7 ms·

Pretty sure we don't understand the long term risk of getting COVID either right? I mean it has not even been around for 2 years. Plus we do know it is possible

by jjuel 5y ago

Pretty sure we don't understand the long term risk of getting COVID either right? I mean it has not even been around for 2 years. Plus we do know it is possible only 1 infection would kill you.

b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
Or injection, bias is an odd thing.
lettergram 5y ago
That’s a straw man argument, when you take this drug you already have 100% covid19. Presumably that means you’ll have that risk, plus additional unknown risk. Perhaps the drug works like advertised, but we’ve seen better and more successful studies for things like ivermectin and anti-body treatments. Which have a known risk profile. It’s the same for the vaccine. You still have the risk of what ever the vaccine risk is, PLUS covid19. Supposedly it reduces the covid19 symptoms, but doesn’t reduce risk of infection (or at least unclear), it just improves the immune response.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  This drug might actually save the patient from the risk of dying from covid. It would be the same for the vaccine: the vaccines reduce the risk from dying.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  This is a strange additive error to make: proactive or reactive treatments for COVID-19 don't produce additive unknowns in the presence of a COVID-19 infection, since their entire purpose is to improve healthcare outcomes (whether by reducing infection severity or incidence altogether).
- davidw 5y ago
  > Presumably that means you’ll have that risk, But greatly improves the odds of not dying, which is pretty important for a lot of people.
- ashleyn 5y ago
  The long term risks for either is not knowable. Hospitalisation is an acute scenario that can lead to death, negating any concerns about the long-term in the first place. The short term risk of hospitalisation in the unvaccinated versus the vaccinated is well-known. Given what we know, it still makes sense to get vaccinated, and it may make sense for those at risk of hospitalisation (vaccinated or otherwise) to take an antiviral proven to cut the risk of hospitalisation.
  - DownGoat 5y ago
    Actually the long term risk of the covid-19 vaccines is well understood. You will not get a side effect from the vaccines in a year from now. For all of the vaccines created for any disease, the longest recorded period between taking the vaccine and side effects presenting is 6 weeks. 3.1 billion people are fully vaccinated for covid-19, many of them have been for longer than 6 weeks.
    - penultimatebro 5y ago
      Ha ha, funny satire. Wait, reading this again... you’re serious? So do you have an actual time machine and can go to the future and know side effects a year from now? The long term effects are unknowable. This mRNA technology is brand new so please don’t compare that to a traditional vaccine.
      - kickopotomus 5y ago
        The technology is not brand new. It has been used in labs for decades. This is just the first time it has been used in a drug for humans. All traces of the vaccine leave your body within days of receiving the shot.
    - Seredo 5y ago
      In Norway, some children developed narcolepsy after being vaccinated with Pandemrix. The average time from vaccine (or influensa) until developing narcolepsy was 8 months. https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2017/pandemi/ https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2017/pandemi/ (in norwegian)
- spazrunaway 5y ago
  Data shows that being vaccinated divides your odds of dying and being hospitalized from covid by about 10. There's no evidence I'm aware of showing that the vaccines create additional risk anywhere close to outweighing that benefit.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    There is. Because kids (basically) don’t die from COVID. The side effect risk, while small, is material in a risk calculation for them, since their entire risk from the disease is small. At a minimum, mandating it for kids (as is openly stated to be the plan in CA) is unethical.
    - EvanAnderson 5y ago
      Can you point me in the direction of studies comparing side effect risks for young children against COVID-19 risks for children? Presumably there's such a thing that you're basing your opinion on. I would find that useful, given that I have an 8 y/o who is now vaccine-eligible and her mother and I are discussing.
      - angelzen 5y ago
        There is one in the Pfizer application for FDA authorization in 5-11 age group, see Table 14, page 34. It is not a direct study, it's an extrapolation based on antigen titers in a 2000 kid 2 months clinical trial, but it's the only one I am aware of. https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download
      - gfodor 5y ago
        CDC admits that there has been severe cardiac damage to young people from the mRNA vaccines. This leads to an obvious series of questions: just how dangerous is COVID for children? What mechanism is causing this heart damage? Could heart damage be happening without diagnosis, and manifest later? In a year, will we be able to fix this problem with the vaccines, or have protocols to prevent it? Are the vaccines more likely to cause permanent damage in children, than COVID, as opposed to temporary health problems? Are the non-mRNA vaccines completely de-risked from the proposition from causing permanent harm to children? Will CDC guidance in a year guide parents away from mRNA vaccines and towards different ones? Is there a correlating variable we will discover so we know which specific population of children would get heart damage from this? Etc. https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1306689138612203520 https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1306689138612203520 More recent paper I found: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.0... More questions: given this known to manifest in younger people, could it imply that age is inversely correlated with frequency? Will young children be less likely to report or articulate symptoms, even if they have increased risk? Given it seems sex coupled, is there an underlying variable correlated with sex that is a root cause we will soon understand, resulting in a vast risk reduction for parents who will be able to know if their children apply? People claiming you can know if vaccination is a good idea or not for your kids have primitive mental models: the choice isn't to vaccinate or not vaccinate, but vaccinate now or (maybe) vaccinate later. When something is risk laden on both sides and is a dynamic system, the smart choice may be to wait if the marginal de-risking per unit time is high. My personal view is that wrt children taking mRNA vaccines, there's basically close to free "money on the table" - wait a few months. If you've avoided COVID until now, its pretty unlikely your kids will catch it, nevermind be unlucky enough to get a severe case, which is extremely unlikely. On the other hand, it could turn out in a few months we identify the root cause of the heart issues of the vaccines, or alternative vaccines become available that de-risk it entirely. In any case, personal views aside, it's incredibly immoral to mandate this for schools, and it wouldn't surprise me if CA does this before we fully understand what is going on.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > Presumably that means you’ll have that risk, plus additional unknown risk. That's a bad argument. This makes COVID less severe, which in turn makes the long-term affects less severe. Things in medicine are rarely binary.
  - lettergram 5y ago
    We don’t actually know if it makes the long term risk less severe or more severe. We don’t have the data.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      Sure. We also don't know if it will give you superpowers. I mean, we have logic and the history of similar things that gives us good ideas. And the fact that the risks grow because the immune response means a shorter immune response is likely to be less severe long term. But yeah, technically there is no study there yet.
- vkou 5y ago
  We have not seen better and more successful studies for ivermectin, we have seen a lot of studies that find it does next to nothing, and a few deeply fraudulent studies that finds that it solves world hunger. It's a strange day when people argue against evaluating a new medicine, in favour of snake oil that doesn't work. Given that you think that it's unclear that vaccines reduce the rate and seriousness of COVID, I am not sure that your have a good enough understanding of the ground facts to have an informed opinion on this subject.
  - pjkundert 5y ago
    Wow. I always wonder when I hear comments this. Check out https://c19early.com https://c19early.com (specifically, https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/).
bordercases 5y ago
Ransoming one kind of ignorance for another, based off the impact one risk has over another, is Pascal's Wager, not knowledge.

by jjuel 5y ago

Pretty sure we don't understand the long term risk of getting COVID either right? I mean it has not even been around for 2 years. Plus we do know it is possible only 1 infection would kill you.

b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago

Or injection, bias is an odd thing.

lettergram 5y ago

That’s a straw man argument, when you take this drug you already have 100% covid19. Presumably that means you’ll have that risk, plus additional unknown risk. Perhaps the drug works like advertised, but we’ve seen better and more successful studies for things like ivermectin and anti-body treatments. Which have a known risk profile. It’s the same for the vaccine. You still have the risk of what ever the vaccine risk is, PLUS covid19. Supposedly it reduces the covid19 symptoms, but doesn’t reduce risk of infection (or at least unclear), it just improves the immune response.

nextaccountic 5y ago
This drug might actually save the patient from the risk of dying from covid. It would be the same for the vaccine: the vaccines reduce the risk from dying.
woodruffw 5y ago
This is a strange additive error to make: proactive or reactive treatments for COVID-19 don't produce additive unknowns in the presence of a COVID-19 infection, since their entire purpose is to improve healthcare outcomes (whether by reducing infection severity or incidence altogether).
davidw 5y ago
> Presumably that means you’ll have that risk, But greatly improves the odds of not dying, which is pretty important for a lot of people.
ashleyn 5y ago
The long term risks for either is not knowable. Hospitalisation is an acute scenario that can lead to death, negating any concerns about the long-term in the first place. The short term risk of hospitalisation in the unvaccinated versus the vaccinated is well-known. Given what we know, it still makes sense to get vaccinated, and it may make sense for those at risk of hospitalisation (vaccinated or otherwise) to take an antiviral proven to cut the risk of hospitalisation.
- DownGoat 5y ago
  Actually the long term risk of the covid-19 vaccines is well understood. You will not get a side effect from the vaccines in a year from now. For all of the vaccines created for any disease, the longest recorded period between taking the vaccine and side effects presenting is 6 weeks. 3.1 billion people are fully vaccinated for covid-19, many of them have been for longer than 6 weeks.
  - penultimatebro 5y ago
    Ha ha, funny satire. Wait, reading this again... you’re serious? So do you have an actual time machine and can go to the future and know side effects a year from now? The long term effects are unknowable. This mRNA technology is brand new so please don’t compare that to a traditional vaccine.
    - kickopotomus 5y ago
      The technology is not brand new. It has been used in labs for decades. This is just the first time it has been used in a drug for humans. All traces of the vaccine leave your body within days of receiving the shot.
  - Seredo 5y ago
    In Norway, some children developed narcolepsy after being vaccinated with Pandemrix. The average time from vaccine (or influensa) until developing narcolepsy was 8 months. https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2017/pandemi/ https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2017/pandemi/ (in norwegian)
spazrunaway 5y ago
Data shows that being vaccinated divides your odds of dying and being hospitalized from covid by about 10. There's no evidence I'm aware of showing that the vaccines create additional risk anywhere close to outweighing that benefit.
- gfodor 5y ago
  There is. Because kids (basically) don’t die from COVID. The side effect risk, while small, is material in a risk calculation for them, since their entire risk from the disease is small. At a minimum, mandating it for kids (as is openly stated to be the plan in CA) is unethical.
  - EvanAnderson 5y ago
    Can you point me in the direction of studies comparing side effect risks for young children against COVID-19 risks for children? Presumably there's such a thing that you're basing your opinion on. I would find that useful, given that I have an 8 y/o who is now vaccine-eligible and her mother and I are discussing.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      There is one in the Pfizer application for FDA authorization in 5-11 age group, see Table 14, page 34. It is not a direct study, it's an extrapolation based on antigen titers in a 2000 kid 2 months clinical trial, but it's the only one I am aware of. https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download
    - gfodor 5y ago
      CDC admits that there has been severe cardiac damage to young people from the mRNA vaccines. This leads to an obvious series of questions: just how dangerous is COVID for children? What mechanism is causing this heart damage? Could heart damage be happening without diagnosis, and manifest later? In a year, will we be able to fix this problem with the vaccines, or have protocols to prevent it? Are the vaccines more likely to cause permanent damage in children, than COVID, as opposed to temporary health problems? Are the non-mRNA vaccines completely de-risked from the proposition from causing permanent harm to children? Will CDC guidance in a year guide parents away from mRNA vaccines and towards different ones? Is there a correlating variable we will discover so we know which specific population of children would get heart damage from this? Etc. https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1306689138612203520 https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1306689138612203520 More recent paper I found: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.0... More questions: given this known to manifest in younger people, could it imply that age is inversely correlated with frequency? Will young children be less likely to report or articulate symptoms, even if they have increased risk? Given it seems sex coupled, is there an underlying variable correlated with sex that is a root cause we will soon understand, resulting in a vast risk reduction for parents who will be able to know if their children apply? People claiming you can know if vaccination is a good idea or not for your kids have primitive mental models: the choice isn't to vaccinate or not vaccinate, but vaccinate now or (maybe) vaccinate later. When something is risk laden on both sides and is a dynamic system, the smart choice may be to wait if the marginal de-risking per unit time is high. My personal view is that wrt children taking mRNA vaccines, there's basically close to free "money on the table" - wait a few months. If you've avoided COVID until now, its pretty unlikely your kids will catch it, nevermind be unlucky enough to get a severe case, which is extremely unlikely. On the other hand, it could turn out in a few months we identify the root cause of the heart issues of the vaccines, or alternative vaccines become available that de-risk it entirely. In any case, personal views aside, it's incredibly immoral to mandate this for schools, and it wouldn't surprise me if CA does this before we fully understand what is going on.
HWR_14 5y ago
> Presumably that means you’ll have that risk, plus additional unknown risk. That's a bad argument. This makes COVID less severe, which in turn makes the long-term affects less severe. Things in medicine are rarely binary.
- lettergram 5y ago
  We don’t actually know if it makes the long term risk less severe or more severe. We don’t have the data.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Sure. We also don't know if it will give you superpowers. I mean, we have logic and the history of similar things that gives us good ideas. And the fact that the risks grow because the immune response means a shorter immune response is likely to be less severe long term. But yeah, technically there is no study there yet.
vkou 5y ago
We have not seen better and more successful studies for ivermectin, we have seen a lot of studies that find it does next to nothing, and a few deeply fraudulent studies that finds that it solves world hunger. It's a strange day when people argue against evaluating a new medicine, in favour of snake oil that doesn't work. Given that you think that it's unclear that vaccines reduce the rate and seriousness of COVID, I am not sure that your have a good enough understanding of the ground facts to have an informed opinion on this subject.
- pjkundert 5y ago
  Wow. I always wonder when I hear comments this. Check out https://c19early.com https://c19early.com (specifically, https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/).

bordercases 5y ago

Ransoming one kind of ignorance for another, based off the impact one risk has over another, is Pascal's Wager, not knowledge.