5 ms·

The COVID vaccine isn't a radical new class of treatment; it's a vaccine - something which physicians have been giving on the regular for about 250 years. The o

The COVID vaccine isn't a radical new class of treatment; it's a vaccine - something which physicians have been giving on the regular for about 250 years. The oldest treatment in modern medicine. We understand their side effect profiles very well at this point. But even if you don't buy that argument, even if you believe that a new RNA vaccine potentially has a radically different risk profile than all previous ones: When the cost calculus is a known risk of many people dying now versus a nebulous potential risk of an unknown number of people maybe or maybe not having adverse effects of an unknowable sort later, is it really that contentious of a decision? We didn't have a 20 year trial period for the Polio or Smallpox or HPV or even Chicken pox vaccines before rolling them out. So why are so many people who were quiet about these other vaccines before now singling out the deployment of the COVID vaccine as an abomination?

ta8645 4y ago
- landemva 4y ago
  > existential threat Mainly for those in high-risk groups such as older obese people. I got it 1.5 years ago, it sucked for a week at home, and I got better. A couple months ago I got blood test which shows I still have good level of antibodies. Even the CDC has moved on, so continuing to call this an "existential threat" may indicate an addiction to fear.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  Uhm, how exactly is or was COVID-19 an existential threat (to humanity)?
- superchroma 4y ago
  It wasn't an existential threat. It could kill ten times the numbers it has and it wouldn't be. You could at least be charitable and use terminology like "possible existential threat", "potential existential threat" or similar.
superchroma 4y ago
In my understanding from having read the literature over time, the RNA vaccine was, as far as I can tell at least, sloppy thinking. Someone thought that setting up a permanent factory in the body for spike proteins was a bright idea. Suddenly the virus evolves (as we knew they do rapidly and constantly) and now people who got the original vaccine are apparently having worse immune responses because the body is trained on the wrong thing and still making classic spike proteins. Plus, you don't want the spike protein in your body anyway as apparently that's not a great thing to have around? Disclosure: I am vaccinated, for what it's worth, with the Novavax (Nuvaxovid), which is in my understanding just a one time dose of spike proteins and an adjuvant, to train the body to fight the virus. I may have a wrong understanding, but, if I'm right, I'm honestly puzzled why people ever thought the RNA vaccines were worth the time because it doesn't seem like the right mechanism to choose. -edit- If I am wrong on those points, I would appreciate links to literature clarifying them. I'm not advocating an anti-vaccination position.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  > I may have a wrong understanding, but, if I'm right, I'm honestly puzzled why people ever thought the RNA vaccines were worth the time because it doesn't seem like the right mechanism to choose. Because none of that is actually happening, and RNA vaccines aren't causing the kind of problems the hysterical moon-howlers are coming up with. Admittedly they're a relatively new technology, having only been in use for about 50 years as opposed to attenuated viruses which have been in use for about 250 years.
  - superchroma 4y ago
    So, which part? The debatable claims are: 1) that RNA vaccines tell the body to make spike proteins and it will do this indefinitely, 2) the spike protein is not an indefinitely relevant marker by which to eliminate COVID, particularly as it evolves and 3) spike proteins aren't great to have around in the body, (yes I've heard they get cleaned up fairly promptly via mechanisms) I'm not saying it's nanomachines or anything, and I'm not making a fuss about how long they've been around; I didn't mention it. I got vaccinated. I'm on the team. But if these planks of my understanding aren't sound I'm interested. Fundamentally, I want to understand how these things work. The protein based vaccine is uncomplicated, I understand the basics of the mechnism, the RNA one leaves lingering questions that I can't source answers to. I'm an educated professional, and I've read some papers and watched a lot of the news on the matter on here and other platforms, and that hasn't settled my questions.
tresqotheq 4y ago
> The oldest treatment in modern medicine. We understand their side effect profiles very well at this point. Every vaccines contains a multitude of different things apart from the active ingredient, and each of them can have a vastly different safety profile, and when you take a vaccine, you are putting everything together in your body. So the core techinique of vaccines, being employed for so long, does not actually prove the safety of vaccines in general. In fact, it cannot be proven generally, because as I said earler, each vaccines can contain vastly different make up. In other words, what you said is pretty idiotic.

ta8645 4y ago

landemva 4y ago
> existential threat Mainly for those in high-risk groups such as older obese people. I got it 1.5 years ago, it sucked for a week at home, and I got better. A couple months ago I got blood test which shows I still have good level of antibodies. Even the CDC has moved on, so continuing to call this an "existential threat" may indicate an addiction to fear.
formerly_proven 4y ago
Uhm, how exactly is or was COVID-19 an existential threat (to humanity)?
superchroma 4y ago
It wasn't an existential threat. It could kill ten times the numbers it has and it wouldn't be. You could at least be charitable and use terminology like "possible existential threat", "potential existential threat" or similar.

superchroma 4y ago

In my understanding from having read the literature over time, the RNA vaccine was, as far as I can tell at least, sloppy thinking. Someone thought that setting up a permanent factory in the body for spike proteins was a bright idea. Suddenly the virus evolves (as we knew they do rapidly and constantly) and now people who got the original vaccine are apparently having worse immune responses because the body is trained on the wrong thing and still making classic spike proteins. Plus, you don't want the spike protein in your body anyway as apparently that's not a great thing to have around? Disclosure: I am vaccinated, for what it's worth, with the Novavax (Nuvaxovid), which is in my understanding just a one time dose of spike proteins and an adjuvant, to train the body to fight the virus. I may have a wrong understanding, but, if I'm right, I'm honestly puzzled why people ever thought the RNA vaccines were worth the time because it doesn't seem like the right mechanism to choose. -edit- If I am wrong on those points, I would appreciate links to literature clarifying them. I'm not advocating an anti-vaccination position.

Gordonjcp 4y ago
> I may have a wrong understanding, but, if I'm right, I'm honestly puzzled why people ever thought the RNA vaccines were worth the time because it doesn't seem like the right mechanism to choose. Because none of that is actually happening, and RNA vaccines aren't causing the kind of problems the hysterical moon-howlers are coming up with. Admittedly they're a relatively new technology, having only been in use for about 50 years as opposed to attenuated viruses which have been in use for about 250 years.
- superchroma 4y ago
  So, which part? The debatable claims are: 1) that RNA vaccines tell the body to make spike proteins and it will do this indefinitely, 2) the spike protein is not an indefinitely relevant marker by which to eliminate COVID, particularly as it evolves and 3) spike proteins aren't great to have around in the body, (yes I've heard they get cleaned up fairly promptly via mechanisms) I'm not saying it's nanomachines or anything, and I'm not making a fuss about how long they've been around; I didn't mention it. I got vaccinated. I'm on the team. But if these planks of my understanding aren't sound I'm interested. Fundamentally, I want to understand how these things work. The protein based vaccine is uncomplicated, I understand the basics of the mechnism, the RNA one leaves lingering questions that I can't source answers to. I'm an educated professional, and I've read some papers and watched a lot of the news on the matter on here and other platforms, and that hasn't settled my questions.

tresqotheq 4y ago

> The oldest treatment in modern medicine. We understand their side effect profiles very well at this point. Every vaccines contains a multitude of different things apart from the active ingredient, and each of them can have a vastly different safety profile, and when you take a vaccine, you are putting everything together in your body. So the core techinique of vaccines, being employed for so long, does not actually prove the safety of vaccines in general. In fact, it cannot be proven generally, because as I said earler, each vaccines can contain vastly different make up. In other words, what you said is pretty idiotic.