still want it to be treated as equal in merit to the scientific consensus. A key part of science is testing your beliefs: that's what the scientists who've spent decades working on mRNA vaccines did, that's what the extensive trials leading up to approval were for, and it's quite telling that you are both not doing that and trying to claim that ongoing monitoring means that the results of that earlier work are unreliable. Yes, scientists are still evaluating evidence — that's what they do! — but when it consistently points to the same conclusion over a long period of time and has been used to make accurate predictions, it starts to be considered a consensus.
- peteradio 5y ago
  Haven't there been new black box warnings in the last couple months? That the side effects reveal themselves in the short term on the individual basis is no real comfort when we warn about them after years of testing.
- MatteoFrigo 5y ago
  > the record is something like 6 weeks, so multiple years would be quite the outlier. You have to be very careful with this kind of informal statements, because probability is a tricky thing. For example, assume that a vaccine has a probability P of causing long-term bad effects and that we observe historically that 1000 vaccines have no long-term bad effects. What can we rationally say about P? It would be tempting to conclude that P is zero or at least negligibly small (maybe 2^(-1000) or something). However, this cannot be the correct answer because if P were 1/1000, you would observe the historical pattern with probability .999^1000 ~= 1/e, or about 1/3 of the time. A more sophisticated analysis would conclude that it is very likely that P is somewhere between 0 and 2/1000, and if you believe a thing called the "Laplace Rule of Succession", the expected value of P is something like 1/1002. Now, 1000 widely deployed vaccines sounds like a reasonable upper bound to the number of vaccines ever produced, which would suggest that the probability of this vaccine being safe is probably 100% but the error bar is O(1/1000). O(1/1000) is about the same as the probability of the virus killing me, so it is perfectly rational to have doubts.
  - acdha 5y ago
    The risk is certainly not zero but the calculation isn't that simple because the underlying mechanism isn't random. Vaccines work by training your immune system and don't persist in your body; for long-term concerns what we're really looking for is evidence that there's a previously-unknown time delay mechanism for immune responses or evidence of something specific to a disease such as the way Dengue fever can be more severe on a second infection (which is why the vaccine is restricted to people with a prior laboratory-confirmed infection). Again, I'm not saying that there's no chance of a problem but by now a billion people have been vaccinated and a significant number of people are 18+ months out, with no indication that any of these hypothetical scenarios are actually happening.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
      Yah. But they can also carry and spread the virus. Vaccination doesn't make you clean(In this case) as we have already seen. It also increases the selection pressure, thereby creating even more new mutations(In this case). Isn't that hot? Always on the run for another shot! Ka-Ching!
- Tycho 5y ago
  I don’t care whatsoever what so-called experts think. This is how I evaluate risk: 1. Are we dealing with complex mechanisms that are not fully understood? (in this case, human biology and immune response) 2. Are we operating in an environment that is itself complex and weakly understood? (in this case, the broader ecosystem including other viruses and new variants) 3. Do we have clear channels/signals of information? (do we have all the reliable and comparable stats we’d like, anything approaching controlled experimental data etc) 4. Are there incentives for people to distort the information? (are their significant monetary and political factors weighing on outcomes) Left as exercise to the reader to apply this to covid.
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.

by Tycho 5y ago

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.
    - acdha 5y ago
      > No reasonable person is going to interpret this as "they admitted they didn't weigh the risks". You know, you can see what I actually wrote in the quote — note the key word missing from this paraphrase: rational. I am certain that they made a subjective assessment of the risks — my point was that they hadn't critically analyzed that decision but still want it to be treated as equal in merit to the scientific consensus. A key part of science is testing your beliefs: that's what the scientists who've spent decades working on mRNA vaccines did, that's what the extensive trials leading up to approval were for, and it's quite telling that you are both not doing that and trying to claim that ongoing monitoring means that the results of that earlier work are unreliable. Yes, scientists are still evaluating evidence — that's what they do! — but when it consistently points to the same conclusion over a long period of time and has been used to make accurate predictions, it starts to be considered a consensus.
peteradio 5y ago
Haven't there been new black box warnings in the last couple months? That the side effects reveal themselves in the short term on the individual basis is no real comfort when we warn about them after years of testing.
MatteoFrigo 5y ago
> the record is something like 6 weeks, so multiple years would be quite the outlier. You have to be very careful with this kind of informal statements, because probability is a tricky thing. For example, assume that a vaccine has a probability P of causing long-term bad effects and that we observe historically that 1000 vaccines have no long-term bad effects. What can we rationally say about P? It would be tempting to conclude that P is zero or at least negligibly small (maybe 2^(-1000) or something). However, this cannot be the correct answer because if P were 1/1000, you would observe the historical pattern with probability .999^1000 ~= 1/e, or about 1/3 of the time. A more sophisticated analysis would conclude that it is very likely that P is somewhere between 0 and 2/1000, and if you believe a thing called the "Laplace Rule of Succession", the expected value of P is something like 1/1002. Now, 1000 widely deployed vaccines sounds like a reasonable upper bound to the number of vaccines ever produced, which would suggest that the probability of this vaccine being safe is probably 100% but the error bar is O(1/1000). O(1/1000) is about the same as the probability of the virus killing me, so it is perfectly rational to have doubts.
- acdha 5y ago
  The risk is certainly not zero but the calculation isn't that simple because the underlying mechanism isn't random. Vaccines work by training your immune system and don't persist in your body; for long-term concerns what we're really looking for is evidence that there's a previously-unknown time delay mechanism for immune responses or evidence of something specific to a disease such as the way Dengue fever can be more severe on a second infection (which is why the vaccine is restricted to people with a prior laboratory-confirmed infection). Again, I'm not saying that there's no chance of a problem but by now a billion people have been vaccinated and a significant number of people are 18+ months out, with no indication that any of these hypothetical scenarios are actually happening.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Yah. But they can also carry and spread the virus. Vaccination doesn't make you clean(In this case) as we have already seen. It also increases the selection pressure, thereby creating even more new mutations(In this case). Isn't that hot? Always on the run for another shot! Ka-Ching!
Tycho 5y ago
I don’t care whatsoever what so-called experts think. This is how I evaluate risk: 1. Are we dealing with complex mechanisms that are not fully understood? (in this case, human biology and immune response) 2. Are we operating in an environment that is itself complex and weakly understood? (in this case, the broader ecosystem including other viruses and new variants) 3. Do we have clear channels/signals of information? (do we have all the reliable and comparable stats we’d like, anything approaching controlled experimental data etc) 4. Are there incentives for people to distort the information? (are their significant monetary and political factors weighing on outcomes) Left as exercise to the reader to apply this to covid.

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.